# Why the reverence for Ebert? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 5, 2019, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083 "2019-06-05T16:35:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/81 "2019-06-06T17:12:36Z")
Ebert later abjured his declaration that “video games cannot be art”, after encountering some video games that, in his opinion, were art. _Cosmology of Kyoto,_ for example. When you’re reviewing 200-300+ films per year, it’s hard to pay serious attention to developments in painting, novels, computer games, and so on. I’m not sure he had time to review games that take 10, 20, or 40 hours to play through to completion. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/82 "2019-06-06T17:16:56Z")
> [@Helmut\_Doork](#): > > And then there’s his whole ‘video games can never be art’ deal… I disagree completely, but I wouldn’t expect anything else from a man of his generation. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/83 "2019-06-06T17:17:16Z")
One of the things I liked about him was that he evaluated genre films within that genre. If he was reviewing a movie that was designed to be schlock, he judged it against other schlock movies, and gave useful info about whether or not fans of that genre would like the film. I believe one time he reviewed one of the soft-core Emanuelle series, noting that it turned him on and thus succeeded in its aims. ETA: Or, on review, what **Shodan** said. ---
**Author:** ![Helmut\_Doork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e8c25b/32.png) [@Helmut\_Doork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helmut_Doork)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/84 "2019-06-06T17:20:44Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > Ebert later abjured his declaration that “video games cannot be art”, after encountering some video games that, in his opinion, were art. _Cosmology of Kyoto,_ for example. > > When you’re reviewing 200-300+ films per year, it’s hard to pay serious attention to developments in painting, novels, computer games, and so on. I’m not sure he had time to review games that take 10, 20, or 40 hours to play through to completion. agree, and that’s my issue- ‘I don’t play games, don’t know anything about them, but somehow know they are they not art, and know they can never be art’. I don’t play them either, but wouldn’t make such a statement about something I admittedly know zero about. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/85 "2019-06-06T17:24:28Z")
> [@Helmut\_Doork](#): > > agree, and that’s my issue- ‘I don’t play games, don’t know anything about them, but somehow know they are they not art, and know they can never be art’. I don’t play them either, but wouldn’t make such a statement about something I admittedly know zero about. So who cares? The world is full of people with opinions about stuff. You hear about opinions from famous people because they’re famous but that doesn’t mean you need to give a shit. If Ebert was writing for PC Gamer or running Electronic Arts at the time, maybe there’d be room for complaint but the whole “games aren’t art” debate was mostly just something for gamers to yell about. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/86 "2019-06-06T17:34:49Z")
It never would have occurred to me to not consider chess or go art and the people who over the years crafted and refined their structures as artists. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/87 "2019-06-06T17:37:33Z")
> [@Helmut\_Doork](#): > > In its defense, if you repackaged it as a lost collaboration between Luis Bunuel and Picasso, pompous types like Ebert would probably drool over it. You’re calling the guy who wrote _Beyond the Valley of the Dolls_ “pompous.” ---
**Author:** ![Helmut\_Doork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e8c25b/32.png) [@Helmut\_Doork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helmut_Doork)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/88 "2019-06-06T17:50:29Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You’re calling the guy who wrote _Beyond the Valley of the Dolls_ “pompous.” That’s sort of my basic issue- pot meet kettle. The writer of BTVOTD has the temerity to slam Freddy Got Fingered- the biggest critic of lowbrow film used to write them! ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/89 "2019-06-06T17:55:15Z")
> [@Helmut\_Doork](#): > > agree, and that’s my issue- ‘I don’t play games, don’t know anything about them, but somehow know they are they not art, and know they can never be art’. I don’t play them either, but wouldn’t make such a statement about something I admittedly know zero about. Given your OP, this is absolutely hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/90 "2019-06-06T17:58:13Z")
> [@Helmut\_Doork](#): > > That’s sort of my basic issue- pot meet kettle. The writer of BTVOTD has the temerity to slam Freddy Got Fingered- the biggest critic of lowbrow film used to write them! Ebert was a fan of a lot of low brow fare - but he wasn’t an indiscriminate fan of it. (Which is good, because otherwise he’d be a shit critic.) It’s possible to like Russ Meyer, and think Tom Green sucks, and not be a hypocrite. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/91 "2019-06-06T18:19:53Z")
> [@Helmut\_Doork](#): > > That’s sort of my basic issue- pot meet kettle. The writer of BTVOTD has the temerity to slam Freddy Got Fingered- the biggest critic of lowbrow film used to write them! But _Freddy Got Fingered_ was awful lowbrow film. You can appreciate the genre and still think there are bad examples of that genre. And in this case, Ebert was dead on. Same with _Deuce Bigalow: European Gigalo_, which actually made the first Deuce Bigalow film seem halfway decent. His job is to review films. Some of those films are going to suck. It’s his job to tell you which ones suck. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/92 "2019-06-06T19:54:25Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Ebert was a nerd. As a teen, he wrote letters to the science fiction magazines and had his own fanzine. He had two stories published in \*Amazing \*and \*Fantastic \*magazines. Interesting. May 1972 Amazing and Feb 1972 Fantastic. The Amazing one, which I just pulled out, seems concerned with the movie business and the blurb mentions his column. Ted White’s blurb for the Fantastic story mentions meeting Ebert at a con. Ebert was one of the first reviewers who grew up with sf concepts and who thus understood sf movies that didn’t explain everything. Forget Star Wars - Kael’s review of 2001 was a travesty, and she wasn’t the only one with no clue. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/93 "2019-06-06T19:57:26Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > I believe one time he reviewed one of the soft-core Emanuelle series, noting that it turned him on and thus succeeded in its aims. I kind of got the impression, based on his reviews of _Personal Best_ and _Bound_, that he liked lesbian scenes in particular. Not that it affected his reviews, necessarily, but he did seem to get more enthusiastic than usual. Both _Personal Best_ and _Bound_ were good movies, IMO. I haven’t seen the _Emanuelle_ series. Everyone’s got their own kinks, I suppose. If they ever make a movie about whipped cream, hats on women, and nude, female, full-contact karate, no doubt that would affect my reviews as well. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/94 "2019-06-06T21:05:27Z")
I see his blog was mentioned earlier, but no [link to it](https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal). ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/95 "2019-06-06T22:47:33Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > What were the good parts of [what she has done](https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/9/16868216/oprah-winfrey-pseudoscience)? **Darren Garrison** , that’s a fair criticism, so I’ll give you my reply. Yes, Oprah unleashed Dr. Oz on the world, and Dr. Phil’s tough-love-Big-Tex style wore out its welcome with me a looooooong time ago. But all the criticisms about those two in that article belongs to them, not to Oprah. I’ll even go further and say Oprah’s views on beef (“I will never eat another hamburger!”) are stupid. That takes us to the core issue in the article: Oprah vs. vaccines. Yes, she let Jenny McCarthy plug her book. But smack in the middle of [the article that’s cited in your cite](http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/mothers-battle-autism/1), we find this: > [@](#): > > We contacted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about whether there is a link between autism and vaccines and they gave us the following statement: > > “CDC places a high priority on vaccine safety and the integrity and credibility of its vaccine safety research. This commitment not only stems from our scientific and medical dedication, it is also personal—for most of us who work at CDC are also parents and grandparents. And as such, we too, have high levels of personal interest and concern in the health and safety of children, families and communities. We simply don’t know what causes most cases of autism, but we’re doing everything we can to find out. The vast majority of science to date does not support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. But we are currently conducting additional studies to further determine what role, if any, thimerosal in vaccines may play in the development of autism. It is important to remember, vaccines protect and save lives. Vaccines protect infants, children and adults from the unnecessary harm and premature death caused by vaccine-preventable diseases.” (Published 09/18/2007) Where’s the big fat THAT’S BULLSHIT from the CDC? Where’s the opportunity to say Wakefield’s study was flawed and the results were the very definition of junk science. Why did they send the blandest of responses instead of asking for the opportunity to have a live human being respond. In fact, the CDC wasn’t Oprah’s only outreach to credible responses. Here’s a pro-vax voice who was invited to appear on that very show, and he turned down the invitation, because he was convinced [Oprah was going to make him the villain.](http://nautil.us/issue/60/searches/how-to-talk-about-vaccines-on-television) Oprah gave science at least TWO chances to answer Jenny McCarthy on that very episode, and science blew it. And every single criticism I could find about Oprah and vaccines goes back to that single episode. Nothing after that. [When she interviewed Melinda Gates](https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/a27057355/melinda-gates-oprah-interview/) this spring, Oprah specifically gave Gates an opening to talk about vaccinations. Should Oprah take the Jenny McCarthy episode off her website? Depends on whether you believe the\* New York Times\* and _Washington Post_ should remove editions where they made stupid mistakes in stories from their archives. Now that I’ve answered that, I’ll give you my pro-Oprah opinions: 1)When\* Oprah\* debuted in 1986 the gold standard in talk show hosts, Phil Donohue, was running out of gas (although he’d continue for several more years.) The other talk shows were the likes of [Sally Jesse Raphael](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Jessy_Raphael),who started serious and slid into tabloid trash, [Geraldo Rivera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldo_(talk_show)), and “Jerry Jerry Jerry” Springer. 1. Oprah’s Book Club generally had some pretty worthy titles, and her pushing _To Kill a Mockingbird_ returned that book from not-taught-in-the-South English classes to being a cultural touchstone. 2. Without Oprah, it’s unlikely Barack Obama would have become President. As I said, an overall net positive. **Helmut Doork** , sorry for the hijack. You can go back to criticizing Roger Ebert now. ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2019, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/96 "2019-06-06T23:10:54Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Waterworld managed to make back its production cost, so apparently the critics couldn’t destroy it. I do not think this is actually true. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2019, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/97 "2019-06-07T00:26:15Z")
I loved **At the Movies**. I liked it when I agreed with them, I liked it when I didn’t. I especially liked when they disagreed with each other. If they didn’t like a film, it did not affect _at all_ whether I was going to see it. The clips they showed had more of an effect on that then the review did. But **Freddy got Fingered** was terrible. So was **Heaven’s Gate**. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2019, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/98 "2019-06-07T01:37:03Z")
> [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > As I said, an overall net positive. To quote [Orac/David Gorski](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-oprah-fication-of-medicine/): > [@](#): > > Oprah has about as close to no critical thinking skills when it comes to science and medicine as I’ve ever seen, and she uses the vast power and influence her TV show and media empire give her in order to subject the world to her special brand of mystical New Age thinking and belief in various forms of what can only be characterized as dubious medical therapies at best and quackery at worst. Arguably there is no single person in the world with more influence pushing woo than Oprah. [Bonus](https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/10/1731643/-Oprah-is-a-science-denier-that-s-a-problem-for-me) [links](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey). ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2019, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/99 "2019-06-07T07:15:11Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > I believe one time he reviewed one of the soft-core Emanuelle series, noting that it turned him on and thus succeeded in its aims. To be precise, he reviewed the first one in the series. I never remember him reviewing another. The last in the series, if I remember correctly was Emanuelle and Howdy Doody. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2019, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083/100 "2019-06-07T13:23:20Z")
I enjoyed reading his reviews. He was a fairly good writer, thought provoking, etc. I can definitely get the respect, esp. compared to just about all other reviewers. But … I had to take his reviews with a grain of salt. His tastes and mine sometimes diverged. The classic example is _Raising Arizona_. His original review wasn’t so good so I skipped it for a while. Wished I had seen it earlier. We did a thread a while back about the mistakes he made in his reviews. Getting basic things wrong about who is who, key plot points, quoting things that aren’t remotely in the movie, plus a ton of lesser stuff. A real shame. But a good read nonetheless. Sort of like Cecil. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-reverence-for-ebert/835083.md?page=6)