Robert Ebert on Almond White(D-9) and Fanboys

[BRP]

Roger Ebert's Journal: Archives

A good read. I felt it must be shared, because I know I've run into this problem before and not only about movies.

[grantlogan]

So are you comparing yourself to Armond White?

[BRP]

Not really. I don't like White much at all. He could very well be trolling half the time and I wouldn't be surprised. I much prefer Ebert if I had to choose.

For example:

Roger Ebert's Journal: Archives

This has less to do with White.

[Priran]

If people are saying a movie that's been out for three whole days has fanboys, then we've either got a really good movie or really bad trolls.

[Correction]

Hmmm, Armond White takes a shit on popular things to gain notoriety and, it seems, for the hell of it. You're right, you have run into this before!

[BRP]

If people are saying a movie that's been out for three whole days has fanboys, then we've either got a really good movie or really bad trolls.

Actually it had fanboys as early as several days before release.


Also Correction, you are too late. I already said I disliked White.

[Correction]

There's something keenly revealing in White's M.O. if you read his Dark Knight review:

Ever since Frank Miller’s 1986 graphic-novel reinvention, The Dark Knight Returns, pop consumers have rejected traditional moral verities as corny. That might be the ultimate capitalist deception.

A bleak Batman entraps us in a commercial mechanism, not art. There’s none of Burton’s satirical detachment from the crime-and-punishment theme. In Nolan’s view, crime is never punished or expunged. (“I am an agent of chaos!” boasts The Joker.) The generation of consumers who swallow this pessimistic sentiment can’t see past the product to its debased morality. Instead, their excitement about The Dark Knight’s dread (that teenage thrall with subversion) inspires their fealty to product.

Ironically, Nolan’s aggressive style won’t be slagged “manipulative” because it doesn’t require viewers to feel those discredited virtues, “hope” and “faith.” Like Hellboy II, this kind of sci-fi or horror or comics-whatever obviates morality.

Oh no! A commercial movie is subverting moral value while manipulating fans to open their pocket books! His writing style is full of paranoia, and a deep-seated panic that Kids These Days won't recognize his point of view as the absolute.

Meanwhile, he loved Transporter 3 and Transformers 2. What great action films! The difference being apparently that they don't try to create hopeless amoral dystopias while they do so. Thumbs up!

[NotGreyheim]

Robert Ebert.

[BRP]

Wow just noticed that typo. lol what

[Correction]

I thought it was intentional, like 'Almond White,' some obscure pop culture reference I wasn't catching on to.

[BRP]

Let it be known, I was not in the right state of mind when writing that title.

[Groovebox]

lmao, when I saw this title I was like what the fuck is this about... I didn't even get the (D-9) thing... thought it was a FFXI pos xD.

Anyways, good read... I actually appreciate Armand White and people who go around hating on popular movies and stir up fanboys, I mean, that's basically why the internet exists.

[Qalbert]

(500) Days of Summer
seriously?