5 ms·

>One thing I've always appreciated about Ebert's reviews is that he [has explicitly stated that he] rates movies from the context of the intended audience For

by Jiro 5y ago

>One thing I've always appreciated about Ebert's reviews is that he [has explicitly stated that he] rates movies from the context of the intended audience For this particular review, if that's what he's trying to do, he failed utterly. Power Rangers was a massively successful media franchise at the time this movie came out. There's essentially no chance that any child will see it without having watched Power Rangers on television. If he's really going to judge it according to its intended audience, its intended audience is children who saw the series on television. Which means that it doesn't matter that the characters are color-coded, the monsters look phony, the martial arts is fake, or the marketing is filled with the TM symbol. Even the bad dialog and personalities shouldn't matter, if it's like that on the show too, since the kids obviously know about it and don't care.

vlovich123 5y ago
I was into it at the time and thought the movie looked terrible, gimmicky and a pure money grab and skipped it. So if Ebert says it stunk I’m not so sure he was as out of touch with the intended audience as you say.
- Jiro 5y ago
  The problem with the review is not that the movie is good. The problem with the review is that the movie is bad (I assume), but Ebert got that part right by luck. His review is a mixture of things he shouldn't be criticizing the movie for (they have colored costumes which are faceless?), and things that he happened to get right, but which he had no way to know about because he couldn't compare it to the show. I can imagine that the movie has worse acting than the show. But just saying "the movie has bad acting" provides no information; that doesn't tell you whether it's worse than the show, or bad-just-like-the-show.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
    So because the TV show was a successful marketing exercise towards kids, the movie should also be considered a success because it was also a successful marketing exercise towards kids?
  - crdrost 5y ago
    > they have colored costumes which are faceless? Sorry this is maybe idiomatic, the idea of “faceless” as being without any visible personality... Ebert was making the point that real teenagers have varied interests and personal preferences and individual stories that make them interesting characters who have interesting conflicts with each other. The problem was, the movie’s Power Rangers did not have this: they all had the same hobbies and the same interests and they did not have interesting conversations or conflicts with each other. In fact the only interesting thing he saw about them was that they happened to be power rangers. This made their journey to become Power Rangers anticlimactic for him: they all had very similar attitudes and preferences and tastes, so the only thing that was distinguishable about them was that they had different faces—but then the movie goes on to erase even their faces, so that they all are symbolically now the exact same person. I actually think this would be interesting for Ebert if the movie “doubled down” on it, made it the intentional point of the film. So if the film was trying to make a bold point to teenagers that the constant striving to define yourself as an individual (dress a special way, act unique even for your friends group) was getting in the way of really finding unity with a group that could together accomplish what no individual does, that you actually need to find a group with a higher purpose and conform to that mission, rather than be some unique special snowflake. Kind of a play up those missing Confucianist values that nobody ever dares to talk up in America, that indeed we criticize other countries’ films as propaganda. Of course if you wanted to make that movie, Ivan Ooze would have had to be a villain copy of, say, Rand’s John Galt—and instead of his ooze hypnotizing people into being his slaves, it would have to hop them up on paranoid narcissism so that they were only interested in pursuing their own glorious purpose, screw everyone else. Throw in a CGP Grey bit about how he becomes dictator not by holding the keys of power himself, but by being at the center of the people who actually hold the power, the one person they can all agree on as a symbolic figurehead frontman. Could have been very interesting if in giving up their individuality to become Power Rangers and serve a higher purpose, they became immune to the selfish nightmare the Ooze induced and were able to stand against it. Just kidding, it's just a movie to introduce the ninjazords so we can buy shiny new toys
dereg 5y ago
I was probably in third grade when I saw the movie. I hugely let down by it. My young self would have agreed with Ebert's review. It was just an extended episode, and the episodes were not known for their depth. My friends didn't like the movie either. It may be a coincidence but that was the year I grew out of Power Rangers. We do children a disservice by insulting their intelligence.
MilnerRoute 5y ago
I remember once Ebert published a letter from a teenaged girl who was writing to tell him she'd liked a movie that Ebert had panned. It was another movie based on a franchise -- maybe the Bratz dolls? But I'll always remember how Ebert responded to her. "I'm glad you liked the movie. I love movies too much to wish anyone a bad time at the movies." Ebert was a classy guy.

by Jiro 5y ago

vlovich123 5y ago

I was into it at the time and thought the movie looked terrible, gimmicky and a pure money grab and skipped it. So if Ebert says it stunk I’m not so sure he was as out of touch with the intended audience as you say.

Jiro 5y ago
The problem with the review is not that the movie is good. The problem with the review is that the movie is bad (I assume), but Ebert got that part right by luck. His review is a mixture of things he shouldn't be criticizing the movie for (they have colored costumes which are faceless?), and things that he happened to get right, but which he had no way to know about because he couldn't compare it to the show. I can imagine that the movie has worse acting than the show. But just saying "the movie has bad acting" provides no information; that doesn't tell you whether it's worse than the show, or bad-just-like-the-show.
- 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
  So because the TV show was a successful marketing exercise towards kids, the movie should also be considered a success because it was also a successful marketing exercise towards kids?
- crdrost 5y ago
  > they have colored costumes which are faceless? Sorry this is maybe idiomatic, the idea of “faceless” as being without any visible personality... Ebert was making the point that real teenagers have varied interests and personal preferences and individual stories that make them interesting characters who have interesting conflicts with each other. The problem was, the movie’s Power Rangers did not have this: they all had the same hobbies and the same interests and they did not have interesting conversations or conflicts with each other. In fact the only interesting thing he saw about them was that they happened to be power rangers. This made their journey to become Power Rangers anticlimactic for him: they all had very similar attitudes and preferences and tastes, so the only thing that was distinguishable about them was that they had different faces—but then the movie goes on to erase even their faces, so that they all are symbolically now the exact same person. I actually think this would be interesting for Ebert if the movie “doubled down” on it, made it the intentional point of the film. So if the film was trying to make a bold point to teenagers that the constant striving to define yourself as an individual (dress a special way, act unique even for your friends group) was getting in the way of really finding unity with a group that could together accomplish what no individual does, that you actually need to find a group with a higher purpose and conform to that mission, rather than be some unique special snowflake. Kind of a play up those missing Confucianist values that nobody ever dares to talk up in America, that indeed we criticize other countries’ films as propaganda. Of course if you wanted to make that movie, Ivan Ooze would have had to be a villain copy of, say, Rand’s John Galt—and instead of his ooze hypnotizing people into being his slaves, it would have to hop them up on paranoid narcissism so that they were only interested in pursuing their own glorious purpose, screw everyone else. Throw in a CGP Grey bit about how he becomes dictator not by holding the keys of power himself, but by being at the center of the people who actually hold the power, the one person they can all agree on as a symbolic figurehead frontman. Could have been very interesting if in giving up their individuality to become Power Rangers and serve a higher purpose, they became immune to the selfish nightmare the Ooze induced and were able to stand against it. Just kidding, it's just a movie to introduce the ninjazords so we can buy shiny new toys

dereg 5y ago

I was probably in third grade when I saw the movie. I hugely let down by it. My young self would have agreed with Ebert's review. It was just an extended episode, and the episodes were not known for their depth. My friends didn't like the movie either. It may be a coincidence but that was the year I grew out of Power Rangers. We do children a disservice by insulting their intelligence.

MilnerRoute 5y ago

I remember once Ebert published a letter from a teenaged girl who was writing to tell him she'd liked a movie that Ebert had panned. It was another movie based on a franchise -- maybe the Bratz dolls? But I'll always remember how Ebert responded to her. "I'm glad you liked the movie. I love movies too much to wish anyone a bad time at the movies." Ebert was a classy guy.