3 ms·

> Film critics will quickly be forgotten because they created nothing I think that's terribly dismissive. I mean, take Ebert's reviews of the Mummy series for

> Film critics will quickly be forgotten because they created nothing I think that's terribly dismissive. I mean, take Ebert's reviews of the Mummy series for example. There's something touching and wise in there that actually makes the films themselves better because they give us pause to reflect on these things. Or in a completely different ballpark, the Red Letter Media "review" of Star Wars Ep. 1 that manages to be not only a valid critique of the film, but is longer than the film and arguably a better film in its own right! (Edit: Another good example that just occurred to me is one that I heard in a recent episode of the Rest Is History podcast. They were discussing Tolkien and one of the hosts pointed out that even if he hadn't written any of his Middle Earth fiction, he'd still be well-known in literary circles for his critical examination of Beowulf that changed how we see it today.) Like any other "content" there's a spectrum from prolefeed and seo spam on one end, and actual art and literature on the other. Pull that rabbit out of a hat enough times and there's definitely a niche to carve out a legend there.

chadash 4y ago
The parent would agree that Roger Ebert is notable. But s/he is arguing that legendary should have a higher bar. Shakespeare, for example, died 400 years ago, but is commonly known today. There are many other examples. But it's hard to imagine that Roger Ebert will be well known in 100 years from now.
- Tao3300 4y ago
  > The parent would agree that Roger Ebert is notable. But s/he is arguing that legendary should have a higher bar. I think that's a reasonable view, but that's not what I took issue with. I take issue with the claim that critics produce nothing and have nothing in the line. And with the notion that legendary stature would be impossible for a critic to attain.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Ebert was a script writer. He knew more about the inside baseball than any run of the mill J-school grad who got assigned to work on the entertainment section.

chadash 4y ago

The parent would agree that Roger Ebert is notable. But s/he is arguing that legendary should have a higher bar. Shakespeare, for example, died 400 years ago, but is commonly known today. There are many other examples. But it's hard to imagine that Roger Ebert will be well known in 100 years from now.

Tao3300 4y ago
> The parent would agree that Roger Ebert is notable. But s/he is arguing that legendary should have a higher bar. I think that's a reasonable view, but that's not what I took issue with. I take issue with the claim that critics produce nothing and have nothing in the line. And with the notion that legendary stature would be impossible for a critic to attain.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

Ebert was a script writer. He knew more about the inside baseball than any run of the mill J-school grad who got assigned to work on the entertainment section.