Bricks in Motion
We are a friendly filmmaking community devoted to the art of stop-motion animation using LEGO® and similar construction toys. Here, you can share your work, join our community of other brickfilmers, and participate in periodic animation contests!
A place to discuss, share, and create stop motion films.
Ad
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Roger Ebert, movie critic, passed away earlier today at 70 years of age. If you follow the news better than I you will probably already have heard of this news, but I felt it worth sharing anyway. He will be missed.
Just found out here. I always took the opposite of his advice. I'll keep him in prayers.
He was one of my favorite critics, especially since he could give examples for reasons he disliked/liked a film. Even if I disagreed with him, I could understand his reasons... many times pushing me to look further into the films themselves: such an inspiration for an "indy" director and writer.
I wouldn't go as far to say that he "inspire" me to become a brickfilmer, however, a little bit of that film critic in me obviously shaped what tastes I have, and what films I may make vs. those I'd never even touch.
And when I heard that the late Ebert couldn't even talk since somewhere post 2006, I was a little shocked. He continued to post reviews through social media (throughout it all) and even scheduled his cancer treatments around his movie watching! That's something only few would do - namely those that LOVE what they do!
... And there's probably a little nostalgia too, since he DID like my favorite Disney film. (Which was trashed by most other critics) Roger Ebert was a great critic: I can only hope to show that more-so in my planned 1st episode of CinematiCritics. (a show that was nearly 100% inspired by "At the Movies"; a work of the great Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel. May they both RIP)
Yep, heard about this. Though I follow a lot of movie review sites, his was never one of them, so it doesn't affect me much. He almost invariable held views that where, if not opposite, very much different than mine. Guess it was to be expected with him being an atheist. I respected him though. He did a lot to raise the art of film critiquing to where it is today I think. It's to bad.
He almost invariable held views that where, if not opposite, very much different than mine. Guess it was to be expected with him being an atheist.
Seriously? What does that have to do with anything? Atheists have the exact same capacity to be great people as any other "theists." I'm not even like really sure what you are saying here so I'll refrain from saying any more; I may be grossly misinterpreting your statement.
TrollBridge, I was just wondering, which Disney film is the one you are talking about?
This forum is about Roger Ebert, not what you believe in... There's not a religious debate thread, and let's not make either.
The Disney film I was talking about (my Favorite) was called "Atlantis the Lost Empire." It starred Michael J. Fox and flippin' Spock (Leonard Nimoy), just to name a few. AND Mike Mignola, creator of Hellboy aided the art department in capturing something similar to his "style". Here is the dvd poster:
Disney kind of killed the movie by releasing it at the same time as Monsters Inc. in 2001... but, they are both great films nevertheless. 
Here’s what Ebert said of Atlantis:
“Disney's "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" is an animated adventure movie with a lot of gusto and a wowser of a climax. It's an experiment for the studio. Leaving behind the song-and-dance numbers and the cute sidekicks, Disney seems to be testing the visual and story style of anime--those action-jammed animated Japanese movies that occupy shelves in every video store…
The movie is set in 1914, a favorite period for stories like this, because technology was fairly advanced while people could still believe that a sunken continent or lost world or two might have gone overlooked. Just as the "Jurassic Park" movies owe something (a lot, actually) to Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Lost World," so does "Atlantis" spring from the old Edgar Rice Burroughs novels about a world in the center of the earth…
The story of "Atlantis" is rousing in an old pulp science fiction sort of way, but the climactic scene transcends the rest, and stands by itself as one of the great animated action sequences…
It's like "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" set free by animation to look the way it dreamed of looking."
Last edited by Dyland (April 12, 2013 (04:55pm))
Oh! I actually did see that movie! That was good. It didn't really interest me that much but it was definitely not bad.
I love the way he compares it to like pulp science fiction even. I feel like criticisms, not just for movies but for all sorts of art, are a hella lot more interesting if the critic can infer the artist's reasoning for doing what they do. I've noticed that back when I blogged about music, and like on my uncle's film blog (which is really great by the way. He analyses Jungian archetypes in crappy sci-fi B Movies from the 50s or whatever. You should read it. )
Yeah, and too bad that Atlantis thing was forgotten. It wasn't my favorite but it was good.
Leonard Nimoy was in Transformers: The Movie too.
I never liked Atlantis or that era of Disney films at all (Anything after Beauty & Beast through the 00's decade.) It doesn't surprise me that Ebert liked it, since, like AnW said, usually the opposite of his advice seemed to be my motto. Ebert really disliked animation in general for whatever reason (I LOVE Animation), so I'm surprised that Atlantis, of all the animated films, would be his favorite.
AnW, when he was young, Ebert was raised a Catholic by his mother, by the by. Just a trivia factoid in the local Catholic newspaper.
That's probably the most memorable film for me. I love it.
I agree,
That's probably the most memorable film for me. I love it.
That's why it's my favorite film. It's nice to know that one of my favorite critics liked it too...
Overall, things have been a little "mixed" on likes vs dislikes on films and critics, but overall I think we brickfilmers will all miss Ebert.
I didn't know much about Ebert, I've only seen small bits of reviews by him. Criticism can be a wonderful thing, though.
I watched Atlantis again very recently. I love it so much.
AnW wrote:He almost invariable held views that where, if not opposite, very much different than mine. Guess it was to be expected with him being an atheist.
Seriously? What does that have to do with anything? Atheists have the exact same capacity to be great people as any other "theists." I'm not even like really sure what you are saying here so I'll refrain from saying any more; I may be grossly misinterpreting your statement.
Hehe, love the way you just grabbed the middle bit of my comment, made it say something it doesn't (where exactly does it say that atheists are sub-human life forms with no hope of achieving anything in life... ?), and then jumped all over me for it. I knew someone would do that... 
For your info, yes, you are grossly misinterpreting my statement. Oh... and did you miss this little part? "I respected him though. He did a lot to raise the art of film critiquing to where it is today I think. It's to bad." 'nough said, moving on.
Meh, Atlantis is an Ok movie. Nowhere near my favourite animated film (probably not even top 20...), but I've seen far worse. I actually haven't even thought about that movie in years...
On topic, I didn't even know even know he had cancer like that. Wow. And to still keep doing film reviews like he did. Impressive dedication.
@Darkman
Really?! Got a link? I'd like to see that.
IT is weird that the religion debate cropped up on this thread. I don't think the post originally came up as the guy having a problem with Ebert being an atheist. I think all of us here can respect each other's freedom to hold our own religious beliefs. In fact, just the other day I watched an hour-long discussion on atheist morality, between famous atheist Penn Jillette and famous monotheist Glenn Beck. And there was two-way respect. But, in contrast, Ebert was known for being hostile or condescending to religions other than his own, particularly aiming at Catholicism, which is also unusual because his own mother was Catholic. Just like in BiM forums, that kind of criticism doesn't need to be in movie reviews.
Ebert was known for being hostile or condescending to religions other than his own, particularly aiming at Catholicism, which is also unusual because his own mother was Catholic.
Ebert was pro-life, and generally supportive of Catholicism. He denied being an atheist numerous times.
That was an interesting article, he made some very good points, and then some insensitive ones (I think it's ultimately the mother's decision on whether they want to keep their child, and no one else's) that I completely disagree with.
Smeagol, if he wasn't a atheist, he must have had a heck of a time fighting the rumors. I've even read news sources stating this. You really have to get as close to the horse's mouth as possible these days, the way so much info is unsourced. I did read a few Ebert articles in the 90s where he was harsh on Catholism as a whole. I read that he was raised a Catholic and he was pro-life. He also was an altar boy. I would like to read the sources where he affirmed he wasn't an atheist. Can you help by directing me to such an article? I'm sure that if Ebert said so himself, it's a more accurate source, and therefore other bio is likely to be sourced and more accurate.
---
Oh, wait, Smeagol. You have a URL in the post I just noticed! DUH on me. I'm reading it now.
----
It was a big help! He makes no sense. But at the same time, it completely explains things and it all DOES make sense. He's a Catholic, but he doesn't believe in God. What I read also explains his hostility toward Catholic beliefs. He also espouses that the nuns who taught him were from the "social justice" movement. If you know the history of the movement, it's not pretty. Beginning in the 1880s they infiltrated the church but have nothing to do with Catholic teaching and much to do with replacing it with Marxist teaching. I should not get into this here, though, because this subject is very controversial. We better end this discussion.
Last edited by HoldingOurOwn (April 20, 2013 (04:46pm))
Oh my gawsh if you people are still going to be talking about this I don't know what to do. 
I'm sorry I snapped at you AnW. Just before posting that I was having a heated argument with someone so I was a bit belligerent. I suppose I just got a bit snappy. Sorry about that 
(Just so you know I'm not the kind of guy who goes around slamming religion. My argument was actually with another atheist who didn't respect religious people or something. I'm an atheist but not an "extremist," and I don't like it when people are like that.)
Anyway I was watching Ishtar today, and then I read Roger Ebert's review of it. Harsh!
This discussion is meant to be about Roger Ebert, and for those who confuse him with religious symbols can read the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_ebert. Religion should not be argued ANYWHERE on these forums. As a small and growing community, a site like this can't take such a "split" like this.
I have a policy of Don't Ask, Don't tell with my brickfilms. I don't reveal characters' sexuality, political views, religious outlook, and so on... If someone wanted to make a "fan fiction" sequel to one of my films, they could explore ANYTHING, as the characters, to that point, aren't developed, and could go any direction.
Having been on youtube for nearly 5 years now, I know that if your content doesn't have highly argued subject matter, then it WON'T be such a bulls-eye for trolls, and less likely to be a "battleground" for religious debates in the comments. This isn't 100% true, but if things do pop up, you can delete those comments on your channel.
I don't know Roger Ebert's views on religion: and frankly, I don't care. HE didn't openly add religious or sexual comments on his reviews because he knew that no matter who is right or wrong, there's always ONE person that will argue a point: even for just the sake of arguing.
If further replies are posted to this forum, they should be about Ebert, and Ebert alone. The furthest we should stray is to talk about Siskel, or their T.V. Show. Posting ANYTHING that is sure to be argued with could RUIN your reputations as a brickfilmer. You wouldn't want people to give your films 1 stars if they are good, JUST because of comments that were made. It's one thing to hide behind a "username" and argue, but in the real world, wars have been fought. This discussion should be a nice little "fact forum" to once-in-a-while post little bits of information about Ebert and/or how his death may have effected your life. Let's just call the battles a truce for the sake of this site, for the sake of Sméagol, for the memory of Roger Ebert - leave the fighting for other places, and stay on topic.
Last edited by Dyland (April 21, 2013 (07:35am))
Posts [ 1 to 20 of 26 ]
