Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on April 03, 2006 at 10:11:20

In Reply to: Saying they're mass market is meaningless. posted by Donald on April 3, 2006 at 06:48:12:

Well, we seem to have made progress. You now admit (after seeing some numbers) that it is not Ebert's opinions of films that you disagree with, it is the way he writes. The purpose of writing is to communicate ideas, not to try to appeal to your intelligentsia friends. But we have made progress.

Specifically: "it would be more amazing if they didn't occasionally like the same thing. For every one film they agree on, one could cite many more where they don't."

Well, wrong again. First, as the numbers show, they agree far more than they disagree. Even when confronted with the numbers, you still make incorrect statements. One could cite many where they don't agree? Care to be specific? But then, why start now? Pontificating is easy, proving allegations is work. Why work when you can be a blowhard?

Although, have now made progress: Donald : "He's not getting soft, he's always been a philistine and a champion of mediocrity."

When confronted with the facts, you have now modified your tune. How about we play a game of logic, a class that many people who have college degrees were required to take: If Ebert champions mediocrity, and if Sarris and Rosenbaum generally champion the same films as Ebert, then Rosenbaum and Sarris also champion mediocrity. See. That was easy. Which explains why you still have yet to demonstrate why Ebert champions mediocrity. Because you cannot.

Donald writes: "Giving a thumbs-up to a genuinely deserving film once in a blue moon scores him few bonus points. He's a hopeless middle-brow, respected only by others with similarly undemanding sensibilities and questionable critical faculties."

Questionable critical faculties? Does this also apply to the same films Rosenbaum and Sarris review in which they agree? Or are the approximate 70% of the time they agree inconsequential in comparison to the 30% they do not agree?

"The fact is Rosenbaum, Sarris, et al. write considerably more intelligently and with more insight than the average critic,"

Odd you would use "fact" in a sentence, in that you would not know a "fact" if it jumped up and bit you on the petard. I know I am setting myself up for disappointment (not really, but it is more dramatic), how about providing some facts which support your argument (chuckles as he types, muttering "yea, right" under his breath)?

"You've spent an inordinate amount of time looking at the things that don't matter."

Well, it mattered enough for you to comment twice in your posts that Ebert champions mediocrity, then when I point out that Rosenbaum and Sarris generally champion the same mediocrity, you then claim that these things do not matter. We call that backtracking where I come from. I have spent time on this little topic. When I make an allegation, and cloak it as a fact, I generally feel I should provide evidence to support my statements. It is work. You should learn the meaning of the word.