Slashdot Mirror

As Roger Ebert pointed out, the "Box Office Slump" is an myth. 2005 Box Office sales only appear down when compared to 2004, because 2004 saw the release of "The Passion of the Christ", which brought thousands of customers who otherwise do not visit the movie theaters.

The fact is, 2005 was the second or third best year for film revenue in history.

--
N

You should read this story from the Chicago Sun-Times. A science fair student wanting to do a project based on sugar, brought in a bag of sugar to school. While in a washroom, he joked to some other kids that it was Cocaine. After a custodian at the school heard about this, the police were called and the student was arrested.

Re: The lady maybe never touched the computer, but what about the kids? She's responsible for their actions!

You sure? Marie Lindor and Patricia Santangelo both live in New York.

"Today, all States but New Hampshire and New York have provisions holding parents civilly responsible for youth crime, with an average maximum recovery amount of $4,100." - Parent Responsibity Laws.
IANAL

Six years ago, people were likewise making the case that the dotcom frenzy was more boom than bubble, built as it was on the legitimate ground of the Internet revolution. And until late 1999 or so, maybe that was true.

In other news, the Republican Party in California is offering $100 to each student who reports on UCLA teachers who voice "unpatriotic views" such as opposition to the war or George W. Bush.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-prof19 .html

Look, I know we people with opposed political views are supposed to ridicule, spew bile, etc., but I don't mean this that way, and I hope you don't take it that way.

1. You describe Al-Qaeda as "a very well-defined group originally trained up by the US to fight in Afghanistan in the '80s."

It's difficult to believe that anyone familiar with Al-Qaeda would describe it this way. Al-Qaeda is not IBM; it is not "well-defined" in any sense I am familiar with. It is a loose confederation of individuals and cells who all have varying motivations. Individuals involved with Al-Qaeda may or may not belong to other terrorist groups, sometimes concurrently. Indeed, Al Qaeda is *ill* defined.

This sort of leads into my next point. Saying Al-Qaeda was "trained by the U.S. to fight in Afghanistan" suggest there is a more-or-less linear, well-defined process or relationship. There is nothing of the sort. First, there was no such thing as "Al-Qaeda" back then. The Afghan mujahadeen began resisting Soviet occupation before the U.S. got involved. Later, *some* of those mujahadeen got involved, at different times, with Al-Qaeda.

2. You write several things along the lines of "You are more likely to die from the flu than a terrorist attack. Shouldn't the government spend more money on flu vaccines?"

Many, many people, including many anti-war liberals, have noted the fallaciousness of this line of thinking. Put it this way -- in the month of December, 1941, many, many more Americans died of [flu/auto accidents/heart disease/etc. etc. etc.] than died at Pearl Harbor. Does this mean Roosevelt should have put "Fighting World War II" in a list of priorities organized by the number of fatalities? Of course not -- that would be absurd.

(Jim Emerson, the quite liberal blogger on rogerebert.suntimes.com, provides another very good takedown of this argument here: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic le?AID=/20051130/SCANNERS/51130004 )

3. You categorically state: "US government's current actions are increasing the likelihood of dying at the hands of terrorists, not decreasing the risk." You present no evidence for this, because, of course, you can't -- there is none. Sure, it's a *possibility,* but you state it as empirical fact. Meanwhile, there is *anecdotal* evidence that the opposite is true. After 9/11, who would have guessed that it would be five years and counting, and we still haven't experienced another major terrorist attack? Remember, many of the people who perpetrated 9/11 (including, presumably, the mastermind) are still out there. Logic suggests that, if they *could* have attacked again in the last five years, they would have.

4. Finally, you suggest the American goal is "US military dominance and empirialism in the Middle East."

Well, let's take a look at the places the U.S. has invaded, and their current governments. France - democracy. Germany - democracy (except the part we didn't occupy, and even that eventually democratized when it reunited with the part that we did). Japan - democracy. Phillipines - democracy. Panama - democracy. Grenada - democracy. Korea - democracy (except the part we didn't occupy). Vietnam, where we failed - dictatorship.

I just don't get it. The U.S. has certainly committed sins, sometime egregious ones. But our general philosphy is clear -- to promote democracy and *self* government. Using "imperialism" in that sense simply serves to drain any meaning from the word.

Bush has stated that our goal is to a) free the Iraqi people from one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, then b) help the Iraqi people form a new, democratic government of the people. So far, everything that has happened has borne this out.

I don't mean to ramble here, I just find this whole thing inexplicable. You talk about the "moral" fallout. So do I understand that the "moral" thing to do would have been to leave millions of people to suffer under a murdering, torturing, fascist regime? I just don't get it.

          - AJ

You must not have much imagination. For example, you could hang under an SUV.

The Illinois governor and attorney general moved Thursday to end the sale of telephone records without customers' knowledge, a practice that worries privacy experts and law enforcement agencies.

There is an important issue being glossed over here: is the release of this information illegal or not?

The top article implies that it is illegal for the phone companies to share this data. They point to unscrupulous insiders, and acts of fraud on the part of private investigators and data miners.

But the information from EPIC and the FCC suggests a very different situation. According to these sites it is perfectly legal to share this data if the company adopts an "opt-out" policy and if the consumer has not exercised his right to opt-out. Well, of course most people have never heard of this and so they have not opted-out. Therefore it is completely legal for the companies to share your phone call lists!

I'm annoyed and frustrated that the press reports are getting this so wrong (as usual). By implying that the problem is a few illegal acts, necessarily commited furtively and relatively rarely, they hide the fact that this is a perfectly legal, above-board business which is presumably going along at a brisk rate selling everyone's call info!

an interesting editorial by John Horgan that is being run by the New York Times asking "will there ever be another Einstein?"

With all the parents doping up their kids on antidepressants, I'd say not likely. (We're already seeing that Generation Y can barely wipe its own nose in the workplace. )

We all know what it was like for Y2K, and although nuclear bombs didn't fly out randomly from military bases across the world, now newspapers couldn't resist not to hype up the friggin' leap second again:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-sec01. html

Quote: "If you don't get all the clocks synchronized when the leap second occurs -- you could have potentially interesting effects," Chester said. "The Internet could stop working, cell phones could go out."

YEA. SURE!

Funny, sounds like a variation of the Lohan's breasts digitally reduced rumour/story. The story about Shatner's butt being airbrushed to look less wide in Star Trek VI is true though.

What I find interesting is the fact that something like this (an attitude) actually has an article in Wikipedia.

What I find interesting is the fact that somebody thinks my comments were worthy of a troll and flamebait mod. Neither my comments nor the Wikipedia article are either. I used "attitude" tongue-in-cheek, but EE is actually a business practice. If you read the Wikipedia article, you'll see that the author was careful to distinguish that "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" is a claim made by Microsoft critics, rather than presenting it as an actual fact, and that furthermore, though the strategy is attributed by said critics to Microsoft, it has actually been used by dominant players in other industries prior to Microsoft. The Wikipedia article also supplies evidence of Microsoft's EEE tactics that anyone (Microsoft included) can attempt to refute if they so desire. Therefore, the Wikipedia article does not present this as fact, but rather as a claim made by critics, and it points out that as a business strategy EEE does indeed exist, and did before Microsoft ever purportedly used it, and it lists some of Microsoft's business tactics that could qualify as EEE. EEE is not just some random Wikipedia flame by a Linux fanboy, it's widely-known and discussed topic, with multiple pages of references even on Microsoft's own search engine. Finally, this Wikipedia entry is a far cry from baselessly insinuating that someone was involved in the Kennedy assassinations. I'm all for healthy skepticism when referencing Wiki articles, but this one has enough corroboration and recent historical significance that modding me (and the other poster who referenced it in this thread) troll and flamebait is overkill. I hope the metamods read and consider this when evaluating this thread.

Ebert tries to interpret games in the same manner that he does movies, as a visual and aural experience. He completely misses the point.

"That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept."

He's saying games can be works of art visually, but that what has come so far isn't yet good enough. He doesn't talk about the possibility of 'gameplay' being an artform, but I would suspect he would claim that even if it was an artform it also does yet not match up to the art of other media.

Game mechanics and design are just as important if not more important than story, art or music.

True, but does that make it art? (I don't really want to get into defining art though...) Even if the act of designing a game is an artform, does it necessarily mean that the product of that art is also art? Craftsmanship is a perfectly acceptable term I think, even if it falls short of being art. Is chess or football art, were their designers artists?

Can playing a game be an art form? A skilled athlete or non-sport game player may sometimes be considered to have artistic qualities, perform moves that are artistic, but the real focus remains on the game, the mechanics, and winning.

To me, a lot of gameplay taps into something basically nonverbal and non-emotional- button pressing is sometimes a muscle memory thing, other games require the player to develop complex internalized models of what's going on in the game- but there's still no great human truths to be uncovered in that territory- great primate/mammalian truths perhaps, but lacking something somehow higher ellicited by words and images and sound- games can use words and images and sound to achieve that effect, but like Ebert says it hasn't been done as well as the greatest yet and when it does it's not because of the gameplay but because of the words/images/sounds that are already present in other media. It may be possible to encode complex and deeply meaningful messages into gameplay itself, but I don't think it has happened yet.

He goes on:

"video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

I interpret this as saying that games are too long. The ratio of time spent to great art experienced is too low compared to other things out there to be enjoyed. Games may be fun, which makes up for the lower art density for most of us, but apparently not Ebert.

I think you can follow this thought further- how can one really hold up a game, or part of a game, as an example of art when the barrier to experiencing that art is so high? There is some correlation between difficulty in reading books and playing games- there's a certain amount of work required to experience them fully unlike passive works like film that propels itself forward whether the viewer is engaged in it or not. Very difficult books, with complex use of language invented and only used by the author are hard to read, analogous to hard games. Books and movies have built-in cheating methods- you can flip ahead a few pages, or even to the end of the books and fast-forward a movie.

Video games are problematic to use as references. If I were to write a paper citing the nth mission of some game, there is no way for someone to go experience that level without playing the entire game to that point or investing time in finding cheat codes, or getting someone to give them a saved game for that point. There needs to be a uniform way of experiencing any part of any game without having played any of it before hand.

How do I 'quote' a game? Screenshots and videos don't really do it, because the gameplay is removed- there needs to be a way to generate a fair use demo of any part of a game and distribute it along with another work making use of that 'quote'.

There's a renaissance for text and images on the i

In fact, see Ebert's review of The Polar Express which talks about the effects, etc.

What's interesting is that this argument is old...and I'm not talking about the argument over whether or not video games are art. Every time a new artistic medium arises, participants (artists, critics, educators, people involved in the business around other mediums) claim that the new medium isn't "art".

Many universities are still entrenched in the debate over whether or not to consider photography a classical art. One-by-one, educational institutions are accepting photography as a form of classical art. The fact is that over time, new mediums are eventually accepted as art, and the naysayers lose. The media with which Roger Ebert is a critic, film, was not always considered art either. There was debate over this media as well. Of course, TFA puts this argument much more eloquiently than I can.

It is irrelevant whether or not there is a unanimous acceptance of video games as art. All it takes is a critical mass of participants to consider a media art, and it's pretty much there. The credibility of an art form amongst educators doesn't really matter, except maybe in a legal (first amendment) sense.

The fact is that this is more of a generational issue. Video games are especially new to a fellow like Ebert, who is entrenched in the media that he is famaliar with. It is clear that Ebert is stuck in his ways and does not want to accept any new media into his worldview. Ebert admits to making a judgement of video games while being unfamaliar with video games. He claims that since the user is required to make choices and participate, that it is somehow inferior to other forms of art. I tend to disagree, since the viewer/reader/listener must take an active role in interpreting the art, thus taking an active role and making decisions in the outcome of their experience in the work itself.

What's interesting is that this argument is old...and I'm not talking about the argument over whether or not video games are art. Every time a new artistic medium arises, participants (artists, critics, educators, people involved in the business around other mediums) claim that the new medium isn't "art".

Many universities are still entrenched in the debate over whether or not to consider photography a classical art. One-by-one, educational institutions are accepting photography as a form of classical art. The fact is that over time, new mediums are eventually accepted as art, and the naysayers lose. The media with which Roger Ebert is a critic, film, was not always considered art either. There was debate over this media as well. Of course, TFA puts this argument much more eloquiently than I can.

It is irrelevant whether or not there is a unanimous acceptance of video games as art. All it takes is a critical mass of participants to consider a media art, and it's pretty much there. The credibility of an art form amongst educators doesn't really matter, except maybe in a legal (first amendment) sense.

The fact is that this is more of a generational issue. Video games are especially new to a fellow like Ebert, who is entrenched in the media that he is famaliar with. It is clear that Ebert is stuck in his ways and does not want to accept any new media into his worldview. Ebert admits to making a judgement of video games while being unfamaliar with video games. He claims that since the user is required to make choices and participate, that it is somehow inferior to other forms of art. I tend to disagree, since the viewer/reader/listener must take an active role in interpreting the art, thus taking an active role and making decisions in the outcome of their experience in the work itself.

But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic. So according to Mr. Ebert, Garfield: The Movie is a valuable device to make oneself more cultured. Or maybe he's just a stupid sack of pigshit that gets paid too much for his "opinions".

No, the government made us fat.

Seven years ago, 35 million Americans became overweight literally overnight.

America suddenly became fatter when the federal government changed the definition of overweight, based on a calculation called body mass index.

BMI is the key number used in studies finding that two-thirds of American adults are overweight, 31 percent are obese, about 30 pounds or more overweight, and 5 percent are extremely obese, about 100 pounds or more overweight).

If we keep talking about the obesity "epidemic" based on BMI, of course everyone is fat.

When an editor decides to rewrite the copy, it helps to make sure the meat is still there -- in this case, the actual link to the article.

So that other people don't have to waste time like I did, here are a few assorted articles on the topic (some are marked as specifically from the AP):

• http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/08/tech/mai n927858.shtml
• http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1214 73
• http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-nws-traffi c16.html
• http://www.heraldnewsdaily.com/stories/news-008609 0.html

Finally I am going to use some numbers that no one has tried yet for the car argument. About 1/2 down this page http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/cst-fin-teen14 .html, you will find stats showing that 9% of 16-17 yr olds had new cars and 36% of 16-17 yr olds have used cars. Now assuming worst case scenario that their parents bought them these cars, that is only 45% of 16-17 yr olds with their own cars, not a majority unless my math has failed me.

Now, assuming that at least some percentage of those are paying for their cars and for the gas and maintenance, shit I would be surprised if they could even afford video games or had time to play them, the amount of money they'd be spending on gas these days and the time working to pay for them.

Trust me there are still a great majority of people where they do not get cars at all. This varies greatly by where you live because there are some places where a car is almost unnecessary to get around. There are also some places where a car is almost fully essential. Also some of these people with used cars are probably getting the car their parents at sitting around. My first car a 1985 Chevy S-10 that was 13yrs old when I turned 16. It had been used so long the tires were dry rotted and had to be replaced.

Ummm...how short of a period are you using for the "quantum leaps" in game tech? I remember playing on Coleco Vision in the '80s growing up and playing on NES, SNES, Master System, Genesis, N64, PSX, DC, PS2, and Xbox (probably missed some in there) over time (Note: I've only owned a NES, PSX, DC and PS2 and I bought all but the NES).

These game consoles certainly had more then better graphics going for them. There have been entire genres created and re-created on the consoles in this amount of time. There is also the evolution of the controller, which is still happening. There have been forays into new gameplay methods (microphone of Seaman, the Powerglove, the DDR dance pad...the list goes on). Trust me the game consoles have changed, just a great many of you forget that there were consoles before the Playstation.

I don't know about the distracting technologies argument. Many of these things are beginning to merge. I mean my cellphone plays games, has digital photography (and video), plays MP3s, allows "chatting." These "distracting technologies" are actually merging into single devices. Even the PS3 and Xbox 360 are trying to combine the "media" experience into the consoles. Yes cable and satellite have 200+ channels of which most people watch like 20 (I don't even think I get that many, college football, Whose Line, Family Guy, HD programming...I probably would survive with 20 or fewer channels if I got to pick them). Besides TV sort of counters your mobile argument next does it not? Also with integration of these "distracting techs" in handheld systems (a la PSP), the emerging tech and mobile generation begin to lose a bit more strength in their argument.

I addressed the getting a car argument above. While it does happen, I do not think it is as prolific as you think. Many of the parents I know set the...get a car...get a job rule. Where they may get you one, or help you buy one...but you are going to work. It also becomes a lot easier if your kid is big on extracurricular activities. (Note: To parents with daughters, the two seater is great...no back seat to worry about, if you know what I mean.)

The failure of real-time gaming? Yeah World of Warcraft has been a total flop. Diablo 2 didn't last for ages. Sporting games do run into problems on occassion but not so much as people would think. Oh wait remembered a console game that worked well, HALO!

Really your "anecdotal" experience is more like none at all. I think you will find that gaming might slowly be returning to its niche (though it might be a larger one). It is quite possible this crazy surge of console gaming is coming to an end. We might look back on this in 10 or 20 years and say, wow remember that crazy fad where everyone loved gaming...

• From Wikipedia.org: "Noodling is the practice and sport of fishing for catfish using only one's bare hands. Noodling may be called grabbling, graveling, hogging, or tickling, depending on what southern state you're in (Kentuckians call it dogging, while Nebraskans prefer stumping)."

Iran is not as bad as the Bush administration claims. A key US ally boils people alive and the US rewards him with very generous aid. "Our Presidents New Best Friend Boils People Alive WARNING horrific images of torture! http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39 43.htm )

Iran on the other hand, amongst many things, gave us many humanist movies such as Kandahar about Afghanistan, on Time's best 100 movies of all time http://www.time.com/time/2005/100movies/0,23220,ka ndahar,00.html and Turtles Can Fly about Kurdish Iraq http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic le?AID=/20050414/REVIEWS/50324002/1023 Iran is *not* evil, nor is Chavez. Hands off!

I'm just saying that the Democrats did not cover themselves in glory either.

"After 9/11, the government's goal in serving people was to assure a coordinated federal, state and local response. The importance of coordination is what led Michael Brown to tie the hands of those most able to respond quickly to the people in New Orleans and all along the Gulf Coast. On Aug. 29, Brown issued a news release urging first-responders, such as local fire and emergency services, not to respond to the disaster without a formal request from lawfully dispatched state and local authorities established under federal and state aid agreements. Again that same day, Brown issued a second news release instructing volunteers not to report to the affected areas, but rather to send cash to various volunteer agencies. Many volunteers, including key firefighting units, complained that Brown effectively barred them from doing what they know how to do best: save people and property. Brown, in short, chose to pursue order and control over a quick response to those in need." From http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt- ref17b.html. Sorry I didn't take the time to find a more objective summary, but the whole thing is worth reading.

Like I said, what are the first responders supposed to do when the feds hamstring them? These problems started at the top.

If you liked Dark City, you might like Metropolis, where many of those ideas came from. A review.

As with so many debates, the real problem is the issue is being misstated, so that there appears to be a contradiction where there is none. "Information should be free" refers to knowledge about facts such as history, public policy, etc. It does not refer to my bank accounts or medical history. Same goes for abortion vs death penalty. The former has not commited a crime that suggests he may not be cabaple of living in society. You may still disagree with views on either, but to juxtapose the two issues for purposes of debate is ignorant.

Oddly, you don't do a very good job of restating the issues in any less misleading a manner.

How are bank account or medical records any less factual than "history, public policy, etc."? I don't think the issue is whether personal information is fundamentally different from public information, but that, as a society, we would like to classify certain facts into protected categories while leaving other facts in the open. While there may be valid public policy reasons for the different classifications, they are, essentially, arbitrary decisions.

As for the question of abortion versus the death penalty, your restatement makes the unwarrented assumption that the person being put to death is actually guilty of some crime. Recent events have shown, however, that innocent people can easily wind up on death row.

These views (information freedom/privacy rights, abortion/death penalty) are only contradictory based on the context in which they are evaluated. When you violently disagree with another person's views, it is very tempting to cast their views in a context that emphasizes the contradictions and suggests that the other person is a hypocrite. While there may be some truth to this sort of accusation, the tactic is more rhetorical than factual.

The tragedy embedded in these memos is that the Brits were mistaken in their two most basic premises: first, that Saddam Hussein really had WMD and really posed a threat; second, that just because Bush needed Blair's support, Blair could somehow influence him...
At least the Brits clearly saw the difficulties ahead and tried to engage Bush on their implications. Had he listened, our biggest problems in Iraq today might be a great deal smaller. This is another lesson to be gleaned from the Downing Street memos.

Sam Jadallah: There was definitely a buzz at Microsoft about the Internet--we were trying to understand why everybody was getting all hyped up. Certainly for us up in the Northwest, we didn't know what to make of it. It seemed pretty cool, pretty exciting, but really what were you going to do with it? How was it going to change your day-to-day work?

By doing this. :)

It was the conservative columnist Robert Novak, who first wrote of the identity.

But he is not in prison.

Neither would Rove go to prison.

The adminstration would take care of their peope. And this would become a page 3 story the next terror attack happens.

It reminds me of Sim City 2000, where you could stick all your power plants in the corners and edges, so you would only deal with 1/4th to 1/2 of the pollution you would normally have to deal with.

Then again, maybe it's just karma (South Chicago, IL)

Certainly he didn't walk away from that place perfectly healthy.

He lived until he was 95, passing away a few years ago. Frankly I think that it is amazing that he survived the aftermath of Nagasaki unscathed.

Actually, he died 3 years ago having lived probably longer than you or me: he was 95.

Why I hate going to the movie theater:

1. Time. If I'm lucky, what I want to see if a blockbuster so there are start times around the clock. Otherwise, "Um, one showing at 4:23".
2. Focus. Here in Vancouver, the big chains don't even bother to focus properly. I stopped wearing my glasses (I'm only marginally near-sighted) because the focus is so bad.
3. Lighting. As Roger Ebert and Kodak have complained for years, the big theatre chains are deliberately dimming the bulb to save on "bulb life". But as many professional projectionsts claim there is no gain in bulb life.
4. Film stock. The film stock, especially up here in Vancouver, is just horrible. During dim scenes, I could say the film grain dancing big as life. There was a time when film was copied onto quality film stock, but someone, somewhere is cheaping out.
5. Ads. I once spent 30 minutes sitting through commercials (not trailers!) to see a bad movie. 'Nuff said.
6. The Theater. The seats are uncomfortable, the floor is sticky and if I'm lucky, the drink holder is gum free. The annoying teens kkicking the back of my seat, the goof ball popping open his brightly lit cell phone to check e-mail, the sound system that hasn't been adjusted since the floor sweeper fiddled with the control because some person complained that it was disturbing their infant they brought into the latest guns-and-explosion action fest from Vin Diesel. AARGH!

Give me DVDs any day of the week on my big screen and decent sound system.

the rapturous critical acclaim is among critics who don't know jack about Miyazaki and don't have the frame of reference to tell his good works from his bad works. Most critics are going to say it's amazing because they don't want to be seen as 'Dunb' or 'Out of it'

Among people with a clue (for example Roger Ebert who is very knowledgeable about the director and very animation friendly http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic le?AID=/20050609/REVIEWS/50601002/1023) this is an inferior movie when compared to his other works.

p.s I feel Miyazaki is horribly overrated some of his stuff is ok but most of his work leaves me completely cold.

For the record, Miyazaki does not always meet with wide acclaim. Howl's Moving Castle has received various lukewarm reviews. Granted I'd rather watch a Miyazaki failure than one of the more recent Disney releases, but sometimes Miyazaki's work is just a bit too aimless and phantasmagoric to be considered universal in its appeal.

People forget that Disney went through a similar set of death spasms in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It wasn't until a series of solid releases -- The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, and the Lion King -- that Disney retreived its street cred. The films after these four definitely drop off in quality IMHO... this dropoff though was masked by the rise of Pixar thank goodness.

I read a story last week (sorry, no URL) that said the U.S. military was considering dropping the tattoo ban, at least temporarily, in order to widen the pool of available applicants for voluntary service during the "war on terror". It seems they're a few tens of thousands of soldiers short....

The Chicago Sun-Times also ran a story today on the issue of tattoos and piercings in the workplace. They say that it's becoming more acceptable.

> Translation: "My job is so easy

Ebert has always said that he hates the "star" ratings, but his newspaper makes him do it. Unfortunately, most readers just want to quickly glance at a rating rather than read a review and draw their conclusions.

Ebert has said before that the ratings are relative in that if the movie is intended to be a popcorn action movie, then he rates the movie compared to that. If it is expected to be art, he rates the movie against that.

Ebert is a very good reviewer, and he really knows his stuff about movies, although the wearing a sweater on TV and doing the thumbs up thing may mask that. I watched the DVD for "Dark City," and he did a commentary for it, and it was amazing what he drew out of it. Watching it and listening to it, I felt like I was sitting in a graduate level film class.

I think one problem is that Ebert is that he watches too many movies that he must review, and sometimes he glosses over a movie because he expects that he doesn't need to study it at a deeper level.

For example, Ebert's review of Episode II was very superficial (to the point that he even misquoted some key dialog in his review). However, on the whole he is probably correct that Episode II does not stand alone as a movie, and must be viewed in the context of the other movies, and his reviews rate movies based on how they stand alone.

In contrast, someone on Slashdot linked to another review of the movie by David Begor where he draws out the symbolism in the movie. The review is quite enlightening, and it changed the way I viewed the movies, as I could recognize the symbolism.

rip donny boy http://www.suntimes.com/output/obituaries/xcrabb.h tml

See:

Initial Hiltzik column: 'Deep Throat' Numbers Just Don't Add Up
Bailey and Barbato (directors, writers, producers of Inside Deep Throat): More Numbers for 'Deep Throat'
a somewhat longer version of their response: 'Throat' Gets Cut, Directors Perform Surgery
Hiltzik then asked them to answer twelve questions which resulted in this column:
Hiltzik: Bad 'Deep Throat' Revenue Numbers Are Multiplying

Ebert also covered Inside Deep Throat in an earlier Movie Answer Man column:
February 20, 2005

Q. I always thought the most profitable movie of all time (based on percentage return) was "The Blair Witch Project." However, the movie poster for "Inside Deep Throat" claims that "Deep Throat" is the most profitable movie ever. Is there an authority who can settle this once and for all?

Andrew Woodhouse, Tempe Ariz.

A. Startled by the claim in "Inside Deep Throat" that the original movie grossed $600 million in circa-1970 dollars, Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times ran the numbers and wrote an article suggesting that figure was a fantasy that has been repeated for years without any fact-checking.

Hiltzik writes me: "The Web site www.the-numbers.com says $40.8 million. That could be in the ballpark, keeping in mind that given the cash nature of the distribution, it's a pretty muddy ballpark. At the time of the Memphis verdicts, the standard newspaper estimate seemed to be $30-$50 million, and then it abruptly jumped up to $600 million and no one ever looked back. When Linda Lovelace appeared before a Congressional committee in the mid-'80s, the chair, Arlen Specter, said something like, 'So it grossed $600 million and you got a lot of bruises?' and she replied, in effect, 'Yeah.'"

Since the mob owned most of the porn theaters in the pre-video days and inflated box office receipts as a way of laundering income from drugs and prostitution, it is likely, in fact, that "Deep Throat" did not really gross $600 million, although that might have been the box office tally.

Q. I always thought the most profitable movie of all time (based on percentage return) was "The Blair Witch Project." However, the movie poster for "Inside Deep Throat" claims that "Deep Throat" is the most profitable movie ever. Is there an authority who can settle this once and for all?

Andrew Woodhouse, Tempe Ariz.

A. Startled by the claim in "Inside Deep Throat" that the original movie grossed $600 million in circa-1970 dollars, Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times ran the numbers and wrote an article suggesting that figure was a fantasy that has been repeated for years without any fact-checking.

Hiltzik writes me: "The Web site www.the-numbers.com says $40.8 million. That could be in the ballpark, keeping in mind that given the cash nature of the distribution, it's a pretty muddy ballpark. At the time of the Memphis verdicts, the standard newspaper estimate seemed to be $30-$50 million, and then it abruptly jumped up to $600 million and no one ever looked back. When Linda Lovelace appeared before a Congressional committee in the mid-'80s, the chair, Arlen Specter, said something like, 'So it grossed $600 million and you got a lot of bruises?' and she replied, in effect, 'Yeah.'"

Since the mob owned most of the porn theaters in the pre-video days and inflated box office receipts as a way of laundering income from drugs and prostitution, it is likely, in fact, that "Deep Throat" did not really gross $600 million, although that might have been the box office tally.

Q. I always thought the most profitable movie of all time (based on percentage return) was "The Blair Witch Project." However, the movie poster for "Inside Deep Throat" claims that "Deep Throat" is the most profitable movie ever. Is there an authority who can settle this once and for all?

Andrew Woodhouse, Tempe Ariz.

A. Startled by the claim in "Inside Deep Throat" that the original movie grossed $600 million in circa-1970 dollars, Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times ran the numbers and wrote an article suggesting that figure was a fantasy that has been repeated for years without any fact-checking.

Hiltzik writes me: "The Web site www.the-numbers.com says $40.8 million. That could be in the ballpark, keeping in mind that given the cash nature of the distribution, it's a pretty muddy ballpark. At the time of the Memphis verdicts, the standard newspaper estimate seemed to be $30-$50 million, and then it abruptly jumped up to $600 million and no one ever looked back. When Linda Lovelace appeared before a Congressional committee in the mid-'80s, the chair, Arlen Specter, said something like, 'So it grossed $600 million and you got a lot of bruises?' and she replied, in effect, 'Yeah.'"

Since the mob owned most of the porn theaters in the pre-video days and inflated box office receipts as a way of laundering income from drugs and prostitution, it is likely, in fact, that "Deep Throat" did not really gross $600 million, although that might have been the box office tally.

Q. I always thought the most profitable movie of all time (based on percentage return) was "The Blair Witch Project." However, the movie poster for "Inside Deep Throat" claims that "Deep Throat" is the most profitable movie ever. Is there an authority who can settle this once and for all?

Andrew Woodhouse, Tempe Ariz.

A. Startled by the claim in "Inside Deep Throat" that the original movie grossed $600 million in circa-1970 dollars, Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times ran the numbers and wrote an article suggesting that figure was a fantasy that has been repeated for years without any fact-checking.

Hiltzik writes me: "The Web site www.the-numbers.com says $40.8 million. That could be in the ballpark, keeping in mind that given the cash nature of the distribution, it's a pretty muddy ballpark. At the time of the Memphis verdicts, the standard newspaper estimate seemed to be $30-$50 million, and then it abruptly jumped up to $600 million and no one ever looked back. When Linda Lovelace appeared before a Congressional committee in the mid-'80s, the chair, Arlen Specter, said something like, 'So it grossed $600 million and you got a lot of bruises?' and she replied, in effect, 'Yeah.'"

Since the mob owned most of the porn theaters in the pre-video days and inflated box office receipts as a way of laundering income from drugs and prostitution, it is likely, in fact, that "Deep Throat" did not really gross $600 million, although that might have been the box office tally.

Q. I always thought the most profitable movie of all time (based on percentage return) was "The Blair Witch Project." However, the movie poster for "Inside Deep Throat" claims that "Deep Throat" is the most profitable movie ever. Is there an authority who can settle this once and for all?

Andrew Woodhouse, Tempe Ariz.

A. Startled by the claim in "Inside Deep Throat" that the original movie grossed $600 million in circa-1970 dollars, Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times ran the numbers and wrote an article suggesting that figure was a fantasy that has been repeated for years without any fact-checking.

Hiltzik writes me: "The Web site www.the-numbers.com says $40.8 million. That could be in the ballpark, keeping in mind that given the cash nature of the distribution, it's a pretty muddy ballpark. At the time of the Memphis verdicts, the standard newspaper estimate seemed to be $30-$50 million, and then it abruptly jumped up to $600 million and no one ever looked back. When Linda Lovelace appeared before a Congressional committee in the mid-'80s, the chair, Arlen Specter, said something like, 'So it grossed $600 million and you got a lot of bruises?' and she replied, in effect, 'Yeah.'"

Since the mob owned most of the porn theaters in the pre-video days and inflated box office receipts as a way of laundering income from drugs and prostitution, it is likely, in fact, that "Deep Throat" did not really gross $600 million, although that might have been the box office tally.

Q. I always thought the most profitable movie of all time (based on percentage return) was "The Blair Witch Project." However, the movie poster for "Inside Deep Throat" claims that "Deep Throat" is the most profitable movie ever. Is there an authority who can settle this once and for all?

Andrew Woodhouse, Tempe Ariz.

A. Startled by the claim in "Inside Deep Throat" that the original movie grossed $600 million in circa-1970 dollars, Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times ran the numbers and wrote an article suggesting that figure was a fantasy that has been repeated for years without any fact-checking.

Hiltzik writes me: "The Web site www.the-numbers.com says $40.8 million. That could be in the ballpark, keeping in mind that given the cash nature of the distribution, it's a pretty muddy ballpark. At the time of the Memphis verdicts, the standard newspaper estimate seemed to be $30-$50 million, and then it abruptly jumped up to $600 million and no one ever looked back. When Linda Lovelace appeared before a Congressional committee in the mid-'80s, the chair, Arlen Specter, said something like, 'So it grossed $600 million and you got a lot of bruises?' and she replied, in effect, 'Yeah.'"

Since the mob owned most of the porn theaters in the pre-video days and inflated box office receipts as a way of laundering income from drugs and prostitution, it is likely, in fact, that "Deep Throat" did not really gross $600 million, although that might have been the box office tally.

Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck are in love and plan to get married, as you already know unless you are sealed off from all media, in which case you are not reading this review, so put it down. Because they are a famous couple, starring in a movie romance, we expect something conventional and predictable and that is not what we get from "Gigli." The movie tries to do something different, thoughtful, and a little daring with their relationship, and although it doesn't quite work, maybe the movie is worth seeing for some scenes that are really very good.

So in other words, movies should probably be different to have a chance at a decent rating. Also, he doesn't like every J-Lo movie.

Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck are in love and plan to get married, as you already know unless you are sealed off from all media, in which case you are not reading this review, so put it down. Because they are a famous couple, starring in a movie romance, we expect something conventional and predictable and that is not what we get from "Gigli." The movie tries to do something different, thoughtful, and a little daring with their relationship, and although it doesn't quite work, maybe the movie is worth seeing for some scenes that are really very good.

So in other words, movies should probably be different to have a chance at a decent rating. Also, he doesn't like every J-Lo movie.

'Shaolin Soccer" is like a poster boy for my theory of the star rating system. Every month or so, I get an anguished letter from a reader wanting to know how I could possibly have been so ignorant as to award three stars to, say, "Hidalgo" while dismissing, say, "Dogville" with two stars. This disparity between my approval of kitsch and my rejection of angst reveals me, of course, as a superficial moron who will do anything to suck up to my readers.

[snip]

...Not at all. What it means is that the star rating system is relative, not absolute. When you ask a friend if "Hellboy" is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to "Mystic River," you're asking if it's any good compared to "The Punisher." And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if "Superman" (1978) is four, then "Hellboy" is three and "The Punisher" is two. In the same way, if "American Beauty" gets four stars, then "Leland" clocks in at about two.

By the way, the movie in that review (Shaolin Soccer) was one of the funniest movies I'd watched last year, and definitely not for everyone. It depends on whether you think Stephen Chow is one of the modern era's best directors, or you don't know him at all.

Ebert is just as much a whore as any other critic. Woody Allen could take a dump on a piece of cardboard and jam it into a DVD player and Ebert would give it "an enthusiastic thumbs up."

May I also remind you that Ebert gave A.I. 3 out of 4 stars. That movie has to be one of the biggest disasters in the history of cinema. He also gave all the Matrix movies high marks and one of the sequels higher marks than the original.

Ebert's a shill for a select segment of the industry. He doesn't matter any more as far as I'm concerned. He's another hollywood whore. He isn't worthy to be in Gene Siskel's shadow - whom I thought was the consumate critic.

True, but how does that explain his 3-star reviews of SPEED 2 and CONGO?