I love Roger Ebert.
Yet I agree with this article.
I found transformers 2 silly, and formulaic.
But I enjoyed transformers 2 greatly.
I do find some of Ebert’s reviews humorous in their attempts to find meaning within something only designed as a facade, and I find others to be quite insightful in terms of the psychological impact made on the viewer from a case study perspective.
Ebert is. This Article is. I enjoyed them both, and thus am happy that both exist for me this day.
As for the man’s politics, I find that modern progressiveism is generally associated with ignorance and a lack of logical reasoning.
When people ask me: why do bad things happen to good people, my answer is: ignorance. A failure to consider and take into account the consequences of one’s actions.
For instance, I believe that Global Warming is a fraud. and that the irony of “green” ignorance is that billions of dollars have been diverted to “stop carbon release” while ignoring legitimate issues of waste reclamation and improvement, recycling, animal conservation, and preventing the release of legitimate polutants.
So in aiding al gore and his ignorant flock, Ebert’s ignorance of such things as “The urban heat island’s effect on localized weather apparatus as a cause for confidence interval degredation in accurate depictions of thermal data” thus effect their damage.
Does this mean that ebert is an ignoramus? no. It merely highlights the dangers of taking a political opinion without having sufficient data.
If someone asked me “Do you want to see the earth get so hot due to CO2 that it floods” my response would be: of course not. But neither do I want to have aliens replace my parents in a poorly written quest to find and eat copper.
I find both options equally unlikely, but if Al Gore held the political position that we now needed to stockpile copper for an alien trap, then I would think him a fool.
Because our resources are finite, and cannot be wasted on ignorant acts like preventing co2 release.
Its laughable until you realize what good could have been done, and was not done, with the resources wasted on trying to prevent the release of a non-polutant gas.
But I digress.
Ebert is a fine reviewer, and a reasonable critic. His politics are that of the logicless public ignorant of TRUE science beyond the high school/collegate-intro level, but his heart is in the right place.
