<div style='font: 10pt Arial, Modern; text-align: left; '><B>Whether I do mine or not makes exactly jack shit difference.</b>
In other words, because you're an amateur* (and probably haven't taken a single course on film criticism, ever) you're off the hook? Sorry, but there's no unwritten Amateur Exclusion Law in the world of film criticism for pedantry. I've read as many lofty displays of pretension by wanna-bes than I have by professional critics. Amateurs who trumpet the fact that they aren't paid (and are therefore more trustworthy) are humping the high horse.
<B>But when Ebert whips out the pretentiousness people listen simply because he ~is~ paid to do them.</b>
Wrong. Most people listen to Ebert because they want a knowledgeable film critic's perspective on movies they're interested in seeing. And then there are probably a few masochists (like Sine) who simply like getting angry over someone else's viewpoint. "In Search of Outrage," one might call it.
Speaking of Roger Ebert's "pretentiousness," I challenge you to find five <I>specific</I> instances where he engaged in the practice. Otherwise, I see no reason to try and defend him against invisible charges.
<B>That's the western world for you.</b>
Ah, so listening to professional critics is an inherently western trait. Does this mean there are no paid film/anime/game critics in Indonesia and Japan?
(Jesus Christ, Wolf. I expect this kind of flagrant pro-Japan, anti-Western attitude from self-professed otakus, but...shit, never mind.)
<B>I still find it more likely that they've got to stroke their own ego and make themselves sound much more important than they should be.</b>
And I find it even more likely that self-righteous amateurs will roundly criticize the professionals for perceived elitism to lend imaginary credence to their own viewpoints. Only, unlike the professionals, they'll do it free of charge.
*You should know that I, too, am an amateur critic. Everyone on this board is. Some of us just like to flaunt it more than others.</div>
