Incorrect, it is not a logical fallacy. It is only a logical fallacy if the authority is not an expert in his field.
This is far more relevant. Of course, you are incorrect as he is a "critic by trade" as film criticism ended up being his "trade".
And this is true because you say so? You haven't backed up any of these claims other than by presenting your own opinion.
- Actually, an appeal to authority fallacy has nothing to do with the level of the authority. There is a separate fallacy for appealing to a non-authority and presenting them as an authority (i.e. a person that is not an expert in their field). The premise behind the appeal to authority is that even experts are capable of being incorrect, thus relying on their status to prove a claim is insufficient. The claim itself must be examined, not the authority of the person giving the claim.
- I worded that poorly. I had meant that Ebert did not study to become a critic and that his education was in the field of journalism rather than criticism and analysis. I should have chosen better words. So I make a partial concession as you are correct, Ebert's trade eventually was that of a critic despite his lack of study in a related field.
- Actually, I did provide numerous examples time and time again. If you wish, I do not mind giving them again.
Example Flaws with Godzilla 2K14
1) Creatures born millions of years ago should not evolve to emit EMPs. It would be one thing if the creatures naturally emitted a high level of radiation that would interfere with electronics, but these creatures possessed the ability to selectively emit EMPs as an attack. In no way does it make sense for a creature that existed before electronic devices, to develop EMP emission as an offensive/defensive adaptation. It would be utterly useless against a predator such as Godzilla.
2) The MUTO creatures feed on radioactive matter and energy. Godzilla's primary attack would then be ineffectual, as his atomic breath is actually a concentrated blast of radioactive energy. It is not a fire/heat based attack, contrary to the popular misconception. So either his attack has different properties in this remake, or the writer did not consider that fact before Godzilla unleashed his attack on eight-legged MUTO.
3) Smash cuts are employed to a cliche effect in this film. When effective, the smash cut can build tension or excitement. However, when used frequently, smash cuts can diminish dramatic edge. This can be seen in G2K14 as the first two monster clashes led to smash cuts, creating a sense of redundancy. This is similar to when modern action films use bullet-time/slow motion for every action sequence. Rather than highlight the intensity of an action, frequent use instead creates pacing issues. Hitchcock is a well studied example of effective use of the smash cut as a dramatic technique in cinema.
4) If Godzilla is the alpha/apex predator of his ecosystem, and he only rose from the deep to feed on the MUTO kaiju, why did he fail to eat either of them after having felled them in combat? Had he actually eaten them (even if this were alluded to and not shown) then Godzilla's motivations would make sense in the context given by the narrative.
Since he does not eat either of them, the direction of the film makes it seem as if Godzilla came to defeat the MUTO for the sole purpose of saving the humans. Now, Gareth Edwards already stated in interviews that his goal was to make Godzilla the anti-hero of the story, that Godzilla would save humanity by chance, not by choice. But the given explanation in the film that was to make this so, is not followed through. That is poor writing and direction.
Worse, the film's script contributes to the conflation and convoluted nature of this error. Dr. Serizawa frequently refers to Godzilla as a bringer of balance, meant to restore order to nature. This of course assumes that the MUTO kaiju becoming the dominant species is some how a state of disorder (which goes against evolutionary imperative). Without addressing that particular issue, the larger issue is that Serizawa is now providing a motivation for Godzilla's actions that are in conflict with his previous explanation that Godzilla was their best hope because Godzilla feeds upon these creatures. Which is it? Is Godzilla here to feed on his natural prey or is he here to play Anakin Skywalker and bring balance to the force?
----
I could keep going on, but it would result in a post that is needlessly long. Heck, the post is already approaching an absurd length, but I digress. The above examples are a bit more in depth than my previous examples, but they highlight issues with the direction and the writing that are detrimental to film. No film or book or any other story telling medium is without mistake. So I do not expect flawlessness.
There are films I praise immensely that have a number of errors. The problem begins however when those errors interfere with the intelligibility of the story. If an error breaks your story, then it is problematic. If an error is just a mistake but the story still makes sense, then no real harm is done. I do not find that to be the case here.
