Man, that's gotta be a real kick in the teeth.


/sorry
/someone had to say it

Roger, say a word and we'll help you out

That show sucks. How about having someone older than 22 review movies? The guy is all about arthouse, all the time, and letting people know how indie and cultured he is. The girl is a total airhead.

Oh no! Without this show, where will I turn for opinions about a movie?

Never seen the show, but would like to. I still follow his and Roeper's reviews, even if I don't always agree.

He's buddies with Oprah. Can't she pretty much give him a show in which the hosts sit on gilded throwns and have filmmakers summarily thrown to lions depending on the review?

Vintage Sneak Previews PBS opening (new window)

This is jaw dropping news.

Ebert is still alive!? and still on the air? Fark man who knew?

I'm sorry to hear this, but for me, "At the Movies" ended when Gene Siskel died. Richard Roeper was okay, but it just wasn't the same. I caught some of the new show but the two main critics just didn't do it for me. I get a lot more by just reading Roger's reviews and blog posts.

Pertifly: That show sucks. How about having someone older than 22 review movies? The guy is all about arthouse, all the time, and letting people know how indie and cultured he is. The girl is a total airhead.


Christy Lemire? She's almost 40.

Also, Ebert's online reviews are great, but the tv show sucks. Has sucked, always will suck.

Slaves2Darkness: Ebert is still alive!? and still on the air? Fark man who knew?

I don't think he's on the air. He just produces the show. He writes a pretty decent blog on the Sun Times site.

Link (new window)

thats karma paying him back for writing "beyond the valley of the dolls"

Well, I thought he was going to do a segment each episode (which i assumed would use his computer voice in a pre-taped segment).

I tuned in 3 separate times... he never did that segment in any of those three.

Haven't tuned in since. You wanna do your segment, which I'll gladly watch, I'll tune in and support ya. Otherwise, no. The hosts are morons.

Someone tell him about kickstarter.

RockNStroll: He's buddies with Oprah. Can't she pretty much give him a show in which the hosts sit on gilded throwns and have filmmakers summarily thrown to lions depending on the review?

I was going to suggest he court Scorcese for help, but this is an even better idea, since working w/Marty might represent a conflict of interest. But yeah, I've never gotten around to seeing the new show, and I usually just turn to Roger's own print reviews anyway. He's actually competing w/himself here, and winning, but also losing.

Maybe, I dunno, try to get on a channel that earns money, ask companies to pay X amount for product placements during the show?

KellyX: Maybe, I dunno, try to get on a channel that earns money, ask companies to pay X amount for product placements during the show?

All they have to do is get rid of any semblance of dignity, give every movie 2 thumbs up, and the studios will make them rich!

jake3988: Well, I thought he was going to do a segment each episode (which i assumed would use his computer voice in a pre-taped segment).

I tuned in 3 separate times... he never did that segment in any of those three.

Luck of the draw, I guess. He's done that segment (usually a single movie review) in probably 75% of the episodes. Bill Curtis serves as his voice.

Pertifly: That show sucks. How about having someone older than 22 review movies? The guy is all about arthouse, all the time, and letting people know how indie and cultured he is. The girl is a total airhead.

I gotta say 'Pretty much this'.

She doesn't irk me as much as before but they both seem to be in over their heads when it comes to reviews.

They seem to have gotten their film background 3rd or 4th hand; as if they like what they like because they read books on what are the important movies are; not because of any inherent love of movies and film.

The guy especially comes off as very self-serious in an 'I-know-more-about-films-than-you-therefore-I'm-more-important-than-yo u' way...

Not that I liked Roper all that much, either, but he was much better than this guy
However I DID like some of the other temporary hosts he had on years ago.

As for Ebert doing this? I find it hard to believe that he was ignorant of how the PBS syndication process worked.

Besides he should have known that you NEVER start a business with your own money.

12349876: KellyX: Maybe, I dunno, try to get on a channel that earns money, ask companies to pay X amount for product placements during the show?

All they have to do is get rid of any semblance of dignity, give every movie 2 thumbs up, and the studios will make them rich!

I'm saying offer to do in-review product placements to like say popcorn sellers, Coke, candy, etc. and for X amount they agree to have it shown during the review they'd be "eating" while reviewing the movie. *shrugs*

Can't he get ExxonMobil to pay for it like they do for every other PBS show?

Seriously though, I don't think there's a profitable market out there actual movie criticism, as opposed to thinly veiled movie marketing. People are more interested in hearing about the movie industry than about the movies themselves.

How is he not able to get financing for the show? Isn't PBS business model founded on A) corporate donations and B) PBS stations paying for the content they receive from affiliates? How does none of that get back to the show?

Hebalo: RockNStroll: He writes a pretty decent blog on the Sun Times site.

Since he lost his ability to speak, he's become a better writer. And he was pretty damn good before.

Here's an article he wrote for the Guardian. (new window)

If Ebert attached a couple movie clips into his online reviews, he wouldn't even need a TV show.

And it would probably be better than the suckfest the first couple episodes of "At the Movies" was anyway.

/maybe it got better.

You are all going to Hell.

Sounds like the poor guy is living hand to mouth.

Keep a stiff upper lip buddy!

I guess I'll just have to decide what movies to see based on my own thoughts and feelings, then.

You'll find a way, Roger. Keep your chin up!

I will gladly pay for a subscription. Doesnt he have a marketing guy? wtf

Hey, they could always start reviewing video games..

/snerk

Heck my PBS station kicked the show to the curb back in August. I must say I haven't missed it.

I too was annoyed by the hosts. I realize the Eberts (Roger and his wife) were trying something new and fresh (not some 2 middle-aged white guys chatting about the latest flick at the local megaplex), but it never took off. It looked very desperate to be something more than it actually was.

Also, why did Roger get to review certain commercial movies and the other two could not? Would have been nice to hear them agree/disagree with Roger but I guess he couldnt take it. The voice overs for Roger's reviews were sleep-inducing and exhibited none of the passion that needs to be done of these types of shows.

eviljimbo: thats karma paying him back for writing "beyond the valley of the dolls"

Dude, that movie is all kinds of awesome, if just for the ending alone!

Common problem with any self-obsessed narcisist. Detachment from reality. He should have been saving the money and not blowing it trying to keep an out-dated format on air for a dis-interested audience.

Should have moved over to written reviews or audio-over-video clips (anyone could read his words).

Plus, pissing off people with messages about dead celebrities isn't positive for audience-building.

gunga galunga: I'm sorry to hear this, but for me, "At the Movies" ended when Gene Siskel died. Richard Roeper was okay, but it just wasn't the same. I caught some of the new show but the two main critics just didn't do it for me. I get a lot more by just reading Roger's reviews and blog posts.

Mr. Furley > mr. Roper

cefm: Plus, pissing off people with messages about dead celebrities isn't positive for audience-building.

Anyone who was pissed off at that message is a farkin' idiot.

cefm: Plus, pissing off people with messages about dead celebrities isn't positive for audience-building.

I really, really doubt that that had any effect on the show whatsoever. I doubt that a statistically significant amount of the people who would've been pissed about that are even aware of the show.

RockNStroll: He's buddies with Oprah. Can't she pretty much give him a show in which the hosts sit on gilded throwns and have filmmakers summarily thrown to lions depending on the review?

Sounds like a new reality show. Call it something such as America's Next Iron Film Maker.

vrax: cefm: Plus, pissing off people with messages about dead celebrities isn't positive for audience-building.

Anyone who was pissed off at that message is a farkin' idiot.

Yup.

Some moron with too much money and too little brains gets drunk and drives at 120 mph and dies?!?!?
Oh, the horror!

Yeah, I know, I know, "Don't ask 'for whom the bell toll'" but Dunn did the gene pool a service.
And ANYONE bothered by Ebert's comment is just stupid.
If you're gonna have role models/heros/idols choose better than Dunn.

RockNStroll: He's buddies with Oprah. Can't she pretty much give him a show in which the hosts sit on gilded throwns and have filmmakers summarily thrown to lions depending on the review?

Not only would I watch that, I would pay to watch that. And I'd sign up for cable and pay for pay-per-view to watch a very special episode featuring Uwe Boll being slowly disemboweled by a honey badger.

Dwight_Yeast: RockNStroll: He's buddies with Oprah. Can't she pretty much give him a show in which the hosts sit on gilded throwns and have filmmakers summarily thrown to lions depending on the review?

Not only would I watch that, I would pay to watch that. And I'd sign up for cable and pay for pay-per-view to watch a very special episode featuring Uwe Boll being slowly disemboweled by a honey badger.

Make it Brett Ratner getting anally violated by a polar bear, and I'll foot the pay-per-view bill for everyone on my block.

Pertifly That show sucks.

THIS. Hosts are sub-Davy Marlin Jones(Google him) Public Access rejects who made that Lyon d-bag look like Bosley Crowther Technically the show hasn't existed when he & Gene bailed to that Disney sybdicated atrocity for the big bucks in '87?

Martstar I was going to suggest he court Scorcese for help,

Didnt you read the new interview book w/Marty? After putting his own money into "Gangs Of New York" he was in the hole fiscally pretty bad. After his last movie he's not broke but not a zillionaire

Pertifly: The guy is all about arthouse, all the time, and letting people know how indie and cultured he is. The girl is a total airhead.

Spot on, but I enjoy the show anyway. Did you see the brief incarnation featuring the two Bens? Now that was gaaahhh.

Precision Boobery: Pertifly: The guy is all about arthouse, all the time, and letting people know how indie and cultured he is. The girl is a total airhead.

Spot on, but I enjoy the show anyway. Did you see the brief incarnation featuring the two Bens? Now that was gaaahhh.

I miss these guys:



Much better than the Bens or the current pair.