From Ebert's Facebook:

"I haven't read the whole 25,000 words, but the remarkable thing about this excerpt is--it's mostly all true."

Wayne 985: From Ebert's Facebook:

"I haven't read the whole 25,000 words, but the remarkable thing about this excerpt is--it's mostly all true."

Sounds jaw dropping.

That was Siskle and Ebert's play off on their show on PBS. They worked for rival newspaper companies and competed with each other. They did the PBS show more like a side job until it got popular and went to regular TV. I use to love it when they fought over movies.

It's so sad that atthemovies.tv, which had every review for streaming, got taken down when the show was canceled.

Sounds like Gene Siskel was a real cocksucker.

I've read a lot about the rivalry between the two, and it really does seem Gene was jealous of Ebert. It really was an Odd Couple situation. Gene Siskel was a classic type A(sshole) personality, aggressive and pushy, and Ebert is more relaxed and contemplative. Because Ebert was more intellectual than Siskel, Siskel took out his frustrations and jealousy on someone who obviously outclassed him. I remember as I used to watch the show sometimes Siskel would say some rather bizzare things critiquing the movies he was watching.

I'd say I agree with Ebert on movies about 75% of the time, which is simply amazing. He's a very interesting guy and I really enjoy reading his website. He has things to say on a lot more than just movies, and he is a very engaging and talented writer.

Bicker Bicker Bicker

I loved that show. They fought constantly. The only thing they ever agreed on is they hated drug and bathroom humor comedy.

Reminds me, of Orson Welles' comment, in the ferris wheel, about Italy and the renaissance.

sonorangal: That was Siskle and Ebert's play off on their show on PBS. They worked for rival newspaper companies and competed with each other. They did the PBS show more like a side job until it got popular and went to regular TV. I use to love it when they fought over movies.

The thing about the art of criticism -the thing that we've seen to have lost sight of- is that it should be a full contact sport. People SHOULD have strong opinions, and if there are flaws in the thing being critiqued, they should be pointed out.

SN1987a goes boom: Wayne 985: From Ebert's Facebook:

"I haven't read the whole 25,000 words, but the remarkable thing about this excerpt is--it's mostly all true."

Sounds jaw dropping.

Nah, he's just mouthing off again.

Someone should make a movie about this. It could be hilarious.

Kevin Spacey could play Siskel. Or maybe Will Arnett if you're trying for lowbrow comedy.

Patton Oswalt could play Ebert.

Still confusing after all these years. Second reference should be "The Fat One" and "The Other One."

Dwight_Yeast: sonorangal: That was Siskle and Ebert's play off on their show on PBS. They worked for rival newspaper companies and competed with each other. They did the PBS show more like a side job until it got popular and went to regular TV. I use to love it when they fought over movies.

The thing about the art of criticism -the thing that we've seen to have lost sight of- is that it should be a full contact sport. People SHOULD have strong opinions, and if there are flaws in the thing being critiqued, they should be pointed out.

Having a strong opinion about entertainment and art is like nerds arguing over Apple vs. Microsoft. In the end, it seldom matters in the real world.

pkellmey: Dwight_Yeast: sonorangal: That was Siskle and Ebert's play off on their show on PBS. They worked for rival newspaper companies and competed with each other. They did the PBS show more like a side job until it got popular and went to regular TV. I use to love it when they fought over movies.

The thing about the art of criticism -the thing that we've seen to have lost sight of- is that it should be a full contact sport. People SHOULD have strong opinions, and if there are flaws in the thing being critiqued, they should be pointed out.

Having a strong opinion about entertainment and art is like nerds arguing over Apple vs. Microsoft. In the end, it seldom matters in the real world.

Having a friend like that that you can work with *and* have that much fun - using your *brains*- is one of the only things that matter in this world.

\you went for snark, when snark was the wrong way to go
\\you chose poorly

Aquadyne: Sounds like Gene Siskel was a real cocksucker.

Well the article headline does say, "An oral history of Siskel and Ebert"

aearra: Reminds me, of Orson Welles' comment, in the ferris wheel, about Italy and the renaissance.

Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

For me, the last word on Gene was learning the Siskels collected art deco furniture. Everyone I ever knew who liked art deco was nasty.

As much as I enjoyed watching that show, I stopped reading when I got to "frenemies" in the title. I'll take you seriously when you stop using gibberish.

pkellmey: Having a strong opinion about entertainment and art is like nerds arguing over Apple vs. Microsoft. In the end, it seldom matters in the real world.

Critics, in principle, serve a useful function. If you can find one that thinks the way you do, and appreciates the same type of humor, drama, etc, you can narrow your film/art choices down, save time, and ensure you have a more entertaining time with your limited free time. They also serve as educators in style and technical details that might be interesting to you.

In practice, though, they fail. They spend so much time watching film, and are so educated on it, they do not relate to the average movie watcher at all. They did in college, they did in their 20's. But after a while, they're watching 4 movies a day, every day, and are just inundated with every cliche, film trick, story philosophy, and directorial style, they don't appreciate it in the same way as someone who watches it for pure entertainment in their spare time. But by this point, they've reached syndication and and a mass audience. They're a fixture in the landscape. They're also incredibly irrelevant by that point.

Khellendros: Critics, in principle, serve a useful function. If you can find one that thinks the way you do, and appreciates the same type of humor, drama, etc, you can narrow your film/art choices down, save time, and ensure you have a more entertaining time with your limited free time. They also serve as educators in style and technical details that might be interesting to you.

In practice, though, they fail. They spend so much time watching film, and are so educated on it, they do not relate to the average movie watcher at all. They did in college, they did in their 20's. But after a while, they're watching 4 movies a day, every day, and are just inundated with every cliche, film trick, story philosophy, and directorial style, they don't appreciate it in the same way as someone who watches it for pure entertainment in their spare time. But by this point, they've reached syndication and and a mass audience. They're a fixture in the landscape. They're also incredibly irrelevant by that point.

It certainly is true that one of the functions of critics is to act as a sort of a consumer reports for your entertainment dollar. There's nothing wrong with that function, but it's not why I read critics. My favorite critics (Kael, Ebbert, Edelstein, Zacharek, Libby Gelman-Waxner, and Wolcott) are very different people, not all are even living! But they all have two things in common. They love movies, and they write well. The critics that I seek out give me new ways to think about movies. I don't always agree with them. Sometimes they love movies that I loath, but, after reading them, I get a different perspective. It usually doesn't change my feelings about a movie, but I do get a perspective that I didn't have before. To me, this is valuable.

The line between really knowing any medium, movies/tv/film,at,etc., and being totally immersed in the medium, unrelatable to any but fellow nerds, is so thin it essentially doesn't exist. There's a level you can't speak on, or probably even think on, if you want to be relevant.

We need both geeks and sellouts, don't get me wrong. Just don't try to be both, and don't try to be neither.

BTW, "at" should be "art."

/Not that I have anything against at, but it damsure ain't art.

CheapEngineer: pkellmey: Dwight_Yeast: sonorangal: That was Siskle and Ebert's play off on their show on PBS. They worked for rival newspaper companies and competed with each other. They did the PBS show more like a side job until it got popular and went to regular TV. I use to love it when they fought over movies.

The thing about the art of criticism -the thing that we've seen to have lost sight of- is that it should be a full contact sport. People SHOULD have strong opinions, and if there are flaws in the thing being critiqued, they should be pointed out.

Having a strong opinion about entertainment and art is like nerds arguing over Apple vs. Microsoft. In the end, it seldom matters in the real world.

Having a friend like that that you can work with *and* have that much fun - using your *brains*- is one of the only things that matter in this world.

Not really. The difference is if those same people really make relevant change, otherwise they're just arguing about the shape of clouds.

//That was actually a discussion they often had about movies continuing to have the same problems that previous films had that had been pointed out in the past.

Frenemity is a real and useful concept. It's been proven time and again that colleagues who hate each other can do great work - often do do great work.

Some yuk on the site says "genius and being a dcik are 'orthogonal.'" They can fark themselves, orthogonally. Genius, in all but a very few exceptional cases, involves putting things, ideas, and achievements BEFORE people, relationships, and humanity.

Hate to say it but: this.zez: Aquadyne: Sounds like Gene Siskel was a real cocksucker.

Well the article headline does say, "An oral history of Siskel and Ebert"

Nice.

FreakinB: suburbanguy: As much as I enjoyed watching that show, I stopped reading when I got to "frenemies" in the title. I'll take you seriously when you stop using gibberish.

You let one word out of that whole thing get you to that degree?

You're concerned about my apathy?

Bagelox-99: Genius, in all but a very few exceptional cases, involves putting things, ideas, and achievements BEFORE people, relationships, and humanity.

You're confusing "genius" with "Asperger syndrome". Geniuses, in essence, simply have a knack for sharp observation and the ability to draw connections and conclusions that others may have missed. Some people are geniuses at relationships, for example, which would be an impossibility according to your flawed definition.

zekeburger: aearra: Reminds me, of Orson Welles' comment, in the ferris wheel, about Italy and the renaissance.

Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

I like Welles, but that speech, which he wrote, is full of shiat, particularly regarding Switzerland.

The pilot prank is pretty genius.

pkellmey: Dwight_Yeast: sonorangal: That was Siskle and Ebert's play off on their show on PBS. They worked for rival newspaper companies and competed with each other. They did the PBS show more like a side job until it got popular and went to regular TV. I use to love it when they fought over movies.

The thing about the art of criticism -the thing that we've seen to have lost sight of- is that it should be a full contact sport. People SHOULD have strong opinions, and if there are flaws in the thing being critiqued, they should be pointed out.

Having a strong opinion about entertainment and art is like nerds arguing over Apple vs. Microsoft. In the end, it seldom matters in the real world.

Best nerd argument over Mac vs PC ever (new window)

I thought both Siskel and Ebert were great. I didn't always agree with their reviews, but I enjoyed watching their banter.

On the other hand, I think this guy should be stabbed repeatedly with a rusty butterknife:

Ebert is wrong 100% of the time. If I was anywhere near him, I would be constantly chiseling him for who he liked against the spread in tonight's big game. Then I'd bet the house the other way. I'd be a trillionaire.

pkellmey: CheapEngineer: pkellmey: Dwight_Yeast: sonorangal: That was Siskle and Ebert's play off on their show on PBS. They worked for rival newspaper companies and competed with each other. They did the PBS show more like a side job until it got popular and went to regular TV. I use to love it when they fought over movies.

The thing about the art of criticism -the thing that we've seen to have lost sight of- is that it should be a full contact sport. People SHOULD have strong opinions, and if there are flaws in the thing being critiqued, they should be pointed out.

Having a strong opinion about entertainment and art is like nerds arguing over Apple vs. Microsoft. In the end, it seldom matters in the real world.

Having a friend like that that you can work with *and* have that much fun - using your *brains*- is one of the only things that matter in this world.

Not really. The difference is if those same people really make relevant change, otherwise they're just arguing about the shape of clouds.

//That was actually a discussion they often had about movies continuing to have the same problems that previous films had that had been pointed out in the past.

They are movie reviewers. No where in there job description is the phrase "make relevant change".

\Jesus

Fano: B.L.Z. Bub: zekeburger: aearra: Reminds me, of Orson Welles' comment, in the ferris wheel, about Italy and the renaissance.

Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

I like Welles, but that speech, which he wrote, is full of shiat, particularly regarding Switzerland.

Yeah! The cuckoo clock was invented in Germany's Black Forest!

Nitpick. Other than that, the speech ties into the deeply held truth that love is not all you need.

Bagelox-99: Fano: B.L.Z. Bub: zekeburger: aearra: Reminds me, of Orson Welles' comment, in the ferris wheel, about Italy and the renaissance.

Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

I like Welles, but that speech, which he wrote, is full of shiat, particularly regarding Switzerland.

Yeah! The cuckoo clock was invented in Germany's Black Forest!

Nitpick. Other than that, the speech ties into the deeply held truth that love is not all you need.

Nope, that wasn't what I was referring to, fellas. I was talking about the whole "500 years of democracy and peace" thing. Total bullshiat.