If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Is it too soon for a bad story about Roger Ebert??   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 158
    More: Followup, Roger Ebert, Siskel  
•       •       •

18781 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Apr 2013 at 12:23 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-11 08:47:31 PM  
It's never too soon on Fark.com
 
2013-04-11 08:54:34 PM  
It's too soon for a person trying to advance his career with a non-story about Ebert (of blessed memory)
 
2013-04-11 08:57:39 PM  
Not if you're just jawing.
 
2013-04-11 09:02:31 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Not if you're just jawing.


He's just flappin' his gums.
 
2013-04-11 09:16:48 PM  
That article was long-winded yet said absolutely nothing.

Stories like this aren't the reason journalism is dying, but it sure as hell ain't helping it stay alive.
 
2013-04-11 09:31:26 PM  
This is a bad story. I'm not sure it's about Roger Ebert. I'm not sure if it's about anything. It's pointlessly split into two pages and manages to say nothing between them. I'd criticize it further but I'll just end up copying lines from Ebert's review of North.

Not that there's nothing bad to say about Ebert, there's plenty on that front.
 
2013-04-11 09:34:42 PM  
I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.
 
2013-04-11 09:50:17 PM  

Eddy Gurge: I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.


Here's the entire article.

Page 1 -- a heck of a lot of throat-clearing about how it's soooo icky to mock the dead, and the writer feels just awful that he's about to tell a story on Ebert

Page 2 -- author tells his story on Ebert, which is the very definition of a non-story and doesn't make Ebert look bad at all.  The end.
 
2013-04-11 09:54:10 PM  
The guy who wrote that nearly incomprehensible essay won TWO Pulitzers? Kill me.
 
2013-04-11 09:54:30 PM  
So, nobody actually read to the end yet eh?

Yes, this author goes on and on, but, the kicker at the end is, he's been trashing Ebert for 20 years over this pompous letter, and now that Ebert died he went back to look and it.... and realized it was Siskel who wrote it.

Which, duh... Siskel was always the pompous one.
 
2013-04-11 09:55:39 PM  
So, really, it is a bad story about Siskel... and honestly, a worse story about the guy who wrote this article, since he turns out to be the biggest arse in the story, besides his horrible writing style.
 
2013-04-11 10:00:01 PM  
I think the story is that Siskel (or Ebert) wrote a letter complaining about something, and the paper that the writer wrote for published the letter, and then added the response, "Are you the bald one or the fat one?"

Writer's brush with fame, I guess.
 
2013-04-11 10:05:04 PM  

dletter: So, nobody actually read to the end yet eh?

Yes, this author goes on and on, but, the kicker at the end is, he's been trashing Ebert for 20 years over this pompous letter, and now that Ebert died he went back to look and it.... and realized it was Siskel who wrote it.

Which, duh... Siskel was always the pompous one.


Yeah I read it.  It was long winded and awful.  I'm sure somebody could've made a decent article out of it.  This guy didn't.
 
2013-04-11 10:14:41 PM  
Hmmm...

And here I was expecting "Confessions of an Unanticipated Ingredient in a Theater Popcorn Bag"...


/Hot buttered
//And salty
///One thumb down
 
2013-04-11 10:26:33 PM  

Chariset: It's too soon for a person trying to advance his career with a non-story about Ebert (of blessed memory)


The guy won two Pulitzers.  His career is just fine.
 
2013-04-11 10:32:13 PM  
Those of us who read all the way through are dumber for it. Save yourselves before this headline goes green...

/ pulitzers must be handed out to anyone these days...
 
2013-04-11 10:32:36 PM  

Klippoklondike: That article was long-winded yet said absolutely nothing.

Stories like this aren't the reason journalism is dying, but it sure as hell ain't helping it stay alive.


Yeah, it said something.  It said that a two-time Pulitzer winner can direct his ire at the wrong person.for well over 2 decades.

Which is funny, and sad, and tells me never to take at face value anything this douchebag every writes again.
 
2013-04-11 10:49:19 PM  
Two thumbs WAY down
 
2013-04-11 11:05:46 PM  
Poorly written, but at least the guy owned up to being a dick to the wrong guy for two decades. And if he hadn't decided to throw one more diss at Ebert, he would not have realized Ebert didn't deserve it.
 
2013-04-11 11:07:07 PM  

Chariset: Eddy Gurge: I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.

Here's the entire article.

Page 1 -- a heck of a lot of throat-clearing about how it's soooo icky to mock the dead, and the writer feels just awful that he's about to tell a story on Ebert

Page 2 -- author tells his story on Ebert, which is the very definition of a non-story and doesn't make Ebert look bad at all.  The end.


I wish I read your comment before I clicked on the non-story.

You know how occasionally some non-celebrity runs into a celebrity, and gets the brush off, not really enormously rude but a little short with the fan, because maybe the celebrity has just been bothered once too many times on the beach or just wants to have a nice dinner with his or her own family in a restaurant for once? This article was like that kind of story except it was published in a real newspaper as if it were real news, by a guy with 2(! count-em!) Pulitzers.

Instead of a blog post on his shiatty blog. Which is where it should've been.
 
2013-04-11 11:11:39 PM  

Triumph: The guy who wrote that nearly incomprehensible essay won TWO Pulitzers? Kill me.


i45.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-11 11:28:42 PM  

Chariset: Eddy Gurge: I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.

Here's the entire article.

Page 1 -- a heck of a lot of throat-clearing about how it's soooo icky to mock the dead, and the writer feels just awful that he's about to tell a story on Ebert

Page 2 -- author tells his story on Ebert, which is the very definition of a non-story and doesn't make Ebert look bad at all.  The end.


WHO?
some loser who won two pulitzers and felt the need to let us know?
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
 
2013-04-11 11:33:02 PM  
Your blog sucks.
 
2013-04-11 11:41:03 PM  

dletter: So, nobody actually read to the end yet eh?

Yes, this author goes on and on, but, the kicker at the end is, he's been trashing Ebert for 20 years over this pompous letter, and now that Ebert died he went back to look and it.... and realized it was Siskel who wrote it.


Oh, thanks for pointing that out...that makes it far less lame.

Wait...no...still completely lame.

Your blog sucks.
 
2013-04-12 12:17:36 AM  

namatad: Chariset: Eddy Gurge: I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.

Here's the entire article.

Page 1 -- a heck of a lot of throat-clearing about how it's soooo icky to mock the dead, and the writer feels just awful that he's about to tell a story on Ebert

Page 2 -- author tells his story on Ebert, which is the very definition of a non-story and doesn't make Ebert look bad at all.  The end.

WHO?
some loser who won two pulitzers and felt the need to let us know?
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN


www.summercampculture.com

Roger Ebert writes, from beyond the grave: "TotalFarkers were enjoined after the article to avoid revealing the article secrets. That is not because we would spoil the article for you. It's because if you knew them, you wouldn't want to click the link."
 
2013-04-12 12:24:37 AM  
Roger Ebert gave me pinkeye.

He was an asshole
 
2013-04-12 12:30:11 AM  
so, like, this guy made a bunch of insults and unsubstantiated claims, and then, like, Ebert was all like a pompous ass and stuff and said how he had a Pulitzer(I have two by the way), and then the first guy is all like "are you fat or bald? LOL!" and I'm all like "OH SNAP!"
 
2013-04-12 12:34:05 AM  
Even if Ebert had written a pompous letter, that won't do nearly as much to his future reputation as his dogged insistence that video games are not art. 50 years from now, can you imagine how silly that view will look?

/Also, his positive review for Cop and a Half.
 
2013-04-12 12:34:34 AM  

namatad: Chariset: Eddy Gurge: I guess reading the entire article is a lost art.

Here's the entire article.

Page 1 -- a heck of a lot of throat-clearing about how it's soooo icky to mock the dead, and the writer feels just awful that he's about to tell a story on Ebert

Page 2 -- author tells his story on Ebert, which is the very definition of a non-story and doesn't make Ebert look bad at all.  The end.

WHO?
some loser who won two pulitzers and felt the need to let us know?
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN


He mentioned his two Pulitzers as an illustration about how you should not mention your Pulitzers.
 
2013-04-12 12:34:50 AM  
It's almost as if this was scripted to be read by a minor Family Guy character
 
2013-04-12 12:35:48 AM  
The Post cropped a fantastic photo, WTF is wrong with people?

Here is the whole thing:


msnbcmedia.msn.com

/ I heart this photo THIS much!
 
2013-04-12 12:36:15 AM  
A pompous film reviewer? My lawd, where's my fainting couch? Never heard tell of such a thing!

*swoon*
 
2013-04-12 12:36:52 AM  

Chariset: It's too soon for a person trying to advance his career with a non-story about Ebert (of blessed memory)


Yeah, definitely too soon to shiat on somebody that made a career of shiatting on people for a farking millennium or however how old he was.  Whatever, who could possibly give a shiat.
 
2013-04-12 12:38:53 AM  

VelcroFez: I think the story is that Siskel (or Ebert) wrote a letter complaining about something, and the paper that the writer wrote for published the letter, and then added the response, "Are you the bald one or the fat one?"

Writer's brush with fame, I guess.


It take s a few readings to discover once he got the letter from the archives he discovered that Siskel wrote the letter but all these years they were saying that Ebert wrote it.

Soo...."Is it too soon to bash the wrong innocent dead guy with a false accusation?"
 
2013-04-12 12:42:25 AM  

Triumph: The guy who wrote that nearly incomprehensible essay won TWO Pulitzers? Kill me.


Bwah?

If I were a professor in a Journalism 101 class and a student handed me that for their first paper I'd give them a passing grade, but it'd be damn close. Pretty sure I'd get some use out of a red pen and the phrase "USE CLEARER LANGUAGE".
 
2013-04-12 12:42:26 AM  
Jaw dropping
 
2013-04-12 12:43:01 AM  
How does Paul Anka hitting Annette Funicello make Roger Ebert bad? Did he write a bad review of it?

Article lost me there
 
2013-04-12 12:43:58 AM  
No, but it should be a really good bad story, and not this confusing piece of boring tripe.
 
2013-04-12 12:44:51 AM  
Ebert was as endearingly, imperfectly as near as anyone could get to being perfect. I read him every day, and I miss him so much.
 
2013-04-12 12:46:36 AM  
Wait a minute, let me get this straight:

You get a letter from a film critic, get pissed off because it basically accuses you of being a hack, and YOU NEVER ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO FIND OUT WHO WROTE IT?

That's some fine journalism there, Lou. No wonder the Tropic is so widely regarded as a bastion of truth and credibility the world over.
 
2013-04-12 12:46:44 AM  

Virtuoso80: Even if Ebert had written a pompous letter, that won't do nearly as much to his future reputation as his dogged insistence that video games are not art. 50 years from now, can you imagine how silly that view will look?

/Also, his positive review for Cop and a Half.


Didn't he eventually caved and agreed that video games can be in fact an art form, because people disagreed with him?
 
2013-04-12 12:47:02 AM  

Klippoklondike: That article was long-winded yet said absolutely nothing.

Stories like this aren't the reason journalism is dying, but it sure as hell ain't helping it stay alive.


Good cause I stopped reading a 100 words in when it became clear the author had nothing to say and was just laying down words.
 
2013-04-12 12:47:13 AM  
www.grandhaventribune.com
Subby and article writer, you suck. When relating a story, always have a point.
 
2013-04-12 12:47:38 AM  
That was a funny piece - the backstory is a bit lengthy but sets the stage nicely.
 
2013-04-12 12:49:12 AM  
They sold out.  Should have stayed with PBS.
 
2013-04-12 12:52:35 AM  
2-bit story about some guy complaining "wahhhhhhh, some good critics are making money off their work" and Ebert slapping him down good.
 
2013-04-12 12:53:28 AM  
This was a dumb article which told us what we already knew, that Siskel was kind of a pompous asshole.(although Ebert could be one too).

Outtakes: (NSFW language all 3)
http://youtu.be/OkwVz_jK3gA
http://youtu.be/xUMZjy8rXE4

this is especially funny: Siskel (Jewish) and Ebert (Catholic) rant about Protestants/WASPs
http://youtu.be/ALFpRJKnK2U

Siskel seems kinda drunky ...
 
2013-04-12 12:55:53 AM  
siskel and ebert were no sneakin' in the movies.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/415635ccbe/hollywood-shuffle-sneaki n- in-the-movies (NSFW)

/the levels of gravitivy and polarity
 
2013-04-12 12:57:20 AM  
In the 1980s, I edited Tropic, the Miami Herald's Sunday magazine. It was a swaggering, unapologetically subversive magazine, staffed by an eccentric group of people, including me...

"I was once edgy! And here I go again, making jokes about a dead celebrity! Or am I???" *places pinky to corner of mouth*

/Annoyed I actually clicked on that and read it.
 
2013-04-12 12:57:22 AM  
After reading that article I feel like I fell for the most long-winded troll ever.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report