Do you have adblock enabled?
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
 
2013-04-12 01:00:25 AM  
I think by "bad story" subby meant that the story in the article was bad.
 
2013-04-12 01:00:38 AM  

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


Oh my god, those were farking awesome, and just made me love Ebert more.
 
2013-04-12 01:01:09 AM  

Fart_Machine: After reading that article I feel like I fell for the most long-winded troll ever.


Pretty much.
In the end it's about nothing more than some very slightly amusing story of Siskel and Ebert from 1989 that hasn't been amusing since 1989.
 
2013-04-12 01:01:57 AM  

fusillade762: 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.


So, he found a way to brag without coming across as a braggart?
 
2013-04-12 01:05:54 AM  
Ebert did a lot of fark'd up stuff early in his life and this is all somebody can come up with that's "bad"?

/love Ebert
 
2013-04-12 01:07:41 AM  
Was there an "article" hidden somewhere in this "article?"
 
2013-04-12 01:08:01 AM  

gingerjet: Ebert did a lot of fark'd up stuff early in his life and this is all somebody can come up with that's "bad"?

/love Ebert


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/04/roger-ebert-me mo ries-bad-review-zweibel.html Here's an article written by a guy he had kneecapped, then gangraped and left for dead.
 
2013-04-12 01:08:26 AM  

Virtuoso80: /Also, his positive review for Cop and a Half.


The SunTimes rolled out his new web page after his death - if you search on Google for his reviews you're taken to it.  They had been working it for years, but it went live after he died.

That's a little sad, because they rushed it.
 
2013-04-12 01:14:44 AM  
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com

LOOK AT ME, LA LA LA
 
2013-04-12 01:15:17 AM  
That was a huge waste of time.  What.  The.  Hell.
 
2013-04-12 01:15:47 AM  
The butthurt is strong in this thread.

/the story is certainly real; it was related in Cosford's obit in 1994. Although I'm not paying $2.95 to read the whole thing to see if the Ebert vs. Siskel confusion dates back that far.
 
2013-04-12 01:17:15 AM  
i stopped caring what this guys were saying after 1987, when ebert was so harsh on full metal jacket.
 
2013-04-12 01:20:51 AM  
BTW, I'd like to note that Gene Weingarten is not the 2-bit person in this.  Gene Weingarten has two, really REALLY well-deserved Pulitzers for feature writing.  For instance, for  Fatal Distraction: Forgetting a Child in the Backseat of a Car Is a Horrifying Mistake. Is It a Crime?  (WARNING: this story will make you cry.  I don't care if you have no soul. You will still cry.)
 
2013-04-12 01:21:27 AM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: i stopped caring what this guys were saying after 1987, when ebert was so harsh on full metal jacket.


The movie's half a great basic training movie, half a mess of a Vietnam movie.  Get over it.
 
2013-04-12 01:22:36 AM  

JosephFinn: What_Would_Jimi_Do: i stopped caring what this guys were saying after 1987, when ebert was so harsh on full metal jacket.

The movie's half a great basic training movie, half a mess of a Vietnam movie.  Get over it.


it is better than this farktard gave it credit. so go EABOD
 
2013-04-12 01:24:01 AM  
"Hi, I'm a two-time Pulitzer winner who thinks its unethical to profit by talking trash about a recently deceased celebrity.  So instead, I'm going to use the dead celebs fame in order to profit by telling a story about his other dead celeb friend."

Stay classy there, Mr. Upstanding Writer.
 
2013-04-12 01:25:21 AM  

JosephFinn: BTW, I'd like to note that Gene Weingarten is not the 2-bit person in this.  Gene Weingarten has two, really REALLY well-deserved Pulitzers for feature writing.  For instance, for  Fatal Distraction: Forgetting a Child in the Backseat of a Car Is a Horrifying Mistake. Is It a Crime?  (WARNING: this story will make you cry.  I don't care if you have no soul. You will still cry.)


Yes, and Herbert Hoover moved from unparalleled success to unparalleled success before becoming president.
 
2013-04-12 01:26:17 AM  
I know someone has to barely pass university but that was the worst written piece I've ever seen. Who did he blow to get those Pulitzers?
 
2013-04-12 01:28:00 AM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: i stopped caring what this guys were saying after 1987, when ebert was so harsh on full metal jacket.


Did you start hating Full Metal Jacket because Eyes Wide Shut sucked?

Ebert was a talented and popular guy whose work had high and low points like every other talented and popular guy.
 
2013-04-12 01:28:14 AM  
I have an Ebert story: Once, while on a business trip in Chicago, I stopped for a quick dinner at Lawry's. Sitting next to me was a very drunk Roger Ebert, just staring down at a hunk of prime rib. I asked him if he wanted to join me and after he did, one thing lead to another and we started drinking like Amy Winehouse at a Hole concert - or vice versa...anyway, with both of us swimming in booze, he mentioned that he was a member of the Aryan Nation and hated everyone except, well, Aryans. I was shocked and I was furious. I screamed at him to leave. He lunged for his steak knife and I wrestled it from him with a kimura lock. I then threw the seasoning salt at his face and that's actually what doctor believe caused his face cancer.

As god as my witness everything in the above story is as I remember it... except, after I went back and checked, it wasn't Chicago, it was Baton Rouge, and it was wasn't Lawry's, it was Ruth's Chris and it wasn't the Aryan Nation, it was Mensa, and it wasn't seasoning salt, it was my fist and it wasn't cancer it was a broken jaw, and it wasn't Roger Ebert, it was my brother, and he didn't have face cancer, but does have a touch of psoriasis on his left elbow.


My bad.
 
2013-04-12 01:28:43 AM  
It's not an article, it's an essay. It's not supposed to be relating news. Or did all of you miss the "OPINIONS" in big letters across the top of it? :P

I liked and thought it was a cute story.
 
2013-04-12 01:30:53 AM  

Fano: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/04/roger-ebert-me mo ries-bad-review-zweibel.html Here's an article written by a guy he had kneecapped, then gangraped and left for dead.


"My son, Adam, was nine years old. He was at that age when he'd be looking across the dinner table at my wife, Robin, and me, and from the expression on his face you could tell he was thinking, "I can do better than these two.""

Guy seems like he might have some issues which distort his perception of others. Reading the entire thing tripped several sociopath alarms. In fact near the end i began imagining him as Patrick Bateman from American Psycho.
 
2013-04-12 01:34:48 AM  
Ebert didn't like Die Hard. You can praise him all you want. But he didn't like Die Hard. Do I need to say this again: the greatest film critic of all time....didn't like Die Hard.

Everyone should feel free to take stabs at him...even if it makes them look like an ass.

Slutter McGee
 
2013-04-12 01:38:42 AM  
70 posts in and I'm going to be the first person to say i actually kind of thought it was a cute story?  As for it's journalistic merits, it's soft news.  It's got a teaser intro, and it got a bunch of people to read ANOTHER story about a guy who died a week ago (or at least got some people to click on it, it seems no one actually read it until about halfway down the thread here).  It's got a news peg (that's a fancy thing you learn about in journalism.  It's got a twist ending (better than anything by M. Knight since at least Unbreakable), it actually doesn't break the rule about not saying anything bad about a dead person (which about half of the people in the thread misread as 'not talking about dead people').  It's two pages long.  Oh the humanity.  If it wasn't your style, fine, but at least, for Ebert's sake, if you are going to review something, read the whole article and actually try to make your critique understandable.

And, for the second time in a couple days, I'm going to ask farkers who seem to think an article is confusing just because it doesn't lay the facts out in a straight order to go see their doctors to see if a brain tumor is interfering with their reading comprehension.  That's about a fifth grade reading level there folks.  If you can't handle that on Fark maybe YouTube is more your speed.

Somewhere, up in heaven, Ebert is chuckling.

No he's not.  He was an atheist.

He's in Hell.

No he's not.  That's just made up too.
 
2013-04-12 01:45:12 AM  
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-04-12 01:52:15 AM  
Page 1: A long-winded apology for speaking ill of the dead that leads me to expect some sort of Jimmy Savile-esque revelation on the second page.

Page 2: The author admits to wrongly criticising Ebert for a pompous letter that was actually written by Siskel. And can't even be arsed to run the letter, or a link to it, or even an excerpt.

Granted, I have seen worse links greenlit, but this is still pretty poor. Not quite FarkTV bad, but definitely AskMen bad.
 
2013-04-12 01:53:28 AM  

Slutter McGee: Ebert didn't like Die Hard. You can praise him all you want. But he didn't like Die Hard. Do I need to say this again: the greatest film critic of all time....didn't like Die Hard.

Everyone should feel free to take stabs at him...even if it makes them look like an ass.

Slutter McGee


Strange. I quite enjoy Die Hard.
 
2013-04-12 01:53:31 AM  
That article was the saddest waste of 5 minutes of my life... I'll be sure to skip any other articles/books by this guy, even if they did win "prizes".
 
2013-04-12 01:56:11 AM  
This isn't an expose about human rights abuses. It's a mildly amusing anecdote about a widely admired man. It succeeds as a mildly amusing anecdote - even if it is a little self serving.

It amazes me how many people go crazy when someone doesn't like what they like, or vice-versa. I love reading reviews, and have written many of my own over the years. Don't approach it as "Well X says this is good, so I will see it." Approach it as "Well, this person - whose opinion I generally agree with - says this is good, so I'll give it a shot. Plus I like the way they write." Spoiler alert - you'll still disagree on certain films/games/albums.

Unless that person is Armond White. That guy's just an obnoxious professional troll with thesaurus.com bookmarked on his MacBook Pro who needs to be punched hard in the nuts. Seriously, White deserves 10 times the painful cancer Ebert had, and will be missed by 100-percent fewer people.

/but that's just my opinion
 
2013-04-12 02:04:47 AM  

JosephFinn: BTW, I'd like to note that Gene Weingarten is not the 2-bit person in this.  Gene Weingarten has two, really REALLY well-deserved Pulitzers for feature writing.  For instance, for  Fatal Distraction: Forgetting a Child in the Backseat of a Car Is a Horrifying Mistake. Is It a Crime?  (WARNING: this story will make you cry.  I don't care if you have no soul. You will still cry.)


Oh my Lord.

Okay... granted, it's heartwrenching material, but that was a worthy article.

Unfortunately, that makes this particular load of tripe seem all the worse.
 
2013-04-12 02:06:42 AM  

Strongbeerrules: They sold out.  Should have stayed with PBS.


Yeah man!  Remember when it all just used to be about the tote bags and umbrellas, man?
 
2013-04-12 02:11:10 AM  
Gawdarnit...SISKEL wrote it. Read the farkin article.  I haven't read the last 40 comments and god will forgive my ignorance but SISKEL, siskel, gdam siskel wrote it. Not the skinny bald one, Ebert.
 
2013-04-12 02:14:56 AM  
I dunno, I thought it was kind of funny.
 
2013-04-12 02:15:34 AM  
Two people who didn't come off looking bad from that story are Siskel and Ebert.
 
2013-04-12 02:16:11 AM  
To me, Ebert will be the guy who was smart enough to give a "thumbs up" to Casino.

/Siskel didn't make the right choice regarding said movie.
 
2013-04-12 02:23:25 AM  
That was an interesting letter.
It appears most fark commenters aren't getting the 'thing'. It's an excellently written article, with an 'M. Night Shymalan' type surprise ending.
 
2013-04-12 02:26:59 AM  

TheOmni: 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.


I cut my losses after the first page. It was pretty clear that the article was just filler, with no actual content.
 
2013-04-12 02:28:47 AM  
In L.A. in the 80s, when I was sixteen, my buddy, also sixteen, got a job working the night shift at an all night newstand/adult bookstore (wall down the middle of the store). So of course that summer I hung out there a few nights a week between 1 and 3am.  Anyway, Roger Ebert rolls up in a red Porsche, gets out wearing a tux, smoking a stogie, with a tall super hot blond on his arm and starts perusing the aisles (not the dirty ones).  He bought about 3 or 4 newspapers and in general just seemed to enjoy the attention.  That's all.  Everyone of us regulars said jokey stuff to him, he joked back, the end.

I got a lot of non-stories like that from those days.

/that same year I played bartender at a house party for pee wee herman...
 
2013-04-12 02:29:17 AM  
Gene wrote it.
Awww,  who farkin cares. Anybody?
 
2013-04-12 02:30:24 AM  

Slutter McGee: Ebert didn't like Die Hard. You can praise him all you want. But he didn't like Die Hard. Do I need to say this again: the greatest film critic of all time....didn't like Die Hard.

Everyone should feel free to take stabs at him...even if it makes them look like an ass.

Slutter McGee


not exactly a damning review...

Without the deputy chief and all that he represents, "Die Hard" would have been a more than passable thriller. With him, it's a mess, and that's a shame, because the film does contain superior special effects, impressive stunt work and good performances, especially by Rickman as the terrorist. Here's a suggestion for thrillermakers: You can't go wrong if all of the characters in your movie are at least as intelligent as most of the characters in your audience.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/die-hard-1988
 
2013-04-12 02:30:51 AM  
I'll give the article a 1 star and Ebert's death one and a half black stars.
 
2013-04-12 02:35:19 AM  
There are some who are willing to admit admiration for Gene and Roger (most of us). They (and me) are the ones who sit in admiration of the few who make good moovies. Gene and Roger liked and helpled us find good ones. Nuff said.
 
2013-04-12 02:35:25 AM  

jaytkay: The Post cropped a fantastic photo, WTF is wrong with people?

Here is the whole thing:


[msnbcmedia.msn.com image 594x600]

/ I heart this photo THIS much!


TOGETHER IN HEAVEN, FOREVER.
 
2013-04-12 02:39:56 AM  
Once, late in his career, I saw Barry Bonds take such a monstrous swing at a ball that he stumbled backwards out of the batter's box and nearly fell on his ass. It was like a parody of a home run swing. If he'd actually made solid contact with the ball he probably would have hit it 500 feet, but instead he was up there weaving around like a drunken, 275-pound Little Leaguer.

I felt sorry for him, kind of like I feel sorry for this author. You can see the flop sweat all over this. It's one thing to aim at "funny yet touching" and miss; it's another thing to take point-blank aim at it with everything in your arsenal and yet repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot.
 
2013-04-12 02:43:37 AM  
http://www.fark.com/comments/7695356/83568191#c83568191" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">jaytkay: The Post cropped a fantastic photo, WTF is wrong with people?

Here is the whole thing:


[msnbcmedia.msn.com image 594x600]

/ I heart this photo THIS much!


TOGETHER IN HEAVEN, FOREVER. yeah, I heart it, too, jaytkay....that is my memory
 
2013-04-12 02:50:03 AM  
Would someone explain to me what I just read? I read it twice to try and figure out what the author's point was and how it related to Roger Ebert and I still have no farking clue. I hope to God that I never have to read anything by that moron again.
 
2013-04-12 02:58:38 AM  
Most people commenting here are ignorant. Gene Weingarten is a great writer, and the fact that you've never heard of him demonstrates your ignorance. It was not a newspaper article, nor a blog post. It was an update to his monthly Washington Post chat. You are idiots.
 
2013-04-12 03:01:29 AM  
"blwaaaaahwawerrrrraaggh dfrrragggth. Thhhhssssrrrrup."
 
2013-04-12 03:02:00 AM  
Is it some meta meme I'm not getting all this criticism of the article? It was very funny.

Thank you subby, good read.
 
2013-04-12 03:02:45 AM  

Smoked: Most people commenting here are ignorant. Gene Weingarten is a great writer, and the fact that you've never heard of him demonstrates your ignorance. It was not a newspaper article, nor a blog post. It was an update to his monthly Washington Post chat. You are idiots.


nothing in your comment makes his "chat" humorous, entertaining or insightful.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report