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
    More: Followup, Roger Ebert, Siskel  
•       •       •

18789 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Apr 2013 at 12:23 AM (3 years 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 03:03:15 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.


What the hell is that and how does it change that rambling nothingness he went on about for 2 pages?
 
2013-04-12 03:03:26 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.


Ok. I don't think they are idiots but I'm glad I'm not alone in being confused by the insta-slam. I guess it is Fark.

welcometofark.bmp.jpg

/ya ya
 
2013-04-12 03:07:40 AM  
I can't tell people what to like, but that was an awesome article.

/that is all
//RIP Roger
 
2013-04-12 03:12:42 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?


YES! Criminal Negligence. Sorry that you lost your kid, but that doesn't make you *less* of a criminal. It just proves how much you need to go to jail.

We had a case in Wisconsin recently where some parents let their kid go run around in the yard with a pit bull. The dog killed the kid, and the dog was euthanized. The parents? They are totally fine. No legal problems whatsoever from letting their dog kill their child. In fact, if they want to have another baby or two, and go find a half a dozen pit bulls and bring them home, there is nothing legally wrong with them doing so.
 
2013-04-12 03:16:33 AM  
TL;DR

Thanks for the summary, boys.
 
2013-04-12 03:16:34 AM  
From the author's wikipedia page:
In 2008, he was awarded the for his  Washington Post story "Pearls Before Breakfast", "his chronicling of a world-class violinist () who, as an experiment, played beautiful music in a subway station filled with unheeding commuters."  In 2010, he won a second Pulitzer for "Fatal Distraction," "his haunting story about parents, from varying walks of life, who accidentally kill their children by forgetting them in cars."

Yea Pulitzers!
 
2013-04-12 03:24:37 AM  
DO YOU NOT BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN MARY, NUMBNUTS? I WILL PT YOU UNTIL YOU DIE!

blog.moviepostershop.com
 
2013-04-12 03:25:50 AM  

log_jammin: 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.


That's like, your opinion, man.
 
2013-04-12 03:30:00 AM  

Cheater71: 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.

What the hell is that and how does it change that rambling nothingness he went on about for 2 pages?


What was that, about 1000 words? If you didn't get the point, then you are an idiot. Sorry.
 
2013-04-12 03:32:01 AM  
That writer has been carrying a big grudge around for a long time. What a big man he must be to trash people when they're dead.
 
2013-04-12 03:34:22 AM  

Acharne: 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.

Ok. I don't think they are idiots but I'm glad I'm not alone in being confused by the insta-slam. I guess it is Fark.

welcometofark.bmp.jpg

/ya ya


They are idiots. The whole point of it was that Weingarten was the idiot. If you don't like a shaggy dog story, well, fine, but if reading 1000 words or so (maybe 2000) is such an problem maybe you are an idiot who can barely read, let alone comprehend.
 
2013-04-12 03:34:56 AM  

Smoked: log_jammin: 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.

That's like, your opinion, man.


no it's not.

I didn't say "his chat was not humorous, entertaining or insightful". I just pointed out that your factoids and opinions of the writer and fark posters have no bearing at all on the worth of the article.
 
2013-04-12 03:39:12 AM  

log_jammin: Smoked: log_jammin: 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.

That's like, your opinion, man.

no it's not.

I didn't say "his chat was not humorous, entertaining or insightful". I just pointed out that your factoids and opinions of the writer and fark posters have no bearing at all on the worth of the article.


The article was worth the electrons that were inconvenienced in order to publish it. IMHO. Idiot.
 
2013-04-12 03:43:29 AM  

Smoked: Idiot.


said the guy who can't figure out what is and isn't an opinion, after berating everyone else for their lack of comprehension.
 
2013-04-12 03:47:48 AM  

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

[i45.tinypic.com image 500x282]


Why I'd Pulitz her, by god.
 
2013-04-12 03:48:55 AM  
Every post is an opinion. Most of them are wrong.
 
2013-04-12 03:52:19 AM  

doglover: [www.washingtonpost.com image 114x80]
[www.washingtonpost.com image 114x80]
[www.washingtonpost.com image 114x80]
[www.washingtonpost.com image 114x80]

LOOK AT ME, LA LA LA




Jesus Christ he looks like Gene Shalit and Magnum PI's secret love child. In a Trump rug.
 
2013-04-12 03:53:43 AM  

log_jammin: Smoked: Idiot.

said the guy who can't figure out what is and isn't an opinion, after berating everyone else for their lack of comprehension.


Actually most statements of "fact" in this thread are demonstrably incorrect. Except when I call you and your ilk idiots.
 
2013-04-12 03:54:24 AM  
Speaking of the "I've won a Pulitzer" thing, I'm just gonna leave Ebert's review of 'Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo' here for those of you who aren't familiar with it. Read it through to the end. Oh so worth it.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/deuce-bigalow-european-gigolo-2005

/Ebert WAS a bit of a pompous jerk sometimes but he was one hell of a writer and he knew his movies. I miss him.
 
2013-04-12 04:01:23 AM  

HoratioGates: 70 posts in and I'm going to be the first person to say i actually kind of thought it was a cute story?


Make me the second person. I thought it was cute, entertaining, and well-written. I'm confused by all the hate for it in here.
 
2013-04-12 04:03:07 AM  

Smoked: Actually most statements of "fact" in this thread are demonstrably incorrect. Except when I call you and your ilk idiots.


go to bed son. you have school in the morning.
 
2013-04-12 04:11:23 AM  

log_jammin: Smoked: Actually most statements of "fact" in this thread are demonstrably incorrect. Except when I call you and your ilk idiots.

go to bed son. you have school in the morning.


You wouldn't know what to do with an education if you actually got one.
 
2013-04-12 04:12:05 AM  
*yawn*
 
2013-04-12 04:19:32 AM  

Smoked: log_jammin: Smoked: Actually most statements of "fact" in this thread are demonstrably incorrect. Except when I call you and your ilk idiots.

go to bed son. you have school in the morning.

You wouldn't know what to do with an education if you actually got one.


For Christ's sake Gene, go to bed. There will be fresh corpses to sort of ineffectually rape in the morning.
 
2013-04-12 04:21:24 AM  
I just don't get the obsession with this guy - he was a FILM CRITIC.  He wasn't curing cancer (as is pretty evident - OK, I'll admit that was low).  But seriously, he reviewed movies.  A topic which is entirely subjective to an individual.  It is really not important.

A quick look at one obituaries page gives me plenty of people who have given a heck of a lot to the world and don't get celebrated on this site - for example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/medicine-obituaries/99849 88 /Professor-Sir-Robert-Edwards.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9988179/John-Scott.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9988198/Ian-Ross.html
 
2013-04-12 04:36:12 AM  

drake113: 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.


That's some fine reading comprehension there, Lou. The author  remembered it wrong. Has that never happened to you? Plus author of TFA wasn't the one accused of being a hack. Author was the editor of the Tropic. Siskel's letter was aimed at the Tropic's film critic. Congrats, you now sound like more of an ass than Siskel or the author.
 
2013-04-12 04:39:58 AM  

Brigandaca: I just don't get the obsession with this guy


inigomontoya.jpg
 
2013-04-12 04:45:56 AM  

Smoked: Actually most statements of "fact" in this thread are demonstrably incorrect. Except when I call you and your ilk idiots.


Translation: "My vagina! My beautiful vagina! So much SAND!"
 
2013-04-12 05:05:14 AM  

Hetfield: Smoked: Actually most statements of "fact" in this thread are demonstrably incorrect. Except when I call you and your ilk idiots.

Translation: "My vagina! My beautiful vagina! So much SAND!"


Thanks for the confirmation.
 
2013-04-12 05:28:24 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.)


Meh.

It's not like they left a dog to overheat and die in the car.
 
2013-04-12 05:58:48 AM  
For all the long-winded set-up, at least the author apologized for trashing Ebert all these years.  I'm just reminded to verify my sources before passing on info.  Well, at least IRL.  This, being Fark, means I'm expected to slander, gossip, and troll without bothering to know details.
 
2013-04-12 06:03:56 AM  

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


Apparently, so is knowing what site you're on.
 
2013-04-12 06:35:23 AM  
I remember watching Siskel and Ebert as a kid and realizing that if Siskel and Ebert both really liked a movie, it was only ever something Mom would want to see. That's when I stopped listening to movie critics.
 
2013-04-12 06:40:07 AM  
Despite spending a whole career in journalism, this guy can't write for shiat.
 
2013-04-12 06:40:54 AM  

Pharmdawg: I remember watching Siskel and Ebert as a kid and realizing that if Siskel and Ebert both really liked a movie, it was only ever something Mom would want to see. That's when I stopped listening to movie critics.


Maybe if you had kept listening, you would have realized the thumb thing was just a gimmick, and the real review would have given you an idea whether you would like it -- regardless of the critic's personal verdict.
 
2013-04-12 07:26:43 AM  

eraser8: 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?


http://twitter.com/Humblebrag
 
2013-04-12 07:53:51 AM  
That article was unbearably pompous.
 
2013-04-12 08:09:37 AM  
Hey Gene Weingarten, fark off with this pointless garbage. Just ponderous.
 
2013-04-12 08:18:15 AM  
His screenwriting sucked, he spoiled the ends of movies, he gave good reviews to bad movies if they had a sexy girl in them, and he made factual errors about the films he reviewed. He was an entertaining read, otherwise.
 
2013-04-12 08:19:10 AM  
So, am I to understand that Siskel wrote that letter to make Ebert look like an egotistical buffoon and trick them into thinking Ebert wrote it himself?  because if so, that actually is pretty funny.
 
2013-04-12 08:23:14 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.


↑ This  ↑
 
2013-04-12 08:43:54 AM  
jaytkay:
msnbcmedia.msn.com

/ I heart this photo THIS much!



farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2013-04-12 08:52:03 AM  

Metal: That article was unbearably pompous.


Well, it was written by a two timing Pulitzer Prize winner.
 
2013-04-12 08:52:15 AM  
So let me get this straight either Ebert died and this guy went rifling through all his old stories trying to find an Ebert story and this is the best he could come up with or this guy has really spent the last 20 years of his career trashing Ebert over a letter that he didn't even bother to read closely enough to determine who wrote it?
 
2013-04-12 09:07:29 AM  

Skyrmion: HoratioGates: 70 posts in and I'm going to be the first person to say i actually kind of thought it was a cute story?

Make me the second person. I thought it was cute, entertaining, and well-written. I'm confused by all the hate for it in here.


most of us outgrew the complex narrative of 'there's a monster at the end of this book'.
 
2013-04-12 09:10:28 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: His screenwriting sucked, he spoiled the ends of movies, he gave good reviews to bad movies if they had a sexy girl in them, and he made factual errors about the films he reviewed. He was an entertaining read, otherwise.


No wonder we farkers like him. He IS us.
 
2013-04-12 09:26:18 AM  
 
2013-04-12 09:31:20 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: His screenwriting sucked, he spoiled the ends of movies, he gave good reviews to bad movies if they had a sexy girl in them, and he made factual errors about the films he reviewed. He was an entertaining read, otherwise.


You made me remember that when Ebert reviewed "The Right Stuff"  he said it was history that Chuck Yeager taking the Starfighter up was unauthorized.  Ya think Yeager would have made Brig. General is it was?
 
2013-04-12 09:47:15 AM  

HoratioGates: 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.


Pretty much this. This is a humor column, not a serious news article. There is a huge difference between the two. And it was mildly amusing. And I didn't find it difficult to understand at all. And yeah, this guy is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, so I find it ironic that a group of people who constantly whine about the death of journalism doesn't even know when a real journalist is right in front of them. Farkers fail at reading comprehension. This thread makes me sad.
 
2013-04-12 10:28:48 AM  
sundance1028:
This is a humor column, not a serious news article. There is a huge difference between the two. And it was mildly amusing. And I didn't find it difficult to understand at all. And yeah, this guy is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, so I find it ironic that a group of people who constantly whine about the death of journalism doesn't even know when a real journalist is right in front of them. Farkers fail at reading comprehension. This thread makes me sad.

Consider for a moment that there are people here who get that this was not written to be a news story, and also get that this guy is a very respectable and respected writer, and still think this bit of "writing" would have been better off in the circular file.

Having read his article on infant child deaths, I don't dispute he is worthy of his Pulitzers.  But this blog, essay, opinion piece, whatever you want to call it, rambled far too long and with far too little actual humor.  Seems to me he felt compelled to clear the air about that mistakenly-sourced letter, and eventually he did, but not in the amusingly anecdotal way he was aiming for.
 
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