CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The end of the Ebert era?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The end of the Ebert era?

post #1 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:06am
Thread Starter 
No, he's not dead, although I do keep preparing myself for that announcement. But a friend sent me this.

I do hope there's going to be something coming. I've been watching this every week almost since the beginning ("Dog of the Week", anybody?). I can't imagine it not being there anymore.

I dread hearing about Disney's idea for a "new direction".
Reply
post #2 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:14am
I'm with ya. Obviously the show was never going to be the same once Siskel died. But even in the years since that happened it's always been a show that I've dug watching. It's such a simple concept but none of the imitators have ever been able to take that concept and do it better.

Even now with the Internet providing a constant stream of movie coverage I would still find certain films that I only ever heard about because they were reviewed on that show.
Reply
post #3 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:15am
It's too bad Roeper never did learn his ass from his elbow.

I've enjoyed the guest hosts in the last two years.
It shoulda been them with Roger, not Dick.
Reply
post #4 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:19am
Thread Starter 
Eh. I never got all the crying about how awful Roeper is. He's fine. I know it's the accepted webgeek wisdom to hate the guy, but he's no better or worse than any other critic. In fact, in this age where any yahoo with a web page can call himself a critic, he's better than a lot of them. Yeah, he's no Siskel. Most aren't.

You really think any of the guest hosts would make better partners for Ebert? Aisha Tyler? I mean, I appreciated the eye candy, but come on. Kevin Smith? No, I don't think so.
Reply
post #5 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:28am
He signed his death warrant with the masses once he lowered his thumb on FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. Nerds just couldn't deal.

The stunt guest critics were a mixed bag (Willard good, Leno bad, Mellencamp bad in a funny way). But of the regulars who filled in both A.O. Scott and Robert Wilonsky were just fine. Don't know why they've settled on Michael Phillips for about the last year, I guess because he's based in Chicago, but even him I don't find to be as putrid as I used to.
Reply
post #6 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:32am
Always wondered why Ebert didn't pick a new partner who was an intellectual heavyweight and not afraid to challenge him. The debate (and clash of egos & personality) was the show's magic. He played it safe.

In this same regard, they should try to lockdown Scott & Mitchell to continue on.
Reply
post #7 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:36am
A.O. Scott, Elvis Mitchell, Michael Phillips.

There's a lot of critics that could make for some great television.

EDIT: Molti, why the hate for Phillips?

Oh, not as putrid. I read it wrong.
Reply
post #8 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:36am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis
Always wondered why Ebert didn't pick a new partner who was an intellectual heavyweight and not afraid to challenge him. The debate (and clash of egos & personality) was the show's magic. He played it safe.
Actually, he picked Roeper specifically because he was willing to challenge him. I don't know what show you were watching, but they argued quite often. In fact, Roeper once got Ebert to change his thumb in mid-review. That was historic.

I really like Wilonsky. I thought he and Roeper were good together, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
He signed his death warrant with the masses once he lowered his thumb on FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. Nerds just couldn't deal.
That would probably do it. It makes as much sense as any of the "real" reasons I've been given. I honestly don't think most of these people have even been watching the show. The webgeek ruling council just made a unilateral decision to hate him.
Reply
post #9 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:48am
When he gave that verdict on FOTR he had only been doing the show steady for about a year. The jury was still out on him and once he dared question something like FELLOWSHIP that was it.

You're right. If you watched the show week in and week out you'd see that Ebert and Roeper got into some great clashes which were not at all one-sided. Roeper just wasn't as good with the hand gestures as Siskel. Siskel was a master of body language on that show.
Reply
post #10 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post
He signed his death warrant with the masses once he lowered his thumb on FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. Nerds just couldn't deal.
This is the same critic that gave Raiders of the Lost Ark and Die Hard 2 1/2 and 2 stars respectively. UNFORGIVEABLE! (Even worse, once those two were popular he turned around and gave their lesser sequels higher ratings)

I've never understood the appeal of Ebert, as a Chicagoan I've always been a Michael Willmington reader.
Reply
post #11 of 52
7/22/08 at 3:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
This is the same critic that gave Raiders of the Lost Ark and Die Hard 2 1/2 and 2 stars respectively. UNFORGIVEABLE! (Even worse, once those two were popular he turned around and gave their lesser sequels higher ratings)

I've never understood the appeal of Ebert, as a Chicagoan I've always been a Michael Willmington reader.
Did you miss the part where we mentioned we're talking about Roeper?

Although that Raiders rating is much lower than I remember it being. I must've only read the post-sequel review.

EDIT: Wait, are you talking about Roeper than transitioning to talking about Ebert? I would hate to put my foot in my mouth twice in one thread.
Reply
post #12 of 52
7/22/08 at 3:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
This is the same critic that gave Raiders of the Lost Ark and Die Hard 2 1/2 and 2 stars respectively. UNFORGIVEABLE! (Even worse, once those two were popular he turned around and gave their lesser sequels higher ratings)
When they put the video archive online last summer I must have spent two straight days just watching one review after the other. Some for nostalgia and some just because they were from before I was a regular viewer. I was blown away watching Ebert's take on the DIE HARD films. I wish we could have seen him review LIVE FREE on the show, don't even know if he reviewed that one in print. But yeah, Siskel and him both went bananas for DIE HARDER.
Reply
post #13 of 52
7/22/08 at 3:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
This is the same critic that gave Raiders of the Lost Ark and Die Hard 2 1/2 and 2 stars respectively.
Huh? Are you talking about Ebert or Roeper? Ebert gave Raiders 4 stars.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...101010360/1023

edit- Nevermind. You're talking about Roeper.
Reply
post #14 of 52
7/22/08 at 3:14am
Bring back Kim Morgan. She was suh-weeeeet!

But seriously, let the show end with dignity. It had an amazing run, and I'd hate to see a mutant, Archie Bunker's Place version of the show.
Reply
post #15 of 52
7/22/08 at 3:23am
Thread Starter 
I think you're going to anyway. I doubt Disney is going to axe it just because their stars aren't staying.
Reply
post #16 of 52
7/22/08 at 6:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbott & Prospero View Post
Huh? Are you talking about Ebert or Roeper? Ebert gave Raiders 4 stars.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...101010360/1023

edit- Nevermind. You're talking about Roeper.
No, I was talking ebert, I guess I was mistaken on that one. Could've sworn I read it somewhere years ago.
Reply
post #17 of 52
7/22/08 at 10:06am
I don't know why the masses hate Roeper so much, but the first time he used the "turn your brain off" defense while recommending a film, he lost me. Plus, he really does come off as a giant douchebag.

But I'll certainly miss Ebert. I know some have become disenchanted with him over the past few years, but watching Siskel & Ebert every Saturday morning helped me to appreciate and love movies as more than just disposable entertainment. I know Ebert says he's going to develop another project, but I have a sad feeling that we won't ever seen him on TV again.
Reply
post #18 of 52
7/22/08 at 11:02am
God I miss Siskel. He's the one who let me know it was okay to like Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man.
Reply
post #19 of 52
7/22/08 at 11:36am
He really was on a wing and a prayer with that one. I know he rests peacefully now in the knowledge that everybody has come to accept the fact that the film is a treasure.
Reply
post #20 of 52
7/22/08 at 12:09pm
It sucks that the show -- which was one I watched pretty regularly when I was a young film fan -- is "ending," but don't forget the positive side of Ebert's health issues: Having to leave the show and losing his ability to speak has allowed him to concentrate on his reviews, his Great Movies columns, and his blog, which -- like most of his stuff -- is often insightful and always entertaining. It sucks that he won't be on the air anymore, but I think his writing's going to benefit for it. And that was where he always shined.
Reply
post #21 of 52
7/22/08 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
Eh. I never got all the crying about how awful Roeper is. He's fine.

He never bothered me as a personality, nor does his blogging bring me bad taste, I just despise his simpleton opinions of films. The type of critic who enjoys his Fever Pitch/Cinderella Man/RV type films more than he should is bothersome, and no match for Ebert. Roeper often completely buys into terrible, horrible schmaltz, doesn't understand anything "strange", and just generally reviews films the same way my 54 year old Aunt would. I understand that 54 year old Aunts needs movie critics too, but most critics don't give middle aged ladies the satisfaction of having their same fetid taste in art.
Reply
post #22 of 52
7/22/08 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew C View Post
He never bothered me as a personality, nor does his blogging bring me bad taste, I just despise his simpleton opinions of films. The type of critic who enjoys his Fever Pitch/Cinderella Man/RV type films more than he should is bothersome, and no match for Ebert. Roeper often completely buys into terrible, horrible schmaltz, doesn't understand anything "strange", and just generally reviews films the same way my 54 year old Aunt would. I understand that 54 year old Aunts needs movie critics too, but most critics don't give middle aged ladies the satisfaction of having their same fetid taste in art.
On Sunday I was working in my office and 12 ANGRY MEN came on TCM. So of course I watched it, and there's that wonderful scene early on where the foreman is asking Fonda to give everyone his reasons for not voting guilty, and he turns around and says it's everyone else's job to convince him. So one by one they go, starting with John Fiedler, whose response is basically, "I don't know, I just think he did it." I swear to god I thought of Roeper right then.
Reply
post #23 of 52
7/22/08 at 1:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post
Even now with the Internet providing a constant stream of movie coverage I would still find certain films that I only ever heard about because they were reviewed on that show.
Exactly, especially small indie or foreign pictures. Otherwise I would've never heard of that Belgian movie involving the killer with alzeimher's.
Reply
post #24 of 52
7/22/08 at 1:15pm
Yeah, that's true.
I'm not gonna see it, but I never heard of Transsiberian until this week's show.
Reply
post #25 of 52
7/22/08 at 1:29pm
Well, maybe you were too busy seeing The Dark Knight alllllll weekend to take notice of any other movies. It's cool, happens all the time.

Oh god...I'm getting my threads confused...curses! Curses!
Reply
post #26 of 52
7/22/08 at 1:52pm
Wilonsky was the best opposite Roeper.

And just found this: http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsono...and-manki.html

That clip of Sneak Previews brings back memories of being eight years old and watching Lyons & Medved on channel 13. I was an odd child.
Reply
post #27 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Fordyce View Post
God I miss Siskel. He's the one who let me know it was okay to like Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man.
Ebert didn't like that? It's no worse than Anaconda... And, in fact, it's a lot better.

Best Tom Sizemore death scene ever. I'm still waiting for him to cap off his "High Dive Trilogy" He followed this with Strange Days. Maybe it will never happen... because Paparazzi was his chance but they gave the death that was rightfully his to Kevin Gage.

As for At the Movies. I never expected Ebert to be back on TV again... I never expect him to talk again. But he doesn't need to.
Reply
post #28 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:47pm
Sad to see the show coming to an end. I guess we can all blame Vincent Gallo for this, him putting a hex on Ebert, which turned into cancer. Oh wait...how old am i ? Yep grew out of believing in bullshit a long time ago. Well, either way, we will always have his commentaries.
Reply
post #29 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:48pm
I thought Siskel liked Carnosaur if my memory of The Critic is correct.
Reply
post #30 of 52
7/22/08 at 2:57pm
Ebert was the only one who "got" COP & 1/2

Respect.
Reply
post #31 of 52
7/22/08 at 3:01pm
Hey Elvis? Wanna cross swords?

Whatever happened to that kid? He was so appealing.
Reply
post #32 of 52
7/22/08 at 4:53pm
On the very first Siskel & Ebert "Sneak Previews" I ever saw, they reviewed the original Superman, Carpenter's Halloween and the animated Lord of the Rings. I've been a fan ever since.

Plus, if Disney ever wants to replicate the acrimonious movie debates from the Siskel/Ebert era for the 21st century, I've got two words: Wells. Poland.

C'mon, I'd totally watch that trainwreck!
Reply
post #33 of 52
7/22/08 at 5:10pm
How about... Faraci and one of us. Different guy every week.

(I'm only half-joking... No one would watch it, but I would)
Reply
post #34 of 52
7/22/08 at 5:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
Plus, if Disney ever wants to replicate the acrimonious movie debates from the Siskel/Ebert era for the 21st century, I've got two words: Wells. Poland.
Reply
post #35 of 52
7/22/08 at 6:42pm
That pretty much sums that up.
Reply
post #36 of 52
7/22/08 at 7:54pm
Oh, c'mon! It would be the Alien Vs. Predator of critic shows!
Reply
post #37 of 52
7/23/08 at 3:30am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew C View Post
He never bothered me as a personality, nor does his blogging bring me bad taste, I just despise his simpleton opinions of films. The type of critic who enjoys his Fever Pitch/Cinderella Man/RV type films more than he should is bothersome, and no match for Ebert.
No match for Ebert? The same Ebert who gave thumbs up to both Tomb Raider movies? Let's be honest, there was plenty of questionable taste on both sides of the aisle.
Reply
post #38 of 52
7/23/08 at 3:55am
Ebert's liked some wonky movies in his time (and hated perfectly good ones for weird reasons), but there's no denying the man's ability to write and discuss cinema like the best of them. Roeper's got even stranger tastes and less skill as a wordsmith.
Reply
post #39 of 52
7/23/08 at 4:04am
Ebert wrote a Russ Myer film. RESPECT.
Reply
post #40 of 52
7/23/08 at 4:50am
I love Ebert. His newer reviews aren't always good, and I'm disagreeing with him more and more lately. Still, I probably agree with him more than any other critic ever. I love his "Great Movies" series too.

As far as Roeper is concerned, he's a bit of jackass if one meets him on the streets or in the bars. And he thinks Ferris Beuler's Day Off is in the top ten films of all-time, which is just weird. Hey, I like the movie quite a bit, but it will never reach that list. Oh, and he gave Chicken Run a bad review because he thinks chickens are really ugly and had a hard time looking at the clay-made characters. If I remember correctly, he insisted the movie would have been better if the chickens were replaced with a different species of animal. I'm still not sure how to respond to that.

Outside of those things, I guess he was okay.
Reply
post #41 of 52
7/24/08 at 1:31am
If it weren't for the guest critics I never would have realized I want to stalk Kim Morgan.
Reply
post #42 of 52
7/24/08 at 2:59am
Thread Starter 
I already knew I wanted to stalk Aisha Tyler, so that didn't help me out, really.
Reply
post #43 of 52
7/24/08 at 2:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Man Mundt View Post
If it weren't for the guest critics I never would have realized I want to stalk Kim Morgan.
I saw her first!
Reply
post #44 of 52
7/24/08 at 3:26am
Thread Starter 
Blah. You guys can have the generic blonde white girl, you predictable vanilla American bastards. Make mine chocolate.
Reply
post #45 of 52
7/24/08 at 3:28am
I don't know if it's been reported somewhere else on the boards, but apparently Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz have been named as replacements for the show.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37583

I don't know squat about Lyons, but I love Mankiewicz, at least in his capacity at TCM.
Reply
post #46 of 52
7/24/08 at 3:31am
Thread Starter 
Don't know either of them, but I'll probably give them a shot. I'm more afraid of Disney's ideas about "a new direction" than new hosts, though.
Reply
post #47 of 52
7/24/08 at 12:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
Don't know either of them, but I'll probably give them a shot. I'm more afraid of Disney's ideas about "a new direction" than new hosts, though.

New direction = automatic thumbs up for "BOLT"!
Reply
post #48 of 52
7/24/08 at 12:49pm
People liked Aisha Tyler? I couldn't stand her.
Reply
post #49 of 52
7/24/08 at 12:54pm
Thread Starter 
I didn't say I liked her. I just want to do dirty, dirty things to her.
Reply
post #50 of 52
7/24/08 at 12:56pm
Fair enough. But don't expect conversation out of her....aww who am I kidding.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The end of the Ebert era?