July 17, 2003

I spoke to Roger Ebert briefly on Wednesday. He tells me he is quite happy with his array of ventures, including Ebert & Roeper and his fulltime gig at the Chicago Sun-Times.

Still, with 15 Weeks Of Summer due today at MovieCityNews, today’s THB goes to you, the readers and - from the flood of responses to yesterday’s column - watchers of Roger and Richard. Here is a number of e-mail responses, selected to represent the general consensus.

Yesterday's Column

READERS ON EBERT

“I, for one, am a religious viewer of Ebert and Roeper and the Movies every week. I TIVO the show and watch it before and after I see most of the movies they review. I remember watching Sneak Previews when I was growing up on PBS. It was the only show of its kind and was very informative to anyone interested in film. And the best thing about the show was that they reviewed all types of films, not just big Hollywood studio films, and that gave these smaller films a chance at finding a larger audience.

When Roger and Gene went to the syndicated At the Movies, I continued to enjoy their banter and love of films. Part of the success of their show was the way they argued when they disagreed. It was a mutually respectful manner in the way they went back and forth as critics and journalists. I remember when Roger had a so-called "tryout" for someone to permanently fill the spot of Gene. He brought various critics and entertainment reporters from yourself, to Roeper, Joyce Kulhawik, Michaela Pereira, Janet Maslin, Joel Siegel, Kenneth Turan and even Harry Knowles. None of the possibilities were really a match made for Ebert the way Siskel was. There was no chemistry and the disagreements seemed staged. The legitimate film critics that were "auditioned" didn't have any screen presence and lacked any real personality. My apologies to you David. The entertainment reporters lacked the knowledge of film history and filmmaking.

So I feel that the producers, Disney and Roger were at a crossroads with who to go with. Ultimately Richard Roeper was chosen. And while not a true film man, he was a decent choice. My belief is that they wanted a personality instead of a film journalist in order to combat Roger's expertise. Richard is a fine journalist. I often read his columns online about pop culture, film and even sports. But the show is lacking these days. It is time for Roger to say goodnight to the show.

But will the show continue without him? I want to continue to see a show like this one aired. The only other option is the dreaded Hot Ticket with Leonard Maltin and the afore mentioned Joyce Kulhawik. I did like The New Movie Show with Chris Gore that didn't last more than a year on the FX channel. These type of shows just don't seem to succeed. Not with the internet and DirecTV. There are too many other options to find opinions. If Roger's show is cancelled, then here's wishing him luck in whatever he does. I will continue to follow his career.”

------

“I have the perfect new job for Ebert. He can replace that self parody James Lipton on Inside The Actors Studio. I'd much rather see someone who isn't a total kissass interview John Travolta about the technique he used to portray the layered character of Terl in Battlefield Earth. (By the way, has anybody ever seen Lipton and Milton from Office Space in the same room together?)”

------

“Disney's meddling with the Ebert show should come as no surprise when you remember that Disney is first and foremost concerned with Marketing. I'm sure that their real problem with the show is that it isn't a hype-fest like Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, or that god-awful Leonard Maltin show. The real value of the show (and I've been watching it since about 1983) is that Roger actually takes the time to review films that never play anywhere outside of New York and L.A., giving us at least a heads up to look for them on video someday. It won't surprise me if Disney tries to enforce more time being spent on 3000-screen megaplex event pictures, along with attendant star interviews.”

--------

“The replacement of Gene Siskel with Richard Roeper was a mistake, but not a mortal one since Roger Ebert is always a charismatic reviewer. What makes the show unwatchable is the fact that, when you subtract the commercials out, the length runs between eight to nine minutes.

The Buena Vista distribution arm no longer seems to hide the fact that they're squeezing every last drop out of their advertising dollar. As a result, Ebert and Roeper's discussions have less depth than the average capsule review in your local paper. Whenever a disagreement gets interesting, there's always a jarring cut and something hits the floor to make room for more commercials. The stupendously bad editing gives the show the feel of a three-year-old who got his hands on an Avid.

But nothing -- NOTHING -- is more offensive than their review of past reviews. Calling this "filler" gives filler a bad name. Instead, it's a lazy and transparent excuse to cut to commercial, come back, show some stills of movies from the past two weeks (with their accompanying thumb), then cut to another commercial.

They seem to think they can gloss over this lack of content by talking over the end credits. Instead, this "impromptu" repartee becomes painful to watch ("I don't think you gave "Legally Blonde 2" enough credit..."). More importantly, it never adds to the critique. It's just a regurgitation of what they've already said.

I understand that these are the market economics of syndicated television. Ads pay the bills, and people would rather watch an "expanded review" of "Terminator 3" than a documentary no one's ever heard of called "Capturing the Friedmans." But it's hard for me to let go of this, because "Sneak Previews" was, in a way, the first film school I ever went to. I grew up on that show -- and I remember plopping down in front of the TV, watching them review movies that would never come to my town. It would be eight years before I would ever see a Wim Winders movie, but I still remember Siskel and Ebert's review of "Paris, Texas." And the fact that they would debate that movie with the same passion of, say, "Star Wars" helped me realize there was a film world outside "Friday the 13th Part VI."

But passion isn't part of the new Ebert and Roeper, there's not enough time. Not with all the bumpers ("We'll have a review of..." "Coming up..." "After this break, we'll take a look at..."), summing up and looks ahead to next week. The show is a sad shadow of its old incarnation. And whenever I want a real Ebert review, I do what I should have done in the first place: read his print column.

--------

“On the Ebert thing, I have watched each and every broadcast of his since 1988, even though it now takes my ReplayTV's search capabilities to find the show. I watched on PBS, I watched with Siskel, Harry, Greenfield, that EW chick, and yes, I saw you in that

god-forsaken sweater. I have purchased every book he's been a part of in the past ten

years. I'm an Ebert-head.

As you mentioned in your column, the reason he is so beloved by many of us, is that he fights for the good of film as a whole. He fights for proper projection at theaters, he fights for proper MPAA ratings, he constantly rallies behind old classics and more recent forgotten gems. He travels around the world reporting back to those of us who have been accused of taking our "movie hobby" too seriously. I will never get into a party at Cannes, will probably not get a bloody nose at Sundance, and god help me if I get aboard a Disney cruise ship, but through his writing, he takes us there. He hasn't forgotten that movies are first and foremost fun. It is fun to sit in the dark and be taken places.

While many critics are busy consulting Roget's to complete their diatribes against the latest Michael Bay film, Ebert never seems to forget that watching things blow up in an air-conditioned theater should be fun. In his (and my) world, there is room for all kinds of film.

He can summarize a filmmaker's career and importance in a few short paragraphs when he writes a posthumous appreciation piece, he gives good DVD commentary, and he does the annual frame-by-frame thing in Colorado. I've never been privileged to go to that, but my friends tell me it's an unforgettable experience.

I think the problem may be that at this point in his career, he is bigger than the films he reviews. I don't think anyone could sit in that other chair and do substantially better than Mr. Roeper does. I'm a fan of yours, Dave, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't fare much better than Rich even though you're a movie guy. The best part of S & E was that they were becoming powerful at the same time together. Sure, Ebert got the Pulitzer, but as a TV duo, they were pretty equal. When they argued, each guy usually had a compelling reason for taking the side he did.

Something has been missing from the show lately. Even the annual Memo to the Academy didn't seem fun for him anymore.

I don't know how a new person is supposed to challenge the almighty Ebert during a four minute review of Legally Blonde 2.

Like you, I'd watch anything he decides to do. Your 60 Minutes-type idea was a good one. He's always liked to schmooze with the actors (something Gene wasn't as fond of), and maybe this is his big chance.

If the show is canceled, my only hope for insightful film commentary on TV (besides some of the shows on IFC or Sundance), will be the all-too-infrequent critical round tables that Charlie Rose has. Somehow even AO Scott is palatable in such a setting. Get Janet Maslin out of Connecticut and back into a movie theater.

What makes me a bit sad is that he will be remembered for his thumb, and not for his extremely well-written reviews and essays. He is a writer that was forced more than 20 years ago in front of a camera. Everyone has seen him, but a much smaller number have read him.”

---

“Gotta agree with you 100% on the Ebert column. I was a loyal S&E viewer, and even though E&R is on in the same convenient time slot, I tune in maybe once a month. Your 20/20 or 60 Minutes idea is phenomenal! Letting Roger pick a topic he cares about for a weekly segment would not only be informative, entertaining TV, it would make him something he hasn't been (in the general public's eye) for too long: relevant. It's too soon for Roger to be the lion in winter.”

------

“Currently, Critic and the other guy plays at 6:30am SUNDAY morning where I live. I used to love watching Gene and Roger. Roger and Richard is just annoying.

Having followed him for the entire run of Sneak Previews and the Movies you're absolutely right - time for a better time slot, a higher profile and a chance to exercise the cinematic insight that makes him who he is. Roger Ebert has kept film CRITICISM alive for over three decades. Its a shame that film REVIEWERS are going to kill the genre.”

----

“I'm a regular reader of both Roger's stuff (reviews, the Great Movies column, the Answer Man column, the festival reports) and Richard's daily column. Both are extremely gifted at their areas of expertise. I love movies and I love pop culture. However film does not always equal pop culture, and that's why the two fail as a TV duo.

I often feel that Roger is playing dumb to excuse the inexpertise of his counterpart, while Richard doesn't quite understand film from film's point of view. Hopefully Roger will heed your call. It needs to happen before it is too late.”

-----

“Siskel and Ebert used to be appointment television for me. 11:30pm Sunday nights, Channel 5 in NYC. The specials "If We Picked the Nominees," "Actors to Watch," "The Ten Best Lists" and their annual "If We Picked The Winners" special right before the Oscars where they simply got to rhapsodize on their personal favorites were always great.

People who used to dismiss the show, and Siskel and Ebert, as the up and down thumbs guys obviously never watched an episode of the show. Two middle aged mid-westerners yelling, debating, bantering, an even insulting each other over movies, from the standard Hollywood blockbusters to small independent and foreign films, for 30 minutes was funny, entertaining, and even educational, at least for me. Their love, knowledge, and deep seated passion for movies was manifestly clear and took the show way beyond a program that simply recommended movies to go to see. They praised, and damned movies intelligently and with a genuineness/honesty. It was never about two guys just disagreeing for the spectacle of it or to put on a "show" or taking a certain stance just to be a contrarian. It never felt that way to me. What they loved, they loved in a big way, what they hated they urged to be condemned to the dustbin of film history, and what one liked and the other didn't, they took the other's different opinion as a personal affront and delusional. They were rival newspapermen, they were friends, they were comrades in the fight to free us from wasting our time on the latest junk offering and great boosters for the little movie that may have otherwise gone unnoticed.

The state of the Ebert and the other guy show, just makes me miss the old show even more. It's time to close up the shop.”

-----

“Roger Ebert was the first film critic I ever really read religiously - He was to me what Pauline Kael was to him. First I bought his yearly movie guide, then I started reading his reviews onCompuserve, then I started reading him weekly on the Suntimes web site. Even in recent years, when his opinions started to head off the deep end, I still read him every week - not to see how many "stars" he gives the films, but because he loves movies, and you can still feel his passion in every sentence of his reviews (which are still among the best-written in the business).

Ebert's chemistry with Siskel was incomparable - Ebert was the optimist, Siskel the cynic, but both with their passion evident in everything they said. The thumbs were always there, but they weren't the reason we tuned in. And hearing the two of them get into it when they disagreed on a film was great, great television.

I've never gotten that feeling with Ebert and Roeper - they seem more like chums than adversaries, they agree too often, and they don't bite into each other enough when they disagree. In Siskel and Ebert's arguments, one got the feeling that they were still pissed at each other even when the cameras stopped rolling. But not with Roeper.

But it wasn't just the chemistry that changed when Roeper came on board. It was the format, too. Segments became shorter, they tried to pack more into each show, the set became slicker and the pace quickened exponentially. This eschewed the basic appeal of the original show - watching two old guys who know something about movies discuss them intelligently. I would gladly come back to the show if the segments were lengthened and the gimmicks ditched. But if it does end, then I'd love to see Ebert continue on in some kind of TV guest capacity. He's still one of the most passionate critics on the beat, and it'd be a shame to see him remembered as a thumb.”

E ME: Pick a subject, any subject.

The Matrix Reloaded. Reloaded.
Read Part One
Read Part Two