# At the Movies Dies, is Reborn



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

"'At The Movies' Canceled"
"Roger Ebert presents At the Movies"
It's about time.

And, it's about time.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I had stopped watching At The Movies during the era of the Bens. As soon as Disney realized that was a bad mistake and fired them, I started to TiVo and watch the show regularly again. It's a pretty good show in it's current form, and I'm going to miss it. Michael Philips is the better of the two hosts... more comfortable on camera, and able to speak a little more conversational... but even if A.O. is a little stiff, you can tell these two hosts have tons of experience in the movie review business.

I'm interested to see what Ebert comes up with for his renewed version of the show, and I'll be curious to see how successful he is in getting clearance across the country. The syndicated market is horrible right now, as Ebert even acknowledges in his article, and Ebert is dead-on when he says that a station would rather show a half-hour infomercial than a syndicated show these days. So... I'll be curious just exactly how he plans to get the show to people, if not syndication. (As an indication, I think the local station carries "At The Movies" at 2:05 a.m. on Monday mornings. Needless to say, that's why I TiVo it and don't watch it live.)


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I have been recording Sneak Previews/At The Movies since I was in High School! But when the two Bens were hosts I stopped. Came back with Scott/Phillips. They I didn't mind so much.

Local NBC here in NYC had Reel Talk with Jeffrey Lyons and Alison Bailes. That was cancelled as well. I actually like their chemistry.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The latest iteration doesn't suck, but what I miss is the chemistry between Siskel & Ebert. Not personal chemistry (although that was good too), but their strengths and weaknesses supported each other such that I could almost always get a very good sense of how I would feel about a movie from their review. And nobody since then has even come close. Roeper, while a decent critic, didn't mesh with Ebert the same way Siskel did, and I sometimes found myself getting caught off-guard (not helped by problems Ebert was having at the time, which I assume were health and maybe medication related; sometimes, his reviews were just insane). And no team since has even matched Ebert/Roeper standards, much less Siskel/Ebert.

Maybe it will never happen again, but I can dream! And it's so cool seeing Ebert thrive despite his physical problems.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I REALLY like the current hosts. I'm really bummed to see this news. Maybe they can do what Richard Roeper does at least, and do short reviews for the web (well, his is for Starz I guess too, but they're on his website and on Hulu). I wish Ebert the best of luck though.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I agree with most of the sentiments here. I like it in it's current form, as I think Scott and Philips do the show close to the spirit of Siskel and Ebert and in a format similar to what they did. I don't understand what they were reaching for when they went to the Bens. Younger demo? I think that is a problem with a lot of informational type shows. I think many of them insult the intelligence of younger viewers by trying to be more "hip" than being informative. As this proves it doesn't work. I will be sorry to see this go. I record this off Reelz on a weekly basis, to see what is out there. I'm not a big movie goer, so maybe that doesn't help, but I do watch quite a few DVDs.


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I agree with most of the sentiments here. I like it in it's current form, as I think Scott and Philips do the show close to the spirit of Siskel and Ebert and in a format similar to what they did. I don't understand what they were reaching for when they went to the Bens. Younger demo? I think that is a problem with a lot of informational type shows. I think many of them insult the intelligence of younger viewers by trying to be more "hip" than being informative. As this proves it doesn't work. I will be sorry to see this go. I record this off Reelz on a weekly basis, to see what is out there. I'm not a big movie goer, so maybe that doesn't help, but I do watch quite a few DVDs.


More to the point, most young people are going to get their movie reviews online, eg. RottenTomatoes or whatever. It's only us old fogeys who grew up watching Siskel & Ebert who still look to a TV show for that info


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

dcheesi said:


> More to the point, most young people are going to get their movie reviews online, eg. RottenTomatoes or whatever. It's only us old fogeys who grew up watching Siskel & Ebert who still look to a TV show for that info


Very true. I must say though, all my kids enjoy watching this with me.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

It's a little sad. But inevitable, I guess. 

I watched Siskel and Ebert for years, but they are never coming back, unfortunately. Nobody after them ever really matched up. The current hosts are a big improvement over the Bens, but they still aren't S&E. And my local station always put the show on in the middle of the night (thank goodness for tivo). I am curious to see the new show from Ebert and will watch it if I can find it.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Call me shallow, but when I moved to HD and the show didn't, I stopped watching.

If the new show has a video podcast or is in HD, I'm there.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

aindik said:


> Call me shallow, but when I moved to HD and the show didn't, I stopped watching.
> 
> If the new show has a video podcast or is in HD, I'm there.


Shallow!

Actually, I'm the same. I'd rather watch Nothing but Trailers on HDNet. No reviews, but doggone it, the trailers look good.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> So... I'll be curious just exactly how he plans to get the show to people, if not syndication. (As an indication, I think the local station carries "At The Movies" at 2:05 a.m. on Monday mornings. Needless to say, that's why I TiVo it and don't watch it live.)


I gave up on the syndicated airings once I realized I had it on Reelz. It comes on there a few days later, but much more reliably.

And yeah, it needs to be in HD.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> The syndicated market is horrible right now, as Ebert even acknowledges in his article, and Ebert is dead-on when he says that a station would rather show a half-hour infomercial than a syndicated show these days. So... I'll be curious just exactly how he plans to get the show to people, if not syndication. (As an indication, I think the local station carries "At The Movies" at 2:05 a.m. on Monday mornings. Needless to say, that's why I TiVo it and don't watch it live.)


At least at 2:05am it probably comes on at the announced time. Here, the ABC affiliate has it on at 4:30 pm, which means that probably 1/3 of the time I go to watch my recording of it and it's an infomercial instead (Ebert is right), because of a sports broadcast overrun. According to the affiliate, when I asked them they said they are contractually obligated to do the infomercial before a certain time, but "At the movies" can apparently be pushed aside.


----------



## jschuman (Feb 20, 2001)

I highly, highly recommend the Rotten Tomatoes movie show on Current. It's very entertaining.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jschuman said:


> I highly, highly recommend the Rotten Tomatoes movie show on Current. It's very entertaining.


I just found out about that today.

Unfortunately, most of the episodes don't have Guide Data, and I refuse to delete dozens of extraneous showings from my To Do List (or leave them cluttering it up), so it's a no-go for me.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Never heard of The Rotten Tomatoes Show 'til now. I have Cablevision but just watched a recent episode on their site. Pretty good show. The Irish Accent meter was hilarious. Thanks for the heads up on this show!


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

I hope one of the local stations around here picks up Ebert's new show. I think At the Movies is 5am Saturday right now (Reel Talk was 3am Saturday on a different station). That works for me since I never watch it live anyway. It's not like an infomercial at those times is going to make that much money.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I don't get Current (if it is a cable channel). Is it a pod cast?

When does this start?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> I don't get Current (if it is a cable channel). Is it a pod cast?
> 
> When does this start?


I had never heard of Current or the shoe before this thread, but the show is apparently available online too: http://current.com/shows/the-rotten-tomatoes-show/


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jschuman said:


> I highly, highly recommend the Rotten Tomatoes movie show on Current. It's very entertaining.


It is available as a video podcast too.

I like this show, but it's way different from At the Movies. They have a bunch of "random" people, including the hosts, talk about their opinions of the movies... I can't really put it into words, but they don't debate or criticize the movies in the same way as the other shows do.

The random people include viewers, though there seem to be a lot of repeated people (not that that's bad).

The best thing about the show IMHO is the pop culture references in the segments before/after commercial breaks and at the very end.


----------



## aforkosh (Apr 20, 2003)

What I like about the show were not the reviews as such but the intelligent back-and-forth that followed. In fact, the show was and is much more interesting when the reviewers disagree about the review. There were 2 problems with the Ben's:

1) One of them was unqualified to participate in such a discussion
2) The format changed completely.

Lyons and Scott have restored the format, if not the chemistry, of the original.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

P.S. I'm kinda surprised they don't continue it on Reelz alone, even if the syndication market is dead. I mean, how expensive can this show be to produce? Two guys, not particularly famous, sitting around and talking, plus movie clips that they probably get for free. Oh well.

I will look forward to whatever Ebert can pull off.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

mattack said:


> It is available as a video podcast too.
> 
> I like this show, but it's way different from At the Movies. They have a bunch of "random" people, including the hosts, talk about their opinions of the movies... I can't really put it into words, but they don't debate or criticize the movies in the same way as the other shows do.
> 
> ...


I watched it last night. Not impressed, but might keep watching. There's an abundance of snark already, I like some actual irony-free discussion. The current incarnation of At The Movies provided that.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

MickeS said:


> There's an abundance of snark already, I like some actual irony-free discussion.


+1


----------



## alansh (Jan 3, 2003)

I agree that it just wasn't the same after Siskel.

Here's Blade Runner on "Sneak Previews" from 1982.

And here's Ebert's epic "I hated hated hated this movie!" review of North (1994) (skip to the 5:30 mark).


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I don't know if a show only with Ebert will work. The dialogue was what made the show and with his method of communication, it makes dialog harder. I wonder if he could get the same device that Hawkings has? That seems like a more fluid way of communicating than using a less powerful laptop computer.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

sieglinde said:


> I don't know if a show only with Ebert will work. The dialogue was what made the show and with his method of communication, it makes dialog harder.


Ebert himself has noted that he can't handle dialogue. He won't be the only one on the new show; his plan is apparently to only appear as the host of certain segments, such as reviews of Great Movies of the Past -- there would be other critics to talk back and forth about current movies.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

I preferred the two Ben's over Phillips and Scott. Phillips is too effeminate and Scott is too stiff. I've seen a couple of photos of Ebert and he looks hideous and he has started bringing left wing political biases into his online reviews. Also I thought Ebert has lost the ability to speak.

It sounds as though Disney is just using Ebert's name to draw viewers and boost ratings. Without an equal like Siskel to keep Ebert in check, I think this show will bomb.

As stated previously you can't count on this show airing at the scheduled time. I have to record 30 minutes before the start and an hour after the end to insure that I record the show. Then I have to fast forward to the beginning of the show.

Also stated previously, this show is not in HD, so when you watch it on an HD channel you get black pillar bars on the side. You can eliminate the black bars with TIVO HD by setting the TV aspect ration to 4:3 and setting the TIVO picture on ZOOM.

I think the lack of HD and unpredictable start times is hurting the ratings as much as the hosts. You really have to work to watch this show as it is aired in the early morning hours when most people are sleeping.


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

I stopped watching after the Ben's took over. I had no idea that Phillips had returned now with Scott (as did the old format).

I watched it this weekend and thought it was fine, just liked it used to be. It's getting the bum rap being canceled. Clearly more people needed to know (like me) that they took the sh*t off and put it back basically the way it was.

If anyone is effeminate though, I'd say it's Scott, not Phillips.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Yeah, I don't get that "effeminate" comment at all.

Additionally, I don't suspect that Ebert will be working with Disney at all on his version of "At the Movies." There is far too much bad blood between the two to allow Ebert to want to work with Disney again. This will be strictly Ebert's show. (I wonder if he might work with Tribune again, where the syndicated version of the show originated after leaving PBS.)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Additionally, I don't suspect that Ebert will be working with Disney at all on his version of "At the Movies." There is far too much bad blood between the two to allow Ebert to want to work with Disney again.


Yeah, they wanted his thumbs, but didn't want to pay for them.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

What? This is pretty rank. I like them both better than the Ben's and I guess I am mature enough to not be bothered by someone being "effiminate". I don't think I noticed actually.



shwru980r said:


> I preferred the two Ben's over Phillips and Scott. Phillips is too effeminate and Scott is too stiff. I've seen a couple of photos of Ebert and he looks hideous and he has started bringing left wing political biases into his online reviews. Also I thought Ebert has lost the ability to speak.
> 
> It sounds as though Disney is just using Ebert's name to draw viewers and boost ratings. Without an equal like Siskel to keep Ebert in check, I think this show will bomb.
> 
> ...


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

Having been made aware by this thread that the two Ben's are gone and Philips and Scott are back, I've been watching this weekly. I actually really enjoy the two together and the show does exactly what I have expected it to do in the past -- have two guys whose opinions I respect reviewing movies.

Based on that alone, I think the show is getting a bum rap for being canceled. I'm going to miss it.

But like I said in a previous post in this thread, it's most likely the show's ratings never recovered from the format change with the two Ben's -- and that's a real shame.


----------



## alyssa (Dec 7, 2003)

wow, 
I really thought the current two would have a long run. They're great together. I like the NYTimes guy better, he's more in line with my likes & dislikes but the other guy does make good points about the movies I'd never want to see.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Philips and Scott have been pretty vocal the last few weeks about how there are only four more episodes, then three, etc. This week they were both saying that next week's episode will be the last one. They have been pretty good, (much berrer than the Bens) and I'll miss them. As a remembrance, they have been showing some clips of the show from years-gone-by, and I have been reminded that no team has ever matched Siskel & Ebert. Roper was not too bad, but he had something like hero worship for Ebert, so he was never able to disagree with him in anything more then a superficial manner. I think Siskel and Ebert didn't actually like each other, which ironically helped the show. They might have respected each other professionally, but I don't think they liked each other.

When is the new, improved, same as before, "At The Movies" going to start? As others have said, I have been watching it on REELZ. Will it be syndicated like before?


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

I liked this week when one of them said something like "after the break we'll attempt to entertain our dwindling audience with our Over and Under picks."

Sorry, don't remember the exact quote but you get the idea.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

The next one is the last one.


----------



## harrinpj (Oct 29, 2004)

This makes me really upset. "At the Movies" is my oldest season pass on my TiVo. It's the only show that I will dare watch that isn't in HD because I NEED it so much. I've even had to pad it by an hour just to guarantee that I got the whole thing. I honestly don't know where I will hear about new and obscure movies now that this show won't be on. Is there any other movie review program, even if it is a video podcast, that is anywhere near the quality/depth of this show?


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

http://www.richardroeper.com/reviews/


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

harrinpj said:


> This makes me really upset. "At the Movies" is my oldest season pass on my TiVo. It's the only show that I will dare watch that isn't in HD because I NEED it so much. I've even had to pad it by an hour just to guarantee that I got the whole thing. I honestly don't know where I will hear about new and obscure movies now that this show won't be on. Is there any other movie review program, even if it is a video podcast, that is anywhere near the quality/depth of this show?


While I am an avid watcher (well except when the Bens were on it), and I will miss the show, I can understand why it's ending. Shows like theirs are obsolete. You can get any number of reviews online. Ebert posts his reviews online (for obvious reasons). AO Scott does his reviews for the NY Times and you can read his reviews online as well. Not to mention hundreds of fan reviews, and video clips and so on and so on. I like the convenience of watching it on TV, but if I want to know about a movie, the information is easily there.


----------



## harrinpj (Oct 29, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> While I am an avid watcher (well except when the Bens were on it), and I will miss the show, I can understand why it's ending. Shows like theirs are obsolete. You can get any number of reviews online. Ebert posts his reviews online (for obvious reasons). AO Scott does his reviews for the NY Times and you can read his reviews online as well. Not to mention hundreds of fan reviews, and video clips and so on and so on. I like the convenience of watching it on TV, but if I want to know about a movie, the information is easily there.


My point is, I don't want to have to search for a movie review. This would mean that I would need to have heard of the movie prior to performing my internet search. What I really want is something exactly like the show, a place where they pick some of the major releases, argue about whether they're good or bad and also point out some obscure movies that you may have never heard of.


----------



## harrinpj (Oct 29, 2004)

There are many many movies that I would have never seen if it weren't for this show. The most recent example I can think of is "Sin Nombre." I would have never known this movie existed if it weren't for my weekly dose of "At the Movies."


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> While I am an avid watcher (well except when the Bens were on it), and I will miss the show, I can understand why it's ending. Shows like theirs are obsolete. You can get any number of reviews online. Ebert posts his reviews online (for obvious reasons). AO Scott does his reviews for the NY Times and you can read his reviews online as well. Not to mention hundreds of fan reviews, and video clips and so on and so on. I like the convenience of watching it on TV, but if I want to know about a movie, the information is easily there.


And Roeper has an iPhone app.

-smak-


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

The LA Times does a good job of reviewing all the movies out in a week, so you get the obscure foreign and indy films. Rotten Tomatoes has good lists of movies coming out but nothing will replace two guys talking about movies. I realized that I have been watching the show for ages because I remember reviews for the second Aliens movie.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> Rotten Tomatoes has good lists of movies coming out but nothing will replace two guys talking about movies.


And two guys you KNOW. The problem with newspaper reviews is there tends to be a number of people doing them, so there's no overall consistency. Siskel & Ebert, I watched since the 70s. I got to know them well enough that I could almost always tell how I'd feel about a movie from their review. But nobody else has ever gotten to that point...Roeper was OK, but he didn't mesh with Ebert as perfectly as Siskel did, and none of the other teams have worked well enough together that they were better than the sum of their parts.

But as long as they're not too bad (Yeah, I'm lookin' at YOU, Ben & Ben), it's still worth watching just to have a relatively consistent overview of most of the movies that come out, and doing it on TV has the huge added bonus of scenes from the movie to illustrate their points.

I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but I prefer this format. Especially when it's done brilliantly, or done well, or even if it's just done adequately.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I must be the only one who didn't hate Ben & Ben.. It was far better than _no_ show, and I think they were at _least_ as good as the other movie shows on (including one co-hosted by the father of one of the Bens).


----------



## billboard_NE (May 18, 2005)

I will also miss this show for many of the reasons already stated above. I always watched logged into my Netflix account and added movies as I watched At the Movies and had an interest in seeing them. Including the major releases, but most of all I will miss the independent and foreign movie reviews. I have no idea how I will learn about these now.


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

Excellent points about being able to find their reviews online, etc -- but it is the live interaction (especially the disagreeing) between two people that I am going to miss. 

I do look forward to what Ebert is going to bring us though. Please just keep it about reviewing movies though and not have interviews, behind-the-scenes reports, etc. That's what Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood are for.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Since my near-by metropolitian newspaper does a good job of including all the strange movies, I do my Netflix based on that. I use the reviews to find out not if the movie is necessarly "good" but to find out what it is about.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

I tuned in on the radio to hear Richard Roeper give his take. He didnt' say much we didn't know about the history. His opening line was, "It's like if somebody tells you your long estranged ex-wife died."

When he had John Mellencamp as a guest reviewer 1) John, you can't smoke here. "I know" as he continued smoking 2) he didn't know much about the movies. "That girl will do fine in the movies." That girl is Meg Ryan.

He pointed out that he had both A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips on as guest reviewers when Roger got sick.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

atrac said:


> Excellent points about being able to find their reviews online, etc -- but it is the live interaction (especially the disagreeing) between two people that I am going to miss.


It's not really the same thing at all, and even *they* have retooled their show.. But the Rotten Tomatoes show on CurrentTV is entertaining. I think it may have been earlier in this thread that I found out about the show.

BTW, the hosts of the show don't just parrot the RT scores either, they give their own opinions of the movies and disagree... plus lots of weird little movie/pop culture related skits.


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

Well, there it is -- all done. I enjoyed the last show and am very sad that it's over. Phillps seemed surprisingly optimistic that something else was coming for the two of them. I hope he's right and that it's a televised show.

Roger Ebert twittered this today: "Thank you A.O. Scott, Michael Phillips & David Plummer for a final season that made me proud (I'm sure Gene would agree)." 

I agree and the show should not have ended.

Come on Mr. Ebert, let the cat out of the bag -- what do YOU have planned!?!??


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I loved that show and Phillips summed up why Rotten Tomatoes and the other review sites are not the same and not a substitute.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

atrac said:


> Well, there it is -- all done. I enjoyed the last show and am very sad that it's over. Phillps seemed surprisingly optimistic that something else was coming for the two of them. I hope he's right and that it's a televised show.
> 
> Roger Ebert twittered this today: "Thank you A.O. Scott, Michael Phillips & David Plummer for a final season that made me proud (I'm sure Gene would agree)."
> 
> ...


We know that Roger and Chas Ebert will need hosts for their "At the Movies." Let's assume that Phillips and Scott are in the running. Richard Roeper seems to have his own plans but he may be up for it, too.

Roger has said he'll be on the new show occasionally. The last he mentioned it there are some gurus working on making a computer program he can use to talk in his _own_ voice. I'll bet it will take a lot of time to build a database of every word and syllable Ebert ever said on a recording, then add in some extrapolation for pronouncing new words.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Personally, I liked Phillips and Scott better than Siskel and Ebert. P&S were able to disagree while still being mature and respectful of each other, whereas S&E often came across as bitter and extremely childish when they disagreed.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

I always thought the natural successors to Siskel and Ebert should be Phillips and Roeper. I always felt the driving dynamic in the original Siskel-Ebert team was the fact that they worked for competing cross-town newspapers. That implied a rivalry between the two that lent credibility to any differences in opinion and gravitas to any agreement.

Since Phillips works for the Tribune just like Siskel did, and Roeper works for the Sun-Times just like Ebert did (and does still), they just seem like a natural pair to inherit the show. And I saw several of the post-Ebert shows that Phillips and Roeper hosted together and to me they had that same comfortable rivalry that Gene and Roger always had.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Just watched the last episode. So sad. Even drew a tear from my wife. 

The last 3rd showed past clips. Even the PBS one. I go that far as well. I discovered the show when I was a teen. I will miss it.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

appleye1 said:


> I always felt the driving dynamic in the original Siskel-Ebert team was the fact that they worked for competing cross-town newspapers.


And they also were the film critics for competing local news stations -- Siskel for WBBM (the Chicago CBS affiliate) and Ebert for WLS (the Chicago ABC affiliate).


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

appleye1 said:


> I always thought the natural successors to Siskel and Ebert should be Phillips and Roeper. I always felt the driving dynamic in the original Siskel-Ebert team was the fact that they worked for competing cross-town newspapers. That implied a rivalry between the two that lent credibility to any differences in opinion and gravitas to any agreement.
> 
> Since Phillips works for the Tribune just like Siskel did, and Roeper works for the Sun-Times just like Ebert did (and does still), they just seem like a natural pair to inherit the show. And I saw several of the post-Ebert shows that Phillips and Roeper hosted together and to me they had that same comfortable rivalry that Gene and Roger always had.


It was Chaz Ebert who mentioned to Roger that Richard Roeper was the guy who had no problem standing up to him and did the best as a guest host. They did discuss if it would be a problem that they both worked at the Sun-Times.



cmontyburns said:


> And they also were the film critics for competing local news stations -- Siskel for WBBM (the Chicago CBS affiliate) and Ebert for WLS (the Chicago ABC affiliate).


Gene and Roger actually didn't like each other very much personally when they were paired. They grew to love each other, even though they knew how to needle each other.

Siskel more than Ebert was more competitive in things like getting exclusives in print.

There were some battles, rivalries, and snipes, like Roger got snookered into it being "Siskel & Ebert" thinking they had a deal where it would be reversed each year, then they said they couldn't change the name of the show so it stayed that way until they moved the show.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Hcour said:


> Personally, I liked Phillips and Scott better than Siskel and Ebert. P&S were able to disagree while still being mature and respectful of each other, whereas S&E often came across as bitter and extremely childish when they disagreed.


I was actually struck by how much more entertaining the clips of S&E arguing were than any of the "arguments" by the current crop of hosts. I think that perceived animosity and haughtiness gave the show a little something extra, while now it feels like regardless of whether they agree or disagree, they're going out for a beer afterward.


----------



## RangersRBack (Jan 9, 2006)

Unless I missed something, the title of this thread is misleading.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

RangersRBack said:


> Unless I missed something, the title of this thread is misleading.


How so? Read the two stories linked in the OP.


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> How so? Read the two stories linked in the OP.


Because the new show isn't actually on anywhere.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

netringer said:


> Roger has said he'll be on the new show occasionally. The last he mentioned it there are some gurus working on making a computer program he can use to talk in his _own_ voice. I'll bet it will take a lot of time to build a database of every word and syllable Ebert ever said on a recording, then add in some extrapolation for pronouncing new words.


They already made the voice. It was on Oprah Winfrey's show within the past year.

I don't doubt they can make it better, but I would say it was pretty dang amazing. Sure, it was like listening to Roger Ebert combined with a robotic voice.. But it was still recognizably (partially) Roger Ebert's voice.


----------



## RangersRBack (Jan 9, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> How so? Read the two stories linked in the OP.


Reads to me as though the 'rebirth' is still in the conceptual stage.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

Church AV Guy said:


> I think Siskel and Ebert didn't actually like each other, which ironically helped the show. They might have respected each other professionally, but I don't think they liked each other.


Seriously? They not only liked each other, they were the best of friends. They _loved_ each other. Well, Roger certainly loved Gene. Read Remembering Gene, Roger's tribute to Gene and their friendship on the 10th anniversary of his death.



netringer said:


> Gene and Roger actually didn't like each other very much personally when they were paired. They grew to love each other, even though they knew how to needle each other.





DevdogAZ said:


> I was actually struck by how much more entertaining the clips of S&E arguing were than any of the "arguments" by the current crop of hosts. I think that perceived animosity and haughtiness gave the show a little something extra, while now it feels like regardless of whether they agree or disagree, they're going out for a beer afterward.


I agree that S&E's debates were far more entertaining than any other hosts, but I'm not sure it's for the same reason as you. I thought their affection and admiration for each other comes through, even when they are yelling at each other and mocking the other's opinion about a movie. If it really seemed like they hated each other, I don't think it would be as funny, because _they_ wouldn't find it as funny.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Magnolia88 said:


> I agree that S&E's debates were far more entertaining than any other hosts, but I'm not sure it's for the same reason as you. I thought their affection and admiration for each other comes through, even when they are yelling at each other and mocking the other's opinion about a movie. If it really seemed like they hated each other, I don't think it would be as funny, because _they_ wouldn't find it as funny.


In the early years, there was a much nastier tone to their bickering. I think they started out not liking each other, but came to like each other over time. But I can recall some remarks that Siskel made about Ebert that were downright cruel (nasty fat jokes), and from Ebert's reaction he didn't take it lightly.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Well, REELZ showed the final episode last night. It was rather a sad but funny bit when they had the moments from the show. I remember it from PBS. There are a lot of great memories there. I agree with what has been said, that the entertainment landscape has changed to the extent that this show is no longer as important as it once was, but I still remember finding some obscure movies that I would never have even heard of if not for At the Movies. I for one, will miss it. Not the Bens, but the show.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I hope the archive stays up.. Hmm, I thought you were able to watch entire episodes, rather than specific movies.. Can't seem to find that in a few brief looks around.

(oops, you don't want to go to atthemovies dot tv!)


----------



## tem (Oct 6, 2003)

more info ...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter/roger-ebert-presents-at-the-moe.html


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ebert looks a lot better in that cast photo!


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Ebert looks a lot better in that cast photo!


He does but I'm not digging the way he looks on the poster...creepy.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

That's a hilarious comment:


Please explain the race/gender segregationist policy in your theater. I find this offensive.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

mattack said:


> That's a hilarious comment:
> 
> Please explain the race/gender segregationist policy in your theater. I find this offensive.


Huh?


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

It's a reader comment posted on Ebert's blog link above.

I saw that too, and thought WTF? But then I noticed the photo and the two white women are sitting on one side of the aisle, and the two black men are sitting on the other side. So I guess it was a joke about how they were "segregated" in the photo.

_ETA:_ I'm not too surprised at the choice of Christy Lemire and Elvis Mitchell, they are both pretty well known critics. I remember liking Lemire when she was in the guest host spot way back when.


----------



## alansh (Jan 3, 2003)

I ignore article comments on about all sites. 99.9% are either just dumb, or deliberate trolling (trying to start a fight).


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

mattack said:


> That's a hilarious comment:
> 
> Please explain the race/gender segregationist policy in your theater. I find this offensive.





Magnolia88 said:


> It's a reader comment posted on Ebert's blog link above.
> 
> I saw that too, and thought WTF? But then I noticed the photo and the two white women are sitting on one side of the aisle, and the two black men are sitting on the other side. So I guess it was a joke about how they were "segregated" in the photo.
> 
> _ETA:_ I'm not too surprised at the choice of Christy Lemire and Elvis Mitchell, they are both pretty well known critics. I remember liking Lemire when she was in the guest host spot way back when.





alansh said:


> I ignore article comments on about all sites. 99.9% are either just dumb, or deliberate trolling (trying to start a fight).


You can't get better FAIL than race-baiting the guy with an African-American wife who dated Oprah Winfrey and advised her to sign up for the TV deal in syndication.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

The comment was a JOKE.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

mattack said:


> The comment was a JOKE.


Unless you put a "" people will take it seriously.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sho...r-ebert-and-pbs-bring-back-at-the-movies.html
According to the LA Times a new show that is approved by Ebert will be on in January on PBS. (no guarentee for KCET watchers, they are thinking about leaving PBS) It will have two reviewers and Ebert coming on to review older and classic movies.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Whoa, KCET is thinking about leaving PBS? Can the station DO that?

Yeah, off topic, but this is my one good PBS source. This would be a serious loss (to me). 

And, I would have to find an alternative source for &#8220;Roger Ebert Presents At the Movies&#8221;.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Church AV Guy said:


> Whoa, KCET is thinking about leaving PBS? Can the station DO that?
> 
> Yeah, off topic, but this is my one good PBS source. This would be a serious loss (to me).
> 
> And, I would have to find an alternative source for Roger Ebert Presents At the Movies.


I would guess that the stations are owned by independent not-for-profit corporations and they can affliate with PBS or not as they choose. My further guess is they may loose whatever piece of the federal funding that PBS hands down (or did that stop under the fundie outrage?) but they also don't have to kick back donations to PBS, and in any case they can still still buy programs as they choose.

It doesn't appear to be like public radio where the stations can buy programs from NPR, PRI, and others, but maybe it can go that way.

Back to the topic, I'll bet that any station can make a deal to buy the new "At the Movies."

We're lucky enough here in Chicago that we have two PBS stations and I can can also get the Milwaukee station. I have many SPs to pick up the same show on all three.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

netringer said:


> We're lucky enough here in Chicago that we have two PBS stations and I can can also get the Milwaukee station. I have many SPs to pick up the same show on all three.


Milwaukee "station"? Milwaukee actually has two separate PBS stations (WMVS-10 and WMVT-36), collectively referred to as Milwaukee Public Television (MPTV).

There's also a statewide network of 6 full-power stations and 6 low-power translators that all simulcast and are collectively referred to as Wisconsin Public Television (WPT). The flagship station is WHA in Madison.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

netringer said:


> I would guess that the stations are owned by independent not-for-profit corporations and they can affliate with PBS or not as they choose. My further guess is they may loose whatever piece of the federal funding that PBS hands down (or did that stop under the fundie outrage?) but they also don't have to kick back donations to PBS, and in any case they can still still buy programs as they choose.


No such thing as Federal funding that comes from PBS -- the funding for PBS member stations comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is a separate organization from PBS.

PBS is really a programming cooperative, not a network in the same sense as ABC, CBS, etc. The various programs distributed by PBS are all the responsibility of the various PBS member stations. (They used to show the logos of the station or stations responsible at the very beginning of each program, but not anymore -- too bad, because I miss it.)

At any rate, while KCET did float the idea of leaving PBS a couple months ago, they pulled back on the rhetoric pretty quickly, and I haven't heard anything else about it. It'd be pretty difficult, since they'd lose much of their program lineup, and since they have a noncommercial license, it's not like they could make money by filling the time with infomercials.

I also note that KCET isn't the only PBS member station that serves the Los Angeles market; the new "At the Movies" could be picked up by KOCE and/or KVCR if KCET doesn't take it. But I have a feeling it'll end up on KCET, which will remain with PBS.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

trainman said:


> No such thing as Federal funding that comes from PBS -- the funding for PBS member stations comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is a separate organization from PBS.
> 
> PBS is really a programming cooperative, not a network in the same sense as ABC, CBS, etc. The various programs distributed by PBS are all the responsibility of the various PBS member stations. (They used to show the logos of the station or stations responsible at the very beginning of each program, but not anymore -- too bad, because I miss it.)
> 
> ...


Thanks for the explanation.

WTTW in Chicago pioneered the "experiment" of showing actual commercials so somehow it's possible. They run "tasteful" ads between shows. Maybe it's OK because it's "Today's programing is brought to you by Harris Bank (roll spot)" followed the short ads for the sponsors of the program like Home Depot on Ask This Old House.

We can be sure that "At the Movies" will have the same ads.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

trainman said:


> ...At any rate, while KCET did float the idea of leaving PBS a couple months ago, they pulled back on the rhetoric pretty quickly, and I haven't heard anything else about it. It'd be pretty difficult, since they'd lose much of their program lineup, and since they have a noncommercial license, it's not like they could make money by filling the time with infomercials.
> 
> I also note that KCET isn't the only PBS member station that serves the Los Angeles market; the new "At the Movies" could be picked up by KOCE and/or KVCR if KCET doesn't take it. But I have a feeling it'll end up on KCET, which will remain with PBS.


I know that KCET is not the only PBS station I get, but it's the only one that I get (DirecTV) in HD. That's what I meant when I said KCET is the only "...good PBS source...". Stuff like Nature and Nova just look SO much better in HD.

Sorry for hijacking the "At the Movies" thread with this.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Church AV Guy said:


> I know that KCET is not the only PBS station I get, but it's the only one that I get (DirecTV) in HD.


I think you should be getting KOCE (Channel 50) in HD as well, assuming DirecTV considers you to be in the Los Angeles market.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

trainman said:


> I think you should be getting KOCE (Channel 50) in HD as well, assuming DirecTV considers you to be in the Los Angeles market.


They do. And thanks, I'll check.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Church AV Guy said:


> Whoa, KCET is thinking about leaving PBS? Can the station DO that?


KCSM and KMTP (?? whatever was channel 32) in the Bay Area left PBS. The former is the channel for the College of San Mateo.. The latter IIRC was essentially a KQED sub-channel before sub-channels existed. (I guess a repeater is more correct?)

At least the former was a shame, because when KTEH wasn't owned by KQED, there were *3* good places to get PBS shows, and they all aired at different times. (Since KQED was the 'main' PBS station, they got the shows first.. The others were around a month later.) There's still some repeating in the middle of the night, and on the various subchannels (I get most, but not all, on cable.)


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

trainman said:


> I think you should be getting KOCE (Channel 50) in HD as well, assuming DirecTV considers you to be in the Los Angeles market.


Also KLCS2, 58-2.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I only get KCET on my cable system and because I am in the boonies, using an attenna to get subchannels is difficult Some of the KCET stuff comes out in full length form as a free blog on iTunes so that is how I get one show that is only shown on the subchannels.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

trainman said:


> I think you should be getting KOCE (Channel 50) in HD as well, assuming DirecTV considers you to be in the Los Angeles market.


Well, you are correct. KCOE come in with HD listed on it's programming. I stand corrected. The bad news is, it does not seem to carry Masterpiece, Nova, or Nature, which are my favorites. SO, it's not enough to get more than one PBS staion in HD, I need one that carries the PBS programming I watch.

Sigh...


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

trainman said:


> At any rate, while KCET did float the idea of leaving PBS a couple months ago, they pulled back on the rhetoric pretty quickly, and I haven't heard anything else about it. It'd be pretty difficult, since they'd lose much of their program lineup, and since they have a noncommercial license, it's not like they could make money by filling the time with infomercials.


Okay, I've heard something else about it! 

I stand by my statement that it's going to be pretty difficult to fill their programming lineup without PBS, but I'm interested to see what they're going to do.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

I hope it's a bluff, but I am thinking not. I would hate to lose KCET.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

mattack said:


> KCSM and KMTP (?? whatever was channel 32) in the Bay Area left PBS. The former is the channel for the College of San Mateo.. The latter IIRC was essentially a KQED sub-channel before sub-channels existed. (I guess a repeater is more correct?)


KMTP had nothing to do with KQED or PBS. Originally, Channel 32 was KQEC, which was owned and operated by KQED. However, at some point, when it came time to renew KQEC's license, a separate organization (I think it's called "Minority Television Project", hence KMTP) successfully petitioned the FCC to deny the renewal (among other things, KQED had shut the channel off for a few months as a cost-cutting measure, which was deemed "not to be in the public interest") and instead award the license to them instead.

(It wasn't a repeater - a repeater simply relays the existing programming. KQED had (and may still have) a number of those at one point. "A sub-channel before sub-channels existed" is pretty much what KQEC was.)

When did KCSM leave PBS? I was wondering why they suddenly dropped _The McLaughlin Group_...

-- Don


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

OK, I got the call letters wrong, I didn't realize they were owned by KQED at the time.. I had thought they were just like channel 54 -- a separate PBS station.

I don't remember when KCSM left PBS.. several years ago at least. Unfortunately the wikipedia page says they are still PBS.

Does ANYBODY watch anything on KMTP? I think I finally removed them from my Tivos, but I'm not 100&#37; positive.

oh, you said KMTP --had--.. maybe they're gone?


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

A recent article in the LA Times mentioned that KCET is still contemplating leaving PBS.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> A recent article in the LA Times mentioned that KCET is still contemplating leaving PBS.


The article says it's a done deal as of Jan 1.



> The flagship of PBS in the local market for 40 years, *KCET announced Friday that it was pulling out of the network, effective Jan. 1*, and becoming an independent outlet after wrangling with network officials for months over dues and other issues.
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-pbs-kerger-20101011,0,5374007.story


Isn't there a way for any independent station to get some PBS programing ala carte? Now that I think of it I can't remember seeing shows produced by PBS stations elsewhere, but other shows like from partnerships with the BBC must be on the market. Maybe PBS will make it hard for a "rebel" to get programming that others can get..


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

PBS isn't the only source of public programming. American Public Television is another syndicator of public television programming. A lot of the pledge week special programming is also provided by APT. Combining APT programming with their own stuff and stuff they may be able to syndicate themselves directly from the content creators might provide them enough programming for a full slate.


----------



## mclark11 (Feb 19, 2003)

The show with the bens was the worst. But the problem wasn't the Ben's, it was the other guest speakers which really derailed the show and the fact that one of the Ben's was kind of annoying by being to young (yeah not his fault but life isn't fair)


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

Huell Howser.....do something!!!!!!!!


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Roger and Chaz Ebert just announced who the hosts and contributors on "Ebert Presents at the Movies" will be: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/ebert_presents_at_the_movies.html

The only one I recognize is Jeff Greenfield.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

netringer said:


> Roger and Chaz Ebert just announced who the hosts and contributors on "Ebert Presents at the Movies" will be: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/ebert_presents_at_the_movies.html
> 
> The only one I recognize is Jeff Greenfield.


WHAT?! No John Mellencamp?!!


----------



## Michael S (Jan 12, 2004)

netringer said:


> Roger and Chaz Ebert just announced who the hosts and contributors on "Ebert Presents at the Movies" will be: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/ebert_presents_at_the_movies.html
> 
> The only one I recognize is Jeff Greenfield.


I'm surprised that Richard Roeper isn't on this wasn't he to try and do a show with a similar format to At the Movies.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Michael S said:


> I'm surprised that Richard Roeper isn't on this wasn't he to try and do a show with a similar format to At the Movies.


Richard Roeper announced that he made a deal to do a movie review show on the Reelz channel.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I hope my stupid channel that used to be PBS and is now "bunch of cooking shows" and British repeats channel shows this.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

sieglinde said:


> I hope my stupid channel that used to be PBS and is now "bunch of cooking shows" and British repeats channel shows this.


Yes, it premieres on KCET Sunday, January 23, at 8:30 P.M.

However, its Los Angeles premiere is on KLCS on Friday, January 21, at 7:30 P.M. That's apparently going to be its regular schedule -- KLCS on Friday, KCET on Sunday.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

If KCET thinks it is going to get another nickle from me they are delusional. No Frontline? I am enjoying Doc Martin (though I can stream it from Netflix) and there seems to be another show called Aviators that seems interesting.
Glad that At the Movies is back. I don't care if it is a day or so late. I sometimes went to a movie before I saw the review on the show but that never bothered me.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Here's a PDF of stations and their times.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

What happened to Elvis Mitchell? Didn't they already announce that the hosts would be Christy Lemire and Mitchell? 

Now the hosts are Christy and this other new guy, who is only 24??!!  I hope he's a lot better than Ben the Frat Dude. He can't really be worse. I'm going to trust Roger on this one.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

gossamer88 said:


> Here's a PDF of stations and their times.


Interesting that they didn't have any stations in Florida set as of December 10 (or else the state was accidentally left off the PDF). Looks like it's only going to be on a subchannel in my old hometown (WUSF's 16.4 in Tampa).


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Ok, it's back... and it's awful, at least so far. 

I know, I suppose I should give it a chance, it's their first show after all, but so far I just think that I'm going to hate Ignatiy. So far, his taste in movies is absolutely horrific. He gave stellar reviews to what are, by all accounts, some pretty dismal movies this week. He, unfortunately, reminds me much of the era of the Bens (Lyons/Mankiewicz).

Additionally, there's really no chemistry there whatsoever between Ignatiy and Christy... nor any hint that they will ever be able to develop the back and forth of Siskel and Ebert, or even AO Scott and Michael Phillips. They disagreed on every movie this week, yet Ignatiy didn't seem to be willing or able to really passionately argue for his position. "I so disagree!" was his catch phrase this week, but that's about as far as he went in arguing.

I also think they're trying to do too much. Being on PBS should give them more time to review films, because they don't have to take commercial breaks. Unfortunately, because they have crammed the show full of these extra segments, it felt like the reviews were even MORE brief than they were before.

I was disappointed that Ebert didn't use that new computer simulation of his own voice that he got not too long ago. His first appearance on his own show would've been the perfect opportunity to use it... yet he opted to have Werner Herzog read his piece for the show. We saw a brief shot of Ebert in his office typing at his laptop, but that's it.

Even the theme music was rubbish. The music they had on the preview video at ebertpresents.com was MUCH better. I don't know why they didn't use that.

The set was nice, though. Nice to see the balcony again. That's about all I liked about the show.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, it may have just been a really bad week to start the show, but a format of him loving every movie and her hating them really turns me off.

Wasn't that Ebert introducing the cast?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Wasn't that Ebert introducing the cast?


They did say "our managing editor, Roger Ebert, with a little help from his friends, has something he'd like to say..." but not only does it not sound like him at all, it doesn't sound like a computer voice either... so I would have to imagine that this too was read by someone else rather than by his voice.


----------



## aforkosh (Apr 20, 2003)

The cast introduction is an homage to the cast intro for Citizen Kane in the theatrical trailer for the movie. The narration was by an Orson Wells impersonator. He seemed to figure quite prominently in the show (given all the Third Man elements).


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Magnolia88 said:


> What happened to Elvis Mitchell? Didn't they already announce that the hosts would be Christy Lemire and Mitchell?
> 
> Now the hosts are Christy and this other new guy, who is only 24??!!  I hope he's a lot better than Ben the Frat Dude. He can't really be worse. I'm going to trust Roger on this one.


They dumped Mitchell quite recently, maybe early December? It was very late in the game.



LoadStar said:


> Additionally, there's really no chemistry there whatsoever between Ignatiy and Christy... nor any hint that they will ever be able to develop the back and forth of Siskel and Ebert, or even AO Scott and Michael Phillips.


Oddly, this reportedly was a big reason Mitchell was let go. Obviously the Eberts saw something in Ignatiy, and due to how late he was brought on board, there's been little time for he and Christy to develop their repartee. Hopefully given time it will happen.

(I've not yet seen the premiere to judge for myself.)


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

cmontyburns said:


> They dumped Mitchell quite recently, maybe early December? It was very late in the game.
> 
> Oddly, this reportedly was a big reason Mitchell was let go. Obviously the Eberts saw something in Ignatiy, and due to how late he was brought on board, there's been little time for he and Christy to develop their repartee. Hopefully given time it will happen.
> 
> (I've not yet seen the premiere to judge for myself.)


Yeah, the test show with Elvis was considerably worse:


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Elvis sighting!!!


----------



## deandashl (Aug 8, 2008)

The test show looks a LOT better than the aired show.

Elvis needs a haircut, but also acts like he's been on TV before.

I even like the graphics and such better on the test show.

When I watched the aired show it seemed to have low production values, NO chemistry, reviews seemed rushed, poor editing. Ebert needs to hire a professional producer.

Hard to believe a more polished show is worse than the pre-production version.

I WILL say I do like the simpler, easier going overall look. I'm OK with that.


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

No Roeper = not enough $


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Wow, I saw the first episode and I couldn't believe how bad it was. 

That young guy was a complete joke. Count how many times in the first episode alone that he calmly said "I disagree completely", and then nothing. Zzzzzz. Probably about 20 times. In the days of Siskel/Ebert, Gene would have finally given up and made some playful attacks at Roger to at least keep things entertaining. Heck, even Roeper, would have finally said, "Ok, now you're just off your rocker"...something! The two reviewers they selected are honestly worse than ANY of the previous incarnations, and there were plenty. 

The entire show didn't connect with anything really. The flow didn't work, the banter was stale, they insert a review of The Third Man...why? It's the very first episode and you'd think they can at least cover more about Roger, etc. (I was fully expecting to at least see Roger or hear his advanced computerized voice that he's his real voice, but it never happened. Again, why?) Seems like such a simple show to screw up, and wow, did they ever.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

I just happened to catch this show by mistake because it took the time-slot of America's Test Kitchen. I wasn't too impressed with what I saw. There are way too many people on the cast, keep it simple, if there aren't enough new movies to review, look at some DVD's etc. 

I like the Rotten Tomatoes Show on the Current channel slightly better, although for movie reviews I primarily just go to the Rotten Tomatoes website. With the availability of internet reviews, perhaps the days of the movie review TV show are over?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I thought it was ok, but it definitely needs some polishing up. I hope this isn't a pattern, the young guy LIKING everything and the young gal HATING everything. I got the feeling that she liked some of these movies more than she let on, but had to show how "tough" she was by giving them a thumbs down.

A couple of points:

Why did they have to keep saying "coming up on At the Movies"? This is PBS, there's no commercials. It killed the flow of the show. Just go from one segment to the next. 

While I like the personality of the gal who was doing the classic movies, I think it would be better to do that segment more like how they did it on the old incarnation, where they took a classic movie JUST coming out on DVD/BD and reviewing it then. Just pulling a classic movie out of their butt to review seemed kind of pointless.

I thought that was Ebert's "voice" on the review for the animated movie. But it was kind of strange to have a computer generated English voice with a "french" accent. Maybe it was someone else...not sure.

I think this could get better once the chemistry develops between the two main reviewers, so I'll watch a bit more. It's certainly better than the two Bens.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

The show is syndicated meaning it could have been on ABC as the old one was in my area so they have spaces for commercials. I think the voice was someone doing Orson Wells or something and just reading statements that Ebert had written. It was OK. Not great, I will watch it. I don't get a channel called Current so I don't have that option.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I thought they had the ability to recreate Roger's voice by computer. Why use somebody else's. I found that distracting.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I thought that was Ebert's "voice" on the review for the animated movie. But it was kind of strange to have a computer generated English voice with a "french" accent. Maybe it was someone else...not sure.


That was Werner Herzog speaking as the voice of Roger Ebert.


sieglinde said:


> The show is syndicated meaning it could have been on ABC as the old one was in my area so they have spaces for commercials. I think the voice was someone doing Orson Wells or something and just reading statements that Ebert had written. It was OK. Not great, I will watch it. I don't get a channel called Current so I don't have that option.


It was syndicated, but through American Public Television, not through a typical syndicator, and was produced by a Public Television station. You will be highly unlikely to find it on a commercial television station.

Edit: scratch "highly unlikely to," replace with "won't." APT is only offering it to public television and non-com cable.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> The show is syndicated meaning it could have been on ABC as the old one was in my area so they have spaces for commercials. I think the voice was someone doing Orson Wells or something and just reading statements that Ebert had written. It was OK. Not great, I will watch it. I don't get a channel called Current so I don't have that option.


I hadn't heard it was syndicated. I didn't know PBS developed shows (new ones anyway) are syndicated. Makes sense then.

EDIT: Didn't read the next post. My point still stands then. No need for "coming up"


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I hadn't heard it was syndicated. I didn't know PBS developed shows (new ones anyway) are syndicated. Makes sense then.


This is not a "PBS-developed show." "PBS" is not synonymous with "public television" -- the vast majority of public television stations are PBS member stations, but that doesn't mean everything they broadcast was distributed through PBS; conversely, it also doesn't mean they have to distribute everything they produce through PBS.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

DeDondeEs said:


> I like the Rotten Tomatoes Show on the Current channel slightly better, although for movie reviews I primarily just go to the Rotten Tomatoes website. With the availability of internet reviews, perhaps the days of the movie review TV show are over?


You *liked* it better, the Rotten Tomatoes Show hasn't been on for many months.. so I haven't watched/recorded anything on Current since then.

I do think a movie review TV show is useful/entertaining, even if I don't disagree with the hosts..

Though I didn't really like these hosts. I would even say I liked the hated (by everybody but me) young guys from a few years ago on At the Movies were better. One liked everything, one hated everything.

Roeper turned into a pretty good guy.. I had liked Elvis Mitchell on things in the past, he would've been good as a regular.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

He reminded me of all the celebrity guests that Roeper had when Ebert was sick, and everybody liked everything.

Dude, you're not John Mellencamp, you can offend somebody in Hollywood by not liking their movie.

-smak-


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Saw the second episode today. This time the two hosts agreed on every movie. The show seemed to flow a lot better this time around.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DeDondeEs said:


> Saw the second episode today. This time the two hosts agreed on every movie. The show seemed to flow a lot better this time around.


But the two hosts are still pretty dreadful together. It was almost as if after last week somebody ordered them to have better chemistry.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

How cool that they never threw out the original 'At The Movies' chairs.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I think the two biggest problems I have with the show are:
1) Ignatiy is way too overly expressive... kind of like a really bad actor, he thinks he has to over-annunciate and over-emote everything as he's saying it. It's completely unnatural.
2) The segment of the reviews where they discuss the movie - they're not discussing. They're reciting facts and bullet points at each other. "This movie is directed by John Smith, who also directed _This Film_ and _That Film_." "Yes, and you can tell that he brought a lot of that experience to the making of the film we're reviewing." That's not a discussion. We want to see you discuss with each other why you like the film. Don't just recite facts you know about the film, because those who care probably know already, and those who don't know won't care.

Both of these can be seen in the intro to the show, when Christy told Ignatiy about the chairs - something they both clearly knew already. Yet, Ignatiy had to mug and pretend he was surprised at being told. It's insulting to the audience, looks fake, and immediately the audience begins to doubt your sincerity.

Guys - relax and just review the darn movies already.

Edit: I think I've seen problem 3:
3) Christy has good on screen presence by herself... but everything about her positively screams "I don't give a s*** what anyone else thinks." If you have this episode recorded, just watch the interaction during the review of "Barney's Version." She smiles and fake laughs and all that, but her entire demeanor is positively caustic.


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

Every time Ignatiy Vishnevetsky was onscreen, I kept thinking that he looks like someone. I think I figured it out -- Dana Carvey. Isn't that special??


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Watched it for the first time today. What a couple of morons. They sound like they both studied the "Movie Critic's Handy Book of Catch Phrases" before the show. And whatshername, when whatshisname agreed with her, kept saying "That's so sweet." (No, really, she did.) The guest critic was a friggin' blogger, for crimeny, who was going on about Freud, for crimeny.

The only remotely interesting part of the show was Siskel's mustache and Ebert's hair in the clip at the end.


----------



## kcarl75 (Oct 23, 2002)

SP deleted. Horrible choice in hosts. They have a format they know works. All they had to do was pick the right people. I'd rather they did the rotating hosts over these two. 

FAIL.


----------



## HellFish (Jan 28, 2007)

It was preceded by any airing of Rain Man in my area, so I missed the last 15 minutes. I guess Rain Man ran into extra innings.

Did someone really give No Strings Attached a thumbs up last week?


----------



## aintnosin (Jun 25, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> How cool that they never threw out the original 'At The Movies' chairs.


Those are actually the original "Sneak Previews" chairs.


----------



## deli99 (Nov 12, 2003)

HellFish said:


> Did someone really give No Strings Attached a thumbs up last week?


That was Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, who so far has given 'thumbs up' to all but one movie (_Biutiful_, this week). I know it's a small sample size, but if he likes everything, it kind of defeats the purpose of the show for me.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

This week was MUCH better. It's like they read my post and have worked on most of the elements. Ignatiy is much more relaxed this week, and less overly expressive, the converssations between Christy and Ignatiy are slightly more genuine, and Christy dropped her fake laugh and retracted her claws.

Really the only thing I didn't like as much was the special piece from Jeff Greenfield, who drew a really bizarre conclusion from "The American President," and grouped it (a rather good film) in with some pretty dismal political films.

I still think it's inferior to the AO Scott/Michael Phillips, Ebert/Roeper, and Siskel/Ebert iterations, but this is the first week I can see some glimmer of hope and reason to keep watching this version.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I'm still not impressed, although I admit it doesn't suck quite as much as it did before. Ignatiy continues to annoy me. He doesn't seem to get that just because somebody doesn't have the same opinion doesn't mean they're wrong; accusing Christy of being "petty" because she didn't like a movie about slam poetry because she doesn't like slam poetry seems, well, petty. I think that's a perfectly valid reason for not liking a movie, and instead of slamming her for it, he should perhaps acknowledge that this isn't a movie that's going to appeal to everybody.

I think he has a lot of growing up to do before he'll be a very good critic.

Load, I don't get your criticism of the Greenfield piece. You do understand that he was only talking about one particular kind of scene that often appears in political movies? And that American President did indeed have that scene, and that it was indeed utterly unrealistic?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm still not impressed, although I admit it doesn't suck quite as much as it did before. Ignatiy continues to annoy me. He doesn't seem to get that just because somebody doesn't have the same opinion doesn't mean they're wrong; accusing Christy of being "petty" because she didn't like a movie about slam poetry because she doesn't like slam poetry seems, well, petty. I think that's a perfectly valid reason for not liking a movie, and instead of slamming her for it, he should perhaps acknowledge that this isn't a movie that's going to appeal to everybody.


I'm not sure that Ignatiy expressed his point well, but I sort of agree with him. As he pointed out, she seemed to like the story being told, just not the slam poetry, and as he pointed out, sometimes movies tell a good story about something very unlikeable.

I think it's a sign of growth that he was able to actually argue with her on this point, though.


Rob Helmerichs said:


> Load, I don't get your criticism of the Greenfield piece. You do understand that he was only talking about one particular kind of scene that often appears in political movies? And that American President did indeed have that scene, and that it was indeed utterly unrealistic?


What I complain about is Greenfield's conclusion: "The implication here is that if only a liberal president would throw caution to the winds for once he would win over the country." While that is something that Greenfield might have inferred, I don't see that implication in the movie at all. _The American President_ was really a romance film set in a political theatre, and that moment followed suit: it had a political voice, but it was more a romantic speech than anything else. The movie ends before it can infer anything about how well it would "win over the country."

Minor quibble, but I just think that he included _The American President_ because yes, it has a dramatic speech from the President... but unlike Greenfield's other examples, it isn't one that unbelievably "wins over" his opponents or the country, it's just a speech given at a press conference, which real presidents do from time to time. It is a much better movie than the other examples provided.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

I think the plan with all those rotating outside (blogger) correspondents is going to be enjoyable. I liked the "Classic Films" review of "The Third Man" and set a wishlist to get it.

There are many classics like that I haven't seen yet. I like to be reminded to get a round tuit to watch.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I thought the most recent episode was even worse than the earlier ones, and came this close to shutting it off. Perhaps it was somewhat due to the crop of movies they reviewed (a documentary about a poetry slam, really?), but I didn't find myself in the least bit interested in seeing any of them. And the reviews certainly did not help.

I appreciate that movie critics should have a background in cinema, but I find the seemingly constant reference to earlier films of this director or this screenwriter or this cinematographer (yes, I'm probably exaggerating) to be of no help at all and just showing off to give their opinions some weight. 

Perhaps the most important problem I have is that I just don't find them likeable. To that, of course, Ignatiy would say "I disagree, I disagree."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

efilippi said:


> Perhaps the most important problem I have is that I just don't find them likeable. To that, of course, Ignatiy would say "I disagree, I disagree."


But in a way that suggests you are factually incorrect, and that no reasonable person would hold your opinion.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Did anyone catch the last episode? The one where they list the films that got them into their profession.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Yeah.. Started out good with The Breakfast Club, then the rest seemed more like torture than movies one could actually watch/enjoy.

BTW, I am _not_ someone who automatically has disdain for a movie because it's in black & white or has subtitles.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

mattack said:


> Yeah.. Started out good with The Breakfast Club, then the rest seemed more like torture than movies one could actually watch/enjoy.
> 
> BTW, I am _not_ someone who automatically has disdain for a movie because it's in black & white or has subtitles.


Agreed with mattack, particularly with Ignatiy's choices. I mean, a 9 hour documentary? Some new wave French experimental movie all about movies? Yikes.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The thing that struck me as bizarre about this episode is that somehow the producers seem to think that after, what, three weeks, we were going to know and respect these people's opinions enough to value them in a special episode? I wonder how long it was before Siskel & Ebert did a special episode?

Then again, I doubt I will ever respect these people's opinions, so it probably doesn't matter...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Roger tweeted this today:
http://siskelandebert.org/

Up until this new show, I had thought Sneak Previews was the first show they did.


----------



## USAFSSO (Aug 24, 2005)

Just caught this for the first time this weekend. Ignatiy comes off as an absolute pampas jerk. I don't know if this is an example of the new critics we have now days and just think the euro trash avant-gard is the only thing that matters and anything out of Hollywood is just for idiots. OK I understand one of those films may get your interest in movies, but what a jerk. He needs to be on NPR.

With that said my list would be...Sunset Boulevard, Lawrence of Arabia, Longest Day, Star Wars IV, Citizen Cain.

But I also think the bean/campfire scene in Blazing Saddles is funny, and I get the felling Ignatiy doesn't.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

USAFSSO said:


> He needs to be on NPR.


He's on PBS (well, PBS affiliates). Close enough?



> _With that said my list would be..._


Your list of movies that got you into being a film critic? It's not the same as "favorite movies".


----------



## RangersRBack (Jan 9, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The thing that struck me as bizarre about this episode is that somehow the producers seem to think that after, what, three weeks, we were going to know and respect these people's opinions enough to value them in a special episode? I wonder how long it was before Siskel & Ebert did a special episode?
> 
> Then again, I doubt I will ever respect these people's opinions, so it probably doesn't matter...


Maybe the point was for the audience to get to know the critics a little better, since they're so new to us. They definitely need some personalization.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Whenever someone puts Citizen Kane in their list of favorite movies, they lose credibility with me. That movie is so overratted, as a movie with a good story. Yes it was a breakthrough in editing, technical aspects etc. But IMO the Ford Model T was a breakthrough in the way the automobile was produced as well, but I don't consider it as one of the best vehicles ever. 

Most modern movie critics don't review new movies for their technical merit, they focus more on the plot. In fact if there is too much CGI tech type and editing stuff and not enough story they usually pan it, but then they turn around and say how "genius" Citizen Kane was.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

DeDondeEs said:


> Whenever someone puts Citizen Kane in their list of favorite movies, they lose credibility with me.


Time for you to dump Ebert. CC is the movie that made him a critic, the impetus behind this episode of ATM.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

zalusky said:


> I thought they had the ability to recreate Roger's voice by computer. Why use somebody else's. I found that distracting.


Roger demonstrated that on TV news profile segment recently. It uses phonemes from the vast library of recordings of Roger as a source. It still sounded flat and monotone. I guess the tech company is still working on it and they aren't there yet.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Flat and monotone? Do you like ANY computer voice? It's one of the best computer voices I've ever heard.. and amazing that it actually sounds "like someone". Yes, it sounds like Roger Ebert 'combined with a slightly robotic voice'.

(Then again, I have my alerts speak with Zardoz.)


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

mattack said:


> Flat and monotone? Do you like ANY computer voice? It's one of the best computer voices I've ever heard.. and amazing that it actually sounds "like someone". Yes, it sounds like Roger Ebert 'combined with a slightly robotic voice'.
> 
> (Then again, I have my alerts speak with Zardoz.)


I don't think that's his voice yet. Have to go back and listen 'cause it sounded to me like the voice he's been using.


----------



## Barmat (Jun 1, 2001)

mattack said:


> Flat and monotone? Do you like ANY computer voice? It's one of the best computer voices I've ever heard.. and amazing that it actually sounds "like someone". Yes, it sounds like Roger Ebert 'combined with a slightly robotic voice'.
> 
> (Then again, I have my alerts speak with Zardoz.)





gossamer88 said:


> I don't think that's his voice yet. Have to go back and listen 'cause it sounded to me like the voice he's been using.


It was Eberts voice. It was taken from commentary he had done for a DVD of Kane. It was recorded years ago.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Barmat said:


> It was Eberts voice. It was taken from commentary he had done for a DVD of Kane. It was recorded years ago.


I think they're talking about this week's episode, in which Ebert uses a computer generated voice for the first time. Truth be told, I'm not sure if the voice he used this week is the "Ebert" voice or not, it was hard to tell.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It sounded pretty robo-Eberty to me...


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Agree (with Load). The computerized voice wasn't awful but it did not sound anything like Ebert. I think the review would have been easier to understand if it had been read by a voice actor. I found myself paying more attention to how the computer sounded than I did the review itself. What was it about, anyway?

As for the rest of the show this week, I found it to be much more enjoyable, more what I expect "at the movies" to be. I'm still not a big fan of Ignatiy but Christy is growing on me.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

efilippi said:


> As for the rest of the show this week, I found it to be much more enjoyable, more what I expect "at the movies" to be. I'm still not a big fan of Ignatiy but Christy is growing on me.


Yes, this is the first time the show didn't completely turn me off (and maybe not coincidentally, it felt like the first time that they basically spent the show reviewing movies instead of trying out various gimmicks). I don't know if I'll ever get to the point where their reviews will be very useful (in the sense that I can tell whether or not I will like the movie, which I could almost always do with Siskel & Ebert and more often than not with Ebert & Roeper, but not so much with any other team). But at least now I'm more likely to give it enough time to get to know their tastes and find out how reliable they will be.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

The voice on this show sure sounded like a regular computer voice to me.. it did not sound to me like the robo-Ebert voice.. Who knows, maybe the clip I had heard previously (from the Oprah episode?) was just one example that sounded especially like him..

but I don't think so. Maybe there's some other reason they couldn't use that voice on the show (if it indeed isn't the robo-Ebert voice).


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It sounded pretty robo-Eberty to me...





efilippi said:


> Agree (with Load). The computerized voice wasn't awful but it did not sound anything like Ebert. I think the review would have been easier to understand if it had been read by a voice actor. I found myself paying more attention to how the computer sounded than I did the review itself. What was it about, anyway?
> ...





mattack said:


> The voice on this show sure sounded like a regular computer voice to me.. it did not sound to me like the robo-Ebert voice.. Who knows, maybe the clip I had heard previously (from the Oprah episode?) was just one example that sounded especially like him..
> 
> but I don't think so. Maybe there's some other reason they couldn't use that voice on the show (if it indeed isn't the robo-Ebert voice).


It wasn't Ebert's voice on this week's At the Movies. He demo'ed that on CBS Sunday Morning. This was a vanilla voice that ships on OS X.

I dunno why Roger is using that one, but he said the effort to make a voice system that uses Roger's phonemes wasn't fully baked yet. It may just be something like it isn't fast enough - but you'd think they could render it ahead of time.


----------



## Michael S (Jan 12, 2004)

Is there going to be a show next week? Because I was going through the listings and I saw a listing for this weekend episode nothing for next weekend.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I have a listing for 2/27 and 3/6 check your SP, something else maybe in the way.


----------



## IGWTAOPC (Jan 1, 2007)

Michael S said:


> Is there going to be a show next week? Because I was going through the listings and I saw a listing for this weekend episode nothing for next weekend.


There are new episodes coming, but in the New York DMA WNET, the prime PBS station which covers the OTA area well, is dropping the show and switching it to it's secondary channel, WLIW. WLIW covers only a small fraction of the DMA and doesn't broadcast in HD. Another good reason that no one entity should be allowed to have more than one broadcast license in a city. Cable and satellite subscribers should have no problem. Possibly something like this has also occurred in your area.

The ebertpresents website does stream the reviews individually, but doesn't stream the entire show as a whole. (At least I haven't found it.) The entire show is being uploaded to usenet, which implies it can probably be found in torrent format as well if you look around for it.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Two weeks now did not record. My guide can't even find it.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

gossamer88 said:


> Two weeks now did not record. My guide can't even find it.


Yeah, mine is showing "no upcoming episodes" as well. Could they be going back for retooling of the show?

Edit: nope, according to their webpage, they filmed an episode this week. They note on their twitter feed that pledge weeks are throwing the schedule off on stations around the country. The odd part is that we have two PBS stations in Milwaukee, so I'd have thought it'd be on at least one of them at some point.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Well, I did some checking on the WMVS/WMVT website, and it looks like here in Milwaukee, they are skipping airing episodes 108 (weekend of 3/11) and 109 (weekend of 3/18). It returns here with episode 110, a special episode about 3D, on 3/25, then back to normal reviews on 4/2.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I watched it online. They're not full episodes. Reviews are individual clips which makes for faster viewing when you only want to watch those movies you're interested in.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I had one on my Tivo yesterday and watched it, not sure when it aired. It featured reviews of Battle Los Angeles, Red riding Hood, and Mars needs Moms plus another I can't recall. Ebert did the Los Angeles one, said it was the worst movie ever made, or something like that. I again did not enjoy listening to Ignaty, just not my kind of reviewer.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

My schedule has two episodes showing (I get it on Sunday). Your stations may not be showing it anymore or during a pledge break time.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Mine didn't have it this week, but does next.

I guess we're really at the mercy of our local stations! Good thing I don't care much...


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

Ignatiy bugs me. It seems like he has a 1-2 second delay in response within the conversation -- like it's taking his brain longer to process. He also has this maniacal grin that's kind of creepy.

I was hoping to warm up to him by now but it's not happening.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I am behind on these and just watched the episode where they describe the movies that made them critics. Where did the guy see all those silent films? I have only seen silent movies at special presentations of historical films such as M or Birth of a Nation. etc.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

mattack said:


> Roger tweeted this today:
> http://siskelandebert.org/
> 
> Up until this new show, I had thought Sneak Previews was the first show they did.


They have shown clips of what I thought was the pilot for Sneak Previews in the past; it was called "Coming Soon to at Theater Near You."



gossamer88 said:


> Two weeks now did not record. My guide can't even find it.


I am having the same problem with _The McLaughlin Group_ (there are three PBS stations in the San Francisco Bay Area that usually air it; none of them aired either of the last two episodes). The PBS schedules tend to get screwed up around national pledge break periods.

-- Don


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> I am having the same problem with _The McLaughlin Group_ (there are three PBS stations in the San Francisco Bay Area that usually air it; none of them aired either of the last two episodes). The PBS schedules tend to get screwed up around national pledge break periods.


Which amuses me to no end. During pledge week, they stop showing a lot of their regular programming to show all these specials, then break in asking for financial support "for programs like these." Programs like these which won't be seen again on PBS until the next pledge week.


----------



## bobino (Jul 24, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> Where did the guy see all those silent films? I have only seen silent movies at special presentations of historical films such as M or Birth of a Nation. etc.


Film school. I'm guessing he was a teacher's pet who said all the things the teacher wanted to hear. Blah! His list is like a term paper for a black and white film class. I wasn't inspired to watch any of the movies that influence him.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

bobino said:


> Film school. I'm guessing he was a teacher's pet who said all the things the teacher wanted to hear.


Actually, you're about as wrong as you could possibly be. 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/116544203.html



> Ignatiy had to be one of the smartest C-minus students at Wauwatosa East. There was talk of making him a graduation speaker in 2004, he said, but he was dropped from the program because of lost textbooks and also because it wasn't entirely clear he'd qualify to graduate.
> 
> That summer he moved to Chicago and enrolled at Columbia College with hopes of becoming a film director, but he quit with less than a year's worth of credits. He was more interested in hanging out and working at Odd Obsession, an underground movie store, and watching films with like-minded friends.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

That Don Guy said:


> They have shown clips of what I thought was the pilot for Sneak Previews in the past; it was called "Coming Soon to at Theater Near You."
> 
> I am having the same problem with _The McLaughlin Group_ (there are three PBS stations in the San Francisco Bay Area that usually air it; none of them aired either of the last two episodes). The PBS schedules tend to get screwed up around national pledge break periods.
> 
> -- Don


What would be cool is if they actually showed a whole vintage review, not just 10 seconds.

-smak-


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I believe you can watch those old ones online..

BTW, I think the Red Riding Hood/Battle LA episode was truly this week's. Last week's was prempted in the SF Bay Area AFAIK.. It's a shame you can't watch the show online _as an entire show_. (So I guess I'll have to somehow figure out which was last week's -- and plus you presumably miss the intro/outros..)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mattack said:


> I believe you can watch those old ones online..
> 
> BTW, I think the Red Riding Hood/Battle LA episode was truly this week's. Last week's was prempted in the SF Bay Area AFAIK.. It's a shame you can't watch the show online _as an entire show_. (So I guess I'll have to somehow figure out which was last week's -- and plus you presumably miss the intro/outros..)


For me it's just not worth it. If it shows up on my TiVo, fine. If it doesn't, that's fine too.

Definitely not Siskel & Ebert, or even Ebert & Roeper. Or Roeper & Whoever.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Watching a few minutes of this show makes me realize how special the on air chemistry was between Siskel and Ebert.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

lew said:


> Watching a few minutes of this show makes me realize how special the on air chemistry was between Siskel and Ebert.


:up:


----------



## JTAnderson (Jun 6, 2000)

Church AV Guy said:


> :up:


:up::up:


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I saw a new episode last night and found it to be better than before. Ignaty was only half as grating as he previously was, and I am now more able to accept/ignore the review points of his that I find so over the top.

Christy, on the other hand, made points that I found helpful. She is becoming a reviewer I think I can trust. Her comments on "The Lincoln Lawyer" rang true and, though I like the books, I now think I'll wait until dvd to see the movie.

Others reviewed were Paul, two Thumbs down if I recall, and the Paul Giamatti film whose title escapes me at the moment, the one where he is a wrestling coach with money problems. Ignatiy had some stupid reason for disliking it, Christy thought it was good, reinforcing what I have heard in other places. Roger typed the review of the movie about the guy who takes a pill and becomes a genius, and couldn't bring himself to approving it.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

My used to be PBS channel shows McLaughlin group twice. I check it on the first one and then record the second if needed. Last week this happened with Japan earthquake coverage which I was getting from other newschannels.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

lew said:


> Watching a few minutes of this show makes me realize how special the on air chemistry was between Siskel and Ebert.


After watching it for several weeks now, I find myself not liking either host very much, or their comments. I am thinking of just dropping it entirely as not significant to my decision making process. In other words, they are just about useless. I really hope Ebert replaces them both.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Well it finally recorded. They even apologized about the shows not airing because of pledge drives. They also showed reviews (Limitless, Rango, etc.) from those past episodes. Pretty nice but I already caught them online.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

gossamer88 said:


> Well it finally recorded. They even apologized about the shows not airing because of pledge drives. They also showed reviews (Limitless, Rango, etc.) from those past episodes. Pretty nice but I already caught them online.


The odd part was that Rango was reviewed 3 weeks ago, in an episode that would have aired most places.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I am behind on these and watched the Rango episode yesterday. I realized that I am beginning to like the show. There are intereting features and the reviewers give enough of the gist of film for me to know whether I would like it or not.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Some stupid movie recorded instead and half way through it shows up as a rerun...WTF?!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Must be your local station's Guide Data...here, it didn't show at its usual time Friday evening (or at least it wasn't scheduled), but the second showing recorded properly overnight.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Ok here in Chicago, too. And I must say I liked Christy's take on Prom, a show I'm certainly not planning to see. Whereas Ignatiy gave the expected review of it as trite, obvious, etc., she said that he was correct if speaking to adults, but the movies is not made for adults but for 12 year old girls. They will love it and, for them, it is a thumbs up movie.

Makes sense to me.

I was surprised that Roger gave a thumbs up to the Fast and Furious flick.


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

efilippi said:


> And I must say I liked Christy's take on Prom, a show I'm certainly not planning to see.


"Show"? Weird choice of terminology.



efilippi said:


> Whereas Ignatiy gave the expected review of it as trite, obvious, etc., she said that he was correct if speaking to adults, but the movies is not made for adults but for 12 year old girls. They will love it and, for them, it is a thumbs up movie.


I had the opposite take. Christy doesn't give teens enough credit to recognize obvious cliches. When I was that age I new a pat, standard storyline when I saw it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

rrrobinsonjr said:


> I had the opposite take. Christy doesn't give teens enough credit to recognize obvious cliches. When I was that age I new a pat, standard storyline when I saw it.


And it's kind of patronizing to say "Objectively, this movie sucks, but it should be OK for YOUR kind." She should just review the movie from her own perspective; I'm sure in this internet age all the teenaged girls who find her hopelessly old and fuddy-duddy have plenty of other sources of movie info geared more towards them.


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> She should just review the movie from her own perspective....


It's a good rule-of-thumb for all 'critics'.

I once confronted a local TV movie guy about this exact thing. I said "you don't really give your opinion". He said, "I loved 'Blue Velvet', but I can't recommend that to the 75 year old woman watching my report".

He went on to say "I'm a _reviewer_, not a _critic_"...

Cop out!


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

rrrobinsonjr said:


> "Show"? Weird choice of terminology.


Perhaps it's an age thing. We routinely went to "the show" when I was younger. You are right that I don't think I say that anymore. A bit of a lapse there.

As for whose perspective a movie reviewer should consider, I'll just agree to disagree. You and Rob are probably 'correct' but I find my and Christy's position to be more practical, at least for me.


----------



## Inundated (Sep 10, 2003)

I like this show...like the by-play and differences between Christy and Ignatiy, like the Roger reviews being read by special voices, like it overall.

Our larger PBS affiliate, WVIZ/25, just picked this show up Fridays at 10:30 PM. It was already airing on the other PBS affiliate, WEAO/49.


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

I took a young lady to the picture show, removed her unmentionables and consorted with her in the balcony. Now she is in a family way.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Unfortunately the reviews for the decent sounding movies (such as the one about the cave) were interrupted by breakingnews coverage. They actually went to BBC. (I get this thing on Sunday evening) The odd thing is it is being replaced by some kids show next week. I wonder if KCET is dropping it.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I think this show (heh) is growing on me.. I still don't think they're anywhere near as good as previous hosts (even the much maligned Bens, or the Rotten Tomatoes Show hosts), and I admit it's the Ebert connection that got me to watch in the first place... But movie reviews are enjoyable, when there's back and forth between two people about a movie.


----------



## Inundated (Sep 10, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> I wonder if KCET is dropping it.


Does KOCE or KLCS run it?


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Since I get neither, I didn't check.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Inundated said:


> Does KOCE or KLCS run it?


At least one of them does, because I found it on the DirecTV schedule when it disappeared from the channel 28 schedule.

I used to watch KCET a lot, now, not at all. I wonder if the change was worth it for them?


----------



## Inundated (Sep 10, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> Since I get neither, I didn't check.


Oh, I didn't see how far out you are.

KOCE did expand its cable carriage when it became the primary PBS affiliate for Southern California:

http://www.koce.org/cable_list.htm

Don't see your area on the list, tho.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

The local cable company is working on it. The local Booster is working on it also. The Booster is actually "home built" repeaters on our hills that transmit the lower channels and things like KCET. It also repeats NPR and thank all the gawds, KLOC so we can get those radio stations. Boondocks, way the heck out, in the middle of no where. That is where I live. The local cable company gets their feed for KCET right now.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I watched this for the first time since the pilot, which I thought was pretty decent, but I kept forgetting it was on. I'm ok with these two, but, for some reason, their reviews are so predictable based on their gender. And it appears that Ignatiy, is reading every thing off the teleprompter. I mean, it's REALLY obvious!!


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

When I saw that the new show would be on PBS [affiliates], I thought, great, at least it won't be pushed back/preempted by sports all the time, like Ebert & Roeper was. But no; it's actually _worse_ now. I didn't think that was possible. Last week, MPT preempted it for some royal wedding crap, and this week they're preempting it for something else. I managed to reschedule that one for WETA, but at this point I've missed, like, half the episodes altogether. I'm going to have to do what I did for the old show, and make an ARWL instead of a Season Pass.

MPT et al: New movies come out _every week_. This show needs to be on _every week_. If you're only going to run it half the time, then stop jerking your viewers around and just drop it altogether. 

BTW, I finally heard Ebert's new synthesized "voice" the other day -- not on this show, but on a TED talk (IIRC). He thinks it needs work, and he only used it for a small portion of the event, otherwise alternating between using a synthesized voice called "Alex", and having other humans read his words, like on the show. I think he's totally wrong about this, and it's far more compelling hearing him in his own voice, even if it's imperfect.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

sieglinde said:


> The local cable company is working on it. The local Booster is working on it also. The Booster is actually "home built" repeaters on our hills that transmit the lower channels and things like KCET. It also repeats NPR and thank all the gawds, KLOC so we can get those radio stations. Boondocks, way the heck out, in the middle of no where. That is where I live. The local cable company gets their feed for KCET right now.


I know it's not worth switching for this one program, but DirecTV in Ridgecrest has a large number of LA "local" stations, including KCET, KOCE, KLCS, and KVCR (which also carries the show).

Are you saying the local cable company STILL gets their KCET feed from the TVBooster? I knew they did years ago, but I would have expected that they would have fixed that a long time ago.

I don't think the booster equipment is really home built. It is maintained by volunteers though.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I don't know about KCET anymore. They may not get KOCE on the booster either.

I don't know where that equipment came from and the volunteers are mostly retired engineers so it is in good hands.


----------



## Inundated (Sep 10, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> I don't know where that equipment came from and the volunteers are mostly retired engineers so it is in good hands.


It's likely one of those "local TV cooperatives" put up to serve areas like yours. Probably a non-profit corporation with those aforementioned engineers to keep it running.

I forgot all about KVCR, the Riverside-based PBS station. I assume you don't have them, either.

Well, anyway, due to all the PBS mess, I'm sure you'll have KOCE at some point.


----------



## Inundated (Sep 10, 2003)

BTW, if you do get KVCR for some reason, they run the show (according to their online schedule) Friday nights at 7 PM.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

We actually have a channel on Mediacom called HD01 which is showing regular PBS so we get shows like American Experience and the Newshour. Oddly, not McLaughlin Group or the Ebert movies thing. I get those on old KCET.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

sieglinde said:


> We actually have a channel on Mediacom called HD01 which is showing regular PBS so we get shows like American Experience and the Newshour. Oddly, not McLaughlin Group or the Ebert movies thing. I get those on old KCET.


I dropped Mediacom a decade ago, and I quit keeping up with the Booster when DirecTV made all the LA locals available. KOCE and KVCR are both showing Ebert's program on Friday evenings, at differernt times, 7PM and 9PM. KCET used to show it on Sunday, but it isn't on the schedule anymore for some reason. Maybe it's temporary.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I have it showing on 5/15 on KCET.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> I think he's totally wrong about this, and it's far more compelling hearing him in his own voice, even if it's imperfect.


Totally agree. I'm getting tired of listening to Bill Kurtis speak for him in the "Roger's Office" segments.

Oh, and Ignatiy annoys the crap out of me. I thought it might be the other way around after the first couple weeks, but he always seems the more stiff and scripted of the two. :down:


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I might as well be reading the Ebert parts. They show the same stock footage of him typing each time so you are not really seeing him give a review. The computer voice he does use is not a Hawkings type thing where he can talk and answer questions. It is more, he types and it reads so they might as well keep the actor speaking for him.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> I might as well be reading the Ebert parts. They show the same stock footage of him typing each time so you are not really seeing him give a review. The computer voice he does use is not a Hawkings type thing where he can talk and answer questions. It is more, he types and it reads so they might as well keep the actor speaking for him.


I don't think you understand the Hawking device. It's basically the same thing as Ebert's, except Hawking can't type, so he uses a selection joystick.

Ebert's is much faster (a good typist can type faster than he talks, so unlike Hawking Ebert could do real-time conversation; Hawking has to prepare his "spoken" remarks in advance). The advantage of it over having an actor is that it uses his own voice. But apparently it's not yet ready for prime time, at least in Ebert's opinion...which of course is the only one that matters.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Last night, for the first time in years, I saw "TWO THUMBS UP" in a movie ad (with "- Ebert Presents" below it).


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

For some reason they replaced this with some show about pre-school last night. <shrug>


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I think I'm going to give up on this show. Not because of the schedule but because I don't like these reviewers. Especially Ignatiy. His arrogance is so off-putting and his taste is so pretentious. Christy Lemire is OK but she brings nothing to reviews. I wish Roeper was back.

And wasn't there suppose to be a rotating shift with other reviewers? What happened to that idea?


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I agree with your description of Ignatiy. One would love to have had a drink with Siskel and Ebert. Ignatiy? I don't think so...


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

gossamer88 said:


> And wasn't there suppose to be a rotating shift with other reviewers? What happened to that idea?


That was never the idea with this incarnation of the show, actually.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> That was never the idea with this incarnation of the show, actually.


Are you sure? I thought there was supposed to be the two main reviewers, but then there would be additional guest reviews by a rotating group of reviewers. I'm guessing the latter is what gossamer was referring to.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Are you sure? I thought there was supposed to be the two main reviewers, but then there would be additional guest reviews by a rotating group of reviewers. I'm guessing the latter is what gossamer was referring to.


What you might be thinking of are the segments from a core of contributors. They aren't reviews, and were never going to be, but instead more in depth looks at various topics. We've had a few of them already; some looks at various classic films, the Jeff Greenfield segments on movies about politics and movies about baseball... a couple of other ones that I forget at this point.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Are you sure? I thought there was supposed to be the two main reviewers, *but then there would be additional guest reviews by a rotating group of reviewers. *I'm guessing the latter is what gossamer was referring to.


This.

I killed the SP (as if it even worked!).


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

gossamer88 said:


> I think I'm going to give up on this show. Not because of the schedule but because I don't like these reviewers. Especially Ignatiy. His arrogance is so off-putting and his taste is so pretentious. Christy Lemire is OK but she brings nothing to reviews. *I wish Roeper was back*.


THIS! :up:

I agree completely.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Nice, nostalgic blog post by Ebert today talking about early days with Siskel, as the backdrop for announcing that _Ebert Presents_ will start showing some archival footage this weekend. These will be replays of special editions of _Sneak Previews_ that S&E did, covering topics like "great movies that Oscar ignored" and "movies that changed the movies". It'll be really nice to see these shows again, and to relive the early days of the S&E partnership on TV.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Ignatiy's actually gotten a little more bearable in the past few months (though his almost weekly pants creaming over Godard's _Film Socialisme_ became annoying quickly).

Honestly, it's a couple of the semi-regular contributors I can't stand. Kartina Richardson, the Asian film critic with a voice like a five-year-old who whispers all the time, grates on me like few others, and I can't understand why that child film critic Jackson Murphy is still getting screen time.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

cmontyburns said:


> Nice, nostalgic blog post by Ebert today talking about early days with Siskel, as the backdrop for announcing that _Ebert Presents_ will start showing some archival footage this weekend. These will be replays of special editions of _Sneak Previews_ that S&E did, covering topics like "great movies that Oscar ignored" and "movies that changed the movies". It'll be really nice to see these shows again, and to relive the early days of the S&E partnership on TV.


May NSFW:


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Neenahboy said:


> Ignatiy's actually gotten a little more bearable in the past few months (though his almost weekly pants creaming over Godard's _Film Socialisme_ became annoying quickly).


I thought it was funny as hell that Ignatiy picked FS as one of his 5 best of the year and the next week Ebert picked it as one of his 5 worst.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Hcour said:


> I thought it was funny as hell that Ignatiy picked FS as one of his 5 best of the year and the next week Ebert picked it as one of his 5 worst.


Absolutely. I wish one of them had made a joke about it being bad to disagree with the boss or something like that.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I haven't seen the movie, but it looked REALLY boring. Too arty for my taste.


----------



## minimeh (Jun 20, 2011)

Neenahboy said:


> ...and I can't understand why that child film critic Jackson Murphy is still getting screen time.


I just scanned this thread and pretty much concur with the sentiments expressed. But nothing, _nothing_, is more off-putting about the show than this precocious pompous child! When he started talking about what women really want, I decided that if I watch again, I will exercise my skipping button when this child appears and starts to enlighten me on the ways of the world from his perspective.

Bah.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I have been sticking with this, catching up when I can.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

minimeh said:


> I just scanned this thread and pretty much concur with the sentiments expressed. But nothing, _nothing_, is more off-putting about the show than this precocious pompous child! When he started talking about what women really want, I decided that if I watch again, I will exercise my skipping button when this child appears and starts to enlighten me on the ways of the world from his perspective.


Yeah, I adopted that strategy DURING his first appearance.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> May NSFW:


OMG! That was hilarious! 

I give it :up::up: I hope Ebert doesn't expose me  Man, I miss those guys-looks like they had a real love-hate relationship 

Thanks for posting that!


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

Monty!!!!! Way to bump!!!

That is fantastic.

I am a huge fan. Followed them since I'm a kid in the 70's.
Chicagoans were blessed to have them both in our midst.

*Great - great! *Thanks for posting!


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

For some reason my DVR (shhh...NOT TiVo!) has stopped recording this for several weeks now (never even saw the Captain America review).

It's Sezmi.

Have to see why...thought maybe the show wasn't on!


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

atrac: It probably _wasn't_ on -- on your local affiliate. They are screwing this show even worse than the old show. I ended up switching to an ARWL to get it (I have multiple PBS stations here). So far, that's working better.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

wmcbrine said:


> atrac: It probably _wasn't_ on -- on your local affiliate. They are screwing this show even worse than the old show. I ended up switching to an ARWL to get it (I have multiple PBS stations here). So far, that's working better.


It's been on pretty reliably here, on both Milwaukee Public Television stations. The only time it was off was for pledge weeks, and I think that ended up being across the board, because when it came back they made a comment about being off because of it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It's been on pretty consistently here, except for a few weeks during Pledge Drive.

They just started doing classic Siskel & Ebert shows (special episodes from their old run) for a summer break, and man I loved the one they showed this week! Really makes me miss the guys that much more.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It's been on pretty consistently here, except for a few weeks during Pledge Drive.
> 
> They just started doing classic Siskel & Ebert shows (special episodes from their old run) for a summer break, and man I loved the one they showed this week! Really makes me miss the guys that much more.


Are you talking about the one where they showed their process? It was interesting to see. That movie, though, "The Black Pearl.." - never heard of it! I LOLed when Gene bought the popcorn for $1.21-

And surprise, surprise, major disagreement on the film!  They made a big point to note that this was not a setup, that they didn't plan for a disagreement, that they chose the film at random...LOL! 

I miss those guys...miss Siskel, of course-and miss their chemistry, it will never be matched


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Regina said:


> Are you talking about the one where they showed their process? It was interesting to see. That movie, though, "The Black Pearl.." - never heard of it!


Black Marble, but yes, that was the one.

Can't wait to see what show they run next week! And isn't it sad that I haven't been this excited about (not-) Siskel & (not-) Ebert in years?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Heh - I kept waiting for both Siskel and Ebert to *haaaaaaaate* that movie, and was shocked when Siskel gave it a middling review and Ebert actually gave it a more or less glowing review. That movie just looked like a Big Bag of Suck (TM) to me.

I wonder if the screening rooms the reviewers of today go to are anything close to those from 1980?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> I wonder if the screening rooms the reviewers of today go to are anything close to those from 1980?


I'm amazed they still bother having them, although from what Blondie and Iggy* said it sounds like they do. I'd think they'd just use blu-rays or downloads.

I used to go to review screenings here back in the 80s, and it was an even bigger set-up than the one they showed on S&E. It was in a multiplex, but not one of the public screens. It probably seated 50 people or so.

That theater closed in 1999. It's still there, though, and apparently is still in use for something, although I can't quite figure out what (looks like some kinds of live events? http://www.barflyminneapolis.com/)

*And now I'll never be able to watch this show without thinking about that Blondie/Iggy Pop duet!


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Looks like there is a similar screening room called the Lake Street Screening Room that may have taken over from the one depicted in this episode. I'm finding articles that reference this room in conjunction with Chicago-area reviewers.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

And in a bit of meta, here Roger writes an article with his thoughts about the new show reairing the episode of his old show featuring his thoughts about how a movie critic does his job:
http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/6880420-421/explaining-the-magic.html


----------



## DanB (Aug 14, 2001)

no upcoming shows listed in the guide for Atlanta.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Black Marble, but yes, that was the one.
> 
> Can't wait to see what show they run next week! And isn't it sad that I haven't been this excited about (not-) Siskel & (not-) Ebert in years?


Black Marble, right-see? I told you I'd never heard of it! 

I did like how they said they hoped this new actor, Harry Dean Stanton, became a star-well, I guess he never became a star, per se, but he is one of my favorite actors!


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Can't wait to see what show they run next week! And isn't it sad that I haven't been this excited about (not-) Siskel & (not-) Ebert in years?


Ebert gives it away in the blog post I linked to upthread, and which Loadstar also cites a few posts ago. It'll be...



Spoiler



"Who's Funnier: Mel Brooks or Woody Allen?"


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> Looks like there is a similar screening room called the Lake Street Screening Room that may have taken over from the one depicted in this episode. I'm finding articles that reference this room in conjunction with Chicago-area reviewers.


Yep, this is where Ebert still goes to the majority of the screenings he sees.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Black Marble, but yes, that was the one.
> 
> Can't wait to see what show they run next week! And isn't it sad that I haven't been this excited about (not-) Siskel & (not-) Ebert in years?





LoadStar said:


> Heh - I kept waiting for both Siskel and Ebert to *haaaaaaaate* that movie, and was shocked when Siskel gave it a middling review and Ebert actually gave it a more or less glowing review. That movie just looked like a Big Bag of Suck (TM) to me.


Just watched this episode -- again, I think! I was a dedicated Sneak Previews watcher back in the day and while I have no memory of this particular episode, there is a decent chance I saw it those many years ago.

Really going to enjoy this series of lookbacks. It's always fun to be reminded that we're nostalgic for the S&E days not just for old times' sake, but because those two really were the best at this format, not just the first at it. Great stuff.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> I wonder if the screening rooms the reviewers of today go to are anything close to those from 1980?


My stepfather is a movie critic in the Tampa Bay area, and he never gets to go to special screening rooms -- they just do advance screenings for critics at regular movie theaters in the middle of the day.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

trainman said:


> My stepfather is a movie critic in the Tampa Bay area, and he never gets to go to special screening rooms -- they just do advance screenings for critics at regular movie theaters in the middle of the day.


Ah, life in the sticks.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

I really liked this last episode about 3D. I thought Ebert's bit on 3D was spot on. The first review I think that I have agreed with him on 1000% in a long time. 

Also, what is the deal with that kid critic? My wife and I just think he is a kid actor reading something someone else wrote. I don't think he could have come up with those monologues on his own.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

DeDondeEs said:


> I really liked this last episode about 3D. I thought Ebert's bit on 3D was spot on. The first review I think that I have agreed with him on 1000% in a long time.
> 
> Also, what is the deal with that kid critic? My wife and I just think he is a kid actor reading something someone else wrote. I don't think he could have come up with those monologues on his own.


Wow... the 3D episode was actually a while ago. The most recent episode was a repackaging of an old Sneak Previews episode about how movie critics do their job, from 1980.

And I think the kid is just a prodigy and could easily have come up with them on his own.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

trainman said:


> My stepfather is a movie critic in the Tampa Bay area, and he never gets to go to special screening rooms -- they just do advance screenings for critics at regular movie theaters in the middle of the day.


I go to movie screenings whenever I find out about them, and they usually have a couple of rows (relatively good seats, though lower than I would choose) reserved for the press.

I saw "30 minutes or less" at a screening.. and I have reserved a pass for Final Destination 5, though will probably cancel it since I looked online and the movie sounds very gory.. I also entered for Fright Night 3d via text message.. I presume that's not gory.. haven't looked though to make sure.

Anyway, 43KIX on Facebook (and text message), and gofobo.com are good ways to get to free screenings. There are a couple others too.. at least one more I'm a member of.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

trainman said:


> My stepfather is a movie critic in the Tampa Bay area, and he never gets to go to special screening rooms -- they just do advance screenings for critics at regular movie theaters in the middle of the day.


I still see Ebert and his wife regularly at such screenings (if a film comes out on Friday and there's a screening Monday/Tuesday, he's almost always in attendance). Lake Street Screening Room does screen films more in advance for a club of area critics, and studios use it often to screen in-progress footage and gauge critical reaction; ordinary consumers can also rent it by the hour.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The movies I saw at the special screening room in Minneapolis in the 80s were weeks or months in advance...I believe the primary purpose was to sell the films to theater chains.

I remember seeing an advance screening of Dune (complete with incomplete FX), and then being surprised by the incredibly negative reviews when it finally came out. Turned out they had butchered it in the meantime; the version I saw was much longer and not too bad, although the theater buyers were a lot more confused than I was, not having read the book. I guess they tried to "fix" it in the interim...


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> Wow... the 3D episode was actually a while ago. The most recent episode was a repackaging of an old Sneak Previews episode about how movie critics do their job, from 1980.
> 
> And I think the kid is just a prodigy and could easily have come up with them on his own.


That's one of the things I dislike about public television. Although it is nice that they fit a lot of local interest stuff in their schedule, I wish they would be a little more consistent with what episodes they show nationwide.

Also this show is on at 10 am Saturday here in Vegas. First off it would be nice to see it before Friday, when we usually go to the movies. Second, movie review shows seem more in place being shown at night, not at 10 am.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Enjoyed the ep on Allen vs Brooks. Of course, Brooks career pretty much died shortly after High Anxiety while Allen's has continued, though his movies are really hit or miss these days. But Brooks should have stopped after Young Frankenstein. Silent Movie and HA were mediocre at best and Spaceballs was unwatchable.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

We didn't get last week's, although next week's is on the To Do List...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> We didn't get last week's, although next week's is on the To Do List...


Here either, in the NYC metro.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Hcour said:


> Enjoyed the ep on Allen vs Brooks. Of course, Brooks career pretty much died shortly after High Anxiety while Allen's has continued, though his movies are really hit or miss these days. But Brooks should have stopped after Young Frankenstein. Silent Movie and HA were mediocre at best and Spaceballs was unwatchable.


I must have missed that one. Would have been interesting. Spaceballs has grown on my over the years, and you forgot History of the World. While not up to Blazing Saddles and YF, I still quote quite a bit out of that move 

As for Allen, I'm a fan of the older stuff. Bananas is one of my all time favorites. But after the success of Annie Hall, the rest of his movies with a few exceptions were just not very funny. Witty, yes, funny no.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Here either, in the NYC metro.


You have to set up separate SP for every PBS station carried by your cable company, including the "sub channels" (not sure if I'm using the right term). Channel 21 generally has the show even if 13 doesn't air it.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> We didn't get last week's, although next week's is on the To Do List...


I am having the same problem with _The McLaughlin Group_. It's not just a matter of the Season Pass; it's that no stations are carrying it for a couple of weeks. This usually happens during "pledge break" periods.

The Upcoming Episodes menu option for the show's Season Pass Manager entry should show all occurrences of the show on all channels.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

lew said:


> You have to set up separate SP for every PBS station carried by your cable company, including the "sub channels" (not sure if I'm using the right term). Channel 21 generally has the show even if 13 doesn't air it.


As I'm on DirecTV and our DVRs are limited to only 50 SPs (it's really the ONLY thing I like less than TiVo), I am only keeping the one SP for Ch. 13. To me, if I miss a week of this show, it's not a crime. I'm not a big movie goer and I watch the reviews mostly to see what I might want to see in the future. I could go wishlist, but then I wind up with all kinds of stuff I don't want for some reason.


----------



## RangersRBack (Jan 9, 2006)

lew said:


> You have to set up separate SP for every PBS station carried by your cable company, including the "sub channels" (not sure if I'm using the right term). Channel 21 generally has the show even if 13 doesn't air it.


Yeah, we've been recording it on channel 21 at 7PM on Fridays. It's been pretty consistent.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

The last two weeks have really highlighted, to me, just how much MORE entertaining the show was with Ebert and Siskel, and just how boring Lemire and Vishnevetsky are. If Roger wanted to generate better ratings for the show, maybe contrasting how good it was compared to how mediocre it is now was not the best strategy. There HAVE to be a couple of critics out there with similar chemistry to classic Roger and Gene. Find them!


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Church AV Guy said:


> The last two weeks have really highlighted, to me, just how much MORE entertaining the show was with Ebert and Siskel, and just how boring Lemire and Vishnevetsky are. If Roger wanted to generate better ratings for the show, maybe contrasting how good it was compared to how mediocre it is now was not the best strategy. There HAVE to be a couple of critics out there with similar chemistry to classic Roger and Gene. Find them!


I still don't know why they didn't get Michael Philips for this show. His personality was perfect for the show. THe only trick would be finding a foil for him, and I don't know that A.O. Scott was it (although the two of them got better towards the end.)

Maybe Philips and Christy Lemiere? That might be interesting... I could see Philips being more than willing to butt heads with Lemiere.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I could go wishlist, but then I wind up with all kinds of stuff I don't want for some reason.


It's not particularly well-documented, but you can add operators to the wishlist to cut down on potential bad matches. I might not have the syntax exactly right, but something like TTITLE AT THE MOVIES CCHAN 13 21 would match only shows with the phrase "At the Movies" in the title, on channels in the range 13 through 21.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Aside:

Ebert has a blog post today about his upcoming memoir, scheduled to be published on Sept. 13. I'm looking forward to this.


----------



## aforkosh (Apr 20, 2003)

For those whose public TV outlet is not showing the current Ebert Presents:

The Brooks vs. Allen episode is on the Ebert Presents website here.

While episodes with reviews are not presented unbroken (each segment is a separate piece of video), the episodes showing the old shows are.


----------



## mm2margaret (Dec 7, 2010)

Church AV Guy said:


> The last two weeks have really highlighted, to me, just how much MORE entertaining the show was with Ebert and Siskel, and just how boring Lemire and Vishnevetsky are. If Roger wanted to generate better ratings for the show, maybe contrasting how good it was compared to how mediocre it is now was not the best strategy. There HAVE to be a couple of critics out there with similar chemistry to classic Roger and Gene. Find them!


For me, it's Vishnevetsky, as the source of the problem. I find him so arrogant, so smarmy that he makes me retch....Gahhhhh....! I just can't stand him. I've actually stopped watching because of him. Lemire's okay, not great, not awful.


----------



## RangersRBack (Jan 9, 2006)

I enjoy the throwback episodes, but I do miss seeing actual MOVIE REVIEWS!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

trainman said:


> It's not particularly well-documented, but you can add operators to the wishlist to cut down on potential bad matches. I might not have the syntax exactly right, but something like TTITLE AT THE MOVIES CCHAN 13 21 would match only shows with the phrase "At the Movies" in the title, on channels in the range 13 through 21.


That's cool. Might have to look into that. I'm sure there's something about it over at dbstalk.com


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mm2margaret said:


> For me, it's Vishnevetsky, as the source of the problem. I find him so arrogant, so smarmy that he makes me retch....Gahhhhh....! I just can't stand him. I've actually stopped watching because of him. Lemire's okay, not great, not awful.


Well, I find him trying to be one of those old fashioned hoity toity critics. You know the ones that think only Foreign Art films are the only ones worth watching, and mainstream movies are just for the great unwashed. Hence his review of the top five movies had the one film that he thought was one of the best and Ebert had as one of the worst  The thing I used to love about Ebert and Siskel was that they actually could LIKE something mainstream.

As far a Lemire, I think she tries too hard to be objective, but fails. You can predict movies she likes a mile away (Has there been a RomCom she HASN'T liked yet?....just kidding, I know there were a few).

Still, I like the show and I think they have good chemistry, and it's my source to check out new movies.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

But she's kinda hot.

-smak-


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

My Tivo recorded this weeks show on KCET, but it was all Lybia and Tripoli news coverage. What was the latest show about?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Church AV Guy said:


> My Tivo recorded this weeks show on KCET, but it was all Lybia and Tripoli news coverage. What was the latest show about?


"Actors that the Oscars overlooked" from 1980.

For me, it was duller than watching paint dry. I ended up deleting the episode halfway through.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

It was very weird that Ebert kept pronouncing Martin Sheen's last name as "Shee-uhn".


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> "Actors that the Oscars overlooked" from 1980.
> 
> For me, it was duller than watching paint dry. I ended up deleting the episode halfway through.





mattack said:


> It was very weird that Ebert kept pronouncing Martin Sheen's last name as "Shee-uhn".


Thanks. I thought that they would go back to reviewing new movies. I guess not, so I didn't miss anything.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Weird, I actually think these are interesting. Most of the time I don't like reruns, but for these, I don't remember watching them the first time (though I probably did), so it's essentially new to me.

(AFAIK, the online archives aren't an entire show at a time, or else I'd probably agree that it should just be online and do 'real' shows.. Though if these are essentially "extra" shows where they would have done reruns otherwise, great.)


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I just read Cablevision is going to add the Reelz Channel. Roeper has a review show that I'll be setting an SP for. Anyone else has Reelz and watched Roeper's show?


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I guess I better check my shows for old news. One was taken over by the Osama Bin Laden killing.  But earthquakes and hurricaines don't interest me unless I feel the rumbling or hear the wind myself.


----------



## RangersRBack (Jan 9, 2006)

I'm really liking the retro Siskel & Ebert shows, and the one this weekend about 1978 was the most interesting one yet.

That said, anyone know of any movie review shows with two people debating their opinion about current movies? I really like shows like that.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Yeah, I was back logged on these until I watched this week's 1978 show. I watched about half and realized, I wasn't that interested in old movies. I looked at other weeks and found the station had covered the Libyan revolt one week, and had some other retro shows other weeks and only one with new movies in it and only about two or three of those because it was a worst of the year show. Meh, I prefer my movie review shows to at least review one or two current movies a week.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Ok, enough with the retro, already. Let's get back to reviewing some movies, guys.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

They actually showed this one here. And I liked it just fine, although it was kind of amusing that from the perspective of 1979 the significance of Star Wars was not yet apparent.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Hcour said:


> Ok, enough with the retro, already. Let's get back to reviewing some movies, guys.


Agreed. I don't know how they can justify taking this long off during the summer months, prime movie watching season.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I can see in January and February when Hollywood burns off its dogs of movies but not in the summer.

I guess they realize that we have access to everything from Rotten Tomatoes to the actual reviews in the Tribune and the Sun Times. (and a host of other large newspapers.)


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Ebert posted an update. In part:



> For those of you who don't know, August and September are two of the months when public television stations broadcast their Pledge Weeks in order to raise money for their programming year. That is why we have been pre-empted in some markets, and moved to a different time of day or to a different day altogether, in other markets. The new fall season for public television traditionally begins in October, and indeed, our first new show of the fall season will air on Friday, October 7.


http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/09/ebert_presents_an_update.html

They'll be on the air for most of the fall movie season, but that's still a HUGE chunk of movies they'll have missed out on.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I guess that's the price they pay for being back on PBS, instead of general syndication.

It's been 30 years since Siskel & Ebert were on PBS, and I have no memory whatsoever of how they handled pledge season back then, if at all...


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

It seems like the pledge weeks have all started running together anyway. Is there really a season?

I mean, "two of the months", that's bad enough -- there are only twelve to begin with. How many other months are we talking about here?


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

The Facebook page is also loaded with complaints about the vault episodes.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I don't mind the vault episodes as long as it's something I find interesting. This week's was interesting as they reviewed movies that impacted hollywood in the 70s. It was cool how they talked about the "angry black man genre" and the "mainstream sex movie" genre. Those are pretty much gone. We still have disaster movies. I would like them to follow this up with a similar show fast forwarded to the last 10 years.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

I too don't mind Vault episodes, BUT, not at the expense of new movie reviews. Maybe once in a while, but not so many weeks in a row!

I had to laygh at them showing the opening to the old "at the movies" that I rememberd so well from years past. I especially got a nostalgic chuckle out of the malfunctioning soda machine. I haven't seen one of those for decades!


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

They are showing this on KCET in LA which is not a PBS station and seems to have no pledge breaks. (yay) I guess I keep deleting these repeat episodes until October.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

They are *not* at the expense of new shows.. read the previous explanation.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> I can see in January and February when Hollywood burns off its dogs of movies but not in the summer.
> 
> I guess they realize that we have access to everything from Rotten Tomatoes to the actual reviews in the Tribune and the Sun Times. (and a host of other large newspapers.)


August and September are also months when Hollywood burns off it's dogs.

-smak-


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

It's amusing that this thread was filled with comments about how nobody likes Igna... Ignay... him, or her, or about general disappointment with the show. And now that the material is mostly not new, people are commenting they want more new material with the hosts!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I'm enjoying the old shows. But if your goal is to figure out what movie to see this weekend, bad reviews of this week's movies are more useful than great reviews of 30-year-old movies...


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Agreed. I watch the show for the reviews. Even if I disagree with a review, I get to hear what a person thinks of a movie. The aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes are actually a better slice but I enjoy seeing the clips and watching the reviews.

The show is not on in my area this Sunday. Doesn't seem to be replaced by 9/11 programing so I have no idea why it is not on. But since they are not showing new things until October, I don't really care.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Well, it's back, and having watched Vishnevetsky's assessment of 50/50, I don't think I've disagreed with anyone more vehemently in a while.

Chaz Ebert's celebration of Sony Pictures Classics made it seem as though the show was the first to discover it and was now sharing it with the unwashed, and I'd also disagree with her characterization of Cannes as the most important festival.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

The show's in trouble, per a new blog post from Ebert. In part:



> Unless we find an angel, our television program will go off the air at the end of its current season. There. I've said it. Usually in television, people use evasive language. Not me. We'll be gone. I want to be honest about why this is. We can't afford to finance it any longer.


http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/11/unless_we_find_an_angel.html


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I was sort of wondering about this. I noticed right from the start that unlike most PBS shows, theirs didn't have any sort of underwriting announcements at the beginning or end of the show.


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

I hope they get rescued. I really am (now) a fan of this new show and would hate to see it go (again).


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

I've always assumed, through its various incarnations, that this must be one of the cheapest shows on television to produce. Two people sitting in chairs talking, plus (I assume) free clips from the movie studios.

Perhaps Ebert should ask for donations directly instead of looking for an "angel". I'd give.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

There was actually a repeat a couple of weeks ago. I haven't been keeping up with it as I have the other shows. I will not miss it.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> I've always assumed, through its various incarnations, that this must be one of the cheapest shows on television to produce. Two people sitting in chairs talking, plus (I assume) free clips from the movie studios.
> 
> Perhaps Ebert should ask for donations directly instead of looking for an "angel". I'd give.


I think he is. He posted something about Kickstarter today.

-smak-


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

sieglinde said:


> There was actually a repeat a couple of weeks ago. I haven't been keeping up with it as I have the other shows. I will not miss it.


Maybe your local station repeated an episode, but he said on his page that there have never been repeats.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I finally caught up with it last night. There was one sponsor who partially funded it so that may be helping keep it on.
There may be more expenses than the salaries of the cast and crew. I doubt if there is any licensing fees from movie clips but there seems to be some sort of hotel expense, a set, researchers etc. that we don't think of.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> I finally caught up with it last night. There was one sponsor who partially funded it so that may be helping keep it on.
> There may be more expenses than the salaries of the cast and crew. I doubt if there is any licensing fees from movie clips but there seems to be some sort of hotel expense, a set, researchers etc. that we don't think of.


That donor paid $25,000 one time.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/11/unless_we_find_an_angel.html

Just cross fingers that some sponsor makes the smart decision to step up.

I amazed that Roger and Chaz have been paying for everything. They could also possibly be picked up in syndication again??? Calling OPRAH!


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

OWN is pretty weak so it could actually use a show like this. The virtue of where it is now, is that you can get it overt the air but then again, basic cable is pretty wide spread.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Roger used to date Oprah. Maybe he has some dirt on her?


----------



## Michael S (Jan 12, 2004)

Roger just twitted that the show is going on hiatus at the end of the year.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/11/so_long_for_awhile.html


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Bummer.


----------



## Barmat (Jun 1, 2001)

Not happy.


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

And I watched my first episode of the reboot last night!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

That's a shame. Seems he was self financing the show and he just couldn't do it anymore. I liked the show, but at the same time, there are so many options for movie reviews if you want them, that I'm not sure that I will miss it all that much.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I liked the show, but at the same time, there are so many options for movie reviews if you want them, that I'm not sure that I will miss it all that much.


If it were a better show, I'd miss it more. But it really wasn't very good.

The potential for a review show like this is the convenience of getting it all on your TV without having to go look for it. To succeed, I think it would have to be head and shoulders above what you can dig up on the internet, and it just wasn't. The internet is more work, but has bigger rewards.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I think I would have enjoyed the show more with, say, Christy Lemiere and Michael Philips. Ignatiy is OK, but I don't think he has the right kind of charisma to really go up against someone like Christy.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> I've always assumed, through its various incarnations, that this must be one of the cheapest shows on television to produce. Two people sitting in chairs talking, plus (I assume) free clips from the movie studios.
> 
> Perhaps Ebert should ask for donations directly instead of looking for an "angel". I'd give.


Don't know what it costs to license the thumbs up.

You're right. The show has to be cheap to produce. I'm surprised none of the cable networks took it. Even something like the TVGUIDE channel.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

lew said:


> Don't know what it costs to license the thumbs up.
> 
> You're right. The show has to be cheap to produce. I'm surprised none of the cable networks took it. Even something like the TVGUIDE channel.


Yeah, not sure that TV Guide Channel would be a good fit. I'd think REELZ or Current would be probably the ideal cable homes... or possibly something like Bio or AMC.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I noticed that KCET the non PBS channel is not having it this Sunday but the next December 11.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

I know Roeper does reviews for Reelz, but is there an actual show, or does he just come in during some of their shows?

-smak-


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

I'll be sad if it doesn't come back. I was enjoying having it back. My wife doesn't really care for Ignati, but I like both of them.

Did anyone else notice an oddity in the latest episode? We watched it Friday night (12/2). I'm not sure when it recorded, but I think it was tonight or last night. The start of the episode seemed to be new reviews of movies (the NC-17 rated "Shame" was one of them), but then in the middle, it seemed they switched to reviews that we saw last week (or possibly the week before? One of them was Martin Scorsese's "Hugo") - and I'm talking word-for-word alike, not just reviewing the same movie twice because they had an "early review" before.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

GoHalos said:


> I'll be sad if it doesn't come back. I was enjoying having it back. My wife doesn't really care for Ignati, but I like both of them.
> 
> Did anyone else notice an oddity in the latest episode? We watched it Friday night (12/2). I'm not sure when it recorded, but I think it was tonight or last night. The start of the episode seemed to be new reviews of movies (the NC-17 rated "Shame" was one of them), but then in the middle, it seemed they switched to reviews that we saw last week (or possibly the week before? One of them was Martin Scorsese's "Hugo") - and I'm talking word-for-word alike, not just reviewing the same movie twice because they had an "early review" before.


Yeah... I think they just flat out ran out of movies in wide release to review. It looks like there's nothing much opening for the next couple of weeks either, hence the special episode next week.

(Which leads to the question: why they don't do the "Sneak Previews" redux episodes interspersed with the regular season, when they have these weeks when there is nothing really worth reviewing, and do new episodes during the summer where there is a ton of new releases almost every week?)


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

What about "We Bought A Zoo"? I want to hear their review. Fooey!:down::down:


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

rrrobinsonjr said:


> What about "We Bought A Zoo"? I want to hear their review. Fooey!:down::down:


Doesn't open until the 23rd.

Even "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," one of the movies they reviewed, doesn't open until the 16th with a NY/LA early release next week.

There's just not a lot of movies opening at this time of year.


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

Iggy is dreamy.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Christy even made a joke about all the costume changes they were making during this show. 

I don't recall the Hugo review being in such detail before though. Maybe I missed that ep.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

efilippi said:


> Christy even made a joke about all the costume changes they were making during this show.
> 
> I don't recall the Hugo review being in such detail before though. Maybe I missed that ep.


The reviews of Hugo and The Artist were both from the beginning of last week's episode.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I know i never saw a review of The Artist so I guess I missed last weeks ep.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Hmmm, I didn't see the review of "The Artist" last week, either...maybe the TiVo didn't catch that ep and I forgot to look for it.

I wouldn't be heartbroken if this year were it for the show. Seems like Vishnevetsky's been the contrarian just for the sake of it lately...I found his takedown of "Shame" to be largely unfair.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Well, the final episode aired this weekend. It was a "best and worst of 2011" episode, sort of fitting as a wrap-up of the year and the show. 

The show ended with Chaz and Roger Ebert on set. Ebert (through his computer, not through a Bill Kurtis voiceover) spoke first, thanking everyone involved, then Chaz mentioned that they would update their page and their Facebook page with more information as they could. Chaz ended the show with the "Until then... the balcony is closed" tag, with a note of finality to it.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

My non-PBS station that was showing it, did not bother to show it.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

R.I.P. serious movie criticism on TV.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I guess now the thread title should read "At the Movies Dies, Is Reborn, Dies Again."

Only this time I'd say it was euthanasia.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I guess now the thread title should read "At the Movies Dies, Is Reborn, Dies Again."
> 
> Only this time I'd say it was euthanasia.


Except Chaz and Roger both say that they are fully expecting to bring it back.... again. They just need to find a way to bring it back so that they aren't paying for it exclusively.

They said in their latest article that when it does come back, they'll be leaning much more heavily on the correspondents. If that happens, I'm probably not going to watch; the correspondents reports were the part of the show I liked the least.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Except Chaz and Roger both say that they are fully expecting to bring it back.... again.


And then the thread title can be "At the Movies Dies, Is Reborn, Dies Again, Is Reborn Again."


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

sieglinde said:


> My non-PBS station that was showing it, did not bother to show it.


I think I saw it on a PBS station from Chicago (Tivo confusion) and I didn't see it either. I'm not sure if it wasn't shown or if I just didn't stay until the final minutes. The latter may be what happened.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I watched the Best/Worst episode. The majority of the movies were ones I never heard of...I hate that!


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

gossamer88 said:


> I watched the Best/Worst episode. The majority of the movies were ones I never heard of...I hate that!


Well, presumably you only half hate that. No sense being mad you've never heard of some terrible movies.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

In Roger Ebert's update on his latest cancer issue, he also mentions a Kickstarter campaign that will kick off in a couple of weeks to try and bring back "At the Movies" again.



Roger Ebert in Linked article said:


> In response to your repeated requests to bring back the TV show "At the Movies," I am launching a fundraising campaign via Kickstarter in the next couple of weeks.


----------



## Goober96 (Jun 28, 2005)

GoHalos said:


> In Roger Ebert's update on his latest cancer issue, he also mentions a Kickstarter campaign that will kick off in a couple of weeks to try and bring back "At the Movies" again.


Unfortunately, he passed away so this won't be happening.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

Goober96 said:


> Unfortunately, he passed away so this won't be happening.


Yes, I just saw and commented on this in the RIP Roger Ebert thread in the Happy Hour forum. Very sad.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/04/04/176261560/roger-ebert-legendary-film-critic-dies

Wow, that was abrupt.

I wonder if he'll be the last great film critic? It seems society has, unfortunately, moved past great film critics...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Goober96 said:


> Unfortunately, he passed away so this won't be happening.


Well, possibly, Roeper or Roger's wife could take it on.

Personally, I'd like a movie review show with hosts I liked, that I could watch *on TV*. (Even if it were a "video podcast", if I could get it to my Tivo like the CNET videos, great.)


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

mattack said:


> Well, possibly, Roeper or Roger's wife could take it on.
> 
> Personally, I'd like a movie review show with hosts I liked, that I could watch *on TV*. (Even if it were a "video podcast", if I could get it to my Tivo like the CNET videos, great.)


I too was thinking that maybe Chaz would take it on, but I suppose it's entirely possible that she has other interests.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

BTW, I didn't mean as a host, I just meant do the undertaking of producing it or setting up the kickstarter, etc..


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

If the last iteration of this show had included some of the good critics from various newspapers with guest critics such as the guy from Ain't it Cool, it would have worked. Instead they had two really lame critics. I think with sites such as Rotten Tomatoes and other metacritic sites, the day of the movie critic TV show is probably over. I still read reviews in newspapers though.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> If the last iteration of this show had included some of the good critics from various newspapers with guest critics such as the guy from Ain't it Cool, it would have worked. Instead they had two really lame critics. I think with sites such as Rotten Tomatoes and other metacritic sites, the day of the movie critic TV show is probably over. I still read reviews in newspapers though.


I agree that the era of the Big Film Critic is pretty much over. Nobody is ever going to be able to get the kind of traction Siskel & Ebert got; the entertainment market is just too fragmented. So even if they got two great critics who go great together, chances are only a tiny fraction of At The Movies' audience will ever tune in.

(And of course most people don't read newspapers, so that's not a way to build even a strong local audience any more...)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I agree that the era of the Big Film Critic is pretty much over. Nobody is ever going to be able to get the kind of traction Siskel & Ebert got; the entertainment market is just too fragmented. So even if they got two great critics who go great together, chances are only a tiny fraction of At The Movies' audience will ever tune in.
> 
> (*And of course most people don't read newspapers*, so that's not a way to build even a strong local audience any more...)


That's kind of interesting, because the "newspaper" has been replaced by an internet aggregate of the news. So while people don't read newspapers, they ARE going to websites that have the news. Huffington Post, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. So there IS a place for the Film Critic in the old sense, but it's online.

That said, these days, people are probably more interested in finding out about movies the way we do here. Coming online and reading what everyone thinks about it. I really don't think the opinion of a handful of "professional" film critics is going to matter as much any more. Certainly not like Siskel and Ebert, or Rex Reed or Jeffery Lyons, or any of the ones who made their names as professional critics through newspapers and TV.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I don't care about individual critic reviews. If I want to know about a movie, I'll look at Rotton Tomatoes. Even then, I usually don't pay attention to critic reviews anyway. I know the type of movie I like and can usually figure out if I'll like a movie based on its trailer. There are many times a movie has like 13% on RT and I end up loving it.

I used to enjoy At the Movies because it gave me an idea of what movies were coming to the theater. These days, I just use the Flixster app on my phone to see what movies are coming this weekend. I can read a brief plot about the movie, see a trailer and the RT score is on there too. 

I also use the app to add movies to my Netflix queue if I don't plan on seeing them in the theater. I do this at least once a week in the app. Did it this morning in fact. Also looked to see what movies are coming out the rest of the year. New Thor movie in November!!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> That's kind of interesting, because the "newspaper" has been replaced by an internet aggregate of the news. So while people don't read newspapers, they ARE going to websites that have the news. Huffington Post, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. So there IS a place for the Film Critic in the old sense, but it's online.


Right, but instead of having 1 or 2 local newspapers to choose from, they have about 10 million web sites. So again, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a critic to get the kind of traction they could in the old days of limited media option.

That's why I think Ebert might be the last great movie critic...not because nobody as smart/talented/skilled/whatever as him will ever come along, but because the world in which great movie critics happen is in the past.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

I think this show became big because of the trailers and not because of the reviews. Back when this started where could you see movie trailers besides at the theater?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Test said:


> I think this show became big because of the trailers and not because of the reviews. Back when this started where could you see movie trailers besides at the theater?


??
They didn't show trailers...just reviews.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Right, but instead of having 1 or 2 local newspapers to choose from, they have about 10 million web sites. So again, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a critic to get the kind of traction they could in the old days of limited media option.
> 
> That's why I think Ebert might be the last great movie critic...not because nobody as smart/talented/skilled/whatever as him will ever come along, but because the world in which great movie critics happen is in the past.


I agree. But even Ebert was syndicated all over the country so he appeared in many national newspapers. It wasn't like he was local to just Chicago, so while he might not be in 10 million websites, he might be in 100 newspapers which reached millions. Today, if you are still with one of the "major" news organizations, you will be aggregated across hundreds if not thousands of websites. The reach that some like Ebert had can still be there. But I just don't think people look at critics that way anymore, so you are right, there won't be a GREAT movie critic anymore. In fact, I think most of us will be our OWN critics for each other.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> ??
> They didn't show trailers...just reviews.


They didn't show the movie? What show am I thinking of? hmmmmm I'll have to go check some clips on youtube.

That would be a horrible show just two guys giving their opinion on a movie and not even showing it.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> there. But I just don't think people look at critics that way anymore, so you are right, there won't be a GREAT movie critic anymore.


I think we're conflating "great" with "well-known". There are plenty of great critics still working. But none of them have anywhere near the level of recognition that Ebert had.

And many of them don't have the scope, either. This to me is one of the great losses with Ebert's passing. For example, Manohla Dargis, who is one of the NY Times film critics and one whose work I enjoy, recently wrote a column about a new release of Heaven's Gate in which she commented that it was the first time she had seen the movie. Now, partially this is a result of the infamous history of the film -- it debuted, quickly went away, and was kept out of the public eye, inaccessible for many years. And she would have been (I assume) a teenager or so when it was released, so I understand why she would not have seen it. But this is one of the most notorious Hollywood flims ever made! And she's the film critic for the most prominent US newspaper! Though not her fault, I found it astonishing that she did not have this movie in her canon until just now.

This is just an example. But Ebert had been at it for so long that we've lost an enormous historical view of film that almost no one else can cover -- and, to get back to my first point, certainly no one else as prominent. I loved feeling the weight of that perspective in Ebert's reviews. And -- to get back to the thread topic -- I think this is a subtle element of why _At the Movies _ worked so well. Even if they were reviewing _Porky's_, these were two guys that had hung with Fellini, Bergman, and other film giants. The range they could bring to the subject informed everything they talked about.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Test said:


> They didn't show the movie? What show am I thinking of? hmmmmm I'll have to go check some clips on youtube.
> 
> That would be a horrible show just two guys giving their opinion on a movie and not even showing it.


They showed clips provided by the studios for the films they reviewed. They did not show trailers per se.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> They showed clips provided by the studios for the films they reviewed. They did not show trailers per se.


I think that's what Test was talking about. Back then, you didn't really have any other options for seeing clips from upcoming movies, so At The Movies probably got the majority of its popularity just from the fact that people tuned in to see movie clips.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Well, I bet that late night talk shows of the time showed clips too..


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

cmontyburns said:


> They showed clips provided by the studios for the films they reviewed. They did not show trailers per se.





DevdogAZ said:


> I think that's what Test was talking about. Back then, you didn't really have any other options for seeing clips from upcoming movies, so At The Movies probably got the majority of its popularity just from the fact that people tuned in to see movie clips.


Yes, that and the fact that this is sneak previews before the net with aintitcoolnews, slashfilm and any other movie review/spoiler site.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Test said:


> Yes, that and the fact that this is sneak previews before the net with aintitcoolnews, slashfilm and any other movie review/spoiler site.


I think the confusion stems from the fact that "trailer" is something very specific, and not what you meant. Remove the word "trailer" and your point becomes entirely valid.


----------

