# Ebert Presents at the Movies



## janry

Now in TiVo guide data so don't forget to get your season pass.


----------



## Puppy76

Thanks for the heads up! Unfortunately I apparently don't have a station that's getting it :-/

Also confused by why Roper isn't on it, but anyway...


----------



## Schmye Bubbula

saurabh | January 4, 2011 6:34 AM


> saurabh: What about Roeper?
> 
> Ebert: Richard's plate is pretty full. He is reviewing on cable and online, and has a bigtime talk radio job on WLS/ABC Chicago. We're friends as always.


Opening soon at a station near you


> As of today [12-14-10], this is the list of public television stations that will be carrying "Roger Ebert presents At the Movies" starting Jan. 21, 2011. All the top 20 markets are cleared, with 81% national coverage, and we are adding new stations every day. The show will play in prime time or prime access in many major markets, including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Dallas, San Diego, Denver, San Jose and Detroit. It will have double runs in many cities.
> PDF: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/ REP Airdates at 12-10-10.pdf


TC Candler | January 4, 2011 8:54 AM


> TC Candler: Sounds great... definitely looking forward to it. Will it be available for anyone overseas? Will it be streamed online at all? Many thanks.
> 
> Ebert: We hope. It will be on the Armed Forces Networks.


Jennifer | January 4, 2011 11:21 AM


> Jennifer: I, too, was wondering if the shows will be available online. My family will soon be canceling our satellite and switching to all streaming to save money. I hope I can still catch At the Movies--I've been looking forward to it since the original announcement.
> 
> Ebert: I hope so.


Alas, it's not carried in the NC Piedmont Triad area; anyone have a link where it may be streamed?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

Unfortunately, the repeats all show up as first-run. Hopefully they'll get the hang of that...


----------



## Puppy76

Schmye Bubbula said:


> saurabh | January 4, 2011 6:34 AM


Thanks for all this info!

Man, that's too bad about Roeper, but at least it sounds like he's doing well! I didn't know he was on TV somewhere. I'd probably enjoy his radio show too.

At least I'm very glad to hear this wasn't him being forced out or something (I mean by Ebert...obviously Disney tried replacing him with Quote Whores, but anyway...)


----------



## Syzygy

Can't wait to see if the show is produced in HD! (The HD flag is absent.)


----------



## wmcbrine

Syzygy said:


> Can't wait to see if the show is produced in HD! (The HD flag is absent.)


Yeah, I noticed that too. It would be crazy to start a new show in SD in 2011, but who knows? The old show never went HD.


----------



## aforkosh

Ebert's list is not correct for KQED in San Francisco. The Monday evening showing may be the first prime time showing but the actual first showing is on Saturday afternoon at 1:30pm. I didn't have a problem with repeats showing up in a Season Pass.

By the way, as an aside, I have found the HD flag to be pretty useless. Many programs in HD do not show it while some programs on non-HD channels do show it.


----------



## Puppy76

I thought something was up with that flag, since the (to me worthless) "HD items" or whatever folder is always smaller than the number of shows I have.

(The only SD channel I have that I regularly watch is the CW.)


----------



## CraigK

Seattle must not be one of the top 20 markets since it hasn't been picked up here.


----------



## Syzygy

CraigK said:


> Seattle must not be one of the top 20 markets since it hasn't been picked up here.


I think you know this, Craig, but for everyone else: Nielsen has Seattle at #13.


----------



## sieglinde

It is supposed to be a PBS show but it is also showing up on KCET so I get to see it. It premiers later than at KOCE, the real PBS channel.


----------



## trainman

sieglinde said:


> It is supposed to be a PBS show...


It's not a PBS show. It's distributed by American Public Television, which is a competitor to PBS in the business of distributing programming to noncommercial television stations. That's why KCET can get it.


----------



## TishTash

I distinctly remember Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ (1980s) bearing a KCET logo. Am I mistaken that KCET is PBS?

P.S. I'm gratified Ebert is back and reviewing movies. That said, his current demeanor is a bit freaky. Given his circumstances, however, I think we're blessed all the same that he's still around and fantasically active.


----------



## jiffyspam

TishTash said:


> I distinctly remember Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ (1980s) bearing a KCET logo. Am I mistaken that KCET is PBS?
> 
> P.S. I'm gratified Ebert is back and reviewing movies. That said, his current demeanor is a bit freaky. Given his circumstances, however, I think we're blessed all the same that he's still around and fantasically active.


KCET bailed on PBS as of January 1st. They're now an independent station showing reruns of UK shows and anything 'highbrow' it can get its hands on.

Time will tell if this is a success. So far, it's not in ratings land. Probably because all the PBS shows that their audience loved went to rival PBS station KOCE which has an HD presence over the same viewing area. All us viewers had to do was redirect our season passes and the change is invisible.


----------



## shwru980r

Syzygy said:


> Can't wait to see if the show is produced in HD! (The HD flag is absent.)


The previous version with AO Scott and Michael Phillipe had the black pillar bars on the sides on my local over the air channel. I don't know if that was the fault of my local station. I would set the TV aspect ratio to 4:3 and the aspect correction mode to Zoom on my Tivo HD and the picture would fill the screen without cropping the sides.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

It's in HD in Minneapolis, FWIW.


----------



## sieglinde

Unless your cable company doesn't carry KOCE because they don't realize it is the real PBS yet. I e-mailed them but nothing has happened yet. It is complicated in my area because we use a thing we call the Booster (a TV repeater) to bring KCET in and I just checked and it does not carry KOCE. The booster sends the signal to our local cable company. So I am stuck. 

I will not give any more money to KCET until they rejoin PBS.


----------



## Schmye Bubbula

----- Original Message -----


> From: [Schmye Bubbula]
> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:35:49 AM
> Subject: Roger Ebert Presents at the Movies
> 
> Isn't "Ebert Presents at the Movies" a PBS show? Where is it? Why am I deprived of seeing it in the Piedmont Triad area?





> Thank you for your interest in UNC-TV. In response to your inquiry, the schedule is as follows;
> 
> 1/22 7:00 pm Roger Ebert Presents at the Movies Best Movies of 2010 UNC-MX
> 1/23 6:30 am Roger Ebert Presents at the Movies Best Movies of 2010 UNC-MX
> 1/24 1:00 am Roger Ebert Presents at the Movies Best Movies of 2010 UNC-MX
> 1/29 7:00 pm Roger Ebert Presents at the Movies Worst Movies of 2010 UNC-MX
> 1/30 6:30 am Roger Ebert Presents at the Movies Worst Movies of 2010 UNC-MX
> 1/31 1:00 am Roger Ebert Presents at the Movies Worst Movies of 2010 UNC-MX
> 
> If you should have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to reply to this email or call the UNC-TV's Customer Care Department directly at 1-888-292-7070.
> 
> UNC-TV's unique programs and services provide people of all ages with enriching, life-changing television.Thank you for watching member-supported UNC-TV, North Carolina's statewide public television network.
> 
> Sincerely,
> J. Malley
> Customer Care Representative
> 1-888-292-7070
> UNC-TV
> Support UNC-TV by DONATING NOW- https://secure2.convio.net/utv/site...n=form1&JServSessionIdr004=rrnz60pbs1.app202b





> Thanks for the schedule. I was in a panic because these episodes are NOT reflected in TVGuide.com, Zap2it.com or my TiVo Guide (the latter two are Tribune).
> 
> I really don't care who dropped the ball - the various TV listings need to get corrected one way or the other!
> 
> ...Wait a minute, I see "UNC-MX" - I had to Google around to find what that means:
> "UNC-MX (available only to digital cable subscribers)"
> 
> Well, I don't have digital cable; only basic cable (which I'm already going broke paying for). Why the hell isn't it on your regular PBS channel 4?





> Thank you for your return message to UNC-TV. In response to your inquiry,there are several factors that went into the decision- we currently do not have a time slot available on the UNC-TV channel because the airing rights window for the program are extremely short limiting the time availability. Your comments and concerns have been noted for review by the Programming Department.
> 
> Sincerely,
> J. Malley
> Customer Care Representative
> 1-888-292-7070
> UNC-TV





> My eyes glaze over. Good luck at the next PBS beg-athon! Time to contact my congressmen and demand yanking any remaining government subsidies. (Can you say, "shooting yourself in the foot"?)


----------



## wmcbrine

I applaud the patience of J. Malley. I hope most of his (?) correspondents are less rude and have less of a misplaced sense of entitlement.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

wmcbrine said:


> I applaud the patience of J. Malley. I hope most of his (?) correspondents are less rude and have less of a misplaced sense of entitlement.


In this day and age?

You foolish dreamer, you!


----------



## fasTLane

TishTash said:


> P.S. I'm gratified Ebert is back and reviewing movies. That said, his current demeanor is a bit freaky. Given his circumstances, however, I think we're blessed all the same that he's still around and fantastically active.


Roger Ebert will be sporting a state of the art chin prosthetic to improve his appearance somewhat. The new voice emulation machine is quite amazing as well.

Welcome back to TV, Mr. Ebert. Two thumbs way up. :up::up:


----------



## Schmye Bubbula

I categorically reject the characterizations hurled at me, thinly-veiled as afflicted with some kind of pathological narcissistic personality disorder:
 I'd wager that Roger Ebert himself would be even more displeased than me with my state's PBS network burying his show on the expensive premium tier, out of reach of regular basic cable & OTA viewers.
 My monthly cable bill's perennial rate increase crossed to over $100 last month. So you guys think that there's not something _*just wrong *_with having to shell-out $150/month to continue getting this beloved, widely-sought show?
 To the extent that taxpayer-funded subsidies to PBS remain, then, yes, I do experience in some sense a betrayed sense of entitlement, but not as you mean it  as the tantrum of a spoiled brat  but rather as a ripped-off "paying customer."
 In this market, At the Movies always has been carried in syndication by broadcast stations, available to everyone. If PBS wants to carry it, they should carry it on their regular publicly-available stations.
 Not doing so belies PBS's (stereotypical) left-media bias as champions of the "the common man," by confining the show to only "the rich."
 If it's "rudeness" on my part letting PBS know that their grievous choice means that, for cause, my donations won't be forthcoming in the future and I'll be seeking revocation of their government subsidies, then OK, I'm rude... and proud of it!


----------



## trainman

There's a difference between "PBS" and "a PBS member station/network" such as UNC-TV.

Also, as I said yesterday, this show is not distributed by PBS. It's syndicated by a different organization.


----------



## Schmye Bubbula

^ I'm not sure whether *trainman's *remarks are directed at my previous post, but in North Carolina, the UNC-TV "PBS member network" is controlled by state government. The only public TV station in the state that is not part of UNC-TV is WTVI in Charlotte, which is an independent PBS affiliate operated by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Broadcasting Authority.

The UNC-TV "PBS member network" receives direct subsidies from taxpayers (as well as a combination of membership support, corporate and foundation underwriting).


----------



## mattack

Wait, you pay over $100/month for cable, and all you get is ANALOG cable?

If you have a cablecard, you almost certainly get whatever channel it's on.. try tuning to it.


----------



## Schmye Bubbula

^ No, that includes my pokey Road Runner Lite (to which I had to downgrade last year because the regular RR Basic kept going up every year  and this year, by the way, RR Lite costs more than RR Basic just a few years ago... grrrr!); the cable TV part is $65 (Basic Cable, which includes Broadcast Cable). And yes, it's just analog  I have no cable box going into my two Series 2 TiVos (thus no CableCards or Tuning Adapters), only a coax cable.

Between all the channels I'm slowly-but-surely losing to the premium upper tier (C-SPAN2 was the latest) and this current travesty with _Roger Ebert Presents at the Movies, _I'm seriously looking into just cutting the cord and going Netflix and pirate BitTorrent.

TV now is an unmitigated disaster (57 minutes audio  nothing you don't already know but well worth your time). When will Big Media learn the lesson that TheWormyFruit taught the recording industry: that people are only happy to pay when they make reasonably-priced _à la carte _offerings easier & more convenient than piracy? (That's just a rhetorical question.)


----------



## sieglinde

I reported the D-Bag to the management.


----------



## Syzygy

TCDTV has just posted the following in *Minneapolis, MN - OTA* - in the *Local HDTV Info and Reception* forum at AVSForum.



> For any Tivo users who would like to continue recording the new incarnation of At the Movies on TPT, it looks like TMS has finally included listings for it under its proper name, so you'll want to make a new season pass for "Ebert Presents at the Movies" to make sure you don't miss any episodes. The last listing with the wrong name [Roger Ebert & the Movies] appears to be for a rebroadcast tonight (according to zap2it.com.) Hopefully proper show descriptions and new/rerun flags will follow soon.


----------



## lrhorer

Schmye Bubbula said:


> ^ No, that includes my pokey Road Runner Lite (to which I had to downgrade last year because the regular RR Basic kept going up every year  and this year, by the way, RR Lite costs more than RR Basic just a few years ago... grrrr!); the cable TV part is $65 (Basic Cable, which includes Broadcast Cable). And yes, it's just analog  I have no cable box going into my two Series 2 TiVos (thus no CableCards or Tuning Adapters), only a coax cable.


Then that is probably why you can't receive the station. Buy a clue: analog TV is dead. If you don't want to spend the money to upgrade your TVs, then you will at the very least need to fork out for an HD capable DVR like the S3, THD, or S4, or else get a CATV company leased STB or DVR. I cannot guarantee this will allow you to receive the channel in question: into which tier a particular channel falls is a decision made by your local CATV company. Unless the channel is OTA and the station has classified itself as "must carry", then the decision to carry the channel at all is also up to your local CATV company, based in part upon how much the broadcaster wishes to charge the CATV company to carry the channel.



Schmye Bubbula said:


> Between all the channels I'm slowly-but-surely losing to the premium upper tier (C-SPAN2 was the latest) and this current travesty with _Roger Ebert Presents at the Movies, _I'm seriously looking into just cutting the cord and going Netflix and pirate BitTorrent.


Some time around 2012, you are probably going to lose them all, but this is not the broadcaster's fault, nor the CATV company's. It's *YOURS*, for failing to upgrade your equipment. Essentially all OTA transmissions went digital a year ago. The CATV companies will be allowed to convert the rest of their channels circa 2012. Analog video simply wastes far too much bandwidth to continue to be allowed. That, not to mention the vastly advanced features engendered by digital video or its vastly superior quality and general immunity to the most common sources of signal degradation in a transmission media.



Schmye Bubbula said:


> TV now is an unmitigated disaster (57 minutes audio  nothing you don't already know but well worth your time). When will Big Media learn the lesson that TheWormyFruit taught the recording industry: that people are only happy to pay when they make reasonably-priced _à la carte _offerings easier & more convenient than piracy? (That's just a rhetorical question.)


No, it's just an irrelevant rant. Although there is a chance it is not the case, the failure in this instance is almost surely entirely yours.


----------



## lrhorer

Oh, gee, everybody. Schmye Bubbula has just sent me a brief two sentence (plus one word) PM accusing me of being a troll.

I'm exposed! Uncovered! Oh how shall I ever bear with the shame? [/sarcasm]

Thanks, SB. I needed a good laugh.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs

The first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem.

Before you can conquer your trollity, you must accept and embrace your trollity.

You should be grateful to Schmeye for trying to help you with your problem.


----------



## MikeAndrews

sieglinde said:


> It is supposed to be a PBS show but it is also showing up on KCET so I get to see it. It premiers later than at KOCE, the real PBS channel.





trainman said:


> It's not a PBS show. It's distributed by American Public Television, which is a competitor to PBS in the business of distributing programming to noncommercial television stations. That's why KCET can get it.


Ebert Presents is fairly clearly set up to also be syndicated for commercial stations.

"When we get back..." _(after what?) _ and the show is about 24 minutes long to allow for commercials.


----------



## djwilso

Schmye Bubbula said:


> Well, I don't have digital cable; only basic cable (which I'm already going broke paying for). Why the hell isn't it on your regular PBS channel 4?


Not sure why you think you have the right to talk to anyone like that in a business correspondence. What a tool.


----------



## sieglinde

Upgrade my equipment!!!! I have a working TV that cost me $500. I am going to wear it out. Actually it is irrelavant because my HD Tivo works fine with it and my Tivo 2 works fine with a cable box.


----------



## lrhorer

sieglinde said:


> Upgrade my equipment!!!! I have a working TV that cost me $500. I am going to wear it out. Actually it is irrelavant because my HD Tivo works fine with it and my Tivo 2 works fine with a cable box.


Well, I have a 20 year old NTSC CRT monitor that cost much less than that, and I am still using it. It's hanging off the back of a TiVo HD, however.


----------



## mattack

lrhorer said:


> Some time around 2012, you are probably going to lose them all, but this is not the broadcaster's fault, nor the CATV company's. It's *YOURS*, for failing to upgrade your equipment. Essentially all OTA transmissions went digital a year ago. The CATV companies will be allowed to convert the rest of their channels circa 2012. Analog video simply wastes far too much bandwidth to continue to be allowed. That, not to mention the vastly advanced features engendered by digital video or its vastly superior quality and general immunity to the most common sources of signal degradation in a transmission media.


You're using the wrong terminology. Cable companies _can_ continue analog as long as they want.

Plus, you say "general immunity to the most common sources of signal degradation". I completely disagree. I would MUCH rather have some snow than have _segments of show missing or digital artifacting_. I had the former happen for the first time in a while a few days ago, and the latter happens a lot (probably a couple times a week at least).

Don't get me wrong, I finally got cable cards on both of my Tivos (though I would likely use one for clear QAM only *if* Tivos supported manual channel remapping -- and yes, I *am* one who has argued _for_ the cable card requirement *when arguing from Tivo's point of view*..) I do appreciate the *usually* improved picture quality. But really, I liked the ability to split the cable to a zillion devices easier. (I had to add an amplified splitter myself to even GET many of the channels I should get.)


----------



## lrhorer

mattack said:


> You're using the wrong terminology.
> Cable companies _can_ continue analog as long as they want.


Where did I suggest otherwise? They will be allowed to drop analog services circa 2012, unless the FCC forces an extension. This probably means most will.



mattack said:


> Plus, you say "general immunity to the most common sources of signal degradation". I completely disagree. I would MUCH rather have some snow than have _segments of show missing or digital artifacting_.


The statement concerns not what you would rather have, but the susceptibility to various issues. Analog signals tend to degrade with dropping signal levels fairly gracefully. One will first notice some slight amount of snow and grain, followed by ever increasing amounts of snow and grain for a very long time until finally the picture becomes unrecognizable. Digital signals, however, will experience no loss of PQ whatsoever until the levels fall well below the point where most people would find the analog signal to be objectionable, although well above the point most people would consider it to be terrible. Just a short way below this point, the digital signal will quit altogether, with a very narrow region where it is intermittent but not gone entirely. The analog signal, however, will have only just degraded visibly.

Signal levels, however, are not the only issue impacting signal delivery. Noise and distortion are also significant contributors to signal degradation. At ordinary levels, digital signals are far, far less susceptible to noise than analog signals. Indeed, far beyond the point where most people would find an analog signal very objectionable, a digital signal will still be 100% perfect. Digital signals are more generally more susceptible to distortion than analog signals. Indeed, a relatively small amount of distortion can destroy a digital carrier, but there's a catch. Distortion levels are completely dependant upon signal levels, but not linearly. Specifically, 2nd order distortion increases 2 dB for every dB increase in signal level, and 3rd order distortion increases 3 dB for every 1 dB increase in signal level. Because of Digital's immunity to noise, most CATV companies run their digital signals 10 or in some cases even 15 dB lower than analog carriers. The result is 2nd order carrier / distortion ratios rise by 10 or even 15 dB, and 3rd order carrier / distortion ratios may rise as much as 20 or even 30 dB on an all digital platform. This also means, all else being equal, the plant can also deliver more carriers.

The bottom line is for a given issue of moderate extent, fewer people will complain of problems on a digital system. Admittedly, the ones who do have issues may well find them to be worse.



mattack said:


> But really, I liked the ability to split the cable to a zillion devices easier.


Most people, with most CATV levels, would say they can split the service more times with digital services. Of course, the statement in and of itself has a very subjective component, since what sort of analog PQ is acceptable will vary a lot from individual to individual, not to mention from one receiver to the other. There's a lot less argument about whether a digital signal is acceptable or not, though.



mattack said:


> (I had to add an amplified splitter myself to even GET many of the channels I should get.)


It's possible you may have an unusual topology with lots of drops a long way from the subscriber tap. This is my situation, for example. With 12 drops, and being moderately far away from the tap, an amplifier was not optional. Most people, however, with 4 or fewer outlets and only a modest distance from the tap should not require an amplifier. It's up to the CATV company to provide decent signal levels to the back of your set in an ordinary setup, and if they are not, then they need to fix their problems.


----------



## Schmye Bubbula

A couple of weeks ago, *Ebert Presents at the Movies *began streaming the individual reviews every Sunday night each week from the official *website*.

- - 
Edit: It's more convenient to go directly to the _Episodes _webpage *here*.


----------

