At the end of December, our public television program "Ebert Presents At The Movies" will go on hiatus while we find necessary funding. This move is necessary to allow the public television stations that carry our show to plan their programs for the beginning of the new year. We held off as long as possible but we had to give notice today.
It was a sad but necessary moment of realism. The show is nationally distributed by American Public Television (APT), and they have been very helpful. They send us to more than 95% of the U.S. public television audience and all 50 top markets. The show is also distributed overseas by the American Forces Network to over 175 countries and even to Navy ships. But in mapping out their 2012 program schedules, APT's member stations need to know what they can count on.
In my Nov. 6 blog entry about the show, I explained that Chaz and I were essentially financing the show ourselves, except for a kind donation from the Kanbar Charitable Trust. In the comments, we received many helpful suggestions from readers and viewers, including possible outlets on cable and commercial TV, internet distribution, and so on.People have been very supportive. We've spoken to the top executives of several channels and film distributors, charitable foundations, web delivery services, potential corporate sponsors, and crowd-funding sources. And we are still talking with them, but the time crunch has intervened. It is a complicated process, and so we are going on hiatus while we sort it out.
During this period I've been moved by the determination of Chaz and our team to push ahead. We really believe in this show and its mission to provide an intelligent place for the discussion of movies in a forum accessible to the public, and in a manner that is easily understood yet that feeds the thirst for both entertainment and knowledge.
The show has been a success. We will have produced 50 episodes. In Christy Lemire and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky we have co-hosts whose chemistry has ignited, and who provide two definitely different viewpoints, which is the idea. We have developed a cadre of Contributors who have created video essays and festival reports.
We hope our hiatus will be brief. You have told us you like the show. And we now have options. A touching number of viewers offered to send us money directly. One of the avenues we may take is a Kickstarter campaign, as you suggested. We will let you know as soon as that is worked out.
Please have faith in us as we sort through the possibilities. Thank you and Happy Holidays.
Can't wait to see you back on TV!
I will have faith and wait for your return. Thank you for financing this for us!
(The odd thing is that I am right this very moment trying to take a stolen evening (I stayed at work so late my darlings are asleep already) and get to the movies. Ah, for a life where I could see every movie. And Tabloid! I actually can make it to Tabloid if I hurry and get out of my office. I feel the heavens have smiled down upon me.
It has been quite fun and entertaining with these intelligent discussions, Roger. I hope the show will be able to resume again.
Thanks for letting us know what's happening with the show - always nicer hearing these things from the source!
I look forward to the time when Christy and Ignatiy will be reviewing for us again; in the meantime, I shall read your reviews and their movie reviews and continue to learn about the movies.
You have to feel proud of the first rate show you were able to come up Rog (from scratch). And Chaz, well, one would think she has been doing the same thing all of her life.
After the Disney "little Ben " fiasco (from a couple of years ago), when I heard that a 25 year old was going to host the show I was actually a little concerned. At the end, I couldn't have liked your choices for co-hosts any more. They felt just right.
We'll be waiting for their (and your) return.
Roger,
I would pay for a monthly subscription if you moved your program to an iTunes delivery platform (if that is possible). I'm not sue what kind of market research you'd need to do, but I think you have enough of an audience to keep your show running if enough people paid a nominal monthly subscription fee.
Randy
Have you thought of using a funding site such as kickstarter.com? I guess that may be too small scale, but its just a thought.
Yall will all be missed, I hope you return to tv soon.
I don't care how many reviews/reviewers there are, online and in print. I've always enjoyed Roger's reviews, and any show he attaches himself to. And agree that the hosts were finally looking comfortable together, and had chemistry.
I for one will miss the show. Hope you can find a way of bringing it back. Til then, tho the balcony may be closed, the blog is still a wonderful source of stories and inspiration.
Thanks to Roger, and all! (cue the zither...)
Don't ignore the possibility of turning the show into a video podcast or otherwise online program. Innovators like Felecia Day and MysteryGuitarMan have been demonstrating how successful this new media can be.
I'm missin' this show I've never seen. I'm sure that God/Universe/Dieties of Natural Selection/Watchamacallit will ensure it's resurrection.
Christmas is the ideal time for us to open up to save this show. Roger, just tell us how much you need. Your supporters will take care of the rest.
Oh, I was so happy to see your show come back now I am disappointed to see it go! Keeping fingers crossed that the show is back soon....Really have gotten to enjoy Christie and Ignatiy!
All the best Roger....I have been a fan since Siskel & Ebert premiered on PBS long ago....
Happy Holidays to you and Chaz!
I find that many people around the Internet do not have interesting things to say about the movies. They are unable to articulate their ideas, write well enough to interest me, and some are very cynical and have silly biases.
I was very pleased to see Ebert Presents because I find that Christy and Ignatiy not only have interesting things to say about movies, but they seem like the types of people you could hang out with at cafes and simply talk with. It is always fun and interesting to hear what they have to say about the current films, and they are helpful for people like me who want to know more about films being released at local theaters, On Demand, or Netflix.
Even if Ebert Presents goes permanently off the air, I hope Christy and Ignatiy do not disappear and connect with their audience or the public through the Internet like blogs, or social networking and video sharing sites. Their opinions will always be welcomed.
I'll be right here when you get back. Can you update us on where and/or when we can find your hosts and contributors in the interim?
Would it be possible for you guys to do a segment or two and post them online somewhere while we wait? Maybe a Sundance or Oscars ep? Just to keep the show and your team in the forefront of our minds.
Good luck though. I'm a fan.
RED
This is a wonderful show, from a film-appreciation standpoint, but also as plain entertainment. I understand the need for a hiatus, and I hope it'll end up being a blip in the history of this great show. Thanks for being so communicative with the fans, Roger!
Sad news indeed!!! I have been a fan or yours since the late 70's. Hope to see the show back very soon!!! Good Luck!!
I am happy that this isn't a case of closing the door. The idea of a hiatus leads me confident that things will work out. My stomach is in knots that this excellent program wouldn't find a way to function financially. I pray that all goes well. This show is important to me and so many others.
I, too, would pay a monthly subscription fee. Anything to keep this wonderful show rolling.
I will miss the show, can't wait for it to return. I've always look forward to your reviews, and I think Christy and Ignatiy have a been great successors. Not just because I have a little bit of a crush on Christy either. Best of luck! See you soon!
Damn. I just joined your new film club site and will happily spend time there but I liked this young pair of reviewers, I will still visit MUBI for Ignatiy's take and hopefully catch Christy's AP reviews somewhere. But does the AP even give its writers by-lines? I don't think so.
If only APT had spread its wings further out of Chicago. New Yorkers can watch your show on various PBS stations, but no one ran a campaign for you here.
Hope you both have a wonderful holiday.
Ebert: AP gives its writers bylines, and Christy's is very prominent.
This situation illustrates a trend that has been going on for a while. Film critics from all major print publications have been let go as criticism of all kinds moves to the internet. It seems anyone can fire up a blog and publish their own reviews of films. But is listing the plot and saying "I liked it" or "I didn't" really a review? Rotten Tomatoes separates "top critics" from all the rest, and Metacritic factors in only certain critics that pass their muster.
I think this brings up an interesting question: what is the responsibility and function of a film critic in today's world? Many films released are "critic proof" and earn a huge amount at the box office. So are critics even needed? Do reviews matter any more?
I would hope they do. Roger, since you have a great perspective on the industry and the role film criticism plays, I'd love to read your thoughts about it. Also, it would be nice to also read Christy Lemire, Ignatiy Vishnevetsky and Chaz's thoughts.
I love At the Movies, and I'm going to miss it. I hope the funding comes through and you can continue to produce episodes.
Christy and Ignatiy were really good and had a chemistry that was authentic and reminded me of the good old' Siskel and Ebert days. They don't sound like they are reading from a written script a la other reviewer like Maulton or the guy with the mustash.
That said the show had fatal flaws. The contributors ranged from okay to embarrassing (mainly the latter). Roger's contributions were limp. It would have been better had he remained producer and passed on the torch in much the way the Jim McNeil has done with Newshour instead of using it as a vehicle to plug his book every episode.
I hope Christy and Ignatiy can come back again in their own show. They are worthy descendants of Sneak Previews.
"Until then, the balcony is closed." But let's hope it's not for too long.
I agree Senor. I originally hoped for a more seasoned, well known team. I was totally wrong. A most informed and entertaining duo they are. May the force be with them. I always donate to PBS whenever I can.
Off topic. Gerardo, I watched "The Storm That Swept Mexico" on PBS recently. Advertised as the very first revolution shot on film. I knew next to nothing about this period in history. If you haven't seen it, do if you can. If you have, what did you think? I liked it immensely. Others (not me) accuse the production of some bias against the United States. Would be cool to get your opinion.
This is a great show! I'd pay for a subscription to it. I'm glad to pay for quality programming and quality writing. Best of luck, and looking forward to the return of the show.
It all came down to the hosts. They had ZERO chemistry and their reviews were not that insightful. Christy Lemire was at least a credible critic and might have flourished if she had a different co-host. Ignatiy Vishnevetsky was simply not that great on TV. Give him maybe ten years and he might finally be ready. If you try to get A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips for a reboot of the show, I will be watching every week.
Sad news! I watch every episode... I'll eagerly await it's return.
Roger and Chaz,
Your news is very sad; I was so hoping for the continuation of "Ebert Presents..." and this is only a brief hiatus. Best wishes and please let me know if I can be of any assistance.
The absence of "Ebert Presents at the Movies" will leave a big void in the film lovers' world. All my best wishes.
My husband and I used to love this show and watched it every week since the early years with Siskel. However, when it came back with the new hosts, Lemire and Vishnevetsky, we totally gave up on it. Hope for your sake that the show returns, Roger, but honestly we won't be watching. How I wish Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott were still in the balcony. Or almost anyone else (sigh). Just my two cents....
Ebert: Over the course of the 50 shows, our co-hosts have developed an exciting chemistry. The fact that they often disagree increases the value of their opinions.
Hey Roger,
Sorry to hear about the news, but you should really embrace the future, dump TV and go web only with a subscription service. I've been doing it with my movie review website since 2004 and with your brand/name recognition, you could really fly with that.
It's also quite inexpensive to do nowadays (especially compared to when I started and what I paid). If you want to discuss further, let me know.
Hi Roger,
It's okay. Maybe it's not meant to be. Or maybe it just needs a little more effort. Either way, good luck and God bless.
Boy, I was hoping we'd get to have the annual top ten lists of the best and worst movies of the year. Good luck getting funding and I'll see you at the movies.
How does someone donate to the cause? I don't have a lot of money and am a regular person -- not a foundation -- but I'd like to help if I can.
Ebert: We're considering Kickstarter.
Sorry to hear this, Roger. If executives from those funding sources are reading, know that this show is valued (and, if we may be so crass, valued by consumers in the 18-49 demographic) and a unique viewer resource for the dozens of movies released every month. Putting it back on the air will be good business for the film industry.
Liz writes: "Have you thought of using ....... kickstarter?" Did you actually READ the column? Honestly, THAT'S exactly why the show is going off the air. Hardly anyone pays attention to anything these days. Too many Americans have the attention span of a flea and the stick-to-it-ness of a gnat. I hope the show stays on the air, but the dumbing down of the United States population may be too far along.
Dear Roger- Your show has reignited my love of movies and of the art of criticism. Christy and Ignatiy has become two of my favorite critics and it is always fun to watch their hot and now segments to hear about movies that I have not seen advertised. I cannot wait for the hiatus to end. I am definitely one of the fans who is willing to contribute to the show, PBS-style. I won't even need a tote bag.
I have faith the show will return. Wow, what an amazing show it is. It deserves so much more than to simply go quietly in the night. Too often, this happens to the best shows on television.
I know you don't take flattery well, but the film community owes you and Chaz so much. You've made this show purely out of a love for the movies. If only it was possible to return the favor, but alas, I don't have a gift that matches yours. Thank you so much!
We love 'Ebert Presents' and are regular viewers. Totally agree the chemistry between Ignatiy and Christine has flourished. Their discussions are fun and interesting. Their differing points of view keep it fresh and exciting.
We hope the funding issue gets settled soon and would gladly pay a subscription fee or make a kickstarter donation. Thank you Roger, Chaz, Ignatiy and Christine. Hope the show is up and running again, soon.
Too bad. I look forward to the show every weekend. Great
choices for the new critics. Hope you're back soon.
One question:
Where can we find Christy and Ignatiy's reviews in the meantime?
I believe Christy writes for AP, but is there a site that regularly features her reviews? Or do I need to check my local paper? And Ignatiy works for MUBI, right? Where do I go to find his reviews?
Ebert: IV is at MUBI.com. CL is linked at Rotten Tomatoes, etc.
I would also like to see A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips return in a revamped version of the show. But I really would like the show to be on free public TV where everyone has access to the show.
Liz writes: "Have you thought of using ....... kickstarter?" Did you actually READ the column?
Thank you. I came right out of my chair on that one. Made me feel sorry for Roger. Yeesh.
That, and all the people saying, "Put it on the Web." Well, duh. Put WHAT on the Web? The problem is paying for the show itself- not trying to find a way to get it to people.
Roger says the show already has a distribution network that is working really, really well. That the problem is finding a way to fund the production of the show itself. So what do people respond with? "Find a new distribution network to distribute the show you can't afford to make anymore."
That would be like running out of gas in your car- and having well-meaning people suggest you solve the problem by.... taking a different route.
And of course, Roger is far too gracious to point this out. :-)
_______
Roger,
You are "The Smartest Guy in the Room". I believe in you.
I know you will figure this out and the show will be back, because I can't think of anyone who has been more adept at overcoming adversity than you. You overcame the loss of Siskel. You've overcome the loss of your voice. No doubt you have overcome things that we don't even know about. And you can overcome this.
The world needs you now more than ever. We're counting on you. You can do it.
Why not Fandango, Movietickets.com, Netflix, et al as sponsors (oops, "underwriters")?
"Ebert Presents At The Movies" has got to come back on television and on-line. The TV demographic is simply too large to ignore. Please send me a bill for an on-line monthly subscription. I go to Indie and foreign-language films four times a week at AFI and Landmark Theaters here in the D.C. area. I miss Siskel and Ebert the way the Italians miss Federico Fellini.
"We hope our hiatus will be brief."
Sir, it will never be brief enough! Come back soon, so I know what movies I should see.
If CBS hasn't recast the Andy Rooney segment on "60 Minutes"..
I think the combo of Roger's commentary and Bill Curtis' voice would be a worthy "last comment" on that program.
Has Iganity auditioned for the role of Illya Kuryakin on the new "Man From UNCLE" movie? Actually, I think David McCallum should still play Illya, and bring in a new Russian agent to be Napoleon's partner.
So sad! I love the new show and Christy and Ignatiy!
Nebraska public television was slow to pick up the show -- when exactly they did, I don't know, as I had given up on them by that point. And so it was only recently that I stumbled across it only, and my wife and I have enjoyed it immensely these last couple months. (Yes, we could have been watching it online, but we're just not the type of people who enjoy watching shows on our computer.) And now it's going away!
Best of luck in finding funding. The show is awesome. The chemistry between the hosts is perfect, and they always have intelligent things to say. I've watched you since around 1980 and it was a sad day when At the Movies went off the air; your shows had always been my primary guide to movies. (Now it's your written reviews, which are also awesome.)
Hurry back!
It’s funny how everybody has their own opinion on which the right co-hosts should be when that has absolutely nothing to do with the show’s current situation. Having witnessed the parade of critics who co-hosted the old show in your absence, personally I believe there are 4-5 current critics who are perfectly up to the job and Christy/Ignatiy just happen to be among them. There are obviously a lot of people who can’t settle for anything less than Gene and Roger (and never will).
The titles and the set of the new show are absolutely phenomenal. A lot of the contributions by other critics were outstanding. Indeed, the show is a success. Let’s just hope this giant bump in the road is solvable.
Reply to John in Denver:
I haven’t seen it John. It is a historical fact that the US played a large part in the starting of the Mexican Revolution but I don’t really know the show’s details. What’s sadder is that a lot of people here still remember the event as something heroic when, as a direct result, over a million people died and not much good (if any) came out Best.
Podcasts-shmodcasts. I'm a pre-geezer (55 on Saturday, kids--for gifts I prefer Ebertfest passes and Goobers cents-off coupons) who likes to plunk down in front of an actual TV that doesn't have a computer-catheter stuck up its wazoo and let the boobest tube of all do the work for me. So I hope Lemire and Vishnevetsky are back real soon. As (most of us) have said, they work well together to give us smart (and engagingly different) views. On TV, ferchrissakes.
If only Buena Vista had preserved copies of your episodes with Gene Siskel, then you could promote a classic DVD package. Also, perhaps you could divert a portion of your "memoir revenue" towards the program.
Um, yeah, never saw this latest version of it, since it didnt have Ebert on it, a duh! Once he started using his old show to promote all those friggin Anti-Iraq War films and anti-Bush crap, he lost me. And the fact that they were ALL bombs didnt help, either! Also, whats with this show still being in SD? Come on, people, get with the 21st century! When Roger's feeling better, and can speak, and can lay off the liberal slant, and start showing it in HD, THEN he'll do well. Otherwise, just keep this in the dustbin of history-it was a fun ride while it lasted!
Roger, I'm sorry to hear that the show is going on hold for a time and hope everything works out again, even though, like at least one of the commentors, I haven't found much of interest in Christie or Ignaty and would love to see Phillips and Scott back, but that's neither here nor there.
What I would love to see however is the return of the old Siskel and Ebert episodes to the internet. I spent so many hours on atthemovies.com catching up once they were posted and I feel it an utter travesty to film criticism that there isn't a place online where they can be accessed,
The show never overcame the problem that caused the demise of previous shows: sites like Metacritic offer 40 reviews of a movie, and you don't have to look up the time and channel to find out when PBS is showing the program.
My suggestion? Push the show to an hour. For the first half hour, have the reviews of current movies. If all we care about are movies in theaters this weekend, give that in the first 20 minutes and recap at the end.
In the second half hour, some film criticism at a higher level.
The local PNS xtations never knew what to show in the other half hour when your program was on. One station would show "Ebert Presents" at 8:30 and follow it with a classic movie. That made a fun movie night.
Mostly, you've got to raise your profile to attact funding from foundations. Show them you're doing more than running an ad for the latest Tom Hanks or Martin Scorsese flick.
For the last show... any way to give an Early Review of Ridley Scott's "Prometheus."
A bootleg trailer of poor quality has appeared online. Ridley Scott might be willing to talk about the movie and show a few key scenes.
the michael philips one had the best chance, too bad they axed that one.
Oprah Winfrey could fund your show from her petty cash account. According to your autobiograhy, you were the one who suggested she syndicate her show. It's payback time.
I'd pay for a monthly subscription via iTunes, a website, etc. as well. I watch the show every morning on my work computer during my lunch break.
Why is everyone so afraid of talking about the elephant in the room? I truly do no mean to be rude, but the plain fact is, the hosts are just plain awful. In particular, Ignatiy Vishnevetsky is insufferable, arrogant and usually downright silly. There is no way on earth your program can succeed, on PBS or anywhere else, with these two jokers. Maybe the elephant can at least sit down now.
Ebert,
I think you should try looking at the formats of several internet critics that have cropped up over the past few years. Many use long form videos (some FAR too long, reaching 20 minutes) and are little more than a guy at a desk.
I guess my real suggestion is to look at internet distribution, see how people like The Nostalgia Critic and The Cinema Snob make a profit, and find out if any elements might make for a good 21st century foundation.
At the very least, you could see how most young people are getting their critiques.
Where's Oprah when we need her?! Roger you are the only critic I trust or maybe you are like family, have followed you for many years, and don't want to see you go!
It is good to know that you have support from us fans. We want this show to go on and on and on and on, just as you and Gene Siskel wanted. It is funny that lately it has just been Christy, Ignaty, and you in your "office". What happened to everyone else, like the 12 year old kid? And I hope you can eventually bring in Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips to do some commentary. We'll hopefully see you soon in 2012.
You the man, Roger.
I will miss the show and my favorite people...Roger and Chaz....Happy Holidays...Billy Baxter....
Good luck! Those two critics are the best on-screen match since Siskel and Ebert, and I've seen 'em all - including Rex Reed and Dixie Whatley...
Not surprised at all with the news, considering what we heard a few weeks ago.
Audiences are on a strict diet of bad hamburgers and celebrities, and worthwhile shows like 'At the Movies' don't get nearly the attention they deserve. Worthwhile films and filmmakers get the shaft, too (Steve James).
Roger, I think what you've built online is incredible, and congratulations on 50 successful episodes of the show. 'Tis a bummer, but you persevere famously. Keep it up.
I recommend one dose of Warren Zevon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHDdqubE7zQ
@BIll Hays,
"Show them you're doing more than running an ad for the latest Tom Hanks or Martin Scorsese flick."
No, I say show them you're the only ones who really can articulate the importance of them and the truth of the movies they are going to see (or shouldn't see).
Since everyone likes to talk about what hosts they like, I'd just like to say that I think Annette Insdorf may be my second favorite movie-conversationalist, for lack of a better word.
How much do you need? Could a fund drive aimed at your gazillions of fans help?
Sucks that the show's going on hiatus, but it's understandable. My dad and I watch it all the time. Should a campaign be set up on Kickstarter or IndieGoGo, I'd probably make a pledge of some kind.
Grew up to you when Siskel and Ebert were At the Movies on PBS. I especially loved that you didn't like "Brazil" as much as other people did. One friend agreed with me (and you) that the movie was severely flawed, stagey and whatever contrived (in the worst way) that I don't like about Terry Gilliam movies. Will always love that you agree that "Brazil" is not a great movie.
"I, too, would pay a monthly subscription fee. Anything to keep this wonderful show rolling."
Here Here!
Love your show since the beginning. Intelligent, fun, entertaining and informative. We need more shows like this. Your fans are passionate, opinionated and smart and we all love you. Your current host are great and really capture the essence of what the fans love about the series. Smart, funny and contrasting opinions make this show harken back to the good ole roger & gene battle days we all still love.
Keep the faith, your fans will be here whenever you get it back. We'll keep those balcony seats warm for you.
Here's hoping that the hiatus ends quickly! The show and its format quickly became one of my favorite shows over the past year, and I especially love how the website is designed and laid out.
Best of luck Roger; we'll all be here when you guys are back on air.
As a longtime fan of the 'At the Movies' format -- I discovered 'Siskel & Ebert' in the mid-'90s when I was in high school, and I've pretty much followed it through from then to 'Ebert & Roeper' to the much-maligned Bens to Scott & Phillips to Christy & Ignatiy -- and I must say it would be a shame to see see it go, especially since I've really been enjoying the intelligent film discussion and funny banter of the show's current incarnation.
I will certainly miss you all during your hiatus, and I wish the best of luck to you and Chaz in finding the funding to keep this good thing going.
There's this new thing called the internet. Get a few hd cameras find a room with a good back drop and make your show. Stop wasting your time with television. You can distribute the show on your own.The young turks have made a fortune off the internet...it can be done.
Gosh darn it, Mr. Ebert. I wish it hadn't come to this. If there is anything in my power that I can do, please let me know.
Roger & Chaz -- this is one of the best shows on television. My wife and I look forward to its return. Many thanks for all your hard work.
http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/ebert-calls-hiatus-on-at-the-movies-let-it-go-roger
While I enjoyed the revisits to Ebert & Siskel episodes past on the reconstituted show this year, and commend the Eberts for trying to bring a new smart review show back to television, unfortunately the voiceless Ebert could not provide the show with his full-throated personality. He tried typing with voiceover, and replaying past shows, but his new reviewers, perky eager-to-please blonde Christy Lemire, from A.P., and smug gap-toothed upstart Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, simply lacked the right stuff.
Women film critics on television walk a tightrope: while they write with authority in print, on camera they instinctively soft-pedal their opinions so as not to come off shrill or harsh. Meanwhile men are free to be as arrogant and know-it-all as they like. It's an unfair match. Lemire knew more than her younger less experienced partner, but he was more aggressive about winning arguments and not letting her get a word in edgewise. I found them annoying. I wanted her to stand up to him and I wanted him to shut up.
So. Roger and Chaz: you tried. Let it go. Ebert is hugely successful as the new model critic in print and online who uses social media as well as anyone. His book is a bestseller, no surprise. Onward.
----------
Good advice, imo.
Roger & Chaz,
I am SO disappointed that you need to go the hiatus route. I've loved all the incarnations of your show for decades, and this certainly includes the current one with Christy Lemire and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky. I've written several times to my local PBS channel WNET (NYC) on why they should resume the funding of your show.
I join with cinemaphiles nationwide in expressing hope that you will find another sponsor to enable you to continue broadcasting your intelligent, thoughtful, interesting and timely show!
Roger, this talk of Kickstarter and other "creative" sources of financing is silly. You need a good business manager, development officer, or whatever the equivalent is in the TV industry. You and Chad are the soul of the show and bring the passion, experience, industry connections, and name recognition to it. But you should have had a business manager and a business plan in place from the moment your first show aired with Christy and Ignatiy at the helm.
I work in the nonprofit world, and if I waited until the very end of the pilot year of a new program to seek financing for its continuation, I'd never be able to sustain it.
Focus on the creative development of the show, Roger, and hire a professional to handle the business aspects. Passion alone is not enough to attract money.
I think the time for this kind of intelligent programming is over.
I don't get it, myself. But we are a very stupid people now.
Watching the Dick Cavett show reruns--or for that matter, Merv Griffin--highlights how far we've fallen. These chat shows were low-brow entertainment when they came out. They were something truly intelligent people might waste their time watching. Now they seem like university courses.
Go listen to the crowd reaction to a Chomsky speech. Unless he's battering the right, the listeners are confused. They can't figure it out.
I really liked the new show, Roger. The hosts are terrific. It'll never work. Not here, anyway.
Jesus Christ. Charlie Sheen doing a tour because he's drug addled and hires prostitutes. Disney marketing charity to make money from it. The great herd hurtling from media delivery device to media delivery device as the content dries up. Publishing dead. Music dead. Film dying. Art dead. What will become of us?
Run, Roger.
It's appropriate that the next phase of your career will be uncluttered with efforts to recreate past magic. Your next phase lies elsewhere. Netflix queues and digital movie libraries are a total mess. Why is everyone getting the same Blockbuster ad for Smurfs this week in their email inboxes, when it's a movie with a specific target audience? There is a role for film criticism and technology to raise customer satisfaction. It's time for you to match Steve Jobs' triple crown of Apple part 1, Pixar, and Apple part 2. Do something new!
Sounds like you need a fairly aggressive community organizer. There might be one available in 2012 but in the mean time isn't there a universal fund that everyone might contribute to collectively? While I am on the West Coast and I believe you contribute to the Chicago Times perhaps there is a group that could make the plight of great entertainment accountibility be a plus instead of a zero. An organization that cares about quality that can attack the expansive audience that it takes to keep quality alive. The West Coast is clueless to your financial instability not to lack of apathy but merely your audience is primarily targeted to Chicago? I recently found you on the Internet by looking up a review for Hugo because I didn't want to see another creepy union bought media driven opinion that was purchased so I blogged your name. We are a generous sort out here we are basically the ATM (Hollywood) for the most famous community organizer currently and I am sure the Hollywood 1% would be more than generous but then again they are a coy and faithless group. In all sincerity would love to see you flourish as you should. You are a talented individual, unique and unfortunately uncommon. Good luck and if you need support it sounds like you have a lot of loyal fans.
I suppose this might just be a similar to many of the comments put above. Regardless, this is my first time commenting on your blog Roger, and I wanted to put in a word of support for the show. You and Chaz have done a tremendous job with the production and presentation, and Christy and Ignatiy have really developed strongly and comfortably into the format. The show started well, developed even better since, and from the viewer's perspective I don't think the first 50 episodes could have gone any better.
I also feel a need to say a heartfelt thank you. Best wishes, and I hope to see you all on air again soon.
I sure hope the problem gets solved soon as I love seeing films discussed in a thoughtful manner. It also opens eyes to smaller films that many people may not know about otherwise. In the meantime I will keep on listening to CinemaJaw and other podcasts for my movie news and reviews. Come Back soon!
I agree with those commenters who are saying you are approaching things wrong. You do NEED an independent money manager. Over the last year you have whined multiple times on this blog about how you need to make revenue. Sorry, but I'm sure your income dwarfs almost every commenter who's ever commented on your blog. You need a MANAGER, and pronto!
I also think other avenues should be explored. The show was just not working, from the get go. It was the Two Bens fiasco all over again.
1) get a manager.
2) get into the modern world.
I heartily concur. If only Oprah's show still were on the air, Mr. Ebert could appear as a guest and promote the show.
I don't suppose that any of you have been following the story of the planned online reboots of All My Children and One Life To Live?
(Or at least are admitting to it.)
Anyway, if you have, you know that the big plans have essentially fallen through, and everybody is blaming everybody else for it.
My best guess is that the online company that was going to produce the revivals was "not adequately financed" (or as they say in Texas, "all hat and no cattle"). Understandable, in a way - producing a daily drama with between 30-40 running characters, plus writing, sets, costumes and such, can run up a steep bill in very little time, probably beyond the means on even a profitable internet company.
How this applies to your show:
Even though Ebert Presents is, by design, a small show, the production needed to give it a professional look is probably what ran through your bankroll in such a short time. Had you been able to attract a deep-pocketed underwriter at the start - one who would be willing to give you a blank check - this situation might not have happened.
Unless you're able to find such an "angel", that'll be "-30-" for Ebert Presents. Given the many contradictory things I've been reading about Kickstarter, I'm not sure I'd go there. It sounds a bit like one of those "vanity publishing" outfits where you have to pay them to publish your book, and then you wind up with a stack of cheaply produced books that no one wants to read. I could be mistaken in this assumption; I hope I am.
One thing for sure, though: If you go to a strictly online offering, you've lost me as a viewer. I still don't have a computer at home, and I don't intend to test my employers here at work any more than necessary.
Okay, that's out of the way
Now to what I really wanted to write.
Yesterday I made the mistake of visiting Breitbart Big Hollywood, specifically to see how John Nolte and his feral trolls would react to the news.
It was about what I expected.
Nolte was in full gloat mode, running the "bitter, divisive, anti-American bad lefty" nonsense that he always does whenever he writes about you, but then he turned it over to his commenters - and they came in full force. There were 82 at last count. 81 of them were their usual vitriolic selves. One guy called Nolte on his own viciousness without exactly defending you, but he was the exception. All the others were firmly on message. Additionally, at least a third of them (possibly more) cited Gene Siskel's absence as the reason your shows aren't any good anymore. They all seem to believe the Gene was "one of them", a fellow conservative holding the line against anti-American you - something that those of us who've been here all along know differently. If Nolte knows (and I half suspect that he does), he's never troubled to correct his troll choir about it.
I think I can anticipate your possible response to this:
"Ignore it. Why give yourself agita over this?"
Or as Patsy Lolordo said to Al Capone in re Bugs Moran:
"We will not distress ourselves over the life of a worthless man."
There are some things too important to disregard.
The increasingly toxic level of internet commenting is one of them.
To this point, I'd like to issue a little challenge to your friend and his, Randy Masters.
Hi Randy. Here's the caper:
Take yourself over to BBH and scroll down to Nolte's comment/attack on our mutual friend Roger.
Be sure to read all 82 comments (plus however many have been added since this morning).
Then, if you're up to it, check into Nolte's archives for other posts about Roger, and the accompanying comments to those.
Then, if you can stand it, send Nolte a comment of your own, based on what you've read.
Because I'd really like to know how you as a conservative, honestly react to all the venom being spewed at your friend in your name.
Any comment I could make would be useless; Nolte could simply dismiss me as "one of those lefties", which I'm not, but he doesn't know me from Adam. Your credentials as a conservative, on the other hand, are impeccable - Nolte couldn't dismiss you out of hand.
Since we're coming up on the weekend, I won't see any possible results of this until Monday or Tuesday at the earliest.
But this is one issue I'd really like an answer to.
And Randy Masters is the only one who can give it to me.
Till then, I leave you with the Nuclear Power Love Song:
"They're writing songs of love
But not Fermi ..."
*FOGHORN*
Roger, best of luck in your search for financing. My DVR is set to record your show and I would really miss it if it went away forever.
You're right. Christy and Ignaty have developed a comfortable, yet sometimes scrappy screen relationship. It'a a pleasure watching them and your other contributors.
Happy Holidays, and may Santa fill your stocking with sponsors galore!
My wife and I have watched your shows from almost their inception. We were saddened by the show's demise in 2010, happy to see it resurrected in 2011 and now disappointed to see it go on hiatus. We were surprised to hear that most of the financing has been coming from the two of you and even more surprised that the show has not attracted the necessary sponsors. We wish you success in your search for financing and want you to know your efforts are much appreciated. Best wishes for the Holidays.
My guess is that you have a very popular program (more than 95% of the U.S. public television audience and all 50 top markets).
Please forgive my ignorance but why not commercial television?
I believe you would need a production outfit to package deal for, let's say, Bravo or some such.
Holy crap, Roger, you have to tweet this..and maybe write a blog about it....(you can click my name)... http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284560/methanol-wins-robert-zubrin?pg=1
You know how I've been talking about flex-fuel cars and how the high price of oil caused the recession globally (and it did)...well, all new cars since 2007 are ALREADY flex-fuel vehicles! For only .41 cents in parts, the fuel line and changing the already-existing electronic programming for the fuel injection (no physical parts, just need a programmer to change the programming that is already there)...and we will have flex-fuel vehicles. There are already bi-partisan bills in the house and the senate. Now, there are no more excuses. It used to cost around $100 dollars per vehicle (a Ford representative said, this itself, was a "trivial amount")...but now that amount is even more trivial: .41 cents!...(and a computer programmer to just adjust the already-existing programming).
This is what will save the GLOBAL economy. In other words, you do this and the price of oil will eventually go down because there will be a substitute for the jacked-up price of oil: alcohol. This is the main thing we need to do for the recession to be over.
People will be able to afford your show once the recession is over.
The is the most important thing we need to do. ONce we do this, all foreign cars will switch to, because they aren't going to walk away from a customer as big as the US for .41 cents in physical parts per car. Hundreds of millions of cars are probably already on the road that could have be using alcohol/gas, but they shouldn't because this law hasn't been passed and they don't have the .41 cent piece and an adjustment in their already-existing fuel injection programming (no additional physical cost...just pay a programmer to do what already could and should have already been done).
Then Obama can tell the market that they should start making some alcohol fuels. Methanol can be made from any kind of biomass: trash, parts of plants that get thrown away, flared natural gas that gets wasted, plants that clog swamps, rivers...maybe the trees in Colorado that are being killed by the Mountain Pine Beetle in large numbers....etc. That would create 1.5 million jobs directly (not including additional jobs created from the additional discretionary spending for restaurants, dry-cleaning that would be created from the employees of those jobs).
Obama saving the world economy...for .41 cents in cost per car? Sounds like a good thing to me. All pre-2007 cars (well, up until the 1980s) would be able to switch their cars to flex-fuel vehicles for about $100 per car (maybe a little more for new exotic cars)...and we could have congress pass a law to have government certified flex-fuel kits for that as well: meaning the vast majority of the cars on the road now, could buy a gov. certified flex-fuel kit and turn their cars into a flex-fuel vehicle, whether they want to do it for cleaner fuel and help the environment or because the alcohol fuel is cheaper this week than the gasoline and they want to fill it up with that instead. So, all these dirty cars on the road now will have an incentive to switch rather than spending tens of thousands of dollars on whatever new car (that is already a flex-fuel vehicle pretty much) that gets a few extra miles a gallon...won't need to do that...the price of gasoline will be down..or they can buy alcohol if that is cheaper than gas.
Anyway, the excuses are over. Before the car manufacturers might have complained and said it costed them a hundred million or two to switch their cars to buy a whole kit and everything for $100 per vehicle...now they can say it is only .41 cents per vehicle. No reason not to do this anymore...and put alcohol pumps all over the world and end this recession.
Such a shame, I grew up with this show and it hurts to see it go away. I sincerely hope you guys find a way to get back on the air soon.
Whatever happened to the sponsor Raisinets? I remember hearing that ad every week on the old S&E show...
I hope that you have offered the show to Netflix. I'd bet they would be interested in an exclusive extended edition, with more or longer reviews. Maybe you and the other critics could suggest your weekly instant streaming picks?
Hope see you on TV soon.
Doug Myers | December 2, 2011 12:15 PM | Reply
I agree with those commenters who are saying you are approaching things wrong. You do NEED an independent money manager. Over the last year you have whined multiple times on this blog about how you need to make revenue. Sorry, but I'm sure your income dwarfs almost every commenter who's ever commented on your blog. You need a MANAGER, and pronto!
I also think other avenues should be explored. The show was just not working, from the get go. It was the Two Bens fiasco all over again.
1) get a manager.
2) get into the modern world.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Hate to sound like an echo chamber, but I think the folks who are pointing out the poorly handled money and financing are right, as well as the show's conception.
I hate to burst your bubble Roger, but in the world of cyberchat, Iggy and Kristy WERE the TWO BENS. They are simply not good and not knowledgeable enough. Give'em another decade to see more films, and maybe. In fact, the only place where anyone seems to think they were good hosts and critics is HERE! And this isn't jealousy, just a fact. They are laughingstocks on virtually every other web board on film. No amount of $ input will change the fact that they make the show BAD, as a number of people here have thankfully pointed out.
Next, I know Chazz was a lawyer but that is not a synonym for financial advisor. You really need to get an indy set of eyes involved. Only fools go into business with friends or relatives.
Also, go commercial- 4 to 5 minutes LESS of the K & I can only help.
Roger,
We (spouse and I) will miss you and Chaz and the whippersnappers while you're gone. Here's hoping you all return soon.
Funny. People say "let me help in any way I can" - which of course they can't. They know they can't and they know they won't be asked. So why extend a false offer? Roger - you should take everyone of them who says this up on their offer and see how many actually step forward.
Then there are the people who say they'll "subscribe." Yeah, sure they will. But its the same false extension knowing full well that that is not the right direction for this program. I don't think people have a grasp as to how much money is needed to produce shows like this.
But, nevertheless, I hate to see the show go and will miss it.
Roger-
I've been watching since you first started on PBS and like the new show a lot. Good luck and hope to see it regularly again soon.
Hi Roger,
Have been a great fan of yours the last six years or so. I'm from India, but I don't watch any Hollywood movie before first reading your review of it.
I don't get to see Ebert Presents...here in India, but were I an American, you could bet your last dime on me being an avid watcher of the program.
I just had to tell you all this.
Thanks for being such a great critic. Love your work.
Bye,
Sri
What about your "Ebert Presents" website? My PBS station in Roanoke, VA doesn't carry your program, and that website is the only place that I can only watch the show for free without paying any subscription fees for it at all! Will the remaining episodes still remain on the site, or will they all go away? Thank you for giving us this program to us and the impressive hosts that you hired for the new show! It was only a year ago that I watched clips and full episodes of your original shows with you and Gene Siskel on youtube and the Siskel&Ebert.org site, since I didn't catch your program until the "Ebert and Roeper" era. My first memories of you and Siskel is when I saw your "Two Thumbs Up" reviews on movie posters and the back of the videos of the movies that was bought or rented in my family, and you and Siskel's guest apperances on "The Critic".
Couldn't stand the two Bens, wasn't impressed by this new incarnation - basically I'm bitter that you guys yanked the Scott & Phillips version of the show way, way prematurely. I watched that every week (online when I didn't catch it on TV). I would peruse the AtM archives for hours. I thought the show had finally returned to sanity and then... gone. Scott & Phillips out the door, AtM archives vanished - and I stopped caring.
Bring S&P back (and you could join in as well) - they were really getting into a groove and I enjoyed their banter.
I'd start watching again immediately.
Ebert: Beg your pardon. We had nothing to do with yanking Scott and Phillips. That was Disney.
your show is one of the few show i watch on pbs.
well pbs is the only channel i watch anyway.
i don't go to movie much lately but i do rent and purchase blu-ray disks from times to times. my decision of what disk to purchase is based largely on your show.
thanks and hope to see you back on pbs soon.
Please do not leave! We love your program. Make it inexpensive (i.e., internet only) and bring back A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips (and keep Ignaty too).
I have watched the various incarnations of this review program for decades. Siskel and Ebert was an excellent, classic show. Ebert and Roeper was good, although Ebert was always so much better and more interesting than Roeper. The two Bens were mediocre. Michael Philips and A. O. Scott were superb.
I remember when there was a series of guests with Roeper after Roger got sick. I remember an episode with Roeper and director Kevin Smith reviewing movies. I remember Smith criticizing Woody Allen and me wanting to kick in my television screen at that moment. The notion that Smith, a one-note hack, would dare to attack Woody Allen was both hilarious and infuriating. That passion on my part has not been felt watching the new version with CL and IV.
I can't believe that both Roger and Chaz think the pairing has improved. They rarely engage each other and both are often dull and seem unwilling to be passionate in disagreeing with the other.
I believe in movie criticism. I like the idea of a movie reviewing show. I want Roger and Chazz to succeed as producers. However, I think part of the problem is that the current show lacks critics who are truly willing to excoriate a movie. They are also unwilling to vehemently disagree with each other. The show lacks bite.
Roger:
I've been a fan of the show, since you and Gene started on WTTW. The hosts have always had the ability to explain the movies without being too cerebral. However, that being said, I think you should consider changing the hosts. The new hosts are too cerebral in their analysis of the movies. Remember, the original idea was thumbs up or down, we all understand that concept. The new hosts seem to be catering to a viewing audience of introspective viewers with a desire for analysis of every movie production technique used by the studios. Please, it is thumbs up or thumbs down, that's what made you and Gene such a success. Please return from your hiatus with new hosts, who are less introspective and have spent time watching your original shows, to see how it should be done.
I would like to see Michael Medved and Jeffrey Lyons.
(not his son)
Roger:
I am a big fan of the show and a huge fan of your work in general. It is because of you that I have such an interest in film and a keen eye for good film. At this point in my life I am a graduate student but I would like to help in anyway possible. Let me know where I can help. Thank you
Cameron
What? No! You guys can't stop this show. I love it! I want to see more reviews. Can't you make a Youtube channel if finding funding for this is hard?
RE, We totally have faith in you and Chaz to sort through every possibility with your usual creative and energetic thoughtfulness--let us know how we can help as things develop--most grateful for your hard work on behalf of the commonweal--every good wish in 2012!
Please don't give up. You have a loyal audience willing to do what we can to keep the show on the air. Just let us know!
I'm certain you have heard this from others, hopefully countless others, but this show doesn't deserve your name on the title. Respectfully, your co-hosts are dreadful. They lack no chemistry and Ignatiy comes across as a smug kid whose reviews convince me of one thing...don't watch a show where the reviewer is more awful than any of the films he dislikes.
I read your website faithfully but this show has fallen well below what we viewers have come to expect. Please, be impartial.
I will definitely miss watching the show every Friday night on-line. I don't believe that it's available here in Toronto, so I've been watching on my laptop since the re-incarnation. It would be very sad if the show were not able to make it back. I don't understand these individuals who keep dumping on Christy & Ignatiy; I too believe that their chemistry is very good and to me, they represent a good cross section of the movie going audience. When I listen to them discuss a film, I can relate to it. If the reviewers were scholarly, they may not connect to the audience in the same manner.
I grew up watching you and Gene Siskel intelligently discuss films week after week and there will never be another tandem quite like the two if you. Many of my friends know me as an quasi- expert and lover of great films; I have you to thank for this. You have inspired so many to discuss film as a serious art form and an important way of telling the story of the human condition. I was deeply saddened to find out that you had lost your voice due to your illness and that I would not hear your reviews again. However, with this program, I realized that we did not lose your "voice" but would receive it in a different manner.
Thank you for everything you've done to promote film as an accessible, popular art form. I also hope that this break will be a short one and that this program will return as soon as possible.
John | December 3, 2011 9:37 PM | Reply
The new hosts are too cerebral in their analysis of the movies. Remember, the original idea was thumbs up or down, we all understand that concept. The new hosts seem to be catering to a viewing audience of introspective viewers with a desire for analysis of every movie production technique used by the studios.
This is the single funniest passage I've ever read in a comment on Ebert's blog. Too cerebral? Hahaha.
It's kind of off topic but it might be useful. I would love to see some of the old Siskel and Ebert reviews on DVDs. It could bring good profit for the funding, also would make many fans like me very happy.
All the very best as far as sorting this out is concerned. I think it is an elegant way to have Mr. Ebert's continued involvement and stay topical at the same time! Cudo's to you two for taking this on and keeping the discourse at an elevated level typical of the man himself!
Cheers,
marty.
Please point out to whomever makes the decision to fund programming the fact that one of the world's most execrable shows, "Fear Factor," has been renewed while funding for your show hasn't been located.
Bummer.
I love At the Movies.
I hope you can find a way to keep this show on the air. The hosts have grown on me as they have grown on the show. Initially Christy irritated me with her constant lapsing into her native "Valley Girl" mannerisms and vocal habits. The "OMG" moments and 12 year old girl type squealing were wholely inconsistant with getting anyone to take her reviews seriously. Fortunately I started watching again and now she seems to be projecting a much more adult persona. I hope that keeps up. If it does, great, if she lapses into old habits you should consider finding a new cohost. Ignatiy, too, seems to have matured in the short while the show has been on the air. It still seems as though he could use more real-world experience to inform his reviews, too often he comes across as someone with an abundance of book learning but little practical experience, but as I said he is growing in his role and I'd like to see how he matures. The best of luck on extending this venture.
You MUST come back on the air! This is the best review show on TV. Thank you for providing such a wonderful resource for film critics. I'll pledge money! How much do you need? :)
Roger, Best of luck in your funding search. Rest assured that if individual viewers are allowed to directly contribute, I will be first in line. The show is excellent and Christy and Ignatiy are truly the best people to have in their positions.
Thank you so much for reviving the public television movie discussion format. I really hope the show can survive. I remember watching the old show with my Dad when you and Siskel had a dog that would make an occasional appearance. I grew up in an area that didn't have cable, so your show was quite a thrill to watch. And it still is.
Happy holidays and best wishes for a happy new year,
Eric in Chicago
Off-topic, I thought I should post this link before you write your text about the tintin movie. This is exactly how I, as someone who grew up with the comics and tried to draw like Herge, feels when he watches what Spielberg made out of it.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/tintin-gets-the-hollywood-treatment-20111031-1mrvy.html
I was so pleased with the new show, being a fan of every show that came before and wishing for yet another, so I do hope it will thrive in the near future. In other words, please come back soon! :-)
Christie and Ignaty are improving but they still aren't ready for a national stage. Siskel and Ebert didn't start out with a show on the major networks. You guys cut your teeth on the local networks for years before you got a chance for a syndicated show. Your funding would have been better spent on an internet pod cast or a paid show on a local TV station. This would have allowed Christie and Ignaty to grow and refine their talents. I think this was the downfall of the previous two incarnations as well with the two Bens or Phillips and Scott. Like a rookie who was rushed to the major leagues too soon, Christie and Ignaty need to go back to the minor to hone their skills.
Can we help?
Yeah, sorry about that. I forgot about the whole Disney thing. My bitterness rears its ugly head... I just miss 'em, that's all. By the end of the Scott & Phillips season I thought, "Great! Now Roger will get better and add a new segment to the show and everything will be perfect!" But it wasn't to be.
Is there any chance that the At the Movies Siskel & Ebert & Roeper & Bens & Scott & Phillips & Ignatiy & Christy archives will return to the internet for our perusal any time soon? That used to be my number one movies website bookmark (still is as a tribute, but of course there's nothing there).
Cheers
Best of everything for the holidays.
Then, get out of the balcony and into the audience. They aren't your grandkids' granddad's movies anymore.
Michael Medved lost his legitimacy as a movie critic long ago, when he panned "JFK," solely for political reasons. He did it again more recently, and loudly, with his anti-euthanasia crusade against "Million Dollar Baby."
Roger Ebert has been attacked by many on the right for his liberal politics, and, if a movie is political, he'll describe that in his review, but I don't recall him ever using politics as a litmus test, like Medved does.
Man, that is seriously depressing. I really liked how unbiased Christie and Ignaty were with various genres. Especially trashy horror, no offence Roger. Please find a way to continue this unique show or television will become nothing more than forensics, sports, reality mediocrity and opinionated news. Just a box you stream movies through.
One more comment. I would pay $9.99 a month for the show. Especially if it covered more Direct to Video and pay per view releases.
Ask youself: Why were you and Gene so successful and so difficult to replicate? You were outstanding critics but, what's more, you were compelling to watch. While most of your successors were very good critics, none were able to match the dynamic of the originals.
I watched your EP:ATM many times on WETA here in DC, and your hosts just weren't compelling to watch. No fire. No magic. No passion. Sure, they know their film, but that's not enough on television. Would Carson ever invite them onto his show? Letterman? I don't think so.
When your show returns, and I hope that it does, you MUST recast it for it to be a success. Find two people who are passionate about film and are not afraid to express it. Like you did.
Hi Mike.
You read Breitbart way more than I do, and I like him.
I went over and read the Nolte (who I also like) article. Awful. I read through the comments. Also awful.
Tried to comment and defend Roger, but had an infuriating experience trying to creat an account to login to comment and gave up. I may try again.
LIve long - please! And prosper - we will all help if you would tell us how. Keep in touch somehow, Dear Ebert. Greater than any other loss would be to no longer have your voice in our midst. Thank you so much for just being in our world. Cassandra
Hope it's a short hiatus.
Roger,
I'm a huge fan. I've grown up reading you and watching your show. I believe almost everything I've learned about film has been from you. But I have to be candid here.
The latest iteration of the show didn't work because of the milquetoast entertainment value of the new hosts. Yes, they were knowledgable, but they didn't have the personalities to bring viewers in every week. I'm sure many cinephiles will jump to disagree with me, but they just didn't make for good TV. Where were the strong opinions and good zingers and lively debate? The whole thing was just tepid and pleasant, even on their major disagreements.
I hope when the show returns (because it absolutely will!), you reconsider your options for hosts.
"Two different viewpoints," yes, I totally get their dynamic. I thought the show really started to ignite when the pair split on the Apichatpong Weersethakul film, and later, Goddard's "Film Socialisme". The films that Ignatiy Vishnevetsky like are common to film snobbery, but he never came across as a film snob himself. Conversely, Christy Lemire has more middlebrow tastes, and doesn't pretend otherwise. I'm sure there are critics who say they enjoyed "Uncle Boonmee Can Recall His Past Lives", because they're supposed to do. I loved the show where both Vishnevetsky and Lemire named the films that shaped their lives, and unabashedly, Lemire talked about "The Wizard of Oz", whereas Vishnevetsky championed David Cronenberg's "Crash". I think you did a wonderful job with the casting of "Ebert Presents At the Movies". I think it's perfect. Anybody who embraces both sides of the cinema divide knows this. Come back soon, and don't change a thing. Those film essays are pretty great, too. In particular, the one on black representation in film. I never knew Fred Astaire did blackface.
Hope to see this fine program again soon. I have followed this show in its many versions for nearly 30 years and hope to continue into the future. One thing I'd like to say to Christy: after all these years, it's great to have a nice pair of legs in the balcony!
I really want your show to go on. But, television NEEDS your show to go on. Edelstein gets his 7 minutes once every month or two. Reelz offers up Roeper and Maltin if you like 15 minutes of show for every 15 minutes of commercials. I love that I can get thoughtful, relatively uninterrupted conversation between Ignatiy and Christy about the movies which allows me to think about where I want to spend my movie dollar. Television needs more of this kind of informed conversation, especially about entertainment.
Thank you all and I hope you find the funding to keep it going.
I really enjoy the show. While the reviewers are great to watch, my favorite part of the show is still Roger. Roger, you're the best buddy. Keep it up for as long as you can.