That's a shame. I may not have been able to watch on television as it's not available to me (I live in a different country), but I always enjoyed watching them on the website.

Hope that you could find a way to keep it on air.

Roger...why don't you consider taking this online in a smaller, more manageable format that you can handle? These days a lot of great content is going online-only, done by independent producers, and using the Internet to distribute. It's much cheaper, and you can find a really loyal audience.

It's been a great show and it certainly is nice to see movie critics who aren't pushovers. Good luck with your final push for funding, here's hoping you find it. Maybe you can crowdfund the show!

Oh, I was just thinking about this week's episode the same way - gosh these are great hosts, and they now have their chemistry worked out with each other, and they banter and tease in the best possible way.

I will be very sad if the show ends. Prayers (yes, I believe in prayer) that some angel does come through!

While American Cable has an exclusively domestic audience, EbertPresents.com has a worldwide audience. Is there no option to open up a subscription-based model for online viewing (perhaps incorporating the previous archive site) as a means of funding ongoing production of the show?

Please please please look into moving it to the internet instead of messing about with those TV people....

I wonder if Kickstarter would be appropriate - having your audience serve directly as your sponsors

Why is it that the truly good things in life don't last?
This may be a stupid idea but I think you should use those 15-30 seconds you mention to advertise an "Ebert Presents Club" or the like in which many people could send ($20, $50, $100, etc.) donations via PayPal or the like. It seems more likely to me that many small contributions may keep the show alive than a larger one that may never appear.

Have you considered kickstarter [dot] com? I'm sure the overhead cost is large, but kickstarter is designed for creative community funding.
You should check it out, it would empower fans to save the show.

Do it online. The overhead goes waaaay down when you aren't dealing with TV. Find some sponsors, do an hour a week. Give them longer to discuss each film.

I really miss your show. I am in an area of Southern Maryland served by both Baltimore and Washington DC stations. WETA was carrying your show, but it started to be on only sporadically, and I haven't seen it for a few months now. Never had much luck finding it on MPT. I'm sorry to hear that no one wants to put up funding for your show. Good luck finding an angel. Hopefully then it might return to my little corner of the world.

I'd hate to lose the show. My husband and I have watched about half of the episodes that have run, and enjoyed them. I have no doubt that the show needs more than "Kickstarter" kind of money to operate, but how much per week does it cost? Surely there's some creative financing to be had somehow.

Best wishes, Roger, Chaz, Christy, Ignatiy, and all the crew. Best of luck.

That sucks. But thanks for outlining what public television actually pays for. Now I'm even less inclined to pay attention to those telethons, since they lie about the money going toward programming!

As an aspiring writer on all things cinematic, I find great value in your show. It's relevant and informative - and, most of all, brings back nostalgic memories of your older programs.

So, as you may assume, this news is disheartening to hear for many reasons.

First off, Ebert Presents is a necessity in todays social climate. Mass audiences need some guidance towards what's quality and what's non-sense. Your show gets the job done.

Secondly (and this is coming from an entirely personal standpoint) it's important to have you around, Roger. This isn't some revelatory statement - as I'm sure you hear this everyday - but it's the truth.

You've impacted many with your words and voice (despite it being criminally taken away).

... With that, here's hoping an Angel comes your way.

I wish you the best.

Sincerely,

~ Sam Fragoso
Duke & The Movies

I'm a graphic designer. I want to help. Can I do anything?

I guess there's only one question. Where can viewers like me pledge/donate in support of the show?

And I thought your last post on the death of celluloid was depressing.

I haven't always been able to catch the show on the air, but I often check on the Ebert Presents Website to see what Ignatiy and Christy thought of a film. While I felt they were a little green at the beginning, they really did find their stride this year.

I hope you get funding for your show. It would be a shame if it goes off the air due to lack of funds. I wonder if you could do something similar to the Ebert Club, where people could pay a small amount each year (or month) to fund the show. After all, it worked for President Obama. Probably too little, too late, though.

Heck, I'd send you a check, and I'm collecting unemployment and food stamps.

I hope the show continues. Perhaps one brave company in this nation (are there any?) could tear themselves away from buying ads on one of the 17 million ridiculous Kardashian shows, teen pregnancy extravaganzas, or relentless incarnations of trashy housewives doing trashy things to support Ebert Presents. Your show actively encourages debate and intelligence in a way that is almost unseen on television today. I would be sad to see it go.

What about donations from viewers like us..err..me? Would it be feasible to set up some sort of PayPal account or donation drop site that viewers could donate to in hopes of saving the show we so love? I know it takes a great deal of money to keep the show running, but it might ease the pressure a little. Maybe that's just wishful thinking, but I sincerely hope that help is found soon.

Ebert: I love you spirit, but I don't think that approach would work.

Roger, I loved watching you and Gene. You two were relevant back then. Now, we have too many ways to rate movies. The format you tried to bring back is no longer as exciting as it once was. I think I watched one show. If I was rich, I would fund your program just because it's you. But, I'm not, so I can only wish you luck in you funding pursuit. Thanks for so many years of great TV.

To follow up on the first comment, have you considered crowdfunding? Sites like Rockethub and Kickstarter collect small donations from large groups of people to fuel creative projects (films, albums, books, etc. have been funded this way.) I do think that with the number of people who love the program (and who want to support you full stop,) there's a very reasonable chance that you could collect enough for another season without asking for very much from any one person or organization.

Why don't you setup a kickstarter page?

How about Hugh Heffner? He's rich and a big fan of movies. C'mon, Hugh!

Seriously, you're turning down offers of donations from viewers? There are foundations who eat this stuff up - who will offer matching funds based on viewer donations. I know we don't have your eagle-eye view into the finances here, and that foundation money is tight, but respectfully: starting with "No" isn't the way to save your show.

Ebert: Not turning down anyone! We're looking into those ideas.

Christy and Ignatiy were great in front of the camera. They looked and sounded good, and greatly improved overtime. Even if Ebert Presents goes off the air, I hope Christy and Ignatiy continue with television.

What can we do.? Where is the film community?

Return to the Stern show...let some people know you're still alive.

I agree with the comments above either try kickstarter or go Internet only with a low subscription fee to watch the whole show.

Let's keep intelligent shows going!!!

What a tragedy that would be, Robert! You're right. The chemistry between Christy and Ignatiy has finally been worked out and it's now as good as it can get. I do hope you find funding to continue the PBS show but you might also consider a subscription service over the Internet like with screenit.com. I definitely would subscribe to hear Christy, Ignatiy and your reviews each week...even if it's on my computer screen.

Darn, I was about suggest PayPal/reader/viewer donation like Matt Sands did :( Maybe even an online petition urging a company to pick up "Ebert Presents At the Movies" ?

I absolutely love this show, and it really breaks my heart to hear that it may possibly not come back. Christy and Ignatiy are so articulate, and they've definitely come into their own rhythm this past year. If it goes off the air, I'm not sure if there's any other movie reviewing show that can really muster up the same level of intelligence... I really, really hope the show comes back :(

Is there any chance that the show could be picked up by another network television company like how the original "Siskel and Ebert at the Movies" was picked up by Buena Vista Entertainment in 1986?

Why not try it before deciding it won't work?

Sorry to be brief because I'm typing on an iPad, but how much do you need for 2012? People won't give unless they know if they can help. If it's $1 million, 10,000 giving $10 and a few corporates could get you started. I'd go in for $20.

Dennis

What kind of money are we talking about here? Sites like RocketHub and KickStarter were invented for exactly these types of situations.

Not too long ago there was a webshow whose animator needed drastic shoulder surgery in order to ever be able to draw again. Her insurance wouldn't cover a lick of it, but the viewers would. The $15,000 goal was reached in less than a day and over $100k was raised overall, allowing the show to use the money to start a fund to nurture the development of independent game development (it's a webshow about video games).

Obviously the monetary needs are not really comparable, but the point is that the fans can make the difference. If you include tiered donation incentives (autographs, t-shirts, etc) you add even more motivation. Please don't discount this option without exploring it first. Your fans want to help, they just need a means to do so.

(Here's the link for the story I mentioned: http://www.rockethub.com/projects/2165-extra-credits)

What is the rating and viewership for the show?

If there are stats that support adequate ratings and viewership, then we should take these stats to marketing dpt of corporations for funding. I, myself is willing to take the part of "pro-bono" sales rep, and calling corporations for marketing fund.

If the stats are not there, meaning the rating is not high enough, then it simply reflects the sad state that we live in. It means people are not spending enough time watching shows that require intellegence.

I wish the show go on for a long time. This is not just an important part of Roger Ebert's legacy, but the legacy of American Cinema.

Speaking objectively, this situation sucks.

You've written a great piece, but you've left out something important -- a way for people to respond with donations or help. Also, some important facts, such as how much do you need to keep it going? How much money is needed, and how can people contribute? I think the PayPal and Kickstarter ideas have merit. The Internet ideas may also have merit; although the costs are mostly salaries and sets, not distribution, so putting the show on the Internet may not save what people think, and in fact, may add additional costs. There is probably some company related to movies (like Fandango) or that wants publicity (Mark Cuban or Richard Branson) that would want to buy advertising on the show.

I agree with Matt Sands. All for a Paypal subscription, if that could help in any way.

Also, how can we donate "specifically" to Ebert Presents?

I doubt it's any help, but I'll explain why I never watched the show despite being a fan of Lemire's writing. I suppose it's like this everywhere but in Boston, when PBS says something is going to air, it doesn't.

I keep hearing about these interesting shows that PBS will have, and what time it will premiere. I get prepared with a bowl of popcorn and something else is running on the station. Night ruined. This happens to me all the time. I check the listings and see that it's changed. Sometimes there is no longer any listing at all, other times it will go from 8pm Tuesday to 4am Sunday.

People love to talk about how important it is that PBS remain afloat, but as long as they're not accountable I really don't see the point.

Christy is right. Godard sucks.

Roger. I love you. But film criticism is dead. You're fighting a losing battle.

It's nothing personal. It's just business.

The corporate owned studios, combined with the shallow geekification of the culture, have destroyed the art. It's all marketing & recycling now. If you don't live in one of four American cities, you may go years without seeing a truly great new film.

Yes, moviegoing still exists. But nobody goes into a multiplex these days expecting something great. Just a quick escape. A reason to get out of the house.

That's why the conversaton in the past decade has changed from criticism to weekend box office reports.

Focus on your online reviews. Let go of the past.

This news breaks my heart. Please tell us, what can we do to help?

The world has gone to hell. How could a program such as this not get funding? I credit Ebert and Roeper as one of the reasons I got into film-making. I was thirteen and you two inspired me to actually THINK about the movies I was watching. I hope things work out, I really do.

I am at a loss. Corporate sponsors perhaps? I like the previously mentioned Hugh Hefner idea. Perhaps a move to cable tv? There seems to be room in the world for intelligent criticism, laced with commercials. You and Gene did it for years.

Unfortunately, I currently have no other suggestions for you, other than this: keep going!! Do whatever you can, whatever you need to do, to keep the show on the air! I love you guys and I love this show!

Roger, you are unique and one-of-a-kind, and your show is the same. I believe if you put it out there to as many people as possible, the universe will conspire to help you.

Don't give up Roger. I love you, man! You inspire me to keep going in these difficult times. I don't have a job right now and it's so bad, I'm living with my parents. But If there's any way we as viewers can help you out, please ask us!

Mr. Ebert, I don't know if you've noticed, but the internet is kind of gay for you (no offense, to anyone).

Let's have a number. A dollar amount to keep this party train rolling for the next year. I am going to guess that "the internet" will be able to cough up this number. It's worth a shot, at the very least! Give us a chance to surprise you.

Also: agreed that perhaps the show should be moved to an online format. But really, let's try this first.

Best,
Mr. King

Dear Roger,

As many have suggested, please look into Kickstarter. It has earned great success in financing many projects, both for individuals and small teams, both for small sums and large. Your program is a vital contribution to American television, and to the discourse of cinema at large. Please do all you can to keep it going. Please consider crowd-sourcing models like Kickstarter, and even social media outlets (consider posting on Reddit.com, one of the top social sites).

I'm sorry to say it, but I can't take the show seriously as long as Ignaty is on it. There are some stronger words I would like to use, but I'm not trying to hurt any feelings here. Even my wife, who is not a movie buff, expressed no desire to see the show again after Ignaty gave thumbs up to some truly awful films. Some of my friends shared similar sentiments. I asked of they've seen Ebert's new show, and they say stuff like, "that one guy is ridiculous." Based on your blog post, I know you disagree. And of course, you're no stranger to disagreement. I'm just trying to give you some honest feedback.

Another vote for Kickstarter; this seems tailor-made for it.

I'm sure this is not full stop and a way will emerge.

What about a streaming agreement with Netflix ? They desperately need to stop the hemorrhaging losses of subscribers after their recent craptastic business decisions. Signing Ebert & Co. and the library of Siskel & Ebert archives and producing other original related programming would be just the shot in the arm they need to get back on track.

This is extraordinarily depressing. I hope you receive the funding to continue.

It's a shame that, with all the crap that fills the airwaves, intelligent and quality shows like "Ebert Presents" are on the brink of extinction. Wasn't television supposed to educate its audience?
Mr. Ebert, Mrs. Ebert, your show is amazing - but most of all, you two are amazing: you have shown what love and tenacity (for life, for work, for one another) can accomplish.
Please do tell us how we can help you; it's unfair letting you fight this fight alone.

To me, given what you have shared and the likelihood that no other TV channel can support the show, the idea to consider might be an audio podcast run by the hosts themselves.

I realize this would mean no more movie clips shown. But the fact is that today's Siskel & Ebert like vanguard is happening all across the Internet as podcasts, some profitable (because of how low the overhead is). Why not have your two doppelgangers join this revolution and leave the old TV fuddy duddys behind?

Look harder, Roger! I'll be here at my computer, with my wallet, waiting to donate to your fine television show.

Hmmm ... I like watching snippets online when I remember to or when I see your tweets. but somethings missing from the show i sense...and i value is that Ebert is one of the most trusted names in film critic industry so when I look to read about a film I always go to Roger Ebert so that is where your value is capitalized. I guess im more addicted to ridiculously funny or dramatic shows I can find online. I think if you film once in a garage with an old camera that would be funny... Ok ok just tell me where the kick starter is... :)

It's 2011, time to switch to an Internet subscription model. I would definitely pay to watch/support the show online. This news is disappointing for many reasons, one being I donated to my local PBS station to support your show and the station doesn't even pay you for it. No wonder so many PBS stations picked it up so quickly. They attracted new viewers at no cost. Why not ask the stations who carry the show to help pay to support it?

Boring--I don't care. You and Chaz should spend your money helping amazing filmmakers (black, latino, queer) whose voices get marginalized by the hollywood establishment. TV is over. Forget about it. Put your money into the moviemakers.

Well, write and sell a movie script. A couple of million dollars should pay the bills for a while.

I guess the question is, "How much do you want it?"

There isn't as much money in the spec market as there was a decade ago, but the name "A Film by Roger Ebert" should open as big as "A Film by Ben Stiller." (to use this weekend's example.)

When it comes to writing scripts, you have a different set of strengths than most screenwriters. You've seen so many movies. You've asked yourself, "Why didn't this movie work for me?"

I know it's tempting to write a script out of your life experience3s, but that's not going to do it. You want a script that will earn a ton of money for a studio. Pirates of the Caribbean earns over a billion dollars overseas, because it's a big-budget Hollywood movie starring Third World heroes. There's a few Brits, but they're largely the villains. The overseas market loves seeing Americans and British lose. It takes a bit of nose-holding to write that flavor... being a Canadian like James Cameron helps.

You're in a profession, a business, where's it's possible to make a few million dollars relatively quickly. And you have a name recognition factor off the charts. When I was in a bookstore, they put John Lithgow's book on display, not yours. If you've got a monumental blockbuster in you, now's the time to send it out.

Steve Jobs bought a fledgling studio from George Lucas called "Pixar," and when he sold it to Disney, it made him a billionaire. And making movies wasn't even his day job. The most popular Pixar characters were wooden toys (Buzz Lightyear might be plastic, or aluminum.) wooden toys... why did that work?

Hasbro made a lot of money out of "Transformers." Might be poetic justice for them to fund your TV show for a year. In exchange for a great script for Transformers 4?

Oh, yeah, one more thing. I watched this week's program, too. And last week's.

And I thought, if the movies don't get better, no one's going to bother watching a review progam.

Drastically improving the movies... not waiting for James Cameron to do it for us.... there's some synergy here.

there's a movie review site called Rotten Tomatoes. Warner Bros owns it now.

There's also a list called "Top Grossing Hollywood Movies of All Time." Make a movie that jumps to the top of that list. "The Dark Knight" made over $500 million domestic, and we were starting to think that would never happen again. "The Dark Knight Rises" will probably beat that. Find a franchise that a studio already owns, like "Batman," and make a Roger Ebert movie out of it. That's how Pirates of the Caribbean started, based on a ride that had been taken by millions at Disneyland over the years. A hit movie about the ride was also an ad for the theme parks. Synergy.

Giving Hollywood an answer that seems obvious in hindsight... not easy to do.

There's an actress on a NBC comedy called "Whitney." A reporter asked her, "What's the best pick-up line anyone has used on you?" And she said, "I think it was, how would you like to have your own show on NBC?"

I agree the hosts have improved with every show. It has been a valiant effort. Roger, surely you know the first lesson of Production; Never your own money.

This is awful news. I hope it is just the darkness before a very bright dawn. I don't want to believe there isn't someone with the reserves the rescue Ebert Presents who can see how invaluable it is. It is a wonderful show, and I devour it as soon as it is online.

First of all it's not just a damn good show but an outstanding one. Especially when looking at the failed attempts Disney made to replace you.

But these are hard times. When Exxon/Mobil dropped Masterpiece no corporate savior took their place. Even Ken Burns had to rattle his cup to replace GM.

But in the end, if PBS is not the answer please try another distribution system. iTunes and/or Netflix (talk about a company that could use some good PR) may be more appropriate 21st Century distributors.

Best of luck and thank you, Chaz, Christie, Ignatiy and the staff for hitting it out of the park every week.

Mr. Ebert, can you please email me the amount of underwriting you will need to keep the show on the air another season? How much is needed to pay for the episodes for a new season, total?

Chaz is so right about the show finding its groove. I recently caught and appreciated the duo's reviews of Clint Eastwood's "J. Edgar." I catch the show in Canada on either PBS North Dakota or PBS Detroit. I'm a veteran Ebert reader and onetime fan of the Cannes festival coverage that Roger used to do from France with translation help from Annette Insdorf of Columbia University. I love the new show with its links to the Ebert and Siskel past. Surely some angels can be found who believe the show's unique qualities should continue.

Roger
What can I do to help.

www.thoughtsoncinema.com

With all due respect (and I mean that, I'm a big fan of the show) it seemed to me that taking the summer off was risky for show this new. Was this done out of necessity?

Ebert: We produced new content all summer, supplementing the classic episodes of Sneak Preview. We did that only for the summer Pledge Weeks, during which we would have been widely pre-empted anyway. We were being prudent with our available funds.

Please ignore those who say go strictly to internet. Many people don't have access, and others don't watch "TV" on their computers. I hope you find a way, and will be watching to see if you set up a site for us to contribute.

Show me a place where I can donate! I may not be able to afford as much as a corporate sponsor but intelligent reviews/debate about modern cinema are something I care about and I can't think of anywhere else where I can consistently find such quality analysis.

And like other readers have suggested, consider an internet-only distribution if TV is too expensive. I'm guessing many of your followers (like me) come to you directly online anyway.

-Lee (who lives in South Korea and will never have a chance to see the show via a television, but who appreciates the output none the less)

Roger, set it up as a subscription service online. People worldwide are basically begging for an excuse to give you money.

Roger - what about taking the show exclusively to the Internet? You have a website already, you have people in place. Sure, you'd have to cut some costs, but it would also be far less expensive...you don't need perfect lighting and fancy graphics to run a website...you basically just need a camera and your hosts. I'm sure fans wouldn't be opposed to premium memberships either to help keep the site up and running...and of course, there are advertizers you can get on the Net much easier than you can get on television.

That’s a depressing news - I am sad to hear that. Maybe the show will be terminated as you worry, but the show has been very good, and I have enjoyed it a lot thanks to Ignatiy and Christy. I hope you will be able to find a way to save the show. We know the show cannot go on forever, but this is too soon. By the way,in case of the donation many comments suggest here, I am willing to participate in.

I'm on board with everyone else--let's get some donor money going and maybe try keeping the show up as an internet thing. I get the impression most of us watch it online, anyhow. It's my Friday night mid-shift ritual at work during break!

This may be a stupid question but how does the show make money? You said "[the show] has been a great success. The program has a coverage of more than 90% of the country, and all of the top 50 markets." Is that all given away for free? Or have you been making money, just not enough to cover costs? Sorry if this is obvious to everyone else but I really don't know how television distribution works.

Ebert: Jason, it's not a stupid question. The answer is: The show doesn't make money. With the exception of $25,000 from a good-hearted man named Maurice Kanbar in san Francisco, we pay for the show and it is given to public television for free. We continue our search for underwriters.

I love this show and hope it finds funding and a steadier future. Or a future, period.

I'd do whatever I could to help, too. And I don't want to be a wet blanket, but there are issues to consider….

For those suggesting Kickstarter/PayPal, etc. - they may be possibilities but those services in particular have some legal hoops to jump through. I know of a group of actors from a canceled TV show who tried to fund an indie show/film through those channels, and they have very specific regulations on how soon a product is delivered after you pay, etc. It ultimately made them abandon their project, because there was no way they could deliver the project so quickly after funding. Those rules are of course in the consumer/donator's best interest, but makes it harder on the production end.

The Internet could work too, but it would have to be a subscription model to ensure consistent funding. How much are you all willing to pay? That's the question for many online shows where a benchmark hasn't yet been established.

@Robert Coates - Fandango is not a bad idea in theory, but the more you get a corporate sponsor involved in funding, the more said sponsor may want reviews/content altered, softened, changed etc. so as not to anger their corporate parent or a company they do business with. Ergo you never see a bad review of a Disney review on ABC (owned by Disney) and so forth.

Are there any corporate sponsors that would be likely to fund via APT that we should write?

I just hate that this excellent show - a discussion between two smart, knowledgeable people - has to struggle to find an audience on any network, when so many networks will dedicate hours of programming to Kim Kardashian's latest marriage/sneeze/bowel movement. We need a LOT more intelligent, thought provoking programming, and a lot less from the cesspool.

Roger, it was after watching the 'Rum Diary' review episode that my wife and I reflected on just how perfect the balance between Christy and Ignatiy is. If you can introduce a means by which viewers can show their willingness to support the show through donation, we'd love to hear about it.

What about Oprah? Or doing the show on her network? Ever since she announced going to her own entire channel, I have believed there is room in her programming for a movie review show...even if mostly women were to watch it.... (Even if it were hosted by two women!! I believe there IS a market for that!) Good luck. There is just so much trash out there....I have to search thoroughly to make sure I see the show every week...and it is frequently buried very late on a Sat or Sun night...and yet I watch it faithfully.....

Think about selling the show to Netflix or Rotten Tomatoes and broadcasting on the web. I understand Netflix is developing its own content. I'm certain they would love a movie review show that we could watch while browsing for movies. Apple has $70 billion in cash. What can you do with them?

This might sound snarky but it's not meant to be -- appeal directly to the One-Percenters. Oprah, Turner, Sorros, Hanks are rolling in dough and I'm sure they'd be generous enough to lend a hand. I'm sure a lot of the 1% would.

I second the Kickstarter idea. There have been many independent art projects that have taken off through there because of fan goodwill. The idea is that fans can pledge any amount they wish, but rewards are offered the higher the amount is. For instance, anything above $50 gets you the complete first season on DVD, anything above $100 gets you personalized copies of "Life Itself", anything above $500 gets you a Special Thanks credit in the season's episodes, anything above $5,000 gets you Executive or Associate Producer credit, and so on. Kickstarter takes a percentage, of course, but still it's a great option. Considering how little time you have, I'd still look for alternative financing, but setup your account and pledge either way. You might be pleasantly surprised at what your troupe of diehards are willing to do for old Uncle Roger.

Ebert: We're seriously looking into Kickstarter.

There's a plethora of potential sponsors that will love to market their products to intelligent moviegoers. Netflix, Blockbuster, Hulu, Direct TV, Dish, etc. What better way to advertise streaming content than through a show where the audience will want to see the movies?

Roger,

This is horrible news! We have tried not to miss the show since it returned to the airwaves and we love Ignaty and Christy and love the dynamic that they have together, and all the contributors (including the wonderful Office segments) make this show magic.

We are in the middle of our own (barely existant) fundraising drive right now, but I will GLADLY mobilize our readers and listeners to help rally and save Ebert Presents. All you have to do is let us know where we can write or donate, and we'll be there for you!

And to paraphrase a movie I know you don't like, 1995's Empire Records:

"DAMN THE MAN! Save Ebert Presents!"

TC Kirkham
Subject:CINEMA
http://subjectcinema.com

Thanks for the heartfelt piece (again!), and the information of how the world works. Good luck, for and from all of us viewers. And thanks for funding the show all this time. It really has come together!
You don't have to post this, but the image that came to mind as I read was the old Lampoon cover of the nervous dog with the gun to his head, and the caption 'buy this magazine or the dog gets it!'
I still find that cover funny!
http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Lampoon-Magazine-Poster-11Inx17In/dp/B005FCNFGE

And maybe this cover needs to be seen at a certain (young) stage of life. I know more about life these days, and the horrors of humanity. And Michael Vick... I saw a tazing scene in a comedy last night, and was thinking how I never find those scenes funny. And even less so in these days of OWS police riots!

Thanks again Roger, and always. Your words are always appreciated. Sometimes necessary. And your blog is out of this world wonderful. And we've always enjoyed our seat in the balcony!
(my dad was a mechanical engineer, and one year he worked weekends at a downtown movie theater. Sometimes I'd go to work with him, and sit in the hall and watch the same movie all day. The balcony was generally closed, and I'd have it all to myself! I actually enjoyed that, and wish I'd learned more about the business. But 10yo me mostly sat watching the flickering lights, and not wondering about what went on behind the screen...)

I'm surprised you launched the show with your own money. It really deserves to continue. Why not leave the PBS cloister and go back to the private syndication route of the earlier show?

Find a company like Disney (well, not Disney, obviously) that could fund production and get it into syndication just like the old show. If memory serves, ATM used to air on Fox here in NYC on Saturday nights at 7 p.m. I don't care what channel the show is on, and private syndication served you well before!

Is there a larger story here? Can you expound in essay format your you observations on the evolution of Public Television in that past 35 years? What were the events and forces that make it so much more difficult to launch a show in 2011 that is every bit as good as "Sneak Previews" was in 1976?

I read your blog and I didn't even know it was running. Was it well advertised? I get my news from NPR and don't have cable or newspaper so I don't even know what that means. But I wish you would have told us when it was on.

Rotten Tomatoes web site is a good resource for reviews. They aggregate reviews for a given movie from all across the internet, reviews by critics from newspapers, blogs etc.

The Koch brothers are now PBS corporate sponsors. Have you considered...

(forget that idea)

This is terrible! Christy and Ignaty are really starting to hit it off two. These past few episodes have been astounding, bordering on classic Siskel/Ebert quality. I do want to commend you Roger, for putting so much of your personal capital in to this project. If I were a multi billionaire, I would donate you millions in a heart beat. Unfortunately, I'm a broke college student. I do hope you find someone to help finance the show because it's fantastic. I look forward to them every week.

I moved away so we don't get the show locally, but if you aired reruns of the Siskel and Ebert show reviewing movies people would flock to watch.

I agree that the show has value. I also found myself enjoying the two hosts, who I thought knew their subject and had good rapport with each other.

I think you should seriously consider crowd-sourcing. It is essentially the same model that public TV and public radio uses. I give Marc Maron a monthly sum as it is what I fell I owe him for his work, and I've contributed to the Vivian Maier documentary on Kickstarter.com. I feel strongly enough about the service your show provides that I'd give a monthly or a one-time sum. (A site like Kickstarter.com allows me to indulge my secret desire to be a showbiz angel without having the requisite deep pockets. I can think of myself as a patron of the arts in my own small way.)

As for converting to to web based show, well, it could be feasible, but if the mission is to give the broader public an I dependant opinion about current movies, then a web based show would probably only serve the community of on-line Ebert fans. It would necessarily be a different show, and undoubtedly reach a much smaller audience. The web has promise as a mass media distribution mechanism, but so far harnessing it has been precarious. Besides, you would probably want to differentiate your "brand" from every other video-blogger who has an opinion about movies, and not join the crowd. (Sorry internet, but you're just not there yet.)

Crowd-sourcing does take an extraordinary sense of mission and a leap of faith -- for both parties. I probably don't need to explain the risk for those asking for funds, but as for being a donater, I have to also believe strongly in the project, and take a risk that the project will be finished, and that it will turn out to be something I would approve of. It seems to me that this leap wouldn't be so huge for "At The Movies".

This is the tough reality that all independent producers come to realize, some sooner than later. You have been lucky enough to have sufficient funds to produce the show yourselves in the first place. Most documentary producers go into heavy credit card debt, owe family money, and scrape by to produce content that they are passionate about. In the end, PBS benefits from producers like yourselves that make content simply because they love it and will give it away for free just to be seen (myself included).

Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sources are the best way to tap into a dedicated audience, but without some sort of ongoing subscription model, will not sustain a show year after year. Good luck!

I do not want to lose this show and would definitely be willing to support it---ask your loyal viewers to pledge their support!

An almost complete article, but you forgot to include the $ you need per show / season, and a way for people to contribute. [Great start but the story fizzled towards the end - thumbs up from my left hand, thumbs down from my right]

You don't know enough at this point to say that viewer funding couldn't work - this column is an excellent call for funds: tell people how much a season costs (as a price range), and ask for votes on how many would or might contribute. The internet is great for that type of communication. Also, as others have noted, shifting to an internet based broadcast could allow you to operate differently, including for less money. Explore feasible alternatives. (As funding incentives you could auction guest intros, allow individual sponsored shows, etc. Don't be locked into 'this is how we've always done it.')

"Do not go gentle into that good night"

This may have been mentioned before but I went to www.ebertpresents.com and there's nowhere to donate. Even if you got have the money through direct donation that should be enough to get you into the next season and get underwriting for the rest. The web is an amazing place.

Television is a corpse. Walk away.

Any way to hook up with ARTicles at http://www.najp.org/articles/? The site is all about "written" criticism but it might expand to your "visual" format that makes so much sense when reviewing films. I agree, by the way, that Christy and Ignatiy are very good.

Wow. I did not know all of this was happening behind the scenes. This probablly explains why the show has been in reruns in my area for the past two weeks. At first I was wondering why you chose public television for your new show, now I know why. Good luck with your funding. I would be a shame to lose the only movie review show on television forever.

Ebert: Say what? Reruns? We've produced a new show every single week, and will connue through December.

I am sorry to hear this: I've enjoyed the show since it returned.

I'm sure I won't be the only person to suggest this, but have you considered crowdsourcing? Using Kickstarter?

And if nothing else, what about contracting with Netflix or another budding content provider to put it online?

There must be options other than public television. I will, however, be writing my local station to explain my displeasure that my membership can't be used to support the programs I really want to see.

I wonder if it's possible to sell and distribute through iTunes, hulu+, and Netflix without bothering to distribute to TV stations. Keep the hosts, cut down on other parts of the budget (the informative aspect of the show is more important than swooping camera cranes), and maybe there'd be enough of a profit made through paid subscription to keep it on the "air".

People pay $30-$50 for season passes to network TV shows on iTunes/appletv.

I agree w/ Chaz--it's a "beautiful" show, beautifully crafted and staffed. The chemistry between our balcony duo has grown to perfect. If I had any money, I'd be a sponsor. I so hope someone w/ large dollars will step up. Thanks to you both so much.

A serious question: What would it cost to fund the show for one year? What's the magic number you need?

How can an average person, such as myself, help keep the show on the air? May I make donations to help fund the show?

Ugh. Terrible situation. I echo the sentiments of everybody asking if they can send donations/if you can start a Kickstarter campaign to at least get some of the costs down. If Viewers Like Us can fund part of the show, that's at least something you can take to potential underwriters, right? A show with an audience dedicated enough to open their wallets to see it go on has to be worth something to someone with stroke.

Ebert: We're looking into Kickstarter.

Three ideas by order of potential success:

1. Roku channel (sponsorship necessary...see #3)
2. Oprah (aren't you pals?)
3. POM as sponser (hey if it worked for Spurlock...)
4. Bonus idea: Netflix as sponser with a new segment reviewing movies you can stream from them

Agreed with the kickstarter.com idea. You could also approach some of the better web tv guys out there. Companies like revision3.com, twit.tv, or thisweekin.com have the resources to distribute and produce that might significantly lower your costs.

Wow, this is stunning news. I'll post info on Twitter and Facebook about this and will try to do a quick Blog post, though I know it won't likely do much. It's going to take some type of larger entity to step in and save the day. I'll keep up hope that it works out. I seriously love this show and watch every episode, so it would be a big loss to the film community.

It's a shame that the pledge money your show brings in doesn't actually go to produce the show. That seems like a broken business model. Are there any organizations that would have an interest in supporting film criticism, such as AFI? Any interest from cable channels such as AMC, Bravo, etc? I would watch it on the Internet, and pay a few bucks a month for it, but I'm sure it would look considerably different in that incarnation.

If the show really must be taken off the air (Ugh!) would you be able to consider a Podcast? A half-hour audio show would be an enormous step down in production cost yet would keep the hosts and their talents together. You could even make it a paid podcast and charge a nominal fee of $5 a year or something.

Point is, that more than seeing the show leave the air, I'd hate to see you give up on it's promise. Change it in any way you can to keep it going with Christy and Ignatiy.

Fight, fight, fight!

Yay! I am so happy to hear that you are looking into Kickstarter! Prepare to be overwhelmed by the response of your peeps in a beautiful way! And thanks for the great gift you have given us all by making the show happen!

Love the show and hope you find the right funding for it to continue.

I honestly can't say I love this incarnation, though I watched every episode of the first season. Part of it is the high bar that you set with Mr. Siskel as well as with Mr. Roeper, and part, quite honestly, is the result of some of the choices you all have made, which, I think, have made the show less "commercial." (I especially dislike the guest contributors whose intellectual and usually boringly delivered musings on topics the majority don't care about slow the pace of the program and make me hit the fast-forward button.)

And while I respect the critics you've chosen as individuals, I don't particularly care for their chemistry; I also don't believe their expression of passion, as much as they may love movies... I don't think they're willing to fall on their sword for an opinion the way that you and Mr. Siskel did. Their disagreements are more like "cute disagreements" than passionate ones.

But I truly have always respected you, Mr. Ebert, and have read almost every review you've written in the last few decades. I probably enjoy reviews for zero-star movies the most! I love that you are pursuing a labor of love and hope you get this done. So many appreciate your efforts. And so I hope you find a way to keep the labor of love going.

For what it's worth, I would probably be MORE likely to watch your show on the internet than on public TV.

Roger and Chaz thank you for an excellent show. National treasure. C & I clicked especially well this week. Great chemistry! Your news (via Twitter) was a shocker - but understandable under the circumstances you innumerate. Yes, do look into Kickstarter. Donations would be international. Is there a way the show could be international? BBS?

What about selling it to a station in the UK? Probably wouldn't make a ton of money, but there are so many stations and loads of them are crying out for product.

I'd definitely throw some money into Kickstarter, but I'd suggest sending letters to one or two big names. Did your show help to popularise anyone famous? Did Clooney or Pitt get helped by positive reviews on your show? Depp seems like he could be hit up for a few bucks.

Frankly, I think it was a mistake trying to replicate the format of Ebert & Roeper/Siskel & Ebert at the Movies. If all you want to do is have two passionate cinephiles sit in a room and talk about movies, why bother with the expense of a lavish (by PBS standards) TV production? You could have filmed the whole thing in a storage room (Rocketboom-style) and produce a product vastly superior to most of the crap on TV.

An Internet-only broadcast with the Ebert brand would have solicited a lot more media attention while making the show much more relevant to those young, educated, well-to-do viewers you covet.

I know you're proud of the show you have produced thus far (at great expense), but you should seriously consider something more barebones if you want your show to survive.

If the kids running Rocketboom can make millions with some rinky-dink production, imagine what you could accomplish with your name/brand alone.

P.S. If you prefer to remain on network television, why not simply try first-run syndication to recoup your costs? I know Disney screwed up your last show, but you would own your show this time around.

P.P.S. Should you decide to ask for donations. I'd be the glad to chip in.

If the show does come back I hope you use the Tower Heist episode as template. I think the show works best when it's two people talking about movies. The historical asides and remotes just took me out of the show. I wish you luck Roger.

Roger, my wife and I enjoy the show for all the same reasons you outline above. I must second (or third, or fourth- it's hard keeping up with the growing comments thread) the suggestion that you go the Kickstarter route. I surely hope you can continue to make a go of it!

I think you may be surprised how much money direct donation could bring in, Roger. This American Life seems to do pretty well.

Do you mind telling us just how big the hill is to climb every episode? I'm envisioning 2-3 hours of studio time at, what, $1500-2000 per hour? I haven't priced commercial studio/crew rental lately, but I'd be surprised to be off by an order of magnitude.

And if you haven't looked into Kickstarter, do; you would be *amazed* the size of the projects that have been successfully financed that way.

Hef is an *excellent* idea, and I have directly poked him on Twitter. I have a short list of other celebrities in mind as well.

I concur that it should stay on television... have you shopped it directly to PBS, to see if they'd *pay* for it? Cause, no, PBS doesn't expect the programs for free; I'm quite certain they pay WGBH for Nova, for example, and certainly NPR pays the people who create the programming *it* distributes, out of the money it charges affiliates.

How much money are we actually talking about needing here? We would love to help. Is there a way to contact you directly?

I hope it doesn't end. I don't watch many shows on TV, but this is one that my wife and I never miss.

Surprised Moviefone, Fandango, IMAX, AMC Theaters, other theater chains, or Movietickets.com won't sponsor. Try them?

You know, Netflix could use some positive PR. Have you thought about approaching them to underwrite the show?

Sad sign of the times when a quality show like this can't get funded and junk like the Karhrdashians can.

By the way how are those clowns of OJ defender Robert Karhdashian doing now a days. Real classy Klan aren't they. Yuk, Yuk.

Hi Roger: I'm a long-time reader and viewer of the show, and am currently a law student who has worked in art law in Philadelphia. One small part of my job was to research Kickstarter and the legal implications of using it as a platform for artistic endeavors. I know you are looking into Kickstarter already, but I wanted to endorse the idea. It was the first thing that came to my mind before seeing that someone else suggested it. Some extremely large projects have been funded on Kickstarter, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you reached your funding goal very quickly.

Why isn't Netflix interested in underwriting the show? Christy and Ignatiy could feature a "Netflix Watch Instantly" pick of the week. Sponsoring Ebert Presents could create a lot of good will and help Netflix recover some of their damaged street cred from the bad public business decisions last summer that sent their stock sinking.

I love the show. I look forward to the show. I can't believe it isn't more successful. Without Christy, I never would have found Bellflower! And the debate between the hosts is KEY! It's so much fun. My only problem was the break in the new episodes. I reeeeeeally miss it when it's not on. I hate that it's had so much trouble these last few years.

So many options, I think you should go commercial. Those old raisenets commercials - hilarious. Maybe the popcorn industry association? (whoever that is).

Here in Albany NY, it's been on - i think - Sunday at 10am.
That irritated the crap out of me.
To learn they were getting it free and doing that?
Now I'm even more irritated.

If you have as good ratings as you say, I can't see how you'd have trouble getting picked up on cable. Go for cnn! Msnbc! Push out whoever they have. Or share.

And I wonder how much income is generated via online outlets. Abc, nbc, they all add commercials to their online broadcasts. Perhaps you could do the same and broadcast exclusively via your site? Do you post on youtube? They monetize.

I hear Netflix has some cash to spend, exclusive content needs, and customers they need to entice. What a great place for a show about movies!

And Mark Cuban is often generous for exclusive content. Wolonski's good, but you're better.

I especially think, there must be companies who's expertise is exclusively to explore different methods of monetizing "television" content, who could likely give you numbers off the top of their heads for the various solutions we all know about. And if any of them meets your bottom line, just to save the show, grab one. No offense to Chaz, who's been impressive as hell, but there's nothing wrong with going outside for help. Delegate.

PS: I noticed that for a while, on rottentomatoes, while they have movie trailers, for a while, visitors would have to watch a commercial before they could see the trailer. The commercials? Oh yes, they were movie trailers. It didn't last long, and usually if you selected 4 movie trailers you wanted to see, you'd get stuck watching 1 lousy trailer 4 times interleaved into your choices. Wow that was dumb, but if done right...

Anyway, I love the show, your club, and still rely on your reviews as the most interesting *and* helpful at the same time.

Thanks Roger! - Jay M.

I am sorry to hear about the trouble you're having with keeping the show going. In my field (biomedicine), we have been feeling the pinch for years. Federal funds have been squeezed and private funding is tight. As a result, many excellent and talented scientists have been put out of work, resulting in the loss of potentially life-saving research.

My point is that you're not alone in losing something that is part of or is your whole passion. It is the result of the current fiscal climate and does not reflect at all on the quality or value of what you contribute or of what your show means to its viewers. In times like this, it is necessary to be especially creative to be able to follow your passion - that could mean finding another media outlet for keeping "Ebert at the movies" alive. All the best to you.

-jw

How did the original show with Gene and Richard make money?

How much does the show cost for one calendar year?

I'm all for Kickstarter and similar websites as well as going totally to the web (like Hulu).

It's a new world and I sadly see the best shows being replaced by things that do not benefit anyone's intellectual or emotional growth in the least.

It has been fantastic watching the chemistry develop between Christy and Ignatiy over the last year. There has got to be a way for it to continue.

Many good suggestions have already been mentioned, so I won't rehash them. If any means of taking donations from viewers is used, I am in.

Roger

I think the posters here have hit it multiple times, but I wouldn't shy away from some subscription fee or donations from folks like us. Think of it this way - I the consumer am faced with the choice of going to a movie and plunking down $20 for my wife and I, or $50 for my whole family. First thing I do is check how you reviewed the movie. How many times have you saved my $20 or $50? Enough that I should contribute for that cost avoidance.

Hell, give donors over $100 a free ticket to the Ebert Film Festival in C-U. Give us a free Takehomeasack coupon. You provide us a service, we're willing to contribute.

Kickstarter? I say, kick ass! Have my checkbook in hand, just gimme your mailing address! Post office boxes are cheap, you can get one instantly, and your supporters are right here! HOW MUCH DO YOU NEED AND WHERE CAN WE SEND IT?! Give us the info, your fans/friends will give you the money! [Shoulda asked sooner!] . p.s. = at the very least, am sure we could give enough to keep you going until a more longlasting solution can be found. Cassandra

Funding idea: Roger's director commentaries on Casablanca and Citizen Kane DVDs were the VERY BEST of any such commentaries on any movie ever cut to DVD. Why not get into a collector's set of these two and any other's Roger made. have COSTCO sell them. Then split the profit 3 ways, the movie rights, Roger and COSTCO.

For future such classics have Roger write the commentery and have someone like Bill Kurtis, or the current duo read it for the DVD version.

Let PBS list these sets in their monthly mailed newsletter.

If your show got axed it would merely be another victim of the dragging economy. Perhaps it could go on an indefinite hiatus until you've found fairer weather, or looser wallets. Whatever happens, you tried it, you made something you were proud of and you pleased an audience.

I love this show and will miss if its gone (dont want to think like that at all !!).. I wish all those rich hollywood studios do something to programme like this which infact promote their business by doing constuctive criticism !!

Dear Mr. Ebert,

I am afraid I was unaware of your show, but I will look for it now that I know about it. However, I would like to suggest, as others have, that you migrate to a different realm: the internet.

I don't watch much TV anymore, and when I do, it's usually a lot of episodes streamed or shipped by Netflix or other distributors (such as Hulu). Even with hundreds of channels, there's "nothing on", and I refuse to pay for a TiVo, when I can access so much content on demand.

I have made many decisions about which movies to watch based on your reviews, as they appear on Netflix, Rotten Tomatoes, and elsewhere. I am sure my wife and I would be delighted to watch your show via Netflix. If you can arrange for Netflix to sponsor your show, that would be ideal, at least for a viewer like me.

The proposition to Netflix is quite obvious: intelligent, thoughtful, engaging analyses by movie critics and for users who are looking to find something new to watch. The recommendation system, Cinematch, is good, but it's not good enough. I still spend time reading reviews, sorting and sifting, slicing and dicing the offerings, to find something intriguing to watch, be it solo or with my wife.

If exclusive distribution is a concern, I'd recommend a one week delay from when it's available to Netflix subscribers to when it is available to public television or via the web. Or, consider extended analyses of older videos, available through Netflix. If nothing else, they have a large catalogue of older or ecclectic films that they would like to promote, either for DVD or for streaming. Part of this is the "long-tail", but there are also fine releases that are simply aging without continuing consumption.

If Netflix isn't the answer, then consider sponsorship from YouTube, Hulu, or others. For my money, I'd like to have your show on Netflix.

You have not provided a way for "Viewers Like Us" to contribute.
Please do so.

You might consider a viewer-funding mechanism similar to Chicago classical radio station WFMT-FM's Fine Arts Circle.

I can't provide financial support on the level of foundations' funding, but if enough of us contributed $25 or $50 or $100 (or higher!), the show might survive. And foundations might be motivated to help, seeing the broad base of individuals' support.

My feeling is that crowdfunding will only take you so far. It may be popular at first and cover a few episodes (if you're lucky) but you will need a long term solution.

Maybe a partnership with another network where you can simulcast perhaps. AMC (or any of its Turner subdivisions), MoviePlex, Comcast 'On-demand', or maybe even pay channels like Starz and Encore. Leave no stone, funding, or network unturned.

Have you approached any actors and/or directors, particularly those who champion independent projects? Perhaps not; it may be a conflict of interest.

Kickstarter sounds like a great idea to help save the show. I would gladly donate for the cause :)

If I recall from one of your other posts, Mr. Ebert, you have an unrivaled Twitter (and maybe Facebook?) following. If you are set up with a system of accepting donations from the general public (like the Kickstart idea, or something like it), you might have a higher-than average success rate, if you were to broadcast the cause over your social networking accounts. In fairness, your show, by the nature of a continuing program, needs indefinite funding (unlike other start-ups on Kickstart, etc., which just need a single initial investment), so you might get enough donations to buy some time -- and then the influx might taper off a bit. But it may well be enough time to keep things aloft while finding other investment options.

If PBS doesn't support you, then perhaps a home elsewhere. You at least now have a track record as pitch material. What about a movie cable -only channel like TCM or AMC?

I agree with many of the other comments others have made about the show should be available via the Internet. I'm not interested in the show being available on television, I'm interested in the show being available beyond television. I support public television, but in this situation I want to support Ebert Presents. I would subscribe to and pay for an Internet program like Ebert Presents.

In other words, cut out the middle man and you can have more of my dollar. I hope that you consider such an approach, and I wish you luck with the show.

Don't waste your time on Kickstarter. Nickels and dimes, nickels and dimes.

You are, as you know perfectly well, a BRAND NAME. You will bring a hell of lot to any table you and Chaz choose to sit down at. And that table, I believe, should include the whole English-speaking world. Today you are being touted on THE GUARDIAN website -- last week you were on Canadian radio. Think global.

so sorry that sponsors have not come forward. it's a great show that i've enjoyed watching on wttw. along with all of the good channel 11 programs, i can guess that they don't have extra money to pay for it. how much would it cost - maybe if each viewer gave $1 - would that be enough?

Kickstarter is a fine idea. Give us somewhere to put our money in support, and many of us will be there. It's one of the best shows on public TV.

I'll contribute. I'm not very net-savvy but it seems like there should be a market for those of us willing to pay for the show, like Netflix.

I adore the show and would hate to see it go away. Why don't you try and see if Netflix or Hulu will buy the show for a streaming deal? They have available funds for this type of stuff and it's a perfect fit for Netflix if you did a tie-in somehow. Best of luck and I too would be happy to donate to a Kickstarter type fund.

It was when your hosts reviewed "Uncle Boonmee Can Recall His Past Lives" that I began to see how well-chosen Christy Lemure and Ignatiy Vishnevesky were. On one hand, you have a critic with middle-brow tastes(and there's nothing wrong with that), and on the other hand, you have a film scholar-type who has probably seen the entirety of the Hou Hsiao-Hsien oeuvre, and any other film artiste whose trade is "slow cinema". It's a great dynamic. In essence, you have a running debate between "film as entertainment" against "film as art". I hope your show survives. I was really upset when Premiere stopped publishing.

1. You might consider taking it to Netflix, as Jen suggested, but here's another thought: Kevin Spacey and David Fincher recently made a deal with them to provide original content, so clearly, they're looking to do original content in the near future. A partnership between you and Netflix would benefit both sides, and you could add a retrospective feature to your program where you re-visit classic films, too (and then pick one of the films in their "top watched classics").

2. Definitely agree with Kickstarter/Hulu suggestion, and hope those conversations are productive.

3. Can AMPAS, the American Film institute and the like, not help you out here? It's certainly to their benefit, and they fund things all the time.

4. If nobody has said this earlier...take it to cable. Talk to Bravo, AMC, TBS. Hell...call up Oprah Winfrey (right there in Chi-Town!!!) and see if you can get in on the O Network.

5. If all else fails, put them up on a specific website as webisodes (which can be watched on mobile devices), and charge a subscriber fee. Then market it through every film school in the country, and to every A&E writer in the media. Have some sort of sweepstakes where the 100,000th subscriber gets to have lunch with you.

I wish you the best of luck, honestly and truly. You are my hero and inspiration in entertainment writing and criticism.

I've wondered how long the show would survive. I really love it and if this really is the end, then it's a very sad time for film buffs like myself. Perhaps it was too good to be true?

I know everyone is looking toward an internet based show. I have a better idea: move to a news station, like MSNBC or CNN. They are in dire need of an entertainment based news program. With all the talking heads, it would be nice to hear from a few people that actually have something interesting to say about something everyone loves: the movies.

I love watching Christy and Ignatiy together because they are so different by the way they look at films, and everything else in between the lines. I think it would be terrible if this show was to go off the air once again, since it has happened so many times before but now I really do think that the show has found it's 21st century, "Siskel and Ebert". I really do hope that the show stays on for good but if it's too much I understand, just please do not lose the show and go more towards the internet and see what happens there. The times are changing and that's where more and more people are looking towards. But regardless of my little rant I love Christy, Ignatiy, Roger, and Chaz, and I really do think that this show is so incredibly important to have on TV especially for all film lover's (such as myself) all over the world. Please stay and don't ever stop trying to stay on television either.

Roger, I would buy a "membership" to this program. I really hope you consider the individual donation route, if kickstarter doesn't work out.. (I'm not familiar with "kickstarter", but it sounds very good.)

I have a lot of respect for what you and Chaz have been able to accomplish. I have religiously watched At the Movies, Sneak Previews, etc... for most of my life. For me you have been must watch TV since I was a little child.

Reading through the comments it looks as if you're exploring kickstarter, that could be a good option for you. Opening it up to the fan base is a great way to go and you'll have my financial support.

I would recommend also looking at providing your show online. Online networks like TWiT and Revision 3 are proof that the model can work. Finding a way to work with Leo Laporte at TWiT would be a great way to keep your show going, lower the overhead, and would allow you to reach a whole new audience, while giving you the ability to maintain your old one.

Your show was cutting edge when it first started, continue to be a trend setter and give online distribution serious consideration.

Good luck to you and your show, as long as it continues to be on the air regardless of the medium you will continue to have at least one devoted viewer.

Scott

Dear Roger,

I am assuming that both you and Chaz have tried the traditional advertising first-run syndication model to fund this program and have been unable to find backers. If so, then I would suggest that you write letters to potentially interested associations and groups for grants and underwriting such as film critics associations, director's guilds, actor's guilds, private universities with film studies majors, Paley Center for Television and Radio, federal grant funding for the arts, and other avenues. Also, certain news associations may want to co-opt the film reviews for their own broadcast, web site, etc. Kickstarter can get you part of the way there, but probably not all the way for funding for the show.

I'm sorry to hear the show is in trouble, and would hate to see it go off the air. I hope funding will be found, somehow. If not, I agree that it would be great to at least have an internet version of the show available for the fans. Good luck!

Never heard of "Kickstarter." The term "Kickstarter scam" came up automatically on Google. Checked the happy-talk first, then checked that. 173,000 references to Kickstarter being a scam. Here's a couple:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kickstarter is an interesting idea. But that is where it stops. The idea has yet to come into a practical reality. I currently have a kickstarter project running. The literature refers to a 'kickstarter community.' that you can attract for $10-$25 rewards. However, there is no kickstarter community. The project must bring its own backers! What is the point of having Kickstarter if you already have backers??

Based on the success stories posted, I conclude that this is a good place for established small businesses to offer new products to an existing customer base. They can 'pre-order' projects at a discounted price. Examples: a shoe company offers customers a new style shoe at a discount if they 'pre-order them'. A recording artist offers a new album to existing fans at a discounted rate if they 'pre-order'. Kickstarter just takes the risk out of 'pre-ordering' by telling would-be customers that if they can't raise enough money to complete their new product, then they are not obligated to fulfill the orders. No one gets mad, that's all.

The second problem is that even if Kickstarter had an interested, altruistic community interested in funding new projects, the website is set up for favoritism and corruption. The entire set up displays only what are called 'popular' projects and 'recommended' projects- about six in all ! The search capabilities are so favorably prejudiced toward these projects that people would be completely unaware that more projects even existed.

I'm posting this review because I don't want anyone else to waste a solid month of hard work preparing like I did. I had read earlier complaints but didn't heed them. I hope you heed this one. New artists without a lot of moneyed customers ready to pay up early need not apply at Kickstarter.com

Beware: Kickstarter is a fraud

Just wanted to make sure this information was out there.

After reading about a "Kickstarter" funded book tour project on here I visitted the website and was incredibly suspicious of the premise. You start a "project" and offer "rewards" in order to get people to pledge funds to support your project. The guidelines - they say - are simple and it just needs to be a project that has a firm begin/end product and it can't be a business venture, but you can profit from it.

There are other books on the website, so I went ahead and applied / did the paperwork / etc.. for my current book project. Figure, what's the harm in trying to get the funds to cover the copyediting costs and such that make a book professional?

Well, Kickstarter took all of 4 hours to declare my project "not a good fit" despite being nearly identicle in scope / rewards as other book projects on their site. Further, I couldn't even get a response from them about why other then "not a good fit" when I'm certainly not covering a controversial subject or something that might upset sensitivities. I'm writing a book about the history of a theme park for christsake.

The big problem is that their website says if you meet the guidelines you're good to go - they wont tell me what guidelines I haven't met, as for all accounts I have met them all.

So, fair warning, Kickstarter is a fraud. They're luring people to their site to contribute to a few cherry picked projects from which they skim off a percentage of the donations to profit themselves. They are not a reputable business with actual guidelines and proper channels of action.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course you'd be a big plum to use for their endorsement. Want that?

I'm not sure this was mentioned but what about having studio(s) step up. They're the ones who directly benefit and I'm sure your show costs about the same as craft services/wardrobe on Entertainment Tonight or Access Hollywood.

TV still matters. It's the last place where just about everybody can get access to all kinds of stuff--and you gave us something I see nowhere else on TV: two affable, intelligent people having a spirited, civil conversation/debate about all kinds of movies. There are whiffs of this when Robert Osborne and Alec Baldwin introduce a TCM film, but nobody else on TV resists the urge to talk about movies as though they're PR hounds, accountants, or (shudder) lawyers.

And yes, it's important that this be a public TV program. While PBS (and NPR and the rest of the publicly funded alphabet soup of arts/culture organizations) can get skittish about content, they're still the best at pacing themselves and their programs to present something with deliberation and the room to grow.

I say all those 1PerCenters who run web monsters (Google, Facebook, Twitter, and so on) pony up for one of their own--that is, a certified Web(by) Person of the Year--and give a little something back to all of us who still brave The Great Wasteland for a little shining light.

Besides my previous suggestion of simulcasting with other movie/film oriented networks, you should consider funding from any and every resource possible. Law Firms, auto dealerships/manufactures, tech companies etc. Cast the net wide and gobble up whatever you bring in because this show has to stay on air. Film lovers old and young, learned and unlearned all need Ebert Presents.

Also, although I firmly believe that crowd funding is not a long term solution, below is a link with 11 other such sites including 'Indiegogo' which is another reputable place for crowd funding. For the short term, some of these resources may be helpful.

http://mashable.com/2011/10/20/crowdfunding-platforms-social-good/

Thank you so much Roger, Chaz, and Maurice for backing the show financially (not to mention creating the show in the first place). Roger & Chaz, I am amazed that you believed in the idea of the show so much that you were willing to fund it for song long even though it is highly unlikely that you'd ever see that money come back (underwriters would only pay going forward, I assume). You clearly love the idea of the show and believe in the value of having something like this on the air if you are willing to put so much work and money into producing it. It's one thing to receive no profit from such a venture, but another all together for you to be spending your own money to make it happen. Unbelievable. Thank you!

If you get something setup on Kickstarter, I will donate in a heartbeat.

Kickstarter seems expensive (10% rake – 5% for them, 3 to 5% for credit cards). Perhaps just setting up a PayPal account would work.

Either way, I'll pay an annual subscription donation. I'd rather contribute to your program than to PBS with their ridiculous pledge drives that they do, especially if they beg us for money and then expect you to self-fund the programming for them as well.

I've been watching all versions of the program since the original PBS Sneak Previews and read your work as much as possible. I really enjoy your writing and the review program. It's a first-rate first-rate TV show.

I watch the show with my 10 year-old son every week, like my father watched Siskel & Ebert with me back in the day. I'll be very sorry to see it go.

I love this show. Loved the reruns this summer & was happy to see the two newbies back...PBS does this to EastEnder fans every year -- the threat to cancel unless we call in and donate -- somehow they always manage to find funding. I hope you do too.

The world of public television has radically changed. Would you all be shocked to learn that Ken Burns has to do the same thing as Roger and Chaz? He has to go out and find a funder to underwrite the show. Without that PBS will pass.

Letting "Ebert at the Movies" go away from PBS would be their big mistake and loss. The show's hosts undoubtedly are bringing a younger audience to public television while retaining the baby boomers who have long been fans. But they only look at the show being funded by an outsider because that is the formula.

Hefner's foundation is a great idea. And how about IFC/Sundance Channels? Or possibly even Turner Classics Movies with strong internet presence too.

Good luck

I really enjoy this show. Just as I have enjoyed every iteration of it over the years. The two new hosts are delightful. I will pay to see this show. Just ask me how I can support it.

I love this show, and I grew up in Chicago watching you and Gene and it inspired me to become a film editor.. This show has been a return to that experience. I would pay to see this every week no problem. However you find a way to finance the show - your fans would help you. This kind of show is so important to our culture. We won't let it go away.
-Tim Good

I'm not sure that going to online distribution would really save that much. It seems like most of the costs are for production -- camera people, on-air personalities, the studio, etc. The Internet would mostly save money on distribution, but the show still has to be created, and that takes money.

The real problem is that the PBS stations don't pay for the program. Maybe they pay for other programs, but probably the show had to start out being free to the stations to get them to pick up the program and that's how the broad distribution was achieved.

So, how do we get the funds flowing in? I think the Kickstarter idea is a good one.

Roger, you have an expensive hobby. Now we learn that "Ebert Presents" wasn't just a title, it was a statement of fact.

TV production is expensive, because it require a team of professionals, the more talented, the better. That said, "Ebert Presents" is about as bare-bones a show as can be imagined, so the production costs aren't astronomical — plus, you and Chaz have already done the grunt work of creating and fine-tuning the format, plus the all-important job of building a nation-wide audience — I hope, a world-wide audience.

This would seem to be an ideal situation for a sponsor corporation. Alas, even though corporations demand to be citizens these days, they're not very public-spirited. Corporate sponsorship of all the arts is on decline.

This is (obviously) sad to here -- Caught the very first episode of the re-launch, and have pushed to friends, a couple of whom will phone during the broadcast to talk about the movies.
Great show. The hosts have developed real rapport with each other over time, making the show better.
A couple of ideas:
1) Are you maximizing use of the show's YouTube channel? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOKAhkrcZag
One keeps reading reports about youtube's revenue sharing, and kids making hundreds of thousands off of ad-revenue sharing on their YouTube Channel. It strikes me that, rather than sharing it through the show's own site, it's important to maximize other revenue streams. And not only can you show segments of the show on the channel, but also the trailers. (THINK: Lots of hits/ lots of views.). After a month or two this should be a real portal for funding.

2) Very sad that APT isn't giving you anything. That means that the pbs channels aren't paying for this piece of programming. But they do pay APT (minimally) to show films. You'd think, given the name recognition, this would be worth more eyeballs to most of the affiliate markets than, say, the docu I produced (and which APT distributes). Now, not much is coming in for the docu - And all of it, so far, goes to our distributor (heavy sigh). But it's nothing, and it's only been in half-a-dozen markets or so. You need to get a strong rep helping you to re-negotiate with them, and do some of your own field research. Which markets would pay a few hundred per ep? APT by its own rules doesn't take a percentage... So there should be a fee arrangement whereby it goes almost directly back to production. I can suggest some reps for you, that are decent and caring and good at this.

3) Think the netflix-hulu suggestions are interesting. Where is it streaming, in order to re-watch full eps? Hardly anyone watches in real time, anyways, so it should be possible to cut a deal (not for a lot mind you, maybe just pennies per streaming, but you're investment in this form of distribution are small). I think it's likely that APT is giving away some streaming rights too. You need to evaluate this.

4) You already use guest reviewers: Be clever about how best to maximize this. If you have someone from Chicago Trib, or Indiewire, or LAT, on the show - What kind of plug/payback/links do you get from the publications? After all, you guys are really cool to plug their work and their outlets - And, I know you get organic outreach from this - but it has to be worked - If you're using a YouTube channel, you may need to make sure that gets plugged, tweeted, etc. for each appearance.

5) You have a volunteer marketing type? I'm sure some film geek at a local Chicago ad agency will volunteer, if they haven't already.

6) You guys must have interns researching and working on social media? You must already do this.

7) You have an app? choose your favorite film apps. There are a couple of good ones now, after a number of years without. go to the makers - ask if they will work with you to adapt one for the show. It becomes a place to watch clips, read reviews, and see what's playing locally and buy film tickets. Make it for both iphones and androids.

8) Have someone research some forms of ticket-selling revenue sharing, with one of the big film-ticket buying sites that work nationally. A lot of them do discounts if you're a member of X or Y. There has to be way to work out deals so that if someone goes to your website, learn about a film they want to see, they can link to buy tickets. And your hosts, in turn, (I know it's shilling and kinda disgusting, so if this crosses a journalistic ethical line, just cross this out and move on), do a plug on-air like: If you like and want to see any of these movies, go to our website, and click on buy tickets, and part of the revenue will come back to supporting the show. Too gross?

In regard to needing to have your own backers to use Kickstarter -- you do already have your own backers -- your Facebook friends, your web site visitors, etc. "Roger Ebert" is a brand, not just a person, and there are lots of people that will support any product that is worthy of being associated with your name.

I mentioned the word Synergy.

Pixar has a method for developing scripts. They make a test movie, about 30 minutes long, and show it to everyone who works at Pixar. Notes are written. The notes are turned in, studied, and a second test reel is made. The process is repeated.

Getting a script to the point where it works as well as "Toy Story" or (i would expect) Disney's John Carter of Mars... is a tough job. I suspect neither Christy, Ignatiy , Chaz, etc don't understand just how much work goes into a great script...possibly because there hasn't been a great script made into a movie in a while.

So, as an experiment, develop a script... a Roger Ebert script, sold under that name, but using ideas from wherever they happen to come from... and then, send it out to the studios and have an auction. If no studio makes an offer in 72 hours, the project is dead. If more than one offer comes in... well, the happy part is, one studio makes a pre-emptive offer that is more money than you expected to get. That's what happens when you send out a great script.

There are two ways to get a great script. One person works on it for ten years. That was "Avatar." Or, a hundred people work on it for six weeksl That was Minority Report, Shrek. You need a lot of ideas for a script that moves people emotionally, that has powerful moments of elation... and that's how you fund a TV show on public television. Out of profits from selling your script, or some other business, but the money comes from somewhere.

And... here's another quirk. You sell a script, it becomes a movie... and, when you sell the studio a second script, they pay you based on how much money the first movie made. So the first movie is a writeoff... you have to write two great scripts to get paid.

This tweet looks like a lead.
ThatChrisGore @ebertchicago You could pitch Ebert Presents to my network @G4TV. We could use a good movie show. Hit me up if you want the contact.

I have been a fan from the first show and now continue to be one.
It would be a great loss to people who care about film/movies - this
show is one of the only reliable places to get good information about
new movies. I love movies and I watch and support public TV and such outlets as IFC, TCM and Sundance channels.
Anyway, we need you. I am also very willing to throw some money
in the pot.
Let us all know if there is a way we can support the show....there is
certainly a will and should be a way.
Thank you,
Joyce West

Roger, the story you tell is heartbreaking. I don't think I've ever missed an episode of your shows since PBS started running them in the 1970s.

Someone mentioned pitching the show to OWN (Oprah's network, desparately seeking content), and I think that's a great idea. It also prompts me to think that there are many cinema-based cable networks out there which would be natural fits for "Ebert Presents".

Sundance Channel, IFC network and AMC come immediately to mind as all being great, content-related outlets for your show, and they're all looking for original programming as well. TCM (Turner Classic Movies) would also be a natural fit. It would not only be a content-related program, but works for Roger's reviews of older classic films. "Ebert Presents" could be very synergistic for them, as could re-run segments of the older Siskel & Ebert shows.

One oddball idea might be to present your show to CurrentTV. Keith Olbermann and Al Gore are trying to create an all-news and information channel, and your show would be an oblique fit.

Also, you would bring to CurrentTV an immense existing following, as did Keith. It could be a match made in heaven!

I truly hope you succeed in your endeavors.

With all regards,
Mike Honig
ThinkwingRadio[dot]com.

Netflix, revision3, Twit.tv, kickstarter, and YouTube all look like good options to me.

YouTube looks especially good in light of Google's announcement last month that they "...placed more than $100 million aside for original YouTube programming." It seems to me that EP:ATM would be a perfect fit for them.

I'd also like to see you try this on Kickstarter, if only to demonstrate the viability of audience sponsorship and independent programming.

Everyone on this thread would chip in $20. Is that enough to keep the lights on?

Or are there other non-profit avenues like a grant from the Sundance Institute?

Roger, I don't know how to get a hold of you any other way but will you please weigh in on the expanding scandal at Penn State University, please? As a patient, educated writer your perspective in this ongoing matter would be beneficial.

Roger, as much as I enjoy actually watching the show, what about continuing on in a podcast format? It has to be considerably cheaper and there wouldn't be the time constraints of a half-hour program. I'd love to hear 45 minutes, an hour of Christy and Ignatiy debating....often when I watch the show I'm left wanting more! Either way, count me in for a donation whichever direction you decide to go.

Thank you Roger and Chaz for your hard work and personal investments in the program. I've enjoyed it greatly and appreciate a televised forum for intelligent discussion of film.

It's a tough time for fundraising but keep the faith. Regardless of the outcome, know that you accomplished a great thing. Truly, you have dragged your ship across a mountain.

In addition to Kickstarter try Indiegogo as well -

http://www.indiegogo.com/

I "need" this show to stay on the air. It filled a void created for me when the original S&E ended. Please tell me what I can do! I am willing to donate money!

What about the Ovation channel? Isn't a program like this right up thier alley?

Something else I just thought of - couldn't you get a fan to volunteer to maintain the website, at least sparing that expense? I'm sure there are fans out there who can do web design - heck, I went to Glamourcon last weekend and one of the models did web design! And was pretty good!

I realize that writing a simple comment is not the same as handing you the donated dollar, but I quite enjoy cheering on Christy (I nearly always agree) and booing Ignatiy (so often wrong), so I'm willing to donate to see the show continue.

My entertainment dollar would be spent most satisfactorily.

Interesting news.

The website is gorgeous and user-friendly. Kudos on it's development. I see an ad before every clip (Olive Garden tonight). I didn't realize that didn't cover the cost.

I haven't seen the show on PBS, but it clearly shows the love of the investment you and Chaz have made in it. A class enterprise. Distraught that my membership in my local station doesn't contribute to your show.

I admire Christy and Ignatiy as people and professionals. I wasn't a fan of the reviews - they lost me at Green Hornet and others - but, hey, I don't have to agree with everyone to enjoy a discussion.

Wishing you sucess, however it happens. Still enjoying your memoir.

This is HORRIBLE NEWS! Sorry, but I just can't feel a personal connection to reading random reviews on sites such as Rotten Tomatoes. I've been a fan of this show since the first run back on PBS in the late 70's. And I ferociously argue against naysayers that say this format is dated and not needed. I get FAR MORE out of this show than reading random reviews online on Rotten Tomatoes.

I HOPE this is not the end of the end...I hope this show can come back in another form at some other time even if the PBS days do come to an end.

PBS stinks. They have annoying pledge drives that chase me away from watching until the only show I watch on the station is Ebert Presents. With all of that pledge money, why don't they put a bit of it toward funding the show instead of making you pay everything?

I repeat, PBS stinks.

I am a big fan of yours and I really enjoy your show. It would be a great loss to cinema fans everywhere if it dies. I would love to donate. Some things are just worth it.

Roger and Chaz...

I loved working with you both on the title animation for the pilot.

I have since moved from Chicago to New York, and on to a new position at a different company, but you can contact me through the email I entered here.

I would GLADLY donate time and effort to create animation, titles, graphics, or whatever else you need of a visual nature for a financial pitch (whether it is Kickstarter, a private pitch, etc.). I no longer work directly with my previous employer where you shot the pilot, but I have to say that working with you both was a highlight of my time there.

I look forward to helping in any way I can.

-Perry Harovas

Ebert: That's so kind, Perry!

Honestly, while its a shame to see this type of televised forum coming to a potential close, I just don't see Christy Lemire and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky as guiding lights in film reviewing (let alone criticism). Michael Phillips, Dann Gire, A.O. Scott, David Denby, Anthony Lane, Amy Taubin, Dave Kehr, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Tim Lucas - maybe none of them are TV material but as beacons in film criticism, yes. So, no, film criticism isn't dead - it doesn't necessarily play well on the tube. And, if you're going to do it, the opposing critical forces have to be - in the least - interesting.

I have recently had a very bad experience with Kickstarter, that was to the point where I actually believe that their model and their business policies are NOT artist friendly and until they change people should avoid them in favor of IndieGoGo, who are much more in tune with what an artist/creator might need from a crowdfunding site and even what a donor is looking for.

I detailed my particular issue on the blog for my film here: http://goodgamemovie.com/?q=node/59

But the long and short of it is that we fell victim to a person who (I believe) intentionally pledged a large amount that they would not be able to give. Because of the all or nothing method of funding with Kickstarter, there was no way to know that this person's credit card information was (again, I believe) intentionally incorrect until after the funding for the project had closed.

Had we known that the money that was pledged to us was fake, we could have worked harder to raise that same amount by pushing of the campaign before it closed. Instead, I'm now facing a shortfall of over $5,000. Kickstarter's policies mean I have no recourse to deal with this issue. In addition, because it is based on "pledges" I found that many donors decreased or cancelled their pledges before the end of the campaign (probably because we were "funded" so they thought the money wouldn't be missed). We lost over $500 to this particular policy.

IndieGoGo's policies prevent this kind of thing, along with not using the "all or nothing" funding method. Instead, they reward you for reaching your goal but don't punish you if you don't achieve it. Some say that doesn't put as much pressure on people so you're less likely to obtain your funding, but I think I would rather have the peace of mind.

In addition, IndieGoGo is much more transparent about what it takes to become a featured project and how to gain attention for your campaign through their website. Kickstarter only says that they feature projects that they feel like featuring, with no word on how to even get yours in front of the right eyes for consideration. IndieGoGo also uses Paypal for donations instead of Amazon Payments, which I found is much more widely used and easier for donors. I have also found IndieGoGo's customer service team to be much friendlier than Kickstarter's.

I do think that a crowdfunding campaign would be successful for you. I still believe in crowdfunding, I believe it's a new iteration of a very old method of film financing (the family and friends option). It's a great way to use the internet to the advantage of artists and filmmakers. It's entirely likely that you wouldn't face any of the problems that I did, but I feel that by using a system that allows these kinds of things to happen, we are simply encouraging a business that does not have the artists' best interests at heart.

I hope that if/when you launch your campaign I have gotten my film finances more in order so that I will be able to contribute. I think a show like yours deserves to stay on television.

Roger, sorry to hear your show is leaving. Another idea I have would be to sell DVDs or streaming video of your show via the web.

Frank

Mr. Ebert, you aren't going broke, are you? I hope not.

I think it's been mentioned a few times in the above comments, but I'll throw in my 2cents anyway...

First, an online option would certainly be an interesting way to go. If the ratings are good tv-wise now, I imagine a user-funded online version could work. I would certainly pitch in to have an Ebert-built review show/site.

Alternatively, wouldn't some of the studios (or industry folk) be willing to back this up? Seems like the annual budget isn't too huge... certainly some studio/Hollywood-base sponsorship could be rounded up... I think viewers would look past the potential conflict of interests if the quality of the show remains intact.

Siskel & Ebert was a staple for me while growing up in Chicago--so thank you Roger (and Chaz)!!!

Why be vague? Why not say how much is needed and your exact demographics including estimated number of viewers? Maybe your potential sponsors read your blog.

What I love about the show (I have been watching it since Roeper was on) is talking about movies I would not have heard of like the ones in limited release. That way I remember them and wait for them to come out on DVD so I can borrow or rent them.

Also, if I see a movie and it is reviewed, I like to compare them with what you guys think.

I hope you find a way to keep the show going.

First, NBC makes noises about cancelling Maria Bello's new cop show, and now this... I now have absolutely no reason to turn on my TV...Except for Rachel Maddow.

Following up on my previous comments and those of Jeremy McDonagh, you are a brand.

I am disappointed that I was unaware that you produce a show. I'd thought you were retired, so I didn't even check TV listings. But, as McDonagh said, your brand carries weight. As an example: when I moved to Chicago last year, I tended to read the Tribune. I periodically read the Sun Times, but found it rather light. (I'm not fond of the Tribune, either, but what can I do?) After a few weeks, I remembered that you're based in Chicago, so I looked for your columns...on the Sun Times.

I now read the Sun Times nearly every day. Do I think it has better reporting? No. But, as I told my wife last week, I read it because that's where your columns are found. Do I read all of your columns? Not regularly, but when I do, I tend to catch up on a lot at once. In the meantime, I'm reading the Sun Times. I wouldn't say it's logical, but that's the effect of following a brand.

So, good luck, and I do look forward to seeing your show soon. I will check out the web videos soon. I hope that you find backing from the likes of Netflix or others (especially Netflix, so that I can add your show to my queue!).

Never heard of kickstarter and it sounds a little to good to be true. Won't any of the cable channels or networks take you guys? The show has to be cheap compared to the dramas and comedies that are on.

This is my favorite show on television I love the balance and format (I'm a huge Ignatiy fan personally) The only way this show may work is production cutbacks which may in turn change the dynamic of the show.This show is needed now more than ever considering most people get reviews from facebook unfortunately! More promotion is needed, why aren't the two main critics on any talk shows!? Not to sound condescending but Lemaire would be perfect on talk shows plugging the show. Get some last minute support... put Ignatiy smart A*S on Jon Stewart!

Here's all I can wonder to make sense of this (which I assume someone has already said): In this time of an endless supply of great film discussion via podcast - discussion that really dives into a film for 15-20 minutes (or longer) - maybe those of us who are hungry to listen to film reviews don't require that we see the discussion, too. Even with its own costs, a well-run film podcast won't cost nearly as much as a film TV show. And it's something I can experience while I drive, while I'm at work, while I'm running or exercising. It becomes a part of multi-tasking. TV isn't as versatile to experience - which isn't a flaw, just a fact. I think it's just a function of so many more options now. Back when Gene and Roger were on, that was one of the only games in town. Now, it's like Vegas. Everywhere you look there's film sites and blogs and shows. Many of them not worth the time. But plenty of them with really knowledgeable, interesting co-hosts. And I'm not trying to rag on the show, but it's difficult for people who really want to hear a discussion to only get about 3-4 minutes on a particular movie. That's not very long. The conversation has been extended by podcasts.

At the Movies never had a chance. It's an older concept and had it's day. Unless you are "live" and interactive with the audience while live, it's an old format. There are so many critics to see on Youtube...Youtube killed the At the Movies.

Man I really hope some how this show can continue being produced. Television needs more honest shows shows like this one.

I live in Israel, and I watch your show religiously. Either I download it from BitTorrent in its entirety, or I watch it streaming on your site. Count me among the many who'd pay a regular subscription fee to see it keep going. The internet is a much bigger place than the US, and I think your audience is probably more vast than you realize. I appreciate that you funded the show so far out of your own pocket, because it let us all see what we might be getting. But now that we know that it's something worthwhile, it's time for you to let others pay for it.

Perhaps a cable network like OWN would be a good home for Ebert Present at the Movies. Anything is worth a try because it is a fantastic show.

"Ebert: Jason, it's not a stupid question. The answer is: The show doesn't make money. With the exception of $25,000 from a good-hearted man named Maurice Kanbar in san Francisco, we pay for the show and it is given to public television for free. We continue our search for underwriters."

Is this reality or a Frank Capra movie?

If you dont get picked up again and find sponsership, thank you. I've thoroughly enjoyed the show, even at the times I was annoyed with either Ignaty or Christy, I found them both engaging and interesting to listen to. I've enjoyed your occasional input as a stand-alone critic, and I've enjoyed the retrospectives with you and Gene, the last with special fondness. Thank you for an entertaining show, and the nostagiac remembrances of the Third Man by every shows' end. Like the end of a certain Kubrick movie.....We'll meet again, don't know when, don't know where, but I know we'll meet again, some sunny day.

I don't understand. If the ratings are as good as you indicate, it seems that the financing should follow.

Too bad you can't just move it over to the Oprah network. You and here are friends right?

I wish it was that easy, I love the new program and watch it weekly online. I hope you can keep it on the air.

Roger and Chaz-
I'm sorry about the situation with your show. I watched your show from it's inception in the 70s, and followed Gene and your reviews as long as you've been writing them. I have to be honest however, and that is that your current show is unwatchable. The hosts may know what they are talking about, but are not right for TV. Sorry!

The New York Times has a piece in today's (Tuesday) paper about the blog entry and the potential demise of the program.

Mr. Ebert you are so poo-pooey. Just make a cheaper version of the show and utilize the internet. There are zillions of folks out there who have youtube channels with many loyal people who tune in every week.

I have been a regular viewer from the beginning of this current show, and have been very pleased with Christy and Ignatiy. I have followed you, Roger, for years and years, and have smiled this year because I think the two critics complement one another as you and your partners have previously. Although the majority of the time, I sided with your point of view, I'm pretty much equally divided between Christy and Ignatiy. It's so helpful to have both of them.
I applaud the suggestions above for continuing either online, on a subscription basis, or whatever way we can keep watching. You might ask for immediate contributions as a vote of confidence (with the money going to a charity if for some reason you can't use it). I would certainly give to the cause.
I do SO hope you can figure out something to stay accessible to us! I see you all as national treasures.

A bell on the tree will ring.
It's A Wonderful Show

Kickstarter is great, and I would contribute in a heartbeat. But that's not a long-term solution. You can't do a Kickstarter campaign every season, can you? Maybe you can...

Corporate underwriting would be ideal. But short of that, how about a new business model: subscription public television. Whether you do it through kickstarter, or just through your own blog, you could sell subscriptions like you do for your newsletter. It may even make it easier to get a sponsor for the bulk of it, showing proof that you have such a committed following that fans are willing not just to save the show but to sustain it annually.

Whatever you decide, know that you are providing something of value and we thank you.

Netflix?!

You tweet about them often enough, you'd think they owe you one!

I agree with many of the other comments, you don't need to be on TV any longer, making it into an internet series is just as good.
You should start a YouTube channel which won't cost you anything. Then make sure you refer viewers back to your own website where you then sell ads, sign up with Tremor Video and they will provide the video ads for you. Also sell merchandise such as books and DVDs. You can also try to get a sponsor, I would think Netflixs would be a good match. You need to get someone who knows about internet advertising and ecommerce to advise you. The bottom line is that internet series are feasible as long as you can keep production costs low. Write me for more info if you like.

Go back to the future. SYNDICATION. You did it once, it can be done again. Christy and Ignats can carry it.
Did not like them at first. I do now, and especially that kid.
Just keep Gene and yourself prominent as you do now.

If your show was really as good as you think it is/was then it would be picked up by a network or at least a cable channel like Etv or some others.

So apparently it's not that good. Ken Burns does good work and shows on PBS but also transitions to cable.

When you and Siskel started this format 35 or so yrs ago, you created and filled a niche market. Unfortunately you have not progressed beyond 1975, while everything else has spun forward.

Replacing Siskel with Roeper was a blunder, and continuing on TV with your malady, as brave as it was, still turned the dial quickly.

Just declare victory and go home, write a book again or.....here's something you should consider expanding on......little seen movies. I know you have done something like 'movies you might have missed'...but there are thousands of movies I have missed but would value someone like you to categorize them, rate them, and tell me which ones I might like to download. I read somewhere that in the US there are something like 4,800 movies released each year, so in the last 20 yrs that is almost 100,000 movies I haven't seen. If you skim out the porn and the alternative categories it is still a ton of movies I haven't seen or even know about but might enjoy if you mentioned them or rated them.

Think about it. It is something of value you can provide and you probably already have 5 years of knowledge in you head on this subject without having to leave your laptop.

Roger,

I have always been a fan of your show, and in fact, I am a WTTW volunteer for the pledge drives, so one of the last times I was in the studio, I was taken on the tour. I had a picture taken of my friend and me in the balcony, with our thumbs displayed appropriately. I do enjoy your segment of the show, but I do not like the two hosts. There are times I will fast forward through a recorded segment unless there is a piece on a film I am really interested in, and lately that has been seldom. Have you considered doing a more in-depth show with just your viewpoint on genres, or a particular film? Use the same delivery that you do now, with Bill Kurits doing the voice-over. I think people want to see you on Ebert at the Movies, not two other people. I find both of them irksome, so I have started to lose interest in the show. Maybe just expand your weekly column online, or write a book about why you love films and which ones have impacted you the most. Best regards. Milka

Tom Dark: "Winsor McKay, of course, is the God of Animation."

Sorry to go further off-topic, but his surname is "McCay." Also, "Little Nemo" was originally released in a hand-colored version; the last shot of "How a Mosquito Operates" was also hand-colored.

Dear Roger,

I've always admired your forthrightness. Down the street from us in Urbana, there was a little fish-stand that Audrey and I would order from at least a few times a month. Then one day without warning it was gone. We would have ordered more, and boosted for them if we'd only known. Thanks for sharing before it's too late.

I agree 100% with the comments about KickStarter, and am glad you're looking into it. You would easily be a showpiece project for them and no doubt would raise a lot of money.

I also agree with the other comments about streaming. Since returning to Chicago, we've gone cable free. We watch 99% of our TV via NetFlix. Since NetFlix and Amazon are trying to develop original content, your show seems a natural fit. It would motivate me to order a subscription from Amazon.

Good luck and best regards,

Maurice

Roger,
Let me first say that I'm a regular visitor to your website. I love your reviews, and I read just about every one of your blog posts. But, I think, in some way, I am the reason "Ebert Presents" may not be a viable program. Let me explain.

I'm married, in my mid 30s, with a solid middle class income. I'm a college graduate who had (has) aspirations of a career in the arts. I take my consumption of art very seriously, but I've never watched the show. Only today did I seek out a few clips online to give it a look.

With the myriad of entertainment choices available to all of us via television, computer, notebook, or smartphone, trying to produce a movie review show for public television is quite the uphill battle. When you and Gene did the show, there simply wasn't the same competition for people's time. Plus, you guys were amazing at what you did. The informed opinions, clarity of thought, and deep friendship made for great T.V. No offense to the current contributors, but they didn't grab me. A show like this needs people who grab an audience immediately otherwise it'll get lost in the ocean of options available. They may be knowledgeable and insightful, but so are tens of thousands of other people who blog, webcast, podcast, etc.

Sadly, the shows needs personalities like Siskel & Ebert, but those don't come around too often.

Here's what I recommend if you really want to see this show find a regular home. Make it a reality show where you do a nationwide search for new hosts that'll grab an audience immediately. Then, once those hosts are found, you'll have a built-in audience for the actual show because they'll have developed a bond with the two new hosts.

I also think that you are direct competition for your own show. Maybe you should make your website (or parts of it) accessible by "secret" code only that is given out during the weekly PBS show!

This certainly is a labor of love for you and Chaz, so I do hope you find a way to make it work. But, despite my interest in movies and your reviews, I doubt I'll ever be a regular watcher. Regardless, though, your passion and insight into the human condition remains an inspiration for me.

Nothing personal, but if the program were as successful and wonderful as you claim, the funding would be there. How many people just in these comments have said "well I don't watch all the time" or "I see it occassionally"...

Go to an internet model. Ben and Ben tarnished the reputation I believe and also I think the time for this type of show has passed, as with soap operas.

I don't know much about the issues you're dealing with, but if there's any way you can reach out for advice, I'd recommend contacting Leo Laporte. After the network that showed his programs was bought out, he took it to the internet with a direct subscription model. That was years ago, and he's still on-air.

http://twit.tv/huh
http://leoville.com/

Roger, I do believe I can afford to pay for a re-shoot of the clip in which you wave your fingers about instead of actually typing on your laptop. And I do hope you can find funding. I like your show.

You need to bring back A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips as hosts of the show. They are experienced critics with good chemistry (and were big improvements over the two Bens).

Truly a shame. While I'll admit I haven't had a chance to watch the show, I remember enjoying the old shows with Siskel and Ebert and really think television needs a show like this. More than we need shows like "I didn't know I was pregnant".
The sad part is, this can't be that expensive a show to produce. Sure, from a pair of individuals spending their own money, this quickly becomes prohibitive, but any company willing to sponsor it should be able to foot the bill without even thinking.

One source of revenue that you could add to this list is to monetize your youtube account. I noticed you have an EbertPresent's channel, but there is only one video on it (everyone, you can click on my name to see it; also it has 239 subscribers from just that one video) http://www.youtube.com/user/EbertPresents

I'm not sure if youtube has to offer you a way to make money from your youtube account (and i guess they haven't contacted you about that), but maybe you could contact them about that; so you could tweet people to check out your youtube channel and advertisers will put adds onto your youtube channel and whatever hits you get or whatever is how much money you will make from that channel.

That probably won't pay all the bills but maybe it will help.

I am saying because youtube has offered my account to make money but it says that I have to own the content etc. They actually offered me to money my account when after you tweeted that Ann Coulter video (where she struggles for an answer).

Anyway, it seems that maybe you should contact youtube and see if they will allow you to monetize your account so ads could be placed on them (also, I know youtube vids have "like" buttons, and I think there might be a way to make money from those "like" on top of that).

Several commentors have said already: Ask your friend Oprah if she would like the show on her network: OWN. Fans of the show have already said they search for the show and love it. Find a new home and they will find you. Wishing you good luck.

I think after youtube monetizes your account and thus you become a "partner" with them, they will allow you to make a facebook "like' button on there.

After you have done monetizing of your youtube account, people can help give you money by simply watching the videos/clicking the "like" button, if they can't/on top of sending donations; you can just ask people to please "like" the video to support the program.

Roger,

This is probably COMPLETELY naive, but I can't help but wonder if there might be a match made in heaven waiting out there. . .Leo Laporte's TWIT network (http://www.twit.tv) is a wonderful podcast network with a lot of distribution and fans and infrastructure. If you scaled things back, but kept the thumbs up and the segments that make the show so wonderful, then partnered with TWIT, it could be a HUGE hit. There would have to be ads, but Leo and crew have a great ad system that's pretty darn honest while still working. . .

Like I say, it's probably naive, but I can't help but wonder!
Dan

Look, if Barack Obama can raise bazillions of dollars by tweeting or asking for help via cell phones, why not you and Chaz? You have such a HUGE, loyal following that I wonder if you couldn't raise the money you need that way. One million people giving $10 each. Would THAT do it? I'd contribute, and I don't even see the show! Why? BECAUSE IT'S YOU!!

So, basically, I think you should try to include youtube as part of the business model with people subscribing to it and such, mainly by simply uploading the videos to two websites (ebertpresents.com And youtube.com).

OH, sorry I think I made a mistake about adding a facebook "like" to youtube channels, but still...

This is just a "Blue Sky" sort of thought, but have you given any of the major airlines a call? I was just on a transcontinental flight on United, and they run their own programming during those flights. These are pretty much just fairly recent movies run on a loop. On a five hour flight, that means that you get to see each movie twice (plus a little extra). Do you think they might be interested in putting up funding for your show, in exchange for an exclusive contract to run it during their flights? As sort of a "buffer" for these repeating movie loops? Perhaps even re-cut a version of the (existing) show to feature all the movies they will be playing on their flights that day? They could run them beforehand to help people choose which one to watch, for instance... Would provide some funding for your show AND keep people from pulling their hair out in boredom, if it is viable.

Another thought (if you do go off the air and need another business model) is to find out how difficult it would be to offer the show streaming to mobile devices (iPad's, phones, etc.) either at a prescription rate (like your newsletter) or for a one time fee plus advertisers. Everyone would love the idea of being able to check the review on the way to the theater. I know I would.

PS If you do "crowd source" the show (like kickstarter or something), please let us all know. Be happy to contribute.

Your one youtube video has 75,000 views; once you start uploading to youtube, the views will regularly be probably around a quarter of a million views, that should be some good ad money.

Okay, maybe not a quarter of a million views, but regularly tens of thousands of views you should get on your youtube channel. If youtube offered me the option to monetize my account for that Ann Coulter video, which only got 1,000 views, then you should be able to do the same with views in the tens of thousands range.

Also, to montize your youtube account is free; so it's win-win (I should have mentioned that earlier).

While I love the format, I've been watching since Sneak Previews, I find the two critics less than suited for television. He comes across as a know-it-all who doesn't, and she as a Rachel Ray too eager to please type.
It's just my opinion, but a revamp of the hosts might get you the sponsorship you need. I respect their ability to speak intelligently about movies, but some people are in print for a reason.
And this is in no way meant to impugn them as critics or their physical appearances. Just as TV hosts.

I was thinking how great it is to be able to check out your and Gene Siskel's reviews on iTunes. You can do a deal with Apple where you license those video reviews to them. They can attach it to iTunes so people like me can see the review of the movie before I buy/rent it.

You can continue to produce Ebert Presents At The Movie exclusively for iTunes. There may not even be a need to distribute it on television.

PS. It will be even better to be able to access your written review iTunes also.

Time to go corporate. Go on the web and sell short ad times to Dish Network, Netflix, Orville Redenbacher and other companies associated with the movie theatres and home entertainment.

My suggestion, honestly, would be to take the show to an online format via the video hosting site blip.tv. There your videos would be hosted (at minimal cost of bandwidth for yourself) plus you'd be able to draw ad revenues from the ads that play both before and after your show (you can also have ad breaks in the middle of episodes, depending on length). I am not certain of the strength of revenue streams you could draw from that, but it is a potential source of revenue, whereas now you are not getting any.

I make it a point to watch the show every week, DVR'ing it when I might be at work or school during its airtime, and I would hate to see it go off the air. This way you could somewhat reduce on overhead and generate a little bit of revenue that you could pump back into the production of the show.

So at the movies is going off the air?

I appreciate your frankness Roger, and I hope you appreciate mine. I have watched some of the old Siskel and Ebert episodes, and have to say, when I watch them, I think, now these two guys know their movies. I respect their opinions and you can tell they know their stuff. However, when I watch the two current co-hosts, I think, yup, I could do a better job then they do. Having said that, a show like this is still necessary to be on the air. Quality has been sinking in television....or maybe I just refuse to lower my expectations enough to watch it.

I really like that quote you said about transformers 2, something along the lines of there are too many good movies out there to be wasting time away watching bad ones. Thats one of the philosophies that have really stuck with me.

I should make my own show, called Blue Collar Movie Reviews, where I review movies and disagree with people like A.O. Scott. How the heck do you think 12:08 East of Bucharest is "acutely funny"? More like acutely boring.

My wife and I stopped seeing films in theaters shortly after your show with Richard went off the air. Without advice from people we trusted, we just lost interest and got DVDs from our local library to watch at home.

'Ebert Presents' renewed our enthusiasm and we're going back to the theater now.

Is that unique to us? I suspect not . . .

Is there an association of theater owners that could be your 'angel'? Underwriting would seem a small investment to put butts in seats and sell popcorn -- sans the plastic butter, please.

I'm glad to read that you are considering some crowd-funding sources like kickstarter to help for next year's production. It really is amazing how much can be funded by such an approach.

I know a documentary film-maker who has raised $71,000 total for her project. Now if these two (hard working but relatively unknown Winnipeg film-makers) can raise that amount, imagine what you could do Roger.

Could you do it year after year? Probably not, but I'm sure you could get another session out of it, which may in turn give the 'angel' enough time to show up for session 3.

Here is an article about James and Lisanne's success...

http://tinyurl.com/cfqoyrn

Winnipeg’s Lisanne Pajot and James Swirsky have used crowd-sourced funding to raise $35,000 in just over 24 hours to complete Indie Game: The Movie.

(psst - anyone interested in the quirky world of the video game creators - please click my name to get to Lisanne's kickstarter page.)

As others have mentioned and I would like to reiterate, while the shows seems wonderful from your description, I don't have a TV, it seems odd that someone with a very widely viewed blog hasn't come thought of changing the format to perhaps an online video podcast. Off the top of my head , the show could be watched over the internet, or streamed as an MP3 format and heard on the go. If it was placed on your website blog I would not be alone in watching it.

Also, previously you talked about how you were unsure of where to take "The Ebert Club" in terms of content. How about if the individuals subscribed had access to the show prior to other individuals, and perhaps if it was changed to a podcast style allow subscribers to interact with the shows host and ask questions extra in the future.

Roger,

That's too bad. You and siskel were lightning in a bottle, never to be matched... it's near impossible to find the kind of chemistry you two had. Even when I was a kid watching the early shows, everyone I knew had an opinion about both of you, always agreeing with "the one who likes good movies" and disagreeing with "the snob" (I never followed which of you they meant - to me it seemed like on some shows you came off as the snob and others you had more mainstream tastes than Siskel).

You had a good run. You and Siskel invented a formula that lasted for decades. and you can rest knowing you gave it your last, best shot. Thank you for that.

Dear Roger,

I'm greatly saddened to hear that your show is ending, but not because I was a regular viewer.. I was always a fan of the show that you did with Gene Siskel. In fact, whenever I watch an older film that I have not seen (such as Cinema Paradiso recently), I always check for the archival footage of your show to hear what the two of you had said about it. Back when I watched your show, I wasn't old enough to understand films like the one I mentioned properly. I had not experienced life enough (or had seen enough films), but I always enjoyed listening to your opinions and arguments. I also started seeking out films that the both of you recommended, usually only being accessible in video stores, though. I would probably have never sought out films like La Femme Nikita, One False Move, Red Rock West, The Madness Of King George or The Dreamlife of Angels without your show.

It was at one time, VERY difficult to find your show on local stations. I would have to either stay up or get up at 4 AM to watch it until they moved it to a more reasonable time on early Sunday mornings. As I already pointed out, I would sometimes have to wait years to see some of the films reviewed on your show that I wanted to see (because availability of films was once not what it is now, at least for me).

I have to admit, after Gene died, my enjoyment of your show waned tremendously. I never liked ANY of the replacements for Gene and when you left the show because of your own medical problems then I felt like there was no longer any reason to watch. The replacements (Including Richard Roeper) never engaged me. I think it's because while the two of you are very knowledgable about film and were/are well spoken accordingly, you never seemed like... well, film critics. Sure you two had your pretentious moments when a film like "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife And Her Lover" was on the docket to be reviewed, but you weren't above calling the other an idiot. You were/are passionate about the films and there was a competitiveness apparent.

I DO NOT get that from most other critics. With the exception of British film critic Mark Kermode, most critics speak in film school cliche... Much like your two current hosts. "Languid... meandering... narrative... episodic... " It sounds like they're doing high school oral book reports. They may be passionate about film, but from the two clips above, I don't get that at all. Both of them sound like they're trying to out-pretension the other. They're fey argument sounds scripted instead of from the heart. It seems appropriate that you selected Godard's Socialism as a sample film where the argument is... um, yeah. 'Spirited'. Right. Whatever. Anyway, I never got the idea that you or Gene didn't believe what you are saying. When I watch those clips above, I don't see passion. Christy Lemire just seems too nice to be taken seriously and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky seems like an art house prick for a lack of better words. I think this is the reason your show is floundering/floundered. No passion and not relatable to 'common folk'. If I were 15 again, I couldn't see watching these two the way I watched you and Gene.

I still enjoy your columns, though. I don't always agree with them (an example of that can be found here: http://crashlanden.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/i-like-roger-ebert-but-sometimes-hes-a-complete-idiot/), but like Mark Kermode you have something more to offer than typical critic rhetoric. "Languid... meandering... narrative... episodic... " As others have said, I hope you continue the show at least online, but if you're going to bring back some of your 'old fans' like me, you better find some critics that have at least a semblance of the fire that Gene and yourself had. If you had found that in two critics, your show would have had (or have) at least one more viewer.

Still a fan though (I get your weekly Sun-Times email edition),
Crash! Landen

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned (or seems ridiculous), but with your friendship with Oprah, perhaps the show might make a home at OWN? Again, perhaps a silly idea, but thought I'd throw it out there.

Also, if and when you decide to monetize your youtube account, I think it would be best, because you can only view the first two lines of the description while browsing youtube, to try to put in big name stars into those first two lines.

Like say for the youtube video, you are reviewing movies with Justin Timberlake and George Clooney...make sure you put those names in the first two lines of the description....

George Clooney shows charismatic charm in"Ides of March"..Justin Timberlake brings his acting chops to sci-fi in "In Time"..Spielberg's adventerous spirit comes to "Rin Tin Tin"...

That's about all you can fit in the browsing, but I"m telling you it will work.

I know all about this stuff.

This is separate but I know about display stuff too, which is different but kind of the same. When I used to work as a stocker at Loew's there was this one like bug-spray kit or something; I don't know, it was on the floor and came in a pretty big box. Well, what I did was stacked it where it looked all random, but where it actually was easies to read without touching; I had it all moved around to where you can read all four sides of the box all in one glance, rather than stocking as usual (one behind the other in a line) also putting the white sides in at the front and gradually going darker; so the boxes would like sort of like a weird mess on the ground, with them stacked on top of each other all weird and such, but you took one look down and you could read every side of the box with the white part in the front (to kind of attract the eye in the first place). And guess what? they sold like hot cakes. When I did it the regular way, just putting one behind the other, they didn't sell at all.

So, it will work. Just make it easy for them to find such as that above and your youtube thing will get WAY more hits. Just basically do it just the way I did above, with all the star names crammed into about 140 characters, like a tweet (maybe also have the tweet be the same way and just use the tweet in the youtube description).

Here's one way you might raise money for the show. What if there was a Netflix button at the end of the review that would automatically reserve it the film in my queue? My i-phone Flixster app does just that, and it's very handy. Could you work out such an arrangement with Netflix that would allow your readers to do the same? You'd have to be paid because of having the button available, since basing it on how often it was used could obviously represent a conflict of interest with your reviewing. Would the rent from doing this amount to enough to underwrite the show?

My comment didn't post. Have I been banned? This is an outrage. Two thumbs down.

I am a regular reader of Ebert's online reviews and generally agree with his views. However, I am not a big fan of TV film reviews, even the Sieskel and Ebert show way back. While I haven't seen the show, it doesn't appeal to me to try and see it anyway. That sounds harsh; it may have to do with the fact that TV is bloated with movie trailers, movie star gossip, and edited versions of movies, so I would rather read a good review than watch/listen to it.

No way this service can be allowed to die! Take it to the Internet, and offer a mobile app. I've ONLY watched the show via via links included in Ebert Club Newsletter emails. Cable video is irrelevant -- canceled mine over a year ago! Both InternetMovieDatabase and RottenTomatoes/Flixster should be begging for this content. Netflix and Blockbuster are also contenders, although both have made so many missteps who knows if they will survive. Other possibilities: Hulu, Redbox (particularly if they choose to extend their appeal beyond current releases); Amazon.com (they are in an excellent position to challenge Netflix dominance in both DVD rentals and streaming).

While I will be disappointed if the show ceases to exist, it is more out of loyalty to the tradition than affection for the current implementation. I've been a loyal watcher since the earliest Sneak Previews days, abandoning the successors only during the ridiculous Lyons and Mankiewicz year. In recent years I thought Roeper, Scott, and Phillips did an excellent job. I find the current reviewers just tolerable.

I would hate to see the show die, but would be excited by any version or platform that mixed Roger with some combination of Roeper, Scott and Phillips.

This is certainly hugely disappointing news. My hat is off to you guys for forging and funding the current version of the show - it has become part of my weekly routine, and I always look forward to the new episodes.

That said, while I admire and understand the desire to have this sort of film criticism on TV, I have to admit that I've yet to actually watch any episode via that medium. Due to my own schedule and also due to the utter convenience, I've ended up watching every episode via the website. So while I'd be sad to see the show go from TV to the web (if continuing that way is even option, I don't know), I'd vote that if that's what it takes for it to survive, then that is preferable to extinction. In losing the TV component, yes, we'd be losing something substantial. But I'll take the show in a different form over no show at all.

I truly hope and pray you find a way to save the show, and keep your vision alive. Thank you for all your effort and ambition in making the show happen in it's current incarnation. It is something the world indeed needs.

Jim Tudor, film reviewer
twitchfilm.com

Sorry to hear the show may not be back. I had some trouble getting it on my dvr since the pbs channel it was on had it on earlier, later, etc. Finally starting recording a half hour before the show and and hour after and got to see several whole shows. I agree the hosts were intelligent, interesting and fun to watch. And always great to hear your reviews. Why not go to commercial TV? With all the worthless nonsense on all the channels that I never watch surely there is room for an intelligent movie review show. How about Turner Movie Channel or AMC or another. I no longer care about commercials since with the dvr I just skip them.
Hate to see if go. Thanks to you and Chaz for trying...

Roger, it saddens me that you're going through a tough time. I've been a fan of yours for 35 years and it pains me to say I think its time to let the show go.

You have a great website and a good life, don't add any unnecessary stress as it's just not worth it. You have millions of fans and you've always been honest, count your blessings and move on.

Roger,

I can't tell you how much I loved the original At the Movies. I also really love the new one and I try to catch it as often as I can.

My suggestion to you is this. Don't waste your time with PBS or any other network. Get in touch with Kevin Rose at revision3.com and Leo Laporte at twit.tv. They are running a great deal of shows that are broadcast only on the Internet and they are able to to make a living doing it.

They are both very supportive of other internet media ventures as well. Pick their brains. Let them show you how they do things. Don't let your amazing show die!

Your fans and the fans of Christy Lemire and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky are willing to listen to commercials, but valuable ones that matter to the audience. I know many of us would be happy to actually subscribe to the show or make donations.

You would be surprised how many people are willing to directly subsidize the show given the value that it provides to them.

People that care about movies also care about how they watch them. There should be no shortage of home entertainment companies willing to have your audience hear about their products. Especially if those products are something that you, Christy, and Ignatiy actually use and recommend.

Watch the personal touch for ads on the TWIT.tv network. They use and enjoy the products that support their shows. Its not just blind advertising.

I know you and Chaz can get this done, make it great, and actually get paid for it :).

Has anyone suggested Reelzchannel? I know Richard Roeper works with them. They need a hit show, and working with you would give them tremendous goodwill. Why not contact them?

This news deeply saddens me. I love the show! I hope you find enough backers in time.

You seem to have an exclusive desire to show on public TV. Do you have some objection to shopping the show to commercial TV? It seems it would be a good fit for any of the cable news channels, several of which seem hard up for weekend programming.

You know what, connecting Ig and Christy to Netflix or somebody isn't a bad idea! There are so many choices I just don't know what to watch. I've run out of the ones I know are really good and lately have been striking out by guessing.

Like Roger at Ebertfest. Never heard of 'em, am always surprised.

...and Ig, in particular, with his encyclopedic knowledge, could go 'waaaay back and pick the pepper out of the flyspecks.

It's a shame to see it go.

I do thank you for showing the clips on your website too so people outside the US can watch it too. Too often do you get the "not available in your country" messages.

I watch "At the Movies" on PBS. But also sometimes by downloading a complete episode or visiting the website. So I use all three options. That way, I never miss it, even when life gets in the way.

Ie: I don't care how I see it. Only that I can and for it still being in production. If you make it, I will find it.

And I like Christy and Ignatiy. They don't come across like Barbie and Ken. They don't feel plastic or phony; if I want to watch Entertainment Tonight, I will.

And even though I didn't like Film Socialism as much as he did, Ignatiy nevertheless scores a point when asking:

"Why shouldn't there be a Llama at the gas station?!"

Indeed, why not? While conversely, Christy observed rightly when describing Godard as "cranky." Smile.

I like how they go about it. They say what they think. They don't talk over or under my head. I always understand them. And they don't come across like a pair of used car salesmen trying to sell me something I don't want.

I still remember watching Christy and Ignatiy review Jane Eyre (2011) and gasping in surprise when she liked it!

Wha..? But why?! It's crap! I yelled.

And then Ignatiy called it "hollow" and I breathed a sigh of relief. :-)

They engage me the way Gene and Roger used to, just in a different way. What matters, is that they give me something to think about, whether we agree or not.

Whereas slick and shinny corporate-paid Barbie and Ken types hired to pander to a certain demographic?

They make me mentally reach for a croquet mallet while envisioning a nasty mishap.

I love the show for what it is, but also for what it's not. I want to see it continue and if there's any truth to Quantum Mechanics, it will.

Whatever can happens, does.

Smile.

While KickStarter may or may not be the best option for Ebert to raise funds, it's not a scam. That said, my experience with it this summer tells me two things: It's possible to raise funds for your project if you're very dedicated, and Kickstarter will not do all the hard work for you. Kickstarter is more of a platform to to run your fundraising campaign on, and has a few ground rules to help give some assurance to backers that they aren't throwing money at a doomed project and give them incentive to pledge before the deadline.
With Kickstarter, it is still important for projects to get the word out themselves. The project I'm involved with failed the first time on Kickstarter because we didn't realize how to promote ourselves until the campaign was almost over. When we tried again with better PR and a bit more to show for ourselves, we raised over $25,000. That month we got articles in Open Source news sites and talked with indie filmmakers (our target audience), trying to spread the word as far as we could given our relatively unknown status.
The deadline aspect of Kickstarter seems really important since most pledges seem to happen in the last week of any campaign, probably 3/4ths of all our pledges happened at the end. I suspect this forces people to act rather than putting it off indefinitely.
For you, Mr. Ebert, I'm not going to advise you to pick KickStarter over any other crowdfunding mechanism, but I have a feeling you would succeed at crowdfunding given your large fanbase. It would be easy for you to put an article on your blog about the campaign, perhaps a mention of it at the beginning/end of your show, and I'm fairly certain you know who to contact to get covered in most major newspapers. PR would come easier for you than most given your celebrity.
*Yes* I would totally pledge to a crowdfunding campaign, as would my family, just like I did for a wonderful animated film called Sintel.

Roger

Youtube is launching *100* new TV channels.

This might be a great fit.

Here is some background info:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-10-29/youtube-original-programming/50997002/1

Richard

I have something to say and I deserve to be heard. Do what it takes to keep the show going. I'm not partial to the ruski duck or the lip-gloss valley girl but they are growing on me. Don't pay Public Television anymore for the right to broadcast, do it online. I don't get up early on the weekends anyway. If you need some cash let me know where to donate.

I really hope the show can continue. I have to see it online now because my family switched to a new cable provider and I no longer have the local channel that "Ebert Presents" aired on. I 've been a fan since I was a little kid (I'm a 90s child) and I watched "Siskel and Ebert" and "Ebert and Roeper". I like both Christy and Ignatiy as well.

I think some corporation tied to the movie business (Netflix!) could pay for the show. I hope it works out.

This is such a shame. Roger, your reviews and criticisms have been so inspiring to me. I knew I wanted to be a critic for a long time, but I didn't know what sort of critic I wanted to be until I started reading your work. (Of course, I happen to review video games, which you hate, but that's besides the point :p ) This show represents something really special and rare today--a show where people talk about movies just because they want to talk about movies. Not because there's financial gain to be had for promoting/dissing a certain film.

My suggestion: a podcast. Yes, movies are a visual medium. But Ebert Presents is not necessarily a visual show. The criticisms, the banter and discussion between your hosts: that's where the magic is at. Imagine the benefits of being able to completely do away with the cost of cameras, animation, sets and directors and focus on what really maters: a couple of people just talking, analyzing, and criticizing movies. Podcasting, although new, is not beneath you. Some of the most wonderful entertainment of the past few years has been available through Podcasting. It's cheap, it's widely accessible, and it's able to capture the essence of what makes your show great while cutting out huge costs. It's worth a shot.

Put together an Ebert at the Oscars party. All your new "Ebert Presents" donors get an invitation. Donate at the local level, and you stay local on Oscar night, but attend a great party at a local theater, enjoy some great food and drink, hobnob with fellow local film and Ebert fans, watch the festivities on the big screen, plus whatever else the local Ebert org. could cook up.

Donate above a certain level, and you can fly out to the Hollywood party, watch the show closed circuit at the Ebert venue (large Hollywood theater or convention space), with special behind-the-scenes content for Ebert guests. Maybe some of the stars would show up to this Oscars party. (And maybe some local film/theater/music talent would show up at the local events to make those cool, too.)

Then, maybe let local Ebert Presents clubs turn into movie-night-out clubs, where people choose new or old films to screen once a week or month, and the Ebert org. makes that happen in local theaters around the world.

I just read that from the youtube monetization, that you would probably make like $2.50 per 1000 views. With the way I suggested of putting stars names and their significance etc. in 140 characters, I think you would regularly get around 70,000 views (without it, probably 40,000 or so). So, every 10,000 views, will get you $25 dollars, and you'd regularly get (without or without my help) about 50,000 views per video, then you'd make about $100 per video (or episode) on youtube (or you could do movie segments/show segments). One thing is for sure, when movies, liek "The Dark Knight Rises" comes out, that thing is to get hundreds of thousands of hits and thus meaning hundreds of dollars.

You tweeted recently that Christy and Ignatiy have reviewed 200 movies that are archived. I think, although they are old, that you could put those movies up onto youtube, and over a period of about 2 years, each one of those 200 movies will get around 50,000 views, or $100 (especially if you do from the model I gave above). So, in two years, just from those 200 movies, you'd make $2,000 all for free (100 X 200); it would take so long I guess because the movies are older (in three years, it would probably be $4,000). But for newer ones, you'd make that money quicker. Really, if you have 100,000 followers or so, and I know this might not be realistic, but if you could get them to click on every youtube movie-segment up that you tweet (which is about 5 per episode), then that would be 100,000 views ($25 for every 1,000 views, so, that's $2,500 per movie they click on)...so, for every episode and getting everyone to click on your segment (we'll say 5), you'd make $10,000--$12,000 per episode all for free, just by uploading it to youtube and having your followers click on the link for you.

So, you should check to see, for whoever runs the youtube channel, to check to see if there is a monetization option (it will be at top of page)....or contact youtube.

We're talking thousands of dollars for every tweet (and have your followers conspire to click on those links). Then you'd probably get big advertisers like McDonalds and the McRib or something on your youtube channel and they'll be kicking back to you thousands of dollars per tweet.

Thousands of dollars per tweet (movie-segment)...something to think about...McDonalds and places like that will notice the large following and put some ads up on your channel...

$10,000 dollars per episode through twitter and youtube

If I ran Netflix, and wanted to recover some positive PR, I would be ALL OVER THIS. Sponsor the series, then get the rights to put in on Netflix after the episodes air. Would be absolutely perfect for them. Considering how frequently you mention various films being available for streaming on Netflix, well, they sorta owe you one.

Roger.

Try Harvard University. Seriously. They have more cash than anyone around and are very supportive of this sort of thing. I bet if you found the right people to talk to you might find your angel.

Perhaps someone at the Harvard Film Archive could point you in the right direction.

Check this out----> http://hcl.harvard.edu/hfa/

And this page has all the contact info. http://hcl.harvard.edu/hfa/contact.html
(These are well-connected people. and I have to think the name "Roger Ebert" would get their attention but quick.)

I have faith that you can save this. Millions of people love you.

maybe tweet something like this..."I need everyone's help....if you want to help keep Ebert Presents on the air, watch Christy and Ignatiy review the charismatic George Clooney in ""the Descendants".and do that for every New movie segment (I wouldn't try to do this for the old movie segments...just for the new segments; trying to make money from the old segments would seem too dishonest)....and they'll click on the youtube link and boom...

My two cents, I am a movie nut. I study them, I love them, and I would love to be lucky enough to make them someday (no delusions of grandeur though, but maybe my daughter will take up the mantle). If there is anyone in this United States that I admire, it is you Mr. Ebert. I have to admit, most of my watching of movies or other programming is done online now, either Hulu or Netflix, but I go to your SunTimes website or Ebert Presents website at least once a day to help me decide what I am going to watch.

Also, I feel that through Ebert Presents, you are trying to bring up the critics (who I prefer to think of as guides) who will guide us after you are gone. I think about that day, and I know that you are trying to give us something here.

So if anyone should help you it is me, and I will. PayPal, Kickstarter, both, whatever, I am behind you and will pay, I promise. We already have too little of you, who can guide us through the muck to the diamonds.

Give us some numbers, and say where to go (maybe I did not say that correctly). And one more thing, God help us, advertising and making a profit is not everything. Ars gratia artis, and you get what you pay for.

Hi Roger, I have just a quick, random question. Why do you think J. Edgar is getting mixed to negative reviews? You seemed to like it a lot, and I was just wondering.

Ebert: It's a very subtle, perceptive character study, and some viewers possibly expected higher energy from Eastwood. It's very good but not always what people were expecting.

YIPPIE!!

Anything I can do to close the door harder, let me know.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The End.

I made a comment over at Facebook and I'm not sure if it got onto here and rather than check over all the replies right now I'll just write it again. It saddens me that once again we are looking at the end of the movie review show, which seems to occur every two years.
2006: You leave due to cancer surgery and can never come back.
2008: Disney decides to change the format, which has you and Richard Roeper ending your run at Disney and giving us a year of the Bens (okay, Manckiewicz was fine, but Lyons was terrible).
2010: Disney ends At the Movies, even though they brought back Michael Phillips, who was a good partner with Roeper.
Now 2012: Ebert Presents At the Movies gone?
IS NOTHING SACRED AROUND HERE????? I hope you will be able to get the funding you need to keep this show on the air. It is a good show to watch, although it is too bad you don't have Roeper and Phillips since they would be good additions.

You the man, Roger.

>Clint Eastwood question for Roger

So far you've given Eastwood damn near 40 'thumbs up' over your mutual careers. Does Clint hold the actor/director record for most positive Ebert reviews(3 stars or better)?

*Blog archives

Ebert: Forty? Has he made that many movies?

This is a response to "Me O'My November 10, 2011 4:02 AM". That post was inarticulate. The poster uses the phrase "bad rubbish". To what does he refer?

1. Is it his opinion that there should be no movie review programs at all on public television? (Or that there should be no public television?)

2 .Is it his opinion that there should be no movie review programs on television at all?

3. Does he refer to the people associated with the program (the hosts, the producer, the director, etc.)?

4. Does he refer to its format (i.e. a half hour of two people in dialogue)?

5. Does he refer to its content? I.e. does the poster not care for the films that are reviewed on the program? Or does he not care for the reviewers' opinions?

6. Does he not like movies at all and would prefer e.g. a cooking or gardening show in its place?

7. Which half hour movie review program on television does the poster think is of greater quality? (Please compare apples to apples. It is inappropriate to compare a half hour television program to a book or to e.g. Cahiers du cinema or to a multi-year graduate course in filmmaking.)

What about the program is "bad rubbish"? Please be specific.

I enjoy movies. I enjoy Public Television. I enjoy the current Ebert program and I enjoyed all of its ancestors (At the Movies, etc.).

It is not the only means by which I learn about movies. I read newspaper reviews, I read website reviews, I read books on movies, I listen to family and friends when they discuss and recommend movies. I have done everything but study film in a formal academic setting. I like movies and I do not understand why anyone who likes movies would make such a comment.

I never always agreed with Siskel or Ebert or any other reviewer. I have my own tastes and interests. But all the reviewers on these programs have been knowledgeable and articulate so that even if I disagreed with them the reviews were useful (and entertaining). I would use them as a relative gauge, standard, or a barometer and the better I understood their likes and dislikes the more useful their reviews became. And that takes time.

The poster gives no reason for his opinion. He offers no suggestions on what he would do to make the program better.

Mr. Ebert, do you have any idea what this individual means?

Roger, I apologize for writing an unrelated post (I do very much hope you're able to keep your show on the air!), but I had to tell you just how much you made me laugh at this line in your review of Melancholia: "The wedding planner is played by the ominous Udo Kier, who you will agree is correctly cast to run a wedding at the end of the world."

I do agree and what a delightfully amusing observation!

Your work is as sharp, thoughtful, observant, and clever as ever.

Roger, Leo LaPorte has bootstrapped a video production network on the Internet called TWiT (This Week in Tech), he does "live reads" of commercials and he has 8 or more shows which are produced weekly and daily. Andy I. can tell you about him. Andy is on a TWiT show called "MacBreak Weekly." I am sure you could do your program in a similar fashion. The old tv model does not have to be the way to get your show out there. I can even watch TWiT on my big screen tv using a Roku box which has a TWiT Channel, where I can select all the shows. They get them up on there very fast, usually within 24 hours, they even have a Live feed. (which I admit does not work very well at times, but the recorded shows play fine.) the Roku box works over a home wifi network. Again, it sounds complicated, but I am sure Andy I. can explain it easily!

Take heart Roger, this is doable! If Leo can do it I know you can!

Please allow me to point out what Roger is too polite to:

That all these knuckleheads saying, "move it to the Internet", didn't really read his blog post. He already HAS a great *distribution network*. Nowhere does he say the problem is in distribution. In fact- it's already being shown on TV all across the country and is doing quite well. (What would throwing that away change?)

The problem is finding a revenue source to PRODUCE the show. To make the program itself- not to get it to the viewers. Thus far, this is what he and his wife have been paying out of pocket for, not to transmit it to our TV sets.

Oh, and to the guy above who said, "Anything I can do to close the door harder, let me know"....

It's alright that you don't like the program. In fact it's to be expected because it does tend to be a show geared towards smart people.

AGAIN! We are all begging you! PLEASE - an address to which we can send 'stop-gap' =or maybe more= funds! Let us do SOMEthing while this all sorts out! Heck, I do it for deadbeat relatives, might as well do it for someone i REALLY care about! ADDRESS FOR DONATIONS, PLEASE! ! ! Cassandra

Hi Roger,

I'm sad to hear this news about the show, and although at times I was troubled by it, I did appreciate everything that went into it and that the tradition was still being carried on.
My issues with the show were not big. I don't for a second think that the hosts weren't intelligent, I just feel they represented two different demographics of movie goers, one with opinions geared toward general audiences and the other towards film students/ people that aren't exactly entertained by movies, but expect an experience.
Is it odd that I get that sense? Is that purposeful?
I loved this show, living in New York now, it took me back to when the show would at least be on back in my home of Chicago, especially the music for some reason, and the fact that it's on later here really just put me in a certain atmosphere. The fact of the matter is that this is an important show. I'm troubled that you don't exactly offer a solution to this, but if there is anything the public can do, I'd certainly be a person that would donate or help if I could.

Hey, Roger. I'm a critic for a review program called "Just Seen It" that is entirely run by USC film students. Many of us grew up watching your reviews. Our showrunner cites you as his greatest influence in our show's mission statement. I just wanted to say that your work in television has been the source of inspiration for all of us working on the program. We all hope for the best regarding "Ebert Presents At the Movies". Below is a sample of the show that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pc1YqPPRfE&feature=player_embedded

Hmm... You 'held' my post... Was it the link?

Have you ever thought to approach Oprah Winfrey about possibly moving the show to OWN? Her network could definitely use the quality programming and a show like yours seems like a perfect fit. It'd be a win-win situation! I would hate to lose Ebert Presents (again). Best of luck to you all.

This program needs to be saved. Where else will we get intelligent movie commentary/reviews like the ones on "Ebert Presents At the Movies"?

Is there any particular reason you can't syndicate the show and sell ad space for it? Or is that too "commercial" an approach for you? Did experiences with the previous show leave too much of a bad taste in your mouth? I'm sure if the show has the viewership you say it does it shouldn't have any trouble finding an outlet, even if it means using a commercial structure.

Dear Roger,

Sorry to be the truth teller here but.....

First let's be clear as far as I know in the west here there is NO other show for current movies, hence your stats. However on your first episode I smelled doom immediately. Christy is perhaps the very worst choice made for a host. Like it or not admit it or not but the entire show is tainted FOR women leaving men out in the cold or at least that's how I feel. Ignaty is okay ONLY if there is a GOOD counter point to his exlcusive tastes that NO ONE else on the globe has.
In short the wrong hosts spell doom. Leave the women's lib thing alone then pick GOOD hosts and run with it.

I started with Siskel & Ebert at 14 years old and have been with you every step of the way since then. Over the years and across 30+ countries I have had shows taped (VHS), critiques mailed, and (thank goodness for the internet) read your reviews on some of the dodgiest Wi-Fi links imaginable. Thumbs up or down your insight and guidance has proved invaluable. I cannot say thank you enough.

Here is my two cents (many previously mentioned above):

(1) Go online as a low cost option.
(2) Crazy though it may seem how about posting a bi-monthly show on Youtube? Not sure if possible (legally or otherwise), but certainly worth looking into.
(3)Internet/Digital Radio? As lovely as Christy and Ignatiy are voice-only is okay too. Hearing them interact, critique, etc., can be just as great as the visual.
(4) Podcast. Great, low-cost, accessible on multiple formats (iPhone, Android phones, iPad, Kindle, and more...)

A few more ideas to add to an already brimming basket.

Good luck!

I am sorry to hear this news. I'm a huge fan of yours, Mr. Ebert, and will follow whatever the next endeavor may be. I've stuck with the current show, but wanted to take it off my DVR many times because of the hosts. Perhaps I am in the minority, but I could not warm up to either of them. Ms. Lemire is a serviceable critic with a certain likeability, but she lacks any kind of authority in my opinion. Mr. Vishnevetsky is a self-righteous and smug individual who doesn't have a modicum of charm about him. Is he a Ben Lyons? No. But Mr. V.'s condescending attitude toward Ms. Lemire and the viewer was inexcusable. Perhaps he is a nice guy if you know him personally and maybe he is an intelligent film critic, but I cringed every time he spoke. He does not belong in front of a camera. It's disappointing because we need a show like yours on the airwaves.

Ebert: Ms. Lemire slugs it out for herself pretty well. It's good to have conflicting opinions. I don't find him condescending, but able to listen.

"Ebert Presents" is must see T.V. at my house. We finally got a show back on the air that offers a wide variety of opinions,insight into the history of film, recommendations for not to be missed classic movies and more. It would be such a shame for the show to go off the air. I hope this is resolved in a positive way soon.

It is always cause for jubilation when someone who has been chained to a chair by the Forces of Evil and made to watch a TV show he doesn't like finally manages to escape those bonds. Yes, "wheeee!"

I like Ig and Christy's chemistry. I was surprised, in fact. Satan didn't make me say that, unless he is cleverer than I realize, which could be.

I don't understand what "tainted for women" means. Perhaps a show where Christy's half of the screen is blacked out and a "Not tainted for women" option provided, like close-captions for the deaf, wouldn't doom it so badly.

Standing from the outside, this show looks like what they've said it is, and not an S&E knock-off attempt. They were a phenomenon, like Elvis was a phenomenon. It's not real smart to try to reproduce a phenomenon, even if Elvis imitators did make a little money there for awhile. Yes, this is a smart show.

I can't help but notice, not even PBS is real keen on "smart" lately. That too is a phenomenon, but not as fun to watch as the above-mentioned. Still. Smart people with determination will search it out, wherever it lands.

I love the show. I have recorded every episode since the program aired. If it is cancelled I will be terribly disappointed. So don't misunderstand this question as criticism: Why would anyone "underwrite" a show guaranteed to lose money?

You are the biggest name in film criticism. You've seen the ratings and know you have a market of educated, urban viewers in the key demographic age group. Why PBS? Why not another network?

I do think that Vishnevetsky can sometimes be condescending, but I think sometimes Roger and Gene could condescend to each other as well. My issue with him is his opinion is worthless to the vast majority of the audience. I respect the work he does and he presents himself well, but he could never enjoy a simple, dumb comedy or action movie. His favorite film choices are always film noir and obscure foreign films, which are fine and are honest choices by him, but the vast majority of the audience is not going to go grab those movies to watch them. He gives a thumbs down to 80% of what he sees, and that's simply too much for me. I'd love to see, by year, the percent of thumbs down to thumbs up Gene and Roger gave vs. the % of thumbs down he gives. I've watched shows and counted, and he hates 4 of every 5 movies. Even in the Roeper years, both of them could just enjoy a dumb movie that had its heart in the right place. How do i decide what movie to go see when he hates everything out there? I end up just ignoring him entirely because his tastes are so myopic, and then I'm left with just her opinion.

Again, I think he's genuine, and he's not faking for anyone's approval, and I respect that. I simply don't see him as a critic that the vast majority of the market would enjoy, and I am certainly in that category.

All that being said, given the ratings it has garnered, I don't see this as being the reason the show is failing, right? People are watching. The issue apparently is sponsorship. Am I reading that wrong?

Hi, Mr. Ebert. I've been watching At the Movies in all its variations since roughly 1984 when I was 6 years old. I'm very saddened to hear this news, just as I was to hear that the show was being taken off of non-public television. I was not a fan of Ignatiy in the beginning, but have loyally watched each and every week, and can now see that the chemistry really IS there.

To those saying that the time for this type of show has "passed", I wholeheartedly disagree. People still go to see movies, and need a fair, balanced outlook from critics whose backgrounds and tastes differ. This show does all that, and better than any other variation of a film review show I've seen on television.

If things with public TV don't work out, I'd really like to see an online-only version of the show. I know that would be difficult to pull off with salaries, etc. to pay. However, there may be more opportunity there sponsor-wise, with the Amazon.coms of the world who'd be willing to advertise.

I sincerely hope that the underwriters come a-calling. If not, we will be losing one of the most important pop culture staples of the past few decades, and more importantly, opinions we can trust and respect.

Best of luck, and I hope you find a way to work it all out.

-Brian

My wife and I were longtime fans of Siskel & Ebert and we watched faithfully almost from the show's beginning. We truly mourned when Gene died and followed news of your illness anxiously, keeping you in our thoughts and selfishly hoping that we would continue to be treated by your insights. We HATED Richard Roeper and thought he was the worst possible choice that could have been made as a "replacement" for Gene. His take on Gene's role seemed to be snootiness without the intelligence, charm or wit. Too bad Jeff Greenfield wasn't selected (I'm sure he wasn't available) because he was by far the best guest host you ever had. We suffered through the myriad of new hosts after Roeper mercifully departed and looked forward to the most recent incarnation of the show.

Sadly, Christy Lemire and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky have been more of a disaster than Roeper. Although I'm sure she is an intelligent and thoughtful critic, she does not come across that way on the show; instead, she seems like a giggly schoolgirl who is totally intimidated by Ignatiy. He, like Roeper, also seems to be trying to channel Gene and totally fails, coming across as an insufferable, arrogant and condescending pedant with NO wit or charm. We watched the show for months hoping that it was just the anxiety of TV novices and that they would mellow and improve with time but no luck there. Finally, with deep regrets, we gave up on the show. Now I just follow you on your Web site. If there is any major reason that has probably worked to the detriment of the show, it has been the choice of hosts. You and Gene have big shoes to fill and the candidates must be worthy in order to succeed. Sadly, these two seem to have very small feet.

I saw the show on 11/11 and at the ended did a google search to get your url and say what a fine program it was, only to find that you may not be on next season! Where can donations be sent to keep this program alive? Have you thought about getting indie sponsorship with the caveat that the review has to be independent. I've been a fan since Siskel and Ebert and would hate to see this show cancelled for lack of funding. No, we're not letting you go without a fight.

Of late the only things I watch on the telly are news, sports and the odd show on the lessor channels like AMC or HBO, all the other shows I watch on my computer. While I realize that "At the Movies" has no annoying commercials every five minutes I find I miss the show sometimes because of inconvenient time slots. I prefer to watch it via the computer so I hope you can make it an online show somehow.
Although nothing can truly compare to you and Gene I have still enjoyed watching this new version of "At the movies" so I hope a solution is close at hand.
Personally I would ask Mark Zuckerberg for some advice on this if he's approachable.

Hello Roger and Chaz,

Do you have access to any grantwriters? There are search engines at any library with names of thousands of foundations, organizations that may help.

Do you know Hart Perry? He produced Harlan County USA and I think has his own production company and does things for PBS. He may be able to help. He's a rich guy.

I'll try to find you a foundation that may be able to help.

Laur

P.S. You have the greatest show. Roger - you are the greatest critic of all time.

I hate it when Chicago can't hold onto its treasures. Your show is one of them, although the performers seem ill-matched at times.

Perhaps you can answer a question that has nagged me. Channel 11 ran a (two-part?) show about Chicago a couple of years ago that was produced by WGBH in Boston. Boston! It's outrageous that WTTW couldn't produce a show about its home town.

Could you shed some light on this? Is it that WGBH has a fatter endowment? Are Bostonians more generous at pledge time? Maybe you'll discover an answer to your problem by answering my question . . . you know, Koestler's "bisociative thinking" in action!

You're my hero, whether you answer or not. Best of luck in health and all your ventures.

Maybe HDNET or TCM? They both would be great outlets for your show.

Now, to change the topic if I may...

I stared at the picture of you and Gene on page 8 of the Sunday NY Times (April 4, 2010) for quite awhile. Two people I loved, talking intelligently (rare!) on their subject with not only admiration for each other, but with a winking humor even in dispute. Did I say intelligently? Hard to find that these days.

And, after staring at that great photo I wanted very much to tell you this:

A long time ago, I read your book about your trip to the Cannes film festival. I loved how it took me there, and I vowed: someday I'd meet you early one morning at that favorite cafe of yours and have coffee with you . So sorry that never happened. And...

I once spent a week at Koele Lodge (10 years ago) and noticed that the guest speaker NEXT WEEK was you! Damn. Missed you again. I would have loved very much to meet you in that wonderful place, away from everything that makes up normal life.

It's funny how someone I never met seems like an old friend. Perhaps I'll get that chance to meet you yet, and say hello and thanks.

i'm very satisfied reading you online every week...
your legacy has been written...
time to let go of a "Siskel and Ebert" ghost machine....
redirect your energies into something new....
best...

I'm not a fan on Vishnevetsky but I do love the show. Why not do fundraising for it? I and many fans alike would gladly contribute to keep the show on air. If 500 people donate $100, that's $50,000 right there. Simple and easy.

Roger,

I loved your original show. You and Siskel were amazing. You and Roeper were very very good. Roeper and Phillips/Scott was again very good, and Scott/Phillips was approaching the level of you and Gene before it was canceled.

But your new show just doesn't have the same flavor. I'm sorry. I like when we get a segment from you, but Ignaty and Christy just DO NOT have the chemistry like the other pairings had. They also never feel natural. Everything feels so staged and like it is local tv personalities on public access.

You and Gene, or you and Richard, Michael and Tony, you all had real, engaging conversations and arguments. You guys had passion, and sometimes seemed like you would come to blows. But Christy and Ignaty are stale. They feel wooden and not human, not emotive. And so I can barely stomach the show.

Plus, Ignaty's tastes are just plain bizarre. I wouldn't always agree with you Roger (I had much more connection to the other big 4, Gene, Richard, Tony and Michael) but I knew where you were coming from. Ignaty, I have no idea. The man is at once super pretentious and yet completely inhuman in his tastes. He like BAD art films, but doesn't like Good ones. It's bizarre and I have no connection to him. But Christy never even battles or challenges him when he goes off the deep end.

Get new critics. Get a new, HUMAN style, like the show used to have. And then the viewers will come. But right now, the show is making the same mistake the Ben and Ben version made. You've got a critic with poor taste, and an overly staged and smiley "style" that puts off the audience.

Just asking. Is there any particular reason why you can't take the acquired knowledge gained from your many decades involved in film and do something a bit different with it? You keep writing about how movies aren't as good as they once were, or as they could be. You could help do something about that. YouTube is free, just about anyone can afford a digital camera. Young people are interested in doing constructive and positive things with their time. Making a small-scale Independent film is something anyone can do now.

I think it would be fresh and exciting to let people know about how films are made and how they can relate that to their own creative efforts. People don't know about storyboarding, editing, and so forth. The more they know about how to make a film themselves, the more they can judge the creative merits of what the people with the big bucks have done.

There is no reason this show has to go out of business. It's as much a corner stone of American culture as the superbowl or the hot dog. Its always been there, sometimes providing the only thing everyone in the house could all agree to watch.

I'm out of work right now, but ya I'd give $10 even $20. And I know there are thousands out there like me. It's just a matter of doing what ever it takes Roger. The money is there. Just give us the outlet to make it work. Please please please help us help you!

And another thing..

For those who don't care for the new co-hosts of this show. I respect that. But I have a feeling many of you might be experiencing a sort of "James Bond" effect. Sean Connery will always be bond. And to even try and have a different actor play bond is just sacrilegious. Ignoring the possibility that other actors may bring something new and fresh to the "idea" of James bond. Not replace Sean Connery.

I kind of like the new co-hosts. And I see them as a smart choice for grabbing a new generation of viewers.

I always thought Roeper was kind of a tool though.

Roger,

Perhaps a solution to this problem would be to find a bunch of Shakespeare's plays and rip them up and then burn them while under the influence of opium?

Noo! I love this show and check up on it weekly. Christy and Ignatiy are excellent co-hosts. Best of luck for you to keep it running.

I think someone has commented about this option already - why not simply record it in digital format & upload it to your (already paid for) website www.ebertpresents.com?

You can get rid of expensive props and a local AMC may be happy enough to let your hosts film it in an empty screen in exchange for some real-estate on the web-site. In fact, uploading shows on your website makes it more convenient for a "world-wide" audience to watch it in their own time.

You will surely be able to find sponsors / advertisers once they discover the stickiness of your website visitors (who will keep growing in numbers to watch the uploaded shows).

If this sounds interesting, drop me a line - we can discuss further.

My only criticism of the show was that it was on TV, particularly public TV. What was it Hunter Thompson said about a shallow trench where good people go to die?

Hey, have you guys ever thought about doing 1 minute capsule reviews to air in the pre-preview slate at the theaters? Dress your guys like NASCAR props and have them downing big gulps and wolfing down Orville Redenbacher while they do "Keep an eye out for..." promos? Sure it's whoring--but it's time to get your money back from this labor of love you've been up to.

Chaz--dear---dude---I had no idea you were EPing with your own cash. Wow. You've got some big brass ones.

If you guys do a telethon just to get your money back and then shutter the thing, you've got a check from me coming.

Dear Roger and Chaz,
Having spent the past three decades as a documentary writer/director/producer (mostly for The Discovery Channel and the CBC here in Canada, though many of our films have run on PBS, some via APT) I'm far too familiar with the current financial models to believe this note will be much more than a heartfelt fan letter. As much as I miss you and Gene (and you and Richard), Christy and Ignatiy are doing a wonderful job, the opening is marvelous (the 'Third' iteration. Lovely.) and the love and care that you and Chaz clearly have for this project shines through every frame - an incredibly rare thing in today's television market. I know very well how much television costs to produce and as such find most of the earlier suggestions inspiring (wonderful to see so many fans putting on their thinking caps) but woefully inadequate. (That said, I loved the proposal that you finance the next season by writing "Transformers IV"; Both laugh-out-loud funny and oddly reminiscent of Richard Boone's climactic inquiry to Paul Newman in "Hombre": "Well now, what do you suppose Hell is going to look like?")

The web might be the way to go, but this series deserves to continue on broadcast television. I can't imagine you would want to decamp to Canada to continue production but would be honored to help see if that might be possible, utilizing fundraising models we have available here. I would also be pleased to offer up our in-house post-production facilities as a personal contribution. If any of this sounds useful please don't hesitate to contact me directly. (I believe you have our website info and my personal email address.)

Either way, thank you again for everything you've done and do. I suspect there's no way you could fully know the impact you and your work continue to have on both new readers and viewers, and old farts like me.

You should ring up Leo Laporte at TWIT tv. He's done a solid job of being his own brand...and he seems to be doing OK.

Christy and Ignaty have really grown on me. I would hate to see the show go off the air!!! To lose the show now - after growing to love it - would be such a shame. I have supported theatre projects on IndieGoGo but I have no experience with Kickstarter. If I can contribute to the show in any way, I would gladly do it!

Oh no. This simply won't do.

I haven't read all the comments, so maybe this has been suggested before. Couldn't Oprah use this fabulous show on her OWN channel? I love the show and feel it just couldn't be more perfect, and we get Roger back! This can't be happening, please check this idea out. Best of luck.

Have you considered approaching TCM (or AMC) and seeing if
they'd be be willing to produce the program? Being on TCM
would seem to be a natural fit.

I would be willing to kick in some dough to keep "Ebert Presents" going. I'm on a fairly tight budget but I agree with most of the crowd here that the show is very much needed. When I was a kid, "At the Movies" helped me begin to see what quality meant when it came to films, and I'm grateful now that I had wise guides when I really needed them. I'm glad I was a teenager 30 years ago. I still look to critical opinion on many films before I shell out the $$$.

Movies still matter to the culture at large, but I fear that they are starting to matter more and more in a negative way, leading us further down the rabbit hole of muddled thought (or no thought at all) and nasty-spirited impulses rather than enlightening us or simply cheering us up.

Please, no online subscription-only models though... I use only sites that will let me pay with a gift card so that I don't run the risk of having my valuable information stolen and misused.

Roger and Chaz,
I'm a filmmaker from Kansas City and have been a fan of Roger's for over half my life. I have bought every "Home Movie Companion" going back to the very first volumes "Roger Ebert's Movie Home Companion", to "Roger Ebert's Video Companion" to the new volumes "Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbooks". i think that Mr. Ebert is one of the best film critics since Pauline Kael. Even though I disagree with Roger's take on "Blue Velvet":)

Please let me know where I can send a donation or who I need to write a certified letter to. I'm one hell of a writer cause i learned from the best, Roger Ebert.

John G. McGrath

I am devastated that this show may end. One of the problems for me is that it is only shown at midnight on Sunday morning in Atlanta! Hard to believe that it would only play at that time in such a large city. I would love to see it continued on the internet--that way, sponsors could be found for those short 30 second commercials which precede most of these presentations. Heck, I would even be willing to pay for a subscription! It has been so good to have the program back again--it's just not the same when you read the reviews as when you see and hear two intelligent people discussing the movies with the accompaniment of the clips. I also appreciate finding out about many of those small, independent films which I would otherwise not have known about. I really hope that the show will continue for many years to come--thank you for your love of the movies and your passion for sharing them!

Ebert presents At the movies, is a wonderful broadcast.

It would fit perfectly as weekend programming on OWN.

Roger, you taught me the wonderment of seeing a movie.

My elderly Mom, a semi-shut-in, has her daily life so enriched by the 6 at a time movie package I provide her on Netflix.

She exclusively uses your reviews to determine what goes in her queue.

You knowledge and joy of all things "movie" has benefited both our lives.

Thank you and God Bless.

I would also contribute via kickstarter. I also would really like to watch it on TV. I just don't love watching video online. I think Christie and Ignaty have gotten progressivley better. The show deserves to stay on the air. I also don't think the hiatus helped much.But I do think an opportunity is missed by not making it easy for us to text in, or email a donation.

I just heard the show may be leaving the air, I hope not, I love it!

Hulu or Netflix are the way to go -- Hulu even more so, because it comes with a built in sponsorship apparatus to economically support the show. Would like to know if there have been any discussions with Hulu. Morgan Spurlock recently did a series for them, seems like a good fit....

Just today I used your website reviews to decide which movies I wanted to order from Netflix. That is how I ended up here reading your blog.

I grew up with Siskell & Ebert and hope you keep the show on air and online.

Please let us know what the viewers can do to keep this show alive!

I look forward to it every week, and was so happy to hear you were bringing a review show back. So sad to hear it may go away. :(

Forgive me for my honesty but I think one of the major
problems is the two people who co-host, Christy and Ignatiy;
they lack the charisma, the luster, if you will, that you and Gene had. They seem like people you see every day at the mall. Sorry!
Maybe some different hosts would draw in more funding.

I grew up in a family of movie lovers and have watched At the Movies in its various incarnations from a very young age. As a 13 year old in the early 90's I remember being thrilled to learn that Roger was on the same transatlantic cruise I was and would be speaking about movies to small groups in the theater. Hearing the perspectives of Roger and Gene, and the many other great critics on the show over the years, has enriched the way that I experience films.

I was really enjoying Scott and Phillips, and was skeptical about new hosts with less experience taking up the torch, but I think that the shows this year in the new program have been some of the best yet. Christy is great and Ignatiy's passion for film and his willingness to go against the conventional wisdom (e.g. Transformers) always makes for great discussion. I am very hopeful that a solution to the immediate funding issue is found soon. It boggles my mind that such a great show could go off the air. Rotten Tomatoes is a great tool that has emerged in recent years, but it is no substitute for the analysis you get in the debate format of At the Movies.

Even if there is no immediate fix, this formula and the program in its current form is too good go away and I beleive that Chaz and Roger will come up with something in the longer term. Best of luck!

I've really enjoyed the new show and am saddened that it has ended. I've been watching Roger Ebert for years. Hope you can resume programming at some point.