It's being announced in the news today that Roger Ebert is cutting ties with the show that he and fellow film critic, the late Gene Siskel, made so watchable.
At the Movies has been a staple of television for many, many years. It began with film critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel. Richard Roeper took over after the untimely death of Gene Siskel.
In an e-mail to The Associated Press on Monday, Ebert said Disney-ABC Domestic Television had decided to take the show "in a new direction" and he won't be associated with it.
Roeper had announced yesterday that his contract was not renewed for the new season and that he would be leaving the show.
"Several months ago, Disney offered to extend my contract, which expires at the conclusion of the 2007-08 season," Roeper said. "I opted to wait. Much transpired after that behind the scenes, but an agreement was never reached, and we are all moving on."
Roeper's last appearance will be Aug. 16th-17th.
He hopes to host another review show similar to the format that Ebert and Siskel made so popular.
Roeper said he intends to "proceed elsewhere ... as the co-host of a movie review show that honors the standards established by Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert more than 30 years ago."
Ebert and Roeper leaving At the Movies
-
Lzcutter
- Administrator
- Posts: 3149
- Joined: April 12th, 2007, 6:50 pm
- Location: Lake Balboa and the City of Angels!
- Contact:
Ebert and Roeper leaving At the Movies
Lynn in Lake Balboa
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
All things must come to an end and that will be a sad finale. A long time ago I tuned in 5 minutes early to make sure I didn't miss a second. I love the way Siskel & Ebert almost always disagreed. I trusted them. When they agreed on a movie - thumbs up, I saw it, thumbs down, I didn't see it. If they disagreed, I generally went with Ebert. He was more genteel in his likes, so I usually felt I would enjoy it. Sometimes Siskel gave a thumbs up on things like Halloween for its shock value, not my thing as you know.
Anne
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
cinemalover
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
- Location: Seattle, Washington
Tonight's news on CBS announced that Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz will be the replacements for Ebert and Roeper. So will Ben continue emceeing for TCM on weekends?
Surprise, surprise!!!
Anne
Surprise, surprise!!!
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
Lzcutter
- Administrator
- Posts: 3149
- Joined: April 12th, 2007, 6:50 pm
- Location: Lake Balboa and the City of Angels!
- Contact:
Anne,
I'm betting that Ben stays. He could his intros and outros in a day either in the studio in Atlanta, NYC or LA, depending upon where he is.
Kind of the way Robert O does now.
I'm betting that Ben stays. He could his intros and outros in a day either in the studio in Atlanta, NYC or LA, depending upon where he is.
Kind of the way Robert O does now.
Lynn in Lake Balboa
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
-
jdb1
Who is Ben Lyons? Is he a print critic or on TV?
Well, I'm glad to hear that Our Ben will be on the show, since he has some knowledge of what went before in cinema, and can, we hope, make some educated assessments of current movies.
Over the past few weeks I've been hearing my daughter complain about movies. She surfs through the myriad cable movie channels and complains that the current crop are so stupid, so boring, so trivial, etc. She rarely attends movies in the theaters any more (although I'm sure she'll attend the X Files movie, maybe more than once.)
Still, her comments are something I didn't think I'd hear from the current generation. Maybe my little girl is growing up.
Well, I'm glad to hear that Our Ben will be on the show, since he has some knowledge of what went before in cinema, and can, we hope, make some educated assessments of current movies.
Over the past few weeks I've been hearing my daughter complain about movies. She surfs through the myriad cable movie channels and complains that the current crop are so stupid, so boring, so trivial, etc. She rarely attends movies in the theaters any more (although I'm sure she'll attend the X Files movie, maybe more than once.)
Still, her comments are something I didn't think I'd hear from the current generation. Maybe my little girl is growing up.
-
Lzcutter
- Administrator
- Posts: 3149
- Joined: April 12th, 2007, 6:50 pm
- Location: Lake Balboa and the City of Angels!
- Contact:
Judith,
Ben Lyons is the son of critic Jeffrey Lyons. His grandfather is someone well-known as well but I can't remember who.
Ben Lyons is the son of critic Jeffrey Lyons. His grandfather is someone well-known as well but I can't remember who.
Lynn in Lake Balboa
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."
"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese
Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
Ebert was a terrific critic in his hey-day. It seems that once Disney became involved with the show, Ebert's reliability became compromised; draw your own conclusions. Despite that, he probably knows more and projects 100 times the intellect than the majority of his contemporaries. Roeper is a miserable excuse for a critic and will not be missed, at least not by me.
-
jdb1
Ah. The grandpa was Leonard Lyons, who was famous for prowling the nightclubs for gossip along with his wife, who sort of rode shotgun. There are characters in Sweet Smell of Success based on them.Lzcutter wrote:Judith,
Ben Lyons is the son of critic Jeffrey Lyons. His grandfather is someone well-known as well but I can't remember who.
Boy, I'm getting old! Jeffrey Lyons has a son old enough to be a critic himself? I remember when Jeffrey was the Boy Wonder entertainment reporter on some local NYC TV station.
I just saw a promo for the XFiles movie and learned the guy's name was Fox. I just thought that was different. Never having seen an episode, I was not interested in their names but the name Fox for a first name just hit me as unique.
Is that movie a closure to the series? or just a continuation? I just realized I could be hijacking this thread. If someone has an answer for me, please bring it over to the Sci-fi thread. I have a tid bit to note over there.
Thanks
Anne
Is that movie a closure to the series? or just a continuation? I just realized I could be hijacking this thread. If someone has an answer for me, please bring it over to the Sci-fi thread. I have a tid bit to note over there.
Thanks
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
Now that we have a profusion of information at our fingertips thanks to the internet (and IMDB), do professional movie critics even matter anymore? Hearing that a film is a train wreck doesn't discourage me from wanting to see it - in fact, I'm more likely to see a disaster than an Oscar contender (the only type of unbearable bad film is a bad comedy). And while I continue to see the value of film analysis and scholarship, I don't necessarily value film criticism as much as I once did. Even within my own lifetime (30 years, give or take), I've found film critics to be shockingly wrong about the cultural and aesthetic value of a film.
FWIW, Danny Peary is the only critic (if he can be called such) that I have ever read, and to this day I still check out his reviews from time to time. And yet he doesn't really fit the mold of what I consider the conventional film critic - he reveres trash as much or, in some cases, more than the classics of world cinema. And best of all, he never used an asinine star rating system, thumbs up/down, etc (which many people rely on so that they don't have to strain themselves to read or listen to an entire review). I hate it that Peary's given up film writing to concentrate on sports writing (specifically baseball). I loved his Guide for the Film Fanatic - I use it more than I ever used Maltin, Videohound, or any of those other guides, and it's over 20 years old. He could shed more insight on a film in one concise paragraph than many of the big names could in a full page review.
-Stephen
FWIW, Danny Peary is the only critic (if he can be called such) that I have ever read, and to this day I still check out his reviews from time to time. And yet he doesn't really fit the mold of what I consider the conventional film critic - he reveres trash as much or, in some cases, more than the classics of world cinema. And best of all, he never used an asinine star rating system, thumbs up/down, etc (which many people rely on so that they don't have to strain themselves to read or listen to an entire review). I hate it that Peary's given up film writing to concentrate on sports writing (specifically baseball). I loved his Guide for the Film Fanatic - I use it more than I ever used Maltin, Videohound, or any of those other guides, and it's over 20 years old. He could shed more insight on a film in one concise paragraph than many of the big names could in a full page review.
-Stephen
Last edited by srowley75 on July 24th, 2008, 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
jdb1
One of the things I don't like about the current generation of film critics, especially the on-air and online ones, is that they don't know film history, and therefore lack points of reference. I think one of the prime principles of any kind of artistic criticism is to compare a work to others, and to what came before it. IMO, this is the same reason that today's "comedy" isn't very funny - no points of reference. You can't expect an audience to appreciate satire very well, if they are not familiar with the thing being sent up.
The print journalists are slightly better, but it depends on what kind of publication it is. Since much of the audience they are writing for is as ill-schooled as they are, I suppose it doesn't matter much.
Even one of the astute film critics at the NY Times, in his review of Mamma Mia!, talked about the clever plot, but had to be told by a reader's letter that it's basically the same plot as the 1960s movie Buona Sera, Mrs. Campbell. Maybe a 13 year old movie reviewer from the Happy Valley Middle School News could be excused for not knowing that, but I don't find it laudable for a film critic in the nation's newspaper of record not to know it.
The print journalists are slightly better, but it depends on what kind of publication it is. Since much of the audience they are writing for is as ill-schooled as they are, I suppose it doesn't matter much.
Even one of the astute film critics at the NY Times, in his review of Mamma Mia!, talked about the clever plot, but had to be told by a reader's letter that it's basically the same plot as the 1960s movie Buona Sera, Mrs. Campbell. Maybe a 13 year old movie reviewer from the Happy Valley Middle School News could be excused for not knowing that, but I don't find it laudable for a film critic in the nation's newspaper of record not to know it.
Judith:
I've seen so many written critiques where the critic obviously doesn't realize the movie is a remake of one made years ago, or if they do, they don't know enough about the original to point out the differences. For instance, the first couple of reviews I read about 3:10 to Yuma made comment about it being a remake, but did not describe the fact that the original is more of a study of human nature, and the new one was a regular shoot-em-up western.
Anne
I've seen so many written critiques where the critic obviously doesn't realize the movie is a remake of one made years ago, or if they do, they don't know enough about the original to point out the differences. For instance, the first couple of reviews I read about 3:10 to Yuma made comment about it being a remake, but did not describe the fact that the original is more of a study of human nature, and the new one was a regular shoot-em-up western.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
jdb1
This reminds me of something that happened a zillion years ago in a college English class. We had to write an essay on Arthur Miller's "A View From the Bridge." So off I go, writing away, and in the first paragraph of my essay, I mentioned the parallels with Greek tragedy, and I cited a specific Classical Greek play, I don't remember which one.
The professor read my essay (along with many others) to the class, and this bozo in the back pipes up "I protest. [He really said that - I protest. It was the age of student protests, after all.] It's not fair to compare her paper with ours, because I didn't read any of those other plays." Well -- d'uh. That's what you're here for, Dude.
When I read a particularly shallow and uninformed film or theater review, I wonder if the writer is my former classmate, who didn't read any of those other plays.
The professor read my essay (along with many others) to the class, and this bozo in the back pipes up "I protest. [He really said that - I protest. It was the age of student protests, after all.] It's not fair to compare her paper with ours, because I didn't read any of those other plays." Well -- d'uh. That's what you're here for, Dude.
When I read a particularly shallow and uninformed film or theater review, I wonder if the writer is my former classmate, who didn't read any of those other plays.