The Hot Blog: The Ongoing Adventures Of Roger Ebert

« Statement from Roger Ebert | Main | Dumping Posts »

July 21, 2008

The Ongoing Adventures Of Roger Ebert

I learned back when I was involved in a minor way in the life of Ebert On TV, that everything happens in June and July for that show. That’s when the decisions for the year to come are made, course is charted, and focus is set.

But even before I got there, just after Gene Siskel had passed away, things were in decline. Ebert and Siskel were icons, but the big ratings of their heyday were no longer there. Things were stable, but not sensational.

And so Disney was nickel-and-diming the show to death even then. Budget cuts kept coming. Eventually the staff was pared down and the show moved from Chicago’s CBS studio, where it had been taped for decades, to the ABC station, where facilities were “free” and full-time staff could add the show to their weekly duties in part.

But the process really accelerated after Roger’s illness. After one year off the air, Disney tried to low-ball Ebert and Mrs. Siskel on the rights to the thumbs. That didn’t work. But Ebert’s name remained on the show. Then the parade of guest critics was halted because it was time-consuming and travel was expensive. The Robert Wilonsky was set… and unset. Then A.O. Scott, who really liked the gig, was pushed aside for full-time status by Michael Phillips, who was local and therefore, didn’t need a hotel or an airfare from NY each week.

And now, the show is dead. The exits are being sold as a choice. But the reality is that Disney has been hacking at both Ebert & Roeper to work for less and less for years now and apparently this summer, the rubber meets the road. The ratings were not strong enough in syndication for Disney – whose O&Os gave the shows its best clearances (NY, LA, Chicago, etc) – to hang onto the show or for the rest of the syndication world to try to hold Disney to its contracts, which had a couple more years on them.

It’s unlikely that there is a much better opportunity for Roeper out there, so I would guess that Disney let him walk with dignity instead of publicly dumping the show. But make no mistake, no one walks away from a show that is successful… not Roeper… not Disney.

Roger, on the other hand, may well have been faced with no longer getting paid for the use of his name. And that may have been Disney’s tipping point. At The Movies with Roeper and Phillips, with due respect to Michael Phillips, is not what the network of stations bought.

In any case, despite being unable to speak, Roger is working his ass off as a full-time print critic and showing enormous enthusiasm and energy. I would argue that his legacy is best served by continuing down that road, perhaps reviving “the thumbs” as a print item. But Roger is ever ambitious and seeking new challenges - though he is not big on change, which is why he might continue to work with the branded Roeper in spite of there being so many high quality film critics seeking work these days - so I don’t expect things will go that simply.

There seem two be two tracks of possibility for the future.

1. Cable/Satellite - Reelz Channel, owned by Hubbard Broadcasting and partnered with the Weinsteins on Ovation, picked up reruns of Ebert & Roeper in the last year. The ratings may not have been high enough in syndication, but I would bet money that E&R was the best watched show on Reelz every week.

As a result, it would make sense for Reelz, still fighting for its place on the cable and satellite “dial” to jump in and to do the show for a price, giving Roeper and Ebert equity in the show - Richard for hosting and Roger (and Siskel’s widow) for “the thumbs” – instantly getting week-in and week-out movie advertising play (marketers still love the thumbs best of all) branded “Reelz” as well as building a show that legitimizes the channel.

For Roeper, even a minor payday has great value in this context, as it drives the value of everything else he does. Without the show and Roger’s imprimatur, he is a nothing. And for Roger, it gives him creative control and ownership, likely carving out a place on the show for his writing to be highlighted.

It is always possible that there is another cable/satellite net out there for this product, like STARZ or AMC. But Reelz seems to make the most sense on both sides. They have the most to gain, which means they are the most likely to give Ebert & Roeper the most lucrative package.

2. The Internet – Fandango just picked up Movies.com, Yahoo! is forever trying to build its movie brand, Microsoft – who Roger was in business with on Cinemania many years bask – continues to seek firmer footing. And Google, Moviefone, and even Amazon.com are legitimate potential partners for a serious internet play starring established Mainstream Media branding.

Whatever happens, Ebert's legacy is intact. There are many great emmories of his decades on the air and his Pulitzer-winning work in print.

And for the moment, Roeper joins the ever-growing list of film critics who are out of work.

Posted by dpoland at July 21, 2008 11:49 AM

Comments

Is the entire concept of a weekly movie review show a dated one now, do you think?

I'd hate to think so, but it sure seems that way.

Posted by: LYT at July 21, 2008 12:04 PM

I didn't know A.O. Scott was on the show as a regular (semi-regular?). I'd have watched. He's a super-smart writer, with great taste -- the best of the NYT bunch, with apologies to Manohla.

Posted by: eugenen at July 21, 2008 12:04 PM

I thought Michael Phillips was quite good actually. He wasn't afraid to get in some good natured ribbing at the expense of Roeper and I thought they were just beginning to gel.

Posted by: Botner at July 21, 2008 03:04 PM

I like both Scott and Phillips. Scott is more thoughtful, while Phillips seems to be a little less serious and have more fun with the role. Maybe they could Movies with Scott and Phillips.

But reading what David wrote, Disney would probably be too cheap to do that, especially with two guys who doesn't have as big a name as Roger (but then again who does).

Posted by: pchu at July 21, 2008 05:02 PM

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I was never that fond of the show - maybe because it was past its prime by the time I was old enough to appreciate it.

But growing up in Chicago I had seen Roger Ebert on television for years, and actually found him undeniably irritating and a bit pompous. It wasn't until I discovered his superlative written reviews that I began to appreciate Ebert's slyly sapient prose and undeniably hilarious sense of humor.

I suppose it's sad to see it officially gone just as it's sad to see any long-running institution disappear (i.e. the newspaper industry). But generally I give the news a big "Meh."

(Truthfully, I probably am happier that I'll never have to see Roeper's mug on TV again than I am sad about the show.)

Posted by: repeatfather at July 21, 2008 05:18 PM

In the show's heyday, which would have been the 70s-80s I think, the only sources for movie reviews were newspapers and a couple of specialized magazines, and their show. Nowadays any mook can express their thoughts on a blog.

It's the end of an era, so that's worthy of notice, but times change.

Posted by: jeffmcm at July 21, 2008 05:23 PM

wow, a wave of nostalgia: i watched 'siskel and ebert' all the time as a kid because my mother wouldn't miss it. i remember loving to watch them go at it; i didn't care what they thought about the movies - even back then i was a contrary little so and so when it came to critics - but to me they were like a puppet show, the one where the puppets club each other over the head to make the kids laugh, chubby and skinny bashing each other, it was great. i clearly remember one night, my mother got so annoyed with siskel she called him an 'asshole', the first time i ever remember her swearing in front of me. ah, fond memories!

Posted by: leahnz at July 21, 2008 05:43 PM

Sorry, couldn't resist...

It was very accurately reported via MCN back in '05 that Roger Ebert was, in fact, an internet hoax created by David Poland himself...

Pt. 1: http://mutinycompany.com/mcn/thumbsup1.mov
Pt. 2: http://mutinycompany.com/mcn/thumbsup2.mov

Posted by: mutinyco at July 21, 2008 06:41 PM

Yeah, those old Siskel and Ebert shows are gold. They would fight and argue even if they both give a recommendation (or pan)to the same film. Hopefully, that archive website wouldn't shut down.

Posted by: pchu at July 21, 2008 07:35 PM

THEY SHOULD MAKE A MOVIE ABOUT MICHAEL PHILLIPS STARRING XANDER BERKELEY.

THAT WOULD FUCKING OWN.

Roeper = BEST CRITIC IN AMERICA, most reliable, most relatable, awesome guy, funny, telegenic, and cool. A lot of "serious" critics here and elsewhere are STILL needling this guy after eight years of keeping the show going and Roger's blessing? Really?

Aren't many, many old-school film guys former book critics who just happened onto the film beat? How is Roeper's entertainment background any less credible? Even Poland is great at what he does, but I think of him more as an overall industry guy, interviewer and reporter than a guy up to his nose in film theory and history. How is, say, Carina Chocano a "serious" critic, but not Roeper? She writes like a TV blogger and rambles off on her own flights of fancy which rarely have anything to do with film or its history.

FACE THE FACTS, the "real" guys diss Roeper because he PULLS HOT SQUACK and has a life while they're tweeding it up in the screening rooms and exhaling their stank coffee breath.

ROEPER OWNS YOUR ASS.

Posted by: LexG at July 21, 2008 07:57 PM

I wish I had examples at my fingertips to cite, but alas I avoid Roeper in all forms as much as I can.

I could care less about any reveiwer's background, and truthfully I also dislike AO Scott and most of the NY Times reviewers (the type I assume you're comparing unfavorably to Roeper).

Roeper is just a dumbass in way over his head both as a regular columnist and movie reviewer. He's a poor man's Joel Stein, who is a homeless man's Chuck Klosterman who was never all that great anyway.

Posted by: repeatfather at July 21, 2008 08:36 PM

Roeper is the Taco Bell of movie critics. I know they make a lot of money but I'm not gonna frickin eat there.

Posted by: jeffmcm at July 21, 2008 11:10 PM

TACO BELL IS AWESOME.

CRUNCH WRAP SUPREME, BITCH!

RICHARD ROEPER = BEST CRITIC IN AMERICA. NOT JOKING. DUDE'S LIKE MY IDOL.

Posted by: LexG at July 21, 2008 11:31 PM

Roeper hate is lame. This show ending is balls.

Posted by: IOIOIOI at July 22, 2008 12:11 AM

"Roeper is the Taco Bell of movie critics."

No. He's the Yoshinoya Beef Bowl.

i.e. always close enough, and cheap enough, that I could go there if I really want it. But god damn, it ain't worth it.

Taco Bell is awesomely artificial. If there are any female critics out there with huge fake breasts, that's the Taco Bell of film criticism.

Posted by: LYT at July 22, 2008 12:24 AM

Eh, I bet Roeper can do a better Plainview impression than that shit I saw Thompson doing, wearing a fucking OTB hat and shit.

Posted by: LexG at July 22, 2008 12:32 AM

You're right, Luke. I've been to Yoshinoya three or four times and each time, I immediately think to myself, 'this shit is terrible, I'm never coming here again'. And three or four times is how many times I've watched Roeper since he took over.

Posted by: jeffmcm at July 22, 2008 12:46 AM

The Hot Blog

July 21, 2008

The Ongoing Adventures Of Roger Ebert

Comments

Post a comment