Difficulty watching Ebert/Roeper! (1 Viewer)

[Marty M]

I knew it was going to be near impossible to replace Gene. He and Roger had a chemistry that only exists from a long-term relationship like they had. It also was helpful that they had this built in competition by working for comperitive newspapers.

 

[Brennan Hill]

Wow, this post has some of the harshest non Lucas-related posts I've ever seen. I prefer Ebert myself, as I think most people do, and generally fall in line with his likes and dislikes a majority of the time. But, of course if I want to see a film he pans, it doesn't stop me. I generaly did not heed Siskel's evalautions as often as Ebert's. But from the tone of the posts, and despite what people are saying, its sounds like they did a good job picking his replacement if fo nor other reason then Roeper has a controversial style and people are talking about the show, and have an opinion about the show.

 

[MickeS]

I like the show. Roeper has a good way of presenting his opinions, and I like that he and Roger disagree a lot. I don't feel like Roeper is trying to be "hip", it seems like he is honest about his opinions.
/Mike

 

[Jason Whyte]

My friend Marty and I watched the Ebert/Roeper show last week and were on the review of Bandits. I had seen the film a week earlier and didn't care for it at all; Ebert's review of this completely agreed with me, and then Roeper, as usual, flat out disagreed with him, and Marty and I burst out laughing. "Uh huh, yeah we didn't see THAT one coming!"

I can summarize my thoughts about Roeper very quickly: I think Roeper doesn't really need glasses, but just wears them to think he looks smart.

I tell ya, if http://www.reelviews.net

Jason

------------------
Link RemovedLink Removed

[email protected] 2001 Film List I Am Jack's DVD List
ICQ: 16733922 AOL IM: JayLo Whyte
"Clown college? You can't eat that!" Homer Simpson
My Own Film Review Website Is Coming Soon!

 

[Patrick McCart]

I was wondering how American Pie 2 got two thumbs up from Ebert and Roeper.
I know now where those two thumbs were stuck up into.
------------------
Visit my DVD review site, 24 fps DVD Reviews @ http://cztoondb.tripod.com/DVD/
and
The Colorized Cartoon Database @ http://cztoondb.tripod.com/

 

[Rob Willey]

I actually find myself agreeing with Roeper more often than Ebert these days.
I thought Ebert hit a new low on this week's show. He recommended a film (The Last Castle, I believe) becuase it would work "for an audience" even though he didn't seem to like it that much himself. He agreed with Roeper's criticisms but fell back on "it will work for an audience."
The day a reviewer stops providing his own opinion and tries to guess at the opinions of some second-hand mass of people collectively referred to as "the audience", he gives up all credibility as a legitmate critic IMB.
Rob
------------------
"That suits me down to the ground."

 

[Dave Dugan]

The main problem I have watching their show is the abundance of spoilers.
It's not uncommon to hear a line like this: "Well, I'm not going to give the ending away, but needless to say they all make it to the other dimension and die."
They've ruined a few movies for me that way... It's usually Ebert who does it, too.
-Dave

 

[Brian_J]

Some have mentioned that Roeper knows too little about film to be a critic or possibly did not have enough film school. In my book, his level of schooling does not disqualify him from being on the show. In fact, it may actually work because 95% of the public would be similar. The show survives on ratings. The film buffs get Ebert, J6P gets Roeper. Thats a fair trade.
Brian
------------------
Zed's Dead Baby...

 

[Mitty]

The film buffs get Ebert, J6P gets Roeper.

I have a hard time believing that Joe 6-Pack really connects on any level with Richard Roeper. He doesn't give off a working class, common man vibe like the weather guy on a local TV station. Not at all. He comes across as more of a private school/fraternity brother to me.

 

[teapot2001]

The film buffs get Ebert, J6P gets Roeper.

Nope, J6P watches that new show with Leonard Maltin.
~T

 

[James D S]

Nope, JP6 is asleep because the show comes on at midnight around here.

 

[Robert Crawford]

In a nutshell, Roeper comes across to me as a smartass and most people don't connect to such a person!
Crawdaddy
------------------
Peter Staddon: "I didn't say you can put 'Monkeybone' back!"

 

[Bill McA]

Personally, I was hoping that Ebert would pick David Poland to be his permanent sidekick...an intelligent, articulate guy who is passionate about movies, but instead he picked Roeper.
Having bumped into both Ebert & Poland, I can tell you that they are both down-to-earth, intelligent and knowledgable movie lovers!

 

[Mitty]

I don't think that Ebert necessarily has creative control over the show (he's not one of the producers), so I don't think HE picked anyone.
It was probably a committee decision. The only reason Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel were ever on TV in the first place was that their show was on public television. Now that it's on network TV, they probably tested the potential hosts with audiences on any number of shallow categories.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

The problem most seem to have with Roeper is either a) he comes across as smug or b) he doesn't have a sufficient knowledge of films (or at least doesn't appear to have such knowledge).
What I know of his background leads me to believe that there certainly were more qualified people whom he eclipsed for the job. So be it. That said, he owes it to himself to become more educated in his weaker areas.
As for the smugness issue, it may not sit well with all of us, but that also appears to be the trend for many on-air personalities, especially those in analyst roles. Yes, it also helps stir the pot on the show.
I don't hate him on the show, although I think he makes himself look foolish sometimes with the arguments he presents. (Then again, this makes good television when Ebert properly deflates said arguments.) I'd prefer he tone down the attitude a notch, but it's all a matter of taste.
One factor not really addressed is the ability to do all this and have good camera presence. Having done a similar type of program for nearly five years, I can say that it isn't easy. Performance-wise (content aside), I think Roeper acquits himself well. (I frequently noticed one of the women in contention appeared to be looking at notes a lot.) Being able to write reviews for print is an entirely different beast than doing it for broadcast.
It's a different dynamic with Roeper. I still watch. Even if I did strongly dislike him, I'd say that he's worth putting up with rather than not having the show on at all. Finding anything bordering on intelligent film criticism on television is next to impossible to locate.

 

[Frank_Lee]

I think part of what is frustrating about Roeper is his obstinancy and his overall closed-mindedness in his arguements. I often don't agree with Ebert but if a valid point is brought up he will concede and be gracious about it. However, if Roeper is in the same situation, he'll basically keep pushing his opinion and refuse to give up any ground at all. It just seems rather juvenile and is a personal pet peeve. I don't think there's anything wrong with asserting and believing in your own opinions, I just feel that if someone has a good arguement you should admit to it and take it into consideration.

 

[JasonD]

Ebert should of chosen Harry Knowles from Aint-it-cool-news.com Much like Gene, Harry has a love for cinema and his opinions would have a greater impact that Roeper's.
[Edited last by JasonD on October 23, 2001 at 08:38 AM]

 

[Patrick_S]

Ebert should of chosen Harry Knowles from Aint-it-cool-news.com Much like Gene, Harry has a love for cinema and his opinions would have a greater impact that Roeper's.

As cruel as this sounds that fact is Harry has a face that was made for radio. Unfortunately the image you project is important when working on a TV program.

 

[DaveF]

I re-found and have been watching Ebert for the past year, sporadically (it's on Sunday, 11:35pm, here). During the hunt for a new co-host, I was rooting for the woman, Joyce K-- (from Boston, I think). I thought she was much more interesting than the others, especially Roper.
But after seeing Ebert & Roeper on Leno, I think, I realized that Ebert and Roeper get along very well. I'd guess that comraderie won over cinematic knowledge.
Now, I'm adjusted to Roeper, and enjoy his reviews as much as Eberts. And I find his reviews as helpful as Ebert's in general (since I only with Ebert no more than 50%).
But I especially love it when Roeper says something that Ebert wholly diagrees with. Ebert gives him a look that says, "Good heavens man! Your brain is leaking out of your ears!"

But I much prefer Roeper over Knowles. I just didn't like the way he looked/presented himself/something. Perhaps my dislike for AICN colored my perception.

 

[gregstaten]

Harry Knowles blew any chances he had with Ebert when he put the fake Academy Awards nomination list up on his site before the 1999 nominations were announced. That flub blew up big time in his face.
Ebert didn't appreciate that Knowles posted the list and especially didin't like how (poorly) he handed the situation when it blew up in his face. In fact, an episode already in the can with Knowles was shelved permanently - never to air.
Rumor has it that Roger still won't take his calls.
-greg