Ebert and Roeper replaced by...

[JadedRaverLA]

Two people with essentially no experience critiquing films?

Nikki Finke from LA Weekly's take:

Ugh. The retooled Ebert & Roeper show premiering September 6th will be co-hosted by Ben & Ben -- a Generation Why duo who only got the gig due to nepotism. Ben Lyons is the nobody son of Jeffrey Lyons, the film critic world's biggest hack and quote ***** with zero credibility, while Ben Mankiewicz is the slacker host on Turner Classic Movies, whose only claim to fame is that he's a watered-down member of the famous film family. Now, there's a working definition of the death of film criticism for you.

The closest thing to film criticism Mankiewicz has done is host a show on TCM (aka reading cue cards about movies) and mocking and stalking celebrities for TMZ. Meanwhile Lyons has been a film "critic" (or propagandist) for the bastion of journalistic credibility that is E!, pretty much ensuring that Nikki's wrong and he's by now supplanted his father as "the film critic world's biggest hack."

Way to go Disney! At least Roeper is supposedly in talks to start another show that, you know, actually contains film criticism. Maybe I'll get really lucky and Roeper's show will go back to the old format of actually discussing films, rather than trying to cram a review into 10 seconds following a promo of the film and nearly 15 minutes of commercials and promo-bumpers per half hour.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Two Hollywood d-bags who couldn't get cast as extras on Entourage?

Nikki Finke from LA Weekly's take:



The closest thing to film criticism Mankiewicz has done is host a show on TCM (aka reading cue cards about movies) and mocking and stalking celebrities for TMZ. Meanwhile Lyons has been a film "critic" (or propagandist) for the bastion of journalistic credibility that is E!, pretty much ensuring that Nikki's wrong and he's by now supplanted his father as "the film critic world's biggest hack."

Way to go Disney! At least Roeper is supposedly in talks to start another show that, you know, actually contains film criticism. But I guess its easier to replace the critics who point out flaws in your films than it is to actually create better films. Maybe I'll get really lucky and Roeper's show will go back to the old format of actually discussing films, rather than trying to cram a review into 10 seconds following a promo of the film and nearly 15 minutes of commercials and promo-bumpers per half hour.

Look, man, without Ebert, there was no show. Ebert himself thanked Disney in his recent editorial on the matter. An entertainment conglomerate owns a show in which its surviving major star cannot appear on camera anymore. So the entertainment conglomerate thanks the surviving person who created the genre, but then fires the temps holding the position since the absence of the surviving star.

I have no animosity towards Roeper, though his reviews of anime titles have tended to annoy on occasion. As for the replacements -- if they fail to draw viewers, they'll be replaced as well. It's just the way of the world.

Oh, and as for Nikke Finke:

"I guess its easier to replace the critics who point out flaws in your films than it is to actually create better films."

Disney owns and operates several production arms, including Miramax, Hollywood Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, not to mention Pixar Animation, Walt Disney Feature Animation, and Walt Disney Pictures. The list of popular entertainments, respected critical smashes (and both) that have flowed out of these production arms in just the last ten years alone is considerable. Look em up. No one should have to say more than that to see how empty this rhetroic is.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Oh, and as for Nikke Finke:

"I guess its easier to replace the critics who point out flaws in your films than it is to actually create better films."

For the record, what you quoted there was my rhetoric not hers (what she said was in quotes). And I very much stand by it. Not saying Disney hasn't put out some great product... but they've put out quite a bit of utter crap as well -- and its long been reported that they had issues with "their" reviewers calling them on it.

Had they brought in two actual film critics, you might have a point. Bringing in these two... they're clearly going for more of an adver-tainment show for films than an actual review show.

Also, while Ebert played nice in the editorial you mentioned, both he and Roeper are running as fast as they can to disassociate themselves from the new direction of the show -- which neither want anything to go with.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

For the record, what you quoted there was my rhetoric not hers (what she said was in quotes). And I very much stand by it. Not saying Disney hasn't put out some great product... but they've put out quite a bit of utter crap as well -- and its long been reported that they had issues with "their" reviewers calling them on it.

Oh, really? Is that why Roger Ebert wrote the following:

"Disney was great to work with....Disney never once objected to our negative review of one of their pictures. Great class.".

I'd like to see some evidence of these "long reported" instances of Disney pressuring Roger Ebert. Last time I saw someone make that allegation, it was Drew McWeeney at AICN who alleged Ebert didn't review "Pearl Harbor" because the show was owned by Disney -- McWeeney was forced to apologize later when (perhaps realizing he could be staring down the barrel of a slander gun) Ebert set the record straight. Ebert was at the Cannes film festival, Pearl Harbor was not. Ebert savaged Pearl Harbor, by the way.

So, Jaded Raver, lets hear these "long reported" instances of Roger Ebert pressured by Disney to give good reviews to their films. "Long reported instances" that are actually verified. Ebert himself said Disney never objected to his negative reviews. So...? You know more than the man himself? You got some proof?

Put up, or shut up.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Oh, really? Is that why Roger Ebert wrote the following:

"Disney was great to work with....Disney never once objected to our negative review of one of their pictures. Great class.".

And keep in mind, they were Disney-owned throughout most of the 90's--
The Silver Screen Partners late-80's and early-90's, of Martin Short French-comedies and Jamaican bobsled teams--when Disney-bashing was five times what it was during the last days of Eisner and thoroughly justifiable, barely a single good review in sight for nine years, and still not a grumble from the board room...In fact, S&E were considered Disney celebrities.
Even a double thumbs-down to "Hercules" (yes, imagine an animated that Roger Ebert actually panned) couldn't tarnish their jobs.

I'd like to see some evidence of these "long reported" instances of Disney pressuring Roger Ebert. Last time I saw someone make that allegation, it was Drew McWeeney at AICN who alleged Ebert didn't review "Pearl Harbor" because the show was owned by Disney -- McWeeney was forced to apologize later when (perhaps realizing he could be staring down the barrel of a slander gun) Ebert set the record straight. Ebert was at the Cannes film festival, Pearl Harbor was not. Ebert savaged Pearl Harbor, by the way.

The only studio that ever took offense at a bad review was Fox, back in the 80's, by holding back clips for review. It didn't last long.
Studios don't like to cut their own promotional throat.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Oh, really? Is that why Roger Ebert wrote the following:

Okay, fine. It's been long RUMORED then. I'm not sure how anyone could produce "evidence" that Disney was unhappy about bad reviews. Note that I said they were unhappy about bad reviews (pretty much common sense that film studios are happy about good reviews and unhappy about bad ones, no?) while you said that I said they were pressuring Roger Ebert into giving them good reviews (a pretty horrible allegation that I never made). Not sure where that leap came from.

All of this aside, the new hosts are complete hacks, and neither would be considered a professional critic in film circles. If you don't like my sarcastic speculation as to why a major film studio would want to replace veteran critics with hacks then fine... your opinion that people would rather watch a show with hacks glowing about every Will Smith or Michael Bay movie that comes out may be right on the money. If that's true, though, then its an even sadder statement about the current state of film criticism.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Okay, fine. It's been long RUMORED then.

By who? People on-line who trade conspiracy for knowledge, juvenile assumptions for wisdom?

I'm not sure how anyone could produce "evidence" that Disney was unhappy about bad reviews.

Well, its called "reading a book", because Walt Disney himself had several choice words for people who criticized him throughout his life, I can't imagine that it would be difficult to find quotes from Michael Eisner about critics of Disney properties. You, however said the following:

I guess its easier to replace the critics who point out flaws in your films than it is to actually create better films.

The only proper inference from your statement is that Disney was replacing Roeper and [Insert Critic Here] because they "pointed out flaws" in the films of Disney-owned properties. The truth is that Roeper can't hold a charismatic candle to Ebert or Siskle. You take Siskle and Ebert out of Siskle and Ebert, what have you got? Someone else. The someone else didn't work. Without Roger, there was no show anymore.

I don't think people truly appreciate the charismatic force that was Roger Ebert as a TV personality. Put him against Gene Siskel, and sparks flew. Put him against Kenneth Turan, and he was an elder professional statesman. With no disrespect to Gene, however, it was Roger -- brilliant, loose-canon, yeah I'm over-weight but your movie sucks-Roger that made the shows work. Gene was amazing - we love him, we still love him. But it was Roger that made the two an iconic pair.

No Roger, no show.

Note that I said they were unhappy about bad reviews (pretty much common sense that film studios are happy about good reviews and unhappy about bad ones, no?) while you said that I said they were pressuring Roger Ebert into giving them good reviews (a pretty horrible allegation that I never made). Not sure where that leap came from.

Yeah - um - its called your own mouth:

I guess its easier to replace the critics who point out flaws in your films than it is to actually create better films.

You said it. You meant it.

All of this aside, the new hosts are complete hacks, and neither would be considered a professional critic in film circles.

The lines of who (or what) is considered a professional film critic are getting a bit blurred in the digital age. That being said, I can think of worse interviewers or critics than Ben Mankiewicz. A *whole* lot worse. Have you stopped and considered the hate being thrown his way? Sounds a whole lot like professional jealousy to me.

If you don't like my speculation as to why a major film studio would want to replace veteran critics with hacks then fine...

Actually, its not fine. Speculation presented as such is fine. But stating:

"I guess its easier to replace the critics who point out flaws in your films than it is to actually create better films."

therby inferring Ebert, Roeper and [insert guest critic here] were being replaced because they gave bad reviews to Disney films -- with no facts to back it up -- that's not fine.

Your opinion that people would rather watch a show with hacks glowing about every Will Smith or Michael Bay movie that comes out may be right on the money.

Where is there any indication that the grandson of the man who wrote "Citizen Kane" will recommend every movie made in the future by Will Smith and Michael Bay? What are you talking about?

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The only proper inference from your statement is that Disney was replacing Roeper and [Insert Critic Here] because they "pointed out flaws" in the films of Disney-owned properties.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Actually, its not fine. Speculation presented as such is fine. But stating:

"I guess its easier to replace the critics who point out flaws in your films than it is to actually create better films."

therby inferring Ebert, Roeper and [insert guest critic here] were being replaced because they gave bad reviews to Disney films -- with no facts to back it up -- that's not fine.

First of all, you provide the inference when reading something. The writer can provide the implication, however, which is what I assume you meant in the second quote above.

Second, I think most people who don't take message board rants to be as serious as a declaration of war would read my quote that you highlighted in the context that it was written as opposed to pulling it out by itself, and realize it was a cheap shot at Disney made in a post slamming them for replacing professionals with people who have essentially no experience. If you're that upset by my statement, then I hate to see how you're going to react to all the other coverage of this, because it's not going to be pretty. But, just because I can't stand the thought of discussing this any further (and because I think you may give yourself a stroke), I'll delete the line in the original post.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The truth is that Roeper can't hold a charismatic candle to Ebert or Siskle. You take Siskle and Ebert out of Siskle and Ebert, what have you got? Someone else. The someone else didn't work. Without Roger, there was no show anymore.

I don't think people truly appreciate the charismatic force that was Roger Ebert as a TV personality. Put him against Gene Siskel, and sparks flew. Put him against Kenneth Turan, and he was an elder professional statesman. With no disrespect to Gene, however, it was Roger -- brilliant, loose-canon, yeah I'm over-weight but your movie sucks-Roger that made the shows work. Gene was amazing - we love him, we still love him. But it was Roger that made the two an iconic pair.

No Roger, no show.

On that we can mostly agree. But the show is a long-standing institution that deserves far better treatment than it has just gotten. Nobody was going to bring back the chemistry that Siskel and Ebert had back in the day... but that's not an excuse for for hiring "The Bens", whose combined professional film criticism experience is roughly equivalent to the guy who writes blurbs for TV Guide.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The lines of who (or what) is considered a professional film critic are getting a bit blurred in the digital age. That being said, I can think of worse interviewers or critics than Ben Mankiewicz. A *whole* lot worse. Have you stopped and considered the hate being thrown his way? Sounds a whole lot like professional jealousy to me.

Where is there any indication that the grandson of the man who wrote "Citizen Kane" will recommend every movie made in the future by Will Smith and Michael Bay? What are you talking about?

What I'm talking about is the "other" host you intentionally failed to mention. As you state no one really knows how Mankiewicz will review films, as he has essentially no experience doing so, which makes him a perfect co-host for Lyons I suppose. And I don't think his grandfather's experience really qualifies him as an expert. But, since Lyons has reviewed films, here's a snippet of his review for "I Am Legend" (you know, a Will Smith movie):

Unbelievable. Remarkable. One of the greatest films ever made.

As for Transformers (a Michael Bay flick), I couldn't find his "full" review, but his preview review of the film was: "its frickin' awesome." Definitely a deep man that Lyons -- both of those reviews were obviously founded in a comprehensive knowledge of the history of film and an unbelievable grasp of the human condition. I take everything I've said back: he's clearly the most insightful movie critic in history.

Anyway, that's the last I'm writing on this. I assume that since this has become little more than a pissing contest that a mod will delete the whole thread soon enough.

[Leopold BUTTERS]

That sucks. I really like that show with Roeper and a guest each week. Can someone tell me what happened to Ebert?

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Leopold BUTTERS

Can someone tell me what happened to Ebert?

He's been fighting thyroid cancer for a few years now.

[jw]

I was gonna say rotten tomatoes.com...lol Seems thats what everyone uses now adays

[sfmarine]

Why did they leave? End of contract??

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by jwbbud

I was gonna say rotten tomatoes.com...lol Seems thats what everyone uses now adays

that sucks even worse. look at most of the reviewers and you'll see they're some nobody with a website and free time. anyone of us could do that. it doesn't make them critics. i actually can't stand rottentomates.com at all. metacritic.com is better. take i want to believe for example. yesterday it had a 29% on rotten tomatoes wheres meta critic had it in the high 40's. that's because meta critic normally only uses actually critics.

[darkblueme]

Excerpt: I was surprised how depressed I felt all day on July 21, when Richard and I announced we were leaving the "Ebert and Roeper" program. To be sure, our departures were voluntary. We hadn't been fired. And because of my health troubles, I hadn't appeared on the show for two years. But I advised on co-hosts, suggested movies, stayed in close communication with Don DuPree, our beloved producer-director. The show remained in my life. Now, after 33 years, it was gone--taken in a "new direction." And I was fully realizing what a large empty space it left behind.

Read the full article here:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008...is-closed.html

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

that sucks even worse. look at most of the reviewers and you'll see they're some nobody with a website and free time. anyone of us could do that. it doesn't make them critics. i actually can't stand rottentomates.com at all. metacritic.com is better. take i want to believe for example. yesterday it had a 29% on rotten tomatoes wheres meta critic had it in the high 40's. that's because meta critic normally only uses actually critics.

What's worse is that neither of the new co-hosts is even considered an important enough reviewer to be tracked on RottenTomatoes.com (much less metacritic.com). Yes, they actually got two people with less credibility and influence than your average teenage blogger. Way to go!

Lyons, in particular, should never be allowed to write or speak on film... ever! If you read his quotes I posted above, you can see why. "I Am Legend" is "one of the greatest films ever made"??? However Mankiewicz turns out (all due respect to his grandfather, but nepotism is not a job qualification, and being on TMZ does not make you a movie critic), unless he throws Lyons off the balcony in the first episode, the entire show should just be cancelled.

Lyons is NOT a film critic... he's a fanboy who looks good enough to get hired first by MTV and then E! Check out his IMDB page... the forum is mix of posts asking "Why the F does he have a job... this guy is a moron," and "OMG... he's SO hot." That's about it. Nothing he has ever done can be considered criticism... he writes about how cool it is to hang out with (and date) celebrities, sneaking into preview showings, and getting invited onto the sets of movies. Although I modified my original post to placate some members here, he really does come across as a reject extra from 'Entourage.'

I'm just hoping Roeper's new show ends up on a prominent network where it can be seen by people. It will NEVER be Siskel and Ebert, but it can at least be two passionate, intelligent people discussing films... which is enough to get me to tune in.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

What's worse is that neither of the new co-hosts is even considered an important enough reviewer to be tracked on RottenTomatoes.com (much less metacritic.com). Yes, they actually got two people with less credibility and influence than your average teenage blogger. Way to go!

Lyons, in particular, should never be allowed to write or speak on film... ever! If you read his quotes I posted above, you can see why. "I Am Legend" is "one of the greatest films ever made"??? However Mankiewicz turns out (all due respect to his grandfather, but nepotism is not a job qualification, and being on TMZ does not make you a movie critic), unless he throws Lyons off the balcony in the first episode, the entire show should just be cancelled.

Lyons is NOT a film critic... he's a fanboy who looks good enough to get hired first by MTV and then E! Check out his IMDB page... the forum is mix of posts asking "Why the F does he have a job... this guy is a moron," and "OMG... he's SO hot." That's about it. Nothing he has ever done can be considered criticism... he writes about how cool it is to hang out with (and date) celebrities, sneaking into preview showings, and getting invited onto the sets of movies. Although I modified my original post to placate some members here, he really does come across as a reject extra from 'Entourage.'

I'm just hoping Roeper's new show ends up on a prominent network where it can be seen by people. It will NEVER be Siskel and Ebert, but it can at least be two passionate, intelligent people discussing films... which is enough to get me to tune in.

The market will dictate the wisdom of the decisions. Personally, the presence of Lyons or Mankiewicz doesn't bother me into an apoplexy, because I haven't watched the show since Ebert left. So I really couldn't care less. I am amused, however, by the outraged indignanty of others in this forum. The joke's on them, as far as I'm concerned. Rage on! and I'll keep making the popcorn and having a good laugh at your outrage.