Hey all, Joey here with my moral outrage of the day. I've been thinking about the end of Ebert and Roeper, and while the show has lost much of its significance since Roger Ebert left for health reasons, it still was an avenue I looked at in determining what the critical reception of a movie was like. The new incarnation of "At The Movies" is supposedly aimed at a younger audience, and I think that it'll end up just being some dumb imitation of what it once was (think of the Golden Globe Award Show last year and the idiotic presentation that it had). Maybe I'll be wrong, and it'll be a worthwhile show, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
-What do you guys think? Was Ebert and Roeper useless way before this or are we seeing the end of an era officially?
Posts
I think that the era became terminal when Gene Siskel died, though I prefer Roger Ebert to Siskel I liked Siskel much better than Richard Roper, however, I think the era died completely when Ebert left.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I think that both A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips are outstanding film critics, but At the Movies as it was in the days of Siskel and Ebert barely survived the former's passing and when the latter left the show died.