Why the dueling film critics TV show format ultimately failed

[Tom Wolper]

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, the last co-host of Roger Ebert's show, describes how the format became no longer sustainable.

http://www.avclub.com/article/i-killed-movies-206668

[Dave Sikula]

I would argue that it the format than the people. If Siskel and Ebert were still alive, I'd imagine the show would still be going in some format. The problem was that, once Gene died, Roger was never able to find someone with whom he had any chemistry. The people who did end up with the job were all just bland and merge (in my mind) into one gooey and uninteresting mass. When he did have the chance to pick bold critics (Wesley Morris and Elvis Mitchell come immediately to mind), Roger passed.

--Dave Sikula

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:02:05 PM UTC-7, Tom Wolper wrote:

[Tom Wolper]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:19 PM, 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV <tvor...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I would argue that it the format than the people. If Siskel and Ebert were still alive, I'd imagine the show would still be going in some format. The problem was that, once Gene died, Roger was never able to find someone with whom he had any chemistry. The people who did end up with the job were all just bland and merge (in my mind) into one gooey and uninteresting mass. When he did have the chance to pick bold critics (Wesley Morris and Elvis Mitchell come immediately to mind), Roger passed.

If Siskel and Ebert were still alive and still had a show, it would be a hollow shell of what it once was. I don't know if Ebert kept his stature with a younger generation of moviegoers and I think he and Siskel would skew too old to be sustainable. Hollywood decided years ago to go after the teenage audience in a big way because they will go to more than one screening of a movie they like and they have no memory of when movies cost a quarter or even $5 and don't question whether a movie is worth the cost of admission. And they are not waiting for the recommendation of S&E.

The movie business has also changed. By the time S&E would air a person interested in movies should have enough information to decide if the movie is worth seeing so an S&E show would be outdated at airtime.

[PGage]

I'm not so sure about all that. Ebert had/has a very nice web site, and if he and Siskel were alive and active I suspect they would have managed to have a pretty effective online presence - perhaps tweeting headlines of reviews, posting clips of reviews and discussions of specific films even before they aired on the show. 

But more than that, at least in my case, I never watched Siskel & Ebert before deciding to view a film (and I still do not read reviews of films before I see them). I never saw S&E as a kind of Consumer Reports to help me decide how to spend my film dollar. Instead, in college and grad school, S&E helped me find ways to get more enjoyment out of films, by teaching me what to look for, and and how to have a conversation about important issues using films. My friends and I would go to Westwood on saturday night, watch a film, and then have long and animated debates about both the quality of the film and its meaning over pizza or burgers or enchiladas. I think there are still plenty of folks who would continue to rely on S&E in that way today - even young people - though maybe it would have had to go back to PBS - all the better, IMO.

Siskel and Ebert worked because of the skills, character and relationship of those two guys. I don't think those are the only two people who could make it work, but it is not a format-driven kind of thing, and you can't just throw any two people, even knowledgable critics, in front of the camera and expect it to work. 

[JW]

> Siskel and Ebert worked because of the skills, character and relationship
> of those two guys. I don't think those are the only two people who could
> make it work, but it is not a format-driven kind of thing, and you can't
> just throw any two people, even knowledgable critics, in front of the
> camera and expect it to work.

Exactly. The chemistry between Siskel and Ebert made the show work, and the many other versions that followed them made that clear. Whether or not Gene and Roger liked each other at any given point, they respected each other's knowledge of cinema enough that they'd always discuss the films intelligently.

Similarly, Pardon the Interruption isn't an especially brilliant format, but the chemistry between Kornheiser and Wilbon makes it work. (In the ESPN oral history, Kornheiser talks about how they'd been friends arguing for 20 years before they went on the air, and how the reason the Post's sports department realized this was on TV instead of in the newsroom was the lack of profanity.)

[Chris Neuman]

Dave said:

When he did have the chance to pick bold critics (Wesley Morris and Elvis Mitchell come immediately to mind), Roger passed.

Now me:

I story I heard was that Ebert did choose Elvis Mitchell but that a screen test of him with Kristy Lemire showed little or no chemistry. 

I like Elvis Mitchell - The Treatment is in frequent rotation on my commute - but bold people can make for less than salubrious employees. Frankly, when I heard Mitchell had been dropped I wasn't altogether surprised. 

Chris 

--Dave Sikula

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:02:05 PM UTC-7, Tom Wolper wrote:

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, the last co-host of Roger Ebert's show, describes how the format became no longer sustainable.

http://www.avclub.com/article/i-killed-movies-206668

--
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dave Sikula]

I can't imagine anyone having chemistry with Lemire, but that's neither here nor there. Given Elvis's employment track record, I'd imagine he can't be easy to work with. It's a shame; he's one of my favorites (I particularly liked his TCM series), but lasts only a short time anywhere.

--Dave Sikula

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 3:10:54 PM UTC-7, Chris Neuman wrote:

Dave said:

When he did have the chance to pick bold critics (Wesley Morris and Elvis Mitchell come immediately to mind), Roger passed.

Now me:

I story I heard was that Ebert did choose Elvis Mitchell but that a screen test of him with Kristy Lemire showed little or no chemistry. 

I like Elvis Mitchell - The Treatment is in frequent rotation on my commute - but bold people can make for less than salubrious employees. Frankly, when I heard Mitchell had been dropped I wasn't altogether surprised. 

Chris 

--Dave Sikula

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:02:05 PM UTC-7, Tom Wolper wrote:

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, the last co-host of Roger Ebert's show, describes how the format became no longer sustainable.

http://www.avclub.com/article/i-killed-movies-206668

--
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Steve Timko]

I go back with Siskel and Ebert to Sneak Previews in the 1970s on PBS. I think they could be relevant today just because they did have that good chemistry. By the way, they were much more abrasive in the earlier years of Sneak Previews. They sometimes argued about a film, went on to the next film, quickly dispensed with it and argued about the earlier film again.

Ebert was a good predictor of what films I liked. The only other critic like that was Glenn Lovell of the San Jose Mercury News.

tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

[Karen Owen]

On 7/24/2014 10:43 PM, Steve Timko wrote:
> I go back with Siskel and Ebert to Sneak Previews in the 1970s on PBS.
> I think they could be relevant today just because they did have that
> good chemistry. By the way, they were much more abrasive in the
> earlier years of Sneak Previews. They sometimes argued about a film,
> went on to the next film, quickly dispensed with it and argued about
> the earlier film again.
> Ebert was a good predictor of what films I liked. The only other
> critic like that was Glenn Lovell of the San Jose Mercury News.
>
>

I watched them almost from the beginning too. If they were doing the
early shows
today they might have to have more than one Dog or Skunk of the week film!
A radio movie review show that Siskel and Ebert viewers might like
is Cinema Bob on WBEN newsradio in Buffalo.
He is on Friday mornings at 11 am and the show is posted to
wben.com as an on-demand choice shortly after each airing.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com