It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I wish the show were gone already. Reading about the backstage shenanigans, even granting that salary cuts probably had to happen since I can’t imagine how this show is making money without Ebert’s presence for this long, just raises that wish higher on my list. If this is truly how little input Roger has in the shaping of the show he built with Gene Siskel, then to hell with this watered-down ramshackle. If you can’t have Roger in the flesh, and you don’t want his spirit around, other than to lend your sloppiness a veneer of credibility, you shouldn’t be working in this balcony.
And although he’ll never be in the same category as Siskel or Ebert, I actually think Roeper’s work has been okay, and I appreciate seeing someone there who’d call a film out for being a pretentious bore without worrying whether or not the filmmaker is a holy cow to the cinephiles of the world.
This whole situation is so sad. I grew up with Siskel and Ebert and have vivid memories of watching them on PBS when I was very young. I received all of Roger’s books for Christmas from my parents during high school and Ebert is a large part of the reason I went to film school.
I do not mind Roeper but I can honestly say I haven’t watched this show in years. I am sorry that this show will ultimately pitter out as opposed to have a better ending.
The plus side of course, is this will not be Roger’s legacy. He will always be remembered as one of the most prominent film critics in film history – one could make the argument that he was the most influencial also.
Ebert bridged the gap between arthouse and commercial and was a great personality in and of himself.
If this is the end of the show, that is probably overall a good thing. Whenever I see the ‘two thumbs up’ moniker on a DVD now or ad I roll my eyes knowing it does not mean what it used to mean.
For Roger’s sake, I hope all of this gets sorted out and he and Mrs. Siskel are done right by in the end.
I agree with what was said before. I used to watch the show diligently but as it became a choice between it and Sunday Morning Shootout, I tended to go for the latter and when Roger went on leave, the show would never be on the same time slot (or even channel) and it became less important to watch it every week. I’ve actually been much more entertained by Reel Talk with Jeffrey Lyons and Allison Bail, because they have that same head-butting chemistry as Roger and Gene back in the day, so it’s always fun to watch it to see Jeffrey get behind some truly atrocious movie and Allison telling him why he’s wrong.
I really wouldn’t be surprised to see EBERT AND ROEPER cancelled. I’ve been watching it since the early PBS days. Have barely missed an episode in that time period. But, it seems like a show that is on that no one seems to watch other than myself.
In my area at least, it airs midnight Sunday nights. Now that Sunday night football has started back up, it is now sometimes at 1 am or so. Since a JEOPARDY rerun airs before it, I often wonder why the station is even airing it. If I didn’t have Tivo, I’d never see it.
As for REEL TALK, (which also airs at a odd time slot, 4 am or so) it seems that Lyons is doing too much acting on it. He is always disagreeing to try to make TV, talking over Bailes, continually telling her “You are wrong on this one” and trying to create something where nothing exists.
I’ve moved a few times in my life and one thing I always looked for when I settled in was when Sikel & Ebert or Ebert & Roeper were on. Ebert has a natural personality and Siskel was always an excellent co-host. Plus, they turned me on to movies I would’ve never heard of elsewhere (And weren’t even playing in a theater 500 miles from where I lived, but home video got better at getting those things here). They constantly showed action sequences from movies that literally happened 5 minutes before the movie ended, but I’d usually seen those anyway. I could even tolerate Roeper, who just seemed like he was being the cool kid (His flip-flop on The Lord of the Rings series after ot became a smash hit was telling). But now, I don’t even bother. I read Roger in print. It’s a much better use of my time than watching the charade the show is now.
The new webwite had made me realize something. I used to think Gene Siskel used a sarcasm a lot in his reviews, but looking back, I found I was accidentally attaching Richard Roeper’s attributes to Gene, and for that, I need to apologize. To whom, I don’t know, but I feel rotten for doing that.
“website” on the last paragraph. It’s early for a Saturday.
Dave, could you and Roger work together in another production? Maybe a Don Murphy/Spielberg Dreamworks production? Michael Bay wouldn’t be involved….
Hmmm, you could have “lunch with Dave” segments and film discussions with Roger. It would definitely have a different balance.
the era ended years ago my friend.
I respect the reverence you have for Ebert. I also find it a little strange sometimes. We all have our heroes. You devote a lot of paragraphs to the man, and while i will never say a bad word about Ebert, we’re ten years past END OF AN ERA.
The Era ended when Gene Siskel died. Out of reverence, they should have cancelled the show or at least abandoned the thumbs. One of those thumbs was Gene’s. Continuing the show diluted the influence of it, much like Jordan coming back for another season with the Wizards. He left at the right time, and then came back and basically destroyed the perfect retirement moment for nothing.
Roeper is the Washington Wizards of film criticism, and Ebert was a fool to continue on with such a schlub. (and a roster of guest critics i can only describe as ‘questionable’)
Though, the era really ended when studios figured out that you didn’t need critics to launch a film. That really was the blow to guys like Ebert and every other talking head critic out there. It’s kind of like what’s happening to network news now. There was a day when you looked to people like Walter Cronkite to help you form an opinion. Now there’s 100 different places to get your news and opinions.
I think between Siskel dying, Frontloading and canning critical screenings, and the internet, you could make a strong argument that the era ended well before now.
What does two thumbs up even mean anymore?
If movies are opening to $100 million a weekend, then the public not only wants to see movies rabidly, they want to talk movies rabidly. There should be a campaign to keep this program on air from the online community. At the very least from the people like Knowles and Poland who got career boosts on it years ago. I’d say that once film critics aren’t worthy enough for national TV, it hurts the whole effort in every medium. The show is important… Doesn’t matter if you’re Kasi Lemmons or Jerry Bruckheimer, “two thumbs up” on your movie’s ad is a blessing.
And we don’t need Ebert to do it. Roeper may be a a bit of a spaz but if you look back in his yearly best of lists he’s a spaz with tremendous taste. A show with any two film buffs going at it is good enough for me.
(Just watched Seed of Chucky. With no press screenings Ebert begrudgingly wrote he “had” to see it on a Saturday morning on his own. If that doesn’t show an altruistic love for movies, I don’t know what does.)
i think we need more film discussion. entertainment journalism has evolved to include film criticism, box office analysis, and ‘insider’ information.
just saying what you liked or disliked about a movie is just one facet of what people are looking for in their film entertainment these days.
Gotta agree with anghus. Gene’s death ended the show. “Siskel and Ebert” was a great brand, and no matter who Ebert had on his right, it would never be the same.
The advent of the internet and sites like Poland’s hasn’t helped either. Back in the day, Siskel and Ebert was one of the primary way that film fans could check up on newly released movies, both mainstream and independent. Nowadays, I can log in to the internets anytime I want to and find great film criticism and discussion.
Anghus, the end of a format doesn’t mean the end of an era, especially for someone like Ebert. And I’d argue cause and effect – one of the reasons I’m glad there are more outlets for news and opinions is because networks have drop-kicked quality for whatever is newer/cheaper/younger. I get my news online because network news is a joke, largely made up of Barbie & Ken dolls spouting grist for the corporate mills. If Cronkite were around, I’d feel lucky to listen to him. I wish it was an option. Ebert is in that league. I enjoy the opinions of other critics, but I always want to read Ebert’s take. I don’t always agree with him, but his eyes are sharp, his views are wide, his heart is big. I’m grateful it’s an option.
seen,
i get your point. but i think it is the end of an era.
there was a time when a few critics kind of ruled the roost.
Then Gene Siskel died.
Then Stsudios realized critical screenings didn’t help or hurt the box office
Then the internet provided 1000 different voices for film commentary
So the era of the television critic and the influence of “thumbs up/thumbs down” is over. Ebert’s opinion is still relevant in particular circles, but it’s hardly the day and age where a half dozen critics ruled the roost.
That era is over.
Someone who obviously never heard of AGENT ZERO stated; “Roeper is the Washington Wizards” Yeah… the end of the era is over… and the guy saying as much HAS NO IDEA CLUE ABOUT GILBERT ARENAS or the Wizards making the playoffs this season. Really choice ang. Nevertheless; Heat remains nothing more than a hater and the era is not over. People still care about the discussion of film. No matter the scale or the media; people enjoy the discussion of film. You can hate Roeper and Phillips all you want, but there are people who enjoy their discussions. If you dont… be more constructive in your criticism… Dave.
Re: the above –
Huh???
Anghus is right – this thing should have been put to bed when Siskel died. It might have been saved if Ebert had chosen someone of equal stature, but he didn’t. When he chose someone no one heard of, and didn’t really want to listen to, I didn’t care whether it was two thumbs up, I just wanted to know where Ebert’s was. And without a real critic to validate the other thumb, as Siskel and Ebert provided each other, it wasn’t the same. I could just go to suntimes.com/ebert to findout what Ebert thought.
And that’s where film criticism belongs – on the internet. On the internet critics can actually say something about a work that Siskel and Ebert never could even with five minutes.
It’s time to let it go. TV doesn’t need film critics and film critics don’t need TV.
It’s not either-or. Film criticism can exist on the internet and also on tv … and in newspapers, magazines, etc. Just because you and I surf the internet every day doesn’t mean everybody else does too.
No, but are these same people up at 5:30 on a Sunday morning – as it airs where I live (unless they’ve moved it again). The show stopped drawing ratings worthy of a better spot a long time ago, suggesting that it’s not really having a whole lot of reach any more.
Jeff; stop fucking with me. Thanks. Jeff being Jeff aside; this show only gets PRIMETIME airings in the larger markets. Every where else it airs at random times from the early morning, to the afternoon, and finally late in the evening. This leaves me wondering if the era has been over long before Siskel passed on because it’s not like most peoeple in this country have the opportunity to watch this show now — or then — at a reasonable time.
All I can say to you IO, is that you seem to be accusing me of something from some other prior notion of what you think I think and not from what I wrote.
IOI, let me be more specific:
Who’s “Agent Zero”?
Jeff, Agent Zero is Gilbert Arenas, the point guard for the Washington Wizards. He really took that Washington Wizards analogy to heart, I guess.
I’ll say one thing for Roeper, I don’t know how much of a hand he has in picking the guest reviewers, but the ones that have been on lately are a lot better than most of the ones Roger had on after Gene died.
Heat; you have always come across as a hater to me in terms of Roeper and the way you have described the Roeper era of this show. Do you really expect or assume someone to read this very thought out but very pointed post of yours, and not take it as a diatribe? Ebert is your friend. He is also someone who you admire. It’s understandable that you would respond this way. Yet it still reads in such a way to carry more spite — most likely from all the years you have been dogging Roeper — then you may have intended. Nevertheless; this show still airs. Yay.
Since when is Gilbert Arenas known as AGENT ZERO? I never heard that one.
Commtn: Since when is Gilbert Arenas known as AGENT ZERO? I never heard that one. ]
April 2006, more or less. A Wizards blog coined the phrase, Arenas started using it, Jim Rome cemented it, and now Arenas has it as the title of his NBA blog:
http://www.nba.com/blog/gilbert_arenas.html
the death of siskel was the death of the show to me too. i didn’t dislike roeper, it just wasn’t the same. i couldn’t even tell you when the show is on here in l.a.
i agree that the internet is the wave of the future when it comes to film criticism, especially followed by a comments section.
That’s just epic. Many many thanks to the helpful post.