From the Dept. of Clarifications…
Earlier this week, I launched the updated version of this site, and I announced plans to include on-camera reviews of new movies. Thanks to everyone who has Twittered, posted a message on Facebook or emailed me with kind words about the new venture.
Veteran media columnist Robert Feder wrote about the deal on his blog.
Some of the comments under Rob’s fair and accurate piece were pretty negative, but as long as the criticism is fair, I have no problem with that. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. A few other comments were based on false claims, so I jumped in with a response to set the record straight. I don’t mind if you’re going to take a shot at me, but if you’re going to make things up or repeat untruths, that’s just not right.
A few days later Roger Ebert wrote a long piece about the history of the show, including his take on some recent developments, for his online journal. Roger took note of a comment I made to Feder and addressed me directly:
“I confess I felt a twinge that Rob Feder’s column quoted you: ‘As much as I loved doing ‘Ebert & Roeper,’ this will have much more of an unfiltered, uncut, viral feel. As someone at Starz put it, they wanted ‘Roeper uncut.’ If a film is a piece of shit, I’ll say it’s a piece of shit.’
“Richard, were you not uncut at E&R? Did you never say a movie was ‘a piece of shit?’ On the web and cable you can use that very word, of course, as you do in your web site’s promo for your new enterprise, promising to review ‘a lot of big movies, and some smaller, shitty ones as well.’ “
A few words of explanation. First, it was not my intention to disparage the amazing experience I had as Roger’s co-host, or to imply I was creatively stifled. Roger and Gene pioneered the concept of two smart, interesting people on TV talking like they would at a coffee shop or at a bar. (The “Pardon the Interruption” guys, among many others, have said they’re just doing a variation of “Siskel & Ebert.”) From the first time I sat in the balcony, Roger always encouraged me to speak freely and be myself–and he was exceedingly generous about giving me equal time every time we discussed a movie.
However, during my first couple of years on the show and then again at the very end of my run, I did have some behind-the-scenes “creative differences” (as they say) with producers. I probably should have clarified to Rob that that’s what I was thinking about when I said “uncut, unfitered,” blah blah blah. But on the air, with Roger–I was absolutely encouraged to be myself and to express myself in my own way. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise with a clumsy and cryptic quote.
The other factor that played into my comments is the delivery system I’ll be using. With these reviews airing on premium cable and on the Internet as opposed to broadcast television, I will have more freedom in terms of language. (Not that I’m going to come out of the box every week cussing like a Tarantino character.) Anyone who reads my blog knows I’ve occasionally said things in this space I could never print in the Sun-Times. In that same vein, these on-camera reviews might be a little more PG-13 or R than the reviews on the Disney-produced show. When I said “uncut, unfiltered,” etc., I just meant I’ll be delivering the reviews in a casual setting, in a conversational tone.
As for my comment about reviewing “a lot of big movies, and some smaller, shitty ones as well,” that was just a lame attempt at humor. It would have been more accurate for me to say I’ll be reviewing a lot of big movies, and some great smaller movies as well. I’d much rather celebrate a small gem than go out of my way to spotlight a little film, only to say it’s terrible. There are enough shitty BIG movies (hello, “2012″) to review as it is.
Here’s how it’s going to work. I’m going to see the movies and record my reviews in Chicago. The Denver-based editing team at Starz will drop in clips and graphics. The reviews will appear on richardroeper.com and on other web sites on the day the movie opens; a short while later, they’ll run on Starz. It’s really that simple.
And Roger, to answer your question: You’re right. Indeed I did once compare a certain movie to “a hot, steaming pile of excrement.” It was “The Brown Bunny.” Never did get a Christmas card from Vincent Gallo after that.
Cheers,
Richard
November 27th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Richard, Good luck with your new ventures. I look forward to your reviews in these new venues.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
i love you roeper. dont let them get you down. they just see how great you are so they want to say ~tear you down~ <3
November 27th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Richard,
As a big Siskel & Ebert fan I remember not liking you right away back when you joined the show. At the time I felt you didn’t have enough of a film criticism background to sit in that particular balcony. Over the years I changed my mind about you. Obviously working on the show for so long now gives you that background I once thought was lacking. I also liked how over time you really had your own personality that wasn’t at all like Gene or Roger. You weren’t Siskel part II and you weren’t Roger’s sidekick. I really look forward to seeing your new reviews online. I also felt that you always had the most perfect insults for bad movies and bad performances. I could be wrong by I believe it was you who once said “Tom Green is the Pauly Shore of the new millenium” and that was always one of my favourite quotes from any era of “at the Movies.”
November 27th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I hope this unbridled Roeper means that I’ll have an easier time spotting the reviews you make consulting your penis. I have occasionally given you a bad time for little things but this is the only one that has cost me money.
Seriously now, good luck with all of your ventures.
November 27th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I think Roger misunderstood your original comments, which were pretty clear to me. You were just saying you’re going to be doing reviews in a more casual, less restricted setting. But it was very classy of you to clarify your remarks in this manner.
Can’t wait to see the reviews!!!!
November 28th, 2009 at 4:58 am
Memo to Mr’s Ebert and Roeper:
Girls, girls. You’re BOTH pretty!
Carry on.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I have to think the people that misinterpreted Roeper’s comments are older and don’t understand what he meant by “viral.” Also, Roeper is not the one who said it would be “Roeper uncut.” He was quoting someone at Starz who said that to him.
Personally I’m looking forward to these new reviews, but I’d still like to see Richard return to the airwaves with a traditional show as well. The best part of “Ebert & Roeper” was when the two guys bantered back and forth about a movie. I think Roeper’s best trait is his ability to react and improvise.
But online reviews by an “uncut Roeper” still sound good to me!
November 28th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Look forward to your reviews. But get rid of this white print on black background.
November 29th, 2009 at 8:16 am
@ #8. Sammy
I agree. White text on a black background is too difficult to read.
There’s a reason black text on a white background is so popular. It works!
Glad to see you back Richard. Good luck.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:47 am
The comments section in the movie reviews seems to have a non-expandable window. I left a comment in the 2012 review that pushed all the other comments below the window where they can’t be read (which was very much NOT my intention). Is this a glitch or intentional?
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Thanks for the suggestions. As you can see, we’ve gone back to the black-on-gray blog setup. And Brian, we’ve fixed the glitch in the comments section.
Best,
Richard
December 4th, 2009 at 7:29 am
It’s wonderful to see your responses to feedback, thanks Richard! (there is actually still a glitch in that comments section: it cuts off on the second page. no worries, we’ll get there!)
In that same comments section, it seems we’ve been the victim of some seriously juvenile behavior (in the form of spamming vulgar comments). There are so few refuges on the internet for actual intelligent conversation, it’s painful to see them attacked. I’ve been privileged to be a part of the content of this blog, and I intend to remain so despite the efforts of some petty jerks.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Richard…
I must offer you a long overdue apology. As an earlier poster noted, I wasn’t a huge fan of you when you first started doing Siskel and Ebert. I was stubborn, I didn’t want to let go of the past and didn’t really give you a fair shake. For that I apologize. I eventually saw the error of my ways and grew to really enjoy your reviews and your work. And after the unfortunate took hold of Roger and it became clear that it truly would never ever be the same again, you did a terrific job upholding the legacy that was Siskel and Ebert. I am really happy to hear that you are back and wish you much success in your future endeavors.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:59 am
[...] a friend and one-time Sun-Times colleague, has just announced a deal to begin taping reviews for his Web site and cable’s Starz in December. AKPC_IDS += [...]
December 4th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Is it just my computer or is everyone else still seeing black background with white script?
December 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I finally have black script on grey background. So much better to read.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
your language will be looser? like your shirt not tucked in? Hmmm, methinks it’s a new “so what if i’m 50?” attitude. Like it
June 20th, 2010 at 10:28 am
I love checking up on all the assorted styles of Dec 21 12 mayan prophecy, I believe one superb thing that has come of all of this, even if nothing goes on is that it has opened our psyches to the possibility that we may not be here forever and that we need to treasure the lifetime we have.