at the movies:

[Radio_bored-Op]

what is this?!
I know, like many great things, they 'change'for the better,
or 'evolve' to at least keep up with the times...
or , in the unfortnate event, producers, talents,
contributors, etc - are no longer with us, and decisions
must be made: do we continue? would the deceased
want us to keep going, etc?!

COMMENTARY:
I DONT THINK, ANY ONE, EXCEPT THOSE TWO SLACK-JAWWED
WANNA-BE's think this 'new concept' for the original
"two thumbs up"(C)Siskel/Ebert, would be impressed at all...

A :30 "intro" stating the 'new' direction, and then 28-minutes
of lousy, bad-timed puns, and (extreme game show) or
"guy-game" style reviews, will kill this show! it's a shame
because the Roepert and (guest)(usually: 1 of the same 3)
was excellent. After about 6 minutes, I turned it off.
*Only watched it, to get some what of a scoop
of their take on a movie; and judging by the "zany" presentation
I can't trust them, any how.

Even, if EVERY ONE SAID, "Like the weather-man/woman, movie
critics never like the good ones....." but, after forming their
own opinion of the film, would always give it a 2 thumbs up
or down; I'm willing to bet it was the same as the more
credited critics would either ndorse, or pass on ....

one last comment:
i always trusted Roepert, and guest (esp.Roepert) because
they told you opinion, Fact and WHY...while contrasting
it what else you may like, or can relate to - i give this
new formula, less than a season...

Ok, i hope i dont break my ankle, climbing down off this soapbox.

 

[BRNout]

Dude, what are you talking about? ???

 

[landtuna]

I thought it was me....... :

 

[Markxxx]

what is this?!
I know, like many great things, they 'change'for the better,
or 'evolve' to at least keep up with the times...
or , in the unfortnate event, producers, talents,
contributors, etc - are no longer with us, and decisions
must be made: do we continue? would the deceased
want us to keep going, etc?!

He's saying shows must adapt over time because life changes, but sometimes it's better to end the show rather than try to do a pale imitation of what it was especially if the new direction is not valid.

COMMENTARY:
I DONT THINK, ANY ONE, EXCEPT THOSE TWO SLACK-JAWWED
WANNA-BE's think this 'new concept' for the original
"two thumbs up"(C)Siskel/Ebert, would be impressed at all...

A :30 "intro" stating the 'new' direction, and then 28-minutes
of lousy, bad-timed puns, and (extreme game show) or
"guy-game" style reviews, will kill this show! it's a shame
because the Roepert and (guest)(usually: 1 of the same 3)
was excellent. After about 6 minutes, I turned it off.
*Only watched it, to get some what of a scoop
of their take on a movie; and judging by the "zany" presentation
I can't trust them, any how.

He is combining the name Roeper and Ebert into one pseudo-person and since Ebert has been absent for the last few years added "guest"

His review is the format is not to his liking because instead of being like it was; it's trying to change and not doing a good job.

Even, if EVERY ONE SAID, "Like the weather-man/woman, movie
critics never like the good ones....." but, after forming their
own opinion of the film, would always give it a 2 thumbs up
or down; I'm willing to bet it was the same as the more
credited critics would either ndorse, or pass on ....

He's saying Ebert and Roeper (and Siskel before) were not afraid to state their opinions even if the public at large disagreed. Or even if their partner "across the aisle" disagreed.

one last comment:
i always trusted Roepert, and guest (esp.Roepert) because
they told you opinion, Fact and WHY...while contrasting
it what else you may like, or can relate to - i give this
new formula, less than a season...

Again he says not only did the prior host TELL you their OPINION they explained WHY they held that particular opinion. This would imply that the new hosts just state their opinion without backup. He says the new formula won't last a season

Ok, i hope i dont break my ankle, climbing down off this soapbox.

Witty ending remark


LOL

See you just have to look at it...

 

[quadraphonic]

I thought it might be a manifesto or something.

 

[Ultimajock]

i always trusted Roepert

...that's your biggest mistake. Trusting Siskel and/or Ebert was one thing, but Dickie Roeper is manifestly unqualified to be a film critic. Always has been...

 

[landtuna]

I'd rather trust Rotten Tomatoes.

 

[mleach]

With the internet being the way it is, is there really a need for paid critics anyway? Not just for movies but even for TV and radio as well.

For example I remember back in the 80's, in Denver it was Dusty Saunders. Back then he did a media column for the Rocky Mountain News. The man was quite powerful. If Dusty hated your work whether if its a news anchor for KUSA 9 news or a dj for KOOL 105, you might as well kiss Denver goodbye.

Dusty is still around of course and still does the same thing for the Rocky Mountain News but today the Denver area Tv and radio stations really could care less what Dusty thinks.

 

[Markxxx]

I agree with the Internet it makes it less important to have a critic. The one thing though is the Internet is totally unregulated, so a few people with an agenda can really blow a movie out of the water, especially if they are up on search engine optimization.

Conversely a studio has tons of money and they can put out their own positive reviews and manipulate Google to have good reviews come up first, even though the reviews are not accurate.

A critic, at least on the surface, has some sort of respectablity and will have some accountablity to his newspaper or magazine if he goes off half cocked.

So while I don't think they are as important as they were, they have uses. I know Ebert used to complain that more and more studios were refusing to release films to him ahead of time for him to review.

 

[dhett]

Hey Mark, thanks for the translation of the O.P.!! Can you speak jive, too?

 

[Radio_bored-Op]

Thanks, for the kind words, every one.
(hope i didnt type that too fast).

 

[imhomerjay]

what is this?!
I know, like many great things, they 'change'for the better,
or 'evolve' to at least keep up with the times...
or , in the unfortnate event, producers, talents,
contributors, etc - are no longer with us, and decisions
must be made: do we continue? would the deceased
want us to keep going, etc?!

COMMENTARY:
I DONT THINK, ANY ONE, EXCEPT THOSE TWO SLACK-JAWWED
WANNA-BE's think this 'new concept' for the original
"two thumbs up"(C)Siskel/Ebert, would be impressed at all...

A :30 "intro" stating the 'new' direction, and then 28-minutes
of lousy, bad-timed puns, and (extreme game show) or
"guy-game" style reviews, will kill this show! it's a shame
because the Roepert and (guest)(usually: 1 of the same 3)
was excellent. After about 6 minutes, I turned it off.
*Only watched it, to get some what of a scoop
of their take on a movie; and judging by the "zany" presentation
I can't trust them, any how.

Even, if EVERY ONE SAID, "Like the weather-man/woman, movie
critics never like the good ones....." but, after forming their
own opinion of the film, would always give it a 2 thumbs up
or down; I'm willing to bet it was the same as the more
credited critics would either ndorse, or pass on ....

one last comment:
i always trusted Roepert, and guest (esp.Roepert) because
they told you opinion, Fact and WHY...while contrasting
it what else you may like, or can relate to - i give this
new formula, less than a season...

Ok, i hope i dont break my ankle, climbing down off this soapbox.

Dude, what the heck was that?

 

[Radio_bored-Op]

the new-duo, sucks!
there. its not as poetic, or "PC"
or even....worthy of a response
(why they suck), i tried to explain it,
sorry i some times having trouble
expressing my communications, in
the written form.

but, i am not Happy with the
"new" at the movies (atthemoviestv.com)
presentation. why? its to
"flashy" - and seems to be
all __________(fill in your word)
and no ______________( again, fill in your own word).
*Any thing that denotes, fizzles, after the opening credits.

A few years ago I would type in the fashion I do,
to help relate to the co worker I once interacted with;
at the job-site, to understand his learning
disability and all the negative cruelity that
is attached to that; however, unintentionally
I know what it feels like... still, fact of the matter
the new format/show/or what ever you call it:

It SUcks.

(does that clear the aire?) or pollute it further?

 

[Markxxx]

I just saw the show, how did Jeffrey Lyons wind up with such a good looking kid. His wife must've been extra hot.

 

[quadraphonic]

A few years ago I would type in the fashion I do,
to help relate to the co worker I once interacted with;
at the job-site, to understand his learning
disability and all the negative cruelity that
is attached to that; however, unintentionally
I know what it feels like... still, fact of the matter
the new format/show/or what ever you call it:

It SUcks.

(does that clear the aire?) or pollute it further?

If That Guy is here, then he understands. Maybe. Assuming he understood a few years ago.
If he's not, then it's kind of polluting the aire for the rest of us.
Write so the most people can understand man, not to revisit old favorite styles of writing or whatever else, unless it's Pig Latin or Klingon or something maybe somebody in the group you're talking to (who isn't a miracle worker) might be able to cipher....