Ebert continues to muddle through “At the movies” with a guest critic each week as if Siskel never existed. I can’t watch this show any more with out thinking the fat dude’s dancing on the skinny dude’s grave. Is the longevity of “-fill in the blank- and Ebert” in jeopardy?
I’m sure Ebert misses Siskel terribly. Because Siskel died, do you want Ebert to die, too? The man has to go on making his living…doesn’t he?
“There will always be somebody who’s never read a book who’ll know twice what you know.” - D.Duchovny
Yeah, he’s gotta make a livin’, but he should scrap the format developed for both him and Siskel. He’s got name recognition, he could probably pull it off. He shouldn’t demean his buddy by throwing in a sub every week, proving anybody could do what Siske did.
Ebert has said that as long as the show is on the air, no matter who is on it, it will be still be billed as “Siskel and Ebert”.
Dr. J
I’ve seen some of the fill-ins and I wouldn’t say that anyone can fill-in for Siskel. To be honest most of the guests have looked so uncomfortable doing the job the show has lost most of it’s appeal.
Newspaper critics are writers, not TV personalities. Siskel and Ebert are/were exceptions, but only due to their experience. The were much less comfortable and eloquent on their earlier shows.
I suspect that eventually, Ebert will find a full-time partner to fill the seat across the aisle. It’s just going to take some time to find someone with the intelligence/taste/charisma combination that can hold his/her own opposite him.
Did anyone else read the piece that Ebert wrote right after Siskel died? It was wonderful, without being sugarcoated. He talked about their disagreements, and how they hated each other in the beginning. How that hate turned to respect, which turned into a friendship. I thought it was such a great piece, that talked about a relationship that lasted many years.
pat