# Roger Ebert STILL Giving Reviews? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 22, 2019, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256 "2019-12-22T21:00:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/41 "2019-12-23T21:56:57Z")
> [@MortSahlFan](#): > > Here goes again. I never went on that site… I was not interested in Ebert, but a movie. Someone mentioned a movie, so I typed it in the address bar and THAT came up. I wasn’t interested in the year the movie was made to automatically come to the conclusion Ebert didn’t write it. I even displayed a photograph for everyone to see. I’m a movie fan, but I still had to make sure when Ebert died. I imagine many did the same thing and didn’t go that far to research everything I’ve stated previously. I imagine someone saw Ebert and didn’t bother to question anything else, and linked a high score with a well-known movie critic. The difference between watching something or not could be very thin marginally. As I said before, it was automatically filtered through the #1 search engine, so maybe someone like you might be able to distinguish fact from fiction, but I have a feeling many gave a movie a chance because of an association. I also will guess that a movie that received zero attention could be substituted and benefit. Sometimes if I have five movies in mind, I might look at a score if I’m split evenly on what to watch, thus NOT giving the others a chance because Ebert happened to share some movie favorites of mine in the 1970s. > > Otherwise, they could have put “Matt Seitz” underneath, but advertisers know better. It would be nice to have a different kind of opinion, but I’m guessing posters don’t want to be socially ostracized from all these flippant comments about “Betty Crocker” as if the comparisons were analogous. It wasn’t an ad. It was a result of a google search you did. When you do a google search, it provides links to various sites. For movies they will provide links to review sites, like [RogerEbert.com](http://RogerEbert.com). That’s what they did.(I can’t believe I’m explaining this to an adult in 2019) Click on the link and you will be takes to Matt Seitz’s review, clearly under his name. Google has nothing to do with this movie and is not marketing it. You are yelling at the wrong cloud. ---
**Author:** ![MortSahlFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3bc359/32.png) [@MortSahlFan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MortSahlFan)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/42 "2019-12-23T22:31:20Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > It wasn’t an ad. It was a result of a google search you did. When you do a google search, it provides links to various sites. For movies they will provide links to review sites, like [RogerEbert.com](http://RogerEbert.com). That’s what they did.(I can’t believe I’m explaining this to an adult in 2019) Click on the link and you will be takes to Matt Seitz’s review, clearly under his name. Google has nothing to do with this movie and is not marketing it. You are yelling at the wrong cloud. I can’t believe you are an adult. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/43 "2019-12-23T22:36:59Z")
> [@MortSahlFan](#): > > I can’t believe you are an adult. I’m not the one who can’t figure out what a google search is. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/44 "2019-12-23T23:16:51Z")
Actually one good thing about this bizarre thread is that I learned about the movie, which looks cool and is available on Netflix. I might have to give it a shot. Also, Matt Seitz was a friend and collaborator of Ebert who was hired as editor in chief of [Rogerebert.com](http://Rogerebert.com) by Ebert’s widow, two months after the man had died. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/45 "2019-12-23T23:26:46Z")
“Roger Ebert” is now a brand name, like many other once living purveyors of goods and services whose names have now become brand names. How difficult is that to understand? ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim_r.mortiss/32/142_2.png) [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/46 "2019-12-23T23:34:56Z")
Colonel Sanders is still hawking fried chicken. And I still watch Dick Clark’s Rockin’ New Year’s Eve. Death is not a disqualification in the world of marketing. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/47 "2019-12-24T00:12:52Z")
> [@MortSahlFan](#): > > I did a search for a movie someone mentioned, and had I not known much about Ebert, I would have thought “Oh, he recommends it”. > > This is evil marketing. Why not use Matt’s name instead? Yeah. I don’t like that capsule reviews on other sites say:\* “‘I loved it’ – **Roger Ebert** ”_. I think they should say:_ “‘I loved it’ – **[rogerebert.com](http://rogerebert.com)**”\* It’s weak, chiseling shit that’s everywhere these days. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/48 "2019-12-24T00:15:50Z")
> [@MortSahlFan](#): > > I’d bet 99% of people just see the name “Roger Ebert” off that Google search and decide then and there after seeing 3/4… I highly doubt they’re going to question and ponder, “Maybe someone else wrote this?”… They should have had the name “Matt Zoller Seitz” under that score, but they know it wouldn’t sell shit. So this is marketing, not a movie Ebert liked. Maybe he’d hate it! > > **Maybe this is the way people have become, beyond cynical, beyond greed, no reverence for truth**. [Bolding mine] I’m afraid it’s true. It’s tempting to call people immoral and unethical but really, I think most are just too lazy and don’t care about anything beyond themselves and their immediate families. Thus, they end up immoral and unethical without even noticing it’s happened or that that’s a bad, bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/49 "2019-12-24T00:25:16Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > The actual freaking website has a picture of Roger Ebert with “In Memoriam 1942-2013, Roger Ebert loved movies” written next to it. > > You’d think if they were trying to be deceptive they would cover that up. The actual website is not the problem. The problem is other websites and aggregators who say that the review is from Roger Ebert, not [rogerebert.com](http://rogerebert.com). ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/50 "2019-12-24T00:28:48Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > The actual website is not the problem. The problem is other websites and aggregators who say that the review is from Roger Ebert, not [rogerebert.com](http://rogerebert.com). There was more than one that took that sloppy shortcut? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/51 "2019-12-24T00:29:15Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > “Roger Ebert” is now a brand name, like many other once living purveyors of goods and services whose names have now become brand names. How difficult is that to understand? No. “[rogerebert.com](http://rogerebert.com)” is a brand name. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/52 "2019-12-24T00:37:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > There was more than one that took that sloppy shortcut? I think so. I can’t remember which though. I have seen it a lot. This thread rang a bell to me because I remember thinking the same things as the OP. And in the first few years after Ebert dies it was easy to be tripped us by this. Even now there a likely many folks who know that his name = “good critic” but don’t know that he’s dead. You say “sloppy shortcut” but would it be hard for you to believe that people do it on purpose to increase clicks? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/53 "2019-12-24T01:43:11Z")
**[Moderating]** > [@MortSahlFan](#): > > I can’t believe you are an adult. That’ll be a Warning for personal insults. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/54 "2019-12-24T01:44:57Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > No. “[rogerebert.com](http://rogerebert.com)” is a brand name. I’m afraid you’re wrong about that. They’re both brands. They’re both trademarks. This is how branding works. This is how it has worked for well over a century. There’s no “kids these days” issue here. This is how it’s been your whole life. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/55 "2019-12-24T04:29:58Z")
I also find it weird that so few see an issue with them using [robertebert.com](http://robertebert.com), a site that flat out says in its title that it is “Movie Reviews and Ratings by Film Critic Roger Ebert.” It was never presented as some sort of collaborative website or some group of people while he was alive, so why should it be when he’s not? And that “in memoriam” banner is the type that most people will skip over when reading. They even use really light text and a light image so it will be very low contrast, making it more likely your eyes will skip over it. Add in how we’re trained to ignore banners by them being ads all the time, and I genuinely did not notice it was there and scrolled down the entire page. It’s bizarre. I can’t say I can think of anyone else trying this, where a celebrity dies and other people take over his site and do the same things they did. If it was something like “[ebertcoporation.com](http://ebertcoporation.com)” I’d get it. Then you could argue it was like Disney, which billed itself as the Walt Disney company, and every already knew that Disney himself was not doing everything before he died. But it’s just using his personal site and his own personal brand. I can’t help but feel that using his name is about borrowing some of his prestige and reputation. The brand applied to a particular person who is now dead–it did not apply to these other writers. They get a boost by being at [rogerebert.com](http://rogerebert.com) because of Roger Ebert’s reputation. The website–as in its name–is part of the problem. It implies it is something it is not. I can’t help but think that the critics there show up so often because they borrow on his prestige, and wouldn’t if the writers were entirely under their own name. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/56 "2019-12-24T04:33:56Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I also find it weird that so few see an issue with them using [robertebert.com](http://robertebert.com), a site that flat out says in its title that it is “Movie Reviews and Ratings by Film Critic Roger Ebert.” It was never presented as some sort of collaborative website or some group of people while he was alive, so why should it be when he’s not? > > And that “in memoriam” banner is the type that most people will skip over when reading. They even use really light text and a light image so it will be very low contrast, making it more likely your eyes will skip over it. Add in how we’re trained to ignore banners by them being ads all the time, and I genuinely did not notice it was there and scrolled down the entire page. > > It’s bizarre. I can’t say I can think of anyone else trying this, where a celebrity dies and other people take over his site and do the same things they did. If it was something like “[ebertcoporation.com](http://ebertcoporation.com)” I’d get it. Then you could argue it was like Disney, which billed itself as the Walt Disney company, and every already knew that Disney himself was not doing everything before he died. But it’s just using his personal site and his own personal brand. > > I can’t help but feel that using his name is about borrowing some of his prestige and reputation. The brand applied to a particular person who is now dead–it did not apply to these other writers. They get a boost by being at [rogerebert.com](http://rogerebert.com) because of Roger Ebert’s reputation. As far as i remember, there were always other reviewers on [rogerebert.com](http://rogerebert.com). Especially once he got more and more sick. To me it seemed like he was grooming them to carry on with his work. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/57 "2019-12-24T04:44:46Z")
I visit that site a lot, and it’s always obvious who wrote what review. BTW Roger himself was the mastermind behind expanding his site to include other people, so it is disingenuous to imply anyone suddenly tried to pull a fast one after he was gone. Also, eg Seitz isn’t some random dude who assimilated the domain; he knew Ebert. ETA knew Ebert, was in the same business, and helped him set up some of his web stuff in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/58 "2019-12-24T04:59:25Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > “Roger Ebert” is now a brand name, like many other once living purveyors of goods and services whose names have now become brand names. How difficult is that to understand? I have trouble thinking of any examples of this on the web–where a person dies and the website that was just for their personal work is taken over by others who continue to do the same thing. Heck, I have trouble thinking of parallels outside the Web. Disney is the closest, but that was always “The Walt Disney Company” and was such when Walt was still alive. They kept the separation between Disney, the (shortened name for the) company and Walt Disney, the man. Both were, in effect, separate brands. That doesn’t seem to apply here. [rogerebert.com](http://rogerebert.com) was always billed as the online archive for Ebert’s own work, not as some sort of company he had created. When people talked about a review on [rogerebert.com](http://rogerebert.com) when Ebert was still alive, the assumption was that he wrote it. And I think that is exactly what they are exploiting here. They have a cover-their-ass banner on top, but, as I said, it’s made as invisible as possible so that most people won’t see it. It seems they are deliberately exploiting the confusion. If you have examples of this same sort of thing that I am not thinking of, I would love to hear of them. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/59 "2019-12-24T05:06:53Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I have trouble thinking of any examples of this on the web–where a person dies and the website that was just for their personal work is taken over by others who continue to do the same thing. > > Heck, I have trouble thinking of parallels outside the Web. Disney is the closest, but that was always “The Walt Disney Company” and was such when Walt was still alive. They kept the separation between Disney, the (shortened name for the) company and Walt Disney, the man. Both were, in effect, separate brands. > > That doesn’t seem to apply here. [rogerebert.com](http://rogerebert.com) was always billed as the online archive for Ebert’s own work, not as some sort of company he had created. When people talked about a review on [rogerebert.com](http://rogerebert.com) when Ebert was still alive, the assumption was that he wrote it. > > And I think that is exactly what they are exploiting here. They have a cover-their-ass banner on top, but, as I said, it’s made as invisible as possible so that most people won’t see it. It seems they are deliberately exploiting the confusion. > > If you have examples of this same sort of thing that I am not thinking of, I would love to hear of them. This post reads as though you’ve never been to the site before today. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256/60 "2019-12-24T05:09:31Z")
Also, im pretty sure Breitbart is still a thing even though he’s been dead for years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roger-ebert-still-giving-reviews/845256.md?page=4)