She shares a factory with Uncle Ben.
(Remember: with great rice comes great responsibility.)
Preacher Ben, despite adversity
Saved a Texas university.
Said his nephew, “Ain’t that nice?
Uncle Ben’s converted Rice.”
King Arthur Flour is one of the upscale brands (? I don’t know if that’s the right word, but it’s marketing positioning/branding/pricing seems to be a step above Gold Medal or Pillsbury flour brands here in the US.) I have no idea when it became ubiquitous. Apparently, it goes back to 1790, though I don’t remember hearing about it or seeing it here in Chicago until the early 2000s, I think. It could simply be something that was off my radar, though. According to this chart, it is the fourth most popular brand of flour (if you consider store brands as a single category. As a name brand, it is third behind Gold Medal and Pillsbury.) Incidentally, Robin Hood flour made the chart, as well.
Because it referred to a review on rogerebert.com.
There’s nothing dishonest about it. The review is the review.
You’ll see plenty of movie ads that mention only the source, not the individual reviewer. I just checked the Knives Out official site, and it takes blurbs from GQ and The Guardian without naming the actual reviewer.
Then why not use the reviewer’s name? Because it holds nothing, and wouldn’t sell as much… Ebert is probably the most well-known movie critic, and Google is the most used search engine.
Whatever site that was in the OP was the one that used the “Roger Ebert” name instead of “rogerebert.com”-The website review for that movie clearly shows right at the top who the reviewer was-Matt Zoller Seitz.
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.
Which “they” are you blaming for this great transgression?
Whoever is responsible.
As best I can tell, that’s, well… you. Whatever distress this situation presents, it seems to be the product of you assuming that others would assume that a review appearing on rogerebert.com (the link being given as “Roger Ebert”) was in fact written by Roger Ebert, despite him being dead for over six years.
Do you think people assume a movie being put out by “Walt Disney” was produced by Walter E. Disney and there’s an effort to convince people that he hasn’t been dead since 1966?
When you can figure out who it is that you are pissed off at, we’ll talk.
Apples and oranges.
Orville Redenbacher returned to sell popcorn 12 years after his death (check out the reactions of the people in the commercial).
It’s okay if you made a hasty assumption, got annoyed about it, decided to rant about it, and now don’t want to recognize all the people pointing out your mistake and… well, actually, that’s about it. That’s literally as far as this line of discussion has gone and probably can go. Good luck with it.
OP is a textbook example of an old soul.
He is younger than me, but posts like Abe Simpson, and seems utterly baffled by anything from this century.
LOL
I made no mistakes. You don’t understand nuance, either. You think this is some contest or something.
Sooooo…not knowing who you are pissed off at is called “nuance”?
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.
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.