MovieChat Forums > Siskel & Ebert & the Movies (1986) Discussion > Disney-ABC to cancel 'At the Movies,' Si...

Disney-ABC to cancel 'At the Movies,' Siskel and Ebert's old show


Disney-ABC to cancel 'At the Movies,' Siskel and Ebert's old show
Share | "At the Movies" is fading to black after 24 seasons.The cancellation brings down the curtain on the Chicago-based nationally syndicated TV showcase for dueling film critics that traced its lineage to WTTW-Ch. 11's mid-1970s pairing of the Chicago Sun-Times' Roger Ebert and Tribune's Gene Siskel.

Disney-ABC Domestic Television and ABC Media Productions finally yelled cut Wednesday, announcing the final show with current reviewers Michael Phillips of the Tribune and A.O. Scott of the New York Times will air the weekend of Aug. 14. But it was anything but a surprise ending.

The plug nearly was pulled last year after one season with poorly received Ben Lyons of E! Entertainment Television and Ben Mankiewicz of Turner Classic Movies in the critics' chairs. That pairing was installed following a bitter divorce from Ebert and Richard Roeper, the Sun-Times colleague Ebert picked to succeed Siskel after Siskel's 1999 death from a brain tumor at age 53.


Instead, last August, just weeks before the new TV season, Disney-ABC announced it had hired Phillips and Scott. Respected print reviewers, they were a throwback to the tradition and standards of Ebert, Siskel and Roeper. But their earnest, sometimes bookish approach -- a sharp contrast to the slick, too often superficial approach of Lyons in particular -- failed to restore the viewership the two Bens squandered in Disney's misguided bid to revitalize the program.

"To their credit," Phillips said Wednesday night, Disney-ABC "never tried to make us anything we weren't."

Scott and Phillips -- each of whom sat across from Roeper in the earlier incarnation of "Ebert & Roeper" after 2006 health issues that stole Ebert's voice and kept him off the air -- at least allowed "At the Movies" to die with dignity.

"This was a very difficult decision, especially considering the program's rich history and iconic status within the entertainment industry," Disney-ABC Domestic Television and ABC Media Productions said in a statement. "But from a business perspective it became clear this weekly, half-hour, broadcast syndication series was no longer sustainable."

Public broadcaster WTTW first paired Siskel, who was reviewing films for the Tribune and WBBM-Ch. 2, and Pulitzer Prize-winner Ebert for "Opening Soon ... at a Theater Near You" in 1975. The show began airing monthly almost a year later. WTTW eventually made it a weekly a program and took it national via public television in 1978 as "Sneak Previews."

A dispute with WTTW led Siskel and Ebert to commercial television through Chicago Tribune parent Tribune Co.'s TV syndication wing in 1982, and they got a better deal from Disney four years later.

From the very start, even when they lacked performance skills and a comfort in front of the camera they would later acquire, Siskel and Ebert were such a natural point-counterpoint that they came to define in many ways the genre of sparring experts on TV.

Siskel, thin, tall with a receding hairline, and Ebert, shorter, more stout with a mop of hair, not only were a physical study in contrast. Each could intelligently, passionately and persuasively argue their views with authority, a sense of perspective and history and the certainty the other guy was just plain wrong. They never indicated they didn't respect one another, even if the depth of their affection was not always apparent.

"Gene Siskel and I were like tuning forks," Ebert wrote on the 10th anniversary of Siskel's death, noting he thought of him daily. "Strike one, and the other would pick up the same frequency. When we were in a group together, we were always intensely aware of one another. Sometimes this took the form of camaraderie, sometimes shared opinions, sometimes hostility. But we were aware. If something happened that we both thought was funny but weren't supposed to, God help us if one caught the other's eye. We almost always thought the same things were funny. That may be the best sign of intellectual communion."

Despite his on-air absence, Ebert's name and imprimatur remained with the program until the formal split with Disney in the summer of 2008. A hint of the trouble to come had surfaced a few months before, however, when the show dropped its use of "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" as shorthand for a recommendation or rejection of a film. Ebert and Siskel's estate owned the trademark on the thumbs.

"We gratefully acknowledge the outstanding work of the program's current co-hosts, A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips, and top-notch production staff (at Chicago's ABC-owned WLS-Ch. 7)," the syndicator and production company said in its statement. "And it is with heartfelt appreciation that we extend very special thanks to the two brilliant, visionary and incomparable critics that started it all, Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel."

It is not known if Disney or WLS have plans for a replacement show in the old "At the Movies" slots. WLS has aired the program after the late local news on Saturday nights and on Sunday mornings. A spokeswoman for Disney-ABC and ABC Media declined comment beyond the prepared statement.

Ebert continues to review films for the Sun-Times, and has talked recently of efforts to launch a new show of some sort. Roeper, a general columnist at the paper, has been reviewing movies for his cable's Starz channel, with the video segments available on his richardroeper.com Web site, as well as on You Tube and Hulu.

reply

I think Disney finally realized that they made a mistake with not sticking with Ebert and Roeper. They should've done Roeper and Phillips when Roger couldn't come back on the air. They also should've brought back the balcony and not torn it up.

reply

[deleted]

I had no problem with Ebert and Roeper. It was when Roger could no longer do the show that there were problems. First the thumbs were removed due to some contract thing, then Richard left. If he had stayed on with Michael Phillips, it would've still be good. Also, keep the same balcony. In fact, I liked it more in 2005 when they added the blue lights. Made it look better. Disney was stupid to do this stuff and they got what they deserved.

reply

This is such upsetting news.

He can NOT be a part of me! Batman does NOT eat nachos!!

reply

We'll always have Siskel and Ebert as Abbott and Costello on YouTube if we want to get our kicks in movie reviews, and of course, comedic arguing. It's like Gene asking Roger, "Who's on First? What's on Second? I Don't Know Who's on Third," and Roger replying, "Well what are you asking me for?" Richard Roeper did a fine turn replacing Gene Siskel after he died. But things went downhill when they hired Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz and turned this adult-oriented program into a kiddie show. A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips held their own when they reverted it to the old form, but they lacked spark and fire, and you couldn't get glued to the screen because they were too mellow.

What we have most forgotten or would love to forget were people like Jeffrey Lyons, Neal Gabler, Michael Medved, Rex Reed, Bill Harris, Dixie Whatley, Alison Bailes, Jeffrey's equally incompetent son Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz for trying to beat up and harass Siskel and Ebert like school bullies by emulating them and trashing them so they can be even more successful than they were. They were all wrong, wrong, wrong!

Siskel and Ebert will long remain a legacy on TV and the movie review business. They will be appreciated on YouTube for future generations to come. YouTube is an excellent source to go back in time, get lost in it, and come out feeling young all over again. Best of luck to Roger Ebert and his loving wife, Chaz in launching a new movie review show with Siskel and Ebert hopefuls of tomorrow. May the Eberts be blessed with true love, good health, and their wish for a new movie review show. Amen.

reply

Pretty amazing that they could never find anyone to replicate the chemistry that Siskel & Ebert had. I don’t think Ebert & Roeper ever worked as well either. Siskel & Ebert are such a huge reason why I grew up caring about movies and appreciating them in a deeper, intellectual way than I might have otherwise. It’s sad to think that kids growing up today won’t have access to the same kind of honest, insightful, intelligent and lively criticism in the conversational form. Unfortunately, so much of the video-format criticism on the web is done by such uncharismatic, unappealing intellectual lightweights and often seems highly gimmick and personality-driven rather than content-driven.

I actually thought one of the best guest hosts they ever had was Aisha Tyler. She was surprisingly detailed and thoughtful in her commentary. On top of being a black woman, I think a different perspective like that of someone coming from outside the movie critic or movie geek world would have brought more chemistry to the show. I think what they forgot when trying to find replacements for Siskel, and later Ebert, was that Siskel wasn’t a natural movie critic, he was a career sportswriter. You could tell the guy didn’t live, eat and breathe movies. Rather than that of a pure movie buff, he offered more of the average Joe 6-pack perspective, albeit a well-informed and well-spoken one.

This is one reason I think he and Ebert had such a genuine onscreen rivalry. They didn’t fundamentally respect each other’s position and perspective. It’s almost like Ebert saw Siskel as a guy who’s not really qualified to give his opinions on movies and Siskel saw Ebert as a geek who was a bit out-of-touch with regular moviegoers. The producers really goofed by constantly trying to “cast” professional critics as the new co-hosts. The second critic should have been someone who didn’t make movies their life or their business beforehand, so that a different kind of opinion could have been offered and both critics could have felt they had a leg up on the other one due to their unique perspective.

And I definitely think a male-female rivalry along these lines could have added the best, freshest twist of all. Just imagine the kind of combative chemistry Sam and Diane had on Cheers except turning them into movie critics. To capture the magic Siskel & Ebert had you have to feel, at times, that both people genuinely disrespect and despise the opinion of the other person. That relationship was simply never captured again after Siskel’s death.

Colonel Miles Quaritch is like some sort of...non...giving-up...army guy!

reply

I loved the guest hosts-and my favorite was Michaela Pereira (and Harry Knowls from Aint It Cool News....)

They should have stuck with guest hosts.

reply

I guess so but what would they have done when Roeper left, 2 guest hosts on a show, that is something that has far as I know of have never happened. In less you are saying it did happen, and you are counting Ben & Ben, from last season, before these 2 not so new guys to the show, but new to work eith each other, I guess took over. Even if the show ends up being gone after this year, that they keep the website up and running for the show, where we can watch these shows, with the hosts. Even through it will be too bad, that we won't get to see these 2 guys' take, or if they had replaced them with 2 more new critics, their take on part I and II on Harry Potter and the Deadly Hallows, being reviewed on the show, like the full 6 movies were.

reply

No, I meant you needed the one regular host- like Roger or Roper- and then use a guest host for the other slot. Maybe even use a guest host for 2 or 3 weeks in a row.

But you are correct, you could not have BOTH reviewer slots using guest hosts every week.

reply

It would have to be Richard Roeper, because if you remember Roger Ebert lost the power to speak, and I bet if he could speak, he would still be complaining about how much he hates 3D movies. That is what they did, until they started having Michael Philips coming in regulary. In less Roger Ebert appears what he does know, barely regonizble where he has a computer, with a voice and all he has to do is type into the computer what he wants to say.

reply