http://www.indy.com/posts/7052 en-us Christopher Lloyd Well, Richard Roeper quickly became Ebert's permanent co-host on his TV show after Siskel died, despite not having a speck of critical credentials. And I remember when I was a teen and just starting to get interested in criticism, my hometown paper hired a guy who was a comic book editor to be their movie guy. So background isn't always the most important criteria. I haven't actually tuned into the TV show much since Gene passed on. Roeper always kowtowed to Ebert's opinions, and it didn't really have that spark with "the fat one" and "the bald one" going at each other. I might have to try it now that it's Roeper and the new Chicago Tribune guy. Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:03:09 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/7052#comment_20548 http://www.indy.com/posts/7052#comment_20548 joe.shearer I can't seem to find it online anywhere, but I swear I saw somewhere that he didn't approve of the choice of Scott, who was a former book critic. It was worded more as a criticism of the NYT than Scott himself. And after re-reading (and seeing your comments) I do want to note that Roger Ebert is my personal favorite film critic and I really respect him and his work. Not that I take back anything I said, because I do think he is a little too overly positive with some films (though that could be that his tastes and my own don't always intersect), and he does just gush over Oliver Stone (and was a huge apologist for "Alexander," for instance). But Ebert is really the guy I have always wanted to be, both in quality of writing, knowledge about film and the movies, and, naturally, in bank account. :) Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:52:33 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/7052#comment_20526 http://www.indy.com/posts/7052#comment_20526 Christopher Lloyd Among film critics, A.O. Scott's name is one that often gets bandied about unfavorably. I'm not really sure why; perhaps professional jealousy plays a role. The NYT doesn't hire chumps. I have noticed that since Ebert's been back (in a limited role for a few months, full time now) that his reviews have been noticeably more positive than in the past. A flick that would have been dismissed with a rhetorical flourish gets a cuddly "Hey, they tried" review. But, given the changes Rog has been through the last couple of years, not to mention 40 years of consistently great writing, I'm willing to spot him some war fuzzies while he gets back into the groove. Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:43:09 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/7052#comment_20517 http://www.indy.com/posts/7052#comment_20517 joe.shearer Interesting. Didn't I hear somewhere (maybe here, from you?) that Ebert really didn't agree with A.O. Scott being named the lead film critic of the NYT? Apparently they made up, after reading the article. :) Good to see him back. His reviews are great, even if he is overly positive and panders to filmmakers he likes (like Oliver Stone). But really, who am I to judge? Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:15:14 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/7052#comment_20509 http://www.indy.com/posts/7052#comment_20509