▲ 78 ▼ Asteroid City movie review (2023) | Roger Ebert (www.rogerebert.com) submitted 3 years ago by Ansgar@lemmy.world to c/moviesandtv@lemmy.film 46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] TommySalami@lemm.ee 38 points 3 years ago (2 children) Does anyone else double-take when you see a Roger Ebert review pop up? permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SmokesForBreakfast@lemmy.world 24 points 3 years ago (1 child) Yes. I find it not only distasteful but also misleading to some degree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 1bluepixel@lemmy.ml 29 points 3 years ago Ebert had other reviewers on his website before he passed. The ones that are still running the site have high standards that, I think, carry on the legacy of Ebert's thoughtful, approachable movie criticism. I'm glad the website is still going in the age of review aggregators and social media hot takes. permalink fedilink source parent [–] maegul@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Yep. I think the whole name of that thing (institution? I don't know what the deal is) is just dumb and awful. I've read plenty of the real Roger Ebert's reviews, and their value was his own personal style and perspective. A Rogereber.com without Roger makes no sense and I don't trust anyone that works there or tries to put their reviews forward under his name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] inconceivabull@lemmy.film 9 points 3 years ago (1 child) Ebert clearly recognized the value of his brand, and did what he could to ensure it would continue to support his family and colleagues long after he was gone. And while you’re certainly within your rights to be critical of the new writers’ opinions, it’s not like some evil corporation brought them in after immediately assuming the legal rights to Roger’s name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago Oh I can see that and suspected it want some Evil corporation (for now I guess). I was just speaking as a user. I’m sure the whole makes sense from Roger’sc and his family’s perspective. Thanks for the response! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SmokesForBreakfast@lemmy.world 24 points 3 years ago (1 child) Yes. I find it not only distasteful but also misleading to some degree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 1bluepixel@lemmy.ml 29 points 3 years ago Ebert had other reviewers on his website before he passed. The ones that are still running the site have high standards that, I think, carry on the legacy of Ebert's thoughtful, approachable movie criticism. I'm glad the website is still going in the age of review aggregators and social media hot takes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 1bluepixel@lemmy.ml 29 points 3 years ago Ebert had other reviewers on his website before he passed. The ones that are still running the site have high standards that, I think, carry on the legacy of Ebert's thoughtful, approachable movie criticism. I'm glad the website is still going in the age of review aggregators and social media hot takes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Yep. I think the whole name of that thing (institution? I don't know what the deal is) is just dumb and awful. I've read plenty of the real Roger Ebert's reviews, and their value was his own personal style and perspective. A Rogereber.com without Roger makes no sense and I don't trust anyone that works there or tries to put their reviews forward under his name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] inconceivabull@lemmy.film 9 points 3 years ago (1 child) Ebert clearly recognized the value of his brand, and did what he could to ensure it would continue to support his family and colleagues long after he was gone. And while you’re certainly within your rights to be critical of the new writers’ opinions, it’s not like some evil corporation brought them in after immediately assuming the legal rights to Roger’s name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago Oh I can see that and suspected it want some Evil corporation (for now I guess). I was just speaking as a user. I’m sure the whole makes sense from Roger’sc and his family’s perspective. Thanks for the response! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] inconceivabull@lemmy.film 9 points 3 years ago (1 child) Ebert clearly recognized the value of his brand, and did what he could to ensure it would continue to support his family and colleagues long after he was gone. And while you’re certainly within your rights to be critical of the new writers’ opinions, it’s not like some evil corporation brought them in after immediately assuming the legal rights to Roger’s name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago Oh I can see that and suspected it want some Evil corporation (for now I guess). I was just speaking as a user. I’m sure the whole makes sense from Roger’sc and his family’s perspective. Thanks for the response! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago Oh I can see that and suspected it want some Evil corporation (for now I guess). I was just speaking as a user. I’m sure the whole makes sense from Roger’sc and his family’s perspective. Thanks for the response! permalink fedilink source parent