Rich gets richer: Roeper to review movies again
Sixteen months after he brought down the curtain on “Ebert & Roeper,” veteran Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper is getting back in the movie-review business — both online and on premium cable.
On Monday, Roeper unveiled a sharp new version of his website at richardroeper.com that will include on-camera reviews of new movies each week. His reviews should start appearing on the site early next month.
About a week after they premiere online, Roeper’s reviews also will air on Starz, the Denver-based subscription movie channel owned by Liberty Entertainment and seen in about 18 million homes. The addition is part of Starz’s strategy to add original programming to its strong lineup of feature films.
Roeper’s deal with Starz reportedly includes a six-figure base salary plus bonuses based on page views generated by the website.
“I’m so excited about this new project,” Roeper said Monday. “As much as I loved doing ‘Ebert & Roeper,’ this will have much more of an unfiltered, uncut, viral feel. As someone at Starz put it, they wanted ‘Roeper uncut.’ If a film is a piece of shit, I’ll say it’s a piece of shit. I love the idea of seeing the movie and turning around immediately and telling you what I think about it in a conversational manner. In some cases I’ll be recording reviews right there on the street as I’m exiting the theater or the screening room.”
In addition to reviewing new films, Roeper said he’ll occasionally record videos about movie-related news and other pop culture events. “I’ll also continue to post blog entries, photos, print reviews and other content on the site,” he added.
Roeper, 50, walked away from “Ebert & Roeper” at the end of the 2008 season after failing to agree on a contract extension with Disney’s ABC Media Productions. He’d been co-hosting the show since 2000 when he was chosen to succeed Ebert’s original partner, Gene Siskel, who died in 1999. Ebert, 67, has been off the show because of health problems since 2006.
Points of contention for both Ebert and Roeper were changes in the program’s format being planned by Disney. Seen by many as dumbing down the show, the changes proved to be as unpopular as Ebert and Roeper’s replacements, Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz, who were dropped after just one season. Since September, “At the Movies” has been hosted by Michael Phillips of the Tribune and Tony Scott of the New York Times. Both Phillips and Scott had served as fill-ins for Ebert alongside Roeper.
In addition to the Starz deal, Roeper is close to finalizing an agreement with another cable channel to do regular weekly features about new DVDs. Also in the works is an iPhone application that will allow users to access his reviews for free on their phones.
And if all of that isn’t enough, Roeper said he hasn’t ruled out a return to syndication, which could put him in competition with Phillips and Scott, if Disney renews the current ratings-challenged incarnation of “At the Movies.”
Now in his 22nd year as a columnist at the Sun-Times, Roeper is awaiting the release of his eighth book this spring. Bet the House: How I Gambled over a Grand a Day for 30 Days on Sports, Poker, and Games of Chance will be published by Chicago Review Press.
24
11 2009
blogs.vocalo.org
Wow. From the reported $650,000 a year that Roeper was earning on the syndicated At the Movies to merely a “six-figure base salary” with Starz, plus recorded reviews that he’ll basically be giving away for free on his website (ostensibly to keep his profile out there). How the mighty have fallen. Sounds like Rich is going to be working a lot harder for a lot less money. Good thing he loves the work (and the fame).
Also, I love how Rich says he “hasn’t ruled out” a return to syndication. But it’s not like any syndicator is banging down Roeper’s door to be the lead man in a new program in the format of the old At the Movies. Clearly, Rich isn’t able to headline a show like that. The worst thing that happened to Roeper, I think, was Ebert (in my opinion the greatest film critic of all time) falling ill when he did.
Hee, hee. For years, even while Gene Siskel was alive, Roeper campaigned for a fill in spot on “At the Movies” and then promoted himself into a move visible role from there. Of course, Roeper is all about self-promotion, even above facts. Face it, Rich. People just didn’t tune in to listen to you pontificate, that’s why nobody wants you in syndication.
I wonder if I’m the only one who thinks Roeper is way over-rated. How do these people fall up?
One hopes Mr. Roper meant to say “visceral” rather than “viral.”
Hal:
How the mighty have fallen? Six figures to do reviews online? Sounds pretty damn good to me! Also, you’re forgetting about Roeper’s column with the Sun-Times, the other cable deal mentioned by Feder, Roeper’s books, etc., etc. So what, he’s making half a mil instead of a mil? Waaaaaaah. I don’t think you’ll hear him complaining.
Also, I wouldn’t categorize the guy walking away from Disney over because they were shitting all over Ebert’s legacy as “the mighty falling.”
JS
He’s going to be on Starz!
HaHaHa!
That’s almost as bad as paying the hourly fee to be on local cable access.
Starz is a joke that few people ever watch. Just because they claim that 18 million people have access to it doesn’t mean that 18 million people ever watch it.
Most people have either HBO/Cinemax or Showtime/TMC.
The only reason Starz exists now is a combination of the enormously inflated ego of John Malone & the movie studios that want to sell DVDs. When a studio wants to sell a movie, they sell the premium rights to Starz because so few people have it, so everyone ends ups buying it or renting it. The studio sells a copy instead of us waiting for it to get to cable.
Starz also gets the total flops that HBO & Showtime aren’t stupid enough to bid on.
Poor Rich. He should have just created his own syndicated show when he cut loose from Disney & sold it at NATPE!
Richard walked away from Disney because he didn’t like the salary that they were willing to pay. A lot of people make that mistake thinking they are worth more than they really are. Then they go to Starz!
Rob,
Thanks for the column. Everything you wrote is accurate and fair. But I do want to correct a couple of blatant falsehoods from the Comments section.
To Paul Greenlee, who claims I’m “all about self-promotion, even above facts”:
Speaking of facts, sir, your assertion that I campaigned for a fill-in spot while Gene Siskel was still alive is egregiously false. I never once “campaigned” for a slot on the show. Long after Gene passed away, and after Roger had auditioned at least a dozen co-hosts, the executive producer called me (at Roger’s behest) and offered me a shot as a guest co-host. This led to several such guest appearances, followed by a formal offer from Disney to become Roger’s permanent co-host. These facts can be (and have been) corroborated by Roger and by any staffer who worked on the show at the time. So either you’re lying or you’re repeating erroneous gossip.
As for T-Bone’s assertion that I left Disney over money: also not true. The financial package was beyond fair. My issue was with the direction of the show. I refused to participate in a plan that would taint the legacy created by Roger and Gene. Disney has never disputed that.
Sincerely,
Richard Roeper
John Sparks:
Even if one has multiple jobs, taking an 80% pay cut in one of them would feel atrocious. Plus, the bigger issue for Rich is ego. Sure, the books, the other cable deal and even the (throwaway) Sun-Times column are all there, helping Roeper to pad his nest. But my guess is that privately, Rich is furious about the fact that no syndicator thinks he can headline a national show. And let’s not fall for his post-Disney spin — he surely “walked away” from At the Movies not because Disney was crapping all over Ebert’s legacy but rather because Disney gave him an absurdly low contract renewal offer that they knew he wouldn’t accept. It’s a ploy that people in broadcasting (esp. at the stations here in town!) know all too well — you insult someone by offering to renew them for a third or a fourth of what they’re making. Hurt, they walk. Disney never had any intention of building a future show around Roeper — the ratings just didn’t merit it. What Disney has done since then has been idiotic of course — they brought in two low-paid bozos and only then replaced them with newspaper critics who I’m sure are willing to work for a fraction of what Roeper did. Bottom line: Roeper thought he was still worth his I’m-with-Ebert money. He wasn’t. And the rest of the syndication marketplace is telling him that. So the mighty *have* fallen, John Sparks. Or maybe Rich *wasn’t* ever that “mighty” to begin with; it’s likely that he was flying on borrowed wings the whole time.
Hal Newhouser,
You seem to have a personal vendetta against Richard. I’m assuming it’s professional jealousy.
Jack
The headline pun is terrible.
Mr. Roeper,
Thanks for reminding us that 1.) making comments without having all of the facts indeed does have consequences and can make a person look not very intelligent and 2.) Everybody and I mean EVERYBODY reads Feder!
I am now retired from working in Media for 37 years (consumer print & broadcast). You are all talking insiders-smack. As a viewer/reader, I love Richard! He’s smart to be on cable … even on Starz! It is the future (Comcast) and he will make it even better. Local TV is dying, because it’s so boring, he’s not! Richard is smart to be anywhere on cable. Stop the smack talk.
Rena D’Onofrio
If I wanted someone to “turn around immediately” and give a reaction to a film, I wouldn’t watch a supposed critic–I’d chat casually with a friend after a movie. I would expect a critic to give it a little more thought than that. Spontaneity rarely yields depth in criticism. But what would you expect from the under-qualified, over-achieving Roeper?
The dumbing down of “At the Movies/Siskel & Ebert” began long before the god-awful Ben Lyons took to the air and it really kicked into high gear with Ebert’s choice of Roeper over countless better-qualified (but possibly less TV friendly) critics. He never sounded particularly steeped in film culture and history. I’ll grant that he and Ebert had some on-air chemistry, but shouldn’t we ask more of the most prominent film program on the airwaves?
The show has taken a huge leap forward with Phillips and Scott. While obviously they take a mainstream approach, they are not afraid to occasionally reference filmmakers the “average Joe” doesn’t know but should. I don’t know what their ratings are like, but I hope they are allowed to continue to offer those doses of expertise.
Enough time has passed that we can stop mythologizing Gene Siskel as film critic. When he walked away from full-length reviews and started running his meager, cinema-illiterate capsules, he showed he was much more passionate as a Chicago Bulls fan than a film journalist. There was a time when “Siskel & Ebert” (or, more accurately “Sneak Previews,” as the downslide started after they left PBS) advanced TV film criticism, but the show became more and more superficial as it went along.
Chicago’s revered critics should not be Siskel or Roeper, but guys like the exiled Dave Kehr and Michael Wilmington. Ebert also earns a place in the pantheon for his earlier work in print and on TV, but I think the stardom TV gave him dulled his standards. 3-1/2 stars for “2012″…really?
Jack Burton: nah, no personal vendetta against Roeper. It’s more that I just don’t think he could hold Ebert (and Siskel’s) jock as a movie-review show host (I’ve actually met Roeper a few times and I have to say, he’s a nice guy). And on one level, I was happy when he got the gig with Ebert because it was nice that a local got it. But at the same time, I soon came to realize that watching him with Ebert was, in film terms, like watching a movie starring Jack Nicholson and James Van Der Beek (or in today’s Hollywood, Robert Pattinson). Roeper just was out of his league.
However, what really annoyed me the most about the whole Roeper-walking-away-from-At-the-Movies-because-of-differences-over-creative-integrity-and-is-off-to-do-his-own-show spin was how utterly dishonest it was. And here’s where my irritation level actually is with both Roeper *and* Feder; it’s unclear whether Feder, who is a close friend of Roeper’s, deserves more scorn for falling for the lies that you see below, or whether Roeper merits more criticism for actually peddling this nonsense. But regardless, it speaks to why covering one’s friends generally is a terrible idea; same goes for Feder’s fawning columns about his pals Bruce Wolf, Bob Sirott and Jonathon Brandmeier. Here are some examples of what we’ve read over the last year-plus:
Feder’s column, 7/22/2008: “Roeper is weighing multiple offers to host a new national show in the tradition of the current format.”
Feder’s column, 8/1/2008: “Roeper is expected to finalize plans for his new movie-review show in the next few weeks.”
Feder’s column, 10/17/2008: (a prediction) “Richard Roeper will return to national television as host of a new movie-review show that will uphold the fine tradition of the late, lamented “Ebert & Roeper” and “Siskel & Ebert.” The only question is whether he will launch it before or after the execrable current version of “At the Movies” disappears.”
Phil Rosenthal’s column: 4/24/2009, quoting Ebert’s e-mail interview with Time.com: “I’m pleased that Richard Roeper and I will be presenting a new movie review program, to be announced in the near future,” Ebert said. “It will involve Richard, of the Chicago Sun-Times, Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune and Christy Lemire of The Associated Press.”
First, my question to Feder: how come you’ve never given us the backstory on what happened to all these oft-reported, bold-sounding plans for a movie-review show featuring Rich? We’ve been waiting for a year-plus to see what Roeper ends up doing, and the best that Rich now gives us — with no explanation or even reference to his previous above statements about an actual show — is on-camera reviews on his website, with them airing a week later on Starz? Wow. That’s not exactly a national show backed by Ebert and co-featuring Christy Lemire and Michael Phillips now, is it?
I’m sensitive to the fact that shows fall through all the time, and that might have been the case here. At the same time, Feder (and Roeper’s) current lack of acknowledgement of any and all these past reports tells me that the whole thing was just talk — and that there likely was *never* any show in the works. And though he’ll never admit it, it’s most likely that Roeper was using Feder’s column to try to drum up interest from syndicators in a show. If that’s the case, then why did Feder allow himself to be used like that? (by his pal) And if not, how did “multiple offers” evaporate, just like that? (and/or get superseded by this weird Starz deal) Feder owes us all an explanation.
Leaving aside the inside baseball, or whether or not Roeper had to take a paycut (like many other people who work in journalism) – what matters is how informative the new show will be. As an earlier poster noted, I’m not sure I’m sold on the idea of “instant reviews” as soon as the film is over. That may be okay for mainstream movies, but some movies do need to be mulled over for awhile. I had to watch Apocalypse Now several times before I could form my first opinion on it. Roeper did benefit alot from his relationship with Ebert, a point he acknowledges regularly. It is always a risk to go out on your own. Even Michael Jordan had trouble when he no longer had the Bulls front office helping him with strong supporting players.
But having one more serious film review program would be a welcome change from the 30 minute commercials that are Entertainment Tonight, The Insider, and Access Hollywood.
I love this format! I love the carping back and forth!! Please promise you’ll keep it this way–even if it gets a little silly and petty at times. I also love that Roeper was permitted to say “shit.” His quote wasn’t edited as it would have been in any American newspaper. I hate the way honest quotes are cleaned up in our papers. It’s silly. Show me a 9-year-old who doesn’t say “shit” when he’s out with his little pals…and I’ll show you an extremely boring kid.
Hi Rob:
Love you. Love your show.
Hal:
First of all, nobody OWES you an explanation. This is certainly true of Robert Feder, whose years of excellence speaks for itself. Richard Roeper does not OWE you anything, either. You are a faceless person on an Internet comments section. That does not and should not give you (or me or anybody else here) any false sense of entitlement.
Robert Feder and Phil Rosenthal are both as professional as can be as far as journalists go. There are few better. They would not risk their reputations or livelihoods by printing facts that are untrue. It does not matter if a “friend” asked them to or not. Before they attach their names to their printed words, facts are checked out. There were numerous plans floated and attempted at getting Richard Roeper and others together for a movie review show. As what often happens in Hollywood meetings, plans fell apart — probably for a wide variety of reasons. If those involved with those meetings wish to say what went wrong (or are legally allowed to), that would be their prerogative. If they do not wish to say what went wrong, that is their prerogative to. Nobody owes you answers to your demands, though.
Richard Roeper is an exceptionally talented individual, and in many different areas. Reviewing/opinionating about movies is just one aspect of his professional life. As a general rule, TV Movie Reviews are a dying art. The Internet has pretty much replaced it. It is not a surprise that this is not a high paying job or even a high profile job for him or anyone anymore. This is NOT an example of the “mighty” falling. This is an example of one mighty media superstar continuing to showcase diverse media talents.
Thank you. I’ll hang up and listen for my answer.
I love to swear! Hey Rich kcuf the naysayers, Always have loved your column and I enjoy you on TV too. For some reason it has never occured to me to check out your on-line stuff, best get my ass over there. Best of luck with your new endeavors, piss on those jealous M F’ers
@Joel: Dave Kehr?
LOL!
His print reviews were unreadable. 2/3 of each “review” was about other movies, movies that less than 100 people had ever seen or would ever see. He was always comparing those movies to the one he was reviewing. Any TV review program with Kehr would have lower ratings than a program devoted to the religious views of Swedenborg!
I will never, ever understand why Roger let Roeper on that show. Roger’s taste, insight, erudition and writing skill are unparalleled. Did he have to choose someone who could not compete with him on ANY level?
Michael Willmington, didn’t like or dislike his reviews, so I’m not a hater, but I remember the picture that ran with his column sure looked like Richard Speck, back when he had the dry look going, in the years just before he grew a pair
Cool that Roeper is back reviewing movies on TV and/or the internet… But half the fun of this stuff is seeing him argue with someone who disagrees with him. Roeper alone isnt going to do it for me.
What would be good if he had a rotating list of people sitting in him with him to review movies to give him a few sparring partners.
I like Roeper and am glad he is coming back on TV. I will tune in.
Congrats to Richard. Glad you will be back on TV.
@ Joel
Siskel didn’t walk away from his full column in the Tribune. He was demoted and replaced by Michael Wilmington when he and Ebert took the show to Disney and Syndication instead of renewing with the Tribune Company.
I don’t know why so many people are hating on someone who is making an honest living doing an honest job. I’ve loved watching Richard since I was in high school (which wasn’t too long ago…eh) and I’ve always found him very charismatic and engaging. I would definitely tune in. I didn’t grow up watching Ebert or Siskel and as much as I admire the guys, a new generation needs someone new to look up to in this field. The man is not creating some dangerous, controversial new treatment to brain cancer. He’s doing what he loves to do, reviewing movies. What’s wrong with that?
I think it’s finally time for some hard-hitting journalism, Mr. Feder, and you may be the only one who can answer this question once and for all: is Richard Roeper wearing a wig? I mean, that hair can’t be real, can it? Just curious.
BTW, I like that you can say “shit” on this blog. It’s so real!
Interesting that Feder was somehow able to know what the salary “reportedly” looked like, etc. Gee, any chance Roeper is the one who supplied that info?? Doubting Feder has many moles at Starz.
Hate to get too personal but I’ve seen him out with alleged twenty-something ladies on a regular basis. The guy seems to be the insecure daddy type. Also was on Stern a few years back and it got out about his 3-some w/girlfriend, etc.
All I know is getting movie reviews is about as easy as checking email. Internet killed the movie review shows.
Richard Roper is the poster boy for mediocrity. It is too bad that Ebert didn’t want to continue doing his show with a movie critic after Siskel died.
To Unindicted Co-Conspirator:
I never said Kehr would be good on TV, and Wilmington proved he wasn’t on CLTV. As to your other comments:
“His print reviews were unreadable.” — Not to people who read intelligent film criticism regulalrly.
” 2/3 of each “review” was about other movies, movies that less than 100 people had ever seen or would ever see. He was always comparing those movies to the one he was reviewing” — That’s what I want a critic to do…illuminate something about the movie and how it compares to other films it might share qualities with, especially ones that are not widely known.
To Amy:
You are quite right and I stand corrected. But if Siskel was really interested in writing full-length reviews again, he could have agreed to a contract buy-out to go to another paper. And I know he wrote for TV Guide at some point, and that work was on par with the low quality of his capsule reviews. He was a great TV personality…I enjoyed watching him fight with Roger. But his critical insights into the medium were minimal. He helped dumb down the field.
What’s with all the Roeper bashing? I liked him on At the Movies. So what if he wasn’t as knowledgeable as Ebert – how many more years has Ebert been writing reviews, and how many more years had he been doing television? You can tell that Roeper genuinely loves movies and loves to talk about them, the same as Ebert, and to me that is what distinguishes a mediocre reviewer from a good one.
And I love how so many people are harping on his salary cut. Yeah, that’s just hilarious. It’s just so funny when others suffer misfortune. But you know what’s funnier, posters? If Roeper is “only” making a hundred grand a year, that means he’s probably making at least fifty grand more a year than you are.
My only criticism for Roeper: some of your recent comments about your new show have hurt poor Roger’s feeling. Do the right thing and get in touch with him, to let him know you didn’t mean any offense. :)