whotony

Missed it because whatever my dvr recorded it want this.
Local PBS in Philly seems to rarely air whatever is in the guide or never the correct time slot.

RobLutter

Surprised no one has posted this.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011..._an_angel.html

Watching this weekend's episode now... There ARE no sponsors!

whotony

I would love to watch it but Philly PBS never airs it when the guide says its on. So I always get some random artsy show instead.

From that article it looks like it won't be on much longer than a few more episodes. Too bad I liked it when I could find it on tv.

jfoobar

Just watched this week's episode. Man, the show is really starting to get genuinely good now, improving every week. The flow and chemistry between the two hosts just gets better and better. I hope it sticks around.

"Everyone loves John Hughes but you", made me laugh out loud.

OldBoy

I won't miss it. The show has been terrible. There, I said it.

whotony

After three weeks of no episode recorded I got a half of one last night.
As usual the ep aired out of the guides time slot. Since the guide never lines up with when the show really airs I don't even know if there have been eps the last three weeks.

Anyone know when the last one is?

OldBoy

my dvr has been catching them all. they have had new eps the past three weeks and the last was early morn Sat. they did Young Adult, Sherlock Holmes, Alvin and Chip, among others...

whotony

That was tHe one I saw, it cut off as Chipmonks started.

My local never airs anything when it is listed in the guide.

Quatermass

They show it about 7 or 8 times a week here in OKC. There's at least one more episode, because the preview for next week had "Dragon Tattoo" and one of the other big holiday movies. I have heard anything official announcing it was coming to an end, just Chaz's press releases saying they needed an Angel to save the show.

Quatermass

Obligatory bump because this weekend's show may be the last one. Officially, it is going on hiatus after Jan 1 while they seek sponsors. Personally, I doubt it will be back.

RoboDad

I think this is a case of lightning not striking twice. When Gene and Roger first started in '76, it wasn't a packaged formula, it was just magic. There was a void that needed to be filled that no one really knew even realized existed, and those two happened to be in the right place, at the right time, with the perfect chemistry, to fill that void.

Now Roger is trying to shoehorn the new show into a void that may no longer even exist. It reminds me of one of the set pieces in the movie Groundhog Day. On one day, Phil and Rita have an incredible "first date", during which a number of wonderful, memorable things happen completely spontaneously. On another day, Phil tries to recreate that feeling by forcing and contriving the same situations, depriving the moment of any spontaneity. He fails miserably. While the level of failure for At the Movies may not be the same, the "forced" feeling of the new show is just as real to me.

I suspect that even if Gene had been spared, and Roger had been able to avoid or overcome his health issues, their show probably would have fallen on hard times by now.

Norm de Plume

Not sure I agree. I think Ebert and Roeper had a good rapport going after an inauspiciously flaky start for Roeper. I thought Philips and Scott also fit well together, but apparently the show lost viewership under them for some reason. I haven't watched the show since they were dumped, mainly because the Buffalo PBS station doesn't carry it. I think Ebert made a grave error in his choice of hosts for the latest incarnation.

RoboDad

I understand what you are saying, and a part of me agrees with you. But my hunch isn't based on the chemistry of the new hosts, it is simply the fact that times have changed. More people get their movie review fix from Rotten Tomatoes/Flixster and social networking sites these days than they do from TV or traditional print media.

Jay G.

It wasn't with Philips and Scott, but with Ben and Ben (Lyons and Mankiewicz) that the show lost a lot of viewership. Philips and Scott were starting to turn it around, but Disney canceled it.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/show...-ebert-at.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/ar.../26cancel.html
I found Philips and Scott to be a good pair. I've been watching the new show too, and I think Christy and Ignatiy have grown into their roles well. However, I do think RoboDad is correct that with new venues for getting reviews, it's harder to grab viewers. However, I do think that if it was still Siskel and Ebert, they likely would've managed to have kept enough viewers for the show to still be on. Hell, even if Ben Lyons hadn't been hired and they hadn't tried to shake up the formula so much, it likely could've retained viewers better than it did. But once people dropped it, they likely didn't see a need to come back.

bluetoast

True but it's safe to say that Siskel and Ebert would have changed with the times as well. Ebert uses Twitter constantly and blogs all the time, I'd bet that if Siskel were alive he would at least do some internet stuff, plus their archive would have stayed online throughout the years. It was offline for a while, but it only recently came back. It would be cool if Ebert had links to the video reviews for each applicable written review, something like that to tie it all together.

Quatermass

This episode had Best & Worst of 2011 and a bit at the end with Roger and Chaz saying goodbye and telling viewers to check the website for future info. Definitely seemed like the end.

dhmac

The fact that it's "Best & Worst" in a single episode instead of the usual 2 separate episodes (with one for each) is a tell-tale sign that it's the last one.

Jay G.

A blog post from Chaz Ebert confirming that the "Best and Worst of 2011" episode was the last one, and commenting on the future of the show:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011...s_from_ch.html

Variety article from a few weeks back about the show going on hiatus:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118047380/

Some interesting notes from the links:

1) The show averaged around 1 million viewers
2) It was largely self-funded by Ebert. PBS didn't fund the show at all. The Kanbar Charitable Trust gave a $25,000 grant, but that was it for outside funds.
3) They're currently looking for sponsors, a new network, or a "new platform" for the show.
4) A Kickstarter campaign was briefly considered, but they're currently pursuing other funding options.

Yeti4623

In retrospect, I like Richard Roeper much more.