• 1bluepixel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • inconceivabull@lemmy.film
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year 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!