Two things that has stuck out for me in the Ebert Show exit coverage. First, there is very little discussion taking into account that Roger has now been off the air for two years. His exit from the show, given his physical limitations (specifically his lack of voice), has been a reality for a while. There has been hope, but Roger has been “gone” for a long while now. And the coverage has been almost as though he and Roeper quit the show together after a Monday taping.
Secondly – and more interestingly – is the complete lack of understanding that this showdown has been in process via Disney TV’s actions for a long, long time. Even more so, that this is the reason why this end is unhappy and angry – and make no mistake, this is an angry exit – instead of thoughtful and well-rehearsed.
What struck me about that is that so much is defined by how parties in a relationship behave, not primarily by the end result. In this case, what is particularly striking is that Mr. Ebert is, even as a general, a great soldier. Decisions which he really decided and which he didn’t… he would not only take responsibility for changes, but he would go to bat with full force in selling changes as progress, even when they were actually regressive. The show was nickeled and dimed… and Roger never acknowledged it once… would get a bit offended by any suggestion that anything negative was happening on his watch. And even yesterday, whatever Disney’s behavior, one thing Roger did not want to become The Story was that this happened because of any decline in the ratings.
(And indeed, I think it was a Disney strategic decision… not so much because of further erosion, but because there was little hope of a ratings improvement with Roger permanently out. With two years left with Disney “owning” syndicated slots, they could go cheaper, still deliver a show, and take a swing at trying something “fresh” that might have a better shot at increasing the audience again.)
Even as the man was being kicked to the curb in the most callous and inappropriate – and completely unnecessary – way, he was protecting his child, the show.
Thing is, Ebert can be a stubborn man, but he is not illogical or unable to reconsider, and he can be very, very generous indeed. Had Disney appealed to his loyalty, instead of trying to muscle a man who might seem to be at a disadvantage but who even in aural silence carries more weight than any other film critic in America, things could have been quite different. I am pretty confident that they could have had “the thumbs” and the imprimatur of The Man had they simply treated him with the respect he has earned and given he and Marlene Iglitzen, Gene Siskel’s widow, some input in the reconsideration of the show. Roger’s loyalty to Richard Roeper is unquestionable, but things change and given that they were going to change, there was a better answer as to how.
This is hardly the only example of this kind of “how they do it” discomfort in Hollywood. So many of the jobs lost in this community in the last few years have become associated with still-bitter emotions, not so much because people were unhappy about losing good jobs… though they were. It was that how these firings were done, often of long-time executives, was inexcusably brutal.
But even the party at ComicCon starting today… there is virtually no logical analysis of the event impacting movies in a real way. Yes, shoring up the base is always a good idea. But there are better ways of spending millions of dollars doing that. The industry has converted the event into an early junket, essentially, for the geek-focused movies. As it has grown, personal publicists have embraced the idea that they have to make their clients attend, a reality which has had more effect, good and bad, on the ongoing relationships with talent and the studios, than the public ever gets to hear. But to NOT show up is to virtually demand attacks from GeekWorld. The sense of entitlement – which has been reflected in the entire generation now in their 20s and early 30s – is profound.
But again… who can chart cause and effect in a way that argues affirmatively that the event helps box office? No one. But the aggravation of not going? Too big to fit on a chart for studio publicists who are sensitive to every small tremor that might turn into ugliness.
Read the complete post at http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2008/07/its_not_what_yo.html