First, notice how Siskel and Ebert talking to each other quiets the crowd. When they converse, listening to them is fascinating and enjoyable. I wish Letterman would’ve just allowed them to carry on and see how it goes....
You say potato I say potato as they walked out. Lmao. 😂😂 But Dave, a couple of times when they were on, would chime in and he really did have a pretty good insight into film criticism.
2:56 - Gene is at least partly bullshitting his answer here. The Chicago Tribune wouldn't have paid for him to go to any festivals by this point, because he was no longer their film critic. In 1986, when the boys left "At The Movies" (produced by the Tribune company) for their Buena Vista Television gig, the Chicago Tribune demoted him to a part-time columnist. Only newspaper film critics, like Roger, would be allowed to cover the festivals and get all-expenses-paid trips.
He had been the Tribune critic for close to twenty years at that point. What did it matter to him. Obviously his Disney gig was going to be more lucrative. He did retain a ceremonial title as “senior critic” of the paper.
You had to have a certain personality to get along with both these guys full time. They could easily ruffle feathers. The chemistry between these two on TV was magical. Carson and letterman are notoriously thin skinned off camera , siskel and ebert... what you see is what you get.
@@NovaFeedback1979 It mattered to the extent that from 1986 onward Gene was in a very different position from Roger because he needed the income from the TV show to support his lavish lifestyle (wife, 2-3 kids, multi-million dollar home, expensive tastes). He eventually picked up side gigs to stay busy, like writing for TV Guide, but following his demotion at the Tribune, the income from his newspaper gig wasn't good enough. As revealed in the "Life Itself" documentary, from 1986-1991, Gene experienced a fair amount of anxiety over the prospect that Roger might dissolve the partnership. Ebert always said that he thought of himself as the one-stop destination for film criticism and the other guy wasn't necessary for the show to work. Regardless of whether he truly meant this, Gene took him seriously. Roger, as a single man, could have lived quite comfortably on his Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist salary at the Sun-Times without his millions from the show. Gene's anxiety only subsided when Roger became engaged. Chaz's lifestyle expectations were apparently such that Roger now needed the additional income from the show, and Gene was ecstatic!
5 років тому+1
Fun fact: the only time these two friends ever hugged was right before they came out here. They were that happy to be on Late Night.
I really like watching THIS David Letterman - vs. todays Letterman. todays letterman is an angry old man who hates his audience anymore....so much fun back then.
@@geupelboi Sometimes I feel that he's not the real deal as a reviewer. Ok, I have to admit that I loved some of his opinions on the show. But really Ebert looks more knowledgeable to me.
I so sincerely miss these two and the flashes of brilliance they brought.
Hmmm. This may be the best Siskel & Ebert clip that I've seen . . .
I love both of them and I miss them mightily, as well.
A David Lych-directed BATMAN would be amazing 😍
Batman moves to Twin Peaks for a season.....because I'm BATMAN!!!
D.Lynch is too creative for live-action CARTOON movies.
The day David Lynch surrenders to this braindead superhero bullshiet I'm done, I quit.
First, notice how Siskel and Ebert talking to each other quiets the crowd. When they converse, listening to them is fascinating and enjoyable. I wish Letterman would’ve just allowed them to carry on and see how it goes....
They were a joy to listen and watch.
RiP Fellas
siskel had a wicked sense of humor
His line on Tony danza was harsh but hilarious.
This has got to be one of the best interviews I have ever seen 😂
"Honey I Ate The Kids". A family-oriented film about cannibalism...
This is incredible
Man I miss smart flesh-and-blood critics rather than just anonymous trolls on the internet tossing shit opinions everywhere.
You say potato I say potato as they walked out. Lmao. 😂😂 But Dave, a couple of times when they were on, would chime in and he really did have a pretty good insight into film criticism.
I loved watching their show - i miss them 😢
So prophetic when i die. They were great.
2:56 - Gene is at least partly bullshitting his answer here. The Chicago Tribune wouldn't have paid for him to go to any festivals by this point, because he was no longer their film critic. In 1986, when the boys left "At The Movies" (produced by the Tribune company) for their Buena Vista Television gig, the Chicago Tribune demoted him to a part-time columnist. Only newspaper film critics, like Roger, would be allowed to cover the festivals and get all-expenses-paid trips.
Enlightening comment, thank you.
Someone I worked with called Siskel a piece of shit. Not sure if Siskel really was a POS, however I do know some liked him some hated him.
He had been the Tribune critic for close to twenty years at that point. What did it matter to him. Obviously his Disney gig was going to be more lucrative. He did retain a ceremonial title as “senior critic” of the paper.
You had to have a certain personality to get along with both these guys full time. They could easily ruffle feathers. The chemistry between these two on TV was magical. Carson and letterman are notoriously thin skinned off camera , siskel and ebert... what you see is what you get.
@@NovaFeedback1979 It mattered to the extent that from 1986 onward Gene was in a very different position from Roger because he needed the income from the TV show to support his lavish lifestyle (wife, 2-3 kids, multi-million dollar home, expensive tastes). He eventually picked up side gigs to stay busy, like writing for TV Guide, but following his demotion at the Tribune, the income from his newspaper gig wasn't good enough. As revealed in the "Life Itself" documentary, from 1986-1991, Gene experienced a fair amount of anxiety over the prospect that Roger might dissolve the partnership. Ebert always said that he thought of himself as the one-stop destination for film criticism and the other guy wasn't necessary for the show to work. Regardless of whether he truly meant this, Gene took him seriously. Roger, as a single man, could have lived quite comfortably on his Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist salary at the Sun-Times without his millions from the show. Gene's anxiety only subsided when Roger became engaged. Chaz's lifestyle expectations were apparently such that Roger now needed the additional income from the show, and Gene was ecstatic!
Fun fact: the only time these two friends ever hugged was right before they came out here. They were that happy to be on Late Night.
R I P both men. i trusted Gene over Roger.
letterman's laugh at 10:43.. haha
I think that's the best laugh I've ever heard!
I've never heard him laugh like that before. That was awesome.
I love how Roger looks down at the floor as he talks for Gene, as Gene turns to look at him 1:27 🫶 and the Sly Gene turning-away look 1:35
Ebert probably meant The Incredible Shrinking Man when he said The Fly.
Later Dave didn’t allow such deep interviews that went beyond 8 mins.
I really like watching THIS David Letterman - vs. todays Letterman. todays letterman is an angry old man who hates his audience anymore....so much fun back then.
They were thumbthing else. Miss their humor and rapport.
They argue like Spock and McCoy.
Seems to me that Spock always won every argument that he ever had with McCoy!
12:04 - Chest Fever. Garth Hudson and The Band.
o.f b Glad I’m not the only one who caught that lol
I completely agree with Roger Ebert on Batman.
"Honey I Ate The Kids"
Letterman is like the 3rd man in a passive aggressive married couples debate
Good interview
7:05 is just what i feel
1:00 Roger called it it did last 20 more years and only that many because Gene died.
Ebert was right about Batman imo.
Ebert was wrong about Batman, Ebert got booed and then flip flopped on Batman. Gene Siskel and David Letterman were right about Batman.
they really became good friends as they talk about it here. that'a no act.
Tim Burton's Batman was great
Roger Ebert giving both Batman and Honey, I shrunk the kids thumbs down... what a killjoy! There were times when he just needed to be slapped!
Toronto FF is the biggest fest in N America?? I gotta go, I only live 3 hours away.
Honey I ate the Kids! Brought to you by the Sour Patch Kids cereal. Can't believe I never thought of that!
I HATED HATED HATED BATMAN. BRING BACK THE TV SHOW BATMAN.
That sucked. They only commented on 2 summer movies.
amanda davis I would have liked to have heard Dave ask them about Indiana Jones & The Last Crusader, Back To The Future 2.
@@saymynameice-zen-berg511 and Lethal Weapon 2 and A Nightmare On Elm Street 5
I wasn't a movie review show
Roger Ebert is always on the wrong side.
Siskel looks vain !
Yes. I've always thought so. Vain and egotistical and snobbish.
@@geupelboi Sometimes I feel that he's not the real deal as a reviewer. Ok, I have to admit that I loved some of his opinions on the show. But really Ebert looks more knowledgeable to me.
@@geupelboi I loved that review about their show www.imdb.com/review/rw2122481/?ref_=tt_urv
I really need to start using my hands and arms more when i talk 🫶