Jump to content

Talk:At the Movies (1986 TV program)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ed Grimley Parody?

[edit]

I remember Martin Short once had an Ed Grimley special (I think it was on HBO?) that featured a parody of Siskel & Ebert and if Memory serves one of them threatened to shoot Ed Grimley with a gun with an Ed Grimley silencer. I can only recall once seeing this and if my memory was more specific I'd add it to the list of Pop Culture references. If someone has more specific info (like the special on tape?), or at least a better memory, could they please ad it to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.118.227 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was SCTV. --Dhartung | Talk 07:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above user is trying to reference a cable special entitled "Martin Short Goes Hollywood" and I see that they have done so correctly, but for some reason, Wikipedia formatting is incorrectly abbreviating it as "SCTV" which was a different show the character Ed Grimley appeared in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minaker (talk • contribs) 19:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

TMC1982, care to explain here why you think the Ebert & Roeper article should deviate from Wikipedia standards? It is also normal Wikipedia practice, and a courtesy to other editors, to explain your edits and to build consensus. An edit war is really counterproductive toward that goal. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel the article now has too many sections. The manual of style recommends that sections only be broken out for two paragraphs of text. For all practical purposes the show has two important eras, the Siskel era and the Roeper era, so I think we should refactor the history to reflect that. Also, the "200x in film" links are probably excessive (WikiProject Music recommends against using too many "200x in music" links, and against piped links). --Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've taken a shot at simplifying the formatting of the article with fewer subheadings. If we don't like it, we can revert. Bryan H Bell 17:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about the text of the subheadings for the Broadcast history section, alternate text occurred to me. What do you think of this?
*Ebert with Siskel > Early years: Siskel and Ebert
*Ebert with guests > Transition: after Siskel's death
*Ebert with Roeper > Middle years: Ebert and Roeper
*Roeper with guests > Recent years: Ebert on medical leave
Bryan H Bell 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor, TMC1982, just made edits similar to the ones mentioned by Dhartung above. The edits introduced a large number of subsections that break up the flow of the article. The editor provided no edit summaries explaining the reasoning for the changes. I've therefore reverted those edits. Let's discuss any major section reformatting here before making further changes of this kind. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of cameras

[edit]

When they film their program, how many cameras are there on the set? One camera for each of them, so the editor can catch surprising looks that they give each other - as if loud exclamations aren't enough? 198.177.27.30 04:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing time

[edit]

How long, on the average, does it take for Ebert & Roeper to edit their carefully worded dialogs, and slap them together in a half hour format? Now that Roeper is having lots of guest hosts, does Ebert still have a chance to comment on the way the program is edited, and put together? 198.177.27.30 04:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length of show

[edit]

Has there ever been an hourlong program of Ebert & Roeper? 198.177.27.30 04:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ebertroeper hdr pic-gray.jpg

[edit]

Image:Ebertroeper hdr pic-gray.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture

[edit]

Most of the "SUBJECT in popular culture" lists are being deleted as irrelevant fancruft. I would suggest that we do the same here, but don't want to do so without warning folks that such is my plan. Reactions? It's pretty appallingly trivial junk, in my arrogant opinion, and needs to be killed. --Orange Mike 02:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AtTheMovies.jpg

[edit]

Image:AtTheMovies.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the fair use rationale for this image using the non-free use rationale template, but I don't know the image's source. I've left a message on the talk page of the editor who uploaded this image, Scarecroe, requesting that they fill in the source information. Bryan H Bell 02:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scarecroe has updated the source of the image and removed the disputed banner. Bryan H Bell 15:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebert & Roeper Thumbs Summary

[edit]

I've reverted AnmaFinotera's deletion of one of the items in the External links section (Ebert & Roeper Thumbs Summary) because I feel that the link in question falls within WP:EL#What_should_be_linked (#3). The link is to a list that I maintain showing in summary form the "thumbs up/thumbs down" votes for each movie reviewed on the show for the past 3 years. I think that Wikipedia users find this information valuable and I regularly receive e-mail from users confirming such. The information is not available in summary form anywhere else. I maintain the list for no purpose other than providing a useful resource to fellow viewers of the program. The list contains no solicitations. Bryan H Bell 01:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert has been reverted. As you own the site, your addition of the link and its revertion violates the WP:COI guideline. You should not add links to your own site on Wikipedia, but post ot the talk page and let neutral editors review the site and determine if it should be included. Otherwise, it gives the appearance that you are spamming your site, even if that is not your intention. AnmaFinotera 01:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough. Anybody care to take a look at the site and if they think the link is a worthwhile resource, add it back onto this article? Thanks. Bryan H Bell 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siskel & Ebert Holiday Video Gift Guide and Incomplete Show Archive

[edit]

I recall that Siskel & Ebert for a limited time had yearly Holiday Video Gift Guide specials in which they reviewed video equipment among other things. One time in particular I recall was Ebert reviewing one of the earliest digital cameras available for consumers and turning the camera sideways for shooting in page orientation (the default was landscape orientation), and in the review Siskel commented that that would require turning your TV sideways for viewing. I couldn't find much about those specials on-line, even on the IMDB or YouTube and was wondering if those specials could warrant a mention. Info I found on-line was extremely sparse and I suspect those specials weren't separate from the series but part of it, and hence likely part of the show's on-line video archive? (I have yet to look and it might take awhile to search.)

Also I recall Roeper saying when the video archive was unveiled that the earliest episodes have been lost. Having not browsed the archive for the really old stuff, does that mean the very early episodes are spotty or rare, or does it just cut off before a certain date? A mention of how complete or incomplete the archive is (and why?) seems appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.118.126 (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friends?!?

[edit]

Hey guys, i dont know, from this video, i wouldnt say they would be big friends..unless it was just a fight..

http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/1302

Zlatko (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. There's also a similar video here. I've seen these videos before and after watching them in full again it isn't clear to me whether their comments are bickering or banter. There's a fair amount of laughter and affectionate contact between them in addition to the insults and abrasive behavior. Regardless, I've added this evidence to the article so that readers can judge for themselves. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

Shouldn't this article be called Siskel & Ebert & the Movies? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the current name of the program. - JasonAQuest (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the original name is much better known. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. I'd guess it's best known as just "Siskel & Ebert", but as time passes fewer people will remember previous hosts. Unless we have some way of determining which title is "best known", I think the current title (with all the appropriate redirects) is the safest choice. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that Ben Lyons and Ben Mankewicz are replacing Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper, let's hope that At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper would be renamed either At the Movies with Lyons and Mankewicz, At the Movies with the Two Bens, The Two Bens at the Movies or just plain At the Movies.Don-Don (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More apt would be to rename this new show: SKIP IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.90.117 (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ebert presents At the Movies...

[edit]

Should we start an article for the new program that Ebert announced for PBS? GameGuy95 (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say go for it, once it premieres officially. Rebel shadow 00:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebel shadow (talk • contribs)

Okay, I'm just asking since I have a user page for it underway. GameGuy95 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 23 January 2013

[edit]

"Rent It" [yellow] has been used to indicate a weekly positive verdict, suggesting that the viewer wait until the movie is available on home video.

Change "weekly" to "weakly".

"...indicate a weakly-positive..."

69.251.222.124 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sperril (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on At the Movies (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

[edit]

This show is sometimes still carried by certain television stations in new format still called 'Siskel & Ebert.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.117.16.22 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on At the Movies (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on At the Movies (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on At the Movies (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on At the Movies (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:At the Movies (1982–90 TV series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect the encyclopedia

[edit]

...and stop adding content without sources. This article is a wholesale example of WP:VERIFY and WP:OR violations. It would take an undergraduate dissertation's effort to research and set this article to a verifiable, proper bit of content. 2601:246:C700:9B0:7573:9C20:A653:9660 (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:At_the_Movies_(1986_TV_program)&oldid=1205440698"