Ebert Shut Out...Canadian Press Skewers

Here’s a brewing mess at the Toronto Film Festival for those interested…

Toronto Star

…and Ebert’s rebuttal…

National Post


Ebert is still a fat fucking moron who’s gone completely off his rocker.

Eh…he’s got a point. Everyone has press credentials anymore. It’s kind of silly really. Look at all the fanboys that go to E3 every year as “press”.


>Here’s a brewing mess at the Toronto Film Festival for those interested

More like a non-event. Ebert acted like a baby because he thought he was more entitled to a seat than people who worked for “less important” media outlets or who paid $800 for an industry pass.

Damn, no freebies, I have to line up like the commoners.

The Toronto film festival is essentially the only significant film festival that’s broadly open to the public. Jolly Ebert can stick to Cannes or Sundance if he doesn’t like it.

Yeah, but the movie studio probably wanted him in there more than the $800 payers or the “less important” media who did get in. Further, whomever distributes the flick Ebert had to miss to hit the 10:00 one is also hurting from this. In terms of movie reviewing, there is nobody more influential than Roger Ebert right now. Considering who else was in his “posse” well, there’s a rep who is feeling the heat right now I’d wager.

I agree, he isn’t royalty, but this is a business not a social festival, isn’t it? Either way, Ebert’s article was the more compelling one to me. The other guy sounded like a wannabe.

It is tacky to publicly engage in that battle. However, if I was the producer of the film, I would be furious. I would boot nearly anybody to give Ebert a seat. His “thumbs up” on a film is worth 100 times what any lesser-known critic might write. I don’t care if he is a jackass, this is business.

>Yeah, but the movie studio probably wanted him in there more than the $800 payers or the “less important” media who did get in

There’s no reason, whatsoever, that Ebert couldn’t have gone, other than he was too elitist to go to a public showing of the film.

Other than having media “seedings”, there’s little the festival can do to accommodate fatheads like Ebert – the festival is extremely popular with international (and local) media – the media showings can only seat a few hundred of the 2,500+ media at the festival (the media showing are in a single, relatively small theatre, which should demonstrate how important they are considered to be compared to the rest of the festival). Like the E3, the festival is primarily oriented towards distributors, not media.

I see by Desslock’s edit, added after my post, that this is indeed a public festival. Yeah, it is tacky then. But the other question is how can Ebert do his job and see as many films as possible during the festival without special consideration? These are independent films, they need him far more than he needs them. Tanker is right, I’d be livid if that were my film.

Point agreed that he acted tacky. He could have handled it more effectively in private.

>I see by Desslock’s edit, added after my post

Yeah, sorry about that – no one had responded when I started my edit, or I would have made it a separate post.

>how can Ebert do his job and see as many films as possible during the festival without special consideration?

Anyone can see as many movies as they want at the festival, as long as they don’t wait until the last minute and show up like the Grand pooba and expect to stroll in.

>Tanker is right, I’d be livid if that were my film

Like I indicated, the festival’s mandate is to be accessible to the public, which it is, so everyone (including Ebert) can see the films they want. If producers want to show their films to a more select audience, they can arrange their own private showing or stick to industry-only events, like Cannes.

Ebert just acted like an obnoxious boor and got called on it, and is now trying to state that he wasn’t obnoxious and didn’t yell (an outright lie, as there were many witnesses to his behaviour). Tempest/teapot

You mean accessible to the “I paid $800” public, right? ;-)
I’m not sure if they should even be called “the public.” 95% of the population has nothing in common with them.

Earlier you said this show was for distributors. Were they turned away along with Ebert?

*I wasn’t knocking you for the edit - sometimes that happens. You just clarified something I questioned in my post.

With that mandate, Ebert doesn’t have much ground to stand on. If you go to a public festival, you stand in line like everyone else. If the film is truly a small one, it may be a significant budget issue to arrange more showings. But if there is some money source, the producer should call the allegedly slighted critics and set up a private screening ASAP.

Definitely true.

Ebert, a dedicated newsman after a hard-earned story? I realize he watches a lot of movies both good and bad to make his living, but on the other hand he watches a lot of movies to make a living!

Ebert after reading title of this thread:

“Mmmmmm, Canadian skewers”

Well, I do see a parallel between this and the E3 show. First off, E3 is supposed to be adult access only - and yet I never fail to see a couple of 13+ kids gawking around. They’re usually quiet and respectful, but I think it does stand to reason that if they’re in there then a LOT of people who shouldn’t be are.

I didn’t go this year, and there were a mix of reasons for that but one big one is that I stopped writing for a while after the 9/11 stuff and felt that since I had no sponsorship for being there, there wasn’t much reason. I’d be part of the problem at that point, and that just didn’t seem right.

However, plenty of people don’t have that opinion… which I think is the reason that several titles end up on “back room” status. They want a PR rep to scope you out first, and then if you’re legit you can have some developer time. If not, they aren’t wasting a showing on you.

>You mean accessible to the “I paid $800” public, right?

No, I mean accessible to the public for $12/flick. The $800 pass is the price of an industry pass, which is essentially a VIP pass.

I’ve gotten into every movie I wanted to see at the festival, and only once had to wait in line for a ticket at all.


If he were thin, would you call him a “thin fucking moron”?

What if he had a cleft palate? Would you call him a “cleft palate having moron”?

He wears sweaters a lot, I’ve noticed. How about a “sweater wearing fucking moron”?

  • Dave

I’d put “four-eyes” in there somewhere, but that’s a good one.

Watch out, Dave Perkins… you’re about to get jumped on by five guys defending their vital right to be boorish assholes and not get called on it!

Fat jokes are cool here. Don’t go against the grain, or risk being turned into a pariah.

Fat people need to accept their societal role as ridiculed, hated laughing stock. Don’t get in the way, Dave! It’s very uncool.

Gravy and donut jokes, here we come!

What exactly did I get called on? I would’ve found something about him to nitpick even if he was the perfect man. Such as the fact that there is no such thing as perfection.

Thanks for playing.

Well, hey, fat is something that can be addressed given time, effort, and willpower, unless it’s caused by a health condition.

“Fucking moron,” on the other hand, is usually a permanent condition.

If I chose to and put my mind to it, I could be thin and in shape in six months.
Whereas six months from now, Met_K will still be Met_K.

Brava, brava! Touché on a flame well done, mon ami.

However, there is one fatal flaw in your argument: You say you could be thin and in shape in six months if you put your mind to it. Well, my very flame-retardant friend, that makes the fatal assumption that you had, and still do have, a mind in the first place.

back atcha! This is good fun. ;)