I'll take the opposite tack here and say that if "At the Movies" disappears from the airwaves, it will be no great loss. I admire Roger and his work, but I think the show is terrible. Christy and Ignatiy have little chemistry and less gravitas, and the contributors they've used so far have been juvenile at best -- literally, in the case of the 10-year-old reviewer.
The reason Gene and Roger worked was that they were two people who had a serious background in their field and could disagree intelligently and with depth. The current hosts don't have that skill set. --Dave Sikula On Nov 7, 6:11 pm, "Kevin M." <[email protected]> wrote: > I appreciate that Roger was trying to return to the legacy roots of > the original show, but as he is an avid user of new media, I'm shocked > he is trying a method of delivery so out-of-touch. While many of the > segments and critics are not to my liking, the format of the show is > solid and would work as a video podcast, or even live streaming on any > number of video outlets. Take the show out of a studio and produce it > like Kevin Pollak's Chat Show and the cost of production is reduced to > next-to-nothing. I'll bet he could rope in Chicago college kids to > assemble the show for free. > > -- > Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
