<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>cdevroe.com &#187; roger ebert</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cdevroe.com/tag/roger-ebert/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cdevroe.com</link>
	<description>by Colin Devroe</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:49:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com"/><atom:link rel="hub" href="http://superfeedr.com/hubbub"/>	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://cdevroe.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
<cloud domain='cdevroe.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />
		<item>
		<title>Why movie revenue is down</title>
		<link>http://cdevroe.com/links/ebert-movie-revenue-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://cdevroe.com/links/ebert-movie-revenue-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:47:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Colin Devroe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pricing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revenue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roger ebert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theater]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cdevroe.com/?p=5620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Roger Ebert gives six reasons why he thinks movie revenue was way down in 2011. Here is one of them: 3. The theater experience. Moviegoers above 30 are weary of noisy fanboys and girls. The annoyance of talkers has been joined by the plague of cell-phone users, whose bright screens are a distraction. Worse, some [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Roger Ebert gives <a href="http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111228/COMMENTARY/111229973/">six reasons why he thinks movie revenue was way down in 2011</a>. Here is one of them:</p>
<blockquote><p>3. The theater experience. Moviegoers above 30 are weary of noisy fanboys and girls. The annoyance of talkers has been joined by the plague of cell-phone users, whose bright screens are a distraction. Worse, some texting addicts get mad when told they can&#8217;t use their cell phones. A theater is reportedly opening which will allow and even bless cell phone usage, although that may be an apocryphal story.</p></blockquote>
<p>I agree with all of his reasons and I&#8217;ll add one of my own. Actually, it is sort of an addition to one of Ebert&#8217;s reasons. He says that ticket price is a problem. Ticket price wouldn&#8217;t be a problem if the movies (and the theater experience) was really, really good. When I see a movie trailer I usually ask myself &#8211; &#8220;Is that worth driving to the theatre and spending $30 to see?&#8221;</p>
<p>The answer to that question could be &#8220;No&#8221; for several reasons. The movie may not warrant &#8220;the big screen experience&#8221;. The movie may look funny or entertaining but I&#8217;d just as soon watch it in the comfort of my home, on my couch, in my PJs, on Bluray. Or, the movie is in 3D or XD or EXTREMELY OVERRATED ACRONYM &#8211; which means I&#8217;ll likely not care to see it at all.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think the theater-going movie industry has a chance to remain as large as it has been in recent past. I think it will see a slow and steady decline and level out right where they should be. People will still watch &#8220;larger&#8221; movies in theaters or on first dates and will see &#8220;smaller&#8221; movies at home where they are most comfortable. And that should be OK. The industry simply needs to adapt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://cdevroe.com/links/ebert-movie-revenue-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ebert and I wholly disagree about Transformers 2</title>
		<link>http://cdevroe.com/links/ebert-transformers2/</link>
		<comments>http://cdevroe.com/links/ebert-transformers2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:05:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Colin Devroe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[critic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roger ebert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tranformers 2]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cdevroe.com/?p=2464</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I consider Roger Ebert to be an excellent movie critic. His reviews have caused me to rent many a film &#8211; and I&#8217;ve enjoyed nearly all of them as much as he did in his reviews. Recently, however, he crapped all over Transformers 2. I saw the movie over the weekend and enjoyed it very [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I consider Roger Ebert to be an excellent movie critic. His reviews have caused me to rent many a film &#8211; and I&#8217;ve enjoyed nearly all of them as much as he did in his reviews. Recently, however, <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_fall_of_the_revengers.html">he crapped all over Transformers 2</a>. I saw the movie over the weekend and enjoyed it very much. It had everything I expected to see; huge robots, explosions, *ahem* Megan Fox *ahem*, slow-motion galore, and quick-witted humor. I have no idea what he was expecting to see when he saw the film &#8211; but it obviously wasn&#8217;t what he saw. Pity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://cdevroe.com/links/ebert-transformers2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Roger Ebert, now a blogger</title>
		<link>http://cdevroe.com/links/ebert-blog/</link>
		<comments>http://cdevroe.com/links/ebert-blog/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Colin Devroe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roger ebert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suggestions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[writing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cdevroe.com/?p=1615</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My endorsement for you to subscribe to Roger Ebert's blog, I mean, journal.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Roger Ebert is hitting a stride on <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/">his blog</a>. He began blogging not too long ago. Well, in the world of blogging it wasn&#8217;t that long ago. It isn&#8217;t like he hasn&#8217;t been writing for longer than I&#8217;ve been breathing &#8211; he just hasn&#8217;t been <em>blogging</em> as long as I have. So take that Roger! Where his first pieces seemed to be op-eds his latest pieces seem to be more &#8220;blog like&#8221;, and I like that. Personal reflections about how Roger sees the world rather than how he thinks others should.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve long respected Roger&#8217;s opinions of movies. It turns out I agree and respect his opinions on a great many things. Consider this my recommendation to subscribe.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/">Roger Ebert&#8217;s Journal</a> (Sadly it seems &#8220;blog&#8221; isn&#8217;t a good enough word.)</p>
<p>Ps. You can have a post-script on a blog, right? Anyway &#8211; I think I should take a taste of my own medicine and get back to some real blogging myself. Hmmm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://cdevroe.com/links/ebert-blog/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

