Minus Ebert, 'At the Movies' sees ratings drop 23%

The people behind "At the Movies" are discovering that life can be hard without Roger Ebert.

Earlier this year, Walt Disney Co. revealed plans to shake up the syndicated movie-reviewing show. Longtime co-host Ebert, who'd been off the program recovering from cancer surgery since 2006, announced his departure, along with on-air partner Richard Roeper. The duo were replaced by a younger team, Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz, sometimes jokingly referred to as "Ben Squared."

The new "At the Movies," which premiered in September, has already earned raspberries from some critics. Audiences don't seem impressed, either. Ratings for the first two months have slumped 23%, to 1.7 million total viewers, compared with the same period last year, according to figures from Nielsen Media Research. Among the crucial category of adults ages 25 to 54, the program is off 25% (from a 0.8 rating to a 0.6).

But ABC Media Productions, the unit that produces "At the Movies," sees a silver lining. The revamped program has shown improvement since the September premiere among total viewers and its target demographic of women ages 25 to 54, a spokeswoman said. Comparing the new guys with Ebert and Roeper is also unfair, she added.

"You are comparing hosts who had been nurtured for years to a team that just started two short months ago," the spokeswoman said.

The big test for "At the Movies" may come over the next few weeks, as movie studios roll out their slate of holiday films and Oscar contenders, and as viewers may look more to critics for guidance.

--Scott Collins 

   

Comments

[Holly Martins]

Let me get this straight. Ratings since September are off 23%, and off 25% among viewers 25 to 54. Yet Disney's silver lining is that total viewers are higher and so are viewers 25 to 54. My calculator just exploded.

[Holly Martins]

Let me get this straight. Ratings since September are off 23%, and off 25% among viewers 25 to 54. Yet Disney's silver lining is that total viewers are higher and so are viewers 25 to 54. My calculator just exploded.

[Jeremy Stokes]

Your first sentence doesn't make sense. It should read that they're discovering that life can be hard without Richard Roeper. All due respect, Roger hasn't been on the show for what, three years? The big change for THIS year was Roeper leaving, along with Michael Phillips.

Why don't you give Roeper credit for keeping the show going for the three years when Roger was out?

[Bobbie L. Washington]

It is not surprising that At The Movies has fallen so far in the ratings. Although Roger had not been on in a while due to is recovery from cancer, Richard and company did fill in well and Roger still was contributing through print. And his input was still being felt with him embacing Richard as the new host. Whe it was announced that they were no longer a part of the shw, you allready knew it would be different. And when the two Bens showed up, it was a disaster in the two parings plus the additional parade of talking head critics. Why was that necessary for a show to have three additional critics piling on a show that runs for 22 minutes san commercials? And their review critiques were not as indepth to the avid film buff who studies movies. It is hard to have a following like Richard and Roger when you consider the depth of movie history these individuals bring to the table. For Disney to put "lipstick on this pig" is a travesty to the collective human consciousness of thinking film goers. Everything about this reincarnated "At the Movies" needs to be reworked including the set and the presentation or just have someone else do a better show to compete against this relatively insincere form of movie review butchery. Why reinvent the wheel?

[Paul]

The "new" and "hip" version of "At the Movies" is offensively awful. It's just dumb, flashy, and the critics are subpar --- Ben Lyons is less a critic than his father, Jeffrey. This isn't a personal insult. He just isn't a good movie reviewer, he's a showbiz critic, and Ebert already exposed him for what he is in a brilliant blog entry on his website.

There is no gravitas to the show, no real energy or excitement. It's a waste of time and space, and kind of a middle finger to Ebert, but also to Richard Roeper, who kept things together and formed good partnerships with A.O. Scott and especially Michael Phillips.

[Jay Davis]

I was shocked when Richard Roeper quit the show but nothing prepared me for the Kid and the Used Care Salesman that took his place. Fortunately someone decided to "mature-up" the show and Phillips seems like a good choice as a replacement. In my opinion, The jury is still out on Scott who seems a little "iffy" to me. I'll definitely be tuning in each week to see how things go. It's definitely go to be 49 steps higher than it was, previously.

[Jay Davis]

I was shocked when Richard Roeper quit the show but nothing prepared me for the Kid and the Used Car Salesman that took his place. Fortunately someone decided to "mature-up" the show and Phillips seems like a good choice as a replacement. In my opinion, The jury is still out on Scott who seems a little "iffy" to me. I'll definitely be returning each week to see how things go. It's definitely got to be 39 steps higher than it was, previously. (This is a "fix" to my previous comment).