Talk:Roger Ebert

message: Shouldn't Ebert's last name be pronounced "/i:'bɜ:ɹt/"? Or, at the very least, could this be an alternative pronunciation?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.248.254 (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who's from the Urbana area and who's grandma dated him in highschool, it's definetley pronounced like the letter and the sesame street character 2601:240:8301:140:A16D:2AE0:9F9B:26C4 (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronuncation of Ebert? 

message: Hi, I've come to tell that lot of Ebert's film reviews, that were published on Ebert's website in 00s, yield "Not Found". I've noticed this at the Mask of Zorro and The Spirit (film) entries and I believe there is likely others as well. We should start combing for other dead links and fix them. I wish those who are capable to help could come help rectify this issue. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links problem 

message: Ebert wrote that "Movie critics are required by unwritten law to create a list of the best films of every year, and although I avoid 'best' lists whenever possible, this is a duty I fulfill." His website used to have his annual ten best lists, starting in 1967. Now when I look for it, I get an error message. It seems like it would be a useful thing to link to, especially since, as he wrote, "I find an occasional tendency to place what I now consider the year's best film in second place, perhaps because I was trying to make some kind of point with my top pick." At any rate, his annual ten best lists provide insight into his critical taste, and, as he notes, gathering a list of good films is useful.
Matt Zoller Seitz, editor of Rogerebert.com, might have the link to Ebert's annual ten best lists. Maybe we can contact him? Charlie Faust (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annual ten best lists 

message: Reading what this is sourced to, this appears to be somewhat of a misrepresentation of his beliefs. He doesn't argue for reincarnation in the typical sense, but rather that"The dust we came from and the dust to which we return are not really there, but thinking makes it so...You assemble your bits, I assemble mine, and when we cease thinking they all fly back into the general pool of Everything, Everywhere. So you and I temporarily consist of ourselves, and someday may well consist of other selves. We will be back, but a precious lot of good it will do us, because we won't know it. So, yes, reincarnation is possible from a rationalist, scientific point of view. We have been and will be reincarnated as part of the vast store of everything there is. We will be suns, moon, stars, rain. Look for us in the weather reports." Which is to say (as I understand it), that our component bits are recycled, an idea that I don't think most people would call to mind when reincarnation is mentioned offhandedly. I'm not entirely sure how to sum up this belief, myself, and I'm not entirely certain how relevant it actually would be to the section AimlessNomad (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "though he argued that reincarnation is possible from a 'scientific, rationalist point of view.'"