PDA

View Full Version : Movies and TV Roger Ebert's new silicon face


Frankie
01-20-2011, 11:06 PM
Roger Ebert Will Wear Prosthesis for New Review Show

by: Tim Grierson

(Before and After)

http://l1.yimg.com/a/i/ww/news/2011/01/20/ebert.jpghttp://a323.yahoofs.com/ymg/ymoviesblog__6/ymoviesblog-693866505-1295551811.jpg?ymDFibEDsMSG.cJc


When film critic Roger Ebert announced his new review program, "Ebert Presents at the Movies," which premieres tomorrow, it was understood that the bulk of the show would be hosted by AP critic Christy Lemire and newcomer Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, in part because Ebert's cancer surgeries had required the removal of most of his mandible. For those familiar with his appearance on the Oscar red carpet or on "Siskel & Ebert," the change in his face after the surgeries was quite shocking, especially when it was featured so prominently in Chris Jones' fantastic Esquire profile from last year. But Ebert will be returning to television for the new show, in which he'll contribute a weekly segment called "Roger's Office." And for the program, he'll be debuting a new look, literally: He'll be wearing a prosthetic to cover his lower face.

Late last night, Ebert broke the news on his blog, revealing for the first time the "two-year process that has now resulted with my coming into possession of a silicone prosthesis." Using 3-D photos of Ebert and a bust made by a friend of his during art school years earlier, a team including doctors and an anaplastologist came up with a "device [that] would fit over my lower face and neck and, colored to match my skin, would pass muster at a certain distance." To demonstrate the craftsmanship of the work, Ebert even included a picture of himself wearing the prosthesis.


We have to say, the time spent getting this done right has paid off: It's pretty impressive work. People who grew up watching Ebert will most assuredly notice the difference, but in case Ebert or others worried that his surgery-disfigured face might scare off viewers, the new prosthesis will go a long way toward reassuring the skittish.

Still, that isn't the only change that people will notice with Ebert. The surgeries also robbed him of his voice in 2006, but he's gotten around the problem thanks to CereProc, a Scottish company that gave him a new digital voice compiled from Ebert's old audio recordings. (He debuted it on "Oprah" back in March, and it was shockingly similar to his actual voice.) So, even though Ebert has been through a lot in his cancer bouts, he'll very much be back tomorrow.

Except, of course, that Ebert has hardly been gone: In the last few years, he's been more prolific than he ever has, writing reviews and commentaries at a dizzying rate of consistent excellence. But, as he wrote in that same blog post, even as he prepares to unveil these changes on the show tomorrow, he knows he's not fooling anyone:

At the beginning of this process I assumed I would wear the new prosthesis whenever I left the house, so that "nobody would know." But everybody knows. The photograph of me that appeared in Esquire even found its way onto billboards in China. And something else has happened ... I accept the way I look. Lord knows I paid the dues.

Indeed. Seriously, none of us are ever allowed to complain about writer's block again after what he's been through. When we were kids, Roger Ebert was one of the writers who got us inspired about the art of film criticism. Nowadays, that inspiration extends far beyond movies to how to live life to the very, very fullest.

http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/445-roger-ebert-will-wear-prosthesis-for-new-review-show

DMAC
01-20-2011, 11:08 PM
I liked it better before...he looked animated.

Dante84
01-20-2011, 11:19 PM
After getting jawbed, he's really kept his chin up.

Hammock Parties
01-20-2011, 11:20 PM
His voice is awesome.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xRha8TGtEBg" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>


















OK, real one:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/d_TE0w1cSyg" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="480"></iframe>

Who knew Ebert was into jungle love. Also, jesus, he can't eat through his mouth anymore. Horrible.

New voice on this one. 6:40.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/93jREDSWOYY" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="480"></iframe>

Bugeater
01-20-2011, 11:22 PM
Oh hell, he sounds like the draftabulator.

Simply Red
01-20-2011, 11:23 PM
that shit's hot

suzzer99
01-21-2011, 12:36 AM
This show better be decent. I miss At the Movies so much. I don't even see that many movies. But I want to know the good ones for one I do go, and I like being well-versed on recent popular movies even if I don't see many. And I always write down the ones that are really good for my Netflix queue when I'm sitting in my rocking chair.

fan4ever
01-21-2011, 12:45 AM
Claywhit, is your avitar a pic of Al Davis?

Saccopoo
01-21-2011, 04:57 AM
I wonder how he keeps the flies out...

Pioli Zombie
01-21-2011, 05:43 AM
Didn't he play Commander Pike in the first Star Trek?

Pioli Zombie
01-21-2011, 05:45 AM
Wouldn't it be ironic if right after going through all this he got hit by a bus?

Extra Point
01-21-2011, 06:27 AM
Didn't he play Commander Pike in the first Star Trek?

totheshipeleventy!!!!!11

I wish I'd posted that.

FFFFFUUUUU

siberian khatru
01-21-2011, 07:05 AM
Fake jaw, digitized voice ... this guy's barely human anymore. He's like RoboCop.

Pioli Zombie
01-21-2011, 08:38 AM
He looks like the father in Alf.

Frankie
01-21-2011, 12:54 PM
This show better be decent.

This might help:

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20110104/capt.8cef2368a074450a96d322ab8d5766b1-8cef2368a074450a96d322ab8d5766b1-0.jpg?x=213&y=294&xc=1&yc=1&wc=296&hc=409&q=85&sig=iijEM_57s1EIkqGceDAgPA--

She's the co-host.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110104/ap_en_tv/us_tv_ebert_review_show

Frankie
01-21-2011, 12:57 PM
Fake jaw, digitized voice ... this guy's barely human anymore. He's like RoboCop.

He THINKS, therefore he IS.

Dante84
01-21-2011, 02:03 PM
Would you make out with him for 3 straight hours if it meant the Chiefs would win a Super Bowl?

Keep in mind, the whole time he would be yelling dirty, derogatory sayings with his electronic voice.

DMAC
01-21-2011, 02:26 PM
Would you make out with him for 3 straight hours if it meant the Chiefs would win a Super Bowl?

Keep in mind, the whole time he would be yelling dirty, derogatory sayings with his electronic voice.

We are a desperate people.

:facepalm:

Dante84
01-21-2011, 02:28 PM
We are a desperate people.

:facepalm:

I'll count that as a yes.

FAX
01-21-2011, 02:42 PM
Would you make out with him for 3 straight hours if it meant the Chiefs would win a Super Bowl?

Keep in mind, the whole time he would be yelling dirty, derogatory sayings with his electronic voice.

Tough question, Mr. Dante84. Not in the sense that the answer is difficult ... just that it must have been hard to write that.

It is interesting, though ... his new, rubber face looks better than lots of people in those Walmart photos that were posted here a while ago.

I think this would make a good poll, actually. Just change it around a bit ... like ... say ... how long would you agree to abstain from sexual contact of any kind in exchange for a Chiefs Super Bowl win? A week? A month? Some people are already going on years, probably. Personally, I think a fair trade would be about a week since the Chiefs should have at least made one more SB appearance sometime in the last 40 years which would have, no doubt, led to romantic feelings on the part of some female fans. We have Carl to blame for that.

FAX

pr_capone
01-21-2011, 02:46 PM
Tough question, Mr. Dante84. Not in the sense that the answer is difficult ... just that it must have been hard to write that.

It is interesting, though ... his new, rubber face looks better than lots of people in those Walmart photos that were posted here a while ago.

I think this would make a good poll, actually. Just change it around a bit ... like ... say ... how long would you agree to abstain from sexual contact of any kind in exchange for a Chiefs Super Bowl win? A week? A month? Some people are already going on years, probably. Personally, I think a fair trade would be about a week since the Chiefs should have at least made one more SB appearance sometime in the last 40 years which would have, no doubt, led to romantic feelings on the part of some female fans. We have Carl to blame for that.

FAX

Would you hold out for twice the length of your longest "dry" streak for a SB win?

FAX
01-21-2011, 02:48 PM
Would you hold out for twice the length of your longest "dry" streak for a SB win?

Yeah. I would. Probably. Who would be the other SB team? If it was Atlanta, I definitely would.

FAX

Ming the Merciless
01-21-2011, 03:25 PM
Would you make out with him for 3 straight hours if it meant the Chiefs would win a Super Bowl?

Keep in mind, the whole time he would be yelling dirty, derogatory sayings with his electronic voice.

i ****ing would...

easy

Ive probly ****ed uglier bitches than Roger Ebert when drunk, certainly more annoying ones...at least we could chat about movies...

Dante84
01-21-2011, 03:33 PM
i ****ing would...

easy

Ive probly ****ed uglier bitches than Roger Ebert when drunk, certainly more annoying ones...at least we could chat about movies...

The only chatting that would take place would be electronic shrieks of "Slow down, you're going to make me cum!"

If you wanted to talk movies with him, you'd have to do it on your own time. Perhaps while enjoying a nice cuddle after your make-out / grind session.

Ming the Merciless
01-21-2011, 03:37 PM
The only chatting that would take place would be electronic shrieks of "Slow down, you're going to make me cum!"

If you wanted to talk movies with him, you'd have to do it on your own time. Perhaps while enjoying a nice cuddle after your make-out / grind session.

I could live with that if it meant a ring for the Chiefs.

I would rub my balls all over those floppy silicone lips....

I would close my eyes and pretend I was face****ing stephen hawking as the soothing electronic voice melted away in the dark

Hammock Parties
01-21-2011, 04:41 PM
Fake jaw, digitized voice ... this guy's barely human anymore. He's like RoboCop.

I know, it's fucking awesome. I hope I'm a freak when I get to be his age. Attention GALORE! Scaring little kids ++++++++

Dante84
01-21-2011, 05:09 PM
I know, it's fucking awesome. I hope I'm a freak when I get to be his age. Attention GALORE! Scaring little kids ++++++++

From a court mandated 500 yards away or more!

Hammock Parties
01-21-2011, 05:16 PM
A flash of Ebert's eyes
A gape of his jawless chiiiiiiiiiiiin

He's coming for you
He's coming for you

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/02/19/alg_roger_ebert.jpg

Dante84
01-21-2011, 05:20 PM
Okay, I just decided I would open mouth kiss him, super bowl ring or not.

With those DSL's, there's no denying that my knees go weak.

Talisman
01-21-2011, 06:44 PM
In almost every before picture of him, his mouth is closed. He wasn't really much of a smiler. So why did he pick the mouth that gave him a permanent "I just came" face?

cabletech94
01-21-2011, 07:22 PM
why so serious?

Easy 6
01-21-2011, 08:33 PM
Wouldn't it be ironic if right after going through all this he got hit by a bus?

ROFL?

The years were certainly not kind to Siskel & Ebert.