In his latest blog post, Roger Ebert was plainspoken when remarking: “Unless we find an angel, our television program will go off the air at the end of its current season.” The reason, despite the show’s measured success? They can’t afford to make it anymore. It’s a simple (yet intractable) problem with an equally simple (yet harrowing) solution. Now, more than ever, Ebert Presents: At the Movies needs to do what public television and radio have been doing for decades – hold a fundraising drive. However, instead of setting up phone banks and interrupting our regularly scheduled programming to promise us a tote bag with our $100 donation, Ebert and the show need to step into the modern world of fundraising with Kickstarter.

I am going to attempt something that many have tried and failed to communicate to people for the purpose of arriving at a reasonable understanding for years. It’s mainly been attempted by persons defending their own personal profession and therefore really only speaks to those who have already been listening all along. In that sense this will be no different. However, I haven’t quite yet seen (though, I haven’t quite yet looked either) an explanation from the one side being attacked that says, in more words, “this is really who we are.”

Why? For the same reason we get dismissive of the lump assumption that all are one. This may not be what is always done in every case, but I don’t really think I’m going to over-generalize anything I will soon say. I will admittedly assume, though, that generally speaking I think this analysis of one side brought upon because of a somewhat popular perception from the other side typically holds true.

These are those perceptions:

Critics don’t like what the general public likes

Critics are irrelevant

Critics are self-absorbed

Critics are biased

Critics. Hate. Movies….and life…because they’re bitter they’re not talented enough to make movies themselves so their only pleasure is to tear down the works of those who successfully accomplished what they never could.

Early yesterday, the LA Times blog released quotes from Atlas Shrugged Part 1 writer/producer John Aglialoro which indicated that he was throwing in the towel on making Part 2 and Part 3. The reason, of course, was that the film just didn’t make its money back. Aglialoro spent a reported $10m of his own cash on the production, and a second week drop off hurt the independent flick considerably. The movie has currently only made $3.2m at the box office. It started with an impressive per screen average, but as with other films which zero in on an audience, everyone who wanted to see the movie saw it opening weekend. The numbers dropped, and an expansion was scrapped. Aglialoro very specifically blames critics and what he believes is a collective “fear of Ayn Rand” amongst them for the movie’s failings. So much for personal responsibility. However, it’s his ire and hatred of the critical response that has caused an about-face. Aglialoro now claims that, while he was once defeated, he now stands ready to proceed with making Atlas Shrugged Part 2 and Part 3. Like all misunderstood artists, he should.

The modern icon of film criticism beloved for his opinion-having presence on At the Movies with Siskel and Ebert (and, of course, Oprah and The Critic) will be back on small screens soon enough when Roger Ebert Presents At the Movies finds its way down to earth from satellites in space. Although he won’t be the main fixture, Ebert will use his computer-powered voice to shine the spotlight on the overlooked films of the past and present. The co-hosts will be heavy hitters Christy Lemire – who has written for the Associated Press for over a decade – and the dreadlocked Elvis Mitchell – who is best known for his erstwhile presence at the NY Times, guest spot on an episode of Entourage, and famous love of Cuban cigars. The show will air starting January 2011 and will hopefully make its way beyond the borders of Chicago. Ebert inspired an entire generation of film fans and aspiring critics. It’s good to have him back. [Roger Ebert]

Our Cole Abaius might be slow on the uptake, but he took some time to mull over Roger Ebert’s recent article about the death of the film critic, and after a few days we find him in the interesting position: disagreeing with Roger Ebert. And disagreeing with most of his colleagues.

Since we’re primarily a film criticism website, we decided to write an editorial on why film critics are obsolete. Daring? Groundbreaking? Iconoclastic? Our vote is for Ridiculously Foolish.

Much has been made of the impending doom faced by print film critics around the country. Now, everyone from the casual film blogger to the tenured film scholar seems to be chiming in with their opinion. We want to know what you have to say about it…