LA Times Pisses Me the F@%k Off With Their Hit Piece on Ben Lyons
I wasn't gonna write anything about this, but it's been gnawing at me since yesterday morning when I brought the Calendar section of the LA Times to the dogpark.
Big hit piece on Ben Lyons. I know! Our buddy Ben from the internets and all, the E! movie guy, the son of Jeffrey, the Daily 10 movie location feature guy.
Of course, Ben is now also one of the two people sitting in those At the Movies chairs in syndication, with Ben Mankiewicz, the Turner Classic Movie guy who very quickly came and went (fortunately for his career) from the TMZ TV format during its early weeks.
I'm not gonna link to Chris Lee's article. The gist of it is that Lyons is way too lightweight to be reviewing movies on the venerable show, that he's somehow not worthy and that he favors big studio films and their stars and that he's too chummy with movie celebs.
And there's more, like a guy devoting a portion of his life to a nasty anti-Lyons website and pics that make Ben look like a chummy fratboy type that lucked into the job of his dreams because he has a familiar name and is reasonably attractive.
First of all, Ben isn't getting anywhere on his good looks. I know from attractive men and Ben is just okay. Sorry Ben, it needed to be said.
Second, I was pretty surprised when Ben and Ben got the At the Movies gig too, but they did. Disney said "I want those two." They must have their reasons.
In the same vein, would you really want to listen to Carrie Rickey and Manohla Dargis spend a half hour every week telling you why they don't like the movies you love? Uh no, I didn't think you did.
(Another thing, I betcha there are few movie stars that would want their picture taken with Mahohla Dargis.)
At the Movies is not a weekly half hour televised course in film criticism. Never was meant to be. That Gene and Roger were really scholarly guys in their columns in the Chicago Tribune and the Sun-Times (Roger of course still working for the latter) was secondary to that they had a relationship that came across during the TV show called At the Movies.
Because, film community, ultimately At the Movies is indeed a TV show first. People like to turn on the TV and hear that they aren't morons for enjoying "that movie." And it's not even like Ben and Ben spend 22 minutes placating people. This past week, for example, both of them didn't like their share of films.
Also, the relationship Gene and Roger had on screen came from their long time personal relationship, you can't cast that.
Now, about the chummy with movie stars allegation, you gotta remember that Lyons and also Mank have other jobs where they interact with people who star in movies. And fans going to the E! website wanna see pics of Ben with Russell Brand and Kristen Bell from the Forgetting Sarah Marshall junket because they like those people. They sell ads on that website. I'm basically saying that it's part of the job for Ben to be there online with them.
So, what's the big fucking deal.
If scholarly film types want a TV series where serious films are seriously reviewed, they can pitch their ideas to Ovation or IFC or Sundance or wherever they want. I'm sure about 80,000 people nationwide will be interested in tuning in, which is fine until you have to pay for the show's production costs with the money you make from selling the commercials that will air to only 80,000 people.
For Chris Lee to pitch this slam job to his LA Times editor, for that editor to approve the goofy-smiling pic of Lyons to go with the piece, and for a guy to spend as much time as I spend on this blog on one of his own with the expressed purpose of getting a 27-year-old guy fired from his job -- well, you would think they would all have something better to do.
And btw, after some initial trouble with the new format, I think the show is great these days. I watch it weekly.
And Chris Lee can bite me.




