Ebert & Roeper

We've all gotten used to the idea of thumbs up or thumbs down for a movie, first with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, and now with Ebert and Richard Roeper. Thumbs up, of course, means it's good and you should go see it. Thumbs down means it's not and you shouldn't.

But moviegoing habits have changed in the quarter century since Siskel and Ebert first took to their balcony. And I've noticed over the past few weeks (although he's probably been doing it longer) that at least Roeper's standards have changed, too. A thumb's down from Roeper doesn't mean you shouldn't see a movie--it just means you shouldn't see it at the theater. He'll give thumbs down to a movie he'd recommend you see on video in a couple of months. That "maybe" kind of answer doesn't work so well in the binary arena of thumbs up and thumbs down. How do I know which movies aren't worth my money under any circumstances whatsoever and which maybe aren't worth my $9.50 now but could be worth 3 bucks in a little while?

I guess we no longer live in a black-and-white world. Could he maybe add a new category? Thumbs up, thumbs down, and thumbs betwixt and between? They could get a trademark on that with no trouble at all.