I know which ones you were talking about. They seemed to be enjoying playful banter with each other and people commenting on YouTube seemed to take it at face value, which seems to be the norm there.
I never got the impression they hated each other, but working for different newspapers, they did seem competitive, and no doubt were.
Yes, competitive... and some of the stuff they said was pretty nasty, honestly, in the public lexicon... if you don't know each other / are strangers. (I think Gene even called him an asshole at the end of one exchange, which Roger was kind of being, TBH.)
But my perception was that they knew each other and so they were just talking smack, mostly, for both of their amusement. I mean, considering there's probably hours and hours, days, weeks, months more of such talk that never got on YouTube? They kept working together and chose to work together, and Gene was laughing at a lot of Ebert's criticism even if Ebert only cracked a smile every so often.
Yeah, they're just screwing around.
Most people seem to think they argued on the show, but most of the time, they agreed with each other, though they tended to critique different aspects of a movie.
I agree too. I watched one or two segments last night for old time's sake and the reality is that even with their different perspectives, they still kind of either agreed overall or could respect the angle being taken. I don't necessarily agree with all of their reviews, but I could count on them at least providing a thoughtful opinion and supporting why they perceived a movie in a particular light.
I mean, they both hated Highlander 2: The Quickening. That's a good start!