Late Friday, the AP ran a story about Roger Ebert’s on-going contract negotiations with Disney/ABC (the producers of Ebert & Roeper) with the headline, “Ebert, No Thumbs, Up or Down, on TV Show“. Along with the wife of his former partner, Gene Siskel, Ebert owns the trademark to the “thumbs up” concept, and according to a press release submitted by ABC to the AP, Ebert had “exercised his right to withhold use of the `thumbs’ until a new contract is signed.” The AP story goes on to report that two episodes of Ebert & Roeper have been taped sans both Ebert and thumbs.

But in a statement released over the weekend, Ebert said ABC’s press release was misleading:

Contrary to Disney’s press release, I did not demand the removal of the Thumbs™. They made a first offer on Friday which I considered offensively low. I responded with a counter-offer. They did not reply to this, and on Monday ordered the Thumbs™ removed from the show. This is not something I expected after an association of over 22 years. I had made it clear the Thumbs™ could remain during good-faith negotiations.

In his statement, Ebert expresses a desire to resolve the dispute, and to get the thumbs back on the air as soon as possible. But is that still a viable possibility?

David Poland has his doubts. “When spats like this go public, it is very rare that the couple gets back together,” Poland blogged on Saturday. Though he says there is a “real chance” that Ebert and ABC will reach a compromise before the next show tapes, if only because Ebert would probably prefer to have a season to regroup and/or shop his copyrights elsewhere, Poland warns that a deal may not even be what Disney is looking for. “I don’t know how Disney will keep their syndication deals in place for a show with no thumbs and no Roger for a second year called, Ebert & Roeper. Maybe they won’t. Maybe this is their way of canceling the show without canceling it.”

Regardless of how these negotiations shake out, ABC’s general attitude towards the show in recent years (which is summed up in depth by Pop Matters‘ Bill Gibron, who seems to have written this piece without knowledge of Ebert’s press release) would suggest they’re far more interested in using the show as a marketing vehicle than as a venue for actual debate about film. As Gibron puts it, it may be time to “appreciate what we had, eulogize what we’re losing, and wonder where all this leaves the state of serious film analysis.”