It was seven years after Awakenings. Williams being serious should not have surprised anyone.
Also, Dead Poets Society was released in 1989, for which Williams was nominated for an Oscar.
It was seven years after Awakenings. Williams being serious should not have surprised anyone.
That’s true. And I had forgotten about Awakenings (and I guess Moscow on the Hudson). That said, I still think it was a notable shift from him that got a lot of attention because it came after a huge hot streak of massive comedic/light-hearted hits and big budget films: Mrs. Doubtfire, Aladdin, Hook, Jumanji, The Birdcage, Flubber. He was America’s funny man at that point. When GWH came out it was surprising that he chose such a straight role.Also, Dead Poets Society was released in 1989, for which Williams was nominated for an Oscar.
Yeah, he'd also done Fisher King (got an oscar nod for that one, too) and Being Human, though. I agree with your overall point re: Simmons, but Williams had a pretty decent drama resume before doing GWH.That’s true. And I had forgotten about Awakenings (and I guess Moscow on the Hudson). That said, I still think it was a notable shift from him that got a lot of attention because it came after a huge hot streak of massive comedic/light-hearted hits and big budget films: Mrs. Doubtfire, Aladdin, Hook, Jumanji, The Birdcage, Flubber. He was America’s funny man at that point. When GWH came out it was surprising that he chose such a straight role.
And- ever consistent- Simmons has repeatedly talked about how much he loves Moscow on the Hudson and Garp.That’s true. And I had forgotten about Awakenings (and I guess Moscow on the Hudson). That said, I still think it was a notable shift from him that got a lot of attention because it came after a huge hot streak of massive comedic/light-hearted hits and big budget films: Mrs. Doubtfire, Aladdin, Hook, Jumanji, The Birdcage, Flubber. He was America’s funny man at that point. When GWH came out it was surprising that he chose such a straight role.
Then why doesn't he pick these for the podcast? Garp, especially, would be an interesting choice (although it would require Fennessy, at a minimum, to help out with the book adaptation discussion and to prevent Simmons from putting his foot halfway down his own throat when discussing Lithgow's character).And- ever consistent- Simmons has repeatedly talked about how much he loves Moscow on the Hudson and Garp.
Yeah this is a good, quick, and informative pod. Definitely feel like you are getting insider info from him.I've been listening to The Town, Matt Beloni's (former Hollywood Reporter editor) podcast on the business-side of entertainment. Quick, 20 minute episodes, looks like a couple of times a week; easy to listen too and I feel like I'm learning things.
Vasquez, but yeah - both Bill and Van should've been able to place her.Back to Titanic redux for a moment. I can't believe neither Bill nor Van could name the actress who played the Irish mother who put her children to bed and told them a story rather than exit the ship. They knew she was in T2 as John Connor's foster mom and in Lethal Weapon 2. I'm pretty sure Bill has mentioned Aliens as one of his binky movies, yet he could not place Jenette Goldstein, who was great as Sanchez in Aliens.
That's perfect!Vasquez, but yeah - both Bill and Van should've been able to place her.
I’ve seen it twenty+ times and I still messed it up.Vasquez, but yeah - both Bill and Van should've been able to place her.
Fun fact - Goldstein now owns and operates a bra store. Their slogan is "The alphabet starts at 'D.'"I’ve seen it twenty+ times and I still messed it up.
Bill wanting to recast Garcia as the real estate agent is a bit. He is 100% in on the joke at this point.Another great episode of Rewatchables for Panic Room (great movie btw. I hadn’t seen it in 15ish years and rewatched for this).
Bill recasting minor roles with major actors has to be a bit at this point right? I don’t think he’s self aware enough but Andy Garcia as the real estate agent who’s in the movie for 45 seconds at the very beginning? Anthony Hopkins as the ex who is there to get beat on? Does he think movies have unlimited actor budgets?
But only because Chris & Sean have beaten it into him, over and over again.Bill wanting to recast Garcia as the real estate agent is a bit. He is 100% in on the joke at this point.
In the "bust on Bill" category, Chris giving him shit for not remembering that The Watch used to be called Hollywood Prospectus- while Sean just cackled uncontrollably in the background- was sublime.I liked Sean and Chris challenging Bill on why Bill thought Contact was a bad movie. And the only answer Bill could give was, "it was bad because it was bad". And then going with what the narrative was back then (no chemistry between Foster and McConaughey, people thought it was weird, people were disappointed). Like Bill thought it was bad because that's what everyone else thought.
Fun pod. I'm looking forward to watching this one again. Watched it once when it came out and haven't really thought much about it since then.
Replace Simmons with Van and Chris, Sean, and Van would deliver gold.The Panic Room pod was great, and it's a good example of why BS/Chris/Sean works really as a trifecta for that pod. I love Van and some of the other folks who come in (it's probably about time for Mallory Rubin to come off the top rope in one of these), but that core three are always great.
This was pretty incredible.In the "bust on Bill" category, Chris giving him shit for not remembering that The Watch used to be called Hollywood Prospectus- while Sean just cackled uncontrollably in the background- was sublime.
Thank you for sharing. I feel so bad for him, cancer is such a truly awful thing. The story he wrote a couple of weeks ago about his son was really sad, but it was a great piece.On this week's Upside High, Tjarks shared that his first two chemo treatments didn't put his cancer in remission, Since these are the most critical for remission, subsequent treatments will be about mitigation and extending life. He won't be doing podcasts anymore so that he can focus his time on more important things.
If you're a fan of his work, I recommend listening to the episode because it's really emotional - it's the first time I'd been close to crying listening to a podcast. I'm an atheist, but the way he talks about his faith and how it's impacted his life is really inspiring and I truly take something away from it despite being a born skeptic. He's so young to be going through this - barely 30 - and what he shares about his experience with cancer puts a lot of things into perspective.
That was incredibly tough to listen to. I don’t think I would as composed as he is about what is very likely, and which he seems to know is very likely, a short runway for him.On this week's Upside High, Tjarks shared that his first two chemo treatments didn't put his cancer in remission, Since these are the most critical for remission, subsequent treatments will be about mitigation and extending life. He won't be doing podcasts anymore so that he can focus his time on more important things.
If you're a fan of his work, I recommend listening to the episode because it's really emotional - it's the first time I'd been close to crying listening to a podcast. I'm an atheist, but the way he talks about his faith and how it's impacted his life is really inspiring and I truly take something away from it despite being a born skeptic. He's so young to be going through this - barely 30 - and what he shares about his experience with cancer puts a lot of things into perspective.
I listened to it today and next to Jaws it’s my favorite Rewatchable, Van and Bill we’re on fire “let me make this room on the boat more comfortable by putting up 10 pictures of ME!” Lololol this was a terrific listen, so so good.I know I'm late to this, but I listened to the pod this morning and was dying laughing at the Rose takes. Just phenomenal podcasting. Van screaming about Rose being an awful person made my morning.
I haven't listened to the revamped version of it. My go-to soccer podcast is Caught Offside. An Irish fan and American fan, one a Liverpool supporter and the other a Tottenham fan, and they have a good dynamic and talk a lot of national team soccer.Anyone listen to RingerFC?
I listened to there world cup draw podcast and kinda hated it. I am looking for good soccer podcasts, should I give it another try?
The Guardian's Football Weekly podcast is the best one I've found (which they release about every couple days or so).Anyone listen to RingerFC?
I listened to there world cup draw podcast and kinda hated it. I am looking for good soccer podcasts, should I give it another try?
I could just be really high, but from the "It's it a Christmas movie?" part on, that might have been the most brutal co-hosts have been to Simmons that I've heard. Chris just being hilarious, and Sean being secure enough at the top of the company food chain to just lay into the sarcasm.This was pretty incredible.
The original host of Football Weekly does his show on The Athletic now (free with ads): https://theathletic.com/podcast/200-the-totally-football-show/The Guardian's Football Weekly podcast is the best one I've found (which they release about every couple days or so).
https://www.theguardian.com/football/series/footballweekly
I really like the 2 Robbies chemistry, but their audio is usually terrible.
I can understand the criticism up thread, but I just wrapped up the series (7 episodes total) and I enjoyed it. Of course, there was retread information, but I dispute that this was exclusively for hoops heads and there are several generations that likely haven't heard any of these stories.I just listened to half of Ep 2, and— sorry to say— I think I'm out. It has the same disappointingly vanilla delivery as the first episode.
I don't understand Jackie's approach to this. If you're the kind of fan who nerds out on NBA history, then you need clearly some some new material or new angle to keep your interest. She approaches the podcast as though it's for people who don't know the first thing about the NBA history before 1980— but it's hard to imagine many of these people suddenly developing an appetite for long podcasts about NBA players from 50-70 years ago anyway. So, I don't understand who she thinks her audience is.
It's also annoying how the connective tissue of the series is supposed to be NBA greats passing the torch by reaching out to a younger generation and giving them advice. It doesn't work because she mostly can't go into detail about what was discussed in these conversations, so it just turns into, "Wow, Bill Russell once called Dr. J to give him advice... and then Dr. J once called Charles Barkley to give him advice" and so on.
Edit: grammar
Thanks for the follow-up. It’s still on my list of things to get to, and I’m glad it picks up a bit.I can understand the criticism up thread, but I just wrapped up the series (7 episodes total) and I enjoyed it. Of course, there was retread information, but I dispute that this was exclusively for hoops heads and there are several generations that likely haven't heard any of these stories.
Surprisingly, I think the last episode on current icons was my favorite of all. She gave Lebron justifiable praise for his on and off-court work, but also didn't shy away from any of his controversies.
He's so right. I mean the 2002 Spider-Man movie absolutely set the superhero template for the 1978 Superman movie.Caveat: I'm only 1/2 the way through, but I think the newest Rewatchables on Spider-Man (2002) is a good example of what makes for a weak episode, and why Simmons is valuable (if not essential) to the show.
Lathan is a great guest because he brings a unique blend of appreciation and skepticism (and hilarity), but he's not great with the trivia, historical stuff, or technical filmmaking info (that's typically Fennessy's corner, although Ryan and Mallory Rubin can hold their own). But when you pair him with a straight-up Spider Man fanboy like Charles Holmes, it ends up just being a hagiography, and their attempts at sussing out "historical" reasons that support their adoration end up coming across as cherry picking or selective perspective. I mean, at one point Holmes blathers about how Spider Man set the template for modern superhero movies by introducing a character, how he gets his powers, and what's important to him in the first 40 minutes (note: this is also called a standard first act in, well, most movies), and then in the next sentence says that he tried to watch a Tom Holland SM movie and his wife was confused because there were aliens and backstory right at the beginning (which is the *opposite* of how he described the original Spider Man) and concludes: "So yeah, Spider Man set the template for the next 20 years!"
Simmons is good in those situations because he isn't afraid to call a sort of time out and say "Wait, what?"
Well spiderman made the world go counterclockwise and reverse time....He's so right. I mean the 2002 Spider-Man movie absolutely set the superhero template for the 1978 Superman movie.
I haven't listened yet, but if anything it sounds like they pulled a Simmons, as in "I'm stating definitely that the first instance of this thing occurring is the first time I took notice of it occurring. History begins and ends with my own experiences."He's so right. I mean the 2002 Spider-Man movie absolutely set the superhero template for the 1978 Superman movie.
Hah! I edited my post to point that out as you were responding.He's so right. I mean the 2002 Spider-Man movie absolutely set the superhero template for the 1978 Superman movie.
And most importantly, it's the first Marvel movie Kevin Feige was a producer on. if there's any pre-MCU movie most responsible for the MCU it's probably X-men. Though I suspect Spider-Man is the better regarded movie now. Certainly had a less, uh, problematic team behind the camera.Holmes also waves away the X-Men movie (2000), which I believe is generally regarded as the re-boot of superhero movies that brought us to where we are now. That movie did big business (third biggest opening day ever at the time) and brought in some serious actors (McKellan, namely) to play serious-ish parts after the ham-ball movie star fest that the Batman series had become.
I don't mind a critic who is actually critical, Mallory's relentless positivity can be just as grating, but yeah sometimes his critiques are just weird. really, the only regular Ringerverse host who doesn't regularly set my teeth on edge is Jo.The problem is Coke Baby Chuck is the worst host on the Ringerverse. His takes are wild, hence his Ringerverse nickname. I think if they added a 3rd guy onto the Spiderman pod, it would have been so much better. Fennessy or Ryan.
It's very much like a Simmons two-hander, just without Simmons.I haven't listened yet, but if anything it sounds like they pulled a Simmons, as in "I'm stating definitely that the first instance of this thing occurring is the first time I took notice of it occurring. History begins and ends with my own experiences."
Why do you think there was any doubt about ethics? Like ESPN, the Ringer isn't really a journalistic enterprise in many meaningful ways. It's a part of a largely integrated sports and entertainment ecosytem. If it's a journalistic enterprise, where's the reporting. It's increasingly, lists, power rankings and "thought" pieces. There's little to no actual reporting. The WWE thing is just a really obvious illustration.I know I'm like, the only person in the world that this really bothers; but I can't stress enough how annoyed I am that The Ringer has a corporate partnership with WWE. It destroys any form of honest criticism and is a major ethical question for a site that believes it has a reasonably high journalistic standard. It's just so gross and makes me really disappointed in the entire operation of the site; just selling out to have a partner in content generation.
Isn't the bigger issue that pro wrestling is fucking stupid? That said easy enough to ignore the content, and while I've never met a grown-up who I respect who likes pro wrestling, nothing particularly wrong with serving that particular form of dumb fun. [Frankly I enjoy comic book movies and old bond movies a little too much to be judgmental about wrestling fans!]I know I'm like, the only person in the world that this really bothers; but I can't stress enough how annoyed I am that The Ringer has a corporate partnership with WWE. It destroys any form of honest criticism and is a major ethical question for a site that believes it has a reasonably high journalistic standard. It's just so gross and makes me really disappointed in the entire operation of the site; just selling out to have a partner in content generation.
I don't know man; I think it's different when you are talking about a subjective entertainment entity as opposed to a sports league. In sports there is an obvious distinction between success and failure, and there really isn't an effective way to spin it to convince a lot of people otherwise. Getting into bed with a particular brand, especially during a period where that brand is being competitively challenged for the time in decades, just feels wrong and I feel like if we stepped back and compared this to sports; like if The Ringer signed an exclusive contract with FIFA and only covered FIFA in a positive way, did the PR work for the organization, had FIFA executives on their pods to misrepresent complex situations, The Ringer would be torn to shreds and rightfully so.Why do you think there was any doubt about ethics? Like ESPN, the Ringer isn't really a journalistic enterprise in many meaningful ways. It's a part of a largely integrated sports and entertainment ecosytem. If it's a journalistic enterprise, where's the reporting. It's increasingly, lists, power rankings and "thought" pieces. There's little to no actual reporting. The WWE thing is just a really obvious illustration.
I should say, I haven't really noticed too much of a shift in their wrestling coverage since the partnership. In any sort of "real" wrestling journalism, the story all the time, and probaby for damn near every fed, domestic and foreign, would be about health of wrestlers, financial impropriety and so on.
This podcast absolutely needed Simmons, and it was a clear example of why he is a necessary component for the podcast even if he isn’t a serious film critic by any stretch. They desperately needed someone to cut the fanboyism and put that movie in better context with what was expected of a superhero movie at the time.Caveat: I'm only 1/2 the way through, but I think the newest Rewatchables on Spider-Man (2002) is a good example of what makes for a weak episode, and why Simmons is valuable (if not essential) to the show.
Lathan is a great guest because he brings a unique blend of appreciation and skepticism (and hilarity), but he's not great with the trivia, historical stuff, or technical filmmaking info (that's typically Fennessy's corner, although Ryan and Mallory Rubin can hold their own). But when you pair him with a straight-up Spider Man fanboy like Charles Holmes, it ends up just being a hagiography, and their attempts at sussing out "historical" reasons that support their adoration end up coming across as cherry picking or selective perspective. I mean, at one point Holmes blathers about how Spider Man set the template for modern superhero movies by introducing a character, how he gets his powers, and what's important to him in the first 40 minutes (note: this is also called a standard first act and was used in Super Man and Batman), and then in the next sentence says that he tried to watch a Tom Holland SM movie and his wife was confused because there were aliens and backstory right at the beginning (which is the *opposite* of how he described the original Spider Man first act) and concludes: "So yeah, Spider Man set the template for the next 20 years!"
Simmons is good in those situations because he isn't afraid to call a sort of time out and say "Wait, what?"
Agree on the need to reduce "fanboyism" of super hero movies, but Simmons isn't the guy to do it because he simply doesn't watch or get superhero movies. Other than OG batman has he been on any of the rewatchables for any superhero movies?This podcast absolutely needed Simmons, and it was a clear example of why he is a necessary component for the podcast even if he isn’t a serious film critic by any stretch. They desperately needed someone to cut the fanboyism and put that movie in better context with what was expected of a superhero movie at the time.
This is probably helping your point, but how many other superhero movies have they done on the rewatachables? I know Dark Knight, which Simmons skipped, but are there even any others?Agree on the need to reduce "fanboyism" of super hero movies, but Simmons isn't the guy to do it because he simply doesn't watch or get superhero movies. Other than OG batman has he been on any of the rewatchables for any superhero movies?
I think that's it--which I think does support the point. He doesn't like superhero movies, that's fine, but he doesn't seem to be someone who could add a lot of nuance to a discussion of superhero movies.This is probably helping your point, but how many other superhero movies have they done on the rewatachables? I know Dark Knight, which Simmons skipped, but are there even any others?
P
Yeah. That pod could have used someone like Fennessy, who I think would have cranked down the fanboyism and also could have reeled in some of the factual errors pointed out upthread. Although adding Bill would have inevitably led to something about re-casting Michelle Pfeiffer as Aunt May or something .I think that's it--which I think does support the point. He doesn't like superhero movies, that's fine, but he doesn't seem to be someone who could add a lot of nuance to a discussion of superhero movies.
"Why Kirsten Dunst? Seems like that's a role that could've gone to Elizabeth Shue... too old? I dunno, I just didn't like it."Yeah. That pod could have used someone like Fennessy, who I think would have cranked down the fanboyism and also could have reeled in some of the factual errors pointed out upthread. Although adding Bill would have inevitably led to something about re-casting Michelle Pfeiffer as Aunt May or something .