Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Our Errors are Mistakes: The Media Forum' started by Cellar-Door, Jun 3, 2016.
I read the book(probably over 15 years ago), I forgot those details.
Misery, for sure. That movie is essentially a 2 person play.
I still have no idea what Apex Mountain means and it seems like nobody else does either. Including Simmons.
Having listened to precisely one Rewatchables podcast, I can authoritatively state: the categories are BS. Pithy categories worked as a framing device for Bill’s columns (I used it in my post nominating my ten favorite shows of 2018), but they really shoehorn discussion. I can see how they’d be useful to prompt discussion when you’re running low on material, but The Godfather is a rich movie. I enjoyed the first half discussion much more than the categories.
You need categories for scale and quality assurance. Apex Mountain just has no clear definition compared to Half Assed Internet Research and the like.
I would have picked Rollerball
My wife picked Harold and Walter go to New York.
Tate Frazier seems to actually be getting worse as he gets more experienced. You can hear him trying to think how he’s going to end every sentence after he starts it. Will often use the same word more than once While getting from A to B, brings repetitive stalling time-filling phrases and “uh”’s, and just says “Lombardi” for no good reason every other sentence. When Lombardi comes up with a phrase or a nickname Frazier thinks is clever, he beats it to death even when commenting on games/players that have nothing to do with them (“The Clapper”, “Huey Headlines”, “play left handed”, etc.)
Last year, somebody referred to Frazier as Ryan Howard to Bill Simmons’ Michael Scott. Which was hysterical and accurate...but since then Simmons has become more like Michael Scott at his best (intended as a compliment), while Tate Frazier has become Kevin.
If you took a shot for every time he said "Let's keep an eye on that" you would be hammered.
I don’t know how much he’s changed but i thought he was talking way too much on the recent episodes. No one is tuning in for him.
Meanwhile, I realized a couple weeks ago that Simmons hired nephew Kyle so he could quench his thirst for ‘toxic masculinity’ while not having to worry about a lawsuit from all the flakes his on staff.
Lombardi is fine, but man does he say some shit Yogi Berra would be proud of. His punchlines pithy and for about two seconds sounds like the expression of a key principle of team building, coaching or game management, but falls apart upon closer review.
‘What people don’t understand is you gotta not lose before you can win.’ Etc.
I wish I could remember some of the others.
I always assumed that apex mountain was if that particular performance from the actor/actress/director was the best of their career. But sometimes the guests will ask if it's more the person was at the peak of their career as opposed to just a single performance. Bill will often fall on the "yeah, but he/she won an oscar before/after this performance, so it can't be" crutch, so it's hard to tell what they even mean.
I like to think of Kyle as JB, the freeloading brother-in-law of Tom Cruise's character in American Made.
It's a category much like MVP as an award. It can mean their best performance, or a performance during their peak years, or a performance that really demonstrated how much juice they had in the industry, or their most iconic performance, or a performance that really established them as a superstar/movie star, or really any number of things that could be associated with the word 'apex' just like 'valuable'.
Also like MVP, it's that way to spur discussion.
Yeah, Simmons always refers to it as industry juice but it’s not clear he even holds himself to that definition.
Shackhouse is done. They're "reconfiguring" the golf pod and Shackleford is no longer involved. House and Bill discussed the changes to the pod in today BS Podcast (very oddly, not mentioning Geoff at all), and Geoff confirmed on twitter.
"Sadly no more and not really sure why. @ringer @CallawayGolf killed it"
A golf pod with House but without Geoff Shackleford is... probably not something I'm going to listen to.
The new concept sounds terrible and just involves rotating Ringer "personalities" into the show.
Schakleford actually kind of went at Simmons on Twitter basically said he doesn't know anything about golf.
I thought Shack and House worked well together, not sure why the need for a change. Agreed the new format sounds like a "morning zoo" type of golf podcast that covers playing and tangential golf topics and talks about the Tour sparingly, where Shack at least kept the pod relatively grounded and on topic. Talk about the average golfer's interests will just make me depressed thinking about my own game, I'd rather talk about those who play it exceptionally!
Probably because the downloads sucked. Seems like the most simple answer.
There are enough podcasts I bet there are a handful of them where downloads suck. Probably the more accurate answer is the downloads suck AND they are paying an outside contributor. Would just rather divert another internal option to accompany House.
Interesting write up about how podcasts are basically what keeps the Ringer afloat. Their web audience way less than Deadspin or even Barstool, but sold $15 million in podcast ads.
This is pretty ridiculous but I've been gnawing on this one for a while and have nowhere else to put it:
The Rewatchables podcast on The Princess Bride was terrible. There was no Simmons, Ryan, Fennessey or Serrano (not that Bill is really a great contributor to this but it was clear they didn't bring the Ringer A-List). The two people who were on the show clearly hadn't seen the movie that much, and so much of it went over their head.
It's a great movie, written by the greatest screenwriter of all time. The book is even better. It deserves a better podcast.
I don't have a high critical bar for the Ringer podcasts. Generally speaking, I find them fun and entertaining. If you are going to do a podcast on a Rewatchable movie though, you might want to find people who have actually rewatched it more than once.
Some of these, it seems, they were trying to give someone a chance. Michael Clayton was similar (but not as bad) in that one of the hosts clearly only watched the movie like it was a homework assignment.
Also, Bill is a great contributor to #Rewatchables, don't get it twisted.
He is, as an everyman. But besides that he has nothing to add to the actual making or casting of movies or his assessment of actor's performances.
This is the most oddly incoherent article I can remember reading at site equal-to-or-greater-than-theringer.com: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/2/4/18210706/new-england-patriots-super-bowl-dynasty-hate
I'm not flagging it for its perceived anti-Pats bias— whatever, that's fine. I'm legitimately curious if it simply makes any sense to anyone else. As far as I can follow, the thought process seems to be some association of serial winners with corporate commercialism with all-things-inhuman. Is that it?
It's just a long winded way of saying we love it when a team, or a person, is an underdog, and then we love when they crash, once they are on top. And the Patriots do not crash, ever, they are always in the playoffs and in the AFC Championship game. The team does not give the haters any room to breathe.
It was very heavy handed writing.
The oral history of "Office Space" is amazing. Its a must read for fans of that brilliant film.
Judge is easily one of the most insightful comedic minds we have. This was a great read to kill the rest of my day and a much-needed distraction from my OPEN WORK SPACE.
I sit next to my direct supervisor and diagonally across from my boss on one side and next to/diagonally across from coworkers under me on the other side. Most discussions are nonetheless held over Slack. I feel so much of this movie more than I ever did as a teenager when I first discovered it.
The most interesting part of the piece was that the executives and others around the film kept trying to add "flair" to Judge's vision and he successfully fought them tooth and nail. The Geto Boys song is a perfect example of Judge knowing, better than anyone else, how right his instincts were. Imagine the movie without that iconic scene...
This is a really interesting piece by Victor Luckerson on determining what day was the happiest day in the history of the internet (and therefore, contemporary society). Basically he just uses a system merging significant events and trends with 10,000 positive words and phrases to determine which day was indeed the happiest. It says a lot about our current society as well:
This week they’re trying a variant on the Rewatchables, Sports Rewatchables, where instead of discussing a movie, they do a retrospective on a past sporting event. Bill has House and Chis Ryan on his pod to talk about that 2016 Game 6 between the Warriors and the Thunder where Klay caught fire and went 11/18 for three to held off elimination, with the Thunder up 3-1 going into the game against the 73-9 Warriors. They go over the big moments and try to put it into context with some distance from the event. Interesting concept. They have a few others on different podcast this week, including the Seahawks/Niners 2013 NFC championship game on the NFL pod and a game (maybe game 6?) from the 2011 World Series in the baseball pod. Also a Wrestlemania one on the Masked Man.
Good try, but I can't get into it as much as the Rewatchables. Since there are so many behind the scenes moments when filming a movie the speculation can be really fun. After all it is months of work packaged in a 120-minute format. And I can really get into these even when I haven't seen the movie. Whereas with sporting events you could spend 20-30 minutes on a game, but to analyze it for more time than that without being a total homer (I personally can spend much longer on the Pats recent SB wins but a non-Pats fan wouldn't care for this) or stat geek isn't overly productive. I made it through about half then turned it off, but maybe I'll revisit some other time to see if it gets better.
I really like the idea, although 1 hour and 30 minutes seems like a hell of a lot of time for something that happened recently enough that the main protagonists are all still playing.
Mallory Rubin is the perfect co-host for The Natural rewatchable. Bill derails it at times, but it was one of the more enjoyable ones for me given her interests in both baseball and fantasy/myth.
What I want is for Mallory Rubin and Sean Fennessey to be on the same Rewatchable. Sean flinches at how explicit some of the questions Bill has on some of their movies, well Mallory goes past where Bill takes it and turns it up to 11 with some of her sexual plot comments. That would be some awkward pod...
That would be worth it for the SF cringe behavior but I need Chris Ryan on every Rewatchables for my enjoyment
I find Mallory Rubin's voice a little grating, but it wasn't as bad on The Natural Rewatchables. It's more noticeable on Binge Mode. But she was good. And as Pablo said, wasn't afraid to ratchet up a bit. Bill even said at one point that Sean would be coming into the room at any moment to scold them.
Ignorant question: How much monetary value is there in the Ringer site? I feel like the Ringer is like Barstool in that I forget their sites exists. I only view web videos or listen to podcasts.
It's not her voice. It's her inflection. She ends many words by screaming the last syllable. It's just uncomfortable to listen to. But she's a brilliant speaker and her way with words is pretty incredible. She paints a picture like no one else.
She just doesn't need to SCREAM so much to add emphasis to things that don't need emphasis.
Well, Podcasts are where the money is, so I think the Ringer site, which has quite a number of fantastic articles, is a loss leader to promote the podcasts. The Ringer Podcast network is a major player in the podcast game and that's saying something.
Thank you. That's a much better way of putting it.
The Ringer's baseball predictions are up and everyone predicts the Astros to win the AL, with all but one calling them WS champs. I get a strong whiff of anti-Sox from their baseball staff, just guys who are sick of Boston. And on an emotional level, I totally don't blame them. Certainly there are lots of other great stories in baseball right now. But the Sox just swept three ALCS games in Houston, last we saw, so I'd hesitate before going all-in on Houston. I thought the Sox really owned them in that series, enough to at least pump the brakes on "Houston is definitely #1" narratives.
The Sox also don't have a designated closer and they have a bullpen that might not be great. It's easy to see why some people may not pick the Sox to win the AL (also, it's really hard to repeat) and it's not "anti-Boston bias".
I really like the Sox this year, but they aren't a slam dunk.
Yeah, it's debatable. Which is why I can't accept the unanimous opinion that the Astros are the best team. Also the case against the Sox is that we lost Kimbrel, but he was horrendous in the ALCS. I'd take the Sox head to head again, for sure. Can't wait til their first rematch.
The Red Sox and Yankees both get dinged by the dumb divisional system.
If you read the comments of most sports news sites, anyone who doesn’t pick the Sox to win is a stupid and biased writer. These picks are just people forming an opinion about the clear 3 best teams in the game. The division is the Sox’s until the Yankees prove it’s not.
Interesting choice by The Ringer Podcast Network to put their new series "The Rewatchables 1999" exclusively on Luminary, which charges users a fee to listen to shows on their platform. I can speak with some authority about the audio space: Companies will be watching this closely to see if this "paid podcasting" model can be successful. Given (a) the very light commercial loads on free podcasts; (b) the ability for podcast users to fast-forward through ads, and most importantly (c) the sheer overwhelming volume of free podcast content out there, I'm very skeptical that this will work. While Simmons podcasts can be compelling content, I'm not sure that there's enough critical mass (yet) in the space for the paid model to be a successful business strategy.
How has Howl/Earwolf subscriptions faired?
I can say for myself, someone who really enjoys The Rewatchables, I won't be paying extra for this. And there are some good 1999 movies that I assume they'll be covering. But like Mooch said, there is just too much free stuff out there to fill out my listening needs. I already pay for a Spotify subscription which is how I listen to most of my podcasts. I can't see myself paying more.
I'm in the same boat, and I bet American Pie is a really good movie to look back on and discuss since it has aged in such an interesting (mostly poorly) way. I loved the Field of Dreams one, especially when Chris starts to talk about what if Kevin Costner really started flexing his power over the players "How about I plow this field over and start going corn again, and all of you guys go right back to hell?"
It would be tough for someone to like the rewatchables more than I like it. I will not be buying 1999