Bill Simmons: Good Luck With Your Life.
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
Christ almighty, Bill's Action Hero Championship Belt column might be my least favorite thing he's ever done. It's truly awful.
Way to use the DVD cover of "Bullitt" to make a point about how great the movie's "poster" is. Fifteen seconds of Googling might've fixed that. Additionally, Simmons's faulting of "Dirty Harry" for "ripping off 'Bullitt'" is totally off the mark, as both characters were partially inspired by THE SAME FUCKING PERSON - San Francisco detective Dave Toschi. Again, the slightest bit of research might've helped.
By the time he gets to praising Stallone for "Daylight," for which he "drove 100 miles from Boston to Hartford, weaving through holiday-week traffic on the Mass Pike and I-84, just to see Daylight with [his] buddy Gus" (are you shitting me?) the column is completely off the rails.
Stick to basketball.
Way to use the DVD cover of "Bullitt" to make a point about how great the movie's "poster" is. Fifteen seconds of Googling might've fixed that. Additionally, Simmons's faulting of "Dirty Harry" for "ripping off 'Bullitt'" is totally off the mark, as both characters were partially inspired by THE SAME FUCKING PERSON - San Francisco detective Dave Toschi. Again, the slightest bit of research might've helped.
By the time he gets to praising Stallone for "Daylight," for which he "drove 100 miles from Boston to Hartford, weaving through holiday-week traffic on the Mass Pike and I-84, just to see Daylight with [his] buddy Gus" (are you shitting me?) the column is completely off the rails.
Stick to basketball.
That... thing... is about as bad as his current Twitter feed. I guess he never heard of Jackie Chan? Or anybody not in a Blockbuster? His movie taste would be ironically funny if he didn't actually realize that most of his favorite movies are fucking terrible.
Simmons got called out by Mark Jackson yesterday.
http://www.sfgate.com/sports/ostler/article/Harmony-for-Warriors-and-Jackson-on-court-but-5352361.php
I wonder if that stems from this:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-bag-figuring-out-the-ever-changing-pick-swapping-2014-draft/
http://www.sfgate.com/sports/ostler/article/Harmony-for-Warriors-and-Jackson-on-court-but-5352361.php
I wonder if that stems from this:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-bag-figuring-out-the-ever-changing-pick-swapping-2014-draft/
Bill Simmons is the least of Jackson's problems. If his team ends up as first round fodder, he'll be announcing next season.
And *this* is what irritates me some much about Simmons. He tries to be a culture guy, but his cultural awareness extends back as far as 1990 or so.
Poseidon Adventure came out in 1972. And the Captain was Leslie Nielsen!
"Earthquake" also came out before Towering Inferno. It had "sensurround."
Poseidon Adventure came out in 1972. And the Captain was Leslie Nielsen!
"Earthquake" also came out before Towering Inferno. It had "sensurround."
DrewDawg said:
He was, yes - for "Rush Hour 3." I think ifmanis5 was hoping Chan would score higher for his first big wave of films to make it to America.
I obviously have qualms with the stars he chose, but that's not really the point - the whole thing is poorly researched garbage. It's yet another instance of "THE EXPERT Bill Simmons" not really knowing anything about something he's covering.
Sure, buried deep in some crap movie. The whole exercise is an error-filled farce. It's not even fun.DrewDawg said:
URI said:
You're right, forgot about that one. So except maybe for the last two(?) "Airport" movies, Towering Inferno might have actually *ended* the disaster film era. At least I dont rememebr any others of that ilk -- mass disaster with a long list of accomplished actors who felt like getting out of the house and collecting a check. Gloria Swanson was in one of those Airport flicks, fercrissakes.
Airport provided the template for the disaster film genre. In 1970's terms, The Towering Inferno was like the fourth mimeograph copy of the original. It was well-made but nonetheless was cobbled together from two novels completely according to the genre formula, with all of the over-earnest melodramatic bombast of the day. I mean, I liked it when I was 12 but it has not aged well compared to the similar but far superior Die Hard.
If you combine a terrible concept with horrible execution, all you're gonna get is that action hero piece of crap. Still pissed at myself for clicking on it...
IHateDaveKerpen said:
Thanks to "Rumble in the Bronx", I learned that New York has a wonderful mountain landscape.
I'm the guy who would like to see Bill step out of the box more often and not simply write the same column over and over; here he actually does it and it's egg all over his face.
Pretty soon, if not already, if the column is not about the NBA, I don't even want to see it. This is like watching the Simpsons at any point after season 10, the Star Wars prequels, Interpol after the second album, etc. Something I used to love that I can now barely tolerate, if not loathe. At least in print. I still really enjoy most of the podcasts and his NBA output.
Pretty soon, if not already, if the column is not about the NBA, I don't even want to see it. This is like watching the Simpsons at any point after season 10, the Star Wars prequels, Interpol after the second album, etc. Something I used to love that I can now barely tolerate, if not loathe. At least in print. I still really enjoy most of the podcasts and his NBA output.
One of his rules was something about it had to be believable that the "hero" was actually able to kick all that ass and listed a bunch of guys that were disqualified, like all the guys that played Bonds, Tom Cruise, etc. So, is he talking about the ACTOR or the CHARACTER? Because Bruce Willis would seem to go on that list if it's the actor--the whole point of Die Hard was that, yeah, he's a cop, but he's just a regular guy cop and looks the part. And if it's the character and you're giving in to the universe of the movie, how can you disqualify guys like Jason Bourne?
The Social Chair said:
My interest was piqued on reading the thread but I quit at rule 1 when he called Iron Man and Batman studio creations and claimed they couldn't beat up an NBA player.
Failing to understand the Hong Kong revolution in action movies and how much they've improved the action sequences and opened the door to new kinds of stunts and use of free-runners and stuff is a pretty egregious omission. Also, I love me some Liam Neeson, but Jet Li would whip his ass; he sounds a bit like the guy in Tokyo Drift who keeps talking about Detroit muscle.
Yikes.
This piece. This piece wasn't very good. I can't even say that he had a kernel of a good idea that went off the rails 7,000 words into the article. This thing jumped the tracks from the first word and it's written like a Simmons mad lib.
Chris Connolly tells him that when he wrote for Rolling Stone, no one gave a shit about Chuck Norris. Simmons doesn't care, Simmons loved him when he was 13. What the fuck does RS know about pop culture, that teenage Bill Simmons didn't know?
And this is the thing that has always bugged me about Simmons' pieces, the arrogance. He does zero research on his pieces, but he claims that he's an expert. He has lots of really smart, really plugged-in people at his disposal but if they run counter to his poorly-formed theory, he ignores them or puts them in an end-note. This was just a 15,000-word, barely-stitched together piece of movies that Simmons likes.
This piece. This piece wasn't very good. I can't even say that he had a kernel of a good idea that went off the rails 7,000 words into the article. This thing jumped the tracks from the first word and it's written like a Simmons mad lib.
Chris Connolly tells him that when he wrote for Rolling Stone, no one gave a shit about Chuck Norris. Simmons doesn't care, Simmons loved him when he was 13. What the fuck does RS know about pop culture, that teenage Bill Simmons didn't know?
And this is the thing that has always bugged me about Simmons' pieces, the arrogance. He does zero research on his pieces, but he claims that he's an expert. He has lots of really smart, really plugged-in people at his disposal but if they run counter to his poorly-formed theory, he ignores them or puts them in an end-note. This was just a 15,000-word, barely-stitched together piece of movies that Simmons likes.
DrewDawg said:
Totally. How he somehow ends up disqualifying Damon is beyond me. The Bourne movies were unadulterated badassery.
He's just making it up as he goes along.
He's using his position as a writer to publicly justify to himself that the movies he likes are, in fact, worth liking.
So what if the critics don't agree; it's in print just the same, so the viewpoint is equally as valid.
He's essentially adopted the Fox News ethos and applied it to Stuff Bill Simmons Likes.
So what if the critics don't agree; it's in print just the same, so the viewpoint is equally as valid.
He's essentially adopted the Fox News ethos and applied it to Stuff Bill Simmons Likes.
IHateDaveKerpen said:
To bring it to my point (it is about me after all) the disaster movies of the 70s weren't about single-hero badassery at all. OTOH, Die Hard and Bourne are the epitome of single-hero badassery. Everyone else is in the movie just to serve the badasses' badassness.
Segal and Norris didn't even make "movies." Those were just a series of action scenes.
Is it arrogance or ignorance? Even people who dont like "old" movies know who the stars were and what they were about. Sometimes I wonder if Simmons could provide anything relevant about movie stars from before 1970. If you said, "Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn," he thinks you're talking Johansson.
That's seems like it. As though he's too insecure to admit, like we all do, that he liked some cheesy stuff in the past, and may still keep the TV tuned to the Towering Inferno at least til the next commercial (like I do). Instead, he elevates what he likes into some criteria-free category that he created.
He's giving himself the Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Area of Excellence.
drleather2001 said:
Agreed.
I can't remember where I read it, but in the last week I read someone who said (paraphrasing) "That Grantland will spend one paragraph telling you what happened last night and 20 paragraphs trying to convince you why what you just watched will be hugely significant 20 years from now." And the thing is, pop culture is supposed to be disposable. There is a reason why Simmons (at least with sports) and Chuck Klosterman, to name two, were widely read when they first broke on the scene*. It's because they took the disposable and made it seem like it was high art--using 90210 refs to discuss the Super Bowl. However, it's debatable whether Simmons completely believed that his writing was schtick (I don't think he did, his irony/cynicism detector is completely broken compared to most other Gen X writers. Whether this is a compliment or not, Simmons is a pretty genuine writer) but Klosterman was in on the gag (including a "Saved by the Bell" essay in SD&CP is the first thing that popped in my head, and if pressed, I can probably offer more examples) and writes with a bit of an ironic distance. Like he knows what he's writing about is complete bullshit, but people want to read it, so what is he going to do?
* And it's the reason why 100% of any writer on Grantland under 30 do increasingly poor jobs of aping the writing styles of those two guys. Except Rembert, he has a pretty unique voice.
This last piece really makes me wonder if Simmons is either kind of lazy or kind of dumb.
drleather2001 said:
He also does the Peter King thing where he conflates his own perspective to a global one, which leads to a lot of revisionist history.
No better example than:
"America’s hopes were high for Sly’s latest comeback movie. How high? I drove 100 miles from Boston to Hartford, weaving through holiday-week traffic on the Mass Pike and I-84, just to see Daylight with my buddy Gus. That’s how high."
Nevermind that Daylight finished 1996 as 48th in domestic gross, 35th in opening weekend (the best indicator of "hopes"), and was a critical failure.
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
"Without any warning, a 56-year-old actor with no ass-kicking experience single-handedly saved action movies."
He apparently thinks that movies weren't being made while he had a small child that required lots of time and attention. This works on two levels, as good action movies were being made, and Neeson has kicked much ass in his movie career. But he missed them, so they don't exist.
I initially thought DrLeather's solipsism comment was too harsh, but after scanning the piece, I realize it's spot on.
This doesn't even address the fact that Neeson kicked ass when Simmons was watching action movies. Even if you ignore Qui-Gon Jinn and Ras al-Ghul, Neeson was Darkman for chrissakes.
Reverend said:
He was also Sir Gawain in the 1984 movie "Excalibur", in which I presume he kicked a little ass, and Priest Vallon in "The Gangs of New York", in which 80% of his (albeit short) part involved swinging a giant cross around killing people.
drleather2001 said:
I was looking at his filmography and decided not even to bother going over all the examples. He was uncredited in The Delta Force for chrissakes. He was type-cast as "guy with gravitas" with a tendency towards kicking ass ages ago. Heck, even his role as the voice of Aslan could be invoked here...
I don't really like the genre, him or this movie, but he was also in the wildly shit 'A History of Violence' which is essentially the film 'Taken' is, and in that film he has a mysterious history that lends itself to violence.
I don't mind good film writing about anything or any genre if it's committed and fun, but the salient point in all this is TroyOLeary's, above, where extrapolates his own feeling into one representative of the masses as if he speaks with the voice of a generation. Writing an article expressing a love of a genre and then sharing thoughts and feelings as a good fun column is usually pretty great to both those that agree with you and those who don't because you aren't saying anything definitive, you're making a case. Simmons stopped doing that sort of thing a long ago.
I don't mind good film writing about anything or any genre if it's committed and fun, but the salient point in all this is TroyOLeary's, above, where extrapolates his own feeling into one representative of the masses as if he speaks with the voice of a generation. Writing an article expressing a love of a genre and then sharing thoughts and feelings as a good fun column is usually pretty great to both those that agree with you and those who don't because you aren't saying anything definitive, you're making a case. Simmons stopped doing that sort of thing a long ago.
I know. Bronson is a pretty great movie for about half its life and it really was when I personally started taking note of this Tom Hardy fellow.
SydneySox said:
Liam Neeson was in A History of Violence? Serious question, because it's not on his IMDB.
No - he wasn't. Sorry, my bad. That was from my memory and yeah, it's actually Aragorn.
So he's off the hook. :astonished:
Great column!
So he's off the hook. :astonished:
Great column!
"'Drive' is a stupid movie; no way is Ryan Gosling really that good of a driver!"
"'Jaws' is totally unrealistic; nobody as wimpy as Roy Scheider would get to be chief of police!"
"'The Aviator' - I don't get it. Leo as a millionaire playboy? I buy that. Leo as a genius pilot? No F'ing way! Why would you fly yourself if you had Leo's kind of cash?"
Bill Simmons in early 17th Century London: "This stuff is totally overrated. All the chicks look like dudes."
"'Jaws' is totally unrealistic; nobody as wimpy as Roy Scheider would get to be chief of police!"
"'The Aviator' - I don't get it. Leo as a millionaire playboy? I buy that. Leo as a genius pilot? No F'ing way! Why would you fly yourself if you had Leo's kind of cash?"
Bill Simmons in early 17th Century London: "This stuff is totally overrated. All the chicks look like dudes."
Jesus, he created a fictional action hero title belt! He's not writing the definitive book on action movies here.