The Bill Simmons Thread
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
"Game of Thrones" is literally a top-level content nav option, and they can't be bothered to set up an RSS feed. JIMBO IS GETTING UPSET.
Really don't like the site's jumbotron with the twinkling animation. Along with the dubious green/black color palette and "The Ringer" logo makes the site look a bit amateurish.
I can't hate anything associated with the site because naming it "the ringer" is so BS that I laugh every time I see the name.
Pretty stupid way to troll. "You know that smart funny movie that you all like? Never seen it. Too artsy fartsy."
He does the same thing with The Simpsons.
EDIT: To back up what Shelterdog says, "you know that thing that was the gold standard for comedy for about 10 years? Yeah, F that."
EDIT: To back up what Shelterdog says, "you know that thing that was the gold standard for comedy for about 10 years? Yeah, F that."
It definitely doesn't look like something that required 6 months to build, but content is all I really care about and the track record there is pretty strong. Supposedly it is optimized for viewing on smart phones and tablets.
Grantland's site and layout was pretty lousy and that was a go to site for me. If they deliver great stories, the shoddy layout won't matter.
The bright green on The Ringer is not doing it for me, but everything else about it seems fine--maybe a little too much in the Medium-ish vein, but whatever. It's good enough.
Grantland was really nicely laid out for the time it rolled out.
Grantland was really nicely laid out for the time it rolled out.
Apart from the repeated use of the term "Buckonaissance", it's actually a really good article, in my humble opinion.
Given the task to "write 500 words on the fact that Kirsten Dunst is dating Jesse Plemons," I'd wager that at least half of the posters in this thread could create something better than this. It's just nonsense, and not even funny.
Amazingly, the comments to the article (at least at this point) are universally positive. I suspect this means that this is meant for a different audience than me.
Amazingly, the comments to the article (at least at this point) are universally positive. I suspect this means that this is meant for a different audience than me.
Wow, I just went to read it with the sole goal is liking it so I could refute your comments about it.
But that is literally impossible. It's not funny, clever, interesting, or good. The Friday Night Lights jokes are especially weak and make no sense. Yeah, that's a big miss b/c it's not funny, it's not satire, but it's not serious. It is just bad.
I think the better question is: why have a piece on two B-level stars going on a few dates, at all?
I'm not a media maven like Bill Simmons, but I would think you'd want to steer away from that level of pablum, especially right out of the gate.
I'm not a media maven like Bill Simmons, but I would think you'd want to steer away from that level of pablum, especially right out of the gate.
Their writers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they never stopped to think if they should.
I recall some of the people from the site on Twitter hyping that guy up since he joined but I just don't see it at all. His post yesterday about the new XMen boiled down to "Jennifer Lawrence is overqualified for these movies LOL" I'm a little disappointed with most of the new (non-Grantland) people and content so far. Of course it's extremely early (24 hours) and Grantland took a while to find out what it wanted to be. The Ringer does already have a pretty great podcast network set up and if all they posted to the website was Netwerk GoT recaps I'd be satisfied. I'm happy it exists and will be rooting for it to succeed.
I agree with most of this, especially the last sentence. That said, I find their podcast approach of forcing listeners to access 10 different feeds to be obnoxious. I generally listen to 2/3's of Bill's, every other 1600, and assorted Watch episodes when I've actually seen what they're talking about (which is happening less and less these days). I've tried the basketball show and am not really interested in the baseball one. I have no interest in the bachelor of reality TV stuff. Maybe the NFL one will be decent. Anything that involves Tate is a hard pass. The result is that I'm probably listening to 20-25% of their output but am forced to have it clog up my podcast list. I assume it's probably because some VC douche told Bill that VOLUME is key to BRANDING, but it cheapens the whole enterprise IMO.
Isn't the whole point of splitting up the podcast into their own feeds to prevent you from having a bunch of stuff you don't want in your feed? I'm not sure what your criticism here is.
On the website, there has been a lot of good stuff so far I think.
The Dunst/Plemmons one was terrible (wonder if it was a new guy pressing, I know Dunst jokes are something of an inside joke among the old Grantland group). I thought his X-men article was decent, a bit messy (and he thinks Jennifer Lawrence is a very good actress which is worrying), but some of it, particularly the talk about how actors do or don't become defined by their roles, and how Jackman fits in was interesting if too shallowly explored. He needs some work, but there's some talent in there, early Grantland had some weak stuff by people who developed into much better writers, so there's promise there.
I like the separate subscriptions better, because there are some that I just don't want to listen to at all.
That said, I don't see why they can't have separate feeds and one giant combined feed.
That said, I don't see why they can't have separate feeds and one giant combined feed.
That came off like he was trying way too hard to either establish his own style or to imitate someone else's.
Also, he thinks the Fargo show sucks. Between that and his piece for Grantland calling season 1 of Parks and Rec its best season, I don't think he can be trusted on anything.
Yes, this is what I was getting at. I'd rather be able to have one list to scroll through and choose from than have to click on The Watch, Channel 33, and the BS feeds to see if there's one worth listening to. 1600 is a good example as I'll tune in depending on the guest. The Chuck Todd one was great but I'm less excited about other Dem guests. On the flip side, I've deleted the NBA one due to lack of interest in Litman/Ryan and the aforementioned Tate issue. That must work against their "as many subscribers as possible" plan, even if many of those subs are the same person.
I'm using the default Apple "my podcasts" function, often as I'm starting my commute home so having one list would be more functional. I'm sure there's a better way to do it, though. Maybe I'll try Sticher or Soundcloud.
Ah, I don't use Apple so I didn't realize that was a pain. I use Soundcloud, so the stream is just a chronological list of the episodes of pods I follow. That makes the split much better since instead of every channel 33 pod, I just pick the pods I want like 1600, watch, etc.
I much prefer the separate subscriptions. I don't ever have to hear anything about the Bachelor or their NFL feed.
Rook, if you're on Apple do you have the "Unplayed" tab all the way to the left? That should list whatever you have downloaded in chronological order and they'll play straight through. Alternatively, you can start a podcast and then hit the 3 dots on another and one of the options is "Play Next" and it will play the next one after your first one ends. I use this when commuting to keep them moving.
Rook, if you're on Apple do you have the "Unplayed" tab all the way to the left? That should list whatever you have downloaded in chronological order and they'll play straight through. Alternatively, you can start a podcast and then hit the 3 dots on another and one of the options is "Play Next" and it will play the next one after your first one ends. I use this when commuting to keep them moving.
Thanks for the replies. The tricky part is that there are some pods that I'll listen to regularly (BS, HDTGM), while others are seasonal (GoT or fantasy football-related), while still others are kind of when I'm in the mood (RadioLab, Planet Money). What I'd like is to be able to move the pod icons around to put the most listened to at the top. Right now any new pod gets added to the top and pushes everything else down. I fully admit that this is all user error and a holdover from the first method I found for podcasting...
I hadn't really used the Unplayed tab but that could be a workable solution.
I hadn't really used the Unplayed tab but that could be a workable solution.
Although I like his columns, his Ask the Maester Facebook Q&As where he rapidly runs through viewer questions is one of my favorite things on the Internet. His depth of GoT knowledge is amazing.
His latest pod with Mallory Rubin about GoT was amazing. He is unbelievable and Mallory is fantastic, too. Their presence on After the Thrones makes the show approximately 4,000% better.
It's incredible. When I read his columns I assumed he used the books and did some research while writing. But the rapid questions off the top of the head he can just answer completely. Any theories it's like he's already thought them through and has an answer. Plus his ability not to go too deep into books about things that haven't shown up on the show yet is crazy. I love watching those.
Yeah what the heck was with this? The show is universally adored and has won a bucket of Emmys, but he tossed it off like everyone hates the show like it was Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders. That was strange.
Mallory Rubin was really great on the MLB pod they did. I feel like she has a super high IQ and should probably off trying to find the cure to the Zika virus.
I don't believe any show is above criticism but a driveby "by the way the Fargo show sucks, anyway..." is lazy and fucking annoying. I'd rather he write an article explaining why he hates Fargo. That might be an interesting read.
Thirded on Mallory Rubin. She's great on the basketball pods I've heard too (she was doing some around the NCAA tourney). She seems to know everything about everything that is discussed. Very impressive. She knew her baseball too, based on the first MLB show pod at least. I really wish she and Concepcion did like a 60-90 minute GoT pod each week.
apparently BS is waiting for his new baseball person to start (he teased this in the House/JackO ep), so until then, it's a rotating cast
I wish the Bryan Curtis pod gets its own feed - it would go up well against the Deitsch SI Media pod
I wish the Bryan Curtis pod gets its own feed - it would go up well against the Deitsch SI Media pod
Simmons has a new article up. It's actually pretty good, I think, and ends with an interesting insight about what might drive KD's decision re: where to play next year.
It looks like he's allowing comments on his articles. We'll see how that goes...
It looks like he's allowing comments on his articles. We'll see how that goes...
Edit - Column is up: https://theringer.com/kevin-durant-thunder-conundrum-4b1689d4002c#.qo5flnqe4
I am shocked, my guess was he would never write again because he seemed to no longer enjoy writing and/or it was becoming nearly impossible to meet the hype for a "Simmons Column."
Seems like a lot of reputation risk downside here, but I guess it's a way to drive traffic to The Ringer early on. Will be interesting to see if he keeps writing regularly or even semi-regularly.
Certainly is a different writing style than previous 7,500 word columns
I am shocked, my guess was he would never write again because he seemed to no longer enjoy writing and/or it was becoming nearly impossible to meet the hype for a "Simmons Column."
Seems like a lot of reputation risk downside here, but I guess it's a way to drive traffic to The Ringer early on. Will be interesting to see if he keeps writing regularly or even semi-regularly.
Certainly is a different writing style than previous 7,500 word columns
Last edited:
Very long, fawning profile of Simmons here.
Lots of cursing to show off his edginess, blames everyone else for anything he's ever done that hasn't worked and generally comes off like he could not possibly be more full of himself.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/bill-simmons-breaks-free-his-900291?utm_source=twitter
Lots of cursing to show off his edginess, blames everyone else for anything he's ever done that hasn't worked and generally comes off like he could not possibly be more full of himself.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/bill-simmons-breaks-free-his-900291?utm_source=twitter
That article by Simmons on KD was pretty bad.
As someone who is in to sneakers, KD's shoe isn't not selling because he's in OKC or because he's in need of a fresh start. They're not selling because 1. Curry has taken the league by storm, and every child/teenager (which is the main basketball sneaker buying demo) wants Curry's. And 2. Regular sneakerheads (those in to retro Jordan's, Yeezy's etc.) find the designs of his past 2 shoes heinous.
3 years ago KD had one of the best selling shoes/apparel lines in sports. Being in Oklahoma City didn't hurt him then. And it isn't hurting him now.
Sorry if this comment is late in the discussion of that article, I just got around to reading Simmons' piece. Very disappointed in the laziness of it.
As someone who is in to sneakers, KD's shoe isn't not selling because he's in OKC or because he's in need of a fresh start. They're not selling because 1. Curry has taken the league by storm, and every child/teenager (which is the main basketball sneaker buying demo) wants Curry's. And 2. Regular sneakerheads (those in to retro Jordan's, Yeezy's etc.) find the designs of his past 2 shoes heinous.
3 years ago KD had one of the best selling shoes/apparel lines in sports. Being in Oklahoma City didn't hurt him then. And it isn't hurting him now.
Sorry if this comment is late in the discussion of that article, I just got around to reading Simmons' piece. Very disappointed in the laziness of it.
I really don't agree with your assessment. He took pains to comment that a lot of what happened at ESPN was his fault. He literally said it. And he doesn't come off as full of himself, at all. For instance, he knows he's not a performer and not polished for TV, so he admits he didn't want do a live show. Someone full of himself would say, "eff it, I can do anything, I'm the man, let's do this live and I'll be like John Oliver and Bill Maher but I'll be better."
I also am more aligned with Lombardo when it comes to Simmons' interviewing skills. I think he's really good and he does have dexterity when it comes to his guests.
It depends on the interviewee, I think. If he's outside of his comfort zone, he tries to drag it back to his comfort zone and it gets really weird.
Yeah, that's true. But his Louis CK interview, for example, was far from his zone. And I thought it was pretty good. But people hated it. The only podcast in the last few months that was totally deplorable was Kilborn b/c Kilborn is terrible.
Vanity Fair piece on Simmons. He calls his firing from TWWL "Fucking high school": http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/06/bill-simmons-espn-hbo
Funny to see Bill tagged as "controversial sports personality." Other than calling Roger a liar (which was going out on a limb to be sure) I can't think of too many other "controversial" stances he has taken. His PEDs article might be one. His open admiration for gambling shouldn't really be one. Is asking "are we sure he's good?" really that controversial? Am I missing anything else?
Which is just a condensed version of the Hollywood Reporter article linked above.
Nice to hear him finally talking about what happened behind the scenes at ESPN, though the HR piece was more about HBO than ESPN. (Probably because it was set up by HBO's marketing dept.)
Telling your boss "Please call me and say I'm in trouble. I dare you" sure counts as controversial.
(Though, interestingly, Bill now says in the HR piece that he was trying to take a shot at the NFL there, not at the ESPN hierarchy.)