Just What is Apex Mountain: Rewatchables discussion thread

[Shelterdog]

Wanted to make a new thread so we could continue our circular discussion of the Rewatchables (i.e. Bill knows nothing about film/but he's a kind of fun no nothing right/but could he just watch a movie older than he is once/a couple of us just praying to get to listen to a Bill rewatchable of Hiroshima Mon Amour) separate and apart from the Ringer thread. Maybe toss in some discussion of some movies we all love.

Mods Perhaps a better fit for the Omar forum?

I'll start with a meta-comment. The Rewatchables' Apex Mountain was three-heat with Michael Mann which was funny, fun, informative, has me psyched for Heat 2 (available in bookstores tomorrow!), and is about probably the best non-Godfather movie in the Simmons cannon.

 

[Leather]

I... often enjoy The Rewatchables, and I've defended Simmons' shtick on it before. I think, when paired with people who know what they're talking about (Ryan, Fennessy, Rubin mostly, Van Lathan as well in certain places) he acts as a counterweight that serves to chill-out the discussion and bring it back down to its intended bullshit-n-banter level.

But when he's paired with others who don't have the ability to at least engage in discussion of film history or even general artistic appreciation (looking at you, Amanda Dobbins), he overwhelms the discussion into bro-ism "I think so it must be so" mush while his co-host(s) just tag along.

Like so much of Simmons' non-NBA output, there is an intrinsic element of irritation surrounding it, because here's a guy who has the economic and social clout to put together some really good movie podcasts, but seems content to... not half-ass exactly, but maybe 3/4 ass... the endeavor by treating it like a personal plaything instead of a professional production; by consciously ignoring the 'casts (and his own) faults in favor of making it fun for himself. Efforts to improve The Rewatchables seem limited to adding more inane categories instead of, I dunno, coming up with a reasonable method of picking movies, or sticking with a solid hosting team based on their knowledge, instead of just picking people he happens to like in the moment. I know it's not in the nature of podcasts (certainly good-time-hang podcasts like The Rewatchables) to really edit themselves much, but how hard would it really be to define (or just fucking jettison) terms like "Apex Mountain", or re-phrase "Recasting Couch" or figure out what frequently-leaned on terms like "Sliding Doors Moment" actually mean before using them again and again?

Again, I like it. It's one of my top 5 podcasts (at least when it's a movie I give a shit about and they have a decent host team), but I can't help but be frustrated by it at the same time as yet another example of Bill being content with a B+ instead of working a little harder for that A.

 

[Leather]

Also, the word they are looking for is "Apotheosis". The Apotheosis of Tom Hanks' career was after Forrest Gump came out.

But, you know, big words are nerdy. Like Star Wars.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

The Town with Chris Ryan and Russillo... that might be the top of the pops for me.

 

[jcd0805]

Titanic with Van Lathan and Jaws with Chris Ryan and someone else I can't recall had me in tears, some of the funniest pods I've ever listened to.

 

[Hoya81]

Top Gun with CR, Jason and Mallory was excellent, especially if you watch the Youtube version. When Bill is about to steer into uncharted waters re: Cruise, everyone begins looking off camera to what I can only assume is Fennessey desperately trying to wave him off and they all start cracking up.

 

[Shelterdog]

Also, the word they are looking for is "Apotheosis". The Apotheosis of Tom Hanks' career was after Forrest Gump came out.

But, you know, big words are nerdy. Like Star Wars.

I'm not sure that is the word they're looking for-they do constantly shift between artistic high point and (rather bizarrely) when the person had the most industry pull and third when the person had the most cultural relevance (perhaps there are more definitions that I'm missing). It's just classic Bill randomly inventing a random category and shifting definitions to make it mean whatever he wants to sa at the time.

 

[Bozo Texino]

Top Gun with CR, Jason and Mallory was excellent, especially if you watch the Youtube version. When Bill is about to steer into uncharted waters re: Cruise, everyone begins looking off camera to what I can only assume is Fennessey desperately trying to wave him off and they all start cracking up.

I'm not a huge Top Gun fan, but yeah - I think this one is my favorite, too.

Mallory's "How soon does Charlie masturbate after Maverick leaves her place?" - and the sub-see-kwent reaction of her co-hosts - slayed me.

 

[8slim]

The new categories they added a few months ago are awful. They don’t spawn discussion, they’re just “answered” in like 15 seconds.

 

[Leather]

Rewatchables: School Ties.
Cast: Simmons, Rubin, Litman

I'm about 1/3 of the way through and already we have a couple of things...

1) Simmons asks without any irony if it would be a big deal to cast the movie (as they did in 1992) with a non-Jewish person playing the lead (who is Jewish, which is the basis of the entire plot). And he keeps citing "Oh, well, twitter might go after them..." or "Oh well if they're marketing it they might get some pushback..." and at one point oddly blurts "It's like with a disability..." But never says, you know, "Sure, a Jewish person could play this role so why not?" and maybe list a few Jewish young actors? Yes, it would be viewed as a big deal if a non Jewish actor played the lead in a major movie where the entire plot is anti-Semitism levelled against that character, and rightfully so.

2) Litman (and Simmons) seem totally perplexed that people with pretty faces at the age of 20-22 or whatever don't always end up having blockbuster movie careers. Maybe, hear me out, MAYBE the reason Chris O'Donnell and Randall fucking Battikoff didn't have the same career as Matt Damon is that they *aren't as talented*. Does Litman similarly wonder why Shannen Doherty didn't have the career Winona Ryder has? I mean Christ, these are professional movie podcasters and there's 10 minutes of "Why didn't my 6th grade crush become a big star?! What could possibly be the reason?!" Like, yeah, I thought Allyson Hannigan was cute but I get why she isn't Reese Witherspoon.

 

[luckiestman]

My favorite episode is Miami Vice

My favorite moment is the Brimley discussion during The Firm

Looking through the episodes, many of my favorites are Bill and Chris when I thought it would be Bill, Chris, and Sean.

Getting Tarantino on and the episode being so good is probably Apex Mountain.

 

[TheGazelle]

The Miami Vice episode is great (I irrationally love that movie), but my single favorite moment is the last 10ish minutes of the Town when Russillo starts cooking on random bits of Revolutionary War history. This is at least partially true because you can watch the video on YouTube and CR's reactions all of this stuff is incredible.

I agree that Apex Mountain for the series are the Tarantino episodes - he buys in completely and takes the whole thing incredibly seriously. It's awesome.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

The Miami Vice episode is great (I irrationally love that movie), but my single favorite moment is the last 10ish minutes of the Town when Russillo starts cooking on random bits of Revolutionary War history. This is at least partially true because you can watch the video on YouTube and CR's reactions all of this stuff is incredible.

I agree that Apex Mountain for the series are the Tarantino episodes - he buys in completely and takes the whole thing incredibly seriously. It's awesome.

Tarantino is awesome. He LOVES film, and he will talk about it for hours and with anyone who shares his passion. It’s appointment listening when he participates on an episode.

EDIT - Was off on that one. Bill has done a few of the Tarantino eps (‘Unstoppable’ and ‘King of New York’), which I haven’t heard yet/escaped my attention. To anyone has heard those: how are they? I am slightly surprised Bill entered the fray with Tarantino, since Tarantino is….unforgiving of objectively dumb takes about film/film history, but I gotta hear these episodes.

 

[Matthew McKinley]

Tarantino is awesome. He LOVES film, and he will talk about it for hours and with anyone who shares his passion. It’s appointment listening when he participates on an episode.

EDIT - Was off on that one. Bill has done a few of the Tarantino eps (‘Unstoppable’ and ‘King of New York’), which I haven’t heard yet/escaped my attention. To anyone has heard those: how are they? I am slightly surprised Bill entered the fray with Tarantino, since Tarantino is….unforgiving of objectively dumb takes about film/film history, but I gotta hear these episodes.

The episodes were decent enough that you got less of the Bill's batshit takes on movies. The one instance where it became very awkward was discussing Rosario Dawson performance in Unstoppable, where Bill tells Quentin somebody should use her better in movies, which QT leans forward to remind him he directed her in Death Proof. Now, I know that is not the most essential movie in his filmography, it would have been helpful to have it checked while having a director who worked with her on a movie.

 

[Spelunker]

Tarantino is awesome. He LOVES film, and he will talk about it for hours and with anyone who shares his passion. It’s appointment listening when he participates on an episode.

EDIT - Was off on that one. Bill has done a few of the Tarantino eps (‘Unstoppable’ and ‘King of New York’), which I haven’t heard yet/escaped my attention. To anyone has heard those: how are they? I am slightly surprised Bill entered the fray with Tarantino, since Tarantino is….unforgiving of objectively dumb takes about film/film history, but I gotta hear these episodes.

The 1987 Movie Draft with QT and Roger Avery might be the only time I've felt sorry for Amanda. He brutalized her a bit.

 

[Shelterdog]

The episodes were decent enough that you got less of the Bill's batshit takes on movies. The one instance where it became very awkward was discussing Rosario Dawson performance in Unstoppable, where Bill tells Quentin somebody should use her better in movies, which QT leans forward to remind him he directed her in Death Proof. Now, I know that is not the most essential movie in his filmography, it would have been helpful to have it checked while having a director who worked with her on a movie.

Agreed.

I think it says it all about Bill that he did NOT participate in the rewatchables about Dunkirk with Quentin Tarantino. Like how can you not?

 

[CantKeepmedown]

The new categories they added a few months ago are awful. They don’t spawn discussion, they’re just “answered” in like 15 seconds.

That's my biggest pet peeve as well. Bill announces the category, gives his answer, and then moves on not even letting his co-hosts give an answer. He did that with Koppelman on the Misery one quite a bit and it was frustrating.

I do quite enjoy the podcast as a whole and even more so when it's a movie that I really enjoy. And CR and Fennessey would be my preferred co-hosts.

 

[luckiestman]

Tarantino is awesome. He LOVES film, and he will talk about it for hours and with anyone who shares his passion. It’s appointment listening when he participates on an episode.

EDIT - Was off on that one. Bill has done a few of the Tarantino eps (‘Unstoppable’ and ‘King of New York’), which I haven’t heard yet/escaped my attention. To anyone has heard those: how are they? I am slightly surprised Bill entered the fray with Tarantino, since Tarantino is….unforgiving of objectively dumb takes about film/film history, but I gotta hear these episodes.

I thought the King of New York episode was very good (best QT episode).

 

[luckiestman]

Agreed.

I think it says it all about Bill that he did NOT participate in the rewatchables about Dunkirk with Quentin Tarantino. Like how can you not?

Dunkirk kind of sucks, man. More of an achievement movie than entertaining. A lot of Nolan’s movies suck in that way.

 

[luckiestman]

The Miami Vice episode is great (I irrationally love that movie)

I don’t think it is irrational at all. It’s a cool movie.

 

[jmcc5400]

Rewatchables: School Ties.
Cast: Simmons, Rubin, Litman

I'm about 1/3 of the way through and already we have a couple of things...

1) Simmons asks without any irony if it would be a big deal to cast the movie (as they did in 1992) with a non-Jewish person playing the lead (who is Jewish, which is the basis of the entire plot). And he keeps citing "Oh, well, twitter might go after them..." or "Oh well if they're marketing it they might get some pushback..." and at one point oddly blurts "It's like with a disability..." But never says, you know, "Sure, a Jewish person could play this role so why not?" and maybe list a few Jewish young actors? Yes, it would be viewed as a big deal if a non Jewish actor played the lead in a major movie where the entire plot is anti-Semitism levelled against that character, and rightfully so.

2) Maybe, hear me out, MAYBE the reason Chris O'Donnell and Randall fucking Battikoff didn't have the same career as Matt Damon is that they *aren't as talented*.

Randall was a high school classmate of mine. Bill’s semi-fixation on his acting career - it comes up again inThe Player rewatchables - is a recurring source of amusement. Not that Randall’s a bad guy or not talented, but I suspect that Bill has given more thought to his career arc than he has.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

2) Litman (and Simmons) seem totally perplexed that people with pretty faces at the age of 20-22 or whatever don't always end up having blockbuster movie careers. Maybe, hear me out, MAYBE the reason Chris O'Donnell and Randall fucking Battikoff didn't have the same career as Matt Damon is that they *aren't as talented*. Does Litman similarly wonder why Shannen Doherty didn't have the career Winona Ryder has? I mean Christ, these are professional movie podcasters and there's 10 minutes of "Why didn't my 6th grade crush become a big star?! What could possibly be the reason?!" Like, yeah, I thought Allyson Hannigan was cute but I get why she isn't Reese Witherspoon.

I don't know, Hollywood isn't always fair, and I enjoy the discussions they have about actors who seems to be on the precipice of stardom but their career doesn't work out the way you think. I mean we know that hollywood is not a meritocracy where the best actors get the best parts and the pretty faces get weeded out and that's why their career doesn't make it. I don't mind them talking about why so-and-so didn't have as big a career as someone else and I don't always think the obvious reason is talent.

 

[Shelterdog]

Dunkirk kind of sucks, man. More of an achievement movie than entertaining. A lot of Nolan’s movies suck in that way.

You do you.

 

[luckiestman]

You do you.

Wait until you hear my Spielberg takes, lol.

 

[luckiestman]

That's my biggest pet peeve as well. Bill announces the category, gives his answer, and then moves on not even letting his co-hosts give an answer. He did that with Koppelman on the Misery one quite a bit and it was frustrating.

I do quite enjoy the podcast as a whole and even more so when it's a movie that I really enjoy. And CR and Fennessey would be my preferred co-hosts.

I do not get the new categories at all, not at all. The podcast selecting the new categories was fun but the actual new categories blow.

 

[luckiestman]

Since I’m in the middle of pro BS apologetics I am going to zag and say I cannot believe no one brought up what happened on an episode of Plain English. The discussion was about the relative unpopularity of new music and at one point of the discussion, the guest, Ted Gioia, contrasts Silicon Valley values with music label values. One example was Silicon Valley hires the best talent while music labels …and this part is a direct quote…hire their idiot nephew.

This was discussed for a while and the host held it together and didn’t mention Kyle.

 

[Leather]

I don't know, Hollywood isn't always fair, and I enjoy the discussions they have about actors who seems to be on the precipice of stardom but their career doesn't work out the way you think. I mean we know that hollywood is not a meritocracy where the best actors get the best parts and the pretty faces get weeded out and that's why their career doesn't make it. I don't mind them talking about why so-and-so didn't have as big a career as someone else and I don't always think the obvious reason is talent.

Fair enough, but I never once really wondered why Chris ODonnell didn’t have a massive career. He was always pretty one-note (the good natured cute kid) from School Ties to Scent of a Woman to his Batman turn.

 

[Marciano490]

Fair enough, but I never once really wondered why Chris ODonnell didn’t have a massive career. He was always pretty one-note (the good natured cute kid) from School Ties to Scent of a Woman to his Batman turn.

Yeah Chris O’Donnell seemed like a market driven choice. They put him on a bunch of shit and realized he was good looking but not at all charismatic and so they stopped putting him in shit because the numbers were bad.

 

[luckiestman]

Yeah Chris O’Donnell seemed like a market driven choice. They put him on a bunch of shit and realized he was good looking but not at all charismatic and so they stopped putting him in shit because the numbers were bad.

He is no PSHoffman….but he’s NOT A SNITHCH!

 

[Matthew McKinley]

Chris O'Donnell had the combo of appearing in a notorious derided blockbuster and the star-making roles of several actors around the time frame that put an halt to his movie career. By 1997 you have Matthew McConaughey breaking out with A Time to Kill and Contact, Ben Affleck with Chasing Amy, and ultimately, the actor who could be argued in a thesis on why Chris O'Donnell stop being such a thing in movies, Matt Damon with Good Will Hunting. By this point, his peers outmatched him and there was no room for O'Donnell in the film landscape. The man was not going to become some Indie darling, he did not have some sharp acting chops to transformed into becoming a character actor, the only place left that would be feasible for him would be television, which he committed to NCIS and made a fortune larger than even the A++ listers above.

 

[Hoya81]

O'Donnell probably makes a nice salary on NCIS, but I doubt he's making anything on the level of those other actors.

 

[johnmd20]

O'Donnell probably makes a nice salary on NCIS, but I doubt he's making anything on the level of those other actors.

He's not even in the same galaxy as Damon, Affleck, and McConaughey when it comes to money made. This isn't to say CO'D hasn't made a lot of money on NCIS. But those other 3 are the tippy top of the A list.

 

[Remagellan]

I'm just listening to the School Ties one, and the "football coordinator" (Simmons) just said that David Green wore number 42 as a QB because of Jackie Robinson, which someone suggested on the internet and he's endorsing. Sure, or maybe it's because it's set in the 1950s, and Sid Luckman and Charlie Conerly, two QB stars of the 40s and 50s, wore number 42. The prep school that David plays at wear something close to the NY Giants uniforms of that era, and the Giants were the team of all of NE since the AFL had not yet come into existence, so I think it's more likely that 42 was due to Charlie Conerly than Jackie Robinson.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I'm just listening to the School Ties one, and the "football coordinator" (Simmons) just said that David Green wore number 42 as a QB because of Jackie Robinson, which someone suggested on the internet and he's endorsing. Sure, or maybe it's because it's set in the 1950s, and Sid Luckman and Charlie Conerly, two QB stars of the 40s and 50s, wore number 42. The prep school that David plays at wear something close to the NY Giants uniforms of that era, and the Giants were the team of all of NE since the AFL had not yet come into existence, so I think it's more likely that 42 was due to Charlie Conerly than Jackie Robinson.

Well, I'm pretty sure that was brought up during a segment they call "half-assed internet research" so usually most of that stuff is dubious. Seems like the more Simmons thing about that spot was that he wondered if a QB wearing 42 was realistic at all. No surprise he wouldn't have bothered to know about Luckman and Conerly.

 

[Spelunker]

Well, I'm pretty sure that was brought up during a segment they call "half-assed internet research" so usually most of that stuff is dubious. Seems like the more Simmons thing about that spot was that he wondered if a QB wearing 42 was realistic at all. No surprise he wouldn't have bothered to know about Luckman and Conerly.

Given the movie was made in the 90s, I'd guess that his theory is the more likely one (if there's any meaning at all).

 

[Remagellan]

Given the movie was made in the 90s, I'd guess that his theory is the more likely one (if there's any meaning at all).

You can't imagine someone (writer, director, the person in charge of wardrobe, or someone else on the production) wouldn't have done a little research to determine what number David Green would wear that would stamp the setting as the 1950s? I'm around Simmons' age, never saw Luckman or Conerly play (other than on film) but I knew their numbers. If you've ever seen any of the "Greatest Game Ever Played", the 1958 NFL Championship Game between the Colts and the Giants that was won 23-17 in overtime by the Colts on a one-yard run by Alan Ameche, you'll see Conerly quarterbacking the Giants in his number 42 jersey.

Dick Wolf (of Law and Order fame) wrote this movie. He was born in 1946 and raised in NYC, and this movie is based on his experiences in prep school. I'm pretty sure he knew that Charlie Conerly wore 42 while quarterbacking the Giants in the 50s.

 

[Leather]

You can't imagine someone (writer, director, the person in charge of wardrobe, or someone else on the production) wouldn't have done a little research to determine what number David Green would wear that would stamp the setting as the 1950s? I'm around Simmons' age, never saw Luckman or Conerly play (other than on film) but I knew their numbers. If you've ever seen any of the "Greatest Game Ever Played", the 1958 NFL Championship Game between the Colts and the Giants that was won 23-17 in overtime by the Colts on a one-yard run by Alan Ameche, you'll see Conerly quarterbacking the Giants in his number 42 jersey.

Dick Wolf (of Law and Order fame) wrote this movie. He was born in 1946 and raised in NYC, and this movie is based on his experiences in prep school. I'm pretty sure he knew that Charlie Conerly wore 42 while quarterbacking the Giants in the 50s.

And I think it's just as likely that people making a movie demonstrating a person suffering prejudice in a sports setting would symbolically give that person 42 due to the Jackie Robinson parallel. Certainly more likely than remembering (or caring) what number one's high school QB wore some 30-40 years prior.

 

[Bozo Texino]

Mallory Rubin might be the horniest person on the planet.

She could make a pimp blush.

 

[Remagellan]

Jackie did also play football at UCLA, but few people know that or associate him with that sport. (And that wasn't his number at UCLA.) And number 42 was not retired all across MLB back in 1992 when the movie was released, so the renown of that number's connection to Jackie Robinson was not as high then as it is now.

When I saw this movie and saw Fraser in a uniform similar to those worn by the NY Giants in the 1950s wearing number 42, I immediately thought "Charlie Conerly", much as I thought "Joe Namath" when I saw Kurt Russell sporting white shoes and a green and white number 12 uniform in "The Best of Times". Just as if I see a movie from the 70s-90s in which a running back is wearing number 32, I think of Jim Brown, Franco Harris, Marcus Allen, or OJ Simpson; I don't think of Sandy Koufax* or Kevin McHale.

But you believe what you want to believe.

*Simmons not remembering that Sandy Koufax refused to pitch on Yom Kippur, not Rosh Hashanah, was another uncomfortable moment in his history on this podcast. You could feel Juliet and Mallory's discomfort in having to correct him.

 

[Leather]

N/M.

I admit it's plausible either way and really don't care that much.

 

[kenneycb]

I had legit never heard of Charlie Conerly until this back and forth.

 

[johnmd20]

*Simmons not remembering that Sandy Koufax refused to pitch on Yom Kippur, not Rosh Hashanah, was another uncomfortable moment in his history on this podcast. You could feel Juliet and Mallory's discomfort in having to correct him.

No you couldn't.

Honest mistakes can happen and exist. Simmons doesn't become Hitler because he's not a professor of Jewish holidays.

 

[8slim]

No you couldn't.

Honest mistakes can happen and exist. Simmons doesn't become Hitler because he's not a professor of Jewish holidays.

People here really bring their own biases into how they describe the reactions of Simmons's co-hosts to things he says. There have been numerous times someone commented that so-and-so was uncomfortable/indignant/stunned, etc. and then when I listened it was very clearly innocuous or humorous.

 

[Remagellan]

No you couldn't.

Honest mistakes can happen and exist. Simmons doesn't become Hitler because he's not a professor of Jewish holidays.

I wasn't suggesting he's Hitler or anti-Semitic because he confused the Jewish New Year with the Day of Atonement, but it was a quintessential Simmons moment in that he'll make a point to mention something he "knows", but he doesn't bother to get it right. He a dilettante, as I've stated before.

I took Mal and Juliet's discomfit as more stemming from their hesitancy to correct their boss. I like both of them, but the reason why theses pods work better with Sean, Chris, and Van is that they all have gotten to the point that they have no problem challenging Bill when he's off. Mal's kind of there (her quip about how GoT is "(Bill's) favorite show set in the 1300s" was gold), but when she does correct him, she does so reluctantly.

 

[Dave Stapleton]

Chris O'Donnell had the combo of appearing in a notorious derided blockbuster and the star-making roles of several actors around the time frame that put an halt to his movie career. By 1997 you have Matthew McConaughey breaking out with A Time to Kill and Contact, Ben Affleck with Chasing Amy, and ultimately, the actor who could be argued in a thesis on why Chris O'Donnell stop being such a thing in movies, Matt Damon with Good Will Hunting. By this point, his peers outmatched him and there was no room for O'Donnell in the film landscape. The man was not going to become some Indie darling, he did not have some sharp acting chops to transformed into becoming a character actor, the only place left that would be feasible for him would be television, which he committed to NCIS and made a fortune larger than even the A++ listers above.

I was at BC when COD was there (Carroll school of management). He was a few classes before me but the acting career took off so he was around for a few years since he kept leaving and graduated later years. By all accounts he was a super nice guy who hit the lottery. I believe that through a relative, he was "discovered" and called in for a screen test or audition and hit it big. I had another friend who was an actor and was up for a part in School Ties and just fell short. He ended up as one of the "other students". He's had a nice career, got married and had a few kids and seemed to throttle it down on his own volition once he made some dough to hang with the family.

Disclaimer: I never met Chris and this is all second hand info.

 

[Leather]

Mallory Rubin might be the horniest person on the planet.

She could make a pimp blush.

Holy cow, you weren't kidding.

After she talked about hand jobs for the 4th time, and blow jobs for the 3rd, and the characters fucking a few times, at about the time she fantasized, excuse me, "suggested" that the dorm showers would be...oh what was the charming phrase..."clogged with the ejaculate" of all the characters in the movie masturbating, it got pretty weird given that she is referring to high school boys.

I mean, seriously, her little "I want to see these characters get sucked, fucked, jack off" rant went on about 4 minutes too long. It was kind of funny at first but by the end it was just icky.

 

[johnmd20]

Holy cow, you weren't kidding.

After she talked about hand jobs for the 4th time, and blow jobs for the 3rd, and the characters fucking a few times, at about the time she fantasized, excuse me, "suggested" that the dorm showers would be...oh what was the charming phrase..."clogged with the ejaculate" of all the characters in the movie masturbating, it got pretty weird given that she is referring to high school boys.

I mean, seriously, her little "I want to see these characters get sucked, fucked, jack off" rant went on about 4 minutes too long. It was kind of funny at first but by the end it was just icky.

She's been working that angle for years now. She loves to talk graphically about suckin' and fuckin' and she is always talking about ejaculate. Everyone needs and angle.

 

[Marciano490]

She's been working that angle for years now. She loves to talk graphically about suckin' and fuckin' and she is always talking about ejaculate. Everyone needs and angle.

I guess her cum schtick sticks.

 

[johnmd20]

I guess her cum schtick sticks.

Her cum schtick drain never clogs.

 

[Matthew McKinley]

Of all the established categories, the Joey Pants award is often than not egregious in how they will exaggerate a certain character actor level of fame.

Bill Simmons is the worst offender, because he'll always say a certain actor name is that actor name, without any real reasoning to think they're overqualified for the award. He will legit think an actor like Chelcie Ross is somebody an average viewer will know his name from. Even if you pulled the hardcore film nerds I bet they would have trouble even knowing what he looks before pulling up his IMDB resume. No one usually challenges him on the category confusion. Sean is totally deep in his character actor knowledge that everyone is a name, so he can't be a help on the podcast. Chris Ryan will say they were the second or third lead of a forgettable TV movie from the 80s, thus not eligible for the award.

I dunno, what do you think should be a criteria for matters of qualification? Does somebody having enough lead roles make him disqualified automatically, or could they still get the award if the lead roles were in small budget genre movies? Once you get award recognition, even in the supporting category, does that stripped you from gaining the award?