Pearl Jammin' with Grandpa, the Bill Simmons Thread

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
3,287
Florida
You wouldn't have wanted to be around my 15 year old in my living room last night then. Granted, not a public place, but his language during the 3rd quarter was... salty.
Yea I get that, I mean I'm not a prude but a whole arena shouting it at one person over and over again just seems a bit much.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
53,748
Only a DNA test will prove her legitimacy, but "my" 9 year old daughter was in attendance.

She had on over ear headphones for most of the game, just to dull some of the crowd noise, but she heard everything. I didn't participate in any Draymond chants, but I did get exasperated at one point and dropped an F bomb under my breath. The fact that she wasn't shocked and instead, just slowly shook her head probably doesn't speak well of me.
I learned to swear at the old Garden, so your daughter has a super bright future ahead of her!
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
48,260
Some folks are reacting like this is the first time an obscenity was ever uttered at a sporting event. It's weird.
 

deanx0

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2004
2,307
Orlando, FL
I enjoyed the Simmons-KOC part of the pod, but when he had his daughter on the podcast to explain Stranger Things season 4, well that was rough. She kept saying that Hopper was in a Russian prison camp in Alaska and I finally had to turn it off.
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,411
I enjoyed the Simmons-KOC part of the pod, but when he had his daughter on the podcast to explain Stranger Things season 4, well that was rough. She kept saying that Hopper was in a Russian prison camp in Alaska and I finally had to turn it off.
I've never come remotely close to listening to any of the segments with his kids. I generally give him a pass on this, only because I imagine how often one's entitled kids must pester one to use one's podcast as their platform, and I think it's commendable how rarely he allows them on. But I can't imagine why anyone outside of the Simmons extended family would ever want to listen to this.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
19,234
I've never come remotely close to listening to any of the segments with his kids. I generally give him a pass on this, only because I imagine how often one's entitled kids must pester one to use one's podcast as their platform, and I think it's commendable how rarely he allows them on. But I can't imagine why anyone outside of the Simmons extended family would ever want to listen to this.
I did not listen to the Stranger Things portion of the pod; but a few times when his daughter has been on the pod and I have listened, I find it kind of interesting as just a recap of here is some insight into what teenagers are into today, from an actual teenager. I don't have a teenager so it's somewhat interesting to me to see what the culture is like at that given moment.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,885
New York City
I enjoyed the Simmons-KOC part of the pod, but when he had his daughter on the podcast to explain Stranger Things season 4, well that was rough. She kept saying that Hopper was in a Russian prison camp in Alaska and I finally had to turn it off.
Plus Bill was just trying to make jokes and was mocking Stranger Things the entire time while Zoe was earnestly trying to talk about it. It was really a bad segment.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I did not listen to the Stranger Things portion of the pod; but a few times when his daughter has been on the pod and I have listened, I find it kind of interesting as just a recap of here is some insight into what teenagers are into today, from an actual teenager. I don't have a teenager so it's somewhat interesting to me to see what the culture is like at that given moment.
I have two teenagers, and while I don't really care much about the content involved, it's interesting to hear his daughter communicate on air. She's really good at it! So yeah, good for her.

Bill podding about a show he has inexplicably never watched wasn't great. It even features old people music! Although Kate Bush is probably not yachty enough for him.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,885
New York City
All time Simmons take on the pod today. ALL TIME.

He earnestly said, "The Warriors are not a dynasty."

6 finals in 8 years, 4 titles. But not a dynasty. You just wonder what is going on in his head sometimes.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
All time Simmons take on the pod today. ALL TIME.

He earnestly said, "The Warriors are not a dynasty."

6 finals in 8 years, 4 titles. But not a dynasty. You just wonder what is going on in his head sometimes.
Spite in the wake of disappointment over his own team coming up short, because that's the only explanation for such an idiotic statement.

The only definition that would exclude the Curry era Warriors from being a dynasty would be the Bob Ryan one that the only dynasty in sports is the Yankees, because other teams have merely had "runs", while the Yankees have had a century in which they've had several championship runs. The Celtics, for instance, wouldn't qualify, because their dynastic claim rests on one big run during Russell's era and then a few sporadic championships--and only one in the past 36 years. But even as a Sixers fan who despises the Celtics, I think that's a ridiculous standard.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
21,991
Spite in the wake of disappointment over his own team coming up short, because that's the only explanation for such an idiotic statement.

The only definition that would exclude the Curry era Warriors from being a dynasty would be the Bob Ryan one that the only dynasty in sports is the Yankees, because other teams have merely had "runs", while the Yankees have had a century in which they've had several championship runs. The Celtics, for instance, wouldn't qualify, because their dynastic claim rests on one big run during Russell's era and then a few sporadic championships--and only one in the past 36 years. But even as a Sixers fan who despises the Celtics, I think that's a ridiculous standard.
That is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I kinda get what Ryan is saying; but he's wrong. The Celts, Lakers, Bulls, Canadiens, Oilers, Islanders, Pats, Steelers, Cowboys, A's, Reds and a bunch of other teams can be considered dynastic. Saying that there can only be one dynasty over four professional leagues is crazy talk.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
That is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I kinda get what Ryan is saying; but he's wrong. The Celts, Lakers, Bulls, Canadiens, Oilers, Islanders, Pats, Steelers, Cowboys, A's, Reds and a bunch of other teams can be considered dynastic. Saying that there can only be one dynasty over four professional leagues is crazy talk.
Absolutely. The Pats have now had twenty years of sustained excellence. The Steelers (as much as it galls me) have had a half-century of sustained excellence. They're clearly dynasties. As for the others, one can quibble about exactly where the line should be drawn, but in my book, when a team dominates a decade or even a half-decade, they're a dynasty.
 

Dave Stapleton

Just A Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2001
8,520
Newport, RI
I don't think it is spite. His favorite non-Celtic is Curry and he is friendly with, and hightly respects Kerr. This is simply a current media, "hot take" and probably based upon differing criteria for evaluation. It's sports talk guys.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,264
South Dartmouth, MA
I don't think it is spite. His favorite non-Celtic is Curry and he is friendly with, and hightly respects Kerr. This is simply a current media, "hot take" and probably based upon differing criteria for evaluation. It's sports talk guys.
While I disagree with Simmons on this front, as he just tweeted it's not really a current hot take of his. He's been on this hill for awhile and just has an incredibly high (too high, IMO) bar for what a dynasty is.
View: https://twitter.com/BillSimmons/status/1537794454806986753?s=20&t=35eENvX_8D1G9z5c640Nvw

Tweet reads, "Here’s what I wrote in a 2012 Grantland piece about the concept of an NBA dynasty (and how that word gets thrown around too liberally). I personally don’t think GSW’s 4 titles in 8 years qualifies yet — which is how I felt about the 1999-2007 Spurs too. https://grantland.com/features/the-harden-dilemma/"
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,245
Maine
That is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I kinda get what Ryan is saying; but he's wrong. The Celts, Lakers, Bulls, Canadiens, Oilers, Islanders, Pats, Steelers, Cowboys, A's, Reds and a bunch of other teams can be considered dynastic. Saying that there can only be one dynasty over four professional leagues is crazy talk.
I kinda get what Ryan is going for, in that before sports started using the term, "dynasty" generally applied to multiple generations of rule/succession. By that token, sure the Yankees might be the only true fit given they've had sustained title runs with 4-5 different generations of players. Comparitively, a team winning 4 championships in 8 years but barely anything in the preceding 40+ years isn't all that dynastic. But clearly in the realm of sports, dynasty has its own definition. It's a dumb semantic argument.
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
4,954
Simmons has definitely called the Patriots 6 titles in 20 years a dynasty. He did a podcast with Hench going over the best 25 games of the Patriots dynasty.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I don't buy his argument, because the Warriors run was just interrupted by the injuries they suffered the past couple of years. To me it's like denying calling the mid to late 80s Oilers an NHL dynasty because they never won more than two in a row during their run due to losing a Game 7 Semi-Final to Calgary in 1986 on a fluky goal.

Dumb semantic argument, indeed!
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,230
They’re the defining team of their era, Bill can attach or not attach whatever label he wants.
Yup. Defining team of the era and two players, Steph and Draymond, who are the prototypes for how the NBA has changed in the last decade.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
6,356
The bottom line is that I think we expect Bill to be something more than a hot takez guy. Saying "this is not a dynasty" is a fine way to kick off a sports argument, but when challenged, I expect more from him than "Why? 'Cause it's not" and "What's a dynasty? It's not this." That article he linked claims that the Duncan-era Spurs were not a dynasty because "Duncan’s Spurs (nine years, four titles) never made you feel like “My God, how are we gonna stop those guys?” so I'm going to chalk this up to "Bill being Bill" and move on.
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
3,817
I kinda get what Ryan is going for, in that before sports started using the term, "dynasty" generally applied to multiple generations of rule/succession. By that token, sure the Yankees might be the only true fit given they've had sustained title runs with 4-5 different generations of players. Comparitively, a team winning 4 championships in 8 years but barely anything in the preceding 40+ years isn't all that dynastic. But clearly in the realm of sports, dynasty has its own definition. It's a dumb semantic argument.
In sports, I consider "dynasty" as rule/succession in the league as a whole. Not that a single team needs to pass the torch between generations. By that definition there is always a dynasty within a particular sports league unless there are no clear cut alphas. Baseball has kind of been hop-scotching around and football is sorting things out between the end of the Pats dynasty with the Bucs, Chiefs and Rams all battling it out, but there is a definite alpha in basketball over the past decade. The Warriors doing this in the midst of the careers of 2 all-time players like LeBron and Giannis only underscores how dynastic a team they are.

If the strict semantic argument is being used for the "dynasty" definition then we shouldn't hear any opining about dynasties because it ain't happening present day. With increases in number of teams around professional leagues and salary caps all driving leagues towards parity, eventually the price of admission to be considered a dynasty has to come down.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,188
A dynasty sports team is one that, when thinking back to a particular era of 5 or more years in the sport, you can with relative objective certainty say "Oh, that was when [blank] was the best team." If you have to think about it too hard, then they probably aren't, or maybe there wasn't a dynastic team at that time. Obviously this will require winning multiple titles, but how many and over what period of time just inform the distinction.

Early 80s Islanders. mid-late 80s Oilers. 2000/2010s Pats. 60s Celtics. 2010-20s Warriors. Late 90s/early 00s Yankees.

If a particular team defines the excellence of their era, they are likely a dynasty. Getting into "well, you have to win back-to-back....." stuff is just looking for an excuse.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
53,748
I always thought dynasty implied some roster turnover. I can see the Warriors not being one because the core has remained the same. Pats were a dynasty - besides Brady, the entire roster and key players turned over. I’m ok with dynasty being an exclusive term.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,245
Maine
I always thought dynasty implied some roster turnover. I can see the Warriors not being one because the core has remained the same. Pats were a dynasty - besides Brady, the entire roster and key players turned over. I’m ok with dynasty being an exclusive term.
There was talk of the Pats being a dynasty after the third Super Bowl win back in 2004. I don't think there was a ton of roster turnover from the first to the third, at least not at the skill positions.

 

ElUno20

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
5,166
The bottom line is that I think we expect Bill to be something more than a hot takez guy. Saying "this is not a dynasty" is a fine way to kick off a sports argument, but when challenged, I expect more from him than "Why? 'Cause it's not" and "What's a dynasty? It's not this." That article he linked claims that the Duncan-era Spurs were not a dynasty because "Duncan’s Spurs (nine years, four titles) never made you feel like “My God, how are we gonna stop those guys?” so I'm going to chalk this up to "Bill being Bill" and move on.
It's another one of his completey subjective metrics that he presents as an unquestionable fact. It's his go to, he made $250 mill off it.

My favorite remains his all time player rankings ("so and so has moved into the top 16, 13, etc") he just drop like the induction committees are sitting around with pen and pad waiting for god to speak.
 
Jun 17, 2022
17
My favorite category on The Rewatchables is the Joey Pants award, just because it's an excuse to talk about character actors, which is more fun to me than hearing the umpteenth time about the biggest stars. Anyway, the hosts usually are tough to crack on who qualifies for the award, which will led to confusion on who's an actual "that guy." With Chris and Sean, I trust them to be too much of film geeks that all "that guys" character players would be somebody to them, as CR will point out they had a leading role in a small tv drama from 1985. Bill on the other hand, being Mr Starfucker, seems less genuine when pointing out actors as not being that guy. I never really buy Bill Simmons knowing all the bit players too well until he just digs into the IMDB resume and concludes they are disqualified for the award because he happens to know their name now.

They don't have a criteria for what disqualified actors for the consideration, if it's based on name recognition or award consideration. They should have a basic criteria of how famous an actor could be for consideration, as in this actor could walk into a bar without anyone recognizing them or have the local person go "hey I know you from somewhere." Does anyone agree with me on this category? Even though I know the actors mention they'd sometimes oversell how famous the actor in question is. No Sean, Victor Argo is definitely a "that guy" to non-hardcore Scorsese fanatics in the world.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
6,638
The lack of clear logic for most of the awards is basically a running gag at this point. You can almost hear CR and Fennessey roll their eyes as Bill once again tries to explain what Apex Mountain is or why David Morse isn't a That Guy, he's David Morse.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
41,227
Hartford, CT
I think Ryan and Fennessey should try to get him on a panel for films that, let’s just say, aren’t for Bill and that he would put little effort into. Can you imagine the takes he would have for ‘City Lights,’ ‘Nosferatu,’ ‘The Mirror,’ ‘8 1/2,’ ‘Cries and Whispers,’ etc. This week Bill takes on Tarkovsky!

But really, I could see it now: ‘If you’re Scorsese remaking Fellini’s ‘8 1/2’ in like 1993, you gotta have Sharon Stone as the wife, right?’
 
Jun 17, 2022
17
I think Ryan and Fennessey should try to get him on a panel for films that, let’s just say, aren’t for Bill and that he would put little effort into. Can you imagine the takes he would have for ‘City Lights,’ ‘Nosferatu,’ ‘The Mirror,’ ‘8 1/2,’ ‘Cries and Whispers,’ etc. This week Bill takes on Tarkovsky!

But really, I could see it now: ‘If you’re Scorsese remaking Fellini’s ‘8 1/2’ in like 1993, you gotta have Sharon Stone as the wife, right?’
"You know what, Citizen Kane just would be so much better if they retrospectively cast Matt Damon as Charles Foster Kane. He just would better than Orson Wells."
 
Jun 17, 2022
17
The lack of clear logic for most of the awards is basically a running gag at this point. You can almost hear CR and Fennessey roll their eyes as Bill once again tries to explain what Apex Mountain is or why David Morse isn't a That Guy, he's David Morse.
The funniest category is Recasting Couch, which barring the offense name choice, has some of the most ludicrous recasting I ever heard. You can just know Simmons is going to put Leo or Damon in the central male role or recast actresses he does not find attractive with those he got the boner for.

This is Bill Simmons casting list for every female role:
Michelle Pfeiffer
Sharon Stone
Diane Lane
Kelly Preston
Elizabeth Shue
Demi Moore
Lisa Bonet
Angelina Jolie
Sandra Bullock
Meryl Streep
Kathleen Turner
Jacqueline Bisset
Jennifer Lawrence
Sydney Sweeney

Am I missing any other notable actresses from the list?
 

Bozo Texino

still hates Dave Kerpen
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
9,592
Austin, Texas
I think Ryan and Fennessey should try to get him on a panel for films that, let’s just say, aren’t for Bill and that he would put little effort into. Can you imagine the takes he would have for ‘City Lights,’ ‘Nosferatu,’ ‘The Mirror,’ ‘8 1/2,’ ‘Cries and Whispers,’ etc. This week Bill takes on Tarkovsky!

But really, I could see it now: ‘If you’re Scorsese remaking Fellini’s ‘8 1/2’ in like 1993, you gotta have Sharon Stone as the wife, right?’
Really crossing my fingers for a Satantango episode.
 
Jun 17, 2022
17
How many movies pre-1970 has Bill Simmons seen? 12? 20? 5? On the Butch/Sundance episode he called it the first modern movie, which incidental was released the time of his birth.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
53,748
The funniest category is Recasting Couch, which barring the offense name choice, has some of the most ludicrous recasting I ever heard. You can just know Simmons is going to put Leo or Damon in the central male role or recast actresses he does not find attractive with those he got the boner for.

This is Bill Simmons casting list for every female role:
Michelle Pfeiffer
Sharon Stone
Diane Lane
Kelly Preston
Elizabeth Shue
Demi Moore
Lisa Bonet
Angelina Jolie
Sandra Bullock
Meryl Streep
Kathleen Turner
Jacqueline Bisset
Jennifer Lawrence
Sydney Sweeney

Am I missing any other notable actresses from the list?
Kinda creepy seeing Sydney Sweeney at the end there.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,188
The funniest category is Recasting Couch, which barring the offense name choice, has some of the most ludicrous recasting I ever heard. You can just know Simmons is going to put Leo or Damon in the central male role or recast actresses he does not find attractive with those he got the boner for.

This is Bill Simmons casting list for every female role:
Michelle Pfeiffer
Sharon Stone
Diane Lane
Kelly Preston
Elizabeth Shue
Demi Moore
Lisa Bonet
Angelina Jolie
Sandra Bullock
Meryl Streep
Kathleen Turner
Jacqueline Bisset
Jennifer Lawrence
Sydney Sweeney

Am I missing any other notable actresses from the list?
He had a little Markie Post run for a few episodes.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,892
Needham, MA
How many movies pre-1970 has Bill Simmons seen? 12? 20? 5? On the Butch/Sundance episode he called it the first modern movie, which incidental was released the time of his birth.
I don’t know how many he’s seen but the point of the Rewatchables pod isn’t to delve into the deep archives of Hollywood cinema, it’s to celebrate the movies that a 50-something year old guy who created the pod likes to re-watch over and over again. It resonates with me because I’m about the same age as him, I can see how it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but at this point 250 episodes in if you are frustrated that he’s not spending more time on older movies I’m guessing there’s probably another podcast out there that is better suited for you.

There’s a category called picking nits so I am all in on picking nits on the Rewatchables pod, but killing him for not being a student of classic Hollywood kind of misses the point IMO.
 
Jun 17, 2022
17
I don’t know how many he’s seen but the point of the Rewatchables pod isn’t to delve into the deep archives of Hollywood cinema, it’s to celebrate the movies that a 50-something year old guy who created the pod likes to re-watch over and over again. It resonates with me because I’m about the same age as him, I can see how it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but at this point 250 episodes in if you are frustrated that he’s not spending more time on older movies I’m guessing there’s probably another podcast out there that is better suited for you.

There’s a category called picking nits so I am all in on picking nits on the Rewatchables pod, but killing him for not being a student of classic Hollywood kind of misses the point IMO.
Not trying to antagonize Simmons for how many movies he's watched, it's a question of his viewing habits and what movies that he has viewed that were released before his birth. On nit picking, one thing that bothers me that led me to asking the question is how often Simmons will say the soon on movie was the first movie to do this thing, multiple times in the podcast, even while contradicting himself. Raiders of the Lost Ark was said to be the first "modern action movie" by Simmons but in an earlier podcast he says the same statement about Die Hard. Simmons does not need to fancy himself as the late Robert Osbourne, understandable in order of being the straight shooter to the more nerdier tangents that CR and Sean will go on the matters of the filmmaking and history of the medium. This is curiosity about the movie habits of Simmons, which given his age he should have been exposed to some of the more famous pre-1970 movies through the local cable stations that would play on Channel 38 or so during the 70s/80s, when classic movies were not relegated to TCM. Similarly, I would be curious about foreign cinema and how many he's seen beyond some action-ly stuff or Parasite from two years back.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,892
Needham, MA
Not trying to antagonize Simmons for how many movies he's watched, it's a question of his viewing habits and what movies that he has viewed that were released before his birth. On nit picking, one thing that bothers me that led me to asking the question is how often Simmons will say the soon on movie was the first movie to do this thing, multiple times in the podcast, even while contradicting himself. Raiders of the Lost Ark was said to be the first "modern action movie" by Simmons but in an earlier podcast he says the same statement about Die Hard. Simmons does not need to fancy himself as the late Robert Osbourne, understandable in order of being the straight shooter to the more nerdier tangents that CR and Sean will go on the matters of the filmmaking and history of the medium. This is curiosity about the movie habits of Simmons, which given his age he should have been exposed to some of the more famous pre-1970 movies through the local cable stations that would play on Channel 38 or so during the 70s/80s, when classic movies were not relegated to TCM. Similarly, I would be curious about foreign cinema and how many he's seen beyond some action-ly stuff or Parasite from two years back.
To me the pod reminds me of me and my buddies sitting around talking about the movies we love to watch. Admittedly I’m not a student of film, I have seen few foreign films and definitely not a ton of films before 1965 or so. All of that things you mention are totally valid criticisms of Simmons if he was trying to hold himself out as a serious film critic, but he isn’t. It’s a silly, fun pod aimed at movies that are fun to watch over and over again, sometimes even despite the fact that they are objectively not great movies.

I think getting on Simmons for his tendency to want any given film to be the “first” something is valid, as well as his re-casting suggestions (though I think at this point that’s somewhat of a running joke). But his viewing habits pretty much are what they are, and it fits the pod perfectly.

edit: grammar
 
Last edited:

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
6,638
A lot of pre-1970's movies I think would get bogged down in "What's Aged the Worst" or requiring too much exposition about who the actors were and who their modern equivalents would be, especially if their careers didn’t extend into cable/dvd era.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
9,229
The genesis of the rewatchables is movies that were on TBS on late 90s Sunday afternoons when Simmons was hung over on the couch.

It's not any more or any less than that.

It's better when there is actual expertise there to balance it off- Simmons plus someone else that isn't Chris or Sean is generally terrible- but the bones of the pod are what they are.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
56,496
Rotten Apple
Ryen (at the top of the show): I don't even feel like talking hoops, bro.
Bill (1 hour straight of nothing but NBA talk later): How dare you infringe upon my fake trade season.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,188
Project X is the first Rewatchables that I've never even heard of.