Looking forward to checking this out tomorrow. I think the pairing with Jackie is going to be awesome.Emergency pod: Simmons, Russillo, and Jackie MacMullen on the Harden deal:
Looking forward to checking this out tomorrow. I think the pairing with Jackie is going to be awesome.Emergency pod: Simmons, Russillo, and Jackie MacMullen on the Harden deal:
It is. Jackie Mac is quickly becoming must-hear podcasting. At the end of her every appearance, Simmons gushes about how much he enjoyed it and how good it was... and he's not wrong.Looking forward to checking this out tomorrow. I think the pairing with Jackie is going to be awesome.
Agreed. It's obvious how much the three of them love the game. The best part about the pod from yesterday is that they all bring a really unique perspective to the conversation and it felt like they could riff for hours. Ryen clearly watches way too much basketball, Simmons the same but with a less analytical eye, and Jackie has the institutional knowledge that would make anyone jealous.It is. Jackie Mac is quickly becoming must-hear podcasting. At the end of her every appearance, Simmons gushes about how much he enjoyed it and how good it was... and he's not wrong.
Comparing the jealousy Durant felt toward Curry in Golden State to the jealousy his older puppy felt toward his newer puppy after the latter arrived at his home was *classic* Simmons.Agreed. It's obvious how much the three of them love the game. The best part about the pod from yesterday is that they all bring a really unique perspective to the conversation and it felt like they could riff for hours. Ryen clearly watches way too much basketball, Simmons the same but with a less analytical eye, and Jackie has the institutional knowledge that would make anyone jealous.
He can't help himself when he gets something caught in his head, it's hilarious. For a year everything was somehow connected to 2k because his son plays it. Now it's the puppy.Comparing the jealousy Durant felt toward Curry in Golden State to the jealousy his older puppy felt toward his newer puppy after the latter arrived at his home was *classic* Simmons.
Simmons talking about the Harden trade today and immediately using the 80s Celtics and the 00s Celtics to compare how teams with a big three could co-exist was definitely classic Simmons. Then he was like, "Oh yeah, and the Warriors with KD, yeah, they had 3 great players." It was perfect.Comparing the jealousy Durant felt toward Curry in Golden State to the jealousy his older puppy felt toward his newer puppy after the latter arrived at his home was *classic* Simmons.
I will give him credit since I always talk shit about him, I thought Koppleman was good/great on the First Blood episode.A few strong Rewatchables this week: First Blood is already up, and Simmons teased the Terminator coming later this week.
Bring back the Double Down Book Club!Greenwald and Ryan had a nice podcast for Tenenbaums but there was a fun irony in that they stated that Tenenbaums was the ultimate vibe movie while their vibe on the podcast was totally off what the Rewatchables vibe normally is. They treated it like a film seminar which I did like because I love that movie and they are smart guys but it wasn’t a blast ; it was still great.
I figure they read this forum and it’s causing some tensionAmanda Dobbins' performance on the last Big Picture episode is truly grounds for getting a new host. She was tearing Sean's head off for reasons that don't make any sense. And it went on for a little bit. It was really off putting and legitimately weird. Even Sean, alarmed, was like, "Are you angry or mad at me? Should we not talk about this TV show on a movie and TV show podcast?"
It was really quite a performance. She's gotta go. Get Liz Kelly or Kate Halliwell in there ASAP. Please.
I got around to listening to this episode over the weekend, and I didn't find that exchange quite that bad. I got the sense that Amanda was incredulous that Sean would go from not liking WandaVision, to liking it, because he read some things online after he watched the first 2 episodes. We can debate that take, but it doesn't seem completely outlandish to me.Amanda Dobbins' performance on the last Big Picture episode is truly grounds for getting a new host. She was tearing Sean's head off for reasons that don't make any sense. And it went on for a little bit. It was really off putting and legitimately weird. Even Sean, alarmed, was like, "Are you angry or mad at me? Should we not talk about this TV show on a movie and TV show podcast?"
It was really quite a performance. She's gotta go. Get Liz Kelly or Kate Halliwell in there ASAP. Please.
I don’t love Amanda and I think some of her takes aren’t great when hosting a movie podcast (like summarily dismissing entire movie genres) but she doesn’t bother me nearly as much as some people. Different strokes for different folks (IE, I legitimately couldnt stand Tate Frazier but most on the board here liked him)I got around to listening to this episode over the weekend, and I didn't find that exchange quite that bad. I got the sense that Amanda was incredulous that Sean would go from not liking WandaVision, to liking it, because he read some things online after he watched the first 2 episodes. We can debate that take, but it doesn't seem completely outlandish to me.
I haven't been listening to The Watch for a long time, so maybe Amanda will wear on me the way she has some of you. But I don't find her terrible.
It is up there with the word "elite" for me.The term Unicorn is so forced and overused that I refuse to listen to that podcast.
Yeah that’s why Chris Ryan is good to have around (he corrects the record that Sigourney Weaver was the first woman bad ass in an action movie), but even he can’t call it out all the time. Like T2 is not the “first summer blockbuster” that was supposed to be one or whatever post-hoc justification he made up. Come the fuck on Bill.Jim Belushi was not in Raw Deal. Jim Belushi was in Red Heat.
Additionally, the scene in which Linda Hamilton performs pullups on an upturned hospital bed is in no way "one of the most iconic scenes in movie history." It's a great reintroduction to a character - and an iconic scene in Terminator 2: Judgment Day - but come the fuck on.
I love The Rewatchables, but the errors - and hyperbole - are a bit grating.
Ryan, Fennessey, and Morris are clearly the most knowledgeable people on the podcast. I always appreciate someone who actually knows what the fuck he's talking about.Yeah that’s why Chris Ryan is good to have around (he corrects the record that Sigourney Weaver was the first woman bad ass in an action movie), but even he can’t call it out all the time. Like T2 is not the “first summer blockbuster” that was supposed to be one or whatever post-hoc justification he made up. Come the fuck on Bill.
But this...THIS...is the sterling content this thread is for, right?I figure they read this forum and it’s causing some tension
But this...THIS...is the sterling content this thread is for, right?
It pretty clearly matters to some people. Otherwise we wouldn't post about it.It’s like you guys want to turn the thread into the nitpicks segment of the Rewatchables. Who gives a fuck about these minor errors. Bill is wrong many many times....it just doesn’t matter
View: https://youtu.be/XM4jJc8w4H0
In this vein - Bill often refers to "Entertainment Weekly" as some sort of mid-to-late-90s bible that cool people who were serious about film would often read. I'm a little young for this so maybe I'm misremembering, but was that really a thing? I thought EW was for grandmas and the cool people were reading Village Voice or Boston Phoenix or some other independent publication to stay on top of stuff.Having a subscription to Premiere in the early 1990's doesn't make one Pauline Kael.
The early and mid-90s Entertainment Weekly was a trade magazine for the masses: A publication that promised to make consumers, whether 11 or 45, into near-experts. It took a while to figure out the format — at first, it was a little too snobby New Yorker and not enough Henry Luce-style middlebrow — but by the mid-90s, it had hit its stride.
But doing what its readers liked and doing what its parent company Time Warner needed did not always, or even often, coincide. Entertainment Weekly premiered just about a month after the completion of the merger of Time Inc. and Warner Communications in 1990, and they were entrusted to convey to stockholders, to industry observers and to the world that the union of two media empires, with two distinct styles of operation and implicit and explicit goals, was, in fact, an act of corporate genius.
...
EW’s rise, scattered identity, brilliant heyday and slow, gradual decline mirrors the same journey of Time Warner’s conglomerate hopes and dreams. The leading magazine company weds a film and television giant? It all looked so great on paper. But here we are with the EW of today, and it’s clear: Just because it looks pretty in a business plan doesn’t mean it’s a good idea at all.
In this vein - Bill often refers to "Entertainment Weekly" as some sort of mid-to-late-90s bible that cool people who were serious about film would often read. I'm a little young for this so maybe I'm misremembering, but was that really a thing? I thought EW was for grandmas and the cool people were reading Village Voice or Boston Phoenix or some other independent publication to stay on top of stuff.
EW was pretty great back in the 80s -- calling it a more sophisticated version of People Magazine is accurate, but also probably undersells it. It would provide well-written reviews and features not only of the big studio movies hitting the multiplexes, but also significant independent films which you really didn't learn about in any other popular resource. Not as academic or challenging as Premiere (much less real film journals), but they had a staff sense of "quality". Ty Burr, who many of you may know as the (excellent, to my thinking) lead film critic of the Boston Globe was a frequent contributor there at the time.In this vein - Bill often refers to "Entertainment Weekly" as some sort of mid-to-late-90s bible that cool people who were serious about film would often read. I'm a little young for this so maybe I'm misremembering, but was that really a thing? I thought EW was for grandmas and the cool people were reading Village Voice or Boston Phoenix or some other independent publication to stay on top of stuff.
100% this. I'm not saying this makes Bill cool, but pre-internet, these season movie previews were often the first I had heard of a lot of upcoming releases.This is not indicative of anything, but the only mail I regularly received at my fraternity house in the late nineties was my EW subscription. Now, you see 20 variations of "what's coming and going from Netflix this February" in your twitter feed a day, but EW was my source for industry news before I turned to the internet. I loved the Fall (Winter, Spring, Summer) movie previews. 3 months later we'd see a trailer and I could throw out a tidbit about casting changes or on-set issues and sound like a real know-it-all that helped me not at all woo the ladies.
I wonder if Leather thinks this post is combative. Probably, but also solidly accurate. In fact, it seems pretty fine to me.I’d like a few more paragraphs, or pages, or volumes actually on why you are smarter and have better taste on every subject than anyone else that has ever lived but I don’t always get that so I do what I can to keep this thread at the top so you will grace it with your presence.
This written in 2014, too.I haven't read this entire piece (it's long and I'm "working") but it sounds like it went through a pretty big transformation from its founding in 1990 to at least 2014. The three covers of Jessica Alba are likely telling.
The Trials of 'Entertainment Weekly': One Magazine's 24 Years of Corporate Torture
by Anne Helen PetersenJessica Alba on the cover of Entertainment Weekly in March of 2001, summer of 2006, and again this month.When I was a young and odd child, one of the oddest things I did was collect ...www.theawl.com
It's tough for those of us of a certain age (I'm 47) to properly explain how important those magazines were to learning about pop culture, movies, TV, music, etc. I used to devour Rolling Stone, Circus, Kerrang, EW, Premiere, etc. back in the late 80s/90s. Hell, I recall buying an annual book of Leonard Maltin's movie reviews that I'd read incessantly. There was just nowhere else to turn for that kind of info.Thanks for that context - I had no idea. It's pretty hard to parse the way Bill uses the royal we vs. I. For example, "Back in the mid-90s, we used to read Entertainment Weekly to know what movies were cool" vs. "Back in the mid-90s, I used to read Entertainment Weekly to know what movies were cool."
It's tough for those of us of a certain age (I'm 47) to properly explain how important those magazines were to learning about pop culture, movies, TV, music, etc. I used to devour Rolling Stone, Circus, Kerrang, EW, Premiere, etc. back in the late 80s/90s. Hell, I recall buying an annual book of Leonard Maltin's movie reviews that I'd read incessantly. There was just nowhere else to turn for that kind of info.
I was a 90s EW subscriber and the thing I remember most were the little blurbs about the TV shows airing in the coming week. Many of them were pretty damned funny from what I recall.EW was pretty great back in the 80s -- calling it a more sophisticated version of People Magazine is accurate, but also probably undersells it. It would provide well-written reviews and features not only of the big studio movies hitting the multiplexes, but also significant independent films which you really didn't learn about in any other popular resource. Not as academic or challenging as Premiere (much less real film journals), but they had a staff sense of "quality". Ty Burr, who many of you may know as the (excellent, to my thinking) lead film critic of the Boston Globe was a frequent contributor there at the time.
I'm not saying it qualifies you to be a movie critic any more than reading Rolling Stone in the 80s qualifies you to be a music critic, but it's definitely not an eye-roll of a reference.
I think they back that out from the timeline not that it’s explicitly stated in T2The T2 Rewatchable was great, of course, but all 3 kept saying John Connor was 10 (while Edward Furlong was 13). Is that true? I always thought JC was supposed to be a young teenager.
The Batman movie released in 1989 had a much bigger takeover of the culture that summer than T2 did in 1991. Not only was there a Prince album release tied to it with a video in heavy rotation on MTV ("Batdance"), but MTV also ran a "win the Batmobile" contest. And you could not walk down a street that summer without running into someone wearing a t-shirt with the bat symbol on it.Yeah that’s why Chris Ryan is good to have around (he corrects the record that Sigourney Weaver was the first woman bad ass in an action movie), but even he can’t call it out all the time. Like T2 is not the “first summer blockbuster” that was supposed to be one or whatever post-hoc justification he made up. Come the fuck on Bill.
E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark, Return of the Jedi... All movies marketed and cross-promoted to the teeth to take advantage of the summer movie season.The Batman movie released in 1989 had a much bigger takeover of the culture that summer than T2 did in 1991. Not only was there a Prince album release tied to it with a video in heavy rotation on MTV ("Batdance"), but MTV also ran a "win the Batmobile" contest. And you could not walk down a street that summer without running into someone wearing a t-shirt with the bat symbol on it.
That was a funny few minutes of conversation. They seemed torn on whether or not T2 was a purposeful or accidental "first" summer blockbuster.The Batman movie released in 1989 had a much bigger takeover of the culture that summer than T2 did in 1991. Not only was there a Prince album release tied to it with a video in heavy rotation on MTV ("Batdance"), but MTV also ran a "win the Batmobile" contest. And you could not walk down a street that summer without running into someone wearing a t-shirt with the bat symbol on it.