The Ringer

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,227
Also, Dead Poets Society was released in 1989, for which Williams was nominated for an Oscar.
That’s true. And I had forgotten about Awakenings (and I guess Moscow on the Hudson). That said, I still think it was a notable shift from him that got a lot of attention because it came after a huge hot streak of massive comedic/light-hearted hits and big budget films: Mrs. Doubtfire, Aladdin, Hook, Jumanji, The Birdcage, Flubber. He was America’s funny man at that point. When GWH came out it was surprising that he chose such a straight role.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
715
That’s true. And I had forgotten about Awakenings (and I guess Moscow on the Hudson). That said, I still think it was a notable shift from him that got a lot of attention because it came after a huge hot streak of massive comedic/light-hearted hits and big budget films: Mrs. Doubtfire, Aladdin, Hook, Jumanji, The Birdcage, Flubber. He was America’s funny man at that point. When GWH came out it was surprising that he chose such a straight role.
Yeah, he'd also done Fisher King (got an oscar nod for that one, too) and Being Human, though. I agree with your overall point re: Simmons, but Williams had a pretty decent drama resume before doing GWH.
 

Vandalman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,752
SE Mass
Back to Titanic redux for a moment. I can't believe neither Bill nor Van could name the actress who played the Irish mother who put her children to bed and told them a story rather than exit the ship. They knew she was in T2 as John Connor's foster mom and in Lethal Weapon 2. I'm pretty sure Bill has mentioned Aliens as one of his binky movies, yet he could not place Jenette Goldstein, who was great as Sanchez in Aliens.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
9,277
That’s true. And I had forgotten about Awakenings (and I guess Moscow on the Hudson). That said, I still think it was a notable shift from him that got a lot of attention because it came after a huge hot streak of massive comedic/light-hearted hits and big budget films: Mrs. Doubtfire, Aladdin, Hook, Jumanji, The Birdcage, Flubber. He was America’s funny man at that point. When GWH came out it was surprising that he chose such a straight role.
And- ever consistent- Simmons has repeatedly talked about how much he loves Moscow on the Hudson and Garp.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,227
And- ever consistent- Simmons has repeatedly talked about how much he loves Moscow on the Hudson and Garp.
Then why doesn't he pick these for the podcast? Garp, especially, would be an interesting choice (although it would require Fennessy, at a minimum, to help out with the book adaptation discussion and to prevent Simmons from putting his foot halfway down his own throat when discussing Lithgow's character).
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,280
South Dartmouth, MA
I wonder sometimes if they are tailoring Rewatchables pods to specific ages based on their listener stats? Specifically...my age range (I'm 40). When GWH came out I 100% thought of Robin Williams as a big comedy/family movie start (kudos to @Leather for the list he laid out above). And I had seen, and loved, Dead Poets Society by then. Yet still it was indeed a huge shift to the point where I remember discussing with friends before the movie started why Robin Williams was in a "serious" movie.
As far as I know they've done a rewatchables on Dead Poets, but not on Good Morning, Vietnam. Would love one though...would decidedly not love one about Being Human. That movie sucked. And I say that as someone who took the actress that played his daughter in the last section to a summer camp banquet.
 

Wingack

Yankee Mod
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
31,142
In The Quivering Forest
I've been listening to The Town, Matt Beloni's (former Hollywood Reporter editor) podcast on the business-side of entertainment. Quick, 20 minute episodes, looks like a couple of times a week; easy to listen too and I feel like I'm learning things.
Yeah this is a good, quick, and informative pod. Definitely feel like you are getting insider info from him.
 

Bozo Texino

still hates Dave Kerpen
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
9,643
Austin, Texas
Back to Titanic redux for a moment. I can't believe neither Bill nor Van could name the actress who played the Irish mother who put her children to bed and told them a story rather than exit the ship. They knew she was in T2 as John Connor's foster mom and in Lethal Weapon 2. I'm pretty sure Bill has mentioned Aliens as one of his binky movies, yet he could not place Jenette Goldstein, who was great as Sanchez in Aliens.
Vasquez, but yeah - both Bill and Van should've been able to place her.
 

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
1,999
Another great episode of Rewatchables for Panic Room (great movie btw. I hadn’t seen it in 15ish years and rewatched for this).

Bill recasting minor roles with major actors has to be a bit at this point right? I don’t think he’s self aware enough but Andy Garcia as the real estate agent who’s in the movie for 45 seconds at the very beginning? Anthony Hopkins as the ex who is there to get beat on? Does he think movies have unlimited actor budgets?
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,534
Another great episode of Rewatchables for Panic Room (great movie btw. I hadn’t seen it in 15ish years and rewatched for this).

Bill recasting minor roles with major actors has to be a bit at this point right? I don’t think he’s self aware enough but Andy Garcia as the real estate agent who’s in the movie for 45 seconds at the very beginning? Anthony Hopkins as the ex who is there to get beat on? Does he think movies have unlimited actor budgets?
Bill wanting to recast Garcia as the real estate agent is a bit. He is 100% in on the joke at this point.
 

CantKeepmedown

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,381
Portland, ME
I liked Sean and Chris challenging Bill on why Bill thought Contact was a bad movie. And the only answer Bill could give was, "it was bad because it was bad". And then going with what the narrative was back then (no chemistry between Foster and McConaughey, people thought it was weird, people were disappointed). Like Bill thought it was bad because that's what everyone else thought.

Fun pod. I'm looking forward to watching this one again. Watched it once when it came out and haven't really thought much about it since then.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
9,277
I liked Sean and Chris challenging Bill on why Bill thought Contact was a bad movie. And the only answer Bill could give was, "it was bad because it was bad". And then going with what the narrative was back then (no chemistry between Foster and McConaughey, people thought it was weird, people were disappointed). Like Bill thought it was bad because that's what everyone else thought.

Fun pod. I'm looking forward to watching this one again. Watched it once when it came out and haven't really thought much about it since then.
In the "bust on Bill" category, Chris giving him shit for not remembering that The Watch used to be called Hollywood Prospectus- while Sean just cackled uncontrollably in the background- was sublime.
 

TheGazelle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2009
980
The Panic Room pod was great, and it's a good example of why BS/Chris/Sean works really as a trifecta for that pod. I love Van and some of the other folks who come in (it's probably about time for Mallory Rubin to come off the top rope in one of these), but that core three are always great.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,901
New York City
The Panic Room pod was great, and it's a good example of why BS/Chris/Sean works really as a trifecta for that pod. I love Van and some of the other folks who come in (it's probably about time for Mallory Rubin to come off the top rope in one of these), but that core three are always great.
Replace Simmons with Van and Chris, Sean, and Van would deliver gold.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
715
On this week's Upside High, Tjarks shared that his first two chemo treatments didn't put his cancer in remission, Since these are the most critical for remission, subsequent treatments will be about mitigation and extending life. He won't be doing podcasts anymore so that he can focus his time on more important things.

If you're a fan of his work, I recommend listening to the episode because it's really emotional - it's the first time I'd been close to crying listening to a podcast. I'm an atheist, but the way he talks about his faith and how it's impacted his life is really inspiring and I truly take something away from it despite being a born skeptic. He's so young to be going through this - barely 30 - and what he shares about his experience with cancer puts a lot of things into perspective.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
17,599
On this week's Upside High, Tjarks shared that his first two chemo treatments didn't put his cancer in remission, Since these are the most critical for remission, subsequent treatments will be about mitigation and extending life. He won't be doing podcasts anymore so that he can focus his time on more important things.

If you're a fan of his work, I recommend listening to the episode because it's really emotional - it's the first time I'd been close to crying listening to a podcast. I'm an atheist, but the way he talks about his faith and how it's impacted his life is really inspiring and I truly take something away from it despite being a born skeptic. He's so young to be going through this - barely 30 - and what he shares about his experience with cancer puts a lot of things into perspective.
Thank you for sharing. I feel so bad for him, cancer is such a truly awful thing. The story he wrote a couple of weeks ago about his son was really sad, but it was a great piece.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
41,284
Hartford, CT
On this week's Upside High, Tjarks shared that his first two chemo treatments didn't put his cancer in remission, Since these are the most critical for remission, subsequent treatments will be about mitigation and extending life. He won't be doing podcasts anymore so that he can focus his time on more important things.

If you're a fan of his work, I recommend listening to the episode because it's really emotional - it's the first time I'd been close to crying listening to a podcast. I'm an atheist, but the way he talks about his faith and how it's impacted his life is really inspiring and I truly take something away from it despite being a born skeptic. He's so young to be going through this - barely 30 - and what he shares about his experience with cancer puts a lot of things into perspective.
That was incredibly tough to listen to. I don’t think I would as composed as he is about what is very likely, and which he seems to know is very likely, a short runway for him.

I don’t know what else to say, really. Fucking cancer.
 

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
3,290
Florida
I know I'm late to this, but I listened to the pod this morning and was dying laughing at the Rose takes. Just phenomenal podcasting. Van screaming about Rose being an awful person made my morning.
I listened to it today and next to Jaws it’s my favorite Rewatchable, Van and Bill we’re on fire “let me make this room on the boat more comfortable by putting up 10 pictures of ME!” Lololol this was a terrific listen, so so good.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
3,863
Amstredam
Anyone listen to RingerFC?

I listened to there world cup draw podcast and kinda hated it. I am looking for good soccer podcasts, should I give it another try?
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
19,287
Anyone listen to RingerFC?

I listened to there world cup draw podcast and kinda hated it. I am looking for good soccer podcasts, should I give it another try?
I haven't listened to the revamped version of it. My go-to soccer podcast is Caught Offside. An Irish fan and American fan, one a Liverpool supporter and the other a Tottenham fan, and they have a good dynamic and talk a lot of national team soccer.
 

ernieshore

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2006
1,743
The Camel City

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
9,277
This was pretty incredible.
I could just be really high, but from the "It's it a Christmas movie?" part on, that might have been the most brutal co-hosts have been to Simmons that I've heard. Chris just being hilarious, and Sean being secure enough at the top of the company food chain to just lay into the sarcasm.

Actually, rewind a little: from a good bit earlier Fennessey's sarcasm was pretty dripping. At least from the casting suggestions on. (How about Jane Pauley?).
 
Last edited:

Phil Plantier

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2002
3,245
The Guardian's Football Weekly podcast is the best one I've found (which they release about every couple days or so).
https://www.theguardian.com/football/series/footballweekly

I really like the 2 Robbies chemistry, but their audio is usually terrible.
The original host of Football Weekly does his show on The Athletic now (free with ads): https://theathletic.com/podcast/200-the-totally-football-show/

If you're willing to go a bit further afield, and watch a lot of Premier League telecasts, I highly recommend Football Cliches
https://theathletic.com/podcast/164-football-cliches/

And an old friend, World Football Phone-in. If you're interested in how football is a world game. Schedule is a bit messy now, but as long as Dotun and Tim want to talk, I want to listen

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02p9f7d/episodes/downloads
 

Bunt4aTriple

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,375
North Yarmouth, ME
I just listened to half of Ep 2, and— sorry to say— I think I'm out. It has the same disappointingly vanilla delivery as the first episode.

I don't understand Jackie's approach to this. If you're the kind of fan who nerds out on NBA history, then you need clearly some some new material or new angle to keep your interest. She approaches the podcast as though it's for people who don't know the first thing about the NBA history before 1980— but it's hard to imagine many of these people suddenly developing an appetite for long podcasts about NBA players from 50-70 years ago anyway. So, I don't understand who she thinks her audience is.

It's also annoying how the connective tissue of the series is supposed to be NBA greats passing the torch by reaching out to a younger generation and giving them advice. It doesn't work because she mostly can't go into detail about what was discussed in these conversations, so it just turns into, "Wow, Bill Russell once called Dr. J to give him advice... and then Dr. J once called Charles Barkley to give him advice" and so on.

Edit: grammar
I can understand the criticism up thread, but I just wrapped up the series (7 episodes total) and I enjoyed it. Of course, there was retread information, but I dispute that this was exclusively for hoops heads and there are several generations that likely haven't heard any of these stories.

Surprisingly, I think the last episode on current icons was my favorite of all. She gave Lebron justifiable praise for his on and off-court work, but also didn't shy away from any of his controversies.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
17,599
I can understand the criticism up thread, but I just wrapped up the series (7 episodes total) and I enjoyed it. Of course, there was retread information, but I dispute that this was exclusively for hoops heads and there are several generations that likely haven't heard any of these stories.

Surprisingly, I think the last episode on current icons was my favorite of all. She gave Lebron justifiable praise for his on and off-court work, but also didn't shy away from any of his controversies.
Thanks for the follow-up. It’s still on my list of things to get to, and I’m glad it picks up a bit.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,227
Caveat: I'm only 1/2 the way through, but I think the newest Rewatchables on Spider-Man (2002) is a good example of what makes for a weak episode, and why Simmons is valuable (if not essential) to the show.

Lathan is a great guest because he brings a unique blend of appreciation and skepticism (and hilarity), but he's not great with the trivia, historical stuff, or technical filmmaking info (that's typically Fennessy's corner, although Ryan and Mallory Rubin can hold their own). But when you pair him with a straight-up Spider Man fanboy like Charles Holmes, it ends up just being a hagiography, and their attempts at sussing out "historical" reasons that support their adoration end up coming across as cherry picking or selective perspective. I mean, at one point Holmes blathers about how Spider Man set the template for modern superhero movies by introducing a character, how he gets his powers, and what's important to him in the first 40 minutes (note: this is also called a standard first act and was used in Super Man and Batman), and then in the next sentence says that he tried to watch a Tom Holland SM movie and his wife was confused because there were aliens and backstory right at the beginning (which is the *opposite* of how he described the original Spider Man first act) and concludes: "So yeah, Spider Man set the template for the next 20 years!"

Simmons is good in those situations because he isn't afraid to call a sort of time out and say "Wait, what?"
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,277
Maine
Caveat: I'm only 1/2 the way through, but I think the newest Rewatchables on Spider-Man (2002) is a good example of what makes for a weak episode, and why Simmons is valuable (if not essential) to the show.

Lathan is a great guest because he brings a unique blend of appreciation and skepticism (and hilarity), but he's not great with the trivia, historical stuff, or technical filmmaking info (that's typically Fennessy's corner, although Ryan and Mallory Rubin can hold their own). But when you pair him with a straight-up Spider Man fanboy like Charles Holmes, it ends up just being a hagiography, and their attempts at sussing out "historical" reasons that support their adoration end up coming across as cherry picking or selective perspective. I mean, at one point Holmes blathers about how Spider Man set the template for modern superhero movies by introducing a character, how he gets his powers, and what's important to him in the first 40 minutes (note: this is also called a standard first act in, well, most movies), and then in the next sentence says that he tried to watch a Tom Holland SM movie and his wife was confused because there were aliens and backstory right at the beginning (which is the *opposite* of how he described the original Spider Man) and concludes: "So yeah, Spider Man set the template for the next 20 years!"

Simmons is good in those situations because he isn't afraid to call a sort of time out and say "Wait, what?"
He's so right. I mean the 2002 Spider-Man movie absolutely set the superhero template for the 1978 Superman movie.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,901
New York City
The problem is Coke Baby Chuck is the worst host on the Ringerverse. His takes are wild, hence his Ringerverse nickname. I think if they added a 3rd guy onto the Spiderman pod, it would have been so much better. Fennessy or Ryan.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
He's so right. I mean the 2002 Spider-Man movie absolutely set the superhero template for the 1978 Superman movie.
I haven't listened yet, but if anything it sounds like they pulled a Simmons, as in "I'm stating definitely that the first instance of this thing occurring is the first time I took notice of it occurring. History begins and ends with my own experiences."
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,227
He's so right. I mean the 2002 Spider-Man movie absolutely set the superhero template for the 1978 Superman movie.
Hah! I edited my post to point that out as you were responding.

Holmes also waves away the X-Men movie (2000), which I believe is generally regarded as the re-boot of superhero movies that brought us to where we are now. That movie did big business (third biggest opening day ever at the time) and brought in some serious actors (McKellan, namely) to play serious-ish parts after the ham-ball movie star fest that the Batman series had become.

Also, he makes what he thinks is a profound point about how the stars of blockbuster franchises in the early 2000s (he notes the Star Wars prequels, Spider Man, and the Lord of the Rings) all flamed out afterwards while the stars of the current Superhero movies don't, and the obvious reason for that is the newer movies use older actors, many of whom are pre-established (he also omits Keanu Reeves from his thesis which would have immediately illustrated the point). But hilariously, he says "Well, you know, back then nobody knew what to do with an actor after their superhero role! What did Danielle Radcliffe do? But now, they have it figured out, like Chadwick Boseman is in Black Panther and then they know "Hey, this guy can be in other movies as Black Panther too!"
 

shlincoln

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2009
1,923
Holmes also waves away the X-Men movie (2000), which I believe is generally regarded as the re-boot of superhero movies that brought us to where we are now. That movie did big business (third biggest opening day ever at the time) and brought in some serious actors (McKellan, namely) to play serious-ish parts after the ham-ball movie star fest that the Batman series had become.
And most importantly, it's the first Marvel movie Kevin Feige was a producer on. if there's any pre-MCU movie most responsible for the MCU it's probably X-men. Though I suspect Spider-Man is the better regarded movie now. Certainly had a less, uh, problematic team behind the camera.

The problem is Coke Baby Chuck is the worst host on the Ringerverse. His takes are wild, hence his Ringerverse nickname. I think if they added a 3rd guy onto the Spiderman pod, it would have been so much better. Fennessy or Ryan.
I don't mind a critic who is actually critical, Mallory's relentless positivity can be just as grating, but yeah sometimes his critiques are just weird. really, the only regular Ringerverse host who doesn't regularly set my teeth on edge is Jo.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
9,277
I haven't listened yet, but if anything it sounds like they pulled a Simmons, as in "I'm stating definitely that the first instance of this thing occurring is the first time I took notice of it occurring. History begins and ends with my own experiences."
It's very much like a Simmons two-hander, just without Simmons.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
19,287
I know I'm like, the only person in the world that this really bothers; but I can't stress enough how annoyed I am that The Ringer has a corporate partnership with WWE. It destroys any form of honest criticism and is a major ethical question for a site that believes it has a reasonably high journalistic standard. It's just so gross and makes me really disappointed in the entire operation of the site; just selling out to have a partner in content generation.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
27,709
Washington DC
I know I'm like, the only person in the world that this really bothers; but I can't stress enough how annoyed I am that The Ringer has a corporate partnership with WWE. It destroys any form of honest criticism and is a major ethical question for a site that believes it has a reasonably high journalistic standard. It's just so gross and makes me really disappointed in the entire operation of the site; just selling out to have a partner in content generation.
Why do you think there was any doubt about ethics? Like ESPN, the Ringer isn't really a journalistic enterprise in many meaningful ways. It's a part of a largely integrated sports and entertainment ecosytem. If it's a journalistic enterprise, where's the reporting. It's increasingly, lists, power rankings and "thought" pieces. There's little to no actual reporting. The WWE thing is just a really obvious illustration.

I should say, I haven't really noticed too much of a shift in their wrestling coverage since the partnership. In any sort of "real" wrestling journalism, the story all the time, and probaby for damn near every fed, domestic and foreign, would be about health of wrestlers, financial impropriety and so on.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
14,279
New York City
I know I'm like, the only person in the world that this really bothers; but I can't stress enough how annoyed I am that The Ringer has a corporate partnership with WWE. It destroys any form of honest criticism and is a major ethical question for a site that believes it has a reasonably high journalistic standard. It's just so gross and makes me really disappointed in the entire operation of the site; just selling out to have a partner in content generation.
Isn't the bigger issue that pro wrestling is fucking stupid? That said easy enough to ignore the content, and while I've never met a grown-up who I respect who likes pro wrestling, nothing particularly wrong with serving that particular form of dumb fun. [Frankly I enjoy comic book movies and old bond movies a little too much to be judgmental about wrestling fans!]
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
19,287
Why do you think there was any doubt about ethics? Like ESPN, the Ringer isn't really a journalistic enterprise in many meaningful ways. It's a part of a largely integrated sports and entertainment ecosytem. If it's a journalistic enterprise, where's the reporting. It's increasingly, lists, power rankings and "thought" pieces. There's little to no actual reporting. The WWE thing is just a really obvious illustration.

I should say, I haven't really noticed too much of a shift in their wrestling coverage since the partnership. In any sort of "real" wrestling journalism, the story all the time, and probaby for damn near every fed, domestic and foreign, would be about health of wrestlers, financial impropriety and so on.
I don't know man; I think it's different when you are talking about a subjective entertainment entity as opposed to a sports league. In sports there is an obvious distinction between success and failure, and there really isn't an effective way to spin it to convince a lot of people otherwise. Getting into bed with a particular brand, especially during a period where that brand is being competitively challenged for the time in decades, just feels wrong and I feel like if we stepped back and compared this to sports; like if The Ringer signed an exclusive contract with FIFA and only covered FIFA in a positive way, did the PR work for the organization, had FIFA executives on their pods to misrepresent complex situations, The Ringer would be torn to shreds and rightfully so.

A lot of this does come down to my personal frustration with the way the mainstream media covers pro wrestling, and considering that Bill Simmons is probably a bigger fan of it than 99% of other media executives, The Ringer was an outlet that had a chance to be better and it stinks to see them sign a content-sharing deal with WWE. This is not aided in all with just the wretched team of people The Ringer has doing it's wrestling work; just a complete bag of tools and morons with the exception of Phil Schneider. It's incredibly insulting content and frankly very boring.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,534
Caveat: I'm only 1/2 the way through, but I think the newest Rewatchables on Spider-Man (2002) is a good example of what makes for a weak episode, and why Simmons is valuable (if not essential) to the show.

Lathan is a great guest because he brings a unique blend of appreciation and skepticism (and hilarity), but he's not great with the trivia, historical stuff, or technical filmmaking info (that's typically Fennessy's corner, although Ryan and Mallory Rubin can hold their own). But when you pair him with a straight-up Spider Man fanboy like Charles Holmes, it ends up just being a hagiography, and their attempts at sussing out "historical" reasons that support their adoration end up coming across as cherry picking or selective perspective. I mean, at one point Holmes blathers about how Spider Man set the template for modern superhero movies by introducing a character, how he gets his powers, and what's important to him in the first 40 minutes (note: this is also called a standard first act and was used in Super Man and Batman), and then in the next sentence says that he tried to watch a Tom Holland SM movie and his wife was confused because there were aliens and backstory right at the beginning (which is the *opposite* of how he described the original Spider Man first act) and concludes: "So yeah, Spider Man set the template for the next 20 years!"

Simmons is good in those situations because he isn't afraid to call a sort of time out and say "Wait, what?"
This podcast absolutely needed Simmons, and it was a clear example of why he is a necessary component for the podcast even if he isn’t a serious film critic by any stretch. They desperately needed someone to cut the fanboyism and put that movie in better context with what was expected of a superhero movie at the time.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
14,279
New York City
This podcast absolutely needed Simmons, and it was a clear example of why he is a necessary component for the podcast even if he isn’t a serious film critic by any stretch. They desperately needed someone to cut the fanboyism and put that movie in better context with what was expected of a superhero movie at the time.
Agree on the need to reduce "fanboyism" of super hero movies, but Simmons isn't the guy to do it because he simply doesn't watch or get superhero movies. Other than OG batman has he been on any of the rewatchables for any superhero movies?
 

TheGazelle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2009
980
Agree on the need to reduce "fanboyism" of super hero movies, but Simmons isn't the guy to do it because he simply doesn't watch or get superhero movies. Other than OG batman has he been on any of the rewatchables for any superhero movies?
This is probably helping your point, but how many other superhero movies have they done on the rewatachables? I know Dark Knight, which Simmons skipped, but are there even any others?
P
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
14,279
New York City
This is probably helping your point, but how many other superhero movies have they done on the rewatachables? I know Dark Knight, which Simmons skipped, but are there even any others?
P
I think that's it--which I think does support the point. He doesn't like superhero movies, that's fine, but he doesn't seem to be someone who could add a lot of nuance to a discussion of superhero movies.
 

TheGazelle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2009
980
I think that's it--which I think does support the point. He doesn't like superhero movies, that's fine, but he doesn't seem to be someone who could add a lot of nuance to a discussion of superhero movies.
Yeah. That pod could have used someone like Fennessy, who I think would have cranked down the fanboyism and also could have reeled in some of the factual errors pointed out upthread. Although adding Bill would have inevitably led to something about re-casting Michelle Pfeiffer as Aunt May or something .
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
715
Yeah. That pod could have used someone like Fennessy, who I think would have cranked down the fanboyism and also could have reeled in some of the factual errors pointed out upthread. Although adding Bill would have inevitably led to something about re-casting Michelle Pfeiffer as Aunt May or something .
"Why Kirsten Dunst? Seems like that's a role that could've gone to Elizabeth Shue... too old? I dunno, I just didn't like it."