The Ringer

Jun 17, 2022
17
Other highlights of the Unforgiven pod:
-Naming off 1991 movies or 1993 movies as being part of 1992, for his argument 92 was the impactful year for movies, pop culture wise.
-Doing the obligatory recasting of young Leo in a bit part.
-Knighting this as the start of anti-heroes, while CR or SF not bringing up the Dollar series or Dirty Harry as earlier examples of anti-heroes that were iconically portrayed by Clint Eastwood.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
41,229
Hartford, CT
I’m telling you, we are looking at this the wrong way. We need MORE of Simmons on film podcasts, but they need to focus on movies Bill will not understand or want to understand. Preferably foreign films.

I NEED a segment from Bill on why subtitles are dumb, all films should be shot, or at least remade, in English, foreign films aren’t worth seeing, etc. Bill doing 90 minutes with Chris and Sean on any movie made by Tarkovsky, Ozu, Bergman, et al, would be exquisite. (NOTE: I know Bill would never agree to this)

Getting back to the Rewatchables, I gotta think Chris and Sean have given up on battling with him. He’s the boss, can’t be reasoned with, and doesn’t prepare for the podcasts, so why bother? If you listen to, say, their recent podcast with Tarantino - in which Amanda Dobbins is basically hanging on by a string behind the boat as it rockets through choppy waters - it is eye opening how little Chris and Sean are able to do in a discussion with Bill, by contrast. Holmes saying even 1/2 the bullshit Bill spits out about films would spur Van Lathan to string him up.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
53,748
Honestly, though, good for Bill. If I’ve learned anything on my travels, it’s that part of the American dream is becoming so rich and powerful you can say stupid shit and have people still smile and nod because you put money in their pockets. He’s really made it.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
41,229
Hartford, CT
‘Is ‘Cries and Whispers’ Apex Mountain for self inflicted genital mutilation in film?’

‘Recasting couch…I think Ron Howard plays the kid in ‘Ivan’s Childhood’’

Shit writes itself.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
56,497
Rotten Apple
Wait, the first antihero in film - as opposed to, say, the original Scarface 100 years ago, or the first antihero ever, as opposed to Greek mythology and the Bible and Paradise Lost and almost everything ever?
Bill was referring to films but someone could have informed him (perhapes Google or Wiki?) that antiheroes have been around since the beginning of literature and also in film for a very long time. Unforgiven smartly reckons with that history but it's as if they are watching it out of context at times. Personally I'm on team Kael with Clint movies but this one is actually clever about how it cribs from and sends up classic literature. Even the Wiki mentions it borrows structure from Homer. And as a writer he should give some props to the screenwriter who wrote Blade Runner and 12 Monkeys.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
14,200
New York City
‘Is ‘Cries and Whispers’ Apex Mountain for self inflicted genital mutilation in film?’

‘Recasting couch…I think Ron Howard plays the kid in ‘Ivan’s Childhood’’

Shit writes itself.
Damn Francois all that and a motherfucking typewriter. You must be some kind of super director.

Sean mentioned his desire to do some old movies (like apocalypse now) on the there will be blood rewatchables and it really is striking that 200 plus movies in they’ve essentially avoided anything from before the sixties and only a handful from the seventies
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
53,748
Damn Francois all that and a motherfucking typewriter. You must be some kind of super director.

Sean mentioned his desire to do some old movies (like apocalypse now) on the there will be blood rewatchables and it really is striking that 200 plus movies in they’ve essentially avoided anything from before the sixties and only a handful from the seventies
Everyone knows film and TV doesn’t count before Bill began watching as a child.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,892
Needham, MA
Sean mentioned his desire to do some old movies (like apocalypse now) on the there will be blood rewatchables and it really is striking that 200 plus movies in they’ve essentially avoided anything from before the sixties and only a handful from the seventies
I don’t rewatch any movies from before the 70s and reallly few from the 70s themselves (Jaws, Godfathers, etc.). YMMV and all but it’s not all that hard to understand their choices and what they are aiming for. It isn’t a podcast aimed at discussing cinematic excellence, it’s about movies that you catch on TNT or whatever, and watch even though you’ve seen the movie a thousand times.

I am on board with a lot of the Simmons critique in this thread, but being frustrated with their choices for which movies they are going to do on the Rewatchables pod seems ridiculous to me. I’m not a podcast guy, if what you want is an in-depth, intelligent analysis of classic cinema aren’t there other options?
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
14,200
New York City
I don’t rewatch any movies from before the 70s and reallly few from the 70s themselves (Jaws, Godfathers, etc.). YMMV and all but it’s not all that hard to understand their choices and what they are aiming for. It isn’t a podcast aimed at discussing cinematic excellence, it’s about movies that you catch on TNT or whatever, and watch even though you’ve seen the movie a thousand times.

I am on board with a lot of the Simmons critique in this thread, but being frustrated with their choices for which movies they are going to do on the Rewatchables pod seems ridiculous to me. I’m not a podcast guy, if what you want is an in-depth, intelligent analysis of classic cinema aren’t there other options?
Im not saying they should do battleship Potemkin, I’m saying that movies like Casablanca the good the bad and the ugly apocalypse now the great escape and bullit are great fits for thr rewatchable-better than project x- anc actually are the kind of movies Chris Ryan Fennessey and other ringer folks would want to do.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
41,229
Hartford, CT
I don’t rewatch any movies from before the 70s and reallly few from the 70s themselves (Jaws, Godfathers, etc.). YMMV and all but it’s not all that hard to understand their choices and what they are aiming for. It isn’t a podcast aimed at discussing cinematic excellence, it’s about movies that you catch on TNT or whatever, and watch even though you’ve seen the movie a thousand times.

I am on board with a lot of the Simmons critique in this thread, but being frustrated with their choices for which movies they are going to do on the Rewatchables pod seems ridiculous to me. I’m not a podcast guy, if what you want is an in-depth, intelligent analysis of classic cinema aren’t there other options?
Speaking personally, I want them to do older and/or less accessible films because it would be hilarious. I don’t expect/want an attempt at great film analysis from Bill.

So I would say that my ‘frustration’, if you can call it that, is with how little effort he seems to put into the movies they do chronicle, not the ones they don’t. Bill has been at his best for me when he does films like ‘Armageddon’, where he can riff on an elementally simple story rife with absurd melodrama and humor (some of it unintentional). It’s more entertaining and, frankly, not a lot of heavy lifting is required….which is why I watch a movie like that in the first place. By contrast, with ‘Unforgiven,’ while theoretically a great choice for ‘The Rewatchables,’ Bill is a poor choice for a fairly sophisticated moral drama/Western because he’s not up for it.

To build on Shelter’s point, above, I think they’ve tried to lean heavily into more recent films because their target audience is more likely to have seen them. Need those traffic figures to attract advertisers. They could stand to pepper in a classic, audience pleasing film or two, though, rather than doing ‘Heat’ a fourth time.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
714
So I would say that my ‘frustration’, if you can call it that, is with how little effort he seems to put into the movies they do chronicle,
I'm on the same boat. I don't want this podcast to do The Seventh Seal. What's funny is that Bill doesn't like pretentious stuff but then he tries so hard to have sophisticated, pretentious opinions about films like There Will Be Blood and they typically come off as extremely dull. He so dearly wants to be able to say something eloquent and pointed about film, to sound like Ryan and Fennessey, but he's just totally incapable because his reference points are 90210 and Teen Wolf.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
14,147
UWS, NYC
I think the argument that they consider older or more prestigious/international/important films escapes the definition not only of what THIS podcast is (a reconsideration of what's wonderful about movies you originally saw in a movie theater, that subseeeqwently ran a jillion times on TV), but also of what A commercial podcast is (a vehicle designed to generate advertising revenue by servicing advertisements for clients looking for a specific demographic audience).

The Rewatchables isn't a film school, it's a business. If doing a podcast on Citizen Kane would generate more money, rest assured we'd be hearing arguments about how Dorothy Commingore really dialed it up. I doubt classic films have enough accolytes of the right demographic profile to please the good people at Simply Safe, FanDuel, and Miller Lite.

To be fair, Simmons and crew did that thematic "Fucked Up Family" week which broke away from that model. But they admitted it was self-indulgent and also that it was very low-rated. They may try something like that again (Simmons is nothing if not self-indulgent), but it'd certainly be an exception. I'd prefer they didn't.

It's not without less successful episodes, but the Rewatchables hits me square between the ears. I dig it.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
53,748
I'm on the same boat. I don't want this podcast to do The Seventh Seal. What's funny is that Bill doesn't like pretentious stuff but then he tries so hard to have sophisticated, pretentious opinions about films like There Will Be Blood and they typically come off as extremely dull. He so dearly wants to be able to say something eloquent and pointed about film, to sound like Ryan and Fennessey, but he's just totally incapable because his reference points are 90210 and Teen Wolf.
To be fair, Daniel Plainview’s megalomaniacal running of his oil concern was very much like how Nat ran The Peach Pit.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
19,234
IIRC, The Rewatchables started almost as a joke where Bill and Chris would talk about movies they've seen a million times on cable. The first episode they did was Any Given Sunday, followed by Blue Chips. It turned into being a hugely successful part of The Ringer, and a driving force in the Spotify deal. At that point, they had to more protective of what was going on the show (which led to Simmons' infamous "It's not open mic night" comment) since the brand became Bill, Chris, Sean and others talking about not-always-great movies in a semi-serious way. There isn't that much room for experimentation with the format or what movies they are going to discuss.
 

Leskanic's Thread

lost underscore
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,975
Los Angeles
I won't belabor it again, since I know I've mentioned it in the thread...but I feel none of the affection that most of you do towards the Rewatchables. All the quirks of Bill's take on cinema that have been mentioned here make the show insufferable to me. And, frankly, I find Sean Fennessy and his takes to have big "sophomore year cinema studies major" energy. I like all the people involved, but have never enjoyed the show.

I'm posting to say I finally found the outlet where I do find enjoyment of their approaches: the movie drafts on The Big Picture. For some reason, in this format the annoying qualities of Sean (mentioned above) and Amanda (jock-adjacent hatred of anything that might be seen as nerdy or uncool) are an asset instead of an anchor. And Chris Ryan brings some great perspective and a wildcard energy. The combination of reflection and competition bring out the best in them, IMO. I'm disappointed that I've almost fully gone through the backlog of them.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
14,200
New York City
I think the argument that they consider older or more prestigious/international/important films escapes the definition not only of what THIS podcast is (a reconsideration of what's wonderful about movies you originally saw in a movie theater, that subseeeqwently ran a jillion times on TV), but also of what A commercial podcast is (a vehicle designed to generate advertising revenue by servicing advertisements for clients looking for a specific demographic audience).

The Rewatchables isn't a film school, it's a business. If doing a podcast on Citizen Kane would generate more money, rest assured we'd be hearing arguments about how Dorothy Commingore really dialed it up. I doubt classic films have enough accolytes of the right demographic profile to please the good people at Simply Safe, FanDuel, and Miller Lite.

To be fair, Simmons and crew did that thematic "Fucked Up Family" week which broke away from that model. But they admitted it was self-indulgent and also that it was very low-rated. They may try something like that again (Simmons is nothing if not self-indulgent), but it'd certainly be an exception. I'd prefer they didn't.

It's not without less successful episodes, but the Rewatchables hits me square between the ears. I dig it.
Not trying to quibble but I think you’re overestimating the commercial logic of the show.The topic is essentially films that Bill wants to do, period, even though that misses a lot of films that people rewatch a ton (Star Wars Star Trek marvelLOTR Pixar James Bond and for the most part westerns and critically acclaimed movies). Also 200 episodes in the pickings are getting pretty slim so you have to find some decent enough movies somewhere but Bill wants to do Bill things. Or to put it differently they did 8 mm, shooter above the rim and focus-you’re telling me those movies have much broader appeal than Apocalypse Now or the sting?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
53,748
How was the 8mm one? I might listen to my first ever podcast to see who Bill would recast as the Machine. Sydney Sweeney would’ve made a great possibly fake snuff film actress. Best crier in Hollywood right now.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I think the argument that they consider older or more prestigious/international/important films escapes the definition not only of what THIS podcast is (a reconsideration of what's wonderful about movies you originally saw in a movie theater, that subseeeqwently ran a jillion times on TV), but also of what A commercial podcast is (a vehicle designed to generate advertising revenue by servicing advertisements for clients looking for a specific demographic audience).

The Rewatchables isn't a film school, it's a business. If doing a podcast on Citizen Kane would generate more money, rest assured we'd be hearing arguments about how Dorothy Commingore really dialed it up. I doubt classic films have enough accolytes of the right demographic profile to please the good people at Simply Safe, FanDuel, and Miller Lite.

To be fair, Simmons and crew did that thematic "Fucked Up Family" week which broke away from that model. But they admitted it was self-indulgent and also that it was very low-rated. They may try something like that again (Simmons is nothing if not self-indulgent), but it'd certainly be an exception. I'd prefer they didn't.

It's not without less successful episodes, but the Rewatchables hits me square between the ears. I dig it.
I get all that. but all that went out the window when Bill and Chris did Top Gun: Maverick. How many times has that aired on cable?

He's a rich dilettante who does what he wants whenever he wants. That his prerogative. Ours is not to listen if we grow bored with his act or are not interested in the films covered in a given pod. I'm a pretty regular listener to The Rewatchables, but I've skipped a number of them (including Top Gun: Maverick, which I haven't yet seen). I also have listened to hardly any of his pods since the football season ended because I've grown tired of his act, and it now takes a heavy dose of Chris Ryan or Cousin Sal to tolerate his claptrap. I suggest people do the same if they have a problem with any of his pods, whether The Rewatchables or others.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,892
Needham, MA
I mentioned this upthread but one of the first things I did after exiting the theater after seeing Maverick was text my buddies saying this needs a contemporaneous Rewatchables. And I thought the pod was great. Given the point of the Pod and the success of the movie and that its a long awaited sequel to one of the most Rewatchable movies of all time, it seemed like a no-brainer.

I don’t listen to all of the episodes, I had never even heard of Project X so I didn’t listen to that one, and Unforgiven is another that I might skip. Unforgiven is good but I’m not sure I would categorize it as Rewatchable and I haven’t seen it enough times to enjoy the Pod (at least without watching it again first). On the other hand I enjoyed the There Will Be Blood episode even though I’ve only seen that movie maybe twice and it isn’t one of my favorites. I do agree that many of Simmons’ takes on the actual pod are cringeworthy, but I don’t know, Bill with Chris and Sean talking about Superbad or Cocktail or Goodfellas just works for me.

I guess it just feels like the critique of the movie choices is kind of wanting the podcast to be something it just isn’t. I’m a troglodyte when it comes to movies, there’s no way I’d listen to a Casablanca re-watch. Apocalypse Now and the Sting I bet they eventually do.
 
Last edited:

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
714
r to put it differently they did 8 mm, shooter above the rim and focus-you’re telling me those movies have much broader appeal than Apocalypse Now or the sting?
I personally would much rather re-watch Above The Rim before Apocalypse now or The Sting. The latter are objectively better movies, but Above the Rim has more entertainment value to me. I respect Apocalypse Now for its achievement but honestly have no desire to ever watch it again. I feel the same about Citizen Kane, Psycho, The Conversation, Dog Day Afternoon and many other classics. They're just not very fun - a squishy word, sure - and I can see how they're too self-serious to lend themselves to the kind of in-joke roundtable that The Rewatchables is.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
14,147
UWS, NYC
Not trying to quibble but I think you’re overestimating the commercial logic of the show.The topic is essentially films that Bill wants to do, period, even though that misses a lot of films that people rewatch a ton (Star Wars Star Trek marvelLOTR Pixar James Bond and for the most part westerns and critically acclaimed movies). Also 200 episodes in the pickings are getting pretty slim so you have to find some decent enough movies somewhere but Bill wants to do Bill things. Or to put it differently they did 8 mm, shooter above the rim and focus-you’re telling me those movies have much broader appeal than Apocalypse Now or the sting?
I think you're mostly right. Definitely a good point on his disdain for Marvel, Star Wars and LOTR... Star Wars is just an inexcusable omission. That said, The Ringer does have other podcasts that cover than lane pretty exhaustively.

You're definitely right that he has a habit of choosing the occasional film (I cited "Fucked Up Family", though 8mm and Shooter also definitely belong) that is purely a self-indulgence. I'll bet those don't do well, so he's not doing them all the time.

I'd pull out Above the Rim though, which was a pretty entertaining podcast he did with Van and Wos (so of course it was entertaining). While that film isn't hardly a broad commercial hit, I also expect it over-indexes significantly with the basketball-obsessed audience that is The Ringer's stock and trade.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
If he wanted to talk about Top Gun: Maverick, he could have done it with Sean, Amanda, and near-permanent guest host Chris Ryan on The Big Picture. But doing it on The Rewatchables makes the concept of what qualifies as a Rewatchable even fuzzier than what qualifies as an artist's "apex mountain". But I guess that's in keeping with the pod, which has a whole bunch of categories that are fuzzy, except 'recasting couch", which could more properly be labeled, "Bill Simmons indulges his lookism."
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,620
I think you're mostly right. Definitely a good point on his disdain for Marvel, Star Wars and LOTR... Star Wars is just an inexcusable omission. That said, The Ringer does have other podcasts that cover than lane pretty exhaustively.
The thing is Marvel and LOTR movies suck and Star Wars is super saturated. Props to Simmons for skipping these
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,892
Needham, MA
If he wanted to talk about Top Gun: Maverick, he could have done it with Sean, Amanda, and near-permanent guest host Chris Ryan on The Big Picture. But doing it on The Rewatchables makes the concept of what qualifies as a Rewatchable even fuzzier than what qualifies as an artist's "apex mountain". But I guess that's in keeping with the pod, which has a whole bunch of categories that are fuzzy, except 'recasting couch", which could more properly be labeled, "Bill Simmons indulges his lookism."
Sounds like you don’t like the podcast, the person responsible for it, and the construct around the pod itself.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
53,748
If he wanted to talk about Top Gun: Maverick, he could have done it with Sean, Amanda, and near-permanent guest host Chris Ryan on The Big Picture. But doing it on The Rewatchables makes the concept of what qualifies as a Rewatchable even fuzzier than what qualifies as an artist's "apex mountain". But I guess that's in keeping with the pod, which has a whole bunch of categories that are fuzzy, except 'recasting couch", which could more properly be labeled, "Bill Simmons indulges his lookism."
The section is actually called “recasting couch?” Kind of a loaded term these days, no? Especially if it’s mostly Bill slobbering over actresses.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sounds like you don’t like the podcast, the person responsible for it, and the construct around the pod itself.
You're incorrect on all accounts. For the most part, I've given up Simmons' pod other than the football ones he does with Cousin Sal, because his act has grown stale to me. But I usually listen to The Rewatchables if I've seen the movie or like the team doing it (basically if Chris, Sean, Van, or Mal are involved).


The section is actually called “recasting couch?” Kind of a loaded term these days, no? Especially if it’s mostly Bill slobbering over actresses.
Yes. They've acknowledged at times that it's problematic, but have yet to change the title of the segment.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
14,974
Tuukka's refugee camp
If he wanted to talk about Top Gun: Maverick, he could have done it with Sean, Amanda, and near-permanent guest host Chris Ryan on The Big Picture. But doing it on The Rewatchables makes the concept of what qualifies as a Rewatchable even fuzzier than what qualifies as an artist's "apex mountain". But I guess that's in keeping with the pod, which has a whole bunch of categories that are fuzzy, except 'recasting couch", which could more properly be labeled, "Bill Simmons indulges his lookism."
Why do they need a strict definition for what a Rewatchable is? Maverick broke a bunch of norms because it is an exceptional movie in several definitions of that word. It’s not like they’re going to do “Nope” next week. They made an exception for a movie that deserved one. “Fucked Up Family February” is the more egregious example that you should be latching onto.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Why do they need a strict definition for what a Rewatchable is? Maverick broke a bunch of norms because it is an exceptional movie in several definitions of that word. It’s not like they’re going to do “Nope” next week. They made an exception for a movie that deserved one. “Fucked Up Family February” is the more egregious example that you should be latching onto.
It's Bill's sandbox, so he can play with his toys however he wants. But The Rewatchables was set up for movies that had enjoyed a long life on cable/streaming, while The Big Picture is the pod for discussion of current movies.

This discussion started with the idea of what movies do and do not qualify as a "rewatchable", and with Top Gun: Maverick, much like 8MM and some of Bill's other personal picks (he's done a few solo Rewatchables), the real answer is clearly: "whatever Bill decides is a Rewatchable is a Rewatchable" as opposed to "movies we all watched on cable over and over again when we were growing up" or however they describe the focus of the pod whenever they do so.

Again, it's his sandbox, so que sera sera.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,885
New York City
It's Bill's sandbox, so he can play with his toys however he wants. But The Rewatchables was set up for movies that had enjoyed a long life on cable/streaming, while The Big Picture is the pod for discussion of current movies.

This discussion started with the idea of what movies do and do not qualify as a "rewatchable", and with Top Gun: Maverick, much like 8MM and some of Bill's other personal picks (he's done a few solo Rewatchables), the real answer is clearly: "whatever Bill decides is a Rewatchable is a Rewatchable" as opposed to "movies we all watched on cable over and over again when we were growing up" or however they describe the focus of the pod whenever they do so.

Again, it's his sandbox, so que sera sera.
Eventually they were going to run out of movies and had to broaden the approach.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
9,229
The debate over what is and isn't a 'Rewatchable', as if that term had any real meaning, significance, or precedence, is the silliest lawyer nonsense that ever SOSHed.

A Rewatchable is whatever they say it is, for any reason. It's a tautology.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
14,974
Tuukka's refugee camp
It's Bill's sandbox, so he can play with his toys however he wants. But The Rewatchables was set up for movies that had enjoyed a long life on cable/streaming, while The Big Picture is the pod for discussion of current movies.

This discussion started with the idea of what movies do and do not qualify as a "rewatchable", and with Top Gun: Maverick, much like 8MM and some of Bill's other personal picks (he's done a few solo Rewatchables), the real answer is clearly: "whatever Bill decides is a Rewatchable is a Rewatchable" as opposed to "movies we all watched on cable over and over again when we were growing up" or however they describe the focus of the pod whenever they do so.

Again, it's his sandbox, so que sera sera.
I never knew this was up for debate. It’s why certain movies are “ones for him”. Generally your second definition holds. But not always. And it’s fine. This isn’t math with an objective answer.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
14,200
New York City
If you really wanted to define a rewatchable it’s a movie that Bill thinks will make him look good/cool discussing-once it became a hit show they pretty quickly moved away from the formula of having a variety of hosts and went primarily with Bill and a fairly tight circle of folks who podcast well with Bill And while we can all criticize Bill’s taste in movies he is an absolute powerhouse at making content that a pretty broad demographic loves.

I’d still pay good money to see Bill participate
in The Rewatchables: Crtierion Edition as Bill begins recasting Babettes Feast with Kathleen Turner and tries to answer unanswerable questions from Le Corbeau (“why do we care about all the rumormongering in a small French town?”)
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
6,638
Eventually they were going to run out of movies and had to broaden the approach.
I think they've only done movies that were actively in theaters 3 times (Star is Born, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Top Gun:Maverick) and prior to Maverick, it usually dovetailed with awards season/a theme week on the Ringer. Maverick is arguably a special case because its the sequel to an existing rewatchable and it became such an unexpectedly massive hit.

Even avoiding Bill's genre blindspots (sci-fi, fantasy, modern superhero movies), there's still a ton of movies they haven't done from just 1970-1990 alone that seem to fit into Bill's usual wheelhouse (action/heist movies, prestige dramas, horror, rom-coms, broad comedies) and were in the constant cable rotation in the 80's and 90's.

M*A*S*H (1970)
The French Connection (1971)
Dirty Harry (1971)
The Poseidon Adventure (1972)
The Exorcist (1973)
The Sting (1973)
Serpico (1973)
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Towering Inferno (1974)
The Longest Yard (1974)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
Rollerball (1975)
The Bad News Bears (1976)
The Omen (1976)
Carrie (1976)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Smoky and the Bandit (1977)
Slap Shot (1977)
Bad News Bears: Breaking Training (1977)
Animal House (1978)
Heaven Can Wait (1978)
The Deer Hunter (1978)
Superman (1978)
The Amityville Horror (1979)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Alien (1979)
The Jerk (1979)
The China Syndrome (1979)
The Blues Brothers (1980)
Urban Cowboy (1980)
Arthur (1981)
The Cannonball Run (1981)
An Officer and a Gentelman (1982)
Poltergeist (1982)
Night Shift (1982)
Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)
Diner (1982)
Tootsie (1982)
Trading Places (1983)
Eddie and the Cruisers (1983)
WarGames (1983)
National Lampoon's Vacation (1983)
Risky Business (1983)
All the Right Moves (1983)
Ghostbusters (1984)
Splash (1984)
Footloose (1984)
Red Dawn (1984)
Sixteen Candles (1984)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
The Goonies (1985)
Spies Like Us (1985)
Better Off Dead (1985)
Back to School (1986)
Aliens (1986)
Youngblood (1986)
Platoon (1987)
Robocop (1987)
The Running Man (1987)
No Way Out (1987)
Raising Arizona (1987)
Dirty Dancing (1987)
Good Morning Vietnam (1987)
Big (1988)
Beetlejuice (1988)
Eight Men Out (1988)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Weekend At Bernie's (1989)
Road House (1989)
Tango & Cash (1989)
The Hunt For Red October (1990)
Days of Thunder (1990)
 
Last edited:

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,885
New York City
Cannonball Run would be an awesome choice. So would Wargames and Trading Places. That entire list is pretty awesome, in fact.

There is still plenty of meat left on the Rewatchables bone.

But I would bet there isn't a person under 30 who has even heard of Cannonball Run.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
14,974
Tuukka's refugee camp
I’m 34 and the only reason I know it is because of Celebrity Jeopardy. I do know Trading Places very well and assume that’s a function of what Comedy Central played more often growing up.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
18,823
Unreal America
Cannonball Run would be an awesome choice. So would Wargames and Trading Places. That entire list is pretty awesome, in fact.

There is still plenty of meat left on the Rewatchables bone.

But I would bet there isn't a person under 30 who has even heard of Cannonball Run.
In fairness, I doubt there are many people under 30 who listen to the Rewatchables.

It is my 2nd favorite podcast, trailing only 60 Songs that Explain the 90s. Bill is what he is, and on that pod he's a great hang for an hour.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,885
New York City
In fairness, I doubt there are many people under 30 who listen to the Rewatchables.

It is my 2nd favorite podcast, trailing only 60 Songs that Explain the 90s. Bill is what he is, and on that pod he's a great hang for an hour.
I very much don't agree with that. But I am just guessing, of course.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
19,234
As SOSH's resident young person, I really like The Rewatchables but a lot of the movies I haven't seen tend to be the lesser-known films from the 70s/80s that were popular in their time with people in Bill/Chris/Sean's demographic (which overlaps tremendously with the SOSH demographic) but if you were not around during that time period, you probably don't hear about them much (Cannonball Run is a good example).
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
18,823
Unreal America
I very much don't agree with that. But I am just guessing, of course.
Unfortunately audience profile data for podcasts is hard to come by. Just given my knowledge of the space, while podcasts skew much younger than traditional radio, I'm skeptical that a large share of The Rewatchable audience is under 30. Now, 35-54... absolutely. I'd guess that's the sweet spot. But for a show about rewatching movies on cable, largely focused on films from the late 70s, 80s and 90s, I think there's a lot less appeal to those in their 20s.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
53,748
Does Bill attract a younger audience as well? I figured most of his fans had been with him since the ESPN days or before. I can’t imagine he’s too cool or appealing to under-30s.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
18,823
Unreal America
Does Bill attract a younger audience as well? I figured most of his fans had been with him since the ESPN days or before. I can’t imagine he’s too cool or appealing to under-30s.
Generally speaking, personalities that appeal young Millenials and Gen Z tend to populate social platforms. Bill's inconsistently on Twitter, and his YouTube numbers are really weak. Not sure about Tik Tok or Instagram, but I don't think he has a presence there.

So it'd surprise me if he had a sizable under-30 following.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
56,497
Rotten Apple
For the curious, Fennessey does re-watches on his own and posts those reviews on his letterboxd account: https://letterboxd.com/seanfennessey/
Includes a bunch of titles that won't qualify as a Rewatchable. As best as I can tell, a RW is a film that qualified for the podcast is a movie that circulated on cable TV for a long time and/or Bill just wants to do it.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
19,234
Does Bill attract a younger audience as well? I figured most of his fans had been with him since the ESPN days or before. I can’t imagine he’s too cool or appealing to under-30s.
I can't speak too broadly, but I would say that people in their mid-to-late-20s like myself are pretty well aware of Bill Simmons and consume his content on a regular basis, similar to any older demographics. The Rewatchables is perhaps not a great example because it caters to a specific Simmons-aged demographic, but I think his regular podcast is popular with Late Millennials. I'm obviously a big fan, but plenty of people I know are also fans.

Younger than me, like Gen Z? It's hard to tell; Bill is a digital figure, which helps. He isn't relying anymore on print or TV to reach audiences, he does social media and podcasts. At the same time, I feel like he is constantly being dragged on social media for bad takez, which would give off the impression he is unpopular on those platforms. Of course, people like SAS are also constantly getting dragged, and he is certainly very popular with younger people.

My original introduction to Simmons was his Page 2 columns in ESPN the Magazine. Then I read his books and started listening to his podcasts. That was a direct interaction, I read what Simmons wrote and decided I liked it. Today, I imagine most people are hearing about Simmons for the first time through something on social media, which often will be negative, and I wonder if that plays a role in whether or not younger fans take him seriously or end up becoming regular listeners.
 

jmcc5400

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
3,862
The Can't Buy Me Love podcast is hilarious both in its solepsism (no, Bill, "you shit on my house" is not a top 6 iconic sceneof the '80s; in fact no one really saw the movie until it ran on cable again and again) and on its own terms. Bill and Juliet dumping on Amanda Peterson's poem ("together as two") was laugh out loud funny and the kind of attention to utterly banal detail that makes the Rewatchables such a delight.
 
Jun 17, 2022
17
I can't speak too broadly, but I would say that people in their mid-to-late-20s like myself are pretty well aware of Bill Simmons and consume his content on a regular basis, similar to any older demographics. The Rewatchables is perhaps not a great example because it caters to a specific Simmons-aged demographic, but I think his regular podcast is popular with Late Millennials. I'm obviously a big fan, but plenty of people I know are also fans.

Younger than me, like Gen Z? It's hard to tell; Bill is a digital figure, which helps. He isn't relying anymore on print or TV to reach audiences, he does social media and podcasts. At the same time, I feel like he is constantly being dragged on social media for bad takez, which would give off the impression he is unpopular on those platforms. Of course, people like SAS are also constantly getting dragged, and he is certainly very popular with younger people.

My original introduction to Simmons was his Page 2 columns in ESPN the Magazine. Then I read his books and started listening to his podcasts. That was a direct interaction, I read what Simmons wrote and decided I liked it. Today, I imagine most people are hearing about Simmons for the first time through something on social media, which often will be negative, and I wonder if that plays a role in whether or not younger fans take him seriously or end up becoming regular listeners.
I'm 29 myself and got into Bill Simmons similarly during the ESPN Page 2 days as a Boston sports nut during middle school. Seen him make guest appearances on PTI, followed him into his Grantland era where I was in college, and the sports fans I know would read his takes. Think we're in a good window to be old enough to remember him at the tail end of his ESPN columns but young enough to still follow him as a trend setter in the realm of merging pop culture into sports writing. Now, somebody who is turning 20 would have a different relationship with Bill, either remembering Grantland if they were crazed sports fanatics at the tail end of the site existence, or associating him with The Ringer, as the site began publishing when they were getting right into high school. Maybe there has to be some distinction in the twenties column, between those who first know Bill Simmons from a certain media outlet.

The Rewatchables is a fun podcast and I've seen a good deal of the movies being a film geek myself. Not sure how much of a young audience listens to the podcast given the choices, as you can hear humorous conversations at the end of episodes when they ask the producer who seems baffled by the movie choices. It's weird cause I know all the older movies that somebody like Sean has seen that were before both of our times, so I never got why Craig acts like it's strange to know all the older character actors or movies from before I was born and that's symptom of his age peers. If your super into movies you go back into the back catalog and watch older stuff from genres, directors, or actors that you adore.
 
Last edited:

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,892
Needham, MA
Theyve done a few things lately that have been clearly aimed at attracting a younger audience, mostly picking a few newer movies but also involving producer Craig more, both in terms of asking him to opine on things while he’s producing to recently moving him into one of the main chairs. Craig is also pretty witty and a good podcast personality himself so it might be a way to expand their audience a little.

I would guess his audience mostly looks like me (50-ish white guy).

To me the strangest thing about Simmons is the Star Wars stuff. I’m not a Marvel guy and my kids aren’t either so I get that more. But being a kid or the 70s and 80s and not being at least a little into Star Wars is bizarre.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,620
The Can't Buy Me Love podcast is hilarious both in its solepsism (no, Bill, "you shit on my house" is not a top 6 iconic sceneof the '80s; in fact no one really saw the movie until it ran on cable again and again)
Minor quibble, I think CBML was a huge video store hit. I wonder if there is data on this. I’d like to see if numbers map to memory but I don’t know if Blockbuster data was ever made public.