"Game of Thrones" is literally a top-level content nav option, and they can't be bothered to set up an RSS feed. JIMBO IS GETTING UPSET.The Ringer is live.
I can't hate anything associated with the site because naming it "the ringer" is so BS that I laugh every time I see the name.Really don't like the site's jumbotron with the twinkling animation. Along with the dubious green/black color palette and "The Ringer" logo makes the site look a bit amateurish.
Bill Simmons has proudly never seen The Big Lebowski.
Pretty stupid way to troll. "You know that smart funny movie that you all like? Never seen it. Too artsy fartsy."That's one of his trolls
Agreed. It looks like a website from the late 90's.Really don't like the site's jumbotron with the twinkling animation. Along with the dubious green/black color palette and "The Ringer" logo makes the site look a bit amateurish.
Apart from the repeated use of the term "Buckonaissance", it's actually a really good article, in my humble opinion.Saw article with headline "Joe Buck Is Underrated," closed tab and moved on.
Reminds me of Stern with Seinfeld. Until he went all Hamptons Howie anyway.He does the same thing with The Simpsons.
EDIT: To back up what Shelterdog says, "you know that thing that was the gold standard for comedy for about 10 years? Yeah, F that."
Wow, I just went to read it with the sole goal is liking it so I could refute your comments about it.Given the task to "write 500 words on the fact that Kirsten Dunst is dating Jesse Plemons," I'd wager that at least half of the posters in this thread could create something better than this. It's just nonsense, and not even funny.
Amazingly, the comments to the article (at least at this point) are universally positive. I suspect this means that this is meant for a different audience than me.
Their writers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they never stopped to think if they should.I think the better question is: why have a piece on two B-level stars going on a few dates, at all?
I'm not a media maven like Bill Simmons, but I would think you'd want to steer away from that level of pablum, especially right out of the gate.
I agree with most of this, especially the last sentence. That said, I find their podcast approach of forcing listeners to access 10 different feeds to be obnoxious. I generally listen to 2/3's of Bill's, every other 1600, and assorted Watch episodes when I've actually seen what they're talking about (which is happening less and less these days). I've tried the basketball show and am not really interested in the baseball one. I have no interest in the bachelor of reality TV stuff. Maybe the NFL one will be decent. Anything that involves Tate is a hard pass. The result is that I'm probably listening to 20-25% of their output but am forced to have it clog up my podcast list. I assume it's probably because some VC douche told Bill that VOLUME is key to BRANDING, but it cheapens the whole enterprise IMO.I recall some of the people from the site on Twitter hyping that guy up since he joined but I just don't see it at all. His post yesterday about the new XMen boiled down to "Jennifer Lawrence is overqualified for these movies LOL" I'm a little disappointed with most of the new (non-Grantland) people and content so far. Of course it's extremely early (24 hours) and Grantland took a while to find out what it wanted to be. The Ringer does already have a pretty great podcast network set up and if all they posted to the website was Netwerk GoT recaps I'd be satisfied. I'm happy it exists and will be rooting for it to succeed.
Isn't the whole point of splitting up the podcast into their own feeds to prevent you from having a bunch of stuff you don't want in your feed? I'm not sure what your criticism here is.I agree with most of this, especially the last sentence. That said, I find their podcast approach of forcing listeners to access 10 different feeds to be obnoxious. I generally listen to 2/3's of Bill's, every other 1600, and assorted Watch episodes when I've actually seen what they're talking about (which is happening less and less these days). I've tried the basketball show and am not really interested in the baseball one. I have no interest in the bachelor of reality TV stuff. Maybe the NFL one will be decent. Anything that involves Tate is a hard pass. The result is that I'm probably listening to 20-25% of their output but am forced to have it clog up my podcast list. I assume it's probably because some VC douche told Bill that VOLUME is key to BRANDING, but it cheapens the whole enterprise IMO.
That came off like he was trying way too hard to either establish his own style or to imitate someone else's.Given the task to "write 500 words on the fact that Kirsten Dunst is dating Jesse Plemons," I'd wager that at least half of the posters in this thread could create something better than this. It's just nonsense, and not even funny.
Amazingly, the comments to the article (at least at this point) are universally positive. I suspect this means that this is meant for a different audience than me.
Yes, this is what I was getting at. I'd rather be able to have one list to scroll through and choose from than have to click on The Watch, Channel 33, and the BS feeds to see if there's one worth listening to. 1600 is a good example as I'll tune in depending on the guest. The Chuck Todd one was great but I'm less excited about other Dem guests. On the flip side, I've deleted the NBA one due to lack of interest in Litman/Ryan and the aforementioned Tate issue. That must work against their "as many subscribers as possible" plan, even if many of those subs are the same person.That said, I don't see why they can't have separate feeds and one giant combined feed.
Ah, I don't use Apple so I didn't realize that was a pain. I use Soundcloud, so the stream is just a chronological list of the episodes of pods I follow. That makes the split much better since instead of every channel 33 pod, I just pick the pods I want like 1600, watch, etc.Yes, this is what I was getting at. I'd rather be able to have one list to scroll through and choose from than have to click on The Watch, Channel 33, and the BS feeds to see if there's one worth listening to. 1600 is a good example as I'll tune in depending on the guest. The Chuck Todd one was great but I'm less excited about other Dem guests. On the flip side, I've deleted the NBA one due to lack of interest in Litman/Ryan and the aforementioned Tate issue. That must work against their "as many subscribers as possible" plan, even if many of those subs are the same person.
I'm using the default Apple "my podcasts" function, often as I'm starting my commute home so having one list would be more functional. I'm sure there's a better way to do it, though. Maybe I'll try Sticher or Soundcloud.
Although I like his columns, his Ask the Maester Facebook Q&As where he rapidly runs through viewer questions is one of my favorite things on the Internet. His depth of GoT knowledge is amazing.I recall some of the people from the site on Twitter hyping that guy up since he joined but I just don't see it at all. His post yesterday about the new XMen boiled down to "Jennifer Lawrence is overqualified for these movies LOL" I'm a little disappointed with most of the new (non-Grantland) people and content so far. Of course it's extremely early (24 hours) and Grantland took a while to find out what it wanted to be. The Ringer does already have a pretty great podcast network set up and if all they posted to the website was Netwerk GoT recaps I'd be satisfied. I'm happy it exists and will be rooting for it to succeed.
His latest pod with Mallory Rubin about GoT was amazing. He is unbelievable and Mallory is fantastic, too. Their presence on After the Thrones makes the show approximately 4,000% better.Although I like his columns, his Ask the Maester Facebook Q&As where he rapidly runs through viewer questions is one of my favorite things on the Internet. His depth of GoT knowledge is amazing.
Yeah what the heck was with this? The show is universally adored and has won a bucket of Emmys, but he tossed it off like everyone hates the show like it was Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders. That was strange.Also, he thinks the Fargo show sucks. Between that and his piece for Grantland calling season 1 of Parks and Rec its best season, I don't think he can be trusted on anything.
Mallory Rubin was really great on the MLB pod they did. I feel like she has a super high IQ and should probably off trying to find the cure to the Zika virus.His latest pod with Mallory Rubin about GoT was amazing. He is unbelievable and Mallory is fantastic, too. Their presence on After the Thrones makes the show approximately 4,000% better.
I don't believe any show is above criticism but a driveby "by the way the Fargo show sucks, anyway..." is lazy and fucking annoying. I'd rather he write an article explaining why he hates Fargo. That might be an interesting read.Yeah what the heck was with this? The show is universally adored and has won a bucket of Emmys, but he tossed it off like everyone hates the show like it was Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders. That was strange.
I really don't agree with your assessment. He took pains to comment that a lot of what happened at ESPN was his fault. He literally said it. And he doesn't come off as full of himself, at all. For instance, he knows he's not a performer and not polished for TV, so he admits he didn't want do a live show. Someone full of himself would say, "eff it, I can do anything, I'm the man, let's do this live and I'll be like John Oliver and Bill Maher but I'll be better."Very long, fawning profile of Simmons here.
Lots of cursing to show off his edginess, blames everyone else for anything he's ever done that hasn't worked and generally comes off like he could not possibly be more full of himself.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/bill-simmons-breaks-free-his-900291?utm_source=twitter
It depends on the interviewee, I think. If he's outside of his comfort zone, he tries to drag it back to his comfort zone and it gets really weird.I also am more aligned with Lombardo when it comes to Simmons' interviewing skills. I think he's really good and he does have dexterity when it comes to his guests.
Yeah, that's true. But his Louis CK interview, for example, was far from his zone. And I thought it was pretty good. But people hated it. The only podcast in the last few months that was totally deplorable was Kilborn b/c Kilborn is terrible.It depends on the interviewee, I think. If he's outside of his comfort zone, he tries to drag it back to his comfort zone and it gets really weird.
http://www.warnerbros.com/archive/spacejam/movie/jam.htmAgreed. It looks like a website from the late 90's.
Which is just a condensed version of the Hollywood Reporter article linked above.Vanity Fair piece on Simmons. He calls his firing from TWWL "Fucking high school": http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/06/bill-simmons-espn-hbo
Telling your boss "Please call me and say I'm in trouble. I dare you" sure counts as controversial.Funny to see Bill tagged as "controversial sports personality." Other than calling Roger a liar (which was going out on a limb to be sure) I can't think of too many other "controversial" stances he has taken. His PEDs article might be one. His open admiration for gambling shouldn't really be one. Is asking "are we sure he's good?" really that controversial? Am I missing anything else?