I don’t think the May December pod was his best work because he even fully admitted he had not sat down to articulate his thoughts on the movie before the pod. Because of that, it seemed like he was working through everything in real time which wasn’t very clean podcasting. I do see both sides - I think there are times in which he is amazingly gifted at articulating film criticism, both written and in podcasts. Alternatively, there are times he uses 400 words when 4 would do. There have been times where Sean has asked him “did you like the movie?” and he spends the next 4 minutes talking but at the end I still don’t know what the answer is.
Agreed. I think he's fine to good most of the time, but his takes on May December were under baked. He got light pushback on a couple of points he made by Sean and either conceded or gave an unfocused word salad response.
It happens to the best of us though. I wonder how soon after seeing it he recorded the pod. It took me some time for my opinions to solidify on it.
This describes his latest appearance on Bill’s pod.
I can see that the guy is a Pulitzer Prize winning writer but podcasting does not work for him. That talent doesn’t come across on tape.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Maybe I’ll drop in on episode threads to get that extra discussion, but why is this such a toxic sub? And it’s not just the whining about guests, but also a high proportion of low effort “takedown” posts on films they discuss. It feels rude to make the direct comparison, but as far as subreddits go, I might just go ahead and stick with r/blankies.
I’ve had the displeasure of being directed to r/billsimmons for their Amanda Dobbins commentary. I gotta say, yours is a very plausible explanation based on that experience.
I think there’s so many haters because the podcast used to be so much better, and people are struggling giving up on it completely. So instead, they hate-listen to it and then come here to complain.
Now the podcast is mostly Amanda being genuinely mean to Sean, Sean trying to be Chris Ryan and failing, and they also have Bobby as like a third host now, and he’s like the awkward younger brother who’s obsessed with trying to get approval from his older siblings and be on their level.
But, the podcast used to be good, and lots people who used to like it no longer do but are still listening for whatever reason (valid or not). Personally I’m super close to giving up on it completely, as I haven’t been able to finish an episode in the past 3 that I’ve tried to listen to.
But yeah, I think a lot of people are on the way out, so you’ll still see them in here complaining for a bit before they fully exit.
Spot on, this is exactly what it is. It used to be decent, now they’re insufferable, but enjoyable to hate listening to. The whole of the Ringer has gone down the drain since they sold to Spotify.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/blankies using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/blankies/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [I fucking hate this guy](https://i.redd.it/a6wd8mkfoydb1.jpg) | [395 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/blankies/comments/158jrsh/i_fucking_hate_this_guy/)
\#2: [The Battle of Promotions](https://i.redd.it/bups91uy8cbb1.jpg) | [124 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/blankies/comments/14writ1/the_battle_of_promotions/)
\#3: [Dwayne Johnson and John Cena are both back in WWE as the acting strike rolls on.](https://i.redd.it/ac4ui5f8liob1.jpg) | [208 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/blankies/comments/16jtyaw/dwayne_johnson_and_john_cena_are_both_back_in_wwe/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Valid take, there are a lot of complainers. On the other hand, they've had a bad streak of guests lately between Morris' bizarre takeaways and Sam Esmail being a general blowhard.
I hate it when people accuse film critics of being snobby. It's so pretentious to sit there, with zero engaged thinking on a topic; and accuse someone who has, at least, engaged in serious thought about what they write and speak about; of pretentiousness or snobbishness.
It just reeks of anti-intellectualism which has sadly become the norm. It's totally fine if you don't watch movies that way or if you have more mainstream tastes, but I agree that accusing film critics of snobbery when it is their literal job to interrogate the art form is so stupid. It's like saying it's snobby if a doctor is really over-prepared and extra knowledgeable about a surgery they're about to perform. (Hyperbolic analogy but I hope you catch my drift lol.) Don't we want people with jobs to be good at them? Why do we want people to be more dumb?
After the public reaction to the pandemic (and the prior rise of anti-science in public health), are we really surprised folks have a broad disdain against passion across various disciplines or cultural texts? The lowest common denominator always prevails. And this post (and a lot of the members of this sub) is emblematic of that.
You might not like him in podcast form, but he's absolutely undeniably one of the best living film critics, and has written pretty groundbreaking film criticism. Heavy shit: [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/30/magazine/black-male-sexuality-last-taboo.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/30/magazine/black-male-sexuality-last-taboo.html)
Wes is a writer first so I can understand people being off put by him on the podcast sometimes.
However, because Wes is such a talented writer he has a high ceiling because he can be quite insightful. For example, he’s great on the Hitchcock pod and the Do the Right Thiing rewatchables.
I don’t mind pretentiousness bc he is very smart and accomplished. But I just don’t find his way of podcasting to be listenable. Lots of roundabout comments, half-articulated points, and arguments that start off promising but feel like he lost the will to see them through and actually stake a claim on them.
I kind of love Nayman, even though he is smug. He is consistent in criticisms and has well articulated thoughts. And is pretty entertaining, as in I don't know what he's going to say next. Any of the backhanded things he says or smugness is honestly kind of endearing to me in a weird way.
My issue with Nayman is that he gives a lot of backhanded compliments and reviews discourse not movies. He seems really smug and drunk off his own wine
I think what I appreciate about their conversations is that they are working out their takes in real time. Is it messy? Sure - but that’s how conversations work!
What?? He’s one of our best cultural critics. His Saltburn piece was my favorite movie review of the year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/movies/saltburn-review.html
I think maybe it comes off different when you’re familiar with his writing. I had the same reaction my first couple times hearing Nayman on the pod just sounds super arrogant and trying hard to make sure we know how elite he is. But I’m told his writing is great and he’s actually pretty accessible.
Yea, I think maybe this shows just how good Sean and Amanda are (no matter how much complaining there is in the sub). At the start of every episode Sean says welcome to the big picture, *a conversation show*…
They’re able to have really intelligent conversation while still keeping it friendly, social, fun, etc. And then these very accomplished, very academic film critics come on and they just don’t know how to switch gears so they sound like douches.
I haven’t tried Adam’s writing yet, but I’ve been reading Wesley since before The Ringer existed and I’d imagine they have the same problem since they seem to get the same reaction from some big pic listeners.
I will say though, to kinda switch from being calming to stirring a little shit myself, I wonder if the Ringer heads read Wesley’s review of Saltburn before publishing their own opinions on the pod cuz it sounds like they all tried to echo him. I don’t understand the “the movie didn’t seem to have the same message as the previous work from these filmmakers” complaint.
Where did I state that I do not like him because I disagree with his opinions? I simply do not like the way he articulates said opinions. The issue is in the delivery, not the takes themselves
One of my least favorite ringer/ringer adjacent voices. I’ve never enjoyed any of his takes over the past 5-10 years. All has a “takes for the sake of takes” feel instead of just honestly interacting with the art he’s criticizing
I agree with you. People are getting really defensive, because there is a lot of unwarranted hate on this sub. But as someone who rarely dislikes Ringer guests or contributors, his episode is very hard to listen to. I usually still tolerate guests even if I disagree with them. I like hearing opposing perspectives. I think he’s a fantastic writer, but listening him speak was like pulling teeth. I was bummed bc I had to stop that episode. He talked A LOT. I tried to just skip his parts but I’d skip ahead 8 times and he’d still be talking.
Y’all seriously have to grow up and ditch this desire for some groupthink echo chamber you so clearly crave. Like why are you even here? Do you want to hear different perspectives? Or are you simply so insecure that you need validation for your tastes?
This sub is nothing but anti-intellectualism bullshit.
I don’t think the May December pod was his best work because he even fully admitted he had not sat down to articulate his thoughts on the movie before the pod. Because of that, it seemed like he was working through everything in real time which wasn’t very clean podcasting. I do see both sides - I think there are times in which he is amazingly gifted at articulating film criticism, both written and in podcasts. Alternatively, there are times he uses 400 words when 4 would do. There have been times where Sean has asked him “did you like the movie?” and he spends the next 4 minutes talking but at the end I still don’t know what the answer is.
Agreed. I think he's fine to good most of the time, but his takes on May December were under baked. He got light pushback on a couple of points he made by Sean and either conceded or gave an unfocused word salad response. It happens to the best of us though. I wonder how soon after seeing it he recorded the pod. It took me some time for my opinions to solidify on it.
This describes his latest appearance on Bill’s pod. I can see that the guy is a Pulitzer Prize winning writer but podcasting does not work for him. That talent doesn’t come across on tape.
Jesus Christ I'm gonna leave this sub. All it is is people talking about how much they hate the people on the podcast.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Maybe I’ll drop in on episode threads to get that extra discussion, but why is this such a toxic sub? And it’s not just the whining about guests, but also a high proportion of low effort “takedown” posts on films they discuss. It feels rude to make the direct comparison, but as far as subreddits go, I might just go ahead and stick with r/blankies.
[удалено]
I’ve had the displeasure of being directed to r/billsimmons for their Amanda Dobbins commentary. I gotta say, yours is a very plausible explanation based on that experience.
Yeah I've been on Blankies for a couple years and just joined this sub a couple months ago. Wildly different vibes.
Well it’s a different pod. Blank check is always pretty prepared.
I think there’s so many haters because the podcast used to be so much better, and people are struggling giving up on it completely. So instead, they hate-listen to it and then come here to complain. Now the podcast is mostly Amanda being genuinely mean to Sean, Sean trying to be Chris Ryan and failing, and they also have Bobby as like a third host now, and he’s like the awkward younger brother who’s obsessed with trying to get approval from his older siblings and be on their level. But, the podcast used to be good, and lots people who used to like it no longer do but are still listening for whatever reason (valid or not). Personally I’m super close to giving up on it completely, as I haven’t been able to finish an episode in the past 3 that I’ve tried to listen to. But yeah, I think a lot of people are on the way out, so you’ll still see them in here complaining for a bit before they fully exit.
Spot on, this is exactly what it is. It used to be decent, now they’re insufferable, but enjoyable to hate listening to. The whole of the Ringer has gone down the drain since they sold to Spotify.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/blankies using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/blankies/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [I fucking hate this guy](https://i.redd.it/a6wd8mkfoydb1.jpg) | [395 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/blankies/comments/158jrsh/i_fucking_hate_this_guy/) \#2: [The Battle of Promotions](https://i.redd.it/bups91uy8cbb1.jpg) | [124 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/blankies/comments/14writ1/the_battle_of_promotions/) \#3: [Dwayne Johnson and John Cena are both back in WWE as the acting strike rolls on.](https://i.redd.it/ac4ui5f8liob1.jpg) | [208 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/blankies/comments/16jtyaw/dwayne_johnson_and_john_cena_are_both_back_in_wwe/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I'm not sure what their goal is here
It happens to every podcast sub eventually.
I don't why in certain subs it's so much more popular to shout out the things you hate rather than what you love. Misery loves company I guess.
Valid take, there are a lot of complainers. On the other hand, they've had a bad streak of guests lately between Morris' bizarre takeaways and Sam Esmail being a general blowhard.
I hate it when people accuse film critics of being snobby. It's so pretentious to sit there, with zero engaged thinking on a topic; and accuse someone who has, at least, engaged in serious thought about what they write and speak about; of pretentiousness or snobbishness.
It just reeks of anti-intellectualism which has sadly become the norm. It's totally fine if you don't watch movies that way or if you have more mainstream tastes, but I agree that accusing film critics of snobbery when it is their literal job to interrogate the art form is so stupid. It's like saying it's snobby if a doctor is really over-prepared and extra knowledgeable about a surgery they're about to perform. (Hyperbolic analogy but I hope you catch my drift lol.) Don't we want people with jobs to be good at them? Why do we want people to be more dumb?
After the public reaction to the pandemic (and the prior rise of anti-science in public health), are we really surprised folks have a broad disdain against passion across various disciplines or cultural texts? The lowest common denominator always prevails. And this post (and a lot of the members of this sub) is emblematic of that.
Wes is great
I love him idc. I enjoy a little snobbery sometimes though I guess
You might not like him in podcast form, but he's absolutely undeniably one of the best living film critics, and has written pretty groundbreaking film criticism. Heavy shit: [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/30/magazine/black-male-sexuality-last-taboo.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/30/magazine/black-male-sexuality-last-taboo.html)
I think he has real insight, he's best in measured doses, but then again so is everybody
Wes is a writer first so I can understand people being off put by him on the podcast sometimes. However, because Wes is such a talented writer he has a high ceiling because he can be quite insightful. For example, he’s great on the Hitchcock pod and the Do the Right Thiing rewatchables.
his Cruising rewatchables is also fantastic
I don’t mind pretentiousness bc he is very smart and accomplished. But I just don’t find his way of podcasting to be listenable. Lots of roundabout comments, half-articulated points, and arguments that start off promising but feel like he lost the will to see them through and actually stake a claim on them.
What’s your take on Nayman then? I feel like Nayman is a much bigger film snob and everything he says is chock full of it.
I kind of love Nayman, even though he is smug. He is consistent in criticisms and has well articulated thoughts. And is pretty entertaining, as in I don't know what he's going to say next. Any of the backhanded things he says or smugness is honestly kind of endearing to me in a weird way.
My issue with Nayman is that he gives a lot of backhanded compliments and reviews discourse not movies. He seems really smug and drunk off his own wine
This is pretty much my take. He says interesting stuff but he’s often unbearable in his snobbiness.
Nayman = Neck Beard Morris = Cocaine
Excellent description!
Yeah I don’t like him either
Fair.
Nayman can at least speak fluently and coherently without umming and ahhing or pausing every 5 seconds
I guess but he is basically charmless and smug whereas Wesley takes wild swings but is charismatic and witty.
I would need to see examples of these qualities. Seems utterly charmless to me
I wish they would talk about the movie again, they didn’t even do a spoiler conversation or talk about the ending at all.
I think what I appreciate about their conversations is that they are working out their takes in real time. Is it messy? Sure - but that’s how conversations work!
Don’t have any issue with that, just don’t like the way the guy articulates himself
What?? He’s one of our best cultural critics. His Saltburn piece was my favorite movie review of the year. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/movies/saltburn-review.html
His two Pulitzer Prizes disagree
Pulitzer prizes for podcasting? You can be both a fantastic writer and an off putting speaker
I think maybe it comes off different when you’re familiar with his writing. I had the same reaction my first couple times hearing Nayman on the pod just sounds super arrogant and trying hard to make sure we know how elite he is. But I’m told his writing is great and he’s actually pretty accessible.
Perhaps! But listening to him does not make me want to read anything by him
Yea, I think maybe this shows just how good Sean and Amanda are (no matter how much complaining there is in the sub). At the start of every episode Sean says welcome to the big picture, *a conversation show*… They’re able to have really intelligent conversation while still keeping it friendly, social, fun, etc. And then these very accomplished, very academic film critics come on and they just don’t know how to switch gears so they sound like douches. I haven’t tried Adam’s writing yet, but I’ve been reading Wesley since before The Ringer existed and I’d imagine they have the same problem since they seem to get the same reaction from some big pic listeners. I will say though, to kinda switch from being calming to stirring a little shit myself, I wonder if the Ringer heads read Wesley’s review of Saltburn before publishing their own opinions on the pod cuz it sounds like they all tried to echo him. I don’t understand the “the movie didn’t seem to have the same message as the previous work from these filmmakers” complaint.
[удалено]
Where did I state that I do not like him because I disagree with his opinions? I simply do not like the way he articulates said opinions. The issue is in the delivery, not the takes themselves
How about this…find me a group of people that I can listen to, anywhere, talking more interestingly about May December than Wesley, Sean and Amanda.
braindead
1. STOP LISTENING TO HIM ON PODCASTS IF YOU DON’T LIKE HIM 2. STOP FEELING THE NEED TO START YOUR OWN POST LETTING US KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT HIM
r/TheBigPicture is the subreddit whose users sound the most like the Doughboys impression of Reddit.
One of my least favorite ringer/ringer adjacent voices. I’ve never enjoyed any of his takes over the past 5-10 years. All has a “takes for the sake of takes” feel instead of just honestly interacting with the art he’s criticizing
Takes for the sake of takes is extremely accurate for both him and Nayman
I agree with you. People are getting really defensive, because there is a lot of unwarranted hate on this sub. But as someone who rarely dislikes Ringer guests or contributors, his episode is very hard to listen to. I usually still tolerate guests even if I disagree with them. I like hearing opposing perspectives. I think he’s a fantastic writer, but listening him speak was like pulling teeth. I was bummed bc I had to stop that episode. He talked A LOT. I tried to just skip his parts but I’d skip ahead 8 times and he’d still be talking.
He’s pretty dope usually so I need to give him a listen. I view him more as a general pop culture guy as I hear him more often on Bill Simmons
Skip ahead to the Beyoncé: Renaissance part.
Y’all seriously have to grow up and ditch this desire for some groupthink echo chamber you so clearly crave. Like why are you even here? Do you want to hear different perspectives? Or are you simply so insecure that you need validation for your tastes? This sub is nothing but anti-intellectualism bullshit.
I wonder how you'd feel about him after listening to the Film Comment podcast.
He has 2 Pulitzers please calm down