Dead Eyes
He’s Having Second Thoughts
How would you feel if you found out that Tom Hanks didn’t like you? What is the psychological toll of being rejected by the world’s nicest man? Actor Connor Ratliff (The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel) is in a unique position to answer these questions; he was fired by Hanks from the HBO miniseries Band Of Brothers nearly 20 years ago. Dead Eyes is Ratliff’s attempt to understand Hanks’ decision and to determine if he actually has, as Hanks claimed, dead eyes. In the premier episode, Ratliff describes being a young up-and-coming actor in England who seemingly got his first big break, only to have it all taken away in the most painful way possible. Ratliff’s gift for storytelling makes the listener feel his rejection like a gut punch; he talks about the fear of returning to acting for years afterward. While the mystery of Hanks’ decision provides the backbone of the show, Dead Eyes is really about the uncertainty of making a living as a performer. [Anthony D Herrera]
Gayest Episode Ever
Susan’s Dad Had A Gay Affair With John Cheever
Say what you will about LGBTQ representation in modern television, but it’s light-years removed from the overwrought, over-the-top depictions of the past. A screenwriter and a journalist look back over a half-century of pop culture to explore gay-themed episodes of classic TV shows on Gayest Episode Ever. The common designation as a “special episode” (as if homosexuality was the absolute wildest shit average people could fathom) is absent from this episode of Seinfeld, both because the sitcom didn’t do serious and because this particular episode hides the gay stuff until the comedic climax. So the GEE hosts and their guest instead unpack Jerry’s flatlined attempt to make sex talk and George’s repetitive brushes with queer or feminizing traits throughout the series that stir his deep insecurities, such as in this episode when he’s told he resembles his fiancée’s elderly aunt. The podcast’s charming, even-paced discussion includes a deconstruction of Seinfeld’s script, with lots of time devoted to inside information like Heidi Swedberg’s exit from the show and the careers of every minor character. [Zach Brooke]
History This Week
Remembering Auschwitz
January 27 marked the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, but that liberation did not signal the immediate end of the Holocaust: At the time, the news only made the third page of the New York Times, reduced to two sentences, overshadowed by the Yalta Conference. The History Channel’s History This Week, which applies a modern lens to historical anniversaries, revisits the events that led to the persecution and genocide of the so-called undesirable: the disabled, homosexuals, Roma, and Jewish people. Featuring interviews with Auschwitz survivors Bill Harvey and Mindu Hornick, archival audio, and statistics about what the general public can recall about the Holocaust, the podcast serves as an interrogation of our selective memory. [Morgan McNaught]
Newcomers: Star Wars, With Lauren Lapkus & Nicole Byer
Star Wars Ep. IV – A New Hope (w/ John Gemberling)
Comedians Lauren Lapkus and Nicole Byer have somehow managed to reach adulthood without knowing anything about Star Wars aside from the most obvious of references. After years of hearing other comedians fawn over the series, our hosts have finally begun their journey, and lifelong superfan John Gemberling is on board for the first episode to discuss A New Hope. It’s not a spoiler to say that the newcomers didn’t really follow the film, and there’s much fun to be had in listening to their attempts to parse out the various characters and plot points. And to their credit, even though Lapkus and Byer are less than delighted by the Star Wars franchise so far, their commentary is full of energy and enthusiasm. [Jose Nateras]
Popcast
The Grammys, Dissected: Out With the Old, in With the Billie, Lizzo and Tyler
Hot on the heels of the 62nd Grammy Awards comes an episode of the New York Times’ Popcast that unloads a barrage of hot takes by way of roundtable discussion. Host Jon Caramanica, joined by critics Joe Coscarelli, Caryn Ganz, Wesley Morris, and Jon Pareles, starts off with the topic of diversity within the voting academy, and the group wends its way to a conversation on Lil Nas X’s crossover appeal and Gary Clark Jr.’s now very stale routine as a Grammys regular performer. Things get heated when the crew talk about Usher’s unsexy tribute to Prince, and the debate grows louder when things shift to the terrible collaboration between Aerosmith and Run-D.M.C. There’s several quotable moments throughout, but a question posed by Caramanica hits the hardest: “Can you imagine a thing you want to hear less, immediately after mourning the death of Kobe Bryant, than a duet between Blake Shelton and Gwen Stefani?” [Kevin Cortez]
Seriously…
Call Jane At 643-3844
This engaging series from BBC Radio 4 is a showcase for some of the best produced narrative documentary features from around the world. This recent episode, presented by Laura Barton and produced by Eleanor McDowall, is a fascinating piece of audio chronicling the daring story of Jane, a radical feminist organization that operated an underground abortion and counseling service in Chicago in the late ’60s and early ’70s. It’s an emotionally complex slice of American history, and one that might also serve as a blueprint for the future as the country continues its march away from the protections surrounding women’s right to choose. The story of Jane presented here is one that lionizes the group’s ingenuity, verve, compassion, and incredible force of will; Barton and McDowall frame the narrative in a way that traces the familiar outlines of an organized crime film, playing on the similarly clandestine operation of both groups. This is a richly important piece, masterfully told. [Ben Cannon]
The Besties
The Witcher Special
With the runaway success of the live action Netflix series, the announcement of an upcoming standalone anime film, and the recent release of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt on the Nintendo Switch, it is undeniable that this is the season of The Witcher. So it seems only fitting that The Besties—the recently resurrected video game book club podcast from Justin and Griffin McElroy, Russ Frushtick, and Chris Plante—should dedicate an entire episode to this popular series of fantasy adventure games. Topics open for discussion include: Why have so many people jumped into this franchise during its third and final installment? How does Henry Cavill’s performance improve upon the emotional limitations of the game? Are we ever going to see the Witcher’s sweet, sweet hog grace our television screens? Whether you only know the show, the games, or the book series, we can all have a good laugh at imagining the stoic Geralt Of Rivia lugging around “12 rotten maces” and “a huge bag of trash.” It’s just fun to envision. [Dan Neilan]
You Must Remember This Presents: Make Me Over
Hollywood’s First Weight Loss Surgery: Molly O’Day
Film writer Karina Longworth appears to have built a nice cottage industry/cult following reminding listeners that Hollywood was just as fucked up in the early 20th century as it is now—perhaps even more so. She’s roped in other Tinseltown historians for this spin-off show, a deep dive into the film industry’s obsession with beauty. The first episode is quite the unsettling one, as writer/comedian Megan Koester tells the story of Molly O’Day, a teenage silent-film actress who, when the press began criticizing her “dangerously plump” figure in movies like The Patent Leather Kid, decided to get rid of that baby fat. She eventually went under the knife, her flesh sliced away from her hips and legs. (Plastic surgery was just as brand-new as motion pictures.) Needless to say, the surgery affected her both physically and professionally. O’Day is yet another forgotten figure from Hollywood’s brutal yesteryear, and Longworth provides a difficult account of her quest to become a movie star. [Craig D. Lindsey]
97 Comments
Seinfeld wasn’t great, but it also wasn’t outright mean the way other pinnacles of 90s comedy were (looking at you, Friends)
Well, Susan… And Seinfeld was great, how can anyone seriously imply otherwise?
Seinfeld was perfect.
That’s like, your opinion man. Seinfeld was amazing and holds up well. It also paved the way for so many shows that came after it. Any show that is exclusively about terrible people owes a debt to Seinfeld.
I was going to play the fool and say “Well, not Curb Your Enthusiasm” but then the more I thought about the more I can sincerely say “Well, not Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
IMO Seinfeld was great precisely because it was mean.
NOT THAT THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT!I mean you know someone hadda say it, right?
I can’t imagine that episode holds up well when compared to modern takes. But it is 27 years old. And the actors & writers were honestly concerned about offending the gay community…
Right on both counts. I don’t blame them for the take but it’s not up to modern standards by any means.
And before you say, or especially create, anything… remember that in 27 years it won’t be up to future peoples’ standards either.
I rewatched it a year or two back, and I remember thinking “not that there’s anything wrong with that” plays out like “I don’t see color” as a jab at the faux-progressive, “I want to seem accepting but can’t actually bring myself to face or speak about the thing I’m accepting” line of thought. That said, any satire meant there is pretty much drowned by a cavalcade of gay-panic jokes.
It holds up insofar as everyone’s ingrained homophobia is more of the joke than anything else. Their idiocy being the point of ridicule is light years more preferable than Friends gay panic.
I don’t see how it doesn’t hold up well. I’d argue it was progressive enough for the time.
Asking the internet to be happy with it is a fools errand. I watched a “college kids react” to Seinfeld and it was the most disappointing thing I’ve ever watched. They found EVERYTHING offensive. Like they completely missed the point of it all.
It’s sad but I don’t imagine ‘no hugging, no learning’ works today, even the Always Sunny gag has started hugging and learning. Curb might be the last outpost of that ethos on TV?
Had the same thought. Larry David has actual balls. This week’s episode was proof. Now obviously he gets buy in, but I still can’t help but think good for you.
Sure but “for the time” was a full generation ago. Even something progressive and “far ahead of its time” will feel dated and awkward after a quarter-century.
I agree it’s not “progressive” now, but it’s also inoffensive. It aged fine.
Maybe. Not being gay myself, it’s not my place to judge.
Mild gay panic, maybe the joke was on them I don’t know…but it’s not too bad.
What about the angry Puerto Rican couple who steal Kramer’s armoire?
I recall an episode where Jerry got huffy at someone who hit on his gay tablemate right in front of him, feeling insulted that the interloper didn’t even consider that the two of them were an item. Fairly progressive for the mid-90s.
You might be right, it’s been a long time since I’ve even seen one episode but that sounds like a Jerry thing to do.
That would be in The Wig Master.
The Wigmaster.
I think that episode probably holds up ok, because the joke isn’t actually at the expense of gay men. The joke is that George and Jerry are insecure children.To the extent that anywhere was a bubble of queer acceptance in the 90’s, they lived in one (liberal, upper-class Manhattan.) So, the joke becomes how these two urbane straight men try to virtue-signal their progressive-ness while also being clearly uncomfortable with being seen as gay.I think the show’s politics were genuine: there isn’t anything wrong with that. But George and Jerry are not good people, and their caveman struggle with the concept is what becomes funny.
That’s true but there are a lot of ‘woke’ folk out there who aren’t great with subtleties.
These days there are just too many people who aren’t great with subtleties, woke or not.
Speak of the devil, recognitions decided to drop by to remind everyone why they hate him so much.
People are probably less likely to give it the benefit of the doubt considering Seinfeld’s latter-day defensiveness of homophobic humor.
You’re an idiot and nothing you’ve ever said has mattered to anyone.
George and Jerry are not good peopleExactly. Their dynamic was basically the prototype for the Always Sunny gang.
lol I signed in to say the same thing. In the the gang’s own hubris is punished is punished in the finale. So if you have ANY issues with the main cast and some of their actions (Tho imo Elaine was the most progressive of them)remember this scene?
You should check out WeCrashed. Its chronicling the rise of WeWork and how it then imploded.
There was an ad for this on the Theranos podcast feed. Turns out I have nothing but time for rise-and-fall stories of hubristic startup heads who posit themselves as cult figures but don’t actually have any business sense.
Behind the Bastards recently did an episode about Adam Neumann and WeWork that you might enjoy, Evans’ co-hosts for the episode were Dan and Jordan from Knowledge Fight.
That was a good BtB episode. So often that podcast can be misery porn for the ears, but I LOVE when Evans digs his teeth into hubris.
Yeah, I definitely prefer the lower-stakes bastards, where there aren’t any like, genocides or mass sexual assault on children as a result of their bastardy. A ridiculous fake business imploded when their wannabe cult leader crapped all over the IPO and a bunch of people got cut off from a free kombucha supply, big deal. Also I love Knowledge Fight, and it tickled me to hear Evans adopting Dan’s “Mic down, Jordan” cue for whenever he was about to recite some particularly outrageous part of the story.
‘Also I love Knowledge Fight, and it tickled me to hear Evans adopting Dan’s “Mic down, Jordan” cue for whenever he was about to recite some particularly outrageous part of the story.’YES!
Dude is likely getting $1.7B to walk away from WeWork – still think he’s someone who has no business sense? He may have tanked a shitty business model, but he was smart enough to structure his contract correctly.
Did you read the New York Magazine article on WeWork? I loved how it and a few other things looked at the guy’s investment history and were like…ummm…that is what it is. Like it was very clear that he wasn’t a genius or a visionary, just a schmuck.
I subscribe to a lot of Wondery podcasts and was initially annoyed to see a dozen downloads of the same trailer for this in my feed. But then I read the description and was like FUCK YES; WeWork is my new favorite start-up/venture capitalism “unicorn” trainwreck since the bones of Theranos have been picked mostly clean.
I adore Lapkus and Byer and their numerous podcasts. I enjoyed the first episode, and I think the next two will also be enjoyable. But, man, when they get those prequels, it’s gonna be tricky. . Gemberling very explicitly warned them about those movies and tried to put into perspective their relative interest and confusion for the first 3 SW films.
how can you watch new hope and not be able to follow it? i can certainly see watching it and not liking it, but the story is intentionally very simple, patterned after the monomyth, one of the most recognizable story types in history and was intended to be enjoyable to even relatively young children.
“how can you watch new hope and not be able to follow it?”
By not caring and not paying attention and being more concerned with making jokes.
well that seems actively unpleasant. hard pass
Jokes are unpleasant?
if they want to just do a comedy podcast where they tell jokes, by all means. but i know 5 year olds that can give me a concise plot summary of new hope with accuracy, which to me says that they’re either pretending to not understand it because they think its funnier or they’re too busy trying to make jokes that they aren’t watching the movie.
my money is on the first one and that doesn’t sound fun. things like MSTK work because the movies are bad and confusing. star wars may not be a movie that every person is going to enjoy but it’s a competent movie that clearly tells its story in a way that anyone from age 5 to 85 should be able to grasp.
I’m a huge MST3K-head, still re-watching episodes to this day. “they’re too busy trying to make jokes that they aren’t watching the movie.”Yes. That’s partly the conceit, with John Gemberling playing the role of hapless fan guiding them through the SW canon. Honestly, some of the best MST3K riffs were based on movies with such broad, overly simplistic narratives that viewing them became an exercise in punishment. And Rifftrax has done the entire Star Wars canon, as far as I can tell. They were not kind.
I feel like you’re creating an argument where there is none. Why are you assuming that my personal critical opinions of the SW movies are the same as Lapkus and Byers? Did you listen to the podcast? Why is there always so much frustration when talking about these films. It’s so silly, and that’s the perspective I find amusing about their show.
It’s not about Star Wars in particular, it just sounds kind of irritating to listen to people so devoted to joking during a movie that they can’t follow what the movie actually is. Star Wars just happens to be simple enough that missing the plot requires paying particularly little attention. I love hearing people dunk on a movie (god knows there’s plenty of podcasts devoted to exactly that), but hearing someone who quarter-watched a movie dunking on it sounds a lot less interesting. Might be better in execution than it sounds, though, I’ll grant that possibility.
And I’m pretty sure mullets4ever’s “you” was colloquially directed at the people on the podcast, not actually at you.
It’s also possible – just possible – that these comedians are exaggerating their confusion for comic effect. I know, I know, Star Wars is nothing to joke about. But I’m suggesting that someone is bold enough to try.
Of course they’re exaggerating…. but not that much. I mean, how familiar are you with Nicole Byer and Lauren Lapkus on podcasts? I say this as a superfan. But they both get very easily confused about a lot of things. That’s part of their appeal to some people.
Because it’s boring, drawn out, filled with nonsensical space terms and legit just shit Lucas made up to sound out of this universe, jumps around all over, talks about things that never appear with equal importance to things that do, etc.
It’s not a spoiler to say that the newcomers didn’t really follow the filmHow is it that 10 year old Spooon, without the benefit of novels and visual dictionaries and the internet and wookieepedia, was able to understand New Hope and (presumably) intelligent adults cannot? Were they too busy texting and facebooking (or whatever kids these days do) to look at the screen occasionaly?
“How is it that 10 year old Spooon, without the benefit of novels and visual dictionaries and the internet and wookieepedia, was able to understand New Hope and (presumably) intelligent adults cannot?”
Why do you assume they were unable to follow it? The article didn’t say they COULDN’T follow it, it says they DIDN’T follow it.
If someone has been around fever gave a shit about Star Wars for 30+ years that’s not likely to change just because someone told them that they should watch it for a podcast.
“Why do you assume they were unable to follow it? The article didn’t say they COULDN’T follow it, it says they DIDN’T follow it.”I think we can assume that if someone set aside time to deliberately watch a fairly straightforward pop culture film for a podcast and DIDN’T follow it, that means they COULDN’T follow it.If my SO watches a drama and I occasionally glance up from my book, I am probably not following it. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t, I just chose not to.
If we sat down together to watch it on prupose, and I didn’t follow it, it probably means that I *couldn’t* follow it. Same if I was watching it to write a review or help my kid with a homework assignment on Macbeth or whatever.“It was intensely boring/crap/stomach-churning/stupidly illogical/complicated etc” are all perfectly valid reasons not to engage with something, but they all fall under “I couldn’t follow it”.
What other interpretation can we apply to the statement “it’s not a spoiler to say that the newcomers didn’t really follow the film”?Either they were confused by the plot (which brings us back to “how are you unable to understand a very basic story”) or unwilling to follow the plot because reasons? If it’s the first, I’m confused how a functional adult can’t follow along. If it’s “Because I can’t put my phone down for two hours” then why are you bothering the rest of us with non-reaction. They might as well shoot an unboxing video with an empty carboard box.
The big answer to this is that it is a comedy podcast, not just two people who don’t “get it.” They are both really funny, so it is funny to hear then react to a thing they are both watching semi-reluctantly. That’s what makes it more than “an unboxing video with an empty cardboard box.”If you listen to the episode, there are some things they just misinterpet but other things where they ask questions that never occurred to me because I saw Star Wars when I was a little kid and they are thinking about things from a different perspective. It never would’ve occurred to me to ask the question “who was that guy?” about the monster in the trash compactor, but they assumed that because so many other non-human creatures are treated like fully realized characters, the trash compactor monster was yet another “person.” And they wondered aloud what he wanted and why he was in that trash compactor.
“Either they were confused by the plot (which brings us back to “how are you unable to understand a very basic story”) or unwilling to follow the plot because reasons?”“Plot? What does a section of land have to do with this. YOU COMPLETE IDIOT.” If Gargasmell were to actually reply to you, this would be it based on his previous argument and apparent understanding of the English language.
Doctors and nurses are around fever.
That’s our Gargasmell! A contratian for no reason, who posits logically nonsensical arguments.“Didn’t and couldn’t are two different words, CHECKMATE!”
Because the modern “15 minutes internet famous” celebrity thinks that performative apathy is a substitute for personality and that sarcasm is a substitute for wit.
“thinks that performative apathy is a substitute for personality and that sarcasm is a substitute for wit.”The AV club?
Honestly, a lot of the GMG sites recently.
Not that there isn’t anything wrong with that.
Boy could I not be less interested in this ouroborous-esque, human-centipede like desire to devour ourselves. Movies, TVs, and books from another era can’t be (and shouldn’t be) held up to the current flavor-of-the-week purity tests.
Wrong is wrong. Right is right. They don’t change because the situation you’re judging has fallen further into the rearview mirror.
Fuck context, amirite? Things should always be examined according to the customs and morals of the present. Everyone before today was wrong and a barbarian.
It’s called progress. We didn’t leave those times behind for no reason. We left them because these times are better. They’re better because our moral drive to be better has made them so. Here’s hoping that drive continues.
There are a few thousand children in cages who disagree with your statement that “these times are better.” Yes, if you’re a gay person there’s a lower probability that your favorite sitcom will make cheap jokes at your expense. We’re also living through a devolution into fascism and the rule of law is crumbling before our eyes. So, you know, some things about the 90s were better.
Look, when we’re talking about society as a whole, of course some generalizations are going to be made. I never suggested that everything is better everywhere for everyone. I suggested that overall, progress has been made in building a more moral world. Obviously, it’s a work in progress that is nowhere near complete, and will always be in danger of being undone. Sometimes large amounts of that work are undone. That doesn’t change the fact that the overall goal, progress toward a recognition and adherence to morality, is still the same, and the standards of that morality don’t change.
Life today is better than it has ever been. But, what he is saying is that his cultural concept of morality is absolute and other cultures and eras are less so.
No, I’m saying morality isn’t dictated by any “cultural conception.” Right is right and wrong is wrong. It’s our recognition of and adherence to that morality that changes, not the concept of morality itself. The cultural acceptance of evil doesn’t make it stop being evil. Slavery wasn’t any more moral when it was going on just because people accepted it. Murder wasn’t more moral when it was more common. These things were just as wrong then as they are now. It’s just that now we as a society adhere more closely to morality, at least in those particular contexts.
You can’t possibly believe that cultural mores don’t change over time. You can’t have possibly read even one book in your life and still believe that.
Where did I say anything about cultural mores? I’m talking about morality. Right and wrong haven’t changed. Our ability to recognize and adhere to them has. The fact that we better recognize morality today doesn’t make the immoralities of the past any more moral.
Some definitions because it’s become very clear what we’re working with here:Cultural mores: “Mores are norms of morality, or right and wrong, and if you break one it is often considered offensive to most people of a culture.”
So we’re talking about the same thing. Right and wrong ABSOLUTELY have changed. They have always changed. We can’t even agree on the basics like “killing is bad” across cultures because there are different rules for when killing is sanctioned and when it isn’t. Across the same cultures, over the span of time.Guess what? In 10 years the rules will change again, and whatever you’re into now will be considered backward. If you don’t believe this, well, you will. Give it time.
Right and wrong ABSOLUTELY have changed. They have always changed.No, they haven’t. Our ability (or willingness) to recognize and adhere to morality is what has changed. That’s largely because technology and intellectual advancement have provided lives comfortable enough for people to focus on adhering to morality rather than survival.Evils of the past weren’t less evil in the past. They were simply more tolerated. That’s not the same thing. Take slavery, or any sort of racial oppression or subjugation. It was no less evil 200 years ago than it is today. It’s simply that many more people were unwilling to acknowledge the evil of the practice, or were more willing to accept that evil as a part of their day to day life. The morality isn’t what changed. It’s people’s tolerance for immorality that has. We can’t even agree on the basics like “killing is bad” across cultures because there are different rules for when killing is sanctioned and when it isn’t.And the trend in any civilization that would be considered modern has been toward less killing. The justifications for it get thinner and thinner every day. That’s because killing is wrong, and progress as a society means that more and more people come to accept that. Not that “killing gets more evil” over time. Guess what? In 10 years the rules will change again, and whatever you’re into now will be considered backward.It’s not the rules that will have changed. It’s the players’ ability or willingness to obey them. It’s that willingess and ability that you’re referring to when you say “cultural mores,” not morality itself.
Lol
It’s not really about holding up entertainment to “purity tests” – which is definitely a reference made mostly by people whose favorite gay jokes flopped at Thanksgiving but I’m not going to assume that’s you – but instead about examining changes in culture and shifting acceptance and what old entertainment can tell us about the world at the time.And some stuff really should be left in the past, and that’s fine! Nobody needs to watch Birth of a Nation (1915) who isn’t studying film history, it’s shit and racist. A lot of the stuff from the past that doesn’t work anymore is really only interesting from a historical perspective rather than an entertainment one.
And many things accepted now were scandalized in the past. Okay, so people are less tolerant of homophobic jokes than they would have been in the ‘50’s. In the ‘50’s, it was scandalous to show a married heterosexual couple sharing the same bed. What’s is and isn’t scandalous changes over time. There’s never been a time that hasn’t been scandal/purity-crazy in any sort of media.
yeah, but “friends” and “seinfeld” arent in that catergory, come on.
I actually listened to the podcast and it wasn’t really like that at all. They took a deep dive into the whole episode and didn’t really criticize it at all. All of the men on the podcast also seemed to be Seinfeld fans.
And that’s cool, but like I said, the concept of self-devouring is just something I’m not interested in. I’m glad these particular people are coming at it from a rational viewpoint, but a lot of the stuff out there (on Twitter, on this website) is some kind of retroactive inquisition to prove who is the wokest by denouncing everything that came before 2018.
Why… Why… Why are you ending a discussion you started by saying that it’s not something you’re interested in? I mean, that was obvious from the original post, but you have to realize how bizarre that is.
This really isn’t that hard to understand. I’m not interested in the practice of retroactive shaming. That doesn’t mean I’m not willing to discuss why it’s bad. It’s like, you might not be interested in watching movies about sexual assault, but that doesn’t mean you might not talk about why those movies aren’t good for people.
Reevaluating art from a contemporary perspective is a way of maintaining the significance of art over time. The alternative is just to forget about older works of art or two pretend that they’re ageless, which is necessarily false. It takes nothing away from Seinfeld to acknowledge the parts of it that haven’t aged well and discuss why they haven’t aged well. That’s a very basic intellectual exercise. It’s based on the idea that Seinfeld is still worth discussing in 2020.
I wish more people would have this perspective, and I’m glad that you point out that this is basic stuff.
Think of it this way: Before every young person in the Western world conspired to become annoying self-righteous on the subject, there were some works about representation that were pretty interesting to engage with. But now the changing times have damaged, let’s say, the stomachability of such works.
I’ve been listening to the “It’s All Been Done Radio Hour” podcast. It’s like spoofs of Star Trek and other shows but original stories and voice actors. They do it in front of an audience though so it’s like Thrilling Adventure Hour.
The early stuff is kind of rough but the more recent stuff is pretty good.
I think Elaine would get cancelled if she tried to get a guy to switch teams today. At least Jerry would have an iPad, though.
ehhh, i dont think she would.
After reading that first blurb about Dead Eyes, I googled Connor Ratliff to see about these supposed dead eyes, and what do I find in the first few rows of image results?
Death to all degenerates.
I like Lauren Lapkus and Nicole Beyer, but I’m really not a fan of these “I haven’t seen this popular thing look at me watch it” podcasts. They’re usually cringey and I kind of feel like the hosts are under extra pressure to have some kind of edgy opinion.
How the hell does someone have trouble following Star Wars. Its not a difficult film.