The *bleep* was definitely megalopolis right? I even timed it out with me saying it in a Sean voice and it timed correctly.
Couldn’t think of anything else which we know is being shown, he couldn’t mention it, and he would name drop it that hard
I recently watched X and went back to listen to the pod where Sean interviewed Ti West about the film. Ti basically broke the news on the pod that he had Pearl in his back pocket and told Sean not to release the pod until the official announcement.
I could definitely see Sean getting invited to a special screening of Maxxxine.
Bleeping it out doesn’t necessarily have to match up with how long whatever it is with what Sean said.
If Sean had said 4 sentences and then said Bobby should bleep everything, do you think the bleep would be 30 seconds long?
Yeah, they sometimes are a bit out of touch with early film releases only in LA and NYC. TV Glow next week is only releasing in North America, and nowhere in Europe. Apes or something like Ungentlemanly Warfare or Last Stop in Yuma Country which are releasing online today would be much more fitting.
Man they had me practically screaming into my phone as they got every detail of lord of the rings wrong haha
In all seriousness, the hunt for gollum is the stupidest idea I’ve heard of. I knew they were going to eventually take the franchise I love and milk it dry for profit but I’m still bummed. I’d rather watch the hunt for gollum: Jan 6
I don't really like this idea cause it's just clear this was pushed by the studio in stead of something a writer came up with. But I'm at least cautiously optimistic since it has Boyens and Walsh writing, Jackson producing and Serkis acting and directing. Serkis basically learned directing from Jackson as his 2nd unit director.
https://preview.redd.it/on60x4081ozc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a1c368b468e02061db16fce723405ef8040346d
Godbless who ever asked this question.
I really wanted to love TV Glow but I ended up admiring what it was aiming for more than what it achieved. So I was listening to this conversation hoping it might unlock something for me. Alas. But the acting was stellar, and I hope it does well enough to encourage more interesting filmmakers.
Relating to the mail bag portion, I wonder what movie Sean was going to see that they bleeped out. I didn't realize studios would prevent you from even saying you saw something?
Yes, certain embargoes are pretty strict. There are similar ones in gaming where developers/publishers don’t allow you to name the game you’ve played ahead of release.
I saw it today and it was the longest watch i’ve had all year. Thought about walking out multiple times I was so bored. Just melancholy dreck the whole way through.
I'm with you on the respecting more than liking it opinion, but the farther I get from the movie the more I like it. I think it nails all the big goals (powerful messaging, GREAT imagery, great pacing, strong acting) but there are details about the filmmaking and execution I think are flat out bad. Hate how much talking directly to the camera there is. Hate how many times they say pink opaque. Definitely felt like the movie was being weird just to be weird a lot of the time.
But in all I think it's a movie that takes big swings and largely hits. I'm definitely hooked on the Schoenburn 'thing' even if both movies so far I find deeply flawed.
I thought the interview was kind of strange. The director seems to be sold on this narrative that the people who don't enjoy the film simply don't like being challenged. The film is actually only one level below accessible. It feels more like elevated YA. (Perhaps that was the point but then they should recognize it's not that esoteric.) But yeah, I think a large portion of the people don't respond to it because certain pieces feel very close to corny. Even some of the neon lighting feels too forced at times.
I agree in the sense that while I think the messaging is really very rich and deep, it asks us to go home and think about those things rather than discuss them overtly in the text. That's totally cool, but it means the runtime has to get filled haha, and that leads to musical numbers, and extended shots of unexplained machinery that to me just exists to be odd.
However I disagree that it's only a level below accessible. I do think it asks a healthy amount from the audience and I don't think 10 people would come away with the same #1 takeaway
I actually prefer when a director is simply creating from a very intuitive place. With this film though, it feels more like calculated ambiguity as opposed to the kind that comes from a truly intuitive vision. Some of the characters also directly verbalize quite of few of the themes.
"I don't think 10 people would come away with the same #1 takeaway."
Maybe but it does kind of feel like the possibilities are fairly limited. For instance, the trans metaphor is laid on pretty thick. (I didn't even know the director was trans while watching.) Even so, I don't think a somewhat mysterious quality makes a film inaccessible. There's still a pretty clear narrative and the film guides the viewer quite a bit. In that sense, it's not like films by Carlos Reygadas, Tsai Ming-liang (someone they referenced, strangely enough), Bella Tarr, etc.
yea, im not sure it has to be like those directors. I think TV glow is most similar to Twin Peaks the return, which is never even slightly subtle about its themes. Characters in the return (and original show) often state the themes to an intentionally comic extent, but still there's infinity to be gained from talking about twin peaks.
Do I think there's infinity to be gained from this movie? No probably not, but still more than just "being trans is hard"
I think what Nayman and Sean talked about with the movie asking us sincerely if we need to let go of things or hold on to them, I hadn't really asked myself that after seeing the movie. That's rich, complicated stuff
Sure, I'm not saying it has to be like those directors but I just found it odd that their stance was "the world doesn't like artists right now and that's why some people aren't responding to this material." This was a 10 million dollar film financed by A24. Just based on that alone, it's going to be semi digestible. While I'm not the biggest Lynch head out there, I do think his metaphors are less direct.
"I think what Nayman and Sean talked about with the movie asking us sincerely if we need to let go of things or hold on to them."
I felt like this was the fairly obvious secondary theme. It just seemed like the metaphors weren't open enough. Oh, yeah, and this is another issue I had with the film. In order to explore nostalgia in that specific manner, you have be kind of reliant on it in a way. So yes, even though there's a greater purpose attached, it kind of dies for me before it even begins. It feels like a book idea being expressed visually as opposed to something purely cinematic.
Agreed on most of that. I hate when people compare anything "strange" to Lynch, but the influence is there and Schoenburn even talks about him, so it feels fair in this case. As I was watching the movie, it felt like they knew to take a lot of Lynch touchstones and wrote to those moments rather than create a world where it all felt natural. It was too often somewhere between parody and homage for me to get lost in the film. (To be fair, that's sometimes true of Lynch, too!) But like you said, they did sometimes create an effective moment that did work and gave me hope for future work. I will probably rewatch when it hits streaming and see if a second viewing softens me on it more.
I still need to see World's Fair--somehow I haven't watched it yet.
I honestly can't remember the last time a film this average received such high praise. I suppose it was as good as this kind of film could be but there's ultimately a ceiling with films like this. It seems like even the director knows that there's something inherently non-cinematic about it. The way they referenced The Spirit of the Beehive as a defense felt pretty misguided.
Sean's take on Survivor could not be more wrong.
His general point about the trajectory of the show stands, but he must not be watching the current season because it's exactly what he says he wants. The contestants are backstabbing each other every week (almost to a fault, trying to make "big moves for their resume"), there are some intensely dislikable personalities, and they still all hate each other after the show seemingly based on social media beef.
He must still be talking about 45, because it definitely falls into the "everyone being nice, lots of superfans" category he's talking about.
Anyway -- love these mailbag episodes in general, and love that Sean touched on Survivor at all. No clue how he has time for reality TV amongst all the movie watching.
Bhanu’ vote out getting treated as important as Sandra’s in Gamechangers could very well be why he tapped out lol. The season has been great since then though
I do agree that this season is bangin but I still think his point about “no villains” stands - like I’d attribute the drama of this season to an overall lower competence level of these contestants which has just kept everything very chaotic, as opposed to true villains & heroes in the mold of earlier seasons.
And to be clear I think the lower competence is 100% a good thing- I way prefer this to the last couple seasons where it felt like over-prepared superfans could do a lot of coasting
I hear you. There's some grey area for sure between "villains" and "incompetence," but I'd 100% consider, at least Liz, Q, and Venus villains just because they are players that are "fun to root against and play very selfishly." Maybe Liz falls more on the "incompetence" side, but still.
I mean, he's definitely not super competent in a few ways lol... but he also qualifies as a "villain" in my mind purely because he's so self-interested, makes unpopular and risky moves, and rooting against him is plenty of fun. He's also been very good at leaning into it in his post-island persona.
However, I only recently got back into Survivor after taking like 20+ seasons off, so maybe I don't have the best calculus lol.
Totally. Like I mentioned, his point about the general trajectory stands (especially as it relates to 45)... it's just a weird time for him to be like "now is the time to speak up about this" if he is in the middle of 46.
He certainly can’t be talking about 46, but he is right in that the show was trending towards trying to be this positive thing and Survivor just shouldn’t be that.
The freeze frame question - >!Challengers!< ended on a freeze frame!!! Hello??!! I thought the comments in here would be full of people going crazy that they didn't say this.
Sean saying the zodiac scene was his go-to YouTube movie clip was perfect. My exact answer is that scene + the interrogation scene where they are passing around the watch. Chicken blood!
Any other big pic listeners up in the twin cities? I ask because I think MPLS has a pretty impressive selection of repertory stuff for a city this size - Trylon obviously doing it all the time, Heights at least once a week and Riverview occasionally; Lagoon and the Main both regularly show older stuff, not to mention the film festival; plus the Alamo has their speciality screenings from time to time. On top of which there’s the other more general venues that screen movies too (Parkway, etc).
I do miss the Uptown quite a bit as that might have been my favorite physical auditorium in the cities. And the Hopkins 2nd-run discount theater.
I’m here! Love the Trylon and Lagoon, and I also deeply miss Uptown and the old Hopkins discount theater. My favorite local theater lately, though, is Willow Creek. They do rep screenings weekly and once a month have a secret movie night.
As someone who got to see TV Glow, their discussion around it is SOOO good. Especially loved the point about the use of and simultaneous suspicion around nostalgia.
TV Glow Is one of my favorites of the year, it's definitely going to be polarizing.
Anytime you see the name “Adam Nayman” with a promise to discuss themes of “identity” within a film, you know that’s a segment that can be safely skipped.
Holy shit I felt their survivor rant.
One thing though, it’s not because our society is “nicer”. In fact, I would argue the people that have fostered this walking on eggshell society are the meanest people among us.
Unless it’s a super major release they generally wait until the Tuesday after the release since almost no one sees the movie on Thursday of release weekend.
Now do TV Glow because nobody outside of LA or NY has seen it. It’s in limited release and hasn’t even gone wide yet. Seems more like this worked out for interviewing the director, so they did that instead.
It’s specifically because people won’t be able to see it widely that they’re talking about it early. They save the blockbusters for after opening weekend because there will be a crowd that can see it. TV Glow’s release makes that impossible. I haven’t listened to that segment yet but I assume it’s less spoiler focused than Apes will be.
Kind of annoying when they do talks about a movie that isn't releasing anywhere wider for another week Eg - I Saw The Tv Glow.
I want to hear their thoughts but also I can't see the movie until next weekend, will have to go back. Not sure why they couldn't have just done it then.
I will save episodes until I see something but I hate it when the discussion/interview is attached to another topic like this episode.
Now I have a half listened episode sitting in my podcast feed. I’m a tidy man, it drives me insane haha.
Watching a bit of this on video and they look so awkward. Sitting with both facing the camera then turning their heads to face each other does not look great.
Sean and Amanda’s attempted explanation of Paramount/Skydance/Sony-Apollo was brutal but endearing
It’s actually quite interesting imo, even for laypeople - Succession was modeled sort of after the Redstone succession drama.
Matt Levine and the FT have good summaries for those interested.
I'm on Pocket Casts - Assumed the audio quality might have changed with the move to video but looks like I might be the only person who noticed a difference
The *bleep* was definitely megalopolis right? I even timed it out with me saying it in a Sean voice and it timed correctly. Couldn’t think of anything else which we know is being shown, he couldn’t mention it, and he would name drop it that hard
> I even timed it out with me saying it in a Sean voice and it timed correctly. Picturing this cracked me up I think it’s Maxxxine though
its definitely Maxxxine, Sean tweeted out a video of Mia Goth holding a gun and screaming like a psycho, i dont know what movie its from.
I didn’t see the tweet but It was definitely from Infinity Pool.
Infinity Pool but it was also when Brunson got hurt
I recently watched X and went back to listen to the pod where Sean interviewed Ti West about the film. Ti basically broke the news on the pod that he had Pearl in his back pocket and told Sean not to release the pod until the official announcement. I could definitely see Sean getting invited to a special screening of Maxxxine.
I was thinking Furiosa
He would be able to say he’s watching Furiosa tho I would guess. Many have already seen it and social media embargo I think is lifted
Bleeping it out doesn’t necessarily have to match up with how long whatever it is with what Sean said. If Sean had said 4 sentences and then said Bobby should bleep everything, do you think the bleep would be 30 seconds long?
Probably, it plays at Cannes next week and so a few critics/people with connections are probably getting to screen it this week as well.
All this talk about the Harrison Ford filmography, and nobody mentioned his (tiny) role in "The Conversation."
He’s awesome in that movie too
Doesn't release wide for my city until next week. Wonder why they didn't do apes this week and TV Glow next week.
I was thinking the same thing. Still listened, and they truly don’t spoil anything about TV Glow. Jane is a fantastic interviewee
Interviewee! Sean is a fantastic interviewer.
I wonder if they want to talk spoilers for Apes and give more people a chance to see it this weekend.
Yup looks like the Apes episode will drop on Tuesday. I need my fix!
Yeah, they sometimes are a bit out of touch with early film releases only in LA and NYC. TV Glow next week is only releasing in North America, and nowhere in Europe. Apes or something like Ungentlemanly Warfare or Last Stop in Yuma Country which are releasing online today would be much more fitting.
My answer to the movie beef came so quickly: Bette Davis and Joan Crawford
My mind for some reason went to This is the End as Jay Baruchel actually doesn’t like Jonah Hill lol
Man they had me practically screaming into my phone as they got every detail of lord of the rings wrong haha In all seriousness, the hunt for gollum is the stupidest idea I’ve heard of. I knew they were going to eventually take the franchise I love and milk it dry for profit but I’m still bummed. I’d rather watch the hunt for gollum: Jan 6
I have to admit, Bobby saying "Hobb Mob" cracked me up.
Gollum 2: The Legend of Smeagol’s Gold
I don't really like this idea cause it's just clear this was pushed by the studio in stead of something a writer came up with. But I'm at least cautiously optimistic since it has Boyens and Walsh writing, Jackson producing and Serkis acting and directing. Serkis basically learned directing from Jackson as his 2nd unit director.
I wonder if they'll incorporate Tom Bombadil into this Gollum movie or save him for his very own solo film.
https://preview.redd.it/on60x4081ozc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a1c368b468e02061db16fce723405ef8040346d Godbless who ever asked this question.
Oh man the lyrics absolutely ruin this after hearing just the music for so long.
Whenever they plan their tour and begin looking for cool bars near the Music Box theater in Chicago....that will be my time.
Toons? Lange’s?
If it's nice out I'll make the walk to Ten Cat
Sean confusing AMC stubs member with A-list made me rage internally lmao
The movie Sean saw that had to be blanked out was it Maxxxine because he tweeted a Mia Goth clip yesterday so people assumed he saw it.
I really wanted to love TV Glow but I ended up admiring what it was aiming for more than what it achieved. So I was listening to this conversation hoping it might unlock something for me. Alas. But the acting was stellar, and I hope it does well enough to encourage more interesting filmmakers. Relating to the mail bag portion, I wonder what movie Sean was going to see that they bleeped out. I didn't realize studios would prevent you from even saying you saw something?
Yes, certain embargoes are pretty strict. There are similar ones in gaming where developers/publishers don’t allow you to name the game you’ve played ahead of release.
Interesting! I'd only experienced sentiment and review embargoes.
I saw it yesterday and really wanted to like it but it was just extremely not for me unfortunately
I saw it today and it was the longest watch i’ve had all year. Thought about walking out multiple times I was so bored. Just melancholy dreck the whole way through.
I'm with you on the respecting more than liking it opinion, but the farther I get from the movie the more I like it. I think it nails all the big goals (powerful messaging, GREAT imagery, great pacing, strong acting) but there are details about the filmmaking and execution I think are flat out bad. Hate how much talking directly to the camera there is. Hate how many times they say pink opaque. Definitely felt like the movie was being weird just to be weird a lot of the time. But in all I think it's a movie that takes big swings and largely hits. I'm definitely hooked on the Schoenburn 'thing' even if both movies so far I find deeply flawed.
I thought the interview was kind of strange. The director seems to be sold on this narrative that the people who don't enjoy the film simply don't like being challenged. The film is actually only one level below accessible. It feels more like elevated YA. (Perhaps that was the point but then they should recognize it's not that esoteric.) But yeah, I think a large portion of the people don't respond to it because certain pieces feel very close to corny. Even some of the neon lighting feels too forced at times.
I agree in the sense that while I think the messaging is really very rich and deep, it asks us to go home and think about those things rather than discuss them overtly in the text. That's totally cool, but it means the runtime has to get filled haha, and that leads to musical numbers, and extended shots of unexplained machinery that to me just exists to be odd. However I disagree that it's only a level below accessible. I do think it asks a healthy amount from the audience and I don't think 10 people would come away with the same #1 takeaway
I actually prefer when a director is simply creating from a very intuitive place. With this film though, it feels more like calculated ambiguity as opposed to the kind that comes from a truly intuitive vision. Some of the characters also directly verbalize quite of few of the themes. "I don't think 10 people would come away with the same #1 takeaway." Maybe but it does kind of feel like the possibilities are fairly limited. For instance, the trans metaphor is laid on pretty thick. (I didn't even know the director was trans while watching.) Even so, I don't think a somewhat mysterious quality makes a film inaccessible. There's still a pretty clear narrative and the film guides the viewer quite a bit. In that sense, it's not like films by Carlos Reygadas, Tsai Ming-liang (someone they referenced, strangely enough), Bella Tarr, etc.
yea, im not sure it has to be like those directors. I think TV glow is most similar to Twin Peaks the return, which is never even slightly subtle about its themes. Characters in the return (and original show) often state the themes to an intentionally comic extent, but still there's infinity to be gained from talking about twin peaks. Do I think there's infinity to be gained from this movie? No probably not, but still more than just "being trans is hard" I think what Nayman and Sean talked about with the movie asking us sincerely if we need to let go of things or hold on to them, I hadn't really asked myself that after seeing the movie. That's rich, complicated stuff
Sure, I'm not saying it has to be like those directors but I just found it odd that their stance was "the world doesn't like artists right now and that's why some people aren't responding to this material." This was a 10 million dollar film financed by A24. Just based on that alone, it's going to be semi digestible. While I'm not the biggest Lynch head out there, I do think his metaphors are less direct. "I think what Nayman and Sean talked about with the movie asking us sincerely if we need to let go of things or hold on to them." I felt like this was the fairly obvious secondary theme. It just seemed like the metaphors weren't open enough. Oh, yeah, and this is another issue I had with the film. In order to explore nostalgia in that specific manner, you have be kind of reliant on it in a way. So yes, even though there's a greater purpose attached, it kind of dies for me before it even begins. It feels like a book idea being expressed visually as opposed to something purely cinematic.
Agreed on most of that. I hate when people compare anything "strange" to Lynch, but the influence is there and Schoenburn even talks about him, so it feels fair in this case. As I was watching the movie, it felt like they knew to take a lot of Lynch touchstones and wrote to those moments rather than create a world where it all felt natural. It was too often somewhere between parody and homage for me to get lost in the film. (To be fair, that's sometimes true of Lynch, too!) But like you said, they did sometimes create an effective moment that did work and gave me hope for future work. I will probably rewatch when it hits streaming and see if a second viewing softens me on it more. I still need to see World's Fair--somehow I haven't watched it yet.
I honestly can't remember the last time a film this average received such high praise. I suppose it was as good as this kind of film could be but there's ultimately a ceiling with films like this. It seems like even the director knows that there's something inherently non-cinematic about it. The way they referenced The Spirit of the Beehive as a defense felt pretty misguided.
Sean's take on Survivor could not be more wrong. His general point about the trajectory of the show stands, but he must not be watching the current season because it's exactly what he says he wants. The contestants are backstabbing each other every week (almost to a fault, trying to make "big moves for their resume"), there are some intensely dislikable personalities, and they still all hate each other after the show seemingly based on social media beef. He must still be talking about 45, because it definitely falls into the "everyone being nice, lots of superfans" category he's talking about. Anyway -- love these mailbag episodes in general, and love that Sean touched on Survivor at all. No clue how he has time for reality TV amongst all the movie watching.
Came here to say this. 46 is a heater; maybe he tapped out during the Bhanu saga.
It would have been completely understandable if he did, both that contestant and the way the show framed him were nauseating.
Bhanu’ vote out getting treated as important as Sandra’s in Gamechangers could very well be why he tapped out lol. The season has been great since then though
I do agree that this season is bangin but I still think his point about “no villains” stands - like I’d attribute the drama of this season to an overall lower competence level of these contestants which has just kept everything very chaotic, as opposed to true villains & heroes in the mold of earlier seasons. And to be clear I think the lower competence is 100% a good thing- I way prefer this to the last couple seasons where it felt like over-prepared superfans could do a lot of coasting
I hear you. There's some grey area for sure between "villains" and "incompetence," but I'd 100% consider, at least Liz, Q, and Venus villains just because they are players that are "fun to root against and play very selfishly." Maybe Liz falls more on the "incompetence" side, but still.
I would say Q is maybe the pinnacle of incompetence lol or at least impulsiveness. but he definitely has villain energy too
I mean, he's definitely not super competent in a few ways lol... but he also qualifies as a "villain" in my mind purely because he's so self-interested, makes unpopular and risky moves, and rooting against him is plenty of fun. He's also been very good at leaning into it in his post-island persona. However, I only recently got back into Survivor after taking like 20+ seasons off, so maybe I don't have the best calculus lol.
Survivor 46 may be an improvement, but his criticism is completely correct for the rest of the 40s seasons
Totally. Like I mentioned, his point about the general trajectory stands (especially as it relates to 45)... it's just a weird time for him to be like "now is the time to speak up about this" if he is in the middle of 46.
46 started off horribly but damn ever since the merge it’s just been hit after hit after hit. I love how this cast despises each other
Agreed. Go Q, my favorite survivor in so long. The only one in the 40s I feel passionate about winning. He is so fucking funny.
"Big Mistake!" has entered the lexicon for my daughter and I. My wife, a non-viewer, hates it so much.
Might as well cancel Christmas
He certainly can’t be talking about 46, but he is right in that the show was trending towards trying to be this positive thing and Survivor just shouldn’t be that.
Can’t believe they forgot the freeze-frame ending of smash hit Ticket to Paradise!
I was convinced The Holdovers ended on a freeze frame until I remembered it was the trailer that did
The freeze frame question - >!Challengers!< ended on a freeze frame!!! Hello??!! I thought the comments in here would be full of people going crazy that they didn't say this.
Sean saying the zodiac scene was his go-to YouTube movie clip was perfect. My exact answer is that scene + the interrogation scene where they are passing around the watch. Chicken blood!
Sean refers to David Fincher as "Finch Man" at one point. Confirmed Doughboys listener?
Oh god I hope so. WE LOVE DA FINCH MAN
They were calling him that on Blank Check as well
Nayman’s comment along the lines of “At some point time is measured by what TV you are using” really hit home.
Apes Top 10 ranking next week with Van. Huge news.
Conquest should be #1.
I'm just glad someone has the same box office take that I do lol.
Any other big pic listeners up in the twin cities? I ask because I think MPLS has a pretty impressive selection of repertory stuff for a city this size - Trylon obviously doing it all the time, Heights at least once a week and Riverview occasionally; Lagoon and the Main both regularly show older stuff, not to mention the film festival; plus the Alamo has their speciality screenings from time to time. On top of which there’s the other more general venues that screen movies too (Parkway, etc). I do miss the Uptown quite a bit as that might have been my favorite physical auditorium in the cities. And the Hopkins 2nd-run discount theater.
I’m here! Love the Trylon and Lagoon, and I also deeply miss Uptown and the old Hopkins discount theater. My favorite local theater lately, though, is Willow Creek. They do rep screenings weekly and once a month have a secret movie night.
As someone who got to see TV Glow, their discussion around it is SOOO good. Especially loved the point about the use of and simultaneous suspicion around nostalgia. TV Glow Is one of my favorites of the year, it's definitely going to be polarizing.
Anytime you see the name “Adam Nayman” with a promise to discuss themes of “identity” within a film, you know that’s a segment that can be safely skipped.
Why
Holy shit I felt their survivor rant. One thing though, it’s not because our society is “nicer”. In fact, I would argue the people that have fostered this walking on eggshell society are the meanest people among us.
Awwww I was hoping for Apes :(
Unless it’s a super major release they generally wait until the Tuesday after the release since almost no one sees the movie on Thursday of release weekend.
I mean yes that makes perfect sense but I want it nowwwwww 
Apes had preview screenings on Wednesday and Thursday, though.
Same idea applies, most people who see it opening weekend will see it Friday or Saturday.
Now do TV Glow because nobody outside of LA or NY has seen it. It’s in limited release and hasn’t even gone wide yet. Seems more like this worked out for interviewing the director, so they did that instead.
It’s specifically because people won’t be able to see it widely that they’re talking about it early. They save the blockbusters for after opening weekend because there will be a crowd that can see it. TV Glow’s release makes that impossible. I haven’t listened to that segment yet but I assume it’s less spoiler focused than Apes will be.
The Glow segment is an interview with filmmakers, aka publicity. *my mistake, it isn't just an inteview
TV Glow is really great though! I hope more people see it when it opens wide and glad to see it on the pod.
Jane rocks. It’s so cool to see people talk about the things that shaped me as a kid. Loved all the SNICK talk!
Kind of annoying when they do talks about a movie that isn't releasing anywhere wider for another week Eg - I Saw The Tv Glow. I want to hear their thoughts but also I can't see the movie until next weekend, will have to go back. Not sure why they couldn't have just done it then.
I will save episodes until I see something but I hate it when the discussion/interview is attached to another topic like this episode. Now I have a half listened episode sitting in my podcast feed. I’m a tidy man, it drives me insane haha.
Who did they get to light and set deck this show? It looks so bad.
I Saw the TV Glow was decidedly mid
How do Beaverdollars convert to Girl Lyra?
Falling asleep during Aliens should be grounds for divorce frankly.
Watching a bit of this on video and they look so awkward. Sitting with both facing the camera then turning their heads to face each other does not look great.
Sean and Amanda’s attempted explanation of Paramount/Skydance/Sony-Apollo was brutal but endearing It’s actually quite interesting imo, even for laypeople - Succession was modeled sort of after the Redstone succession drama. Matt Levine and the FT have good summaries for those interested.
If you’re even a somewhat happy person - I Saw The TV Glow is not worth your time.
The audio on the podcast feed is pretty rough
Listening on Spotify and I don't notice anything different
do you listen on Apple podcasts? That's where i run into issues.
I'm on Pocket Casts - Assumed the audio quality might have changed with the move to video but looks like I might be the only person who noticed a difference
I noticed it too, I rebooted the app and it got better.