#Scott Rogowsky

[twittercomfrnklin2001-blog]

Glitch: The Rise and Fall of HQ Trivia

HQ Trivia debuted as I was entering retirement. With a mortgage to pay and a lot of charge debt, I fell into playing it to see if I could get rich quick. It was the same reason I bought a weekly lottery ticket. And I’ll have to admit, I thought host Scott Rogowsky was hot. But then I learned how hard it was to collect on winnings, which I never had anyway. I usually crapped out as soon as they got to questions about sports or pop music. And Rogowsky wasn’t turning up as often as I’d have liked (he left in April 2019). So, I fell out of the habit. Salima Koroma’s new CNN documentary GLITCH: THE RISE AND FALL OF HQ TRIVIA (2023, Max) traces the app’s history. Although it’s been accused of being one-sided (it was produced by former executives and basically tells Rogowsky’s version of the story), it still provides some fascinating tidbits about the problems that existed even before the launch. Rogowsky and the other interview subjects — former employees, media experts and one investor who was close to co-founder Colin Kroll — are all good story tellers. If there’s a flaw as entertainment, it’s that some of the visuals are repeated too much. It feels like a made-for-TV documentary, designed to be viewed in chunks between commercials. But there are clever touches, like HQ Trivia-style questions to introduce segments and clips from classic radio and TV quiz shows. It even takes time for some sentiment, as when Kroll’s friend starts to tear up while discussing the co-founder’s sudden death from a drug overdose. It would have helped had the surviving co-founder, Rus Yusopov, participated, as Rogowsky and some of the other employees slam him badly. There’s simply a slide stating he declined to be interviewed, though he told other sources he had declined because of conflicts of interest. I guess sifting through those different perspectives could be the topic for another documentary.

[rickchung]

Glitch: The Rise & Fall of HQ Trivia (dir. Salima Koroma).

CNN's documentary on the viral game show's spectacular downfall chronicles all the usual beats about the absurdity of startup life. Framed mostly through comedian and former HQ Trivia host Scott Rogowsky's rollercoaster experiences witnessing the meteoric success and subsequent turmoil, we learn more of the lurid details behind the mobile app's flawed management through its dysfunctional work culture and problematic co-ounders who also created Vine.

[thatsouthernstate]

FRANZ ROGOWSKI & ANDREW SCOTT

W Magazine’s Best Performances Party at the Chateau Marmont — @evanrosskatz’s Instagram Story on January 6th, 2024

[denimbex1986]

'Andrew Scott has expressed his hope that the increase in queer sex scenes on screen – including his own in new film All of Us Strangers – will help to “bring the world forward”.

Speaking exclusively to PinkNews on the red carpet at a UK screening of All of Us Strangers ahead of its release on Friday (26 January), Andrew Scott reflected on the importance of seeing queer sex represented.

All of Us Strangers follows Scott as Adam, a depressed screenwriter who heads back to his childhood home to see his parents (Claire Foy and Jamie Bell) – only they’ve been dead for 30 years following a car crash.

Over the coming weeks, Adam speaks to their apparitions about things he never could when they were alive, including coming out to them both.

At the same time, he sparks a relationship with a gay man, Harry (Paul Mescal), who lives in the same apartment block in London. Harry supports Adam through the lingering grief of losing his parents.

While the film is a devastating tear-jerker, it also features several raunchy sex scenes between Scott and Mescal – including one scene in which Mescal’s character appears to go down on Scott’s, and another in which he licks semen from Scott’s chest.

2023 saw a wave of explicit queer sex scenes grace our screens, from Ben Whishaw and Franz Rogowski in romantic drama Passages, to Nicholas Galtizine and Taylor Zakar Perez in cheesy rom com Red, White & Royal Blue.

Speaking to PinkNews, Scott and Mescal praised the uptick of queer sex scenes as “wonderful”.

“What’s going to help bring the world forward is just to have representation in that sense,” Scott said.

“I always say [that] as a queer person, seeing straight relationships constantly and almost exclusively, it hasn’t made me disgusted to look at them. I just go, ‘there you go’.

“It’s not what I particularly want to spend my time doing but that doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t,” he added.

“So that’s what we have to get used to – representation, representation, representation.”

Scott, who will soon be starring in new Netflix thriller Ripley, recently spoke to Graham Norton about the sex scenes, telling the host that while they are “tasteful”, he hopes he won’t have to watch them with his parents.

All of Us Strangers is out in UK cinemas on 26 January.'

[thebrownees]

I am delighted to see my favorite movie of the last few months, Hlynur Pálmason's masterpiece "Godland", appear in the Best International Film category.

[patrocles]

Top 5 fav actors

ohhh , now this list is forever fluctuating betwixt guys i like

1. ben mendelsohn

2. george mackay

3. michael greyeyes

4. tom hardy

5. franz rogowski

(honorable mentions— jared harris, barry keoghan, joel egerton, toby stephens, luke arnold, colman domingo, adam scott, tahar rahim, benicio del toro, chaske spencer, )

[minusmanfan]

Two comedians, not too often seen in their glasses. 

Upper photo is hyperopic Scott Rogowsky, aka “Quiz Daddy”, who hosted the video HQ game show.  He now has a vintage clothing store in the LA area.and some new things in the works. 

Lower photo is myopic gay comic, Tim Murray, a fav for many of us.  He is currently doing a cross country comedy tour, so I hope to see him when he is Denver.    

[missyourflight]

we're doing this again! here are some of the things i read/watched in feb:

dopesick: not sure how i feel about the mix of real/created characters! a lot of the sackler stuff i was familiar with from empire of pain (more on patrick radden keefe later) (relatedly i'm so eager for the nan goldin doc to be streaming over here), some great performances, also doesn't disney have money for better wigs?

happy valley (s3): as a nation we don't deserve sarah lancashire. magnificent television!! good thing f1 is coming back so i can continue to experience tension on sundays etc

lovecraft country: i got myself into a whole jonathan majors situation just in time for creed iii and this was Wild. i wasn't always in love with it but it took some massive swings and honestly reminded me a tiny bit of doctor who just in like the genre-of-the-week approach. also wunmi mosaku, my beloved

justified (s3): as ever this should just be the boyd/raylan show. jfc but raylan is bad at his job. i'm torn re: the progressively more deranged gay antagonist bc he was kind of fun but also whew @ some of those backstory elements

full swing: golf to survive! i didn't know any of these men apart from rory mcilroy! bit of a mixed bag but i loved joel dahmen and his caddy and also matt fitzpatrick, tiny stats nerd from sheffield. lol forever @ zak and lando's golf friend defecting to the sketchy saudi tour etc, like fucking obviously

the green ray: woof a bit close to home! aching for connection, crying on holiday... rohmer girl summer forever in my heart

scream 4: just fine until it goes gleefully Bonkers in the last act

scream 5: last act not as much fun as scream 4, jack quaid is charming, weirdly i found some of the stabbings like off-puttingly intense?

great freedom: this was wonderful and i cried. almost shockingly tender at times and just like, we have always been here? franz rogowski is remarkable and i can't wait to see him in passages (ben whishaw basically doing the andrew scott role from cock 14 years on?? i mean)

devotion: see above re: ongoing jonathan majors situation, thought he was beautiful in this, loved the partnership w glen powell. there's a part that's like you think is going to play out like top gun maverick and then it doesn't because it's based on a true story (why is joe jonas here)

magic mike's last dance: obviously doesn't approach the heights of xxl but channing is still so fucking charming (why is she's the man not streaming anywhere here. i need it). i saw it with some friends and one of them was sad afterwards bc her husband never dances with her - not to be like are straight people okay, but are you?

creed: i am not well versed in the rockyverse lore but i Need to see creed iii due to the jonathan majors situation and i really liked this! mbj charming, i do not care for boxing as a sport but ryan coogler can really move a camera, also pleasantly surprised by the liverpool of it all??

creed ii: this was fine! the fighting didn't have anywhere near the impact of the first one bc this director is not as talented as ryan coogler

patrick radden keefe, rogues: really enjoying this collection of some of his new yorker profiles. listening on audio and i feel like it's kind of rare for a non-fiction author to read their own work this well? also this month i listened to his wind of change podcast (was not prepared for the tommy vietor cameo lol) which was a lot of fun but took a lot of time to not really answer the question

[billscheft]

I have just finished watching “Glitch,” a surprisingly compelling documentary on Max about the short and tumultuous life of HQ Trivia, hosted by my friend Scott Rogowsky. I have, just now, realized he was much much too big and much too important to graciously appear on this short short short-lived YouTube only show I hosted with Gregg Beinin in 2018, “Pops Culture....”

[nothorses]

I actually know about this one!

This is a great paper on the subject, which delves a lot deeper into why the myth exists, why people believe it, and what the impact of believing it actually is (hint: it's pretty bad). It's a little long, but interesting. To start, though:

Learning style philosophies are considered a myth because they provide anywhere from inadequate to incorrect portrayals of learning (Dembo & Howard, 2007; Pashler et al., 2008; Scott, 2010). To date, there has been no evidence that matching or meshing instruction to someone’s self-reported learning style positively affects their ability to learn new information (e.g., Husmann & O’Loughlin, 2018; Knoll, Otani, Skeel, & Van Horn, 2017; Krätzig & Arbuthnott, 2006; Rogowsky, Calhoun, & Tallal, 2015; also see Pashler et al., 2008 for a review).

Which is just to say that it isn't real, it has been tested, and nobody has been able to prove it. It's a myth.

I think for a lot of folks who believe it's helped them personally, though, what they tend to actually be benefiting from is a combination of:

Information being presented in multiple ways (often at once), which provides more ways for your brain to process, hold onto, and recall that information later,

Experiential learning (i.e. learning by doing, or learning from personal experiences) being genuinely one of the best ways for anyone to learn anything, and also more common if you're trying to tailor lessons to "kinesthetic learners" in particular, and

Student-centered teaching styles and individualization of content (teachers trying to meet students where they are and give them what they specifically need).

Folks can also have certain disabilities/neurodivergences that might make processing some sensory information more difficult; if you have auditory processing disorder, for example, and your teacher starts to provide more visual aids to their highly verbal lectures to accommodate "visual learners", you are probably going to have an easier time understanding them.

You might also be wondering, "if it's inaccurate but ultimately helpful, why does it matter if people believe it?" and the answer to that, my friend, is psychological essentialism.

The learning styles myth perpetuates the idea that, to quote another paper on the subject (this one is like a 5 minute read, check it out): "Psychological essentialism is the belief that certain categories of people have a true nature that is biologically based and highly predictive of many factors in their lives".

It's not uncommon for people who believe in learning styles to believe that they are genetic and can be inherited, and this can quickly lead to racist and ableist assumptions about what "kinds of learners" certain people are, and what that says about them.

There are also definitely some assumptions that folks make about "learning styles", even without thinking they're hereditary; raise your hand if you've ever heard of "visual learners" and artists being associated, or "kinesthetic learners" and athletes. Consider the impact this has on kids who are being assigned a "learning style" in elementary school (I was!), and how they might perceive their own abilities going forward in life. Can I still be a visual artist if I'm not a visual learner?

There's also an issue of resources, which that previous paper summarizes:

Previous research has shown that the learning styles model can undermine education in many ways. Educators spend time and money tailoring lessons to certain learning styles for different students even though all students would benefit from learning through various methods. Students study in ways that match their perceived learning style even though it won’t help them succeed. Some teacher certification programs incorporate learning styles into their courses, which perpetuates the myth for the next generation of teachers. Academic support centers and a plethora of products also are focused on learning styles, despite the lack of scientific evidence supporting them.

So yes, even speaking strictly about the academic practicality of the myth, there's an impact!

It's something I still see in education-oriented spaces- though actual classes for educators that I've taken have all outright debunked the myth or just ignored it entirely- and it hasn't really brought anything to those programs that you can't get from, like, the basic understanding that giving kids more ways to understand information will help them learn it. And you certainly get more from asking the kid why they're struggling than you do from making assumptions about the situation based on an assigned "learning style".

I'm glad it's been positive for some folks, genuinely! And I also hope you can take a little time to question the labels that have been applied to you, how accurate they really are, and how they're serving you. I was told that "kinesthetic learning" was practically useless to me as a child, and I can promise you that is not true of literally anyone- but especially 10 year olds.

EDIT: specifically regarding the "this teacher's style worked for me but nobody else" anecdote: everyone has different needs and succeeds under difference circumstances. We have different "styles" of learning, but that doesn't mean they can be categorized, especially by something like sense, into neat & specific "learning styles" like the myth perpetuates. (I'd also be curious if there were any systemic factors at play; did the students struggling in that class share any marginalized identities? Maybe not, maybe it's just the first thing! But it's always worth asking those questions.)

wikipedia is a gem

[unityperformance]

Manhattan Beach Personal Trainers – Achieve Peak Fitness Today

Discover expert personal training in Manhattan Beach with unity PERFORMANCE. Scott Rogowski offers personalized fitness programs to help individuals of all fitness levels reach their peak potential. Whether preparing for a competition or seeking to enhance overall health, the training sessions focus on results-driven methods that build strength, flexibility, and endurance. Unlock the path to better fitness with a professional trainer in Manhattan Beach. Reach new heights today!

[denimbex1986]

'...Best Picture Afire All of Us Strangers Anatomy of a Fall Killers of the Flower Moon May December Trenque Lauquen

Best Director Laura Citarella, Trenque Lauquen Andrew Haigh, All of Us Strangers Todd Haynes, May December Christian Petzold, Afire Martin Scorsese, Killers of the Flower Moon Justine Triet, Anatomy of a Fall

Best Actor Paul Giamatti, The Holdovers Benoit Magimel, Pacifiction Cillian Murphy, Oppenheimer Franz Rogowski, Passages Andrew Scott, All of Us Strangers Michael Thomas, Rimini

Best Supporting Actor Jamie Bell, All of Us Strangers Robert Downey Jr., Oppenheimer Glenn Howerton, BlackBerry Charles Melton, May December Paul Mescal, All of Us Strangers Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things

Best Supporting Actress Penelope Cruz, Ferrari Merve Dizdar, About Dry Grasses Claire Foy, All of Us Strangers Anne Hathaway, Eileen Rachel McAdams, Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. Da'Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers

Best Screenplay--Adapted All of Us Strangers (Andrew Haigh) Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. (Kelly Fremon Craig) BlackBerry (Matt Johnson, Matthew Miller) Killers of the Flower Moon (Eric Roth, Martin Scorsese) Poor Things (Tony McNamara) The Zone of Interest (Jonathan Glazer)...'

[kevrocksicehouse]

I have a confession. But first I want to emphasize that none of us is perfect, y’all without sin etc. Everybody has some secret shame that if exposed should be penalized with nothing more stringent than forgiveness. Except this. This is worse. Okay here goes (deep breath):

I DON’T THINK THERE WERE ANY OSCAR SNUBS.

Nope. Not even Barbie. Despite Greta Gerwig’s masterful shepherding of what is so far Mattel’s greatest movie, if Zone of Interest (which I haven’t seen yet) is a dog, I’ll give Jonathan Glazer’s place to May/December’s Todd Haynes. Ditto for Robie who was almost perfect (But what’s up with her still using the Harley Quinn accent?). If Nyad isn’t up to snuff I’ll just slide in Past Lives’ Greta Lee.

It was that kind of year. Lots of good movies and for a change most of them got at least some kind of Oscar nod. But. There were those orphans and also-rans that came up all the way short. No nominations. Let’s honor them, okay?

In other words, it’s time for KEVROC’S ANNUAL BEST MOVIES THAT DIDN’T GET EVEN ONE LOUSY NOMINATION list!

Asteroid City. Wes Anderson had a short-lived Oscar vogue in the last decade with  Best Picture nominations for Moonrise Kingdom in 2013 and  Grand Budapest Hotel in 2014, but this year the consensus was that this deadpan dramatization of the tension between postwar optimism and post-nuclear domination which defined the latter half of The American Century was just a collection of the director’s tropes instead of a humanist masterpiece. It should have been nominated if for no other reason than to give a push to “Dear Alien (Who Art in Heaven)” for the Best Song award it deserves. (But hey, Wes got a Best Live Action Short nod for The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar).

A Good Person. Zach Braff’s directorial rep as the King of Emo, not to mention an early release date kept Oscar voters from this story of two addicts struggling not to relapse in the face of their lives’ biggest tragedy, that gave Morgan Freeman his best role in years and reaffirmed Florence Pugh’s status as the best actor of this decade.

All of Us Strangers. A simple dreamlike plot (a depressed gay man meets his soulmate, and simultaneously gets to see his long-dead parents) becomes a soul-wrenching mystical reverie brought to life by Claire Foy and Jamie Bell as the parents, Paul Mescal as the troubled soulmate and Andrew Scott, who gives a performance so exposed and vulnerable that if it went any further he’d literally shed his skin.

Monica. A trans woman (Trace Lysette) reconnects with her family and is taken for a nurse by her demented, homophobic mother (Patricia Clarkson). It sounds like Joan Crawford doing an Almodovar film but director Andrea Pallaoro goes for subtlety and nuance over camp drama in this quiet gem. Lysette should have been talked about more.

Air. This crazy-entertaining celebration of the marketing synergy of Michael Jordan and Nike got Oscar-overlooked because a whole movie devoted to a celebrity spokesperson deal is maybe just a little too on-the-nose. But it had great work by Chris Messina, Jason Bateman, a Macchiavellian Viola Davis and especially Matt Damon who might be too good an actor to ever win an Oscar for it.

Passages. Ira Sachs examination of why-good-people-love-irredeemable-pricks is a high point in the careers of Adele Exarchoupoulos and Ben Wishaw but was a breakout star vehicle for Franz Rogowski playing the kind of prick who has a one-night stand and is so smitten he can’t wait to tell his husband all about it.

Blue Beetle. You know the superhero movie is in trouble when this crackerjack film about a reluctant Latino champion of his family and community (and whose sidekicks include a Zapatista-veteran grandmother) could only find a fraction of the audience it deserved.  And the line “Now is when we cry” made me cry.

Strays. All apologies to Poor Things and American Fiction, but this profane and scatological tribute to couch-humping, trash-eating dogshit producing (and eating) canis lupus familiaris was the funniest movie of the year.

Bottoms. Even beating out this gloriously tasteless and bracingly absurdist tale of high school lesbians who start a fight club to meet chicks that would win the Jean Hersholt humanitarian award if they renamed it for John Waters.

Taylor Swift: The Eras tour. The Academy’s prejudice against performance films is understandable. Certainly the struggle against dictators in Uganda and Invaders in the Ukraine are more important than a superstar juggernaut’s latest step on her way to world domination. But I’m not the only one who became convinced that the juggernaut was a real (and major) artist. And flashing on the closeups of random fans experiencing pure ecstasy was as moving as anything I saw this year.

[la-maladroite]

Just watched Glitch: The Rise & Fall of HQ Trivia, and WOW, how was that only a few years ago? I know COVID has fucked with all our senses of time passing, but that seriously feels like forever ago. Anyway. Nothing super-groundbreaking in the doc, as we all know startup bros are mega-assholes, but it was so nice to see my beloved Scott Rogowsky again. Someone give him a game show! If, you know, he wants that. Wouldn’t blame him if not, though.

[newswireml]

Scott Rogowsky Tells All About HQ Trivia’s Rise and Fall#Scott #Rogowsky #Tells #Trivias #Rise #Fall

In the streaming age, every piece of cultural ephemera, from Barney to LuLaRoe, will inevitably be reappraised in a documentary or podcast. The once-ubiquitous game app HQ Trivia has gotten both over the past few years, first with a podcast series on The Ringer network in 2020 and, now, in a new documentary film from CNN and HBOMax. The latter, titled Glitch: The Rise and Fall of HQ Trivia, has…

[hostor-infotech]

HQ Trivia imploded fast but its legacy lives on

CNN  —  When Scott Rogowsky auditioned to be the host of an unreleased online quiz show called HQ Trivia back in 2017, after a decade of grinding gigs in the New York City comedy scene, he didn’t think it’d be his ticket to instant fame. Not long after landing the job, however, the “game show on your phone” app – from the founders of once-popular six-second video platform Vine – became an…