On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:59 AM, JW <[email protected]> wrote: > TV-related, I'm still impressed by how bad a job Fox manages to do > after all these years. They're so impressed by their technical > capabilities that they refuse to consider that most of those > capabilities add nothing to the broadcast. For every useful shot of > Pence's bat breaking and hitting the ball again, there are too many > replays of routine pitches or shots of uninteresting signs in the > stands. >
I think I have satisfied my passionate Giants fandom enough for this cycle, so I can now concentrate on the list-relevant issue, and I think you have hit it right on the head. The shot of Pence's bat was really phenomenal, and an excellent example of how cutting edge technology can significantly enhance the experience of a game on television (I'm sure the folks at the ballpark had no idea what had happened on that play). But that is no reason to use that camera - or all of the other gee-whiz gizmos they have, so promiscuouly. I can live with a few vanity shots, like the ones that captured each individual rain drop falling, and a few shots that show us the amazing torque major league pitchers get from their arms, but really, less is so much more. Even Joe Buck had to laugh at Fox producers insisting on showing a super slo mo replay between pitches that had absolutely no chance of finishing before the next pitch. I am a little more ambivalent about another development - live interviews of players from the dugouts during the action of the game. My instinct is to be against this, and I have been critical of it in the past. But I have to admit there were several instances this post-season when it was kind of cool - especially the interviews with Verlander, and one with Romo. OTOH, there were several instances when Fox stayed with the live player interviews without breaking into to describe rather key developments on the field. I wonder why it doesn't make more sense to have 60 second interviews between innings, framed by lots of advertisements, as a way of keeping audience from fast-forwarding, or peeing, during regular commercials? If they think we can pay attention to the game while listening to the interviews, why can't we pay attention to the commercials why listening to the interviews? -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
