Category: TV, Film and Radio

More on the “New York” Olympics

As I noted earlier, NBC is having announcers in New York do the call on events happening half a world away. I’m not the only that’s noticed, The New York Times did a story titled “New York-Based Crews Just Call It as They See It” looking inside the Peacock’s New York broadcasting center — set up on the stages of “Saturday Night Live.”

It’s an interesting story that answered a lot of questions I had about the New York operation, including the number of sports being broadcast in this fashion (13) and the reason why they did it (because NBC agreed to send fewer people to the Games).

Fake fireworks and “live” coverage

In my earlier post, I was somewhat hopeful that NBC took pains to note when their Olympic announcers were in New York instead of live in China.
Maybe I shouldn’t have been so hopeful after I found out that some of the Opening Ceremony fireworks were apparently digital fakes. Commentators and bloggers are jumping on the fact that the ceremony producers were worried about the display of the fireworks so they created a fairly convincing reproduction to air on TV while the real display took place around Beijing.
A blog from The Hollywood Reporter goes into pretty good detail about the matter. That blog post gets responses to some pretty good questions, including how NBC feels it can get away with graphics that say events are “LIVE” when they are most certainly being tape-delayed for the West Coast. It’s a minor frustration for me — I’d rather see sporting events live.
Aaron Barnhart has more about the digital fakery at TV Barn.

Live from New York … it’s the Beijing Olympics

Watching the overnight, live coverage of the Olympics on USA Network has been interesting. One huge thing caught my eye, or rather my ear. When equestrian dressage and soccer started, the NBC announcers took care to note that they were watching the action “along with the audience” from the NBC studios in New York.

It struck me as odd that at least two live events would be called out of a broadcasting booth 6,800 miles away. I wonder how many events will be aired like this.

Part of me thinks its a little ridiculous. If these announcers are “watching along with the audience,” why have professionals do the call at all? Wouldn’t an equestrian enthusiast perhaps have an equal chance to provide some interesting insights to a general audience? Especially when I’m fairly sure they spend a considerable amount of time trying to explain their sport to people.

Still, I can think of a couple possible reasons why they would do this. It might be the best way to cover some of the less-mainstream events when the alternative is to not cover them at all. I can scarcely imagine how much NBC is paying to produce its coverage when the license fees cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Maybe not flying some staff to China helps save costs.

I’m sure there are a few dirty secrets about airing a huge sporting competition halfway around the globe. Sometimes the announcers don’t record their play-by-play until after an event ends when they know it’s going to air later on tape. Also having broadcasters do a play-by-play far removed from the playing pitch is a trick that goes back to the days when there was just radio.

Ultimately, I guess it’s a good thing that they’re noting that the announcers aren’t on-site. Although the Internet and other near-instantaneous media have their advantages, I think someone who’s actually present has a unique perspective that a broadcast booth in Rockefeller Center can’t match.

The live Games – Part of me really wants to get into badminton and equestrian dressage, but the tired, up-since-9-a.m. part of me just wants to go to bed. Still, kudos to Katerina Emmons of Croatia for winning the first gold of these games for an air rifle event. She won shortly after the West Coast airing of the Opening Ceremonies ended.

The Opening Ceremonies – I didn’t get a chance to watch much of the ceremony while I was at a house party. There were some pretty rabid Oakland Raiders fans who wanted to watch a pre-season game instead of a show recorded 15 hours ago.

One thing stood out as I watched Yao Ming and Lin Hao, his young companion who survived the Sichuan earthquake. Lin Hao’s Chinese flag was upside down, which is either a sign of protest or distress in the United States (it most often generates ire when it’s flown in protest). Repeated displays of such an image stood out in what was otherwise a carefully and beautifully choreographed event.

The glances that I saw of the 4.5-hour event were pretty spectacular and I managed to see the climatic cauldron lighting. Good thing there’s a repeat of this taped event airing right now so I can catch up.

Online – Have I mentioned that you can keep up with the Games with ChicoER.com’s Olympics section? I’m just saying. 😉

Outrage: Does Disney endorse cannibalism …

… of robots?

In the latest Disney/Pixar movie, “Wall•E,” the eponymous main character is seen replacing its body parts for others. When the robot’s treads grow worn, he plucks a new pair off his dead brother laying on the side of the road. The same thing when he breaks his eye or a circuit board.

What sort of sick, twisted message is Disney trying to advance here? Can you imagine kids on the playground breaking their arm and trying to grab a new one off their schoolmate?

Actually, I can’t.

I think it’s a great credit to the Pixar team that they were able to create such an identifiable — dare I say cute? — characters such as Wall•E and EVE and yet maintain their non-humanity as robots. EVE has a giant gun as an arm, for heaven’s sake.

Despite my mock outrage, I thoroughly enjoyed “Wall•E” and place it among the top of Pixar’s excellent heap of quality animated films.

Unlike recent Pixar films, such as “Ratatouille” and “Cars,” there was no huge identifiable villain. For various reasons, some robots were set against each other. However, they’re not “evil” — they’re just following the programming set by the human designers.

The two protagno-bots were different in that they were able to somehow exceed their programming. In same ways this transformation was inevitable for a movie (because it would be lame if they didn’t break out of their metallic shells).

Of course, when these metallic antagonists are sidelined, there’s some satisfaction but there’s no great joy. The triumph of “Wall•E” lies not in defeating tangible enemies, but winning something greater — freedom, love and a chance at a new life.

That’s no huge spoiler for the film. As with any great movie, the enjoyment is in the journey and how the story is told. “Wall•E” continues Pixar’s grand tradition of using animation to tell very enjoyable, out-of-this-world stories.

The two-word review of: “Definitely, Maybe”

The romantic comedy “Definitely, Maybe” was released on DVD Tuesday. Instead of going on and on about the film’s pros and cons, I thought I would try to ape an Internet classic — the five-word movie review.
However, in the grand tradition of “Name that Tune,” I’m going to review this movie in two words. So, without further ado:

“Definitely, Maybe” — Sorta OK

Two-word reviews copyright 2008 by RTOmedia.com. All rights reserved. I will actively prosecute any one who blatantly steals my work for their own. It’s great when the copyright notice is 16 times longer than the review, ain’t it?

Dumb reasons to watch a movie

There were a couple of big comedy movies coming out last weekend — “Get Smart” and “The Love Guru.” Neither movie really received very good reviews from critics.
While the films were being lambasted by critics. I was thinking of reasons to watch these films. Some of them I thought were pretty well reasoned — I like the actors in “Get Smart,” including Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway. I also thought the original TV series “Get Smart” was pretty funny.
My desire to see “The Love Guru” made less sense. The TV commercial featured Stephen Colbert and another actor in front of the “Hockey Night in Canada” set.
I guess I’m a sucker because my desire to watch the film increased dramatically. It would be like if the “Monday Night Football” team was in a film.
Good news — the fact the Toronto Maple Leafs are the featured team in the film didn’t pique my interest at all. I do hope they play better fictionally than in real life.

Super Bowl ad yanked

Just a quick follow-up to my last post, which touched on a questionable Super Bowl ad featuring cartoon pandas speaking in dubious Asian accents.
According the New York Times, the ad has been withdrawn with an apology from Vinod Gupta, the head honcho at InfoUSA, the parent of Salesgenie.com. It’s a good article, detailing how Gupta has been the brains behind the commercials over the past couple of years and the reaction from audience tests of the ads (as part of the Super Bowl ad extravaganza).
The NYT article also discusses humor and race in advertising. It’s a fine line and it’s one that appears to be easier to cross as time goes by. Is it still safe to mix humor and race in advertising and programming and still be entertaining/effective?

Super Bowl delivers super stunner

There are certain assumptions that people have about the Super Bowl — most people watch the commercials and the game itself is actually kinda dull. This year’s Super Bowl turned those assumptions on their heads by delivering an outstanding game. The commercials were more of an expensive afterthought offering the usual mix of hits and misses.
Sure, the game was slow going after the New York Giants scored a field goal in the first quarter and the New England Patriots answered with seven points just barely into the second quarter. The fourth quarter definitely paid for the price of admission as the Giants surge into the lead only to let it slip from their fingers with just minutes left in the game.
Down four points, Giants quarterback Eli Manning delivered one of the most outstanding Super Bowl plays I’ve seen. I would try to describe it, but watching a clip would do it much more justice.
The Patriots blitzed Manning and had their hands on his jersey. Pulling away from the eager tugs of his opponents, Manning is able to scramble into the open briefly. Instead of letting the chaos wash over him, Manning actually throws the ball downfield into the arms of his receiver.
I’m sure you can get better recaps elsewhere on the ‘net. However, when people are screaming “Oh, my God” repeatedly over a play, it’s worth mentioning.

Super Bowl reflections

Commercials — As I said earlier, the commercials were almost an afterthought although three of the people attending my exclusive Super Bowl party were primarily interested in them.
If you want a recap of the commercials, TV Squad is one of the dozens of places with mini reviews and embedded videos.
My bottom line — it’s outrageous that people pay $2.7 million for 30 seconds of exposure, especially when the ads are mostly dissatisfying. Here’s what I thought was the best and the worst:
The best: I definitely liked the NFL’s Super Ad, much for the reasons detailed by TV Squad. Essentially, it details how future NFL player Chester Pitts was bagging groceries in San Diego when another football player discovered him and encouraged him to try out for college ball. Although Pitts said the only thing he played before college was the oboe, he turned out to be a good football player.
What an awesome commercial with a sweet rags-to-riches story. It definitely had a fairy tale feel to it, leading many to ask if the story was real. I said it has to be because I knew the months of promotion for the NFL Super Ad competition where people were asked for vote for the best story from NFL players.
I also enjoyed Coca-Cola’s duel between parade balloons Underdog and Stewie Griffin. It was all the sweeter that periennial loser Charlie Brown finally won.
Although the commercial was played for laughs, part of me was reminded of the injuries when floats have gotten out of control in the past (which is why there are much stricter rules in place at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade).
The worst: Let’s say you have a Web site in business to generate business leads, somehow. What better way to get the word out than buying at least $5 million of commercials. One of the commercials was pretty bad — it was a cartoon (!) featuring pandas having problems selling their bamboo furniture. However, thanks to this Web site (which I’m deliberately forgetting the name of), they were able to save their business.
This commercial completely rubbed me the wrong way. Not only was it the extremely rare cartoon promoting a business Web site, the whole premise of pandas selling bamboo furniture and speaking with seemingly stereotypical Asian accents struck me as vaguely racist or at least disrespectful. It seemed like one step away from making chopstick buck teeth and saying “Me so sorrie.”
I can’t say the Asian accents were faked because I don’t know who the voice talent was, but the whole endeavor didn’t seem sincere to me.
While Go Daddy may have been able to successfully promote its domain-registration business with inexplicably popular commercials, I don’t know if this other company will be able to see similar success.

The broadcast: I thought the actual game broadcast was nice although I have no idea what Super Bowl 3 and Super Bowl 42 are, as FOX Sports referred to them in on-screen graphics. I thought all the Super Bowls had roman numerals, like III and XLII. Learn to count, people.
I skipped the pregame show (which was apparently 18-hours long, give or take a day). It’s usually a lot of fluff and my disinterest grew when I heard that FOX News was producing this argueably sports-oriented program (so they could tout their Super Tuesday election coverage).
Having FOX cameras spot the celebrities in the stands was fun for a minute, but I always wonder why they have to be Hollywood celebrities. Just once I would like Joe Buck to say, “There’s Nobel Laureate Gerhard Ertl. He won the 2007 Nobel for his contributions in chemistry.”
I know not to hold my breath.

Halftime: I’ve largely derided the halftime shows since the NFL took over the production after the incident that brought America to its knees. In retrospect, it’s mostly because of their super safe choices not the entertainment value.
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers gave a fun performance that definitely had a lot of people at my party singing along. I just wish the NFL would showcase some younger talent.
Also, it would be nice to see another female performer on the halftime stage. Heck, FOX Sports included a woman in its out-of-place, yet nice, tribute to the Declaration of Independence (which addressed a beef I had the last time).
Since “the incident” in 2004, the NFL must follow an extremely rigid set of rules when selecting the halftime show. The rules are all geared to avoid another “malfunction” of the sort that so disrupted our state of affairs. To the best of my knowledge, they are:

  1. No breasts — No breasts, no problems. Right?
  2. Performers must be on Social Security — All right, they’re not 65, but they’re close. The average age of performers is 59
  3. Performers must be dudes — See rule 1.
  4. Must not have reputation for taking clothes off, at least not recently.

In the end, the Super Bowl is supposed to be about a game and it succeeded this year.