tv coverage

[elaine cram]

I would just like to mention the Twickenham coverage yesterday. Im absolutely peed off with the crazy camera shots. One minute it's going along fine, then we're zoomed in so close we can't see what's happening on the periphery; next we are floating above a scrum , which is asbsolutley useless as you can't see what's happening with the ball. Then we have a close up at a very inactive toy mascot, brilliant choice! Then we have Andy Nicholl (no disrespect to Andy) talking about something that we're just seen, and meanwhile we're missing the start of the next play. Mr. Director stop playing with your new gadgets because all it is doing is make me shout at your ineptness. Take a look at the brilliant coverage of the Irish and scottish games and leave the fancy footwork to the great players of this great game

 

[Bullitt]

A lot of people seem to be saying this, the BBC are a real bunch of idiots <strike>at times</strike> all the time!

That said, the French are equally as bad with all their 'artsy' overlays etc.

 

[RC]

I've spoken of my hatred of these novelty cameras.
I mean, if during a replay they decide to show us a certain passage of play from one of those novelty cameras, then go nuts!
But during live play, it's really disorienting and ruins the game for the spectator.

 

[Olyy]

I swear the directors, or whatever, had watched 300 just before the match, with the sepia-toned slowmo replays of the match

Also, that overhead camera is shocking, it's really poor quality and adds nothing to it, just makes the whole thing seem really disjointed

 

[RC]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullitt @ Feb 7 2010, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

That said, the French are equally as bad with all their 'artsy' overlays etc.[/b]

Oh come on! A nice long shot of the stadium with the setting sun in the background interspersed with and Extreme CU of michalak jogging off to his own half.
B-E-A-Utiful!!!

 

[An Tarbh]

there was still some of it yesterday from RTÉ for the Italy match where they zoom in too close to the action, but at least they'd cut back on the amount they did during the Autumn, perhaps cause they were host broadcaster they upped their game.

BBC were quite poor though, perhaps trying too hard for the 3D gimmick, but really bad when they missed Williams break while they were arsing about.

They seem to think that they have to improve their coverage to make things better, here's some news for you the tv coverage back in the 80s and 90s was never **** to begin with, stick with that and improve the quality of your analysts and presenters, rather than concentrating on something that isn't broken.

 

[Deaf Drummer]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elaine IOW @ Feb 7 2010, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I would just like to mention the Twickenham coverage yesterday. Im absolutely peed off with the crazy camera shots. One minute it's going along fine, then we're zoomed in so close we can't see what's happening on the periphery; next we are floating above a scrum , which is asbsolutley useless as you can't see what's happening with the ball. Then we have a close up at a very inactive toy mascot, brilliant choice! Then we have Andy Nicholl (no disrespect to Andy) talking about something that we're just seen, and meanwhile we're missing the start of the next play. Mr. Director stop playing with your new gadgets because all it is doing is make me shout at your ineptness. Take a look at the brilliant coverage of the Irish and scottish games and leave the fancy footwork to the great players of this great game[/b]

Spot on, this director could never have played the game. He / She is more interested with playing with toys than providing quality coverage. BBC you're trying hard to ruin the coverage from Twickenham and it's a real pain the arse! Please get your house in order!

 

[gingergenius]

Camera angles were all very **** yesterday.

I'd also question why it was that viewers in Scotland's build up to the Ireland vs Italy match consisted of the highly fascinating 0-0 draw between St Mirren & Rangers, followed by half an hour of people chatting about it??? The flicked over to the rugby literally the minute it kicked off.

I really hate Sonia McLoughlan as well. Her job through the game is pointless - she just sits with Colin Charvis asking him stupid questions while he gives stupid answers. She then interviews people afterwards, and asks all the wrong questions.

How did she get the job in the first place? She's been doing it for 5 years and she still knows f*** all about rugby. Would it be terrible to suggest it's because she's a she? But then, normally women involved are 1) Fit or 2) Know what they're talking about (Clare Balding, Hazel Irivine)...

Andy Nicholl chats more bullshit than everyone else on the BBC team. At least Guscott chats **** without a whiny voice. And Davies has the whiny voice but makes a lot of sense.

Grrr.

 

[Meh]

I agree with GG on the Sonia comment.

She's pretty useless and her questions to Warren Gatland in particular just seemed to be the uninteresting ones that Inverdale had just brought up. Oh and they always related back to England of course...

 

[elaine cram]

,
well the highlight was the lingering shot of the bear mascot propping up a post. who gives a monkeys what the bloody stuffed animal is doing lets concentrate on the game. Half time is ok for looking at the crowd who are enjoying a tv free choice of idiotic camera angles.

 

[Meh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elaine IOW @ Feb 7 2010, 05:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

,
well the highlight was the lingering shot of the bear mascot propping up a post. who gives a monkeys what the bloody stuffed animal is doing lets concentrate on the game. Half time is ok for looking at the crowd who are enjoying a tv free choice of idiotic camera angles.[/b]

Haha yes. They showed that at least three times I'm pretty sure.

Was the game that uninteresting?

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Feb 8 2010, 05:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Andy Nicholl chats more bullshit than everyone else on the BBC team. At least Guscott chats **** without a whiny voice. And Davies has the whiny voice but makes a lot of sense.

Grrr.[/b]

Nicholl is at his worst when talking up Scotland, but he has some good points on analysis. Yesterday he showed the England tighthead carrying a dead shoulder in a maul a minute before he collapsed a scrum on the Wales line.

And in defence of Davies, he's hilarious pronouncing haridornikee.

 

[mohamed_ali12]

The Spider-cam was useless, but i though the shots of the conversions/penalties were pretty sweet to be honest. Hopefully it'll be better against Ireland once they work out how to use them.

 

[DuncTheDoodle]

How about tonight's Scrum V has a spider-cam to film it? I've always wanted to watch the top of Colin Charvis' head for an hour. And why stop there? The next series of Doctor Who could do with us being able to see planets with a spinny panned out camera. Maybe Ready, Steady, Cook should let us have a more direct view of the pots being cooked with?

The Eastenders 25th anniversary has gone to their heads.

 

[An Tarbh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Feb 7 2010, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Camera angles were all very **** yesterday.

I'd also question why it was that viewers in Scotland's build up to the Ireland vs Italy match consisted of the highly fascinating 0-0 draw between St Mirren & Rangers, followed by half an hour of people chatting about it??? The flicked over to the rugby literally the minute it kicked off.

I really hate Sonia McLoughlan as well. Her job through the game is pointless - she just sits with Colin Charvis asking him stupid questions while he gives stupid answers. She then interviews people afterwards, and asks all the wrong questions.

How did she get the job in the first place? She's been doing it for 5 years and she still knows f*** all about rugby. Would it be terrible to suggest it's because she's a she? But then, normally women involved are 1) Fit or 2) Know what they're talking about (Clare Balding, Hazel Irivine)...

Andy Nicholl chats more bullshit than everyone else on the BBC team. At least Guscott chats **** without a whiny voice. And Davies has the whiny voice but makes a lot of sense.

Grrr.[/b]

there's all sorts of political correctness going on at the BBC, have to have a woman, that's Logan and McLoughlin, have to have all the nations represented and have to have someone with special needs i.e Guscott and Charvis. Charvis always sounds like he's reading his comments during a match, one too many high tackles during his playing career methinks.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Feb 7 2010, 10:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Feb 7 2010, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Camera angles were all very **** yesterday.

I'd also question why it was that viewers in Scotland's build up to the Ireland vs Italy match consisted of the highly fascinating 0-0 draw between St Mirren & Rangers, followed by half an hour of people chatting about it??? The flicked over to the rugby literally the minute it kicked off.

I really hate Sonia McLoughlan as well. Her job through the game is pointless - she just sits with Colin Charvis asking him stupid questions while he gives stupid answers. She then interviews people afterwards, and asks all the wrong questions.

How did she get the job in the first place? She's been doing it for 5 years and she still knows f*** all about rugby. Would it be terrible to suggest it's because she's a she? But then, normally women involved are 1) Fit or 2) Know what they're talking about (Clare Balding, Hazel Irivine)...

Andy Nicholl chats more bullshit than everyone else on the BBC team. At least Guscott chats **** without a whiny voice. And Davies has the whiny voice but makes a lot of sense.

Grrr.[/b]

there's all sorts of political correctness going on at the BBC, have to have a woman, that's Logan and McLoughlin, have to have all the nations represented and have to have someone with special needs i.e Guscott and Charvis. Charvis always sounds like he's reading his comments during a match, one too many high tackles during his playing career methinks.
[/b][/quote]

I'm all for having disproportionate numbers of minorities on TV, because that's one of the things that has eradicated racism and homophobia from mainstream British culture. They've not had this in France until recently, and this is one of the main reasons they're still having to come to terms with their non white population.

But with women, I disagree. Women don't need to be integrated into culture, because they are already a massive part of it. And also, all the women I know are into rugby precisely because of its manliness, not because there's a stupid woman on the sidelines.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Feb 8 2010, 12:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Feb 7 2010, 10:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Feb 7 2010, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Camera angles were all very **** yesterday.

I'd also question why it was that viewers in Scotland's build up to the Ireland vs Italy match consisted of the highly fascinating 0-0 draw between St Mirren & Rangers, followed by half an hour of people chatting about it??? The flicked over to the rugby literally the minute it kicked off.

I really hate Sonia McLoughlan as well. Her job through the game is pointless - she just sits with Colin Charvis asking him stupid questions while he gives stupid answers. She then interviews people afterwards, and asks all the wrong questions.

How did she get the job in the first place? She's been doing it for 5 years and she still knows f*** all about rugby. Would it be terrible to suggest it's because she's a she? But then, normally women involved are 1) Fit or 2) Know what they're talking about (Clare Balding, Hazel Irivine)...

Andy Nicholl chats more bullshit than everyone else on the BBC team. At least Guscott chats **** without a whiny voice. And Davies has the whiny voice but makes a lot of sense.

Grrr.[/b]

there's all sorts of political correctness going on at the BBC, have to have a woman, that's Logan and McLoughlin, have to have all the nations represented and have to have someone with special needs i.e Guscott and Charvis. Charvis always sounds like he's reading his comments during a match, one too many high tackles during his playing career methinks.
[/b][/quote]

I'm all for having disproportionate numbers of minorities on TV, because that's one of the things that has eradicated racism and homophobia from mainstream British culture. They've not had this in France until recently, and this is one of the main reasons they're still having to come to terms with their non white population.
[/b][/quote]
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Pay market price for what you want: Sky. Oops!

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Feb 9 2010, 09:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Pay market price for what you want: Sky. Oops![/b]

boring boring boring

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Feb 7 2010, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

How did she get the job in the first place? She's been doing it for 5 years and she still knows f*** all about rugby. Would it be terrible to suggest it's because she's a she?[/b]

No thats exactly why she was tapped to take the job. Because she was a woman.

The BBC have been spending the past 15 odd years trying to shoe-horn in women into a variety of sport presenting roles but the only time when they got it roughly spot on was when they managed to find a woman who knew enough about cricket to be a play-by-play commentator for Test Match Special and then they even cocked that up because they got rid of her after a season or something.

So now you just pick someone on their "all round skills" like presenting news, having reasonable knowledge of what you're talking about doesn't seem to figure so long as you can deliver what you're saying in a Scottish/Irish/Eastury English aaaacceeent.

Going to actual coverage, I bet Cricket must drive these ambitious arty farty directors absolutely insane.

Think about it, displaying the bowler delivering the ball and then showing what happened after (batsman hitting it, batsman getting out, etc) which is the actual bread & butter of cricket coverage hasn't changed largely in 40 years. Thats fantastic.

Sure theres lots of edgy shots of fieldsmen milling about and batsmen prodding at the wicket but when it gets back to the business end of bowler throwing to batsman it reverts back to the tried and tested camera looking straight down the middle slowly zooming in model which has been used since the 1960s.

Awesome. And I hope Sky Sports don't manage to screw that up like they've managed to screw up the rest of the Cricket coverage with sodding wagon wheels and whizz bang sound FX and bloody Bumble who I want to punch in the face because he tries to act like Boycott all the time but has neither the knowledge nor the cocky Yorkshire backbone.

Channel 4 / Sunset & Vine. Best Cricket coverage ever. End of discussion.

 

[An Tarbh]

true but even cricket coverage has changed but unlike rugby it hasn't been to the detriment of the quality of coverage. BBC were still using cameras from only 1 end well into the 80s, before they started doing what Channel Nine were doing in Australia. I agree that Channel 4's coverage was fantastic, pioneering Hawke Eye, Snicko and Ultra Motion, but again the tried and tested remained the same while these new innovations have merely complemented the service. This may just seem that I'm going off on a tangent but it is related to the rugby as BBC and RTÉ have tried to change their basic coverage of the game. Zooming in on rucks, mauls and scrums during play is infuriating as you have no chance of seeing how the play could develop and as we saw on Saturday it missed the start of Williams break down the blindside. There's plenty of stops in play for them to use their gadgets to show interesting replays, even at half time and after the match but not during the game itself.