Packers vs. Cowboys on the NFL Network

Badgers, Packers, Mallards. Paddling, running, golfing. And bikes!
aaronetc
Forum Addict
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:06 pm
Location: On the Isthmus
Contact:

Postby aaronetc » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:46 pm

GenericUsername wrote:BTW, doesn't anyone have the feeling that the Packers are due for that inevitable flop game on "national" TV? You know the one.... 3 fumbles (2 by Favre), 4 interceptions (one from a Driver pass on a trick play), a running game of under 45 yards, etc...


Yeah, or maybe Favre will hurt his arm and it'll be up to Aaron Rodgers to engineer at 17-point comeback. Yikes.

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Postby TAsunder » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:46 am

Watched it at steak & lube of all places. Sound was no good but plenty of TVs. I can't believe they want us to pay $1/month for this worthless bag of shit network. Fun game, though. And it's been a while since I've been in a room full of screaming fans. My voice is a bit hoarse from screaming myself. Result was about what I expected.

Aaron "long lost gramatica brother" Rodgers looked pretty good.

jammybastard
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5468
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 12:05 pm
Location: All Up In Your General Area
Contact:

Postby jammybastard » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:23 pm

TAsunder wrote:I can't believe they want us to pay $1/month for this worthless bag of shit network.


...and now you see the light!
Feel that way about BTN as well?
:wink:

Seriously though, what didn't you like about the NFL Net's production? I've worked on a couple of their shows and they certainly spend the $$$ to make it look like the Super Bowl. Their problem seems to be too many chiefs, and no-one who actually knows what they are doing. My biggest complaint was that it wasn't broadcast in HD w/ 5.1 sound. That's just silly.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 22589
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:30 pm

NFL Network - one Packer game a year.

BTN - 4 UW football and 20 UW b-ball games this season. Maybe more next year.

I don't mind going to a bar once a year to see the Pack, but not for all those Badger games.

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Postby TAsunder » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:33 pm

I don't mind the big ten network.

I thought the announcing was terrible. Gumbel made tons of mistakes, and no one actually announced what was happening most of the time. I never really minded collinsworth, so I find it hard to believe he's the problem. I honestly would rather have listened to just dennis miller than these two guys.

The graphics up top were lame too. Too much screen space, the red coloring was distracting, and they didn't show enough information at all times. They show you the down and yardage for about 3 seconds and then make you guess the rest of the time, since the announcers don't say it most of the time.

They cut to commercial and then cut back too late a few times.

Not enough stats. I don't mean meaningless crap like favre is 0 for 1 when hurting his arm at the 23 yard line on an interception. I mean much more basic stuff.

It looked pretty good, I guess.

aaron
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1548
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:30 pm
Contact:

Postby aaron » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:53 pm

I have Dish Network and have NFL network but have never watched it. Didn't watch last night either.

jammybastard
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5468
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 12:05 pm
Location: All Up In Your General Area
Contact:

Postby jammybastard » Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:35 pm

TAsunder wrote:I thought the announcing was terrible. Gumbel made tons of mistakes, and no one actually announced what was happening most of the time.


Agreed. Gumbel was adrift and really doesn't belong there. What about Deon's sideline "reporting"? Tell me that wasn't weird. I appreciate them trying to freshenup the "look", but the content was lacking.

TAsunder wrote:The graphics up top were lame too. Too much screen space, the red coloring was distracting, and they didn't show enough information at all times. They show you the down and yardage for about 3 seconds and then make you guess the rest of the time, since the announcers don't say it most of the time.


Onscreen graphics are my biggest complaint as well. It coems from being in the production truck and watching the director try to find a shot that works with a giant slab of font and background. It never gets easy as the font designers are rarely out in the field to see the real world application of their work.
I was struck by how minimalist the NFL net score box was. Very artsy fartsy, but difficult to easily decipher on first glance due to lack of labelling.

If you see a BTN event their gfx are HUUUGE and annoying so this was an interesting change.
Plus I liked the lack of sound effects on the NFL net gfx. No more "wooshes" for me.

One thing to remember, even though the the game is being shot in 16x9 everything is still framed to "protect" the 4:3 aspect ratio. That means camera shots, gfx, etc...are all centered or justified for a normal tv screen.

TAsunder wrote:They cut to commercial and then cut back too late a few times.


Yeah, that's the sign of a breakdown in communication between the AD in the truck and the master control.
Like I said in an earlier post, working NFL Netowrk games is like being a part of a very expensive clusterfuck and that's a good example of how it effects the on-air content.

TAsunder wrote:Not enough stats. I don't mean meaningless crap like favre is 0 for 1 when hurting his arm at the 23 yard line on an interception. I mean much more basic stuff.


That's down to the producer and by association the font operator.
The producer gets notes on what they should highlight beyond the basics to help tell the story of the game.
The fact that they didn't even have some of the basics tells me that they didn't have their graphics worked out, or that they just didn't feel like they needed to provide them. All of these sports networks constantly change their graphics look for each season and sometimes things don't work in the field like they did at the designers desk. That might have been part of the problem. Somebody built a basic graphics package with some whiz-bang animation and when they tried to run it something didn't work.
That actually happens alot these days.

thebookpolice
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8596
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East
Contact:

Postby thebookpolice » Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:37 pm

jammybastard wrote:Their problem seems to be too many chiefs

That's great, jammy. But who are the "chiefs"?

Paco
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7533
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 11:41 am
Location: Whoville

Postby Paco » Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:53 pm

I couldn't hear it at all, but saw Deion's back and that mic cord sticking out of his butt or coat. If you have a sideline reporter, make him face the camera.

Like someone else said, to me the most important thing is the down and yards to go...why they take this off as soon as the play starts is beyond me. I look at that after and during every play, how many times do you look at the score, which seldom changes--and that's what they keep up there all the time.

Bryant Gumble.

Learned
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2001 11:02 am

Postby Learned » Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:26 pm

aaron wrote:I have Dish Network and have NFL network but have never watched it. Didn't watch last night either.


Thanks for your input.

jammybastard
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5468
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 12:05 pm
Location: All Up In Your General Area
Contact:

Postby jammybastard » Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:41 pm

TheBookPolice wrote:
jammybastard wrote:Their problem seems to be too many chiefs

That's great, jammy. But who are the "chiefs"?


Not sure what you mean, but I'll guess.
It's been my experience that people like Exec Producers, Producers, Production Managers, etc... who haven't been on location before tend to think that throwing alot of money at the show is going to make the problems magically disappear.
Usually it creates more problems, which leads to more labor, which leads to lots of OT, and a blown out budget as well as a less than stellar show.
While it's cool to push the envelope and try new things, like the sideline reporter being shot by a stedi-cam, you still need to make sure you are doing the basics because that's what the audience really cares about. Most people could care less about the exotic camera angle if it doesn't show the play clearly.

jammybastard
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5468
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 12:05 pm
Location: All Up In Your General Area
Contact:

Postby jammybastard » Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:48 pm

Paco wrote:I couldn't hear it at all, but saw Deion's back and that mic cord sticking out of his butt or coat. If you have a sideline reporter, make him face the camera.


yeah, I feel that way too. It was strange to see Deion so close to the line, while the stedi-cam did a semi circle around him. I found myself asking, "Ok, who's he talking to and why is he looking out at the field and not at the camera?" Then they cut to a camera on the other side of the field, the "reverse", and then it becomes obvious that he's been told to look at a camera on the other side of the field. Bizarre blocking. I'm guessing they didn't rehearse that or they wouldn't have done it.
I would have had him turn to the stedi-cam, have it make the arc around him to reveal the play in the background, and then cut to the game cam once the ball is snapped.

BTW - "Bryant Gumbel"

buckyor
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2334
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 1:09 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Postby buckyor » Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:54 pm

The Packers have actually been on local TV (either network or ESPN) quite a bit here, so I haven't had to go to the tavern very often to see them this season. Last night we went to one of the handful of places in town with the NFL Network, and it was packed with people there to watch the game. About 2/3 rooting for the Pack (although most were I presume Pats fans). The place I was at had a band scheduled to start at ~ 9:30, but they delayed their start about 45 minutes and played sparingly until the game was over, around 11:30 or so. I was surprised at the level of interest in this game.

nevermore
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3833
Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 11:07 am
Contact:

Postby nevermore » Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:03 pm

And I need someone to straighten me out here: Was that Steve Marriucci or Mitt Romney?

Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7032
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Postby Marvell » Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:45 pm

buckyor wrote:The Packers have actually been on local TV (either network or ESPN) quite a bit here, so I haven't had to go to the tavern very often to see them this season. Last night we went to one of the handful of places in town with the NFL Network, and it was packed with people there to watch the game. About 2/3 rooting for the Pack (although most were I presume Pats fans). The place I was at had a band scheduled to start at ~ 9:30, but they delayed their start about 45 minutes and played sparingly until the game was over, around 11:30 or so. I was surprised at the level of interest in this game.


Why? Packer love is bad, it's nation-wide.

Didn't you catch the moment where the Dallas offense got charged with a noise-induced false-start penalty in their own stadium?

I'm sure that at that moment Jerry Jones's anal sphincter had never been more tightly clenched, nor his face frozen in a grimmer rictus.


Return to “Sports, Recreation & Biking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests