Yo Cru,
Nascar.com has a blurb from NASCAR on FOX producer Neil Goldberg. It’s a
little fluff piece about commercials during races. I’m thinking he may be a
good contact for you to get your shot at the big time.
—
Gotta Go…FAST!
Bill
March 12, 2010
Cru On Fox!!
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
"DollarBill" <nospambillg…@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
<news:Ar6dnek1GYs0eRDfRVn-og@adelphia.com>…
> Yo Cru,
> Nascar.com has a blurb from NASCAR on FOX producer Neil Goldberg. It’s a
> little fluff piece about commercials during races. I’m thinking he may be a
> good contact for you to get your shot at the big time.
> —
> Gotta Go…FAST!
> Bill
LOL!
This is great! I just got done runnin’ my mouth about this over in the ‘Lake’
(Pssst, Marty…r.a.s.n. to you!) so guess I’ll do a bit of copy/paste action
here.
"FOX producer Neil Goldberg answers the age-old question of why viewers are
occassionally forced to miss on-track action due to commercials." More at:
http://www.nascar.com/2005/news/features/viewers_guide/05/19/allstar_...
ex.html
(Scroll on down to the pic of the guy who’s lost even more hair than when I talked
with him briefly at the Inaugural Fontana race in ’97!)
When FOX picked up Neil from ESPN after getting the TV deal, I was in hopes that
the real *racing* coverage was gonna be good. Neil had shown that he knew what
situations during each race were important and seemed to catch nearly all the
important action by directing the live camera to lead changes, passes back in the
pack or when one of the cars suddenly slowed with some kinda problem. The ‘zoom’
was moderate so you could see the relative positions of several cars, the ‘pass’
from camera to camera was synched smoothly and the action on cam was tied well to
the voice-over by the talent in the booth.
We’ve all seen that coverage has suffered big-time recently…my feeling is that
it’s a combination of the Network(s) decision to go to the MTV-quick-cuts to suit
the ‘new generation’ short attention span *and* Neil being a bit overwhelmed by
having so many cameras to keep track of…both of these are thought by the
Network(s) to be ‘improvements’…I disagree.
Sigh.
Commercials will always be with us on ‘free’ TV.
—
Tom in Bristol…who would prefer a vertical scoring tower with Position/Car
Number on the left edge showing 20 spots that advances continually thru the field
so I can keep track of any/all of the drivers rather than the ticker at the top.
And…since I’m on this rant…please *stop* doing the silly "Crank it up" during
re-starts! Save the zoomed-in-too-close ‘Speed Shots’ for later when the field
has stabilized…I wanna see dicing for the lead, the outside line struggling past
lappers and see, *live*, who spins tires/misses shifts when they get the Green!!
That’s when the racing is hot!
Comment by admin — March 12, 2010 @ 8:32 am
"Tom Duwe" wrote …
> —
> Tom in Bristol…who would prefer a vertical scoring tower with Position/Car
> Number on the left edge showing 20 spots that advances continually thru the
> field
> so I can keep track of any/all of the drivers rather than the ticker at the
> top.
I agree that the ticker at the top is pretty useless. Especially when it takes
3 minutes to go through the field and they’ve run 3 – 10 laps in that time and
had changes galore. What’s the use?
> And…since I’m on this rant…please *stop* doing the silly "Crank it up"
> during
> re-starts! Save the zoomed-in-too-close ‘Speed Shots’ for later when the
> field
> has stabilized…I wanna see dicing for the lead, the outside line struggling
> past
> lappers and see, *live*, who spins tires/misses shifts when they get the
> Green!!
> That’s when the racing is hot!
Someone a while back on this topic commented on the huge number of cameras they
use (think it was in reference to production costs), which clearly makes getting
the right LIVE shot difficult for the director and provides great opportunity to
actually NOT get the right shot but get a zillion quick, meaningless shots that
you can never put into a context. Less cameras is not the answer, however,
’cause then we wouldn’t get all the great views we have on replay. IMO, the
answer is designating a manageable number of cameras as live action cameras and
only – ONLY – use those fewer cameras for live race action. Use the rest for
replay (including most all in-car shots). Simplify the live action directing
and let the replay crew cue up the BEST of the rest, not lap after lap of
meaningless in-car waiting for something to, or hoping something will, happen
while we miss the race itself or all the jumping around from shot to shot, again
missing the flow of the race completely.
IF they are doing this now (designating a manageable number of cameras as live
action cameras) they either don’t understand what a manageable number is or they
just are that bad at it.
Comment by admin — March 12, 2010 @ 8:32 am
"WildWeasel" <wweasel…@HooYah.com> wrote in message
news:4xSdnfL2ZbvNYhDfUSdV9g@ptd.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Tom Duwe" wrote …
> > —
> > Tom in Bristol…who would prefer a vertical scoring tower with Position/Car
> > Number on the left edge showing 20 spots that advances continually thru the
> > field
> > so I can keep track of any/all of the drivers rather than the ticker at the
> > top.
> I agree that the ticker at the top is pretty useless. Especially when it takes
> 3 minutes to go through the field and they’ve run 3 – 10 laps in that time and
> had changes galore. What’s the use?
> > And…since I’m on this rant…please *stop* doing the silly "Crank it up"
> > during
> > re-starts! Save the zoomed-in-too-close ‘Speed Shots’ for later when the
> > field
> > has stabilized…I wanna see dicing for the lead, the outside line struggling
> > past
> > lappers and see, *live*, who spins tires/misses shifts when they get the
> > Green!!
> > That’s when the racing is hot!
> Someone a while back on this topic commented on the huge number of cameras they
> use (think it was in reference to production costs), which clearly makes getting
> the right LIVE shot difficult for the director and provides great opportunity to
> actually NOT get the right shot but get a zillion quick, meaningless shots that
> you can never put into a context. Less cameras is not the answer, however,
> ’cause then we wouldn’t get all the great views we have on replay. IMO, the
> answer is designating a manageable number of cameras as live action cameras and
> only – ONLY – use those fewer cameras for live race action. Use the rest for
> replay (including most all in-car shots). Simplify the live action directing
> and let the replay crew cue up the BEST of the rest, not lap after lap of
> meaningless in-car waiting for something to, or hoping something will, happen
> while we miss the race itself or all the jumping around from shot to shot, again
> missing the flow of the race completely.
> IF they are doing this now (designating a manageable number of cameras as live
> action cameras) they either don’t understand what a manageable number is or they
> just are that bad at it.
Yup, keep the same amount of cameras, just cut down on the half-second exposures.
Tom Duwe, u convinced me to go to a static display of 10 cars at a time running order.
Since FOX’s crawler won’t show time/laps behind the leader very often.
Thanx for thinking of me Dollar Bill.
I hope u have read Goldberg’s replies to fan’s concerns previously.
He never answers The Question & i don’t think he feels a need to.
Guess i need to get Rupert Murdock’s attention, eh?
CRU
Comment by admin — March 12, 2010 @ 8:32 am