Crap, the Bean Counters are going to screw us again!

ahalpert said:
I'm not a big sports fan, so maybe my opinion on this isn't the best - but I genuinely feel that cinematography has enhanced sports viewing SO much and elevated the experience of every game for fans.

The high resolution, the slow motion, the crazy camera angles - having the camera flying over the field or positioned atop the basket.

It gives people an enhanced way to experience the action, and having so many cameras of such high quality and with such fancy rigs in all the right places is key.

Or look at baseball - it becomes a suspense thriller of dueling close-ups of the batter and the pitcher. There's no way that a wide shot of the field has the same drama.
Click to expand...

Saw a discussion/argument about baseball the other month when everyone started talking about how to get back to playing and broadcasting sports again. One of the things is having much reduced crews and camera angles. Someone in the discussion, obviously an old timer, threw out the ‘ole “baseball used to be done with just four cameras” and the retort was basically, yeah look how damn boring it was too, compared to today. So it’s going to be interesting to see how viewers react and/or accept live sports like football, baseball, basketball, if they cut back and just go with the meat and potatoes only. I’m sure in the short term, fans will just be happy to get anything back, but how long will the honeymoon phase last, before they want salt and pepper on their meat and gravy on the potatoes, again. Plus dessert and a glass of wine with the meal.
 
ahalpert said:
I'm not a big sports fan, so maybe my opinion on this isn't the best - but I genuinely feel that cinematography has enhanced sports viewing SO much and elevated the experience of every game for fans.

The high resolution, the slow motion, the crazy camera angles - having the camera flying over the field or positioned atop the basket.

It gives people an enhanced way to experience the action, and having so many cameras of such high quality and with such fancy rigs in all the right places is key.

Or look at baseball - it becomes a suspense thriller of dueling close-ups of the batter and the pitcher. There's no way that a wide shot of the field has the same drama.
Click to expand...

With respect to baseball at least, you can't really see the game on TV. You get none of the field strategy as players shift position for different batters or different runners on base for instance. You don't get to see the interactions between line coaches and players. Much more entertaining to see the game in person IMO.
 
When it comes to "content is king" I will point out that our content is made up exclusively of images and sound. Production quality is relative to purpose. What works for a talking head news show vs a well produced drama is very different.
Nothing has reinforced that observation for me like having the time during the current pandemic to binge watch a lot of the new productions, films and series, on Netflix and Prime. There is some really beautiful work with great production values, and some really atrocious stuff even though it is shot on high end gear. Grossly underexposed poorly lit poorly graded mud. The impact of content on an audience is very much related to appropriate production values.
 
Razz16mm said:
When it comes to "content is king" I will point out that our content is made up exclusively of images and sound. Production quality is relative to purpose. What works for a talking head news show vs a well produced drama is very different.
Nothing has reinforced that observation for me like having the time during the current pandemic to binge watch a lot of the new productions, films and series, on Netflix and Prime. There is some really beautiful work with great production values, and some really atrocious stuff even though it is shot on high end gear. Grossly underexposed poorly lit poorly graded mud. The impact of content on an audience is very much related to appropriate production values.
Click to expand...

That can definitely be true, but "context is king" as well because there are more viewers watching YouTube vloggers (or YouTube in general) than everything else in the world combined including any Hollywood film or TV production, big or small.

Instagram too. Ridiculous numbers. Unseen/unheard of in a previous world.
 
NorBro said:
That can definitely be true, but "context is king" as well because there are more viewers watching YouTube vloggers (or YouTube in general) than everything else in the world combined including any Hollywood film or TV production, big or small.

Instagram too. Ridiculous numbers. Unseen/unheard of in a previous world.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how those numbers shake out. Aren't you aggregating youtube or instagram numbers? why not aggregate hollywood or netflix numbers as well? why not compare minutes watched rather than viewers?

at any rate, scripted narrative is thriving as well on various streamers.

i can't deny the success of social media, but i wonder if it truly replaces traditional media or if it supplements it. there's a celebrity component to watching these self-shot posts etc. I also wonder if they scratch an itch for socialization and friendship rather than entertainment.

again, not denying their power/success. just postulating about what it means, especially for the future of media consumption
 
You're so old. lol, j/k

(And I'm probably older than you!)

You can aggregate, you can "quantify", you can study it with your friends from The Next Generation, but there is no comparison.

But I also didn't say it replaces traditional media...it definitely supplements it. We need shows and films on TV and in theaters. But 'the impact of content on an audience is very much related to appropriate production values' based on the context of the comparison.
 
What's going to happen for the in-studio newscasts is that the PTZ's will get better to the point that it will look like a pro broadcast (although, while I don't watch the local news often - I might tonight - I recall the in-studio anchors completely bathed in light, so even their pancake makeup is washed out ... Geoff Boyle 5-stop over special from 11 to 11:30)

The other factor is inexpensive digital studio software - sit in front of the green screen anywhere in the world and make it look like you're in Hawaii - combined with the OEM streaming capabilities of the modern consumer tier cameras a la the recent Canon and Fuji releases.

Sports wise, when Nikon P1000 came out, the Fro dude went to a Phillies game, sat in the bleachers and was able to zoom into the catcher's mitt. With a $1,000 camera. Adapt it for the broadcast, improve the output/codec/stabilization, etc., and there's your pro tier PTZ that you can place anywhere inside the stadium. You want your 32 camera coverage? Here, you can have 80. All controlled by the director - or two directors, 40 each - in New York. You want to interview a coach or a player at half-time? Here, stand on the X, don a headphone, look into the red light. Done. Film at 11.
 
Run&Gun said:
Saw a discussion/argument about baseball the other month when everyone started talking about how to get back to playing and broadcasting sports again. One of the things is having much reduced crews and camera angles. Someone in the discussion, obviously an old timer, threw out the ‘ole “baseball used to be done with just four cameras” and the retort was basically, yeah look how damn boring it was too, compared to today. So it’s going to be interesting to see how viewers react and/or accept live sports like football, baseball, basketball, if they cut back and just go with the meat and potatoes only. I’m sure in the short term, fans will just be happy to get anything back, but how long will the honeymoon phase last, before they want salt and pepper on their meat and gravy on the potatoes, again. Plus dessert and a glass of wine with the meal.
Click to expand...

Just seems like they should add camera people to this issue. Only way to get more immersive for the viewers at home is to get more immersive. Is that crazy talk?
 
ahalpert said:
... there's a celebrity component to watching these self-shot posts etc. I also wonder if they scratch an itch for socialization and friendship rather than entertainment.
Click to expand...

100% there is the part that John and Jane Doe now feel somehow connected to these "celebrities" and part of their inner circle, like they really know them and are friends with them. And that's how these millionaire/billionaires are getting even richer, because everyone runs out and buys/consumes whatever they're hocking, because they feel like their friends that they trust told them about it and they wouldn't steer them wrong.
 
It's no different than anything else. Emotion is life. And people develop connections or disconnections with everything.
 
NorBro said:
It's no different than anything else. Emotion is life. And people develop connections or disconnections with everything.
Click to expand...

Sure, but either because the distribution platforms have changed or the technology is there now, celebrities are even more powerful.

I read an article not too long ago that said that brands - especially new brands - were having trouble targeting effective advertising. It's hard to build buzz and translate that into sales. The exception was celebrities - a powerful celebrity endorsement could rocket a brand to fame from obscurity.

Maybe it's because our social lives are so online now that the relationship you have with a celebrity can feel more real relative to your real relationships than it used to?
 
Celebrities were always very powerful. Only thing that changed are the tactics & techniques because of the immediate digital access to minds...so maybe that made more of them powerful.

70-80 years ago, a newspaper AD of someone holding the product with some text would suffice. But you'd have to get the person in the studio, take the photo, print it, etc.

Now it's all instantaneous; a few words, one picture, one video to hundreds of millions.

What's a celebrity these days, anyway?

Nobodies unknown to most people (but insanely popular on social media) may have more power than people who have been in dozens of movies and are known/recognizable worldwide.

___

ahalpert said:
Maybe it's because our social lives are so online now that the relationship you have with a celebrity can feel more real relative to your real relationships than it used to?
Click to expand...

I may have agreed with this a few months ago but just watched "The Last Dance" (Michael Jordan episodic documentary which ended a few weeks ago), and the impact he had on people was absolutely insane. Driving/flying thousands of miles just to meet you, touch your hand, crying when they met you, buy anything you're selling, etc.

There was an amazing scene in the doc that claimed when Nike first signed Jordan, they predicted 3 million in shoe sales after 4 years.

They sold over 100 million pairs after the first year.
 
Just thinking to myself...the Jordan-like connection probably happened way long before him with people like The Beatles and others.
 
The difference is not that celebrity endorsements work today and didn't before. The difference is that now ONLY celebrity endorsements work while other tactics don't (supposedly)
 
Regarding the quality of viewership numbers, I wonder how intently people watch anything these days. So much multitasking in younger peoples' lives. Selling to 40 and younger is not as easy as before. They decide when they will be marketed to and eventually purchase. Does a YouTube hit count as much as a television hit? I would think not but maybe in 10 years it will.

Regarding sports quality and any quality, in general we are in the glory days of quality. Sad that things are falling apart because most everything you see looks great. Sports coverage has really evolved but at some point, the big cable contracts that pay all of the huge salaries are going to dry up. An adjustment will be made and life will go on right? 80 camera shoots with POV might be the norm. ESPN OMBs!

Fun and sad to talk about...
 
As far as selling anything, it's all so difficult to understand and predict.

The same commercials during your favorite shows on television may affect sales one month and not another. But who is watching the commercials?

Does anyone notice any product placement anymore?

Same for YouTube...ADs are targeted, but do you have an AD-blocker installed? Are you skipping the ADs inside the videos?

___

Anyone want to pay LeBron $300K to promote your video/editing services?

https://www.businessinsider.com/lebron-james-earns-over-300000-per-instagram-post-2020-2
 
P.S. I added that one because it's more reasonable compared to others like Kylie Jenner who supposedly asks up to 1 million dollars for 1 post.

Imagine being able to pressing one button and making that money. (Obviously only a few humans like that exist.)
 
The only silver lining to the Quarantine has been the skepticism and outright hostility to celebrities that I have been seeing. When you are broke, can't work, can get EDD to pay you UI and or PUA (not sure about other states, but here in Ca. almost every colleague I know in the business who
has been applying for UI and or PUA has been completely hosed and are at their wits end), seeing some dumb celebrity on social media or TV lamenting how tough it's been being sequestered in their multi-million dollar estate, bored, it's pissed off a lot of people.

My friend who works in PR at one of the studios predicts that the celebrity backlash will be short lived and that soon, Americans all over the country will begin to care about dumb celebrities and what they are endorsing and hawking again. Too bad, I feel that celebrity worship is completely detrimental
to society as a whole, it's just one more sign of people succumbing to the brainwash of mass media. Celebrities tell people where to live, how to live, how to vote, what they should be socially conscious about. I don't blame celebrities, they're just cashing in, but the people
who actually care about and follow what these people say and do, I don't get it. It's probably because I have worked with so many actors, writers, directors and celebrities over the years, most of them are clinically insane but very successful. The last people you should listen
to for advice about how to live your life. But people, do, by the billions.
 
The concept(s) of people believing in certain things 'because of' or listening to others about how to live goes back much further than celebrities.

Nothing has really changed in thousands of years.

It's just being recorded and displayed on a screen now.
 
Clark Gable was seen without an undershirt in "It happened one night" (1934, five Oscars - best director to Frank Capra, best actor to Gable, best actress to Claudette Colbert, best picture to Capra/Harry Cohn and best adopted screenplay to Robert Riskin) and the undershirt sales plummeted.

Of course, Gable was quite famous, having already been on "Keeping up with the Gables" and the "House Husbands of Beverly Hills".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top