View Full Version : TV Coverage at Nationals
GlobalLlama
06-10-2006, 09:47 AM
Sorry to dissappoint, but there is none. Don't you think there should be though? I mean, if people will watch the Scripps National Spelling Bee, certainly they would watch the NFL final round of HI. I think all main event NFL Final Rounds should be on TV. I think people would get really into it, and it would advertise our activity.
Plus, I want a documentary made on me.
xxLusciousZechxx
06-10-2006, 11:20 AM
Wait for Sundance '07.
Our squad (Gregory-Portland) had a documentary made about us last year and it's supposedly debuting next year at the previously stated festival.
But yeah, on TV coverage, it'd be ****ing SWEET.
Especially for everyone who couldn't make it.
But wouldn't there be licensing problems with pieces and copyrights and such?
By the way, I'm editing this post and adding the trailer link for Rise And Shine, the documentary on our squad.
http://web.mac.com/smilerfilms/iWeb/Site/Watch%20NEW%20TRAILER%20%21.html
GlobalLlama
06-10-2006, 11:23 AM
But wouldn't there be licensing problems with pieces and copyrights and such?
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. They could definitely air Extemp and OO though.
xxLusciousZechxx
06-10-2006, 11:31 AM
http://web.mac.com/smilerfilms/iWeb/Site/Watch%20More%20%28TEASER%29.html
Another teaser thing.
And a chance to be wowed by how many ****ing trophies G-P has.
GlobalLlama
06-10-2006, 12:04 PM
I have to say . . .
that looks pretty awesome.
Aelfric5578
06-10-2006, 07:00 PM
Absolutely. What would you rather watch: someone spelling floccinaucinihilipilification or last year's Duo final? Of course, licensing would be a problem, although couldn't the performance fall into the same category that protects parodies and tributes, since the competitors are only performing a small snippet of their respective peices. I'm sure some tv audiences would even enjoy watching a debate round.
GlobalLlama
06-10-2006, 07:38 PM
We should write ESPN. Don't they do the spelling bee? Maybe they'd be interested.
A couple years ago, there was a casting call for MTV's True Life: I'm a High School Debater. From what I heard, they picked 2 teams (I think Apple Valley and some small team from like Montana) but then it fell through. Also, this year Alabama Public Television made a documentary on the University of Alabama's speech team that should be airing soon.
Chewie
06-10-2006, 10:24 PM
On the spelling bee vs. Interp final rounds:
1. People don't watch the spelling bee because they like watching kids competing. They watch it because they like watching kids competing. High schoolers are not young children.
The appeal of the spelling bee is watching these totally screwed-up, soon-to-be-scarred-for-life pre-teens put so much effort and focus into something as trivial as spelling. People do not watch the spell bee to watch some great COMPETITION. They watch it because it's entertaining to see some 11 year old Indian boy feel as if his world has been destroyed because he couldn't spell some chemical in printer ink.
2. In terms of a "general audience" appreciation, there's not much difference between actual theatre, musicals, and interp. Of course, as performers, we all know the idiosyncracies of each, but in terms of what is going to capture an audience's attention, it won't fare nearly as well as an exploitation of pre-teen spellers.
Silly as this may sound, interp won't be entertaining enough to keep the attention of any audience that wouldn't watch theatre on PBS.
jman255
06-10-2006, 10:51 PM
Zech, they better put in the bit where we give Elias the d-bag. It is totally worth it.
p.s. CB is smokin'.
GlobalLlama
06-11-2006, 08:16 AM
On the spelling bee vs. Interp final rounds:
1. People don't watch the spelling bee because they like watching kids competing. They watch it because they like watching kids competing. High schoolers are not young children.
The appeal of the spelling bee is watching these totally screwed-up, soon-to-be-scarred-for-life pre-teens put so much effort and focus into something as trivial as spelling. People do not watch the spell bee to watch some great COMPETITION. They watch it because it's entertaining to see some 11 year old Indian boy feel as if his world has been destroyed because he couldn't spell some chemical in printer ink.
2. In terms of a "general audience" appreciation, there's not much difference between actual theatre, musicals, and interp. Of course, as performers, we all know the idiosyncracies of each, but in terms of what is going to capture an audience's attention, it won't fare nearly as well as an exploitation of pre-teen spellers.
Silly as this may sound, interp won't be entertaining enough to keep the attention of any audience that wouldn't watch theatre on PBS.
I disagree. Okay, no, I agree with why people watch spelling, but I think people would find speech generally entertaining and pretty interesting.
First off, I'm not a big theater fan, but you can't help but laugh at something funny. HI is funny. Funny captures audiences. If you want to tell me the HI final round isn't 4x as funny as any sitcom on TV today, I'd tell you to get out.
Second, I think what we are doing is amazing. Few adults have the skills we have, and as such, I think they would be duly impressed if they ever witnessed them. People watch American Idol and say, "Wow, think, she can sing like that and she is so young!" Why wouldn't they watch speech with the same emotion.
Third, you are right that people do love watching tiny Indian boys lives destroyed, but I think the competitive aspect of speech could make it just as fascinating. If you have ever watched any of the cheerleading, martial arts, or other smaller competitions, they always highlight earlier in the week and the runup to the big show. I think following some of the big name teams and competitors would make it really interesting. ****, I mean breaks are exciting. It is an exciting way to do things. Plus, with the interpers wailing, screaming, and crying, it creates an electric atmosphere. You'd have to lack a pulse to be bored by that.
Finally, theatre can be (or just is) long and tedious. At most, a speech performance lasts 10 or 12 minutes (sometimes the finals ones go long). That is very conducive to America's short attention span.
GlobalLlama
06-11-2006, 11:23 AM
Legally, they wouldn't be able to air the interp. It's actually of questionable legaility to tape the interp final rounds and then distribute them to district chairs. I'm not sure how the NFL gets around that.
It has something to do with the fact that it is for educational purposes. I'm not sure of the exact loophole.
It could certainly be done though. Pierre did his on Oprah. There are ways of making it legal.
KrispyKreme
06-11-2006, 02:36 PM
according to yesterday's EW... the spelling bee got approx 8.5 Million viewers... tied with Law and Order: SVU on Tuesday night.
we should just have a forensics reality tv show that follows different teams... now, that'd be drama.
It could certainly be done though. Pierre did his on Oprah. There are ways of making it legal.
If the author and/or publisher of the piece being performed gives written consent to have their literature aired publically in such a way, then it's legally fine. Obviously when the author of Life Is So Good was asked if it was okay for the literature to be performed in front of one of the biggest tv audiences in the world, just for publicity sake, of course they said yes. If a major tv production company wanted to show a few pieces for national airing, they'd very possibly have no problem receiving that permission. The PR alone would be amazing for the authors.
xxLusciousZechxx
06-11-2006, 08:35 PM
It could certainly be done though. Pierre did his on Oprah. There are ways of making it legal.
If the author and/or publisher of the piece being performed gives written consent to have their literature aired publically in such a way, then it's legally fine. Obviously when the author of Life Is So Good was asked if it was okay for the literature to be performed in front of one of the biggest tv audiences in the world, just for publicity sake, of course they said yes. If a major tv production company wanted to show a few pieces for national airing, they'd very possibly have no problem receiving that permission. The PR alone would be amazing for the authors.
Before they (the author and publisher) did that, though, I'm sure they'd want to view cuttings and such.
See a copy of the round beforehand, even.
And what if one author is not content with the cuttings (say someone took a few things out of context or something to make it funnier [author's intent, anyone? It gains a whooooole new meaning when the author is the one seeing the cut]) and stops the whole round from being viewed?
I just don't think it'd be as easy as it would seem.
Before they (the author and publisher) did that, though, I'm sure they'd want to view cuttings and such. See a copy of the round beforehand, even.
And what if one author is not content with the cuttings (say someone took a few things out of context or something to make it funnier [author's intent, anyone? It gains a whooooole new meaning when the author is the one seeing the cut]) and stops the whole round from being viewed?
I disagree. With each performance taking approx. 10 minutes, a showing on television would probably not include more than 6 chosen performances. It's not like ESPN would be showing ever single performance from Quarters on at NFL in every single event. Even the final rounds alone would take up quite a few hours. The ability for producers to pick and choose the author-accepted performances for showing on television would make the process fairly easy. I would be suprised if more than 10% of all authors of literature used in forensics would be against its presentation on national tv (once again just for the authors' PR alone). As long as the chosen performers are impressive and worth watching (would there be William Hung-like performances thrown in for extra comedy?), the free press regarding the authors would probably outweigh their works being slightly altered by some young performer.
xxLusciousZechxx
06-12-2006, 01:05 AM
Great point.
But I really think there'd be some complications thrown in there.
I'm really too exhausted to list some of them, but maybe another day.
Chewie
06-12-2006, 02:39 AM
On the spelling bee vs. Interp final rounds:
1. People don't watch the spelling bee because they like watching kids competing. They watch it because they like watching kids competing. High schoolers are not young children.
The appeal of the spelling bee is watching these totally screwed-up, soon-to-be-scarred-for-life pre-teens put so much effort and focus into something as trivial as spelling. People do not watch the spell bee to watch some great COMPETITION. They watch it because it's entertaining to see some 11 year old Indian boy feel as if his world has been destroyed because he couldn't spell some chemical in printer ink.
2. In terms of a "general audience" appreciation, there's not much difference between actual theatre, musicals, and interp. Of course, as performers, we all know the idiosyncracies of each, but in terms of what is going to capture an audience's attention, it won't fare nearly as well as an exploitation of pre-teen spellers.
Silly as this may sound, interp won't be entertaining enough to keep the attention of any audience that wouldn't watch theatre on PBS.
I disagree. Okay, no, I agree with why people watch spelling, but I think people would find speech generally entertaining and pretty interesting.
First off, I'm not a big theater fan, but you can't help but laugh at something funny. HI is funny. Funny captures audiences. If you want to tell me the HI final round isn't 4x as funny as any sitcom on TV today, I'd tell you to get out.
A high schooler performing a one-person act for ten minutes will not capture any kind of television audience. Stand-up comedians who CAN do that make it a career. And they are better.
Second, I think what we are doing is amazing. Few adults have the skills we have, and as such, I think they would be duly impressed if they ever witnessed them. People watch American Idol and say, "Wow, think, she can sing like that and she is so young!" Why wouldn't they watch speech with the same emotion.
Because it's lame, as are all talent shows, to someone who'd rather be watching LifeTime or ESPN2: Karate Bugaloo. Do you think anyone would give a **** if Simon Cowell wasn't on there? There are plenty of other failed talent shows out there ("Am I Hot?", anyone?)
Third, you are right that people do love watching tiny Indian boys lives destroyed, but I think the competitive aspect of speech could make it just as fascinating. No. Competition is not nearly as entertaining as failure. Speech won't be that entertaining until a national finalist runs off the stage crying into his mother's arms.
Finally, theatre can be (or just is) long and tedious. At most, a speech performance lasts 10 or 12 minutes (sometimes the finals ones go long). That is very conducive to America's short attention span. You let me know the next time you sit still and do nothing for 10 minutes. I know I'm all "jaded old man" and whatnot, and I'm certainly not watching national finalists on a regular basis, but I've caught myself looking at the timekeeper during more performances than not.
I would love to see this happen. It won't.
dwhite
06-12-2006, 03:10 PM
Well said, Chewie. In my opinion, no one outside of Speech gives a ****.
~Dillon
justine
06-12-2006, 03:28 PM
As much as I would LOVE to be able to watch NFL finals right then instead of having to wait for the tapes, I do agree with everything Chewie said in his last post.
However, I think if a film company made a documentary about speech (I heard there's one being made about xxLusciousZechxx's school, but I mean about nationals- although that's really cool too!) and maybe showed clips or even a full performance from one or two finals as well as the whole postings and awards stuff too I think it would do REALLY well! Let's call up Paramount!
Chewie
06-13-2006, 03:04 AM
Well said, Chewie. In my opinion, no one outside of Speech gives a ****.
~Dillon
No. It just wouldn't make for good TV.
What if speech was turned into an American Idol-type show. It seems like there is now an American ______ for everything else and they all have the same format. Just have interpers or other competitiors go up in front of a 3-judge panel to decide who is the American Forensicator. Just think... Randy = Tommie Lindsay (James Logan), Paula = ? [Theatrix or Debbie Simon (Milton Academy) or someone else?], and Simon = Dave Kraft. Competing for the American overall champion title and a nice full college scholarship (that doesn't require college forensics competition) to any school. That'd be amusing...
Aelfric5578
06-13-2006, 10:59 AM
It would be nice to hear a judge say why he or she doesn't like you to your face, and have the opportunity to challenge them if they missed something. Then again, if it worked the way American Idol works, instead of getting a 1-1-6 in a round you'd get thousands of ranks that are all over the place.
dwhite
06-13-2006, 12:22 PM
Well said, Chewie. In my opinion, no one outside of Speech gives a ****.
~Dillon
No. It just wouldn't make for good TV.
I should have spaced out those two sentences. They were two separate thoughts. Agreed with what you said.
Then added my own opinion.
~Dillon
TheDrinkNinja
06-14-2006, 10:28 PM
No. It just wouldn't make for good TV.
On the other hand, who the **** watches good TV anymore?
I'd prefer the drama of a speech competition to the drama of a soap any day. ****, my goal is to shoot a documentary in college about kids going to NFL.
Cinderella
06-15-2006, 05:48 PM
As much as I talked about how awesome that would be back when I was in high school, I think I'd be upset if someone made a movie or documentary or televised forensics.
Reasons:
1. Regional differences. Team differences.
Ok, this doesn't as much apply to televising nats, but say someone made a documentary about their team going to nats. yeah, that's an awesome representation of THAT team from THAT state, but there will be TONS of kids who will watch it and think "wait, that's not what MY experience is like. MY coaches don't coach that way, MY team doesn't do warmups like that" etc.
2. (And my most important and selfish reason) One of the reasons forensics is so cool is because its so much like a cult. WE live it. WE know it exists. But there are millions of people who don't know about it, and don't do it, and can you imagine if it became "mainstream"? I mean think about it, some crazy popular movie comes out and people all over who don't REALLY understand it are wanting to do it. Forensics becomes the COOL thing to do. Completely sells out. Pardon me for being selfish, but I LIKE being cooler than everyone who doesn't know about it.
I used to compare Forensics with being a superhero; All day, during the school week you go about your day just like anyone else. When the weekend comes you fly (Via plane), don your costume (Suit) and become a completely different person (In other people's minds). You could be a nationally ranked performer, but when it comes down to it, even at "big forensics schools" the rest of the student population generally doesn't care as much as we do. They might say congrats, but then you go about your day, doing the same thing all of the non-NFL members at your school do.
Who am I, are you sure you wanna know?
EDIT, IMAGE:
http://myspace-916.vo.llnwd.net/00804/61/93/804103916_l.jpg
Nick Fox
Chewie
06-16-2006, 11:27 AM
No. It just wouldn't make for good TV.
On the other hand, who the **** watches good TV anymore?
I'd prefer the drama of a speech competition to the drama of a soap any day. ****, my goal is to shoot a documentary in college about kids going to NFL.
"Good TV" being TV that is watched.
Nick, you're a man well-versed in photoshop. :P
TheDrinkNinja
06-18-2006, 11:59 AM
No. It just wouldn't make for good TV.
On the other hand, who the **** watches good TV anymore?
"Good TV" being TV that is watched.
Challenge. American Idol is not necessarily good TV- it is (usually) good singing. Simply defining TV that is being watched as good brings up the major issue of all the dull, trashy shows that get viewership.
It'd be worth it to make a pilot, though.
Chewie
06-18-2006, 01:22 PM
No. It just wouldn't make for good TV.
On the other hand, who the **** watches good TV anymore?
"Good TV" being TV that is watched.
Challenge. American Idol is not necessarily good TV- it is (usually) good singing. Simply defining TV that is being watched as good brings up the major issue of all the dull, trashy shows that get viewership.
It'd be worth it to make a pilot, though.
I know that. Does anyone believe that viewership is a correlation of the quality of a product? Listen to the radio sometime, or, like you said, watch American Idol.
I WAS PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF WHAT I MEANT BY THE TERM "GOOD TV".
Let's just define television viewership (since that's the issue I was bringing up in the first place) as "Banana".
Now, my point was that if NFL Finals would not provide great Banana because viewers don't want to see a bunch of high school amateurs performing on stage anymore than they'd want to watch a live theatre performance on PBS. The NFL would never get "American Idol" Banana or "Spelling Bee" Banana because those two Bananas, like all Bananas, come from providing an entertaining, watchable show. It may be entertaining to us, the people involved in creating these performances, but not so much for the average Banana, who's flipping through looking for something interesting and sees a 17 year old boy acting like a retarded Dracula. I would wager that would be more of a catalyst for annoyance than entertainment among the Banana.
I hope I have properly conveyed my frustration of the lack of proper communication in this thread via Banana.
KrispyKreme
06-18-2006, 01:27 PM
well now I want a banana...
I still think a forensics based reality show would be fun to watch... it'd have a very Seinfeld-meets-Big Brother feel to it
Marklar says what?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/Marklar_greeting.gif
jdcongresscapt
06-18-2006, 08:42 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
That's JUST what I was thinking of
freakinalex
06-24-2006, 08:43 PM
Let's just define television viewership (since that's the issue I was bringing up in the first place) as "Banana".
Now, my point was that if NFL Finals would not provide great Banana because viewers don't want to see a bunch of high school amateurs performing on stage anymore than they'd want to watch a live theatre performance on PBS. The NFL would never get "American Idol" Banana or "Spelling Bee" Banana because those two Bananas, like all Bananas, come from providing an entertaining, watchable show. It may be entertaining to us, the people involved in creating these performances, but not so much for the average Banana, who's flipping through looking for something interesting and sees a 17 year old boy acting like a retarded Dracula. I would wager that would be more of a catalyst for annoyance than entertainment among the Banana.
I hope I have properly conveyed my frustration of the lack of proper communication in this thread via Banana.
That **** was bananas.
Ok, seriously, why didn't anyone use that pun before I did? It should have been the first reply.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.