ns8401 951 Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 How many months did they have to make the opener? Instead, it looks like they had an intern whip it up in 30 seconds. Also, the goal of the opener was to show all 30 teams, but instead they showed 31 teams, repeating the Giants twice. I guess San Francisco has 3 MLB teams: the Giants, the Giants, and the Mariners. This opener is pretty embarassing. Think they know just how many screw-ups are in it? Maybe some of us should point out this stuff on social media to get them to fix it? Good god....
Weeters 1969 Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 I could understand one spelling mistake, but four? Did nobody watch this before they rolled it on the air? Someone's going to get a talking to today.
Mannym13 15 Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 Interesting. Did they become more lax lately? I remember back in 2011, I posted a closing of the WGN Midday News that happened to contain the first 40 seconds or so of the Cubs Lead-Off Man show at the end of the video, and it literally got deleted for a copyright claim by MLB Advanced Media. I would believe they are more accepting about YT videos, and I have to say that of the 4 major sports MLB is the best when it comes to posting content online and I guess they are now embracing it when people post full games. This reminds me of NASCAR. People post full races all the time the Monday after the race. Last year, NASCAR just began doing that themselves, since they must've figured there is some kind of benefit to this.
Spring Rubber 714 Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 AFAIK, the NBA has always been the most lax about people posting their content on YouTube. Did that change?
24994J 5619 Posted April 9, 2015 Author Posted April 9, 2015 Okay, am I off-base to think that the open, spelling mistakes and all, was done by an outside company? All that 3D animation seems a little too good to be done in-house. If it was done by somebody else, and considering that the game footage in the open was from Sunday, I'm wondering if the station didn't receive the final product until the 11th hour, forcing them to (A.) put it on-air, knowing about the mistakes, but only because they didn't have a backup, or (B.) they barely gave it a second glance before showtime. If they produced it in-house, it's very visually impressive, but those errors (and so many, at that), are beyond unacceptable and very unlike them. Either way, Weeters is right. Someone's in some shallow doo-doo.
24994J 5619 Posted April 9, 2015 Author Posted April 9, 2015 For anyone that hasn't seen it. Oh, and the Padres are mentioned twice, too. [yt]Ss0pu4kGPjQ[/yt]
ChiCubsFan 34 Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 "Damn, we messed up. We'll keep it in there though, maybe no one will notice."
Mannym13 15 Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 AFAIK, the NBA has always been the most lax about people posting their content on YouTube. Did that change? Let me just say that it's much easier (like 100x) to find full MLB games vs full NBA games.
24994J 5619 Posted April 9, 2015 Author Posted April 9, 2015 Is getting a story to Deadspin twice in 5 months a personal accomplishment? Sure, why not? http://deadspin.com/local-cubs-broadcast-intro-is-just-a-disaster-1696736658 They even gif'd it...
ns8401 951 Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 What's the point of that 1000 MPH team animation again? It's kind of dumb since you can't see anything but a blur more or less... I guess that's a good thing in this case with all the errors.
Jase 1065 Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 Whanoticed point of that 1000 MPH team animation again? It's kind of dumb since you can't see anything but a blur more or less... I guess that's a good thing in this case with all the errors. Given how fast it moves is likely why no one noticed the errors. But you would think they would have went over anything and everything 1,000 times before it made it to air. Shame this error mars an otherwise decent broadcast.
Weeters 1969 Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 Okay, am I off-base to think that the open, spelling mistakes and all, was done by an outside company? All that 3D animation seems a little too good to be done in-house. If it was done by somebody else, and considering that the game footage in the open was from Sunday, I'm wondering if the station didn't receive the final product until the 11th hour, forcing them to (A.) put it on-air, knowing about the mistakes, but only because they didn't have a backup, or (B.) they barely gave it a second glance before showtime. If they produced it in-house, it's very visually impressive, but those errors (and so many, at that), are beyond unacceptable and very unlike them. Either way, Weeters is right. Someone's in some shallow doo-doo. I disagree. The quality of some of the 3D stuff (i.e. the Cubs logo, the Stadium stuff) look exactly like something that would be made in-house. Other parts (the ABC7 logo, the team animations, the "Cubs on ABC7" logo) look like they came from whoever made the news graphics package ("Blue Helio" if you must.) Perhaps this is a mashup of in-house and outside content? It certainly looks like that could be the case. For some reason I get the feeling that team animation is a templated graphic that they changed in-house. I would assume they also have the ability to change the video in the "stadium" parts of the open too. The whole open is rather underwhelming in general.
Action Newsroom 1299 Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 As for those names though... Either someone who made the graphic got a little excited on the keyboard, or hates the aforementioned teams with name errors. Either way, this is a disgrace.
24994J 5619 Posted April 10, 2015 Author Posted April 10, 2015 Graphical blunders aside, the game did very well in the ratings. The broadcast, the 2nd of the season (3rd scheduled), notched a 4.0 (140k), approximately double CSN's average rating last season, and also double what ABC 7's afternoon block RR/GH/IE/J! pulls on a regular basis. Of course, this game was heavily publicized, and the season is still in the honeymoon period, but if it continues to score WAR (wins above replacement), this investment just might be worth it. http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2015/04/09/wls-channel-7-finds-wrigley-fields-confines.html
ns8401 951 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Graphical blunders aside, the game did very well in the ratings. The broadcast, the 2nd of the season (3rd scheduled), notched a 4.0 (140k), approximately double CSN's average rating last season, and also double what ABC 7's afternoon block RR/GH/IE/J! pulls on a regular basis. Of course, this game was heavily publicized, and the season is still in the honeymoon period, but if it continues to score WAR (wins above replacement), this investment just might be worth it. http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2015/04/09/wls-channel-7-finds-wrigley-fields-confines.html 4.0 is much lower than i would have thought... 2.1 normally is really low...
Jase 1065 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 4.0 is much lower than i would have thought... 2.1 normally is really low... You have to consider that this was a weekday afternoon (Wednesday) game, so they weren't going to get huge ratings given that a ton of people were at work, etc.... If the Cubs have a really good start/year, the #s will likely increase over time. Solid start either way.
24994J 5619 Posted April 10, 2015 Author Posted April 10, 2015 ...Especially in a two-team town. Apparently Giangreco's gonna get a ribbing in his radio spot at 5:30 CT. The hosts will jokingly tear him a new one over the botched intro. Should be a good listen. (http://espn.go.com/espnradio/chicago/play)
Mannym13 15 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Apparently Giangreco's gonna get a ribbing in his radio spot at 5:30 CT. The hosts will jokingly tear him a new one over the botched intro. Should be a good listen. (http://espn.go.com/espnradio/chicago/play) Graphics mentioned NOW. Apparently, the open arrived ONLY 7 minutes before it was to air.
24994J 5619 Posted April 10, 2015 Author Posted April 10, 2015 And it was contracted out, not in house. He confirms that the problem as been corrected. Mark can't recall the name of the company, and he's glad he can't, for their sake. "You have monkeys in a sweat shop pounding on a typewriter."
ns8401 951 Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 And it was contracted out, not in house. He confirms that the problem as been corrected. Mark can't recall the name of the company, and he's glad he can't, for their sake. "You have monkeys in a sweat shop pounding on a typewriter." I think they need a discount...
Jase 1065 Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Graphics mentioned NOW. Apparently, the open arrived ONLY 7 minutes before it was to air. Unbelievable. They couldn't have got that done sooner? I wonder what Plan B would have been had the opening not arrived on time.
Mannym13 15 Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 I wonder what Plan B would have been had the opening not arrived on time. I was thinking the same thing earlier.
Spring Rubber 714 Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Plan B would probably be just a cold open, starting with a live wideshot of the stadium with a "Cardinals vs. Cubs" chyron on the bottom of the screen with Mark Giangreco introducing the telecast.
ChiCubsFan 34 Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 So with Bryant reportedly coming up tomorrow, ABC 7 will for sure make it noticeable that he made his debut on their network.
24994J 5619 Posted April 17, 2015 Author Posted April 17, 2015 Hey, why not? #WorldSeries2015 #BackToTheFuture2 #ImNotTooDelusional
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.