All That and
The Players Club are getting shafted !

They kept taking the focus from the choreography these acts came with, and are cheating us from some very cool moves.

At crucial points, the fast MTV style editing, shifting the camera angle to above the hips, ruin the flow and those annoying pans across the stage ruined the dance routines. Where did they find these editors ????

Do a seperate 'Talentless' edition, and focus on the talented, not the silly schlock they waste too much time on.

Oh, and Regis ? Please, Shut up. tyvm.

Dave - I strongly disagreed with your rip on LD since I think that he earned what he got. That is another thread that has a life of it's own.

This comment however is brilliant! We are being asked to vote for the best talent and not only do we get crap camera angles...sometimes we are forced to look at the judges to see their reaction.

Could it be that the real contest is to see who is the best judge. The power struggles that exist on stage are ridiculous. Perhaps content for another thread... "so you think you can judge"

I agree with the OP on this one. Could have gotten vertigo trying to watch "All That" with the cameras jumping all over the place ... when it comes to heavy choreography, I'd rather see a wide stationary view and let the *performers* handle the movement, sheesh!

I'm starting to think more and more that the producers are manipulating the voting through subtle and not so subtle trickery like this.

Think about it, they want the winner (or at least the finalists) to be the acts with the most potential for making money. Simon is giving away a million bucks and I'm sure he plans to make it back one way or another. If I read the performer's release form correctly each act is obligated to sign a contract with NBC or one of its affiliates if the producers request it.

Face it, All That and the Player's Club will never make millions of dollars, but the musical acts most likely will (if pushed enough). That's one of the reasons Simon always wanted Katherine or Chris to win American Idol - he fealt they had more money making potential than Taylor because they appealed to a younger audience.

By making certain acts look better via camera work and judge reactions they can manipulate the way people see certain acts. For example, I find it very difficult to like the Millers, yet the constant barrage of praise they receive on the show and on the boards (warranted or not) makes me constantly question myself and wonder if I am missing something. In the end I voted for the ventriloquist, but I probably like the Miller's more than I did initially.

Networks know how to manipulate the public - they've been doing it for decades.

,Matt

It's very rare to see good solid camera work on any presentation stressing the overall interplay of participants within the whole. The last one I remember is Lord of the Dance which did a pretty good job, leaving you with a feeling of awe comparable to the live presentation. (I did have a problem with the lighting in both cases). Just be glad we didn't see creative shots of either group dancing sideways or upside down. Or close ups of "cute" kids in the audience with their finger up their nose.

Matt71 has a very interesting theory that makes a lot of sense. Although there is no possible way the Millers could be presented that would make me appreciate the young one. I would have voted for All That if it had been possible.

As for the original comment of this posting, the show is not EDITED into an MTV style format. It is done as a live to tape production with a switcher and director behind the scenes. I blame the bad angles on nothing more than unorganized planning. Are there rehersals of these performances before the show? Is the production crew at these rehersals planning their shots, positions, and when is a good time for reaction shots? What about a stationary wide shot of the entire stage as a backup camera? There's also too many hand held cameras making it very dizzy to watch!

bump

Whatever- but yes, it is poor planning. There are obviously decisions made- YES, during rehersal regarding the sweeps, pans, zooms, fades. Their trying too hard to be 'fresh'... The referance in another comment to 'Riverdance' was so right. It's not about talent here at all- it's about how guillable the audience is.

I was surfing tonight just in time to NOT vote for the judges Darlings- who I won't mention here.
I was so turned off by this show, I just couldn't STAND to watch it. The responses to my posts just prove that people will buy anything- but I appreciated the rest of this response...

The production values have been brought up in several threads before. Thankfully they've managed to improve the audio mix, the first few shows wer impossible to judge htey were so bad.

Regarding the camera work, this is the type of show where less is more. I want to see the talent of the performers, not the preferences of the camera operators. And putting up the lower third graphic in the middle of one of the acts is absolutely unforgivable.

ditto