Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugee
Why did NBC think it was a good idea to take precious primetime minutes (too many events *I* want to see, too little time) having Ryan Seacrest talk to a gymnast and his father (at least I assume that's what he did -- I went back to taped stuff as soon as that segment started) rather than spend the time showing actual gymnastics.
I didn't see any rings routines at all (and I love the rings) and not enough of the high bar routines.
Actually *any* competition they showed of any sport would have been better than wasting (or waisting -- hi Adder!) time with Ryan Seacrest. John McEnroe segments are not far behind though I spend those wondering why he dyed his hair such a strange color.
The mens all around gold medalist looks like an anime/manga character.
Men everywhere must be cursing the cool London weather that has resulted in beach volleyball outfits covering way more skin than usual.
|
Huh, we decided yesterday that they must have eliminated the vault and rings for men, because they didn't show either event at all.
I have a fast-forward policy for all interviews (including and especially post-performance interviews), and we DVR pretty much everything that we want to see that isn't scheduled for prime time. The four hour broadcast usually takes us about two hours to zip through. Even less if there's some sport that we don't care about. Usually, by the time we're done tiling or installing lighting or whatever project the kitchen demands of us for the day, there's enough recorded to be able to get through the whole thing without having to watch a single thing we don't want to.
We were hoping that archery would become our new cross country skiing (obscure (to us) sport that we know nothing about that we follow obsessively for two weeks), but the commentators aren't as good as the cross country people were. Fencing was a good possibility for awhile, but we only saw that first competition (women's foil) and they neglected to show the controversial bronze medal match.
Threaded Mode