30 for 30 complaint

Did you forget the blue font or something? I'm somewhat of a footage junkie, and many if not most of these films contain new, unearthed or never-seen footage. Muhammad & Larry comes to mind... The footage in the Herren doc certainly hadn't been seen.. The Ricky Williams doc in which he reveals for the first time he was sexually abused.. Never seen footage in that one... Once Brothers... The stuff talked about in The Two Escobars interviews had been verboten... People are still asking how those guys got that material in Columbia without getting killed.

You liked Hoop Dreams? Maybe you missed the very well-reviewed 30-30 by the same director of Hoop Dreams called No Crossover on the Iverson trial.

The Bias documentary had people directly involved in the incident on camera who had never spoken about it before.

Really, I think I might be able to find something in almost all of them that's new.

Admittedly I'm a fangirl of the series.... are you really watching these?

I do love ya, Verse, but c'mon.

 

The Two Escobars was one of the best, but one beef:

The Colombian and crowd reactions shots spliced into the loss to the U.S. at the Rose Bowl were very obviously not taken that day, in that venue.

It's the little things.

But as Lugnuts pointed out, many of them have interviews with individuals that make an informed viewer say "Whoa?! They got that person?!"

The Bo Jackson one should have been better in this regard.

If there is one problem I have with the series over the last year, it's the fact that they're not packaging the newer ones on DVD. Only the first five of the new ones came out as a package. These things are gold for people who do what we all do.

 

I only have watched about six or seven. I don't care for historical documentaries. I would find it much more interesting to embed someone with Andrew Wiggins for the next six months than to retell, using old footage, even if some of that footage is never-before-seen, the story of a top prospect from the 1980s. The worst of the 30 for 30 episodes I did watch might have been the one about Miami football, which drew rave reviews because a bunch of guys sat around telling stories.

Now, Lugnuts, I am certain your opinion is more valid and informed than mine on this subject. But to hear they did a documentary glamorizing Bo Jackson by letting Chuck Klosterman and Bomani Jones wax nostalgic is the exact kind of issue I have with this series.

I would be much more interested in a new story. That's what I meant by new footage, not never-before-seen.

My criticisms are not fair when cast on the series as a whole. I'm sure of that. But they don't interest me precisely for the reason Mizzougrad96 started this thread.

 

Fair enough. I do think you'd feel differently if you'd seen Unguarded or Marcus Dupree.

I mean, Marcus Dupree is quite simply one of the best movies, documentary or not, that I've ever seen.

But I get what you're saying. I'll give you a heads up if I see one that seems more up your alley.

 

I can understand how the series would look soft journalistically, especially something like The U, but it was a very excellent form of entertainment for two hours. Also I did learn something -- when Steve Walsh was talking about how he'd see teammates headed out in ski masks to go commit armed robberies.

 

Of course, that example highlights one of the other great flaws of the series and genre: Where's the fact-checking? Memories are very flawed, and these people have every reason to juice up their stories for extra screen time. Magazines require second sources on anecdotes from a week before the interview. And it's much less glamorous to be quoted in a New Yorker takeout than shown on screen in an ESPN documentary.

How easy is it to imagine that ski-mask anecdote was wrongly interpretted by Walsh or a one-time occurrence that sounded better as a trend? There was so little depth to the reporting that I had no reason to trust the accounts.

Now, if you found it all entertaining, great. I didn't, and I am rankled by the praise over the journalistic and historical merits of the series.

 

I can't imagine they would sell that well.

 

I'd also say the SMU one was very good in re-analyzing everything that went on -- I don't think a lot of the information was new, but it was tremendously informative to an audience that outside of Texas probably wouldn't have been up on the full depth including the fact that the scandal went all the way to the governor's office and helped him lose the next election. And there was great context for where college football has gone since then and especially the idea that nobody is ever going to get the death penalty again so the NCAA has no choice but to look the other way (until Yahoo investigates, anyway).

I wouldn't say The U re-analyzed. They just played a two-hour highlight reel.

 

I haven't seen all of them. I would bet that I've seen two-thirds of them.

I would say my favorites are the Bo Jackson one, the Marcus Dupree one, the SMU one and the USFL one...

Plenty of other great ones... I'd love to see a list of every one that has aired...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_for_30

 

Too bad they couldn't get Craig James to admit he killed five hookers. At least he came clean (sort of) about taking benefits at SMU.

 

No doubt. I've done my share of nitpicking too. Especially in regards to Wright Thompson's use in the Ole Miss one. But to say this is not a quality series? Can't agree with that. This is the best work ESPN has done on anything in decades.