yes i remember the series, saw the game live but to do a documentary on a second round series where neither team won a championship? bulls celts was amazing, how many over time games 4? 1 2ot, 1 3ot defending champs potential superstar rookie how bout a doc on tim duncan and focusing on 4 rings
not exactly the point of film making. it's about telling a compelling story. that series captured the passion and physical play of the 90s nba. For example, this was not about championships <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Afv_4Ku_CG4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Afv_4Ku_CG4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> if you look at the list of the 30 for 30, it's about a story, not about winning rings
i get your point i just think a doc about reggie miller's career wuld be a better story told thats how i felt after watching that show as like wtf, neither one of those teams did anything in the playoffs that year, especially after seeing that reggie was an executive producer
well, espn wrote this http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=adande_ja&page=adande-films100316 they did talk about reggie's career. did you watch the whole thing? they talked about how indiana wanted alford in the draft and they talked about his sister etc
i caught the last 30 minutes of it after pacific on sunday maybe it's my distaste for the new york hype machine if reggie did this against the bucks it's not as big of a story
I think you should watch the whole thing and post your thoughts instead of your biases based on the last 30 minutes. most documentaries aren't very good if you only see half of it.
i think my point remains valid the part i am referencing has everyhting to do with how they portrayed the importance of the series, as you mentioned the bulls celts series to me even more compelling then this one, i have seen parts of plenty of docs that made me want to watch the rest of it, in this series i caught parts of the wayne gretzke(sp?), and the muhammad ali doc and i made sure to catch the entire thing when i got a chance, like i said i understand your point of how it draws from the drama of the relationship bewteen reggie and the knicks fans especially spike lee, but it is celebrating mediocrity
dude, a film maker can make a movie about anything he wants. you are letting your biases dictate your opinion, on top of that you didn't watch the whole thing. all those documentaries you mentioned are based on what you find is relevant and interesting. this doesn't mean they were any good. the only way to judge a documentary is to watch the whole thing to form your opinion.
Job implies getting paid. The board, the site, the chat, are all pretty much garbage right now, I've made noise to get it fixed/changed, no dice, so I'm not bothering with it.
Dan Klores did a podcast with Bill Simmons, and I happened to listen to it today. Simmons asks him why he created a documentary about a sequence of events that did not include the eventual NBA champion. Klores said that was not the point of the documentary. He was fascinated by Reggie Miller's antics in NYC and wanted to document the differences in culture b/t NYC and Indiana, how Reggie "turned on a switch" in NYC, how he let Spike Lee be a trigger, and basically capture the social events behind the scenes in all of the animosity in those 2 series in back-to-back years. Listen to the podcast. He is much more eloquent than I can be on his behalf.
i agree with everything you said here except your last comment about "the only way" i seen enough of it i seen most of reggie's career, i can form an opinion whenever i feel the opinion has formed our opinions can be different
this is all true, but you didn't see the whole thing, which is also true. you need to mention that before you tell everyone here you think it sucks.
"not terrible" but a "documentary that focused on a second round playoff" matchup that neither team even won the finals "a big celebration of mediocrity" well not terrible is I guess one level aboved SUCKED as mentioned early by a poster who listened to the podcast, the director's goal was not talking about the 2nd round of the playoffs but the contrast/similarities between indiana/nyc and the characters of those teams. "a big celebration of mediocrity" I figure that was not the point of it, but that's your descriptions. sorry i have no idea why i concluded you hated this one!
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P-CTRf-w9ZQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P-CTRf-w9ZQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
