Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Posted by: Tim L

Date:6/26/2010 2:01:49 PM

Jay -- those were hilarious! (You don't have to be into fishing to enjoy these.)

Took a while to watch it all the way through because I kept backing up and re-watching each piece over again the first time through. My son and I watched this several times and laughed outloud a lot.

Thanks,
Tim L

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: farss

Date:6/26/2010 6:23:45 PM

Thanks Jay,
a few good laughs have the day off to a good start.

Bob.

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: rmack350

Date:6/27/2010 12:14:19 AM

Had a nice camera.

Rob

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: FrigidNDEditing

Date:6/27/2010 12:52:28 AM

I think they were intentional. could be wrong, but a few things kinda added up to intentionally done stuff, and some things that were just too stupid to happen ( I think ).

He has the same outfit on a lot for one.

I could be mistaken, but if I am... he's not overly observant/bright :P

Dave

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: cbrillow

Date:6/27/2010 4:26:10 AM

Earl J to the red phone, please...

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: risce1

Date:6/27/2010 6:11:37 AM

funny stuff......pretty sure thats real, he has been on the air forever.bill dance outdoors Mix boat water , goofball fisherman and shoot thousands of hours of tape,,, gotta be a bunch more

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: A. Grandt

Date:6/27/2010 7:37:23 AM

Too bad it's hard to just waterproof all cameras.
You can even hear the somewhat surprised and desperate "Uh-oh!" from the camera man as he falls.

Btw, here goes another camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFtCCv4rGUg
And another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDmFKEX5ihA

I'm guessing having water pouring out of a camera may ruin your day.

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: Steven Myers

Date:6/27/2010 8:23:26 AM

he's not overly observant/bright :

The Tennessee hat is a clue.

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: TheHappyFriar

Date:6/27/2010 9:50:41 AM

I'm sure they're real but...

he's not overly observant/bright :

dave... if you had a camera on you ~10 hours a day for even a year they couldn't find 3 minutes worth of stupid mistakes? :D

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: IAM4UK

Date:6/27/2010 9:59:17 AM

I also thought these seemed intentional. Self-parody.

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: John_Cline

Date:6/27/2010 10:05:17 AM

I don't find videos of people ruining thousands of dollars of equipment the least bit funny. I doubt you would appreciate me laughing hysterically if it happened to you.

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: Tim L

Date:6/27/2010 12:53:24 PM

I really, really enjoyed these from the original post, but the more I see the more "suspicious" they seem.

For example, in the two clips posted by A Grandt above:

- In the first one, when the cameraman is walking backwards and trips over the tackle box (and flips backwards into the water): Why is somebody taping this -- giving us an eyewitness account? If this was a "second camera" on set, they surely wouldn't be taping a wideshot of Bill and the cameraman, would they?

- In the second one, where Bill leans way back in his seat and knocks the camera guy into the lake: Again, why the wideshot, with the first camera guy in the shot. Wouldn't a second camera go to a really tight shot in that case, or turn to film the "fish" he's battling at that moment?

In both cases, I think most of us (as second camera guy) would have one of two reactions: either we would suddenly be filming the ground as we rushed forward to help, or we would (more likely) have trouble holding the camera steady as we broke into laughter. However the eyewitness camera here has no problem at all calmly and steadily filming the "accident", and even knowing to zoom out and follow the first camera guy as he gets knocked off the boat.

So, I'm suspicious about how legit these are. I'm sure a lot of them are real bloopers, but after the popularity of his blooper DVD's I'm getting this feeling that some of them are staged. Who knows, maybe they keep dragging out the same "waterlogged" camera every few years for another go. Or maybe when a new model comes out they make sure they film the "accident" so that they have evidence for the insurance claim.

Either way, if he is on volume 4 of these bloopers, he's probably made enough money off these DVD's to pay for several cameras.

(And if they are faked, those guys are very, very good actors!)

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: FrigidNDEditing

Date:6/27/2010 2:56:13 PM

That's just what I expected. it's for sale, so I think they had some, but they needed more. Look at those clips almost half of them are with the same outfit ( either he wears that a lot, or they did contrive some of them ).

That being said, I'm sure some of them are certainly legit, but I think others were staged.

Dave

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: PeterWright

Date:6/27/2010 10:30:34 PM

I'm afraid these scream out set up/fake to me, and even then I didn't think they were well done or funny. His reactions to each "accident" don't come across as real.

Maybe it's cultural ....

Subject:RE: OT: Video Bloopers

Reply by: rmack350

Date:6/27/2010 10:58:51 PM

I'm sure over time they collected a few bloopers and then the temptation to stage them was too great. Probably after the first camera went into the water they decided they could just keep using it for more pratfalls.

We have clients who've asked us to produce a blooper reel out of two days of shooting. We have to tell them that a) there won't be enough bloopers in two days to make a reel and b) they'll be lucky if ANY of them are funny and c) they'll probably be in the interview of their boss and do they REALLY want those bloopers shown?

Mistakes like these are rare. You could get a decent collection after a season or two of shooting but blooper reels of guys who aren't naturally funny are really just sad and maybe a little vain if it's the non-funny guy asking for them.

Rob