Olympics coverage - camera "modesty"

[marleyisalegend]

I agree, but however, they really should cancel the Olympics, as a huge and trivial waste of time and overpriced price-gouged gasoline.

And then China should be boycotted for their human rights abuses.

Anytime I see sports on TV, I tune to something else or put on a DVD, as I just don't see the relevance to real life. The ball goes back and forth, and somebody you don't know, "wins." Big deal. So noisy and boring. Much rather see a good action movie, or a great sci-fi story. I would much rather watch people playing a board game, Poker, or a video game, than sports.

You're right, the only entertainment that's relevant is that which entertains pronatalist. I'm sorry they forgot to consult you before wasting all this time/money on sports that entertain no one, by no one I mean you but since you're omnipotent, if you don't find it entertaining surely no one else will.

 

[canuck_pa]

I may be wrong, but I believe the host country supplies the video for all the sports. They make sure that each athlete is covered by a camera then each national broadcaster chooses the feed they want. and crop the image as they want.

I'm sure most of us remember the opening ceremonies at the Athens Olympics the "cropping that was done on US TV to not show the bottom half of the male "statues" so not to show their penis even though the bottom half was not real, just the body from the waist up was real.

Here in Canada we get both Canadian and American television networks. In the Canadian broadcast we saw the total body. Later watch some of the US broadcast they only showed from the waist up.

I enjoy watching the Olympics for the competition. Seeing the men's full body is a definite bonus.

In two years we will be hosting the Winter Olympics here in Vancouver. To bad the men will be wearing their winter gear.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

If US broadcasters felt they could attract more viewers (and thus generate more revenue) by showing detailed body shots of male athetes, they'd not hesitate to do so.

 

[marleyisalegend]

If US broadcasters felt they could attract more viewers (and thus generate more revenue) by showing detailed body shots of male athetes, they'd not hesitate to do so.

Not necessarily, the US is prudish to the tenth power. Since this broadcasts on local networks and not cable, the FCC probably has the National Guard on speeddial just in case they see a bulge.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Not necessarily, the US is prudish to the tenth power. Since this broadcasts on local networks and not cable, the FCC probably has the National Guard on speeddial just in case they see a bulge.

Some viewers in the US are sexually prudish, marley, I certainly agree. But I still contend that if there was a pile of money to be gained by broadcasting jiggling bulges I have little doubt that well heeled networks would find a way to make it happen. But, the market isn't there now.

 

[marleyisalegend]

Some viewers in the US are sexually prudish, marley, I certainly agree. But I still contend that if there was a pile of money to be gained by broadcasting jiggling bulges I have little doubt that well heeled networks would find a way to make it happen. But, the market isn't there now.

The market isn't there now? Have you been hanging out with Amy Winehouse lately? First of all, there isn't a market. Pervets don't fork over dollars just because they get to see bulges, it's about attitude. As long as someone is offended, their opinion will prevail. There is no dollar gain by showing bulges, if there were there'd be a bit more of a fight against censorship, but I don't think the sponsors of the olympics care if they can see balls jingling, only the spectators do.

 

[deleted15807]

Some viewers in the US are sexually prudish, marley, I certainly agree. But I still contend that if there was a pile of money to be gained by broadcasting jiggling bulges I have little doubt that well heeled networks would find a way to make it happen. But, the market isn't there now.

Not really. There is a pile of money in porn but you won't see that on television. 'Broadcast standards'. If CBS can be fined a half a million dollars for Janet Jackson's tit that was seen for all of .5 seconds then they know they better err on the side of caution. The FCC has been on a nice little fining operation going on recently and no broadcaster wants a lawsuit on their hands. All it takes is a few calls into the censorship bureau and they swing into action.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Not really. There is a pile of money in porn but you won't see that on television. 'Broadcast standards'. If CBS can be fined a half a million dollars for Janet Jackson's tit that was seen for all of .5 seconds then they know they better err on the side of caution. The FCC has been on a nice little fining operation going on recently and no broadcaster wants a lawsuit on their hands. All it takes is a few calls into the censorship bureau and they swing into action.

I hear ya, sargon.

However, its not illegal to broadcast full body pictures of properly clothed Olympic athletes in public competition, even when their appendages are obviously jiggling. God knows I love watching the women's volleyball players.

 

[deleted15807]

I hear ya, sargon.

However, its not illegal to broadcast full body pictures of properly clothed Olympic athletes in public competition, even when their appendages are obviously jiggling. God knows I love watching the women's volleyball players.

It doesn't have to be illegal for them not to show it. It's not illegal here for theaters to show 'NC-17' movies but none will.

Motion Picture Association of America film rating system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...communications media that refused to advertise pornography and X-rated films also refused to advertise NC-17 movies as equally unsuitable for family consumption through their venues, ironically transferring censorship authority to cinema landlords' decisions to permit or deny the exhibition of such movies. In addition, socially conservative and religious groups pressured video distribution businesses (e.g. Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video), to not rent or sell NC-17 movies, citing "family values". Nevertheless, business being business, the stores do rent and sell the movies, provided they are not explicitly labeled as such, i.e. are in a plain wrapper.

 

[dreamer20]

I find it *infuriating* not being able to see anything below the waistline in head-on shots during or before events start.
PLEASE get over this puritanical policy.
(My name)
4-time Olympic Trials qualifier/participant,

Pervets don't fork over dollars just because they get to see bulges, it's about attitude.

How thrilling wowniceone.

You've been labeled a "pervet" by our resident puritan.:biggrin1:

 

[anderson33]

I have been working in the media for awhile now and have found that the reason for wowones distress is not so much the networks/american puritanical ways - which, is also very valid, rather, I think it has more to do with the hetero male cameramen. They do not want to see some dudes junk bouncing around or outlined, etc. because it might seem like the photographer is... GAY! The images of sporting events that come in from our female photographers, well, wow! Very beautiful. The men send in torso shots of men and full on of women - to the extent that i wonder if i'm at a news source or Maxim magazine.

 

[earllogjam]

The men's olympic swimming events aren't half as interesting anymore with the full body suits.

 

[b.c.]

The men's olympic swimming events aren't half as interesting anymore with the full body suits.

Give it another 4 or 8 years of influence from conservative religious groups. By that time they'll all be wearing overcoats.

 

[_Alexxx_]

The images sent worldwide are produced by a company that's created specifically for each olympic games, under a contract with the IOC. To give more details, the 'mother' company for each is a spanish company for the last 8 or so games.

The criteria of what and how is to be shot and shown on screen is up to this company, which of course will pay great attention to IOC in first place and then to NBC who is the company that brings more money to the games as per images and sponsorship marketing rights

btw, it's amazing to see the setup NBC deploys each games only in the main press centre. It's like a village inside the MPC, with their own food supply, classic american cubicles, etc. Just to feel like home whether you are in china, italy, greece or russia

 

[D_Adoniah Sheervolume]

cool; thanks for the insight, alex22!

 

[SpeedoGuy]

The men's olympic swimming events aren't half as interesting anymore with the full body suits.

As a speedo enthusiast, I gotta agree with that. I hate those friggin' body suits and knee length jammers.

 

[Notaguru2]

That's exactly what he's asking for, access to view these men's packages and, no offense to the OP, they probably knew what his email was about. It doesn't surprise me that they'd be this prudish. I'm surprised people are demanding the right to see crotches, just go outside. Again, no offense, they probably got a good laugh at that email if anything. If they're deadset on censoring the male body, telling them how much u wanna see it will only fuel their fire and remind them why they're censoring it.

If he wants to see crotch, he should to tune into male gymnastics and watch the Uneven Bars or Rings. He'll see what he is looking for; technique.

 

[B_IanTheTall]

Below is an email I sent to NBC Sports today:

"Hello,

I find it *infuriating* not being able to see the entire athlete in mens events. In swimming and especially track and field, it seems the camera-people are terrified of showing anything below the waistline in head-on shots during or before events start.

This "modesty" seems limited to American tv coverage of mens events (we see all of the women), and it's absolutely ridiculous. The legs are the major drivers in track and field. Being able to see athletes completely, head-on allows one to witness their exceptional technique during these performances.

PLEASE get over this puritanical policy.

(My name)

4-time Olympic Trials qualifier/particpant, (my sport)"

What do you think? Am I crazy...?

They are the crazy ones. I hope that the SuperBowl Janet Jackson issue has been settled (at leas for now) this prude attitude will end soon.

 

[dreamer20]

I find it *infuriating* not being able to see the entire athlete in men's events. In swimming and especially track and field, it seems the camera-people are terrified of showing anything below the waistline in head-on shots during or before events start.

I have been working in the media for awhile now... the reason is not so much the networks/american puritanical ways - which, is also very valid, rather, I think it has more to do with the hetero male cameramen. They do not want to see some dudes junk bouncing around or outlined, etc. because it might seem like the photographer is... GAY! The images of sporting events that come in from our female photographers, well, wow! Very beautiful.

I'd call such persons demented,homophobic,body phobic, neo-Puritan cameramen and not define this behavior as being heterosexual. As they are so averse to seeing the bulges of others they shouldn't film male sporting events. A man's bulge is just a display of his primary sexual characteristic and has been filmed since the inception of film.