New Trout Unlimited Series Promises Much, Fails to Deliver
By Tom Chandler on Apr 11, 2008 in Review, Video
I’d hoped the Trout Unlimited’s new TV show (On the Rise) would live up to its lively, interesting trailer, escaping the straightjacket that limits most of fly fishing’s TV efforts.
Sadly, I just caught Madison River episode, and it fell far short.
The trailer is cool, but the episode is disappointingly stiff and slow moving.
While host Smethhurst (of Running Down the Man fame) will almost certainly get better as the series progresses, I’ve got to ask why the producers are still subjecting viewers to hoary, staged scenes that are feigning spontaneity?
In several instances, we’re supposed to believe Smethhurst is meeting someone for the first time, yet the camera’s already there to record the moment.
With fly fishing video shifting to an engaging documentary style (witness the rise of AEG, Felt Soul Media, and others), you have to wonder why On The Rise is playing out the stilted cliches of years past.
Transitions are slow, the scenes plodding, the narration ponderous, and we only catch glimpses of Smethhurst’s fly fishing talent.
A glance at the credits enlightens us; Barrett Productions is the company behind On The Rise (the folks who subjected the fly fishing world to all those glossy, quarter-inch-deep celebrity fly fishing videos and the painful-to-watch Fly Fishing Masters series).
On The Rise is a great concept (Smethhurst traveling the country in his trout-painted trailer) that fails to captivate.
Fishing Web Design | Apr 12, 2008 | Reply
Yeah I was pumped about it too. Hopefully they’ll take it up a notch or two in the weeks ahead.
Cheers.
Heddon17 | Apr 13, 2008 | Reply
I think this show has potential but some of the scenes were rather slow and seemed a bit staged too.
Hopefully they’ll improve on things in the remaining episodes.
Tom Chandler | Apr 13, 2008 | Reply
You have to wonder if one of the “new wave” video shops (Felt Soul, AEG, etc) could produce a fly fishing series that had mass appeal (e.g. one that didn’t alienate TU’s slightly older demographic).
Doug | Apr 16, 2008 | Reply
This is the trend of History and Nature Documentaries these days. More emphasis is placed on those that are reporting that the subject of the report.
Regarding fly fishing, I prefer a more arty approach than the rough and rugged x-tram sportsman way of presenting the subject.
Nick | Apr 17, 2008 | Reply
Tom,
I’m a fan of Trout Underground. I dig your writing, photos, and especially, the window into the world of California trout water those words & pics bring to life.
I’m also the producer and writer of the new TU series. As such, I appreciate the criticisms and have certainly taken them to heart.
There are a couple of points on which I feel you’re pretty far off-base, though. The first is when you compare the show to the work of AEG & Felt Soul. I know and respect the work of the parties of both production houses, and agree that each is advancing fly fishing media in ways it desperately needs to be advanced. But to put this series on the same playing field as their productions is, I think, unfair to the series. Cable TV budgets are small, in terms of both finances and time. Our shoots typically last 3-4 days, with the host and crew often working 16 hours of those days simply to capture all the necessary show elements. In post-production, we’re asked to complete a show in less than two weeks–there are many others waiting in the wings. Compare that to the AEG and Felt Soul guys, who often enjoy months in the field, and as long as a year or even more to build their shows in post. Now, all this is not to say that we can’t, or shouldn’t, strive to improve what we do inside our time frames, but I hope you can see the challenges inherent to such a schedule.
The second objection I have is that you summarily dismiss the series itself based, I believe, on the viewing of one episode. We’ve shot and built 15 shows for this season alone, and each one is different–some are stronger in the story, some in the fishing, etc. You may very well loathe all 15 episodes as much as you do the Madison show, but isn’t it a bit presumptuous to write off the entire thing based on less than seven percent of the whole?
As a footnote, I understand not all people are fans of Fly Fishing the World, or Fly Fishing Masters, but we are also the people responsible for Fly Fishing America, the first (and as far as I can tell, still the only) regular fishing show to ever ditch the host format and take a doc-style, storytelling approach. Oh, and we began that when AEG and Felt Soul were just beginning their work. FFA, by the way, is not currently on the air, which is a whole ‘nother discussion about TV markets, networks, and other things that make my head want to explode.
Keep up the good work; just try using a smaller stepladder to get up on that horse of yours.
Best,
Nick Davis
Barrett Productions
Tom Chandler | Apr 17, 2008 | Reply
Nick: Thanks for providing your measured, thoughtful opinion. I’d prefer to flip your points and address them in reverse order.
First, I’d agree that FFA was a better beast; a more authentic model for fly fishing shows than the vast majority of what we see.
I’d take it over most of what’s broadcast. As somebody who also sometimes sees his best work beaten half to death, I can only sympathize.
As for my dismissal of the TU series based on one show, that’s a fair point, though I wonder how many episodes you expect viewers to watch before they form an opinion? (In the marketing world, the answer is “one.”)
In fairness, I did allow room for improvement, and yes, On The Rise will arrive on my DVR every week. I’ll revisit it should I witness a change.
Your first objection is the most interesting. I appreciate your production constraints, but my criticisms of the show don’t revolve around production values (which are excellent), but dealt more with issues of authenticity and viewer engagement.
That’s why the reference to AEG, Felt Soul and fly fishing’s emerging documentary style — the very same style evidenced in the rather kickass On the Rise trailer.
Therein lies the problem; the trailer was spontaneous and – for lack of a better phrase – not excessively stage managed. The show felt different.
On The Rise is a great concept. I believe it has the capacity to highlight TU’s successes, reward those responsible (who often receive little recognition), and — based on the trailer — unveil a fresher face of TU to a new generation of fly fishers, who clearly aren’t enamored of the staged fly fishing shows that have gone before.
As for my high horse, well, isn’t most media critique written at those rarefied heights?
Please feel free to respond; an insider’s perspective is an invaluable one, and the one luxury afforded interactive media folks like myself is the ability to hold a conversation.
Nick | Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
Tom,
You are a smoooooth and clever beast. Of course, I knew that; it’s one of the reasons your site works as well as it does.
Rather than re-flip and pull a double reverse, I’ll address your last in order.
As much as we want to put our best foot forward in every episode, the simple fact of the matter is that the dynamics of these shoots are highly variable. Weather conditions, fishing conditions, on-camera personnel (both fishing and non-fishing), even the sort of day the host and/or crew is having are all factors that weigh heavily in the quality of content we bring to the post-production process. Of course, these are the very same conditions that face all video crews who attempt to shoot fishing shows of any kind, and as a producer I work to make sure my crews are as prepared and professional as they can be. Still, when you’re dealing with the truncated schedules we have, there are times when the fishing footage and on-camera dynamics simply leave a bit to be desired. And unless a shoot is a complete train wreck, we will build a show of it–there’s no room in the budget to simply keep trying until you get it completely right.
If one of those shows happens to be the first one a viewer sees (or if the story, type of fishing, or on-camera people don’t hold much interest for that particular viewer), well, there’s not much we can do about it, except hope they’ll give the series another shot.
As far as your issues with authenticity and viewer engagement, I would be lying if I said I am completely happy with the look, feel, and pacing of the show. There are several reasons for that. The first–and sorry to continue beating this horse (one way to shorten it, perhaps?)–is the bugaboo of those production constraints. We do not, for example, have the time to allow the host and whomever he is fishing with for that particular show get to know each other and get comfortable in front of the camera (this speaks mainly to the TU folk we incorporate into the shows).
The second is the host himself. Despite Frank’s dynamic personality, mondo fly fishing chops, and previous production experience, he learned very quickly that shooting a series like this one is an entirely different animal than simply fishing in front of a camera, especially when the series requires him to convey specific storylines and augment so many different on-camera personalities. With that said, he did shine in some very difficult circumstances, and I have no doubt that he is the right man for the job. I do believe he got better as the season went along, though whether that opinion is shared by viewers remains to be seen.
The third reason is, quite simply, the presence of growing pains. We knew we were taking a risk in creating this new format, but we felt–and still do–that the payoff will be more than worth it. We committed to a road-trip format because a) what trout fisherman doesn’t dream of packing up and hitting the road for an epic coldwater adventure? and b) we felt it the best way to showcase the grassroots heart of Trout Unlimited.
In a nutshell, this is the format: Frank drives to notable coldwater fisheries, meets up with the people that can shed light on the issues facing that watershed–whether those people are TU locals, TU National staff, USFS or BLM biologists, or others–fishes his ass off, and hopefully has some fun along the way. As we’ve never done a show quite like this, and since we’re working with a relatively green host, we tried a number of different methods (during field production, and in post) to advance all elements of the format. Some worked very well, some were okay, and others not so much.
It’s up to us now to further refine those elements for season two, and as such any and all feedback is welcome. Even if it comes via horseback.
As for why the trailer seems a superior product than the show you saw, well, anybody in video production will tell you it’s a hell of a lot easier to build a three-minute montage than a 22-minute story, let alone 15 of those stories.
Thanks for watching in the first place.
Nick
p.s. Tonight’s show is good example of how different the episodes can be from one another. The second Madison River show is esentially Frank and Kelly Galloup hunting browns with streamers and dries.
Tom Chandler | Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
Nick: I’m watching it right now (they just launched). I’ll give it another shot.
Justin Karnopp | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
I’m curiuos as to how you propose to record a spontaneous meeting and put it on television without the camera’s already being there to shoot it, so it can go on television.
Justin Karnopp | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
I’m also curious as to how you spell curiuos
Tom Chandler | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Justin: The meeting isn’t spontaneous, which is kinda the point. It’s not the meeting that the’s the problem, it’s the pretense.
Why act like it’s the first time you’ve met this guy, or that the truck and trailer are really pulling in off the road when they’re not (and so on)?
Why stage any of this? Why not try a little documentary style honesty? In fact, why bog the video with these kinds of awkward scenes?
It’s not a huge thing, but I notice it, and feel it puts a barrier between the viewer and the subjects.