PAD editing: Brilliant or horrible? UPDATE!

Photo courtesy of NBC

Last night I watched the first episode of Analysts Week on Poker After Dark and I have to admit it wasn't easy. These guys were all talking up a storm, which is fine because that's really what the producers want. But one end of the table would talk about one story and the other end of the table would talk about another one. I'd start listening to one story and then the mikes would get turned up on the other end of the table and I'd lose track of the first story. And even the players were getting ticked off at Ali Nejad. He took like three minutes to act whenever he had a hand, and it was mostly because he was TALKING!

But nothing was worse than when Chad Brown was trying to tell a story of a prop bet with Mike "The Mouth" Matusow and he couldn't finish his story because Robert Williamson wouldn't shut up. Williamson kept talking and saying he knew what the prop bet was and that he had heard it already. WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE COUNTRY? I sat there and paused the TiVo and SCREAMED at the television for RWIII to SHUT UP!!! And wouldn't you know it, when he finally let Chad tell the story the damn episode ended and he never finished!!

I didn't tune in after 2 a.m. this morning to see if they actually let the rest of the story be broadcast or if it ended up on the cutting room floor. I couldn't find the episode online yet, so I'll have to wait till I get home. But if that story isn't completed I'll be ticked off ... almost as mad as I am at David Goldhill of GSN!!!

Regardless if I get to hear the rest of the story, I can't decide if this was a brilliant piece of editing or just a terrible mistake. If I wasn't such a die-hard fan of poker I might be discouraged enough to say "Screw this show!" and not watch it. It was a very frustrating episode.

UPDATE: OK, so I had a chance to watch the second show and they returned to Chad Brown's story about his prop bet with Matusow, and they even made a point of having the substitute announcer (a job I COVET) say "And now Chad Brown continues telling his prop bet story." So, my final verdict is this editing job was both brilliant and horrible. Brilliant because it got me to write about it today (and I'll likely talk about it on the show) but horrible because of how ticked off it made me and obviously others since people posted here with the same feelings. In the end it was a good move for PAD because any publicity is good publicity and I fell for it. Oh, and by the way, the story was a HUGE letdown.

-- Chris

Comments

[gadzooks64]

Ali can be very entertaining when he's commentating but I found all the talk hugely annoying when there's NO POKER BEING PLAYED.

This happened that last time they did the commentators. Too much talk not enough poker.

I guess Ali is trying to get as much screen time after he was coolered out so early the last time.

[lawg1]

Totally agree. I DVR the show and got about 20 minutes into it and had to give up. I personally enjoy the pros telling stories about hands or remarking about other stories as they play, but these guys seemed to be trying way too hard to be cool or part of the inside gang.

Daniel N. or Helmuth talking about how a hand was played at a tourament they were IN is infinitely more entertaining than announcers talking about one they watched. Heck, I can do that.

[Chris Cosenza]

Great points. Any fan of the show has noticed over the past few seasons when players say "Boy it's getting quiet. Aren't we supposed to be talking?" The conversations almost always seem so forced at that point, or at the very least they are dominated by one person and it's very uncomfortable.

[Chi-Guy]

Yes,

Good points. I liked this week much less than couples week last week. You have to keep in mind though that you have to take the good with the bad.

The golfers week had alot of good conversation but it was all about golf. I was OK with it but I could see that if you had no interest in golf, it would be boring.

Watch last night's episode in its entirety. Howard and Phil Gordon go on and on about a prop bet that doesn't make any sense that they are making. It is kind of funny and I enjoyed it but if someone was looking to criticize the show, this would be a perfect piece to crush. Fortunately, it has a funny ending.

Also, what can they do? They want to show every hand. They can't give them scripts. They just have to let them talk. I think mandatory alcohol might make for some funny stuff.

Brian

[PointLedge]

I'll take the over. Just finished watching the second episode and the prop bet between Phil Gordon, Robin Williamson and Howard Lederer had me rolling on the floor. Yes there was no poker being played, but Phil's 'Back the Truck Up, Boys' is classic....

[Chi-Guy]

Plus,

The addition for Robert Williamson at the end is great. "Did you guys just chop me? I'll throw in an extra $200 to each of you if you just chopped me!"

Back up the Truck......How does Williamson get in on that action? I love it.

Brian

I guess I'm in the minority. I've actually enjoyed the first 2 episodes. True, there isn't as much "poker being played" .. but we are still seeing all or the majority of hands. I'm a TV poker fan and think having a week where maybe there's too much banter is a nice change up.

Van