Syzygy Productions' InSight scifi news

real life dollshouse? :s

it was too awful to watch all the way through. i gave up after four minutes.

i thought it was actually ok - although that scott does grate a bit.

i worked in television news for more than a decade and watch plenty of it. this attempt at "news"
was terrible, particularly because the delivery was so bad. these guys should not be in front of a
lens until they've gone back to broadcast school and learned how to read on camera. it's freakin'
amateur hour.

admin:

whoever said anything about these guys being professionals? they aren't, they aren't even going to be
the permanent hosts - insight is currently very much a side project for them (and dave and scott are
the only ones working on it), but it will eventually get its own crew with professional presenters and
correspondents.

and it's in the news feed because i put it there, and because it is news. judging from
the view count response i'd say it deserves the inclusion.

how about constructive criticism instead of "it's terrible", "bad delivery", "amateur hour"...? i know the
guys would appreciate good (!) tips on how to improve the show.

- @santabj

okay.

1. it needs to be a lot shorter and focus on fewer stories. you rarely see anchors on professional
productions talking directly into the camera for more than 30-40 seconds at a time. instead, the
anchor will speak to the camera, talk over video, toss to soundbites, toss to other anchors or
reporters, toss to prepared packages, etc.

having someone just sit and read into a camera gets very boring very quickly if you don't have other
elements to switch to. the stories end up running together, so that none of them are memorable. if
that's all you've got, you're not going to hold most viewers' attention for ten minutes. i would
shorten the whole thing to no more than three minutes. also, making it shorter would go a long
way toward making their delivery more watchable, at least until they learn how to read to camera.

2. for god's sake don't hold on that two-shot. neither of them knows what to do when he's not
talking. dave just sits there staring into the camera, waiting his turn, while scott looks around
the room and even up at the ceiling at one point. it looks really awkward, and they could remedy a
lot of that by using the two-shot as little as possible.

in fact, i think they might even consider not sharing the segment, but taking turns doing the entire
(three minute) thing solo instead. if they must tag team the segment, they should introduce
themselves in the two-shot and get into the singles as quickly as possible.

3. part of the reason that two-shot is so uncomfortable is that they're too close together. scott at
least tried to look over at dave while dave was talking, but that cross-set glance is never going to
look natural with the two of them shoulder to shoulder like that.

4. they need to sit up straight, relax their shoulders and not lean on the desk. they both look
hunched over and rumpled and tense at the same time. add that to the two-shot problems and their
uncomfortable proximity, and it seems like they're crammed into the frame. sitting up straight would
help with their vocal style as well. i might suggest making them sit on high stools with no backs,
with no desk in front of them, to force them to sit up straight.

5. the timing of the cross-talk is way off. it sounds like each one of them learned his own lines
and ignored the other guy's part. they each need to learn both and know where the switch-off is
coming. what's happening now is that when one of them finishes, the other seems to sit there for a
second longer than he should before realizing it's his turn. it doesn't sound conversational at all.

6. scott needs to not do that bobblehead thing he's doing when he talks. he needs to relax instead.

7. scott also needs to hide that mic cord on his lav. seeing the cable hanging loose like that looks
sloppy.

8. the writing is not conversational at all. it sounds like they're reading print stories rather
than broadcast stories. writing for broadcast requires short, simple sentences that express one idea
at a time. for example, their dollhouse story reads as follows:

japan has its own dollhouses. an agency in japan called hagemashi tai, translated to "i wanna cheer
you up," has created its own version of the dollhouse like the one in the fox series, which returned
for its second season this week. an agency employs about 30 people, of various ages, and both sexes,
with the skills and personality to temporarily adopt a new identity. they rent out fake spouses,
best men, relatives, friends, colleagues, boyfriends and girlfriends, to help clients avoid
embarrassment at social functions. there are ten agencies across japan. sounds a bit like an escort
service to me, but certainly a good gig for any aspiring actor or actress.

it's no wonder he sounds stiff, when what he's reading is so cumbersome. i would rework it to
something like this:

fans of fox's hit sci-fi series 'dollhouse'
might wish they could visit the service
themselves. if a new japanese agency is
successful, someday they may get their
chance.

the service is called hagemashi tai, which
translates to 'i wanna cheer you up'. clients
can 'rent' friends, spouses, business
colleagues--even relatives--to take along
on social outings. one young client rented
an uncle for parents' day at school. another
client rented a best man for his wedding!

of course, there's no mind control involved.
the agency just provides well-trained actors
to fill the roles. no word yet on when the
service might expand to the us. so for now,
you'll just have to settle for the tv show.

that runs about 40 seconds, which is average for a vo on a newscast. it also has more punch. my
guess is that scott and dave are reading print versions of these stories they found on the internet
and reworded slightly. you can't do that. you have break it down to the facts of the story and
reassemble it for broadcast presentation.

i'm sure i could find more to critique, but i've had a long day. so i'll leave off with one final
bit of advice: they need to get some broadcast coaching. seriously. even paying a local anchor or
reporter to work with them and give them ongoing critiques of their delivery and their writing would
be helpful. because as it stands now, what they're producing is difficult to watch.

be great is slyfy folded 🙂 wow what garbage they show these days lolz