Joe Buck Keeps It Simple – And It Works Wonders
Good for Joe Buck and good for HBO. Tuesday night’s second installment of Joe Buck Live was a markedly different show than the June premiere, and all the differences were improvements.
Actually it was really just one difference: the show wasn’t so forced and it just let Buck stay in his comfort zone. They booked good guests and Buck to his credit just got out of the way. Completely missing were any awkward attempts at humor, or any of the perceived arrogance that Buck gets ripped for by his detractors.
Instead, the show opened with a taped wink at the Artie Lange situation, and then got right to the meat – the interviews.
A panel of former star quarterbacks was entertaining, though you kept hoping for Joe Namath – who always looked a second away from saying or doing something nuts — to try and plant one on Buck. Guess he’s no Suzy Kolber.
Next was a pairing with Jerry Jones and Mark Cuban, which was tame but interesting.
That was followed by an interview with Curt Schilling, who broke some news by saying he wasn’t running for Ted Kennedy’s seat, and also had some interesting words about Roger Clemens.
The show ended with a Buck monologue that was quick and solid, as much making strong points as trying to be funny. It worked.
When I spoke with Buck before his first show, I wrote he needed to be more Bob Costas than Bob Saget. The first show was, well, a first show. This version was much better when it stopped trying so hard.
After the premiere, I gave three pieces of advice, which were not to make the show live, not to have an overarching theme throughout the show, and to book Artie Lange in episode 2.
While the show was still live, the other two happened, and they both helped.
While doing four shows a year leaves zero chance of ever building any sort of rhythm, if Tuesday was any indication, the show will probably get better in its third episode.
There is still room for improvement. Buck needs to get more comfortable going back after his interview subjects when they dodge a question. They will hopefully drop the audience question segment, which took up too much of the block with the QBs (or at least add in questions via Twitter and such to rope in the viewers). And little talk show pet peeves like having three chairs on stage for a two-guest segment should get smoothed out.
After this showing, Buck and the producers may regain some confidence to add a little more of Buck’s personality back into the show. Here’s hoping they walk that line very carefully and not wade back into too much silliness.
HBO’s audience is used to a show like this – book great guests and leave the snark and the screaming to the Internet and everywhere else. God forbid you just have a quality show without a YouTube moment.
Here’s hoping everyone involved with this show remembers that, and keeps Joe Buck Live heading on the right track come its next installment in December.
Nezzz commented:
Today’s Baseball Announcers: the Good, the Silly and the Buffoonery
Since we are now in post season Baseball, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the current state of Baseball announcing (at this glorious time of year). For the record, I grew up in the Tri-State NY Metropolitan area. I watched Yankees games and Met games, on either WPIX (Channel 11) or WOR (Channel 9) and listened as “old school” guys called the games; men such as Ralph Kiner, Lindsey Nelson, Bill White and Phil “The Scooter” Rizzuto (in spite of Rizzuto evacuating the Broadcast booth in late innings in order to beat the west-bound Jersey traffic on the GW and Bill White teasing him about on air—he was still a good Announcer!). These guys were skillful Baseball Announcers. They called Baseball games with great flair, great knowledge, good humility and with an understanding that sometimes, you should just shut up on air! Today’s Baseball (or Football) Announcers don’t know when to be quiet sometime or just plain shut up and let the game “speak for itself”-- as if several moments of on air silence during a broadcast is too terrible for the Networks to imagine. One of the sublime beauties of listening/watching Baseball on TV at home, is the majesty of having it on in the background as you putz about the house or yard while doing things, but this unending, inane, and pointless chattering (by today’s Announcers) is roughly akin to the mind numbing aggravation of having a crazy neighbor or ex-wife drop by your house or Condo (unannounced) and you can’t get them to leave!
The worst (and silliest) of the modern Announcing breed might very well be Joe Buck and Tim Mc Carver; I cringed when these two call a game. When this happens, I mute the sound of the game and turn on a smooth Jazz station to accompany my viewing of the game. Their combined garrulousness--particularly Tim Mc Carver’s ad nauseam (and over explaining) dissection of the most routine and obvious of plays--coupled with the corny and silly buffoonery of Joe Buck (who once asked, for example, former Yankee skipper Joe Torre during an “in game” interview to rub the bald head of former Yankee Coach Don Zimmer for good luck, fortunately Torre wisely declined the silly request from the camera hogging Buck) drive me to the mute button every time. Additionally, Buck is no better, in my mind (or ear) at broadcasting NFL games. In all honesty, Joe Buck should listen to tapes of his departed Father, Jack Buck, calling a St. Louis (Football) Cardinals game; he could learn a lot. Today’s Announcers should simply call the game with an economy of words and more importantly, tell us (the viewing Public watching a game) what we do not see (on the screen) about a particular Baseball or Football play! Now that would be something worth listening too--true insight. Finally, I watched a fair amount of night Baseball games this summer with the MLB package I bought and I noticed that some other Announcers such as Kenny Singleton, Dave Cone and Jim Palmer call a game with a minimum of words and tomfoolery.
And while we are talking about broadcasting silliness, could we also do away with the inane Football (during the game) sideline update statements by the female (or male) bimbo-like Announcers; these interruptions add nothing to the enjoyment (or understanding) of the game but rather serve as some silly sort of “face time device” for the Announcers. Cutting away to the Cheerleaders on the sidelines would be a better (and more enjoyable) use of the sideline on-air camera time.
John Howard Nesbitt, MBA
Chicago, ILL &
Jacksonville, Florida
AngryReader commented:
Joe Buck's comfort zone is somewhere between boring and dull. The show won't build rhythm because Buck is a midwestern white guy who lacks rhythm. I know nothing about you, but I bet you could interview these same well-known sports figures with three months to prepare. And you could read the rejected-Bill Maher-material off the cards as well and convincingly as Buck, who totally lacks a natural sense of humor. Is this a suck-up review just to bolster your ego because you think Buck and his producers followed your advice? It's not HBO...it's public access cable. If I want to see a stiff on HBO, I'll watch "Hung."