Jump to content

Backstage Interviewers "looked awful"


Recommended Posts

I am having an issue with backstage interviewer "looking awful" in interview segments and cant figure out what the problem is.

 

The two in question are Tony Chimel and So Cal Val, both who have good mic skills and i am pushing as personality's and using as backstage inteveriews. Any idea what the problem is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the interviewer not rated for this reason, because I don't think anyone is going to say that they thought a segment was ruined by So Cal Val or Tony Chimel people don't even think about the interviewer the angle is solely based on the person or people being interviewed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the interviewer not rated for this reason, because I don't think anyone is going to say that they thought a segment was ruined by So Cal Val or Tony Chimel people don't even think about the interviewer the angle is solely based on the person or people being interviewed.

 

I agree with this, after all how could So Cal Val ruin anything. Seriously though there have been interviewers who have ruined segments just because they were horrible at their job. I really can't think of any off the top of my head other than the guy that does the interviews for the company that is shown on my public access station. That is natural because everyone in that promotion is horrible.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its usually due to low overness I believe.

 

Doesn't have to be 'low' overness, just a wide disparity in overness levels. It also seems to have to do with role. If you want to mitigate that to a degree, have the interviewer in a 'support' role and not as a catalyst. I've gotten the note in my diary game in pretty much every segment Yuko Okui has been in because she has zero overness in the US (at least at the start).

 

I have the interviewer not rated for this reason, because I don't think anyone is going to say that they thought a segment was ruined by So Cal Val or Tony Chimel people don't even think about the interviewer the angle is solely based on the person or people being interviewed.

 

Present day? Probably. But that wasn't always the case. Remember, there was a time when the backstage interviewer was prominent (Okerlund, Gene). Nowadays, there seems little point of even having backstage interviewers unless you need someone to cower in front of a monster heel or throw softball setup lines for a charismatic worker to crush. Great way to train up your future commentators though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't have to be 'low' overness, just a wide disparity in overness levels. It also seems to have to do with role. If you want to mitigate that to a degree, have the interviewer in a 'support' role and not as a catalyst. I've gotten the note in my diary game in pretty much every segment Yuko Okui has been in because she has zero overness in the US (at least at the start).

 

 

 

Present day? Probably. But that wasn't always the case. Remember, there was a time when the backstage interviewer was prominent (Okerlund, Gene). Nowadays, there seems little point of even having backstage interviewers unless you need someone to cower in front of a monster heel or throw softball setup lines for a charismatic worker to crush. Great way to train up your future commentators though.

I'll try that later, but there's another way to resolve it-have the whole angle as a minor angle. TV Interviews are often good restroom breaks for people watching live or at home. That being said, there has been many times where only the worker did the angle himself or herself. Doesn't seem like a bad idea either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See any Pamela Paulshock interviews when she was with WCW. Totally dreadful.

 

Funny. I liked her in that capacity and not just because I thought she was hot. That was actuallty the part that impressed me the least about her. She was too cookie cutter for me to find her sexy. Even though I was clearly supposed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny. I liked her in that capacity and not just because I thought she was hot. That was actuallty the part that impressed me the least about her. She was too cookie cutter for me to find her sexy. Even though I was clearly supposed to.

I didn't even remember who she was. After looking it up on the series of tubes, I think i know who she is... I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this, after all how could So Cal Val ruin anything. Seriously though there have been interviewers who have ruined segments just because they were horrible at their job. I really can't think of any off the top of my head other than the guy that does the interviews for the company that is shown on my public access station. That is natural because everyone in that promotion is horrible.:D

 

Jeremy Borash would always ruin segments for me. For some reason the guy just chaffs me the wrong way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the interviewer not rated for this reason, because I don't think anyone is going to say that they thought a segment was ruined by So Cal Val or Tony Chimel people don't even think about the interviewer the angle is solely based on the person or people being interviewed.

 

Yeeaahh, no. You're wrong. It is very possible for an interviewer to drag down a segment. Happens a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeremy Borash would always ruin segments for me. For some reason the guy just chaffs me the wrong way

 

To each his own but I've always liked Borash. Especially when he's with the faces. He does a great job at playing buddy buddy with the good guys.

 

First Paulshock, then Borash. What's next? Somebody going to down Scott Hudson? It's almost like you guys want me to start throwing things. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To each his own but I've always liked Borash. Especially when he's with the faces. He does a great job at playing buddy buddy with the good guys.

 

First Paulshock, then Borash. What's next? Somebody going to down Scott Hudson? It's almost like you guys want me to start throwing things. :)

 

I did hate Scott Hudson lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To each his own but I've always liked Borash. Especially when he's with the faces. He does a great job at playing buddy buddy with the good guys.

 

First Paulshock, then Borash. What's next? Somebody going to down Scott Hudson? It's almost like you guys want me to start throwing things. :)

 

I don't remember Paulshock, but then again I didn't watch much WCW back then. Borash is/was awesome (I don't know if he's still in TNA, I haven't watched TNA in 7 months) and played off of each of the wrestlers' gimmicks in the interviews. But IMO Scott Hudson was horrible. His voice was grating and his mannerisms were cheesy, but for some reason I've always thought that he was a decent heel announcer, but a horrible interviewer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember Paulshock, but then again I didn't watch much WCW back then. Borash is/was awesome (I don't know if he's still in TNA, I haven't watched TNA in 7 months) and played off of each of the wrestlers' gimmicks in the interviews. But IMO Scott Hudson was horrible. His voice was grating and his mannerisms were cheesy, but for some reason I've always thought that he was a decent heel announcer, but a horrible interviewer.

 

Oh, I remember who Paulshock was, she was actually a pretty good interviewer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Cole interviewing The Rock was always annoying to me way back before Cole was at the commentary desk. Mostly because Rock taking the time to mock Cole seemed unnecessary and lame. But then, I'm not a huge Rock mark, so that could be a part of it too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...