30 for 30 complaint

[BenPoquette]

A few of the 30 for 30's have been fantastic and a few have been pretty pedestrian. I agree...this series could have been great had they found new angles for things instead of rehashing history. The Miami one...we get it, "The U" was insane and changed college football. Did anyone actually learn anything from it? I loved the Chuck Wepner one because it was about a guy no one knew a lot about...and the battles he had with Stallone over the Rocky franchise were interesting and pretty eye-opening. Overall a fan of these documentaries...but there seems to be a TON of wasted opportunity.

 

[BDC99]

And I did like Klosterman's contribution. Mark Ames would surely disagree with me, but I do think he's a guy you can talk to about pop culture phenoms, which is what Bo was back in the day.

This is the reason I didn't have a problem with Klosterman too much. They used him a bit more than they should have, but most of it worked.

And I agree that the rehash ones have been the worst. Some of my favorites (The Two Escobars, The Birth of Big Air and Tim Richmond: To The Limit) were stories that weren't as well known.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

A few of the 30 for 30's have been fantastic and a few have been pretty pedestrian. I agree...this series could have been great had they found new angles for things instead of rehashing history. The Miami one...we get it, "The U" was insane and changed college football. Did anyone actually learn anything from it? I loved the Chuck Wepner one because it was about a guy no one knew a lot about...and the battles he had with Stallone over the Rocky franchise were interesting and pretty eye-opening. Overall a fan of these documentaries...but there seems to be a TON of wasted opportunity.

That's true, and I agree, and yet, I think when you consider the age demographic of those whose TVs never leave ESPN, they don't know half of what those of us of a certain age know about the subjects. A lot of this is new to them because they didn't see it on "SportsCenter" the night it happened -- or on YouTube or gifs within minutes of the games, and there isn't as much of an Internet trail as with something from five or 10 years ago.

 

[BDC99]

This is the first I've heard that this is not a great series. Certainly some have been much better than others, but there hasn't been a single one that I did not enjoy. Well, I think I skipped the Red Sox/Yankees bloody sock one. It is definitely the ones that aren't as well known or have not been discussed in a while that seem to be more interesting. The ones on Dupree, SMU and the USFL were especially good, and the rotisserie baseball one was fascinating, even though I knew most of the story on that as well.

 

[BenPoquette]

A few of the 30 for 30's have been fantastic and a few have been pretty pedestrian. I agree...this series could have been great had they found new angles for things instead of rehashing history. The Miami one...we get it, "The U" was insane and changed college football. Did anyone actually learn anything from it? I loved the Chuck Wepner one because it was about a guy no one knew a lot about...and the battles he had with Stallone over the Rocky franchise were interesting and pretty eye-opening. Overall a fan of these documentaries...but there seems to be a TON of wasted opportunity.

That's true, and I agree, and yet, I think when you consider the age demographic of those whose TVs never leave ESPN, they don't know half of what those of us of a certain age know about the subjects. A lot of this is new to them because they didn't see it on "SportsCenter" the night it happened -- or on YouTube or gifs within minutes of the games, and there isn't as much of an Internet trail as with something from five or 10 years ago.

Good point and I hadn't really thought of it that way. I guess I'm hoping for a little more depth to cater to both types of viewers.
By the way, I LOVED the Chris Heren one that was not a part of the original series, but released after the first 30. I think every high school athlete with hopes of a future in professional sports should watch it.

 

[Bristol Whipped]

Most of these are available on Netflix instant so I'm going through them in order now.

 

[Lugnuts]

A few of the 30 for 30's have been fantastic and a few have been pretty pedestrian. I agree...this series could have been great had they found new angles for things instead of rehashing history. The Miami one...we get it, "The U" was insane and changed college football. Did anyone actually learn anything from it? I loved the Chuck Wepner one because it was about a guy no one knew a lot about...and the battles he had with Stallone over the Rocky franchise were interesting and pretty eye-opening. Overall a fan of these documentaries...but there seems to be a TON of wasted opportunity.

That's true, and I agree, and yet, I think when you consider the age demographic of those whose TVs never leave ESPN, they don't know half of what those of us of a certain age know about the subjects. A lot of this is new to them because they didn't see it on "SportsCenter" the night it happened -- or on YouTube or gifs within minutes of the games, and there isn't as much of an Internet trail as with something from five or 10 years ago.

Good point and I hadn't really thought of it that way. I guess I'm hoping for a little more depth to cater to both types of viewers.
By the way, I LOVED the Chris Heren one that was not a part of the original series, but released after the first 30. I think every high school athlete with hopes of a future in professional sports should watch it.

The one on Herren was off-the-charts great. Haunting. The footage was stunning. And I love the name 'Unguarded.' I also love-love-LOVED Marcus Dupree. Same director. I cannot wait for the one coming up on N.C. State by the same filmmaker.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I recently, finally watched The Two Escobars. That was fantastic -- the kind of documentary that in another era would have shown up in the local arthouse.

The Herren one was my favorite of the original 30 for 30 year.

 

[BenPoquette]

A few of the 30 for 30's have been fantastic and a few have been pretty pedestrian. I agree...this series could have been great had they found new angles for things instead of rehashing history. The Miami one...we get it, "The U" was insane and changed college football. Did anyone actually learn anything from it? I loved the Chuck Wepner one because it was about a guy no one knew a lot about...and the battles he had with Stallone over the Rocky franchise were interesting and pretty eye-opening. Overall a fan of these documentaries...but there seems to be a TON of wasted opportunity.

That's true, and I agree, and yet, I think when you consider the age demographic of those whose TVs never leave ESPN, they don't know half of what those of us of a certain age know about the subjects. A lot of this is new to them because they didn't see it on "SportsCenter" the night it happened -- or on YouTube or gifs within minutes of the games, and there isn't as much of an Internet trail as with something from five or 10 years ago.

Good point and I hadn't really thought of it that way. I guess I'm hoping for a little more depth to cater to both types of viewers.
By the way, I LOVED the Chris Heren one that was not a part of the original series, but released after the first 30. I think every high school athlete with hopes of a future in professional sports should watch it.

The one on Herren was off-the-charts great. Haunting. The footage was stunning. And I love the name 'Unguarded.' I also love-love-LOVED Marcus Dupree. Same director. I cannot wait for the one coming up on N.C. State by the same filmmaker.

Looking forward to that one as well...especially in light of what Golenbock wrote in Personal Fouls. I never really looked at Jimmy V the same after reading that book, but have always wondered about Golenbock's reasoning for writing it. It was, perhaps, the most negative book I have ever read about a college program and made Valvano look like the most corrupt, sleazy human being alive. I guess Golenbock claims to have tapes of all the interviews he did for the book, but has never agreed to release them. Golenbock never struck me as the most accurate or even competent sports biographer (Number 1 read like it was a children's book and I question some of the claims about Billy Martin in that book as well) and I would like to know the truth about Valvano's N.C. State program...which I suppose lies somewhere between Golenbock's butcher job and ESPN's annual slobbering love affair (with apologies to Bernard Goldberg). Hoping the 30 for 30 will answer some of the questions I have.

 

[Versatile]

A few of the 30 for 30's have been fantastic and a few have been pretty pedestrian. I agree...this series could have been great had they found new angles for things instead of rehashing history. The Miami one...we get it, "The U" was insane and changed college football. Did anyone actually learn anything from it? I loved the Chuck Wepner one because it was about a guy no one knew a lot about...and the battles he had with Stallone over the Rocky franchise were interesting and pretty eye-opening. Overall a fan of these documentaries...but there seems to be a TON of wasted opportunity.

That's true, and I agree, and yet, I think when you consider the age demographic of those whose TVs never leave ESPN, they don't know half of what those of us of a certain age know about the subjects. A lot of this is new to them because they didn't see it on "SportsCenter" the night it happened -- or on YouTube or gifs within minutes of the games, and there isn't as much of an Internet trail as with something from five or 10 years ago.

I think the main point of this series is for serial nostalgists who did live throguh these eras to wax about howawesome sports were back in their days

 

[Huggy]

What makes 30 for 30 work, IMO, is the quality of what is said rather than the source of the quotes used. It is similar to putting together a takeout where you work like heck to amass all the great stuff you can find, then combine it into a stirring tale. You might bust your butt to find the perfect source, only to get hooey from him. So you use what works. In this case, I thought Klosterman worked quite well. Although I agree there are many sources out there with great insights into Bo.

Sort of sad to see G. Brett aging. He will always be in his 30s and striving for .400 to me.

I thought Brett looked great... I'm pretty sure he's 59.

.390, pine tar, and the '80 World Series, yet he's a Hall of Famer in my book for this:

Don't even have to click that link to know what it is and I agree 100%.

Really liked The Dotted Line doc about the small-time agent looking to make it big in the NFL. When I was in the hockey business I knew a lot of guys like that who trolled minor hockey rinks and major junior training camps looking to rep kids who might make them a buck one day.

Had never heard of Chris Haren but that doc was great. Riveting stuff.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

This is the first I've heard that this is not a great series. Certainly some have been much better than others, but there hasn't been a single one that I did not enjoy. Well, I think I skipped the Red Sox/Yankees bloody sock one. It is definitely the ones that aren't as well known or have not been discussed in a while that seem to be more interesting. The ones on Dupree, SMU and the USFL were especially good, and the rotisserie baseball one was fascinating, even though I knew most of the story on that as well.

I LOVE the series... But that doesn't mean there aren't a few things to nitpick...