It gave rise to my best quip of the night: "so this is what it would be like to watch the oscars from a hang-glider in the theatre!"

For a long time on the internet and on computers we've had the problem that the people writing the websites and designing the software have better computers and better monitors than the people that use it. It had seemed like for the most part TV producers "got" the fact that not everyone is watching their TV shows projected onto the side of a barn. I always assumed that was because they were actually watching the show from those tiny security-type tvs that they have in their little production trailers. Imagine watching that medley from one of these things:

http://slieber.com/album/slides/Production-Trailer-NASCAR.jpg

You'd think the problem would be immediately obvious.

Which is what we say to producers giving us those arty shots or are late coming back from commercial (off topic, but the MLB Network showed a great game yesterday afternoon, the June 23, 1984, "Ryne Sandberg game" -- the one in which Willie McGee hit for the cycle for the Cardinals). Bob Costas and Tony Kubek at the mike, and in the middle innings they had to note as they came back from commercial that Lonnie Smith had already made an out while Ozzie Smith was at the plate.

Now, back to our regular topic: People watch the Oscars because they love movies, so why don't they show more of the movies? I'd rather see an extended clip of the nominee's work than listen to all of the blather about why they are such great actors. Then again, that's probably because I haven't seen many of those movies.

Ball so boring, moving camera's got Zazz!

I'm Marketing Director Lindsay Nagel, and I approve everything you see.

Good analogy. The dead people camera swoop was irritating.

Sometimes with televisied hockey, the play will continue on after the whistle. Maybe it's a fight or there's some action at one of the benches. In any case, when the whistle blows it seems like that's the exact second the camera men take a rest. So you have the announcer talking about an interesting mix up in front of the penalty box and the camera is stationary on the goaltender drinking water at his net.

I completely agree that the swooping cameras during the retrospective were awful. (My son and I talked about it live!) But there was one other programming decision that I found equally awful. I don't know the technical term for it so I'll just describe it.

Occasionally, a sort of split screen technique was used to show the presenter on stage and an individual in the audience simultaneously. This would have been fine, but they had to gussy it up by framing the individuals with a series of small "screens" showing clips from movies in shades of blue. These were often distracting and entirely inappropriate to what was being said. I was especially irked by one in the lower center of the screen of a cartoon panda catching something in its mouth.

Graphic designers are still so entranced with their toys that they haven't figured out how to use them effectively. Very much like the early days of digital animation, which were infatuated with what they could do rather than with figuring out how to use the technology to tell a good story.

I suppose the sports (and cable news) equivalent is all the dancing baloney graphics that have to accompany any discussion these days on the boob tube. God forbid, the conversation itself might be sufficiently weighty and entertaining to suffice.

I was so irritated by the camera work. I also hate when "So You Think You Can Dance" shows five inches of face, or the upper torso of the dancers while they are performing. I don't want ARTSY I want to see what is happening! All of it! It drives me nuts in Lakers games, makes me froth on dance shows, and sent me into shrieking fury last night at the Oscars. I want to line up every one of those frustrated art movie directors and have them beaten to death with a Mac. Just show me the money shot!

Exactly my thought. All that was missing was that inane Fox footballbot bug clanking out dressed as Oscar, and then shaking off the lame to show the real man -- er, bot -- beneath. Sheesh.

For example: If you want to watch a baseball game, the TV is no longer any help. You have to actually go to the stadium.

Only then will you see the pitcher wind up, at the same time you see the fielders moving based on what pitch they know he's throwing, and the runner leading and possibly beginning to steal, and the catcher moving his mitt to target an outside pitch, and the batter either moving inside or outside depending on his guesses. And then see the whole pitch, from windup, to the ball's travel to the catcher, to the swing.

And then you can see the fly ball lofted to left field, the runner deciding whether to tag up, where the cutoff man is, who is backing up whom (an important point to teach your Little Leaguer if he's with you).

The TV used to show static shots of the diamond, or even the whole field. No longer. You don't see the game any more, just tiny disjointed parts of it, zoomed in so much that they are meaningless.

But if you want to see the utility man picking his nose in the dugout, the progress of the pitcher's five o'clock shadow, closeups of famous people in the stands, or faces of announcers stating the obvious, then stay sitting in your living room.

Thanks for bringing up the one part of last night's show that really bugged me. How does it show respect for someone's life / passing to show something that the viewer is unable to see?

(Ok one of 2 parts --- did anyone else notice how few people thanked the Acadamy? It seems we are lacking in respect & manners)