Fleming Rips into Richardson

[James]

C_C, if you haven't seen the footage on NZ television tonight, you're not really in a position to comment.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

Anyone who thinks this is a spoof is buying the 'media management machine' and knows f-all about acting IMO.

I must have missed something - it's not all that hard to pretend to insult someone.

 

[Smudge]

I must say, his mouth remaining open, the speechlessness and the general dumfoundedness of Richardson is very convincing..

Plus, I'd imagine that's how a guy like Fleming would attack someone..

It's VERY VERY convincing for me..

Where's the proof it's not a coverup? It seems a matter of guilty until proven innocent, judging by that video..

The proof was shown on NZ TV tonight. Unless...

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

The proof was shown on NZ TV tonight. Unless...

They must be in on it too!

 

[Smudge]

<Voltman whistles the Twilight Zone theme>

 

[Swervy]

Anyone who thinks this is a spoof is buying the 'media management machine' and knows f-all about acting IMO.

hahaha...maybe, just maybe CC, you have been fooled!!!!!

Now I have only seen the 'insulting' bit (and not the bit where they are meant to be ****ing themselves about it), but Richardsons reaction didnt sit right with me from the start..I think it looks like he is hamming up the hurt with the little boy lost look...do you not think he would have actually responded to Fleming there and then if it were real

 

[C_C]

I must have missed something - it's not all that hard to pretend to insult someone.

Two things :1. 're-take'. These people arnt you and me just walking up to the camera and talking away - almost all cricketers have basic coaching about how to assume posture, face the camera, 'get into position' etc. from doing just basic adverts. I've seen a Flemmo commercial before - this is akin to Tom Cruise putting in a Morgan Freeman-esque performance.

2. Graphic rendition. The human eye can pick up something like 15 frames/sec so just re-assuming posture and graphic rendition takes care of a few frames difference.

There is no way of being 100% sure ( and i dont care anyways. this is so trivial either which way) but to me that looked like a sincere outburst.
I've been around enough to know what is 'faking and what is real' unless it is an absolute George Lucas-esque first-time actor.

 

[_Ed_]

Richardsons reaction didnt sit right with me from the start..I think it looks like he is hamming up the hurt with the little boy lost look...do you not think he would have actually responded to Fleming there and then if it were real

Very true...he keep sort of gasping with his eyes opening wide...looks quite forced.

 

[C_C]

do you not think he would have actually responded to Fleming there and then if it were real

How could he ? Flemmo was blunt and rude there but what he said was pretty accurate - Richardson isnt the one to make snide remarks about run-rates or spectacular batting.

 

[Swervy]

Two things :1. video rendition and 're-take'. These people arnt you and me just walking up to the camera and talking away - almost all cricketers have basic coaching about how to assume posture, face the camera, 'get into position' etc. from doing just basic adverts. I've seen a Flemmo commercial before - this is akin to Tom Cruise putting in a Morgan Freeman-esque performance.

2. Graphic rendition. The human eye can pick up something like 15 frames/sec so just re-assuming posture and graphic rendition takes care of a few frames difference.

There is no way of being 100% sure ( and i dont care anyways. this is so trivial either which way) but to me that looked like a sincere outburst.
I've been around enough to know what is 'faking and what is real' unless it is an absolute George Lucas-esque first-time actor.

bloody hell CC, is there not one subject that you arent an expert in..I mean, I know you have lived a tough and long life (24 years?) but I didnt realise you knew so much about acting as well as various branches of science, law, history , pshycology, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

 

[meatspx]

hehe.

I was fooled by the prank, but I havent seen the explanation on TV1.

By reading the comments here, Fleming explained that it was a prank and there was ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF THEM LAUGHING ABOUT IT AFTERWARDS.

How much more proof do you need?

 

[C_C]

bloody hell CC, is there not one subject that you arent an expert in..I mean, I know you have lived a tough and long life (24 years?) but I didnt realise you knew so much about acting as well as various branches of science, law, history , pshycology, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

I know a movie director personally ( and he too is a cricket fanatic) who saw the incident and thinks its most likely real ( even after the montioning of the 'continued footage'). I am inclined to take his word over a lame coverup attempt.
I personally dont have much of an opinion on this and i am essentially using second hand opinion of someone well placed to make the call. ( Just like i will take the opinion of an ex war vet about the likelyhood of the army pulling off XYZ over the opinion of common folks and the media story any day of the week. I take professional opinions pretty seriously, especially when they are emphatic.

I could be wrong but that is just my opinion. And from where i stand, no less credible than buying a delayed-telecast 'continued footage' as 'effectively ending the argument'.

 

[Swervy]

I know a movie director personally ( and he too is a cricket fanatic) who saw the incident and thinks its most likely real ( even after the montioning of the 'continued footage'). I am inclined to take his word over a lame coverup attempt.
I personally dont have much of an opinion on this and i am essentially using second hand opinion of someone well placed to make the call. ( Just like i will take the opinion of an ex war vet about the likelyhood of the army pulling off XYZ over the opinion of common folks and the media story any day of the week. I take professional opinions pretty seriously, especially when they are emphatic.

I could be wrong but that is just my opinion. And from where i stand, no less credible than buying a delayed-telecast 'continued footage' as 'effectively ending the argument'.

Its funny coz I have a friend who is a film director and a cricket fan, and he says it was obviously a fake...guess my mate is more of an expert than yours...coz I also have a friend who is an actor(actress?) and she says it is quite obviously fake as well..so thats 2 experts to 1 on this in my favour, I win, so therefore it was a joke


Sometimes CC, you can look into these things a bit too much

 

[Pratters]

If there are cuts you require perfection technically and through the people doing it (which means several takes).

You are being very sceptical CC.

 

[Smudge]

Believe me, C_C, I was the biggest non-believer, but the closing footage on the Sky Sports news tonight 99% sold me that it was a spoof. Regardless of what your specialist mates thought.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I love this re-take conspiracy.

 

[TazzX]

Had a chat to about it all this afetrnoon and according to him its a widely known thing among the team that Mark has a chip on his shoulder these days and he has been hammering Flemming with dumb questions for sometime now. With the pressure Flemming is under to perform and doing so badly in this Test Im not surprised he snapped.

The SKYTV news release is just a coverup.

 

[Smudge]

Had a chat to about it all this afetrnoon and according to him its a widely known thing among the team that Mark has a chip on his shoulder these days and he has been hammering Flemming with dumb questions for sometime now. With the pressure Flemming is under to perform and doing so badly in this Test Im not surprised he snapped.

The SKYTV news release is just a coverup.

Did you watch Sport 365 tonight?

 

[TazzX]

Can you say coverup?



Believe nothing that you see on TV

 

[Smudge]

Did you see Sport 365 or not?