If somebody wants to put Michael Vick (left) on television for 10 hours, I'll watch -- maybe for an hour. To stretch the telling of his saga over 10 episodes, as BET network is doing, is (forgive me) overkill.
"The Michael Vick Project" is being billed as a reality show, which apparently networks must do now to draw eyeballs. Sounds more like a faux documentary to me. No plot, no made-up drama. Just Vick rehashing his dreadful deeds and allowing a glimpse into his post-prison life.
Those who have seen glimpses of the series, which begins Feb. 2, say it's not entirely a carefully crafted image rehabbing. At the same time, it won't be a "60 Minutes" segment, either. As long as Vick isn't let off the hook, the program will have credibility.
But viewers are not likely to consider this can't-miss TV. Vick, in person, is dull, nothing like his electrifying on-field persona. The series producers have spliced in interviews with others, but not nearly enough to justify this marathon.
Besides, Vick already has apologized many times over. The footage devoted to more of the same will seem dated. The sports public has moved on to other confessions -- Mark McGwire's, Gilbert Arenas'.
So let me know how it ends.
"Vick, in person, is dull, nothing like his electrifying on-field persona". Evidently you've never actually seen an extended interview with the guy? This has been pretty obvious for sometime. It's true of most modern athletes too actually. And sometimes? That is pretty deliberate too. Being all too 'colorful'? Means that you're probably not 'saleable' enough to enough markets.
But I want to know is what the squeezed distorted pic of the guy playing b-ball has to do with Vic? Am I missing something here?
JMP