the delphic expanse

This is a take-off from a turn in the conversation in the Connor Trinneer thread.

Personally, I have to admit there are a few of this type of shows I like. I love America's Next Top Model, Shear Genius, and Tabatha's Salon Takeover, but I feel almost shameful for admitting that, and a little defensive because they relate to the fashion and beauty industries, which I'm a part of.

And back in the day I loved me some Osbournes. And on that same token, I'll watch Gordon Ramsay, because hey, who can resist a British guy with a dirty mouth?

But--it seems like these "reality" shows are taking over.

Why? Not because people really want to watch them, but because they're CHEAP to produce. You don't have to pay actors, and yes, many do employ "writers"--but for their purposes, I use the term loosely.

Think ratings have anything to do with it? Well, kind of, yeah, they do--but not really the way you think. It's easy to "prove" that a particular genre is a ratings goldmine when you offer little else to compare it to, when such shows dominate your lineup. It's the same principle as the "hits" radio stations: the chart-topping music isn't necessarily any good (and face it, it usually is crap), but as consumers of the medium we allow ourselves to be convinced that it's great because they shove the same six songs down our throats once an hour every day for four months. Radio programmers can create a false demand by increasing a song's airplay--and you, the listener, believe it's because this is what other listeners have said that they want to hear.

Which is why I hate American Idol. I don't mean to offend the show's fans--more power to you if you like it--but again, as someone who has professional aspirations in the electronic media industry, this show is churning out yet more cookie-cutter fodder for these "hits" stations, and the cycle continues. That, and the fact that yes, this show is also contributing to fewer jobs for actors and writers.

But I digress.

The point is, look at what your TV stations and cable channels are offering, and keep track of it over time, and realize how little choice you're really being offered. And think about how easy it is to dominate the ratings when that's just about the only thing on.

And then think about the fact that getting rid of them isn't as simple as not watching them. Because nobody's invested as much in them as a one-hour scripted drama you're not watching. Ever wonder why really good shows get canceled, even if they're doing well in the ratings? It's because they've become expensive to produce. The show and its stars gain popularity and critical acclaim, which means your cast and writers start leveraging for more money...and the next thing you know, the network has pulled the plug because somebody has pitched the "reality" show Teenage Neo-Nazi Lesbian Hookers and hey, they can produce that for half the price...

cha-ching.

For me personally, this has me very concerned. It's putting actors out of work, and as an aspiring screenwriter, this means that there will be even fewer staff writing positions available, it'll be even harder for me to sell a pilot, and even if a pilot gets made, it'll be even harder to get the show ordered.

Any way, thanks for indulging my rant, and I hope that in the process I've helped to shed some light onto how the system works.

I think the only bright light is cable, where ratings expectations are lower and creativity is allowed to flourish. Mad Men gets about the same amount of viewers as Enterprise did in its final season, and yet it's considered AMC's biggest hit. Shows with small audiences like Southland and Sons of Anarchy are kept on the air because the networks are seeking those loyal viewers. I think you can say the same thing about Men of a Certain Age. The BSG reboot was also considered a huge hit, and it never pulled in the same amount of viewers that Enterprise did as a "failure", but cable expectations were lower.

I loved the first few seasons of Project Runway, watched the first season of American Idol and have enjoyed a few reality shows in the past. But, and this is not meant as a slam at those who do enjoy these kinds of shows, I am deeply uncomfortable with the culture of humiliation around these shows. Shows like the Real World, Real Housewives or the Teen Mom series manufacture celebrities with the soul purpose of shaming them/humiliating them for a payday. Yet, I'm always shocked when one of the cast members complains that they didn't know they would be portrayed so badly. I get that a lot of these people end up being very well paid, but it comes at the cost of their dignity. And in the case of the teen mom series, there are babies involved.

Yes, there are good unscripted shows that are a lot of fun. Mythbusters is one. I've never seen the deep water fishing one, but I hear that's very well done.

Still, I prefer scripted television.

I'm less bothered by competition shows -- where you have to have real talent or skill to compete. (Which means, I don't include shows like "The Bachelor," "Big Brother," etc.) I will admit that I do watch "The Biggest Loser" but I love fitness (yes, I am fully aware that what they accomplish on that show is unrealistic in the "real" world -- but it still fascinates me, nonetheless... and I have a a little platonic crush on Jillian.)

While I do enjoy some "American Idol" (even better now that Simon isn't a judge), "So You Think You Can Dance," and my kids like "America's Got Talent" -- I admit that if these shows disappeared, I wouldn't be upset. I prefer scripted television, hands-down, to "reality" shows (which are usually pretty far from reality anyway).

As someone who once considered a career in the performance arts, I am definitely concerned that these cheap "15 minutes of fame" sereis are truly damaging to the arts.

I'm not a fan of American idol either I like to watch Human Target and having a show you like Constantly preempted is very annoying. The only reality show I've watched is Home maker over. Gordon Ramsey is a jerk.I've seen a few minutes of his show waiting for the local news to come on.I don't why they keep this show on the air it's a lousy program.

Honeybee wrote:I think the only bright light is cable, where ratings expectations are lower and creativity is allowed to flourish. Mad Men gets about the same amount of viewers as Enterprise did in its final season, and yet it's considered AMC's biggest hit. Shows with small audiences like Southland and Sons of Anarchy are kept on the air because the networks are seeking those loyal viewers. I think you can say the same thing about Men of a Certain Age. The BSG reboot was also considered a huge hit, and it never pulled in the same amount of viewers that Enterprise did as a "failure", but cable expectations were lower.

Keep in mind, the electronic media landscape was a different animal when Enterprise was on. Things were shifting from a philosophy of "programming" (other people telling you what to watch and when to watch it) to that of "content" (offering what you want, when you want it, the way you want it). Everything was still very broadcast-focused in the early 2000s. And yes, Mad Men's ratings are the same as Enterprise's were, but we're talking about a 10-year time span here, and ten years worth of change in programming and ratings philosophies. Broadcast networks are always behind what cable/satellite is doing, and they're only now figuring out that they're not invincible.

Enterprise was a broadcast network show--UPN. In many ways, I think it would've survived and been better had it been syndicated the way TNG was. UPN had been born during the middle of TNG's run, and independent stations that carried TNG were sought out to affiliate with UPN--dangling the carrot of offering yet another Star Trek show, DS9, which only affiliates would carry. Stations jumped on this in light of A) the apparent success of the new FOX network, and B) TNG's wild popularity.

Unfortunately, by the time Enterprise came along, UPN was in the middle of falling apart, and they managed to keep that pretty quiet. My professor from last semester was at a broadcasting conference when it happened. He said literally some VP from UPN was up at the lectern giving a talk, and somebody came up and whispered in his ear, and he was all "Gotta go..." and that moment was the death of UPN.

So Honeybee is quite right in that there has been a shift in philosophy and attitude over the last ten years about what "good ratings" are.

However, cable channels are not immune. Yes, they're less restrictive in terms of creative risks that lead to quality and audience loyalty, but make no mistake, they're all about the bottom line, too. Networks like AMC can spend a little more on its original programming because it saves money by showing older movies that aren't very expensive compared to the ones that just left the theater that networks like HBO are going to get first.

But look at a network like SyFy. You've got two or three versions of "unscripted" Ghost Hunters, the new "Face Off", and --for cripes sakes--WRESTLING!! WTF? Now, they're not as inundated with these "reality" shows as channels like MTV and A&E, because they also save a lot of money by making crappy B movies and showing 5-hour daytime blocks of older shows that can be purchased relatively cheaply, or are reruns of something they already have licensing for. The point is, they are also looking to unscripted shows in order to save a buck. One Ghost Hunters is great and realistically popular on its own merit and entertainment value. Three? That's because "Hey, look at how much money we can save by making this instead of that hour-long original drama!" And don't even get me started about why they have wrestling...

I'm not saying that reality shows should go away completely. IDIC and all that. I just want people to think about why they're really there and the impact they really have, who it's really benefiting, because it's not really the viewer.

I'm not a big fan of reality TV. We never watch any of the Housewives of whatever, Jersey Shore, or any other where the focus is on the shenanigans of the people. I don't even consider the people on them as celebrities, despite that media coverage thrusts them into the spotlight. Why should people get attention for behaving badly?

That said, we do watch a few reality TV shows, like Mythbusters (although I consider it more science entertainment than reality ), Pawn Stars, and the like -- not because of the people involved, but because we find the topic interesting. We watched Jon & Kate Plus Eight for a time, until their marital problems came up. Aquarius, I can understand why you watch the ones you do, because they have a relation to your work. To you, they are interesting, and they do have content, whereas some of the others.... eh. For other viewers, maybe they do.

What disturbs me, though, is the rush to create new, similar shows when one of them is a hit. How many has Pawn Stars alone spawned? American PIckers, Auction Kings, and some raunchy version with a title I can't remember. They're all variations on a theme. I guess the argument could be made that other categories, such as police dramas, lawyer dramas, etc., follow the same formula -- one's a hit, and then there's several more. But hey! At least there's some kind of plot.

The funniest, unintentional satire I saw of reality shows was an episode of CSI Miami. A reality show was filming in Miami, and one of the cast members was killed. Then you find out that the people on the show weren't really what they portrayed. And they were only in it for the money -- to pay off debts, to fund their education, etc.

I do feel for the writers and real actors who face a shrinking market.

A few years ago, the writers of the reality shows - who basically work backwards, taking the raw footage and working with the editors to craft a storyline, tried to get into the WGA and were turned down. I objected to this, because most of these unscripted shows depend on the writers to make them watchable.

I live not far from where Jon & Kate are from, and while the show was still portraying them as a loving family, Jon would frequently appear in the local campus bars and hit on college age-d girls. One of my students sold a cell phone pic to one of the tabloids. They were a loving family, until reality tv got a hold of them. It's truly the observer effect. Everyone watching changes things.

It's funny about that episode of CSI Miami, which uncovered the shocking truth that JWOWW from the Jersey Shore was actually a half-way talented and committed art student in New York before she got on that show. No doubt, she signed up for the money and it's taken over her life.

I love documentary films, and again, some of these unscripted shows are very good and very informative. I think Project Runway really does illustrate how talented some of its contestants are.

But I always try and support scripted shows that I like.

I used to pride myself in not watching/liking ANY reality shows. Until the cooking competitions got their hold on me.

I'm a restaurant and food industry fiend, I've worked in the field and it gets into your blood. My dream kitchen would be all stainless steel with a sloping tile floor with a drain in the middle, that I could hose down and squeegee clean. Yeah, right.

So Top Chef owned my soul for a while, and I'm back to it. I love Hell's Kitchen and Gordon Ramsey, and any of his other programs. (As a defense, I also adored the British comedy Chef! and have written a short cross-over with Enterprise called "Pie!"... I should post that.) I also watch entire runs of the World Barista Championships online, since coffee is one of my growing passions and a future career plan for me, so that gives you part of my mindset.

Then I watched an episode of The Bachelor(ette? can't remember) to mock it, and was sucked in. Last year I saw The Biggest Loser and got addicted to crying (for joy) every episode. This past fall it inspired me to join a gym, since I saw what they were doing and the results they were getting (unrealistic or not, exercise shaped their bodies as they lost weight). I've dropped thirty pounds since October. And I've just signed up for our local "Biggest Loser" competition to keep the motivation of showing up to work out.

I consider the food stuff part of my passion, the weight stuff my inspiration, and the twu wuv stuff my mindless fluff entertainment. When I was recovering from my Vitamin D deficiency, I found that I could "concentrate" on The Bachelor/ette and find enjoyment in it when nothing else was motivating or held my attention through the frustrating brain fog I was experiencing. It was strangely healing for me... something I didn't have to be on top of to have a good time. It's odd to think of it that way, but it was and is a guilty pleasure.

I also enjoy the occasional Pawn Stars and hubby and I love American Pickers (he would love to do that... no thanks, I LIVED it ROFL *looks around house*). I like them for the history they bring up, and the collector value in everyday items.

All that said, I'd rather have a fantastic fictional show to look forward to every week. Sad that we can't have them, really, at all lately.

(Plus, I no longer have cable. Everything I watch I do online or through downloading. Son has just gotten some XBox subscriptions and we'll try out Netflix soon enough. I watch what I want pretty much when I want, not on someone else's schedule.)

I apologize if my remarks offended anyone I don't really care for reality shows they're really not cup of tea. I have caught the occasional Mythbusters show and found them to be interesting or Storm riders or Storm watchers.Some of the video of the storms they show are rather scary.The scifi tv &movie props auction show on the scifi channel I liked.

No offense taken from me, Reanok. It's a discussion, everyone has different tastes. That's what's so great about this board!