Reality TV Shows: Is it really reality if they are aware of the camera? - Page 2

Orrymain · 05-25-2009, 05:29 AM

Boy I've missed a lot in the last couple of days! I thought I'd weigh in just a tad here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTVuser2009

I have no issues with those who enjoy reality television. but there's some who do NOT want to see it take up 90% of the schedule nor have their favorites preempted by the show going through a week-long marathon, just as some who don't like seeing sports dominate the TV during championships and rather it have its own channel or have it in moderation.

The thing is, everyone is different. I'm pretty traditional in scope, and that's how I feel about gritty TV and profane TV. I want the story without the swearing, crudeness, and violence that is prevalent in today's TV. Well, for the most part, I'm out of luck. Just watch Southland, which drives me insane with the bleeping. I appreciate not hearing the words, but why do have to even include the hint of the profanity and annoy us with bleeping? I want Columbo and Adam-12.

Quote:

Reality shows even take up a vast majority of paid-services like Dish Network. on channels such as TV Land, which is for those who love old TV shows, reality TV does NOT belong. the premise of a channel which revolves around a theme, such as classic television should show classic television. not reality 'new' TV.

I agree. Reality doesn't belong on TV Land, any more than wrestling belongs on the Sci Fi Channel or Girls Gone Wild extremely provocative ads belong in the middle of classic slowings of Password on GSN. I'm stuck with them, though. And TV Land isn't even TV Land anymore. The shows it's airing most of the time now aren't even suitable for what that channel was in the beginning. First they ruined Nick. Now they've ruined TV Land. Sadly, there's nothing we can do about that, except watch a different channel, and with TV today, there are 150 channels out there to watch, not to mention our collection of DVDs and VHS tapes.

Quote:

Survivor surely makes it appear as though they're in a survival course, with the promos showing tigers showing fangs, pumping up drama between the contestants, sure. it looks rather interesting to watch. but when you actually watch it, it just goes on and on with the crap plus there's no action. it's like a movie preview that seems interesting but when you get your ticket and sit down, it sucks 5 mins into it and never what you expected it to be.

They don't really want the contestants to die, but the truth is that a bad move by someone could result in danger. I'm sure they are briefed in some detail about the jungles and the animals. If you're watching the show to see interaction with wildlife, you're watching the wrong show. You need to go find a Steve Irwin rerun. Survival isn't about having run ins with critters; it's about outlasting, outwitting, and outplaying the other people.

Quote:

If you like Reality TV, fine. just don't deny those few the opportunity to watch something different once in a while. as you correctly stated, some like it, some don't. it's like technology, some like being the first to have every new gadget, some see no logical sense in spending money on something they may not need.

Change the channel. As I said earlier, there's always something else one. There's a lot to choose from. You just have to pick up the remote control.

Quote:

Plus reality TV is all fun until they play the same theme over and over like watching a rerun over and over. it gets old very quick.

Some people like reruns. I do know what you mean, but I don't watch every reality show. I watch my favorites, but just like ABC copies NBC who copies CBS who copies USA ... etc., the broadcast and cable networks both do what works. Right now, reality TV works, so it's not going away. It will eventually, but we're still watching.

Quote:

Survivor was ok the first two times. then it got old and played out. i mean how many re-creations of Power Rangers were done? how interesting was it to see 10 spin-offs of it? same with Survivor and American Idol. after 5-10 times it is no longer new and the novelty wears off.

I have to disagree. The premise is the same, but the people and the locales are not. American Idol had an extraordinary group of contestants this season, and if you didn't watch because you thought you'd already seen it by watching Kelly Clarkson and Clay Aiken, boy did you miss out.

Quote:

I mean in Survivor's case, it was so done that you'd see references of it show up on shows like Jimmy Neutron Boy Genius (they parodied the 'Tribal Council') and American Idol was done on All That (American Idiot, which i'd find it very interesting myself lol) and The Fairly Oddparents (Fairy Idol) and in fact AI was the most parodied recently. even on iCarly once.

That's the only reason i like Reality TV, because it gets humorously made fun of on shows i actually watch. AI is only watchable to me for Simon, since he's so honest and funny at the same time. but sadly everyone hates him. Randy Jackson is overusing ebonics IMO. and Paula is too nice.

Simon is actually very popular. He's not hated at all. It's a big game, and if you watched this season, did you notice how darn much he smiled? He was extremely happy this season. He smiled his face off. I thought that was very interesting.

Anyway, I just think you're being very judgmental. I do understand your programming frustration. I share it, but as I said at the start of this response, it's for different reasons. I want the old classic westerns back. I want cop and medical shows without blood everywhere. I don't need to see people half undressed and hear swearing to enjoy a show. I prefer not to see it, but that's not the reality of the day. I'd rather watch My Three Sons, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Emergency!, Laramie, and even Cop Rock over the shows that air in prime time today. Unfortunately, I don't own a network and I don't have billions to buy and run one. Darn -- sure wish I did, so like you, I'm just gonna have to grin and bear it, or change the channel. :}

bicker · 05-25-2009, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orrymain

I do understand your programming frustration. I share it, but as I said at the start of this response, it's for different reasons. ...

And that's really the crux of the issue: We all want different things. Our content and service providers aim to give each of us something that gets us to do business with them, but it is very unusual for any one person's personal preferences to be pandered to in a comprehensive manner.

As a matter of fact, the extent to which you are served is to a great extent within your control, but perhaps not in the way you might think (or hope). There is no reason to assume that content and service providers are going to structure what they offer to ensure that you personally are satisfied, but you can make the decision to expand your perspective and come to appreciate more than the comparatively narrow set of programming that you prefer, today.

It's a bit like coming to appreciate cuisines of the world: You start out just liking the food your parents made available to you. Then, you can choose to try (for example) sushi, or kimchee, or biryani, etc. Coming to appreciate jerk chicken, or shark fin soup, etc., doesn't take anything away from your appreciation of (for example) country fried steak, or lasagne, etc., but it does mean that you have a broader scope of food choices that will please you (and isn't being pleased a good part of what enjoying cuisine, or entertainment for that matter, all about?)

The same applies to other leisure contexts. In the realm of reading, I used to read, exclusively, epic fantasy, building on an appreciation fostered by my father introducing me to J. R. R. Tolkien when I was 11. Now, I enjoy reading that genre, mysteries, religious texts, high adventure, even romance novels on occasion. The fact that I appreciate more genres enhances my leisure enjoyment; it doesn't detract from it.

And it is very important to keep one's own personal preferences in their proper perspective. The fact that other people like (for example) reality television (when you don't) doesn't mean that there is something wrong with them, but rather it means that there is an opportunity for enjoying something that you are missing out on. You may not feel, or care to feel, that you're missing out on that, but you are... that's not an value judgment; that's just a statement of the reality. In order to counter that assertion, you would have to contend that people who like things that you don't like are irrational or in some other way mentally deficient, and that type of arrogant perspective is what is actually, itself, irrational.

As I indicated earlier, I have grown tired of reality programming. I stopped watching Survivor after four or five years. I stopped watching the Amazing Race after just one or two seasons. I watched Big Brother for only a few episodes. And so on. However, that is not an indictment of the people who like those shows. In light of the fact that there are programs that I end up recording and then later deleting from my DVR because I didn't have time to watch them, my lack of attention to reality programming is simply a reflection of how many other forms of entertainment I have opened myself up to appreciating. There isn't time (or need) to appreciate everything.

But (and this is the critical point), if you find yourself harboring animosity towards genres or the people who like them, because you feel that there isn't enough of what you enjoy available, then the problem is really within your own set of preferences, i.e., you appreciate too little.

crimson · 06-18-2009, 07:34 PM

Reality shows as they say make good fun t.v. and the networks says it's much more profitable and cheaper. As the reality show get's popular the more the sponsors come in with out the big stars on the picture they might as we'll stay on reality t.v.

Mockingbird · 06-25-2009, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTVuser2009

I
Reality shows even take up a vast majority of paid-services like Dish Network. on channels such as TV Land, which is for those who love old TV shows, reality TV does NOT belong. the premise of a channel which revolves around a theme, such as classic television should show classic television. not reality 'new' TV.

Or like Wrestling on the Sci Fi Channel? seems odd still. But I agree with you, if Reality shows are so dominating maybe they need their own channel and people that like that can watch it all day long.

Think your right, catagory channels are getting off topic by adding other stuff, Parental Control has nothing to do with Music yet it is on MTV, whats the point then of a music channel? Whats next ANTM on History channel?

bicker · 06-25-2009, 04:13 PM

However, the objective of channels isn't to keep the programming neatly separated -- the objective of the channels are to make profit, and so if a type of programming is low cost but offers comparatively respectable revenues, every channel is going to consider obliging such programming.

O-O · 06-25-2009, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

However, the objective of channels isn't to keep the programming neatly separated -- the objective of the channels are to make profit, and so if a type of programming is low cost but offers comparatively respectable revenues, every channel is going to consider obliging such programming.

That's why we have to do our part to keep non profit channels like PBS in operation.

Piggie · 06-25-2009, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-O

That's why we have to do our part to keep non profit channels like PBS in operation.

Couldn't agree more. I can never afford their minimum membership but in the last three years watching great stuff in HD from them, I have tried to do a little.

Even buying a DVD or CD from them puts money in the stream and you have something to show.

A lot of people can't afford a $75 contribution for a DVD of a good show they saw during a promotion drive. However at their store you can buy that DVD for $29.95, which is high for DVD because some of that money goes to them. It's a cheaper way to donate.

Or just give them $5. It all adds up.

bicker · 06-26-2009, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-O

That's why we have to do our part to keep non profit channels like PBS in operation.

I suspect a lot of people would consider PBS not a good candidate for their support, in that context. However, beyond that, PBS is not beyond presenting their own reality television shows (i.e., Frontier House, Colonial House, 1940s House, Manor House). And really, you can even think of This Old House as reality television, can't you?

bicker · 06-26-2009, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piggie

Even buying a DVD or CD from them puts money in the stream and you have something to show. A lot of people can't afford a $75 contribution for a DVD of a good show they saw during a promotion drive. However at their store you can buy that DVD for $29.95, which is high for DVD because some of that money goes to them. It's a cheaper way to donate.

I would check on that, actually. It may be a high price for a DVD (though I dunno, it may not be), but when sold in stores, the profits may just go to the production company. Some productions are from non-profits (CTW, for example), but some are just private enterprises.

To be sure your DVD purchase is actually helping PBS, you should make your purchase from shopPBS.org - Where every purchase supports public broadcasting.

brock9233 · 08-04-2009, 05:44 AM

There is a line of reality shows that are running on tv. Every thing they are doing is already scripted. They all just do what they have told and the results are also pre-decided.


Home \| DTV & HD News \| Today's Posts \| JakesDTVBlog.com Interview \| Join DTV USA Forum