Author Topic: That (Censored) Quiz Show (Read 7816 times)

Yogi007 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 23, 2007, 09:03:24 AM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'161667\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 08:06 PM\']
[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'161664\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 07:49 PM\']
[/quote]
Just found an obit from November 2005...I had no idea. I could've sworn I saw their infomercial sometime in 2006, when I worked 3rd shift. Could be VERY wrong on that one.
[/quote]

You are probably correct. I hadn't seen their infomercial in a while, but down here in Palm Beach County, the local stations still show their pest control commercials like nothing happened.

JasonA1 · « **Reply #16 on:** August 23, 2007, 09:13:32 AM »

Keep in mind also that "reality television" as a term is relatively new and has just been wildly applied to things retroactively (i.e. "Cops" = reality show). They had to call them something before that term was invented, and if I had to guess for "Real People" I'd have gone variety or documentary, just choosing from the traditional categories.

-Jason

clemon79 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 23, 2007, 11:35:06 AM »

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'161706\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 06:13 AM\']
They had to call them something before that term was invented, and if I had to guess for "Real People" I'd have gone variety or documentary, just choosing from the traditional categories.
[/quote]
The point is not that it's not a "reality" show because the term didn't exist then.

The point is that IT'S NOT A GODDAMN "REALITY" SHOW.

Again: If Real People is a "reality" show, then so is 60 Minutes. Because they are functionally exactly the same damn show, except one interviews political and otherwise newsworthy figures, and the other one interviews the curator of the National Hemorrhoid Museum.

(The other point is that people who slap the "reality" label on anything and everything because it's hip to do it these days or because they think it makes them sound more knowledgeable are goddamn annoying.)

tpirfan28 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 23, 2007, 12:19:53 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'161711\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 11:35 AM\']
The point is that IT'S NOT A GODDAMN "REALITY" SHOW.
[/quote]
I read that quote...then read this from the "Reality Television" Wiki article...

Quote

Modern game shows like Weakest Link, Greed, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, Dog Eat Dog and Deal or No Deal also lie in a gray area: like traditional game shows, the action takes place in an enclosed TV studio over a short period of time; however, they have higher production values, more dramatic background music, and higher stakes than traditional shows (done either through putting contestants into physical danger or offering large cash prizes). In addition, there is more interaction between contestants and hosts, and in some cases they feature reality-style contestant competition and/or elimination as well. These factors, as well as these shows' rise in global popularity at the same time as the arrival of the reality craze, lead many people to group them under the reality TV umbrella instead of the traditional game show one.

Last time I checked, "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" is NOT even close to a reality TV show.

uncamark · « **Reply #19 on:** August 23, 2007, 12:36:46 PM »

To be more exact, "Real People" was Charles Kuralt's "On the Road" pieces with more mockery than Kuralt would've even thought of doing.

And "That's Incredible!" was basically a hyped-up "You Asked for It."

Because they weren't the easy-to-understand comedy/drama/variety/talk/newsmagazine/game formats, they got called "reality shows."

"Cops" and other documentary-style series get the "reality" tag because they aren't produced by the network news departments. Not exactly like the network news departments aren't turning out nothing but sober journalism these days (see "48 Hours Mystery" and the "Dateline" "To Catch a Predator" segments).

The network departments overseeing the game/comp/doc-style programs that don't have actors performing from scripts are called "alternative programming." (An ironic description at Fox, where approximately half the schedule seems to be the handiwork of Mike Darnell.) The other term could be "unscripted"--and you could go around the bend on that one, too.

clemon79 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 23, 2007, 12:59:13 PM »

[quote name=\'uncamark\' post=\'161717\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 09:36 AM\']
...they got called "reality shows."
[/quote]
...by lazy journalists who are either a) eager to cash in on a popular current catchphrase or b) unable to be bothered to do proper research.

clemon79 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 23, 2007, 01:02:51 PM »

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'161714\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 09:19 AM\']
I read that quote...then read this from the "Reality Television" Wiki article...
[/quote]
...which has been edit warred to hell and back, so you knew that there was going to be crap like that therein...

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #22 on:** August 23, 2007, 01:09:25 PM »

I love how far we've come. Used to be we'd get worked up over what did or did not fit the one-and-only definition of "game show". Now we're doing the same thing with the term "reality".

I honestly don't see the passionate opposition to using the "reality" label broadly. The reason why comparisons to 60 Minutes and the Super Bowl don't fly with me is that there is already another obvious, better category that those two fall under. Real People (to use our battered example) is certainly not a news program, and certainly not a sports program. So what the heck is it, and why is it so terribly offensive to call it a "reality" show? Heck, part of the word is in the title!

Do we really need Steve to come up with more of his imaginary words to define these subgenres?

clemon79 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 23, 2007, 01:18:18 PM »

Christ. I give up.

Neumms · « **Reply #24 on:** August 23, 2007, 01:21:18 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'161711\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 10:35 AM\']
The point is not that it's not a "reality" show because the term didn't exist then.

The point is that IT'S NOT A GODDAMN "REALITY" SHOW.

Again: If Real People is a "reality" show, then so is 60 Minutes. Because they are functionally exactly the same damn show, except one interviews political and otherwise newsworthy figures, and the other one interviews the curator of the National Hemorrhoid Museum.
[/quote]

Does that mean Mars isn't a planet because it predates the term?

clemon79 · « **Reply #25 on:** August 23, 2007, 01:23:02 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'161729\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 10:21 AM\']
Does that mean Mars isn't a planet because it predates the term?
[/quote]
Wow. Way to completely miss THAT point.

PYLdude · « **Reply #26 on:** August 23, 2007, 01:26:15 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'161730\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 01:23 PM\']
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'161729\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 10:21 AM\']
Does that mean Mars isn't a planet because it predates the term?
[/quote]
Wow. Way to completely miss THAT point.
[/quote]

What the hell IS your point, Chris?

Honestly. You have a few people showing you why you're wrong, and you still won't let it go.

PYLdude · « **Reply #27 on:** August 23, 2007, 01:33:30 PM »

[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'161698\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 06:34 AM\']
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'161690\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 02:38 AM\']
[quote name=\'DrBear\' post=\'161675\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 09:13 PM\']
Well, they aren't scripted fictional entertainment, are they? They deal with actual people and events, not docudramas. Seems like a good definition of "reality" to me.[/quote]

It's not a good definition.

It's the damn right definition.

If a show like Real People isn't close to a universal standard of reality, then what the hell is? Honestly.
[/quote]
By your "damn right" definition, MSNBC, Fox News and CNN are 24-hour reality channels.
[/quote]

Straw man again, David.

dzinkin · « **Reply #28 on:** August 23, 2007, 01:34:11 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'161726\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 01:09 PM\']
Real People (to use our battered example) is certainly not a news program, and certainly not a sports program. So what the heck is it, and why is it so terribly offensive to call it a "reality" show? Heck, part of the word is in the title!
[/quote]
I'm certainly not offended by those who want to call it "reality." I merely have a problem with placing two shows in the same category when one merely looks at weirdos in their natural habitat and the other puts them in specific situations with the goal of getting them to be weird -- no more, no less. And if a show like Survivor can be classified as both "game" and "reality," what's to stop someone from classifying certain news shows as "reality" as well?

But you're right, we won't all agree on this any more than we did on the definition of "game" show.

Quote

Do we really need Steve to come up with more of his imaginary words to define these subgenres?

We have to be able to come up with better imaginary names than he can. I therefore classify Real People as a "docucrappery," To Catch a Predator as a "docupervery" and professional wrestling as a "sports opera." :-)

Joe Mello · « **Reply #29 on:** August 23, 2007, 01:47:05 PM »

So would a program that examines the growth of a certain technology be considered a "compumentary"?

/If college doesn't work out I could try writing for Variety.