-
Hello everyone!
Deal or no Deal.
What the Blank?
The Dating/Newlywed Game.
These shows, as many of you know, were publicly approved and supposedly set to air on ABC, FOX, and NBC, respectively. However, the networks balked just before the trigger was to be pulled (at least, as far as I know).
My question to my fellow board members is this: why do the networks seem to be keen on these shows, make this totally aware, and then seem to be adamant about it at the last minute? I would like the general consensus of the board...thanks for the responses.
By the way, I did not come close to covering the scope with these three shows...anybody else have some shows in mind? Don Howard's "Top Secret" thread shed a little light on that.
The Inquisitive One
(By the way, I like the new digs. Way to go, Chris and Matt!)
-
I know about the first two shows you mentioned, but never heard anything on the Dating/Newlywed Game. When was this? Also, whatever happened to that revival of the old 64 grand slam show ABC was planning?
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Sep 30 2004, 08:56 PM\']I know about the first two shows you mentioned, but never heard anything on the Dating/Newlywed Game. When was this? Also, whatever happened to that revival of the old 64 grand slam show ABC was planning?
[snapback]59088[/snapback]
[/quote]
Actually, Adam, I remember seeing a news crawl about DG/NG on MSNBC in 2003...not too long before the LMAD abortion. I guess that is what made NBC turn tail on that aspiration.
Also, thanks for mentioning 64 Grand Slam. There was a furor about that show, then it went into a puff of smoke...for now. I guess having 25 skanks (thank you Jim Rome) pick two mop-topped losers in the next great breakup makes for better ratings...and ABC wonders why they are the cellar-dwellers of the big four.
The Inquisitive One
(Sorry for the tangent rant.)
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Sep 30 2004, 10:19 PM\']I guess having 25 skanks (thank you Jim Rome) pick two mop-topped losers in the next great breakup makes for better ratings...and ABC wonders why they are the cellar-dwellers of the big four.
[snapback]59091[/snapback]
[/quote]
Even when they're doing something right, they're doing something wrong. I'm trying to enjoy Lost, one of the most intense and gripping original dramas on television. At least it would be, if during some of the most intense moments, we weren't subjected to a distractingly large, opaque red box in the corner letting us know that the skanks...uh, The Bachelor was coming up next.
-
Am I the only person here who thinks of the awful NBC reality show (http://\"http://www.realitytvplanet.com/lost/synopsis.php\") on hearing the title "Lost"?
Of course, every time there was an ad for Push, Nevada, I kept thikning of Push (http://\"http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0119964/\")....
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Sep 30 2004, 10:18 PM\']Am I the only person here who thinks of the awful NBC reality show (http://\"http://www.realitytvplanet.com/lost/synopsis.php\") on hearing the title "Lost"?
Of course, every time there was an ad for Push, Nevada, I kept thikning of Push (http://\"http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0119964/\")....
[snapback]59098[/snapback]
[/quote]
You're not the only one (except I actually liked Lost).
As for the other questions - Dating/Newleywed came about around the time of MOGSM #3 - they figured Eubanks was recognizable again, I guess, and wanted to put him to work.
Oh, and for the record, I think 64 Grand Slam has as much chance of surviving over here as Prime Time 100% with Maria Menudos would.
-
I gone to Price Live show in Atlantic City with my cousin tonight and met in person our very own Randy West*. (Spendid announcer and warm-up talent, personally! :)) After our picture, I brought up What the Blank and he basically said it's not a firm go.
* = (http://www.yosanman.com/pictures/2004/sep/JoeRanSan.jpg (http://\"http://www.yosanman.com/pictures/2004/sep/JoeRanSan.jpg\") for picture proof, promising Mr. West that I post!)
-
[quote name=\'tommycharles\' date=\'Sep 30 2004, 11:16 PM\']As for the other questions - Dating/Newleywed came about around the time of MOGSM #3 - they figured Eubanks was recognizable again, I guess, and wanted to put him to work.
[snapback]59104[/snapback]
[/quote]
Is it safe to assume then that had the Dating and Newlywed Games came back, that Chuck Woolery would have hosted the Dating Portion then?
-
Is it safe to assume then that had the Dating and Newlywed Games came back, that Chuck Woolery would have hosted the Dating Portion then?
One couldn't assume either Woolery or Eubanks would return to host Dating/Newlywed hour if NBC did return them to the air last year. Odds are they'd pick a younger host for the shows.
-
Is it safe to assume then that had the Dating and Newlywed Games came back, that Chuck Woolery would have hosted the Dating Portion then?
[snapback]59129[/snapback]
[/quote]
No, its' not. But go ahead anyways. You're usually right.
-
Reality and rigged competitive television.
This is one of the reasons why I wonder for the future of any version of ABC Millionaire. Scripted rigged "reality"/"talent" shows can give a producer an opportunity to create fake enthusiasm or real controversy, generating interest and ratings. A game show, which definitely has to answer to "Prohibited Practices in Games of Skill or Chance" (no word from the FCC whether that would apply to "reality television -- and yes, I did complain), can't compete on a level playing field with that, regardless of the prize.
-
IIRC, "Deal or No Deal" did get to series stage, but the results were so bad ABC didn't air the show. (I recall Jim talking about captioning an episode and how bad it was, particularly with the quiz element taken out.)
And I'm sorry, but rigging's a serious charge to make. Do you have proof that Nigel Lythgoe and Ken Warwick were screening every vote call on "Idol" and only taking the ones for the contestants they liked?
-
The actual wording (http://\"http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000509----000-.html\") of the law doesn't use the phrase "game show" anywhere. Of course, the phrase "reality TV" doesn't appear in this 1960 legislation, either. The key phrase is "a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance."
Kinda slippery phrase that some lawyer could argue doesn't apply to talent contests or reality shows, though these seem to have some elements of intellectual skill and/or chance. I doubt that such a strained, legalistic argument would carry the day if a talent contest or reality show was discovered to have been rigged outright.
As to why networks or cable outlets are reluctant to greenlight game shows, three words: Millionaire killed ABC. Lots of people in the business really seem to believe this. That's why the traditional studio game show is in deep disfavor now. Well, there's also the problem with those pesky demos from the Nielsen folks.
Of course, elements of game shows are smuggled into reality shows and poker tournaments. (No, I won't argue Blackjack again.) But programming honchos seem really wary of anything that looks too game-showy.
Stick around, though. Genres come and go....talking of Michelangelo (http://\"http://www.bartleby.com/198/1.html\").
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Oct 1 2004, 07:36 AM\']Is it safe to assume then that had the Dating and Newlywed Games came back, that Chuck Woolery would have hosted the Dating Portion then?
[snapback]59129[/snapback]
[/quote]
Since the Chucker joined Bob for the last Outrageous (or was it the last two?) specials, I figured NBC was putting them both on in preparation for the allegedly imminent Dating/Newlywed Game revivals. But, alas, nay.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 1 2004, 12:25 PM\']The actual wording (http://\"http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000509----000-.html\") of the law doesn't use the phrase "game show" anywhere. Of course, the phrase "reality TV" doesn't appear in this 1960 legislation, either. The key phrase is "a purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance."
[/quote]
It was clear that that was what they had in mind (which see Dotto, Question/Challenge, etc.)
Kinda slippery phrase that some lawyer could argue doesn't apply to talent contests or reality shows, though these seem to have some elements of intellectual skill and/or chance. I doubt that such a strained, legalistic argument would carry the day if a talent contest or reality show was discovered to have been rigged outright.
Matt and others, in answering me on this subject, have basically come up with the argument of "Who really gives a ---?" That might be what saves this from coming up. There is a serious problem with this kind of television, and it is choking out not only game shows, but much of the rest of television as well.
I firmly believe there is much evidence that "American Idol" has been discovered to at least be shady as all get-out -- the slam voters invalidating the voting process which the AI producers refuse to change...
As to why networks or cable outlets are reluctant to greenlight game shows, three words: Millionaire killed ABC. Lots of people in the business really seem to believe this. That's why the traditional studio game show is in deep disfavor now. Well, there's also the problem with those pesky demos from the Nielsen folks.
Of course, this is ignorance on their part. Regis was right on the money when he said that ABC had nothing else of any real stature on their schedule, so he really had to save them from themselves!
But, as time went on and this became five or six years worth of a problem, it's problematic for a lot more than just game shows, but ABC as a whole as well...
Of course, elements of game shows are smuggled into reality shows and poker tournaments. (No, I won't argue Blackjack again.) But programming honchos seem really wary of anything that looks too game-showy.
Then the genre is dead. And, this time, no amount of top prize will save it.
-
You must realize that while Casey is right in some instances, it is just his opinion. If you listen to that reasoning, the sitcom is also dead.
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 2 2004, 04:47 PM\']
Kinda slippery phrase that some lawyer could argue doesn't apply to talent contests or reality shows, though these seem to have some elements of intellectual skill and/or chance. I doubt that such a strained, legalistic argument would carry the day if a talent contest or reality show was discovered to have been rigged outright.
Matt and others, in answering me on this subject, have basically come up with the argument of "Who really gives a ---?" [/quote]
Those of us making that argument probably aren't wording it exactly that way...
But...uh...yeah, basically. This isn't a fight that anybody seems too interested in pursuing, except a handful of disgruntled losers who haven't been able to take it very far. I'd even go so far as to say that some amount of controversy is actually good for some of these shows.
The simple fact is that we're a much more jaded and cynical society now than we were in the late fifties when we were shocked to learn that our real-life heroes on TV weren't what they claimed to be. We now have a much more realistic view of the "reality" we see on TV, and it's no longer as necessary as it once was (or at least seemed to be) for the FCC to protect us from the big scary producers who might lie to us.
Sure, if it turned out that a popular show was proven without a doubt to be completely and totally rigged, there'd be public outcry and fallout. But all I've seen are armchair conspiracy theorists who seem to think that somehow, from the comfort of their living rooms, they know more about how these shows are put together than anyone else.
To wit: Is American Idol actually "shady as all get-out" because they haven't addressed slam voting, or are they merely using an imperfect voting system? Some talent shows on television are judged by who gets the loudest applause, and that doesn't strike me as terribly scientific. The nation seems transfixed by the "competition" of The Apprentice, which best as I can tell, is totally based on Donald Trump's whims. And don't even dredge up that business about Burnett restaging parts of his competitions to get a better camera shot. Jeopardy does that.
In other words, short of some pretty convincing evidence that somebody is specifically being cheated, the FCC is not going to care one whit about how these rules apply to reality shows.
-
Grand Slam did get a greenlight from ABC in February, at least for a pilot, with the show itself penciled in for a summer 2004 run. When the ABC programming chiefs (Braun and what's-her-name) got fired, the new guy put the project on hold for this year. What happens with it now is anyone's guess.
-
You must realize that while Casey is right in some instances, it is just his opinion. If you listen to that reasoning, the sitcom is also dead.
Uh, what? How does the "Millionaire killed ABC" mantra and the older-skewing demos for game shows affect sitcoms in any way?
Also, I want to agree with everything Matt says...because he's the moderator. That's a joke, folks. Seriously, Matt's right that no clearcut evidence of outright rigging has yet surfaced in the current glut of reality shows and talent contests. There have been rumors and accusations, which indicate that some people think the 1960 law would be very applicable to these shows. But no-two-ways-about-it proof of rigging? Hasn't happened.
-
During the million-dollar game show boom of 1999-2000, I did a small survey of some students at my college about the shows for an assignment. One of the questions I asked was along the lines of "How would you feel if you discovered these shows were rigged?" or maybe "Do you believe these shows are rigged?" (It's been a while -- I don't remember exactly). Granted, it was a small sample, but I was shocked that a good majority of respondents didn't care if the shows were rigged or not.
If one of the more popular shows was proven to be rigged, I can see there being some outcry, but would anyone care if, say, the winner of "The Swan" was predetermined? Would anybody even react negatively if any it's-obviously-a-game-show shows were proven to be rigged? (Well, there'd certainly be a reaction for Jeopardy!.)
That kind of makes me sad.
--
Scott Robinson
-
[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' date=\'Oct 4 2004, 04:16 PM\']If one of the more popular shows was proven to be rigged, I can see there being some outcry, but would anyone care if, say, the winner of "The Swan" was predetermined? Would anybody even react negatively if any it's-obviously-a-game-show shows were proven to be rigged? (Well, there'd certainly be a reaction for Jeopardy!.)
[/quote]
The password is... "Manhunt", the Vince McMahon debacle which had WWF-reject-looking "hunters" shooting with paintball guns at the unfortunate few who signed up for that crap. Both a number of contestants and a number of staff members came out and said the thing was outright staged in many places. If I remember correctly, it got a rating of about 0.4 on UPN.
Nope, it'd have to be obvious, popular, and witch-hunt-able before anyone would even begin to care about rigging.
-
Yep, there was a lot of flak about Manhunt's, er, "staging" (http://\"http://www.realitynewsonline.com/cgi-bin/ae.pl?mode=1&article=article1339.art&page=1\"). Our friend the Prof was involved! There was a kerfuffle about somewhat similar shennanigans on the far higher-profile Survivor. But there really wasn't absolute, incontrovertible proof of outright rigging with a predetermined result.
And I think many people don't want to look naive, so they'll say that rigging wouldn't bother them or they think it's going on anyway. But they'd probably still feel a little snookered if their favorite game show or reality epic turned out to have been fixed.
OTOH, the well-known practice of final-table deals in poker tournaments doesn't seem to have affected those shows' popularity. So maybe people don't really care all that much.
But on the third hand, if it could be shown that a Survivor or Amazing Race series was absolutely flat-out rigged, I gotta think there'd be serious conniption fits.
Gee, I've got opinion on this issue pretty well surrounded.
EDIT: Kinda funny how this thread is working back towards another long thread on the board about the MG/H2 hour with the soap stars. One point in that thread was how not scripting and prepping the celebs in H2 really hurt that game's entertainment value.
Of course, this scripting and prepping was kinda, shall we say, delicate in the decades immediately following the rigging scandals. That's why Mark Goodson wouldn't allow it on MG/H2.
Many have made the point that the prepping wasn't actual rigging because the outcome wasn't predetermined. True, but the prepping obviously affected the quality of the celebs' bluffs, and thus the contestants' judgment of those bluffs, and thus eventually the outcome of the game. Even if the contestants knew what was going on, and I assume that they all did, it's still snuggling uncomfortably close to 47 USC 509.
The prepping was disclaimed, of course, which got the producers off the legal hook because they weren't purporting that the contest was completely bona fide. But while traditionalists like the Prof get hot and bothered by staging or manipulation in reality shows, somehow H2 gets grandfathered in on its manipulation of the celebs' answers.
I don't know, I'm not a purist on the issue. I'm not a fan of H2 exactly because the humor and the bluffs seem so rehearsed. But I gotta admit that Mr. Goodson's version really drags and bores without the scripted stuff.
-
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'Oct 2 2004, 04:35 PM\']You must realize that while Casey is right in some instances, it is just his opinion. If you listen to that reasoning, the sitcom is also dead.
Tyshaun
[snapback]59364[/snapback]
[/quote]
There is quite a bit of belief that if "reality TV" goes much further, it'll swallow television whole. What was it that I heard? 40% of the fall schedule is now "reality"???
And, after Friends and Frasier left, the sitcom just might be on life support right now anyway...
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 2 2004, 09:36 PM\']
[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 2 2004, 04:47 PM\']Kinda slippery phrase that some lawyer could argue doesn't apply to talent contests or reality shows, though these seem to have some elements of intellectual skill and/or chance. I doubt that such a strained, legalistic argument would carry the day if a talent contest or reality show was discovered to have been rigged outright.
Matt and others, in answering me on this subject, have basically come up with the argument of "Who really gives a ---?"
Those of us making that argument probably aren't wording it exactly that way...
But...uh...yeah, basically. This isn't a fight that anybody seems too interested in pursuing, except a handful of disgruntled losers who haven't been able to take it very far. I'd even go so far as to say that some amount of controversy is actually good for some of these shows.
And I have a serious problem with that. Not that you are wrong, Matt...
I think the way of thinking you espouse is exactly why reality TV has run over all other genres (and will kill game shows if they ever get to the last bastions in syndication). As I said in my first statement in this thread, if reality TV is allowed to play by its own rules, then game shows can't compete because of the manipulative factor Burnett, the Simons, et. al. can put into their shows -- manipulations game shows can't do (though they've tried).
I'm not a "disgruntled loser" by any stretch and I have complained. I think we have to understand that there are mechanisms which allow programs to get away with theoretical murder (like AI, see below) where all pretense of legitimacy is spurious at best.
The simple fact is that we're a much more jaded and cynical society now than we were in the late fifties when we were shocked to learn that our real-life heroes on TV weren't what they claimed to be. We now have a much more realistic view of the "reality" we see on TV, and it's no longer as necessary as it once was (or at least seemed to be) for the FCC to protect us from the big scary producers who might lie to us.
We still have the laws, though. We still have the situation where the games are supposed to be legitimate. I mean, you are correct: A TV Guide poll done just before Millionaire started in 1999 showed 2 of 5 didn't care whether the games were rigged or not! That still doesn't change the fact that the laws exist and should be either enforced or repealed.
Sure, if it turned out that a popular show was proven without a doubt to be completely and totally rigged, there'd be public outcry and fallout. But all I've seen are armchair conspiracy theorists who seem to think that somehow, from the comfort of their living rooms, they know more about how these shows are put together than anyone else.
Dagger taken, Matt...
I don't even know if your premise in this paragraph would necessarily be true -- but finding out would be about the only thing which could save game shows (not to mention most of prime-time television). As more and more reality TV takes over the airwaves, it might become unrealistic to think any competitive television is legit.
To wit: Is American Idol actually "shady as all get-out" because they haven't addressed slam voting, or are they merely using an imperfect voting system? Some talent shows on television are judged by who gets the loudest applause, and that doesn't strike me as terribly scientific. The nation seems transfixed by the "competition" of The Apprentice, which best as I can tell, is totally based on Donald Trump's whims. And don't even dredge up that business about Burnett restaging parts of his competitions to get a better camera shot. Jeopardy does that.
AI: I believe there's a scheme or artifice which allows the producers to name their own winners and even predetermine the order of finish for dramatic effect. This is done by a system which so allows "slam-voters" to flood all available lines for multiple contestants (if not all of them, as is esp. true in the finals) and then create an enforced tie, which then, because of clauses deep within the contracts, the producers would then "break". Their refusal to address this problem is rigging the show. There are many other ways in which this is done as well.
-
[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 5 2004, 01:40 PM\'][quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'Oct 2 2004, 04:35 PM\']You must realize that while Casey is right in some instances, it is just his opinion. If you listen to that reasoning, the sitcom is also dead.
Tyshaun
[snapback]59364[/snapback]
[/quote]
There is quite a bit of belief that if "reality TV" goes much further, it'll swallow television whole. What was it that I heard? 40% of the fall schedule is now "reality"???[snapback]59624[/snapback]
[/quote]
Sunday: 4 out of 18 hours ("AFHV," "Extreme Home," "The Partner" in Nov. and I'm counting Steve Harvey as reality)
Monday: 3 out of 15 ("Benefactor," "Fear Factor," "Renovate"/"Swan")
Tuesday: 2 out of 15 (the forthcoming Branson show, "Last Comic"/"Biggest Loser"/'Contender"--would've included "Next Great Champ," but it's been shunted to FSN)
Wednesday: 3 out of 15 ("Bachelor," "Wife Swap," "Top Model")
Thursday: 3 out of 15 ("Survivor," "Apprentice," "Extreme Makeover")
Friday: 2 out of 15 ("Complex," "Top Model" repeat--"Next Champ"'s repeat has to be taken out of the running)
Saturday: 4 out of 11 ("Cops," "AMW," "Apprentice" repeat, "Amazing Race")
Out of 104 hours of broadcast network prime time programming, 21 hours are devoted to reality shows (23 if you count "Next Champ" and assume that it'll be replaced by reality programming). That's only a little over 20 percent--meaning it has less of a chokehold than some would like you to believe. However, it is on at least two or more networks every night this fall.
-
I'm only going on reports that I had heard for the 40% remark. But even 20% is far far too much. Remember, this has only been four years since Survivor started polluting TV with this rigged crap.
(And sorry for screwing up all the quote flags on that last one...)
But, yes, I am a traditionalist. That's one of the reasons I loved Millionaire. That's one of the reasons I was so troubled when John Carpenter won three nights after Hair Guy's team split a million on Fox...
I think the only reason that there hasn't been an expose of the entire genre of reality TV is that there isn't enough to fill all the airtime now if it gets canned. There's too much money involved. How much corporate money do you think the advertisers get out of American Idol, for example?
-
[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 5 2004, 02:06 PM\']I'm only going on reports that I had heard for the 40% remark. But even 20% is far far too much. Remember, this has only been four years since Survivor started polluting TV with this rigged crap.
(And sorry for screwing up all the quote flags on that last one...)
But, yes, I am a traditionalist. That's one of the reasons I loved Millionaire. That's one of the reasons I was so troubled when John Carpenter won three nights after Hair Guy's team split a million on Fox...
I think the only reason that there hasn't been an expose of the entire genre of reality TV is that there isn't enough to fill all the airtime now if it gets canned. There's too much money involved. How much corporate money do you think the advertisers get out of American Idol, for example?
[snapback]59631[/snapback]
[/quote]
Oh, network television will just go back and do 20 sitcoms written by hack failed standups and Harvard Lampoon interns. :)
But reality won't go away completely--it's too economical not to go away completely--just like there were a lot of panel shows in the 50s in between "Playhouse 90" and "Kraft Theater." Networks have always wanted something to offset expensive sitcoms and drama series and reality now fits the bill. They will have their day in the sun and recede in popularity for a while, but they'll never go away.
-
[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 5 2004, 02:49 PM\']AI: I believe there's a scheme or artifice which allows the producers to name their own winners and even predetermine the order of finish for dramatic effect. [/quote]
To me anyway, your whole point boils down to this, which was the point of my...dagger. You believe, in your heart of hearts, not only something that you can't prove is true, but something that somebody probably WOULD have been able to prove by now if it was true. Don't you think there are rivals that would LOVE to be able to tear American Idol down? And a hungry media that would jump all over the story if it even looked like it MIGHT be true?
If you go into your argument assuming that AI is rigged, it's a fairly easy step for you to say that any reality show is manipulating results in ways none of us mere viewers can see. But since that main point remains unproven (by a long shot) your case to convince others of your belief is pretty weak.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Oct 5 2004, 01:59 PM\']Sunday: 4 out of 18 hours ("AFHV," "Extreme Home," "The Partner" in Nov. and I'm counting Steve Harvey as reality)
[/quote]
Maybe it's me, but I wouldn't count STEVE HARVEY'S BIG TIME as a reality series. While there are some competition aspects, most of what's presented is more exhibition/performance in nature (which means, in the words of David Letterman, please no wagering). Of course, YMMV.
Doug -- and the countdown to 700 continues
-
Mark Jeffries wrote:
But reality won't go away completely--it's too economical not to go away completely--just like there were a lot of panel shows in the 50s in between "Playhouse 90" and "Kraft Theater." Networks have always wanted something to offset expensive sitcoms and drama series and reality now fits the bill.
The networks could always go back to having six of seven nights of Dateline NBC equivalents. It's not like that stuff is any more expensive or less rigged to blow up than the "reality" genre. :-)
-
To starcade:
The ultimate "winner" of American Idol is pretty much moot. All of the top finishers get contracts in some form. Hell, even William Hung got one. Best example is the second contest. Despite Ruben's early perception of better marketability, Clay Aiken's had far more success.
-
[quote name=\'parliboy\' date=\'Oct 5 2004, 11:57 PM\']To starcade:
The ultimate "winner" of American Idol is pretty much moot. All of the top finishers get contracts in some form. Hell, even William Hung got one. Best example is the second contest. Despite Ruben's early perception of better marketability, Clay Aiken's had far more success.
[snapback]59695[/snapback]
[/quote]
And Kimberly Locke didn't even make it to the final two, but still had a hit single ("Eighth World Wonder") that even a Village Voice critic liked, which is unusual for someone who isn't punk or avant garde.
Of course, to figure out true success, we'll have to come back twenty years from now and see if these people became as successful as some of the people that competed on Ed's "Star Search."
-
Parliboy wrote:
"The ultimate "winner" of American Idol is pretty much moot. All of the top finishers get contracts in some form. Hell, even William Hung got one. Best example is the second contest. Despite Ruben's early perception of better marketability, Clay Aiken's had far more success."
Which is one of the reasons the whole mess is rigged to begin with -- clearly, not only does the best person not win, neither does the most popular. It's clear, in the stated example, that Aiken was better than Studdard, but, already facing racism charges (which didn't go away in season 3), they went with Studdard, especially after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" baloney...
Uncamark responded:
"And Kimberly Locke didn't even make it to the final two, but still had a hit single ("Eighth World Wonder") that even a Village Voice critic liked, which is unusual for someone who isn't punk or avant garde."
Kim Locke was the best of season two, esp. after Frenchie was DQ'ed. It was clear that they had someone else in mind who was far inferior.
"Of course, to figure out true success, we'll have to come back twenty years from now and see if these people became as successful as some of the people that competed on Ed's "Star Search.""
Linda Eder comes to mind.
Of course, there's always Deborah Gibson, who had "Star Search Reject" on a sign over her bed. (She tried twice...)
-
Matt and I go another round in the rigging argument:
"To me anyway, your whole point boils down to this, which was the point of my...dagger. You believe, in your heart of hearts, not only something that you can't prove is true, but something that somebody probably WOULD have been able to prove by now if it was true. Don't you think there are rivals that would LOVE to be able to tear American Idol down? And a hungry media that would jump all over the story if it even looked like it MIGHT be true?"
The reason that one can't prove it's true is a much better protection of the producers than anything that could've been thought of 50 years ago. If they had the protections (lawsuit threats, following the "contestants" around, etc.) then that they have now, Herb Stempel would still be seen as a loony.
Today, they protect the producers and hope people don't catch on.
I don't see it as that difficult. It's known fact that AI and other such shows have clauses in the contracts allowing the producers to choose their own winner in cases of "Act of God" and the like. (USA Today did an article on this around the time of the Tamyra Gray debacle.)
Then we find out that people use computerized calling systems to spam the phone lines to the degree where the lines have to try to take an order of magnitude more calls than they are capable of taking. This creates a situation where a tie is essentially forced, even if the one person is getting a VERY small percentage of the vote.
"If you go into your argument assuming that AI is rigged, it's a fairly easy step for you to say that any reality show is manipulating results in ways none of us mere viewers can see. But since that main point remains unproven (by a long shot) your case to convince others of your belief is pretty weak."
I think it's more "plausible deniability". I think people don't WANT to believe they're being duped _again_.
I mean, Matt, why do you think people are saying Ken Jennings is a product of a rigged enterprise? Why do you think people think Jeopardy is fully rigged?
-
The ultimate "winner" of American Idol is pretty much moot. All of the top finishers get contracts in some form. Hell, even William Hung got one. Best example is the second contest. Despite Ruben's early perception of better marketability, Clay Aiken's had far more success.
Although Ruben's having a hit single and a cameo in Scooby-Doo 2 made it hardly a "sorry 2004" for him. :-)
And what of Justin Guarini, runner-up on the 1st series? He got an album, but sales were rather dismal, and followed it up w/a starring role in one of the worst movies of 03...last know appearance? A wk of H2 this past April (and there's your ObGameShow, LOL).
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
I think, Matt and Starcade, that there's a big difference between rigged and riggable.
I remember back when Ready...Set...Cook was shooting new episodes during the ATGS era, there were people who pointed out how easy it would be to stack the audience with your friends and family to get an edge in voting. Assuming that even was true, of course, who'd do it for cookware?
Changing camera angles, dramatic / stilited editing, doing reshoots, etc., isn't rigging a contest. But once you rely on it to the degree that a Burnett does, you get to the point that you're not watching a contest, but a reenactment of a contest. And that's one aspect that irks people. Looking at tonight's episode of the Apprentice, for example: in the boardroom, there was so much of Trump's dialog added in post that you really didn't know what was said at the time. It was really jarring. So one begins to wonder how much of it was thought of after the fact. It didn't affect the result, but it does affect how the result was perceived to have occured. I do know that all manner of game shows and other contests to pick-ups and such, but not to the degree (or sloppiness) of a show like this.
That said, I'm still one of those conspiracy theorists who believe that things aren't always being played straight.
-
I mean, Matt, why do you think people are saying Ken Jennings is a product of a rigged enterprise? Why do you think people think Jeopardy is fully rigged?
I'm not Matt and I don't play him on an Internet board. But where is the evidence that Jeopardy is rigged? The only allegation that had any evidence behind it was the contention a few years ago that Jeopardy was slanting some boards to favor female contestants. And those charges were eventually retracted.
If somebody's going to allege a violation of federal law, it would be nice to see something to substantiate this serious charge.
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 15 2004, 07:30 AM\']
I mean, Matt, why do you think people are saying Ken Jennings is a product of a rigged enterprise? Why do you think people think Jeopardy is fully rigged?
I'm not Matt and I don't play him on an Internet board. But where is the evidence that Jeopardy is rigged? The only allegation that had any evidence behind it was the contention a few years ago that Jeopardy was slanting some boards to favor female contestants. And those charges were eventually retracted.
If somebody's going to allege a violation of federal law, it would be nice to see something to substantiate this serious charge.
[snapback]60878[/snapback]
[/quote]
If you don't mind me jumping in here...
I think that's largely the point, Casey--the accusations of J! rigging are just that that--completely baseless. It's just the sort of thing that people may talk about in bars, on chatrooms, on the "Jump the Shark" website, etc. As an example, I was watching Ken on J! a few weeks ago with my roommate, who has seen J! before but not with Ken on it, and as soon as it was over he said, "They have to be feeding this guy the answers...he couldn't do this all by himself."
I guess it all goes back to what was discussed earlier, the cynicism that has pervaded our society (which we all thought would disappear after 9/11, but it came back, albeit with a slightly different focus this time) has caused us to doubt everything and everyone we see and hear. Nothing is as pure as it seems...there has to be some ulterior motive to everything. Come to think of it, this is probably why conspiracy theories, no matter how irrelevant and implausible they may be, gain any credence in today's world...because of this mindset.
Maybe this is why game shows have fallen out of the public favor--in their traditional form, they're just too much "fun," too innocent and clean, to be believed by a cynical, jaded public?
--Sam
-
[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 14 2004, 08:42 PM\']It's clear, in the stated example, that Aiken was better than Studdard, but, already facing racism charges (which didn't go away in season 3), they went with Studdard, especially after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" baloney...
[snapback]60851[/snapback]
[/quote]
I don't know why it continues to amaze me that some people will seize on anything, no matter how utterly ridiculous, to make a political point.
That said, not only are you accusing a show of rigging when you have absolutely no hard evidence to back it up, you've decided that the President of the United States was somehow involved. Do you also believe that the judges are members of the CIA who fly over the studio in black helicopters?
-
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 15 2004, 08:30 AM\']The only allegation that had any evidence behind it was the contention a few years ago that Jeopardy was slanting some boards to favor female contestants. And those charges were eventually retracted.
[snapback]60878[/snapback]
[/quote]
Were the charges actually retracted, or just not included in the new edition of the book?
-
The charges disappeared from the new edition of the book. I don't know if there was a formal retraction, but the removal of the charges is pretty telling. A certain guy who frequently posts on this board discusses the controversy here (http://\"http://userdata.acd.net/ottinger/tvgames2/\").
-
[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Oct 14 2004, 08:41 PM\']
The ultimate "winner" of American Idol is pretty much moot. All of the top finishers get contracts in some form. Hell, even William Hung got one. Best example is the second contest. Despite Ruben's early perception of better marketability, Clay Aiken's had far more success.
Although Ruben's having a hit single and a cameo in Scooby-Doo 2 made it hardly a "sorry 2004" for him. :-)
And what of Justin Guarini, runner-up on the 1st series? He got an album, but sales were rather dismal, and followed it up w/a starring role in one of the worst movies of 03...last know appearance? A wk of H2 this past April (and there's your ObGameShow, LOL).
[snapback]60858[/snapback]
[/quote]
And not even his parents being friends of Steve Beverly could help him. :)
-
And not even his parents being friends of Steve Beverly could help him. :)
He was too busy complaining about Justin's aforementioned film fiasco not having his last name in the title, LOL.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
Casey, let's be clear on one thing:
All I was asking Matt about is why people have been saying that J!'s mega-run has been rigged -- not that there's any evidence to the effect.
(Basically, short of giving Ken the material or souping up his buzzer, there's really not much that could be done...)
====
And my contention on AI season two is that Marine Josh Gracin was going to be the winner (remember, my belief and contention is that the voting process is so FUBAR that the producers can pick the winner cleanly -- and script entirely how we get there...), and the President declaring the war "over" had a lot to do with them changing horses midstream.
-
[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 02:05 PM\']And my contention on AI season two is that Marine Josh Gracin was going to be the winner (remember, my belief and contention is that the voting process is so FUBAR that the producers can pick the winner cleanly -- and script entirely how we get there...), and the President declaring the war "over" had a lot to do with them changing horses midstream.
[snapback]61027[/snapback]
[/quote]
Again, what evidence do you have of any of this? Oh, that's right -- none.
I said this when Bill Clinton was in office, and it's no less true now: it amazes me that some people hate the President of the United States so much that they're willing to assign blame for anything and everything to him, even when there is nothing other than utter paranoia to back up such claims.
-
[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 01:05 PM\']
And my contention on AI season two is that Marine Josh Gracin was going to be the winner (remember, my belief and contention is that the voting process is so FUBAR that the producers can pick the winner cleanly -- and script entirely how we get there...), and the President declaring the war "over" had a lot to do with them changing horses midstream.
[snapback]61027[/snapback]
[/quote]
Wow. I'd like to hear your theories about how Paula Abdul was, in fact, the second gunman in Dallas.
-
Won't go that far, Starcade. I can see them taking Gracin on as a contestant, even though he wasn't talented enough to win (and he wasn't, he didn't have any breadth.) Since that part is the arbitrary decision of the show anyway, oh well.
But I don't see them deviating from the voting results that way. I can see that they may have the ABILITY to do it (I doubt there are enough controls in place to prevent it), but once we get to the audience voting, the show's clean.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 04:08 PM\']Wow. I'd like to hear your theories about how Paula Abdul was, in fact, the second gunman in Dallas.
[snapback]61037[/snapback]
[/quote]
C'mon, Matt, admit it... you just want to see Paula's grassy knoll. :-D
-
[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 02:05 PM\']All I was asking Matt about is why people have been saying that J!'s mega-run has been rigged -- not that there's any evidence to the effect.[/quote]
Sorry, I'd lost sight of this thread. But this is a pretty easy one. People accuse Jeopardy of rigging, even though it isn't true and there's no evidence. You're accusing AI of rigging, even though it isn't true and there's no evidence. As I see it, it's pretty much the same thing.
People believe what they want to believe, that's why I've given up trying to convince you otherwise. The depth and breadth of the rigging you're accusing AI of is so monumentally removed from what the rest of us call "reality" as to not be arguable anymore. Connecting it to Bush's campaign is where you officially lost me.
As for the two Jeopardy books and the differences between them, my best guess has always been that the second book was the compromise that avoided a lawsuit. Friedman pulled the things he couldn't absolutely prove and Sony put what could have been a public relations nightmare behind them.
-
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 04:35 PM\'][quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 04:08 PM\']Wow. I'd like to hear your theories about how Paula Abdul was, in fact, the second gunman in Dallas.
[snapback]61037[/snapback]
[/quote]
C'mon, Matt, admit it... you just want to see Paula's grassy knoll. :-D
[snapback]61042[/snapback]
[/quote]
Audience?
(Crowd Roars) : " Line....of....the....day!!!!!!"
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Oct 17 2004, 05:50 AM\'][quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 04:35 PM\'][quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 04:08 PM\']Wow. I'd like to hear your theories about how Paula Abdul was, in fact, the second gunman in Dallas.
[snapback]61037[/snapback]
[/quote]
C'mon, Matt, admit it... you just want to see Paula's grassy knoll. :-D
[snapback]61042[/snapback]
[/quote]
Audience?
(Crowd Roars) : " Line....of....the....day!!!!!!"
[snapback]61085[/snapback]
[/quote]
Ouch... Nothing more to say on that one...
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 05:28 PM\'][quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 16 2004, 02:05 PM\']All I was asking Matt about is why people have been saying that J!'s mega-run has been rigged -- not that there's any evidence to the effect.[/quote]
Sorry, I'd lost sight of this thread. But this is a pretty easy one. People accuse Jeopardy of rigging, even though it isn't true and there's no evidence. You're accusing AI of rigging, even though it isn't true and there's no evidence. As I see it, it's pretty much the same thing.
People believe what they want to believe, that's why I've given up trying to convince you otherwise. The depth and breadth of the rigging you're accusing AI of is so monumentally removed from what the rest of us call "reality" as to not be arguable anymore. Connecting it to Bush's campaign is where you officially lost me.
As for the two Jeopardy books and the differences between them, my best guess has always been that the second book was the compromise that avoided a lawsuit. Friedman pulled the things he couldn't absolutely prove and Sony put what could have been a public relations nightmare behind them.
[snapback]61045[/snapback]
[/quote]
I think, once again, it's plausible deniability. People don't *WANT TO THINK* it's rigged -- else, they then question whether anything is really on the up and up. (And, once you get past TPiR, Wheel, and J!, that would be a somewhat good question...)
I think the big problem is: How can a system which allows flood voting to the point where no hope of all the votes being registered be, in any degree, fair? Then, add that the voting system will not be changed (too convenient for the producers), and the fact that the producers can choose the winner in a FUBAR situation, and you get a scheme for rigging AI -- one that should be easy for anyone to figure out.
Of course, I'd like to ask one question of you and the others opposing me: Would you have said the same kind of thing to Herb Stempel after his loss to Charles van Doren?
-
[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 19 2004, 10:39 PM\']I think, once again, it's plausible deniability. People don't *WANT TO THINK* it's rigged -- else, they then question whether anything is really on the up and up. (And, once you get past TPiR, Wheel, and J!, that would be a somewhat good question...)
[snapback]61443[/snapback]
[/quote]
Maybe people don't *WANT TO THINK* it's rigged because *IT'S NOT RIGGED*. But as Matt points out, you will never be convinced otherwise, no matter what. The fact that you have not one scintilla of evidence to demonstrate that the show is rigged will not stop you.
I think the big problem is: How can a system which allows flood voting to the point where no hope of all the votes being registered be, in any degree, fair?
The fact that flood voting is possible means that supporters of ANY contestant can engage in it. It's a flaw, to be sure, but a flaw that's exploitable by any or all contestants equally. Hence, no rigging in favor of one contestant or another.
Then, add that the voting system will not be changed (too convenient for the producers), and the fact that the producers can choose the winner in a FUBAR situation, and you get a scheme for rigging AI -- one that should be easy for anyone to figure out.
The producers can choose the winner in a FUBAR situation on any show; unless I've missed something, "the decisions of the producer are final" or similar language is standard for any aired competition. It takes a HUGE leap to get from there to declaring that actual rigging is going on... and you don't get there, again, without one scintilla of evidence.
Of course, I'd like to ask one question of you and the others opposing me: Would you have said the same kind of thing to Herb Stempel after his loss to Charles van Doren?
Unlike Herb Stempel, you were not a contestant on the show you're accusing of rigging; therefore you have no firsthand knowledge and -- again -- not one scintilla of evidence. Moreover, I don't recall Herb Stempel accusing Barry and Enright of trying to take the heat off President Eisenhower by making Charles Van Doren "win."
You want to float conspiracy theories? Fine. But don't expect them to be taken with any greater level of seriousness than, say, a newspaper bearing the headline "SPACE ALIENS ENDORSE CLEMENTSON/OTTINGER TICKET FOR 2004 ELECTION."