That (Censored) Quiz Show

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'161732\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 01:33 PM\']
Straw man again, David.
[/quote]
Calm down.  I didn't say that you believed that news channels were "reality TV," I was pointing out that the definition was too simple.  (Hint: do news channels "deal with actual people and events," or not?  If the answer is "yes," the "damn right" definition can't be so "damn right," and perhaps your defense shouldn't have been that adamant.)  I thought that was clear from the rest of my post, but if it wasn't, mea culpa.

And this thread is now officially a "reality argugamery." :-)

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'161728\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 01:18 PM\']
Christ.
[/quote]
That would be a religiodocuproselytizumentary opera. ;-)

[LA the DJ]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'161726\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 01:09 PM\']
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!
[/quote]

My thinking is that the "passionate opposition" in some cases is the genre we all love vs. the genre that some of us hate. Granted, this does not fit in with the Real People situation, but certainly with WWTBaM which was mentioned earlier. i.e. "Don't you dare scathe our beloved game shows with that stupid buzzword!"

The interesting this that seems to be emerging from this argument is "reality" vs. "reality television". The staple of reality television seems to be manipulation of the events recorded by following subjects over an extended period of time. While a show like that might be more "reality", it doesn't seem to be "reality television".

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'nWo_Whammy\' post=\'161738\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 01:58 PM\']My thinking is that the "passionate opposition" in some cases is the genre we all love vs. the genre that some of us hate. Granted, this does not fit in with the Real People situation, but certainly with WWTBaM which was mentioned earlier. i.e. "Don't you dare scathe our beloved game shows with that stupid buzzword!"[/quote]
Excellent point.  I have to admit my own personal annoyance when critics and (worse yet) the programmers themselves insist on using "reality" as a term to describe things that are clearly, obviously game shows.  As I said with my other examples (60 Minutes and the Super Bowl), when there's a clear, obvious better alternative, why not use it?  The problem lies in these docucrapperies (thanks, David) that defy categorization.

I guess to me, "reality" basically means "other".  I don't believe that's lazy, I just don't think there are better alternatives.  And since some of my friends write scripts for some of these so-called "reality" shows, don't even get me started on the term "unscripted".

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'161731\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 10:26 AM\']
What the hell IS your point, Chris?
[/quote]
Frankly, I can't believe I'm even bothering with you, but: the line of mine I quoted SPECIFICALLY SAID that it had nothing to do with the term not existing at the time of the show, and then he cites a "point"...that claims I'm saying it has to do with the term not existing at the time.

So, yeah, WAY missed point.

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

Because, quite simply, I'm not wrong. I reject those arguments as invalid. You're entitled to do the same with mine, and I assure you, I'll sleep fine tonight. In fact, I specifically INVITE you to. Because, again, I know I'm on the right track when you do.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'161740\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 11:23 AM\']
I guess to me, "reality" basically means "other".  I don't believe that's lazy,
[/quote]
See, and I think it's ABSOLUTELY lazy. What's wrong with calling Real People an "anthology" series? You know, like Monitor?

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'161743\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 02:30 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'161740\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 11:23 AM\']
I guess to me, "reality" basically means "other".  I don't believe that's lazy,
[/quote]
See, and I think it's ABSOLUTELY lazy. What's wrong with calling Real People an "anthology" series? You know, like Monitor?
[/quote]
I don't know about others here, but when I hear "anthology" I think of fiction first, and in relation to television the show that comes to mind immediately is The Twilight Zone.  It may be correct technically to apply the term to, say, Real People, but it never would have occurred to me to do so until you mentioned it.

[Jimmy Owen]

I think shows like "Real People" would fall under the category of "human interest" rather than "reality."  Reality would be a show like "Cops" or the other cinema verite types of shows which feature the mundane and non-newsworthy.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'161749\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 03:22 PM\']
I think shows like "Real People" would fall under the category of "human interest" rather than "reality."
[/quote]
THAT'S the term I was thinking of, and it perfectly describes it IMO. Wasn't that how it was classified in the early-80s?

[Neumms]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'161742\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 01:28 PM\']
Frankly, I can't believe I'm even bothering with you, but: the line of mine I quoted SPECIFICALLY SAID that it had nothing to do with the term not existing at the time of the show, and then he cites a "point"...that claims I'm saying it has to do with the term not existing at the time.
[/quote]

Now that I've had lunch, I see that I totally missed your "not" in what you said. My apologies for that.

But heavens, do I miss Skip Stephenson.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'161749\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 12:22 PM\']
I think shows like "Real People" would fall under the category of "human interest" rather than "reality."  Reality would be a show like "Cops" or the other cinema verite types of shows which feature the mundane and non-newsworthy.
[/quote]
This is PRECISELY my point. I am given hope knowing that someone else here gets it too.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'161755\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 03:44 PM\']This is PRECISELY my point. I am given hope knowing that someone else here gets it too.[/quote]
If Jimmy had come through with "human interest" a while ago, we all may have been spared the bother.  While you were busy screeching at us about what it WASN'T, you weren't giving us anything by way of an alternative.  And if the absolute best you could come up with was 'anthology', you really weren't making your point very well at all.

[PYLdude]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'161768\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 04:35 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'161755\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 03:44 PM\']This is PRECISELY my point. I am given hope knowing that someone else here gets it too.[/quote]
If Jimmy had come through with "human interest" a while ago, we all may have been spared the bother.  While you were busy screeching at us about what it WASN'T, you weren't giving us anything by way of an alternative.  And if the absolute best you could come up with was 'anthology', you really weren't making your point very well at all.
[/quote]

...which is the point I was trying to make earlier (couldn't put it any better than you did, Matt).

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'161768\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 01:35 PM\']
While you were busy screeching at us about what it WASN'T, you weren't giving us anything by way of an alternative.
[/quote]For the same reasons Brandon did - I didn't have a better name to slap on it. But "reality" was and is dead wrong. (And I never tried to argue about what it WAS, I just damned well know what it WASN'T.)

And if the absolute best you could come up with was 'anthology', you really weren't making your point very well at all.

Sigh. Okay, Mr. Moderator. I'll try harder not to bring common sense to a discussion next time.

[DrBear]

*comes back, looks at the mess, mutters how I can't leave anything lying around in here*

I agree that "human interest" is probably a better description than "reality." The real problem is that that term's been bastardized so much, as we've seen in this discussion, that it doesn't mean anything.

Of course, Millionaire isn't a reality show. But then, neither is Survivor. People don't compete for a million dollars in real life, they do it on TV. TV is not reality.

To my mind, a key to "reality" is that people are doing things they would have done if a TV show hadn't been created. The woman who collects spuds that look like Warren G. Harding would do so nonetheless.

The main difference is the audience. Real People was billed as entertainment. 60 Minutes is billed as news. Personally, I think the hemorrhoid museum has more to say to us than most of the 60 Minutes interview, but that's just me.