The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: clanky06 on August 22, 2007, 07:19:11 PM
-
There was a discussion over at an Avid video editing forum about the all-time worst TV show. This link was posted: Old TV Tickets (http://\"http://www.oldtvtickets.com/archives1/2005/12/that_quiz_show.html\")
Has this show been discussed before on this forum?
-
[quote name=\'clanky06\' post=\'161660\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 07:19 PM\']
There was a discussion over at an Avid video editing forum about the all-time worst TV show. This link was posted: Old TV Tickets (http://\"http://www.oldtvtickets.com/archives1/2005/12/that_quiz_show.html\")
Has this show been discussed before on this forum?
[/quote]
Rarely, if ever. I wonder how many markets even aired the show.
TIDBIT: the Rice brothers make the rounds on the late-nite infomercial circuit. Apparently, they've made a killing in real estate.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'161662\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 06:35 PM\']
Has this show been discussed before on this forum?
Rarely, if ever. I wonder how many markets even aired the show.
[/quote]
I can say with complete confidence that the Houston market aired the show. Those of us in Lake Charles, La. at the time who first got to see cable got this as well, as we got some of their UHF channels in the very early days of cable TV. I want to say channel 39 (now their CW affiliate) aired it at 9:30 Central; but that part of my memory doesn't hold too well, as I had a Barry & Enright love at the time.
The show was just a You Bet Your Life variant. Not bad if it's done right. This wasn't.
Yeah, I was eight. I still knew it wasn't a good show. Laughter had more cans than a nuclear bomb shelter.
TIDBIT: the Rice brothers make the rounds on the late-nite infomercial circuit. Apparently, they've made a killing in real estate.
Made. Darn surgical complications.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'161662\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 04:35 PM\']
TIDBIT: the Rice brothers make the rounds on the late-nite infomercial circuit. Apparently, they've made a killing in real estate.
[/quote]
I was gonna ask if that was them.
Boy, based on that article, and based on what we know about Barbour's performance on Gong, that man just had NO IDEA what "funny" was, did he?
For whatever reason I was inspired to try to look up Barbour's Wiki article (yes, it hits, no, it's not him, it's the 14th century poet), and from there the article on Real People. These two passages made me weep:
Real People was an NBC reality television series
The success of Real People led to a rash of imitators, the best known (and longest-running) of which was That's Incredible!
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'161665\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 06:59 PM\']
For whatever reason I was inspired to try to look up Barbour's Wiki article (yes, it hits, no, it's not him, it's the 14th century poet), and from there the article on Real People. These two passages made me weep:
Real People was an NBC reality television series
[/quote]
Why would that make you weep? It was by no means high brow entertainment, but it was certainly an original format, and indeed, reality. It made me laugh, although I was around 10 when it was on.
-
[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'161664\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 07:49 PM\']
Made. Darn surgical complications.
[/quote]
Just found an obit (http://\"http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2005/11/25/john_rice_at_2_ft_10_in_he_created_large_legacy/?page=1\") 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 name=\'Neumms\' post=\'161666\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 07:05 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'161665\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 06:59 PM\']
For whatever reason I was inspired to try to look up Barbour's Wiki article (yes, it hits, no, it's not him, it's the 14th century poet), and from there the article on Real People. These two passages made me weep:
Real People was an NBC reality television series
[/quote]
Why would that make you weep? It was by no means high brow entertainment, but it was certainly an original format, and indeed, reality. It made me laugh, although I was around 10 when it was on.
[/quote]
Didn't they have short segments where they'd show funny road signs, newspaper clippings, etc.? I seem to recall one about "Twin Peaks Bra Shop".
But hey, look how many game show hosts were on Real People... Sarah Purcell, Bill Rafferty and David Ruprecht... but not all at the same time? Can't remember now... seems like Ruprecht was later on with Peter Billingsley-that show's answer to adding a child on a sitcom for additional lame-o laughs.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'161666\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 05:05 PM\']
but it was certainly an original format, and indeed, reality.
[/quote]
Sorry, no. An "anthology" series, I can buy. A "magazine" series, sure. "Variety", okay, maybe. But it was no more a friggin' "reality" show than 60 Minutes is. In fact, the two are REMARKABLY similar programs, save for the subjects of their stories.
I am tiring of idiots today applying the word "reality" to any genre of television they can't figure out how to slot elsewhere.
-
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. More real, in fact, than 11 show-biz wannabes dumped on a desert island and voting each other off. That happens all the time...
-
[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. More real, in fact, than 11 show-biz wannabes dumped on a desert island and voting each other off. That happens all the time...
[/quote]
Those crappy has-been B-list shows that VH-1 keeps churning out (damn you Mark Cronin)...those are reality. Viewers see, for the most part, how these "stars" live their lives. Some of it might be exaggerated for the camera, but that's another story.
The Survivor and Big Brother shows, I'd place them into a "competitive game" category. They're not sports, but they're not quite game shows, in the traditional sense per se. Won't open that can of worms.
However, I have a serious problem with people calling a show like D/ND or "Singing Bee" a reality show. I've seen it written in news articles (usually the media rags) and NBC refers to Deal as reality in its fall schedule. That's not some fanb0i rant, I seriously find that idiotic, and in the article's case, piss-poor research, to call either show, or anything similar, a reality show.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'161678\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 09:25 PM\']
However, I have a serious problem with people calling a show like D/ND or "Singing Bee" a reality show. I've seen it written in news articles (usually the media rags) and NBC refers to Deal as reality in its fall schedule. That's not some fanb0i rant, I seriously find that idiotic, and in the article's case, piss-poor research, to call either show, or anything similar, a reality show.
[/quote]
It could be worse. You could read how Millionaire created this wonderful trend of reality shows.
Reading commentary lumping Millionaire in the Reality Bin made my intelligence hurt.
-
[quote name=\'jalman\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 09:22 PM\']It could be worse. You could read how Millionaire created this wonderful trend of reality shows.[/quote]
Actually, I don't think that's too far off. While Millionaire certainly isn't a reality show itself, it seems that it did cause a brief upswing in game shows, which quickly devolved into a much longer trend of reality shows.
-
[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 name=\'DrBear\' post=\'161675\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 06:13 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]
Tell me, PLEASE tell me, you're not using the definition "anything that is not scripted fictional entertainment" for "reality" television. Because if you are, you just called the Super Bowl a "reality" show, and the "reality" of that is that that would be incredibly freakin' stupid.
There are other genres of television other than "reality" and "fictional television." Some people would do well to friggin' LEARN them.
[quote name=\'PYLdude\' post=\'161690\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 11:38 PM\']
It's not a good definition.
It's the damn right definition.[/quote]
And let me just say that I KNOW I'm on the right side of the discussion here when I see this.
-
[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.
Would a bunch of people have gotten together on an island and voted each other off if not for Mark Burnett? No. Would a bunch of people who don't know each other and whose personality combinations are so combustible voluntarily agree to live together in a strange house if not for Endemol? No. Would the Osbournes act so bizarre if not for the producers at MTV? (Okay, bad example. ;-) By contrast, NFL games were played long before they ever were televised (and football games in general obviously are played all over the country without being televised), and people doing interesting/stupid/interestingly stupid things would still have done interesting/stupid/interestingly stupid things if Real People hadn't existed. (Yes, a few idiots here and there may have done moronic things for the purpose of getting on Real People, but it actually worked better when the events "reported" weren't so manufactured and in any event the producers didn't arrange them.)
Reality shows may not be scripted, but they're arranged to the extent that people usually are placed into those situations by the producers for the purpose of creating a television show, and to the extent that the situations may be, though not scripted, at least manipulated by said producers to see how the subjects will react. That's not true of Real People, the Super Bowl, or news broadcasts even though they're unscripted.
I'm sure that my definition has holes and that they'll be quickly pointed out to me, but that's true of the various definitions of "game show" others have offered, so I'm in good company. :-)
-
[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 (http://\"http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2005/11/25/john_rice_at_2_ft_10_in_he_created_large_legacy/?page=1\") 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.
-
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
-
[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.)
-
[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...
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.
-
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.
-
[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.
-
[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...
-
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?
-
Christ. I give up.
-
[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?
-
[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 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.
-
[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.
-
[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.
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." :-)
-
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.
-
[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." :-)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'161728\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 01:18 PM\']
Christ.
[/quote]
That would be a religiodocuproselytizumentary opera. ;-)
-
[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".
-
[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".
-
[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.
-
[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 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.
-
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 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?
-
[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.
-
[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.
-
[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 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).
-
[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.
-
*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.
-
As for That...Quiz Show, I'm surprised it got on the air at all. I always thought these shows had to have a certain percentage of the market to make it profitable to go ahead with production. It doesn't sound like this was carried in too many places - I've never seen it, and I don't recall seeing it listed in any TVGuide I have.
-
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'161785\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 06:03 PM\']
As for That...Quiz Show, I'm surprised it got on the air at all. I always thought these shows had to have a certain percentage of the market to make it profitable to go ahead with production. It doesn't sound like this was carried in too many places - I've never seen it, and I don't recall seeing it listed in any TVGuide I have.
[/quote]
I don't think it went much beyond the Metromedia stations. Looking at my TV Guides of the era, Channel 11 in LA had it at 11pm from 10/4-11/26/82.
-
Gee—what did I start here! The "reality" TV discussion made me think—what genre would you put Truth or Consequences in? Thanks to this link (http://\"http://www.ralphedwards.com/\") there are several WMV videos accessible from a lower right pane, including Truth or Consequences. The end of this clip features one of TV's funniest moments. (Another one, IMHO is the Tim Conway - Harvey Korman dentist/novocaine skit on The Carol Burnett Show.) Tim Allen stole (paid for?) the TorC idea for a Home Improvement episode.
-
[quote name=\'clanky06\' post=\'161795\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 07:01 PM\']
Gee—what did I start here! The "reality" TV discussion made me think—what genre would you put Truth or Consequences in? Thanks to this link (http://\"http://www.ralphedwards.com/\") there are several WMV videos accessible from a lower right pane, including Truth or Consequences. The end of this clip features one of TV's funniest moments. (Another one, IMHO is the Tim Conway - Harvey Korman dentist/novocaine skit on The Carol Burnett Show.) Tim Allen stole (paid for?) the TorC idea for a Home Improvement episode.
[/quote]
Audience Participation. Same as "It Could Be You."
-
Love Connection is a game show. Ahahaha. Just kidding.
I was reading about That's Incredible on Wikipedia (I know, not the best source) and how seven people were killed doing a certain stunt, was it during taping in the studio or what?
-
[quote name=\'DJDustman\' post=\'161825\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 10:06 PM\']
Love Connection is a game show. Ahahaha. Just kidding.
I was reading about That's Incredible on Wikipedia (I know, not the best source) and how seven people were killed doing a certain stunt, was it during taping in the studio or what?
[/quote]
That's not quite what it said. It said that seven people have been killed over the years trying to catch a bullet between their teeth. Not, however, while on this show.
-
FWIW, since it didn't come across in the post, my thing about reality being a later coined term was in support - we shouldn't be calling "Real People" a reality show retroactively. But things have devolved far from that point in the past 10 or so hours...
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'161850\' date=\'Aug 23 2007, 08:26 PM\']
FWIW, since it didn't come across in the post, my thing about reality being a later coined term was in support - we shouldn't be calling "Real People" a reality show retroactively. But things have devolved far from that point in the past 10 or so hours...
[/quote]
Well, no, if it fit the definition, of course you could. But it doesn't.
-
Gee—what did I start here! The "reality" TV discussion made me think—what genre would you put Truth or Consequences in?
I'd consider it audience participation - leaning towards game.
There are several other shows I can think of which don't quite fit, but are close enough. Dating Game, Gong Show, Love Experts and Don Adams Screen Test are a few others that are considered game shows, even though you could probably make a case against them.
-
[quote name=\'clanky06\' post=\'161660\' date=\'Aug 22 2007, 05:19 PM\']
There was a discussion over at an Avid video editing forum about the all-time worst TV show. This link was posted: Old TV Tickets (http://\"http://www.oldtvtickets.com/archives1/2005/12/that_quiz_show.html\")
Has this show been discussed before on this forum?
[/quote]
Pardon the intrusion as I try and swing this back on topic.
The show aired on KMSP in Minneapolis in the 10 pm slot. At the time IIRC it was a chris-craft station so I'm guessing that group bought the show for it's stations. At one point in the run they aired the pilot which was called "That AWFUL quiz show" but made a point to bleep over the word "awful" every time it was uttered.