Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
shadowfigment

Reality TV = "Real Lie" TV

What Do You Think Of Reality Televison?   41 members have voted

  1. 1. What Do You Think Of Reality Televison?

    • I Love It
      7
    • I Hate It
      25
    • I Dont Care (I Only Watch Enterprise)
      6
    • I Dont Watch Television At All
      3

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

93 posts in this topic

I have never watched a reality program and I don't ever intend to watch one.

 

I think Survivor would have to be the worst example of a reality program.

 

Madam Captain out!!

If you've never watched then how do you know if it's good, bad or horrible? That's like someone saying Star Trek is a racist, sexist show that only panders to the lowest comon denominator when in fact the person saying that has never seen the show.

 

There are at least 2 examples of members on this board that thought the same thing, or close to the same thing. I asked them to watch Survivor this season starting with Episode 1 and then base their view on it in an informed way. In both of those cases they changed their minds and really like the show.

 

In at least one of the cases the person said to me that they are "addicted" to it now and don't know why they weren't watching it all along. Once the episode ends they can't wait for the next week's episode to begin.

 

So I challenge you too to watch the show, then if you still feel the same way at least you will have an informed opinion and can say "Yes, I watched a full season and I hated it".

I saw the advertisements for Survivor and they were bad enough. I don't want to torture myself by watching a whole episode of Survivor, let alone an entire season. However, I see your point about people forming an opinion of a show when they haven't even seen it and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. On the other hand, I don't think I need to watch an episode of Survivor to know just how bad it is - I can't stand reality programs in general. Also, I don't want to become addicted to something that insults my intelligence. How can you talk about Star Trek and Survivor (or any reality program for that matter) in the same sentence?? What an insult!!! Just my opinion, of course.............

 

Madam Captain out!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would rather watch cartoons or soaps all day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i have concluded something from all this reality show crapt

 

IT makes you appreciatate sitcoms.. more..but overall.. most of the things that are on TV are crapt... except Star Trek.. and other Sci-fi shows.. (of course)  :)

Another thing I have noticed about reality programs is that all the people in them are so artificial. To me, the people on these shows seem so fake and arrogant. Most of them don't care if they humiliate themselves in front of millions of viewers, all they want to do it win the money at the end. Its quite sad to think that some people will do anything for a bit of money. I actually know a girl that wanted to be on Big Brother, she was even ready to go for the audition or interview or whatever to get onto the show. She was another one of those 'fake' people who liked herself a bit too much (and she thought everyone else loved her too). She was quite a nasty person and well known for stabbing people in the back. She never did get on Big Brother in the end.

 

Madam Captain out!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another thing I have noticed about reality programs is that all the people in them are so artificial.  To me, the people on these shows seem so fake and arrogant. Most of them don't care if they humiliate themselves in front of millions of viewers, all they want to do it win the money at the end. Its quite sad to think that some people will do anything for a bit of money. I actually know a girl that wanted to be on Big Brother, she was even ready to go for the audition or interview or whatever to get onto the show. She was another one of those 'fake' people who liked herself a bit too much (and she thought everyone else loved her too). She was quite a nasty person and well known for stabbing people in the back. She never did get on Big Brother in the end.

 

Madam Captain out!!

But again I ask, how can you notice this if you've never seen the shows? It's more of an assumption rather then an observation.

 

It is true that everyone is entitled to their opinion, it's just always best to have an informed opinion as opposed to assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that by now realities TV shows are a complete waste of money. The novelty is fast wearing off for me.

 

However, there was one reality TV show that for me was brilliant. No cheap shocks or tired formats. It was called 'The Mole'. Picture a group of average, everyday people. If these people are successful in the challenges set for them, the amount of money the win increases, if not, it decreases. By challenges, I do not mean any stupid, 'gobble-up-a-pond-of-worms' challenges, but fun and cool ones. For example, one challenge was to successfully win back a hostage in a paintball match against professionals. Obviously there, is voting off each week but the team vote on this, the public does not.

 

Here comes the brilliant part. One of the team members is a 'mole'. The team does not know who this is and the public does not know either. The mole will attempt to sabotage the team's plans, cause tension and vote off key members of the group. The mole wins all the money for them if they disrupt the team’s performances adequately and if they manage to whittle the team of about 10 down to themselves and one other person, in which case it will become apparent who is the mole. The team win the money and share it out between whoever is left if the find out who is the mole.

 

The great thing was that because a large amount of money was involved, people DID backstab their friends to make sure they made it through the vote.

 

For example, in that hostage match the hostage had secretly been given a 'pistol' and had been told that if she made sure the team losed, she would automatically go through to the next round. As it happened, only one of their team made it to her and ran with her to the safe house. The made it, thus their team had won. However, when the lone team member flopped down on the grass, exhausted, the hostage silently pulled out her gun and shot him in the back. He didn't even notice until someone pointed it out to him.

 

He had 'died', the team had lost but the hostage went through to the next round. No one knew if she was the mole or not.

 

Brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mole is a great show!!! But to me so is Survivor. I never miss an episode.

I too have a problem with people that condem a show they have never watched. How can anyone come to any conclusion about something they never saw?

Oh yeah, the Amazing Race is a really great show too!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could really care less about reality t.v.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate it its usless garbage

It has its moments. Though I think that most reality TV now is shoddy and relies primarily on making people suffer and humiliating them, there are a few quality shows left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We only watch 3 reality shows: Survivor, Scare Tactics & AFHV. The rest in our opinion are garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality Television wasn't so bad when it was new but now its just getting boring and repeatitive.

 

Mirax Terrik

USS Gambit - groups.yahoo.com/group/ussgambit/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see reality tv.*sucks*

 

Tv is and was made to be a escape from every day crap.

now they are bombarding us with this so called reality ****

These shows are worthless and a waste of time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all fake and annoying...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all fake and annoying...

"It's all fake and annoying" is a pretty broad statement. What evidence do you have that Survivor is fake? When I watch Cops, that doesn't look fake to me. They look like real cops arresting real people to me. Trading Spaces looks pretty real too. Monster House seems to be pretty real. American Chopper looks to be pretty dead on real so does Monster Garage.

 

What are you seeing in the shows to make you say they are fake? Give me some specific instances of fake stuff.

 

Also what annoys you? Give me some instances of annoyances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality TV sucks!! What evidence do I have to support this statement? The fact that it sucks is the evidence.

 

It seems like people are only exhibiting fights between other people. Why should we care about these people and how they're getting along with them? Only because they're on TV?

 

I hate Reality TV, but not all of it. It just seems like more and more shows are being made that just show people off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't watch "reality" shows. I've seen bits and pieces of a few. I don't have to watch them to know what they're like because I can read. I know what the premise is. Watching people eat worms, have snakes crawl over them, use deceit in dating etc. just doesn't appeal to me.

 

One reason they're popular for the networks is that they're so much easier to produce - no hugh salaries to deal with etc. It's funny that almost every network has come up with some sort of reality show.

 

I noticed UPN changed its plans for the one it had scheduled - Amish in the City - which I thought was about the lowest idea I had seen yet.

 

If people want to do anything for money, or if people want to watch them do it - it's a free country. But we're also free to choose not to watch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I will pose my challenge once again. Watch 1 full season of Survivor then give an educated, informed opinion. Something not based on something you think or have read in the National Enquirer. I know surely that educated and informed people don't base a Presidential vote only on what they have read in the daily scandal sheets. An informed, educated person will want proof and will want to judge for themselves. In my eyes the only opinions that count are informed, educated opinions. Any others are simply static.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VBG, do you feel you need to convert to Islam in order to know you prefer Christianity?

 

By your argument all teenagers must try drugs in order to know they're bad for them. Or a child must stick his hand on the burner to know it burns.

 

If any of you have found a show that appeals to your taste - then enjoy. But to insist that an educated, intelligent person could not possibly have different tastes sounds a bit uninformed IMO.

 

I am familiar with the adage that you can't judge a book by its cover. But the truth is everyday we must make judgments. We only have so many resources as regards our time and energies - we must allocate them judiciously.

 

But in all fairness, VBG, here is my perception of survivor. Please feel free to make corrections:

My observation of survivor is that it is show that involves teamwork yet at the same time individual machinations as only one individual will win the prize. Team members are given challenges and teams earn points or rewards. Each week a new person is voted off. Typically it will be a person that fails to help the team but such an environment is also ripe for strategic behavior. Some challenges involve strength and/or endurance while others gained notoriety for their gross factor. While participants represent various age groups they have to be in good health and be physically fit as the experience is both physically and emotionally demanding. Not only are the challenges demanding but participation may also involve long separation from loved ones.

 

If the above assessment is correct then to suggest it encourages teamwork is a misinterpretation because an individual's interest in teamwork is limited to how it will benefit his/her individual opportunities. The thrill of winning - of beating out all competition is a pretty common value among contemporary American culture. However, some may simply prefer an ideology that encourages true teamwork and the good of the whole - so that all win or lose together.

 

It's just a tv show really.

 

VaBeachGuy Posted on Jun 1 2004, 09:30 PM

  ...or have read in the National Enquirer.

That's insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some basics of your belief of Survivor are correct assumptions but only on the surface. Survivor has those challenges you mentioned but they are really secondary to the show. They have their place and their importance within the show but take up a very small amount of the "meat" of the show. Survivor is about interpersonal relationships. How to people relate in extreme situations such as being stranded in the middle of Africa with 16 total strangers. What bonds do they form and what animosities will arise over some situations.

 

Teamwork is involved in some aspects of the challenges but at the same time if someone is too physical they are too big of a threat and will likely be voted out of the tribe before the end.

 

Are they all physically fit? No, not at all. They are all physically healthy but fitness is not always taken into account when casting. A couple of shows there were 2 older women in their 60's that made it to, or near the end and they were the ones that were least helping their tribes in the physical challenges.

 

You would really need to see a season to fully understand it and the dynamics behind it.

 

As for the "gross" challenges, Survivor airs 13 episodes per season (2 Survivor Seasons = 1 Regular TV Show's season). In each season there is 1 challenge in 1 show where the contestants (or a relative of the contestant) have to eat something that you or I would consider disgusting. Such as boiled tarantulas, or drink fresh cow's blood. They are almost always foods that are native to the lands they are living in and in those lands are considered a delicacy. Disgusting to us, revered by other cultures. Like I said, that's 1 challenge in 1 show out of 13 shows (There's 2 challenges per show).

 

Your examples of Teens using drugs doesn't fit. Drugs being a hazard to a person's health isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

 

Islam vs. Christianity I don't consider an opinion, they're faiths.

 

A child putting his or her hand on a hot burner isn't an opinion either. It's a fact that the child will be harmed.

 

Saying "Survivor Sucks" though is an opinion and I know you didn't say that specifically and really didn't even imply it but I use it as an example because that's the show I am discussing. I have no opinion of the other Reality Shows because I don't watch them.

 

The question then is this, is the opinion that "survivor sucks" based on the experience of watching or is it based on assumptions that may or may not be correct?

 

If the opinion is based on the experience of watching the show (and I mean more then a few minutes of it) then I can respect that opinion because it was made from a position of being fully informed. If the opinion is based on what someone Thinks the show is or what a person has heard or read that the show is but has never taken the time to watch enough of it to form an independent opinion then I dismiss that opinion as meaningless.

 

  ...or have read in the National Enquirer. 

 

That's insulting.

 

Why would you find it insulting? It wasn't directed at you or anyone in general. If that's where you read your information about Survivor I had no idea that was the case and no personal insult was intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  ...or have read in the National Enquirer. 

 

That's insulting.

 

Why would you find it insulting? It wasn't directed at you or anyone in general. If that's where you read your information about Survivor I had no idea that was the case and no personal insult was intended.

That's insulting because you insinuated that was where people were getting their information if they happened to disagree with you ...

 

Some basics of your belief of Survivor are correct assumptions but only on the surface. Survivor has those challenges you mentioned but they are really secondary to the show. They have their place and their importance within the show but take up a very small amount of the "meat" of the show. Survivor is about interpersonal relationships. How to people relate in extreme situations such as being stranded in the middle of Africa with 16 total strangers. What bonds do they form and what animosities will arise over some situations.

They are not assumptions VBG, people either compete in challenges and get voted off each week or they don't.

 

Your interpretation of the events is a subjective opinion - if that is what you get out of the show that is fine. Watching the show would not cause someone else to arrive at the same interpretation. The relevant issue is what is the structure of the show? Was I correct in that particpants perform challenges as a team? You indicated I was.

 

Teamwork is involved in some aspects of the challenges but at the same time if someone is too physical they are too big of a threat and will likely be voted out of the tribe before the end.

 

That was what I meant by the situation being ripe for strategic behavior.

 

Are they all physically fit? No, not at all. They are all physically healthy but fitness is not always taken into account when casting. A couple of shows there were 2 older women in their 60's that made it to, or near the end and they were the ones that were least helping their tribes in the physical challenges.

Age doesn't bar being physically fit - they don't take couch potatoes that can't walk around the block without wheezing.

 

As for the "gross" challenges, Survivor airs 13 episodes per season (2 Survivor Seasons = 1 Regular TV Show's season). In each season there is 1 challenge in 1 show where the contestants (or a relative of the contestant) have to eat something that you or I would consider disgusting. Such as boiled tarantulas, or drink fresh cow's blood. They are almost always foods that are native to the lands they are living in and in those lands are considered a delicacy. Disgusting to us, revered by other cultures. Like I said, that's 1 challenge in 1 show out of 13 shows (There's 2 challenges per show).

The point is they exist so I was informed of the facts. The relative importance you attach to them is irrelevant - the fact is whether they exist or not and you confirmed I was correct they do exist on the show.

 

Your examples of Teens using drugs doesn't fit. Drugs being a hazard to a person's health isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

 

A child putting his or her hand on a hot burner isn't an opinion either. It's a fact that the child will be harmed.

And the structure of the show Survivor is also a fact. It either involves particpants competing against one another in a team atmosphere while each is individually competing or it doesn't. Your comments indicated I was correct.

 

Islam vs. Christianity I don't consider an opinion, they're faiths.
Don't want to pursue an off topic discussion but if ever truth was important this would be where it matters.

 

Saying "Survivor Sucks" though is an opinion and I know you didn't say that specifically and really didn't even imply it but I use it as an example because that's the show I am discussing. I have no opinion of the other Reality Shows because I don't watch them.

 

The question then is this, is the opinion that "survivor sucks" based on the experience of watching or is it based on assumptions that may or may not be correct?

I never said that. All I said was that the structure of the show did not appeal to my tastes. You suggested I was incapable of making an informed decision by reading a description of the show.

 

If the opinion is based on the experience of watching the show (and I mean more then a few minutes of it) then I can respect that opinion because it was made from a position of being fully informed. If the opinion is based on what someone Thinks the show is or what a person has heard or read that the show is but has never taken the time to watch enough of it to form an independent opinion then I dismiss that opinion as meaningless.

 

 

VGB, you only confirmed that my knowledge of the basic structure of the show is correct. Whether we interpret it the same way would not change because we both watched it. Nor is that an issue of fact but merely one of opinion and opinions are neither right or wrong - they simply are. Example: everybody here watches Star Trek - we don't always agree on the quality or character development of any given episode even when we watch the whole season. Look at the very diverse opinions people have of Archer - you wouldn't think we were watching the same show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's insulting because you insinuated that was where people were getting their information if they happened to disagree with you ...

 

It would seem that it was insulting to you because perhaps the "shoe fits"? Show me where I said "you read the national Enquirer because you disagree with me". It's not there. If you are insulted it must be because you see something of yourself in the statement, as I said it was not directed at you.

 

They are not assumptions VBG, people either compete in challenges and get voted off each week or they don't.

 

The 2 activities don't go hand in hand and no, not every Survivor participates in all of the Challenges. There have been weeks where Survivors were not Voted off. So as I said, your assumptions are correct on the surface but as with many things in life you sometimes need to go beyond the surface.

 

Your interpretation of the events is a subjective opinion - if that is what you get out of the show that is fine.  Watching the show would not cause someone else to arrive at the same interpretation.  The relevant issue is what is the structure of the show?  Was I correct in that particpants  perform challenges as a team?  You indicated I was.

 

On the surface, as I said you are correct. If you had ever seen the show though you would see that there is a whole lot more to it then the simplicity of your statement.

 

Age doesn't bar being physically fit - they don't take couch potatoes that can't walk around the block without wheezing.

 

I take it you know this from the countless episodes you have watched? There have been several of the Survivors that were not physically able to do it. One woman of about 45 or 50 was so exhausted that she was ready to quit and barely able to move, she even said so herself. On another Season they had a guy that was very weak physically and was barely able to do things without "wheezing". Another nearly drown on the ocean due to his inability to swim.

 

Again though, these aren't things you will pick up in your local newspaper or TV Guide. You need to actually Watch to know these things.

 

About Food Challenges...

 

The point is they exist so I was informed of the facts.  The relative importance you attach to them is irrelevant - the fact is whether they exist or not and you confirmed I was correct they do exist on the show.

 

I wasn't really aware we were in a contest of "What are the facts", as I said earlier facts are one thing and an informed opinion is a completely different thing. There have been times where I have been informed of the "Facts" about disputes here on the board but since I didn't actually read the posts or have contact with the people involved I needed to go and take a look at the situation PM the people involved and only then could I form an Informed Opinion. So yes, the "fact" of the food challenges is correct but knowing the facts still doesn't give you an informed opinion.

 

And the structure of the show Survivor is also a fact.  It either involves particpants competing against one another in a team atmosphere while each is individually competing or it doesn't.  Your comments indicated I was correct.

 

Again, you are confusing "Facts" with Informed Opinion. Here's a few "Facts". George W. Bush is President of the United States, He is Republican. His Brother is Gov. of Florida, his father was President of the United States.

 

From those "Facts" and only from those facts give me an informed opinion about George Bush's style of leadership as President. You can't. You need more information to give me an Informed Opinion.

 

Back to survivor, even the producers of the show and the host of the show say that the challenges and "games" are only a minor part of the game. Those challenges serve a purpose.

 

1. To give the winner/winners a reward of some kind. Either food, fire, blankets or other supplies of that sort. Or maybe a short day trip to a small African village or some other adventure.

 

2. One person (or one tribe if it is early in the game) will win "immunity" and can not be voted out, so that is the second purpose of the challenges. For Immunity. They all set up the real game, it interpersonal part. And if you assume that that is only an assumption on my part (that the Interpersonal relationships) just watch the opening of the show.

 

http://www.startrekfans.net/pics/survivor/africa.wmv

 

These are menus for DVD's I've made so tha part that kind of speaks to "what the game is" is near the middle.

 

 

Saying "Survivor Sucks" though is an opinion and I know you didn't say that specifically and really didn't even imply it but I use it as an example because that's the show I am discussing. I have no opinion of the other Reality Shows because I don't watch them.

 

The question then is this, is the opinion that "survivor sucks" based on the experience of watching or is it based on assumptions that may or may not be correct?

I never said that. All I said was that the structure of the show did not appeal to my tastes. You suggested I was incapable of making an informed decision by reading a description of the show.

 

Hence the part where I pointed out that you didn't say or even imply it. My point is that you have yet to show me an Informed Opinion on the show.

 

VGB, you only confirmed that my knowledge of the basic structure of the show is correct.

 

I told you early on in my post that you were very basically correct but only on the surface.

 

Whether we interpret it the same way would not change because we both watched it.  Nor is that an issue of fact but merely one of opinion and opinions are neither right or wrong - they simply are.  Example:  everybody here watches Star Trek - we don't always agree on the quality or character development of any given episode even when we watch the whole season.  Look at the very diverse opinions people have of Archer - you wouldn't think we were watching the same show.

 

But how can you interpret something if you don't "understand the language"? The key to your statement is that we all WATCH Star Trek so we all have Informed Opinions of the shows. If I had never seen a Star Trek episode before, or only saw 2 or 3 minutes of an episode but yet I read the TV Guide's blurb about tonight's episode would that mean that I have an Informed Opinion of what Star Trek is? I may have an opinion, yes but do I have an Informed Opinion?

 

You are fully entitled to your opinion of the show and I won't argue that point. Love it, hate it or don't care about it one way or the other. But your opinion is an uninformed opinion until you actually watch the show and educate yourself on what the show is and as I said earlier (not meant in an insulting way) until your opinions an Informed Opinion I dismiss it in my mind as meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VaBeachGuy Posted on Jun 1 2004, 09:30 PM

Well, I will pose my challenge once again. Watch 1 full season of Survivor then give an educated, informed opinion. Something not based on something you think or have read in the National Enquirer.

 

I think that is a pretty strong statement that you think the National Enquirer was the source of information for anyone who claims to have read about the show. I guess it only applies though to those that happened to have mentioned reading in one of their posts.

 

It would seem that it was insulting to you because perhaps the "shoe fits"?
And you accuse me of making assumptions
Show me where I said "you read the national Enquirer because you disagree with me
Actually I said people - I didn't indicate it was directed only at me.

 

I should add I am only continuing this because you once mentioned you enjoy debate. I think it is rather foolish to get so worked up over a tv show. It is also not worth my time to put any more into it. And I could counter a great many points made but I'm getting bored.

 

Love it, hate it or don't care about it one way or the other. But your opinion is an uninformed opinion until you actually watch the show and educate yourself on what the show is and as I said earlier (not meant in an insulting way) until your opinions an Informed Opinion I dismiss it in my mind as meaningless.

 

I never stated an opinion either way other than to say it did not appeal to my tastes. And I pity any individual that must read every book published or watch every tv show made because they have no idea what their tastes are.

 

I take it you know this from the countless episodes you have watched? There have been several of the Survivors that were not physically able to do it. One woman of about 45 or 50 was so exhausted that she was ready to quit and barely able to move, she even said so herself. On another Season they had a guy that was very weak physically and was barely able to do things without "wheezing". Another nearly drown on the ocean due to his inability to swim.
I never claimed to have watched that much of it. This part does surprise me however, and I did make an assumption....I assumed the producers were smart enough to try to avoid lawsuits by only taking participants that were healthy enough to participate. Wait, I assumed intelligence in Hollywood...that was bad. Score one for yourself.

 

Oh, I am certain there are interpersonal relationships but they don't interest me and that was my whole point. The show does not appeal to me and I don't have to watch it to know that.

 

As to a comment made elsewhere that reality shows are not real. They are not - they are based on an artificially created environment or set of circumtances.

 

You are fully entitled to your opinion of the show and I won't argue that point. Love it, hate it or don't care about it one way or the other. But your opinion is an uninformed opinion until you actually watch the show and educate yourself on what the show is and as I said earlier (not meant in an insulting way) until your opinions an Informed Opinion I dismiss it in my mind as meaningless.

 

A small price to pay for not having to set through the thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I should add I am only continuing this because you once mentioned you enjoy debate.  I think it is rather foolish to get so worked up over a tv show.  It is also not worth my time to put any more into it.  And I could counter a great many points made but I'm getting bored.

 

Love it, hate it or don't care about it one way or the other. But your opinion is an uninformed opinion until you actually watch the show and educate yourself on what the show is and as I said earlier (not meant in an insulting way) until your opinions an Informed Opinion I dismiss it in my mind as meaningless.

 

I never stated an opinion either way other than to say it did not appeal to my tastes. And I pity any individual that must read every book published or watch every tv show made because they have no idea what their tastes are.

 

I take it you know this from the countless episodes you have watched? There have been several of the Survivors that were not physically able to do it. One woman of about 45 or 50 was so exhausted that she was ready to quit and barely able to move, she even said so herself. On another Season they had a guy that was very weak physically and was barely able to do things without "wheezing". Another nearly drown on the ocean due to his inability to swim.
I never claimed to have watched that much of it. This part does surprise me however, and I did make an assumption....I assumed the producers were smart enough to try to avoid lawsuits by only taking participants that were healthy enough to participate. Wait, I assumed intelligence in Hollywood...that was bad. Score one for yourself.

 

Oh, I am certain there are interpersonal relationships but they don't interest me and that was my whole point. The show does not appeal to me and I don't have to watch it to know that.

 

As to a comment made elsewhere that reality shows are not real. They are not - they are based on an artificially created environment or set of circumtances.

 

You are fully entitled to your opinion of the show and I won't argue that point. Love it, hate it or don't care about it one way or the other. But your opinion is an uninformed opinion until you actually watch the show and educate yourself on what the show is and as I said earlier (not meant in an insulting way) until your opinions an Informed Opinion I dismiss it in my mind as meaningless.

 

A small price to pay for not having to set through the thing.

I think that is a pretty strong statement that you think the National Enquirer was the source of information for anyone who claims to have read about the show.  I guess it only applies though to those that happened to have mentioned reading in one of their posts.

 

The National Enquirer is about the only publication that I could think of that has written articles about Survivor. I also mentioned TV Guide as well though.

 

 

It would seem that it was insulting to you because perhaps the "shoe fits"?

 

And you accuse me of making assumptions

 

A question isn't an assumption, it's an inquiry. (Take note of the "?")

 

 

Show me where I said "you read the national Enquirer because you disagree with me

 

Actually I said people - I didn't indicate it was directed only at me.

 

But you did indicate that You were insulted.

 

I never claimed to have watched that much of it. This part does surprise me however, and I did make an assumption....I assumed the producers were smart enough to try to avoid lawsuits by only taking participants that were healthy enough to participate.

 

But don't you see? Even in this you make assumptions on what you Think the show is. This is an assumption on my part but I am assuming that you think the game is more physical then mental, but it isn't.

 

Each episode is 1 hour long (45 minutes if you remove the commercials) but within those 45 minutes there is a 72 hour time span covered. In those 3 days the Survivors normally have 2 challenges. The challenges take maybe 15 to 20 minutes of their time to complete. Then it's edited into about 5 minutes of air time for the show. So out of 72 hours they devote 30 to 40 minutes to the physical aspect of the "games". And even then some of the "games" are mental challenges.

 

I know that you have made up your mind about Survivor and from what you have said I know that you made up your mind without even watching, and that's fine. I also believe that if you were to accept my challenge and watch all of next season that you would likely still say it doesn't appeal to you because you have already made up your mind.

 

So putting Survivor aside, do you watch any other Reality shows like Trading Spaces, Monster House, Monster Garage, While You Were out, American Chopper or shows like that? Those too are "Reality Shows".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't watch any of them. Remember I'm the one that complained that the Discovery Channel quit showing science programs and started showing home improvement shows. I did tape Frontier House but never watched it - that did sound kind of interesting because it was historical.

 

One thing I really don't like about these competition shows is that a lot of people work really hard and walk away with nothing.

 

Now, if they had a show that was sort of like the prisoner's dilemma puzzles where you all sank or swam together I'd be more inclined to watch it. If that is what the mental games in survivor are then I might be interested in watching them. But ultimately in Survivor and other similar shows it boils down to it's in your best interest for someone else to fail because only one person can win the grand prize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing I really don't like about these competition shows is that a lot of people work really hard and walk away with nothing.

That's not true in all of the cases. I can only speak for the shows that I have knowledge of so I don't know if the all work the same. But Survivor for instance, Lets say for the sake of discussion that I apply and am accepted. I go out and live on the Island for the first 3 days but everyone hates me and my tribe doesn't have immunity and I am the very first (out of 16) voted out. I will get at least 2 things.

 

First, I get a 40 day paid vacation to what ever location the show is being shot in. Part of your contract you sign when you become a Survivor is that you agree to be completely isolated from home for those 40 days. That way the people back home have no way to know that you were voted out on X day. The producers usually send 3 or 4 of the SUrvivors on a tour of the country or countries they are in or near for the remainder of the 40 days. That in itself sounds like it'd be great, to get a free vacation, free food and free lodging in Brazil or Thailand or where ever they might be.

 

The second they get is money. The first person voted off of Survivor gets $2,500 and the second person voted off gets a little more and so on. The 2nd place winner gets $100,000.00 and the winner gets $1,000,000.00. So everyone gets something, not to mention the fact that many of them go on to have new careers in public speaking or entertainment or things of that sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't vote for "I hate it" because that would imply that I watch "Unreality" TV and disapprove of it- the best policy is too ignore it.

 

Something to think about for all the ENT bashers out there (Harry-Kim) we don't all have cable. I get 5 channels so PBS is my cable, and I look forward to Wednesday nights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0