Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Reality Television - fad and phenomenon

By Coram in Culture
Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 03:34:40 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

For a few years now I haven't been able to turn on the tv, pick up a newspaper, or listen to the radio without hearing something to do with reality television. Lock them in a house or make them build one, throw them on an island to survive or to party, give them plane tickets and have them safari across the planet - if it can be done, it will, and we will watch every moment.


No doubt, television and internet makes a good combination as a medium for a voyeuristic experience, a dive into the lives of people we don't know. If that's not enough, the radios pick up the slack talking about it during our drives to work. The papers delve into the lives of contestants outside the scope of the cameras. We're flooded with more information about these people than we can possibly absorb, yet we want more; the success of the next generation of reality show is almost guaranteed the moment the cameras switch on.

The Predecessors

The modern reality show didn't suddenly appear from the collective mind of a media think tank. Every aspect of it has been done before, at least in some fashion.

  • the Gameshow. These existed well before the days of television itself, in the form of the radio quiz show. Just about everyone has seen shows like Wheel of Fortune, Jeapordy, Millionare, the Weakest Link, and so on. There are even films about quiz shows.
  • the Talkshow. Donahue, Oprah, Ricki, Jerry. Various approaches to the same idea; Put some people we don't know on television and make them talk about stuff.
  • the Webcam. Ok so if the television experience isn't enough for you (and how could it be with 8 hours of work interrupting your artificial dose of reality), the webcam has succeeded as a staple of the tech-savvy (or exhibitionist!). The long-running JenniCam was probably the most famous, but recently closed.
  • the House. Big Brother is the first of the modern reality shows that springs to mind, yet it is nothing new. An Australian breakfast radio show hosted by Andrew Denton at one point ran a reality show of its own, before the advent of Big Brother and others of its ilk. The "House of Hell" involved putting a bunch of people with very different personalities and lifestyles into a small house and making them perform awful tasks and try and stick it out for three months to win a sizeable (though not compared with current Reality standards) deposit on a home of their own. Featuring regular updates on its host radio station, Triple M, it also made use of webcams feeding the station's web site.
Travel, home renovation, gardening, sporting, cooking, court, police, fire, ambulance - shows about all manner of things have featured average people in their average lives for many years. And it not need be truly left to reality. Tim Allen's Home Improvement was a sitcom where two of the main characters starred on a renovation show called "Tool Time".

You can even take bits of pieces of the above and come up with great shows such as the Australian Race around the world, where contestants travelled country after country of their choosing, filming and producing mini-documentaries of their progress during each leg of their journey. John Safran's works during this show remain among the most entertaining things I have seen on television in the last decade. Yet the show somehow lacked the 'je ne sais quoi' that would give it full-blooded Reality status.

Even older is the long-running Sylvania Waters, which documented the lives of a working class Australian family. Located in a southern suburb of Sydney, they were brought into the public eye in a way alien to the country at that time. Marketed as a real-life soap opera it enjoyed moderate success an obtained a certain infamy in the minds of the public. Long gone now but not forgotten, they made the news in 2003 as they prepared to move out of their well known abode seen on so many television sets there and abroad.

Reality Backlash

At what point is enough, enough? Reality television may fade away with an undignified death as season after season of half-baked ideas hatch into the bastard children of media executives unworthy of their mantle. Or one day someone may wake up with the next idea, surely to be copied immediately by all and sundry, leaving those who don't follow coughing up the dust churned up by the wheels of progress.

I'll admit that I watched much of the first Australian series of Big Brother. I had a laugh as partners bickered their way across four of the five continents in The Amazing Race. I even watched bits and pieces of most series of Survivor. Have I had enough? You bet.

Struggling, it seems, to keep a hold on what i hope is the twilight of the Reality boom, producers grab at anything that may milk another season from the same tired idea. Big Brother put celebrities in the house. Survivor is now running its all-star series, contesting only the most infamous players from previous seasons against each other. Not content to run merely a nation-by-nation campaign, Idol comes up with a world special where winners of regional Idol shows represent their country in a one-off World Idol.

Paris Hilton recently has found herself living on a farm. Miscellaneous "celebrities" are put on show titled "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!". A dozen shows involve groups of people pulling down, erecting, or otherwise fabricating houses. A group of gay guys metro-sexualise straight men.

Of course it doesn't end there. We have them get married, be carved up in cosmetic surgery, scare the crap out of them, or humiliate them beyond belief.

Then there are the extremes that Reality can't quite tread.

And now, we've given them weapons.

Dead Famous, by Ben Elton, is a novel about the investigation into a murder on a fictitious reality television show that somehow didn't make it onto the recording equipment. The film Series 7 steps it up to the next level, working on the premise of a reality television show where the aim is to kill off the other contestants. This, of course, isn't an entirely new idea to those of us who have seen The Running Man (starring Arnie).

"We've left them on an island, and seen if they could last. We've locked them in a house, and watched what they would do. And now, we've given them weapons." -- Series 7

In the film The Truman Show, the central character discovers that he is actually the star of a reality television show. Adopted shortly after birth by a corporation, he is raised by actors and knows nothing of his role in a fictitious world revolving around himself. The film ends with Truman, stripped of identity, leaving the Reality set to encounter reality for the first time.

So we've seen where it came from, where it is, and where it only dreams it can be.

Why do we care?

Many magazines (Woman's Weekly, Woman's Day, Ralph, FHM, to name a few) thrive on the peeping-tom in us all. The current batch of Hollywood celebrities make the news if they wander down their driveway unshaved to pick up the morning newspaper, or have a couple of drinks too many at a party. Years after her death, Diana "Lady Di" Spencer still somehow regularly makes the news. Lady Di is dead. It's tragic, it's over, move on. Yet time and again we hear about it - and somebody must be listening, the magazines keep coming out so they must be selling. But why?

The common thread that I find between these shows is celebrity for the sake of celebrity. Typically people become famous for doing something. Sports stars, movie stars, politicians, the Pope. These are all people who are famous for doing something well enough that it has found the world stage. Is this all it is?

Record labels have long been accused of manufacturing bands and milking the profits for as long as they are able, before dumping the "artists" and moving on to the next batch of fresh-faced recruits. With shows like the various Idol incarnations succeeding as they are, it isn't hard to believe that a strong media presence is enough to build success, at least in the short term.

We are in an era where political battles are won or lost by press coverage, and often not the merits of ideals or strength of character. The tabloid attention of celebrity icons, that hollywood types often profess to dislike, feeds the public's hunger for more of the same. Jim Hacker, the PM in the British comedy Yes, Prime Minister, in one episode makes a comment that the worst news to read about himself in the morning paper is no news at all. A fictitious show, yet a telling statement none the less.

And from here.

At what point does fame diminish in importance to something else? Or at least when does the novelty of Reality wear off? To me these seem to be the questions that must be answered before we can move on from reality television to The Next Thing.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o films
o recently closed
o Triple M
o Home Improvement
o Race around the world
o Sylvania Waters
o Big Brother
o The Amazing Race
o Survivor
o I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!
o metro-sexu alise
o Dead Famous
o Series 7
o The Running Man
o The Truman Show
o Yes, Prime Minister
o Also by Coram


Display: Sort:
Reality Television - fad and phenomenon | 64 comments (42 topical, 22 editorial, 1 hidden)
Wait a second... (2.40 / 5) (#4)
by Haunting Koan on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 09:58:08 AM EST

Haven't I read this before? This article seems... well, a year or two too late.

Another example (2.57 / 7) (#5)
by kitten on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 09:58:16 AM EST

The "court show", such as People's Court, although today there's a whole slew of new ones. Typically, these are shows in which two low-brow, inarticulate morons with a petty dispute over something idiotic which would take a normal human three seconds to figure out, go before a judge, argue their case, present evidence (usually in the form of a parade of unrelated documents and irrelevent paperwork), and the judge makes a decision as to whether or not damages should be awarded to the plaintiff.

Shows like this have been around forever.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
you forgot (none / 2) (#17)
by Tyler Durden on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 12:36:27 AM EST

Forgot to mention the part where the judge belittles the low-brow, inarticulate morons.

What I'd really like to see is some sort of sex court.  Kind of like divorce court, but with less clothes and more lipstick lesbians.

Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Quit Whining (2.00 / 8) (#10)
by Agent1 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:53:48 PM EST

If you don't like a show, don't watch it. You could even write to the network and explain to someone who can change the programming rather than registering your disgust within seconds on the Internet.


-Agent1
"Thats the whole point of the internet, to slander people anonymously." - Anonymous
Its easy to ignore all media (3.00 / 8) (#11)
by smallstepforman on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 06:13:50 PM EST

Who gives a flying fuck about what Media houses broadcast and publish. Dont turn the TV on (if you must, then select something YOU want to view), dont buy trash gossip magazines, dont listen to commercial radio, and dont socialise with people who do any of the above.  You will discover a whole fascinating world of other people, other places and other things to perk your curiosity and dull your boredom.

Get together with a bunch of close friends, open a bottle of wine, have a barbeque or simple finger food, take out a deck of cards or a game console, or get out a board game or leather ball of some sort, and HAVE FUN.  You can live a full life without watching TV or reading goss.

Alternatively, adopt a hobby, like woodworking, pottery, an open source project, whatever...

One more thing (none / 3) (#12)
by smallstepforman on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 06:14:51 PM EST

one more thing ... and BE HAPPY.

[ Parent ]
Analogy (none / 1) (#13)
by fae on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 07:12:47 PM EST

The western world is like the ancient roman empire all over again. Ask yourself: Why don't we have real gladiators yet? Why do we have this attitude towards death?

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
We did (none / 2) (#21)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 01:13:24 AM EST

But American Gladiators got cancelled way back.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

real gladiators? (none / 1) (#22)
by fae on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 02:10:11 AM EST

Did they kill each other?

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
[ Parent ]
No but they had silly outfits (none / 1) (#29)
by richarj on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 07:20:48 AM EST



"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
And funny names. (none / 1) (#50)
by King of Prussia on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 12:22:39 AM EST


Join me on irc.slashnet.org #kuro5hin.org - the official Kuro5hin IRC channel
[ Parent ]

Isn't That Right, King of Prussia? (none / 0) (#57)
by jeffehobbs on Sat Feb 14, 2004 at 04:10:09 PM EST



[ Parent ]
We will when people start listening to Bill Hicks (none / 0) (#28)
by fritz the cat on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 07:16:32 AM EST

He suggested we use old people as props in action movies, but gladiatorial fights would also be a good idea. That would kill two birds with a stone:
  • governments will save money on caring for the elderly
  • media watchers, lifestyle magazines and advertisers will be able to talk about the "next big thing", thus ensuring the survival  of western civilization.
Ideally, you'd have different types of fights: walking stick fights, wheelchair figths (you could have the wheelchairs fitted with blades), and so on.

DOING NOTHING FUCKING SOMETHING
[ Parent ]

Gladiator-at-Law (none / 0) (#52)
by Zerotime on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 12:25:58 PM EST

by Frederik Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth. There's televised gladatorial battles between old people armed with hammers, spray guns filled with vitriol, etc.

I also remeber the rest of the book being about corporate downfall via share manipulation, or something.

---
"You don't even have to drink it. You just rub it on your hips and it eats its way through to your liver."
[ Parent ]

They're listening (none / 0) (#60)
by 87C751 on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 02:21:31 PM EST

Have been for almost 30 years.

My ranting place.
[ Parent ]

Kill two birds with one stone (none / 1) (#33)
by godix on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 10:40:33 AM EST

I've long been of the opinion that if you used death row inmates to stage a Running Man style of show then broadcast it on pay-per-view then people would buy it. We could make it a two for one special and feed 'enemy combatants' to the lions (or we could strip the combatants naked, hang a sign that says 'I hate niggers' on their neck, and drop them off in middle of Harlem. Same result). This way our prison system would make a profit and we'd get rid of the Camp XRay.

I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.
- General Qaddafi
[ Parent ]
why (2.83 / 6) (#15)
by sal5ero on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 09:30:13 PM EST

To me these seem to be the questions that must be answered before we can move on from reality television to The Next Thing.

Fuck "The Next Big Thing"! Why do we have to have a "Big Thing"? What's wrong with diversity?



Re: why (none / 2) (#19)
by Coram on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 12:52:41 AM EST

Diversity is good. Which is why it bothers me that the same tired concept is rehashed time and again with little innovation.

--
judo ergo sum
[ Parent ]
throw away the telly (2.28 / 7) (#30)
by dimaq on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 07:57:27 AM EST



Write an article (none / 0) (#41)
by GhostfacedFiddlah on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 02:01:15 PM EST



[ Parent ]
-1, misses major aspects of the phenomenon (3.00 / 9) (#34)
by rtmyers on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 10:44:27 AM EST

Arguably the single major factor driving reality programming is the low production cost.  And you didn't even mention that or any other economic aspects.  How is this changing the TV production dynamic?  For one, it's weakening the position of the TV writers, who aren't needed any longer for reality shows.  On the other hand, producers of the top reality shows can get unheard-of deals, including a percentage of raw advertising dollars right off the top.

And then there's the entire topic of what the cause-effect relationship is between the advent of reality programming and the dumbing-down, also known as the Nascarization, of America.

cause/effect, etc (none / 3) (#35)
by khallow on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 10:54:30 AM EST

And then there's the entire topic of what the cause-effect relationship is between the advent of reality programming and the dumbing-down, also known as the Nascarization, of America.

Well, I doubt you can even show they correlate. TV was dumbed down for a long time before "reality programming". Pretty much from the start IMHO.

Also, Nascar is a poor target to assign the blame of "dumbing-down" since the sport itself requires engineering expertise unheard of in any other routinely televised sport and demonstrates a beautiful balance between the individual driver (who demonstrates their skill and risk-taking) and the pit crew (who keeps the driver and car in the game through sophisticated teamwork and surmounting engineering problems). I think it would be more accurate to term it the NBAzation of America since that sport requires far less mental prowess than automotive racing.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

This is a very racist remark to make during Black (1.25 / 4) (#46)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 04:56:45 PM EST

History Month. While I agree that NASCAR is very technically demanding, I think you are being very unkind to the NBA, where many of the players are college educated.

Maybe you meant MLB?

[ Parent ]

not really (none / 1) (#53)
by khallow on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 03:16:53 PM EST

Adam, at least you can say that MLB players are toolusers. After all, they have clubs.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

economics (none / 2) (#37)
by John Thompson on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 11:17:29 AM EST

rtmeyers wrote:

Arguably the single major factor driving reality programming is the low production cost.

Not to mention you don't need those tiresome script writers, who probably belong to some whiny, money-grubbing union always out to disrupt your broadcast schedule.

:-)



[ Parent ]
Low production costs. (none / 1) (#51)
by Psycho Dave on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 06:22:43 AM EST

Eventually, the producers shoot themselves in the foot though because they can't syndicate reality TV. Very few of these shows are very durable (the ones with the most legs seem to be Survivor, Real World and American Idol) but I don't think any of them will last more than a handful of seasons.

Reality TV is an improvement over the sitcom, a format that, in my opinion, needs to die.

[ Parent ]

Doesn't matter, there's always more... (none / 0) (#56)
by irrevenant on Sat Feb 14, 2004 at 05:55:39 AM EST

So far, reality TV shows like Survivor seem to have inspired a huge amount of brand loyalty.  We don't have "The Real World" down here, but isn't it up to it's 14th season?  I'd say that expecting they'll die any time soon is wishful thinking.

In any case, it doesn't really matter if a particular reality show goes belly up - you can just release the successor "Survivifier.  Like Survivor only eXXXtreme!!" which you make for (relative) peanuts.

Given the bargain basement prices reality TV costs to make, even if there is a sizable drop in popularity, they'd still be very appealing.

Incidentally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the Sitcom format - it's the content that tends to be sub-par.  Shows like M*A*S*H, Mad about you, Seinfeld and the Simpsons have provided great entertainment (though they certainly have inferior episodes).

[ Parent ]

Im not saying there arent good sitcoms... (none / 0) (#58)
by Psycho Dave on Sat Feb 14, 2004 at 05:20:21 PM EST

In fact, all the ones you mentioned are, in my opinion, superior ones (though I dont know how much I consider the Simpsons a sitcom). Id add Married with Children, even though it was wildly uneven.

Still, those are exceptions, and not the rule. For every Roseanne, you have a million Everybody Loves Raymond clones that make me want to gag. They are the bottom feeders of TV programming. Reality TV is more excusable to me since it makes no pretense of being artistic.

[ Parent ]

I wonder how low people will go for fame. (3.00 / 8) (#36)
by waxmop on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 11:16:26 AM EST

Reality TV is really instructive about human nature. Most people will do almost anything if the authority tells them to do it. It all reminds me of that psychology experiment where people shocked strangers when they didn't answer questions correctly. In the context of these TV shows, people are willing to humiliate themselves, betray their friends or families, emotionally manipulate or lie to other "players." You never hear the people on Temptation Island, for example, making remarks that the whole setup is unethical from the start, and nobody should be willing to participate. Maybe that stuff is cut by editors or maybe the cast is selected in order to avoid anyone that thinks about stuff like that.

I think I remember one season of Big Brother where the housemates talked about all walking out together. Did that ever happen?

We've become a winner-takes-all culture. There's no such thing as sportsmanship anymore. What you're worth in dollars and fame is really what you're worth as a human being and any means used to achieve celebrity are justified.

These shows are going to keep getting more and more outrageous, but I don't think that they'll head in their direction of fights to the death. That's too obvious. Instead, it will be more likely stuff with more interpersonal drama, like the show this season where the daughter pretends to want to marry the jackass guy all for a million bucks. How about a show where a wife fakes an affair and if she can get her husband to file for a divorce, then they both get a vacation? Or maybe a show where every kid in a high school agrees to play along with a plan to make the nerdy D&D crowd the most popular kids in school?

Instead of all that, I've got another idea. How about a show where I get to beat Rupert Murdoch's face in with a brick? Would you watch that?
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar

RM (3.00 / 4) (#42)
by debillitatus on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 02:57:14 PM EST

Instead of all that, I've got another idea. How about a show where I get to beat Rupert Murdoch's face in with a brick? Would you watch that?

I'd watch that on Pay-per-View.

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

hidden camera shows? (3.00 / 5) (#38)
by anmo on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 11:21:31 AM EST

You are missing the real predecessor of the reality shows: hidden camera. Ironically, hidden cam is the only "real" reality show. The so-called reality shows are more fictional than a sitcom. Once you have a camera in front of you, you start acting.

Too true.. (none / 3) (#39)
by The Amazing Idiot on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 01:28:09 PM EST

"WOW! LOOKIE AT ME! I'M ON TEE VEE!"

Please do more research. (none / 0) (#54)
by actmodern on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 04:18:17 PM EST

If you're going to write an article like this, then please do some research.

"The Loud Family" 1970s. Reality TV where a family was on tape 24/7

--
LilDebbie challenge: produce the water sports scene from bable or stfu. It does not exist.

Eye I See C (none / 0) (#55)
by dangerbum on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 11:03:47 PM EST

George Burns, with his angelic wife, Gracie Allen, had a show on TV in the mid- to late 50's, called "The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show". George had a room over the garage he'd go sit in and watch TV. The TV showed what Gracie was doing in the front house. It was precisely reality TV. So he'd watch what we'd be watching, a watching within the watching, and then he'd comment on what he saw. He'd watch and then get spurred into some kind of reaction/action. I figured the "O God!" movie in the 70's was a riff on that. The happy thought version is "reality TV is just a heedless and evolving next step of crass lowbrow entertainment", rather than an intentional piece of social engineering. But face it, those hundreds of cop shows were, and are, probably not getting programmed constantly purely as creative expression. There were motives, there are motives, there is control, and there are attempts at control. Think of the patronizing disgust you feel, if you're honest enough, toward the Wal-Mart fast-food reality TV consumers. Map that onto a bunch of intelligent control freaks who feel entitled and charged with the duty of manipulating the unwashed masses; you know, to make the world safe and everything. Because somebody has to. You know. Because otherwise it'll all get out of hand.

You haven't, haven't you? (none / 0) (#59)
by trezor on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 07:28:27 AM EST

Form the story:

    For a few years now I haven't been able to turn on the tv, pick up a newspaper, or listen to the radio without hearing something to do with reality television.

Kinda like this story, eh?


--
Richard Dean Anderson porn? - Now spread the news

'Series 7' would sell today (none / 0) (#61)
by 87C751 on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 02:47:16 PM EST

The liner notes to 'Series 7' relate an attempt to shop the concept to a network whose only request was to make the premise a bit less violent and more sexy. Granted, that was probably part and parcel of the overall fictional conceptualization, but it rings so true.

I really enjoyed 'Series 7', but at least part of the appeal was akin to the fascination felt when driving by an accident scene subconciously hoping for a glimpse of a severed head. And isn't that the premise behind so much of "reality programming"?

NASCAR racing has been described as "175,000 people sitting in the sun waiting for a crash". We crave the dichotomy of tension and release. And what better release than violence? Race car drivers actually do get killed in spectacular crashes, but aren't we secretly hoping that those two guys on Survivor are finally going to duke it out on the edge of a cliff? If we're lucky, the camera crew can capture the loser's body tumbling toward the rocky canyon floor below. They'll cut away on the broadcast, of course, but the splat will surely be included in the DVD release.

Game shows worked on the premise of vicarious greed. But greed has become so mainstream, It's no surprise that reality shows are working the two most basic instincts of mankind. Even in 'The Real World', the best bits were when the participants were fighting or (implied to be) fucking.

My ranting place.

The future of television (none / 1) (#62)
by siener on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 09:17:03 AM EST

This is the future of reality TV.

Seriously though, I do believe that one day TV entertainment will get to the stage where you have people dying live on TV. As the romans knew, people killing each other is great entertainment.

reality TV is pu$$y (none / 0) (#63)
by ElChineseTourist on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 03:27:44 AM EST

If *I* were in charge, I'd have people do something like this: roll into a small town. None of the denizens knows what is up. What fate is about to befall them. The doom that is at hand. Contestants have to steal a horse (yes there will be horses) bluff their way onto a boat take over that boat (piracy) crash it onto shore, stay alive assault a fort something like that. I'll elaborate further mayhaps in the future. But definitely shitloads of ballsy action. oh yeah.

No, Survivor was weak (none / 0) (#64)
by Belgand on Fri Apr 02, 2004 at 10:36:43 AM EST

I honestly didn't watch it and I couldn't tell you if it's still on, but it could have been done much better.

Put the people on the island and instead of dividing them up into teams and making it a lame game show where they always have access to free food and such make it real. You get dumped on the island and the last person alive and standing wins the money. Perhaps not quite Lord of the Flies level where we have them killing each other off (although that would be pretty interesting...) but letting them leave whenever they wanted and having them removed if they were in serious danger and unable to keep it up anymore.

It would have lasted a lot longer (no simple seasons with a new group every few months) but it would have been genuinely interesting as opposed to competing in silly games and devolving into middle school popularity politics.

[ Parent ]

Reality Television - fad and phenomenon | 64 comments (42 topical, 22 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!