Your Favorite Decade for TV on DVD (1 Viewer)

[Regulus]

Anybody remember the "Anti-Disco" Movement of the late 1970s and early 1980s? We need to form an "Anti-Reality Show" Movement today! :f

 

[Ethan Riley]

Anybody remember the "Anti-Disco" Movement of the late 1970s and early 1980s? We need to form an "Anti-Reality Show" Movement today! :f

Taggers used to deface "Stop" signs by adding the word "disco" underneath. So the signs would read "Stop Disco." I wonder what would happen (aside from a few arrests) if they started painting "Stop Reality" on those signs? I think the message might be understood; however the forum members here would get the joke lol

 

[smithb]

I'll admit to not having watched much "reality" tv. But I have watched a decent bit of The History Channel's new reality tv programming (Sad how far that network has gone downwards over the years) and there is little doubt the shows are heavily scripted. I'm sure that's par for the course and I'd say a good 95% of reality tv is heavily scripted. You'd get more spontaneity on a sound stage with skilled actors that are willing to deviate from the script than you'd get in "reality tv" (The 'Road to' movies with Bob Hope and Bing Crosby come to mind). Nothing real about them. Reality is too boring for viewers so they're pure entertainment out of necessity.

So you start out by saying "I'll admit to not having watched much 'reality' tv" and end with "I'd say a good 95% of reality tv is heavily scripted". Hmmm.... Hey, I have no problem with people bashing reality TV, but I think it's still necessary to have something to back it up.

 

[BobO'Link]

Anybody remember the "Anti-Disco" Movement of the late 1970s and early 1980s?

It's still alive... *Disco Sucks!* I'll admit to watching a *few* select "reality" shows, but nothing on anything like a regular schedule or "appointment" TV. Mainly when I'm on the computer or doing light reading/looking at catalogs type stuff and am looking for something that'll be easy to watch while missing large segments of programming. Mostly Deadliest Catch, Iron Chef, Chopped, Cupcake Wars, and misc. other Food Network "reality" type stuff. For the most part I do not like any of the other "reality" type shows on TLC or History although I *did* watch a few episodes of some show my wife was watching where people bid on abandoned storage units. It was strangely compelling - like driving by a wreck. You don't want to look but it's hard not to. I couldn't tell you the name of the program or network which is actually a good thing. In fact, I believe it's on one of those channels I have blocked on my TV.

 

[LeoA]

So you start out by saying "I'll admit to not having watched much 'reality' tv" and end with "I'd say a good 95% of reality tv is heavily scripted". Hmmm.... Hey, I have no problem with people bashing reality TV, but I think it's still necessary to have something to back it up.

And I also clearly stated that I have watched some, and I provided a few examples. So I'm hardly forming an opinion with nothing to back it up. While there's room for debate if I've seen enough to form such a generalization, I personally feel as if I've seen enough to be able to form an opinion on how this stuff is produced. Not to mention that logic all but dictates that "reality tv" can't really reflect reality. No one would watch if it wasn't percieved to be entertaining to the viewer. And like it or not, everyday reality is dull. Even something that is widely percieved as exciting, such as being a tail gunner in a B-17 over Germany in 1944, would've been dull more often than not. I can assure you that everyday things like parenting would be far duller than staring aimlessly out of the rear of a B-17 for hours on end. There's nothing unscripted or real about reality tv. It's just about as staged as any other form of television entertainment, except they attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the viewers by classifying it as reality tv and following a similar model to produce it (Which is far cheaper for the studios and production companies). And I think most of their viewers fully understand that and choose to not pick it apart and just want to be entertained. You're about the first person I've ever come across that thought this stuff actually reflected reality, in any shape or form.

 

[Regulus]

It's still alive... *Disco Sucks!* I'll admit to watching a *few* select "reality" shows, but nothing on anything like a regular schedule or "appointment" TV. Mainly when I'm on the computer or doing light reading/looking at catalogs type stuff and am looking for something that'll be easy to watch while missing large segments of programming. Mostly Deadliest Catch, Iron Chef, Chopped, Cupcake Wars, and misc. other Food Network "reality" type stuff. For the most part I do not like any of the other "reality" type shows on TLC or History although I *did* watch a few episodes of some show my wife was watching where people bid on abandoned storage units. It was strangely compelling - like driving by a wreck. You don't want to look but it's hard not to. I couldn't tell you the name of the program or network which is actually a good thing. In fact, I believe it's on one of those channels I have blocked on my TV.

I confess there were a few "Reality" Shows I watched, three of which ended their run over 30 years ago. Real People and Games People Play on NBC (The latter only lasted one season), and That's Incredible! on ABC. More recently I watched America's Most Talented Kids on PAX, but that also ran only one season, and then they played it to death as reruns.

 

[smithb]

And I also clearly stated that I have watched some, and I provided a few examples. So I'm hardly forming an opinion with nothing to back it up. While there's room for debate if I've seen enough to form such a generalization, I personally feel as if I've seen enough to be able to form an opinion on how this stuff is produced. Not to mention that logic all but dictates that "reality tv" can't really reflect reality. No one would watch if it wasn't percieved to be entertaining to the viewer. And like it or not, everyday reality is dull. Even something that is widely percieved as exciting, such as being a tail gunner in a B-17 over Germany in 1944, would've been dull more often than not. I can assure you that everyday things like parenting would be far duller than staring aimlessly out of the rear of a B-17 for hours on end. There's nothing unscripted or real about reality tv. It's just about as staged as any other form of television entertainment, except they attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the viewers by classifying it as reality tv and following a similar model to produce it (Which is far cheaper for the studios and production companies). And I think most of their viewers fully understand that and choose to not pick it apart and just want to be entertained. You're about the first person I've ever come across that thought this stuff actually reflected reality, in any shape or form.

No one ever stated it had to be about representing everyday life in all respects. If you read my earlier post...I stated as much in that the scenarios that they dream up for these situations are outlandish in nature. So as far as the setup, it can be very contrived and scripted to initaite responses by those involved. Some shows are about putting people in competition and or difficult environments and seeing how they respond. Can they handle the pressure? How do they deal with the stress ot the conflicts? How do they deal with difficult surroundings? Then they run the camera and capture the results. That's the part that is suppose to be real, the response, not the situation that set it in motion. Why do people watch it? The same reason people rubberneck when passing an accident on the road. They are fascinated because anything could happen. As you say, everyday reality for most people is pretty bland. Even scripted drama's that we view as being realistic don't focus on what is everday reality for most individuals. They focus on the more extreme times with people that are in more extreme siituations. Thats what makes it exciting for the rest of us. It's the same with much of reality TV except they have to contrive situations to catch people's attention. And the response aren't scripted. And from a statistical standpoint, the way you have descibed your sampling is not enough to make a generalization on 95% of the genre.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smithb

No one ever stated it had to be about representing everyday life in all respects. If you read my earlier post...I stated as much in that the scenarios that they dream up for these situations are outlandish in nature. So as far as the setup, it can be very contrived and scripted to initiate responses by those involved. Some shows are about putting people in competition and or difficult environments and seeing how they respond. Can they handle the pressure? How do they deal with the stress to the conflicts? How do they deal with difficult surroundings? Then they run the camera and capture the results. That's the part that is suppose to be real, the response, not the situation that set it in motion. Why do people watch it? The same reason people rubberneck when passing an accident on the road. They are fascinated because anything could happen.

As you say, everyday reality for most people is pretty bland. Even scripted drama's that we view as being realistic don't focus on what is everyday reality for most individuals. They focus on the more extreme times with people that are in more extreme situations. That's what makes it exciting for the rest of us. It's the same with much of reality TV except they have to contrive situations to catch people's attention. And the response aren't scripted.

Gotta agree with Brad's explanation here. I'm not a reality TV fan either, although I've seen bits and pieces of what I guess are reality shows. I've always thought the reason we have a glut of such shows now is that they are much less expensive for the networks. I figure that's a big part of why we are seeing so many of them, but perhaps I'm all wet with that theory. All I know is I don't watch them and never will. I've got too many great classics in my dvd collection to waste my time on that nonsense.



Gary "release news has been a little lean recently when it comes to series I'm interested in - but at least the cupboard isn't bare" O.

 

[Charles Ellis]

I'll have to say the 1960s (no surprise to those familar with my posts!) Why? In a word- diversity! Yes, there were only three big networks then, but the choices seemed a lot more varied than what's out there now! I also agree that 'reality' as personified by the Kardashian/Gosselin lot stinks, and the only reality shows I watch are those with a competition involved, as I follow Dancing with the Stars and Survivor. And yet, these kind of shows were thriving on TV in the 60s and are sorely needed now: dramatic anthologies westerns half-hour dramas variety shows fantasy-based sitcoms live dramas variety specials primetime game shows detective (non-procedrual) shows Today's shows seem to be made from cookie cutters by comparison. True, the same thing was said 45 years ago, but there were differences to each show in a certain category. For instance, Gunsmoke, Bonanza, and Rawhide were each unique turns on the Western thanks to writing, and characters. Nowadays you have three versions of CSI, and what separates them? Three different cities! Needless to say, I'm sticking with the original. On the other hand, Law & Order SVU has always invested itself into the personal lives of the officers and the emotional level was always more intense than its parent show. I only wish today's network programmers would really try to revive the defunct program types I mentioned above for a new generation- they may be pleasantly surprised.