I only see two Reality TV people in the mix, so unless you're talking about the entire history of the show (or you're including all non-entertainer types), two doesn't seem like "so many".

As ever, the show title requires quotes like this:  Dancing with the "Stars".

If that Bachelor guy can actually dance, I may watch the Chelsie numbers.  Anyone catch her in the SI Swimsuit edition?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010_swimsuit/video/chelsie-hightower.html

I wish that video were, like, 10 minutes long.  And included bodypainting.

Why couldn't they get Plushenko on this season of DwtS?  Each week, he and Lysacek's dance-off could have been epic.  Of course, not sure if there's a quad in ballroom dancing, or latin dancing...

There are different types of stars and they're both reality TV stars. I'm not sure why the need to downgrade their stardom? 11 million people watched as Jake tried to decide who he was going to propose to. Jon & Kate's breakup was on your local news? There's a reason for that. I believe she was also a guest host on The View. The entertainment industry has never been about people "deserving" their fame, so I'm not sure what working definition you guys are using that these folks aren't living up to.
 
BTW, I think Melissa Rycroft went from The Bachelor to Dancing With The Stars last year. I actually thought they might tap Tenley Molzahn after she did her little dance number on The Bachelor. Speaking of which, I couldn't remember her name, so I just typed "Tenley" on Google, and she was the number one hit. If these people aren't stars, they're certainly famous.

Is there even one other person named Tenley on the planet?

Tenley's got a nice dancer's bod, too.

That might have helped. ;) My point remains, though. I'm curious of the criteria used to define "star" that these people aren't meeting.

In my mind, there are two misnomers in the phrase "Reality TV Star".  As much as you have issues with these people being called "stars" I loathe that the term "reality" is used to describe the shows themselves.

I've never watched DWTS, and I don't plan on watching it - but I do find their list of contestants interesting.

"Unscripted" would be a better term to me, than "Reality".  Contrived?  Yes, in oh so many ways.  Some of these shows are so ridiculous, I can't believe they pass as "entertainment".

Feel free to ask me to pull the plug on my rant and I'll shut up...

What's realistic about many of these shows, anyway?  Not only are the situations contrived (Survivor, Big Brother, The Bachelor, etc.) but the contestants are, too.  They know the producers want "personalities" so they take it to the extreme.  "Hey, let's lock an 85 year old WWII veteran in a room with two 20-year old cross-dressing homosexual men, a fresh-from-the-streets prostitute, and Mr. T and see what happens!"  Puh-lease.  I watched the first season of Survivor and American Idol, then got bored and quit about halfway through the second season.  I watched one season of "The Amazing Race" and enjoyed it.

I do give a little more credence to shows that require some degree of talent or skill on the part of the contestants - but not much.  The only show that falls into this category that I do watch is "Top Chef" and even I feel that the first season was the most "genuine" of all of them.  Until this last season, it seemed like there was a growing trend of showing more of the "drama" between the contestants than the actual competition itself.  That really bugs me, and is part of the reason that while I like Top Chef, I just can't bring myself to even give "Hell's Kitchen" a chance because it's all about the over-the-top antics and endless yelling by the top dude than it is about learning and watching the chefs cook.

Even watching some of the new "game shows" (Deal or No Deal, Am I Smarter than a 5th Grader) are painful because the contestants are such annoying, overly dramatic idiots.  Put me in front of "Jeopardy!" any day of the week, and I'm happy.  Spare me the extra half hour of pointless tension building, bug-eyed reactions, and thinking-out-loud of these new shows.

I know there are a lot of other shows out there, many of which I've never seen (I just don't watch that much TV these days - who knew having twins would eat into my time so much!).

They simply aren't my cup of tea, but to each his own.

There, I feel a little bit better! 

I agree in that I don't like the word "reality" applied to pure competition shows like this one.

I think a true reality show is one that shows behind the scenes stuff or people going about their lives or work like The Real World or some of the other cable reality shows, and I don't count showing a bit of the dance rehearsal.

For example, I don't consider American Idol to be a reality show- it's a talent show.

Probably the worst use of the word was when the Emmys nominated a game show host for best reality host.

As for the word "stars", they really mean celebrities, but stars sounds better.

Quote:
Now THAT I would watch!  :)


You are giving The Real World and its ilk WAY too much credit.  Those kids are all aspiring actors who are fed lines and situations by producers and writers (although they may not call them that, 'cause they don't want 'em joining the WGA and demanding union contracts).

Even "unscripted" is kinda pushing the envelope.

One aspect of these shows that I forgot to mention, but these recent posts have reminded me of, is the important part that editing plays in all of this.

Many of these shows (Top Chef included) sequester the contestants and have cameras rolling 24/7.  Several hundred hours of raw footage is condensed into MAYBE 25 hours for an entire season.

Producers get to pick and choose what they show the audience - playing up specific aspects of player's relationships, focusing on an argument, or whatever.  It's theater - the performers simply aren't always professional actors.

Top Chef has had a "reunion" show after each season finale, where they get the contestants together to discuss the season.  Almost every single time they've done this show, some of the contestants mention how when they saw the final episodes, they were shocked at how they were portrayed or how they came across to viewers.  Even contestants who seemed completely at odds and antagonistic towards one another during the show admitted afterwards that their differences weren't nearly as severe as they were made out to be on the show.

I've never watched this show, but it's unavoidable with E! constantly reporting each week what happened.

When I saw the lineup for this season, my immediate thought was that Scherzinger is on a hiding to nothing: she's practically a professional dancer in the first place, so if she doesn't win, that'll just look bad.  Although to be fair if she finishes second to a gold-medal Olympian figure skater, which is sort-of like dancing, that's OK.

 

I too was puzzled by why Buzz Aldrin would participate.  But I suppose he might have been a recreational ballroom dancer all his life, and he thought this might be fun.

 

What odds Pammy wears overly revealing outfits? 

Brooke Burke is the new co-host for DwtS!

The new season starts tonight!

The fake audience applause/yelling track they play when couples are dancing, and the camera pans around and no one is clapping annoys the crap out of me :(
Edited by Spero D - 3/23/10 at 4:40am

I just hope Buzz doesn't break a hip this season.

I thought it was funny when Evan Lysacek said to Anna Trebunskaya that he hoped she doesn't hold it against him, that he beat her fellow Russian countryman Plushenko, for the gold medal, and she said, "It was his own fault."

The way Buzz Aldrin moved last night, I doubt he'll be around long either.

After all the hype over Kate Gosselin being on the show (I saw a ton of commercials that mentioned her), she wasn't too impressive -- on or off the dance floor.

She is supposedly causing trouble off-camera also..



Edited by todd s - 3/24/10 at 7:20am