An all-time low in television history......... (1 Viewer)

[Brent M]

NBC is airing a show in primetime called "Celebrity Cooking Showdown". I realize they're getting their ass kicked by 24 every Monday night, but this is beyond pathetic. I didn't think a network that once had hits like Cheers, Seinfeld and Friends could ever sink this low, but apparently they're not even trying anymore.

 

[David Williams]

With the caliber of talent on display (Wolfgang Puck, Cat Cora, Colin Cowie), I wouldn't call it a new low. It was an enjoyable bit of fluff for a traditionally lull time on the TV schedule (right before the ramp up to season finales). I look forward to the rest of the week's episodes.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

If you think this show was some kind of low for TV, you're not watching nearly enough TV. This doesn't even make the top 50

Regards,

Joe

 

[Marty M]

I am not a fan of any of the reality shows and don't watch any of them. Hopefully, the networksare finally running out of ideas for reality shows. Producing a show on the calibre of Cheers, Friends, or Seinfeld requires more creativity and talent than a lot of TV executives have, I am afraid.

 

[Brent M]

Joseph,

If you can list some shows that are more pathetic than "Celebrity Cooking Showdown"(which is a misleading title anyway as there weren't even real celebrities participating), I'd love to see what you come up with.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well, there's the shows it's pre-empting: Will & Grace, Joey, Four Kings, and the like.

I don't see what's so "pathetic" about it. Iron Chef is a cult favorite, and NBC is essentially doing a more mainstream version of that. Not creative, but at least somewhat different from a lot of what's on the air.

Oh, yeah, it takes a frikkin' ton of creativity to produce a show about white New Yorkers in Manhattan apartments they can't possibly afford.

 

[Jeremy_Watson]

This could really take this thread in a whole new direction that would be fun, too.

 

[Holadem]

I agree with Joe and Jason, not sure what is so pathetic about that show. I have no interest in seeing it, but I think it's a pretty decent idea, certainly better than most reality shows IMO.

--
H

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Such shows also more money to produce than the reality shows, which are essentially unscripted and whose "stars" are basically unpaid. On a dollars-invested-per-ratings point basis a hit reality shows are a much better investment for the networks. A reality show can be profitable with lower ratings than a filmed drama, and a goldmine if the ratings are comparable to a CSI or Desperate Housewives. They are also cheaper to start up, so if a reality shows fails after a few weeks, scrapping it doesn't cost a lot and cranking out a new one to replace it isn't expensive, either. Contrast that with killing a filmed drama or sitcom three or four episodes into a season when you've already paid to shoot seven or eight and it is going to cost a couple of millions to 'gin up production on one of your "mid-season replacement" shows - the ones you had previously deemed not good enough to make your fall schedule.

I'm not saying I like this stuff, but to pretend that it is all happening because TV execs are stupid, or because they don't share the refined tastes of "good" people like you and me is just silly. There are perfectly rational business reasons for the networks to ride the reality TV/gameshow trend as long as the audience supports it, and TV execs are business people whose job is to provide an audience to advertisers, and return a profit to their shareholders, not to provide entertainment to us. It is often erroneously said that TV stations "sell advertising", or that they exists to sell products to us. Advertising agencies create ads and sell them to their clients. Those clients produce products and try to use TV to sell them to us. What TV stations are selling is us. They sell to ad agencies and manufacturers, and what they sell is butts and eyeballs. "I can deliver 20 million people who will be watching CSI when your car commercial comes on." If TV stations and networks can lower the cost-per-butt to assemble those 20 million people while still charging the advertisers the same amount of money, don't you think they should? Wouldn't you do the same in your own business. Wouldn't you want them to, if you were a stockholder? (Oh, and check your mutual funds, IRA and 401(k) - you just might be.)

Regards,

Joe

 

[MatthewA]

Thank you, Jason.

BTW, remember NBC in the mid-to-late 1970s? No hit sitcoms ("Sanford and Son" stars Redd Foxx and Demond Wilson got better offers elsewhere, and Freddie Prinze killed himself, leaving no Chico, just The Man), the once-profitable Disney show was being pummeled by 60 Minutes, 3rd place ranking, a trail of flops as far as the eye could see, and even a lawsuit over their new logo. Even the almighty Fred Silverman stumbled in his three-year tenure there, save two or three hit shows.

Of all the "reality" TV shows, this one doesn't sound as dreadful as the others. I won't watch it anyway.

I haven't bothered with NBC in over a decade anyway. I think I last watched them when Julie Andrews hosted the annual broadcast of The Sound of Music.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

Anyone remember Supertrain?

 

[MarkHastings]

Most definitely agreed.

This kind of show seems like it has a great sense of humor to it. Unlike the other (so called) "Reality" shows that play it off like it's some kind of major life changing show :rolleyes

Spare me the dramatics with those kinds of shows!

 

[Greg_S_H]

It sounds like any night of the week on Food Network. Far from a new low, maybe this'll up the class on NBC. It's a definite plus that there's no Emeril. Bam!

 

[Steve Phillips]

So the many shows where people wipe snot on each other, eat bugs and toe-nails and generally bash each other aren't considered pathetic, but a silly cooking challenge is?

 

[Craig S]

Exactly. After "Fear Factor" this is a step up for NBC. And then there's the endless parade of cable "reality" shows based on the pathetic lives of washed up celebrities... CCC sounds positively uplifting in comparison.

 

[Malcolm R]

Hardly. As others have mentioned, when rated against current reality pap like "The Bachelor" or "Fear Factor," CCC is like fine art.

"Battle of the Network Stars" anyone? Now that was pathetic!

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

Anyone that considers this an all-time low in TV has obviously never watched WWE Raw or Smackdown especially since Eddie Guerrero died or when HHH had sex with a coarpse.

 

[MikeM]

A new low?

I guess you haven't seen the new MTV show called "Your Momma", yes, "Your Momma", where people man fun of each other's mommas....wow, it's bad. Heck, half the stuff on MTV sets new lows for TV.

 

[Brent M]

Hey, I still stand by my statement that this is a pathetic attempt at prime time television by NBC. I can see if this was on the WB or UPN or even FOX, but NBC? It just shows how far the network has fallen from Must See TV. I think it's especially bad when the word CELEBRITY is used in the title and there isn't a celebrity to be found anywhere in the show. I guess I'm a tougher crowd than some others around here, but watching pseudo-celebrities try to cook isn't entertaining to me in the least bit. Carry on.

 

[Greg_S_H]

The only info I have about this show is from this thread, but if David's list of the celebrities is any indication, there's nothing about trying to cook about it. They are chefs. And, their names may not have the marquee value of Bennifer or Brangelina, but I'd sure rather watch Cat Cora than any of them.