Remember when people actually believed that the storylines on televised wrestling were real?
I recall having large arguments on the playground with my friends. I would insist that every part of what I saw on television was true. People who tried to debunk wrestling went on the same black list as those who said Santa wasn't real.
Ironically, when wrestling finally stopped pretending to be real, it became bigger than ever. Not having to worry about people believing what they saw meant that the storylines could get even more outlandish, and therefore more entertaining.
It also became a lot easier to watch the matches because you could tell yourself--"Well, it's not REALLY happening" even though, as wrestlers will tell you, there's nothing fake about going through a table or having a three hundred pound guy jump on top of you.
Now, it's common knowledge that wrestling is fake, but there's now another pop culture phenomenon ready to come out of the closet:
Reality Television
Back when 'The Real World' first came on television, the draw was that it was what it called itself: Real.
There were rumors that it was scripted, but when you go back and watch those original episodes, you instantly begin to mourn the sincerity with which it was made. Compared to the over-produced and clearly scripted offerings on television today--the latest seasons of 'The Real World' being one of them--the first few seasons of MTV's biggest reality hit seem like documentary film-making at its finest.
When reality t.v. went competitive with shows like "Survivor," the urge to "keep it real" became crucial. A producer swaying a voting process could be putting a million dollars into the pocket of someone who doesn't deserve it. With a show like "American Idol" where viewers call in to vote, it would seem even more nefarious.
Lately, however, producers have been getting clever. They may not be tampering with the votes, per se, but they certainly have ways of making sure the show stays interesting by keeping the best "characters" in play.
Take "The Apprentice." Donald Trump says that he never makes decisions based on good television, but it doesn't take much logic to figure out that the better "The Apprentice" does the better Trump does, and that means that just having him as a deciding factor in who stays and who goes is a huge conflict of interest. Never has that been clearer than now when the show has converted into having celebrities as contestants.
The celebrity factor seems to be the breaking point in terms of admitting how much of a reality show is staged. Shows like "Dancing with the Stars" and "The Celebrity Apprentice" have voting systems that either don't take into account viewer votes or mix them up with judges' scores so that it's impossible to tell if the person who is staying actually deserves to or not.
Lately, Kate Gosselin has been getting a lot of attention for staying on "Dancing with the Stars" all this time despite being one of the worst dancers on the show. In Kate's defense, there seems to be at least one celebrity every year who falls into this category.
When Cloris Leachman was a contestant, it was clear that she was coming back week after week simply because she was good television. I don't blame the producers for this--
--I blame the viewers.
Or maybe "blame" is too strong a word. For years, television producers have been under the assumption that given the option, viewers would vote off the most controversial contestants on any show and award based on merit.
Oh ye of little faith.
They should have taken a tip from wrestling--viewers know it's fake, and we INDULGE in how fake it is. Now that viewers are in charge, they're purposefully keeping contestants like Kate Gosselin around in order to keep the show interesting.
Unfortunately, this only confirms the idea that reality television is little more than people being eaten by lions in the Colosseum...
...But it sure is interesting to watch.
I recall having large arguments on the playground with my friends. I would insist that every part of what I saw on television was true. People who tried to debunk wrestling went on the same black list as those who said Santa wasn't real.
Ironically, when wrestling finally stopped pretending to be real, it became bigger than ever. Not having to worry about people believing what they saw meant that the storylines could get even more outlandish, and therefore more entertaining.
It also became a lot easier to watch the matches because you could tell yourself--"Well, it's not REALLY happening" even though, as wrestlers will tell you, there's nothing fake about going through a table or having a three hundred pound guy jump on top of you.
Now, it's common knowledge that wrestling is fake, but there's now another pop culture phenomenon ready to come out of the closet:
Reality Television
Back when 'The Real World' first came on television, the draw was that it was what it called itself: Real.
There were rumors that it was scripted, but when you go back and watch those original episodes, you instantly begin to mourn the sincerity with which it was made. Compared to the over-produced and clearly scripted offerings on television today--the latest seasons of 'The Real World' being one of them--the first few seasons of MTV's biggest reality hit seem like documentary film-making at its finest.
When reality t.v. went competitive with shows like "Survivor," the urge to "keep it real" became crucial. A producer swaying a voting process could be putting a million dollars into the pocket of someone who doesn't deserve it. With a show like "American Idol" where viewers call in to vote, it would seem even more nefarious.
Lately, however, producers have been getting clever. They may not be tampering with the votes, per se, but they certainly have ways of making sure the show stays interesting by keeping the best "characters" in play.
Take "The Apprentice." Donald Trump says that he never makes decisions based on good television, but it doesn't take much logic to figure out that the better "The Apprentice" does the better Trump does, and that means that just having him as a deciding factor in who stays and who goes is a huge conflict of interest. Never has that been clearer than now when the show has converted into having celebrities as contestants.
The celebrity factor seems to be the breaking point in terms of admitting how much of a reality show is staged. Shows like "Dancing with the Stars" and "The Celebrity Apprentice" have voting systems that either don't take into account viewer votes or mix them up with judges' scores so that it's impossible to tell if the person who is staying actually deserves to or not.
Lately, Kate Gosselin has been getting a lot of attention for staying on "Dancing with the Stars" all this time despite being one of the worst dancers on the show. In Kate's defense, there seems to be at least one celebrity every year who falls into this category.
When Cloris Leachman was a contestant, it was clear that she was coming back week after week simply because she was good television. I don't blame the producers for this--
--I blame the viewers.
Or maybe "blame" is too strong a word. For years, television producers have been under the assumption that given the option, viewers would vote off the most controversial contestants on any show and award based on merit.
Oh ye of little faith.
They should have taken a tip from wrestling--viewers know it's fake, and we INDULGE in how fake it is. Now that viewers are in charge, they're purposefully keeping contestants like Kate Gosselin around in order to keep the show interesting.
Unfortunately, this only confirms the idea that reality television is little more than people being eaten by lions in the Colosseum...
...But it sure is interesting to watch.
Comments
Post a Comment