Options
Is Reality TV All Pretend Reality Now?
![[Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/cad87d6457ad0822e9bb9d02dd7017c4.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 900 Forum Member
✭✭
I have just seen an advert for OK Magazine and the big story is that Chantelle and Preston are yawn 'back together'. I must be getting really cynical in my old age as I am now strating to wonder if these programmes are all loosely scripted with a plot that has the outcome that the magazines ask for upfront because it sells and because of this can provide backing to commercial channels.
As they state in American 'realities', some scenes have been put together for entertainment purposes only. That is why we may have had the true death of BB for people like myself who were interested in the social experiment of putting people together in a house, not for the business partnership and resulting plots thought up by story tellers from both TV and magazine editors.
What a shame it's going that way but maybe it's only us old school reality viewers (BB1) that aren't happy with this. There are lots and lots of people that love the new direction of these TV shows but I feel sad at the death of proper' as it says on the tin' reality TV for commercialism and the manipulation of viewers that it entails.
Another reason I personally hope the BBC stays as independant as possible from commercial input and money imo because TV will just offer fictional reality drivel, possibly like the BB11 romance that even though I enjoyed a lot at the time, I ask now is any of it, from BB2 onwards, reality at all?
Sorry to waffle on but I think it's important to air these type of thoughts when not only is it the quality of our viewing that may be changing but no less importantly, we are asked to pay good money to phone vote and although I believe this is not faked because they daren't, the pre-planning can be kept pretty much as they want through editing and adapting the plot as they go along. I doubt they'll need our money anymore though as the whole of any future BB's may be paid for by the glossies that will get first pick of the contestants to build up in their publications.
If this is the case, they had better rethink their use of the term Reality TV.
As they state in American 'realities', some scenes have been put together for entertainment purposes only. That is why we may have had the true death of BB for people like myself who were interested in the social experiment of putting people together in a house, not for the business partnership and resulting plots thought up by story tellers from both TV and magazine editors.
What a shame it's going that way but maybe it's only us old school reality viewers (BB1) that aren't happy with this. There are lots and lots of people that love the new direction of these TV shows but I feel sad at the death of proper' as it says on the tin' reality TV for commercialism and the manipulation of viewers that it entails.
Another reason I personally hope the BBC stays as independant as possible from commercial input and money imo because TV will just offer fictional reality drivel, possibly like the BB11 romance that even though I enjoyed a lot at the time, I ask now is any of it, from BB2 onwards, reality at all?
Sorry to waffle on but I think it's important to air these type of thoughts when not only is it the quality of our viewing that may be changing but no less importantly, we are asked to pay good money to phone vote and although I believe this is not faked because they daren't, the pre-planning can be kept pretty much as they want through editing and adapting the plot as they go along. I doubt they'll need our money anymore though as the whole of any future BB's may be paid for by the glossies that will get first pick of the contestants to build up in their publications.
If this is the case, they had better rethink their use of the term Reality TV.
0
Comments
I don't see what's realistic about throwing a dozen complete strangers together for weeks on end, with no news of the outside world. Even in jail, you're allowed a radio (or so I'm told).
Going back to "The Family" from the 70s .....it's a bit like Quantum Theory asserts; observing an experiment affects the results. You're not telling me that they truly forget that the cameras are there.
As for shows like "Dog Borstal" - [in my opinion the winner of the Best Ever Title For A TV Show award] - I know someone who was on that, and she said that they keep pressing you to say "Well, if this doesn't work we'll have to have him put down". They write the story, and then edit 'reality' to fit the show they want to broadcast, if you see what I mean.
- - - -
This forum's getting oddly MORE interesting now BB's finished. People aren't posting spur-of-the-moment reactions, but taking time out to pose interesting questions .... so respect, OP.
Of course rtv contestants are hugely aware of possible marketing opportunities, as are the production staff, who will edit in an attempt to big up a 'story'. But the media won't necessarily play. Sophie and Kris last year, for example, were virtually edited out of the highlights altogether, then ignored by the media, as a 'couple'. The previous year, no one would touch Jennifer and Dale.
Oh God yes!
And in BGT he managed to get that Irish leprechaun through when there was NO chance that he could win.
I think it is also sad that people don't have proper discussions anymore. Whether you agreed with his opinions or not, Ben did try to have conversations on various topics but ended up being shouted down by the likes of Nathan who toe the populist line that there are really really bad people and supposedly really really good ones too. Therefore, anyone wanting a proper debate is on a losing streak if they go against t his view.
I think the editing has become so simplistic that it is like sound bite TV so people just don't make the effort. I did watch some interesting conversations on live-feed, but I don't have the time to sit through much of it, so have to depend on HL.
The 'reality' aspect has been totally hi-jacked by producers who delude themselves that they are the 'creative' force and not the subject matter.
BB11 in particular was all about a group of hm's being the puppets on the producers string.
I'd say Michelle BB5.
TV is escapism and time wasting to most. Millions of people watch soaps but much fewer watch documentaries.
I liked the concept of BB as 'social experiment' but it was never a scientific psych study but always for light entertainment so the producers have trodden a line between what is and what makes ratings and a programme acceptable to the masses.
If it gets too real then outraged viewers complain -which I've found hilarious in a reality show! They want reality-ish but not the worst aspects of it.
Other countries have shown sex and drug taking, if your watching a reality show you should expect to see things you don't like, just like, you know, in reality.
Geoffrey Beattie was one of my tutors at Uni. After BB2, we used to watch clips and see if our analysis matched his. True stuff.
Having re-watched some of BB2 recently it's amazing how much more natural it was and how much less one dimensional the housemates seemed. They actually followed ethical guidelines laid down by the BPS and had input from the psychologists on the tasks. No experiment can ever be completely natural as the conditions are always being manipulated, but usually justifiably so within the framework of the experiment.
I was a fan of BB4 because it seemed as if the show was being taken back to it's roots in this after the slightly more sensationalist BB3. It had a good mix of interesting and likeable people that I enjoyed watching.
Although I enjoyed BB5 onwards, it was in the same way I'd enjoy a deep fried mars bar. With a feeling of self-indulgence, embarrassment and slight nausea afterwards. Endemol and Channel 4 took a conscious decision to aim the show at the lowest common denominator in order to maximise mass appeal. It became entirely manipulated to produce unrealistic levels of conflict, one dimensional characters and scripted to fit their agenda instead of their storyboards adapting to fit the characters.
If they had stuck with the original format then the Jerry Springer generation may well have switched off. Not everybody wants to see relationships and group dynamics change at a slower pace as people get to know each other. However, ratings aren't everything as Channel 4's decision to axe the show has proved.
They should have been content to let it become just another part of the schedule, even a minority interest programme rather than try and make it more and more of a spectacle which was ultimately an embarrassment to them.
But I think it has always been the case - we were all too naieve to realise it because we were TOLD it was "reality TV" we believed it - how stupid of us!
I fear that is true. We tend to remember the stand-out bits of the early series, but by the standards of later series they were terribly slow. It really did seem amazing at the time that you could sit and watch someone else reading a book or cooking a casserole. Everyone has got used to BB generating 'stories' now, but really, until Nick's (really quite tame) row, what 'stories' did BB1 offer? The tasks must have had a budget of about 5p. Make a pottery cup! Learn semaphore! Learn the highway code! Memorize the order of some pictures! It's a long way from Ignore the Obvious, and a cast of brass bands, famous pop stars and hired actors. Expectations of instant entertainment have risen to an unsustainable level.