Time to start ditching reality shows in favor of some actual culture?

[derby378]

Don't get me wrong. There are some reality shows that are just plain genius. Dave Attell's Insomniac was a true original as far as travel shows go, and Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations gets you up close and personal with faraway lands, their people, and their cuisine. I enjoy many of the reality/game shows such as Top Chef and Project Runway. But there's got to be a tipping point somewhere.

Entire cable channels such as A&E, Bravo, and MTV have been overcome by reality shows featuring bounty hunters, magicians, drug addicts in rehab centers and interventions, spoiled housewives, dwarf families, socially-inept computer geeks, Playboy playmates, repo men, trust fund kids, diva brides, self-obsessed models, and way too many people who seek the romantic affections of people such as Bret Michaels, Tila Tequila, and Flavor Flav. Is there some "idea man" in New York or LA who is preparing to inflict upon America a new reality show in which a nerdy recovering alcoholic must repossess a Bentley from a "Super Sweet 16" party and use it to chauffeur some pissed-off bride who pelts him warthog offal that he must consume within five minutes in order to win a date with a bisexual Playboy bunny who levitates over Atlantic City while wearing a fake Viking helmet?

I think I just made my own brain hurt. Talk amongst yourselves...

[Chan790]

1. That time was years ago...

reality shows, prime-time game-shows and the godawful idea about having Jay Leno on from 10-11 5 nights a week...they got to go. They're terrible ideas. More and better drama and content and giving that content enough to time to develop and mature. Great TV does not come from thin-air, it develops and matures. That takes time and effort. The desire for instant gratification is killing the industry.

What network TV also needs to do is be more like cable. Think about the truly great programming on TV over the past 3 years. How much of it has been on network TV? Not much. How much of it could be on network? Almost zero. Even something fairly mild and tame like Big Love(HBO) would never fly on network, it's too provocative. Something like Battlestar Galactica (Sci-Fi) would have been killed by focus group, twisted into some form unrecognizable even to its' creators. Much of the original-drama content being put-out by USA, TNT and even AMC would be dismissed out of hand as "quirky". (Much of it is more successful than anything on network.) What they really mean is it's not stupid enough and they're misguided to think so; thoughtful, complex, intelligent content sells.

[XemaSab]

2. Reality shows are really cheap to make

Take a show like Twin Peaks:

You're got to pay for the pilot to be filmed on location, which involves sending location scouts and a film crew to Seattle and ostensibly paying to rent the Kiana Lodge, the timber company headquarters, and the Mar-T. There are also additional locations to film at, such as the Johnson house, the Palmer house, and so forth.

You've got to rent cars and get props. You've got to find a passel of actors, hire them, and fly them up to Seattle.

You've got to pay the actors who play Cooper, Truman, Andy, Lucy, Hawk, Ben, Sylvia, Audrey, Johnny, Josie, Katherine, Pete, Doc Hayward, Donna, Eileen, James, Ed, Nadine, Norma, Shelly, Leo, Bobby, Ronette, Sarah, Leland, and Laura Palmer.

You also have to pay for food and lodging for the cast and crew.

And all that's just for the pilot. If it's picked up, then you have to pay to have all the sets rebuilt on a sound stage. You also have to find additional locations for outdoor filming in Southern California, and you basically have to pay all the above expenses every week, week after week. And let's not forget the additional cast members that were added as the series went on.

In short, a show like that costs BUCKETS of money.

Compare that with having a camera crew follow a midget around.

That costs PENNIES in comparison.