I suppose that this wouldn’t be the place to promote my idea for a gritty “reality” show featuring a camera-studded prison filled only with the most attractive female convicts available?
Yeah, we could build it down south where it gets really hot!
:: flees ::
And may I say, from Mississippi, where it’s 39 degrees and raining, a hearty Fuck You! 
[sub] Probably be on Fox next year, tho.[/sub}
We were discussing this the other day and our collective prediction was that every one of the “committed” males would not make it through the first night on the island without cheating on their SO. The women would hold out only long enough to make it clear that they weren’t skanks. Then they would act like skanks. What kind of “commitment” permits this kind of activity?
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!”
We thought an appropriate sequel would be “Retaliation Island”. Same participants but they would have automatic rifles.
Kiffa,
According to Lenny Bruce’s book, How to Talk Dirty and Influence People (a great read, btw), Queen for a Day was completely staged. The big appliance winner (the “Basket Case” according to the book) was always a plant who got $50 to act surprised and tearfully thank the host for her new refrigerator.
When Lenny and his wife needed a new washing machine, he made a deal with the producer, who was a friend of his. Lenny would pay the alcoholic mother of another friend of his some money to do the show, and he would take the prize. It fell apart when she walked up on stage during the live broadcast completely wasted and swearing up a storm.
So maybe TV hasn’t changed as much as we think.
–sublight.
Read Bruce a very long time ago and I completely forgot about that story! Well, we agree that TV hasn’t ‘progressed’ much from its beginning.
Just to be a pain in the ass, let me take up the other side: what’s so bad about this show?
A. “Temptation” as a dramatic theme has a pretty long history. It’s the first instance of conflict in the Bible, and it kept Monty Hall employed for years on “Let’s Make a Deal.”
B. Romantic temptation is no less a major dramatic element. Would Titanic have become the highest grossing film ever if the Kate Winslet character decided to remain faithful to her fiancee, instead of going for a neo-adulterous frolic with a stranger? Or perhaps we should go back a few years to Ilsa Lund in Casablance, who is tempted to leave her husband for her old flame Rick. Scarlet O’Hara ditching poor Ashley for Rhett? Nobody’s suggesting that FOX is disgusting if they aired Gone With the Wind?
C. What logic says that it’s ok to enjoy fictional characters experiencing romantic temptation, but not real people? For that matter, how “real” are these “real life couples” to you, a viewer who knows nothing about them? The big complaint people had about shows like Survivor was that viewers didn’t see “real” people, but only those aspects of them that the show’s editors chose to highlight. Thus, to the viewers, even the cast of these “reality” shows are about as “real” as actors in a fictitious piece.
D. “This isn’t about romance-- just sex.” Once again, that’s hypocrisy. If we are willing to believe that true love can blossom in an afternoon in Titanic, why can’t it happen over the course of a couple of weeks on TI? One of the attention-grabbing storylines of Survivor was the budding romance of Colleen and Greg, who had known each other all of a few days before they started snuggling up on the beach. In fact, who’s to say that these “committed couples” didn’t first meet at a bar, get to know each other over a few drinks, fall into bed that same night (or perhaps after a date or two), and wind up in a long-term relationship? That storyline probably describes the beginnings of long-term relationships that many people on this board have. Is it inconceivable that that same thing could happen again over 14 days on a t.v. show?
E. Sure, FOX is playing up the T&A angle of it, with lots of hot tub and bikini shots. Such is the nature of FOX, and of network television generally. We’ve seen plenty of T&A in network t.v., from “Ally McBeal” to “NYPD Blue” to “Seinfeld.” We also see crap like that in ads for beauty pageants, football games, and music specials (Dixie Chicks’ miniskirts? Shania Twian’s belly?) Either you despise the sexualization of television as a whole, or you admit that TI’s advertising is no worse than anyone else’s.
F. As for the contestant’s themselves, yeah, I’ll agree that it takes a certain kind of couple to agree to put their “committed” relationship through the gauntlet like this. But then again, it takes a certain kind of person to want to be on reality t.v. shows in the first place. The people who want to be on these shows are invariably somewhat exhibitionistic, egotistic, and attention-starved. If Jerry Springer has taught us anything, there are more of these people inhabiting the NASCAR races, monster truck rallies, and cockfights than we think. We know that these people have fucked-up ideas about what relationships to begin with, so why is it surprising to think that they might be willing to jeopardize their relationship in exchange for a two-week, all-expenses paid tropical vacation?
Will I watch it? Probably not. Will a lot of other people watch it? Sure, for reasons ranging from “it’s romantic and sexy” to “it’s a hilarious train wreck of a show”. Is it worse than any of the other “reality” t.v. shows? Not really.
Just to continue in the pain in the ass theme, let me respond.
There is a big difference between being tempted to trade in the toaster oven for what’s behind door number one, and being tempted to break a romantic commitment. For one thing, if you make a bad trade, the only one you hurt is yourself.
The Kate Winslet character had an adulterous frolic; Kate Winslet did not, nor did Ingrid Bergman or Vivien Leigh. O.K., O.K., so I know that Ingrid and Vivien weren’t exactly known for their fidelity, the point is that it was the dramatized actions of their characters which were presented as entertainment, not the sordid details of their personal lives.
That would be the logic that says that there is a difference between fiction and reality. The fact that some viewers cannot distinguish between the two, or that the TV networks actively promote programs which blur the distinction, is yet another argument against this type of programming. What kind of society will we have when no one knows what is real anymore?
Whether we’re talking about romance or sex, the problem is that once again we’re talking about relationships developing in a fishbowl, with a monetary prize at the end. The difference between this type of TV show and prostitution or pornography is becoming hard to distinguish.
I agree that objecting to the show solely on the basis of highly sexualized advertising is hypocritical unless you’re going to indict all of television.
What makes it so scary is that by giving such people a national stage, we are feeding into their egotism and exhibitionism, as well as any of the other assorted psychological problems they are facing. We hear only about the people whose lives are wrecked in truly sensational ways by these shows – the ones who murder or are murdered. But what about the other emotional wreckage that is left behind. Is it really worth it for a few hours of entertainment to take people that vulnerable and display them like animals in a zoo? I’ve often said that I would gladly give up watching any actor under the age of 18 for the rest of my life, if it would mean that no one would have to suffer the tortures that some child actors go through. By the same token, I’d give up all reality shows to prevent people from being so tragically used, whether or not they consented.
I don’t watch any of the reality shows, nor do I plan to. I realize that other people are going to tune in, and there isn’t a lot I can do about it. But the idea that this kind of program is being promoted gives me a queasy feeling. I just hope that I don’t have to feel the fallout.
There is more discussion about it here http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=50351
I totally agree, this is just such a sleazy idea!!! Who comes up with this stuff? Who agrees to go on? Who the hell are the willing-to-seduce-anyone pile of hired whores that are gonna be trying to break up the relationships?? And who would be STUPID enough to go after someone who is BEING PAID TO BE NICE TO YOU??
I have been going into sleaze withdrawals ever since they cancelled Melrose Place. I can’t wait until this tasteless show begins next month. I’ll be glued to the tube!
As long as there are idiots willing to go on national TV to make fools of themselves there will be people like me who will be there watching them with the same type of awe usually reserved for trainwrecks and bloody car crashes.
I personally prefer these types of shows over the same old sit coms with the same old story lines spoken by yet another pretty TV star (excluding of course Malcom in the Middle and That 70’s Show which are great.)
TV has gotten B-O-R-I-N-G! If there are losers willing to sacrifice themselves for my entertain, bring 'em on!
Eh, I might watch a little of it. I’m with Diane…there is a sick fascination akin to car wrecks and nuclear explosions with those sorts of shows.
Then again, I never watched Survivor…
OOps!! Sorry about that Opal - I almost never go into IMHO, I wouldnt have started a thread about it if I had seen yours.
I saw a commercial with a really naieve(sp?) sounding man saying how this was a chance to ‘test’ his relationship, and if they survived it, it would be unbreakable or something equally mental.
Sadly, I will probably watch it - like Diane, I am sick sick sick of formulaic crappy sitcoms. There is very little on tv now that interests me.
I Think That Stripper Really Liked Me
While most guys probably understand it’s an act, some let their brains get short-circuited by their dicks. Some, though, are just so full of themselves they actually think “she really wants me. I can tell because I’m just such a total studmuffin.”
–sublight.