Indeed, I’ve recognized a few of the girls on that, and similar, sites as appearing in other productions, both of the reality genre and not.
(You Know You Watch Too Much Porn When you start recognizing the actresses … )
However, I have always wondered about the men on reality porn sites. They’re worse actors than the women a lot of the times, and they have much less reason to sue (“These guys got me a girl to bang, but she wasn’t that great. I want my money back!”) They’re also a lot harder to track to other sites and compare (as we all know which gender 90% of pornstars are). My hunch is that the guys are actual schmos who want to be on the reality porn show, but the women are “professional” porn actresses.
I’ve seen that on Cash Cab a few times (I watch the Canadian version, never seen the US one). “I’m in the what now?”. (A few times I see “This is in Canada/Toronto??”)
I think Funt had the advantage that technology wasn’t what it is now. For example, one of the more famous sketches was the talking mailbox.
If a mailbox talked to you today, you wouldn’t be surprised, cause you’d know it was fake, and you’d know about a dozen ways to make a mailbox appear to be talking.
People are more litigious now too. Even if you don’t win, you have to defend yourself. I would say they probably throw a few bucks at everyone whether or not they sign a release to keep them happy.
Sorry folks, not convinced. Logic and common sense, especially when viewing some very unlikely reactions to very unbelievable situations, tells me otherwise. Like P.T. Barnum said, “there’s a sucker born every minute”. I’m always a skeptic, especially when it comes to what the media throws at us. (Look how long Milli Vanilli got away with their false gig…even winning a grammy in the process!) Like they say, “believe nothing that you hear, and half of what you see.”
Sorry, but for the original Alan Funt Candid Camera, it was all real and no one knew about the prank. There has never been any suggestion otherwise, and no one has ever come forward – even after half a century – to indicate anything was faked.
People do have extreme reactions to things – just look at Youtube.
I’ve noticed on What Would You Do? that some faces are blurred out (presumably people who didn’t sign a release), and they sometimes mention that a particular person refused to be interviewed once the setup was revealed, which suggests to me that it’s more-or-less legit.
I appeared on a local show and everything about that experience was real. I’d gone to buy a newspaper at the newsstand, and the vendor asked if I wanted “the supplement” (magazine sold with the weekend edition). When I said I did, a topless woman stepped out from behind the vendor (she was “the supplement”), but I have poor vision and that evening I’d taken out my contact lenses, so I couldn’t see a thing! After saying “yes” to the supplement, I thought I saw an inordinate amount of exposed flesh where the vendor had been standing, so I squinted to get a better look. Just when I started to realize what I was looking at, she disappeared, I heard people laughing, I was given my newspaper and change, and I went back home, thinking all the way what an odd exchange it had been. I didn’t realize what had happened until some time later, when people in the neighborhood said they’d seen me on TV. Unfortunately, I never got to watch that episode, which is a shame, because my squinting and blinking must have been amusing.
I think hidden camera shows have gotten more fake over time. Like people have said, the original Candid Camera was all real, and no one has come forward to contest that. But a lot of newer shows, especially youtube videos, have pranks that are much more dangerous or outlandish to the point that doing them without using shills would likely get the film crew sued or beaten. For the more reputable shows you often find the ‘victims’ have a profile as an actor, which was a lot harder for an average person to catch 20 years ago.
I know the OP probably isn’t around, but this isn’t correct. 39 states and the Federal government allow one-party consent to recording conversations (including phone calls), only 11 states require all parties to consent. Nevada may have other laws that make it favorable for pranks, but that one isn’t it.
I don’t know the actual record, but by my count the alternate ending to Big thread has been resurrected at least 12 times since it was started in 2002.
Slight derail, but we just got back from Paris and the hotel TV only got about 3 channels… news, russian news (?) and 24 hours of “Just for Laughs: GAGS.” I didn’t understand until this thread why they were all silent with some sound effects dubbed in. I have to assume it was just this station but the timing was off by about a full second so that made all of the GAGS extra weird.
I ended up watching way more GAGS than you might think just because it was so weird and just slightly off.
I can’t see them doing that if the gags were all set-ups. The value is in the way people react to genuine unexpected perturbation.
I could see *Candid Camera[I/] working pretty much as presented. You’d set up the situation and see how people react. You generate a lot of film/video and throw out 90%, but the remaining 10% will have some gems. These get broadcast. You’ll have some people who get irate or belligerent, and a lot that won’t sign the waiver, and a LOT of dull and boring stuff, but that’s all figured into the production costs, which are still pretty low.
I’m sure it worked better in the 1940s (when they were just starting out on radio and film), when people weren’t aware of the concept and were less litigious, but the idea had legs through the 1970s and beyond. Heck, the “lets interview people on the street” segments still used on late-nite TV isn’t all that different, when all is said and done, and they’re still doing those.
Milton Berle spilled that “Candid Camera” was faked. Made me feel a little better about the Port-a-potty lifted 10 feet in the air by a forklift. I was perplexed for years how they “knew” nobody would take that first step out.