Why Does Reality TV Have So Much Padding?

Cafe Society
1

I don’t like reality television although I make an exception for Wife Swap. Nevertheless having teenagers I am subjected to it.

What I do not like is that these shows generally contain very little “action” meaning events and interactions of the participants. Instead there will be excitable commentary from a presenter, then a little bit of action, and then interviews with the participants. Rinse and repeat. Plus more breathless out-takes from next weeks show for extra padding.

So a one hour show will contain 30 minutes or more of the presenters and shallow interviews of the participants. From my perspective there is not nearly enough to hold a viewers attention and yet this type of television is successful.

What am I missing?

2

Because for the most part, they’re trying to create drama and controversy from the mundane and ordinary.

3

Reality is boring. So a TV show based on “reality” must manufacture excitement.

4

Reality TV is about acting out popular myths to keep people satisfied and watching. Real life doesn’t always follow mythic guidelines, so the interviews and such are there to frame reality in ways the viewer supposedly will respond to.

5

Without the padding you would see the people (contestants? subjects? non-actors?) going about their mundane business and that’s even more boring than the padding.

6

My Dad always says, “First, they show you what they are going to show you, then they show it to you, then they show you what they showed you.”

Bottom line, it works on enough people to generate sufficient ratings to justify the show’s existence.

7

Moving to CS.

8

A recent thread.

9

Because when you only have 10 minutes of interesting material out of a week of filming, you have to stretch it.

Take survivor. Even if they cameras are on 168 hours a week, a lot of that is spent sleeping, or having lunch, or going to the bathroom, or other mundane things nobody cares about. Even when the contestants chat with each other, probably 98% of it is “So, think the Cubs will make the world series?” that isn’t interesting.

Or take the popular Gordon Ramsey show Hell’s Kitchen. Usually the last half of the show is them cooking a dinner service. They usually take 2.5 hours to cook dinner. But really, if you’re cooking for 20-30 tables, probably all but one or two is going to go fine. Then you’re just watching people cook. Which is boring. So they take the one or two orders that are screwed up (for a generous version of ‘screwed up’), which is 5 minutes of film, and show it from different angles, get an interview with each of the people involved to splice in, show reaction shots from the audience, etc, etc. 5 minutes of interesting film out of 2.5 hours. Of course they pad it.

10

I’m looking for a gift for my aunt.

11

For the same reason most science, info and nature programs have so much filler: the good stuff is over in seconds. I could never stomach Mythbusters, for example, because fifteen minutes or more of vamping, joking around and asking “Whaaaaat ifffffff?” with lifted eyebrows and spooky music wasn’t worth the two-second payoff when they pressed the button.

The bottom line is that reality shows, even the heavily scripted and managed ones of the present, are dirt-dirt-dirt cheap to produce, and there are one hell of a lot of airtime hours to fill.

12

Gah, I hate shows with all that filler.
Game shows are the worst. How they can stretch a round of Minute to Win It, Deal or No Deal, or Who Want’s to be a Millionaire into an hour long show is obnoxious.
Same for the talent style shows. 10 minutes worth of performance stretched to 60.

13

Because reality has.

14

The Biggest Loser is the worst. We watched for about three seaons, but finally could not stand any more how they could cram 40 minutes of content into a two-hour weekly episode. I got sick of watching with my thumb on the FF button.

15

Fear Factor was jammed packed with action.

16

I don’t know if “padding” describes the show “Iceberg Hunters”. But the idea of watching multiple episodes of redneck Canadians making their fortunes shooting chunks off icebergs near Newfoundland sets new records for inducing ennui.

17

Thanks everybody for your comments. I’m not mollified but resigned nevertheless. Its easy to understand how these shows are constructed but what I still struggle with is that viewers accept it. I don’t - change channel, but presumably most just keep on watching. If t’were otherwise reality shows would become a lot sharper to keep their audiences.

Well said - I enjoy science and nature shows, possibly in the forlorn hope of seeing documentaries of quality. Ha! Lately a British show Stargazing Live has been on narrated by Brian Cox. Just the thing for me but sadly…nope. I watched with dismay as he spent 10 minutes on an Alaskan lake to illustrate the bubbling of methane which flows in rivers on Titan. Sheesh. Lovely cinematography but what a waste of time. It was a 2 minute story with much much more that could be added.

I’m a rank amateur on astrophysics but even I could have presented the entire show in about 10 minutes. Such a shame with a subject which is vast and endless.