It really does defeat the purpose of reality TV, no?
Yes, this attitude is hateful BUT I can say, it is successful this time. TAR has not very well-rating but this time they find the right people to make it higher. R/C have the gimmick of "married couple" and they are eye-catching. Now they win. I think the agents are very happy now. They make R/C have a hugh fan base and a lot of news are about them.
Originally Posted by JamesB
Maybe from now on, we should be not be so serious of these shows as to some degree, they are fake. Or maybe this is the real "Reality"
Well, I should not be so enthusiastic whether there is a TAR5.
Last edited by tokimeki; 08-23-2003 at 11:11 PM.
Well, the way they all reacted during the race was real, so I don't see how that defeats the purpose of reality TV. I understand how people might find the whole 'casting' thing irritating, especially those who went through all the trouble to put together their application videos. And yeah, I get the idea that it would have been nice if the racers were fans of the series. But even when selecting people through applications, the producers pick and choose teams that they think will make good tv. I remember Phil in an interview basically saying that if you seem like the type of person who could run TAR blindfolded, you probably wouldn't get picked. Probably the only thing I dislike about using casting agents is that I think they should have recruited more female contestants to even out the male/female racer ratio instead of the typical buff white male contestants. And I say that even though I quite liked David/Jeff.
Originally Posted by Matt_Murdock
My whole opinion on the use of casting agents in "reality" programs is: what's the big deal?
Sure, the contestants on TAR4 were more photogenic that the other editions, but what is the harm in that? Some viewers forget that each and every television series, whether it be comedy, drama, or reality, is out to get one thing - and one thing only. Eye balls. That is, ratings. Having attractive contestants may get people to tune in initially, and maybe those people will stick around in future weeks. Personally, I have tuned into a series because of an attractive person that was in the cast. So, it isn't a totally unheard of practice.
True, the cast from the first "Survivor" series probably wouldn't make it onto the seventh edition, but many viewers still list this first edition as the best. Why? Maybe because these people provided drama and situations that intrigued viewers. Would Sue's "snakes and rats" speech have been any less effective coming from someone 30 pounds thinner and some cosmetic surgery?
Call me crazy, but if I were a producer of "Race", I would always choose an interesting couple that a talent / casting agent got over a boring, plain couple who turned in an application. Why? "Race" is more than just a bunch of couples racing around the world for a million dollars. It is also about what happens in their relationships while they are doing that. Just like "Survivor" isn't just about a group of people surviving in a remote location without the creature comforts of home. Plus, the currently hot-button issue of gay marriage and civil unions probably played a factor in the selection of Reichen and Chip (even though the series was filmed prior to recent court and religious decisions). Plus, would the back-and-forth between RC and Jon and Kelly have been nearly as interesting if the couple were not gay? For one thing, Jon couldn't have been accused of homophobia.
Ultimately, casting is a crap shoot. Personally, the African, Thailand, and Amazon editions of "Survivor" were the worst. Why? Because I honesty didn't like the casting. There were times that I could barely tolerate the Thailand cast. Even if Reichen and Chip and David and Jeff were cast by agents, those agents had no way of knowing they would be in the final three. There was just as good as chance of them being the first two couples eliminated. If Jon and Kelly hadn't taken that tram in Tokyo, they may be $1 million dollars richer. If Jon and Al had been a little quicker in Australia, maybe Reichen and Chip would have been sent packing.
Luck plays a hugh part in every reality series. It was luck that RC and DJ were in places to be seen by talent / casting agents. It was luck that they were ultimately chosen. It was luck that put them in the final three, and it was very good luck that enabled RC to win the race.
While I can't speak for anyone but myself, while the last two editions of "Survivor" have been unbareable (and at times un-watchable), I will no doubt be back in September for Pearl Islands and in January for the all-star edition. If CBS is kind enough to allow a fifth TAR, I will be there as well. TAR4 has been more fun and exciting to watch since the Marquesas "Survivor", even with contestants who didn't actually enter. This (in my opinion) insignificant detail will not affect my opinion of TAR or reality series in general, because my opinon of the whole genre is that it is one of selective reality. We saw 13 hours out of a roughly 30 day race. We got the highlights and nothing else.
Just my thoughts.
*Until Next Season...*
jpoliver, I agree with you on several points. A person can rock on paper, and even in an interview (by now, contestants probably know what it takes to get the producers to pick them) but once you get them on t.v., are duller than a dishwasher. Case in point is the first season of BB. I watched it off and on, but all they did was sit around and, well, that's really it. That, and wanting to be nice to ever one and be fair (sorry, I like a little drama.) Some of those people had interesting looks or backgrounds, probably the reason they were chosen. S Africa was actually one of my favorite seasons, simply for the casting, as was S Amazon. Thailand is another story. Chiara and Lisa of BB3 said that they were approached to try out for BB- Lisa was chosen a week before she had to go. But they proved interesting, and probably are part of the reason that I kept watching.
But I still think, that with all the applications that CBS receives (not sure how many, but I'm sure it's a lot) that they can't find 12 teams that would make good t.v. Not all people who apply have seen the show, so I won't hold that against them. It also bothers me that they are looking for types of teams- as I said in a previous post, Gina said that they wanted a mom team, and Russell said the reason they contacted him was because he was a pastor and his kid's were grown. Wouldn't it be easier to advertise the types of teams they want?
TV= ratings=dollars. That's the bottom line.
Originally Posted by Matt_Murdock
Reichen/Chip's marital status did not matter to me and they are NOT eye-catching to me. I could accept them winning fair and square as regular applicants. To find out they have been pre-selected ahead of other applicants is the straw that broke the camel's back.
Originally Posted by tokimeki
TAR and CBS has just lost a fan in me. And frankly, I don't give a dam if there is TAR 5 or not.
See, I don't get this at all. How does being actively recruited by casting agents invalidate their win? The Goats were actively recruited and they didn't win. Oswald & Danny from a previous TAR were recruited and they didn't win either. All of them won or lost on their own merit and karma in running the race.
Originally Posted by bill
Then it's safe to say you weren't the target demographic for this particular team.
Originally Posted by bill
But there were also 11 other teams.
Originally Posted by Iris
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.