(groans) Don't quit your day job.Originally Posted by getreal
(groans) Don't quit your day job.Originally Posted by getreal
Originally Posted by Krom
I don't mind you quoting me in your post, but if you do, please at least get the quote right. I didn't say, "it's just a tv show," or "it's only tv," I said "it's a tv show". I didn't dismiss or shut down any conversation - I just stated my four-word opinion.
And I swore I wouldn't get sucked into this.
Originally Posted by J.D.
I'm not too sure krom was quoting you . I think he was making more of a general statement.
Now, we agree or not, that we watch the show and talk about it, and get a little "wrapped up" with the passion of making our views known and clear.And it's all GOOD, we have some of the best writers here. Lots of people are funny, witty and clever. But I believe no one wants to insult or belittle other posters opinions.
RIGHT, so if all of the lawyers and public debators would please stand up , we can all get back to the sandbox to play.........
as you were!
(See post #72) I'm not here to insult or belittle anyone, I hope it doesn't appear that way. I just felt I should step in and defend myself, that's all. Too much fuss over a four-word post.Originally Posted by queeny
*end of thread jack* *sorry*
I'm sorry you felt the need to defend yourself. I never got the impression that you belittled anyone I was making a general statement . and no need to be sorry.
Now........ what were we talking about? oh ya, Jay Mohr . Does any one know how much imput the "Exc.Producer" (Jays credit) has with the production company, or is it in name only, like a bonus credit...looks good on the resume kinda thing.
Is Jay the hook to get the big name comic to the show to be judges? Maybe Jay thought he had more "Exc" input and could use a veto or a pass with the comics he liked.
If the audience is voting based on the first time seeing the sets, what is the benifit of the producers basing their vote on the previous viewed sets. does that make any sense? If they were good enough to make it past the first couple of rounds, that means that the producers/judges were entertained enough to give them a ticket on to Vegas.
If they ask me "YOU be the judge" shouldn't I get a phone vote for "The funniest person in America"
We should start a new show "the Funniest Comic in Canada" there would surely be no scandel in that.eh?
Indeed, since several people made variations of that statement. I used the exact quote earlier in that same post because in the first part of that response I was indeed responsing directly to what was quoted. I certainly don't think I have a burden to prove my intentions, but I think they are clear from the fact that I start out saying "It's not just a TV show", in response to "it's a tv show". I think that proves I wasn't misquoting or re-apportioning words in order to embarass or misrepresent someone.Originally Posted by queeny
Later, I talked about a general approach, and not a specific opinion, and that doesn't require I use the same exact words. In fact, it's usually regarded as lazy writing to do so--especially since I WASN'T responding to just one person's thoughts. The quotation marks there are merely meant to set off the mention of that approach from the rest of the sentence, and doesn't have (or need) an attribution.
Yeah, that's a good point. Even more than the generic term "America", "YOU" seems to point right out of that TV screen into your living room. This isn't the same thing as whether or not "For Love or Money 3" was edited to only show moments with that girl Rachel when her eyes were bulging. This is a presentation of the common will, or at least opinion, and while I can't get "angry", per se, I also can't just look at it, shrug, and say "heck, that's what they do on TV--lie". It's NOT being done merely under the guise of storytelling.If they ask me "YOU be the judge" shouldn't I get a phone vote for "The funniest person in America"
"You don't rehearse Mr. T, you just turn him loose."
-----Sylvester Stallone, on Mr. T-----
Are we still talking about LCS, or is this a comment about "Farenheit 9/11"?Originally Posted by Krom
Reality TV isn't real, at all. Well maybe some of it but most of it is fixed up. Take Survivor for example. It's dubbed as one of the biggest reality shows on TV but really when was the last time you saw a group of 16 or so people playing games to compete against each other in order to see who wins a million dollars in real life? Never. Alot of these shows I they should rename "situation shows" because really all the TV producers are doing is placing everyday people, or sometimes celebrities, into unusual, unrealistic situation to compete. Now stuff like American Chopper and such, THOSE my friend are REAL reality shows. They are the ones actually depicting reality.Originally Posted by PIKATSSO
My two cents on "reality" shows.
REALITY SHOW(s)--probably the worst misnomer in the annals of history!!! "Reality TV isn't real, at all." I agree, Orcus. I guess I meant to put the emphasis on "supposed to be" instead of "real."Originally Posted by orcus116
Simply stated, I think the first "reality" show concept was to throw a diverse group of young people together in a house for a certain set amount of time so the viewing public could voyeuristically observe what transpired (MTV's RealWorld). (Or was this yet another concept we stole from some show already airing in Britain??) Anyway, I remember thinking the whole idea was contrived and creepy from the onset, yet I guiltily watched it a couple of times out of that weird voyeuristic curiosity most people seem to share to some extent. As it turns out, the show was/is creepy and (to a large degree) contrived and is on my list of "Worst TV Shows EVER."
While I won't get into that whole can of worms, I do think the show not only skyrocketed and solidified MTV's popularity and power, but also set off a whole new (mostly loathsome IMHO) genre of television. Yeah, I've been sucked in to some of it (more than I care to admit!)--but I have avoided most "REALITY" shows like the proverbial plague, even though I would admittedly probably become addicted to any one of them if I allowed myself to watch an episode or two. In general, I think they ought to dub the genre "Artificial Reality" shows.
I refer to them as "Sitdrams" and "Sitcons," i.e. Situation Dramas and Situation Contests (although in many cases one could appropriately insert an "h" after the "S".)
Nonetheless, it very obviously is the good fortune of the networks that I alone do not have veto power over what is/is not aired on television, lotsa moolah bein' made!!
Why is she a member of a forum called "Fans of Reality TV" if that's how she feels? you ask. Ahhhh....life is full of irony.
But all that being said (and I apologize for ), I think you missed the point of my post, Orcus, which was simply that we of course find the "behind-the-scenes" stuff fascinating, ESPECIALLY anything behind the scenes that we see or hear unintentionally on the part of the producers/editors, etc., because that is real, and as such, a BIG part of what our gossipy, voyeuristic little souls thrive on.
Anyway, back to the real topic of this thread...
Even though I do often feel duped by the massive manipulations behind these shows, particularly regarding LCS, I am really sick of the "Jay Bashing" going on all the time. As I understand it, the whole LCS thing was Jay Mohr's concept to begin with. And since LCS is one of the so-called "reality shows," in which I DO (voraciously) indulge, I, for one, am extremely beholding to Mr. Mohr.
Just my $2,000 worth on reality shows and Jay Mohr! LOL
Last edited by PIKATSSO; 06-26-2004 at 11:48 AM.