Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
David T. Cole

UnREALity vs. Reality: How does UnREAL stack up?

Recommended Posts

The network wanted him to marry the Latina woman, not Quinn. They said it would play well with the Telemundo demographic.

 

Quinn referred to both Grace and Anna as "wifeys" that the crew was supposed to "protect" in the pilot though.   So yes it was the network exec who was pushing Grace this past episode, Quinn's always considered Grace wife material.

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, there are multiple studies that show that discrimination against people with Afrocentric names for jobs (and housing!) is a thing. Obama even referenced this phenomenon in his eulogy for Rev. Pinckney. Not saying a Spelman grad named Shaniqua has less of what it takes to be successful post-grad than a Shane, but she'll have a steeper hill to climb to achieve the same success through no fault of her own.

I'm well aware of that. As a Black female I am very conscious of things like that. Unfortunately people want to be "u-neek" in how they name their kids or spell their kids' names and the kids have a tough row to hoe. My brother's ex-wife made up names for her sons (a mess) and spelled my niece's name in an "original" way. At least people will be able to pronounce them even though it is clear they are Black. Hopefully by the time my niece enters the workforce, the people doing the hiring will be of the "unique" name generation that won't blink when they see her name.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe she wants a career in television as some sort of political pundit or legal correspondent?   That's the only reason I can think of for why someone might go from clerking for a SCOTUS justice to a reality show contestant.  There's a history of some cross over between news show contributor and reality TV.  Elisabeth Hasselback, from The View and Fox and Friends, got her first TV break as a contestant on Survivor.  

Laura Ingraham became a columnist and radio host after clerking for a Justice of the Supreme Court.

 

The book Freakanomics was famous for citing that Black kids with "White" names would do better economically. They even had lists of "ethnic" names to avoid.

 

I kind of think Quinn's remark about Obama barely being Black had to do with her getting Jay to stop explaining why Shamiqua had a chance. There's not really a good comeback to that except for calling the person an idiot, which is not good form when she's your boss.

Share this post


Link to post

Laura Ingraham became a columnist and radio host after clerking for a Justice of the Supreme Court.

The book Freakanomics was famous for citing that Black kids with "White" names would do better economically. They even had lists of "ethnic" names to avoid.

I kind of think Quinn's remark about Obama barely being Black had to do with her getting Jay to stop explaining why Shamiqua had a chance. There's not really a good comeback to that except for calling the person an idiot, which is not good form when she's your boss.

Yeah calling Quinn an idiot would not have been good, especially since she is right. There is no such thing as post-racial America and there are plenty of people on both sides that would not approve of the interracial relationship. Especially older people. And the blatant or even undercover racists. Better not to rock the boat and lose loyal viewers I guess. I don't think, after a while, anyone expects a true love connection but maybe they hold out some hope each season and don't want to risk the one time it is real to be a couple America hates.

I would love to see the list of names to avoid. I'm sure lots of them end in "a" (pronounced "uh").

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a link to a Slate article about that section of the Freakonomics book. There are links to lists of the names in the article. Interestingly, it seems that poverty/lack of advancement in life are associated with mothers who name their children "uniquely", but the name doesn't cause it. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2005/04/a_roshanda_by_any_other_name.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a link to a Slate article about that section of the Freakonomics book. There are links to lists of the names in the article. Interestingly, it seems that poverty/lack of advancement in life are associated with mothers who name their children "uniquely", but the name doesn't cause it. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2005/04/a_roshanda_by_any_other_name.html

The links to the names didn't work on my phone which sucks because I want to know if I made the cut ;) (my name is never on anything unless I personalize it myself.) I just spent the morning laughing at/crying over things people name their kids. Crystal Metheny (white) will never have nice things. Neither will Youalljealous and Leafy Way and Chlamydia. I've heard of several people named Marijuana do well in life but clearly that's against the odds. Folks who name their kids this dumb shit probably don't have the sense God gave a billy goat so they have nothing but foolishness to pass on to their kids. And they are probably not living anywhere there are good schools so Yallarejealous won't get a chance to get that Spelman degree that will give her a leg up on the kid going to the no name college in east bumblefuck Tennessee

Share this post


Link to post

I'm well aware of that. As a Black female I am very conscious of things like that. Unfortunately people want to be "u-neek" in how they name their kids or spell their kids' names and the kids have a tough row to hoe. My brother's ex-wife made up names for her sons (a mess) and spelled my niece's name in an "original" way. At least people will be able to pronounce them even though it is clear they are Black. Hopefully by the time my niece enters the workforce, the people doing the hiring will be of the "unique" name generation that won't blink when they see her name.

Just a side note on Black names that I've always found very interesting, and many have never heard of: Are you familiar with the "Free People of Color?" Apparently, in parts of Louisiana *before* the Civil War, slavery was outlawed, and Black people were allowed to live in their own communities in relative freedom. Louisiana, of course, has a very strong French influence, and many of the Free People of Color had French names. So, a French or French-sounding name became something of a status symbol because it was often an identifier of a Free Black person. That's why French-sounding names like "Shaniqua" are still popular today.

 

Edited to Add: Apparently most of the Free People of Color were of mixed race, so this may also be where the idea comes in that lighter-skinned folks are higher status or somehow "better" than those who are very dark.

 

(Trust me, I'm not trying to start any trouble! I just find these facts very interesting because I like to understand the How and Why of things. I don't think I ever would have heard about the "Free People of Color" if not for Anne Rice's books.

 

Here's the Wiki on it, for anyone interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_people_of_color  I think Anne Rice used the Free People in one of her books, possibly *The Feast of All Saints.*

 

Okay, back to our regularly scheduled snarking!

Edited by okerry
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, the name Shan(m?)iqua stuck out to me too and I wondered about lazy writing. Based on my own experience, a Spellman grad who clerked for a Supreme Court Justice and plays the violin (am I making the last part up? I thought a producer said it) would be unlikely to be named Shaniqua.

I actually used to work with a Shaniqua and she'd changed it to Shane (I only knew her old name because she told me) because she thought Shaniqua was holding her back.

I said the same thing about the name Shamiqua and Spelman (there is only one "l"). I'm wracking my brain to think if any of my classmats at Spelman (I graduated from there) had a name like that and I can't think of any. I think there would definitely be "ethnic" names, but they wouldn't be of the "made up" variety, imo.

This was a fail on the part of the writing staff, imo. I think they were trying to hard to make her name a "black sounding" name that they showed their own racism in not understanding the demographics of a school like Spelman. Black people aren't a monolith.

Spelman (one L) class of 1995 here. There were plenty "Shamiqua" type names. Lots of African/Afrocentric names. Regular American names. Point is, there is no such thing as a name that would not be heard at Spelman or that ladies with the unconventional names were less well-rounded than others. Or less successful post-graduation. Shoot, my name is "regular" in Louisiana where I'm from and folks cannot pronounce it for shit. I might as well be named Shamiqua:)

Wait - we're from the same class at Spelman? Inbox me, OMGosh!!

Share this post


Link to post

Edited to Add: Apparently most of the Free People of Color were of mixed race, so this may also be where the idea comes in that lighter-skinned folks are higher status or somehow "better" than those who are very dark.

Actually this mindset grew from slave masters who raped slaves and then had their mixed children working in the house doing lighter tasks, while the full African slaves were in the field, doing the hard work. It's where house-slave vs field slave came in... They were given special status due to their mixed race heritage. Additionally, slavery was passed down via the mother - so if you had a black mother, you were born to slavery. If you were born to a white mother, you could escape slavery. That helps to explain why many black men still see white women as status symbols and a "leg up" into society. The law made it that way.

All of these racial issues are so complex though - it would take pages and pages to even scratch the surface. So many things that happened in the past affect our future.

I believe it was a writing fail to name the black contestant from Spelman "Shamiqua". It was clearly done because to look at her, you couldn't tell she was really black (most wouldn't) UNTIL she got the "black sounding" name to go with it. But given that name, it's highly unlikely she would be an accomplished violinist, a Spelman graduate and a Supreme Court Clerk all in one. Her parents likely would have known and understood the danger of having a name like that (she obviously has been running in high circles in her life and was raised to do the violin and a host of other things done in a higher class). Her parents would have named her something else. Even if it was to give her a more eurocentric first name, followed by a more ethnic name. That's how my parents did me and my sister.

It was a fail on the part of the writers not to understand this. They clearly did it so that White America would hear "Shamiqua" and go, "Hey! She's black!" - but they clearly didn't understand all of the implications of her name + her accomplishments and the cognitive dissonance therein.

They showed their own racism with that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Just a side note on Black names that I've always found very interesting, and many have never heard of: Are you familiar with the "Free People of Color?" Apparently, in parts of Louisiana *before* the Civil War, slavery was outlawed, and Black people were allowed to live in their own communities in relative freedom. Louisiana, of course, has a very strong French influence, and many of the Free People of Color had French names. So, a French or French-sounding name became something of a status symbol because it was often an identifier of a Free Black person. That's why French-sounding names like "Shaniqua" are still popular today.

Edited to Add: Apparently most of the Free People of Color were of mixed race, so this may also be where the idea comes in that lighter-skinned folks are higher status or somehow "better" than those who are very dark.

(Trust me, I'm not trying to start any trouble! I just find these facts very interesting because I like to understand the How and Why of things. I don't think I ever would have heard about the "Free People of Color" if not for Anne Rice's books.

Here's the Wiki on it, for anyone interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_people_of_color I think Anne Rice used the Free People in one of her books, possibly *The Feast of All Saints.*

Okay, back to our regularly scheduled snarking!

Interesting. I will look into this. I'm from Louisiana with a French name. I'm named after my great-grandmother. I don't know much about her so I don't know about her ancestry. She was a mean old cuss who didn't like dark-skinned people.

Share this post


Link to post

I know I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I just finished watching the show.

 

 That's why French-sounding names like "Shaniqua" are still popular today.

 

It's funny how we perceive things differently. I'm French and to my ears, Shaniqua (or Shamiqua) doesn't sound French at all. I can't even fathom what French name it's supposed to come from. To me, it sounds Native American. So you can imagine how confused I was at first about all the "she doesn't look black but has a distinctive black name"!

 

 

I'm from Louisiana with a French name. I'm named after my great-grandmother. I don't know much about her so I don't know about her ancestry. She was a mean old cuss who didn't like dark-skinned people.

 

I'm very curious to know your name, scruffy73.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

UnReal has changed the way I look at reality shows (which I knew were not "real" but...).  In fact, it has made them more interesting to me.  I watched Paradise Hotel (S1), probably the first 8 - 9 ANTM cycles and RS: INXS, but no other reality shows had caught my interest.  Because of UnReal, I find myself enjoying the trashy madness/badness of Bachelor in Paradise in the last few weeks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I watch Deadliest Catch and on the last episode I saw a serious producer manipulation; a crewman, a greenhorn (rookie) resigned, it was on camera and that producer told another crewman what had occurred.  When that man said he didn't believe the producer, the cameraman chimed in and said, "yes he did say that."  The producer deliberately told the crewman that the rookie resigned because he wanted to create drama, which he did.  

Share this post


Link to post

I watch Deadliest Catch and on the last episode I saw a serious producer manipulation; a crewman, a greenhorn (rookie) resigned, it was on camera and that producer told another crewman what had occurred.  When that man said he didn't believe the producer, the cameraman chimed in and said, "yes he did say that."  The producer deliberately told the crewman that the rookie resigned because he wanted to create drama, which he did.  

 

I would say The Deadliest Catch is not a prime example of "serious producer manipulation" on a reality show.  Is there some?  Surely.  Is there less than on most other reality shows?  I happen to think so.  DC has 11 seasons of solid Bering Sea documentary-style TV under its belt; the producers et al cannot manage the seas, the weather, the ice, the quotas, the mechanical failures or the personal vagaries of the cast.  They have tried to manipulate the Josh Harris legacy story, and real fans aren't buying it.  Of course they must "tell a story" from the thousands of hours they capture on film, but to equate this show to a Bachelor type fakery show is to give it serious short shrift.

Edited by walnutqueen

Share this post


Link to post

I would say The Deadliest Catch is not a prime example of "serious producer manipulation" on a reality show.  Is there some?  Surely.  Is there less than on most other reality shows?  I happen to think so.  DC has 11 seasons of solid Bering Sea documentary-style TV under its belt; the producers et al cannot manage the seas, the weather, the ice, the quotas, the mechanical failures or the personal vagaries of the cast.  They have tried to manipulate the Josh Harris legacy story, and real fans aren't buying it.  Of course they must "tell a story" from the thousands of hours they capture on film, but to equate this show to a Bachelor type fakery show is to give it serious short shrift.

 

And that's my point.  When you see serious producer manipulation on a show that doesn't need it, it just makes me shake my head.

Share this post


Link to post

And that's my point.  When you see serious producer manipulation on a show that doesn't need it, it just makes me shake my head.

 

I did not think it rose to the level of "serious".  A real situation was revealed to a crewman for his reaction, which would have happened in a few short minutes at the least, since the deck is small and the crew and camera crew are pretty tight.  Contrast that to the high-jinks that happen on UnREAL, or the types of shows it is based upon ...

Share this post


Link to post

I did not think it rose to the level of "serious".  A real situation was revealed to a crewman for his reaction, which would have happened in a few short minutes at the least, since the deck is small and the crew and camera crew are pretty tight.  Contrast that to the high-jinks that happen on UnREAL, or the types of shows it is based upon ...

 

Look it wasn't "serious" but it did make me smile because Zack kept saying, "no he didn't" while the producer said, "yes he did" and then Zack looked at the camera man who agreed with the producer.  Not serious but not necessary on a show with a small, tight crew.  Zack would have found out anyway.  The producer wanted to make sure he found out THEN.

 

My point is that all of these reality shows have producers; it is their job to stir the pot and create drama.  Deadliest Catch doesn't have the same level of bullshit as a show like The Bachelor, but Deadliest Catch is a SHOW, not a documentary.  People wouldn't watch DC for eleven years if it were just hours of people fishing in bad weather.  People like the personalities and the stories.  But YMMV.

Edited by Neurochick
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, it does.

 

ETA - my mileage, it varies.  I watch a LOT of "reality teevee", so only took issue with the "serious producer manipulation" assertion.  Last thing I want is to get into a flamefest over semantics.  :-)

Edited by walnutqueen

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

"I don't understand how someone could want to further abuse an abuse victim." Because they sign up for it. I hate to take the side of the monsters of Unreal but... everyone is a grown up and everyone who signs up for these shows has the ability to say no after reading the contract. The real people like Brandy who sign up for these shows are doing so because they are financially compensated at the very least. Even the first Survivor off the island gets a paycheck and in this world, you DO NOT have to be on a reality tv show to make a nice living or to get famous. After years and years of reality shows, only fools go into these shows thinking they will be the different one who doesn't get the horrific edit. It's hard to have any sympathy for the contestants, on this show or in real life reality shows, because sure, they have their damage and their sad backgrounds, and damn if they aren't ready and willing to spill it all out on national tv for money.

From what I've read, one of the biggest fallacies about reality TV among viewers is the old "I don't feel bad for them, they signed up for this" canard. I've never been on a reality TV show and never would (I can barely stand to have my picture taken!), but for the most part I think folks who sign up for these shows have no idea what they're getting into. Stupid and naive? Sure. Deserving of whatever befalls them when they get there? I don't think so.

They *think* they know what they're getting into. And I'm sure a lot of them think they can game the system. Some of the savvier contestants even succeed on occasion. But unless you've been behind the scenes, my impression is that you can't really know what you're getting into until you're there. Just my 2 cents based on things I've read from producers and former contestants over the years. 

Quote

I didn't know the dog was Chet's in real life!  I was thinking through the episode last night, "gee, that dog is awfully well trained to stay hanging around a stranger slamming stuff around." i couldnt figure out how the dog would look so worshipfully at Chet, and also look so sad when Chet was upset. Makes sense now. 

I didn't know this either! Now I feel less bad for the dog when she jumped when Chet threw the phone to the ground. She probably just thought, "Oh that's just my dad being dramatic again."

Edited by violetr
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, violetr said:

based on things I've read from producers and former contestants over the years. 

That's just it. At the beginning, contestants truly didn't know what they were getting into. But there have been enough BTS articles, shows, etc., that you'd have to be really, really naive to have no clue. And Everlasting is in its 14th (? it's pretty far along) season at this point, and if it even remotely resembles RL, contestants should know by now that most, if not all, of it is manipulated for the show's benefit, not the contestant's. 

Even if someone doesn't have computer access at home, there's always the public library. If you don't do your due diligence at this point, it's on you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

That's just it. At the beginning, contestants truly didn't know what they were getting into. But there have been enough BTS articles, shows, etc., that you'd have to be really, really naive to have no clue.

Yep, I think that describes a lot of Americans! If someone like Olivia Caridi - who was a newscaster in Austin - could be that naive as to how she could be edited, just imagine how naive someone from, say, a farm in rural Arkansas might be? I think this is why we still seem to have an endless supply of Bachelor/Bachelorette candidates. People just don't know what they hell they're getting themselves into. YMMV though, of course!

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, violetr said:

Yep, I think that describes a lot of Americans! If someone like Olivia Caridi - who was a newscaster in Austin - could be that naive as to how she could be edited, just imagine how naive someone from, say, a farm in rural Arkansas might be? I think this is why we still seem to have an endless supply of Bachelor/Bachelorette candidates. People just don't know what they hell they're getting themselves into. YMMV though, of course!

This is true.  I feel no pity, because that might ruin my enjoyable snark.  Yes, you should do your research, but a lot of people do stupid shit without really thinking it through.  Cell phone contracts, rent to own appliance contracts, auto title loans, getting money out of an atm in a casino.  I'm sure people think they can "game" the system, and I know I might think I'm just charming and cute enough that I would be America's sweetheart.

There is this show called "My Big, Fat, Fabulous Life" on TLC.  And I think the subject of the reality series was probably sold on how this would be a show about empowering her as a big girl, and making her an inspiration and whatever.  Now that we're in Season 3, its just devolved into a show that pretty much makes fun of her, and makes her look like a giant joke at every opportunity.  But at this point, what can she do?  She can quit the show, but who is going to hire her to do what when they run across old footage?  She needs the money, and she is pretty much stuck at this point.  But I don't think when she signed on the dotted line they were like "okay Whitney, we're pretty much going to make you a pathetic laughingstock, so can you sign here, and initial here."  I think they told her she would be a lovable inspiration for curvy girls everywhere and she just signed whatever they put in front of her.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/23/2016 at 0:50 PM, violetr said:

They *think* they know what they're getting into. And I'm sure a lot of them think they can game the system. Some of the savvier contestants even succeed on occasion. But unless you've been behind the scenes, my impression is that you can't really know what you're getting into until you're there. Just my 2 cents based on things I've read from producers and former contestants over the years. 

I met someone who was a competitor on Top Chef a couple of seasons ago. Although she was very familiar with the show, she said there is really no way to prepare for that experience. The unnatural combination of zero privacy, isolation from the outside world, a constantly competitive environment, sleep deprivation, lots of booze. . . those elements change people's behavior.  And then there is the edit on top of all of that.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree you can't know what it's like until you're in it, no matter how much you read up beforehand. I have no problem with that part. But to go in with no idea that the editing, at the very least, won't be shaped a certain way is something I have no sympathy for.

I also think the contestant who think they can game the system are naive in their own way, but at least they're aware that there is an artificially created system to game.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

The way they talk about the ratings and the social media response to episodes, it seems the episodes are being aired right away.   Different than how the Bachelor/ette shows, where they just keep taping everything, and edit to tell the story after the fact. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

With how many other things the producers control, it seems weird to me that they wouldn't have confirmation/decided prior to the elimination ceremony who is staying and who is going. Is the crew really as clueless as the contestants on who will be chosen??

Share this post


Link to post

I'm late to respond, but in one of the episode threads, there was a discussion of contracts and sexual assaults that have happened on Real World and Challenge. I don't still follow either of those shows, but I do know that there was a sexual assault on Real World: San Diego, but it did not involve any of the cast. It involved two people who were both brought to the house by housemates. It did pause (or stop?) filming, but didn't have any long-term affects on the show as far as I know and didn't involve people who had signed any of the season-long contracts. Jamie Chung, who has gone on to have a successful career as an actress, is supposed to be the main housemate who acted humanely and helped the survivor, so I've always had a fondness for her over that. 

Challenge was a different story. Tonya Cooley, who was part of the cast, alleged that two other castmembers assaulted her (she's gone public about the details, but I don't want to be explicit here) while she was passed out and that MTV crew watched and did nothing. Despite the contract she signed, she was able to bring a lawsuit against MTV. It was settled out of court, so either the contract had unenforceable clauses in it or the lawyer's found a way around the clauses.

There have been other suits brought against reality shows, although I don't know if anyone's won. Stacey Stillman famously got a settlement with CBS over behavior in s1 of Survivor. So the contracts in real life are not ironclad, and they probably wouldn't be on Everlasting either.

Share this post


Link to post

^^I just read a little on the case, and it sounds like it settled before a judge could determine whether or not the clauses in her contract would have kept her from going to trial.  I don't even know if it got beyond the answer to the complaint.  I can understand MTV settling, even if the contract was enforceable and would have potentially been resolved in summary judgment.  Especially if the charge was that the crew/cast were more than mere bystanders but were accomplices and somehow offered encouragement.

I think it was a good decision for MTV, because I think the longer it went on, I think it would have gotten uglier.  But it sounds like their case....based on the contract would have been pretty strong. 

Anyone can bring a suit, but whether that suit can live to see a jury trial is another story.  Since the waiver is an affirmative defense, it would have been raised in the answer....and it doesn't sound like the judged actually ruled on any of those issues.  The next step would have probably been, IMO, a motion for summary judgment by the defense.....where a judge would have determined if the waiver clauses were enough to make it so she couldn't pursue her claim.

But.....if the judge were to rule for Cooley......MTV would have been in a position to pay much, much more (I would think).

And then other clauses in the contract would have to be dealt with as well -- including any potential indemnity clauses.  But those would have to be dealt with after any trial.

Share this post


Link to post

What the fuck is wrong with them? http://jezebel.com/5954961/mtv-settles-rape-lawsuit-with-real-world-alum-after-implying-she-asked-for-it

Quote

The main legal issue for Cooley was that she was suing for sexual harassment and wrongful termination, but the extensive waiver she signed with the production company not only says that cast members are not official employees, but that they might have to deal with "non-consensual physical contact, of which MTV is not responsible," which means that they could get raped on camera and MTV wouldn't be at fault.

In Cooley's case, Viacom did not deny the allegations of sexual battery, and instead attributed some of the blame to her for getting "intoxicated" and "flirtatious."

and other gems... 

http://jezebel.com/5826974/real-world-contracts-stipulate-that-you-could-die-and-mtvs-not-to-blame

http://www.vulture.com/2013/11/real-world-seattle-irene-slap-her-story.html Interesting about the editing. 

Damn, Unreal seems almost tame in light of those stories. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Pollock said:

that shit...was legit terrible.

that one human being could do that to another human being is vile.  but you can't expect much from monsters.  however, I do expect more from people sitting around watching monsters and filming them while they stick a tooth brush into an unconscious human being.

Its the height of disgusting.  And I think maybe thats where UNreal picked up some of the inspiration for Brandi -- Cooley apparently was a foster child who went through a painful childhood.  And it sounds like the RW ran with it.

But I suspect that the absolute horror of the whole thing is why MTV settled OOC.

Because judges are human, and this may be the one case where they decide "fuck it, I don't care if I get overturned on appeal -- I'm letting this go to trial so the world can know."  And a ruling on a summary judgment isn't a slam dunk, even if MTV likely has the better case.  I don't think MTV wanted desperately to try to put it behind them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, it's always depressing to me how much reality there actually is in UnREAL. 

I think it also varies a lot depending on the show, which is why I do feel compassion for people who get screwed over by editing or other things in reality. I've had friend of friends on various performance competition shows and while those can be horrible in a lot of ways (horrible contracts, misrepresenting act's histories, forcing people to add/remove elements to performances), they seem to do better about safety, pretending to care about the participants, and just in general treating people okay.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The conditions being described for contestants on these shows are the same conditions (minus the alcohol) are a lot like the techniques cults use to keep members under their control - sleep deprivation, isolation except for other cult members, loss of privacy, etc. It's part of why cult members who leave often have such a hard time readjusting to the outside world. Most of them also don't really know what they were signing up for.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, wendyg said:

The conditions being described for contestants on these shows are the same conditions (minus the alcohol) are a lot like the techniques cults use to keep members under their control - sleep deprivation, isolation except for other cult members, loss of privacy, etc. It's part of why cult members who leave often have such a hard time readjusting to the outside world. Most of them also don't really know what they were signing up for.

I agree with everything except the bold. Haven't most contestants watched enough reality TV to hear previous contestants describe their experiences during the course of the show and after their run is over?

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/4/2016 at 5:27 PM, Chris Burgess said:

"The show has been very much in a cycle where the first runner-up in one cycle becomes the person who leads the next cycle and it’s worked very well for us because the audience feels really engaged in helping to choose that candidate”

As if they had no hand whatsoever in determining who the runner-up would be...

------

ETA: he is, of course, lying.  As pointed out in the Race and Ethnicity forum, Juan Pablo was not the runner-up.

Edited by jhlipton · Reason: NEWS: Studio Exec lying
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/27/2016 at 11:49 AM, topanga said:

I agree with everything except the bold. Haven't most contestants watched enough reality TV to hear previous contestants describe their experiences during the course of the show and after their run is over?

No. The people who are most inclined to think critically about reality shows, their manipulations, their tropes and conventions are not the people who ever apply to be on reality shows. I think people who interact on spaces like TWoP, Previously TV, the TV Club, or read recaps forget that most people don't critically review their entertainment the way we might. We're the outliers. For example of the dozen or so people at my office who watch Game of Thrones, I'm the only one who reads recaps. I'm for sure the only one posts. As I've lived my adult life, I've found that I'm only about 2 or 3 degrees of separation from a bunch of recappers and critics. And because most people don't think about their entertainment with such a critical eye, they're blindsided by the behind the scene shenanigans of reality TV when they become participants.

I've also known quite a few people who were on reality TV (Joe Schmoe, Survivor, Temptation Island) and some game shows (Jeopardy, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader). None of them were remotely aware of what goes on behind the scenes. Most people don't even analyze regular TV to level detail that you would need to understand the tropes. Bethenny Frankel is someone who was very savvy until she hit it big. She understood the conventions of the medium and knew how portray herself in the best light. Her wealth and celebrity have gone to her head, which is why she can't stop acting like an asshole now. Or someone like Johnny Fairplay. He got, which is why he's awful but compelling.

The people who are the savviest about all of the goings on in reality TV, besides people who post here and on similar sites, are the comedians who are making pitch perfect parodies like Burning Love, The Hotwives, Another Period, or Kroll Show.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/27/2016 at 0:49 PM, topanga said:

I agree with everything except the bold. Haven't most contestants watched enough reality TV to hear previous contestants describe their experiences during the course of the show and after their run is over?

I've never tried to be on a reality show & I only know one person (son of a family friend) who did a reality show (Hell's Kitchen, and from what I hear aside from some of the chefs being plain old mean, it was not a negative experience), but my opinion is that for the most part these people think they won't be the ones to get the bad edits, or that they can't be manipulated.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Started watching this series on Hulu after reading some raves.

But already have a problem with episode 2.

Would a lawyer put herself through this?  I don't watch the Bachelor shows but aren't the contestants mostly cheerleader types?

After seeing how manipulative they were, she's going to fall for the guy's charm and go back?  (and his motivations are dubious too, he's going on some cheesy reality show to get financing from bankers?).

So the teen brother reminds her that she went on the show to meet some rich guy because in their hometown, there's no such guy?  Well then why not move to a bigger city and work for another firm which has richer clients?

Share this post


Link to post

Where i ended up was that all of them wanted to meet a guy, but also be on television. Even Anna, the 'smart' girl was seduced as much by the spotlight as Adam. Though I found this to be more subtext than text, so maybe I'm being too cynical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I've never tried to be on a reality show & I only know one person (son of a family friend) who did a reality show (Hell's Kitchen, and from what I hear aside from some of the chefs being plain old mean, it was not a negative experience), but my opinion is that for the most part these people think they won't be the ones to get the bad edits, or that they can't be manipulated.

I mean, there's no way to control your edit but if you're savvy you can avoid being manipulated. I was listening to Tyler and Korey (from The Amazing Race) on Grace Helbig's podcast recently. They're not launching psychological warfare on you like the most extreme parts of UnReal. If you want to see the con, you can see the con. You can see where they're leading you. That's why I was disappointed that we got a Frankenbite in the promos/commercials and that was never a part of the show. 

Quote

Would a lawyer put herself through this?  I don't watch the Bachelor shows but aren't the contestants mostly cheerleader types?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andi_Dorfman

Share this post


Link to post

Ok I got up to the suicide and the aftermath.

No way they fall for that suicide letter, when there is a toxicology report.  Which shows Mary was 'off her meds' but not whatever the producer replaced them with?

The show tries to top itself with how far the characters will compromise themselves.

So they dispatch the suicide problem and after the high ratings, Rachel has another chance to sell a bigger piece of her soul.

OK I get it the reality TV people are horrible but Unreal seems to like piling on the sensationalism.

Even the psychologist wants to exploit sexual harassment to get her own show.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/5/2016 at 3:58 PM, aradia22 said:

I mean, there's no way to control your edit but if you're savvy you can avoid being manipulated. I was listening to Tyler and Korey (from The Amazing Race) on Grace Helbig's podcast recently. They're not launching psychological warfare on you like the most extreme parts of UnReal. If you want to see the con, you can see the con. You can see where they're leading you. That's why I was disappointed that we got a Frankenbite in the promos/commercials and that was never a part of the show. 

Yes, but if you're not dramatic or emotional or don't give great sound bites, chances are, you'll be voted off the show. (The dating shows, anyway). It's a real Catch-22 situation. 

Which is why the only redeeming quality about season 2 is that Ruby won. Even though she got manipulated and humiliated in front the entire world--and her dad. 

Share this post


Link to post

I thought it was interesting that the Bachelor willingly keeps the crazies because it takes the pressure of him to perform. That actually does make a lot of sense. Keep, say Krystal around to create drama so Arie can go back to his room and get a nap in. lol 

Also, hadn't really thought of it as the handlers losing their job once their contestant is kicked off, so yeah, they would do pretty much anything to get them to stay. 

Share this post


Link to post
×