(Your analysis is correct but i am special interestdly compelled to protest weakly that Survivor is cool and would still exist under socialism. Ok proceed)
(I have never seen an episode of Survivor (and similar shows), but I would imagine game-shows/challenge shows would probably still exist under socialism. People can and should have fun, and would imagine that sort of television would be still be made for people who want to partake. Though I imagine it would be better cause the people who know how to make good TV would ideally be more involved with the process rather than the suits)
It just seems like ideal show format from a Producer's standpoint. You don't have to pay for anything. You get the subjects to sign some weavers and everything else is just getting cameras, microphones, and locations setup. All of which they don't have to pay for, and can profit off of. They take zero risk get all the reward, like true slimeball capitalists do. Then they pat themselves on the back for their "revolution" in television.
There is really no "creative" vision for a reality show, they is no authorship or intent, it's really an exercise in "framing" which capitalists are sadly rather good at. They simply control what the eye of the camera looks at (because they own it) and they let the subjects do whatever its is the camera wants them to do. Reality shows are the "content" of television.
There is really no "creative" vision for a reality show
Not as much as with scripted television of course but I will make the small objection that there is some degree of art to rtv.
Editing the raw footage down to followable storylines is a big part of the creation of a Survivor, Big Brother, TAR, The Challenge, The Mole, The Traitors ect episode. And i think theres an art to that.
Casting too, and game and challenge design, has an art to that. And the best rtv shows have featured some really fascinating moments of human psychology and drama. Its sort of like pro wrestling to me where its lowest points are terrible, it tends to have a low base average, but its highest points can transcend the medium. Pro graps is more easily defensible as an art though.
Youre otherwise correct though. Rtv exists and is sucessful largely because it is cheap to make. And theres really not much redeemable about Discovery stuff.
And im not going to pretend Im above stuff that is just outright trash TV and wont defend it as high art. I loved the Flavor of Love era of VH1 lol.
In the race to produce the cheapest possible bilge, I suspect a lot of the professionalism that makes rtv shows good is getting thrown out the window right along with the higher production value art. Sort of like how every iteration of "Walking Dead" (plus the eighty hours of "Talking Dead" and associated behind-the-camera filler) got incrementally worse as they just tried to reanimate the corpse of a popular original.
It all just become a copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy assembly line crap, because the producers thought they could squeeze a bit more blood out of the stone.
This is largely true yes. The spark of originality that made the original Survivor so special is mostly dead. They dont even change locations anymore. Its just Fiji every single year because thats cheaper. I still enjoy the show, but yeah its much more of a product now.
it wouldnt be survivor, it'd be an experimental archaeology/ecology show where they build a sustainable "primitive" village and we get to cheer for the ripening tomatos, and watch ducks eat slugs.
you can give it a polynesian theme. pretend the group just arrived on a new island.
(Your analysis is correct but i am special interestdly compelled to protest weakly that Survivor is cool and would still exist under socialism. Ok proceed)
(I have never seen an episode of Survivor (and similar shows), but I would imagine game-shows/challenge shows would probably still exist under socialism. People can and should have fun, and would imagine that sort of television would be still be made for people who want to partake. Though I imagine it would be better cause the people who know how to make good TV would ideally be more involved with the process rather than the suits)
It just seems like ideal show format from a Producer's standpoint. You don't have to pay for anything. You get the subjects to sign some weavers and everything else is just getting cameras, microphones, and locations setup. All of which they don't have to pay for, and can profit off of. They take zero risk get all the reward, like true slimeball capitalists do. Then they pat themselves on the back for their "revolution" in television.
There is really no "creative" vision for a reality show, they is no authorship or intent, it's really an exercise in "framing" which capitalists are sadly rather good at. They simply control what the eye of the camera looks at (because they own it) and they let the subjects do whatever its is the camera wants them to do. Reality shows are the "content" of television.
Not as much as with scripted television of course but I will make the small objection that there is some degree of art to rtv.
Editing the raw footage down to followable storylines is a big part of the creation of a Survivor, Big Brother, TAR, The Challenge, The Mole, The Traitors ect episode. And i think theres an art to that.
Casting too, and game and challenge design, has an art to that. And the best rtv shows have featured some really fascinating moments of human psychology and drama. Its sort of like pro wrestling to me where its lowest points are terrible, it tends to have a low base average, but its highest points can transcend the medium. Pro graps is more easily defensible as an art though.
Youre otherwise correct though. Rtv exists and is sucessful largely because it is cheap to make. And theres really not much redeemable about Discovery stuff.
And im not going to pretend Im above stuff that is just outright trash TV and wont defend it as high art. I loved the Flavor of Love era of VH1 lol.
In the race to produce the cheapest possible bilge, I suspect a lot of the professionalism that makes rtv shows good is getting thrown out the window right along with the higher production value art. Sort of like how every iteration of "Walking Dead" (plus the eighty hours of "Talking Dead" and associated behind-the-camera filler) got incrementally worse as they just tried to reanimate the corpse of a popular original.
It all just become a copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy assembly line crap, because the producers thought they could squeeze a bit more blood out of the stone.
This is largely true yes. The spark of originality that made the original Survivor so special is mostly dead. They dont even change locations anymore. Its just Fiji every single year because thats cheaper. I still enjoy the show, but yeah its much more of a product now.
No we are gulaging Survivor
Forced labor for a reality show sounds like forcing it to make more seasons so Im on board! Lol
it wouldnt be survivor, it'd be an experimental archaeology/ecology show where they build a sustainable "primitive" village and we get to cheer for the ripening tomatos, and watch ducks eat slugs.
you can give it a polynesian theme. pretend the group just arrived on a new island.
The social strategy game of Survivor would exist, even if not with that brand. Ill make sure of it.