To each his own.

I personally love Bullrun and Hell's Kitchen, but most other reality shows aren't watchable. I stick to BBCA most of the day (the f-Word and How Clean Is Your House are phenomenally good). Of the network channels, I only watch 24, House, and Fringe.

There are some winners out there, but they're usually of lower neilsen value than the top few. I, too, don't understand the draw to shows like Flavor of Love and Brett Michael's show.

I'm amazed at some of the crap that's made it to TV. For instance, that "Celebrity Rehab" show, which features a bunch of self-absorbed D-list has-beens and never-was-beens whining on about their addictions. Who gives a flying f*ck? After watching a few minutes of this drek, I was wanting California to slide into the Pacific, and I definitely have less sympathy for those suffering from 'addiction' - please, take a dirt nap already.

Then there's another show which chronicles the life of that chick from 90210 and her husband - WTF? a) her 15 minutes ended in what, 1995? b) WGAFF what color she paints the bedroom or what color carpet she wants for the living room?

Most networks are too cheap to purchase shows done by independent efforts. Prior examples were shows like Lucy, Seinfeld, Mash, Cheers. Now all they want are shows produced in house by the networks. I think it practically all ended with Seinfeld.

Lots of good responses. Sounds like I'm not the only one frustrated here. I understand that we may be dealing with a bit of the Walmart factor here in terms of who is the audience these programs are made to cater to. But, if I'm honest, I'm not that smart. And, my television watching palet just isn't that refined. How can so much of what's out there be so unappealing? The other day I was flipping channels and there was a show called "True Beauty." They were pouring jelly on these people for a semi-nude photo shoot and the dude is talking for a few minutes about how he has discovered this awesome breathing technique that just makes his abs "pop." He was so proud with his discovery, you'd have thought he cured cancer.

Doesn't it cost just as much to make that crap as it would to make a relatively decent show. Are we just dealing with the GM factor here? That despite having resources and knowing what appeals to the public, they can't help but turn out Pontiac Aztec after AMC Pacer, after Chevy Cavalier, after Cadillac Cimmaron? Where's the pride?

I cancelled my cable TV months ago. I just don't watch it, and anything i do want to watch is on Hulu or regular TV anyway.

Interesting thought.

I think the best way to explain it is, and this applies to film as well as tv.
You make a product that caters to an audience. You don't make a good product and hope the audience finds it.

The A&E Show "parking wars" is a reality TV show that deals with philly parking authority craziness. None of those guys get paid a single dime for being on the show, the contract is with PPA, and is fixed cost.

Flipping through the channels, I find myself praying that the current programming is not a true reflection of the viewers. Otherwise, we're all screwed.

That's my point . . . In a reality show, you don't have to pay WRITERS or ACTORS. Sure, some of the scenarios are manufactured and massaged a little bit, but that's not 'writing.'

In addition, the typical reality shmoe that wants to get on TV so bad, they'll sign anything you put in front of them, and will sign away the rights to any kind of residual payment in the blink of an eye. That's what the creators of the show are counting on.

I think it's less a reflection of the viewers than it is a reflection of what the programmers think of the viewers. It's kind of obvious they go to the lowest level of appeal. Thoughtful shows take effort, it's easier to just put girls into skimpy outfits.

If they didn't have girls with cleavage I don't think anybody at all would watch. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The reality of "reality shows" is like Gogar said, cheap, easy, no SAG residuals, low production costs.

Watch a one hour drama on a major network and count the number of producer credits, sometimes 11-13 producers on one show. At one time an episode cost of "ER" was around $13 million, multiply that into a 22 episode season and your spending some big $$.

Also, the advertising dollars are no longer there so Dancing w/ the Stars, Biggest Loser, Wife Swap and other shows are a bargain.

C'mon, you know you can't wait for the next episode of "Keeping Up With The Kardashians"

Didn't you realize that during and after the past presidential election?:eek:

You're hard to please ;-)

I'd add LIFE (very good cop show with a twist)
Top Gear on BBC america
Battlestar Galactica (the new show, not the old 80s one, but it's almost over)
Burn Notice, also pretty funny
and for fun, "2 1/2 men" for the one-liners their writers seem to get away with...

What gets me is that other than F1 and the occasional discovery HD show, I could be pretty happy with rabbit ears...

Talking about the lack of WRC, I just got my 2008 season review from Duke video, yeah !!!

So why do we have to sit through commercials on cable channels when we pay $85 a month? That is all.

Gogar,

That's a good point and your right. But, I guess what I mean is if networks are set on doing reality TV, can't they come up with something better? They have to pay something to Hef and the Playboy folks, or Nicole Smith, and there are production costs for the various reality shows. Can't they do better?

My g/f was watching "Life in the Fab Lane" - that Kimora [sp] chick has to be the biggest removed - ns this side of the Atlantic.

Television sucks. And is a waste of time.

I have a friend of a friend who is a camera operator for some studios. I hear he's always filming reality TV type shows. Stuff like the bachelor, or game shows. Says more than half of them don't make it on the air. I wonder what the canned shows are like since the ones that are on make me cringe.

Weren't a lot of you guys complaining during the writer's strike, saying it was "easy"?

Well, it ain't easy. The "good" shows that are mentioned here have one thing in common - great writing. Reality requires very little of that end of things and production costs can be dirt cheap. The traditional half hour sitcom or one hour drama are comparatively expensive. And good, creative writers are hard to come by.

I agree the average show on TV (network plus cable) is pretty bad.

But there are a lot of shows and I have limited time for/interest in TV, so it works out that there is enough good programming to fill my roughly 3 hours/week of TV watching (4 hours/week during F1 and MotoGP season).

The trick is to use a DVR to record what you want to see, then watch it at your leisure, skipping the commercials of course.

I record some science/nature/history shows (Nat'l Geo, Science, History), some travel shows (Travel), some cooking shows (Food), F1 and MotoGP (Speed), and a couple old series in re-run (currently Quantum Leap, before that my daugher and I watched all the original Star Trek, etc). Wish I had Military channel but too cheap to pay for that package. The occasional movie. That is enough for me.

If TV was better, I might watch more. I'd like more foreign channels (Comcast doesn't offer much, here in Portland) and I wish more old series were available (stuff like Rockford Files, Wild Wild West, Twilight Zone, etc). Well, someday we'll have a real video on demand infrastructure, and you'll be able to watch anything you want, whenever you want. F-Troop would be good for that 3AM insomnia.