NCallahan asked about my ideal design for a reality show. The problem with this sort of question is that most of the ground has already been staked out.
Consider reality television, as a genre, along two axes. The first axis is amount of specific talent required. On the one hand, you have a show like MythBusters, wherein Adam and Jamie bring a wealth of scientific and engineering skill, or Ice Road Truckers, where a very dangerous job is done by experienced drivers. On the other hand, you have a show like Survivor, where specific knowledge is entirely secondary in terms of the show’s gameplay and presentation to less tangible people skills, or The Hills, where everybody is a retard and the only thing that matters is the clash of personality. Call it the difference between traditional IQ and emotional/social intelligence.
The second axis is degree of competition. Reality shows are either competitive or not, sure, but there are degrees of competitiveness. A show where the public votes on the winner is inherently less competitive than one where the winner is decided by a single person, like Donald Trump in The Apprentice; there’s simply more chance that the public will judge incorrectly or in a biased manner. A panel of judges, in turn, produces a show more competitive than one judged by a single arbiter. And of course, the most competitive show is one where the contestants are eliminated only by other contestants. And of course there are shows where competition is either entirely moot, or where the “competition” is strictly A) for funsies or B) something about self-improvement.
So, visually, you get this:
Increasingly one sees that reality TV trends towards the corners. The social/noncompetitive corner is dominated by MTV-style docusoaps like The Hills and other such totally worthless and horrible shows. The talent/noncompetitive corner is the realm of docudramas like Deadliest Catch. Social/competitive is exemplified by The Bachelor, where the goal is entirely competitive and the means to get it entirely social. (Survivor, while primarily a social competition, has nonsocial elements in its competitive axis.) Finally, talent/competitive is exemplified by Wipeout, which while not exactly high-class is definitely A) entirely about physical talent and B) competitive in the purest sense, as victory is determined solely by one’s time on the fancy obstacle course.
What this means is that any new successful reality show has to find its own microterritory within the corners. And clearly, the most room exists in the competitive/social quadrant. Isn’t science helpful?
Related Articles
35 users responded in this post
I think i have to disagree with you on some regards – Big Brother being more talent based than Survivor, for one, and Fear Factor topping the talent charts for another. Big Brother v Survivor (or Superhero) is debatable. But Fear Factor? The only talent you have to have in that show is “eat gross things” Is that really a talent? And if so, moreso than Idol or SYTYCD, let alone other shows?
Is it wrong that I want a reality tv show in which producers compete to produce the best reality tv show?
Because if so, I don’t want to be right.
The only “reality” show I would ever watch is if they hunted down and killed everyone involved in making every single one (producers, directors, “stars,” anyone who ever voted online) of these pieces of shit and blew them away on camera. That might make me happy.
wow, cap’n carrot, that’s a mighty big statement for a monday morning. are you sure you don’t want to amend your statement to remove mythbusters from your sweeping condemnation?
I think you missed quite a few in the lower right corner. MTV, VH1, and those channels are chock full of “dating” shows involving a group of socially maladjusted individuals competing for “true love” with a celebrity.
And you better remove American Chopper from that hunting plan, Carrot. Because I’m pretty sure Paul Sr. is the last guy you want to mess with.
Say… Am I the only one who watches Wipeout just to see people fall in painful ways on those giant balloons?
This season, watch for Jon and Kate to start sliding slowly to the right.
Also, no The Ultimate Fighter? Weak!
I think finding new territory is less important for a show’s success than a new theme or gimick. It seems that once something works in TV it works over and over. That’s how there are so many different Survivors and talent shows and so on.
So I’d propose that the key is finding a new gimick, theme, or hook that draws attention. Do you have any thoughts or wacky ideas that you could share with us along those lines? I’ll start things off; “America’s next top muppet”, “Can your parents pass a driving test?”, and “The social engineering challenge”
I dunno, Wipeout seems like it would have a major luck component in addition to any physical skill. Certainly MXC did, at any rate.
Incidentally, was the revived American Gladiators already cancelled?
coren:
Fear Factor is talent biased because progression in the game is strictly performance based. No judges to convince, no house and/or teammates to charm or scheme with. The word “talent” is a little misleading here.
MGK’s chart makes more sense if you replace the word ‘talent’ with ‘ability’. Then its entirely sensible.
Reality shows are kinda like mass-produced cult movies. Except that its all exploitation of mainstream culture instead of subculture. Unfortunately about 98% of the products are sterilized rip-offs of one another so that prohibits any real potential from independent thought.
And “Dance your Ass Off” is quite possibly the most offensively exploitative rip-off I have ever seen.
Dude, you really watch too much tv.
That said, where would you put Ultimate Fighter, Survivorman and Man vs Nature?
I sort of feel the more talent side has more potential for shows, since there are a wide varieties of talents, and relatively fewer ways to be social. I mean, I think a competitive sewing show might work, even if it’s not really different than Top Chef other than the use of sewing. (Replace sewing with any appropriate activity that a lot of people do but few do at a high level although they would want to do so at a high level.) See also any professional sports league.
Although maybe there’s room in the personality/competitive corner for something like “The biggest jerk”, where nice guys finish last is the point.
thok – project runway is basically a competitive sewing show.
How long did it take you to make that graph?
P.S.: Hurrah for science!
God, I miss Junkyard Wars. I mean, the good old days with Cathy Roberts. When are they gonna release that shit on DVD?
Cathy Roberts could comment on my junk anyday.
1.) I get paid to do it.
2.) You know, there’s a difference between watching a show and generally being aware of how the show works/what it is about. You could not pay me enough money to sit through an episode of Jon and Kate. Not another one, anyway; one was enough.
Ultimate Fighter I’ve never actually seen, but if it’s just a reality show where UFC types fight each other for a prize of some kind – and checking Wikipedia it looks like that’s exactly what it is – then it’s somewhere in the top right corner. A bit more checking shows that contestants could be eliminated either by a judge’s decision or by losing a fight, so it’s not right up against the side like The Contender (where the boxers played in challenges, but were only eliminated by losing a match) is. I’d put it maybe a bit to the left of The Contender, then.
Survivorman and Man vs. Wild are both very ability-based shows – so the top of the graph – with a bit of a self-competitive aspect to them. I’d slot them in the top left corner, but closer to the center.
thok – project runway is basically a competitive sewing show.
No, it’s a competitive fashion design show. I want an Iron Chef style show where people sew madly for an hour based while given a fixed set of materials and a theme.
It’s funny hearing the rage about ‘reality’ TV. I mean strictly speaking all game shows and all sports fall into this as well, we could even make a case for the nightly news.
So…
Sunday Night Footbat (et al) – Upper right
Game shows – up and down the right edge depending on how much luck is involved
The news – Upper left?
What about Dirty Jobs? I guess it counts as reality TV, he’s generally got no skill in the jobs of the episode, it’s usually social…
I’m using this as a justification of the fact I’m really into the new season of Big Brother US.
I think that there are shows, and BB is one of them, where being too smart is a hindrance. Because the really smart get bored. And with boredom comes trouble.
After some thought I will amend my statement to not include “how to” shows such as Mythbusters, or that Bob Villa show whose name I can never remember, especially since the neither the shows nor the audiences that watch them consider them the same as something like Survivor, Real World Cracktown, Who’s the Worst Singer?, Whore Yourself Out For 5 Minutes of Fame, Who’s the Most Mediocre Comedian, Sacrifice Your Remaining Self-Respect for Crappy Prizes Like This Blender, or Eat This Bug for Money!
I’m wondering how Mythbusters can possibly be considered a reality show. It’s not about the lives of the mythbusters themselves, but about the cool shit they create/build/blow up. A behind-the-scenes thing about their lives outside of the show and the effect the show has on their lives would be a reality show; but not Mythbusters itself.
But that’s just my opinion….unless I’m right…then it’s a fact.
You know, if you take Wipeout off the board completely and put in Ninja Warrior, you’d have an improved table. Ever see that? It’s on G4 here in the US; twice a year, some of the best athletes come to Japan to compete on a glorified obstacle course. Yes, it’s funny at times, but it’s not “Duh haw, lookit dem idjits hittin’ the water!” funny.
Wow, Pirate Master but no Canada’s Worst Driver/Handyman?
Odd choice.
A show called Eat This Bug For Money would be great if the cash prizes were just ludicrously low. Like if they got $1.45 for eating a beetle…
Wow, just seeing that list of of all those “reality” shows. Makes me re think my TV watching. UGH.
The newest reality show spin-off? http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/06/speidi_jones/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room
The thing is that reality TV shows haven’t reached their nadir until someone creates and airs an Indecent Proposal show in which every episode involves a rich millionaire offering some poor schlub off the street a million dollars to have sex with his wife.
The “entertainment” is based around the week long period they have to decide on their answer and/or convince their wife to go through with it.
Though the interesting variation on that which will eventually occur will involve a rich millionaire picking some poor straight schlub of the same sex off the street and offering to pay them a million dollars to have sex with them.
Fred, I sincerely doubt that an Indecent Proposal show would really drive people away from this kind of drek. I dont know if anything would.
Allowed to be an anonymous spectator at any number of Caligula-esque events, I doubt anyone would look away from this social train wreck long enough for it to no longer matter. Especially since the wreck keeps getting bigger and louder every single year.
That said, I miss Mystery in Small Town X.
“And clearly, the most room exists in the competitive/social quadrant. Isn’t science helpful?”
Competitive/personality quadrant, surely?
And here I thought I was the only one who watched Murder in Small Town X. I think that one bought the farm when their first winner, a New York fire fighter, died in 9/11. Memento Mori.
I’m a little confused by what you meant by “competitive-social quadrant” when competitive-social is an axis… thereby not delineating any quadrant. Did you mean competitive-personality based?
Oops, sorry Andrew… I didn’t notice last night that you had already pointed out the axis/quadrant confusion.