Reality shows can be a somewhat tricky classification. What we normally think of when we think about reality television is essentially a season-long game show that shows more than just the games being played. I’m not entirely sure where we draw the line between reality television and gameshows.
Let me start with an example. Does Crime Scene Kitchen, which maintains several components of reality such as the season-long competition, qualify as reality? What about other cooking shows that have different contestants and winners for each episode?
For this post, I am going to focus on one component of reality television that has been bothering me for years. An argument can be made that some shows using this element could be classified as gameshows instead. If you read the title of this post, you already know the topic.
There are a lot of clearly fake elements of reality television. Among these are obviously after-the-fact interviews that try to show what an individual thinks at that particular moment. In cooking shows, does anyone honestly believe that contestants are going to leave for an interview while they are burning their food? They already know how these things worked out before they are portraying what was going through their minds.
I believe these interviews really do happen. What bothers me about them is how they are portrayed. They are clearly edited to fit certain moments in time. Anything too revealing will be edited out. In many cases, I'm sure words are being taken way out of context.
A common practice with these interviews is to manufacture twists that don't really exist. If someone is about to be eliminated, they might show why people think they are safe. If someone is about to win, that person might show concern. This isn't because optimists seriously struggle compared to pessimists. It's because these segments have been edited to try to deceive. I think it's a safe assumption that the full interviews include both positives and negatives. The people giving these interviews are likely asking questions to ensure they have both.
In many cases, these attempts to use interviews to create fake twists are actually revealing outcomes prematurely. If a show is heavily pushing why someone thinks they are safe, odds are that contestant will be eliminated. There is at least some good news here. Some shows balance things a little better. If everyone is confident or everyone is worried, there isn't enough to go by.
I decided to give Destination X a chance. The hope was that it would be a travel show with reality-like game elements to provide an interesting way to further our understanding of Europe. It turned out to be a run-of-the-mill pseudo-reality gameshow with a travel theme tying the show together. In one episode, the big clue was pictures of Jennifer Anniston and Eva Longoria. Jenn plus Eva equals Geneiva. That doesn't really have anything to do with Geneiva. In another episode, they outright told one of the contestants where they were. I ultimately forced myself to finish the season, but I doubt I will watch a second.
The reason I'm bringing up this mediocre television show is because that show pushed me to the point where I felt obligated to finally vent about these interviews. In one episode, one contestant was allowed to choose someone to send home. Before revealing his selection, they showed a contestant saying goodbyes. This was followed by an interview about these goodbyes. If he would have been eliminated, there is no way they would have shown that segment of the interview prior to revealing who had been eliminated.
It was clear that the show's producers wanted to create a plot twist. In the process, they made it very obvious that the contestant in question was safe. This was considered the personal choice. If he wasn't going for the personal choice, he was going for the strategic choice. There was a clear frontrunner, and the person he chose was in no way allied with her. The edited interview prematurely gave away who was eliminated.
More recently, I bumped into another annoyance. I don't normally pay attention to what people wear, but I noticed that someone was wearing a different outfit during the interview than what he was wearing during the competition. In the following episode, he was wearing the same outfit during the interview. I have a hard time believing that they ask contestants to change their outfits back and forth between competition and interviews.
They were likely doing a single interview after the entire season was finished. I already struggled with the idea that they pretended that they didn't know how to handle situations even though they had clearly been resolved prior to the interview. In some shows, it appears that this is happening after the entire season has been resolved.
In case you couldn't tell. I don't like these interviews. There are some shows with these interviews such as LEGO Masters that I enjoy. I don't enjoy them because of what the interviews add. I enjoy them despite what the interviews take away.
No comments:
Post a Comment