What's something modern you won't miss when it becomes obsolete?

[LizzieMaine]

All you've got to do is watch the commercials. You'll see who the audience is -- and who the producers are aiming at.

 

[vintage68]

Ok guys, enough. Politics are banned, and with good reason. Let's discuss something else...please. Ungh.

 

[hatguy1]

Thank you, Vintage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HudsonHawk]

ETA: Reality TV stars don't just come from one geographic area, as you suggest. Nor do I think portraying people as ignorant in reality TV is limited to people from one geographic area. Jersey Shore is a perfect example. So are the Housewives. And yes, I believe those people are being exploited too- no matter how rich they are, no matter how smart they are.

We've been specifically referring to the rural Southern folks, but I agree it can apply to anyone. But how are they being exploited. I'm not saying they are or they aren't, but if after weighing the pros/cons, they make a reasoned, rational, clear-headed business decision to appear on these shows, and do so willingly, how is that exploitation?

 

[jamespowers]

I mean "hillbillies" as a generic term for the characters depicted in these reality shows. That's the image they try to project, whether they are "hillbillies" in the academic sense or not.

The thing is, you can get invested in some of the people in Swamp People. Hey, if he invited me to the Landry place then I would be there as fast as I could---even if I had to eat alligator. I would even go hunting with him and go ahead and film me too.
I think the producers of Swamp People miscalculated what they were trying to do with that show. It got away from them and went over well with middle America. Now it I dragging them along instead of the other way around Troy and the gang aren't being exploited anymore, they are exploiting the production company for money under the threat of losing an audience whose size they had no idea about. The idiots from New York and LA got sucked in and now they have to stay. :rofl: I know how they thought of the people involved but they didn't realize they would be drawn in. I love the behind the scenes show where the producers have really got into something they thought of as repugnant originally. lol lol

 

[jamespowers]

I agree.

I knew you would.

 

[Gregg Axley]

I'm sure all of those hillbilly reality people are good folk. And not nearly as dumb as some are suggesting.

They are good people, and they aren't dumb.
And a little research would shock you as to their net worth.
It's all scripted.

 

[jamespowers]

They are good people, and they aren't dumb.
And a little research would shock you as to their net worth.
It's all scripted.

Yep, now they are worth a small fortune! Good for them. They got the last laugh. I am sure they cry all the way to the bank.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I knew you would.

I lived in Louisiana for a couple years (Army) and traveled across much of the state and met many 'swamp people' in '70-'72. Attended shrimp festivals and family get togethers with Cajun soldier buddies I was stationed with. Many fine people very much like the Landrys. Not dumb. In fact..much the opposite...however quite Cajun like featured in the show. Many good hospitable people with cleverness and a certain wisdom that seem to come with the territory.
HD

 

[F. J.]

Gator's good eatin'!

[...] I would be there as fast as I could---even if I had to eat alligator.
[...]

Now what's wrong with alligator? It tastes like chicken: really, really good chicken.

 

[jamespowers]

I lived in Louisiana for a couple years (Army) and traveled across much of the state and met many 'swamp people' in '70-'72. Attended shrimp festivals and family get togethers with Cajun soldier buddies I was stationed with. Many fine people very much like the Landrys. Not dumb. In fact..much the opposite...however quite Cajun like featured in the show. Many good hospitable people with cleverness and a certain wisdom that seem to come with the territory.
HD

I figured they would be. I have known a few myself.

 

[jamespowers]

Now what's wrong with alligator? It tastes like chicken: really, really good chicken.

Oh, I have eaten tail before but it tasted more like fish to me.

 

[Gregg Axley]

Now what's wrong with alligator? It tastes like chicken: really, really good chicken.

I tried it too, tasted like chicken to me as well.
I tried it at a wild game supper.
Kangaroo was really good, but bear was greasy.
Then again, if you add enough hot sauce, most anything tastes better.
BTW welcome F.J.

 

[sheeplady]

We've been specifically referring to the rural Southern folks, but I agree it can apply to anyone. But how are they being exploited. I'm not saying they are or they aren't, but if after weighing the pros/cons, they make a reasoned, rational, clear-headed business decision to appear on these shows, and do so willingly, how is that exploitation?

I think they're being exploited in the way that "hollywood" has been exploiting people since the beginning of time, but now it is even slightly worse.

Reality shows are cheap to produce while drawing in the same amount of profit as non-reality shows (sometimes more). The fundamental nature of television has changed so that reality TV is not a rarity, but is a common way to do business.

But are these individuals compensated at a higher level for their participation given the higher profits and lower costs? No. According to the research I've done, they are often compensated much less than actors in sitcoms. Much less.

Now, one could say, but they aren't really actors- they wouldn't be anyplace without the show! True, but where would these shows be without these stars? Could you have Honey-Boo-Boo without the family at the center of it? Or the Duck Dynasty without their family? No, these shows are based entirely around these characters. While on a sitcom you can swap almost any actor in and out (almost with come creative writing) you can't just write out a member of a family on a reality show. They are the show. But yet are they paid like key actors on a sitcom- the ones you can't switch out? No. In addition, because they aren't really "actors" but playing themselves, their chances for a later career in television or movies is small- essentially they are used for profiteering and then that is that.

So, yes, I think they are getting exploited. People can say that they're making money hand over fist- but they aren't making money like the people who produce these shows are. This kind of exploitation isn't anything new- Hollywood isn't exactly the fairest place on earth.

As far as exploitation, it is not the worst case out there. But it certainly doesn't sit right with me.

 

[LizzieMaine]

So, yes, I think they are getting exploited. People can say that they're making money hand over fist- but they aren't making money like the people who produce these shows are. This kind of exploitation isn't anything new- Hollywood isn't exactly the fairest place on earth.

People forget that reality television as we know it today started as a way of scabbing a Writers' Guild strike -- and to this day most such programs are a way of avoiding the provisions of union contracts.

 

[vintage68]

People forget that reality television as we know it today started as a way of scabbing a Writers' Guild strike -- and to this day most such programs are a way of avoiding the provisions of union contracts.

Jeez, that's a depressing thought. As if it's not hard enough to make a living as an artist in LA.

 

[HudsonHawk]

So, yes, I think they are getting exploited. People can say that they're making money hand over fist- but they aren't making money like the people who produce these shows are. This kind of exploitation isn't anything new- Hollywood isn't exactly the fairest place on earth.

So even though employees are free to negotiate whatever compensation the market will allow, if the owner of the company makes more than the employee, he's exploiting the workers?

 

[vitanola]

So even though employees are free to negotiate whatever compensation the market will allow, if the owner of the company makes more than the employee, he's exploiting the workers?

Oh, no. Of course not. Why the employee and employer are equally empowered in negotiation, so naturally the employee can, entirely on his own, arrange satisfactory conditions of employment...

Well, he can in some Shangri-La, perhaps. Are you not familiar with the writings of Adam Smith, that perceived apostle of free markets? here is what he had to say about the relative levels of negotiating power between operatives and their masters:

"It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate."

 

[hatguy1]

Doesn't sound like some want to adhere to the reminder that politics are banned for good reason.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HudsonHawk]

Are you not familiar with the writings of Adam Smith, that perceived apostle of free markets? here is what he had to say about the relative levels of negotiating power between operatives and their masters:

I'm quite familiar with Adam Smith, but that's not the point. I'm trying to reconcile these two statements from Sheeplady, not Adam Smith:

"Exploitation is about power and the powerless. It has so little to do with anything BUT power." and


"So, yes, I think they are getting exploited. People can say that they're making money hand over fist- but they aren't making money like the people who produce these shows are."

The first statement says it's not about compensation, the second implies that it's *only* about compensation, as if they were making the same money as other sitcom actors, they'd ceased to be exploited.