In article
<cb35042a-61c9-46f5-a3ce-d4f5404cace7@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
number6 <snumber6@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 6:25 pm, kenny blankenship <bl...@blank.blank> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <4a31d3ba-e712-40eb-aff5-6800d9ce34fa@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > number6 <snumber6@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 20, 10:56pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Edited to reflect reality ...
> > >
> > > > Approximately 48 semifinalists will then be invited to Los
> > > > Angeles in September for final interviews with Survivor
> > > > producers before roughly 16 finalists most or all selected by
> > > > casting agents to fit the exact criteria we demanded as
> > > > castaways to compete on the show's eighteenth installment.
> >
> > You say that like it's somehow immoral, or wrong. Are you
> > suggesting that the show should cast people by lottery? Seriously,
> > what's wrong with them casting exactly the types of people they
> > want to cast?
>
> It loses its reality theme a lot ...
It loses it's "reality theme"? What the heck does that mean?
> No not by lottery ... but interview people with no preconceived
> notions of who should be a contestant ... Pick the most interesting
> ... pick from the large number of people you find ...
I don't understand how this would change anything. Whether they pick the
contestants to fill "slots" or not, the important thing is that they
pick interesting people.
> They did quite well early on when this was their procedure ...
Do you have any evidence that they didn't have preconceived notions of
who should be a contestant for the first season(s)? The whole point of
casting a show like this is to get a diverse group of people who will
make the show interesting. They chose people for the first season very
carefully.
> and each was a real person ...
So the people last season (Micronesia) were androids?
> Viewers could say ... hey he's like Uncle John ... or she's like your
> ditzy sister ... and begin to root for someone that they can identify
> with ...
So they are only "real" people if they remind you of someone in your
family? Amanda may not remind you of anyone in your family, but she
would remind many people of others in their family, or of people they
know from school or work.
> Now ... at the very least ... the contestants are scripted ...
I don't understand what you mean by "scripted".
> They didn't script a Richard Hatch ...
Are you saying they scripted an Erik?
> they now say let's find a middle aged gay guy ... and maybe they find
> a Richard Hatch ...
Do you have any evidence of this? I have no doubt that they have slots
to fill, e.g they want a couple of gay people on each season. They want
a wide cross section of people so they only allow so many bible
thumpers, so many hicks, so athletes, etc. But that's very different
from saying they are looking for clones of particular past players.
> If they said ... let's find a blond gay guy instead ... a Chet is
> scripted in ... and even if a Richard Hatch applied ... he'd be
> rejected as not fitting their preconceived notion ...
There are only 16-20 slots to fill. Many, many potential "Richard
Hatches" get rejected every season for any number of reasons.
> There are two cooking reality shows I watch ... Hell's Kitchen and
> Top Chef ...
I don't watch either show.
> They may as well script the entire Survivor show ... By choosing
> preconceived types ... they are already influencing how the show will
> go to a large extent ...
They have cast for "preconceived types" since the very beginning. Every
reality show in existence does the same thing.
> doesn't make it worse ... or immoral ... just less of a reality show
> and more of a series ...
Perhaps you should show Burnett how much you dislike his casting by not
watching the show.
