On Fri, 23 May 2008 22:23:33 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article <blank-0DF43F.16314423052008@news.telus.net>,
> kenny blankenship <blank@blank.blank> wrote:
>
>> > It's all about the ratings and the money, nothing else.
>>
>> When has it ever been about anything else? You say that like it's news,
>> like everyone fully aware of it.
>
>Apparently, you aren't--as evidenced by your previous postings. Like
>this one, where you wrote:
>
>> > They will cast hardbodied 18 year olds and become just another MTV
>> > show--because their audience will then be the high-spending 18-25
>> > year olds.
>>
>> So what you're saying, is that because they are allowing themselves the
>> ability to cast people who are 18 or older instead of 21 or older, that
>> they will only cast people who are 18, 19 or 20.
>>
>> Reality is just a concept to you, isn't it?
>
>Of course, they will cast whatever is the most profitable--and if they
>determine that only 18, 19, 20 year olds are the most profitable, that's
>what they'll cast.
That makes you wonder... What if they discovered (through market
research or whatever) that they could make the most money by casting
12 year olds? How likely would they be to change the show to fit that
age group?
>You wanted to deny this, because you thought that by doing so you could
>somehow make me look bad. I called you on it, so now you're
>backpedaling and saying that of COURSE, it's all about the money, how
>could it be otherwise?
>
>Which is it, Kenny? Is it all about the money, or will they not ever
>cast only 18-20 year olds even if they determine that will make them the
>most money?
I wonder if they are finding that many people that are in the 18-20
age group applying for Survivor or if they just have someone in
particular in mind? We know they can bend the rules when ever they
want, but somehow I'm not sure we are likely to see a cast of mostly
18-20 year olds.
