William Shatner to Star in New Reality TV Series

Gildor writes "The small town of Riverside, Iowa has long billed itself as the birthplace of James T. Kirk. So they were thrilled when William Shatner came there to film a Star Trek prequel about the early life of Kirk. Except there was no movie. After about 9 days, Shatner announced they were actually filming a reality TV mini-series."

Comments

Too much reality tv

[benna]

When are people going to stop allowing the networks to shove this filth down their throats?

reality?

[lawngnome]

Um, Id perfer to get my scifi without any reality at all. Perhaps a show about space cops saving kittens or something like that. We need more programming that allows celebs to go freakin crazy...

So?

[NotQuiteReal]

Based on the Shatner name this is News for Nerds? It certainly can't be Stuff that matters!

shitener

[s4m7]

I've never seen any celebrity with so much contempt for the fanbase that made him famous as Shatner. It's pretty friggin funny though.

I wonder where the guy is who's sitting around thinking "you know what our fall lineup needs? another reality show!"

When people stop watching them?

[brunes69]

The networks are out to make money, not be your friend. They wouldn't be airing reality TV if they didnt make money at it.

However, the profit margins on a reality TV show are MUCH higher. They don't have to pay expensive actors, they don't have to build or maintain sets, they don't need to hire extras from the screen actors guild, etc. They can even usually do product placements *on* the shows to make more money.

Then you have shows like American Idol - not only is the show cheap, but afterwards, they have an artist that is guaranteed to sell at least a few records - and they don't have to spend any money promoting them!

The marketers that convinced the masses to watch these shows are pure genius. And the networks are laughing all the way to the bank.

Re:When people stop watching them?

[benna]

Thats why I want people to stop allowing this shit to be shoved down their throats...I know its the people that watch who are at fault.

Re:When people stop watching them?

[TheGavster]

That's one actor. Most shows go with a much cheaper star, but even with Shatner on there the whole season probably costs about as much as an episode of Friends.

Re:When people stop watching them?

[Nyder]

you are the one missing the point, benna. People watch it because they enjoy it. You do NOT obviously enjoy it, so I assume you do not watch it. If people didn't watch the show, they wouldn't make it, or if they did make it, wouldn't make money off of it (because networks wouldn't show it if they get too many complaints). That how tv works.

But crying about peoples bad taste, and trying to tell others not to watch it because YOU don't watch it is lame and selfish.

I personally don't watch much reality shows because I think they are stupid. So I watch other things on TV. Very simple, I just change the channel.

Everyone has different taste, the networks try to make money by showing stuff the appeals to some majority of people ('cept niche channels, like food, so on). They cannot please everyone all the time. hell, they can't please most people most the time. That's why there is feedback and Nelson ratings and so on.

So it's very simple, you don't like a show, don't watch it, complain to the network hosting the show, complain to the company producing the show.

But DO NOT try to blame people for watching the show. People are allowed to watch what they want, even if you do NOT like it. I know it hurts to hear that the world does no evolve around you, but it's true. I'm sorry.

Re:When people stop watching them?

[benna]

Through my complaints about peoples tastes im really complaining about the state of our culture. It really says alot about our culture that people watch these shows.

Re:When people stop watching them?

[hai.uchida]

However, the profit margins on a reality TV show are MUCH higher. They don't have to pay expensive actors, they don't have to build or maintain sets, they don't need to hire extras from the screen actors guild, etc. They can even usually do product placements *on* the shows to make more money.

You are right, but one thing I would add is that the networks are really sealing their own doom by moving to reality TV. They're going after the ratings and profit right now without creating new shows that could potentially live forever in syndication-- and that, along with DVDs, merchandising and whatever on-demand system may evolve in the future, is where the real profit is... As well as the love of the viewers.

Re:When people stop watching them?

[Babbster]

It may say something about "our culture" (I'm unsure if you mean Americans or the world - the "reality show" trend started elsewhere in the world, of course) but it's not saying anything new. Tabloids, for example, have sold for years upon years. Tacky TV has been going on for a long time as well - 60 Minutes has been popular for a long, long time, and has done some pretty shoddy journalism at times, like Mike Wallace's confrontational ambush interviews.

It just so happens that TV networks had quite a bit of trouble with their writers in the years before the reality TV explosion, which threatened to shut down their entertainment programming. This, along with the popularity of the reality TV style overseas, made the environment ripe for a change. And, I know it'll be hard to accept, but some of the reality shows are indeed entertaining, and not just to the lowest common denominator. A compelling situation is no less so just because it hasn't been fictionalized and filtered through a writer's word processor. True, some of it is garbage, but when someone loses a 1/10 chance to win a million dollars based on an interview by three second-graders, that can be pretty interesting (and hilarious) - I watched some Benefactor because of Monday Night Football...they got me on that one. :)

I consistently watch about two hours of primetime network TV (apart from football) per week these days. Most of the current programming doesn't do anything for me, either - but, then again, I attribute that to the hack sitcoms more than to reality shows. If I were forced to choose between Survivor (which I don't watch) and Everybody Loves Raymond (which I don't watch), I'd end up seeing a torch ceremony.

Oh yeah, and your clarification was pretty weak. Complaints about the "culture" are just complaints about people's tastes in a pseudointellectual disguise.

Re:When people stop watching them?

[JudgeFurious]

So true. I personally won't spend any time whatsoever watching anything even remotely close to "reality television". I'm well aware that one viewer isn't going to make much difference of course. I just can't bring myself to watch any of it.

My wife was watching one of them for a while. I don't know which one it was (or care) but when she asked me why I would leave the room when she turned it on I asked her if she liked all of the new reality shows that were coming out. The answer was "Well, no but this one....".

If you're watching one of these things (any of them) then you're part of the problem IMO. She complains of course when scripted shows she likes are cancelled and replaced with "Who wants to be a Bartender and choose from 40 single models who thinik you're worth a billion dollars and working for Donald Trump on an island with two tribes of golddiggers" but still I can see her getting slowly suckered in.

Television before "Reality TV" was pretty bad but it was better than this. Not much better but at least a little.

Re:I...Can't...Wait...

[shirai]

If you're gonna make fun of his speaking rhythm, do it right.

I... cannot... wait... to see... this... new show.

He doesn't break at every single word. It's more like 1 syllable, 2 syllable, 1 syllable, 2 syllable... ;)

Early life of Kirk?

[dougmc]

So they were thrilled when William Shatner came there to film a Star Trek prequel about the early life of Kirk. Except there was no movie.

So, what role would Shatner play here? Kirk's dad? Shatner is almost 40 years older than he was when he first played Kirk. I hope you weren't thinking that they could pull off 40+ years off of Shatner to make him seem even younger than he was when Star Trek started (he's 73 now. He was around 35 when Star Trek started.)

I guess it would make sense for Shatner to have a cameo in whatever Trek show they might make about Kirk, but he won't be playing Kirk in any prequels :)

But reality TV? Blech. I'd rather have a 73 old old Shatner trying to play a 30 year old Kirk :)

Re:Sounds like a good thing all around.

[celeritas_2]

The show is stale news if you can call it that. The evening news was very excited about it at least, they were interviewing people who hoped it would portray their positive values or something lame like that. Lame.

When it stops being cheap.

[solios]

Reality TV is about as cheap as infomercials and cooking shows, if not more so. Quality Programming, on the other hand, is a lot more expensive.

We've been told America Loves Reality TV when the Reality is that the networks LOVE it because it's PURE PROFIT.

Re:When it stops being cheap.

[gl4ss]

*Reality is that the networks LOVE it because it's PURE PROFIT.*

it wouldn't be profit unless people would be watching it.

people WANT to watch realityshit.. sad truth.

Re:When it stops being cheap.

[UnrepentantHarlequin]

people WANT to watch realityshit.. sad truth.

Actually, I think more people than not want to watch something, they don't really care what it is. I know people who just flip through the channels trying to find something worth watching. They're not in front of the TV because there's a show they want to watch -- they're there because it's their default mode of existence, and they try to find a show they can tolerate watching. I suspect a fair percentage of the "reality" TV watchers are the same: they're watching it because it's what's on, not because it's anything they would watch if there was something better competing with it. The creators make it because it's cheap and easy, so it's what's on. The viewers are making a choice between "reality" TV and no TV, not "reality" TV and something else worth watching.

Re:When it stops being cheap.

[gl4ss]

no no.. people really get off from following the survivor series and others - they like them. i don't like them, you might not like them.. but people in general do like them. they follow how the tensions build up between people and so on. like soap.

remember, shitloads of people watch springer as well.. when they could watch something better.

Re:When it stops being cheap.

[JudgeFurious]

Possibly the most insightful comment I've read in weeks. Blinding flash of the obvious it may be but that's it in a nutshell.

If there were only two networks and they both showed blank screens with the sound of fingernails scratching down a chalkboard then the one that was the least grating would probably get an Emmy and get ratings nearly equal to what your average episode of "The Bachelor" pulls.

Re:A new low for Shatner

[Chicane-UK]

I got a better one for you.. Shatner is starring in some TV commercials for breakfast cereal here at the minute.

I could barely believe it when one came on this evening..

Re:Redundant?

[OneDeeTenTee]

How is it that a first post can be redundent?

Because *every* article has a first post.

People are not merely means

[gilroy]

This isn't a "good thing all around". It's a terrible thing. Basically, a bunch of people in "the biz" decided it would be funny to fool a small town community. They came in, lied, manipulated, and essentially disrespected these people, then decided that their trust was worth about $100,000. The donated money is a bribe, plain and simple, to buy off the feeble stirrings of conscience in Shatner, et al.

I see this happening more and more, and it's starting to get to me. People aren't here for your entertainment. Real people aren't the Sims, for Pete's sake. They don't go about their lives just to relieve the tedium of yours. It's a bad thing to treat people as if they were just means to be used in achieving your ends, whether that's something cartoony grand or as mundane as filling half an hour of that gaping void that is your life.

People are not means only.

I don't care that they got "genuine reactions" and "true feeling" and all that other crap that producers of shows like this believe justify their deceptions. In the end, a bunch of Hollywood types decided that small town people can be easily duped for the entertainment of a jaded national audience.

And for all those who asked, back when the reality craze fist hit, what harm Survivor etc. could do... well, here we are. These people didn't volunteer for the reality show; they were impressed into service, kidnapped.

Re:People are not merely means

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

One person got paid $5,000 for nine days. The town made $100,000. In two weeks. Not bad. Let's just ssee how it plays out.

It's not about the money. It's about the license taken by the producers. Those people weren't paid for their reactions on a reality show. They were paid for help in producing a movie. If they had known the ultimate destination of the footage, they might have been OK with it. Or they might have demanded more money. Or they might have chosen not to participate. The point is, they were denied that choice. In essence a fraud was perpetrated on them.

(And don't give me any of those "people play pranks on their friends all the time" lines. These people weren't friends; they were business associates. It matters.)

Re:Sounds like a good thing all around.

[Zathras11]

Yeah, if we've learned anything from this it is
that money makes everything better. Lie to
people, use them, then throw your wallet at them.