Is There Any Reality TV Show That Are Good

[Bartmanhomer]

I've seen so many reality show during my lifetime such as Flavor Fla, I Love New York, Jersey Shore, etc and they're all garbage. So my question is there any reality TV show that is actually good or no? :confused:

[Malimar]

I've heard good things about the Great British Bake Off.

[Bartmanhomer]

I've heard good things about the Great British Bake Off.

Cool. I might be interested to watch it online. Any other reality show that you know are good?

[Tom Tearcamel]

I’m only a fan of the travel ones. The Amazing Race is decent and the newer Better Late than Never is really funny. I don’t watch too much tv but have watched some of thoes shows with my mother.

With the latter, watching William Shattner, Henry Winkler, George Foreman, and Terry Bradshaw be old Americans doing goofy stuff in foreign countries is pretty great.

[eggynack]

A Night with My Ex is pretty good. It's surprisingly low key, and has some really great moments.

[2D8HP]

I really liked the "House" series on PBS that started with

1900 House (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1900_House)


the latest installment being


Victorian Slum House (http://www.pbs.org/program/victorian-slum-house/)

[Peelee]

I found a Canadian one on Netflix, Canada's Worst Driver. Loved it, angry that Netflix won't put up the non-HD seasons. It also totally taught me to parallel park like a champ. From that, I found Canada's Worst Handyman, which made me feel confident enough to do a few things that'll need fixing or replacing in the next decade or so. It seems like with every season of both shows, the host gets more and more obnoxious, but I really like both.

ETA: Also, An Idiot Abroad. Karl Pilkington is my spirit animal.

[emduck]

I've heard good things about the Great British Bake Off.

Seconded, it's pretty fun.

Back in the day, there was this show called The Mole. I think it was hosted by Anderson-Cooper, but it was one of those Survivor/Amazing Race/early reality show-esque shows, except one member of the group was actually "The Mole" and working to sabotage them, and they were trying to find him. I think it only went one or two seasons, but I saw the first one and enjoyed it.

[Artemis97]

The Great British Bake Off is just lovely wholesome fun and you get to drool at all the amazing food. Food based reality shows tend to be decent. My fiance is obsessed with Chopped, which is great because you can watch any episode any time, as there's no long running contest, each show is self contained. I love Iron Chef, either the Japanese original or the new America one.

The Mole was good. It had a very espionage James Bond vibe. I don't know where you'd watch it now. Survivor is a classic one, in the same vein, contesty type show. Haven't watched the latest seasons but mom and I loved the first ones. Oh the Amazing Race is a good one too, and you see lots of interesting cultures through that one. It's on Hulu last I knew. My mom marathoned them.

Survivorman is a great one, as the survivalist (can't think of his name right now), is utterly alone with just his cameras. He's really surviving out there and has to make it to his extraction point. A similar one is Alone, was on the History channel, I think. They took a dozen guys and dropped them with camera equipment and an emergency radio and put them each by themselves at points in the North Vancouver Island and said "whoever survives the longest wins" They have no idea how the other contestants are doing, if they're the last or not, and if they have to call for help they're out. Really freaked me out when the snow got heavy, because I was planning to move to Vancouver at the time. Didn't realize exactly how long and how far north the Island stretched. Close, sorta, but not near enough to have the same weather patterns.

Oh Cops is a classic, if you like to watch stupid people get told off by the police and chased around and stuff. Alaska State Troopers was similar, but I think that one's ended. It was Cops, but with like...Bears and Moose.

Speaking of Alaska, one of my absolute favorites is Alaska the Last Frontier. It follows a family of homesteaders and cattle ranchers as they just try and live their lives in Alaska. It's not extreme survivalism, but it is a fairly wholesome show. There is hunting and fishing in it, though, so some bits my not be for the faint of heart.

[Thrudd]

Depends on what we mean by "reality show". Contest/competition shows are sort of a different animal than the "follow people around in their life and watch them have pretend dramas" sort of show.

I like a number of contest shows, I dislike the other kind (which I think are really the actual 'reality shows').

Top Chef is a good one. Great British Bake Off was good, too. My wife and I also watch Amazing Race, Great Food Truck Race (not as good as Top Chef and GBBO), and she likes to watch Flea Market Flip and some of the House Flipping/Renovation shows on HGTV.

The only real "reality show" we've watched was "Flipping Out" on Bravo, following a really high strung real estate flipper/house designer in LA.

[tomandtish]

Depends on what we mean by "reality show". Contest/competition shows are sort of a different animal than the "follow people around in their life and watch them have pretend dramas" sort of show.


Very much this. I tend to break "reality"* tv into three categories.

*Assume the quotes exist from now on.

1) The "Follow the family/person around" category. This includes shows like The Kardashians, Jersey Shore, etc. A lot of the ones you named in your original post.

2) The "competitions". Shows like Survivor, Amazing Race, Temptation Island, etc. Where there is officially a contest, but people are selected/hired to participate primarily based on personality. These can range from extremely exaggerated (Temptation Island, Bachelor) to cooking shows like Top Chef.

3) The skill shows. Where someone builds/makes/cooks/tests/etc. something OUTSIDE a general competition.

There can be a lot of overlap in some areas. Iron Chef is a combination of 2 and 3. Bachelor is a combination of 1 and 2. YMMV on where a particular show falls.

[The Glyphstone]

Would Pawn Stars, Antiques Roadshow, American Pickers, etc., be an example of Type 1 (follow people around) or Type 3 (skills)? I like watching those once in a while, because you always learn something neat about old historical stuff even if the interpersonal/character relationships are exaggerated for drama.

[tomandtish]

Would Pawn Stars, Antiques Roadshow, American Pickers, etc., be an example of Type 1 (follow people around) or Type 3 (skills)? I like watching those once in a while, because you always learn something neat about old historical stuff even if the interpersonal/character relationships are exaggerated for drama.

Don't watch any of them so may get this wrong, but they seem to be combos of 1 and 3.

So what you have to decide: Is it a type 1 show with type 3 elements, or the other way around?

[Hunter Noventa]

Very much this. I tend to break "reality"* tv into three categories.

*Assume the quotes exist from now on.

1) The "Follow the family/person around" category. This includes shows like The Kardashians, Jersey Shore, etc. A lot of the ones you named in your original post.

2) The "competitions". Shows like Survivor, Amazing Race, Temptation Island, etc. Where there is officially a contest, but people are selected/hired to participate primarily based on personality. These can range from extremely exaggerated (Temptation Island, Bachelor) to cooking shows like Top Chef.

3) The skill shows. Where someone builds/makes/cooks/tests/etc. something OUTSIDE a general competition.

There can be a lot of overlap in some areas. Iron Chef is a combination of 2 and 3. Bachelor is a combination of 1 and 2. YMMV on where a particular show falls.

I can only really stand the reality competitions. They're different from regular competition shows in that the contestants persist across episodes. It's like, you have Master Chef, which is one of our favorite things to watch at my house, which is a reality cooking competition. Then you have say, Chopped, which is just a cooking competition, since nothing persists across episodes unless they're doing a mini-tournament.

So my vote goes for shows like Master Chef, Hell's Kitchen, stuff like that, if you want 'reality' shows. Also to see Gordon Ramsey yelling at people, because that's always amusing. Though the absolute best is Master Chef Junior, because oh my god those kids are so cute and they can cook better than the adults and the show is so great.

[Bartmanhomer]

I can only really stand the reality competitions. They're different from regular competition shows in that the contestants persist across episodes. It's like, you have Master Chef, which is one of our favorite things to watch at my house, which is a reality cooking competition. Then you have say, Chopped, which is just a cooking competition, since nothing persists across episodes unless they're doing a mini-tournament.

So my vote goes for shows like Master Chef, Hell's Kitchen, stuff like that, if you want 'reality' shows. Also to see Gordon Ramsey yelling at people, because that's always amusing. Though the absolute best is Master Chef Junior, because oh my god those kids are so cute and they can cook better than the adults and the show is so great.Does Gordon Ramsey yells at the kids? I'm curious.

[Gnoman]

Nope. He doesn't really yell on Masterchef much in the first place, and doesn't at all in the kid's version. His famous rants on Hell's Kitchen were never genuine temper, but started as "if you can't handle this, you have no chance of dealing with the pressures of running a real high-end kitchen" exercise, and are greatly increased on the US version because they bring in ratings.


I honestly prefer the one-shot competition shows to the season-long ones anymore. Chopped and Forged In Fire (Chopped, but with knifemaking instead of food) are my current favorites of this type. The long ones still seem to have too much drama (some real, some manipulated, some made in editing) to be enjoyable, but there's not much room for that in single-episode shows.

[Rodin]

There's also a huge difference between Master Chef (USA) and Master Chef (UK).

The US version had an excellent first few seasons, but has been steadily slipping into "reality" show territory as time goes on. The UK version is much homier and relaxing - there's none of the contestant rivalry you get on the USA version and a greater focus on the cooking. On the flip side, since the contestants are separated a lot more you don't get as good a feel for their personalities. It's a trade-off and I'm not really sure which I've preferred.

[Bartmanhomer]

Nope. He doesn't really yell on Masterchef much in the first place, and doesn't at all in the kid's version. His famous rants on Hell's Kitchen were never genuine temper, but started as "if you can't handle this, you have no chance of dealing with the pressures of running a real high-end kitchen" exercise, and are greatly increased on the US version because they bring in ratings.


I honestly prefer the one-shot competition shows to the season-long ones anymore. Chopped and Forged In Fire (Chopped, but with knifemaking instead of food) are my current favorites of this type. The long ones still seem to have too much drama (some real, some manipulated, some made in editing) to be enjoyable, but there's not much room for that in single-episode shows.
Well I'm glad that he doesn't yell at the kids. At least he's a good guy when it comes to kids. :smile:

[Daer]

i have to admit i have enjoyed Storage wars and other similar shows where people buy storage's and go through what they find.. it is kinda like loot boxes.

others i enjoy are where people compete making something like Forged in fire and what ever the show was where two groups competed making steampunk themed rooms.

[Friv]

Well I'm glad that he doesn't yell at the kids. At least he's a good guy when it comes to kids. :smile:

There was a great joke on a podcast that I listen to a while back, where they were discussing Ramsey's different attitudes, and one of the hosts basically said, "I wonder what it would be like if a kid was filming that show right before their 18th Birthday, and Gordon would be, like, 'Okay, the taste on this is pretty good, maybe we could try adding a hint of paprika, Jim, but you're definitely on the right track, and oh, is it midnight? Happy birthday, Jim. Now YOUR FOOD IS @*$*^@# YOU PIECE OF (#*&@ING GARBAGE HOW DARE YOU BRING THIS SWILL INTO MY @&*#!ING KITCHEN???"

[Bartmanhomer]

There was a great joke on a podcast that I listen to a while back, where they were discussing Ramsey's different attitudes, and one of the hosts basically said, "I wonder what it would be like if a kid was filming that show right before their 18th Birthday, and Gordon would be, like, 'Okay, the taste on this is pretty good, maybe we could try adding a hint of paprika, Jim, but you're definitely on the right track, and oh, is it midnight? Happy birthday, Jim. Now YOUR FOOD IS @*$*^@# YOU PIECE OF (#*&@ING GARBAGE HOW DARE YOU BRING THIS SWILL INTO MY @&*#!ING KITCHEN???"
Oh wow. Did he really said that?

[Artemis97]

It was just a joke, Bartmanhomer. Because he's great with kids but harsh with adults. So when a kid hits 18 would he suddenly switch tactics?

[Bartmanhomer]

It was just a joke, Bartmanhomer. Because he's great with kids but harsh with adults. So when a kid hits 18 would he suddenly switch tactics?

Ok. I understand.

[BannedInSchool]

i have to admit i have enjoyed Storage wars and other similar shows where people buy storage's and go through what they find.. it is kinda like loot boxes.
One of the regulars on Storage Wars also tried to sue the show under the "Rigged Gameshow" prohibition. The supposed "gameshow" part was arguing that the profit tally at the end was a score for the competition of the bidding. The "rigged" part was the show placing items in the lockers. Now I don't care how much of the show is fake/scripted as long as they weren't making stuff up about the items, same for other old item shows.

(I also think that's why professional wrestling doesn't pretend at all to be anything other than live theater, to avoid charges of rigging a supposed competition of skill. They make no such supposition. :smallwink: )

Heh, that also reminds me of a gag on Frasier. The boys wanted to watch their antiquing show, and Martin wanted to watch his gameshow where people tried to guess the value of old junk. Obvious Punchline: it was the same show, Antiques Roadshow.


others i enjoy are where people compete making something like Forged in fire and what ever the show was where two groups competed making steampunk themed rooms.

There was also Scrapheap Challenge/Junkyard Wars in which teams competed to build stuff, often vehicles, to then use in a competition, often a race, against each other. The junkyard was obviously stocked with potentially useful (and necessary) items, but teams still had to run out and look for what they hoped to find based on their initial designs.

[Fri]

If you don't know, the Ramsay's Hell Kitchen is different in the US and UK version. In the US version there's a lot more yelling and swearing and such, because it's thought to bring the ratings to the US, while there's less of than in the UK version.

[Ravens_cry]

There was also Scrapheap Challenge/Junkyard Wars in which teams competed to build stuff, often vehicles, to then use in a competition, often a race, against each other. The junkyard was obviously stocked with potentially useful (and necessary) items, but teams still had to run out and look for what they hoped to find based on their initial designs.
I came here to mention that. Does Mythbusters count as reality TV? Because the build process for the various devices was as much part of the fun as the devices they used to test the myths were.

[JoshL]

For a while, I was enjoying Kevin Smith's Comic Book Men. Part them recording a podcast, part hanging out in the comic store he owns, and part buy/sell haggling over items. The last part was kinda neat, to see all these weird and rare toys and collectables, but ultimately wore me down. I worked some retail where there was some buy/sell/trade, and it always made me feel a bit icky.

I also used to really like the UK quiz show Never Mind The Buzzcocks, which was music trivia with comedians, musicians and celebrities. No prizes and arbitrary points. Soothing to my non-competitive side, and really funny.

[Hunter Noventa]

Well I'm glad that he doesn't yell at the kids. At least he's a good guy when it comes to kids. :smile:

He really is good with the kids. He'll certainly scold them when they're screwing up, but he's nearly as profane as he's known to be. Most of the time though he and the other judges are encouraging and kind and it's just amazing to watch, because half the time these kids can cook better than some of the adults they get on these shows.

[tomandtish]

...(I also think that's why professional wrestling doesn't pretend at all to be anything other than live theater, to avoid charges of rigging a supposed competition of skill. They make no such supposition. :smallwink: )


Actually, it goes back to 1989. They wanted to get de-regulated. If they were real, then there were a bunch of licensing requirements for athletics they had to deal with, and a LOT of taxes they had to pay. By admitting they were staged they could avoid all that.

[Manga Shoggoth]

I came here to mention that. Does Mythbusters count as reality TV? Because the build process for the various devices was as much part of the fun as the devices they used to test the myths were.

Mythbusters always struck me as being somewhere between popular science and documentary. A lot of the scenes are obviously staged (not all of them, admittedly).

[Peelee]

Mythbusters always struck me as being somewhere between popular science and documentary. A lot of the scenes are obviously staged (not all of them, admittedly).

Huh. I always thought of it as somewhere between popular science and bad reality TV.

[The Glyphstone]

Huh. I always thought of it as somewhere between popular science and bad reality TV.

I'm not sure where the 'bad reality TV' angle comes in. Reality TV as a genre thrives on artificially manufactured drama and scripted conflict...the most interpersonal conflict you ever saw in Mythbusters on a regular basis was "did it blow up? Okay, let's add more explosives and see if it blows up".

[Rodin]

I'm not sure where the 'bad reality TV' angle comes in. Reality TV as a genre thrives on artificially manufactured drama and scripted conflict...the most interpersonal conflict you ever saw in Mythbusters on a regular basis was "did it blow up? Okay, let's add more explosives and see if it blows up".

In the first season there was a bit, with the producers wanting to put in that sort of drama between Adam and Jamie. It only went on for a short time before Jamie said it was ridiculous and refused to do any more manufactured drama.

[Peelee]

I'm not sure where the 'bad reality TV' angle comes in. Reality TV as a genre thrives on artificially manufactured drama and scripted conflict...the most interpersonal conflict you ever saw in Mythbusters on a regular basis was "did it blow up? Okay, let's add more explosives and see if it blows up".

I didn't mean so much "manufactured drama" as "attempts to portray itself as more realistic than it actually is." Jamie and Adam are practical effects engineers. They are absolutely fantastic at that, and they constantly and readily about that it is what they are. As you said, the show was effectively "did it blow up? Okay, let's add more explosives and see if it blows up." The premise of the show was, "is X possible," with ever-increasing reaches for X, and definitive claims of yes or no at the end of the trial run.

[Liquor Box]

I'm a big fan of Survivor myself.

[Gurston]

There's also a huge difference between Master Chef (USA) and Master Chef (UK).

The US version had an excellent first few seasons, but has been steadily slipping into "reality" show territory as time goes on. The UK version is much homier and relaxing - there's none of the contestant rivalry you get on the USA version and a greater focus on the cooking. On the flip side, since the contestants are separated a lot more you don't get as good a feel for their personalities. It's a trade-off and I'm not really sure which I've preferred.

You should try Master Chef (Australia) it has the same format as Master Chef (USA) but there is a lot less contestant rivalry (at least in the seasons I have seen) so it has less of the forced conflict feel might be the right middle ground for you

[Fri]

I actually work as a professional subtitler and I've subtitled literally hundred of hours of reality tv, whether I like it or not. Another cooking contest I like is chopped.

Open tray. See a box of frosted cornflakes, three potato, and a chewing gum

"You have 60 minutes to turn this into an appetizer. Go."

[BannedInSchool]

Another cooking contest I like is chopped.

Open tray. See a box of frosted cornflakes, three potato, and a chewing gum

"You have 60 minutes to turn this into an appetizer. Go."

And either the contestants' shock at the ingredients is semi-scripted, or they've not watched the show before. :smalltongue:

[Hunter Noventa]

I actually work as a professional subtitler and I've subtitled literally hundred of hours of reality tv, whether I like it or not. Another cooking contest I like is chopped.

Open tray. See a box of frosted cornflakes, three potato, and a chewing gum

"You have 60 minutes to turn this into an appetizer. Go."

That's kind of a cool job.

But yes, Chopped is a pretty great show. Cutthroat kitchen is up there too. I think the main difference between 'Reality Competition' and 'Game Show' is that the former relies on some manner of real life skill (Cooking, Athletics a la Ninja Warrior) whereas game shows are usually not much more than trivia or problem solving in a weird context.

[Anonymouswizard]

I've heard good things about the Great British Bake Off.

The great thing about the GBBO is that is is literally all about the baking, not the personalities. So while the participant's personalities do influence their creations (a lot), there's no reward for being an entertaining spotlight hog and the only thing that matters is our skills.


So my vote goes for shows like Master Chef, Hell's Kitchen, stuff like that, if you want 'reality' shows. Also to see Gordon Ramsey yelling at people, because that's always amusing. Though the absolute best is Master Chef Junior, because oh my god those kids are so cute and they can cook better than the adults and the show is so great.

I actually highly recommend anybody into Gordon Ramsey watches the British version of Kitchen Nightmares. The 'you did wrong' bit just after the tasting always felt much better in it because Ramsey would very rarely shout (which would make the cases where he did shout stand out more).

As I sometimes tell people, the difference is in the unusual episodes. In the American version the owners are bad at cooking, delusional, have outright illegal practices, and so on. In the British unusual episode the owner was a good enough cook that Ramsey cleaned his plate (twice), and their problems were the owner not being used to running a restaurant.


Well I'm glad that he doesn't yell at the kids. At least he's a good guy when it comes to kids. :smile:

Ramsey's reaction is based on how competent he expects somebody to be.

If you're supposed to be good but make mistakes he'll tell you off but help you to improve.

If you're supposed to be good but can't get anything right he'll yell at you and treat you as helpless.

If you're bad but trying to improve he might get annoyed, but he'll admire the effort.

I remember a bit of fan theorising about 'what if Gordon Ramsey was hired to teach at Hogwarts', which began as an excuse to make yelling at the students jokes but quickly became a thoughtful discussion about how he'd heavily disagree with Dumbledore's efforts and tendency to put children in danger. Also putting a slice of bread on each side of Dumbledore's head.

EDIT: also agreeing that Cutthroat Kitchen is good, it's a lot more about overcoming problems that other cooking shows are.

[BannedInSchool]

In the British unusual episode the owner was a good enough cook that Ramsey cleaned his plate (twice), and their problems were the owner not being used to running a restaurant.
Although the story I heard was that the show didn't have a name until they visited the first restaurant, so it couldn't have been so good to have been a "@#$ing Nightmare". :smallwink:

EDIT: also agreeing that Cutthroat Kitchen is good, it's a lot more about overcoming problems that other cooking shows are.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "Jumped the Shark into Glory" trope on TVTropes. Cutthroat Kitchen started with tame challenges, but at some point decided to make them more than inconveniences. "You shall attempt to cook wearing this 'Fat Suit'!". :smallbiggrin:

[Reddish Mage]

I actually work as a professional subtitler and I've subtitled literally hundred of hours of reality tv, whether I like it or not. Another cooking contest I like is chopped.

Open tray. See a box of frosted cornflakes, three potato, and a chewing gum

"You have 60 minutes to turn this into an appetizer. Go."

Are you the one I should blame for all those horrid misspellings? Because I’m pretty sure those come along because the subtitles are relegated to machines or they are doing the transcribing for live TV or something.

Also I was going to mention Chopped, in fact, anything on the food network seems to be a cut above (pun intended).

[Fri]

Are you the one I should blame for all those horrid misspellings? Because I’m pretty sure those come along because the subtitles are relegated to machines or they are doing the transcribing for live TV or something.

Also I was going to mention Chopped, in fact, anything on the food network seems to be a cut above (pun intended).

Might be :smallbiggrin:.

I don't live in US, but I know that the english subtitle team in the company I'm working in is basically spread all over the world, then the english subtitle we worked is used by the local team wherever, whenever they need it.

Edit:

I now remember another type of reality show that sometimes can be good, but haven't been mentioned yet. Someone touched a bit on shows on shows about Pawn Stars, but there's a genre of reality show about companies, usually family-worked, like American Chopper (big bikes), Fish Tank Kings (aquarium), LA Ink (Tattoos), Cake Boss (bakery) and so on. It quite varies, and sometimes it's obvious that certain events are staged or overblown, but if you're interested in the type of work, they can be fun. I have product design degree, and at college my prof used to show the class shows like that about cars or bikes, to show how design job works in real life.

There's this one interesting show that I forgot the title, about animal catching company. It's surprisingly nice. The main character looks like a crude yokel, but he's genuinely a professional animal catcher, knowledgeable, and care about animals. Whenever he capture wild animal intruders from people's property, whether venomous snakes, angry badger or even wasp nest, he always try to catch them alive and release them in the wild.

[The Glyphstone]

There's this one interesting show that I forgot the title, about animal catching company. It's surprisingly nice. The main character looks like a crude yokel, but he's genuinely a professional animal catcher, knowledgeable, and care about animals. Whenever he capture wild animal intruders from people's property, whether venomous snakes, angry badger or even wasp nest, he always try to catch them alive and release them in the wild.

Call of the Wildman. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_the_Wildman)

[Anonymouswizard]

Although the story I heard was that the show didn't have a name until they visited the first restaurant, so it couldn't have been so good to have been a "@#$ing Nightmare". :smallwink:

True, but I was specifically comparing Amy's Baking Company with Momma Cherri's Soul food Shack. But the British version is still much calmer generally, you're more likely to see Gordon calmly expressing his disappointment to a chef then yelling at them. It's not that he doesn't yell, it's that it's just quieter.

A video I like contrasting the two versions, notice that there's just much more talking in the UK bits (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYdPf-WEnnA). Not that there's no yelling, and there's definitely still swearing (although it's pretty much all Gordon), but it's all just a lot calmer.


I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "Jumped the Shark into Glory" trope on TVTropes. Cutthroat Kitchen started with tame challenges, but at some point decided to make them more than inconveniences. "You shall attempt to cook wearing this 'Fat Suit'!". :smallbiggrin:

Of course, especially as the challenges are tested to make sure they aren't impossible. They also seem to be designed to either require creativity, teamwork, skill, or waste the chef's time, and part of the challenge is identifying which of them will be more than an inconvenience to you.

[An Enemy Spy]

There's a lot of context that gets ignored when people talk about Gordon Ramsey. He never just barges into a restaurant and starts screaming at people. He always starts off very open minded and if it gets to point of screaming and swearing, it's the result of gross incompetence, illegal practices, safety violations, and lack of basic respect for other people. Gordon can't stand lazy workers or scumbag owners who treat their employees and customers badly.

[BannedInSchool]

One thing that annoyed me about Cutthroat Kitchen, however, is the bidding-phase strategy of the contestants. Having more money is an advantage, so you'd like someone with more money than you to be eliminated. That means assigning challenges to those people, not necessarily enacting revenge on the ones who've given you a challenge. Any bidding you're going to lose you'd also like to drain the most money from the winner. Giving up early because "he really wants it and I'm not going to win" or not contesting at all because you're "saving your money" is wrong. Run up the bid either as far as you would be willing to pay and win or more if you think you can get away with not winning it! It makes me so angry. Make them pay! :smallfurious: :smallwink:

Assigning challenges is also a case of only having to run faster than the bear, so pile on the challenges to make someone other than you most likely to be eaten. You don't have to make the best dish, just not the worst. Make someone else make the worst. You're not trying to make it a fair contest! :smallfurious: Sometimes this could be at odds with the previous money principle, but if someone has a challenge already then that's money they didn't spend in bidding.

That doesn't cover all the bidding rules, but those are the two that I think contestants frequently get flat-out wrong. :smalltongue:

Another fun reality-type show is Dirty Jobs. It's a documentary at its core, but the host participates and it's trying to be entertaining too, putting it toward "Reality" TV.

[Scarlet Knight]

The longest running reality show: Baseball

[Ravens_cry]

I like Chopped Junior. The dishes those kids come up with are amazing, and the kids are often much nicer than the adult contestants. On at least one occasion, I've seen a kid go and help another contestant to make sure they plated on time, instead of letting them get eliminated by default by not having everything ready for all the judges.

[Bartmanhomer]

The longest running reality show: Baseball

Don't forget, Basketball, Football, Hockey, Golf, and the Olympics.

[gomipile]

As a contrasting reference, and for some humor, here's an analysis Jenny Nicholson recently posted:

https://youtu.be/JKFgn6tNU6w

[Anonymouswizard]

The longest running reality show: Baseball

Ah yes, discount Cricket.

[Peelee]

Ah yes, discount Cricket.

Cricket? Nobody understands cricket! You gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket!

[Manga Shoggoth]

Cricket? Nobody understands cricket! You gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket!

Which kind of crumpet are you talking about? If you have one form of crumpet you won't even care about cricket.

[2D8HP]

Besides the House (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=22782311#post22782311) series I enjoyed (I'm still hoping that they do a 1980's House like they did 1900 House and 1940's House), another good British made one I saw on PBS was:

Warrior Challenge (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_Challenge)

The basic premise was they'd take two different groups of guys, (one episode had a bunch of U.S. Air force servicemen, and London Metropolitan Police "Bobbies") train them in the technics of historical fighters (Roman soldiers, Medieval knights, etc.), and have them compete.

I seem to have a taste for watching modern folks endure "history".

[Peelee]

Which kind of crumpet are you talking about? If you have one form of crumpet you won't even care about cricket.
You'd have to ask Raphael.

[Manga Shoggoth]

You'd have to ask Raphael.

Raphael would probably only know about one of them. Casey might know about the other...

[Psyren]

GBBO is wholesome and sweet (natch) though that leaves it a bit dull for my tastes too. I prefer a more "caustic critic" style - if you can impress someone like Gordon Ramsey or Tabatha Coffey, it proves you truly know what you're doing, and the ones that fail often do so in spectacularly entertaining ways. I enjoy GBBO for what it represents - that softer and kinder television competitions can still enjoy mainstream success - but I'm also glad it's not the only kind of competition out there.

[tomandtish]

Speaking of shows, Trading Spaces is getting a revival on TLC (http://people.com/home/trading-spaces-reboot-cast-list/), to begin airing 4/7/18.

A good example of a show that started as a 3, but moved more and more into a 2 as time went on.

[Anonymouswizard]

Cricket? Nobody understands cricket! You gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket!

Who doesn't know what a crumpet is? That's as simple as knowing the correct way to keep your whites clean while hitting sixes.

But yes, the way Americans missuderstand cricket confuses many of us, although we also don't really see the appeal of baseball. To British people nothing happens in baseball, while in cricket fours appear frequently and sixes aren't exactly rare. You've just got to know what when the bowler starts running he' preparing his throw, that once the batter at the opposite wicket hits the ball then the batting team gets one run for every time the batters switch places, and that if the ball leaves the pitch the batting team scores a total of four runs, or six if it didn't hit the ground. Sure, there's a lot more rules around it, but those are the basics. Batters are out when a bowler hits the far wicket with their throw (bowled out), the ball is caught post-bat without it touching the ground, they obstruct the ball from hitting the wicket, or they're stumped out by the bowler or wicket-keeper (are in the middle of scoring a run when the ball is touched to one of the wickets).

Yes, there's a lot more rules, but you can enjoy cricket knowing that much (which is roughly what you're taught in schools once they decide you can move on from rounders). I still remember playing rounders actually I could never score for my teams due to just not running fast enough, and that in the rare secondary school game players who had seen too much baseball would get sent out because they dropped their bat.

[An Enemy Spy]

Who doesn't know what a crumpet is? That's as simple as knowing the correct way to keep your whites clean while hitting sixes.

But yes, the way Americans missuderstand cricket confuses many of us, although we also don't really see the appeal of baseball. To British people nothing happens in baseball, while in cricket fours appear frequently and sixes aren't exactly rare. You've just got to know what when the bowler starts running he' preparing his throw, that once the batter at the opposite wicket hits the ball then the batting team gets one run for every time the batters switch places, and that if the ball leaves the pitch the batting team scores a total of four runs, or six if it didn't hit the ground. Sure, there's a lot more rules around it, but those are the basics. Batters are out when a bowler hits the far wicket with their throw (bowled out), the ball is caught post-bat without it touching the ground, they obstruct the ball from hitting the wicket, or they're stumped out by the bowler or wicket-keeper (are in the middle of scoring a run when the ball is touched to one of the wickets).

Yes, there's a lot more rules, but you can enjoy cricket knowing that much (which is roughly what you're taught in schools once they decide you can move on from rounders). I still remember playing rounders actually I could never score for my teams due to just not running fast enough, and that in the rare secondary school game players who had seen too much baseball would get sent out because they dropped their bat.

You say that like it makes perfect sense to an outsider but all I got out of it is that the word wicket comes up a lot. Also, doesn't it take days to play a game of cricket?

Let me tell you my understanding of what you just said and tell me if I'm right. The bowler throws the ball trying to knock over the three sticks and the batter tries to hit it away. Then the batter and another guy run back and forth and get a point every time they make it all the way without being tagged or the other team catching the ball or something, I have no idea how this part works. If he hits it out of the field he gets four points and if it doesn't hit the ground he gets six points. And this goes back and forth for a very long time until a certain number of innings has been played.

[Anonymouswizard]

You say that like it makes perfect sense to an outsider but all I got out of it is that the word wicket comes up a lot. Also, doesn't it take days to play a game of cricket?

Oh no, that was intentionally written to be a bit confusing. I was jabbing at how to me cricket is simple and baseball is strange, while to Americans baseball is simple and cricket is complex. I grew up with cricket, so while I don't know the full rules I do understand everything I typed.

And it can, although single day games do exist.

In a similar direction, I have the exact same reaction to American Football versus Rugby. Sure, there's like two different versions of Rugby played professionally (I learnt Union in school, doing some quick research on the differences), but the core game is still the same. In American Football they seem to have some players who are allowed to throw forward but not others, and the game stops every now and again? Also you seem to put on a load of armour for some reason (and I cannot find the Buffy clip I want), can't you just do what civilised people do and bring out the medical kit when players get hurt? I'm also confused about how scoring works in American football, I'm assuming that touchdowns and field goals are roughly similar to trys and drop goals?

EDIT: yeah, you've pretty much got it. There's a lot more laws and various other ways to be out, but it's the gist of it.

Just don't make the mistake of thinking a Four or a Six is like a Home Run in baseball. They should both be happening relatively often, especially fours, and it's very bad form to stop the game because of them.

[An Enemy Spy]

Oh no, that was intentionally written to be a bit confusing. I was jabbing at how to me cricket is simple and baseball is strange, while to Americans baseball is simple and cricket is complex. I grew up with cricket, so while I don't know the full rules I do understand everything I typed.

And it can, although single day games do exist.

In a similar direction, I have the exact same reaction to American Football versus Rugby. Sure, there's like two different versions of Rugby played professionally (I learnt Union in school, doing some quick research on the differences), but the core game is still the same. In American Football they seem to have some players who are allowed to throw forward but not others, and the game stops every now and again? Also you seem to put on a load of armour for some reason (and I cannot find the Buffy clip I want), can't you just do what civilised people do and bring out the medical kit when players get hurt? I'm also confused about how scoring works in American football, I'm assuming that touchdowns and field goals are roughly similar to trys and drop goals?

Alright, so in American Football you have twenty-two players on the field at any time, eleven for each team. The offense(the team is possession of the ball) has five linemen, who are the big guys you see who look like this.
https://recruitgeorgia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/rZNQGOuY_400x400.jpg

The other players include one quarterback(the guy who throws the ball) and any combination of running backs, full backs(a type of running back whose main job is to block for the ball carrier), wide receivers(ball catchers), and tight ends(a sort of hybrid between a receiver and a lineman). The offense is allowed to throw a forward pass once per play, but the passer has to be behind the line of scrimmage(the line on the field where the play started). They can throw it backward as many times as they want. The passer is usually the quarterback but really anyone is allowed to throw the ball. He is allowed to throw a forward pass to anyone but his linemen, though if the ball is tipped in the air by a defender then a lineman can catch it. If a forward pass is not caught then it is incomplete and the play ends. If a play ends with an incomplete pass or the ball carrier running out of bounds then the clock stops. If the ball carrier is tackled inbounds then it keeps going even after the play ends. This becomes important in the late game when the winning team is trying to run the clock out and the losing team is trying to preserve as much time as possible. The offense has four tries(called downs) to move the ball ten yards. If they get past the ten yard mark, then they go back to First Down and the distance they have to go is reset. If they fail after four downs then the other team takes the ball at the same spot on the field the last play ended. Usually on fourth down the offense will punt the ball, which means to kick it to the other team to try and pin them as far back on the field as they can.

There are three main types of scores. A touchdown is when the ball carrier makes it into the endzone. It is worth six points and then the scoring team can either try to kick the ball through the uprights for one point or attempt to get into the endzone again for two points. A field goal is when the team kicks it through the uprights and is worth three points. A safety is when the ball carrier is tackled inside his own endzone and two points are awarded to the defense.

The game lasts for four fifteen minute quarters(though clock stoppages make it much longer) with a halftime in the middle. The armor is because back in the early twentieth century Teddy Roosevelt made it law to wear it because a lot of people were dying. Also it looks cool.
http://kgmi-am.sagacom.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/70/files/2013/12/WP-SeahawksKamChancellor.jpg

EDIT: And to answer the inevitable "Why is it called football when they don't use their feet?" question, all forms of Football are named so because they are played on foot rather than on horseback like the sport of the nobility. And the ball isn't spherical because it's meant to be thrown accurately over long distance, not because dumb ol' Americans don't know basic shapes.

[Anonymouswizard]

Oh, I know where the term football comes from. Heck, as long as I'm not in the UK I don't care what people call association football (I am at the moment, so it's football not soccer :smalltongue:), as out just gets confusing to insist on what's not the standard. Rugby is a type of football, you'll just confuse people of you don't call it rugby (also rugby balls are ovoid for the same reason, you know we only do the 'why is it a ball' not to wind people up, surely?).

The thing is, that still sounds like somebody decided to overcomplicate rugby while removing the rucks, mauls, and scrums. Rugby, one you get past the fact that league exists for some reason, is a relatively simple game. You always pass sideways or backwards (you'll see players trying to pass as flat as possible), there's no real difference between any of the players until a scrum bar the particular player's abilities (so your faster guys will tend to be on the wings), and you score five points for touching the ball to the ground past the opposing team's goal bit within the pitch, with the possibility of an extra two of you can kick it through the goal, or three points for drop kicking it through the goal. None of these complications like one forward pass a whatever or stopping the game and seeing if you've moved forwards a certain distance.

The armour is viewed by quite a few Brits as looking plain stupid. Sure, we get it's protection, but in rugby players still get injured and unless it's a scrum gone wrong it's rarely more than bumps and minor cuts. I know A-football is becoming more popular here, but I cannot take it seriously at all.

It's... Well it's like cricket to Americans. I can sort of work out what all these words mean, but it doesn't seem to come together to make a fun sport.

I'm also sure at least one American has become confused at the fact that most cricket matches have both teams in white. It's not like there's much confusion, the batting team will only have two players on the field unless switching, and they stay writing a small area. Wearing team colours is more common in single day games (although not 20-20 IIRC).

[The Glyphstone]

The armor looks stupid, but it is life-savingly necessary. Rugby players, IIRC, are smaller on average, where as American football players are almost universally huge and have to sprint or surge. When 115kg Dude 1 running 32KPH collides head-on with 115kg Dude 2 running 32KPH in the opposite direction, that's like a small to moderate-grade car crash in terms of kinetic impact, and they will potentially do this dozens of times in one day during a match. And even with that armor, the rate of concussions and potential traumatic brain injury is appallingly high, not to mention damage to stuff like knees and ligaments.

[An Enemy Spy]

Oh, I know where the term football comes from. Heck, as long as I'm not in the UK I don't care what people call association football (I am at the moment, so it's football not soccer :smalltongue:), as out just gets confusing to insist on what's not the standard. Rugby is a type of football, you'll just confuse people of you don't call it rugby (also rugby balls are ovoid for the same reason, you know we only do the 'why is it a ball' not to wind people up, surely?).

The thing is, that still sounds like somebody decided to overcomplicate rugby while removing the rucks, mauls, and scrums. Rugby, one you get past the fact that league exists for some reason, is a relatively simple game. You always pass sideways or backwards (you'll see players trying to pass as flat as possible), there's no real difference between any of the players until a scrum bar the particular player's abilities (so your faster guys will tend to be on the wings), and you score five points for touching the ball to the ground past the opposing team's goal bit within the pitch, with the possibility of an extra two of you can kick it through the goal, or three points for drop kicking it through the goal. None of these complications like one forward pass a whatever or stopping the game and seeing if you've moved forwards a certain distance.

The armour is viewed by quite a few Brits as looking plain stupid. Sure, we get it's protection, but in rugby players still get injured and unless it's a scrum gone wrong it's rarely more than bumps and minor cuts. I know A-football is becoming more popular here, but I cannot take it seriously at all.

It's... Well it's like cricket to Americans. I can sort of work out what all these words mean, but it doesn't seem to come together to make a fun sport.

I'm also sure at least one American has become confused at the fact that most cricket matches have both teams in white. It's not like there's much confusion, the batting team will only have two players on the field unless switching, and they stay writing a small area. Wearing team colours is more common in single day games (although not 20-20 IIRC).

Well virtually all games seem overly complicated to the uninitiated. It's like trying to explain eating a sandwich step by step to an alien that has no mouth.

[Peelee]

The armor looks stupid, but it is life-savingly necessary. Rugby players, IIRC, are smaller on average, where as American football players are almost universally huge and have to sprint or surge. When 115kg Dude 1 running 32KPH collides head-on with 115kg Dude 2 running 32KPH in the opposite direction, that's like a small to moderate-grade car crash in terms of kinetic impact, and they will potentially do this dozens of times in one day during a match. And even with that armor, the rate of concussions and potential traumatic brain injury is appallingly high, not to mention damage to stuff like knees and ligaments.

One could even argue that the armor continued even more to the rate of confusion and traumatic brain injury, in the same way head injuries went up drastically in boxing after the introduction of the boxing glove.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't let slip a reference to the greatest sport of all, headbrick (https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2778).

[The Glyphstone]

One could even argue that the armor continued even more to the rate of confusion and traumatic brain injury, in the same way head injuries went up drastically in boxing after the introduction of the boxing glove.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't let slip a reference to the greatest sport of all, headbrick (https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2778).

That's almost a sure thing, IMO - it's a vicious downward spiral.

[ImperiousLeader]

I'll join the Great British Bake-Off love. I find the show very soothing, it doesn't have the hyped up melodrama of American shows. It's all about the love of baking.

I used to like So You Think You Can Dance, but the appeal has long worn off. Some great performances in the past, but the judging just got obnoxious, and Nigel skeeves me right out.

[Liquor Box]

The armor looks stupid, but it is life-savingly necessary. Rugby players, IIRC, are smaller on average, where as American football players are almost universally huge and have to sprint or surge. When 115kg Dude 1 running 32KPH collides head-on with 115kg Dude 2 running 32KPH in the opposite direction, that's like a small to moderate-grade car crash in terms of kinetic impact, and they will potentially do this dozens of times in one day during a match. And even with that armor, the rate of concussions and potential traumatic brain injury is appallingly high, not to mention damage to stuff like knees and ligaments.

In professional rugby union or rugby league most teams will have several players who are 115kg plus. The reasons rugby players are less susceptible to injury that football players is first, that they are harder, and second that the aren't allowed to tackle the head.

[BannedInSchool]

The thing is, that still sounds like somebody decided to overcomplicate rugby while removing the rucks, mauls, and scrums.

At its very basics in AmFootball one team at a time gets to pick up the ball and run with it until the guy with the ball is tackled to the ground. That stops the play, and then they line up and do it again. Because one team gets to start with the ball in a sequence of plays there are rules for how the other team gets their turn. And, yeah, the forward pass has accumulated a lot of rules over the years that are essentially a state diagram written out in English. *cough*Tuck Rule*cough*

[Gnoman]

Every rugby game I've seen looked like the players were moving in slow motion. NFL-style football players are shockingly fast, and 115+ kilogram isn't "several" players. It is virtually every player - the real heavyweights (the players who's job it is to duck under the offensive line and slam into the QB at maximum speed) can exceed 160 kilos. If NFL players didn't wear armor, there'd be fatalities in every match.


As for direct blows to the head, those violate NFL regulations in almost all cases.

[An Enemy Spy]

At its very basics in AmFootball one team at a time gets to pick up the ball and run with it until the guy with the ball is tackled to the ground. That stops the play, and then they line up and do it again. Because one team gets to start with the ball in a sequence of plays there are rules for how the other team gets their turn. And, yeah, the forward pass has accumulated a lot of rules over the years that are essentially a state diagram written out in English. *cough*Tuck Rule*cough*

The Tuck Rule doesn't exist anymore because everyone not named Tom Brady agrees it was terrible. For those of you who have no idea what we're talking about, ask a Raiders fan and they'll be happy to explain.

[Pex]

Face Off on SyFy. It's a model make-up contest.

Unfortunately it might not be on the air anymore. Rumor has it there will be a 13th season, but no date has been set. Unlike previous seasons at the end of season 12 the host said nothing about next season, so they didn't know if there would be one when they finished. I suppose it couldn't last forever. It was a good run and fun to watch. You can see all 12 seasons online at the SyFy website.

[Anonymouswizard]

In professional rugby union or rugby league most teams will have several players who are 115kg plus. The reasons rugby players are less susceptible to injury that football players is first, that they are harder, and second that the aren't allowed to tackle the head.

Wait, tackling anywhere that isn't the waist or legs? Are they trying to kill the players of this sport? To think that rugby gets the reputation as a bloodbath... I mean sure, we have the 'if you're not off for ten minutes it's not a substitution' rule, but you wouldn't want to stop a player because of a minor wound!

Yeah, I still remember being taught to rugby tackle. You're taught the basics of the sport with tag rugby because an improper tackle is dangerous, and will only learn how to tackle in secondary school where you'll make sure you're hitting with your shoulder on your target's waist (incidentally this is also the time the sexes are split for PE). Looking into it, half the reason rugby is less dangerous seems to be that it's players are smaller (not that they're small, we used to say my church's rector looked like an ex-rugby player because he was broad) and tackles are generally at a lower speed.

I'll say that I really don't get why you'd want to continuously stop a sport. Is that really better than all the players getting into a ruck and trying to force the other team away from the ball? Maybe American Football players move faster because they get a break every two minutes.

[snowblizz]

Something that's kinda reality tv, Moonshiners. I'm so hooked on this though it's taken a bit of turn down from the frist season and the fact all the stuff they do is illegal is kinda dodgy really. The producers or editors need a slap in the face though because they are seriosuly guilty of editing for drama. And there's no reason for it.

Someone mentioned the shows where they live like a historical period (I've seen Edwardian manor), there are a couple of various versions (I think) and there's also one that focuses on the foods almost exclusively (one of the participants is Sue Perkins) which has a Swedish copy that's almost better than the original. I remember an Elisabethan farm too, but no idea which if these this was in. Those are pretty interesting.

There's a number of reality-follow-professionals shows that's not bad except where they fill channels that should have another focus (looking at you History here, though guess if they will it with Alien conspiracies like the rest, might as well do reality stuff). Highway through Hell (tow truckers), Ax-men (loggers) that's the only two whose name I know as original. There are at least 2-3 "competing" shows for both categories. I've seen 2 that focus on loggers on the East coast, "Swamploggers" IIRC was one, other I only remeber they followed the Peltiers logging business upstate New York I think. Some of these where they follow several business they have irrational and competitions in-show of like how many loads of logs they pull that feels super tacked on. How you compared a helicopter logger (pulling 2-3 logs at a time) to someone filling a couple of big trucks is beyond me. I found the challenges they usually face were interesting enough without the odd "competition" side.

Pawn Stars, American Chopper (early seasons), one about aquarium makers (Tanked?), one about treehouse/cabin producers (both of those on Animal Planet!) are all things I can watch to pass time.

Dirty Jobs with Mike something was good for a bit too.

Backyard Oil was as odd as it was fascinating too. They were like homegrown oilbarons in Kentucky and some other places, Texas and Penssylvania maybe? Bunch of people who could drill for oil in their backyard.

Discovery networks and National Geographic (which may now be same group) have loads of these shows substituting for actual documentaries, which as a concept bothers me though I do enjoy many of them. They are good background noise.

I also enjoy "Lawless Island" following some people up in Alaska, and there was a couple of similar shows I only seens epsiodes off, "Mountainmen" and another following people living a life rather far removed from our modern life. Stuff you watch on tv and think, man that would be so nice wouldn't it? (For like a week :smallbiggrin:)

[BannedInSchool]

Wait, tackling anywhere that isn't the waist or legs? Are they trying to kill the players of this sport?
Well, AmFootball was nearly banned because of the fatalities in the way-back time. The Flying Wedge: The Greatest Play in Football (http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/2015/09/14/the-flying-wedge-the-greatest-play-in-football/) :smallbiggrin:

[DomaDoma]

Having read one too many cleaning manuals that were under the impression that my only problem was hanging on to too much stuff, I finally threw up my hands and entered "cleaning tips for people who live in filth" into the search bar. Reality TV's train-wreck mentality to the rescue, folks: there's a show called How Clean Is My House? which is about nothing but that. One episode should probably suffice to educate me, but still.

[An Enemy Spy]

I'll say that I really don't get why you'd want to continuously stop a sport. Is that really better than all the players getting into a ruck and trying to force the other team away from the ball? Maybe American Football players move faster because they get a break every two minutes.

Think of each play like it's a miniature game all in itself. At the end of each play, the teams regroup, come up with a new strategy, and then reset to begin the next play. It's like a turn based game where each side draws up a plan in secret and tries to anticipate what the opponent will do. The purpose of most plays isn't to score but to gain incremental field position and work your way step by step toward the opponent's endzone.

[Bartmanhomer]

What's the difference between rugby and football? I thought it the same sport? :confused:

[An Enemy Spy]

What's the difference between rugby and football? I thought it the same sport? :confused:

No, they're pretty different. They just both have oblong balls and people hitting each other, so they look kind of alike.

[Bartmanhomer]

No, they're pretty different. They just both have oblong balls and people hitting each other, so they look kind of alike.

Uh....ok. So how are they different?

[An Enemy Spy]

Uh....ok. So how are they different?

I've got a decent explanation of how American Football works above but you'd have to ask Anonymouswizard how Rugby works because I don't know.

[Anonymouswizard]

Think of each play like it's a miniature game all in itself. At the end of each play, the teams regroup, come up with a new strategy, and then reset to begin the next play. It's like a turn based game where each side draws up a plan in secret and tries to anticipate what the opponent will do. The purpose of most plays isn't to score but to gain incremental field position and work your way step by step toward the opponent's endzone.

Okay, I sort of get that. Not what I'd like, but I can see how it might work.


I've got a decent explanation of how American Football works above but you'd have to ask Anonymouswizard how Rugby works because I don't know.

Happy to oblige, although I've forgotten half of it.

So this is going to be Rugby Union, because that's what I'm used to, Rugby League is different and meant for a faster game.

So in Rugby each team is made up of 15 members, and there's no real difference between them in terms of size. You have eight forwards, these are the big guys supposed to power through, and seven backs, these are the fast guys meant to run around the opposing team. The forwards are faster than they used to be and the backs are large, so it's really a difference of scale. Specific positions such as hooker or fly-back do exist, and are important during scrums or knowing who's supposed to do what, but you don't really need to know that.

The goal is to score more points in the *googles* two forty minute halves. Five points for a try (putting the ball down in the goal area, with your hand on the ball), with an additional two points if you can then kick it through the goal, and three points for drop kicking the ball through the goal in all other situations.

You always pass backwards or sideways. Passing forwards is a penalty. You can kick forwards, although that's not always useful.

Tackles are below the neck, and generally at waist or leg height, and the goal is to pull the opponent to the ground (at which point they must have passed the ball or have placed it down). If a tackle does not bring the player to the ground then they may hold the ball and continue moving, in these cases a maul will generally start where each team will link their players together trying to push each other towards their opponent's goal zone. A ruck is a maul where the player or ball was got to the ground.

When the ball leaves the field it's thrown back in by the team that did not throw it out, with each team lined up facing each other (the ball is thrown in the middle of the teams, fairly please).

A scrum is a way to restart the game from a certain point on the pitch. The team's hooker is at the front centre, with the rest of the team linked up, and you try to push the opposing team away from the centrally located ball or hook the ball towards your end of the pitch so your backs can pick it up and run with it.

Players will likely get injured. If a player leaves the pitch because they're bleeding and is back on the pitch within ten minutes it does not count as a substitution. Concussions are rare, however a ruck or maul that goes poorly can break a player's neck. If you can't pretend you're not injured for 79 minutes you're not cut out to play Rugby.

A good number of players shall be privately educated. Arguing with the referee is considered bad form. Do you want people to think you're a football player? We aren't hooligans here.

[Velaryon]

Does anyone remember the show Human Weapon that aired on the History Channel a little over 10 years ago? I'm not sure if that counts as a reality show, but if it does then it's probably the only one that I really enjoyed. It was really more of a documentary series, but there was a slight competition element to it in that the two hosts would end each episode by competing against someone in the particular style they were focusing on that episode. I think the series was canceled after both hosts got hurt during the Taekwondo episode.

[Fri]

Uh....ok. So how are they different?

I know more about american football than rugby, but from what I know, an easy way to imagine the difference is like this, Bartmanhormer. Obviously, american football use armor, rugby doesn't. I think there's rules on what you're allowed to tackle in rugby more than American football.

1. You're not allowed to pass forward in rugby. In american football, you can move the ball forward by throwing it, but in rugby, you're only allowed to bring the ball forward by running.
2. There's a lot more stops in american football. I'm not entirely sure, but think in rugby you only stop the game when the ball is out of the field or there's foul or something, while in American Football, you stop the game whenever the player who's bringing the ball is downed, and you basically restart the position. The offensive team has four chance to bring the ball forward 10 yards.

Someone can correct me, but I think these two differences are the most significance differences for me between Rugby and American football that makes them an obviously different game if you get what I mean. Obviously there are more differences, but those two are what makes them play as a very different sport.

[Knaight]

As for direct blows to the head, those violate NFL regulations in almost all cases.

On the other hand coaches encouraging players to perform illegal hits and just soak the fine aren't exactly rare.

[Liquor Box]

Every rugby game I've seen looked like the players were moving in slow motion. NFL-style football players are shockingly fast, and 115+ kilogram isn't "several" players. It is virtually every player - the real heavyweights (the players who's job it is to duck under the offensive line and slam into the QB at maximum speed) can exceed 160 kilos. If NFL players didn't wear armor, there'd be fatalities in every match.


As for direct blows to the head, those violate NFL regulations in almost all cases.

That may have been your perception, but it is not the reality. Rugby players run every bit as fast as Football players. The speedy players in professional teams generally run 100m in less than 11 seconds, and the forwards (who are not so speedy) still move pretty quickly.

It is not virtually every player in NFL who is over 115kg (which is about 250 pounds). The roster for the 49ers shows that probably about half the players are that weight, with some being well under 90kg (200 pounds).
http://www.49ers.com/team/roster.html

Professional rugby probably doesn't have quite the same size range as NFL - most players are between 90kg and 125kg, with the smattering of players from 125kg to 140kg being considered larger than the norm (although most pro teams will have one or two).

I don't think there is much difference between the size or athletecism of NFL vs Super rugby players to require armour in one code and not the other. It may be required because of the different tackle rules of the two sports, or maybe it is not truly required in NFL at all. In Rugby fatalities happen occassionally, but rarely.

[Liquor Box]

Wait, tackling anywhere that isn't the waist or legs? Are they trying to kill the players of this sport? To think that rugby gets the reputation as a bloodbath... I mean sure, we have the 'if you're not off for ten minutes it's not a substitution' rule, but you wouldn't want to stop a player because of a minor wound!

Yeah, I still remember being taught to rugby tackle. You're taught the basics of the sport with tag rugby because an improper tackle is dangerous, and will only learn how to tackle in secondary school where you'll make sure you're hitting with your shoulder on your target's waist (incidentally this is also the time the sexes are split for PE). Looking into it, half the reason rugby is less dangerous seems to be that it's players are smaller (not that they're small, we used to say my church's rector looked like an ex-rugby player because he was broad) and tackles are generally at a lower speed.

I'll say that I really don't get why you'd want to continuously stop a sport. Is that really better than all the players getting into a ruck and trying to force the other team away from the ball? Maybe American Football players move faster because they get a break every two minutes.

In rugby you are allowed to tackle any part of the body that is not the head or the neck. You must also use your arms in the tackle (although first contact can be with your shoulder). You are not allowed to tackle a player that is airborne to catch a high ball, or a player without the ball.

At professional level, players usually target the upper chest - the problem with tackling the waist or legs is that it leaves the arms free to pass the ball to another player (called an offload).

Rugby League has similar rules, but the are interpreted less strictly - for example, some contact with the head is acceptable so long as it was not the first contact.

[Liquor Box]

Uh....ok. So how are they different?

I think the two biggest differences are as follows:

1. In rugby you can only pass backward (you can kick forward but there are strict offside rules, so kicking generally gives the other team the ball), while in American Football you can pass forward. The effect of this is that in Football you can pass over the other teams defensive line, while in rugby you have to run through it.

2. In football when a tackle is completed the game is no longer live, the teams reset for another play. In rugby, the game remains live, and the two teams each try to recover the balls from the tackled player (by pushing the other team off the ball). This means in rugby the same players defend as attack.

3. In football any player can tackle any player on the opposing team. In rugby you are only allowed to tackle the ball carrier (so the attacking team cannot tackle anyone).

[Anonymouswizard]

In rugby you are allowed to tackle any part of the body that is not the head or the neck. You must also use your arms in the tackle (although first contact can be with your shoulder). You are not allowed to tackle a player that is airborne to catch a high ball, or a player without the ball.

At professional level, players usually target the upper chest - the problem with tackling the waist or legs is that it leaves the arms free to pass the ball to another player (called an offload).

Rugby League has similar rules, but the are interpreted less strictly - for example, some contact with the head is acceptable so long as it was not the first contact.

Yeah, it should be obvious I never played professionally (or even seriously, which is a shame and I plan to find a local amateur club if I ever get back to a decent weight). We were taught to hit the waist with our shoulder then grab with our arms because it's safer. I think in practice we tended to hit between the chest and waist, as it was easier to grab the arms from there.


I suspect the 'can only tackle the player with the ball' is a big help with rugby being less dangerous, as well. Less people getting rammed into, as well as the fact tackles involve dragging somebody to the ground instead of knocking them down.

[Celestia]

Drawn Together was great. I feel like seasons two and three got progressively worse, but they were still decent, at least.

[Bartmanhomer]

Drawn Together was great. I feel like seasons two and three got progressively worse, but they were still decent, at least.

Drawn Together is a cartoon. Well for adults anyway.

[Anonymouswizard]

Drawn Together is a cartoon. Well for adults anyway.

What's wrong with Cartoons? Show me one live action show where a main character is two lesbians in a trenchcoat.

[Peelee]

What's wrong with Cartoons?

There's nothing wrong with cartoons. There is, however, plenty wrong with Drawn Together. For instance, it was marketed as a comedy, but was painfully unfunny.

[Bartmanhomer]

What's wrong with Cartoons? Show me one live action show where a main character is two lesbians in a trenchcoat.

I didn't say anything wrong with Cartoons. I'm just pointing it out that the thread was meant for live-action show not animated show.

[Knaight]

There's nothing wrong with cartoons. There is, however, plenty wrong with Drawn Together. For instance, it was marketed as a comedy, but was painfully unfunny.

Does someone get married at the end? It might slip in on a technicality.

[Celestia]

Drawn Together is a cartoon. Well for adults anyway.
But it's still a reality TV show.

[Bartmanhomer]

But it's still a reality TV show.

True. So is Total Drama Island even though I never watched it before.

[Keltest]

But it's still a reality TV show.

I thought it was intended as more of a parody of reality TV.

I recognize that many so-called "reality" shows are just as heavily scripted as cartoons, but I do think theres a line that needs to be drawn, otherwise the term loses all meaning and applicability. If its animated, it cant be an actual reality show because there is no reality involved in any of it, at any stage. Its not even a heavily distorted view of reality.

[Peelee]

I thought it was intended as more of a parody of reality TV.

I recognize that many so-called "reality" shows are just as heavily scripted as cartoons

Are they scripted, or just manufactured? Like, if they pick the most drama-hungry people to be on the show, and then introduce elements to engage drama-seeking behavior, that's not scripted, but is heavily manufactured.

I see actual scripted shows as not reality TV, while manufactured drama shows are.

[Keltest]

Are they scripted, or just manufactured? Like, if they pick the most drama-hungry people to be on the show, and then introduce elements to engage drama-seeking behavior, that's not scripted, but is heavily manufactured.

I see actual scripted shows as not reality TV, while manufactured drama shows are.

You get both a lot of the time. The more popular ones I think tend to just be manufactured, because the scripted ones are both obvious and usually badly scripted. But they will frequently tell somebody "ok, were going for this angle, so try and cause as much drama about topic X as you can".

I agree though, if theyre actually feeding people their lines, that's a good place for the line to be drawn.

[Kitten Champion]

The whole appeal of reality television from the network standpoint was that they didn't have to pay for any sort of script writing -- particularly in the early-to-mid 2000's when there was major contention between the writers guild and the producers. It's also cheap and easy to make in general, very cost efficient low-risk content.

While I think the "this is your persona, play it up" goes into some of these, most reality television is made in the editing room. You cut the hours and hours of footage available to you to construct the narrative(s) you think will work, ask leading questions while only including selective responses while removing the context in which they're given and then presented at calculated points for maximum drama, and then there are things like narration or mood-defining music stings to really drive home the point.

Successful reality television is better than most political ads at spinning people's perceptions through very selective and calculated presentation.

[Anonymouswizard]

Are they scripted, or just manufactured? Like, if they pick the most drama-hungry people to be on the show, and then introduce elements to engage drama-seeking behavior, that's not scripted, but is heavily manufactured.

I see actual scripted shows as not reality TV, while manufactured drama shows are.

Both. I know that scripting reality TV shows is a thing, but it's not the same as scripting a drama. More like get the footage then write the script then edit the footage to fit the script, if I remember my secondhand contacts within the industry correctly.

Of course, the level of scripting varies. Something like The Apprentice is going to be less scripted than Big Brother, simply because of the format.

[Peelee]

Both. I know that scripting reality TV shows is a thing, but it's not the same as scripting a drama. More like get the footage then write the script then edit the footage to fit the script, if I remember my secondhand contacts within the industry correctly.
See, that's different. That's just editing. You can alter reality heavily with editing.

You get both a lot of the time. The more popular ones I think tend to just be manufactured, because the scripted ones are both obvious and usually badly scripted. But they will frequently tell somebody "ok, were going for this angle, so try and cause as much drama about topic X as you can".

I agree though, if theyre actually feeding people their lines, that's a good place for the line to be drawn.
This, I think, is the best way to put it.

[BannedInSchool]

I suspect the 'can only tackle the player with the ball' is a big help with rugby being less dangerous, as well. Less people getting rammed into, as well as the fact tackles involve dragging somebody to the ground instead of knocking them down.

Well, you can't *tackle* anyone but the ball-carrier in AmFootball, but as long as you do it from the front you can slam into at full speed, sorry "block", anyone you want. You just can't grab them.

Edit: @10s that's a block, not a tackle. :smallwink: (The finger pointing gives me so much joy. Haha, a wide receiver put you on your back, legs in the air.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHqie0q7I5Y


Are they scripted, or just manufactured? Like, if they pick the most drama-hungry people to be on the show, and then introduce elements to engage drama-seeking behavior, that's not scripted, but is heavily manufactured.
The way I understood it is that some are plotted kind of like a pre-plotted LARP. "Have a fight about <thing that happened>. Action!"


More like get the footage then write the script then edit the footage to fit the script, if I remember my secondhand contacts within the industry correctly.

Of course, the level of scripting varies. Something like The Apprentice is going to be less scripted than Big Brother, simply because of the format.

I had heard that a big challenge for editing The Apprentice was making the ending look good, as it wasn't necessarily heavily based on events. If you thought it made sense then they were doing a good job at it. Or so I heard.

[Peelee]

The way I understood it is that some are plotted kind of like a pre-plotted LARP. "Have a fight about <thing that happened>. Action!"

Isn't that basically how Curb Your Enthusiasm works? Cheryl doesn't know what Larry does, they just have her react like a reasonable person would to discover, for instance, their husband inviting a sex offender to Seder. With the notable exception that they use actual actors who can, you know, act.

[SaintRidley]

Back in the early days of the reality tv boom there was a brief (2 seasons) run of what I consider the greatest reality show ever: The Joe Schmoe Show.

One actual unassuming guy gets cast on a reality tv show (think Big Brother style). Only everyone else is an actor trying to keep up the ruse around him. How long until he figures it out? Season two had a Bachelor/Bachelorette style setup and two schmoes - one woman and one man - and the woman figured it out almost immediately and wound up in on the act while they quickly brought in an alternate to replace her as the unsuspecting female schmoe.

It was fantastic at laying bare how formulaic even the competition based shows are. Great stuff.