Reality TV or Reality Bulls#!$#!

I was reading an article earlier this afternoon that caught my attention regarding “reality TV”.  What I was referring to was the “wedding” of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries.  The article can be found on celebs.gather.com. http://celebs.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474980759270

Quite a few viewers felt duped by the reality TV star and for good reason.  Shortly after wedding was televised, within 72 days, she filed for divorce from the NBA star.  With what she did, a lot of people felt like she treated marriage like a “bad business deal” with which a lot of people in this country hold marriage in high regards.    My take on this matter is when “enough is enough” with reality TV.  Kim Kardashian’s former publicist also said that the wedding was a “fake”.  As far as I’m concerned, the wedding should have never been televised, let alone gone through.  She’s basically sending out the message that you can marry someone, and if you don’t like them, you can cancel the deal. Move on.  NEXT!

 It's bulls#$@ but it's sadly turning into the truth.

My opinion is this, in this “throwaway” society that we live in, the depiction of a lavish wedding is just that, for show.  She has proven that with the broadcast of her “wedding.”  Its getting to the point that “reality TV” has to be fabricated to garner larger rating numbers, which again doesn’t make any kind of sense. Which also begs the question, “Is anything sacred” these days?  I have written about realty TV before in my blog and how its taking away from quality TV with its programming.  I have to admit that I do watch some reality shows on cable.  But usually, those fall under the shows that involve food, fixing up a house, or learning tips on fixing up cars (and lets throw in Pawn Stars for good measure).  But the shows like Jerseylicions, and other shows I’m not going to mention where the women can be quite “catty” towards one another is a bit annoying after a while. But hey that’s only my opinion, everyone else is entitled to theirs. 

Lastly, I would hope that after this Kardashian wedding fiasco, that TV and cable channels will start looking at “quality” creative programming again instead of looking into someone else’s life.  No one wants to pay attention to the messes in their own lives, but at the same time are willing to look at someone else’s to avoid dealing with theirs. 

Peace.  

Throwing Money at the Problem…

This past weekend, I just watched the Green Lantern movie for the first time and I saw where the $200 million went in the making of the film.  Honestly, I didn’t think that the movie was that bad to the point those critics had to bash it.  At the same time, I saw that the movie could have been “tightened up” to make a better product.  All the money that they spent on the film, a good chunk of it went to advertising, especially after seeing the ads and displays all over Century City (here in Los Angeles for example), which I thought was a waste because there were parts of the film that could have been done differently instead of wasting quite a bit of money on it.  I understand about promotions and everything, however I feel that some of the money could have been used more on development to get it “right.”   Basically, Green Lantern could have been a lot better, and would have launched the DC Comics properties like Marvel has done with their stable of characters (like Iron Man, Thor, etc…) but they came up short in the story department.  A good chunk of money that was spent on the advertising could have been used to hire more writers to come in and rewrite certain parts of the film to “tighten up” certain elements, and then do away with other parts of it that didn’t seem right or that were a bit forced to a degree.  Not to give away any “spoilers,” but certain parts, if they were written properly, would have given the movie an edge instead of just throwing them in there for the movie’s sake.  I remember watching Spider-Man 3 a few years back, and basically, a super-villain, Venom (a major Spider-Man baddie), was “shoe-horned” and didn’t get that much screen time (much to my dismay), and yet again they spent quite a bit of money on it, and it was a success, it left a bad taste in my mouth as a film goer.  Just because the big studios throw a lot of money at a project, doesn’t mean that the film is going to be any good.  I always go by the adage, “what looks good on paper, doesn’t mean it’s going to look good on film.”  What I can add in there is what looks good by spending a whole lot of money, doesn’t mean that it’s going to “glitter” on the big screen, either. 

My advice is simple…

Keep the story tight and cohesive, and then, and then maybe then the money that is spent would be well worth it, not only to the filmmakers, but also to the movie-going public.   Don’t insult them by spending too much, to say “its gold-looking” and all it turns out to be “lead” on the big screen.