The next ABC reality series. No, really. I’m not joking.

Another Voice

Charter Member of The Element
Joined
Jan 27, 2000
For the good of the republic, these people must be stopped.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=1764668

From Reuters…
ABC Seeks Sexiest Person in America
Tue November 19, 2002 03:16 AM ET
By Josef Adalian
HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - Hotties of the world, unite: ABC is looking to crown a king or queen of comeliness via a new reality series bluntly titled "Are You Hot?"

The network will launch a nationwide "American Idol"-like search for the sexiest person in America, with a group of tart-tongued judges passing Simon Cowell-esque judgments on folks who think they're all that and a bag of Baked Lays.

ABC has ordered six episodes of "Hot" from gonzo reality producer Mike Fleiss ("The Bachelor"). They will likely will bow early next year.

The series will begin with four episodes in which wannabes from each region of the country compete to become one of 40 quarterfinalists, divided equally between men and women. Viewers will play a part in picking the 16 semifinalists who will fly to Los Angeles to take part in a series of pageant-like competitions as well as makeover treatments. The finale of "Hot" will feature the person deemed "sexiest in America" via viewer calls.

ABC reality chief Andrea Wong said "Hot" will capitalize on the nation's obsession with rating the looks and fashions of celebs and other public figures.

"Everybody has different ideas about who's hot or who's sexy," she said. "You debate it endlessly with your friends, and magazines do it with 'Sexiest People' issues. So we figured, why not do a TV show about it and let America vote?"

ABC and Fleiss are making no bones about the lack of intellectual or creative stimuli involved in "Hot." To that end, it's no surprise that skimpy swimsuits definitely will be a part of the equation, Fleiss said.

"The cool thing about this show is that contestants will be judged with their clothes on and off," he said. "We'll see what we can get away with."

In addition to nationwide, um, exposure, the winner of "Hot" will get a "substantial" six-figure cash prize. But unlike most other beauty competitions, "Hot" will wallow in exploiting (and deflating) the egos and aspirations of those who think they're too sexy for this competition.

"People who think they're good-looking will be put to the test," Fleiss said.

Wong said "Hot" will "poke a little fun at people who think they're sexy."

"You don't have to be talented to be on this show," Wong said. "You don't have to sing, you don't have to dance, you don't have to do anything -- except think you're hot. It's good, pure fun."

In addition to the straight-forward competition part of the show, Fleiss hopes "Hot" will tell the personal stories of some of the contestants, as well as drawing out whatever drama might emerge from so many good-looking folks competing against one another (one word: catfight).

"It's a sexy little show," Fleiss said.

In addition to "Hot," Fleiss is prepping production on "The Will," a reality show for ABC in which a rich benefactor will divvy up his estate via a family competition.

"The Bachelor II" airs its season finale Wednesday, wrapping up an enormously successful run for a show that in recent weeks has become the top-rated reality series among adults 18-49. "The Bachelorette" will likely bow Jan. 8, with another "Bachelor" expected to follow.

It's possible "Hot" could air Wednesdays at 9 in March, after "Bachelorette" but before "Bachelor III." No decisions on scheduling have been made, however.
 
Honestly, AV, there are times when I wonder that you don't just give up hope. Tinseltown has its ups & downs, but this is definitely a down :p

Mind you, I'm disgusted with the whole reality show thing in the first place, so I'm not a good judge over whether the public will watch this, but it does seem to reek of Temptation Island, which as I recall didn't do so well.

Sarangel
 
Then Mr. Scoop, what exactly do you think Disney means. I keep reading about imagination and magic and quality and wonder –

Yet it seems that anything can be justified simply because it makes money.

Really – a television show that exists simply to poke fun at daft good looking people. That’s “Disney”? Is something Disney simply because they slapped the DISNEY® brand sticker on it?

No matter how low the audience is, no matter how stupid they are, no matter how base entertainment they want to see – is it something Disney should make?

Is the ONLY standard profit?
 
Is the ONLY standard profit?

The only standards I see these days are ones born out of desperation and complacancy. There is just not enough creativity throughout the company to start new trends like the ones AV mentioned and the ones that already exist at other networks. The attitude has shifted from one of "creating" to one of "imitating". The last original concept for the network was Millionaire(which they did not create), and we all saw how they milked it into the ground.

Scoop you are correct when you explain what seems so obvious, that they're merely giving the people what they want. What also seems quite obvious here is that Eisner is desperately looking for something fast to cash in-on in order to save his job. If the rumored reports are true, Eisner has until next fall to turn ABC and the rest of the company around, lest he be canned(for lack of a better word). However, this is not the company that we've come to respect for it's originality and trend setting prowess. We will not sit quiet merely because they are settling on the quickest and easiest fixes to the companies problems. We realize why they're doing what they're doing, but it doesn't make it right. Make no mistake, Disney as we know is in serious jeapordy, and it could cease to exist as we know it if it continues to follow the leads of other companies. Eisner, by his own hand, will be out before the end of next year.
 
I don't know, I'm kind of excited about the new gay "Hart to Hart" re-make. There's no way that won't be quality television.
 
A few quick hits...

...and I suppose this has nothing to do with giving the public what it wants...
The public wanted "Millionaire" also.

Sure some of the public wants this stuff. Some of the public wants hardcore porn too. The question is what is right for Disney.

But, then again, we know five families who've been to WDW within the last two months and every single one of them praised PW and proclaimed it one of their new "favorites".
Scoop, I know you are too sharp to put so much weight on anecdotal information. I didn't say ONE WORD to my wife or our friends about standards or PW before our trip in May. Yet, 4 of the 5 other adults say its fun, BUT IT DOESN'T FIT, or IT DOESN'T SEEM "RIGHT".

So what does that prove? Nada. Not everybody "gets" what Disney is about. That's fine, they don't have to. That's why so many other vacation alternatives make money. That doesn't mean its what Disney should do.

So, it was certainly easier to give the public "quality" (which sage actually ends up defining that term anyways?) when giving them Fear Factor wasn't an option. Back then the only option were gameshows which, indeed, some people would call yesteryear's version of Reality TV.
So we're back to the "quality is just so hard to do now" argument?

What Disney needs to do is get rid of ABC because innovation and national over the air networks don't mix.
Given the fact that they aren't even going to try to get them to mix, I completely agree.

Given Eisner's lament about the ABC brand not being "differentiated", I would think even he would agree.
 
Can't wait for "Are You Hot? Play It!" to appear at the Studios to replace Millionaire.

Whoa, I hadn't thought of this.

Please disregard my previous post. "Hot" is a great idea!
;)
 
Ridiculous. And people wonder why there are so many teenage girls out there with eating disorders. Here's just another slap in the face to the "regular" kids.
 
Quality comes in many forms. Of course a network has to stay within the realm of what people will watch. I doubt they could survive putting on Masterpiece Theater every night.

But in some ways, its all relative. There are quality sitcoms, and there are crappy sitcoms. There are quality dramas, and crappy dramas. Some of the quality stuff doesn't hit it off with the public, and that's what makes quality a tough sell. It takes more talent, and more money, to produce quality. If you fail, you lose more than if "Hot" fails. So they make the decision based on the path of least resistance.

Is that truly the best business model for a network? Maybe, maybe not. But if Disney's judgement is that it is, then, again, I agree 100%:
In short, sell ABC because its model isn't compatible with Disney's.


And you KNEW I couldn't let this pass without at least commenting:
...no, this isn't "quality is too hard". While that is definitely a valid discussion IMO for some of Disney's properties which, at least, have a history of making money off of a qualitative model...
Now, how to respond in as succinct a manner as possible, yet still get my point across...hmmm... Ah! I've got it. Here goes:

PHOOEY!!!

:)
 
...I can simply stand in awe as you flex the entire scope of your literary muscles...
Why, thank you! I had hesitated, because, knowing my audience, I thought it might fly straight over some heads...But then I said, "nah, he'll figure out phooey."

Now, "poppycock" would have been a different story!

I mean, in theory, Wheatley should be able to simply work and train hard enough to run like his former draft status (as well as his maize and blue years) would seem to warrant...
Wheatley makes the best of the tools he has, strength, a little speed, and heart. However, they do not include quickness, allusiveness, or pass-catching. Sort of like a spinner...you can dress it up, try to showcase it, but you can't expect it to carry you...

Anyhow, this is an old argument which Mr. Pirate has won many a times before so I'll leave his broad wisdom and leadership as my signature on this one...
As much respect as I have for the peg-legged wonder, I have to say that I believe you must be looking at the wrong scoreboard.
:smooth:

(By the way, where is our friendly neighboorhood buccaneer?)
 
how bout not giving the public just what they want but creating something they didnt even know they needed. im thinkin along the lines of Sundays and how HBO is the place to be.

most of the times mediocrity is what the public thinks it needs till something magical like Disneyland comes along and they realize "I need this!!!!"
 
How about a new show about TV : "How Low Can You Go?" ;)
I think Michael Moore would be a GREAT choice to run the show! :)
 
Here is the list of the top shows during the '74-'75 season:

1. All in the Family
2. The Waltons
3. Sandford and Son
4. M*A*S*H
5. Hawaii Five-O
6. Maude
7. Kojak
8. The Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour
9. The Mary Tyler Moore Show
10. Cannon
11. The Six Million Dollar Man
12.The Bob Newhart Show
13. The Wonderful World of Disney
14. The NBC Sunday Mystery Movie
15. Gunsmoke
16. Happy Days
17. Good Times
18. Barnaby Jones
19. ABC Monday Night Football
20.CBS Friday Night Movie
21. Tuesday Movie of the Week
22. The Streets of San Francisco
23. Adam 12
24. ABC Sunday Night Movie
25. The Rookies

I see more quality here IMO so maybe people did care at one time.
 
*reads AV's post*
*hits head on keyboard*
And this is supposed to be the hight of civilization?
 
:( TV has become a vast wasteland of garbage. We watch very little of it. We are even considering getting rid of our cable. About the only thing we watch anymore is tv land.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top