but seriously...
May 13, 2004
...Oh, I give up. I just give up. (Again.)
The title of the show is "Seriously, Dude, I'm Gay." Three guesses which network is behind it.
Okay, so even if the headline didn't give it away, would it really be so hard to figure out? FOX has ordered this one-off unscripted special from the producers of "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance" and will air it Monday, June 7.
In "Seriously, Dude," the network says the "current pop culture craze for all things gay is taken to an outrageously satirical extreme" by giving two straight "guy's guys" a crash course in gay culture and setting them off on a series of challenges.
(At least that's what the original press release said, along with the opening line "It's a heterosexual male's worst nightmare: Turning gay overnight." The network sent out an amended version of the announcement a couple hours later, apologizing for its "failed attempt at humor [that] was ill-chosen and inappropriate.")
Those include coming out to friends and family and going on a blind date with another man. The winner gets $50,000.
You'd think that having to issue an apology for the freakin' press release would be an indicator that perhaps, just perhaps, a particular show is ill-advised and you might rethink going forward with it. You might think that, yes, but then you would not be a Fox programming executive -- their normal thought process seem to run along the lines of, "How low can I go? ... No, we can go lower than THAT! Try harder! Everybody do the limbo!"
Why, one wonders, do all of these shows lately have at their core the requirement to deceive someone? This guy is going to come out to his friends and family, and then suddenly say, "No, wait, it was all a big joke so I could get some cash!" Said family and friends are likely to be furious at this deceit (albeit ultimately relieved -- hey, that's the way of the world; I certainly didn't make it so), and rightfully so. I'm assuming, for the sake of consistency, that the person with whom he goes out on a date will also not know the truth -- given that it's a single date, the person may well not find out the truth until the show airs, and wouldn't that be a great way to discover that you've been had?
As I mentioned before, I do understand that buried underneath the tinsel and tittilation, there's a vaguely serious point being made. And yes, getting the public used to seing Real Actual Gay People on television would be a good thing. (Mind, you'd think they could use Real Actual Gay People in a nondeceptive way to make that particular point.) But this incessant drumbeat of deception and "who's the real gay" dating shows is utterly and absolutely vile.
Posted by iain at 02:03 PM
superstar! ... yeah, right
May 11, 2004
Well. I am impressed. Just when you think that reality show producers have gone as low as they can -- making fools of contestants in shows like "Joe Schmoe" and "Boy Meets Boy" -- then abruptly, you see something that makes you wonder if perhaps, perhaps, they might be getting a little conscience ... or at least the odd jolt of common sense.
"Creative reasons." Yes. Well. In any event, it's entirely possible that one underling greenlighted the show, and then when it reached the upper management levels for final approval -- just about the time news broke that they'd done this -- the higher-ups said to the underlings, "You're freakin' insane; you know this, right? You sat there and watched CBS get shredded for exactly this concept, and then produced a pilot for it anyway?" In any event, for whatever reason, the show is quickly dropped.
But over on the WB, there's this little abomination called The WB's Superstar USA!, where the point of the show is to laugh at the talentless, who are unfortunately apparently unaware of just how acute their lack of talent is. (I'm assuming that, despite the fact that "the conclusion of the show is played out in front of a live audience", every single second of the show is in fact taped ahead of time; otherwise, there wouldn't be any possible way to keep the people from finding out exactly what was going on. If nothing else, their family and friends would tell them, one would think; keeping them completely uninformed for seven weeks would be nearly impossible.) So while the conclusion may in fact be taped in front of a live studio audience, it's probably not performed live on air, the way the American Idol shows are. Even allowing that these people volunteered for the show -- probably expecting the odd Simon Cowell-style ruthless critique -- they certainly did not knowingly volunteer for this.
But just when you think that, well, OK, they have discovered something lower than Joe Schmoe and Boy Meets Boy, they have discovered an even lower level of the reality TV sewer ... then you discover that, in fact, there are Still Lower Depths to which they can descend!
Reality TV has been known to pull the wool over people's eyes, but this time, it may have gone too far. At a taping for the upcoming "bad talent" series, "Superstar USA" producers lied and told audience members that the talentless contestants were actually terminally ill patients from the Make-A-Wish Foundation.
The producers were worried that if they didn't lie, the audience would laugh or boo the contestants and give away the entire premise of the show, which is to fool really bad singers into thinking they're good. The show, which debuts Monday on the WB network, is a spoof of "American Idol" reject William Hung and the rest of the tryouts who don't seem to realize just how bad they are.
The idea of the show is to reward only the worst singers in the competition and move them on to the next round. The joke, of course, is on the deluded singers - with the very worst of them being crowned the "winner" at the end of the four-week series.
Officials for "Superstar USA" and the WB issued apologies over the weekend about the Make-a-Wish Foundation comment after an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
Right. So now they have to lie to the audience to make sure everyone plays along. Really, you'd think when it reaches the stage where you not only pay the audience, but then lie to it about the people having fatal diseases, you might consider that your concept is beyond morally bankrupt and perhaps ought to be abandoned.
But of course, they won't.
Posted by iain at 12:22 PM
royalties, or, we've lost david bowie and don't know where to find him!
May 4, 2004
In an unusual pact with New York authorities, the world's largest record labels have agreed to step up their efforts to track down a slew of recording artists who are owed back royalties of about $50 million, sources said. As part of a deal expected to be announced today by New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer, the five companies are expected to share their latest artist contact information with one another. They also will post advertisements to find thousands of performers who may have been lost in the shuffle in recent years, sources said. The deal could provide long-awaited paychecks to many lesser-known acts who have disappeared from the pop charts. But sources said the unpaid also included a number of prominent stars who shouldn't be difficult to find.
Bowie, DMB Rescue Royalties (Rolling Stone, May 4, 2004)
David Bowie, the Dave Matthews Band, Sean "P. Diddy" Combs, Dolly Parton and John Mellencamp are just a few of the thousands of artists who will receive payments from the major labels for unclaimed, unpaid royalties.
The $50 million payout was the result of a deal struck by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who negotiated with Sony Music Entertainment, Sony ATV Music Publishing, the Warner Music Group, UMG Recordings,Universal Music, EMI Music Publishing, EMI Music North America, BMG Songs, Careers-BMG Music Publishing, BMG and the Harry Fox Agency. The deal caps a two-year investigation sparked by music industry attorney Bob Donnelly, who brought the issue of labels failing to keep contact with performers and making proper royalty payments. More than $25 million has been paid out so far, with another $25 still expected to be distributed. [...] For some, the payout amounts to a drop in the bucket. The Dave Matthews Band is owed just over $14,000 (its 1996 album, Crash, for instance earned $4,000 that wasn't properly paid), while the $10,700 that Bowie was owed was just for 1997's Earthling. And for other artists, the payout comes too late, as deceased artists including Jim Croce, Waylon Jennings, Dizzy Gillespie and Frank Sinatra were all owed sums. But the estates of deceased musicians received some of the larger payouts, including that of songwriter Tommy Edward, which is due almost $230,000.
The investigation also found that outstanding royalties were also due to artists who didn't necessarily make vast sums of money, and the likes of Texas singer-songwriter Guy Clark or avant garde jazz pianist Cecil Taylor might benefit from the windfall of a few thousand dollars. "[Some] artists struggle," Spitzer said at a press conference announcing the deal in New York City today. "They depend on the stream of royalties."
You know ... I can understand losing track of the various one-hit wonders and lesser-known songwriters and other artists. I really can. After all, once the individual gets dropped by the label and they think that their music isn't selling any more, why would they stay in contact with the label? So really, that does make a certain amount of sense.
But how in hell do you lose track of David Bowie? of the Dave Matthews Band? Waylon Jennings and the others mentioned? These aren't one hit wonders; they're not that difficult to locate. Even if your address information was outdated, their agents aren't that difficult to locate. This sounds, frankly, like the record companies decided that they had a distinct disincentive to locate the artists. After all, while the royalties owed to individual artists weren't all that much, cumulatively, $50 million divided by a relatively few companies amounts to a pretty goodly sum each -- and that doesn't even count the interest they must have earned by keeping the money in their accounts all this time.
Posted by iain at 05:36 PM