What's something modern you won't miss when it becomes obsolete?

[V.C. Brunswick]

There were a few honorable men in show business -- Uncle Carl Laemmle comes to mind, and people used to say nice things about Gus Sun and Barney Balaban, but yes, in general the executives at the top of the industry have usually been swine. Which makes it all the more necessary to read the fine print when dealing with their minions.

I don't know about back then but today many of the movers and shakers in Hollywood are lawyers by profession who had specialized in entertainment law and had started out as agents. That right there tells me a lot about the nature of the beast.

 

[vintage68]

:deadhorse
I'm no veterinarian, but I do believe that the equine that you all have been incessantly beating is long-since dead.


With that in mind, how about something else "modern you won't miss when it becomes obsolete?"

:eusa_clap

 

[LizzieMaine]

I don't know about back then but today many of the movers and shakers in Hollywood are lawyers by profession who had specialized in entertainment law and had started out as agents. That right there tells me a lot about the nature of the beast.

Most of the first generation of movie moguls were generally petty merchants and hustlers who made it big in the nickelodeon era. In that business and in that era, scruples were something you got rid of as quickly as possible if you wanted to succeed. They scraped and chiseled their way to the top, and they weren't about to let a bunch of punk ek-tors get anything away from them.

At least one of the first wave of moguls -- Joseph Schenck -- did prison time for tax evasion, and another -- William Fox -- set up an elaborate scheme to "corner the film market" by dominating the patents for sound-on-film, only to end up in bankruptcy when he ran afoul of antitrust laws. And the misdeeds and chicaneries of Lousi B. Mayer, of course, could fill a book all their own. They were not nice men.

 

[sheeplady]

So even though employees are free to negotiate whatever compensation the market will allow, if the owner of the company makes more than the employee, he's exploiting the workers?

There's a philosophical tipping point. There is value in what an employer does for an employee. For instance, these shows must be produced, marketed, etc. An employer must be compensated for that and for the talent they bring to the business. However, there is an acceptable amount of profit that it should be ethical to make based upon that value added by the employer. At the point where the amount of value and investment that an employer puts into a project is tiny compared to the profit they are taking (especially when the effort put in is mainly by an employee) that is when it starts to bother me.

For instance, let's say I find these really neat baskets being made by the Amish in my neighborhood. They are selling for $10. I find out that I can sell them online for $150. Is it unfair of me to resell those baskets? No. But I don't think it is ethical of me to only pay the Amish $10 for a product that took them 5 hours to make and make such a huge profit when it takes me 10 minutes to list them online and ship them out. That is an example of the balance of profit being out of whack- where my contribution is minuscule compared to the profit I reap.

But where is that magical number? It is up to each of us to make up our minds what is fair and right.

People forget that reality television as we know it today started as a way of scabbing a Writers' Guild strike -- and to this day most such programs are a way of avoiding the provisions of union contracts.

I would also add that I have a huge problem with reality shows involving minors. I've got enough qualms about minor actors without getting a bunch of non-compensated minors who are "starring" or even having occasional roles as themselves in shows that are sometimes displays of some of the worst behavior.

I'm not sure what protection there is for minors in Hollywood (my understanding is there is very little based upon the cases I have read where parents have blown their child's money or abused them financially in other ways). I doubt any protection is provided to the children in these reality shows who will forever have their name and image associated with them.

 

[HudsonHawk]

For instance, let's say I find these really neat baskets being made by the Amish in my neighborhood. They are selling for $10. I find out that I can sell them online for $150. Is it unfair of me to resell those baskets? No. But I don't think it is ethical of me to only pay the Amish $10 for a product that took them 5 hours to make and make such a huge profit when it takes me 10 minutes to list them online and ship them out. That is an example of the balance of profit being out of whack- where my contribution is minuscule compared to the profit I reap.

But what if you approach the Amish and say "Hey, you're selling your baskets for $10 and sell 10 of them a month for a gross of $100/month. But I have the contacts to be able to sell 1,000 of them for $100. I'll pay you $20 for them, and you'll make $20,000/month." Is that exploitation? If the guy pays the Amish $50 a piece for them, does it make a difference? At what point is it legit for the basket maker to say "you know, I simply can't make a living at this on my own, but if I partner with this guy, I'll get my product out there and make 200 times the money, I'll take that deal, even if it means he's making more than me."

But where is that magical number? It is up to each of us to make up our minds what is fair and right.

This is my point. Your earlier posts suggest that you don't think there's ever a point where it's fair because the Amish guy is doing what you consider to be the hard work and is entirely dependent on the other guy. That's it's independent of compensation.

I'm not sure what protection there is for minors in Hollywood (my understanding is there is very little based upon the cases I have read where parents have blown their child's money or abused them financially in other ways). I doubt any protection is provided to the children in these reality shows who will forever have their name and image associated with them.

I'm not sure this is unique to Hollywood, reality shows, or even minors in general. There are both horror stories and success stories of parents managing their kids' finances, and examples of kids successfully suing parents for mismanagement. But I don't know if there are laws regarding such.

 

[hatguy1]

We're having an observational discussion, not making policy. If you don't want to participate, that's ok. Feel free to start a discussion that is more to your liking.

With due respect, only government makes policy and this discussion continues beating this dead horse over and over again with many espousing subtle (if not outright blatant) political statements - which is supposed to be banned. And it's gone well beyond simply noting things modern that individual Loungers won't miss when they're history. May we suggest that at the least if you wish to continue such an indepth discussion on one single thing that it become its own thread?

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm not sure this is unique to Hollywood, reality shows, or even minors in general. There are both horror stories and success stories of parents managing their kids' finances, and examples of kids successfully suing parents for mismanagement. But I don't know if there are laws regarding such.

California still has the Coogan Law, passed after former child actor Jackie Coogan sued his parents in 1939 for frittering away the millions of dollars he had earned in his film career. Under that law, at least fifteen per cent of all earnings of any child performer under contract must be placed in a trust fund, to be awarded to the child at the age of majority. It also states that under the law all money earned by a child performer belongs to the child performer -- not to the parents -- and all money spent must be fully accounted for.

Whether reality-show kids count as "performers" is open to interpretation. Under the law, "performer" is defined as "actor, actress, dancer, musician, comedian, singer, or other performer or entertainer." Is someone who doesn't actually play a role or perform any kind of an act a "performer or entertainer?" I'm sure somewhere there's a legion of scum-of-the-earth parasite lawyers preparing to argue that they aren't.

Then too, that law only applies to California. No doubt there are states where such protections don't exist. Current federal law specifically exempts all child performers from protection under federal child labor laws.

Here's a recent article discussing just such these issues, focusing on Honey Boo Boo -- a program filmed in Georgia, far from Coogan Law jurisdiction, and a program made without union protection for any of its performers. The "Petersen" referred to in the article is Paul Petersen, a former child actor best known for "The Donna Reed Show" who has become a prominent activist on behalf of child performers' rights. Note also the comments from the New York fan of the show, who just loves to make fun of those "country ass accents." Good clean fun.

 

[sheeplady]

But what if you approach the Amish and say "Hey, you're selling your baskets for $10 and sell 10 of them a month for a gross of $100/month. But I have the contacts to be able to sell 1,000 of them for $100. I'll pay you $20 for them, and you'll make $20,000/month." Is that exploitation? If the guy pays the Amish $50 a piece for them, does it make a difference? At what point is it legit for the basket maker to say "you know, I simply can't make a living at this on my own, but if I partner with this guy, I'll get my product out there and make 200 times the money, I'll take that deal, even if it means he's making more than me."



This is my point. Your earlier posts suggest that you don't think there's ever a point where it's fair because the Amish guy is doing what you consider to be the hard work and is entirely dependent on the other guy. That's it's independent of compensation.

No, I don't think my earlier posts say that. As I've made clear, it is the tipping point that matters. I find reality TV to be exploitative because I find it too much like my basket example. Really these people should be paid more concerning the profit of these programs.

I think it would be far better if the basket maker approached the marketer and said, "Hey, market my baskets and I'll give you $10 for every basket you move." But I am always going to be on the side of someone who creates something of value rather than the side of the salesman.

Here's a recent article discussing just such these issues, focusing on Honey Boo Boo -- a program filmed in Georgia, far from Coogan Law jurisdiction, and a program made without union protection for any of its performers. The "Petersen" referred to in the article is Paul Petersen, a former child actor best known for "The Donna Reed Show" who has become a prominent activist on behalf of child performers' rights. Note also the comments from the New York fan of the show, who just loves to make fun of those "country ass accents." Good clean fun.

That article expresses some of my concerns perfectly.

 

[Stearmen]

I wont miss, incivility on the internet!

 

[LizzieMaine]

That article expresses some of my concerns perfectly.

I think the fact that the producers "declined to comment" speaks more than any actual statement they could make.

 

[scottyrocks]

I think they're being exploited in the way that "hollywood" has been exploiting people since the beginning of time, but now it is even slightly worse.

Reality shows are cheap to produce while drawing in the same amount of profit as non-reality shows (sometimes more). The fundamental nature of television has changed so that reality TV is not a rarity, but is a common way to do business.

But are these individuals compensated at a higher level for their participation given the higher profits and lower costs? No. According to the research I've done, they are often compensated much less than actors in sitcoms. Much less.

Now, one could say, but they aren't really actors- they wouldn't be anyplace without the show! True, but where would these shows be without these stars? Could you have Honey-Boo-Boo without the family at the center of it? Or the Duck Dynasty without their family? No, these shows are based entirely around these characters. While on a sitcom you can swap almost any actor in and out (almost with come creative writing) you can't just write out a member of a family on a reality show. They are the show. But yet are they paid like key actors on a sitcom- the ones you can't switch out? No. In addition, because they aren't really "actors" but playing themselves, their chances for a later career in television or movies is small- essentially they are used for profiteering and then that is that.

So, yes, I think they are getting exploited. People can say that they're making money hand over fist- but they aren't making money like the people who produce these shows are. This kind of exploitation isn't anything new- Hollywood isn't exactly the fairest place on earth.

As far as exploitation, it is not the worst case out there. But it certainly doesn't sit right with me.

Exploitation is all relative.

True, these people aren't being paid as much as actors, but they're nor actors. What they do on TV has required no special training or dedication. By being on TV, they are making money they would not make, otherwise. So who is being exploited?

No one is holding a gun to their heads. They feel they are getting paid probably more than enough money, at least to start, and the TV execs are making money because people watch the shows, and therefore the commercials. These regular people have cameras following them around 24/7, get paid more than they ever would just doing what they do sans the cameras, and develop a huge fan-base for doing essentially special or different than what they did before the cameras arrived. So just who is being exploited? It's kind of a win/win for all involved.

And then you have those idiots, the Kardashians. Even they benefit, in untold ways, because they had some money to begin with. Their fame, from the show, has allowed them to get into things that would have been much more difficult if they were not on TV. Are they being exploited? Not so clear here.

But the Honey Boo-boos (makes me ill just to say it), and the Duck Dynasties, and the Swamp People, they all make some money, and get some fame, which includes some good and some bad feelings from the general public. Do I watch any of this stuff? No. But I say leave them be. And the people who want to watch them, leave them be, too.

The only reality show I ever watched with any regularity was Deadliest Catch, but that show, after a few seasons, fell victim to the what I believe was created drama, and I began to lose interest. But when Captain Phil got sick, and died, that wasn't created, unless the whole thing was staged.

I am so out of touch with today's consumerist value system, but there is nothing I can do about it other than continue to live in my own little pre-WWII way of conservation, and not just in the modern style. I use and reuse, and fix and mend things until they can't be fixed any longer. People look at me like I'm crazy, but I don't care.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I am so out of touch with today's value consumerist value system, but there is nothing I can do about it other than continue to live in my own little pre-WWII way of conservation, and not just in the modern style. I use and reuse, and fix and mend things until they can't be fixed any longer. People look at me like I'm crazy, but I don't care.

If modern people *didn't* look at me like I was crazy, I'd be very, very worried. I know full well that it's futile to lament the vicious amorality of the world today, where the only rule is that of the dollar sign, but they thought Jeremiah was crazy too.

 

[Zombie_61]

...The only reality show I ever watched with any regularity was Deadliest Catch, but that show, after a few seasons, fell victim to the what I believe was created drama, and I began to lose interest. But when Captain Phil got sick, and died, that wasn't created, unless the whole thing was staged...

The question with some of these "reality" shows is whether the drama was manufactured, or if the producers merely shifted the focus of the show from whatever craft or profession these people participated in to the people themselves. With Deadliest Catch and even more so with American Chopper, it seems the personal dramas of the people involved soon overshadowed the acts of fishing for crab and building motorcycles, so the professions took a back seat to the people because that drama is what the audiences reacted to. Conversely, with shows like Duck Dynasty and Gene Simmons' Family Jewels, it was clear from the first episodes that there wasn't even the pretense of reality and that the situations were obviously staged.

 

[HudsonHawk]

The only "reality show" that has me watching is the recent mini-series "Curse of Oak Island". I don't believe in curses, booby traps, or that pirate gold or the Holy Grail is buried there, but I remember hearing about it when I was a kid, and I find the stories of the people interesting. The final episode is tonight, but I don't think they solved the mystery. Imagine that.

 

[HudsonHawk]

The question with some of these "reality" shows is whether the drama was manufactured, or if the producers merely shifted the focus of the show from whatever craft or profession these people participated in to the people themselves. With Deadliest Catch and even more so with American Chopper, it seems the personal dramas of the people involved soon overshadowed the acts of fishing for crab and building motorcycles, so the professions took a back seat to the people because that drama is what the audiences reacted to. Conversely, with shows like Duck Dynasty and Gene Simmons' Family Jewels, it was clear from the first episodes that there wasn't even the pretense of reality and that the situations were obviously staged.

No one would watch a show of regular people doing everyday things and behaving themselves. You have to manufacture drama. Personally, I would watch Survivor if it were really 16 people left on an island to fend for themselves, like a reality Lord Of The Flies. Now THAT would be entertainment you just don't see everyday.

 

[jamespowers]

The only "reality show" that has me watching is the recent mini-series "Curse of Oak Island". I don't believe in curses, booby traps, or that pirate gold or the Holy Grail is buried there, but I remember hearing about it when I was a kid, and I find the stories of the people interesting. The final episode is tonight, but I don't think they solved the mystery. Imagine that.

I watch that one too but it is more of a documentary style.

 

[LizzieMaine]

No one would watch a show of regular people doing everyday things and behaving themselves. You have to manufacture drama. Personally, I would watch Survivor if it were really 16 people left on an island to fend for themselves, like a reality Lord Of The Flies. Now THAT would be entertainment you just don't see everyday.

There's nothing wrong with manufactured drama. That's why professional actors and writers exist. Reality TV is to drama what Charles Van Doren was to game shows.

 

[HudsonHawk]

There's nothing wrong with manufactured drama. That's why professional actors and writers exist. Reality TV is to drama what Charles Van Doren was to game shows.

I think of them more like professional wrestling (which is a pretty interesting story on its own). It's not true acting in the classic sense, but the stories and outcome are contrived and made to appear real, which it is in a limited way. Nothing wrong with that kind of entertainment, if that grabs your imagination. It just doesn't grab mine.

 

[1mach1]

Honestly, if someone offered me an a$$ load of cash to make a foolish show about my door business, I'd bite. But it would have to be an a$$ load of cash.

 

[scottyrocks]

My wife says that she'd love to have the cameras here all the time if she could be on one of these shows. I told her I'd move out.