|
|
|
October 11th, 2005
05:20 pm - They Smile In Your Face
The only reality show I ever followed was this ABC straggler back in 2000 called The Mole.
Some of you might remember it. A team of a dozen people from all walks of life, blah blah diversity, was flown to exotic locations around Europe to compete for prizes. They worked together in teams to overcome obstacle courses or complete scavenger hunts and win cash prizes. All the cash was banked in a jackpot that lasted throughout the season.
But … one of the players was a Mole, a saboteur planted by the producers to foil the other players' efforts. It was the Mole's job to make sure the team lost. At the end of each episode, every player would answer a twenty-question quiz to see if they knew who the Mole was (e.g., "What is the Mole's gender?" or "What team was the Mole on for the scavenger hunt?"). Whoever got the fewest questions correct was kicked off. The last survivor walked away with the jackpot.
That's the core of the show right there. Those are the only hard rules to the game. And yet those rules create so many dozens of competing scenarios themselves as to make a game theorist (as I was at the time) giddy with the possibilities.
For instance: let's say you're not the Mole. Would it do you any good to deliberately flunk a contest? Answer: maybe. If you can screw up consistently enough to convince someone that you're the Mole, you can kick them off the game early. They'll guess you, they'll be wrong, and that's good night.
Let's say you are the Mole. Would it do you any good to help your teammates for as long as possible? Answer: probably. Being a good player gives the other players no clues as to your identity. It forces players to rely on their suspicions and biases instead of hard evidence. In fact, since there's no incentive in the rules for the Mole to sabotage the team (short of the producers nagging you), why not cooperate the whole way through?
So the dominant strategy as the Mole seems to be to cooperate, not betray. It follows, then, that the dominant strategy for the players is to select the most cooperative player as the Mole in the weekly quiz. There will be no shortage of traitors, but they're more likely to be crafty players than Moles.
But then, the Mole doubtless knows this, so the Mole will have to incorporate some sabotage into regular play. But the players know this, so … and so on. Like I said, it's fun just to think about.
The Mole lasted a pathetic two seasons on ABC, plus some brief revivals as Celebrity Mole, before dying out. Maybe the frustrations of a constantly sabotaged team were hard to follow. Maybe the timeslot wasn't competitive enough. Maybe game theory is really only interesting to me and a few other econ / sociology nerds.
Or maybe there was a saboteur all along. I prefer this theory.
Current Music: The O'Jays - "The Backstabbers"
|
December 4th, 2003
02:14 pm - Jose Millionaire ... of Death!
I understand that there's this "unreality television" craze going on.
By "reality television," I mean taking strangers from all walks of life and observing how they act in regular situations. Blind Date, for instance, or MTV's The Real World, or even the British import Big Brother to an extent.
"Unreality television," however, places strangers from all walks of life into situations that they would never find themselves in were it not for money / fame. These contestants invariably look stupid, immoral, naive or all of the above. Consider Joe Millionaire or the original Survivor, or the newest bid, Paris and Nicole Hilton's The Simple Life.
I don't know why people like these shows. The only possible result of putting strangers in situations they're unaccustomed to is that they'll look foolish. They'll be bad at it. Accountants are bad at manufacturing log rafts, women are bad at selecting a mate honestly when they're misled about the guy in question, and billionaire heiresses are bad at milking cows. It's not that hard to pick a stranger, find something they'll be bad at, and point a camera at them long enough to come up with embarassing footage. And what do you get out of watching someone fail at something they'd never try otherwise? "Ha ha, serves them right for being so good at their other job, leaving them completely unprepared for the harsh realities of a rope-ladder obstacle course on a Pacific island owned by CBS!"
Hey, "reality" TV show fans, I've got a concept to pitch: Break the Alky. Fox picks a recovering alcoholic and pretends to kidnap his wife, kill his child, and get him fired from his job - all with the consent of those involved, of course. A camera crew then follows him to see how long it'll take for him to turn back to the demon of liquor after having denied it for so long ... and then we watch the hilarious results! Look - man at his lowest! Point and laugh, you slack-jawed chimps.
Here's another one for you: Jose Millionaire ... of Death! A dozen beautiful women are flown off to a mountain villa in Spain, where they must compete for the affections of three eligible bachelors. However, in the fourth episode, a "faction of Basque separatists" - trained stunt actors, actually - overtake the villa and hold the contestants hostage! Watch as the terrorists force their captives to humiliating lows, like choosing which bachelorette should die to feed the other! Or putting their daily gruel ration at the end of a treacherous precipice and making them walk above a two-thousand foot ravine to get it! Ha, ha, look! When people are lied to about the extremity of their situation, they act like craven cowards and buffoons! We, who are separated from them by no more than a thin TV screen, are so much better than they.
Is there some hidden appeal to reality TV that I'm missing? Am I the only one who's not amused by how contemptible human beings can be made to appear to act - not, as the producers would have you believe, how contemptible they actually are? And would the latter alternative be that much better?
|
January 21st, 2003
11:07 am - American Idol
Here's my rule of thumb on intoxication (a touch ironic, considering my performance of Friday last, so laugh if you like):If you're drinking, but you decide, "Hey, it'd be funny if I pretend to be more drunk than I already am," you're not pretending. Bear that in mind while I rant about American Idol, the second season of which debuts tonight.
( Cynicism, Target Demographics, and the Brit )
|
|
|