Posts
With the first few weeks of the 2011 fall TV season in the books, it has become obvious that the Republican Presidential Nomination Campaign is the season’s biggest smash hit. Like American Idol and Who Wants to be a Millionaire before it, the GOP Campaign has seamlessly blended the drama of a high stakes contest with the emotional levity of real life. Already this year, we have seen the passionate crowds boo a gay soldier and cheer executions. The storylines are so intense, it’s like Days of Our Lives on steroids! No wait, that’s pro wrestling, but this has been almost as good.
No matter how fast it comes out of the gate, every show has to adapt to keep viewers interested. If the writers keep trotting out the same old storylines about social security and health insurance, the public will be sure to switch back to The Real Housewives faster than you can say “Town Hall Style Debate.” With that in mind, I have a few notes for the GOP Primary producers.
Immunity Challenges
My first suggestion is a tried and true moneymaker in reality shows like this one- the immunity challenge. Ever since Survivor grabbed the game show conch more than a decade ago, the immunity challenge has been a staple of elimination-based programming. The beauty of immunity challenges is that they can change from week to week to keep from becoming predictable. Maybe one week, all of the Republican Presidential candidates will have to stand one-footed on a small platform above a pit full of snakes and bugs. Or maybe the candidates will have to kayak across a lake, only to discover a 100-foot rope ladder on the other side that they have to climb to capture the immunity idol. You'll have to tune in to find out! You never know what kind of task they’ll have to compete, but you know you’ll be getting their best effort, because the loser automatically makes it through the next state’s primary. Move over TNT- it looks like the GOP knows drama!
[RIGHT- The Black Eyed Peas will be performing as musical guests at the next Republican Presidential Debate, as well as 14 other new fall TV shows.]
Lifelines
Even though everyone laughs at the occasional high profile gaffe, America is still a country that likes a winner. We want to get behind a capable leader and cheer for him or her as they ascend to the top. With that in mind, if we insist on grilling the candidates on such arcane subjects as foreign policyand history, it might make sense to give them better odds at getting things right. For example, everyone turned on Sarah Palin in the last election because she couldn’t name a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade. It would have made better TV if Katie Couric had asked her which of the following was a Supreme Court case: (a) Kramer v. Kramer, (b) Man v. Food, (c) Plessy v. Ferguson, or (d) Versus Sports Network. If she still wasn’t sure, she could have polled the audience, or asked for the always pithy advice of Whoopi Goldberg in the center square. The way I see it, that format kills three birds with one stone: it gets the audience rooting for the candidate to increase emotional investment, it keeps the interview focused and on point, and it eliminates the silly gotcha question that only serves to give Michael Moore material for his next socialist propaganda rag (that’s why I like to call him the lefty Leni Reifenstahl). In other words, it’s a win win win. Or maybe a win win win win. I lost count.
Love Triangle
While the Sarah Palin-Glenn Rice intrigue might be enough sexual tension to pique the interest of that tiny minority of the party that approves of interracial relationships, it wouldn’t hurt to spice up the rest of the campaign. Now I’m not suggesting that they re-write the central plot of the campaign- the program will sink or swim on the strength of the Romney-Perry story no matter what-, but the Ron Paul Revolution is lagging as a C story arc. If it came out that he and Jon Huntsman had gone around the block with Michelle Bachman in the swingin’ 80s, everything would get a little bit zestier. Instead of reaching for the remote the next time he starts droning about the flat tax, the public can look forward to the sexually-motivated digs between the three of them. Maybe Bachman can tell Paul that he doesn’t “measure up” as a candidate. Maybe that’s a little too on the nose, but I’m not a writer. I’m just spitballing here.
Before I wrap things up, I should point out that I’m not a "political expert" per se. Still, if the Republicans want to keep their ratings up and get renewed for next year, they could do a lot worse than talking to me. After all, I’m the one who greenlighted phenomena like In Harm’s Way and Easy Money for the CW Network, so I think I know a thing or two about edgy, reality-based programming. By following this simple formula, the Republicans can accomplish the time-tested goal of being exactly like everything else that is on TV.
That, or they could just start talking about half of them are mormons.
Lifelines
Even though everyone laughs at the occasional high profile gaffe, America is still a country that likes a winner. We want to get behind a capable leader and cheer for him or her as they ascend to the top. With that in mind, if we insist on grilling the candidates on such arcane subjects as foreign policyand history, it might make sense to give them better odds at getting things right. For example, everyone turned on Sarah Palin in the last election because she couldn’t name a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade. It would have made better TV if Katie Couric had asked her which of the following was a Supreme Court case: (a) Kramer v. Kramer, (b) Man v. Food, (c) Plessy v. Ferguson, or (d) Versus Sports Network. If she still wasn’t sure, she could have polled the audience, or asked for the always pithy advice of Whoopi Goldberg in the center square. The way I see it, that format kills three birds with one stone: it gets the audience rooting for the candidate to increase emotional investment, it keeps the interview focused and on point, and it eliminates the silly gotcha question that only serves to give Michael Moore material for his next socialist propaganda rag (that’s why I like to call him the lefty Leni Reifenstahl). In other words, it’s a win win win. Or maybe a win win win win. I lost count.
Love Triangle
While the Sarah Palin-Glenn Rice intrigue might be enough sexual tension to pique the interest of that tiny minority of the party that approves of interracial relationships, it wouldn’t hurt to spice up the rest of the campaign. Now I’m not suggesting that they re-write the central plot of the campaign- the program will sink or swim on the strength of the Romney-Perry story no matter what-, but the Ron Paul Revolution is lagging as a C story arc. If it came out that he and Jon Huntsman had gone around the block with Michelle Bachman in the swingin’ 80s, everything would get a little bit zestier. Instead of reaching for the remote the next time he starts droning about the flat tax, the public can look forward to the sexually-motivated digs between the three of them. Maybe Bachman can tell Paul that he doesn’t “measure up” as a candidate. Maybe that’s a little too on the nose, but I’m not a writer. I’m just spitballing here.
Before I wrap things up, I should point out that I’m not a "political expert" per se. Still, if the Republicans want to keep their ratings up and get renewed for next year, they could do a lot worse than talking to me. After all, I’m the one who greenlighted phenomena like In Harm’s Way and Easy Money for the CW Network, so I think I know a thing or two about edgy, reality-based programming. By following this simple formula, the Republicans can accomplish the time-tested goal of being exactly like everything else that is on TV.
That, or they could just start talking about half of them are mormons.
No comments:
Post a Comment