New Tv Show - Casting

[JohnJ]

I share some of the same concerns mentioned by Nick and Lance. Some of the other shows mentioned with their "BIG characters with BIG personalities" have a lot of contrived drama. They also use heated arguments and aggression between the "BIG characters with BIG personalities" as a big "hook". I realize ethics may not play as large a role as ratings, but I hope you don't use this worn out formula. Please consider what your show leaves in its wake.

Fossil collecting - professional or otherwise - is full of opportunities to develop a quality, informational adventure program that can be popular (without resorting to a bunch of cast members looking like idiots).

[ajacobs]

I share some of the same concerns mentioned by Nick and Lance. Some of the other shows mentioned with their "BIG characters with BIG personalities" have a lot of contrived drama. They also use heated arguments and aggression between the "BIG characters with BIG personalities" as a big "hook". I realize ethics may not play as large a role as ratings, but I hope you don't use this worn out formula. Please consider what your show leaves in its wake.

Fossil collecting - professional or otherwise - is full of opportunities to develop a quality, informational adventure program that can be popular (without resorting to a bunch of cast members looking like idiots).

I can't disagree with you regarding contrived drama! There is some really bad television out there. We try to avoid being a part of it (but don't always succeed.) Unfortunately i can't agree that this is a "worn out formula." The whole thing comes down to a few simple ideas that hold true:

1. The general public doesn't tune into straight forward science and educational programs. You and I might - but the general public doesn't. Otherwise there would be a lot more of it.

2. People like to watch/listen to people with charisma and energy.

Since education and information can be a bitter pill to swallow for audiences - networks like Discovery, Nat Geo and History have started hiding the educational elements of their shows with entertainment. Sure there are more contrivances and there's less information - but more people are watching. Watch Pawn Stars or Alaska Gold Rush, and there's a bit of education buried in each.

The BIG characters come into play because television amplifies certain things. For example, if you speak slowly, on TV it'll seem excrutiatingly slow. If you're kind of a shy person, you'll seem exceptionally shy on TV. So we have to look for BIG characters, people who's energy and enthusiam for their job will shine through when the cameras on them.

The absolute best thing you guys can do to ensure that this will be a quality program - is to recommend people you who you think would live up to the standards you'd like to see on the show.

Anyway - I've had some good responses. I'm reaching out to some people here on the forum individually. But please keep 'em coming!

Thanks

[Auspex]

It's kind of amazing that a show about fossil collecting would even be a prospect, when the target demographic wants Snooki.

How does one pull it off without perverting the subject in the name of reality? If a little class is a ratings buzzkill, then there is something seriously wrong with the industry.

[Xiphactinus]

It's kind of amazing that a show about fossil collecting would even be a prospect, when the target demographic wants Snooki.

How does one pull it off without perverting the subject in the name of reality? If a little class is a ratings buzzkill, then there is something seriously wrong with the industry.

Agreed. Fossil shows aren't going to appeal to the general populace no matter how much "reality" you try in inject. The only reason people watch all those "reality" shows is to get to know the on-screen persona's of each and then watch while they try to trick, manipulate and be general jerks to each other.

[ajacobs]

It's kind of amazing that a show about fossil collecting would even be a prospect, when the target demographic wants Snooki.

How does one pull it off without perverting the subject in the name of reality? If a little class is a ratings buzzkill, then there is something seriously wrong with the industry.

These networks continue to put things on the air all the time that are ratings buzzkills... for example Discovery has it's "Curiosity" of high-end specials that aired on Sunday nights last year. They're bring back a second season - but they will all be much more cheaply made because they didn't get high enough ratings. This is a business. Many of these networks are part of publicly owned companies. The shareholders demand profits.

Think of it this way... If the ratings are bad. That means people aren't watching. If people aren't watching. That means advertisers won't spend money to run commercials during that show. If that happens - where is the network supposed to get the money to pay people like me and my coworkers to make that show?

This is why we can't just sacrafice ratings for class. It would be a failing venture.

[Xiphactinus]

"This is why we can't just sacrafice ratings for class. It would be a failing venture."

....and this, in a nutshell, is why I watch less and less television.

[Auspex]

...This is why we can't just sacrafice ratings for class. It would be a failing venture.

I completely get it, but still bemoan the fact. Then again, I'm just one old guy remembering the "good old days".

Wouldn't it be nice if the executives viewed their networks as something akin to grocery stores? The strategy of stocking only the 20% of the products that generate 80% of the sales has folks looking elsewhere.

[JohnJ]

I can't disagree with you regarding contrived drama! There is some really bad television out there. We try to avoid being a part of it (but don't always succeed.) Unfortunately i can't agree that this is a "worn out formula." The whole thing comes down to a few simple ideas that hold true:

1. The general public doesn't tune into straight forward science and educational programs. You and I might - but the general public doesn't. Otherwise there would be a lot more of it.

2. People like to watch/listen to people with charisma and energy.

Since education and information can be a bitter pill to swallow for audiences - networks like Discovery, Nat Geo and History have started hiding the educational elements of their shows with entertainment. Sure there are more contrivances and there's less information - but more people are watching. Watch Pawn Stars or Alaska Gold Rush, and there's a bit of education buried in each.

The BIG characters come into play because television amplifies certain things. For example, if you speak slowly, on TV it'll seem excrutiatingly slow. If you're kind of a shy person, you'll seem exceptionally shy on TV. So we have to look for BIG characters, people who's energy and enthusiam for their job will shine through when the cameras on them.

The absolute best thing you guys can do to ensure that this will be a quality program - is to recommend people you who you think would live up to the standards you'd like to see on the show.

Anyway - I've had some good responses. I'm reaching out to some people here on the forum individually. But please keep 'em coming!

Thanks

My remarks bore in mind that you are marketing to "the general public", which is why I suggested a "quality, informational adventure program". I have no problems with big personalities in a programming either. It's the contrived arguing and aggression between cast members for the sake of ratings that I dislike. It's part of the formula that's used on many "reality" shows. Add to that the staged finds and overstated values, then you get fiction passed off as real life and a total loss of credibility. I just hope that's not where you're going with your show.

I understand the concepts of profit and loss in running an enterprise. I just think there are other templates for successful informational programming where big personalities don't come off as villains or idiots.

I realize it's a balancing act, but shows that trend toward an audience which can barely pay attention are destined to be short-lived.

[Bullsnake]

FWIW, my perspective is that you are at least attempting to consider the members' concerns, but still walking that line between that and making it a high drama venture. That's your job, and I think most here respect that.

However, pawn brokerage, and I expect for the most part, gold prospecting are dog-eat-dog businesses, and in the end it's all about money. And I expect big personalities are a prerequisite.

Since being on this forum, I've seen little else than comraderie, friendliness, assistance, education, etc. Troublemakers, it appears, are ostracized.

I would just hate to see any concerns posted by fellow members come to fruition, and corrupt something so personal to most of us that gives us some peace of mind, and an escape from the drama and stress that we all probably encounter or endure.

Thanks,

Steve

P.S. I also belong to the general public.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Bullsnake

[Auspex]

FWIW, my perspective is that you are at least attempting to consider the members' concerns...

Mr Jacobs is attempting to develop a reality TV program that is marketable. His purpose here is to solicit, from our membership (and our 45,000 unique monthly visitors), applicants for roles on the show; he has been right up front about that. He is sympathetic, but the concerns and suggestions we voice will not cause him to deviate from a formula that works. That's show biz in the 21st century.

[Uncle Siphuncle]

a few concerns:

it would be embarrassing for one of us to join the show in good faith, then through subsequent editing appear as a sellout amongst our peers.

wardrobe, tools: no goofy trinkets or accessories. purpose built, functional tools and equipment only

long term effects: i echo the sentiments of the individualists out there. my field time is often peaceful, quiet, and promoting oneness with nature. i'm in this gig in part because it is not mainstream. i'd hate for this project to be done in a way that makes it harder to locate a good site and enjoy productive repeat visits.

[Jdeutsch]

I can see a show like this hurting collectors-it may encourage people who watch to trespass, or otherwise dig illegally

This could diminish future access to sites or lead to changes in laws.

From my perspective, I suggest that you only do digs on private property in which you clearly document you have permission from the owners

[Raistlin]

a few concerns:

it would be embarrassing for one of us to join the show in good faith, then through subsequent editing appear as a sellout amongst our peers.

wardrobe, tools: no goofy trinkets or accessories. purpose built, functional tools and equipment only

long term effects: i echo the sentiments of the individualists out there. my field time is often peaceful, quiet, and promoting oneness with nature. i'm in this gig in part because it is not mainstream. i'd hate for this project to be done in a way that makes it harder to locate a good site and enjoy productive repeat visits.

Haha wardrobe. I admit that I am not at all about style when it comes to being out in the field. It is all about necessity. I know I would not be all that appeling, shaved head, nonglamerous clothing (certainly nothing name brand), skinny, though I do admit to having the goofy part down (not with trinkets just who I am)

[PaleoRon]

I think the message would be better sent if the object of the show wasn't monetary profit, but rather the thrill of finding something untouched and unseen by anyone else. The true value of most fossils is educational. Each show could end with the collectors donating finds to local schools and see the reactions of the students as they handle the specimens. Rare and important finds could be shown being inspected by paleontologists and donated to their facility if they are interested.

Good locations would be construction sites or quarries where the cast could perform rescue collecting of material that would otherwise be destroyed.

Having donated material to several schools I can attest to the excitement that children express when they get the chance to put their hands on actual fossils.

I can also assure you that there is quite a bit of excitement on the part of the collector when the paleontologist who is the recipient of material states, "I think this might be a new species".

If the focus was on knowledge and education I think it would be an interesting project to be involved with. I am adept at doing the Happy Fossil dance and my underwater "I Found a 6 Inch Megalodon" song is exceptionally uplifting.

[siteseer]

Quite frankly, I don't see how this show would be able to put together 6-13 broad appeal shows because it would be tough to find 6-13 productive sites that are also "money sites." The audience is used to watching "Pawn Stars" with every episode having some guy bringing in a guitar, gun, or toy that turns out to be worth a few thousand dollars. This fossil show is going to have to be about more than the final tally because "the money piece" is too rare or nonexistent at most sites.

[JohnJ]

Quite frankly, I don't see how this show would be able to put together 6-13 broad appeal shows because it would be tough to find 6-13 productive sites that are also "money sites." The audience is used to watching "Pawn Stars" with every episode having some guy bringing in a guitar, gun, or toy that turns out to be worth a few thousand dollars. This fossil show is going to have to be about more than the final tally because "the money piece" is too rare or nonexistent at most sites.

So true, Jess.

Still, you could "jump the shark" tooth with staged or over-valued finds because the "general public" wouldn't know any difference.

Hopefully, that isn't part of this show's plan.

[Haddy]

_{I share many of the concerns raised here. Access to fossil locations is already a problem and this show could increase those issues. We have probably all seen damage done to our favorite spots by over-eager collectors.}

_{Have you consulted with Bob Bakker or Jack Horner? They both have pretty big personalities and are quite well-known to the public, but would also be concerned with quality and preservation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Bakker and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_(paleontologist)}

_{Perhaps you could find some paleontology students to assist.}

_Sue

[smokeriderdon]

I do not believe a show about fossil collecting is going to drastically increase the number of generic morons running out and trying to dig up bones. It may get a few fools out there, but to the extent most of you all are worrying over, hardly likely. I dont believe someone who would be interested solely for the sake of money is going to look at this show and think "Oh look, I can go out to some hill, dig some and find a fossil I can retire on!" While the general public may not be the most intelligent group of people, I cant beieve that a hgh number of them are THAT stupid. The liberation of fossils requires a lot of hard work and sweat, which will turn off most folks.

Personally I think it would do more good. Bring in more people who are truly interested in the science and hobby.

As for the oft wailed cries of making money off of fossils is wrong...pffftttt. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with making money off of the fossils we find. Yes, I believe that unique specimens should be offered up to museums or the like. But I am not going to berate the person who sells off their associated dentition of Meg teeth. Or their pterosaur. New species would, of course, best be sold to a museum. But again, I say sold. I have no problem versus someone donating.

As for value affecting landowners and the like, that cat is long out of the bag. It is general knowledge that fossils can be valuable. I doubt a show on a cable network is going to change that drastically either.

I do agree the staged conflicts in a lot of these shows are just plain stupid. I hope that the producers here dont try that type of thing. I think simple personality differences will play out well on their own. Most of us DO have storng personalities and opinions to go with them. I have been on many a collecting trip that involved butting heads. And I will bet everyone here has as well.

[32fordboy]

It's not about fossils having value. It's about advertising that fact to people who, more than usual, need money. A lot of people on here, myself included, attach a dollar value to fossils. That's not a problem. In fact, I encourage it. It drives an industry and gets people (who have put in tremendous effort) into the field.

So, while I don't have a problem associating a dollar value with fossils, and don't have a problem with more people heading into the field, I do have a problem tossing up a big red flag, yelling, "hey, this is so easy, anybody can do it!"

We have to try not to miss the point here. Though, I do agree it won't be as big a deal as we've made it out to be. Still, it can't help, either.

[Carcharodontosaurus]

If you want to make a new TV show, it would be best to go to places like GMR and Big Brook, where the chance of finding fossils is high. The fossils may not be very valuable, but I think fossil hunting shows should be about the adventure rather than the money. It might also be wise to look at non-fossil aspects of the locations, such as the local wildlife or weather.

Just my 2 cents.

[Auspex]

A poor characterization* of fossil hunters would not be good for our hobby.

*("Big" personalities, if somewhat charismatic [steve Irwin], can be positive forces for popularization. Contrived, bumbling, greedy maniacs are the revenue-generating dark side, and would harm the hobby's public image).

[Scylla]

Are you saying more Les Stroud, less Bear Gryls? I agree with that.

[Vordigern]

wow, the arguments against are pretty scary, I just thought it'd be fun to see some of the forum guys/gals doing what we love to do in places we wouldnt normally be able to get access to but I dont want this TV show to negatively affect the hobby we love. Its hard enough to find good spots to hunt and I really dont want them taken away because they are overrun and/or destroyed by careless or destructive opportunists out to make a quick buck or just as bad having laws and regulations created that would make fossil hunting difficult or even illegal . There is a lot of potential here for disaster if the show isnt done responsibly and if money is the driving force of the show I dont think it can be.

[Txgator15]

What an interesting post I would love to see this programme go into production if it is done the right way.

Public education would need to play a big part in it.

I am available if you want to fly 10,000 miles to see a guy dig for leaves

And I am available to Fly 10,000 miles...

[Txgator15]

I hope I dont get blasted for Blasphemy, but maybe they can expand on the show and include rocks/gems?