Flyfalcons
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2015
- Messages
- 2,584
- Reaction score
- 912
Come on Art, you know there's very little "Reality" in "Reality TV".
Rocket Builder?
- Thread starter artapplewhite
- Start date
-
- Tags
- casting media rocket builder
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
artapplewhite
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2009
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 24
Well, it's not all CGI. The people in these shows aren't all actors so some of it has to be "real". I will grant you, editors can pick from a lot of footage. Here are a couple of examples:
Art Applewhite
Flyfalcons
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2015
- Messages
- 2,584
- Reaction score
- 912
Thanks for the subscription. Now, come gather around the fire and let me enchant you with a story about reality TV. Once upon a long, long time ago, I was flying for an Air Ambulance operation. Our company was approached by a Reality TV producer to do a series about the business. Sounds interesting, we say, but you can only do so much about calls to our normal garden spots to pick up sick people and bring them back to a major city hospital. "Oh", says the producer. "No, we're going to have plenty of material. We're going to want to see personal conflicts, pilots dating nurses, etc." That's not how it goes in the business, and GTFOH was our response. Tripoli was correct in their initial reaction to this show. There is little, if any, good for our hobby that is going to come from this.
Steve.
BOTH Tripoli & NAR should issue a "joint statement", clearly stating that, in no way, do they endorse any "Master-Blaster"-type programming and point out both the Model Rocket & HPR Safety Codes. I bet that a combined effort by the respective attorneys, of each organization, could get this required to be aired before and during every episode of any such television program.
Dave F.
artapplewhite
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2009
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 24
Subscribing to a YouTube channel is no big deal for me, but your acknowledgement of my subscription tells me that your are motivated to have an audience. Your may strident objection to some one else creating a rocketry mishap program seemed a bit hypocritical and self serving. Why do you produce videos depicting "Model Rocket Crashes, Close Calls, and CATOs"? What do you suppose a member of the general public or a child for that matter, who is not familiar with our hobby is likely to think after seeing one of your highly edited "productions"? They might not understand that most of our amateur rocket flights are "nominal". i.e.boring and that "Model Rocket Crashes, Close Calls, and CATOS are the exception, rather than the rule.
I'm not sure how so many TRA members got involved in this particular issue. I got 2 nearly identical emails about this program. The first one, on July 29th, was addressed to "Team America Mentors". These volunteers are almost exclusively NAR members, although some may also be TRA members. The second email, a day later, was to "NAR Club leaders", again a very select group of NAR members. The TRA forums had a discussion about this "situation" almost immediately even though it isn't clear if TRA as an organization or TRA members were specifically targeted base solely on their TRA membership.
I waited several days before starting this thread. I thought other people would start talking about it first. I'm a long-time TRA member and a Prefect. I'm still waiting for an email address to "TRA Club Leaders". Maybe I should check my SPAM folder a little closer before it hit the "Delete All" button.
I'm old and well past my "sell by date". I understand how the optimism of youth is soured by perceived misfortunes into bitterness and cynicism. I prefer not to give in to it or let it inform all my decisions. I remain hopeful that good outcomes will result when I do my best to pay it forward.
Every day is a gift and I don't intend to squander that gift.
Art Applewhite
"For evil to succeed, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing", Edmund Burke circa: 1795
Flyfalcons
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2015
- Messages
- 2,584
- Reaction score
- 912
The difference is, none of what I filmed was staged. That's why it's not interesting enough to be a revenue-producing TV show. Reality TV isn't real, because reality is too boring. The producers of this show have an agenda, and it will be realized one way or another.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2011
- Messages
- 6,390
- Reaction score
- 2,682
I thought Abraham was too busy fighting vampires to watch TV??? But I guess when the vampire numbers are low, one must pass the time somehow...
artapplewhite
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2009
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 24
How can I know that any of your YouTube "crashes" videos aren't staged? Who's to say you didn't slip a few people a buck or two to pack their parachutes too tight. There is as much evidence for that as there is in accusing some unknown producer of staging CATOs for the camera.
Why do you produce videos that only show "Crashes, Close calls and CATOs" from many different launches. How is that any different from a production that tapes 100s of hours and then selects only the juicy bits for a 30 minute show. Both are being very selective about the "reality" they portray.
Most of the videos on your YouTube channel are have less than 1000 views. Your first "model rocket crashes" video has more that 320K views. NAR and TRA have less than 10,000 members combined. Some of those members may have been at enough launches to know that your video is not typical and therefore not a "real" depiction of all model rocket launches. What about the other 310,000 viewers? Why is there such a big difference in views between your other YouTube videos and the ones with only CATOs in them?
This is a direct quote from the introduction to your second 20 minute and 48 second "crashes" video.
"I never expected my previous rocket crash video to get the response and views that it did; thank you! Here is the crash compilation from the launches I attended in 2018. Index: Last Second Saves 00:05, Recovery Failures 00:55, Ballistic Re-Entry 06:58, Less Than Stable 13:13, Just Plain Bad Luck 15:55, CATO Patrol 16:32"
The sounds like "ratings" in the form of "views" are important to you. You are deliberately selecting the failures out of the broader context of many successful flights to increase your "views". How are you any different from the "producers" you so casually vilify?
This is not intended as a personal attack on any one individual. I just happened on the videos mentioned above by accident, but they seem emblematic of the hypocrisy we are all guilty of. I've stuck to the facts. I started this thread in the hope of getting some REAL information and not dredge up everyone's vague rumors and fantasies. It's obvious that no one has any factual information to share. Let's just "shot this lame horse in the head" and bury it.
Art Applewhite
Well, in the case of Lincoln, reality TV would have, certainly, been much safer than "live theater" . . .
Now that’s funny…
Art,
I know Ryan and he’s a good guy. I don’t know you personally but I know you’re passionate and you’re a candidate for the Tripoli BoD. I find that attacking our members is an ineffective way to run for the board.
From the beginning people have always enjoyed watching catos and crashes. It’s obvious from the videos that Ryan put together that the Safety Codes functioned, preventing any harm to people or property. That’s completely different from people who post videos of themselves violating the Safety Codes in order to become famous or infamous.
As far as Ryan making any of these up, I attended Sodblaster 1 last year and saw some of them as well as contributing to the carnage. In the second video that’s my orange IQSY Tomahawk suffering a forward closure failure on a single use motor at 18:18.
Steve
Oops . . .
rharshberger
Well-Known Member
Looking forward to Ryan's video from SodBlaster II (shameless plug it this Labor Day Weekend with TriCities Rocketeers/Tripoli Southeast Washington), his videos are reality. Maybe he just needs a disclaimer that says something to the effect that in rocketry failures happen but due to the safety codes there are very few injuries.
Yukon@K-9 Rocket Tech
Student, Drone and Rockets, Aspiring Engineer
This seems to be some unofficial event or something. Can't find more info on google
Flyfalcons
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2015
- Messages
- 2,584
- Reaction score
- 912
Jesus, Art. I make it quite clear in my crash compilation videos that these are crash and mishap videos. No intent to trick anyone. And I have a real job that pays handsomely, while my Youtube videos are just done for fun. A Reality TV producer needs their video to pay them handsomely, and they need to ensure they are interesting enough to do so.
Also, some of the failures shown in the vids are my own, as well. It's all about having fun. Maybe try that some time?
Also, some of the failures shown in the vids are my own, as well. It's all about having fun. Maybe try that some time?
Last edited:
So far as I know there’s no event yet. This is just a casting call made by a company that is casting for other things also.
We were approached by “The Explosion Show”. That has been flat out rejected. Tripoli will not participate in something that links rocketry to explosions. All of the board members agreed.
Seems passion knows no bounds on either side of this topic and maybe it's time for all to lower the ejection "charges".
Each of us wants whats best for rocketry in our own diverse ways and that's what makes and enthusiast forum well ... enthusiastic!
Could be time to stand down ...
Each of us wants whats best for rocketry in our own diverse ways and that's what makes and enthusiast forum well ... enthusiastic!
Could be time to stand down ...
Could be time to take a firm, uncompromising stand against these things that could put Rocketry in a negative light !
dave
Cute twist of my words dave ... at this point it's only conjecture and speculation as to the programming intent. Nobody including you have presented any facts other than one email at this point.
Cute twist of my words dave ... at this point it's only conjecture and speculation as to the programming intent. Nobody including you have presented any facts other than one email at this point.
So, based on only one email, you reached the determination that it "could be time to stand down" ?
My position is that, when it comes to protecting the future of Rocketry, it is NEVER time to "stand down".
dave
naw dave ... you're hoisting you lance at the wrong windmill.
Reading for comprehension seems to be a lost art for some or maybe it's just they choose not to comprehend what they read ...
All the best in your world
Good evening sir
naw dave ... you're hoisting you lance at the wrong windmill.
Reading for comprehension seems to be a lost art for some or maybe it's just they choose not to comprehend what they read ...
All the best in your world
Good evening sir
kevindcornwell
Magma Mountain Rocketry
I have spent years diligently working to inform/instruct/and contaminate many elementary school children with the joy of diligent and investigative science. Rocketry has been by far the most successful vehicle for infection. Deductive thought processes are competing with smart devices the latter of which effortlessly offer seductive and addictive entertainment. I am not a teacher (only a volunteer for STEM programs) but even on the outside rim as I am, I clearly see how nearly impossible it is to engage our children.
I truly 'get' the desire to not be linked or involved with the scams of reality shows and their absurd pretense at reality. However, in this instance, I am firmly positioned on the side that says, "If we turn our backs on an opportunity to improve the situation, then we are part of the problem. Most certainly we are not providing any useful solutions." If every cast member on the proposed show was a certified rocketeer, do you think we might have some say or sway on the direction of the program and how they represent rocketry? Who cares if the personal interactions are 'enhanced' - that has nothing to do with rocketry (but does with showbiz.) Who cares if they dramatize and create not-entirely-realistic time-frames and deadlines - that has nothing to do with rocketry (but does with showbiz.) I do care quite a bit about the framework of safety within which we _must_ abide in order to not go home in a hearse. Let them do all the showbiz they want, let _us_ take full advantage of this golden opportunity to inject an enthusiastic dose of reality into their reality. With all due respect to NAR/TRA, et. al., I believe we should do everything we can to get in on such an effort and actively participate in a safe (if not spectacularly entertaining) presentation, rather than turn our backs on it with nostrils pinched high and tight.
To that end: I have applied for consideration as a cast member. And here are some facts I've learned in the process:
1- The casting company, Wyldside, is just that, a casting company. They know absolutely nothing about the proposed program. Period. They are simply the first step in the vetting process. I have tendered my interest alongside my daughter as a father/daughter rocketry duo (she's 26 and extremely natural on-screen -- I'm hoping they'll notice her and give me, Mr. Grumpy Pants a grudging pass). She and I enjoyed the phone-conference interview and have been passed on to step 2.
2- I have to submit photos of me with some of my rockets which will be passed along to the next step/interview
3- Step 2 is a skype interview with the uppers of the casting company. The successful candidates of the video interview will have their interview footage cut into a short 'personality' video that will then be passed along to step 3.
4- The twice-vetted proposed cast candidates will be presented to a production company along with the proposal pitch. YES - YOU READ THAT RIGHT. This isn't even a 'real' project yet. Some producer (Netflix, whatever/whoever) has to like it and decide to fund it first! (this is why there is little to no info on GOOGLE.)
5- This is now the real FIRST STEP. AFTER a production company picks up the pitched program proposal, they will comb through the stack of vetted candidates and whittle them down. THEN and ONLY then will the actual candidates and alternates be selected and informed. Till this point, it's all pie-in-the-sky tending toward a quietly executed CATO into oblivion.
6- I think at this point additional interviews will occur and finally production will begin. Given standard timetables, this is likely not to be aired until next fall, if at all. The chances are slim at best.
During my first interview, the casting company asked what I thought about the concept of unconventional build materials to which I replied, "as long as the producers understand and implement the FAA, NFPA, and other regulations related to legal and safe build materials, it should be an exciting challenge."
(I must add at this point, that if at any point in the process I find that safety and reason are going to be ignored or that I am required in the interest of entertainment to do something, anything, that I find objectionable, I will withdraw. Saddened that the effort to 'do it right' is most likely to be set aside once again. I must also point out that there must be an opportunity somewhere along in this process for NAR/TRA members to be used as consultants. Again, turning our collective backs is to relinquish opportunity to shape, to mold, to guide, and possibly have our hand on the rudder.)
Even at the very first step, we have an opportunity to press, press, press safety and our strict adherence to those protocols. Press safety codes at every opportunity while demonstrating their implementation in the course of real science. And, we must be willing to recognize our own reality; we aren't grass-growth scientists for a reason. While it's not my preferred outcome, I still love it when my toys explode (with a spectacularly safe loud bang.) It is after all, rocket science.
Once you sign the legally-binding contract, you can be sued for breach of contract, once it is in effect.
Dave F.
Kevin,
Thank you for your well written response.
Steve
Thank you for your well written response.
Steve
Art,
I'm happy to concede that there are few to no facts here about this proposed new production in particular. There are facts available about the fake situations set up by "reality" show producers. I know a guy who was a tow truck driver on a short lived repo program who's told me outright that situations like a car owner coming and confronting him were completely fake. It's well known - which means it's pretty likely to be true - that this sort of thing is par for the course in such shows in general.
Are such shenanigans more common with some producers or production companies than others? I have no facts for that, though it seems likely on the face that there could be some outfits doing a better job of representing reality than others. Is this prospective show being made by one of the good ones or one of the bad ones, assuming there is such a distinction to be made? I have no idea. I doubt anyone reading this thread knows, but I'd be really happy if someone responds to this with information to the contrary.
"Some of these shows are fake" is fact. "All of these shows are fake" seems like it's likely to be an exaggeration. "Most of these shows are fake" is my inner cynic talking; unfortunately, my inner cynic is right more often than I'd like.
Will this show be fake? I can't give an answer that's based on anything other than judgement, and in my judgement it is far, far too likely to be fake to be worth the risk.
I'm happy to concede that there are few to no facts here about this proposed new production in particular. There are facts available about the fake situations set up by "reality" show producers. I know a guy who was a tow truck driver on a short lived repo program who's told me outright that situations like a car owner coming and confronting him were completely fake. It's well known - which means it's pretty likely to be true - that this sort of thing is par for the course in such shows in general.
Are such shenanigans more common with some producers or production companies than others? I have no facts for that, though it seems likely on the face that there could be some outfits doing a better job of representing reality than others. Is this prospective show being made by one of the good ones or one of the bad ones, assuming there is such a distinction to be made? I have no idea. I doubt anyone reading this thread knows, but I'd be really happy if someone responds to this with information to the contrary.
"Some of these shows are fake" is fact. "All of these shows are fake" seems like it's likely to be an exaggeration. "Most of these shows are fake" is my inner cynic talking; unfortunately, my inner cynic is right more often than I'd like.
Will this show be fake? I can't give an answer that's based on anything other than judgement, and in my judgement it is far, far too likely to be fake to be worth the risk.
This is the step that will disqualify most of us.
