The Reality Is, Networks Forget Fast

Let’s hear it for all the swell new “reality” shows that the networks--inspired by big ratings for “Survivor”--will crowd into prime time next month, including a “Survivor” sequel set in Australia.

But first, a moment of silence for “Winning Lines,” “Greed” and “Twenty-One.”

What’s that? You don’t recall those short-lived prime-time quiz shows, brought to you last January thanks to the surprise popularity of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” on ABC? Well, don’t feel too bad, because the networks obviously don’t remember them either.

Indeed, network executives can’t recollect what they said months ago, if history is any indication. After all, Fox Entertainment Group Chairman Sandy Grushow pointedly stated, in an effort to quiet the media hounds, that his network would aim higher with its so-called reality shows after televising the special “Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?” in February.

Yet that didn’t prevent Fox from offering “The Sexiest Bachelor in America” pseudo-pageant last month, or the upcoming “Temptation Island”--featuring four couples sent to Belize, where “eligible singles . . . test the strength of their relationships before making permanent commitments.” This will be followed later in 2001 by “Love Cruise,” which essentially centers on a big boat populated by a bunch of hot-body singles who get boozed up as a prelude to sleeping with one another.

Amnesia would clearly be Fox’s best explanation for this apparent contradiction, though it’s hard to rule out hypocrisy, another condition that’s not uncommon in network boardrooms.

The larger point, however, is: The networks jointly limit their chances of succeeding each time they send in their clones simultaneously. Yes, CBS’ “Survivor” attracted a vast audience, but as the quiz-show makers discovered, there is seldom the same appetite for the fifth, sixth and seventh shows to pile on.

Nevertheless, viewers will be offered a “reality” show almost nightly next month, with ABC introducing “The Mole,” Fox trotting out “Temptation Island,” the WB offering “Pop Stars” (a making-of-a-girl-band premise, undaunted by the tepid response to ABC’s boy version, “Making the Band”) and “Survivor II” setting sail after the Super Bowl. As for Fox, the network will devote roughly 40% of its prime-time lineup to unscripted fare if you include the existing “Cops,” “America’s Most Wanted,” “Police Videos” and the specials that frequently play Thursday nights.

This crush of “reality” is just the sort of lemming-like behavior that seems to follow any breakthrough hit--as predictable as the annual washout of heavily promoted star vehicles each fall, with sitcoms starring John Goodman and Michael Richards having already bitten the dust and series vehicles driven by Bette Midler and Geena Davis barely coasting along.

A brief aside here: While television has plenty of sure-fire formulas when it comes to failure, few match the star vehicle on the headache scale. Granted, newcomers can turn into high-maintenance divas, a la Roseanne or Brett Butler, but established stars often enter the picture with an attitude--especially those who feel they’re slumming by doing a TV show in the first place--and risk turning sour if the show succeeds or struggles, in the latter case fueling insecurity they are failing in a medium already somehow beneath them.

Even the ample publicity a star generates can be a double-edged sword, since that high-profile spotlight becomes a target once their series is perceived as being in trouble.

The Midler show is particularly ironic, since CBS was rightfully proud of what the network appeared to learn from “Ink,” a poorly conceived showcase for Ted Danson and his wife, actress Mary Steenburgen. CBS got it right on the second try by plugging Danson into “Becker,” underscoring the value of putting material first and organically wedding a script to the appropriate talent, as opposed to planting actors in a spot and trying to build an entire house around them.

*

The upcoming “reality” invasion, by contrast, is ill-fated for a different reason. Though a single network might have a chance to make a big splash with what amounts to a novelty act, it won’t happen if four or five competitors are jumping into the pool at precisely the same time. Still, because no one wants to risk being left behind, being caught without one of these shows, everyone takes the leap together, invariably resulting in more splat than splash.

Since 80% of everything in television fails (a law given Newtonian weight in network circles, which must make it easier to come to work in the morning), such myopia is to be expected. It would be refreshing, however, to see some sense of institutional memory--an acknowledgment of the fact all those gorgeous-twentysomethings-in-New York sitcoms hoping to emulate “Friends” generally possessed the staying power of sushi under a heat lamp.

If the “reality” influx is good news for anyone, it’s perhaps that small subset of viewers with a computer, too much time on their hands and not enough celebrities to admire. How else to explain that Internet chat boards devoted to the first “Survivor” and “Big Brother” keep clicking away--representing a mere pittance of potential TV viewers, to be sure, but enough to foster the illusion that these hardy souls have plenty of company out in the never-lonely realm of cyberspace.

Had message boards existed decades ago, thousands would no doubt still be carrying torches for “My Mother the Car” and pining online for that dreamy Charles Van Doren from “Twenty-One.” That would be the disgraced “Twenty-One” of the 1950s, by the way, not the short-lived revival of a year ago, but as network executives consistently demonstrate, why dwell on the past?

As for those who would prefer to look forward, brace yourselves for a true “reality” check to begin invading prime time almost as soon as Dick Clark rocks in 2001. Those hoping to escape the deluge might be advised to avoid the TV for a while, at least until the inherent drawbacks of an overwhelming glut of “reality” becomes, well, a reality.

*

Brian Lowry’s column appears on Wednesdays. He can be reached by e-mail at brian.lowry@latimes.com.