Explore the Unexplained
Want a 12-Month Digital Subscription to Paranormal Underground Magazine? Click here & save more than 15%!
Topic RSS
Offline
If you could do a paranormal TV show, how would produce it? What locations? What sort of team member would you employ? Would you insist that the TV station broadcasting it stay out of pushing for gimmicks to bump ratings?
Ideas?
Offline
If you could do a paranormal TV show, how would produce it? What locations? What sort of team member would you employ? Would you insist that the TV station broadcasting it stay out of pushing for gimmicks to bump ratings?
Ideas?
The problem is doing an ethical-honest one – it would be boring. That is why Ghost Hunters went the route they did – and sold out for the "WOW" factor.
Offline
Well, first I would keep away from labeling it a reality show. :~{)
A show along the same lines as what is on TV now just isn’t entertaining for anyone in the know. Their major fan base is comprised of those with blind faith that they are the last word in the paranormal.
A show for me needs to start at the beginning and I mean the very beginning. Back to the simple basics and logic and then move on from there. I wouldn’t go to any of the “haunted” tourist attractions, old abandoned buildings, cemeteries, etc. Those are for those who follow TV. I would like to see things as they should be done. Do their exams at the times and under the conditions the experiences were had instead of waiting until dark and turning off the lights. Oh, and stop using flash photography.
For me I want to see a show where they don’t act like amateurs. They all say they have been doing it for a long time. Then show it. Personally I am just tired of people that mimic the same outdated ideas and methods expecting to gain new results.
People today thing they can just mimic the TV shows and they are Paranormal Investigators. Heck any 5 year old with a camera can do what they do. Every show is basically the same with the same lack of credible results.
I would take any of the shows and just do the opposite of what they do and you would have a hit. lol
Offline
You could probably get really good ratings if you had a show where a paranormal research team did an investigation and then brought them on and let a panel of other investigators critique their work. Talk about some fireworks! People who love all the TV shows where people are mean to each other would no doubt eat it up.
You wouldn't have to add any gimmicks to bump ratings. You know it would get ugly enough to make any of the other reality shows look pale by comparison. It would be the Jerry Springer of paranormal shows. /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':angry:' />
Offline
First and foremost, I'd like to have the team outfitted with helmet cams, so that whatever they're claiming to see will always have a camera on the action. I'd like to see the excalibur in chicago examined as well as a better look at Alcatraz Island. Purely for selfish reasons I'd HAVE to have Chip Coffey and Master Chin on the team as well as having it spear headed by Josh Gates. I'm entirely open to the rest of the crew, I wouldn't even mind having Robb Demarest on board. Brain Harnois for comedic relief.
The Best Radio On Radio
SirusXm
Offline
You could probably get really good ratings if you had a show where a paranormal research team did an investigation and then brought them on and let a panel of other investigators critique their work. Talk about some fireworks! People who love all the TV shows where people are mean to each other would no doubt eat it up.
You wouldn't have to add any gimmicks to bump ratings. You know it would get ugly enough to make any of the other reality shows look pale by comparison. It would be the Jerry Springer of paranormal shows.
/laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
Or there could be a series of specials, one hour long, where TAPS/GH comes in for the first 1/2 hour and explain why they 'found' activity at a certain location. Then the second 1/2 hour another team comes in and points out all the 'problems' with their findings.
Maybe Howie Mandel could be the host…at the end he could look at the camera and say…"Ghost. Or no Ghost?"
First and foremost, I'd like to have the team outfitted with helmet cams, so that whatever they're claiming to see will always have a camera on the action. I'd like to see the excalibur in chicago examined as well as a better look at Alcatraz Island. Purely for selfish reasons I'd HAVE to have Chip Coffey and Master Chin on the team as well as having it spear headed by Josh Gates. I'm entirely open to the rest of the crew, I wouldn't even mind having Robb Demarest on board. Brain Harnois for comedic relief.
Helmet Cams?? /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> Reminds me of my days over at SlyFy.
/laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> And what would a paranormal show be without Master Chin. Long live Chin.
Offline
I, too, am a big fan of Joe Chin. He's the cat's meow (or is that the cat's pajamas?). /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
/laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
Offline
don't get me started on master chin and busting out all my chin art…
The Best Radio On Radio
SirusXm
Offline
No offense but I am pretty darn sure Robb would have nothing to do with that show……
Offline
I have to agree with the people who said that a REAL "Ghost Hunting" show would be really boring because most ghost hunts are boring. If you are seeing lots of activity evertime you investigate then I have to question the integrity of the hunters. I really liked the 'old' GHI team, they wern't sensationalists. I still have Brandy on my facebook but it seems Robb has traded the spotlight for privacy so I don't think he will be on any shows any time soon. I could, however, be wrong. Seriously, what do I know. LOL
Offline
I have to agree with the people who said that a REAL "Ghost Hunting" show would be really boring because most ghost hunts are boring. If you are seeing lots of activity evertime you investigate then I have to question the integrity of the hunters. I really liked the 'old' GHI team, they wern't sensationalists. I still have Brandy on my facebook but it seems Robb has traded the spotlight for privacy so I don't think he will be on any shows any time soon. I could, however, be wrong. Seriously, what do I know. LOL
Robb actually writes for our magazine here at Paranormal Underground.
As a matter of fact, he wrote the cover story for our May issue: http://www.paranormalunderground.net…hp?showtopic=38
Offline
Here is the problem….A show that appeals to serious and studious paranormal investigators will be a flop (I'm looking at you Nat Geo). A show that finds ghost each and every week will be a hit…The majority of the viewers never have nor ever will go on a ghost hunt. So, to them, flying ghost orbs, possessions, and physical contact are the norm via the shows they watch. They have little else to compare it to.
For example, I've watched a couple episodes of Ice Road Truckers. If the drivers on the next episode said they drive backwards on the really steep and slick hills for traction, then I would likely shrug and think: Wow….I had no idea. I have no basis of my own to compare it with at that extreme, and I dont have the time or interest to investigate further.
I would say that the ideas given by several of you here are quite good, but we, as enthusiasts, represent a VERY small minority of the viewing audience. I'd blather on even further but I think a repeat of Paranormal Challenge with Zak Bagans is on!!! SO DREAMY! /wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
Offline
Robb actually writes for our magazine here at Paranormal Underground.
As a matter of fact, he wrote the cover story for our May issue: http://www.paranormalunderground.net…hp?showtopic=38
That's great! I'm so glad he didn't disappear completely. He has a great mind and it would be a shame not to share his knowledge and experience with those of us who are willing to listen.
Reignstorm: You have a point – unfortunately we take what we see on TV as the truth. They wouldnt lie to us, would they? I am guilty of taking what I see on TV as the truth and I know I need to starting questioning more.
Offline
Here is the problem….A show that appeals to serious and studious paranormal investigators will be a flop (I'm looking at you Nat Geo). A show that finds ghost each and every week will be a hit…The majority of the viewers never have nor ever will go on a ghost hunt. So, to them, flying ghost orbs, possessions, and physical contact are the norm via the shows they watch. They have little else to compare it to.
Agree with this 100 percent – it's something I've always said. "Ghost hunting" = exciting! Actual paranormal investigation = watching paint dry. It isn't a hit a minute and usually it isn't in your face. Instead, phenomena is incredibly subtle and finding it is not terribly dramatic to watch. So if you have a show that actually does minute by minute serious paranormal investigation, then you will need investigators with big personalities that can make it entertaining. And then – you are once again beyond the realm of actual paranormal investigation and the show becomes about the people rather than the process.
I also agree with the comparison thing. No matter how much time I spend watching Deadliest Catch, I'm pretty sure I have no idea how to be a deckhand or captain on a crab vessel, nor could I even approach achieving an understanding of what really happens on the Bering Sea. Really, there could be some guy off the side of the boat throwing water in their faces and I'd have no clue it was happening. Television – particularly "reality" television gives people a false sense that they now know exactly what a certain experience or lifestyle must be like. Television is manipulated, and when we watch we may have a glimpse of the reality of something, but watching the Ironman triathlon doesn't prepare me to run it and showing up to watch Antiques Roadshow every week doesn't make me an expert appraiser. If I watch People's Court, I'm not going to go out and try to give people legal advice….
So for me, an ideal paranormal show isn't one that shows investigation because I don't think you can do that activity justice on a 30 to 60 minute television show. If I made a paranormal show, it would be about telling stories. It would show the relationships between the people and the hauntings, how they feel, how they interact with the ghosts. If possible, it would also tell the stories behind the hauntings. I think I would seek to demystify hauntings and remove some of the fear. And no one would watch that either, because most viewers don't want ghosts to merely be people without bodies. Part of what people like about ghost stories is they want to be scared.
Offline
Reignstorm: You have a point – unfortunately we take what we see on TV as the truth. They wouldnt lie to us, would they? I am guilty of taking what I see on TV as the truth and I know I need to starting questioning more.
I must be extremely cynical because I don't believe ANYTHING I see on TV.
Offline
I must be extremely cynical because I don't believe ANYTHING I see on TV.
How can you? I believe everything on TV is biased someway or another.
Offline
How can you? I believe everything on TV is biased someway or another.
I agree completely.
Offline
I'd like to add to the helmet cam comment- my husband and I determined years ago that if a ghost hunter TRUELY wants to capture evidence they should not only wear helmet cams with front and back cameras but ALSO hidden cameras. We were getting a little silly one night and decided that ghosts possibly avoided the cameras on purpose- so it might be worth while to go undercover lol.
Anywho, if I was going to actually produce a real ghost hunting show I would film for an entire year at places that were known for a lot of activity. I would also bring along a trusted "sensitive" to use them like a hound dog-hopefully cut down on bad leads and cut right to the chase. I would not use the sensitive's "feelings" as evidence- if there's nothing to back up what they're saying, then it's not counted.
I'd then compile all evidence collected and make a mini-series out of it. Say 3-4 episodes revealing the most compelling evidence. If I didn't collect enough decent evidence by the end of the year, well tough luck. I guess I wouldn't have a show.
Offline
Jilla- Great ideas. Couple problems….One, you would need a network that had seriously deep pockets to fund a year of filming for 3-4 episodes. Two, the problem with helmet cams, backpack cams etc. is that they all need to project ir light, and the camera man needs to do the same. So, if the two investigators had the illuminators, plus your camera operator, most of your footage would be a wash of light. That being said it can be done, carefully, and by getting rid of the silly "reaction shot" camera. It is the job of the investigators to find evidence, not the production company or network. So, if the investigator wants his/her visual evidence to be confirmed by his/her team or by the viewers, then they should make sure they have, at least, a handycam pointed in the direction they are looking.
I really like your point about the use of psychics/mediums, ask them where the spirit is….attempt to collect evidence where indicated….if nothing turns up then oh well! Nothing ventured. Nothing gained.
For my super show idea, you do this….The team investigates and then loads all their footage….hours of video and audio onto a website. Then the viewers go through the footage and find and debate what they consider evidence. The skeptics are welcome to give input as well as the believers. Civil debate encouraged. Then at the start of each show, the team recaps the findings and debates from the last case. It makes the viewer part of the team, it generates interest in the networks website, and it discourages fraud as it is not the role of the team to find evidence rather only to do a solid investigation. There are a number of things you could go on to do with this, have the top evidence finder on the show, viewer polls on what new equipment to try next or where to go, etc.
Offline
For my super show idea, you do this….The team investigates and then loads all their footage….hours of video and audio onto a website. Then the viewers go through the footage and find and debate what they consider evidence. The skeptics are welcome to give input as well as the believers. Civil debate encouraged. Then at the start of each show, the team recaps the findings and debates from the last case. It makes the viewer part of the team, it generates interest in the networks website, and it discourages fraud as it is not the role of the team to find evidence rather only to do a solid investigation. There are a number of things you could go on to do with this, have the top evidence finder on the show, viewer polls on what new equipment to try next or where to go, etc.
Well that would eliminate any network bias and any viewers who wern't serious about the process. Anyone who has done an investigation knows going through hours and hours of documentation is really boring. /tongue.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' />
Most Users Ever Online: 151
Currently Online:
8 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
norcalmonkey: 24961
HeidiAnn67: 15116
wrightghost: 8521
duckie7694: 5868
movieman1500: 3314
milomilford: 2589
pooperdooper: 2049
sympathyforthedevil: 1912
BornAware: 1741
ediaz65: 1447
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 3
Members: 2942
Moderators: 3
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 14
Forums: 47
Topics: 1887
Posts: 104922
Newest Members: chad5662, EricaMartinez, jtr194113, purswellcaracciolo346
Moderators: NoWhammies (3983), almosthunted (1138), RyanNREMTP (7427)
Administrators: admin (0), MysticalKnight (5528), sithy (1330)
Paranormal Forum - Paranormal Underground