Talk:The Hills (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edits

I like the new layout of the cast members good job who ever did that. I removed jordon and brian because they were old cast member that don't appear anymore unlike jason or frankie who are minor cast members but appear every once in a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.15.157 (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed Stephen Coletti since guest starring in one episode doesn't make him a cast member...not even a secondary one. AtomicAge (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Regardless of people's opinions on the show and the standard/quality etc, I feel that there's a particular statement that was edited in a fashion almost tantamount to vandalism:

"Though she intends to attend fashion school while simultaneously working as an intern for Vogue, the drama in her life pales in significance to the real challenges that average people face. This travesty premiered on May 31, 2006. Watch Lauren as she deals with the struggles of living in L.A and her old flame Jason.MTV. Lauren lives in an extremely expensive apartment complex in West Hollywood, thereby insulating her from the horrors of living in the real world."

It should probably be fixed up. skyskraper 14:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

i love this show. its awesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.196.170 (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Edited the 'controversy' section for style and grammar, and removed the following passage: "Brian has also been spotted mooching up to the legendary Paris Hilton. Two rumors imply that Jason did not graduate High School and is a cocaine user who stayed at a rehab center in the past and supposably also abused Alex M. from Laguna Beach while they were dating." These rumors have nothing to do with the alleged scripting of the show; if there's been controversy about casting a rumored high school drop-out, etc. we may want to mention that, but as it stands, this passage was unnecessary.

I also pulled the first two comments from the talk page, as they were unrelated to the article and obviously inflammatory.

--Aeonian, 14:19, 07 August 2006

The Aug 6th addition to the 'controversy' section, that includes Jason being a cocaine user and Lauren and Heidi's apartment being at Park La Brea, all seem to be rumors from tvgasm.com. I changed the wording to indicate such, but should they be in here at all? Skew-t 08:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Using the term "scripted"

Having worked on a few movies myself and seen different ways of capturing the action on film, I feel a duty bound to point out that a show can be completely planned out, and not "scripted". The movie "24 Hour Party People", according to the commentary on the DVD, was completely improvized. The actors were told what had to happen in each scene and they just went ahead with the scene. There was no script, but it certainly was not really happening. The same technique was used for the movie "Kids". The only difference is that the audience is told ahead of time that the whole thing is staged. The producers are careful to specifically state that the show is "not scripted" because psychologically, people take it for granted that "not scripted" means "not pre-planned". There is a difference.75.111.57.38 19:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Scripted?

I disagree with calling it scripted based on an editorial column of a writer. In the column it disputes her qualifications for landing the interview when the editor of Teen Vogue has publicly spoken of how she was qualified and it had nothing to with MTV: "Vogue’s west coast editor, Lisa Love, tells the New York Times that the show had nothing to do with Lauren landing the job. Nothing. “If I didn’t like her, she definitely would not have gotten an internship, regardless of what the cameras wanted. She had to pass the test,” she said.

As to unfounded accusations that the show is scripted, Lauren assures us that she couldn’t act if she tried. “People who watch the show assume that we’re acting, so when I would go in to read for a role, they would always be like, ‘Huh, wait a minute.’ I can’t even read a script. I’ve tried and it’s painful to watch,” she told the Times.

That’s not the case with Heidi, who “plans to channel all that energy into acting classes” and “hopes her ‘Hills’ work will lead to a film career,” the Times reports. But Lauren remains committed to a career as a reality TV star. She said, “Scripts are corny and predictable. Real life is always better.” http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/the_hills/2006_Jun_12_unscripted

Its genre is "Reality show" so regardless of your opinion of whether or not it is scripted, the article should classify it as it is. So I am changing that title in the beginning.

The Hills and Curb Your Enthusiasm are the closest shows I can think of in terms of classification. Both shows do not have scripts, but have plot points which are acted out by the cast, and at first glance appear to be reality shows. Neither one, however, is a reality show. My definition of a reality show is this: Capturing undirected events on film. Anyone disagree with this? If so, how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.7.197 (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please its not reality. Okay maybe not every word is scripted. But everythign is preplanned. By your Definition that makes reno 911 a reality show —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.127.19 (talk) 01:05, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

---

It is obvious the show is scripted, however this article mentions nothing about it. For one if this were the brand of reality TV that does actually follow real people in real settings, no one would look that good at all times. Also, a few more people might ask where the camera came from.

This article should mention, in the introduction, that this is a scripted-reality show. The lack thereof could be misleading.

To be frank, there are already enough people living in la-la land, we do not need easily-bending teen minds believing that this is real.

It's obviously scripted, as was Laguna Beach. But are there any sources to back this one up? --Liface 20:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, it is scripted but just saying it is will not do for wikipedia.

I suggest we ask one of the more experienced wikipedia-editors (in the field of TV and broadcasting) to point out what makes this show scripted.

A few I can think of:

1. Unlike other reality shows, there is no person-to-camera interaction. That is, its filmed like a normal show, where the actors pretend to be real people for the purpose of entertainment in a traditional sense (such as a sitcom). Reality shows however, generally have scenes where the person the show is focused on shares their feelings or perspectives with the audience in an interview-like manner.

-I have to interject here: ~Just because there isn't a scene with person to camera action, doesn't mean the show is not a reality show. I don't believe there are absolute definitions and rules for a show to be classified "Reality"

2. Lack narration. Reality shows, almost by definition, are narrated and move the audience along with a narrator. No narrator for The Hills.

-I have to dispute this: if you have ever watched an episode you would know that Lauren narrates it - There does not need to be a narrator for a show to be a reality show. The Osbournes did not have a narrator. That was, and correct me if I'm wrong, the first instance of a reality show on MTV. However, the fact that it is narrated is irrevelavant: it's still not a reality show.

3. Plot. This show has a plot and story. Reality shows, however, never do. There is a game or a prize or something in the end.

~not every show has a game or prize attached to the end-Have you seen "Dr. 90210","The girls Next door", "The real Housewives of Orange county", "Cheyenne" to name a few. These have no prize attached to the end. They only follow these people around.

• The editors take the footage and create a plot by editing it. Its the same for laguna

4. Ever notice how NO ONE EVER LOOKS AT THE CAMERA? If "Heidi" were really working for Bolthouse, why did he hire Heidi with no mention at all of the camera? Also, the camera angles are always set. There are multiple cameras covering a scene. A staple of reality shows, however, is a single camera perspective moving along with the characters.

• They edit the angles, so if they look at one camera they cut to another so it apears as if they're not.
• This fourth point is not a good argument. A producer would have to tell the boss that there would be a camera there and have him sign a release form. If this were done ahead of time, the boss might be told to "act natural" or "ignore the cameras" when they arrived.

5. Dialogue. In episode 3, Lauren goes to NYC to deliver a dress. There are only a few lines of dialogue between Lauren and the boss. 3000 miles for "thank you?" And "just get back on the plane." Unrealistic.

~Why is that unrealistic? It showed that Lisa was very busy that day. And after Lisa did that Lauren even discussed how ridiculous it was because she acted like a trip across country was a trip down the street. If it wasn't real I doubt she would have reacted that way to being dismissed so quickly

6. The big clincher is just how easy it all comes to Lauren. A dream internship at Teen Vogue, school at a prestigious university, you keep waiting for a diamond to just fall in her lap from the sky. Plus, predictably, despite that Lauren is the equivalent of spoiled (there is no way she affords a $3000 a month apartment on an internship, parents parents parents), somehow she still seems to be the Horatio Alger of the whole show.

~There is no reason why anyone should find it impossible for a TELEVISION STAR to afford the life you see on TV. Saying, "it all comes easy to Lauren" is not a solid arguement because some things DO come easy to some people. The fine life that Lauren's parents may or may not afford her does not substantiate a claim about the validity of this show.

- Luren does far more to earn her money other than iterning at Teen Vogue. Have you seen her ad campaign for Mark by Avon? I'm also pretty sure she's the spokesperson for a few other campaigns as well. Don't just assume that everything is just given to her.

In short, Cameras would not be there to capture all this so well unless there was scripting. Plus, makeup is always on even at home. No one, anyone, is wearing makeup straight out of bed like that. Scripted? There is no other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.33.100 (talk • contribs)

• How does the number of cameras equal evidence of a script? Explain this one.

~There is a possibility that some women DO wear make-up to bed. Also, how many scenes are shot of any of the girls "right out of bed?"

The only problem with that is it violates the policy of no original research. Policy makes me mad. Perhaps there's some news article out there that acknowledges it is scripted? --Liface 05:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• They cast organise with the producers whats going on with their life so they can capture scenes, but if the cameras miss it, they ask them to talk about it during a random coffee scene.

C'mon, the show is so scripted it's not even funny. What's even funnier is that most kids watching this think this is a normal way of life; 18-19 year olds running living in ritzy apartment complexes in and driving $70,000 cars. The degree to which these kids are spoiled and their terrible work ethic is absolutely laughable. These kids think they have problems when they get stuck in traffic in their BMW 330 on the way to an upscale restaurant...hilarious. Clinevol98 03:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is good evidence that the show is preplanned (though not scripted) and is probably based loosely on the characters/ actors real lives. The damning evidence is the fact that characters have changed clothes midscene. This means that the camera stopped rolling, and the scene picked up from where it stopped. Because of this, atleast parts of the show must be planned.

~Just because you don't agree with the way the cast of The Hills live their lives does not mean the show is scripted. If you spend any time in Southern California (or many other parts of California: San Francisco, Pebble Beach, etc.) it is possible to come accross kids exactly like this. Right? Wrong? Doesn't matter, their spoiled lives do not substantiate any claims that the show is scripted.

For your information a $70,000 BMW is closer to a 6 series or a low end 7 series. Th BMW 330i/xi/Ci costs considerably less than the aforementioned $70,000 at ~$39,000. Not even BMW's sport-tuned and upgraded racer the M3 which prices at $48,000 is close to $70,000. --TheKleinbus (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon let's pay some respect to wikipedia policy of staying objective, being positive, dealing with facts, not to mention there's nothing verifiable past personal opinions about whether this show is scripted or not. Personal opinions aside, there is nothing to verify that the show is anything but real. Moral and social issues about influencing the minds of kids is not to be dealt with on wikipedia. It's to be dealt with elsewhere. Hell, I know kids their age who have life even sweeter and rosier then the kids on this show. Reality differs for each person. Let's keep wikipedia wikified. skyskraper 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Staying objective? With about 6 minutes of watching the show, there cannot be a single doubt about it being scripted. Sure, the technical methods, filming methods and directorial attributes give a strong illusion of the show being very much like 'reality' the facts are, there is someone writing this show. Dialogue between the actors is very much laid out and not sparatic as true conversations are. The show does really well at emulating a quasi neuvo riche life for the characters in volved, but too many aspects of the show place it as having to be scripted, there is an outline of events and settings being written. Camera's just don't follow people around in that fashion, perfect camera work that should be on the fly doesn't happen as such, it's not real and people need to understand that. However, the biggest problem holding things back for this article is that MTV probably does not want to let everyone know that it's scripted and none of it's real. It makes too much money and views are way too involved with the belief that it's real to care about basic facts that it's truely a sham of a 'reality' show. If they want to claim it as reality tv, then it should be as such as the reality tv of overly privalaged children who don't face the common reality of people. Ith 01:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Stating that based on your assesment of the technical feats of show it must have a script in the article would violate WP:NOR. This isn't a conspiracy of MTV wanting to hide something, it's Wikipedia policy. Please find a source to verify if you think the article is lacking a needed perspective. --skew-t 02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is an article that has re-itterated what has previously been said irregardless of NOR. . Photographic Proof and the link that pointed that photo section out; http://www.tvgasm.com/archives/the_hills/002295.php?page=4 (In comments section) Ith 17:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The first source you cite seems to be an op-ed from a paper's TV Datebook section, which would not constitute a reliable source. Same goes for stuff from blogs like TVgasm. As for the photographs, it does seem to show something that was not as the show presented it to be. It's also something that hasn't been mentioned before as possible evidence of a case of scripted dialogue. Still, if these photos were considered reliable, it would say that the show's timeline and other sources disagree, and that things were left out, not that the show follows a predetermined script. --skew-t 19:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We all know that its scripted, but we need to get it citied.

If I am reading this correctly, then the thing in question here is if the controversy section should remain intact. Fact remains that there is a real controversy related to the production of this show and this aspect should be presented along with everything else. Whether the controversy is true or not should not discount the fact that there is the controversy.

Some corporate stooge has been at work here. It is drummed as a reality show but that does not mean we have to step in time. I am uncomfortable with Wikipedia, my resource for information, affirming that this is reality. Reality shows are staged, but the level of staging varies and they are too recent a phenomenon to have terms that connote the level of producer involvement. I agree "scripted" doesn't fit in the first sentence. It's too complimentary. There may be a smattering of improvisation as the actors sometimes speak naturally/clumsily. There is certainly blocking, camera awareness/avoidance, and a plot progression that exceeds other shows of the genre. This is apparent to sensible observers, though it's hard to pin down a Wikipedia-worthy citation.

I came across this page because someone said it was "reality," believing it wholeheartedly. Having the controversy only on the discussion page ignores this popular public notion. I couldn't change the article -- I have only seen 10 minutes of the show. Would some sensible person please drum up a nice, non-adversarial controversy section to address the ridiculous thought that The Hills is reality?

Non-adversarial means not using the inflammatory term "Phony Baloney," but I understand, brother.

Kapuchinski 06:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've only watched about 3 minutes of this show before switching over, but it was obvious that this isnt actually a 'reality' show, even if it is labelled as one. The actors are also terrible - imagine a group of school kids pretending to be annoying stereotypical American valley girls - so its completely unbelieveable (even though I do think that the 'actors' really are annoying stereotypical American valley girls. To be honest, I don't really believe any US reality shows are actually 'reality' shows. Sorry to butt in and just moan, but it really annoys me when stupid people think that this show is real life! :P Zestos (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies of time

I remember on one of the episodes that while Audrina and Lauren were talking with each other in their apartment, the time on the microwave would say something like 3:25. Twenty seconds later into the conversation, it says 3:26, then another fifteen seconds later, 3:28, then twenty seconds later, 3:30. This just adds to some of the who notices those things even if it where set up we all enjoy every bit of it.

Last names instead of First names

Why does this page keep on using last names instead of first names? Why refer to Heidi as Montag instead of Heidi? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.96.62.194 (talk)

Encyclopedic style. See WP:NAMES. --skew-t 03:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I am the sole owner of my blog, http://lagunabeachthehills.blogspot.com, which has been very successful since its recent establishment. I added the link under External Links to both The Hills page and the Laguna Beach page on here, but it was removed and I was told not to post 'spam links' - I then looked at the help page for adding external links, and it said that any link relating to any part of the article can be added, particularly if it includes things that cannot be said on Wikipedia for copyright laws (e.g. interview transcripts). My site is exactly like that and, whilst it was featured as an External Link, I received many hits to my blog from Wikipedia users. I think it is quite unjust to call it a 'spam link' and to remove it as it fully complies with the criteria recommended for an External Link. I would really appreciate it if someone could look at this.

I have had MTV staff e-mail me about features that they have wanted me to feature on my blog, too, so I know MTV is in favor of my blog - if that makes any difference to whether or not it can be considered for an external link I don't know, but I thought it should be mentioned.

Lagunahills 12:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the talk page to discuss your link. I know that I myself had removed your link once, citing WP:EL guidelines, particularly the recommendation against "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." From what I can see, you repost entire articles from other publications on your blog, which may not comply with fair use, and infringing upon the original publishers' copyrights. Linking to such content on Wikipedia could constitute "contributory infringement". There are plenty of fairly thorough sites covering The Hills, and I'm not sure this one is that different. Wikipedia is not a directory, so they can't all be listed. Of course, consensus is more than just one person, so my opinion is not the last word on the matter. Dancter 02:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

TMZ proved it.

I was watching TMZ On TV. It's been confirmed: the show's scripted. Luigi "Kurai" III 21:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Scare Quotes

If "reality show" is merely a descriptive label not intended to denote actual reality, then it belongs in quotes. If the assertion is that it actually is reality, then some cite beyond MTV's press release is required. I find it absurd that people are demanding iron-clad cites to even mention that people claim that it is staged, but clearly biased cites are accepted for the outright declaration that it is not staged.Heqwm 20:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article reality television. I don't think this article is asserting that the show is "actual reality," but that it is of the genre "reality show," just as The Real World, Big Brother and The Anna Nicole Show are. As the reality TV article says, documentaries and nonfiction programming (shows generally regarded as completely truthful) are not considered reality shows. In that, there seems to be a distinction between the "purportedly unscripted dramatic situations" of reality TV and "actual reality." By saying that that is the show's genre, not clear cut actuality, I don't see that need to quality.

I'm not sure about "iron-clad cites," but they should be from reliable sources. But again, I'm not sure why the genre of the show should be in question, regardless of whether there is staging or scripting involved. --skew-t 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The article should stand on its own. Articles shouldn't depend on other articles for interpretation. And how is the cite, given the context, not reliable? It's not presented to prove that the show is staged, only to prove that there is a controversy.Heqwm 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think articles can completely stand on their own always: say, the article says The Hills is a show on MTV, but you don't know what MTV is, it helps to read the article on the network. Similarly, if you are unfamiliar with reality television, it helps to read the article on it. But I was mostly pointing to it in order to show what I meant in the discussion. Adding a clarification that 'reality' is the genre seems fair enough.

As far a reliability, I'd argue that what a handful of blogs say doesn't stand for much, unless they are generally recognized as substantial, respected sources. Citing one or two blogs seems to only prove that things are controversial among the authors of those sites, not that a significant controversy (that would be worth mentioning in an encyclopædia) exists at large. I'd think that if there is a controversy, it would not be too difficult to find a reliable source. --skew-t 02:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Undoing of changes

[original comment removed by editor]

To address the problem of people reverting your changes, it's important to leave an edit summary when you make changes. Otherwise, unilateral changes might be viewed as hostile. I've noticed you've twice now used undo on my changes without any sort of explanation, while my edits are summarized. Is there something you are contesting in the changes I've made to the criticism section? It sorta seems like you are doing what you accuse others of as you undo constructive edits by other users.

Also, it's important to remember that content must be verifiable and should follow the manual of style. The changes of mine that you have done an undo on include changing heading capitalization and removing doubtful, unsourced material (particularly quotations according to "a source"). I suggest perhaps considering doing a partial revision if possible instead of complete undo if you find some edits unsatisfactory. Thanks. --skew-t (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Apparently you wish to leave the page only to your own likings. The character biographies may as well be cut and pasted from the individual pages since all we see from these characters are from the progoram, but no, we are making individual pages because of the length of the biographies. The same goes with the season synopsis; we may as well create individual pages with the lengths they are getting at. PS. whoever put Bella as a character (not pointing at you) is seriously disturbed. Ivaroa (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to restore your comments then feel free but I do not want my comments restored I want to move on from this conversation not continue you in it and I do not see the relevance nor how it could assist anyone in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HOTPiNKZOO (talk • contribs) 07:46, December 13, 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Restored only one comment. --skew-t (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

IT IS REALITY

Regardless of your person opinion (which is obvious) the show is reality and qualifies as reality television under the Writers Guild of America so to put the show as "scripted" or "faux" reality is slander and you can actualy go to jail for that and just so you know if the show suffers from rating the producers will look for anyone to blame and if they to wikipedia and see people stating the show as fake wikipedia can get sued and who ever put that up can go to jail, I've been a screenwriter and television major for 3 years now so I would know a little something about that. And I added the conterversy section for anyone who has sources and proof of slip ups in the time line of the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HOTPiNKZOO (talk • contribs)

Sure~. Funny how this "screenwriter" never uses (or doesn’t know how to use) punctuation nor sign his/her comments. TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! Having both edited a magazine with >30,000 copies an issue, I can guarantee HOTPiNKZOO isn't a professional writer. (She's no attorney either!) Oh, she said Screenwriting and Television major! Well, if the creator said it's "a little fake," and its scientifically not possible to cut those shots without a considerable amount of AD, it's a little comical that the juvenile audience doesn't believe them. But that's just the point. Controversy articles are not legal per wikipedia guidelines--quite the contrary, the fakeness of The Hills is its definition. It's a bunch of rich daddies giving their daughters internships and TV shows. They're only "reality" in that the actresses aren't professional. Having worked in multiple ancillary aspects of fashion, I can guarantee fashion interns don't really have that much freedom, money, or opportunity. It's like the kids who say the dumbness of Paris Hilton is all a brilliant scheme. Anyway, the article wouldn't be academically sound without a profound amount of disclaimer for its fakeness, fauxness, and scriptedness. --Mrcolj (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

GAVIN

The -N- was giving a marathon of laguna beach today and in the episode "The bonfire" guess who I saw....GAVIN BEASLY...so I guess Lauren didn't just meet him that time she tried to hook him up with Heidi, should I put this in the controversy section?

Spencer Pratt entry?

Why is there no entry for Spencer Pratt? Certainly he's a big enough character in the show to merit one.

64.236.236.254 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Page move

This page should not have been moved to this new title. First of all, the stated reason was to avoid confusion with placenames--but "The Hills" is still a redirect to this article; no disambiguation occurred. Furthermore, the new title, "The Hills (Television Production)", is in violation of Wikipedia style for page names. The title, if we want to disambiguate it, should be "The Hills (TV series)". Certainly "television production" should not be capitalized. Everyking (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and moved it back to "The Hills". Moving to "The Hills (TV series)" would be fine, but only if there is actually a disambiguation page created at "The Hills". Everyking (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheHillsTitleScreen.jpg

Image:TheHillsTitleScreen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a genre called "Reality TV"

Listen, we all know this show is set up -- you know it, I know it, Bob Dole knows it, the American people know it -- but, like it or not, it fits into the genre of "Reality TV." What defines reality TV is the style -- handcam, real names instead of character names, bad acting, and the stars interacting with the real world. The problem is, a long time ago, "Reality TV" stopped meaning "Real life TV," and that is the point everyone is arguing about on here. But just like game show, drama, sitcom, etc., reality is just a genre now -- it no longer means "documentary."

So, this is a scripted reality program, but it is a reality program nonetheless. TribeCalledQuest (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

NO. Curb Your Enthusiasm would fit this definition, but is not a reality show. A reality show means a show where the characters/ actors receive no direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.7.197 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Curb Your Enthusiasm fails on most of those claims. The actors have character names and regardless of whether the actions on the show are supposed scripted or thought of before hand, they reflect the characters' real life issues. Spencer and Heidi actually date, Lauren's relationships were real, etcetera. The genre is reality. Your issue is with the definition of reality tv, because this show definitely satisfies reality TV TheHammer24 (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvising and Scouting/Casting

I added this after the updating of Audrina's personal information section on her official website as well as her recent tv appearance on Chelsea Lately. I feel it is important to include as it is the first time an inside source and actual star of the show has admitted that the show is not entirely real but rather improvised and that they are not actual friends before the show, but found, taken through a series of interviews and then casted by producers. If you feel it should be implemented differently please state why here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnybryce (talk • contribs)

jen bunny?

should jen bunny be in the table of characters? Ingridjames (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

old cast

why should Jordan, Brian, Jason, and Jen be currently credited? their stint on the show is over! 70.18.252.126 (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

All main cast members, both past and present, are listed in order to maintain encyclopedic perspective on the series as a whole. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

season 5

will there be a season 5? --78.48.229.117 (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

season 4

Too many people keep adding information to the synopsis based on what is shown in the episode previews. I find that the edits should be made after the episode has aired to [a] avoid confusion for those who haven't seen the preview and [b] reduce speculation on events that're half presented. agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.148.11 (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cast Members

People, stop editing this. Whether you like it or not, only Lauren, Whitney, Heidi and Audrina are main cast members. They are the only ones who appear in the opening credits. ---Shadow (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

MTV's claims vs. The truth

It seems alot of the discussion about the "reality" of the show is based around what MTV claims the show is. MTV is of course the official source of info for the show, as they produce it, but that raises the question, how do you handle things when the "official" source of info is basically lying. Alot of the info in the main article is a regurgitation of MTV's stance on things and any info to the contrary is removed because it's not in line with what MTV says. 15.170.158.203 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bolthouse Productions

Since this show is a promotional vehicle for Bolthouse Productions (SBE - Fox Tail, Area, Hyde, S-Bar, and so on - Why are they not mentioned as such? http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/01/news/wk-upfront1 Proxy User (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

your website doesn't mention anything about SBE working with "the hills". producers probably didn't want to promote LA nightlife because it's not the premise of the show. besides, why are you worried about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.246.154 (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Deletion

Can anyone explain why my edits, based on the work of the well-respected journalist Nikki Finke, were deleted? I re-added them, but if there was a legitimate reason for removal, please say so here before you go and re-delete.--Lilwayne fo sho (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete them, but I thought this the best place to discuss the edits I just made, especially to this section. There was so much weasel-wording and straying from a neutral point of view, with words like "obviously" and saying that one person's opinion and report "certainly" meant it was the truth. The section was also quite repetitive, especially in regards to Nikki Finke's opinion, which took up most of the section. Cactusjump (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the paragraph about Heidi and Spencer's comments on a totally different reality show. There is already more than enough information in the section to prove a point; citing comments made on another show just makes the point belabored and irrelevant. Cactusjump (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism: Nikki Finke

Since Finke cites an article that is already previously referenced, is the paragraph about her criticism necessary? Is it a reliable source, or merely a blogger's opinion? Discuss. :-) Cactusjump (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I finally had a chance to go through all the citations and watch the video for this section. I cleaned up the Audrina section as well as the new Lauren quotes taken from her interview and made them accurate. Now, unless anyone objects and there is further discussion, I'm going to delete the Nikki Finke paragraph from the article, for these reasons:

1. The source is taken from Finke's blog which is not a reliable source.
2. She is writing her opinion based on an article that is previously cited in the same paragraph, making it repetitive.

I'll leave it up for a while to be mulled over, but otherwise, it's going. Cactusjump (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed the paragraph. No one objected on this talk page in the last 3 days. Cactusjump (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Error

"Lauren Conrad is officially off of The Hills after the last episode of the 1st part of season 5." This doesn't even make sense, and the next two sentences don't even begin with capital letters. I'd edit it myself but I don't know what that first sentence is supposed to mean. xx - Nessa Ancalimë ♥ (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we take reality off this page now?

Can we please take the mentions of "reality television" off this page now that both the finale and Kristin Cavallari have proven that it was fake all along? It was just a soap opera people. “Nothing you see on TV is real,” Cavallari, 23, tells PEOPLE. “Fans need to understand it’s all entertainment. It’s all in fun. I would never put my close friends or a real relationship on a show.” --Xander756 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The genre does not imply that it is completely factual. Check out the article reality television: "Reality television is a genre of television programming that presents purportedly unscripted dramatic or humorous situations, documents actual events, and usually features ordinary people instead of professional actors....frequently portrays a modified and highly influenced form of reality.... Participants...are sometimes coached to act in specific scripted ways by off-screen "story editors" or "segment producers," with the portrayal of events and speech manipulated and contrived to create an illusion of reality through editing and other post-production techniques." (emphasis added) --skew-t (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I just think that it is misleading to the average Wikipedia user that stumbles across the page. I think there should at least be a mention somewhere on it of Kristin's quote. --Xander756 (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm there used to be a section about that has been removed. I'll have a look at the archives. Reubot (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Here [1] Reubot (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have readded as it looks like it was removed as part of vandalism and wasn't detected up. Reubot (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it is reality TV as many would understand it - it is a faux-reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.34.242 (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)