Better than The Truman Show? Please. Granted, Edtv was an entertaining flick, with some good performances (notably Ellen DeGeneres and Martin Landau), and a funny script, but it was not the movie that The Truman Show was.
Compare: where Truman endeavored to portray a show that really depicted human nature, Edtv gives us a 24-hour Jerry Springer episode. Think about it - what kind of person would actually go on Edtv? The same people who go on Springer - freaks looking for fame at whatever price.
Beats the Truman Show on concept? WHAT?! What is more innovative, more original - a bunch of cameras following around a white-trash fame-seeker, or an entirely constructed world centered around an unwitting martyr to the voyeuristic instinct in human nature? What is more effective, Peter Weir's brilliant shots of hidden cameras, or a bunch of camera guys following Matthew McConaghey around? I mean, this is just a no-brainer.
And as a social commentary, I challenge Edtv's supporters to name one original thought that this film presented. What, TV is bad, invasion of privacy by the media is bad? Yeah, that's innovative.
Finally, I would like to echo Ben Nuckols' comments about the group of Edtv viewers. Simply put, they were a pathetic attempt at getting a PC cross-section of America. Yet at the same time, they were crassly stereotypical - two men, comprising the obligatory gay couple, show affection towards each other, and that's supposed to be a laugh. Ha ha, they're gay! Please.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this movie a great deal. But to see this movie held up as a masterpiece or even better than The Truman Show is ridiculous. It rehashes the same old things we've been hearing since the word "paparazzi" became a household term but never really makes any kind of innovative point.
And think about it: did instant fame really hurt Ed? He got the girl, got money, forged new - and true - relationships with his family, and got to get it on with Elizabeth Hurley. Show me the downside.
Compare: where Truman endeavored to portray a show that really depicted human nature, Edtv gives us a 24-hour Jerry Springer episode. Think about it - what kind of person would actually go on Edtv? The same people who go on Springer - freaks looking for fame at whatever price.
Beats the Truman Show on concept? WHAT?! What is more innovative, more original - a bunch of cameras following around a white-trash fame-seeker, or an entirely constructed world centered around an unwitting martyr to the voyeuristic instinct in human nature? What is more effective, Peter Weir's brilliant shots of hidden cameras, or a bunch of camera guys following Matthew McConaghey around? I mean, this is just a no-brainer.
And as a social commentary, I challenge Edtv's supporters to name one original thought that this film presented. What, TV is bad, invasion of privacy by the media is bad? Yeah, that's innovative.
Finally, I would like to echo Ben Nuckols' comments about the group of Edtv viewers. Simply put, they were a pathetic attempt at getting a PC cross-section of America. Yet at the same time, they were crassly stereotypical - two men, comprising the obligatory gay couple, show affection towards each other, and that's supposed to be a laugh. Ha ha, they're gay! Please.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this movie a great deal. But to see this movie held up as a masterpiece or even better than The Truman Show is ridiculous. It rehashes the same old things we've been hearing since the word "paparazzi" became a household term but never really makes any kind of innovative point.
And think about it: did instant fame really hurt Ed? He got the girl, got money, forged new - and true - relationships with his family, and got to get it on with Elizabeth Hurley. Show me the downside.