My Gripe with Ghost Adventures

For some reason, I was just sitting here thinking about tv shows I used to watch and don't anymore, and the first one that came to mind was 'Ghost Adventures' on travel channel.  If you aren't familiar, it's pretty self-explanatory:  three guys go to lots of places with supposed ghost activity and spend a night locked in to see what they can make happen.  The places they go are often quite often (the Edinburgh underground, for one), and I love the history and background part of the show.  The lock-down part was always just for laughs, mostly, although sometimes they did get things on film or recorder that gave me chills or made me wonder what really IS out there that we can't see?

I have always loved ghost stories and scary stories in general, although I don't really have an opinion on what I think 'ghosts' and such might be.  I've had experiences I can't explain, and I know of other people who I believe who have also had experiences, but what is it?  Don't know.  Don't really care, either.  I just find it fascinating, and creepy, and I enjoy it.

So this show was hilarious and fun for me... for quite a while.  The past year or two, though, I just found myself getting more and more annoyed with 'lead investigator', as he pompously dubs himself.  The two other guys do just as much of the work, if not more-- and it took several years for one of them to be 'promoted' to investigator instead of just equipment tech.  Anyway, I was glad for him to be finally included in the actual work of investigating, which he does.  But the lead?  He's killing me.  I can't watch it anymore, and it's solely because of him.

For one thing, he has no idea how to use the word 'debunk'.  He says so many times 'we debunked this as NOT being bugs' (meaning whatever it was must be paranormal), but that's just completely wrong and sounds ridiculous.  What he should say is 'we could not debunk this', to which he could even add 'as being bugs' or whatever else.  But you cannot debunk something as not being what you would debunk it as being.  Seriously, dude, you sound like an idiot.

Mostly, though, it's just that he's so freaking full of himself.  He's just this bulked up idiot now, who obviously thinks the paranormal world revolves around him.  He bosses his team around while not doing much but repeating what they say, thus making me wonder if he's actually hearing, seeing, experiencing anything at all-- or just copying what they are.  He goes for serious and dramatic, and comes off as melodramatic and over the top.  He has no humility at all, and everything is about him, how great he is, and how much he knows about everything.  Whatever, dude.

I wonder if this is partly because of the popularity of the show?  In the earlier years, when not so many people were familiar with it (or him), they actually did work as a team-- and he wasn't nearly so ridiculous.  I mean, he still was over the top, but not in a terribly annoying way.  It was more... goofy and endearing, somehow.  Now?  I just roll my eyes and change the channel.  Is it the fame of the show that has gone to his head?  Or has the fame just brought out what was there already?  It feels like the show is now the Zak Adventures, and whether or not they actually get any paranormal activity in any give place, all we really see and hear is him.  I often wonder how his teammates can put up with him.  Granted, they've known him for a while now, but still-- he treats them like idiots, when they are the main reason I ever bother to tune in anymore.  It's like he's forgotten why they started doing what they do in the first place, and has instead just gotten too caught up in his big, bad, self-made persona.

If that's what fame does to someone, I don't want to be famous.  I have enough trouble as it is.

but that's not what the rule says

so i'm watching this show called dancing on ice.  it's one of those 'pair a celebrity with a professional and make them compete against a bunch of other celebrities, getting scored by judges who may or may not know what they are talking about, and let the public decides who goes or stays,' and is, you probably figured out, based around ice dancing.  i have generally enjoyed it in the past, but i'm not so thrilled with some of the format changes that have been made recently.  that's neither here nor there for the point of this post, however. 

it goes like this, usually:  each couple skates.  the judges score them.  the public votes.  the two couples with the lowest public votes have to skate again.  the judges decide between them who goes and who stays.  the rule in the skate-off is this:  previous performances are forgotten;  skaters are judged solely on the skate-off itself.  solely. on. the skate-off. 

except this past week, that didn't seem to happen.  and it really made me angry, despite the fact that the celeb who got booted out was, actually, the worst skater so far in the competition.

he hadn't really put in the hours to even work on his basic skating skills, and was pretty wobbly on his feet compared to everyone else.  he also hadn't done very much to endear himself to the voting public, coming off as a bit of a whiner, and arrogant to boot.  undeservedly arrogant, on this show, anyway.  so it wasn't surprising he was in the skate-off;  it was surprising it had taken a few weeks for him to end up there.  i was sure, before they skated, that he'd be going home.  if he didn't get saved by the public, there was no way he was going to be staying.  that's what i thought. 

and then, they skated.  he's not the best skater, as i've said, but he skated his routine even better than he had in the first show-- no wobbles, hit all his (limited) tricks, really sold it.  i was impressed.  still, the other woman up against him was a far better skater.  i was happy for him that he would, at least, go out with a good performance. 

and then she skated.  and messed it up.  she didn't fall, but she wobbled--a lot-- and missed her steps--a lot-- and just generally made a hash of it.  i think everyone was surprised, and the coaches and hosts and all (i think) thought she had just blown her own chances of staying in-- because you are judged solely on that performance.  and although she's the better skater over-all, she did not put in the better performance just then. 

so they go to the judges, and only one of them (the head judge, who actually does know what he's talking about) saved him.  the other two?  obviously were not judging on the performance just given but on the overall potential and talent of the skaters.  WHICH IS NOT THE RULE.

i was furious.  i didn't want him to stay in before that, because he's not that good and he's a bit annoying-- but after their skate-off performances, he DESERVED to stay in.  because he pulled it out, and she didn't. 

what's the point of having rules if you are just going to vote for who you like?  i used to think this way of doing it, to let the judges have the final say on who went home and who stayed in, was more fair than leaving it up to the public.  now?  obviously i was wrong about that.