Zeugma's page

History documentaries (good ones) are really expensive. Even a single historical photograph that is "public domain" material costs money: there are archive fees, research fees, and lots of due diligence from the legal department to make sure the image can be used. And that's just one photo!

Also, the "easy to watch" factor. Sad to say, but people would rather look at fools making fools of themselves than get interested in history that actually matters, because doing that takes thought and reflection.

Grey Lensman wrote:

sunbeam wrote:

Why and how did it get this way?

Is it a case of it being cheaper to make shows like this? I'm talking about the reality based shows.

Sadly, it's the 'cheaper' part that I think is the answer. A reality 'star' commands almost no salary at all unless the show becomes a big hit. Mostly, they are hoping to get famous. Few to no sets, plus low paychecks for the cast combine to make a program that costs substantially less than a sitcom, drama, or even a documentary. If a program costs 10% of a standard show, then even if it gets half the ratings the network has still made a large jump in profitability.

This is the cold hard truth of it.

Coupled with the fact that people actually watch those shows and enable this downward spiral, it gets downright depressing.

The only exceptions seem to be those networks that have a "labor of love" thing going for them. Again, TCM is the only one that comes to mind for that.

TCM is great, and I think of it as the "Film History" channel.

But ... he is the ruling pharao, just as Grand Prince Stavian III is the ruling emperor of Taldor (and Charles is the Prince of Wales as sovereign over this county, not as son of Queen Elizabeth). "The Ruby Prince" is something like a titular name, just as his father was the Crocodile King.

Edit: I just scrolled up and saw that I just answered a post before. But it's true none the less.

Thanks Lanx, for the clarification on the title. It still bothers me though. I understand the Prince of Wales is a sovereign over Wales, but in the future he will be king of England and his title as Prince of Wales won't be as important as his greater-scope sovereignty. I just find it odd that, in Golarion, the Pharaoh would choose to go by his "lesser" title rather than the more-expansive title of Pharaoh. Stavian may have political reasons for doing so, because he needs to unify fractious Taldor (the same reason Prince of Wales is such a "hot" title for heirs apparent in England, to quell Welsh nationalism), but Khemet doesn't seem to have those problems.