Talk:Scare Tactics

Kara Blanc

I've been trying to research the lawsuit filed by this woman against the producers of the show. Has anyone heard anything beyond the initial reports of the suit? It seems to be one of those stories that mysteriously never had a follow-up.

SlightlyMentholated 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It never happened. It was merely a publicity stunt by 'Scare Tactics' to get folk to watch the show. Being an ex-employee of Hallock & Healey Entertainment, I can guarentee legibility on this. This was supposed to have happened before any of the shows had gone out, therefore Hallock & Healey Entertainment, worried that they would not attract sufficient viewing figures, did this to raise public awareness of the new show and to attract viewers. This is why there is a distinct lack of 'follow-up' information on the erroneous Kara Blanc case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.47.107 (talk • contribs)

That had always been my assumption, which leaves me with a weird predicament. I would like to add this information to the Wiki, but there is no sourced information. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Oh well, maybe a printed report will eventually surface so that this "lawsuit" can be dismissed as evidence of the show being real, which it obviously isn't. SlightlyMentholated 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's kinda funny how an anonymous person (whose only edits are on this discussion) jumps in and says it was a hoax, however, a very legit looking lawfirm in L.A. has the lawsuit files published on their website. I put the link in the article. It looks to me that perhaps the lawsuit was legit, but I'm sure if it was, Sci-Fi and the producers probably made a quick settlement and made their money back and more by turning the whole thing around saying it was a publicity stunt.

I was wondering more about how the show works. Refering to "The Rat Boy" skit where the PITA guy enters an abandoned animal experiment lab and screams like a little girl when he opens a cabinet and a midget in a rat suit jumps out. In a video clip found online, the producers commented on this skit, saying it was hard for them to find someone who would "buy into this prank". I'm not sure if that means they held off on doing it until they found the perfect victim, or tried it on other people and they weren't fooled. The PITA guy totally fell for it and now the clip is on ebaumsworld and other video sites because of the hillarious results.

I guess after pulling the prank, the show asks the victim to sign a release form to show it on TV. The form may also be a legal release from any kind of lawsuit the victim decides to make later... in the case of Kara Blanc, after reading the lawsuit that is filed, she was suing for stuff like damage to her hearing (apparently from her own screaming), and basically that she was so humiliated she couldn't go to work and needed medication for stress, and she was suing for reimbursement. The suit is looks frivilous, and I'm sure if she signed the producer's release form afterward, the suit was probably thrown out of court. Cyberia23 05:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked the case number up on court link so unless the Los Angeles county court was in on the hoax it the lawsuit was quite real.

Anyway as for the outcome it's listed as dismissed as of feb 14 2005. Unfortunately I can't request the actual filings through court link and the docket sheet is a little cryptic so I can't determine the reason why it was dismissed, but I'll edit the article to reflect the date at least. (Not that anyone cares anymore ;) --Reyals 19:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You apparently know very little about the civil courts in the US. If I want to sue you, right now, without any testable grounds, I CAN. I can sue anybody, anywhere, at any time. Just because it makes it into a courtroom doesn't make it true. -KW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.103.36.49 (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record: The lawsuit was real. The case was "settled out of court", which means both parties came to an agreement before the case went in front of a judge. It is customary in this kind of situation to obtain a confidentiality agreement, where both sides refuse to talk about it any more. 70.185.226.203 (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What the Hell?

This is ridiculous. From the way the people posting here write, I can see that they aren't stupid. Why then, are we even discussing whether the show is real or not? We all know that it's fake and the article should leave no ambiguity. Wikipedia is supposed to be as informative as possible, not play towards the views of morons who believe this kind of nonsense. Yes, if the article explicitly stated that the show was fake then we'd get numbskulls disputing the statement, but why should an encyclopedia cater for the views of morons? A clip of this show was on YouTube and people started citing the lawsuit as evidence that the show was real (labelling doubters "retards" in the process; a moron rarely knows that he's a moron). As soon as I heard about it, I knew that it was a publicity stunt to promote the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holymolytree2 (talk • contribs)

You provided nothing to support your claims that the entire show is fake and the victims are in on it too, whether you're correct or not you need undisputed sources of evidence that support your claim. You admit having none with a statement like "Though never officially revealed" meaning you're drawing your own conclusions. Until it is "officially" shown otherwise Scare Tactics is as it claims - a legitimate prank show. You may wholeheartedly believe the show is bullshit and thats fine, but Wikipedia is no place to enforce your personal opinions about a given subject like you just did. Cyberia23 04:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

POV laced

I guess you just spend a little too much time babysitting this page, Cyberia23, as it is now completely void of any information contrary to your own opinions. I'll be making some edits soon, particularly to those first few paragraphs. For instance, could you please cite where you've found information on Sci-Fi "adding" stuff to the shots? If they're re-filming or modifying parts of the show, I would like to see where they've admitted to it. If they haven't admitted it, I'll just assume that you're drawing that conclusion based on what you've seen: impossible camera angles, awesome lighting (it's hard to light the middle of the desert at night and it not look suspicious), special effects, etc. I believe it's also important to point out (on the talk page, not the article page) that I can try to bring a lawsuit against Santa Claus — but it doesn't make Santa real. SlightlyMentholated

You don't have to come at me with a smart attitude. I can handle constructive criticism, plus this article is so not worth the anguish I've taken for it, but in my defense again I'll respond to your statement...

Do I have a source saying the faked elements of the show, (ie adding CGI UFOs and laser beams for the audience benefit)? No, I don't... but let me explain where I think everyone can draw their own conclusion and agree with the statement I provided. Explaining this UFO skit in particular that I brought up in the article - and it's been a while since I seen it, so bear with me - The prank victim is an RV and there is this alien running around outside banging on the windows and freaking the girl out. They show the RV from an elevated establishing shot where you see these colored beams of light appear that look like stage lights that are shining everywhere. I think anyone can clearly tell the beams are computer generated by how they moved around and interacted - or should I say complete lack of interaction - with the ground and vehicle in the background. And if I remember correctly, the UFO even appears hovering over the campsite for a few seconds. Again, you can easily see it was fake and composited in the shot digitally. A CGI model. I doubt they had the budget or the inclination for 10 minute skit to build a model UFO and put it on a crane for this girl's prank or called Area 51 for a flyby.

When the lights appear and the UFO appears, you can see the girl in the RV just going "Oh whats that? I see something moving out there"... she obviously doesn't seem to notice the 30 foot flying saucer hovering over the RV. Probably because it isn't really there like the video shows. They obviously added it in later. Can we not draw that as a logical conclusion?

Look at some other pranks, especially the ones that involve crazed murderers - they'll show the killer actually stabbing or axing people before the prank victim even enters the room. The victim just sees their stabbed/belugeoned friend crawl into the room spewing blood all over the place and die, then seconds later the killer comes in flinging the murder weapon around and the prank victim freaks out and screams. The victim never saw the actual killing take place, but we, the viewing audience do see it - this is what I meant by saying some of the elements of the prank the audience sees that the victim doesn't see.

Anyway, to save you trouble, there isn't a sourced statement for it - or maybe there is, I could care less to look for it because this article isn't worth "babysitting". If it bothers you so much then delete it. I'm not stopping you. Cyberia23 (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's something with a source: One of Kara Blanc's "friends" from that night, Travis Draft, worked for MTV's BuzzKill & Scare Tactics. So... you go out with your "friend" that you know works on prank shows, then get pranked, then file a high-profile (at least as far as media awareness goes) lawsuit that mentions the show by name many times, only to either withdraw the lawsuit or have it dismissed. I have yet to see any actual court records of what happened to this lawsuit. It all just seems real fishy, especially when put with the way the show was filmed: usually in the open desert with gigantic studio lights mounted anywhere. Either this show is fake, or the producers really had a nack for finding idiots. BTW, the source is any of the hundreds of results on Google for "Travis Draft" (you will find he was both involved in this stunt and an actor on other prank shows). SlightlyMentholated

Show filmed in Clark County, NV

According to Arnold, the owner of Kool Kollectibles comic book shop in Winchester, NV (right on the Las Vegas-Winchester border), all episodes of this show are filmed on his estate on the far southern outskirts of the metropolitan area in Clark County, NV.

Again, that's according to him. Not me. I didn't press his claim further because he's like seven feet tall and I'm five foot nothing. Also, I don't go onto other people's property and disclaim things they say.

Anyways, since I no longer live in Vegas, can anybody see if Arnold is lying or not? I mean actual proof from his mouth or something, not just speculation that'd read, "Well, I highly doubt it. I mean yadda yadda yadd." No, I mean if something has the production info, film permits, etc. Horse's mouth stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffee4binky (talk • contribs) 20:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Reality Show?

It is a bit misleading calling this a "reality show." It is obvious that it is a staged production. But I guess that's what "reality tv" has become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.129.47 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a reality show considering they, for some stupid reason, play out the story line outside of the "victim's" view. Like the audience is supposed to forget the host just introduced the gag and now some monster is really going to get them. This and the 1/2 second payoff are the shows biggest problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fake

The show is clearly fake. Why doesn't the article mention this? M00npirate (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it isn't, and you have no idea what you are talking about. 70.185.226.203 (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this actually an issue? The victims are smiling and or "acting" badly because they aren't buying into the scenario. You can tell just by looking at their faces if there acting or not. Someone who is faking emotion wouldn't be able to persuade you(assuming all of us have the ability to understand real vs fake and if you don't then I wonder if you communicate with the outside world) that their being serious.

The "fake" stuff are the actors who are trying to persude the victims into thinking the scenario is real. The scenarios are all BS. If that ever happened to me I would be thinking how retarded this is and would ask one of the actors whats going on, and since they all have that "guilty" look in their eyes, I'd pretty much figure out somethings up. Its the fact that the victims were so naive and that finally this season they seem to be using smart people, that people are qestioning whether "its" real. There is no "it". Whatever the person is feeling will show up on their face. Weather they think the scenario is funny or they just don't care. Besides, I'd start "acting fake" if I found myself in a situation where adults acted like 5 years olds, like all the actors in the skit. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)