|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"A final word on editing..."
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
12-16-05, 10:54 AM (EST)
 
  |
|
"A final word on editing..." |
Did anyone notice that each contestant who had something positive to say about Randal during the finale received a negative edit from Mark Burnett during the telecast? Randal also asked his colleagues to stand if they supported his becoming the Apprentice. Mark Burnett and his minions did NOT cut up the house lights so that the viewing audience could see that nearly 100% of the contestants (perhaps with the exception of Toral) stood up. The candidates knew from personal experience that Randal was the best person for the job, but Burnett apparently did not want to highlight this fact. Did anyone else notice this? --Singer
|
|
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
sudiwoo 6 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
12-16-05, 10:59 AM (EST)
|
|
1. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
It's a TV Show!!! Ratings, ratings... Rebecca is the only one who continues (Today show appearance) to display class in spite of the "TV Show"! Yea for Rebecca.. I can't wait to see what happens to her next. As for Randall, he gets to work with boring ole Trump!
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
Reeflex7 187 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
12-16-05, 12:38 PM (EST)
|
|
2. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
I have no clue what you are talking about.The show is live. How can you cue the house lights and cut to the candidates who were standing for Randall if you don't know he's going to do it ahead of time? If it's not rehearsed, it's not as easy to just do it off the cuff as you probably think it is. And, because it's live, how exactly are they supposed to coordinate "giving the person a negative edit" when they don't know for certain who the candidate is going to endorse? Alla supported Randall, and then they played that clip of her browbeating Felicia, but who knew she'd pick Randall so strongly? Marshawn supported Randall, did she get a negative edit? I would also remind you that Toral went to bat for Rebecca and Trump then proceeded to crap all over Toral. Is it possible that none of these things have anything to do with racism?
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
 |
justcallmemom 13 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Got Milk? Spokesperson"
|
12-16-05, 12:55 PM (EST)
|
|
3. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
A quick note on "live." Live shows are broadcasted with at least a 15 second delay. Some are as long as 30 seconds. This gives the producer ample time to choose the camera to shift on air. Also, consider the possibility that the cast was questioned before the show to determine who leaned in which direction.
As I posted earler, I think that this show was scripted. Randals first task as Trumps employee was to deliver the "aprentici" quote. This gave credence to the advertised Big Surprise (DT would hire 2), and makes Trump look like a thwarted good guy. Rebecca walks off with a fat offer from a sponcer. Everyone wins.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
lrlr1 512 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
12-16-05, 01:41 PM (EST)
|
|
12. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
>Randals first task as Trumps
>employee was to deliver the
>"aprentici" quote. This gave credence
>to the advertised Big Surprise
>(DT would hire 2), and
>makes Trump look like a
>thwarted good guy.
No it doesn't. It made Trump, the would-be great manipulator, look exactly like what he was: Trumped
Rebecca walks
>off with a fat offer
>from a sponcer. Everyone wins.
>
Rebecca works for Crain's Business Review, a small Midwestern trade newspaper. Since she earns no more than $30,000/year (if that much), I'm glad Yahoo hired her. P.S. What did they say Randal was worth again?
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
Wacko Jacko 2434 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Seventeen Magazine Model"
|
12-16-05, 12:59 PM (EST)
|
|
5. "RE: Agreed" |
It is amazing. Randal loses we get shouts of rasicm. And he wins we still get shouts of rasicm. Amazing.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
lrlr1 512 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
12-16-05, 01:45 PM (EST)
|
|
13. "RE: Agreed" |
>"Is it possible that none of
>these things have anything to
>do with racism?"
>
>
Again, who said anything about racism?
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
12-16-05, 08:10 PM (EST)
|
|
29. "RE: Agreed" |
LAST EDITED ON 12-16-05 AT 08:12 PM (EST)>LAST EDITED ON 12-16-05
>AT 04:57 PM (EST)
>
>
>What is there really to add
>about the editing process.
>First off this show was
>live so nothing was edited.
> THey did not show
>the people stand up because
>the camera angle did not
>get it...it was very dark
>in the studio. But
>Trump did indicate that a
>majority responded for Randal.
>I am guessing about 70%.
> I think the three
>on Rebecca's team did not
>stand.
>
>The show edits MANY Things.
>I have heard so from
>a friend of a friend
>who was a former contestent.
> In fact much is
>manipulated. And I would
>guess the editing is not
>done by Trump but by
>Burnett. I mean the
>show is very misleading.
>The boardroom is a set.
> The apartment is a
>set. The cab rides
>are faked and in fact
>they even faked Randal walking
>back into the apartment after
>his task in Trump Tower......it
>is common knowledge that the
>apartment is not even in
>Trump Towers. And you
>know what? All reality show
>are edited this way.
>It is nothing different.
>
>I do not feel the editing
>was unfair to either Rebecca
>or Randal. With Marcus
>it is a different story.
> I feel they were
>editing him to look like
>a buffoon. I definitely agree with you about Marcus and about your other editing points, except the Rebecca/Randal part. And my disagreement speaks only to the week before the finale, when it appeared that Burnett was giving Randal a loser's edit. And I also concede that each manipulated image is not solely manipulated on racial grounds. I just hate the way that Burnett "does his thing." It really sickens me. --Singer
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Wacko Jacko 2434 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Seventeen Magazine Model"
|
12-19-05, 09:47 AM (EST)
|
|
45. "RE: Agreed" |
If anything I think the edit was done that way to make the competition appear closer. If Randal was edited to appear perfect there would've been no suspense.....but editing or not Randal did what he did to give himself the edit. Burnett did not make it up.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
JoshInSGV 737 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
12-23-05, 00:43 AM (EST)
|
|
59. "RE: Agreed" |
We all know that the editing in The Apprentice (as in any other reality show) is biased, I just don't think this is necessarily based on race.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
Melody 18 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Got Milk? Spokesperson"
|
12-16-05, 12:59 PM (EST)
|
|
6. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
singer---- I also noticed the decision not to show how many contestants stood up for Randal. Two thoughts came to mind. One was that it was clear from the moment Randal entered the room last night that he was bugged by something (check out his game face --- layed back, nice Randal is missing). Second, when Randal asked his fellow contestants to stand up for him if they thought he should be the "single, only" apprentice, I knew he had been reading the boards and was determined this should not be a dual hire (I think some of the other contestants had also been reading the boards because <in the dark> it didn't look like all of them were surprised by Randals request). Trump should have picked up on this and never, NEVER asked Randal to share the spotlight. Unfortunately, Trump clearly wanted a double hire (hence, no spotlight on those who stood up for Randal as the "single, only" apprentice) and put Randal in an untenable situation. If Trump/Burnett had asked Randal if he would hire Rebecca to work for him (Randal), or if Trump had asked Randal if he should hire Rebecca because she shows promise to be an excellent employee (focussing on her youth), perhaps everyone could have saved face!
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
12-16-05, 01:16 PM (EST)
|
|
8. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
"If Trump/Burnett had asked Randal if he would hire Rebecca to work for him (Randal), or if Trump had asked Randal if he should hire Rebecca because she shows promise to be an excellent employee (focussing on her youth), perhaps everyone could have saved face!"That's certainly one solution, Melody. The other is for Burnett to go back to England and negatively edit people there. Yet another is for Trump to play the game by one set of rules. Trump really did himself no good when he asked a new employee about a hiring decision that should have been his alone. He made himself look doubly silly when he and Burnett tried to sway public opinion with the editing shenanigans that I alluded to in my original post in this thread. So much for "reality" television and its scripted images... --Singer
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
DrKegel 430 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Daytime Soap Guest Star"
|
12-16-05, 01:36 PM (EST)
|
|
11. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
>Did anyone notice that each contestant
>who had something positive to
>say about Randal during the
>finale received a negative edit
>from Mark Burnett during the
>telecast?
>
>Randal also asked his colleagues to
>stand if they supported his
>becoming the Apprentice. Mark Burnett
>and his minions did NOT
>cut up the house lights
>so that the viewing audience
>could see that nearly 100%
>of the contestants (perhaps with
>the exception of Toral) stood
>up.
>
>The candidates knew from personal experience
>that Randal was the best
>person for the job, but
>Burnett apparently did not want
>to highlight this fact. Did
>anyone else notice this?
>
>--Singer Duly noted, sir! Yes, it's amazing isn't it? And this totally smacks of racism AND thinking below the belt. The Donald has a "thing" for Rebecca. It's been apparent from the beginning. You take every other year the Apprentice was on and ... IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE WHEN A CANDIDATE ALLOWED PERSONAL LIKES AND DISLIKES TO CLOUD WHO WAS BROUGHT INTO THE BOARDROOM, THEY WERE SUMMARILY FIRED ON THE SPOT!!!! And it wasn't even that the audience had to guess as to why they were fired, The Donald made perfectly clear over and over again that PERSONAL FEELINGS HAVE NO PLACE IN THE BOARDROOM!!! But when Becky does this, she has INTEGRITY and LOYALTY!!! Why? Why were these attributes attached to Rebecca when she has no loyalty except apparently to corporations with money and hence raised no money for her charity? And she displayed NO loyalty to Randal when she skewered him in the boardroom with an unfair remark about him losing his luster. She should have taken the responsibility for the mistake since she was PM. It was her job to proofread and make sure everything was correct. And as for Toral, it was strategy. Number one, she got to say how much she admired Donald's old school and number two, who wants to bet that Toral is well-connected and will be helping Becky out after the show? And why ask Toral her opinion? Toral already LIED about the reason for not wearing a cartoon character suit saying it was against her religion! I've been looking for the scripture that says: THOU SHALT NOT WEAR A CARTOON CHARACTER SUIT ON TV but can't seem to find one. Could it be that there isn't one? Oh, no! That would make her a .... LIAR!!!! Any wonder she's friends with Becky? And as far as turning up the lights go, let me see, Mark Burnett and his TV crew didn't have time to turn up the lights? And yet, they have time to switch the camera angle so that there's a shot over Randal's shoulder? Huh? Camera angles don't switch on their own. Someone has to make a decision to do so. If this someone made that decision, they could have made the decision to bring up the lights. I held my breath when Randal was put on the spot. He's such a gentleman and I couldn't believe he actually helped Rebecca win and did not answer her back in the boardroom. When he came through like a champion I was so very happy. Also as far as this broken ankle thing, what does he mean other candidates would have gone home? Like who? Heidi's mother was diagnosed with cancer for Chr!!!!'s sake! Actually wasn't Beth on the Real World like Rebecca? She milked her sprained ankle for the entire season to get out of competing in challenges even though she was walking around in heels on occasion. And in the beginning, Rebecca 'SPRAINED' her ankle, and then all of a sudden it was broken. Which was it?
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
shabalaba 369 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
12-16-05, 02:59 PM (EST)
|
|
19. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
I have to throw my two cents in the hat for what it's worth....I too wondered why they didn't turn up the lights when Randall asked his supporters to stand. It seemed odd at the moment. I don't buy in to the whole "racism" thing (JMHO) BUT it did seem very rude and just wrong not to turn the lights on. I could however through the dark shadows see that there were ALOT of standing Apprentice wannabees in his favor. Wonder if anyone has an enhanced video still so we can count them?????
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
namedujour 8 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
12-18-05, 06:17 AM (EST)
|
|
36. "Why Rebecca should have been offered the job" |
What Rebecca was demonstrating was the ability to stand up for an underdog under enormous pressure. That's separate from "personal feelings" that involve subjective, negative observations intended to harm another person and advance your own position. What Rebecca did was something totally different from that, and far more complex. What Rebecca did is extremely rare in the corporate world.Under ordinary circumstances in the corporate environment, someone like Toral will be treated as though she has cooties, whether or not she has something to contribute (and she very well may have). Her abilities will be totally overlooked because she conveniently gave everyone else an excuse to feel superior toward her. The fact that Donald joined in and took every opportunity to keep Toral in cooties was that much more incentive for the apprentices to dismiss her. In other words, Toral's behavior tagged her as a lower chicken in the pecking order, and that position was ratified by Donald. People snuggle up to the ones who are closer to the "Light" (i.e. Donald or anyone in corporate management) and push away people who are further from it. Nobody will stand up to defend the person with cooties. This is despicable from a spiritual standpoint, or the standpoint of personal integrity, but it's practical if your objective is to get ahead. It's a strategy that works well for the self-serving. Toral was that person - an easy target the apprentices could attack and dismiss. Think about it. How much of corporate social structure is based on employees favoring the people who are in favor with the boss? Lots. Sometimes it may be deserved. Sometimes not. It doesn't matter. People in the corporate world like the person who reflects well on them socially and professionally, and feel contempt for the person who doesn't, and this is largely determined by management preferences. Rebecca felt that she saw something in Toral. It didn't matter to her what Donald thought, and what the other apprentices thought. She had the integrity to stand by her personal conviction that Toral wasn't a total loss, even though Toral was wearing a big Cootie sign on her back. That took guts, and it took bravery. It took a good, strong person to do that - to stand up to Donald and tell him she disagreed (Do you ever see Carolyn or George disagree with Donald? No way.) What Rebecca did was pull Toral back into the mix and reiterate: "I believe in you." Toral, in response, had a fervent loyalty toward Rebecca that nobody will ever be able to shake. Everything Toral did from that point on was not for her own benefit, but for Rebecca's. And she gave it everything she had. A great manager gets excellent performance out of mediocre employees. A great manager knows how to instill personal loyalty (in Toral's case, "worship") in her team. A great manager recognizes ability where no one else sees it. Because Rebecca showed signs of being a "great manager", I would expect her to have told Donald to hire Randal as well, had the tables been turned. Why? Because Randal would have owed her big time. She then would have had his loyalty - provided he was a large enough soul to recognize what she was doing for him (his actions in the finale suggest, however, that he does not). Rebecca used another strategy, but hers didn't involve shutting people out. Her's involved gathering people around her, supporting them, and making them grateful and thereby loyal to her. I prefer Rebecca's strategy to Randal's. Randal instilled loyalty in his teams as well when he was competing, but when he reached the finish line he dropped the ball and made an enemy out of Rebecca instead of a loyal supporter. He had an opportunity, and he missed it. It casts a pall on his judgment, in my opinion.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
lrlr1 512 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
12-18-05, 01:30 PM (EST)
|
|
38. "RE: Why Rebecca should have been offered the job" |
LAST EDITED ON 12-18-05 AT 02:00 PM (EST)First of all, you're double-posting. You started a thread this morning with the exact same text. That is a no-no. But since I disagreed, but did not respond to your new thread, I'll do so with your post. >What Rebecca was demonstrating was the
>ability to stand up for
>an underdog under enormous pressure.
>That's separate from "personal feelings"
>that involve subjective, negative observations
>intended to harm another person
>and advance your own position.
'Personal feelings' can be negative or positive. They are just that - personal. BTW, Rebecca is not the first person on the Apprentice to stand up for the 'underdog' (even though Toral was NEVER an 'underdog'. An incompetent, yes, but no an underdog). The only true example of courage under fire on The Appretice would be Jenn M from Season 2. She stood up for Stacy J in the boardroom when the entirety of the Witches Coven sought to, and DID, paint Stacy J as worthless in DT's eyes. And what made her truly courageous, a woman of her convictions (NOT friendship!), was that she and Stacy J were NEVER friends. Jenn M stood up for courage,
integrity and on the strength of her convictions.
Rebecca stood up for her friend.
>What Rebecca did was something
>totally different from that, and
>far more complex. What Rebecca
>did is extremely rare in
>the corporate world.
>
>Under ordinary circumstances in the corporate
>environment, someone like Toral will
>be treated as though she
>has cooties, whether or not
>she has something to contribute
>(and she very well may
>have).
Possible. If she ever learns how to use a TV remote control, at any rate.
Her abilities will be
>totally overlooked because she conveniently
>gave everyone else an excuse
>to feel superior toward her.
Were we looking at the same show? Toral despised the other women, looked down on them ("they could be mine and Rebecca's secretaries"), ridiculed them for not having as 'good' an education as she and Rebecca had, said in the boardroom they were all "jealous" of her because she was beautiful. Toral was not underdog, and if anyone demonstrated a feeling of superiority toward others, it was Toral. Plus, she told lies.
>The fact that Donald joined
>in and took every opportunity
>to keep Toral in cooties
>was that much more incentive
>for the apprentices to dismiss
>her. In other words, Toral's
>behavior tagged her as a
>lower chicken in the pecking
>order, and that position was
>ratified by Donald.
Thank you for PROVING my point about Jenn M and Stacy J. Nothing you wrote is true about Toral. Everything word you wrote fits Stacy J to a T!!
>People snuggle up to the ones
>who are closer to the
>"Light" (i.e. Donald or anyone
>in corporate management) and push
>away people who are further
>from it. Nobody will stand
>up to defend the person
>with cooties. This is despicable
>from a spiritual standpoint, or
>the standpoint of personal integrity,
>but it's practical if your
>objective is to get ahead.
>It's a strategy that works
>well for the self-serving. Toral
>was that person - an
>easy target the apprentices could
>attack and dismiss.
Again, thank you for proving MY contentions. Personal integrity fits Jenn M to a T. What you speak of with Rebecca was FRIENDSHIP. And for everything you say about Toral, just type in Stacy J's name - the TRUE underdog.
>What Rebecca did was pull Toral
>back into the mix and
>reiterate: "I believe in you."
>Toral, in response, had a
>fervent loyalty toward Rebecca that
>nobody will ever be able
>to shake. Everything Toral did
>from that point on was
>not for her own benefit,
>but for Rebecca's. And she
>gave it everything she had.
>
>
Excuse me? Because Rebecca stood up for their friendship, Toral became her dog? That Toral said in effect that she was no longer working to be chosen The Apprentice, that she was there SOLELY to advance Rebecca's cause? Cooties? That's insanity! >A great manager gets excellent performance
>out of mediocre employees.
Then Yahoo should expect good things of their newest, mediocre employee.
A
>great manager knows how to
>instill personal loyalty (in Toral's
>case, "worship") in her team.
Toral worships Rebecca? Wow. Talk about insanity!
>A great manager recognizes ability
>where no one else sees
>it. Because Rebecca showed signs
>of being a "great manager",
I didn't see any. I saw a mediocre talent pretending with DT's blessing and biased editing, to be a star.
>I would expect her to
>have told Donald to hire
>Randal as well, had the
>tables been turned. Why? Because
>Randal would have owed her
>big time. She then would
>have had his loyalty -
>provided he was a large
>enough soul to recognize what
>she was doing for him
>(his actions in the finale
>suggest, however, that he does
>not).
> I'm beginning to see a trend here. If someone is what most people would consider a "friend" to you, you automatically become their "dog" for life. >Rebecca used another strategy, but hers
>didn't involve shutting people out.
>Her's involved gathering people around
>her, supporting them, and making
>them grateful and thereby loyal
>to her.
> Name one other than Toral - whom you consider to be Rebecca's 'dog'. When those contestants stood at Randal's request, it told me that some of her teammates did not even LIKE Rebecca and that most did not respect her (Psst! That's the relationship most people have with their friends - like and respect, rather than blind, dumb doggy loyalty). >I prefer Rebecca's strategy to Randal's.
>Randal instilled loyalty in his
>teams as well when he
>was competing, but when he
>reached the finish line he
>dropped the ball and made
>an enemy out of Rebecca
>instead of a loyal supporter.
Umm. So beating the competition is not enough. We have to MAKE people who try to claw their way to the top over our dead, defeated bodies, our "loyal supporters", as well. Interesting concept.
>He had an opportunity, and
>he missed it. It casts
>a pall on his judgment,
>in my opinion.
By your stated and implied definitions, I'm sure it did.
But, back to the editing process... P.S. Edited to say that ND4me's post follows this one, but because it is dated 12/16/05, and mine and Namedujour's posts are dated 12/18/05, it refers back to a post previous to ours.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
ND4me 12 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Got Milk? Spokesperson"
|
12-16-05, 03:07 PM (EST)
|
|
21. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
YEA!!!! And I think there were actually FOUR shooter in Dealey Plaza that November day in 1963!!!
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
justcallmemom 13 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Got Milk? Spokesperson"
|
12-16-05, 04:03 PM (EST)
|
|
24. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
I think he is trying to say, in inscrutable fashion, that we are imagining a conspiracy where there is no evidence, like in the JFK assination of 1963. The way I see it, we are talking about rating-driven TV, and plans to boost ratings are part of business as usual, not conspiracies.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
Pez 56 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"
|
12-18-05, 02:35 AM (EST)
|
|
34. "Education - Creativity = Puppet" |
LAST EDITED ON 12-18-05 AT 02:38 AM (EST)
No amount of editing could make Randal look good. His true colors were revealed for all to see. He is well educated but does not appear to have an ounce of creativity is his body. And folks, to be a successful entrepreneur, inventor, engineer, scientist (the list goes on and on) you need a bit of creative thinking. I doubt that you will ever see anything innovative come from Randal.
During the season Randal made one stupid decision after another. He won his tasks... big woopdedoo! Most of the wins and losses have little to do with who is leading the tasks. I was not sure if I was watching the Apprentice this year or "the Biggest Losers". Seriously, most of the cast was pathetic. It's funny to hear some of the cast say that they think that they are part of the cream of the crop because they got on the show. How delusional. Back to Randal, he talks about having a multi-million dollar company but what does that really mean? Does it mean that he does millions per year in sales? In profit? Net? Gross? Value of his company? A million dollar company with three partners does not really mean all that much. The first Apprentice, "Pantload" Bill Ransik, claimed to have a multi-million dollar business but the most he ever made in his life was the year he worked for Trump and was paid $250k for his first year. I have owned businesses that have done is excess of two million dollars in sales in a single year but despite this, it still lost money. You could say that I owned a multi-million dollar business but if you know that it is losing money it's not as impressive. I have no doubt that if Rebecca was the winner, and if she was asked by Trump if she thought that he should hire Randal, that she would have said without hesitation, absolutely! Rebecca has class, Randal does not! He lost all of his integrity and the respect of his fans in a fraction of a second. It was just another example of bad decision making by Randal, one of many that I am sure he will make in his short future as Trumps latest hand puppet!
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
12-18-05, 11:05 PM (EST)
|
|
39. "RE: Education - Creativity = Puppet" |
>LAST EDITED ON 12-18-05
>AT 02:38 AM (EST)
>
>
>No amount of editing could make
>Randal look good. His true
>colors were revealed for all
>to see. He is well
>educated but does not appear
>to have an ounce of
>creativity is his body. And
>folks, to be a successful
>entrepreneur, inventor, engineer, scientist (the
>list goes on and on)
>you need a bit of
>creative thinking. I doubt that
>you will ever see anything
>innovative come from Randal.
>
>During the season Randal made one
>stupid decision after another. He
>won his tasks... big woopdedoo!
>Most of the wins and
>losses have little to do
>with who is leading the
>tasks. I was not sure
>if I was watching the
>Apprentice this year or "the
>Biggest Losers". Seriously, most of
>the cast was pathetic. It's
>funny to hear some of
>the cast say that they
>think that they are part
>of the cream of the
>crop because they got on
>the show. How delusional.
>
>Back to Randal, he talks about
>having a multi-million dollar company
>but what does that really
>mean? Does it mean that
>he does millions per year
>in sales? In profit? Net?
>Gross? Value of his company?
>A million dollar company with
>three partners does not really
>mean all that much. The
>first Apprentice, "Pantload" Bill Ransik,
>claimed to have a multi-million
>dollar business but the most
>he ever made in his
>life was the year he
>worked for Trump and was
>paid $250k for his first
>year. I have owned businesses
>that have done is excess
>of two million dollars in
>sales in a single year
>but despite this, it still
>lost money. You could say
>that I owned a multi-million
>dollar business but if you
>know that it is losing
>money it's not as impressive.
>
>
>I have no doubt that if
>Rebecca was the winner, and
>if she was asked by
>Trump if she thought that
>he should hire Randal, that
>she would have said without
>hesitation, absolutely! Rebecca has
>class, Randal does not! He
>lost all of his integrity
>and the respect of his
>fans in a fraction of
>a second. It was just
>another example of bad decision
>making by Randal, one of
>many that I am sure
>he will make in his
>short future as Trumps latest
>hand puppet! What does any of this have to do with my original question about editing? Topic, please. --Singer
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JoshInSGV 737 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
01-05-06, 06:53 PM (EST)
|
|
65. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
Singer,
It makes perfect sense to me that producers may try to manipulate or even direct certain cast members to do certain things or behave in a certain way just for the sake of stirring the pot. But in my opinion, the devious editing or the influence of the producers on the cast members' actions doesn't redeem the contestants' behavior. Ultimatelly, each cast member is responsible for their own actions. They are the ones who choose to be directed to do certain things or to play it up for the camera for the sake of drama, which is what I believe Omarossa did during the first season of The Apprentice. Omarossa wanted to play the villain (whether she was directed to do so by the producers is yet to be determined) and she accomplished it. We can all come up with creative conspiracy theories about how the producers are trying to screw with our heads, but the DAW's are equally responsible because they volunteered to do the show in the first place.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
MizJazmine 532 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
12-18-05, 02:07 AM (EST)
|
|
33. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
Hey singer...Well to be honest I don't think the editing was any more slanted than it had been. It had ALWAYS been biased toward Rebecca IMO. They edited Randel to try and make him look weak because he was nice, dazed, confused, and even incompetent. Which could not have been further from the truth! I knew there was nothing weak or incompetant about Randal, nothing what so ever. In the meantime they were trying to make Rebecca look just the opposite. While she did have physical endurance, IMO that was just about all she had and Trump kept harping on that because that was about all she had going for her. Trump's remark about Rebecca not going home while he thinks others would have was just plain stupid IMO. They were trying their best to play up Rebecca, but see Randal showed up like I knew he would (my man!) and so did Alla...HAHAHAHAHA. After Alla they had to hurry up and take a commericial break! After that Trump didn't come back and ask any of the former contestants NOTHING!...LOL...NADA. Yep it was rigged, slanted, whatever you want to call it, but not well enough!PS. Left you something in the "Trumped" thread
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
volsfan 19846 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-19-05, 10:00 AM (EST)
|
|
46. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
In all fairness...it is a good question. To say "topic please" isn't addressing a question that the person wants answered.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
12-19-05, 01:50 PM (EST)
|
|
47. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
>In all fairness...it is a good
>question. To say "topic please"
>isn't addressing a question that
>the person wants answered. I was trying to be polite. It is a lousy question, because it does not have anything to do with this thread. I have no connection whatsoever to the Apprentice or anybody on it. I do have a strong connection to and belief in a system of rules. I also believe that rules that are unequally applied are inherently unfair and unjustifiable. The outcry against the winner of the Apprentice stems from a deep-seated desire to ignore rules when it serves the interests of those who want to disempower people. I am personally committed to speaking out against processes of this type. If enough people had done the same in 2000, our country would not be in the rotten shape that it is in now--specifically with reference to following constitutions and rules of law. They differentiate us from being mere animals in the state of nature. --Singer
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
volsfan 19846 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-19-05, 02:25 PM (EST)
|
|
48. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
This?I knew there was nothing weak or incompetant about Randal, nothing what so ever. Has EVERYTHING to do with the topic of this thread and nothing to do with what you supposedly just addressed. The point is that you say you knew there was nothing weak about Randal...the question remains...how do you know? Since you say you have no connection to The Apprentice or anyone on the show then it is a fair statement that you are basing this on the editing. Strange...isn't it?
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
12-19-05, 02:36 PM (EST)
|
|
49. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
>This?
>
>I knew there was nothing weak
>or incompetant about Randal, nothing
>what so ever.
>
>Has EVERYTHING to do with the
>topic of this thread and
>nothing to do with what
>you supposedly just addressed. The
>point is that you say
>you knew there was nothing
>weak about Randal...the question remains...how
>do you know?
>
>Since you say you have no
>connection to The Apprentice or
>anyone on the show then
>it is a fair statement
>that you are basing this
>on the editing. Strange...isn't it?
>Semantic sleights-of-hand will not work here. It is clear that my thread addresses the manner in which the episodes and challenges are edited on video tape. Most participants in this thread are aware of this, and they have addressed their thoughts accordingly. If you want to address the interviews and books where The Donald has made racist comments about Jews and blacks, there are appropriate threads for those discussions. This is not one. Topic, please. I, for one, will not go off topic here. I am, however, willing to address other questions in appropriate threads. And BTW, the focus here is Trump and/or Burnett, not individual posters. You can private message forum participants if you want a personal discussion. --Singer
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
12-19-05, 03:55 PM (EST)
|
|
53. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
LAST EDITED ON 12-20-05 AT 08:36 AM (EST)"None of the guidelines make the starter of a thread the police to tell others what to discuss." Nor do the guidelines force forum participants to go off topic if they choose not to, nor do they enjoin forum participants from asking participants politely to stay on topic if they are trying to learn about the topic at hand. "A statement was made by someone that (I for one think) should be answered." And I retain the right not to address it. "That statement doesn't fall under any of the topics of any other thread." Fair enough. People are free to start one. "Just because it doesn't fall under the heading that you created doesn't mean it CAN'T be addressed."
I have never asserted this. I chose not to address it, and asked for clarity on the topic at hand. "I am not going to start another thread because it doesn't warrant one."
You're free not to start one based on your own value judgement. I am free NOT to have an off-topic conversation if I choose not to. --Singer Edited to correct spelling.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
volsfan 19846 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-19-05, 04:11 PM (EST)
|
|
54. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
LAST EDITED ON 12-19-05 AT 04:14 PM (EST) nor do they enjoing forum participants from asking participants politely to stay on topic if they are trying to learn about the topic at hand. This should be done by a moderator and not another poster. Fair enough. People are free to start one. The moderators try to keep a clean house around here and starting another thread to discuss a statement mentioned in an existing thread would not be the right thing to do. ETA: This is my last response to this thread as it really doesn't matter. Welcome to the boards!
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lrlr1 512 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
12-19-05, 03:07 PM (EST)
|
|
51. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
>This?
>
>I knew there was nothing weak
>or incompetant about Randal, nothing
>what so ever.
>
>Has EVERYTHING to do with the
>topic of this thread and
>nothing to do with what
>you supposedly just addressed. The
>point is that you say
>you knew there was nothing
>weak about Randal...the question remains...how
>do you know?
>
>Since you say you have no
>connection to The Apprentice or
>anyone on the show then
>it is a fair statement
>that you are basing this
>on the editing. Strange...isn't it?
>
I think she is basing her statement on Randal's education, experience, personality and the fact that he won every one of his 4 PM challenges, of which the first 3 no one disputes. Some things are debatable, some things are indisputable.
While I witnessed negative editing, positive editing and 'creative' editing, I do not think anyone feels that ALL the editing was biased toward one candidate or against another. And in my viewing based on these 3 types of editing, I came to the same conclusion as Singer: I knew there was nothing weak or incompetent about Randal, nothing what so ever.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
MizJazmine 532 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
12-19-05, 04:36 PM (EST)
|
|
55. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
My, my, my...all this fuss over one lil 'ol statement...smh....Why thank you Irir1 that is EXACTLY what I based my statement on!
I guess I didn't get back to the thread soon enough to respond...oh well. By the mere virtue of Randal's academic accomplishments, I knew that man was not weak, but it's also practical application. Randal's winning record in the contexr of the game speaks for itself. Whatever errors or oversights he made during the game, he owned them. Also all I had to really go on concerning Randal's personality was how his teammates responded to him. He was the ONLY person that people always wanted on their team. If Randal were incompetent I know I could have counted on ALLA to say so. If not during the competition, then surely during the finale. I do think Alla is one who is consistant in her nature, and I do think she would have ripped Randal a new one as well...I do. Also Josh was quite the commentator during the competition, and I think he would have said something as well. What I said was in the context of having watched the game and having the same information as most of the viewing audience. I knew that there was nothing weak or incompetent about Randal what so ever, and I stand by it. Now back to the topic at hand....
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
12-22-05, 10:37 AM (EST)
|
|
58. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
MizJaz, I've had some time to think further about the editing and story arc creation idea. I tried to start another thread on this to consider additional options, but it got locked. So I'll try to advance a few other theories here. 1. If we begin with the premise that the entire show is scripted (and I believe that at least parts of it are), the crazy developments of the show begin to make sense. 2. The Donald may have wanted to avoid a lawsuit, which is what another poster suggested to me, so he and Burnett could have instructed Marshawn not to give her presentation so that they could get rid of her. 3. They could have created a faulty reason for getting rid of Alla, who was the best player for most of the season besides Randal. 4. They could have directed Randal to allow Rebecca to be PM, since she had no wins. Given her lousy track record, it makes no sense that Randal would take that risk otherwise. Had she gone into the finals with no wins, no one would have watched, because there could never be a claim that she deserved to win. I still believe that The Donald has social problems with entire groups of people in this country. But given the millions of dollars he could have lost had he not pandered to Rebecca, it could be that his erratic behaviour in the finale had more to do with a benefit/cost analysis of what he would lose if he did NOT hire Rebecca, than with his own personal social imbalances. What do you think? --Singer
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
JoshInSGV 737 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
12-23-05, 01:13 AM (EST)
|
|
61. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
Singer,
You do realize that all of your theories are mere speculation? While there is a small chance that some of these things may have happened, Donald's decision-making (although erratic in some people's opinion) and Burnett's editing may have only be driven by the bottom-line: RATINGS! At the end of the day, none of it matters anymore, Randall won. Why are the editing conspiracy theories still thriving if the man won?
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
JoshInSGV 737 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
01-05-06, 07:08 PM (EST)
|
|
66. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
I understand that theories are speculative in nature. But, just like you have concerns about the way that stereotypes may shape people's perceptions when they watch the show, I feel like a similar phenomenon also happens on these boards. People take these speculations like truth, even though there is nothing substantial to back it up.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
01-05-06, 08:01 PM (EST)
|
|
68. "RE: A final word on editing..." |
LAST EDITED ON 01-05-06 AT 08:06 PM (EST)>I understand that theories are speculative
>in nature. But, just like
>you have concerns about the
>way that stereotypes may shape
>people's perceptions when they watch
>the show, I feel like
>a similar phenomenon also happens
>on these boards. People take
>these speculations like truth, even
>though there is nothing substantial
>to back it up.
The big difference between speculating on these boards and stereotypical speculating that occurs in the workplace is that the former has no disparate impact on hiring patterns for women and people of colour in this country. The latter does.
Television and its manipulative editing has no business feeding those stereotypes. --Singer
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
