|
|
|
|
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."
|
|
|
"Promo Theory Revisited"
dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-25-02, 01:19 AM (EST)
 
  |
|
"Promo Theory Revisited" |
LAST EDITED ON 03-25-02 AT 01:22 AM (EST)Is the Promo Theory (OFG Theory) a dead issue now? The last boot, Sarah, wasn't featured in the promos for episode 4, which would seem to inidicate that MB has switched tactics and that this theory should be abandoned. However, this may not be the case. OFG's original observation was that the bootie for each episode was always featured in the promos for that episode, and this proved to be true until the Sarah boot. The theory later evolved beyond OFG's original observation to suggest that the bootie was usually presented in the promos in a positive light, exceptions being those booties who generally drew negative to themselves (Jerri, Linda, Frank) leaving MB no choice in the matter should he include them in the promos. The Sarah boot leaves things in question, however, since she wasn't featured in the promos. In my opinion this may be the an exception to the rules: ie. Sarah was featured predominantly in promos for the show from the first episode onwards, for the obvious ratings-grabbing reasons, her disappearance in the promos for episode #4 was notable on that account. She did however, during that week, continue to appear in generic promos for the show, as in the brief segment between S4ep#3 and TAR2ep#2, strutting her stuff. My conclusion is that she had ample set-up for her promotional media week without being featured in the promos for that particular episode, MB got tricky with that one because he could. Likewise, I would think that OFG Promo Theory is still valid for consideration towards future booties, but we should keep an eye on generic promos for whoever may be predominantly featured there, as this is the alternate route MB has employed with the Sarah boot (with the further observation that the disappearance of Sarah in the ep#4 promos was a curious thing and should also be kept in mind).
|
|
|
Top |
| |
tribephyl 12393 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-25-02, 03:22 AM (EST)
|
|
1. "RE: Promo Theory Revisited" |
So I guess now. It would stand to reason that
OFG Theory: as the law
with the;
Naked Theory: as Ammendment 1 to the law and
Dabo's Promo Theory: as Ammendment 2.
Don't fret folks this is all just progress towards a well-rounded a thorough group of spoilers. AND There is always an exception to the rule.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
03-25-02, 06:41 AM (EST)
|
|
2. "RE: Promo Theory Revisited" |
I don't think the OFG Theory is dead, but you knew there would have to be an exception some day. That day arrived. I admit I was misled by Sarah not appearing in the promos, but I did say that if a switch happened then all bets were off.Also, OFG Theory usually becomes less helpful as the game progresses and there are fewer players: by default, ALL of them start to appear in the promos. In this particular episode, with the switch happening, we got virtually no information on any of the challenges. There was almost no way to present Sarah (in the promos) without giving away the fact that a switch took place. Now the real question is (as you asked): Did MB get tricky with us, and will he continue to do so? The answer is "Of course!". Last, but not least, I want to toot my own pet Hollow theory, which I believe has done well (even if I did misinterpret it myself last episode  ). Gina was featured, and that was misdirection. The fact that we saw virtually nothing but a few closeup head shots was a clear indication that the switch did take place that episode. I don't think MB is all that hard to figure out, you just have to make the correct determination as to what is fluff and what is substance. 
*** Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
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)
