|
|
|
|
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."
|
|
|
"Not a fan of the so called "Average Joes""
melbian 5 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
03-11-04, 11:42 PM (EST)
 
  |
|
"Not a fan of the so called "Average Joes"" |
LAST EDITED ON 03-11-04 AT 11:47 PM (EST)Hi Everyone, I'm new to the forum, an Australia guy viewer and therefore just saw the final result of Average Joe 1 last night (March 11). Can I just say how happy I was with the final result. Though I respect everybody's opinion I disagree so strongly with the point of the show so many people believed it was trying to make and the related setiments of many people out there about the "looks" issue. One line the show continued to push was something along the lines of "will she choose looks, or will she choose charm." Now come on! Surely a high percentage of the population beyond their teens realises that this is a gross generalisation. It's like saying poor people are nicer than wealthy people. Far from the truth in my experience. If anything, this show proved that "ordinary" isn't neccessarily packaged with charm. Unfortunately mother nature isn't fair enough to make up for one without the other. The footage they showed of the average Joes on this show was embarressing if that's the most flattering footage they could come up with. I'd hate to see the stuff they edited out. If their aim was to make the "good looking" guys seem not so charming, I think maybe they were successful, but I think it's important to see that they didn't show any footage of bad or seriously uncool behaviour which I witnessed from the average joes. Egg smashing, petty arguments, golf stick throwing etc - a large range of incidents that were embarressing in the manner and context they occurred. So I think that the lack in strong traited footage in respect to the "not so average" Joes is a compliment to them considering it's a reality TV show and the producers have a a pre-conceived notion of how they want each group to be represented. In addition to being charmless, couldn't they have made the the "good looking" Joes look more nasty? more pretentious? more vain? The lack in incriminating footage makes me wonder. This show is just another example of the prejudice and discrimination I have seen relatively attractive people subject to on the looks issue time and time again. To anyone out there who actually believes they're an average Joe, don't play the victim. Like I said, mother nature isn't going to automatically increase your charm levels for you. And unfortunately, the better than average looking guys out there aren't going to be automatically less charming or nice then the rest of us LOL. If a girl chooses a better looking guy over me I'm not going to assume I know her reasons. There's a word for that - it's called "bitter." It could simply be that the guy is in fact better looking than me, has a great personality that clicks with hers etc etc. In conclusion, I say, congratulations to that guy who won (Jason I think). If the girl (Melana I think)liked his personality then why not? I saw it with some other people and we noticed a total lack in the chemistry between her and the happy fellow with the large teeth. The show did a great job of making him seem down to earth and very funny. He may very well be, but despite always seeing his toothy grin and seeing her laugh, we didn't actually get to hear much of what it was that was meant to be so funny. I wonder why? Hope I haven't offended anyone out there with my long winded speel. Cheers
|
|
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
ladro 1168 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Politically Incorrect Guest"
|
03-11-04, 11:52 PM (EST)
|
|
1. "RE: Not a fan of the so called "Average Joes"" |
<<<I disagree so strongly with the point of the show so many people believed it was trying to make and the related setiments of many people out there about the "looks" issue>>>actually the producers were pretty clear that looks vs nerds/charm was the intended focus of the show. <<This show is just another example of the prejudice and discrimination I have seen relatively attractive people subject to on the looks issue time and time again>> whatever, lol. <<In conclusion, I say, congratulations to that guy who won (Matt I think). If the girl (sorry, forget hers too lol)liked his personality then why not?>> Dude, you can't even remember their names yet you have these strong convictions regarding the show, how is that possible?
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
 |
melbian 5 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
03-11-04, 11:58 PM (EST)
|
|
2. "RE: Not a fan of the so called "Average Joes"" |
> <<<I disagree so strongly with the point of the show so many people believed it was trying to make and the related setiments of many people out there about the "looks" issue>>
>
>actually the producers were pretty clear
>that looks vs nerds/charm was
>the intended focus of the
>show. Than I disagree with their specific intended focus  . They were pretty clear, a little too black and white don't you think, I'm not sure, what do you think? I love these brainstorming sessions.
><<This show is just another example of the prejudice and discrimination I have seen relatively attractive people subject to on the looks issue time and time again>>
>
>whatever, lol.
Come on mate, things always cut both ways right? but yeah you are right, that sounded a little angsty didn't it? >
><<In conclusion, I say, congratulations to that guy who won (Matt I think). If the girl (sorry, forget hers too lol)liked his personality then why not?>>
>
>Dude, you can't even remember their
>names yet you have these
>strong convictions regarding the show,
>how is that possible? Their names are unimportant to me. Everything else is .
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
ladro 1168 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Politically Incorrect Guest"
|
03-12-04, 00:20 AM (EST)
|
|
3. "RE: Not a fan of the so called "Average Joes"" |
angsty, cool word, I will try to use it first chance I get.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
melbian 5 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
03-15-04, 11:17 PM (EST)
|
|
7. "RE: Not a fan of the so called "Average Joes"" |
jellobiafra,
You sound like you could take on the persona of an Aussie anytime ;). I love it when Americans immitate Aussies, it's so entertaining! as apposed to me imitating Americans, which is just embarressing. Crickey! >"This show is just another example
>of the prejudice and discrimination
>I have seen relatively attractive
>people subject to on the
>looks issue time and time
>again."
>
>I wish some I was discriminated
>against for being beautiful. Its
>like being hated cause you
>rich. I disagree with you
>but respect independent thought.
AJ_for_Life,
I don't think discrimination for any reason is something to wish for. Don't you think insinuating that somebody doesn't have charm because they're attractive sucks? As for my comparison to the generalisation that wealthy people are less likely to be nice. I was trying to highlight my disaccord with the whole generalisation issue, not draw specific similarities between the two examples. BTW peoples, we're very far behind here and as a result we shot through series one of average Joe fairly fast. Series 2 starts this week, is it worth watching? or should I do something active like walk across the road to McDonalds?
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
starphish 13 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Got Milk? Spokesperson"
|
03-15-04, 11:32 PM (EST)
|
|
8. "RE: Not a fan of the so called "Average Joes"" |
I do agree with you. It is discriminatory to think that just because you are attractive that you are not worthy of someone affection. Attractive does not equal shallow, dumb, or uncaring.However, you should understand a few things about the show. The producers were interviewed and asked how they chose the two groups. They purposely chose "average" guys that were intelligent, successful, caring, and had a lot to offer. They purposely chose the "hunks" that did not have much of a personality, that didn't have much for careers, were closed off emotionally. It was done to see if a shallow decision would be made. The "average" guys were only better then the "hunks" because the shows producers picked them to be that way. This is why people are shocked by the choices made. It was done to make it painfully obvious why Melana made her choice. She was played.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
melbian 5 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
03-15-04, 11:56 PM (EST)
|
|
9. "RE: Not a fan of the so called "Average Joes"" |
Hi Starphish,That is very interesting and does cast a different light on things. Thanks for the info! that is good to know! in hindsight, perhaps everyone on the show is kinda shallow.
>I do agree with you.
>It is discriminatory to think
>that just because you are
>attractive that you are not
>worthy of someone affection.
>Attractive does not equal shallow,
>dumb, or uncaring.
>
>However, you should understand a few
>things about the show.
>The producers were interviewed and
>asked how they chose the
>two groups. They purposely
>chose "average" guys that were
>intelligent, successful, caring, and had
>a lot to offer.
>They purposely chose the "hunks"
>that did not have much
>of a personality, that didn't
>have much for careers, were
>closed off emotionally.
>
>It was done to see if
>a shallow decision would be
>made.
>
>The "average" guys were only better
>then the "hunks" because the
>shows producers picked them to
>be that way.
>
>This is why people are shocked
>by the choices made.
>It was done to make
>it painfully obvious why Melana
>made her choice. She
>was played.
|
|
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)
