|
|
|
|
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."
|
|
|
"This Show's Fatal Flaw"
Harrison 173 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-12-05, 10:52 PM (EST)
 |
|
"This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
The real problem with The Apprentice is the fact that, at the end of the day, Donald Trump makes a final judgement call.There are no cut and dried challenges to "win" immunity, aside from immunity earned one challenge earlier by being the winning PM...which is to say that Trump will simply need to wait to fire those he dislikes on another day.
Unlike on Survivor, for instance, a candidate here cannot earn immunity with each competition.
At some point, Trump will have his shot at you. And that's the problem. It's what limits the show to only a handful of seasons. I pointed out some time ago that a female contestant would, indeed become the Apprentice this season because Trump would have no choice, given his personal profile on the show (his name , his company...) he would never even try to get away with hiring three white males in a row. Couldn't happen.
If it did, the questions asked would be all too predictable: "Is Trump Sexist?", etc. Can't have any of that on Wall Street. So we now have in place a scenario in which a female candidate is guaranteed to be chosen. Imagine my shock.
Are these two remaining candidates the cream of the crop? Quite possibly...but that's the only reason they're in the top two.
It was mandated that two women would be 1st and 2nd less than 30 seconds after Kelly's win last season. I suppose we can predict future winners of the competition based on demographic boxes not yet checked off...and therein lies the problem.
The subjective nature of the ultimate decision, and the fact that it is all in the hands of a single individual with a vested interest in looking "fair" for the sake of his image (which translates directly into money). This isn't a contest as much as it is a display of Trumps decision-making, which grows more predictable with every season.
Even American Idol eventually takes the power from the three judges and hands it over to the audience. Who really believes that the (type of) winner of season 4 hasn't already been decided behind closed doors at Trump's corporate headquarters?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
halfpintlemon 91 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"
|
05-13-05, 01:07 AM (EST)
|
|
1. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
Sounds pretty out there to me...I doubt they predetermine the winners. If they did, they would be under serious fire right now because it would leak.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
 |
smokedog 1885 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
05-13-05, 01:12 AM (EST)
|
|
2. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
>I doubt they predetermine the winners.It's not THEY, it's HE (The Donald)
>If they did, they would be under serious fire right now because it would leak.
Not if Trump just keeps it to himself. Even if it's not a conscious decision, you know DT has at least 75% of the cast fired in his mind as soon as he sees them.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
CouchTater 1046 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Politically Incorrect Guest"
|
05-13-05, 09:41 PM (EST)
|
|
11. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
>>>Not if Trump just keeps it to himself. Even if it's not a conscious decision, you know DT has at least 75% of the cast fired in his mind as soon as he sees them.<<<I agree with you. I think he figures out pretty quickly who's gonna be there in the end. I read that he also looks at all of the footage, not just what we see, to help him determine what's what. I feel that this season he's just going along with the last two contestants because that's what he signed up to do, but I get the feeling that he's not really thrilled with either of them. Either way, Mr. D. does have the option to hire anyone after the show is over. I read somewhere that he hired Andy from last season to work for him. So, in the end he will have to hire one of the two women, but he can still hire whom ever he "really" wanted after the fact.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
color 122 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-17-05, 02:32 PM (EST)
|
|
28. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
Excellent point, CouchTater. It was obvious in A2 that Trump liked Andy and thought that Andy had great potential (something I happen to agree with). Trump also hired Amy from A1.Now, I'm going to throw a few wrenches (and I cringe at what the responses to these wrenches will be). Wrench #1
If I were to guess, I'd say that Trump never liked Kelly. Indeed, I never liked Kelly, but that's another matter. IMO, Kelly is not the kind of guy Trump would enjoyably shoot a round of golf with and follow it up with a round a beer. IMO, Kelly is a snake in the grass, and would merrily stab Trump in the back if he (1) thought it was to his advantage, and (2) thought he could get away with it. Trump has good instincts, and I believe he senses this about Kelly. Wrench #2
Assuming Wrench #1 is true, why did Trump hire Kelly? IMO, I think Kelly was a pre-determined selection... but not by DT. As I've mentioned before, I think there were higher powers at play here. National politics. During George Bush's first term, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) re-wrote some long-held regulations, and these re-writings favored big media corporations... such as NBC. According to Bush's FCC, it was in the nation's interest for big companies to own even more radio/TV/media stations than ever. (This scares the hell out of me. By placing communication in the hands of fewer and fewer people - and more and more powerful people - there is a bigger risk than ever that information and its dissemination will be controlled, buried, and spun.) After these FCC actions, don't you think the media powers would feel obliged to Bush? It makes sense to me. In their obligation, is it possible that the powers that be would "pay back" Bush by doing whatever they could to help get him re-elected? Now, during this time (remember that A2 was filmed during the summer of 2004), what was dominating the news? The presidential election and war! Viet Nam War (and Bush's questionable service in the Alabama State Guard). The Invasion of Iraq (and Bush's questionable reasons for invading Iraq, reasons that proved to be unfounded - i.e. that Iraq had uranium and was building, or attempting to build, nuclear weapons). Did the military feel ill-used? manipulated? that they were risking their lives for oil that would line the pockets of oil-men such as George H. W. Bush? Perhaps. Was the country growing wise to Bush, Jr.'s tactics and failures? Probably. Would now be a good time to make the military feel good and proud of itself? Would now be a good time to rally around the flag? Politically... definitely. Wrench #3
I wonder to what extent the hirings are determined by Trump, and to what extent they are determined by Burnett. Perhaps Burnett and Trump meet. Perhaps Trump looks over the 18 or so candidates that are presented to him (by Burnett), determines which candidates are "acceptable," and then Burnett picks the winner from this "acceptable" group. See, if left to Trump, I wouldn't be surprised if he picked a white male every time. After all, this hiree will enter Trump's inner sanctum, not Burnett's. However, Burnett's business is producing shows, and for Burnett to be successful, he must sustain ratings. I suspect that it is more in Burnett's interest to appear fair than it is in Trump's. Please note the Survivior winners. 1st - Richard Hatch (Borneo)(white male)
2nd - Tina Wesson (Australian Outback)(white female)
3rd - Ethan Zohn (Africa)(white male)
4th - Vecepia Towery (Marquesas)(black female)
5th - Brian Heidik (Thailand)(white male)
6th - Jenna Morasca (Amazon)(white female)
7th - Sandra Diaz-Twine (Pearl Island)(hispanic female)
8th - Amber Brkich (All-Star)(white female)
9th - Chris Daugherty (Vanuatu)(white male)
10th - Tom Westman (Palau)(white male)(handsome, too... grrrr) We started off with a white male winning the first Survivor. Obviously, we cannot have a white male win the second Survivor, or Burnett risks losing his female audience. Lo and behold, a white female wins the second Survivor. For the third Survivor, we're back to white male. Well, we've had three white winners in a row... gotta make the fourth winner a non-white. A black female wins Survivor 4. Okay. We've covered all the bases we need to cover at this point, so let's go back to a white, male winner (Brian Heidik). Survivor 6, time for another female (Jenna Morasca). Okay. We've had six Survivors, and not one winner has been hispanic. Time to remedy this (Sandra Diaz-Twine). At this point, it looks like Burnett is in the clear, although he should have either a black male or a person of Asian heritage win soon. Okay. I'm done.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
smokedog 1885 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
05-13-05, 01:14 AM (EST)
|
|
3. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
>Who really believes that the (type
>of) winner of season 4
>hasn't already been decided behind
>closed doors at Trump's corporate
>headquarters? I think the quota calls for a minority (non-Caucasian) candidate this season, Mr. Trump.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Notrozer 27 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beauty Pageant Celebrity Judge"
|
05-13-05, 01:57 AM (EST)
|
|
4. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
Why didnt they go for the black woman ect approach this time?
Asia, Whatever but not white and not male...
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
smokedog 1885 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
05-13-05, 02:02 AM (EST)
|
|
5. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
Well, Craig did make it to the Final 3 (shockingly), Verna quit early on, and Tara was less than spectacular. Kwame and Kevin were way better candidates.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
kahanasunset 466 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Daytime Soap Guest Star"
|
05-13-05, 09:15 AM (EST)
|
|
7. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
LAST EDITED ON 05-13-05 AT 09:36 AM (EST)"Why didn't they go for the black woman, etc. approach this time? Asian, whatever, but not white and not male..." Because, Notrozer, they went after women in general this time. They cast doofus males and competent females. Then they proceeded to advance the best women to the top and kick the asss of one of them for no good reason. God, I hate these people. (Mark Burnett, Donald Trump and their whole bloody F Troop.)
|
|
|
Top |
| |
magagnon 1 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
05-13-05, 05:10 AM (EST)
|
|
6. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
LAST EDITED ON 05-13-05 AT 05:11 AM (EST)>The real problem with The Apprentice
>is the fact that, at
>the end of the day,
>Donald Trump makes a final
>judgement call. I don't see what's the problem with that. It's his company, he can hire whoever he wants. >There are no cut and dried
>challenges to "win" immunity, aside
>from immunity earned one challenge
>earlier by being the winning
>PM...which is to say that
>Trump will simply need to
>wait to fire those he
>dislikes on another day. I think it's fine the way it is because a contestant has to step up and earn his immunity. It has nothing to do with luck. >Unlike on Survivor, for instance, a
>candidate here cannot earn immunity
>with each competition.
>At some point, Trump will have
>his shot at you. I have been watching the show since the first season and it is my believe that most contestants have absolutely no chance to win. For example, Chris from season 2 said in an interview that he knew he would not win, that he didnt have the right personnality for the job. I think they pick 4-6 serious candidates and fill the rest of the cast with agitators. Conflict is essential in a show like the apprentice. If all the contestants were as nice as Tana, the show would be quite boring. It's people like Omarosa who made the show the success that it is. >I pointed out some time ago
>that a female contestant would,
>indeed become the Apprentice this
>season because Trump would have
>no choice, given his personal
>profile on the show (his
>name , his company...) he
>would never even try to
>get away with hiring three
>white males in a row. I think you're right. None of the male contestants had a chance to win this season. >This isn't a contest as much
>as it is a display
>of Trumps decision-making, which grows
>more predictable with every season. The finale is indeed, very predictable. How can Kendra possibliy lose this ? >Even American Idol eventually takes the
>power from the three judges
>and hands it over to
>the audience. If you let the viewers vote about who should get fired, then you might as well remove George and Carolyn from the show because they would become useless.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
ElroyJetson 586 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
05-13-05, 09:40 AM (EST)
|
|
8. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
I think you're right. None of the male contestants had a chance to win this season.Unfortuately, I agree too. Is this a flaw of the show, Trump, or society for forcing this faux-equality? As a minority, I'd be pretty insulted if I won under these conditions. By demanding this kind of hiring says that certain candidates are not naturally equal so it therefore has be legislated. That's instituational racism/sexism/whateverism. If you are good, you are good. I don't need "quotas." Basically, those of you demanding the vicory of a female/minority are saying that I'm not good enough to succeed on my own and need yours/governments/society's "help". Nope, I don't see it. Never seen it. Don't buy it. --Elroy Jetson
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
canadagrl 209 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
05-16-05, 10:41 PM (EST)
|
|
17. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
ElroyJetson, you seem to be saying that the white male winners of seasons 1 and 2 won on merit alone, since intervention was only required to produce a female winner. If this is the case, to what do you attribute the over-representation of white males in the power structures of corporations and government? Are they inherently superior? Smarter? Harder working? Or have they been at the receiving end of preferential treatment?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
color 122 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-17-05, 02:40 PM (EST)
|
|
30. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
Excellent point, canadagrl.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
color 122 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-17-05, 02:37 PM (EST)
|
|
29. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
I think it's fine the way it is because a contestant has to step up and earn his immunity. It has nothing to do with luck.(cough cough) Are we forgetting the A2 bridal-gown episode? Trump had it in for Chris, and there was no way on Earth that Chris, as PM, was going to win that week and avoid getting fired. (Remember Sandy, the bridal-shop owner? The one who wasn't on Chris's team?)
|
|
|
Top |
| |
Angelfood 2114 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Roller Coaster Inaugurator"
|
05-13-05, 10:31 AM (EST)
|
|
9. "y'all miss the point" |
imho,
I truly believe that the purpose of this show is MARKETING and INVENTION. To pimp some products and have ivy-leaguers and entrepreneurs get paid acting-union wages to create new products and/or new ways to market them. Then, they air a commercial (during the show), and release the product in the stores at the same time. then, someone gets a job. which, really should be as a VP of marketing, which has some leadership. This show is not about leadership challenges, or testing the candidates to see who would be best at running a construction project, otherwise the whole set up of the show, casting and challenges would be different. And yes I have ideas on how, but I'm not giving MY ideas to MB. It's entertainment and sales. And controversy & ratings.
And that's thre real business lesson here. 
see, and I've enjoyed this season so much more. why? Cause I don't care, I don't fall for it, and I'm not emotionally involved. Don't even care who wins or why. Aaaah.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Harrison 173 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-14-05, 09:28 PM (EST)
|
|
12. "RE: y'all miss the point" |
Of course, you're right to point to the obvious motivations of this, and all television programs: ratings and money.But I think you're confusing my making observations about the show with an inability to enjoy it. Indeed, as you've just shown, these are not mutually exclusive. It seems we both view the show with some skeptisim, though I wouldn't use that as evidence of your "emotional involvement" as doing so wouldn't make much sense to me.
But perhaps y'all just don't see it the same way. I'm sure you're wise to keep your ideas to yourself regarding casting and challenges. You just never know...
|
|
|
Top |
| |
tonylovesme 8 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
05-14-05, 10:06 PM (EST)
|
|
13. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
While I don't believe it it necessarily completely predetermined, I think you're right when you say that Trump gets who he wants in the end....but isn't that what this show's about? I mean it might be time for Trump to hire a woman...but so what??? Isn't ANY company out there held to that same standard? Aren't they all under the same watchful eye of all the minority groups and subject to the same anti-descrimination laws? You always have to make sure you're balanced...whether you're on TV or not. Trump would be hiring these types of people anyway. This isn't really a GAME; we're just watching a mega-intenseive interview where people are battling it out for the position and I happen to think that it's interesting. The Don found a way to prospect some of the best talent in the country AND get someone to PAY him while he does it. GENIUS.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Harrison 173 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-15-05, 00:08 AM (EST)
|
|
14. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
"This isn't really a GAME; we're just watching a mega-intenseive interview ..." Precisely my point. And that's the flaw.
This isn't a true contest in the sense that, say, The Amazing Race is, in that the final winner of the Apprentice ammounts the the subjective choice of one person.
We can never know for sure on which day that decision was made or of which factors ultimately lead to the choice...though we can surely guess. Perhaps it's just me, but I'd rather watch a foot-race than a beauty pagent.
The first is a cut and dried contest where the second is a mere exhibition subject to any number of irregularities.
Imagine the first team to the mat on The Amazing Race being told that they did well...but eh, their temperment (or any excuse needed to get rid of them) wasn't up to snuff, as they're being shown the way out the door. The Apprentice is more pagent than anything else, but there is no doubt that the true winners are DT and MB (the latter being probably more deserving of the overused "genius" lable, he's the one getting someone else to do all the dirty work, after all).
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
tonylovesme 8 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
05-15-05, 00:25 AM (EST)
|
|
15. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
Rigghhhttt...but is it SUPPOSED to be like, say, The Amazing Race? I don't think so. I think you take it for what it is but you certainly can't call it a "flaw". It's simply a matter of taste. I have to put it a step above your average beauty pagent though, and I think most people do; hence the ratings.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
color 122 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-17-05, 02:44 PM (EST)
|
|
31. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
Good point, Harrison.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
ladro 1168 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Politically Incorrect Guest"
|
05-15-05, 00:30 AM (EST)
|
|
16. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I had all this figured out halfway or so through season I. And hence did not watch Seasons II or III. If you knew all this prior to this season, why did you watch?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
05-17-05, 07:40 AM (EST)
|
|
18. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
LAST EDITED ON 05-17-05 AT 07:46 AM (EST)LAST EDITED ON 05-17-05 AT 07:41 AM (EST) QUOTE “I pointed out some time ago that a female contestant would, indeed become the Apprentice this season because Trump would have no choice, given his personal profile on the show (his name , his company...) he would never even try to get away with hiring three white males in a row. Couldn't happen.
If it did, the questions asked would be all too predictable: "Is Trump Sexist?", etc. Can't have any of that on Wall Street… It was mandated that two women would be 1st and 2nd less than 30 seconds after Kelly's win last season.” END QUOTE
Oh, but this COULDN'T be true. Somebody mandated the show's outcome behind closed doors? If they did that, then they would have to manipulate the images of the other contestants to create a predetermined outcome.
Is there concrete proof of these claims? Sounds like an unsupported opinion to me. (lmao) --Singer
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Harrison 173 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-17-05, 08:46 AM (EST)
|
|
19. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
LAST EDITED ON 05-17-05 AT 08:48 AM (EST)No, not really. Someone has suggested, here, that extraordinary women were surrounded by mediocre men this time around to assure victory for a female candidate. Could be true, I suppose. In which case image manipulation wouldn't be needed. In any event, I didn't think "concrete proof" was the standard for speculation here.
At least that's what I've read... But your certainly free to dismiss any idea of results-manipulation.
I'm sometimes skeptical myself.  --Harrison
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
05-17-05, 09:25 AM (EST)
|
|
20. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
In such a situation, image manipulation most assuredly occurred in the casting process.The concrete proof standard has in fact been propounded here repeatedly. My post merely suggests that it should be applied evenly, otherwise it cannot be categorised as a standard. The same idea applies to claims of results-manipulation. If it definitely exists for a purely business or economic outcome, logic requires that claims that it definitely exists for social ones can be made with equal rigour. It is not possible to "cherry pick" the application of that rule, absent the risk of being inconsistent.
--Singer
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Harrison 173 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-17-05, 10:58 AM (EST)
|
|
22. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
LAST EDITED ON 05-17-05 AT 11:00 AM (EST)Interesting points, Singer and I thank you for making them.
While I'm confident that I've met the standard of consistency here, I am aware of the pitfalls associated with not meeting it. But back to my point.
To put it in a fruitful context for you:
In the case of apples and oranges (as this is) cherry picking isn't a true concern, of course, as the strand of discussion has taken divergent vines. Apples: The video imagery is manipulated to make one group or individual look "bad".
Oranges: The casting has been skewed to stack the deck in favor of one group or individual.
Cherries: Not here, really. Interesting theories? Yes.
Proven? Of course not, but such speculation often helps to pass the time.
That's one of the reasons I haven't insisted on "proof" for such theories so much as a provision of persuasive analysis. Unfortunately, such persuasiveness has been lacking and can be replaced with emotional responses leading to little more than ill-will and frustration on the part of some.
Happily, I've been able to avoid such confusion, as I'm sure you have. My point is, and has been, that the fact that one person making the ultimate decision in a contest such as this threatens the integrity of the game, given the probability of preconceived results prior to its start.
Any extrapolation of that point (see Apples, Oranges) is well taken, though I cannot claim ownership of it. And now that we've had our daily recommended allowance of fruit, I feel much better about the whole thing.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
05-17-05, 11:22 AM (EST)
|
|
27. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
Statements like "it was mandated that two women would be 1st and 2nd less than 30 seconds after Kelly's win last season" do not meet standards of consistency with reference to proof, nor do they rise to the lesser standard of persuasive analysis, but there we are.Well done, on the other issue of logic as it attaches to the concept of game integrity, and the need to apply all rules related thereto equally. In debate and in social behaviours, it is good to play the game by one set of rules. That is a seminal principle of this constitutional democracy. That standard also holds true for job selection practices, the setting of salaries for all people, and even the editing of "reality" television programmes, regardless of whether they exist merely for entertainment or even for educational purposes. I am pleased that we all agree that there should be level playing fields for everyone. --Singer
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Harrison 173 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-18-05, 08:39 AM (EST)
|
|
35. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
Thanks for your thoughts, Singer.Sure, I haven't "proven" anything here. Nor have I pretended to.
I haven't put the standard of "hard proof" out there (or anywhere) because, in the twin cases of opinion and speculation, such a standard is rarely met (recently, I've seen it attempted but unattained).
That you haven't been persuaded here is certainly not bothersome.
I am pleased enough to remain consistent and curious. If you're suggesting that such a standard (proof) should be met each and every time on these boards, I guess I would disagree as it would make speculation and general discussion more tedious than entertaining, but then, one supposes such disagreement is part of this process. And, while your point regarding level playing fields goes without saying, I appreciate your desire to pronounce it here. Great job!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
kahanasunset 466 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Daytime Soap Guest Star"
|
05-17-05, 10:21 AM (EST)
|
|
21. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
In any event, I didn't think "concrete proof" was the standard for speculation here.Harrison, I wrote to you in a PM yesterday that this is an opinion website, not a debate website PER SE. We are free to debate here if we wish, but I felt you were badgering me to provide concrete evidence for a debate, which obviously I cannot. I took it out of the public forum into a private message, as I should have. It seems to me that you are saying above that it is acceptable for you not to provide concrete proof, but that I and others must. (I'll give you that you made the above post after I PM'd you, so I'll let it lie.) I will make no further comments regarding this or the other thread.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Harrison 173 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-17-05, 11:08 AM (EST)
|
|
23. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
LAST EDITED ON 05-17-05 AT 11:14 AM (EST)Kahana, I would refer you to my response to Singer with regard to the issue of "proof". I am glad that, once again, you have decided not to revisit the earlier thread. I am also hopeful that you can recognize the difference between my posts and those of other people who might have asked you for concrete proof. At no time was I hoping to badger you or anyone else in the course of that discussion. Thanks.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
kahanasunset 466 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Daytime Soap Guest Star"
|
05-17-05, 11:11 AM (EST)
|
|
24. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
Harrison, I am not going to hijack this thread with personal discussions.Please read my private message of yesterday. I am also sending another one. Thank you.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Bebo 21083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
05-17-05, 11:14 AM (EST)
|
|
25. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
If this thread doesn't get back on topic, it will get locked. Posters don't come to these forums to read personal conflicts between other posters, they come here to discuss topics relevant to the show.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Harrison 173 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-17-05, 11:16 AM (EST)
|
|
26. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
Understood Bebo. I think this discussion has likely run its course in any event.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
color 122 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-17-05, 02:58 PM (EST)
|
|
32. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
Someone has suggested, here, that extraordinary women were surrounded by mediocre men this time around to assure victory for a female candidate. Could be true, I suppose. In which case image manipulation wouldn't be needed.Maybe you're right, Harrison. Maybe image manipulation wasn't needed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't used anyway. (Forgive the confusing double-negative.) Oh, I was one of the people who suggested (in a previous thread, and possibly in this one, too) that capable women were surrounded by piss-poor male candidates to better ensure a woman victor. Stacking the deck is certainly an effective tool, but why limit yourself to just one tool if you don't have to? Use another tool... uhhh... like image manipulation!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Harrison 173 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-17-05, 05:18 PM (EST)
|
|
33. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
I see your point here, color, but I guess I just don't see how the manipulation of post-production materials would effect the decision making of Donald Trump and, by extension, the ultimate winner of this pageant.It seems that the "tools" you're pointing to could be used to effect separate goals, or presumed goals.
These are two distinct conversations. My point in this thread has to do with the potential for compromised results based on concerns having little to do with the performance of the candidates.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
color 122 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-18-05, 00:26 AM (EST)
|
|
34. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
I see your point here, color, but I guess I just don't see how the manipulation of post-production materials would effect the decision making of Donald Trump and, by extension, the ultimate winner of this pageant.True, it wouldn't. However, it harms the show's (and the producer's) credibility. It also gives this viewer (me) less satisfaction knowing that I am not getting an unbiased view of what really happened. I can't help but ask myself this: Why can't the producer/editor let the interview process play as it plays? Why do I hear of and read about the producer influencing/coaching the candidates? Why do I hear of, read about, and see evidence (in the footage that is aired each week) of the producer editing the footage in such a way as to misrepresent the candidates? Now, you might say that the footage isn't made out of thin air; the candidates did all of the things shown to us. I would then say, "Yes, they did." I would also say that everyone does and says things that are less than admirable, and that everyone also does and says things that are admirable. However, if all you show of a person is his/her less-than-admirable behavior, we (the viewership) are left only with an unfavorable, unbalanced impression. On the flip side, if all you show of a person is his/her admirable behavior, we are equally left with an unbalanced impression. I don't want to be manipulated. All I want is to sit on the edge of my seat each week in anticipation of the next firing. All I want after that is to discuss and analyze why the things that happened happened, and what will happen next. When the editing is obviously performed to manipulate us (thereby making the show very predictable), my enjoyment and anticipation are severely lessened. I know I'm not the only one in this forum who feels this way. I've read other posts to similar effect. As for your original point, well, I'm meandering a little... and enjoying it!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Harrison 173 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-18-05, 09:32 AM (EST)
|
|
36. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
I don't want to be manipulated. All I want is to sit on the edge of my seat each week in anticipation of the next firing. Were it not for his ability to manipulate taped imagery, MB would still be picking up someone else' kiddos for a drive to the park. I would argue that its the manipulation which results in a part of the audience sitting at their seat's edge.
Those coconut shells are always in motion.
I don't think the manipulation is designed to do anything more sinister than that though. It's drama culled from footage, and sometimes it's pretty good!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
color 122 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-19-05, 01:02 AM (EST)
|
|
37. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
Well, Harrison, I'm obviously of a different opinion. Burnett's manipulation has become shoddy and all too obvious. The show has become predictable and boring, making A3 a pathetic, anemic parody of A1. Fewer and fewer people are watching, and I am not sitting on the edge of my seat. I only watched the last few episodes of A3, and I doubt that I'll even bother with A4. What's the point? Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.Ironically enough, debating misogyny, racism and class-ism, as well as the public's willful blindness to these things, is far more interesting than the show itself. If I've been watching the show, it's only to debate the decline in person-to-person respect afterward. The Apprentice by itself? Zzzzzzzzzzzzz. I would argue that its the manipulation which results in a part of the audience sitting at their seat's edge. Edge? What edge? Oh, you mean that thing I haven't gotten anywhere near? Zzzzzzzzzzzzz. It's drama culled from footage, and sometimes it's pretty good! Zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Can we debate misogyny, racism and class-ism now?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
color 122 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
05-19-05, 01:17 AM (EST)
|
|
38. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
IMO, The Apprentice's fatal flaw is that it has become BORING! Predictable, like Harrison said. Manipulated and pre-determined, like many others have said.This, of course, is just my opinion. |^o Put The Apprentice out of its misery. Kill the show. *-)
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
singer 1910 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
05-19-05, 09:59 AM (EST)
|
|
39. "RE: This Show's Fatal Flaw" |
If the editing continues as it has, my guess is that the show will die a natural death after one or two more seasons. It has gotten boring.BUT if the the producers select better candidates and let the story unfold more naturally, it may make it. I keep thinking about high quality shows like LA Law and The West Wing and M*A*S*H. I know they are dramas and not RealityTV, but they got great audiences for years. I LOVE the fact that the producers there assumed the viewing public was interested in quality. I wish that this were the case in this environment. But there are also great "reality" cooking shows, and I certainly enjoy them! --Singer
|
|
|
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)
