|
|
| Lunarlady |
I was just reading the DIS and came across a thread where people were practically salivating to watch Fox's "Joe Millionaire" tomorrow night. The premise is a lowly construction worker is passed off as a $50,000,000 millionaire and he has to pick a bride from the 20 contestants.
Aside from all the aspersions regarding the character of a woman who would go on TV to "catch a man", we all know that some women are only after a man's money. The April/October relationships can prove this out where it's obvious that a sweet young thang is after the man's money.
But this show poses a very handsome, young, single man who happens to have alot of money. I've seen what the guy looks like and, indeed, it would be possible for a young model-type woman to fall for him. Apparently he "goes along with the joke" of convincing these women that he is, indeed, a millionaire.
What turns my stomach (literally) is that everyone's waiting to see the look on the woman's face when she finds out he's a pauper. Why? Who made the TV viewing public judge and jury of a human's moral values? Add to it the fact that the show and the man himself are actively lying to her...but the premise is all on the shallow, cold, calculating bitch who's just going to tell him she loves him because of himself and not his money.
I'm sure they're not going to pick a woman who's going to realistically tell him "That's OK, honey...I make $25,000 and between the two of us we can do it!". That wouldn't be good TV. NO...they're going to find the one woman who can give the most bang for the sponsor's buck and we'll get a horrified look which can be attributed to either:
A). You LIED to me? How can I ever trust you when you told me you loved me after stringing me along just to embarass me on national TV?
or
B). You SOB!! I even SLEPT with you so I could have a better life and get my hands on that money.
In either case, though, the ratings will probably be through the roof and will give me yet another reason to not watch network TV.
It was bad enough seeing those commercials during the Simpsons (which I hardly ever watch anymore because I just can't stand the FOX network) but to hear people gushing about how they're going to LOVE this woman's embarassment makes me wanna barf up my dinner.
For the record, I have no intention of watching this piece of garbage. I'm sure I'll see alot of press about it on the CB of the DIS Monday night and Tuesday morning.
Thank you for listening. |
|
|
| Sirius |
I'm totally with you on this one LL. I have no idea how people can find this sort of thing entertaining. I was silly enough to think The Bachelor was the lowest, but how wrong I was. |
|
|
| lesa |
Ditto your comments LL. All I can say is, when they get to the final woman and she finds out she's been chosen by "Joe Hundredaire" (as DD has dubbed him) she's getting what she deserves. To be goingt through some TV show (on Fox yet) to get a man, simply because he's believed to be rich, is an insult to intelligent women everywhere.
|
|
|
| Parker |
I agree on all counts.
However, I really detest these "reality" shows. |
|
|
| samogram |
quote:
Lunarlady wrote:
I was just reading the DIS and came across a thread where people were practically salivating to watch Fox's "Joe Millionaire" tomorrow night. The premise is a lowly construction worker is passed off as a $50,000,000 millionaire and he has to pick a bride from the 20 contestants.
Aside from all the aspersions regarding the character of a woman who would go on TV to "catch a man", we all know that some women are only after a man's money. The April/October relationships can prove this out where it's obvious that a sweet young thang is after the man's money.
But this show poses a very handsome, young, single man who happens to have alot of money. I've seen what the guy looks like and, indeed, it would be possible for a young model-type woman to fall for him. Apparently he "goes along with the joke" of convincing these women that he is, indeed, a millionaire.
What turns my stomach (literally) is that everyone's waiting to see the look on the woman's face when she finds out he's a pauper. Why? Who made the TV viewing public judge and jury of a human's moral values? Add to it the fact that the show and the man himself are actively lying to her...but the premise is all on the shallow, cold, calculating bitch who's just going to tell him she loves him because of himself and not his money.
I'm sure they're not going to pick a woman who's going to realistically tell him "That's OK, honey...I make $25,000 and between the two of us we can do it!". That wouldn't be good TV. NO...they're going to find the one woman who can give the most bang for the sponsor's buck and we'll get a horrified look which can be attributed to either:
A). You LIED to me? How can I ever trust you when you told me you loved me after stringing me along just to embarass me on national TV?
or
B). You SOB!! I even SLEPT with you so I could have a better life and get my hands on that money.
In either case, though, the ratings will probably be through the roof and will give me yet another reason to not watch network TV.
It was bad enough seeing those commercials during the Simpsons (which I hardly ever watch anymore because I just can't stand the FOX network) but to hear people gushing about how they're going to LOVE this woman's embarassment makes me wanna barf up my dinner.
For the record, I have no intention of watching this piece of garbage. I'm sure I'll see alot of press about it on the CB of the DIS Monday night and Tuesday morning.
Thank you for listening.
Amen and Amen! IMHO, we're a meaner, crasser nation or we wouldn't be so entertained by watching people in humiliating and embarrassing situations. Or is it that some of us would do anything for money. I don't know which, but it makes me sick.
My nominee for the shame-shame award and personal rant is the Anna Nicole thing. I haven't watched it, but the promos show a sad, sad, woman who would do anything for money and does she even know people are laughing at her? This woman has drug problems, obvious emotional problems, extremely low I.Q points and is the nation's laughing stock. No matter how badly people behave on the other shows, no one is laughing at them half as hard as they are laughing at A.N. I remember when our mothers told us not to stare at people like her and hopefully the right kind of help would be available to her.
I could go on and on and I haven't even mentioned the obvious sexism.... I could go on and on. ...but I won't |
|
|
| fantayzya |
I also agree completely. While due to my work schedule I get to watch very few of these shows, I have see a couple of them on nights off and such and for the life of me can't see the attraction. This one in my mind has absolutely no merit what-so-ever. The sad part is that despite the fact that everyone I've talked to about this seems to agree with us, there are people who will watch it and scew the ratings prompting more of the same.
In my opinion the foundation of any lasting relationship-even that of simple friends, is trust. This one is destined to fail, (assuming it's even remotely real) because it's very beginning is a whole series of lies. Not just the money, but the potential lifestyle. The dating of a guy with that money has to be different than that in his real life. Can you say MickeyD's? How incredibly sad.
That said, I've also thought about how I might feel IF I were shallow enough to take this route to snag a guy, when told the money was a joke. Actually, while I might hope for a bit higher salary than they are say 'Joe' has, after the initial anger at the deception, it might be a bit of a relief to me. Yeah, the money would possibly have assured I didn't have to work another day (or in my case night) and the issues I have revolving around that aspect of life would go away, it would open up a whole new set of pressures as well, and having grown up around some folks who have more money than most (The AMWAY owners) That grass is NOT always so green either. But even with that relief, it still comes back to the trust issue.
Either way, no I wouldn't watch it. That's why we have a DVD player and movies.
|
|
|
| Peggo |
I have a feeling even if we don't watch this show the media will keep us well informed of what has transpried. |
|
|
| Ajax |
I began to think the end was near when Ozzie & Anna Nicole made it to the tube. Now I'm sure of it. |
|
|
| Robb |
quote:
Peggo wrote:
I have a feeling even if we don't watch this show the media will keep us well informed of what has transpried.
Or I will. This is "gawker" TV. I'd go into why I am going to watch, but I am going to watch the first episode before I judge anything. Nothing makes me more mad than when someone judges something before watching it. So many organizations claiming higher moral ground condemn certain movies or TV shows before they get to see them (and most times they are offered the chance to pre-screen).
Sorry, but your indignation plays right into the hands of the shows producers, and makes this a very attractive vehicle for advertisers.
Upside is, they really will only be able to pull this concept off once.
[Edited by Robb] |
|
|
| fantayzya |
For me this is taken care of by the fact that those promoting the show are being pretty up front about the premise of the thing. This premise is offensive to me and as such I don't feel the need to even 'give it a chance' I will agree that this is not always the case, and I often do take a more 'wait and see' approach. For example, I actually took some heat from folks for the sorcery issue in Harry Potter.
In this case, at least for me, with the premise of the show put right out in front of me, why risk actually allowing myself to be offended and disgusted by something when the ads for the thing already do that for/to me?
As for my right to express moral indignation at this, well, it equals your right to express your 'wait and see' perspective or potential acceptance of it.
While I won't actually be here to police it as I'll be at work, I don't want my boys to watch it either as from the advertising alone it promotes dishonesty, deceit, disrespect, and a general disregard for others (from both directions actually) that I am doing my level best NOT to teach to my sons. I surely don't wish to have them see it glorified, or even made light of on some TV show. There is no place for it, or any of the traits I see presented by those ads in my home.
But this, as always is only my opinion.
|
|
|
| Robey |
I am in agreement that this show is a distastful concept.
Appears like they are asking the big question regarding love and money. Would YOU marry someone that makes only 19K a year, regardless of who they are, or if you love them? This WILL be debated on many boards.
The next reality show that they are putting together is a real life Beverly Hillbillies. |
|
|
| rubbernecker |
I think you guys are being a little too hard. After all, the show Candid Camera ran for decades, based on lying to people and embarassing them on camera, and they didn't even volunteer for their humiliation up front the way the Joe Millionaire girls have done. Of course, they had to give their permission to air the segments.
Just like Anna Nicole or Jerry Springer or any of the other reality shows (save true game shows like Amazing Race or Survivor), the premise is not where the humiliation lies. We're not supposed to laugh at these women because they're money-grubbing whores -- which they may or may not be, but you can't tell because you can't trust the editing. What we do know for sure is that these women have such a lust for being on television that they're willing to risk being portrayed as money-grubbing whores just to get their mugs on screen.
I'll watch because car wrecks are entertaining if the "victims" volunteer for their roles. And, unlike a typical episode of Springer, none of them will be morbidly obese trailer trash.
Now if only they'd bring back the ultimate in degrading reality television: Temptation Island! |
|
|
| judy |
this show has a lot to do with male fantasies - the fantasies, I assume, of the people making the show.
My son watches a show called "Elimidate" - the basic show is one guy, 4 or 5 women, on a series of dates - and each day he elimnates one, until he's left with a "winner". Near the end, the guy has what guys like my son (age 16) want - two women ALL OVER him , pawing, dancing, making suggestive comments. All to WIN. But, sometimes the guy is a jerk or a moron - you have to assume that the women are in it just to beat out the others, to be "the winner" even if they don't really want the prize. Yeah, sometimes it's reversed, with one woman and several guys, but those episodes don't seem to be what the show is about.
Yes, I let my son watch it - WITH ME - and I point out how unrealistic the show is.
ANYWAY - shows like that other millionaire one, and The Bachelor - are similar, in that they feed into the male fantasy of having women fight over you. But, guys already know that the rich guys have more choices than the average joe when it comes to women - look at all the old rich guys married to young attractive women. Guys who aren't rich can have some resentment of that - and blame the women for gushing all over a guy just because he has money.
"Joe Millionaire" combines these two - the fantasy of women fighting over a man, and the comeuppance of a woman who falls for a man because of his money.
yes, I see it as a put-down of women, and a public humiliation of the women in the show. BUT - it's no worse than a lot of the crap on TV. I won't be watching it - and neither will my son - boy scout meetings are on Monday nights. |
|
|
| Crank |
If this is indeed "reality TV", I'll just stay in my little world thank you...
I *do* hear voices there but at least they're not arguing anymore.:D |
|
|
| Lunarlady |
It's not reality TV. Cops WAS reality TV. This is something totally staged. Even Candid Camera didn't show every single person they tried to "fool" with thier "How many people will be frightened by the guy jumping out of the box?" I doubt they showed the people who just looked and walked away.
Thanks, Ajax, for telling me who Anna Nicole was. I hadn't heard that name on the news or anything, so until you said Ozzie Osborne I was prepared to show my ignorance. (I thought she was some kind of handicapped person based on what I was reading)
Peggo also touched on something else that's a pet peeve of mine: the local news buying into the hype. I couldn't believe my local network news at 11:00 was telling me who was "voted off the island" in some Survivor show. Do I really care? I'm sure those who are hooked on this stuff already KNOW who was voted off the island.
ARG! |
|
|
| Crank |
quote:
Lunarlady wrote:
Thanks, Ajax, for telling me who Anna Nicole was. I hadn't heard that name on the news or anything, so until you said Ozzie Osborne I was prepared to show my ignorance. (I thought she was some kind of handicapped person based on what I was reading)
You didn't know who Anna Nicole are? (Yes - plural):D |
|
|
| Lunarlady |
quote:
Crank wrote:
You didn't know who Anna Nicole are? (Yes - plural):D
It's two people? I'll take a guess and say Anna is the wife and Nicole is the daughter? |
|
|
| Robb |
Again, I think a lot of your opinions of the show are based solely on the promotion of it. The goal of the promotion department is to get you to watch, so they go right for the jugular.
I just saw a clip for the show, and I think the guy is much better than those on the "Bachelor", and there is a certain Pygmalion aspect to the man himself posed within the show.
They aren't throwing out some ugly slob who is rich; they have a charming, good looking guy, who would be a good catch for any woman. He tried to start a construction company in Virginia, and it failed, and he was off to California to find work. I doubt this guy is going to be making $19,000 a year after this, even if he makes $60k a year, the guy would be an excellent catch. Then again, I am judging the show from a couple of clips and some reading.
Rush to judgment if you wish, I will wait and judge fully once I have seen it. There are plenty of reality shows I feel are abhorrent, but I watched them to make that judgment. Remember, also, I worked in advertising and I know not everything is as good as it seems. I have seen many shows you wonder who wrote the first check in good conscience, and some great shows that died too quickly (Sports Night, for one).
[Edited by Robb] |
|
|
| Coastalwader |
I tend to lean more towards Robb's take on this. We really don't have any idea how this is going to be presented.
Are they going to throw out some "ethics" or "morality" type situations during the show that could provide some insight into how some of these contestants really feel? Will the Joe guy offer up some hints or even state, "How would you feel about me if were a pauper?"
My personal take on the whole money thing....when I saw the commercial and the size of the estate and the cars and such, I thought..."50mil aint gonna last 10 yrs". There is probably more to the financials than that simplistic take, but that was my impression. I wonder if any of the women would see it the same way?
I will most likely only watch the last episode and kind of follow the rest a bit online. I don't watch a whole lot of regularly scheduled TV shows. When and if I ever get TiVo I'd probably watch the first few shows just to see where they go with it.
Again, I think it could go in any number of different directions and provide some really interesting situations if done right. Of course, it could just be mindless drivel too. Won't know until we see it.
|
|
|
| annie |
<rant>
I won't pretend I don't watch and enjoy some reality shows- I was a Real World and Cops fan from way back (although I watch neither any more) and I look forward to Big Brother each summer- but what bugs me about this Joe Millionaire show, and the Bachelor shows, is that they treat marriage like a game. I happen to take my marriage vows very seriously. Stuff like this, and the trend toward brief, childless "starter marriages" really cheapen what should be a lifetime committment.
As far as the contestants- I don't think they're being exploited any more than any other reality show, because I'm sure they have signed plenty of papers that make no promises (but I bet a bunch never had a lawyer's help.) Even for something like Trading Spaces, you have to give up a lot (privacy being a major one) to get your 15 minutes on tv. Some people make that choice, but no one is forced to. Look at the "singers" on American Idol! They choose to submit themselves to sure humiliation. No, I don't think the women on "Joe" are innocent victims in anyway, they just wanna be on TV.
</rant>
annie |
|
|
| annie |
quote:
Lunarlady wrote:
It's two people? I'll take a guess and say Anna is the wife and Nicole is the daughter?
Gee, now I have to go clean off the screen again. Darn Dr. Pepper all over it.
No, LL, I think Crank is referring to one person, but with two rather famous body parts. That match. Think along the male fantasy lines... |
|
|
| poohlover |
I will stir the pot a bit.
For those who are offended is it the fact that its televised or that they lie to the women or both or none of the above?
How would you feel if it was a rich guy pretending to be poor to see how the women "truly" felt about him? Either on or off of television?
or what about any other deception or ommission in the dating process |
|
|
| Ajax |
For those who might not know, Anna Nicole was/is/might still be a former Playboy Playmate that married a Strom Thurman-esque codger with tons of moolah.
He checked out, and his children and AN had a huge court battle over the estate. She won the lions share, and now spends her time frolicking with gigolos, eating Twinkies, and getting loaded for the camera. She's disgusting. |
|
|
| Robb |
Going back to what Annie said about Trading Spaces, while I love the show (addicted, more like), I really must wonder if some of the people on the show really know the concept. It is not about redoing a room the way you like it; It is all about the vision of the designers.
The show would be pretty boring if everyone got what they wanted. Doug (who is becoming my favorite designer – even if he is an ass) admitted on The View that he intentionally adds drama to the show by pushing boundaries. Yet, even the one show where he made a woman homeowner cry and walk off camera, was a great looking room (aside from the paint color), and her request to “leave the fireplace alone” was really honored when he had something built around it as an architectural feature (meaning, it could be removed in a couple of minutes and “poof” there is your fireplace.
|
|
|
| Coastalwader |
quote:
Ajax wrote:
For those who might not know, Anna Nicole was/is/might still be a former Playboy Playmate that married a Strom Thurman-esque codger with tons of moolah.
He checked out, and his children and AN had a huge court battle over the estate. She won the lions share, and now spends her time frolicking with gigolos, eating Twinkies, and getting loaded for the camera. She's disgusting.
Or in other words....she won the non-televised version of "Joe Millioniare". :D
|
|
|
| poohlover |
Anna Nicole is to Survivor
Like Jerry Springer is to Oprah |
|
|
| Lunarlady |
AH! So Anna Nicole has nothing to do with Ozzy Osborne? OK! Gotcha!
I'll have to do some thinking about Poohlover's question because I'm not sure it's the show itself that offends me. I'm pretty sure it's the people's reactions to these shows that generates more crappy programming like this that makes people like me get cable because we're sick of it that makes the networks go further in the tank so they turn to trailer-trash, Jerry Springer-esqe type programming to GET the people who can't afford cable TV to watch their programming.
(Do I win the award for run-on sentencing?) |
|
|
| Robb |
quote:
Lunarlady wrote:
SNIP
I'll have to do some thinking about Poohlover's question because I'm not sure it's the show itself that offends me. I'm pretty sure it's the people's reactions to these shows that generates more crappy programming like this that makes people like me get cable because we're sick of it that makes the networks go further in the tank so they turn to trailer-trash, Jerry Springer-esqe type programming to GET the people who can't afford cable TV to watch their programming.
Good point, my life would be just fine with TLC, The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, The Travel Channel, CNN, ESPN, and TechTV. |
|
|
| Coastalwader |
quote:
Robb wrote:
Good point, my life would be just fine with TLC, The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, The Travel Channel, CNN, ESPN, and TechTV.
Hmm...add BBC, BBC America, Bravo, Food Network, and the Golf Channel and yep, I wouldn't miss much of the rest either.
|
|
|
| Lunarlady |
Well, I hate to show my ignorance and shallow mind, but I rarely watch TV to be informed. (In fact, I rarely watch TV to begin with...I haven't seen the Simpsons in a LONG time. I only watched last night because I read on the DIS that they were going to Orlando/WDW)
Anyway, when I sit down to watch TV in the evening, it's either HBO, SHOWTIME, FLIX, ENCORE, (TCM) Turner Classic Movies or some other movie channel. For news I'll listen to the radio (independant radio station) or I'll check into MSNBC, CNN or Headline News.
News (for me) is best disseminated by the written word rather than the spoken one. I don't really care what the talking head thinks about whatever situation is going on, I want the facts, ma'am, just the facts:
"X" family was en route to point B from point A when they were pulled over by cop "Y" and ordered out of their car. Dog "PB" jumped out of car and rushed at cop "Y" who pulled his gun and shot dog "PB". Family of dog "Q" says dog wasn't going to harm cop "Y". Cop "Y" says dog "PB" didn't respond to commands to stop and fired upon dog "PB" who was killed.
(I saw a blurb about this on local news and did a little digging)
But I digress....
When I want to be entertained, I'll do it sans advertising for product consumption at all costs.
[Edited by Lunarlady] |
|