MovieChat Forums > Rectify (2013) Discussion > OT: The Bachelor

OT: The Bachelor

posted 8 years ago by Mr_Fluffykins
18 replies | jump to latest

wow, i had never really sat through an episode, but boy, is that show soooooo fng awful,
basically displayed the worst sides of humanity,
skanky hoes looking for "true love", yet everybody is saying "he is so hot" "she is so hot" yeah, cuz that is love right?

curious why they are fine with diversity of races, but there are no chubby girls,
just catty, dumb(most of them) acting for a camera
love transcends looks, and shallowness, but no, it is all about the $$$$$$$$$$

i haven't seen the bachelorette at all so i can't comment, but this guy does seem dumb as f .

instead of doing std panels they should do IQ tests, because intelligence i beautiful, and thats the lesson they should be sending to kids on a show that plays at 8oclock est

so glad rectify held on despite the low ratings, unfortunately the troglodytes and the cretins suck this commercialized *beep* up as reality TV

this wasn't meant as misogyny , dumb beautiful males and females are just as bad, equally as horrid

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

There are different kinds and qualities of reality shows. Not all are nearly as heavily produced, and many have a lot more integrity than The Bachelor or Bachelorette. Interestingly, it also depends on what country they are made in.

The Bachelor (and Bachelorette) is heavily produced in the sense that producers interfere constantly and exceedingly to manipulate narrative. I know people who work on the show; some cringe but are glad to have the work, others have less compunctions, less of a moral center.

Producers decide, for example, who is going to pair off in the end; this is not a surprise to people making the show. It's worked out in advance. Their choice is often not the bachelor's own (or bachelorette's). The bachelor (and bachelorette) usually pick up on this, and so then the task is to keep up their motivation. After all, they have to keep up their seeming uncertainty, all while knowing that they're going to have to dump X, who they actually like, and pick Y.

They also manipulate conflict in many ways, for example by spreading innuendos and lies, and sometimes by outright requesting that certain people turn it up a notch. They deliberately exploit mental and emotional weaknesses for the sake of more "wow" reactions and plot twists. They want to ensure the money shots. Of course all of this starts in casting, when the writers (story producers and editors in this world) already go to work crafting the season.

Have you seen the TV series Unreal, a dark satire of The Bachelor? It's on Lifetime Channel.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3314218/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_(TV_series)
http://www.mylifetimetv.ca/Shows/UnREAL/

While exaggerated and with a satiric edge, it borrows many behind-the-scenes tactics, as its creator worked on The Bachelor. To me it's unpleasant. Low hanging fruit. But I gave it a whirl.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

All reality shows are, if not actually scripted, at least heavily "suggested". When Survivor first began, it was heavily produced but still had "real" people. Now the "contestants" are all models and other "beautiful people" with a few eccentrics thrown in. But they are all show biz wannabes.

Reality shows are the dreck of today's tv programming....because they all have one theme: conflict. That people will sit and watch this crap astounds and disturbs me. They don't have enough controversy in their own lives and have to get it from television? It proves the old adage: you can sell anyone anything.

AAACCCKKKK!

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

Reality TV would be the nightly news

Oh dear. Corporate media as presenting reality. Reality check, stat!

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

It's a simple fact, but not a simplistic one by any means. The implications are serious.

I've often noted the importance of context, and when you're talking about TV news you find the most extreme lack. But corporate/mainstream media as a whole presents a highly limited spectrum of information. They're ideological instruments, representing certain interests. That's only natural, the way it's always been in history. Their obligations influence what they decide to present, and how, and what they decide to leave out.

IF you're interested in learning more about the subject I would recommend Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Further to that important work, there is his follow-up, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies, which he developed out of five Massey Lectures recorded by (drum roll) CBC Radio.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

They also contributed to the general decline of standards on the big four networks, and the growth of quality programming on the narrowcast cable networks.

I agree....except about the "quality programming on the narrowcast cable networks". I don't see much quality programming anywhere anymore. The main problem is writing....or, rather, the lack of it. Producers don't know good writing anymore, maybe because they never see it. And maybe that's because the people don't demand it. Sad, really.

[–] garko-1 8 years ago

Luckily with on-demand and streaming, we're not limited to the current season of television and one can string together a pretty impressive playlist of fantastic shows from around the world. Cherry pick the best of them and discard the rest is my motto. My rule of thumb: if the characters in a show are seeming to care way more about what's going on than I do, then onto the next thing.

BTW, three of my favorite movies were actually written/created for television, then either adapted or reconfigured for the big screen: Fanny and Alexander, The Best of Youth and Mulholland Drive. All beautifully written, with the latter actually created for ABC network (who, naturally, rejected it.)

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

My rule of thumb: if the characters in a show are seeming to care way more about what's going on than I do, then onto the next thing.

This actually made me laugh out loud.

BTW, three of my favorite movies were actually written/created for television, then either adapted or reconfigured for the big screen: Fanny and Alexander, The Best of Youth and Mulholland Drive. All beautifully written, with the latter actually created for ABC network (who, naturally, rejected it.)

Ah yes....but are they recent?

There is some good writing. I think Breaking Bad was very well written, for the most part. The Good Wife had some decent writing. Mad Men....yes and no. The two seasons of Fargo (the series) was well done. So is Better Call Saul, I think. All of those, except TGW, are cable shows, of course.

I watch hardly any network tv simply because I can't find anything I can stand. I had high hopes for BULL but the first episode discouraged me so thoroughly that I never went back. So unnecessarily over the top: drama for drama's sake. Stupidly so.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

There are still good movies being made, such as Manchester by the Sea, Moonlight, Brooklyn and others, but they are few and far between.

Actually that's the norm in film history. In every year, every decade, far more bad movies have always been made than good. That's one good way to get good movies: make a lot of them. There's been no decline in quality; if you read critics from the past they make the exact same complaint -- because conditions were always thus.

David Bordwell:

"Japanese cinema in the 1920s and 1930s was one of the triumphs of world cinema. That era produced not only the two directors who are arguably the very greatest but also a host of talents you can’t really call 'lesser.' The bench had depth in every position.

There are good reasons for this burst of genius. Quantity affects quality, but not the way snobs think: The more movies a country makes, the more good ones you’re likely to get. Although Japan had only a little more than half the US population, before 1940 it turned out about as many features as America did.In 1936, both countries released about 530 domestic productions.

The Japanese directors who started in the 1920s had, like Ford and Walsh in their salad days, to feed this audience. We tend to forget that even exalted figures entered the industry as high-volume producers."

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2009/05/13/pierced-by-poetry/

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

But I didn't intend to challenge your claim about cable TV vs. film, Cliff. That's why I spoke only to the lament that there are supposedly still good movies being made, but they are few and far between. I only wanted to point out that it was ever thus.

Bordwell says nothing in it about Hollywood studio movies.

"The Japanese directors who started in the 1920s had, like Ford and Walsh in their salad days, to feed this audience. We tend to forget that even exalted figures entered the industry as high-volume producers."

Bordwell certainly isn't cynical about Hollywood studio movies. You'll find that if you start to dig into his blog. With exceptions and reservations, he tends to write about them with respect. Off-the-cuff, among many examples, do a search of his entries on Tarantino or Nolan. A specific film that comes to mind is his entry on Warner Bros.' Gravity, "GRAVITY Part 1: Two characters adrift in an experimental film":

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2013/11/07/gravity-part-1-two-characters-adrift-in-an-experimental-film/

They are not doing this very much.

Well, that's certainly a claim, reiterated. But you don't say what your criteria are, so there's no way to know what you mean.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Off-the-cuff, among many examples, do a search of his entries on Tarantino or Nolan. A specific film that comes to mind is his entry on Warner Bros.' Gravity, "GRAVITY Part 1: Two characters adrift in an experimental film":

Oh, good grief. Am I understanding this right? He's touting Gravity as an example of good film because it's "experimental"? People in harnesses against a black background? Just because they are live actors?

Visually, yes. If that's all anyone cares about, which seems to be true these days. The story was stupid. And sexist. A woman scientist is trained as an astronaut -- surely, she went through training! -- and then loses it in an emergency? And has to have George Clooney rescue her? Tell her how to save herself?

I hated it.

I also think Tarantino is vastly overrated. But that may be a matter of taste.

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

He's touting Gravity as an example of good film because it's "experimental"? People in harnesses against a black background? Just because they are live actors?

You're up to your straw man bashing again. I said that "With exceptions and reservations, he tends to write about them with respect." You have no idea what qualities he respects about Gravity -- despite a link to the blog entry -- nor any idea what qualities he respects about particular Tarantino films.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

The cable shows are, in my opinion, a lot better than the Hollywood films put out by the major studios. Quite often these are big screen x-box quality rubbish.

Note that I didn't bring movies into it. I think most of the stuff the Hollywood film industry turns out is dreck, too. Car chases, buildings blowing up, special effects -- all straight out of the video game world. Story comes a distant, lagging behind second....if it exists at all.

I admit I'm hard to please. I remember quality tv -- and film -- and it's just not there anymore. I blame the audiences. Stay away and things will improve. But you have to know enough to know what's good in order to demand better. Today's audiences don't seem to...or they don't care.

Bread and circuses. It's an old idea, but it still works.

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

And out it comes. The yucky ignorant masses snit.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] bhester0806 8 years ago

My fluffy I came back to this board to make contact with you and find this hahaha