catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

Joe Millionare

Default

asybes
Dec 15 2002
11:42 am

Has anyone else seen the previews for this new show? For those of you who hav’nt, they tell these 20 woman that this guy is worth $50 Million dollars, when really he only makes $19,000 a year. Then at the end, they tell however many woman are left that he really doesnt rake in the clams, and it’s supposed to be the “Ultimate Test of true Love or the pursuit of Money…”. Is it just me or is this show just a Survivor/Bachelor/the Osbournes clone? Ok maybe I’m overstating this a little bit, but does anyone else have any thoughts about this?

Default

Norbert
Dec 15 2002
12:16 pm

It’s exploitive and manipulative and you can bet FOX is going to make huge amounts of money with it. I’m afraid of the direction TV is going. I guess I should have seen it coming though.
The question “Is TV overstepping its bounds?” is becoming a bit moot. Maybe we should ask to what extent networks should be responsible for their programming.

Default

Norbert
Dec 15 2002
12:20 pm

I’m beginning to think BBC may have the right idea. We’ll never get rid of it altogether (I do have to watch the Packers & PBS is nice now and then), but I find I have less and less of a will to just sit and zone in front of the tube. What was the rationale behind losing the set Bill?

Default

Jasonvb
Dec 16 2002
12:51 am

Okay, now. I understand that the premise of The Bachelor is deplorable. It’s nasty and sick, not to mention degrading to the women (and bachelor) involved and it brings out the worst in its contestants and viewers…

But I think Joe Millionaire may have some interesting aspects. Depending on how they handle it, the premise has potential to subvert the whole Bachelor concept. Find a good-looking bachelor, deceive the women a little by telling them that he “rakes in the clams” (as asybes put it so well!), finally reveal that he’s not rich, women have to decide whether its still worth it.

Bam! Morality tale.

Plus, it’s classic dramatic irony! The audience has the inside scoop the whole time, and gets to watch the contestants flail foolishly about.

Too bad they don’t also have him tear away a mask at the end, revealing a somewhat average looking man.

Default

laurencer
Dec 16 2002
11:47 am

yeah, i definitely think the concept is interesting. i think it’s pretty hilarious that fox seems to be poking fun at a culture they have helped create. the culture that seems to say that looks and money are the most important things to look for in other people.

and, as jason said, they could take the concept in some interesting directions. somebody keep me posted, i don’t watch TV very much and i probably won’t catch it.

Default

GoDrama
Jan 10 2003
08:22 pm

Personally, I don’t think this will really end up testing the “does true love survive in the face of poverty” thing. First of all, he’s lying to all of these girls. If I was one of them I wouldn’t really be upset about the fact that he was normal, just the fact that he lied. It’s a betray of trust that I don’t think any woman should put up with. Second, how can it be “true love” when they’ve only known each other for such a short time? That get’s into the whole skewed view of love thing though which is another matter so I’ll stop now.

Default

Sheri
Jan 19 2003
10:26 am

I think that the guy they picked to be “Joe Millionaire” does a pretty good job of handling things. I’ve only seen one episode, but I was impressed at his honest (relatively speaking) presentation of himself. He speaks and acts like the simple guy that he is. He takes the girls on dates that test their character (making them muck stalls before riding horses, shovel coal before a train ride, pick several rows of grapes before enjoying the winery). He doesn’t seem like a showy guy at all—they put some nicer clothes on him and brushed his hair, but really didn’t attempt to make him into the polished gentleman that he’s not. I appreciate his approach to the show and the situation far more than that of the Bachelorette (who I’ve also seen in one episode). In general, I dislike this type of show and am disgusted by the deception in this version, but for what it is, I think it’s fairly well done and interesting.

Default

Jasonvb
Jan 20 2003
08:31 am

There is an inherent flaw in the concept that I didn’t acknowledge before, though. First, they claim that Joe only makes $19,000 a year instead of a million. But do you think he might be making a little money by doing a show for a major network? How about through other promotional appearances and commercials he’ll be offered? Also, the “lucky” woman may find out that he’s not Mr. Moneybags, but is there not some superficial worth in the fame and notoriety that both she and her new beau will have acquired?

Default

Norbert
Jan 20 2003
10:15 am

Good call Jason. I never really thought about the fame and endorsement appearances he’s likely to make. I just figured that at the last show when they tell the girl who’s chosen, they would also say “well, for being such good sports, here’s a mil to get you started”.

Default

BBC
Jan 20 2003
11:31 am

Long time ago, Norbert asked about why my family chose to ditch our tv (actually, my wife and I both ditched our own tvs when we were in college, but when we got married, decided to never buy one.)

In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that the family with whom we share a house does have a tv. They use it pretty exclusively for videos and my wife and I sometimes borrow it for that purpose, but I have not seen a television program in my own house for fifteen years.

Norb was wondering why. Well, contary to this thread, we didn’t decide not to have one because tv is getting worse and worse. I think it has always had good shows and morally reprehensible shows. I think a wise family can pick and chose some pretty good stuff if they want to. (Though the Millionare, it seems to me, would not make that list).

The real reason that we don’t have a tv is that it takes too much time. Time that we might otherwise be spending with each other, or with our child, or reading, or even communicating with other people through cino. My students and other people I run into often tell me that they don’t have enough time to read a lot with their kids. I would not trade the look of joy on my daughter’s face when Laura Ingalls Wilder’s dog Jack came back after being missing for two weeks (and somehow the Michael Landon version isn’t the same) or a similar look of joy a couple of weeks ago when Aslan made his appearance in Prince Caspian.

I guess the thing that strikes me most about the Millionare is what an incredibly stupid premise it is. What are we learning here? That people are greedy? that it is funny to see people work for something when we know they are not going to get it? Or is it entertaining? Can’t we do better than that? Even the “television mocking itself” thing that Laurencer pointed out gets a bit thin after a while.

Sorry so longwinded. Sorry about the delay too.

Default

grant
Jan 20 2003
11:56 am

All these kinds of shows have a great ability to hook you, though. People who love the drama of it obviously watch it all the way through. People who hate the concept of it might watch it once in order to criticize it, but then end up watching it all the way through. Certainly, Fox and other networks realize that “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire” type shows hook the ones who love it and the ones who love hating it. So the self-critical nature of Joe Millionaire is partly behind the success of all these kinds of shows. I found myself glued to Real World a couple of years ago for the same reasons I am pulled to the network shows now (though I also unfortunately cannot afford to spend time on them). I love the feeling of not being as stupid and bad and evil as the people on tv. I would make a great Pharisee.