Archive through September 24, 2002
TV ClubHouse: Archive: Archive FOUR:
Game. Not a Game... Game? Not a Game.:
Archive through September 24, 2002
Wcv63 | Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 08:48 am     So Tobor7...Dani even told Lisa that because of her previous alliance and allegiance to Jason that what she told Lisa in the pool was a lie and she would have broken her word had she won the HOH. Does this show true character or has her true character already been determined? I don't know. She knows the game is over for all intents and purposes and that nothing she does now will change votes. |
Tobor7 | Monday, September 23, 2002 - 01:08 am     I think that somehow she (Dani) things she can affect the vote now. She is still "playing." I think that everything a person does defines their character. Over time, patterns develop and actions become predictable. Both good and bad. But people can change. You have to demonstrate that change. I suppose I believe in redemption. |
Tobor7 | Monday, September 23, 2002 - 02:13 am     I was just catching up on the LF's from today and read: Dani: "I came in here saying I am not gonna lie. Then it was lie number one, two, three.. then it was four. I'm up to lie 45! I lost track. To get myself out of serious trouble I will lie. Even my husband knows." So, she wanted to be truthful. But she really just fessed up--- even her husband knows that she has a tendency to lie. (Unless she is lying now, of course.) |
Snee | Monday, September 23, 2002 - 09:15 am     game. and winning the game is the 'right' thing to do. it's obvious that the people in the house and the people watching figure that life rules still apply in there, but i disagree. i feel really bad that people get their feelings hurt in there, but they came there to play. in a game. |
Tobor7 | Monday, September 23, 2002 - 05:44 pm     Is politics a game? or Is it Life? |
Tobor7 | Monday, September 23, 2002 - 05:59 pm     I guess it all comes down to what your definition of LIFE is. To me, it is EVERYTHING you do while you are alive. Remember-- not the destination but the journey. The journey counts. When you call something that takes 3 months of your life a GAME, and then use that LABEL as an excuse for behavior that would otherwise be rejected by most people (at least people that I know or would even want to know) AND do this all on a national stage creating a permanent record that your grandchildren could access... well... Shame on you. Standard disclaimers, IMO, etc. |
Wcv63 | Monday, September 23, 2002 - 10:40 pm     Tobor....lots of actors take on pretty dispicable personas in movies that create a permanent record that their grandchildren could access. Of course it's an act, scripted for them and doesn't show them or their true character. Dani took part in a game where she had to don a persona and therefore will be able to explain things quite adequately to her family who already knows the "real" Dani and knows that what they are seeing does not reflect the person they know and love. |
Tobor7 | Monday, September 23, 2002 - 11:30 pm     ...and lots of actors do pornos... what does that say about them? BTW- I read that Tonya broke up with her boyfriend because of things on BB. |
Wcv63 | Monday, September 23, 2002 - 11:39 pm     You can't really liken Big Brother to porno...it is more naughty than pornographic. As far as the actors that do pornos...it means that they are trying to earn a living and even though I don't agree with their choice it is their's to make. If they have children I'm sure they will chooose how they wish to explain it to their children. I've heard that about Tonya as well. Is it fact or rumor? |
Tobor7 | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 12:02 am     I read it in a Vegas on-line paper I think. ---- My comment on pornos was to indicate poor judgement. How bad do you want the money? How far are you willing to go? I have read that many actors, once they have kids, feel like they should take "better" roles. So they can show their work to their kids and not have to explain it. Bruce Willis did "The Kid" because he wanted to be a "hero" to his own child. |
Wendo | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 12:20 am     "Bruce Willis did "The Kid" because he wanted to be a "hero" to his own child." Oh gawd, then why did he do "Color of Night"? I believe he had his kids then too. Perhaps to show them an example of REALLY bad acting. LOL! |
Tobor7 | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 12:26 am     I guess it took him a while to see the light. |
Cmore | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 12:30 am     This is one of the most interesting threads I have read on this board and it is very thought provoking. I think one of the true unknowns about the houseguests is really their level of intelligence and I believe it does directly affect how we as viewers perceive the people we watch. the more intelligent a person is the more complex they generally are as well, so it is entirely possible that a very intelligent person that is cutthroat or blunt in real life situations, could actually come off as a very nice, kind and giving individual in a reality tv show setting. These people are in a setting where they have to actually think and act on the fly so to speak, so a person with the intelligence to process thoughts faster than they speak have somewhat of an advantage in the BB setting, provided they use it in a natural way. I think Roddy was an above average person in intelligence, but perhaps overplayed his part, making him look somewhat phony and not selling his part to the audience or the other Houseguests. I really came away thinking the BB Roddy is nothing like the real life Roddy and he didn't give many real clues of who he really is. I think the same may be true for Jason, but he did a much better job on his part of selling to the audience a view of the person he would like them to believe he is. How many of you have watched a movie where an actor or actress actually sucked you in and sold the part so well that you actually thought instead of looking at the screen you actually seemed to be in the scenes as an observer? At some point you stop and think, WOW what an actor,but then again you had the prior knowledge to know he or she was acting, which is quite absent here. Watching a feed 24/7 doesn't mean that you can't be decieved about character and ones normal tendencies, even though its not scripted and off the cuff. It truely does depend on how well that person can think and act on the fly and their level of awareness that someone is always watching. I do believe that the lesser intelligent people in the BB house have a much harder time covering up their true tendencies in real life situations and the stress of the competition really does amplify the negative effects of who they really are. I think perhaps the greed factor also plays a part in how these people react in this same situation. I read in an earlier post about a comparison between Mike Singletary and Brian Cox. While I do agree with that basic statement and admire Mike Singletary very much as one of the most intense players of all time, while maintaining his wonderful personality both on and off the field, but I can only wonder if his contract negotiators feel the same way. Money or the thought of it make people do some strange things. There is also the X factor, where X is the question of why an event actually happened. As an example will will use the Dani-Lori-Gerry incident. Was dani making people aware of a possible unsanitary condition within the house or as a personal dig to Gerry, or just to gossip and be mean? We can only speculate an form an opinion based on what we see within our own minds. Did lori make a scene about it because she felt bad for Gerry, didn't like people talking about others behind their back or to bring attention to herself? Again we can only speculate and form our own opinions. Its not always cut and dry or black and white, even to the people directly involved in the controversy. I do dislike the houseguest Dani, but i certainly don't hate her. Hate is a waste of time and mind. I dislike her because I think she played the game hard (not Good) and lacked the intelligence to keep her personal traits out of the house, causing her to lose $450,000 and far and above that, the respect of millions of viewers and a decent shot of many new friends. In the words of MR "T", "I pity the fool" and in this BB competition Dani was a fool, at least in my mind. |
Tobor7 | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 12:40 am     Cmore-- Lots of good points. Some I agree with and some I don't. You clearly spent some time with your thoughts, so you deserve a good response. I'll be back in a bit with some thoughtfull thoughts on your post. Thanks for jumping in. I find it interesting to see what people have to say about this topic and have continued this discussion in person with friends. I'll be back... |
Tobor7 | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 12:41 am     Cmore-- Lots of good points. Some I agree with and some I don't. You clearly spent some time with your thoughts, so you deserve a good response. I'll be back in a bit with some thoughtful thoughts on your post. Thanks for jumping in. I find it interesting to see what people have to say about this topic and have continued this discussion in person with friends. I'll be back... |
Wcv63 | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 01:00 am     Since football seems to be a prevalent analogy used by many posters in this forum I have something to add. Trash talking one's opponents in a game is used as a way to psyche one up, identify the "enemy" and clearly define the opposition. It's used by coaches during locker room pep talks. It's used by the players on the field when facing down the other team. Dani could very well have been using this approach to her game playing by not allowing herself to get too close to the other players lest she lose her competitive edge. |
Tobor7 | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 01:14 am     I know the difference between Trash Talking and insulting. It is one thing to say, "We're not going to let you complete a pass today!" It is another to insult someones family, etc. All boxers do a certain amount of trash talk. They are encouraged to do it for drama. I guess Mike Tyson is a perfect example of WRONG. What do you think about how Mike Tyson conducts himself in the sport and in his life? |
Wcv63 | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 01:19 am     If Dani bit someone's ear and/or went to prison for rape I would say that she is unstable, violent and has no business walking around free much less playing a game in isolation with 11 others. If you think the worse thing said in locker's rooms is "We're not going to let you complete a pass today!" my guess is you haven't spent much time in one. |
Tobor7 | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 01:30 am     Didn't say it was the worse thing. Just trying to example on both sides. What I asked was, what was your opinion of Mike Tyson? |
Wcv63 | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 01:46 am     Mike Tyson isn't infamous for trash talking. He is infamous for being a wife abuser, rapist and ear biter. I think he's disturbed, violent and unstable. |
Cmore | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 01:57 am     Wcv63 Wrote: "Trash talking one's opponents in a game is used as a way to psyche one up, identify the "enemy" and clearly define the opposition. It's used by coaches during locker room pep talks. It's used by the players on the field when facing down the other team." How many coaches or players do you suspect go in the locker room after a game and trash talk the opponents they just defeated? Whats the need to get "psyched up" or identify an "enemy" that no longer exsists? |
Wcv63 | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 02:02 am     Just because the first string is on the bench doesn't mean the game isn't still ongoing. As long as the opponent (or benched players) still have the ability to be a potential threat then the enemy still exists. |
Ministryoftruth | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 02:15 am     I understand the trash talk to get psyched up for evicting someone or for getting others to go along with evicting your target, but I don't understand why Dani continued to say and do the things she did after the others were evicted. It just doesn't make sense if she knew they would be her jury. |
Tobor7 | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 02:23 am     Cmore-- I'll go along with your 1st paragraphs. Cmore said: "I really came away thinking the BB Roddy is nothing like the real life Roddy and he didn't give many real clues of who he really is." I really disagree with this. I thought that Roddy was so good at being himself there was no way he could have fabricated it just for the game. I saw a lot of clues to who he really is. I suppose I know a lot of people just like him. Right down to his reaction about being bored with the constant movie game talk. I felt like I knew him more than any of the others because he put a lot more out there to know. He may have "overplayed his part" but he underplayed his intelligence. He was too far outside the game. I think he was observing from a detached position. He failed to see himself as a piece on the board. He should have thrown himself in a bit more and trusted his instincts over his logic. When ever a person has to ask me more than ONCE if they can trust me, then I know I can't trust them. I won't go back thru LF's but my memory says that I observed many of the HG's asking more than once "can I trust you?" There was a constant need for reassurance. Do you trust me, can I trust you... when Lisa asked Dani to give her "Word" after she already agreed (to me) it showed that she didn't trust her. And as we saw, Dani was going to break it if she had to. I wondered why Roddy didn't go back and triple confirm his deals with Dani or Marci or even Lisa. Or go back to Lisa and say that he was offered a deal from Amy. He could have re-confirmed his position with Lisa and then dealt with Amy. But I don't recall him ever re-confirming any deal with anyone. By asking a second time (in his mind) would show that he could not be trusted, so he acted on their initial word. Asking a 2nd time is a sticky situation. It makes the other person uneasy. Why didn't he just lie to Amy. That's all she needed to hear and she would have used the POV to save him? If he was so bad, why didn't he just lie to her then at such an important time in the game. Cmore said; "...How many of you have watched a movie where an actor or actress actually sucked you in..." I think you are sucked in because of something in your life experience that allows you to identify with that person or situation. (yes good acting has a lot to do with it, but these people are NOT good actors) In a movie, the WRITER created a situation for a CHARACTER in order to elicit an emotional response from the audience by playing to their life experiences. It is calculated and designed. Cmore said; "It truly does depend on how well that person can think and act on the fly and their level of awareness that someone is always watching." Yes it does, but sooner or later (after hundreds of hours) there will be a slip up. And that slip up will either be "out of character" or never noticed. The more someone is the same, the more truth you are seeing. Cmore said; "...the stress of the competition really does amplify the negative effects of who they really are." Yes it does. But it does not amplify some fake role they are trying to play. If they are faking it, then nothing will be amplified. So... what is amplified is part of who they really are. The "x factor" stuff is good. I don't KNOW why anyone said what they said in your example. But I DO KNOW what I would have done and why. I also know how people I know would have reacted. In that entire scene, only Gerry came out looking good in his ability to shut up and just take it. No denial. No excuses. He just took it. Confrontation is always interesting to observe. Especially when someone is clearly right or wrong. Then it all comes down to presentation, respect and class. Great post Cmore. I liked it. I'm not arguing with you. I'm adding to your thoughts and presenting some alternates. Of course all the standard disclaimers apply, JMO, FWIW, etc. |
Scorpiomoon | Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 02:25 am     This will probably the last time I'll get to do this... The #100 post! Yay! |
|