Zack Kalter - Bachelorette 9 Contestant - Spoilers - Discussion

atem wrote:Maybe, that's a question that we can ask Desiree when she does her chat with Huffington Post? But, I don't believe that Desiree knew her top 4 by night one.

I think, with the exception of Sean, all of the leads have said that they knew who their top 4 were going to be by end of night one.

chasingpavements wrote:

atem wrote:Maybe, that's a question that we can ask Desiree when she does her chat with Huffington Post? But, I don't believe that Desiree knew her top 4 by night one.

I think, with the exception of Sean, all of the leads have said that they knew who their top 4 were going to be by end of night one.

I think the lead's Top 4 guys after night one usually don't change all that much during the season, but a few of those picks don't seem to make it long enough to even get a hometown date.

Maybe, we are talking about the same thing though.

Love_Me wrote:
She may not have known who her F4 guys were on night one, but I believe all the leads give TPTB a list of the guys they were most interested in after the M & G.

You are right, Love. I was actually told that the lead is required to give TPTB a list of their top 6 guys/girls on night one. I was also told that the list could change, and often does, from RC to RC...but ususally only by 1 or 2 people max. The remaining contestants are producer picks, based on guess what......you got it! Drama!

Love_Me wrote:
She may not have known who her F4 guys were on night one, but I believe all the leads give TPTB a list of the guys they were most interested in after the M & G.

This is why I sometimes... not always (just so you naysayers don't attack me again)... SOMETIMES think we get these patterns in the meet & greet photos and the first rose ceremonies. Of course, we don't get it this season: neither Brooks nor Chris is front row like six of the eight other F1s are.

In Trista's season (as with some of the Bachelor ones like Jason's and Jake's), we see her sitting down with Chris Harrison discussing her front runners. She included Ryan... and briefly Charlie, but focused mostly on F3 Russ, Jamie, Bob Guiney, among others.

Here is another thing to note: the ones SHE is immediately impressed with don't all necessarily make the hometowns. It was widely speculated that Ashley was more into William, Ryan and (maybe or maybe not... depending on whether we believe the drama) Bentley, more than F3 Constantine and F2 Ben. Ames, William and JP were front row. Also... the handlers DO read those questionnaires and can get a sense of certain frontrunners "on paper" at least, regardless if SHE notices them right away or not. I think Ames was positioned as he was simply because the handlers knew he was a New Yorker who had geography in his favor for a dental student wishing to finish her schooling in Philly first. Interestingly, "they" set up a date in Phuket for Ames just so she would get to know him better... otherwise he might have been cut earlier. I don't think Ashley necessarily picked THAT date, but Cassie or somebody thought she should talk to Ames more.

The Bachelorettes are lucky in that the competing guys instantly discuss their careers, hobbies and family right away in their brief sitdowns. She quickly knows whether or not she may have to "conform" to his lifestyle or if there is enough flexibility... or if he is similar to her in background and an easier one to relate to later. Ali was won over by Kirk's scrap book with family pictures.

The Bachelors are less fortunate since the girls do a lot more flirting and small talk. (Think Vienna discussing her leg boo-boos with Jake.) This is probably why so many of them are indecisive until hometowns, when meeting the families pretty much force them into a decision. Ashley told philly.com during the airing of her season (and got into some trouble for this) that she was "95% sure" going into her hometowns... suggesting that F4 Ames, F3 Constantine and F2 Ben only had a 5% chance of beating JP. No other Bachelorette was THAT upfront.

This is why I see those "pattens" that everybody else think is nonsense. Of course, the top four guys must include some contestants who are not necessarily right for the Bachelorette longterm, but look good on camera and have an interesting backstory. I suspect both Sean and Arie were pre-destined to go far regardless of Emily's impressions since they had plenty of screen appeal. Since Brooks is in the first limo, like Sean and Arie were, I suspect that the handlers knew he would make a nice boyfriend to Desiree and a good prospect for next season.

Poor Zack... we got off topic here.

LOL Yeah, we are getting off topic. It's interesting though!

But, there were a lot of guys that seemed to be good on 'paper' for Desiree. They were guys that liked to do 'adventure type' things, liked being outdoors, were ready for a family AND already lived in California!

Although Zack isn't front row, they did position him pretty close to her. I do think SOMEBODY thought he would go far this season, but...

JBF wrote:Although Zack isn't front row, they did position him pretty close to her. I do think SOMEBODY thought he would go far this season, but...

well, back to Zack....my curio is, do y`all think Des "worry" much about his social status? (rich fam, different life style, etc). Do you think it is a dealbreaker for her?.

JBF, I would never ever say the patterns are non-sense! just that they shouldn't be believed 100% or to try and prove the spoilers, or the potential love story, wrong.

sophie, I have to respectfully disagree regarding use of patterns. I think spoilers come from sources and sources can be misled. I think it is usually a good idea to keep an open mind and take in all credible information. Patterns have proven to be credible if interpreted correctly...not to say anything isn't changeable or fallible, but good investigation and spoilers together is the way to go in my book.

If spoilers and investigation/patterns are very different, I say it is worth taking a deeper dive into the information we have and viewing/weighing the authenticity of all of it.

pavalygurl wrote:sophie, I have to respectfully disagree regarding use of patterns. I think spoilers come from sources and sources can be misled. I think it is usually a good idea to keep an open mind and take in all credible information. Patterns have proven to be credible if interpreted correctly...not to say anything isn't changeable or fallible, but good investigation and spoilers together is the way to go in my book.

If spoilers and investigation/patterns are very different, I say it is worth taking a deeper dive into the information we have and viewing/weighing the authenticity of all of it.

I did not say patterns should not be used. Not that sleuthing and info should be trusted 100%.
I am simply saying that sometimes these patterns do not match & and that sometimes some people use patterns, stats or sleuthed info to suit their opinion.
I am always ALWAYS in awe of people like JBF who work out these patterns. However, how these are sometimes interpreted can be the issue. As I stated in an other post a few days back, positionning, 5 to Watch, FIR and early previews do have some patterns. But TPTB are people and they are not doing these things exactly. We need to allow some give.

Again, I am not against analytics, I am simply stating that these have in the past been used to try and put down lead's choices, spoilers, etc... If we believe TPTB are cunning enough to get a wrong spoiler out to multiple sources, I think we could also believe they re smart enough to break patterns?

I totally take your points :) I am simply saying that both sleuthing/patterns & spoilers need to be considered in a balance way.

Last year, Jef being beside Em was used as "too obvious" so it was somehow proving the F1 spoiler was wrong (for some, BTW!). Same with Catherine this year.
But this time, Brooks NOT being in a patterned F1 position is "not obvious enough" for a F1...

This is what brought on my increased caution about patterns :) Not them per say, but their interpretation in a unbiased way (or lack thereof)

sophienette wrote:

pavalygurl wrote:sophie, I have to respectfully disagree regarding use of patterns. I think spoilers come from sources and sources can be misled. I think it is usually a good idea to keep an open mind and take in all credible information. Patterns have proven to be credible if interpreted correctly...not to say anything isn't changeable or fallible, but good investigation and spoilers together is the way to go in my book.

If spoilers and investigation/patterns are very different, I say it is worth taking a deeper dive into the information we have and viewing/weighing the authenticity of all of it.

I did not say patterns should not be used. Not that sleuthing and info should be trusted 100%.
I am simply saying that sometimes these patterns do not match & and that sometimes some people use patterns, stats or sleuthed info to suit their opinion.
I am always ALWAYS in awe of people like JBF who work out these patterns. However, how these are sometimes interpreted can be the issue. As I stated in an other post a few days back, positionning, 5 to Watch, FIR and early previews do have some patterns. But TPTB are people and they are not doing these things exactly. We need to allow some give.

Again, I am not against analytics, I am simply stating that these have in the past been used to try and put down lead's choices, spoilers, etc... If we believe TPTB are cunning enough to get a wrong spoiler out to multiple sources, I think we could also believe they re smart enough to break patterns?

I totally take your points :) I am simply saying that both sleuthing/patterns & spoilers need to be considered in a balance way.

Last year, Jef being beside Em was used as "too obvious" so it was somehow proving the F1 spoiler was wrong (for some, BTW!). Same with Catherine this year.
But this time, Brooks NOT being in a patterned F1 position is "not obvious enough" for a F1...

This is what brought on my increased caution about patterns :) Not them per say, but their interpretation in a unbiased way (or lack thereof)

My point was to say let's take everything into account and from your further explanation, I see you agree.