Re: Andi Dorfman and Josh Murray Bachelorette 10 - Media - Twitter - General Discussion Thread #2

[chloep]

I don't think Nick was always their villain of the season and if Andi had picked him it would likely have been someone else, maybe Josh. A lot of the stuff they used was his PIs and would have been easy to leave out. In any case it doesn't really matter since this is Andi & Josh's discussion thread and it's turned into a Nick discussion.

The story of the season...  clap3 

[chloep]

^^ Probably. This season was all about Nick... Just like pretty much every single post show thread(save the fan forum) is about Nick...

[Sable]

I don't think Nick was always their villain of the season and if Andi had picked him it would likely have been someone else, maybe Josh. A lot of the stuff they used was his PIs and would have been easy to leave out. In any case it doesn't really matter since this is Andi & Josh's discussion thread and it's turned into a Nick discussion.

So agree w/your post. I am sure TPTB have enough footage on every contestant to make anyone the villain if they want to. That is why to some extent I can't take seriously what is said on the show even in ITM's because you never know what question the producer asked to prompt the answer. Like I said in a previous post, if a contestant is generally well liked and friendly w/most other contestants from their season after the season airs, then I don't consider them to be a true villain, even if TPTB portrayed them that way.

[Sprite]

I don't think Nick was always their villain of the season and if Andi had picked him it would likely have been someone else, maybe Josh. A lot of the stuff they used was his PIs and would have been easy to leave out. In any case it doesn't really matter since this is Andi & Josh's discussion thread and it's turned into a Nick discussion.

So agree w/your post.  I am sure TPTB have enough footage on every contestant to make anyone the villain if they want to.  That is why to some extent I can't take seriously what is said on the show even in ITM's because you never know what question the producer asked to prompt the answer.  Like I said in a previous post, if a contestant is generally well liked and friendly w/most other contestants from their season after the season airs, then I don't consider them to be a true villain, even if TPTB portrayed them that way.

I really don't consider this season to have had any villains...other than tptb...as usual.

[Kashathediva]

I don't think Nick was always their villain of the season and if Andi had picked him it would likely have been someone else, maybe Josh. A lot of the stuff they used was his PIs and would have been easy to leave out. In any case it doesn't really matter since this is Andi & Josh's discussion thread and it's turned into a Nick discussion.

So agree w/your post.  I am sure TPTB have enough footage on every contestant to make anyone the villain if they want to.  That is why to some extent I can't take seriously what is said on the show even in ITM's because you never know what question the producer asked to prompt the answer.  Like I said in a previous post, if a contestant is generally well liked and friendly w/most other contestants from their season after the season airs, then I don't consider them to be a true villain, even if TPTB portrayed them that way.

I really don't consider this season to have had any villains...other than tptb...as usual.

ITA.

[Lucas15]

I don't think Nick was always their villain of the season and if Andi had picked him it would likely have been someone else, maybe Josh. A lot of the stuff they used was his PIs and would have been easy to leave out. In any case it doesn't really matter since this is Andi & Josh's discussion thread and it's turned into a Nick discussion.

I would agree - in the final edited form this season didn't have a true villain (at least to the Wes Hayden / Bentley degree anyway) but Nick's edit came the closest to being a villain with many of the characteristics the show assigns to that role.

I believe that Nick was cast to play the villain role this season. As I view the typical villain on The Bachelorette it's someone who rubs a lot of the other guys the wrong way and gets them chattering about how much they don't like or don't trust him; it's typically "matter of time" guys who are most "offended" by the villain's behavior. What will be offending to a bunch of guys isn't necessarily the same things that will be most offensive to a bunch of women which is why I have narrowed my observations down to The Bachelorette where the house is a bunch of guys. A bunch of guys will react negatively to someone they perceive is not playing fairly, which usually means how they are competing. The show will usually use ITMs and VO to help viewers better understand what the guys are upset about. And, the lead will not see the villain as a villain - only the guys will and that will frustrate them even more because they will be chattering about "why do I see this so clearly and the lead doesn't?" This is completely typical of how guys compete and why we often see "bromances" spring up between guys in this series - it's just how guys are and they will react differently than women in this situation. A typical villain storyline ends when the lead finally "gets a clue" and sends the villain home before the end.

Nick was a prime candidate for the villain because he was able to be manipulated to be somewhat egotistical, dressed in a somewhat "affected" way (with all the scarves - and guys will look askance at another guy who dresses that way) and no matter how much time he got with the lead he always wanted more, which guys will perceive as someone who doesn't "fight fairly". Among other reasons this is why Nick got the FIR and the extra dates that other guys didn't get and then could be seen bragging that no matter how much time he got, it wasn't enough; this was all about putting a target on his back for the other guys in the house to take potshots at to best cement his status as the villain. It's classic TPTB.

Another common storyline is that the lead is conflicted in the final choice between two guys and, at the last moment makes her decision. In order for that storyline to work viewers have to perceive both of those choices as being credible so some people favor one choice and others favor the other and they keep tuning in to see their favorite "win". But this doesn't work well if one of the two final guys is also a villain, and that's where this season ran into casting and editing problems.

They already had material filmed that would affirm Nick's role as the villain - the "bleachable moment" with a bunch of guys talking trash about Nick and then giving him the silent treatment when he walks in is a classic scene and is very typical of what guys will do. The deleted scene of Nick and Brian where Nick made the "dog named Murray" comment is another classic bit of editing. But both of these scenes weren't used because they affirm Nick's role as the villain and since Nick ended up being in the final 2 they didn't use either scene. I believe there were other ITMs and perhaps group scenes that they didn't use for the same reason - Nick couldn't be a credible final choice if he was at the same time the season's clearest villain. I don't really know what they would have done had Andi picked Nick as F1.

[ironcat]

I don't think Nick was always their villain of the season and if Andi had picked him it would likely have been someone else, maybe Josh. A lot of the stuff they used was his PIs and would have been easy to leave out. In any case it doesn't really matter since this is Andi & Josh's discussion thread and it's turned into a Nick discussion.

ITA that if Nick had been Andi's F1, he would have gotten a better edit, just as IMO Ed and Jesse (from Deanna's season) actually got better edits than both could have been given, had they not ended up as F1s. In both cases, the producers knew that there was a girlfriend back home, but that fact was totally ignored in the edit. Also, I believe Ed was often drunk in the house (think his stint on BP) yet for the most part was shown to be a respectable businessman (which he also was, albeit one who liked to drink a lot). With Jesse, he was supposedly a real PITA who only came on the show to promote himself (the original "there for the wrong reasons") yet he wasn't presented that way at all. Goes back to my original statement that the producers, at least up until now (and IMO they will keep doing it) will not try to make a male F1 look like that season's villain, and will actually clean up their image if needed. And they will not extend that same courtesy to the female F1s. Double standard indeed.

[luvlady345]

Agree IC, very much a double standard.....

[albean99]

I don't think Nick was always their villain of the season and if Andi had picked him it would likely have been someone else, maybe Josh. A lot of the stuff they used was his PIs and would have been easy to leave out. In any case it doesn't really matter since this is Andi & Josh's discussion thread and it's turned into a Nick discussion.

ITA that if Nick had been Andi's F1, he would have gotten a better edit, just as IMO Ed and Jesse (from Deanna's season) actually got better edits than both could have been given, had they not ended up as F1s.  In both cases, the producers knew that there was a girlfriend back home, but that fact was totally ignored in the edit.  Also, I believe Ed was often drunk in the house (think his stint on BP) yet for the most part was shown to be a respectable businessman (which he also was, albeit one who liked to drink a lot).  With Jesse, he was supposedly a real PITA who only came on the show to promote himself (the original "there for the wrong reasons") yet he wasn't presented that way at all.  Goes back to my original statement that the producers, at least up until now (and IMO they will keep doing it) will not try to make a male F1 look like that season's villain, and will actually clean up their image if needed.  And they will not extend that same courtesy to the female F1s.  Double standard indeed.

Answered in the Nick discussion thread.

[sparkler]

Lucas- I really liked your thoughtful post.

[GuardianAngel]

I can't recall if this was the thread we spoke about buying tweets, I apologize if it's not.

I just wanted to share who followed @bachspoilersfan today. I didn't click on the link.

@Broylesuqnfollows you

722 ) It's time for starting business using twitter, Buy now ! Only $29 per 5k Twitter followers Here : http://mcaf.ee/8lwb1

[Lucas15]

I can't recall if this was the thread we spoke about buying tweets, I apologize if it's not.

I just wanted to share who followed @bachspoilersfan today. I didn't click on the link.

@Broylesuqnfollows you

722 ) It's time for starting business using twitter, Buy now ! Only $29 per 5k Twitter followers Here : http://mcaf.ee/8lwb1

This is the thread we talked about this in. I clicked the link (curiousity and all that but I have some very good anti-malware on my computer because of work I do professionally). It was interesting because the Twitter followers they sell are only "temporary" - they do a mass unfollow after you've completed a campaign. I'm not sure if other offers (I've seen a bunch of companies offering Twitter followers) do this mass unfollow or not.

At least neither Andi nor Josh have seen a drop in followers since we first talked about this; in fact each of them has 1,000 more followers today that they did 3 days ago although that doesn't change any of the rankings - they have a very long way to go before they could catch Sean & Catherine who (as a couple) are in first place in terms of followers. Everyone else in the list I posted back on 8/23 is pretty much unchanged though Nick gained 100 followers since then.

The TwitterAudit ratings are also unchanged (for everyone) since I posted them on 8/24.

And curiously (or maybe not) @Broylesuqnfollows you (or @Broylesuqnfollows) is either a fake Twitter account, or one that's been suspended - it returns no followers to the Social Bakers or TwitterAudit audit tools.

[Sponsored content]