I like Heidi. (http://www.fox.com/joem/bios/heidi.htm)
She's the banker. All the other girls hate her. But she has nice hair and is probably the most fun.

I'm guessing the girl with the nice smile (according to him) will "win". She seems down to earth and not in it for the $$.

Her name is Melissa M (http://www.fox.com/joem/bios/melissa.htm)

Yeah Heidi is very hot. Zora (the one that didn't get a dress that fit at first) I think is my favorite; seems very down to earth.

There's a rumour floating around that at the end they will reveal that the guy is actually worth big bucks to turn the surprise on the viewers.
If this is true, then wouldn't "truth in advertising" laws kick in here?

I doubt that truth of advertising laws would apply to TV programs and movies though. If they did, you could concievably see class action lawsuits against studios when a movie trailer doesn't totally represent the content of a movie and how often have we seen that happen? There must be some kind of artistic license limitation. Besides which, we are not paying to watch Joe Millionaire anyway.

Yeah, but do movie trailers show scenes that aren't in the movie? Or talk about a plot line that does not exist? Or tell you that the lead character is James Bond when it's really Austin Powers? :)

Not necessarily but there have been plenty of movies that have had unexpected plot twists at the end that are of course not spoiled in the trainers. I don't think this situation is any different than an unexpected twist and artistic license if its true.

Movie trailers do show scenes that are not in the movie.
I remember seeing an interview with, I think, Michael Caine and they showed a part of the preview that he said was shot after the movie was finished and was not in the movie.
There are others, but the memory fails at this time.

The first Austin Powers movie. There's a scene in the airplane that did not make the movie. If you have the DVD, check it out.

If this is true, then wouldn't "truth in advertising" laws kick in here?

As James' Smoking Gun link shows, the rumour seems to be quite untrue -- I'm sorry about spreading a false rumour.

On Letterman last night, he was complaining that on "The Bachelor" series the two people never got married at the end, so he says it was misleading. I didn't watch that series...is it true?...if so, I think it's a precedent for "truth in advertising" when it comes to these type of shows...

At the end of the Bachelor, the bachelor would propose to the woman he chose but the show would end with that. So, they got engaged but I guess it's possible they either had an extended engagement or decided not to get married after that.

There is a mean-spiritness to this that I am uncomfortable with. This is not a simple practical joke. It is toying with basic human emotions. And flies against a basic facet of relationship: TRUST.

I wouldn't blame any of those women if they reacted by sticking a knee in the groin of Joe, and every male on the set. And b*tch slapping every woman.

You have to wonder how they wrote the contract the women signed to appear on the show.


I have a few more ideas for new reality shows:

- Tell children on Christmas Eve that there is no Santa Clause.

- Gather a bunch of unemployed single mothers to interview for a dream job that turns out to be fake.

- Seek out terminal patients and tell them that a cure has just been discovered.


Ah, knee slapping fun.

If a woman falls in love with money and not the man then they deserve to be made fools of.

Yeah, very true. It will be alot of fun if that's what happens in this series.

I would agree that there is a mean spiritedness to this approach but this is common across almost all reality shows, in which producers try to create as much tension and conflict as possible to boost interest and ratings.

If you have ever watched Big Brother, you can see the sometimes desperate measures the producers take to try and get contestants at each other throats. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't but it could be argued that reality shows in general are designed to exploit people's emotions for ratings and profit.

The other thing to remember is that they are not "live".
The producers can edit and rearrange what they show us to
give the show whatever "flavour" they want.
I really enjoyed the Amazing Race but you could see that the schedules for train/planes and opening hours for exhibits were used to even things out at times and help the stragglers catch up.
And don't forget, all these show use real people.
And there is nobody stupider than people!

And Mark Burnett actually admitted a while back that some of the cinematography in Survivor was filmed using student doubles, etc to enhance the impact. He insisted that the game itself was never orchestrated.

That was done only in a couple of the challenges, having no impact on the outcome or how the race was played out. They just wanted more camera angles to add drama for the home viewers.

Yeah but as soon as you allow stunt work and other fixed elements into a reality show, it can quickly become a slippery slope that might result in future producers pushing the envelope to the point that an entire show is fixed.

I don't think it'd go that far, but yes, I agree with you the integrity of the show's 'reality' would be at stake.

Yeah, I hope that we never get a reality show truthfulness debacle like what happened with the quiz shows in the 1950's.