Showing posts with label beauty and the geek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label beauty and the geek. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Back to Reality

Channel 7 is currently holding auditions for its reality show Beauty and the Geek which picked up a pretty good following last year. I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that I didn't like it. 

Of course I will watch the first episode because I love being outraged and shocked - confession: sometimes I switch over to Melbourne Talk Radio just to feel my blood pressure rise - it's less effort than exercise and if I listen for long enough I might even throw up and lose a few kgs.

So, reality tv.

I've been keeping up with Masterchef this season. By 'keeping up' I mean switching over in the last 10 minutes to see the taste-testing and elimination. Someone told me a few weeks ago who ends up in the final three so it's no real joy now - mind you, blind Freddy could probably guess them after all the 'favouritism' talk from boned contestants. 

Masterchef's managed to consistently be covered in the tabloid press thanks to a few nobody-even-cares-you're-just-putting-it-in-the-news-as-free-PR type scandals - including the 're-plate-gate' affair. Is it really shocking that they re-plate the food for the cameras? Studio lights + cream-based desserts = liquid ugly ... and you'll be surprised to hear I'm not even a rocket scientist!

Channel 7's Australia's Got Talent has been the expected mixed-bag of freaks and weirdos. I'm sure there has been the occasional talented moth to the flame but I haven't followed closely enough to know if they got through - looking at the judges, I sincerely doubt it. The bits that I have seen have been horrific. I had much more fun watching a repeat of Popstars this morning at 1:30am. Did people really dress like that in the 90s? I don't remember owning a top that was a handkerchief in the front held by pieces of string across the back ... then again maybe I did and have used selective memory to block it out.

Speaking of pieces of material being held together with string, Dancing with the Stars will be back on air soon. Oh what joy, oh what celebration (where's that sarcastic font when you need it). Have you seen the contestant list? One commenter on the channel 7 forum stated quite rightly that someone should sue the station for false advertising. There are maybe one or two people that might fit the description of 'star' but otherwise, the cast is populated with people that aren't even loosely related to stars. 
Alex Fevola is an ex-WAG who's only claim to fame is being cheated on by an AFL player. Whoop! Hold the phone; she has published a coffee-table book! Phew, that justifies that then. Tamara Jaber is the wife (read "PR pet-project") of a man who is famous for being a wanker and/or being dumped from a reality show judging panel. Loooong bow people.  

The most entertaining thing about the show is reading the creative license taken in the bios of the supposed stars. My favourite is Jo Beth Taylor;
Jo Beth Taylor – dancing with Dannial Gosper
Beginning her singing career at the tender age of five, Jo Beth Taylor began performing professionally at the age of 13. In the early 1990s she began a successful music and television career. At just 22 years of age, Jo Beth hosted three weekly tv shows making her the youngest person to ever host a prime-time show on Australian television.  
Right. So what's she been doing in the last 15 years? Way to focus on when she actually had a career - in 1994.

So, we have the usual mix of channel 7 'personalities', miscellaneous sports stars, a musician or two and some vaguely familiar faces (if only from the covers of FHM next to the Kit Kats at the servo). There's no disabled person and no one particularly old or overweight so I'm not sure what the gimmick will be this year ... oh right ... the whole show. Australia, you so disappoint me.

So count me out again - I'm proud to say I've never watched a whole DWTS episode, let alone followed a series. I'd rather shower in acid with a sun-bed chaser. Speaking of which, be sure to look out for the 'natural' tans on the contestants of both DWTS and Beauty and the Geek.  

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Beauty and the Geek

Hmm, what can one say about channel 7's Beauty and the Geek? Let's see, there are some vacuous beauties that have more interest in the Women's Suffrage Movement than they have brain cells (i.e. none) and a bunch of horny post-grad boys with their hands firmly in their pockets.

It's introduced as a 'wacky social expiriment' but those of us more discerning folk might more accurately assess it as an excuse for commercial television to objectify women and make fun of unnatractive men. Cynical? Me? Never.

Here's the thing though; the 'beauties' are begging to be objectified (you can just see the girls arguing in the limo about which one will be offered the most money to do an FHM spread once booted off the show) and if the 'geeks' were truly intelligent they would have run from the house screaming on day one. For the record, a photographic memory does not an intellect make.

For one whole hour the hot girls say stupid things and the awkward boys tell them how brilliant they are. The only benefit I can see of this program is that all those computer-loving, nerdish lads across Australia that are too shy to talk to the ladies will realise that all they need do to get to third base with girls like these is tell them their fluorescent orange fake-tan looks really natural. (Hot tip lads - you heard it here.)

Maybe parents can watch it with their children in an attempt to scare them in to higher education - my particular favourite was one beauty's self-assessment as an "11 out of 10" in the looks department - even without her makeup! She definitely has a 10 out of 10 body, but that accurately leaves just 1 for her face.

Meow!

A girlfriend of mine recently told me (quite rightly) that it's terrible how we women pick each other apart and perpetuate the evaluation of a woman's worth as relative to her appearance - but so far these women have offered no other redeeming features as criteria for an assessment.

I would love to be proved wrong. Unfortunately I'm not certain I could sit through another episode.

After 60 minutes of idiotic giggling and declarations of love to strangers ("Awwww, I love you's guys so much! I don't want ANYone to leave!") I was so dissapointed in my own sex it was a relief to switch over to the ABC and Germaine Greer on Q&A.