Re: Outwitted

1

Wow, that's just awesome. Jokes on WWTD, I guess.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
2

"Jokes" s/b "Joke's"; sorry.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
3

I never suspected I would ever say this about anything involving Ashton Kutcher, but... clever. I approve; the show seems like a good way to get more people to take celebrity coverage and gossip with the much-needed heaping of salt.

If this is a magical universe of unicorns, it would even help kill off some of the celebrity tabloids. T'would be awesome.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
4

Wow, Britney's playing a much deeper game than anyone but John Rogers suspected.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 11:56 AM
horizontal rule
5

You can go back to respecting her now.

There's a serious problem with this sentence.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
6

Yeah, this is funny and well-conceived. I'm hoping they make good on the promise that there are lots of other prank stories. WWTDD?'s reaction: "touche, you dumb bitch."


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
7

So, now it is ok to watch her video?


Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
8

That would be a good idea for a special epidode of Punk'd. Not for a series. Punk'd worked because it playfully indulged people's resentment of celebrity. That's not the case with this show, which is apparently supposed to make you sympathize with folks like Paris Hilton, and to revile the paparazzi, whom only the celebrities are concerned with.


Posted by: Michael Vanderwheel, B.A. | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
9

I have no idea, of course, but I'm not sure the series is supposed to make anyone sympathetize with Paris Hilton (surely this is impossible) or even celebrities generally. I suspect that it's supposed to make people hate the celebrity press and raise questions about celebrity culture more broadly. Which sounds like a fine idea.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
10

It's an idea for a show that airs a couple of weeks and then disappears.


Posted by: Michael Vanderwheel, B.A. | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
11

There ought to be a word for the displacement of moral condemnation from the many consumers of gossip to the few distributors of it. I propose "sturtativeness," because I think it sounds neat.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
12

10: So a pretty typical show, then.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
13

I'm sympathetizing my catheterizerable.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 12:31 PM
horizontal rule
14

How sexist of you to ever doubt her integrity, Ogged.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
15

8
That would be a good idea for a special epidode of Punk'd. Not for a series. Punk'd worked because it playfully indulged people's resentment of celebrity. That's not the case with this show, which is apparently supposed to make you sympathize with folks like Paris Hilton, and to revile the paparazzi, whom only the celebrities are concerned with.

Apparently I'm in the minority, then, because I find the idea of this show a lot more interesting and appealing than Punk'd. Anyone can be duped to look stupid pretty easily and anyone looks vulnerable from the right angle. It sounds more interesting to do it to the people normally doing the duping than to people who are very used to being the target of it.

And you know, I'm pretty sure fans of Princess Diana reviled the paparazzi too, so I'm probably not the only one. Just saying.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 03- 6-08 1:09 PM
horizontal rule