Surely the notion of 'lucky numbers' must be laid to rest now? It is just mindless superstition - it is all completely random! A timely case in point - Matty swapping £50,000 for 1p due to his fixation with the number 17.
Of course, I agree completely, but you try going on the programme and telling Noel that you think it's a load of superstitious rubbish and see what response you get. After all, this lucky numbers rubbish is a central plank of the show, endorsed and encouraged by the bearded one.
The thing I don't understand though, is, a lot of contestants must have thought the same as people on this thread, yet, as far as I know, not a single one has had the independence of mind to say so (ie., when someone says 'I'll do my best' before opening a box, to ask them if doing their worst would make any difference).
Is the vice-like grip of the DOND Gestapo so great that people are scared to go 'off-message', or is the vetting process so stringent that such people are simply not selected?
Originally posted by MumsyH: At least a few of them are brave enough to say that they don't have "feelings" about their box, which is just as ridiculous!
But noone has had the courage to criticise the whole mindset of the show, instigated and continually promoted by Edmonds, that positivity, energy etc. can help you determine what's in the boxes, that certain people or numbers are lucky/unlucky, that the person who opens the box is somehow responsible for what's in it (I've lost count of the number of times Edmonds castigates people for opening a box containing a high red), and saying that a player is amazingly clever when they've just been lucky. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.
As i said before, either the vice-like grip of the DOND Gestapo is so great that people are scared to go 'off-message', or the vetting process is so stringent that such people are simply not selected. I would like to know if others think either of these, or something else, is the reason why contestants don't speak out.
But contestants have watched the show long enough (hopefully) to be well aware of the mindset of the show, and yet they choose to take part. Nobody is press ganged into taking part - it's their adult choice.
Maybe it`s in their contract that if they speak out they don`t air their show so don`t get any winnings .So if they win a small amount and had nothing to lose it just wouldn`t be aired.That way we don`t get to hear or see anything.
Originally posted by nan-at-home: Maybe it`s in their contract that if they speak out they don`t air their show
I think you've hit the nail on the head, nan. This would not surprise me at all, and very much in line with the whole control freakery of the DOND production team. I've also wondered about people who disappear, apparently due to ill-health, never to return. Is it possible that, when it was their turn to be a contestant, they questioned aspects of the show or, Heaven forbid, dealt early (in other words, did something that the DOND Gestapo disapproved of), and so their show was not shown? I feel a new thread coming on.
I only know of one person who didn't have their show aired and that was for a legitimate reason. There was one other contestant who 'disappeared' from the wings without getting as far as the crazy chair but that was not for the reasons you've said, the rationalist.
Originally posted by PeggyG: But contestants have watched the show long enough (hopefully) to be well aware of the mindset of the show, and yet they choose to take part. Nobody is press ganged into taking part
Most of the contributors to this thread are critical of the superstitious rubbish I've mentioned, and these are big fans of the show. Thus, the likelihood of some contestants also being critical is extremely high, yet we hear virtually nothing of it on the show. As I've already said, is this because the vetting and audition process is so effective that there genuinely aren't any contestants of this type, or is it that the iron fist of the DOND Gestapo prevents them from speaking out, perhaps to the extent of including the reasons nan mentions? Which of these do you think is correct, or do you think there's another reason?
Originally posted by the rationalist: Most of the contributors to this thread are critical of the superstitious rubbish I've mentioned, and these are big fans of the show. Thus, the likelihood of some contestants also being critical is extremely high, yet we hear virtually nothing of it on the show. As I've already said, is this because the vetting and audition process is so effective that there genuinely aren't any contestants of this type, or is it that the iron fist of the DOND Gestapo prevents them from speaking out, perhaps to the extent of including the reasons nan mentions? Which of these do you think is correct, or do you think there's another reason?
I think probably the latter reason. I can't believe that there are no contestants who think some aspects of the show are nonsense,especially the bits about lucky boxes and "feelings" etc, but the programme makers are not going to let them air their opinions are they?? That would be the same for any show. However, some contestants must think, privately, that some of it is superstitious rubbish, or talk together at the hotel.
Originally posted by the rationalist: Most of the contributors to this thread are critical of the superstitious rubbish I've mentioned, and these are big fans of the show. Thus, the likelihood of some contestants also being critical is extremely high, yet we hear virtually nothing of it on the show. As I've already said, is this because the vetting and audition process is so effective that there genuinely aren't any contestants of this type, or is it that the iron fist of the DOND Gestapo prevents them from speaking out, perhaps to the extent of including the reasons nan mentions? Which of these do you think is correct, or do you think there's another reason?
I think probably the latter reason. I can't believe that there are no contestants who think some aspects of the show are nonsense,especially the bits about lucky boxes and "feelings" etc, but the programme makers are not going to let them air their opinions are they??
I agree, but I think a lot of people, particularly those coming to this forum for the first time, will be horrified to discover that a show would be so controlling of its contestants as to not allow them to air their opinions.
To that end, I would like to know from former contestants (eastwinger's the only one I know of who currently posts here) whether the Confidentiality Agreement she had to sign contained a clause stating that the programme makers reserve the right not to show a programme, and if any reasons are given as to why this might happen. Also, are there any aspects of the show she is still not allowed to talk about, long after her episode was broadcast?
Originally posted by the rationalist: I agree, but I think a lot of people, particularly those coming to this forum for the first time, will be horrified to discover that a show would be so controlling of its contestants as to not allow them to air their opinions.
To that end, I would like to know from former contestants (eastwinger's the only one I know of who currently posts here) whether the Confidentiality Agreement she had to sign contained a clause stating that the programme makers reserve the right not to show a programme, and if any reasons are given as to why this might happen. Also, are there any aspects of the show she is still not allowed to talk about, long after her episode was broadcast?
Yes, it would be interesting to hear from former contestants, and to hear how much they are allowed to say even after the programme has been aired.
true, but sometimes it helps. eg Laura' kept her dad's b'day box number 6. Which she considered lucky, and it held £250,000. So, maybe theres a balanced answer to this.
Originally posted by BuddyG: true, but sometimes it helps. eg Laura' kept her dad's b'day box number 6. Which she considered lucky, and it held £250,000. So, maybe theres a balanced answer to this.
Or it was just an extremely lucky coincidence. If she'd been chosen to play the day before or the day after "lucky" 6 wouldn't have been so lucky.
But, the same can be siad with Mattie's game...A coincidence that the 1p came and possibly the next day/earlier day it held..£75,000 (for example) ....but I see your point...but sometimes lucky numbers help keep particualr values...and sometimes people keep the biggies through sheer luck..I mean maria (the £100k) winner, her lucky 11, allowed her to win it.
Originally posted by BuddyG: But, the same can be siad with Mattie's game...A coincidence that the 1p came and possibly the next day/earlier day it held..£75,000 (for example) ....but I see your point...but sometimes lucky numbers help keep particualr values...and sometimes people keep the biggies through sheer luck..I mean maria (the £100k) winner, her lucky 11, allowed her to win it.
You and Dond Fan seem to think along the same lines!
