I agree, however, The same program that manipulated thousands of hours of film, to extract a "plot" had a vested interest in trying to show drama and plotting (even when there may have been none) to expand their audience beyond competitive shooters.oldcaster wrote:The reason I don't think it was fair is because an individual was put up for elimination when he wasn't the weakest link on the team. It was done more than once also. It was because he wasn't "one of the boys" which spelled another way is politics. The boys" even said they wouldn't do such a thing because of ethics but that was exactly what they did. If a viewer also feels they are "one of the "boys" they won't see where anything was wrong and look right past what happened. The show should be set up where you are either the best overall or you are not, where a single discipline cannot cause overall failure. It should have nothing to do with personalities, nor should it be possible for either one or a group to cause another to fail. Otherwise it shouldn't be called Top Shot but Top Hustlers and could be performed by actors. I won't watch another episode if it is operated like the last one as I might as well watch a soap opera instead.
It is television, not a competition. Ultimately only one person was going to win, so precisely who do you think was eliminated that could outshoot Brian Zins?
The order of elimination means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
As I stated before, the Allstar season is all shooting, no teams, and no nomination range.
If you just want to watch "shooting", go to a match. I personally am happy that Top Shot might be a pretty good way to increase general interest in competitive shooting in this country, and it certainly can't hurt.
I don't expect the show to be everything to everyone. Nothing produced for television can do that.