born_naughty

I like that DC is so open to trying different things. Experiment a little with it's characters. Even it all still stays in the same rather safe superhero genre. So a movie about alternative versions of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor etc... I'm all for it. But these animated features are 75 minutes long. There's only so much you can do. You can focus on one characters. Tell their alternative background stories and what happened in this universe that makes them so different to the version we know. Or you can do none of that, have multiple new versions all at the same time. Cram them in a short film. And basically have nothing left to say because they still want to have all the mandatory action scenes. This half baked drek doesn't do anything particularly well. Plenty of things wrong with it though.

I have a love-hate relationship with documentaries like these. True crime documentaries and others that are presented in the same way, like Fit for TV are very popular these days. Netflix and other production companies have found the perfect way to present them. They don't feel like documentaries anymore. They feel like thrillers or drama's or other serialised shows.

The good thing about that is that it can create so much more awareness about real life topics. That they are presented in a way that's less documentary and more thrilling is possibly a necessary evil to be able to get these topics to a wide audience. I can still see the value despite that.

However, it is possible to be sentational and still press the real issues. It's possible to be mainstream and still tackle true, meaningful stories. We've seen it on Netflix. Though the quality is going down as the quantity is going up.

Others have mentioned that the contestants knew what they were signing up for. The first ones didn't. In the later seasons, yes I get that point. When it comes with how they're treated verbally I totally understand that point. That doesn't make it okay though. But I think the people saying that are focusing too much on one point. The verbal abuse was visible on tv. The health risks were not. Almost dying was not part of the tv show. In my opinion the documentary does a decent job of adressing that... though it could have been better. But I don't agree that the focus here is mainly on the verbal abuse, it really isn't.

The real flaw for me is, and I see it everywhere, even the people behind this documentary don't seem to understand what obesity and weight issues really entail.

I have struggled with weight issues my whole adult life. I'm 1m73 and at my heaviest I was 130kg. That's obese. Not to the level of the contestants (I believe even the less severe cases were slightly above) but I do understand the struggle and what it entails, for myself at least. I also battle with alcohol addiction and everything that goes with that.

The Biggest Loser was basically fat camp, boot camp for tv. Sentationalised even more. Dramatised even more. Yes, contestants all lose weight. All of them, if they survive, probably were healthier physically after the show than before they started.

But neither the biggest loser, nor Fit for TV, nor any other show about the subject seems to talk about what lead to the weight gain. What's behind it. Eating that much isn't just because you like eating. It's not tasty anymore. That's not it's function anymore. At the very least we can conclude these people are addicted to food. Just like people can be addicted to drugs, caffeine, nicotine, gambling or even sports. And there's a reason why these people became addicted and why they still are. None of that is being worked through. None of that is ever talked about on the Biggest Loser. Not even a mention here, on fit for tv.

That's the biggest issue with programs like these, weither they are televised or not. If you're not working on the reasons behind your addiction you will either keep relapsing or they will, like me, go to another product. I went from food to alcohol.

This is not just my personal perspective and opinion either. Clinics, addiction facilities, mental institutions... I don't know all the right english words for those places but all those places are full of people. All of them, every single one, has at one point tried to simply stop (overly) consuming their specific addictive product. All of them. And all of them failed at that point because they weren't working on the underlying problems. The successes only came after dealing with those. To date, I have not seen a single exception to what I just typed here in the last paragraph and I have seen a L O T. A lot. I've seen it from myself over many years. I've seen it from other patients in institutions. I've seen it from from other addicts in self help groups. I've seen it in neighbours and friends. I've seen it all around me. Professionals I have spoken to have seen so much more than I have and they concur.

Fit for TV, this documentary that's trying to create awareness (if that's truly the intention) around The Biggest Loser still don't understand this. It's not that hard to understand. If you're a documentary maker and you don't understand that than you've either done zero relevant research or are unwilling to show it because it doesn't fit your narrative for whatever reason. Either way, there are other jobs out there for you but you shouldn't be in this profession.

I couldn't even get to the ending with this one. At least the first half of this movie is a series of flashbacks. One after the other, after the other, after the other. It makes the whole thing disjointed and without emotional depth. It's hard to care about characters and story when every scene is so short and we keep going to the past in non chronological order. Flashbacks can be a good storytelling tool off course but not like this imo. To be honest, even with better structure I wouldn't have rated this very high as some of the situations and characters can be carituresque.

I do get that the main appeal of the story is 'did she do it or not?' but I honestly didn't care. Part of it is that the story just doesn't flow. Another part of it is that none of the characters are very likeable nor relatable (though that's very subjective to me off course). Cathy Bates is a very good acress but even she can't save this for me. Direction is more important than acting.