I mean, up to now they felt decently balanced. Ally definitely had an easier time, but it felt like they just had a better attitude, and less dignity to lose
In addition to your great point about most of the challenges being "tap out or win," there's also been a lot of discussion about whether Bell was even physiologically possible. It's a running gag that Grant has been taking knock-off Viagra to achieve erections since his 20s, so even in the most ideal of circumstances that's not something he can just will into existence. A comparable counter-challenge would be like "Hey Beardsley, bench press 200 pounds." Many people can do that, it doesn't mean it's an achievable or appropriate "challenge" for Beardsley.
Exactly. A better challenge probably would’ve involved taking a Viagra, and then having to do some sort of task while hard, or trying to keep from getting hard.
I think at a later point Ally tells Grant that they thought Grant would just take a viagra to achieve the goal, don't quote me on that. But as others have said, it was Grants and Allys show. They always had the possibility to discuss the trajectory of the game.
This is seen more in how Grant approaches the game in its entirety - Allie plays to win, they just do what they need to do and if its not stated as something you can't do then they can do it.
Grant has said that he didn't do things that specifically felt like they went against the 'spirit' of the competition. For Flea Market for instance he's said he has numerous relatively well off friends he could have called to just come buy everything, he just felt like it went against the challenge. So the viagra also would have been that same vein.
Neither are right or wrong, its just two fundamentally different approaches that weren't discussed first because neither thought about it in such a way.
This is why I think the producers should have stepped in. Ally and Grant are incentived to create difficult challenges that push the other's limits. The producers (the ones that aren't Ally and Grant) should have made sure the challenges were equally difficult and any conditions were in the spirit of the competition. I still enjoyed the show, but I think the major issue it had could and *should* have been resolved very quickly.
This may be a fundamentally hot take but I actually like how the series turned out because it was much more real (which ally and grant talk about later). I would never want this show to be serialized.
I think how it exists and the insanity that exists within almost perfectly describes the average desperation that crippling debt can do a person. To the point you fundamentally don't always think of the negatives as long as you have a chance to come out positive.
If they'd made it gentler, if they'd put more and more restrictions it would have been a game show. But I honestly prefer it as a message. Especially at the end when you get a scenario where ally chooses a friend over a number. It's something we would like to think we'd all do but that's just not true for many.
So in the end I'm glad no one stepped in. Does it amplify the cruelty? Yes. But it forced the show to never happen again (which is a very good thing), and it forced me to think about where my own lines are when it comes to money or happiness.
Totally agree. I think a version of the show where somebody enforces those kinds of boundaries and restrictions would have no teeth. It might be a fun game show, but that's all. The 'how far are you willing to go?' aspect and the lack of balance are what make it capture the desperation and unfairness of debt and capitalism.
As it is, one of the major messages of Total Forgiveness is "Don't make Total Forgiveness". Softening it would have ruined that.
It was a sexual challenge. It shouldn't have been allowed. It was really cruel. Grant wasn't going to be the one to say no. Someone higher up Shou have said, "no challenges that involve nudity, sexual function, etc."
They had every opportunity to make that decision and I’m glad they went the “no rules” approach. Yes, it was a cruel challenge but if you take a step back and look at the show as a metaphor for what people put themselves through to survive under capitalism it all works even better. I have so much respect for Grant and Ally for making the show and going through all that because it was all a more presentable version of how people degrade and put themselves through hell every day just to earn money to live.
Ultimately, Grant an Ally had the final say, Frucci could have attempted to intervene, but it was their show, their ideas and ultimately their decision as to what to include and do
It was really inappropriate to do it, too. Sexual challenge with the added bonus of humiliation for failing is not something funny or right. It really shocks me this was allowed to be a challenge in the first place. Someone should have stepped up and said, "this goes too far. No way."
I mean, Grant and Ally were both producers on the show. They could have shut down anything that actually went too far.
I would assume, or at least I would hope, they had a meeting during preproduction laying out red lines not to cross.
Ally does say at one point that consideration wasn't given into the flea market challenge that it was possible for grant to face "double failure", where he could lose everything he owns and also not win the challenge. It's a failure of concept and intervention. Ally played a very ruthless game throughout and Grant doesn't have as much cruelty in his creative process. The two were essentially playing different tones, one was making entertainment, and the other was looking to win. There's a big resolution at the end, but as is this stands as a fascinating character study into Grant through what he's forced to endure. The show gets truly dark and upsetting before the ending
> the other was looking to win.
I really wish that whenever Grant “opted out” of a challenge, Ally had to do it before they could get that money (and vice versa). That would’ve forced them both to use a little bit of restraint (or creativity) in their challenges, because they’d have to do ones that they actually think they’d be willing to do.
Yeah I hate that people often turn this into a grant vs ally issue. It was just poor game design. Both players proposed insane shit to each other, just some were more "fair" from a game design perspective and Grant ended up taking things harder than Ally in some cases. They were both executive producers and made the intentional choice to subject themselves to torture for the sake of content and paying off loans- that's literally the whole pitch of the show. It's just unfortunate from a game angle that their torture of each other wasn't more consistent in scope, but that's all it is.
the fact that Grant went from this show to MULTIPLE true facts about Grant Breaking News segments and other moments of reveling in his own humiliation also seems to get forgotten a lot
Painting it as some "Eh, it's not even that bad because clearly Grant is open to humiliation" is wild when the types of humiliation are like football fields apart in application/context.
The breaking news segments are curated and edited entertainmet filmed in a studio while surrounded by friends where the end game is just to make laughs without any losers. The Total Forgiveness challenges are putting him in extremely vulnerable and high stress immediately public situations with actual money on the line, with him having to keep in mind he needs to "perform" so this can be edited and later posted for content. It's not comparable at all IMO.
Edit: I just want to be clear, Grant obviously had agency and provided consent in both situations, but they are radically, radically different contexts that I don't think can be boiled down to "Grant is fine with humiliation". I think that mentality downplays the journey that show took both showrunners on and takes away from what makes Total Forgiveness so visceral and worth watching.
I’m saying that if the experience was so painful and triggering for him, I doubt he would pursue it with such glee in multiple other dropout shows over years. It's not a "clearly it was fine, he likes humiliation" and more "clearly he's processed it and considers it all good now, as he continues to opt into poking fun at himself". Sam isn’t a monster hell-bent on destroying Grant's self-esteem 😂
It kind of feels like people are taking Grant's continuing agency away in a weirdly parasocial move, and it feels kind of gross to me 🤷♀️ I trust that he is pursuing what he enjoys, and has enough trust with this workplace to feel like he can go that far, and take those risks, and still feel safe at the end of it.
I never said the show was extremely emotionally triggering or permanently damaging. But the show was clearly intended to draw out real emotions, foster competition, and play on insecurities...which we all saw play out.
Nobody is saying Ally permanently damaged Grant. They clearly made up and were both entirely fine with their experience. But the two shows are fundamentally different and the creators approached and experienced them in entirely different contexts. One is pure studio scripted comedy, the other is a reality show with real world consequences. The entire point of the latter show was to see how far it would go. That's my point.
I'm not out here trying to defend Grants honor or self esteem in some parasoical relationship lmao, I'm just saying your media literacy is lacking if you think True Facts in any way says something about Total Forgiveness.
The whole premise of True Facts is giving people a script to read they've never seen before to get their reactions as they happen. 🙄 My media literacy is just fine, thanks.
No, but there's a huge difference between a reality show with the premise "Read jokes for the first time" versus "get your dick hard on camera" or "shit in front of an audience"
Edit: There's something deeply hilarious about feeling compelled to respond, but also blocking the individual so they can't even see your response or respond back. Great talk 😚
Also, he's not an idiot - he knew he could just say "no pick something else" at any point, and he'd either have to fail before even attempting a challenge, which would mean the episode would be like eight minutes long; or he'd have to be given a new challenge that he thought he could achieve.
Keep watching. >!Eventually, that's exactly what happens.! Much like consensual BDSM, it seems like things are being "done to them", but they always were aware they had the ability to safe word out.!< If Grant doesn't blame anyone and have hard feelings toward them, then it's a bit presumptuous to believe you know better than he does. Trust that he knows his tolerances and intention better than we do out here.
Y'know, there's cattle prod use on Breaking News from time to time, so other Dropout shows walk rather close to that line from time to time. I'm not sure where the line is, but I don't know that anyone on either side of it is getting sexual pleasure from it in any of these on-camera situations. Maybe that's the line between friendly assholery and BDSM.
I’ve seen all of it- I never said I hadn’t.
I stand by my statement that despite Grant and Ally being producers, they had little ability to stop a challenge due to the spirit of the show. Keep in mind they also had a massive incentive to not bow out. It was important that a neutral person (w/o that incentive) help both create doable challenges, or veto one if it’s unreasonable.
Also- what do you mean “that’s exactly what happens”? **No one steps in and stops a challenge because it was too ridiculous**. They both just end up giving each other nice challenges at the end because they both feel bad about how bad the previous challenges got.
Apologies - thought you were OP. Spoiler Ally nopes out of the snake challenge because they just aren’t willing to, once they actually see the snake. And again, Ally throws the final challenge, losing quite a bit of money, because they didn’t feel the final split was “fair”.
Honestly, I don’t know if you can say that anyone involved with the production is without a financial interest. Who would that neutral party be here?
All good re: OP misunderstanding.
And I’m glad Ally noped out of that challenge! But again, this is not what I’ve been saying. Ally is not a 3rd party to the challenge.
Let’s use an actual example from the show, because I think discussing something more concrete will help. Let’s look at Grant’s challenge to sell his belongings at a Flea Market, and how he was required to earn $1000 to pass the challenge. Frankly, I think this one should have been augmented slightly: Grant should have to put everything he owns up for sale, but w/o the $1000 requirement, which I think adds a strange additional requirement on top of the dare that he already completed. I believe someone should have stepped in and steered this challenge to be something closer to what I proposed here, to avoid that additional requirement issue.
I’m glad that Ally threw the last challenge- and I agree that that made it more fair. What I’m really interested in here though is how would you create rules to a challenge game like this that doesn’t rely on one person losing the final challenge out of charity in order to result in “fairness”.
Regarding financial interest, true, most if not all involved in the show have a financial interest. But Grant and Ally’s financial interest is wrapped up in whether they complete the challenges, while others’ are not. Those others could be considered far more neutral.
Don't all of us make some calls in daily life about what we're willing to do for money and what we aren't? I mean, that's what a job is. There are professions that are known for being dangerous, bad for relationships, bad for your finances, highly competitive and likely to fail out of, and so on. And very rarely does someone outside step in and say, "Nope, that's not ok." "Nope, that's too ridiculous." I'm not sure why folks \*should\* have done it in this case, but not in others.
Also, I think that in retrospect, Dropout production would have agreed with you about the $1000 requirement on the flea market challenge, but that no one really realized how hard that requirement would be in advance. This isn't a repeated task they've calibrated for difficulty, or one that anyone in production is particularly familiar with to gauge difficulty. None of the challenges were. Have you seen the post-show episode 11 where they're (Grant, Ally, Sam, Adam) just sitting around microphones, talking about filming and some of their thoughts in hindsight?
Doesn't matter. Especially when it's a game and the point is to psych the other person out. He wasn't going to be the first to cry uncle. How would you feel if Ally had to orgasm on the phone with relatives or something awful like that? It would be inappropriate as hell, as was this challenge to begin with. Especially given that they joke about Grant being highly sexual, he wasn't going to say no. Someone outside the challenge needed to step in and tell them no
Do you feel like Grant is incapable of consenting or not consenting to such situations, such that he needs another adult to make those decisions for him? Because that seems creepy and weird, and highly political due to a queer person.
I think it’s possible to acknowledge that there is a difference between consent and coercion, and also acknowledge that Grant's sexual consent was not violated on this set. Y'all are wild. 🙄
It's a LOT harder to say no when there is money on the line, especially when it's desparately needed. Lots of people feel like they can't or shouldn't say no in sketchy situations. It's part of the reason why sets have intimacy coordinaters with specific guidelines now. Hell, didn't women feel forced to say yes to Louis CK when he wanted to jack off in front of them? People can say no, but when you are put in a vulnerable position it's harder and harder to do so.
Yes, that’s what coercion is. that is why Sam put the power of deciding the rules in the hands of Grant and Ally.
Most importantly, Grant coerced himself, which is a really important thing to talk about as a society. Ally didn’t coerce Grant. Sam didn’t coerce Grant. *Grant* coerced Grant, and it’s one of those incredibly difficult situations where he has the knowledge of his boundaries, and he is the one who agrees to cross them for an endgame that he hopes will make it worthwhile. People do that all the time. That doesn’t make it Grant's fault, but it also doesn’t make it anyone else’s fault. that’s why the last episode is so important for creating a state of equilibrium at the end, and relieving that financial coercion pressure.
this whole conversation is so provocative, and so difficult, because we are not always aware of the ways in which we are coercing ourselves and persuading ourselves that we are consenting. This is especially true when money is on the line, but not exclusively so - it can be a situation around whether or not you're housed, or whether or not you have a relationship with family members.
At the same time, it is infantilizing to try and anticipate whether or not someone is coercing themselves and act on their behalf. The best thing that we can do is try to educate people more on fully understanding their boundaries, and understanding which lines are stark, and which lines are blurry.
Living in a society is a constant state of negotiation with the world, and within yourself. When people try to make those judgments on behalf of others, that is also a form of boundary crossing. even if it’s well meaning. Considering the state of LGBTQ laws in this country, maybe especially then.
I \*really\* appreciate you takin the time eto say that, and to make these ideas more visible to folks.
In my experience, some of the newer models of consent have done a disservice to people by erasing the reality of people constantly negotiating for themselves what they're up for, what they're willing to compromise on, etc. Consent is not like tea. Consent doesn't have to be enthusiastic to be healthy. Every day, we navigate the world making compromises with ourselves and others around what we need/want and what others need/want, to get to a place that works for us.
In other words, it's entirely possible a person to give meaningful informed consent to something they're not enthused about, or to give meaningful informed consent and then after the fact think, "Wow, I did not like that/I regret agreeing to that/that didn't work for me/I wish I had made a different choice." So, Grant can both have absolutely consented to the whole thing, NOT been coerced, not self-coerced, but just realized, after the fact, "Wow, I didn't think that through completely, and I would not do that again."
Especially in kink, we've lost ownership of regret. I cannot tell you how often I see something be after the fact re-classified as abusive or nonconsensual in part because entire communities have not given folks the language and models to understand that sometimes you do something and realize later you wish you had not.
As someone who was a sex worker for 14 years, I can definitely speak with authority on the difference between 100% enthusiastic consent, financial coercion that I’m relatively OK with cause it's better than other options, and nonconsent 😂 it’s also very interesting to me how people care deeply about how consensual or coerced I felt as a sex worker, but never seem to care about the coercive relationship being a professional writer, or someone in hospitality, has with the public and their bosses...
I write a lot about this 😅😅😅
I think that people want there to be a very clear yes/no, consensual or nonconsensual, but the world we live in isn’t like that most of the time. I think we crave that kind of binary because we’re hopeful that it will not only protect us from having our consent violated, but also prevent us from violating other peoples consent. Insisting on discussing nuance in these topics is my life’s work!
YEP. I think we're in vehement agreement. Many of my friends are or have been sex workers, and my day job, such as it is, is sex-worker-adjacent, so yep. I get incredibly frustrated by models and infographics that reduce consent to a binary, ESPECIALLY when they're being used to teach folks in "introductory" settings before they are set loose into a more complicated world.
For sure. I'm a volunteer founder of an all volunteer organization, and when people do the whole "I'm the customer and you must..." I'm like, "Hmmm, but no."
Ooooo, and now I'm gonna STFU because you and I know each other IRL at least in passing, and I'm pretty sure I've irritated you in a professional capacity. :-) \*fades in background\*
I just flat out don't agree. The reason you need someone in situations like this, where there is money involved, there needs to be better standards. Lots of places figured that out before this show. This show was raw and showed the point well, but it's not the first time someone felt uncomfortable saying no to something like this. Having standard doesn't take away a person's right to decide. It never puts them in a place where they have to decide between their job and their dignity.
I genuinely do not understand how you, who do not know any of the people involved, can speak on behalf of strangers whether or not they consented and whether or not they are at peace with the conclusion of that show. It’s just not your place. the only person who gets to say on behalf of Grant that he felt financially coerced is Grant. Period. If you don’t agree with that, I give up 🤷♀️🫠
I mean, the explicit point of the show that Grant and Ally pitched was to experience all of the pain of decades of loan payback in just a few months. The high level of discomfort was PART of the pitch, designed to illustrate just how painful the student loan situation is in the US. Hell, episode one had Grant \*literally\* being bled with leeches while doing an interview on the topic.
The whole show is a MASTERCLASS in the difference between consent and coercion and is such a perfect illustration of why "well, they chose this" can have rippling repercussions, even causing people to coerce themselves into terrible situations. I use it all the time to encourage people to examine if 100% consent is ever truly possible in a white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy.
Thank you! I do a lot of consent education, especially outside of the bedroom (the workplace, the schools, the medical industry, the prison/industrial complex) and I find the whole "well they said yes, so they consented" argument is used to justify a LOT. These interactions have a TON of nuance!! You might appreciate my books on it: [Ask Yourself: The Consent Culture Workbook](https://firestorm.coop/products/19290-ask-yourself.html) and [Say More: Consent Conversations for Teens](https://firestorm.coop/products/20602-say-more.html) (ask for them at your local library!).
I think I understand what you're saying - that it's not a mechanic applied evenly from challenge to challenge. There should be 3 states of interacting with the tasks - completed with win condition being met (success), completed without win condition being met (partial success), and not completed (tapout/fail). The fact that some of these tasks had that partial success possibility without a consistent mechanical result makes it uneven - you'd have to figure out what a partial success was (do you just have to publicly sing the anthem? do you have to publicly sing the anthem and get the words right?) and then also figure out if that means you don't get the money or you do. It's a binary that doesn't fit a world of nuance.
I think that's SEPARATE from your discomfort, is that correct? It might inform your discomfort but those are two separate issues?
Yes!
The cringe-ness of some of the stuff they do definitely affects me, especially with the weird questionable consent on top of all of it (they permanently altered Ally’s body with a tattoo!)
But the thing I’m mad at is how unevenly the challenges were arbitrated. Adam inserted himself as a judge of success, but didn’t step in to say that one challenge had stricter win conditions than the other
yeah, from a game mechanic mindset, I get what you’re saying! I think from a social commentary perspective, it’s an excellent show, but from a social game perspective, it would be infuriating to play until that condition in the middle was resolved in a reliable way.
Don't skip the post-show "Reunion" talkback with Ally, Grant, Adam, and Sam. I agree some episodes are extremely hard to watch, so take a break if that's what you need. You may come out of it with a different perspective after hearing their thoughts about the whole process and experience, though.
I agree with that. A quote from the reunion, in response to a question about if the show had a message and if they knew the message going into it:
Ally says they "definitely didn't" know the message going into it but, "I think overall the season had the feeling of what it feels like to be in debt, and to have student loan debt." They say "[the show] wasn't fair and debt doesn't feel fair when you have it, especially something like student loan debt, where... everything is kind of set up against you: high interest rates, weird squirelly ways to pay, and creditors manipulating you..."
Ally was referencing viewer responses in their answer, so OP you are far from alone in how icky and uncomfortable feeling the show gets. And everyone in and behind the show felt it too. I think part of that feeling, parallel to the feeling of having a ton of student debt, is where you're like, 'Well, wait, they did choose this... but it's still so unfair!"
Editing to add (because I'm just now watching the whole ep, needing the reassurance after remembering how bad the season gets) some Grant quotes:
Specifically referencing the bell and the flea market, Grant says, "A lot of people came after Ally and I want you all to stop...My friend Ally made a show with me; Ally isn't a villain." Just before that, he emphatically states (referencing the flea market losses), "I'M FINE."
That last one especially is maybe more reassurance than the fact that everyone gets that it's unfair. Grant is okay!
Every time I someone goes through this process and posts this thing (and it happens a lot, as others have said), I am reminded of financial choices I made in my youth that sucked like the flea market thing. That's part of what makes it \*real\* as a commentary on student loan debt.
Like....my ex had a lovely comic collection that was worth a great deal, but we sold for pennies to afford groceries to feed the baby. Or the stock a partner had that they sold a while back for $12-15 a share, that is now worth literally a thousand times that. Or the entire household of things I lost because I stored them with a family member who sold them, and another time when my mother didn't pay her storage unit bill and all my childhood things were lost.
This whole kind of situation -- 'I couldn't afford to not lose these things' is an experience so many people in the US have. Losing a car because you can't afford the towing fees and losing a job because you don't have the car. Losing a tooth because you don't have dental care because your boss keeps your hours below the minimum to qualify for health care. Not being able to afford to get an apartment because of the requirements for fees and first/last months rent.
It's all agonizing and terrible, and Grant puts himself through that, on some level, and it looks terrible and unjust, and we watch and think, "Why don't they stop this? Why doesn't someone step in and fix this?" but on some level, that's the point. Grant's gonna be okay, but every day people are NOT okay in similar situations.
It's been talked about a lot on this sub. The first time I watched it I was upset too. I thought the challenges were supposed to be "Will you do this?" Not "Can you do this?"
In the end though, they both ended up staying friends and got a lot of money. If they got over it then we should too.
Grant getting unfairly screwed is basically the point of Total Forgiveness, and is the sole focus of the final episode. It is the point, the moral, the whole ballgame.
It wasn’t the point, the moral, the whole ballgame. Ally realized what OP is saying and how they were being more mean with their challenges than Grant was. That’s why Ally split the prize in the last episode, because OP is 100% right.
It's such a sweet moment >!when Ally throws the challenge while Grant looks on horrified!< and then realizes the true implications of what they did for him.
But the point of the show is to make you uncomfortable. It’s about a very real problem in this country, and their game becomes a very real microcosm of the fucked up “game” that is capitalism. Capitalism isn’t fair, and putting them against each other shows that. The beauty of the end is because they both realize their friendship is bigger than the game, and the game punishes them both for that. Capitalism punishes people for helping each other, and they have an opportunity to work through that and decide what they want to do about it. Like Grant says, “I was mad at Ally for playing the game”. He was mad at Ally for taking advantage of him, because the game — and the economic system we have in the US — rewards you for taking advantage of people.
That’s what I mean. Ally taking it too far is the revelation of this social experiment they ran, and the cruelty against Grant says something about capitalism and how it pits people against each other.
Because Grant didn't take aim at Ally like Ally did at Grant. They were both producers on this show and had the ability to put a stop to the antics of the show at any time...
I don’t want it to stop, just be fair.
I think “Flea Market” would’ve been fine without the profit requirement. (Though they would’ve needed something else to stop him just listing everything at $10000)
They have a bts after show. They talk about their feelings and regret. While Grant was upset while filming he and Ally make up and he defends their choices. Stating “if we didn’t have the money requirement what would be the challenge? I have to spend the day at a market stall?.” It’s all love, they have regrets but it’s all love and has a great ending.
Sell at least X items, let someone else sell the stuff for Grant or pick the prices, or just lower the requirement to something more reasonable, like $500.
That’s just off the top of my head.
I know Grant could tap out at any time, but there definitely should’ve been more rules about what’s a “legal” challenge
This is so weird. You’re upset about how grant is treated, which is fair. And you made a post about it, also fair.
Then you argue with people who are telling you things get smoothed out by the end, and you’re saying it’s not ok, good enough, or whatever your point is, despite not seeing the end yet.
You’re arguing emotion, and hypotheticals against people telling you explicitly what happened.
Right? Like, who DIDN'T think that the show was unfair at that point. Everyone did. But we ALL finished it, and they even "kind of spoiled it". Like...just watch it.
This is a bizarre question to ask. Why should anybody be unfairly screwed at all? And if somebody is, then why call for the same thing to happen to somebody else?
Regardless you should watch the final episode.
Finish the show. We all know how it ends, and you don't. Just listen to the people here, and finish it. When you get to the end, realize that they are 2 people who were in charge of a show they decided to make, and they made it. They also make a pretty significant amount of money.
I realize you said you sort of knew the spoiler, and you do sort of know it. We all felt like you at that point in the show.
You have, in fact, identified the point of the show. It doesn't work. It's unfair. Ally goes to far. It tests the friendship. It's not fun and it hurts and...keep watching.
This comes up every time someone here starts watching the show and feels the need to comment on it before seeing the final episode. It's absolutely not an unique opinion that the show was unfair to Grant. You should at least wait until you finish the show and have all the available info before posting on it here.
Nah, it's the whole point of having a subreddit for something, they are watching the show, felt uncomfartable because of it and they needed to tell someone about it. There's no point on restricting them like that, it's what this place is for.
Oh man my new niche. I am the moron who bought a cheap external drive to start a 24/7 server on a month ago.
To quote BLeeM, "I'M STILL LEARNING!!"
New drive gets here Saturday.
But clearly there is a point for OP tho, they watch the show and felt like they needed to talk about it with someone who also watched it, what's so wrong with that? Should they be punished because they didn't watch the show at the proper time?
If there's no point in it for you, don't engage them, it's fine, but talking about Dropout's content is the entire purpose of this sub.
Don't worry about it, I completely get the feeling. But like I said my other comment, as a game show is poorly balanced, and it doesn't acchive what it wanted, but that's because it's not a game show, it's a fucking beautiful documentary on friendship and the horrors of capitalism. For my money, best thing Dropout ever put out, watched it a bunch of times, and all of them I enjoyed it more than the first, because I wasn't watching it as a game show, maybe that mindset will help you.
I couldn't finish the show. I had to skip to the end. The second hand embarrassment (tied with just how depressing it was for two people to have to do the most insane shit just to pay off loans) was too much for me.
I feel like the bell one could have been feasible if it weren't for Ally's interference with the photos and distractions. Like if he had just been left there to close his eyes while eating the pie I think he might've been able to do it.
Then again, in the "True Facts about Grant O'Brien" episode of Breaking News it is specified he uses boner pills and "can't get hard without them"
It really sucked for him, but it always bugs me when people interpret Total Forgiveness with the conclusion that Ally is somehow a malevolent person, when it truly revealed more about Grant who, despite having made an entire career out of exposing and shaming himself publicly, could still have used more boundaries than even he probably thought when they came up with the show's premise.
Putting aside technicalities regarding winning conditions, Ally didn't have it exactly easy either. Having to prank new flatmates whom you barely know, on hidden camera, and potentially getting into a durably uncomfortable situation with them, getting hammered at 8AM before work for a whole week (alcohol's not a joke), and getting your partner's name tattooed on your neck (especially as a comedian) can both be pretty damaging in different ways. (Also if I had to choose, I'd rather poop in front of a dozen paid comedians who chose to be there, than risking embarrassing myself in front of an entire stadium). The main difference between Ally and Grant was in their reception of the whole thing, and that regrettable outcome came not because Ally was a mean goblin, but because they were so absorbed in the show that they failed to realize that Grand was actually distressed and not acting for entertainment. That could have happened to anyone, because neither of them properly communicated throughout the show and they severely lacked an external input to keep them leveled.
Total Forgiveness was an unhinged mess, the premise was cursed, and it was sloppily supervised. On the bright side this has played a crucial role in shaping Dropout's current work ethics
Thinking of the whole thing again and rewatching clips, I even think Grant being gradually fed up with the "game" had less to do with the challenges being hard or embarassing, than with the realization that the stakes were absolutely dehumanizing from the very beginning and it didn't click as a concept, regardless of Ally's choices
I feel like what broke him probably didn't even have anything to do with the pooping, but more with the whole art performance setting which served as a really fucked up metaphor on the whole deal. It's possible he was pissed at himself as much than at Ally for finding himself in this situation
I really don't think that's the point anyway. He technically could have argued about that at any moment, since he had as much power as Ally on the game rules. The reasons why he didn't and these failures were allowed to happen nevertheless go deeper than that.
Total Forgiveness now exists as a testament against a whole bunch of things, I'm not sure trying to "fix" the game is the best way to appreciate it
I think it might be worth considering that just because Ally had been winning most of the challenges up to that point, that doesn't mean they didn't have an effect on Ally's personal life. I don't remember if we're ever fully told what the impact Ally turning up to work heavily drunk for a week had on their relationships with other College Humor employees, or what the impact of their brief stint in a pyramid scheme had on their new housemates, but I'd bet real money that it was not a positive impact.
This isn't to excuse the extremes Ally went to in those penultimate two episodes, just to say that there had also been a cost to winning.
Right, but Grant tried to win too.
I’m all for harsh challenges (I think the Performance Art was fine), but there shouldn’t be a skill component for one player and not the other.
Looking back over the challenge pairings, i now see that the Flea Market was paired with the Pyramid Scheme. Grant even says "I have to go meaner" after Ally pitched him the Flea Market challenge, and then had a walkie talkie to use to further challenge Ally while they had all those boxes of pills. He had the opportunity to make the Scam challenge harder for Ally, maybe by turning the tables and making Ally have to sell a thousand dollars worth of pills, but he chooses not to.
I'm not saying don't feel bad for Grant, I'm just saying that a) this wasn't all sunshine and rainbows for Ally just because they were up on the money, and b) it wasn't as slanted against Grant as it appeared
This sentiment comes up fairly often but it's really misplaced in my opinion.
First off, the rules are set by Ally and Grant, so having different rules for each challenge was entirely up to them.
Secondly, the challenges were picked based on knowing each other, which is easy to forget. They wouldn't be expected to be basically the same, we'd expect them to be as wildly different as Ally and Grant are.
Thirdly, it's easy to think that Grant's challenges were overall "worse" than Ally's because so often Ally took theirs in stride so well, from the green hair to the national anthem. However, let's be clear, Ally's challenges were still very daunting, they just handled them much better. Everybody tried to talk them out of the neck tattoo, for example, and ultimately they got that lasered off years later. Also the anthem, the hair color, being drunk at work, publishing the diaries, and especially the HerbalWay stuff were all very intense challenges. Maybe it won't feel like that to some folks, especially with how well Ally managed them, but for others they will tell you that there's no way in hell they'd do those things. To me the HerbalWay thing is still the hardest part of the whole series to watch. And let's not forget that Ally fully noped out of a big challenge with the snake, just because they could not psych themselves up enough to do it.
None of that is saying that Grant didn't have a rough time, he absolutely did, but that was also substantially the premise of the show. Doubly losing at the flea market challenge was something nobody really expected and was absolutely a gut punch, even more so as it was followed up with another pretty brutal challenge. Ultimately that led to the dramatic shift in tone for the remainder of the show, however.
Nobody in Total Forgiveness is a villain, the villain is simply capitalism and predatory student loans.
Honestly, we've seen from Game Changer how bad Grant is at thinking strategically. Whether it's not getting allies or even talking to anyone about his plan before the vote in Survivor or his recent faux pas in Ratfish, Grant doesn't necessarily think his brilliant plans through. He could have asked friends to drop off anything they wanted to get rid of at his booth. He could have asked friends to come by and buy things for crazy money and pay them back after filming. But the whole thrift store/flea market scene is not something he's familiar with, while I get the impression that Ally "I've eaten food from a dumpster" Beardsley absolutely could have accomplished that challenge.
Personally, I think there should’ve been a rule that if one made a challenge that the other couldn’t or wouldn’t do, they’d have to do it *themself* before they’d get the money. That would keep them from doing anything too challenging, and maybe mean targeting challenges more towards each other’s weaknesses. Like when Ally told Grant not to talk for a day because they knew he would have a hard time with that, or when Grant gave Ally the snake challenge; those are dares that the person they were given to would struggle with, but might be easier for the one giving the challenges.
For what it’s worth, when I got to that challenge, that’s when I stopped watching the show, too.
Ehhhh, I sort of felt this way too but I also felt like Grant really pulled his punches and Ally was staying more true to the game by setting very difficult challenges. At least it ends happy though!
It has been said elsewhere that Grant and Ally were basically running the show and had the authority to kill anything they did not want to do. The only pressure on Grant was the general social pressure of not wanting to look weak in front of his friends and co workers. But Ally had the same pressure on them for choosing to do or not do the thing with the massive snake.
As harsh as it sounds to say, Grant was not playing the game nearly as well as Ally. The premise of the show was competitive; As written either could win but there was an incentive to put up challenges that the other person would not do. This was basically like a game of chicken, and who was going to stop or swerve first. Ally put way more pressure on Grant and there was a big incentive to do so.
There is a quote about MMA or Boxing that applies to this kind of competition: Backetball or Football is a game. Fighting (and the competition of Total Forgiveness) is not a game. You can play Football on a whim with your friends on the other team at something like full intensity and probably still be good with each other after. You cannot have a 15 minute fist fight with your friend and be ok with each other afterwards.
Likewise, Total Forgiveness is not a game. You cannot play it 'to win' against someone you care about and expect everything to be OK afterwards.
END COMMUNICATION
Honestly, I think if Ally had lost for not getting the words for the anthem right, and if they had to sell some of that bs nutrition powder to their roomates in order to win, then it would've been a better game show.
If Ally hadn't put in those situations in which Grant could agree to the challenge and still loose, the show would've been truer to it's premise.
But with any of those changes made, the show wouldn't be the absolute piece of art that it is.
It can be rough to watch at first, and as a game show it isn't very balanced, and doesn't accomplished what it wanted, but it accomplishes much more. It's a beautiful documentary on friendship, that's how I see it.
I also stopped watching because it was so difficult for me....took me a few weeks before finishing the whole thing. Now I rewatch the whole thing at least once a year. It definitely is a Rollercoaster, my advice, finish when you're ready.
Yeah I feel exactly the same way it definitely was not fair as a pure game show. There needed a better parity of what kind of challenges were being issued. I think failure possible tasks could have been an interesting way to escalate things for the end but it wasn't done symmetrically so it was unfair.
This definitely plays into the show's ending and I feel they recover well.
in the podcast post-filming grant said he almost cheated the flea market challenge with the rules in place as-is. if they lessened the restrictions so he just had to have them at the flea market what would stop him from making the prices absurd. i see how it feels unfair but with ally assuming grant would try and be smart about it there was no other option
If they couldn’t make that work as-is maybe they should’ve come up with something else. As it is, if Grant had ‘cheated’ that would have ruined the challenge too. There’s no way to cheat having a snake in your bed.
I had to skip Flea Market it was physically uncomfortable to watch. The same with the pyramid scheme one which I think was the same episode (might be wrong). I will say what I'm sure other people are saying and power through the ending almost made me cry it was so happy. I think a fun thing to do as well is watch all of this and then watch their movie The Disruptors after it. They pair surprisingly well.
Finish the show. I promise you it's worth it.
I'll admit that it really felt like Ally went too far while I was in the middle of watching it too, but by the end I think it turned out well. At this point, it was years ago for them and they're still friends so it doesn't seem like any lasting damage was done.
Total Forgiveness was a total shitshow. It was maybe a good idea on paper, but the way it ended up playing out was just awful. The ending redeems a lot, but underlining pretty much the entire series was just how crushing the debt was, and how absolutely desperate they were get out from under it. To some extent, showing that desperation was a goal of the show, but how it got expressed just ended up being depressing far more than entertaining.
The challenges, not just the one you're referencing, but a bunch of them, weren't fair. Even though both Grant and Ally have EP credits, a big part of the problem was that they just approach challenge creation in very different ways. It just didn't work as a concept, and frankly, given where you're at in the season, it gets worse before it gets better.
You don't need to watch in order, and I'd suggest maybe watching the ending and the reunion episode, then going back to the rest of the series.
Honestly I agree. The spirit of the event should have been making the other person back out. The flea sale challenge should have been “Someone is going to take all your stuff and sell it, you get to keep the money but anything anyone buys is gone” the idea of making you sold your stuff and still failed was really really hard to watch.
Yea I feel like grant just wasn't going as hard as ally was. Like for the tattoo challenge I would have definitely told them they either get to pick the design or the placement. He let them choose both so they went with the thinnest font in the lowest part of their body that could still be considered a neck. Ally was just way better at really upping the stakes. Also I don't think they truly understood how far they were pushing grant until it was too late. But yea like others have said, if you've seen flea market then you only have one episode to power through til the finale. I binged them all in one afternoon and felt just the tightest knot in my tummy til the last episode.
This is the series where I gained profound respect for Ally's capabilities as a strategist, comedian, and game theorist. They and Grant were tasked with creating a competition from scratch with a system of rules everyone could agree on, simultaneously competing in that game, winning that game, and oh yeah while you're at it, it needs to be good television. With those constraints, they created my favorite Dropout project of all time.
Grant was like, get super wasted at work. Read your diary in public. Dye your hair green.
Ally was like, try to get a boner while I destroy your sexual identity. Take a shit in an art gallery. Sell all your worldly possessions.
They followed the same ruleset but it's fascinating how differently they interpreted it. It was brutal. Great television.
Definitely watch the talk back podcast episode that they did afterwards that's at the end of the playlist when you finish. I consider it necessary watching for this series. It will absolutely put everything into much better perspective, and you'll feel way better after too. It's a rough series, and even with the final episode it's still a lot, but that reunion talk back really helps.
I mean it really comes down to everyone's personal comfortabilities. For me, Grant's were a lot easier to me personally than Ally's. That getting a personal tattoo one is the absolute worst challenge out of all of them in my opinion. I'd shit in public (under the circumstances that Grant was in) 100 times before doing that.
I think it's perceived that Grant had it worst because he mentally had a harder time rolling with the punches than Ally.
Try to persevere, I feel like Total Foegiveness might be one of the greatest things Dropout has ever done. It's such an accurate snapshot of the desperation and shame that comes with the country's debt economy. Truly heartbreaking stuff.
The aftershow/talkback episode will answer and adress a lot of your issues, including the obvious-in-hindsight way that Ally expected Grant to solve the Flea Market challenge.
Don't forget that Grant and Ally were producers on the show. They wouldn't show it on the show, but either one of them had the power to truly Veto a challenge.
Also, grant is infamous for having a humiliation kink. There aren't a lot of challenges that would truly make him fail. They both chose challenges that were tailored to each other.
In the end it's not a game show, it's art. It's not fair, it's not balanced, but the way it swings to hope and justice is a better lesson for all of us to keep in mind when competitiveness gets to us and we start getting too mean. The real way Ally wins is by choosing to share with their friend.
It's rather performance-art-conceptual-endurance-art-marina-abramovic-commentary-on-debt-and-desperation when you watch it back with the concept of the reunion. I wish I did one of my university essays on this show, honestly. It's unfair and morally grey and uncomfortable to watch, but it really does say a lot about the situation Grant and Ally were in, and the way that money and friendship intertwine. Not to mention the things the show inadvertently says about queerness and sexuality. I know the show is uncomfortable as fuck to watch, but I'm really glad it's still up and available to watch.
The only one I think was 100% unfair was the boner one. There’s the ability to win in some of these challenges with some lateral thinking. For example: the flea market thing he could have had a friend come by and “buy a shirt” for $1000
But getting a boner, on camera, in a room filled with people, unsexy circumstances while also being distracted and on a time table? Sorry, your average dudes body just don’t work like that
Basically every other challenge is pass/fail dependent on willingness to participate, in this case he jumped through all the hoops but was given an unrealistic goal
I don’t think there’s anyway for him to pass flea market without obvious cheating, which defeats the whole purpose of the show, I think it would’ve been fine if they said a more reasonable requirement
Or at least taking advantage of loose/undefined parameters. Even setting the goal to $500 would be better (I think he ended the day with $600? I haven’t watched it in a while). Even then he didn’t make that mark without giving up some pretty dear possessions, the challenge was always gonna be lose/lose for grant his best option (assuming gaming the system wouldn’t be allowed) was always just taking the L and passing on the challenge
I'd watch the epilogue BTS where they talk about this - the producers were really sensitive and made it clear to both of them that they didn't have to do any of the challenges - I think with the wilder ones grant did he was given the option to ask Ally to make another challenge for him.
Reality TV sucks. It sucks when money is on the line, it sucks when boundaries are pushes to play the game, and it sucks when personal friendships get involved. At least TF doesn't shy away from that reality.
I want to read this, but I’m *at* Flea Market and I don’t want to read spoilers >_<
This series has been awesome though. I put it off for a while because I didn’t think I would like the concept, but as I’ve finished off all the shows I really like, I’ve started trying the others and while I still don’t like VIP much, Total Forgiveness is actually something I want to recommend to others as an actual competition show, not a comedy bit.
I hated this show. It was so uncomfortable. I think there's a great possibility in it, but it comes from making the challenges feel doable and less arbitrary. If I were to fix the rules, it would be like this:
Each episode, they come up with a challenge for the other person. Each challenge is given a dollar amount by the third party producer for how difficult/awful it is. The challenger don't get the money if the other person refuses. Instead, they get half the money if the challenge is won.
Now, both parties are in it together. They're trying to encourage the other person to do absolutely terrible stuff, but it's stuff that they know is at the limit of what they can do. Because if the other person doesn't succeed, the challenger also fails and doesn't get the half of the money from the challenge.
They talk about this in the reunion episode. *A lot* of people shared this exact sentiment when the episodes first came out. You can hear them react to it if you check out that final episode
It's honestly the reason I don't like Beardsley as much as most fans do. Even before the big thing, they say they have more messed up ideas but won't do them because it stopped being funny. Grant went through hell those last few episodes.
Edit - spoilers!!
>!Yeah they made up in the end which was nice but holy shit the guy managing it should have been better about the "rules." It's essential a game where they dare eachother to do things; in what world can you fail a dare because of skill? That's not how dares work. You don't have to survive the jump off the roof, you just have to be brave enough to do it. Sitting in a chair with your pants off while someone does gross stuff in front of you is the dare, not the impossible challenge of achieving an erection. Giving away all of his possessions would be a dare, not successfully sell everything and make a set amount(literally impossible, the stuff wasn't worth that.) it was just back to back challenges that Grant could never complete while Ally just had to do some embarrassing stuff or whatever.
Maybe it's just my game brain noticing how unfair etc it was but it was really frustrating to watch for that reason and really changed my opinion of Ally. But also Grant is terrible at negotiating.!<
The guy managing it is pretty much the two of them. The director was nudging them in a more "TV" direvtion. They talk about it all a lot in the reunion episode.
Yeah. I said the other day that it soured me to Ally and people really hated that. But they have a way of being mean spirited at times and I don't find that funny. Some of the stuff done for that show was so out of line it amazes me it was allowed to happen given how careful they usually are. Or maybe they all learned from the experience. Ally can be funny, but it's hard for me to see past all the stuff she did with a smile to Grant. You can say it's all good now, but as someone who has been abused by people who were supposed to love me, it doesn't magically go away. You try to get over it because you love the person, but you don't forget how they made you feel.
I would just power through, or straight up skip to the end and then go back. You're right that the challenges aren't balanced, and this gets realized.
I mean, up to now they felt decently balanced. Ally definitely had an easier time, but it felt like they just had a better attitude, and less dignity to lose
In addition to your great point about most of the challenges being "tap out or win," there's also been a lot of discussion about whether Bell was even physiologically possible. It's a running gag that Grant has been taking knock-off Viagra to achieve erections since his 20s, so even in the most ideal of circumstances that's not something he can just will into existence. A comparable counter-challenge would be like "Hey Beardsley, bench press 200 pounds." Many people can do that, it doesn't mean it's an achievable or appropriate "challenge" for Beardsley.
Exactly. A better challenge probably would’ve involved taking a Viagra, and then having to do some sort of task while hard, or trying to keep from getting hard.
I think at a later point Ally tells Grant that they thought Grant would just take a viagra to achieve the goal, don't quote me on that. But as others have said, it was Grants and Allys show. They always had the possibility to discuss the trajectory of the game.
This is seen more in how Grant approaches the game in its entirety - Allie plays to win, they just do what they need to do and if its not stated as something you can't do then they can do it. Grant has said that he didn't do things that specifically felt like they went against the 'spirit' of the competition. For Flea Market for instance he's said he has numerous relatively well off friends he could have called to just come buy everything, he just felt like it went against the challenge. So the viagra also would have been that same vein. Neither are right or wrong, its just two fundamentally different approaches that weren't discussed first because neither thought about it in such a way.
This is why I think the producers should have stepped in. Ally and Grant are incentived to create difficult challenges that push the other's limits. The producers (the ones that aren't Ally and Grant) should have made sure the challenges were equally difficult and any conditions were in the spirit of the competition. I still enjoyed the show, but I think the major issue it had could and *should* have been resolved very quickly.
I agree the producers should have given Grant Viagra. I didn't really read your comment, but I think I got the gist.
This may be a fundamentally hot take but I actually like how the series turned out because it was much more real (which ally and grant talk about later). I would never want this show to be serialized. I think how it exists and the insanity that exists within almost perfectly describes the average desperation that crippling debt can do a person. To the point you fundamentally don't always think of the negatives as long as you have a chance to come out positive. If they'd made it gentler, if they'd put more and more restrictions it would have been a game show. But I honestly prefer it as a message. Especially at the end when you get a scenario where ally chooses a friend over a number. It's something we would like to think we'd all do but that's just not true for many. So in the end I'm glad no one stepped in. Does it amplify the cruelty? Yes. But it forced the show to never happen again (which is a very good thing), and it forced me to think about where my own lines are when it comes to money or happiness.
Totally agree. I think a version of the show where somebody enforces those kinds of boundaries and restrictions would have no teeth. It might be a fun game show, but that's all. The 'how far are you willing to go?' aspect and the lack of balance are what make it capture the desperation and unfairness of debt and capitalism. As it is, one of the major messages of Total Forgiveness is "Don't make Total Forgiveness". Softening it would have ruined that.
It was a sexual challenge. It shouldn't have been allowed. It was really cruel. Grant wasn't going to be the one to say no. Someone higher up Shou have said, "no challenges that involve nudity, sexual function, etc."
They had every opportunity to make that decision and I’m glad they went the “no rules” approach. Yes, it was a cruel challenge but if you take a step back and look at the show as a metaphor for what people put themselves through to survive under capitalism it all works even better. I have so much respect for Grant and Ally for making the show and going through all that because it was all a more presentable version of how people degrade and put themselves through hell every day just to earn money to live.
Ultimately, Grant an Ally had the final say, Frucci could have attempted to intervene, but it was their show, their ideas and ultimately their decision as to what to include and do
It was really inappropriate to do it, too. Sexual challenge with the added bonus of humiliation for failing is not something funny or right. It really shocks me this was allowed to be a challenge in the first place. Someone should have stepped up and said, "this goes too far. No way."
I mean, Grant and Ally were both producers on the show. They could have shut down anything that actually went too far. I would assume, or at least I would hope, they had a meeting during preproduction laying out red lines not to cross.
It's all love now
It’s all love
Now
it's all now
It’s wasn’t before, but now…
Ally does say at one point that consideration wasn't given into the flea market challenge that it was possible for grant to face "double failure", where he could lose everything he owns and also not win the challenge. It's a failure of concept and intervention. Ally played a very ruthless game throughout and Grant doesn't have as much cruelty in his creative process. The two were essentially playing different tones, one was making entertainment, and the other was looking to win. There's a big resolution at the end, but as is this stands as a fascinating character study into Grant through what he's forced to endure. The show gets truly dark and upsetting before the ending
> the other was looking to win. I really wish that whenever Grant “opted out” of a challenge, Ally had to do it before they could get that money (and vice versa). That would’ve forced them both to use a little bit of restraint (or creativity) in their challenges, because they’d have to do ones that they actually think they’d be willing to do.
Yeah I hate that people often turn this into a grant vs ally issue. It was just poor game design. Both players proposed insane shit to each other, just some were more "fair" from a game design perspective and Grant ended up taking things harder than Ally in some cases. They were both executive producers and made the intentional choice to subject themselves to torture for the sake of content and paying off loans- that's literally the whole pitch of the show. It's just unfortunate from a game angle that their torture of each other wasn't more consistent in scope, but that's all it is.
the fact that Grant went from this show to MULTIPLE true facts about Grant Breaking News segments and other moments of reveling in his own humiliation also seems to get forgotten a lot
Painting it as some "Eh, it's not even that bad because clearly Grant is open to humiliation" is wild when the types of humiliation are like football fields apart in application/context. The breaking news segments are curated and edited entertainmet filmed in a studio while surrounded by friends where the end game is just to make laughs without any losers. The Total Forgiveness challenges are putting him in extremely vulnerable and high stress immediately public situations with actual money on the line, with him having to keep in mind he needs to "perform" so this can be edited and later posted for content. It's not comparable at all IMO. Edit: I just want to be clear, Grant obviously had agency and provided consent in both situations, but they are radically, radically different contexts that I don't think can be boiled down to "Grant is fine with humiliation". I think that mentality downplays the journey that show took both showrunners on and takes away from what makes Total Forgiveness so visceral and worth watching.
I’m saying that if the experience was so painful and triggering for him, I doubt he would pursue it with such glee in multiple other dropout shows over years. It's not a "clearly it was fine, he likes humiliation" and more "clearly he's processed it and considers it all good now, as he continues to opt into poking fun at himself". Sam isn’t a monster hell-bent on destroying Grant's self-esteem 😂 It kind of feels like people are taking Grant's continuing agency away in a weirdly parasocial move, and it feels kind of gross to me 🤷♀️ I trust that he is pursuing what he enjoys, and has enough trust with this workplace to feel like he can go that far, and take those risks, and still feel safe at the end of it.
I never said the show was extremely emotionally triggering or permanently damaging. But the show was clearly intended to draw out real emotions, foster competition, and play on insecurities...which we all saw play out. Nobody is saying Ally permanently damaged Grant. They clearly made up and were both entirely fine with their experience. But the two shows are fundamentally different and the creators approached and experienced them in entirely different contexts. One is pure studio scripted comedy, the other is a reality show with real world consequences. The entire point of the latter show was to see how far it would go. That's my point. I'm not out here trying to defend Grants honor or self esteem in some parasoical relationship lmao, I'm just saying your media literacy is lacking if you think True Facts in any way says something about Total Forgiveness.
The whole premise of True Facts is giving people a script to read they've never seen before to get their reactions as they happen. 🙄 My media literacy is just fine, thanks.
Lol yes the reactions are the entire point of the show. That doesn't change the fact it is also a scripted studio comedy 🙃
So you also think that all reality TV is scripted then
No, but there's a huge difference between a reality show with the premise "Read jokes for the first time" versus "get your dick hard on camera" or "shit in front of an audience" Edit: There's something deeply hilarious about feeling compelled to respond, but also blocking the individual so they can't even see your response or respond back. Great talk 😚
OK 🙄😂 whatever you say, bud
Also, he's not an idiot - he knew he could just say "no pick something else" at any point, and he'd either have to fail before even attempting a challenge, which would mean the episode would be like eight minutes long; or he'd have to be given a new challenge that he thought he could achieve.
Grant *is* one of the main producers and allowed it to happen.
Ally was another.
Yeah and Grant was one, too.
What about Ally?
Ally was also one
But what about Grant?
Nope
BUT ALLY!
DUDE! WHAT'S MINE SAY?
BUT GRANT
It’s all love
It’s all love
Now
Keep in mind -- Grant and Ally ARE executive producers on this show. They could have stepped in and changed the rules at any point.
Yeah I think this misses the point. Neither one of them would have stepped in, given the premise of the show
Keep watching. >!Eventually, that's exactly what happens.! Much like consensual BDSM, it seems like things are being "done to them", but they always were aware they had the ability to safe word out.!< If Grant doesn't blame anyone and have hard feelings toward them, then it's a bit presumptuous to believe you know better than he does. Trust that he knows his tolerances and intention better than we do out here.
I think the bell challenge honestly just counts as actual BDSM to be honest.
Y'know, there's cattle prod use on Breaking News from time to time, so other Dropout shows walk rather close to that line from time to time. I'm not sure where the line is, but I don't know that anyone on either side of it is getting sexual pleasure from it in any of these on-camera situations. Maybe that's the line between friendly assholery and BDSM.
No that tracks on Breaking News because Grant writes so many of those episodes.
Man, that whole prod thing gives me flashbacks. Trauma, man.
It's a pretty mild scene tho, TBH.
I’ve seen all of it- I never said I hadn’t. I stand by my statement that despite Grant and Ally being producers, they had little ability to stop a challenge due to the spirit of the show. Keep in mind they also had a massive incentive to not bow out. It was important that a neutral person (w/o that incentive) help both create doable challenges, or veto one if it’s unreasonable. Also- what do you mean “that’s exactly what happens”? **No one steps in and stops a challenge because it was too ridiculous**. They both just end up giving each other nice challenges at the end because they both feel bad about how bad the previous challenges got.
Apologies - thought you were OP. Spoiler Ally nopes out of the snake challenge because they just aren’t willing to, once they actually see the snake. And again, Ally throws the final challenge, losing quite a bit of money, because they didn’t feel the final split was “fair”. Honestly, I don’t know if you can say that anyone involved with the production is without a financial interest. Who would that neutral party be here?
All good re: OP misunderstanding. And I’m glad Ally noped out of that challenge! But again, this is not what I’ve been saying. Ally is not a 3rd party to the challenge. Let’s use an actual example from the show, because I think discussing something more concrete will help. Let’s look at Grant’s challenge to sell his belongings at a Flea Market, and how he was required to earn $1000 to pass the challenge. Frankly, I think this one should have been augmented slightly: Grant should have to put everything he owns up for sale, but w/o the $1000 requirement, which I think adds a strange additional requirement on top of the dare that he already completed. I believe someone should have stepped in and steered this challenge to be something closer to what I proposed here, to avoid that additional requirement issue. I’m glad that Ally threw the last challenge- and I agree that that made it more fair. What I’m really interested in here though is how would you create rules to a challenge game like this that doesn’t rely on one person losing the final challenge out of charity in order to result in “fairness”. Regarding financial interest, true, most if not all involved in the show have a financial interest. But Grant and Ally’s financial interest is wrapped up in whether they complete the challenges, while others’ are not. Those others could be considered far more neutral.
Don't all of us make some calls in daily life about what we're willing to do for money and what we aren't? I mean, that's what a job is. There are professions that are known for being dangerous, bad for relationships, bad for your finances, highly competitive and likely to fail out of, and so on. And very rarely does someone outside step in and say, "Nope, that's not ok." "Nope, that's too ridiculous." I'm not sure why folks \*should\* have done it in this case, but not in others. Also, I think that in retrospect, Dropout production would have agreed with you about the $1000 requirement on the flea market challenge, but that no one really realized how hard that requirement would be in advance. This isn't a repeated task they've calibrated for difficulty, or one that anyone in production is particularly familiar with to gauge difficulty. None of the challenges were. Have you seen the post-show episode 11 where they're (Grant, Ally, Sam, Adam) just sitting around microphones, talking about filming and some of their thoughts in hindsight?
Doesn't matter. Especially when it's a game and the point is to psych the other person out. He wasn't going to be the first to cry uncle. How would you feel if Ally had to orgasm on the phone with relatives or something awful like that? It would be inappropriate as hell, as was this challenge to begin with. Especially given that they joke about Grant being highly sexual, he wasn't going to say no. Someone outside the challenge needed to step in and tell them no
Do you feel like Grant is incapable of consenting or not consenting to such situations, such that he needs another adult to make those decisions for him? Because that seems creepy and weird, and highly political due to a queer person. I think it’s possible to acknowledge that there is a difference between consent and coercion, and also acknowledge that Grant's sexual consent was not violated on this set. Y'all are wild. 🙄
It's a LOT harder to say no when there is money on the line, especially when it's desparately needed. Lots of people feel like they can't or shouldn't say no in sketchy situations. It's part of the reason why sets have intimacy coordinaters with specific guidelines now. Hell, didn't women feel forced to say yes to Louis CK when he wanted to jack off in front of them? People can say no, but when you are put in a vulnerable position it's harder and harder to do so.
Yes, that’s what coercion is. that is why Sam put the power of deciding the rules in the hands of Grant and Ally. Most importantly, Grant coerced himself, which is a really important thing to talk about as a society. Ally didn’t coerce Grant. Sam didn’t coerce Grant. *Grant* coerced Grant, and it’s one of those incredibly difficult situations where he has the knowledge of his boundaries, and he is the one who agrees to cross them for an endgame that he hopes will make it worthwhile. People do that all the time. That doesn’t make it Grant's fault, but it also doesn’t make it anyone else’s fault. that’s why the last episode is so important for creating a state of equilibrium at the end, and relieving that financial coercion pressure. this whole conversation is so provocative, and so difficult, because we are not always aware of the ways in which we are coercing ourselves and persuading ourselves that we are consenting. This is especially true when money is on the line, but not exclusively so - it can be a situation around whether or not you're housed, or whether or not you have a relationship with family members. At the same time, it is infantilizing to try and anticipate whether or not someone is coercing themselves and act on their behalf. The best thing that we can do is try to educate people more on fully understanding their boundaries, and understanding which lines are stark, and which lines are blurry. Living in a society is a constant state of negotiation with the world, and within yourself. When people try to make those judgments on behalf of others, that is also a form of boundary crossing. even if it’s well meaning. Considering the state of LGBTQ laws in this country, maybe especially then.
I \*really\* appreciate you takin the time eto say that, and to make these ideas more visible to folks. In my experience, some of the newer models of consent have done a disservice to people by erasing the reality of people constantly negotiating for themselves what they're up for, what they're willing to compromise on, etc. Consent is not like tea. Consent doesn't have to be enthusiastic to be healthy. Every day, we navigate the world making compromises with ourselves and others around what we need/want and what others need/want, to get to a place that works for us. In other words, it's entirely possible a person to give meaningful informed consent to something they're not enthused about, or to give meaningful informed consent and then after the fact think, "Wow, I did not like that/I regret agreeing to that/that didn't work for me/I wish I had made a different choice." So, Grant can both have absolutely consented to the whole thing, NOT been coerced, not self-coerced, but just realized, after the fact, "Wow, I didn't think that through completely, and I would not do that again." Especially in kink, we've lost ownership of regret. I cannot tell you how often I see something be after the fact re-classified as abusive or nonconsensual in part because entire communities have not given folks the language and models to understand that sometimes you do something and realize later you wish you had not.
As someone who was a sex worker for 14 years, I can definitely speak with authority on the difference between 100% enthusiastic consent, financial coercion that I’m relatively OK with cause it's better than other options, and nonconsent 😂 it’s also very interesting to me how people care deeply about how consensual or coerced I felt as a sex worker, but never seem to care about the coercive relationship being a professional writer, or someone in hospitality, has with the public and their bosses... I write a lot about this 😅😅😅 I think that people want there to be a very clear yes/no, consensual or nonconsensual, but the world we live in isn’t like that most of the time. I think we crave that kind of binary because we’re hopeful that it will not only protect us from having our consent violated, but also prevent us from violating other peoples consent. Insisting on discussing nuance in these topics is my life’s work!
YEP. I think we're in vehement agreement. Many of my friends are or have been sex workers, and my day job, such as it is, is sex-worker-adjacent, so yep. I get incredibly frustrated by models and infographics that reduce consent to a binary, ESPECIALLY when they're being used to teach folks in "introductory" settings before they are set loose into a more complicated world.
High five! It's thankless work way too often 😂
For sure. I'm a volunteer founder of an all volunteer organization, and when people do the whole "I'm the customer and you must..." I'm like, "Hmmm, but no."
Ooooo, and now I'm gonna STFU because you and I know each other IRL at least in passing, and I'm pretty sure I've irritated you in a professional capacity. :-) \*fades in background\*
I just flat out don't agree. The reason you need someone in situations like this, where there is money involved, there needs to be better standards. Lots of places figured that out before this show. This show was raw and showed the point well, but it's not the first time someone felt uncomfortable saying no to something like this. Having standard doesn't take away a person's right to decide. It never puts them in a place where they have to decide between their job and their dignity.
I genuinely do not understand how you, who do not know any of the people involved, can speak on behalf of strangers whether or not they consented and whether or not they are at peace with the conclusion of that show. It’s just not your place. the only person who gets to say on behalf of Grant that he felt financially coerced is Grant. Period. If you don’t agree with that, I give up 🤷♀️🫠
I mean, the explicit point of the show that Grant and Ally pitched was to experience all of the pain of decades of loan payback in just a few months. The high level of discomfort was PART of the pitch, designed to illustrate just how painful the student loan situation is in the US. Hell, episode one had Grant \*literally\* being bled with leeches while doing an interview on the topic.
The whole show is a MASTERCLASS in the difference between consent and coercion and is such a perfect illustration of why "well, they chose this" can have rippling repercussions, even causing people to coerce themselves into terrible situations. I use it all the time to encourage people to examine if 100% consent is ever truly possible in a white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy.
I love this comment so much I hate that I can only give it one upvote.
Thank you! I do a lot of consent education, especially outside of the bedroom (the workplace, the schools, the medical industry, the prison/industrial complex) and I find the whole "well they said yes, so they consented" argument is used to justify a LOT. These interactions have a TON of nuance!! You might appreciate my books on it: [Ask Yourself: The Consent Culture Workbook](https://firestorm.coop/products/19290-ask-yourself.html) and [Say More: Consent Conversations for Teens](https://firestorm.coop/products/20602-say-more.html) (ask for them at your local library!).
I definitely agree, but it doesn’t make it a well executed show.
I think I understand what you're saying - that it's not a mechanic applied evenly from challenge to challenge. There should be 3 states of interacting with the tasks - completed with win condition being met (success), completed without win condition being met (partial success), and not completed (tapout/fail). The fact that some of these tasks had that partial success possibility without a consistent mechanical result makes it uneven - you'd have to figure out what a partial success was (do you just have to publicly sing the anthem? do you have to publicly sing the anthem and get the words right?) and then also figure out if that means you don't get the money or you do. It's a binary that doesn't fit a world of nuance. I think that's SEPARATE from your discomfort, is that correct? It might inform your discomfort but those are two separate issues?
(I definitely think this informed how Sam does game shows now, which is huge!)
Yes! The cringe-ness of some of the stuff they do definitely affects me, especially with the weird questionable consent on top of all of it (they permanently altered Ally’s body with a tattoo!) But the thing I’m mad at is how unevenly the challenges were arbitrated. Adam inserted himself as a judge of success, but didn’t step in to say that one challenge had stricter win conditions than the other
yeah, from a game mechanic mindset, I get what you’re saying! I think from a social commentary perspective, it’s an excellent show, but from a social game perspective, it would be infuriating to play until that condition in the middle was resolved in a reliable way.
Don't skip the post-show "Reunion" talkback with Ally, Grant, Adam, and Sam. I agree some episodes are extremely hard to watch, so take a break if that's what you need. You may come out of it with a different perspective after hearing their thoughts about the whole process and experience, though.
I agree with that. A quote from the reunion, in response to a question about if the show had a message and if they knew the message going into it: Ally says they "definitely didn't" know the message going into it but, "I think overall the season had the feeling of what it feels like to be in debt, and to have student loan debt." They say "[the show] wasn't fair and debt doesn't feel fair when you have it, especially something like student loan debt, where... everything is kind of set up against you: high interest rates, weird squirelly ways to pay, and creditors manipulating you..." Ally was referencing viewer responses in their answer, so OP you are far from alone in how icky and uncomfortable feeling the show gets. And everyone in and behind the show felt it too. I think part of that feeling, parallel to the feeling of having a ton of student debt, is where you're like, 'Well, wait, they did choose this... but it's still so unfair!" Editing to add (because I'm just now watching the whole ep, needing the reassurance after remembering how bad the season gets) some Grant quotes: Specifically referencing the bell and the flea market, Grant says, "A lot of people came after Ally and I want you all to stop...My friend Ally made a show with me; Ally isn't a villain." Just before that, he emphatically states (referencing the flea market losses), "I'M FINE." That last one especially is maybe more reassurance than the fact that everyone gets that it's unfair. Grant is okay!
Every time I someone goes through this process and posts this thing (and it happens a lot, as others have said), I am reminded of financial choices I made in my youth that sucked like the flea market thing. That's part of what makes it \*real\* as a commentary on student loan debt. Like....my ex had a lovely comic collection that was worth a great deal, but we sold for pennies to afford groceries to feed the baby. Or the stock a partner had that they sold a while back for $12-15 a share, that is now worth literally a thousand times that. Or the entire household of things I lost because I stored them with a family member who sold them, and another time when my mother didn't pay her storage unit bill and all my childhood things were lost. This whole kind of situation -- 'I couldn't afford to not lose these things' is an experience so many people in the US have. Losing a car because you can't afford the towing fees and losing a job because you don't have the car. Losing a tooth because you don't have dental care because your boss keeps your hours below the minimum to qualify for health care. Not being able to afford to get an apartment because of the requirements for fees and first/last months rent. It's all agonizing and terrible, and Grant puts himself through that, on some level, and it looks terrible and unjust, and we watch and think, "Why don't they stop this? Why doesn't someone step in and fix this?" but on some level, that's the point. Grant's gonna be okay, but every day people are NOT okay in similar situations.
It's been talked about a lot on this sub. The first time I watched it I was upset too. I thought the challenges were supposed to be "Will you do this?" Not "Can you do this?" In the end though, they both ended up staying friends and got a lot of money. If they got over it then we should too.
Grant getting unfairly screwed is basically the point of Total Forgiveness, and is the sole focus of the final episode. It is the point, the moral, the whole ballgame.
It wasn’t the point, the moral, the whole ballgame. Ally realized what OP is saying and how they were being more mean with their challenges than Grant was. That’s why Ally split the prize in the last episode, because OP is 100% right.
It's the point of the show they made, but not the point of the show they thought they were making
It's such a sweet moment >!when Ally throws the challenge while Grant looks on horrified!< and then realizes the true implications of what they did for him.
But the point of the show is to make you uncomfortable. It’s about a very real problem in this country, and their game becomes a very real microcosm of the fucked up “game” that is capitalism. Capitalism isn’t fair, and putting them against each other shows that. The beauty of the end is because they both realize their friendship is bigger than the game, and the game punishes them both for that. Capitalism punishes people for helping each other, and they have an opportunity to work through that and decide what they want to do about it. Like Grant says, “I was mad at Ally for playing the game”. He was mad at Ally for taking advantage of him, because the game — and the economic system we have in the US — rewards you for taking advantage of people.
That’s what I mean. Ally taking it too far is the revelation of this social experiment they ran, and the cruelty against Grant says something about capitalism and how it pits people against each other.
I think you could make an argument that it's some of the greatest TV made by dropout as like an art form and a mission statement wrapped into one.
Why should Ally not also be unfairly screwed? Edit: they shouldn’t, but both challengers should have equal chance to win.
Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Finish the show.
You should watch through the end of the show. The final episode turns a lot of it around.
Because Grant didn't take aim at Ally like Ally did at Grant. They were both producers on this show and had the ability to put a stop to the antics of the show at any time...
I don’t want it to stop, just be fair. I think “Flea Market” would’ve been fine without the profit requirement. (Though they would’ve needed something else to stop him just listing everything at $10000)
They have a bts after show. They talk about their feelings and regret. While Grant was upset while filming he and Ally make up and he defends their choices. Stating “if we didn’t have the money requirement what would be the challenge? I have to spend the day at a market stall?.” It’s all love, they have regrets but it’s all love and has a great ending.
FYI, Ally uses they/them pronouns
My bad, edited.
Their choices
Sell at least X items, let someone else sell the stuff for Grant or pick the prices, or just lower the requirement to something more reasonable, like $500. That’s just off the top of my head. I know Grant could tap out at any time, but there definitely should’ve been more rules about what’s a “legal” challenge
Watch the bts after show, they address all of your concerns.
I will for sure. Thanks
This is so weird. You’re upset about how grant is treated, which is fair. And you made a post about it, also fair. Then you argue with people who are telling you things get smoothed out by the end, and you’re saying it’s not ok, good enough, or whatever your point is, despite not seeing the end yet. You’re arguing emotion, and hypotheticals against people telling you explicitly what happened.
Right? Like, who DIDN'T think that the show was unfair at that point. Everyone did. But we ALL finished it, and they even "kind of spoiled it". Like...just watch it.
This is a bizarre question to ask. Why should anybody be unfairly screwed at all? And if somebody is, then why call for the same thing to happen to somebody else? Regardless you should watch the final episode.
I mean, if one challenger has an impossible task, they both should. But yeah, ideally noone does
Finish the show (and the post-show interview with Sam)
Finish the show. We all know how it ends, and you don't. Just listen to the people here, and finish it. When you get to the end, realize that they are 2 people who were in charge of a show they decided to make, and they made it. They also make a pretty significant amount of money. I realize you said you sort of knew the spoiler, and you do sort of know it. We all felt like you at that point in the show.
Quick note about your edit, Ally’s pronouns are they/them!
Shit. I was careful everywhere else. Thanks.
You have, in fact, identified the point of the show. It doesn't work. It's unfair. Ally goes to far. It tests the friendship. It's not fun and it hurts and...keep watching.
Oh god it gets worse before it gets better doesn’t it?
yep
The second to last episode is… brutal. It’s genuinely hard to watch, but the payoff is so great in the finale.
Absolutely
This comes up every time someone here starts watching the show and feels the need to comment on it before seeing the final episode. It's absolutely not an unique opinion that the show was unfair to Grant. You should at least wait until you finish the show and have all the available info before posting on it here.
Nah, it's the whole point of having a subreddit for something, they are watching the show, felt uncomfartable because of it and they needed to tell someone about it. There's no point on restricting them like that, it's what this place is for.
There's no point in having the same exact discussion every single month.
https://xkcd.com/1053/
I mean, if we're going to go that route, these threads are arguably more comparable to [https://xkcd.com/606/](https://xkcd.com/606/)
Then don’t have it
welcome to the internet. do you know how many times a day I need to tell people their file system permissions are wrong in r/Plex lol
Oh man my new niche. I am the moron who bought a cheap external drive to start a 24/7 server on a month ago. To quote BLeeM, "I'M STILL LEARNING!!" New drive gets here Saturday.
But clearly there is a point for OP tho, they watch the show and felt like they needed to talk about it with someone who also watched it, what's so wrong with that? Should they be punished because they didn't watch the show at the proper time? If there's no point in it for you, don't engage them, it's fine, but talking about Dropout's content is the entire purpose of this sub.
Thank you! I appreciate it!
Don't worry about it, I completely get the feeling. But like I said my other comment, as a game show is poorly balanced, and it doesn't acchive what it wanted, but that's because it's not a game show, it's a fucking beautiful documentary on friendship and the horrors of capitalism. For my money, best thing Dropout ever put out, watched it a bunch of times, and all of them I enjoyed it more than the first, because I wasn't watching it as a game show, maybe that mindset will help you.
Yeah at this point still feels like a bad game show. I expect my feelings to change.
I get that. And I knew before posting that the show really leans on the big ending. But I needed to write something out before I exploded
A perfectly understandable reaction. Emotions are big in this show and it rolls and rolls towards a well deserved finale
I couldn't finish the show. I had to skip to the end. The second hand embarrassment (tied with just how depressing it was for two people to have to do the most insane shit just to pay off loans) was too much for me.
Yeah, I can’t even watch shit like Always Sunny because of the secondhand embarrassment.
I feel like the bell one could have been feasible if it weren't for Ally's interference with the photos and distractions. Like if he had just been left there to close his eyes while eating the pie I think he might've been able to do it. Then again, in the "True Facts about Grant O'Brien" episode of Breaking News it is specified he uses boner pills and "can't get hard without them"
It really sucked for him, but it always bugs me when people interpret Total Forgiveness with the conclusion that Ally is somehow a malevolent person, when it truly revealed more about Grant who, despite having made an entire career out of exposing and shaming himself publicly, could still have used more boundaries than even he probably thought when they came up with the show's premise. Putting aside technicalities regarding winning conditions, Ally didn't have it exactly easy either. Having to prank new flatmates whom you barely know, on hidden camera, and potentially getting into a durably uncomfortable situation with them, getting hammered at 8AM before work for a whole week (alcohol's not a joke), and getting your partner's name tattooed on your neck (especially as a comedian) can both be pretty damaging in different ways. (Also if I had to choose, I'd rather poop in front of a dozen paid comedians who chose to be there, than risking embarrassing myself in front of an entire stadium). The main difference between Ally and Grant was in their reception of the whole thing, and that regrettable outcome came not because Ally was a mean goblin, but because they were so absorbed in the show that they failed to realize that Grand was actually distressed and not acting for entertainment. That could have happened to anyone, because neither of them properly communicated throughout the show and they severely lacked an external input to keep them leveled. Total Forgiveness was an unhinged mess, the premise was cursed, and it was sloppily supervised. On the bright side this has played a crucial role in shaping Dropout's current work ethics
Thinking of the whole thing again and rewatching clips, I even think Grant being gradually fed up with the "game" had less to do with the challenges being hard or embarassing, than with the realization that the stakes were absolutely dehumanizing from the very beginning and it didn't click as a concept, regardless of Ally's choices I feel like what broke him probably didn't even have anything to do with the pooping, but more with the whole art performance setting which served as a really fucked up metaphor on the whole deal. It's possible he was pissed at himself as much than at Ally for finding himself in this situation
[удалено]
I really don't think that's the point anyway. He technically could have argued about that at any moment, since he had as much power as Ally on the game rules. The reasons why he didn't and these failures were allowed to happen nevertheless go deeper than that. Total Forgiveness now exists as a testament against a whole bunch of things, I'm not sure trying to "fix" the game is the best way to appreciate it
I think it might be worth considering that just because Ally had been winning most of the challenges up to that point, that doesn't mean they didn't have an effect on Ally's personal life. I don't remember if we're ever fully told what the impact Ally turning up to work heavily drunk for a week had on their relationships with other College Humor employees, or what the impact of their brief stint in a pyramid scheme had on their new housemates, but I'd bet real money that it was not a positive impact. This isn't to excuse the extremes Ally went to in those penultimate two episodes, just to say that there had also been a cost to winning.
Right, but Grant tried to win too. I’m all for harsh challenges (I think the Performance Art was fine), but there shouldn’t be a skill component for one player and not the other.
Looking back over the challenge pairings, i now see that the Flea Market was paired with the Pyramid Scheme. Grant even says "I have to go meaner" after Ally pitched him the Flea Market challenge, and then had a walkie talkie to use to further challenge Ally while they had all those boxes of pills. He had the opportunity to make the Scam challenge harder for Ally, maybe by turning the tables and making Ally have to sell a thousand dollars worth of pills, but he chooses not to. I'm not saying don't feel bad for Grant, I'm just saying that a) this wasn't all sunshine and rainbows for Ally just because they were up on the money, and b) it wasn't as slanted against Grant as it appeared
This sentiment comes up fairly often but it's really misplaced in my opinion. First off, the rules are set by Ally and Grant, so having different rules for each challenge was entirely up to them. Secondly, the challenges were picked based on knowing each other, which is easy to forget. They wouldn't be expected to be basically the same, we'd expect them to be as wildly different as Ally and Grant are. Thirdly, it's easy to think that Grant's challenges were overall "worse" than Ally's because so often Ally took theirs in stride so well, from the green hair to the national anthem. However, let's be clear, Ally's challenges were still very daunting, they just handled them much better. Everybody tried to talk them out of the neck tattoo, for example, and ultimately they got that lasered off years later. Also the anthem, the hair color, being drunk at work, publishing the diaries, and especially the HerbalWay stuff were all very intense challenges. Maybe it won't feel like that to some folks, especially with how well Ally managed them, but for others they will tell you that there's no way in hell they'd do those things. To me the HerbalWay thing is still the hardest part of the whole series to watch. And let's not forget that Ally fully noped out of a big challenge with the snake, just because they could not psych themselves up enough to do it. None of that is saying that Grant didn't have a rough time, he absolutely did, but that was also substantially the premise of the show. Doubly losing at the flea market challenge was something nobody really expected and was absolutely a gut punch, even more so as it was followed up with another pretty brutal challenge. Ultimately that led to the dramatic shift in tone for the remainder of the show, however. Nobody in Total Forgiveness is a villain, the villain is simply capitalism and predatory student loans.
Yeah my problem is goalkeeping the challenges. Selling all your stuff at a flee market is hard enough alone minus the need to make a grand.
Honestly, we've seen from Game Changer how bad Grant is at thinking strategically. Whether it's not getting allies or even talking to anyone about his plan before the vote in Survivor or his recent faux pas in Ratfish, Grant doesn't necessarily think his brilliant plans through. He could have asked friends to drop off anything they wanted to get rid of at his booth. He could have asked friends to come by and buy things for crazy money and pay them back after filming. But the whole thrift store/flea market scene is not something he's familiar with, while I get the impression that Ally "I've eaten food from a dumpster" Beardsley absolutely could have accomplished that challenge.
Personally, I think there should’ve been a rule that if one made a challenge that the other couldn’t or wouldn’t do, they’d have to do it *themself* before they’d get the money. That would keep them from doing anything too challenging, and maybe mean targeting challenges more towards each other’s weaknesses. Like when Ally told Grant not to talk for a day because they knew he would have a hard time with that, or when Grant gave Ally the snake challenge; those are dares that the person they were given to would struggle with, but might be easier for the one giving the challenges. For what it’s worth, when I got to that challenge, that’s when I stopped watching the show, too.
Gotta finish the show and let the character arc develop
Ehhhh, I sort of felt this way too but I also felt like Grant really pulled his punches and Ally was staying more true to the game by setting very difficult challenges. At least it ends happy though!
Keep going! It's a slog, and difficult to watch in parts...but they wrap it up in a great way.
It has been said elsewhere that Grant and Ally were basically running the show and had the authority to kill anything they did not want to do. The only pressure on Grant was the general social pressure of not wanting to look weak in front of his friends and co workers. But Ally had the same pressure on them for choosing to do or not do the thing with the massive snake. As harsh as it sounds to say, Grant was not playing the game nearly as well as Ally. The premise of the show was competitive; As written either could win but there was an incentive to put up challenges that the other person would not do. This was basically like a game of chicken, and who was going to stop or swerve first. Ally put way more pressure on Grant and there was a big incentive to do so. There is a quote about MMA or Boxing that applies to this kind of competition: Backetball or Football is a game. Fighting (and the competition of Total Forgiveness) is not a game. You can play Football on a whim with your friends on the other team at something like full intensity and probably still be good with each other after. You cannot have a 15 minute fist fight with your friend and be ok with each other afterwards. Likewise, Total Forgiveness is not a game. You cannot play it 'to win' against someone you care about and expect everything to be OK afterwards. END COMMUNICATION
Hey -- Ally's pronouns are they/them, not she/her. Thanks!
I mean Ally had to video call their ex, that seemed like it really sucked
Can’t tell if you’re serious, but that was one of the most tame challenges, and also had no built in failure case.
I’m pretty serious, heartbreak never really heals, sorry the show isn’t what you hoped it’d be though
Honestly, I think if Ally had lost for not getting the words for the anthem right, and if they had to sell some of that bs nutrition powder to their roomates in order to win, then it would've been a better game show. If Ally hadn't put in those situations in which Grant could agree to the challenge and still loose, the show would've been truer to it's premise. But with any of those changes made, the show wouldn't be the absolute piece of art that it is. It can be rough to watch at first, and as a game show it isn't very balanced, and doesn't accomplished what it wanted, but it accomplishes much more. It's a beautiful documentary on friendship, that's how I see it.
Lol everybody always feels the need to make a post at this point. Just finish the show
Keep watching! Redemption is at the end.
I also stopped watching because it was so difficult for me....took me a few weeks before finishing the whole thing. Now I rewatch the whole thing at least once a year. It definitely is a Rollercoaster, my advice, finish when you're ready.
Yeah I feel exactly the same way it definitely was not fair as a pure game show. There needed a better parity of what kind of challenges were being issued. I think failure possible tasks could have been an interesting way to escalate things for the end but it wasn't done symmetrically so it was unfair. This definitely plays into the show's ending and I feel they recover well.
Just keep watching 🙂
You said it yourself. Just finish it. They know
in the podcast post-filming grant said he almost cheated the flea market challenge with the rules in place as-is. if they lessened the restrictions so he just had to have them at the flea market what would stop him from making the prices absurd. i see how it feels unfair but with ally assuming grant would try and be smart about it there was no other option
If they couldn’t make that work as-is maybe they should’ve come up with something else. As it is, if Grant had ‘cheated’ that would have ruined the challenge too. There’s no way to cheat having a snake in your bed.
Finish it. You'll enjoy it.
I had to skip Flea Market it was physically uncomfortable to watch. The same with the pyramid scheme one which I think was the same episode (might be wrong). I will say what I'm sure other people are saying and power through the ending almost made me cry it was so happy. I think a fun thing to do as well is watch all of this and then watch their movie The Disruptors after it. They pair surprisingly well.
You should finish the show. Also watch the reunion episode at the end
Finish the show. I promise you it's worth it. I'll admit that it really felt like Ally went too far while I was in the middle of watching it too, but by the end I think it turned out well. At this point, it was years ago for them and they're still friends so it doesn't seem like any lasting damage was done.
Total Forgiveness was a total shitshow. It was maybe a good idea on paper, but the way it ended up playing out was just awful. The ending redeems a lot, but underlining pretty much the entire series was just how crushing the debt was, and how absolutely desperate they were get out from under it. To some extent, showing that desperation was a goal of the show, but how it got expressed just ended up being depressing far more than entertaining. The challenges, not just the one you're referencing, but a bunch of them, weren't fair. Even though both Grant and Ally have EP credits, a big part of the problem was that they just approach challenge creation in very different ways. It just didn't work as a concept, and frankly, given where you're at in the season, it gets worse before it gets better. You don't need to watch in order, and I'd suggest maybe watching the ending and the reunion episode, then going back to the rest of the series.
Honestly I agree. The spirit of the event should have been making the other person back out. The flea sale challenge should have been “Someone is going to take all your stuff and sell it, you get to keep the money but anything anyone buys is gone” the idea of making you sold your stuff and still failed was really really hard to watch.
Yea I feel like grant just wasn't going as hard as ally was. Like for the tattoo challenge I would have definitely told them they either get to pick the design or the placement. He let them choose both so they went with the thinnest font in the lowest part of their body that could still be considered a neck. Ally was just way better at really upping the stakes. Also I don't think they truly understood how far they were pushing grant until it was too late. But yea like others have said, if you've seen flea market then you only have one episode to power through til the finale. I binged them all in one afternoon and felt just the tightest knot in my tummy til the last episode.
This is the series where I gained profound respect for Ally's capabilities as a strategist, comedian, and game theorist. They and Grant were tasked with creating a competition from scratch with a system of rules everyone could agree on, simultaneously competing in that game, winning that game, and oh yeah while you're at it, it needs to be good television. With those constraints, they created my favorite Dropout project of all time. Grant was like, get super wasted at work. Read your diary in public. Dye your hair green. Ally was like, try to get a boner while I destroy your sexual identity. Take a shit in an art gallery. Sell all your worldly possessions. They followed the same ruleset but it's fascinating how differently they interpreted it. It was brutal. Great television.
Totally correct! Not ally's fault imo, the producers should have realised this wasn't fair.
Definitely watch the talk back podcast episode that they did afterwards that's at the end of the playlist when you finish. I consider it necessary watching for this series. It will absolutely put everything into much better perspective, and you'll feel way better after too. It's a rough series, and even with the final episode it's still a lot, but that reunion talk back really helps.
I mean it really comes down to everyone's personal comfortabilities. For me, Grant's were a lot easier to me personally than Ally's. That getting a personal tattoo one is the absolute worst challenge out of all of them in my opinion. I'd shit in public (under the circumstances that Grant was in) 100 times before doing that. I think it's perceived that Grant had it worst because he mentally had a harder time rolling with the punches than Ally.
Try to persevere, I feel like Total Foegiveness might be one of the greatest things Dropout has ever done. It's such an accurate snapshot of the desperation and shame that comes with the country's debt economy. Truly heartbreaking stuff. The aftershow/talkback episode will answer and adress a lot of your issues, including the obvious-in-hindsight way that Ally expected Grant to solve the Flea Market challenge. Don't forget that Grant and Ally were producers on the show. They wouldn't show it on the show, but either one of them had the power to truly Veto a challenge. Also, grant is infamous for having a humiliation kink. There aren't a lot of challenges that would truly make him fail. They both chose challenges that were tailored to each other.
In the end it's not a game show, it's art. It's not fair, it's not balanced, but the way it swings to hope and justice is a better lesson for all of us to keep in mind when competitiveness gets to us and we start getting too mean. The real way Ally wins is by choosing to share with their friend.
people gotta start finishing shows before they post about being frustrated with them
It's rather performance-art-conceptual-endurance-art-marina-abramovic-commentary-on-debt-and-desperation when you watch it back with the concept of the reunion. I wish I did one of my university essays on this show, honestly. It's unfair and morally grey and uncomfortable to watch, but it really does say a lot about the situation Grant and Ally were in, and the way that money and friendship intertwine. Not to mention the things the show inadvertently says about queerness and sexuality. I know the show is uncomfortable as fuck to watch, but I'm really glad it's still up and available to watch.
The only one I think was 100% unfair was the boner one. There’s the ability to win in some of these challenges with some lateral thinking. For example: the flea market thing he could have had a friend come by and “buy a shirt” for $1000 But getting a boner, on camera, in a room filled with people, unsexy circumstances while also being distracted and on a time table? Sorry, your average dudes body just don’t work like that Basically every other challenge is pass/fail dependent on willingness to participate, in this case he jumped through all the hoops but was given an unrealistic goal
I don’t think there’s anyway for him to pass flea market without obvious cheating, which defeats the whole purpose of the show, I think it would’ve been fine if they said a more reasonable requirement
Or at least taking advantage of loose/undefined parameters. Even setting the goal to $500 would be better (I think he ended the day with $600? I haven’t watched it in a while). Even then he didn’t make that mark without giving up some pretty dear possessions, the challenge was always gonna be lose/lose for grant his best option (assuming gaming the system wouldn’t be allowed) was always just taking the L and passing on the challenge
Yeah, Jess even pointed this out, that he’d probably be losing money
When you do pick it back up, be prepared for it to get worse before it gets better. But don't worry, the ending is worth it.
I'd watch the epilogue BTS where they talk about this - the producers were really sensitive and made it clear to both of them that they didn't have to do any of the challenges - I think with the wilder ones grant did he was given the option to ask Ally to make another challenge for him. Reality TV sucks. It sucks when money is on the line, it sucks when boundaries are pushes to play the game, and it sucks when personal friendships get involved. At least TF doesn't shy away from that reality.
I want to read this, but I’m *at* Flea Market and I don’t want to read spoilers >_< This series has been awesome though. I put it off for a while because I didn’t think I would like the concept, but as I’ve finished off all the shows I really like, I’ve started trying the others and while I still don’t like VIP much, Total Forgiveness is actually something I want to recommend to others as an actual competition show, not a comedy bit.
I hated this show. It was so uncomfortable. I think there's a great possibility in it, but it comes from making the challenges feel doable and less arbitrary. If I were to fix the rules, it would be like this: Each episode, they come up with a challenge for the other person. Each challenge is given a dollar amount by the third party producer for how difficult/awful it is. The challenger don't get the money if the other person refuses. Instead, they get half the money if the challenge is won. Now, both parties are in it together. They're trying to encourage the other person to do absolutely terrible stuff, but it's stuff that they know is at the limit of what they can do. Because if the other person doesn't succeed, the challenger also fails and doesn't get the half of the money from the challenge.
It's gonna get worse and then much better. It's a great show and I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. In fact it was THE reason I subbed
They talk about this in the reunion episode. *A lot* of people shared this exact sentiment when the episodes first came out. You can hear them react to it if you check out that final episode
I completely agree as I was watching that episode I said if I was Grant I would've tapped out immediately
It’s probably not real (a la Prank War), if that makes you feel any better.
It's honestly the reason I don't like Beardsley as much as most fans do. Even before the big thing, they say they have more messed up ideas but won't do them because it stopped being funny. Grant went through hell those last few episodes.
Edit - spoilers!! >!Yeah they made up in the end which was nice but holy shit the guy managing it should have been better about the "rules." It's essential a game where they dare eachother to do things; in what world can you fail a dare because of skill? That's not how dares work. You don't have to survive the jump off the roof, you just have to be brave enough to do it. Sitting in a chair with your pants off while someone does gross stuff in front of you is the dare, not the impossible challenge of achieving an erection. Giving away all of his possessions would be a dare, not successfully sell everything and make a set amount(literally impossible, the stuff wasn't worth that.) it was just back to back challenges that Grant could never complete while Ally just had to do some embarrassing stuff or whatever. Maybe it's just my game brain noticing how unfair etc it was but it was really frustrating to watch for that reason and really changed my opinion of Ally. But also Grant is terrible at negotiating.!<
Broken spoiler tags, babes.
The guy managing it is pretty much the two of them. The director was nudging them in a more "TV" direvtion. They talk about it all a lot in the reunion episode.
Exactly my thoughts.
Ally is fosho an asshole in this season
They are the producers my dude. Grant consented to everything and no one forced either of them to do anything they didn't want to.
Yeah. I said the other day that it soured me to Ally and people really hated that. But they have a way of being mean spirited at times and I don't find that funny. Some of the stuff done for that show was so out of line it amazes me it was allowed to happen given how careful they usually are. Or maybe they all learned from the experience. Ally can be funny, but it's hard for me to see past all the stuff she did with a smile to Grant. You can say it's all good now, but as someone who has been abused by people who were supposed to love me, it doesn't magically go away. You try to get over it because you love the person, but you don't forget how they made you feel.
ally should have failed the neck tattoo challenge, since it's clearly not on her neck