MovieChat Forums > The Hero (2013) Discussion > Charles' outrageously manipulative ploy ...

Charles' outrageously manipulative ploy backfired


His calculated, phony show of selflessness in offering himself for elimination was intended to win the sympathies of both the other contestants and the viewers, thereby inducing the others to eliminate someone else and strategically positioning himself to win the final vote.

It was all rather transparent, but for those who didn't realize immediately what Charles was up to, his reaction during the reveal of the final five gave it away. The closed eyes, the tearing up, and the shaky voice were not indicative of a man who was prepared to go home and voluntarily leave $610,000 on the table, but of a man who was reluctant to leave and shocked and dejected that his devious plan had backfired in spectacular fashion.

reply

Would love to be a fly on the wall for his wife's reaction. I wonder if he was so much of a front runner that they offered him money to leave early (off camera) so the outcome would have some suspense.

reply

Would love to be a fly on the wall for his wife's reaction. I wonder if he was so much of a front runner that they offered him money to leave early (off camera) so the outcome would have some suspense.


The funny thing is, last week The Rock actually did make that exact offer to Charles on-camera. After Charles completed the hero's challenge in the soccer stadium, The Rock told him he could choose to keep the $80,000 and go home, or stay in the game and eliminate someone else. Charles chose to stay and eliminate someone else, which further shows that he was bluffing last night and that his gesture was just a manipulative ploy. If Charles had been serious about sacrificing himself for the rest of the group, as he claimed, he would have done it when he had the opportunity last week.

His wife must be absolutely PISSED, not only because his failed ploy cost him a shot at the $610,000, but because had he actually been serious, he could have sacrificed himself the previous week and at least walked away with $80,000.

It's almost comical how badly Charles' scheme backfired.

reply

+1

reply

At that point he didn't know they'd take it from 6 to 5. I think he was genuine, I just hope Patty doesn't win, she's annoying as hell.

reply


Charles chose to stay and eliminate someone else, which further shows that he was bluffing last night and that his gesture was just a manipulative ploy.


great observation!



"Vive la mort, vive la guerre, vive le sacre mercenaire."

reply

I actually rooted for him until that moment, so glad his reverse psychology failed.

reply

Regardless of ploy, he deserved to be there a lot more than any of the others, and most especially Marty.

I think this opened the door to Patty.

reply

You don't know that.. during the show he's been the most wholesome character there. I don't see any manipulation coming from him at all. And even if he did have an ulterior motive, he's still the best decision to win. I don't think any of the others really deserve it. They haven't shown anything heroic about themselves and most of them are completely selfish.

I hope no one gets the money at the end and there's some surprise twist. None of them deserve it.

---
Idiots

reply

I agree with your last sentence. Everyone left is so unlikeable.

I guess Patty seems the least unlikable, especially after she did the building walk. But she's still an annoying crybaby. Maybe Darnell but he already got some money. Marty is a world-class pansy, spoiled-brat, douchebag so not him. Lydia I still remember going batchit crazy at Athena so not her. Dr. Dave seemed like the most weasel of them all with his sneaking around behind others' backs and trying to manipulate the challenges/eliminations so not him.

If Charles was still around (and he would be if he didn't pull that 'eliminate me' bs) I'd root for him to win. Everyone else is just too unlikable.

I guess as long as its not Marty or Dr. Dave.

reply

The closed eyes, the tearing up, and the shaky voice just show that he is emotional, nothing else.

I don't believe in your conspiracy theory because it won't succeed at all. The whole 'eliminate me' stunt makes people think he is the hero, which makes his chance of winning higher. But others, knowing that he would likely win, will vote to eliminate him. Any smart person will not do that unless he wants to leave. So this is not a manipulative ploy because him doing so will actually manipulate others into eliminating him. Simple logic.

reply

No, that's faulty logic on your part because you're assuming that Charles' assessment of the ploy's prospects for success could only have mirrored your own. Your "any smart person" assertion is a textbook example of the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Ask yourself this, if Charles was serious about sacrificing himself and not just posturing, why did he turn down The Rock's offer at the end of the previous week's hero's challenge to do exactly that? The Rock gave him the option of keeping the $80,000 and going home, or staying in the game and eliminating someone else. Charles passed on the opportunity to sacrifice himself and opted to stay in the game and select someone else for elimination.

The evidence is rather overwhelming that Charles was merely posturing and was not at all intending for his bluff to be called.

reply

Ask yourself this, if Charles was serious about sacrificing himself and not just posturing, why did he turn down The Rock's offer at the end of the previous week's hero's challenge to do exactly that? The Rock gave him the option of keeping the $80,000 and going home, or staying in the game and eliminating someone else. Charles passed on the opportunity to sacrifice himself and opted to stay in the game and select someone else for elimination.

The evidence is rather overwhelming that Charles was merely posturing and was not at all intending for his bluff to be called.


I'm not so sure he knew then that he wanted out. During the elimination when Rock asked for an explanation he said that the money was always tempting to him, but his heroic moment was getting to the point where he could just leave that greed and lust for money behind. I'm not seeing where you're getting that he was being manipulative at all. I'm not seeing any "evidence" as you claim, but rather a whole lot of speculation. He told everyone to vote for him. They all felt bad about sending someone home, and now this guy gave them a guilt-free way out. Of course they were going to vote for him..

And like I said, regardless of any of this, he was still the most likable person there. I don't think anyone left deserves the money.

---
Idiots

reply

I completely agree, as I stated in another post I actually think Charles was completely genuine when he asked the others to vote him out. There has never been anything to indicate that he is scheming, conniving, or just plain manipulative. As cynical as I am and I prone as I am to see the worst in people and as much as I don't really like police officers, I've got admit that think Charles was just a good guy who felt like he wanted to embody the word "hero" as best he could, he is someone that puts his life on the line everyday for people that he doesn't know and I think that this was just another sacrifice he was willing to make. In that moment it was no longer about the money.

I get that it's hard for most of us to believe that someone could walk away from that kind of money but people do it all the time. Charles may or may not come to regret his choice but with nothing other than speculation and conjecture to go on I say let's give Charles the benefit of the doubt because he has shown us nothing more than being an upstanding guy.

reply

I find it funny that you say "you're assuming that Charles' assessment of the ploy's prospects for success could only have mirrored your own" when that's actually quite true for your theory as well.

If Charles was only interested in winning, why did he choose Patty over Dave in the hero's challenge a few weeks ago? If he was only interested in winning, why didn't he eliminate the strongest competitor when he had the chance; he had to be fairly certain that Athena was not the greatest threat to him. The answer to your question about why he turned down the offer from the previous week is possibly tied into this: he may have been trying to make sure that the field contained the people he felt most deserved to be there. Plus, as someone else answered, who knows what differences might have happened in Charles' state of mind between the time that the Rock made his offer and when the news of the vote off was revealed?

Furthermore, Charles is the one person who stated that it was not about money for him; he said it various times, and his actions were consistent with that. Your premise is based on the idea that his motives are based on money; take away that assumption and your theory falls apart.

Sorry, but your own argument is far from flawless and the evidence is far from overwhelming.

reply

I find it funny that you say "you're assuming that Charles' assessment of the ploy's prospects for success could only have mirrored your own" when that's actually quite true for your theory as well.


I find it funny that you evidently don't understand the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The fallacy is not making an assertion and then offering evidence in support of that assertion, as I did (i.e., "Charles' gesture was a manipulative ploy because of X and Y"); rather, it is a form of circular reasoning whereby the proponent defines a group so as to assume a conclusion about the group and exclude counterexamples (e.g., "No A are B" "Here's an example of A that are B" "Well, no true A is B").

One is, of course, free to reject my contention about Charles for evidentiary reasons, but the previous poster's attempt to refute it with an "Any smart person..." argument is invalid as a matter of logic.

reply

I find it funny that you're trying to say that I don't understand something when in fact the thing are you claiming I don't understand was not something I even talked about. You made an assumption that Charles was posturing with no real evidence at all as to your theory of why he made his decisions on the two occasions mentioned. You say you made an assertion and then offered evidence in support of it, but the truth is that there was no evidence offered at all. All you had was your belief that he was posturing; you assume that the money had something to do with his decision, but as I said, it's an assumption on your part, and if its not true, then your argument falls apart.

As to the previous poster you mentioned, bear in mind that I did not say anything about his points or that I agreed with his logic; therefore, trying to invalidate my arguments by refuting his argument is both futile and illogical.

reply

I find it funny that you're trying to say that I don't understand something when in fact the thing are you claiming I don't understand was not something I even talked about.


I find it funny that not only do you not understand the begging the question/"no true Scotsman" fallacy, but you are apparently so clueless as to be oblivious to the fact that that fallacy was the subject of the comment you quoted when you incorrectly claimed "I find it funny that you say 'you're assuming that Charles' assessment of the ploy's prospects for success could only have mirrored your own' when that's actually quite true for your theory as well."

Reading comprehension, along with logic, do not appear to be among your strong suits...whatever those may be.

You say you made an assertion and then offered evidence in support of it, but the truth is that there was no evidence offered at all.


You might want to look up the word "evidence," because you demonstrably do not understand what it means. Evidence was manifestly offered, both in my original post and in my response to chrishomingtang. One might personally find that evidence insufficient. One might interpret that evidence differently. But one cannot claim "there was no evidence offered at all" without exposing themselves as either a rank liar or an illiterate. Which are you?

As to the previous poster you mentioned, bear in mind that I did not say anything about his points or that I agreed with his logic; therefore, trying to invalidate my arguments by refuting his argument is both futile and illogical.


Once again, your inability to grasp elementary logic manifests itself. The other poster's argument was germane to my previous response to you because you claimed, incorrectly, that I employed the same flawed reasoning as he did. As such, illuminating the stark distinction between his argumentation and my own was both facile and, far from being "illogical," logically essential in refuting your bogus claim.

reply

i agree with op. i was laughing at crybaby charles' lame attempt at fake heroism. i laughed even more when he got voted off and you could tell he was obviously disappointed and spouting garbage to cover his disappointment. the icing on the cake was the shot of him leaving through the door without a single penny lmao. i was half expecting the rock to say "here you go buddy you're such a hero for sacrificing yourself have 50k on the house", but no the rock watched his sorry penniless ass leave and the door shut behind him lmao.

another thing that made me laugh was how the rock kept saying $610k was a life changing amount of money when he earns millions (UPON MILLIONS!) of dollars every movie he makes lmao

this show is entertaining for all the wrong reasons hahaha

reply

Well, $610k *could* be "life-changing" to middle-class folks.

reply

You're right, my point was that the rock is stinking rich and its ironic hes the one telling them its a life changing amount of money, to him its just chump change.

I also laugh at his fake forced reactions to their emotional crap, he doesnt care at all about these losers and probably has a team of dermatologists give him a thorough shower and scrub down after they stop filming the scenes where they jump on him and hug him lmao.

reply

Whats funny about The Rocks "life changing" comment? That kind of money is life changing for most everyday people, The Rocks networth is irrelevant in regards to that comment. Also, The Rock is one of the few genuine celebs who do care about the everyday man. He was homeless and sleeping on mattresses from dumpsters. People who go through things like that tend to be sincere. I didn't sense any falseness from The Rock, he's always the same.

reply

Yep!

Marty's dumb azz was going HOME and Charles was gonna WIN if he would have kept his pie hole shut... the last challenge at the Soccer field with his hot little wife of screen soldified his win!

But noooooo..."I found my manna, let me go!"

dummy...I still like him (second to Shaun) but back the beat on Wilshire flat foot..good luck!




"Vive la mort, vive la guerre, vive le sacre mercenaire."

reply

I knew it was a calculated move but I still wanted him to win over that hypocrite Darnell and that useless nag Patty.

Stop, Drop and Roll doesn't work in HELL.

reply