...
I do think a group discussion would be extremely beneficial though. It would allow Amy and Lucy to put their case; it would be very hard for anyone to lie, if they were all there, since they have been living so closely together. Of course it would be possible for people not to fess up to a private conversation, but that is the least important thing. It is conversations or alleged conversations that have been public, or publicly 'outed' that would be exposed to examination. And it would be fascinating to watch.
I think all of that is wrong. It would not be beneficial; it would not allow Amy and Lucy to put their case; it would not be hard to lie (or to claim something was a lie when it wasn't), and your 'public' vs 'private' distinction is questionable and would leave out some of the most important things -- such as the ones that show Lucy and Co have problems with Amy that aren't about chores or contraband.
They're not in the sort of position we are, where we can watch clips and are continually reminded (though often incorrectly) of what was done and said. Nor would they be able to discuss as objectively and dispassionately as we at least sometimes try to do.
It wouldn't work, and I don't think I've ever seen anything like it work in any reality show.
I agree. I gave up on the others last year. Is it because of all the magazine deals with OK, Heat, etc., like the young contenders and the showmances? If that's the case then why do they bother getting interesting campmates in the first place? They might as well just stick with the Helen Flannigans and TOWIE cast.......
What interesting campmates did they get?
None of them seem very interesting to me, not even the ones I like.
None of them seem very interesting to me, not even the ones I like.
We don't know if they are interesting or not as the highlights only seem to feature Amy first it was her and Joey, then the discontentment amongst the group at Amy's lack of team spirit.
They appear to have fun in the jungle but the producers choose not to show us those bits.
I think all of that is wrong. It would not be beneficial; it would not allow Amy and Lucy to put their case; it would not be hard to lie (or to claim something was a lie when it wasn't), and your 'public' vs 'private' distinction is questionable and would leave out some of the most important things -- such as the ones that show Lucy and Co have problems with Amy that aren't about chores or contraband.
They're not in the sort of position we are, where we can watch clips and are continually reminded (though often incorrectly) of what was done and said. Nor would they be able to discuss as objectively and dispassionately as we at least sometimes try to do.
It wouldn't work, and I don't think I've ever seen anything like it work in any reality show.
Exactly Veri. This is why I explained that this kind of public discussion could only be possible if it was directed and chaired in some way which simply wouldn't fit the format at all.
Clearly getting everything out in the open would be preferable but that seems an impossible achievement to me but Lucy asking Al what he actually said is not only highly achievable but an entirely reasonable thing to do.
I appreciate it may end badly and or the 'truth' may not come out but it seems weird IMO that Lucy doesn't even try to do this.
Exactly Veri. This is why I explained that this kind of public discussion could only be possible if it was directed and chaired in some way which simply wouldn't fit the format at all.
Clearly getting everything out in the open would be preferable but that seems an impossible achievement to me but Lucy asking Al what he actually said is not only highly achievable but an entirely reasonable thing to do.
I appreciate it may end badly and or the 'truth' may not come out but it seems weird IMO that Lucy doesn't even try to do this.
I think Lucy suspects she's been viewed negatively, as her friends have gone, and she's simply trying to ignore it all in case it turns out to be a stick to beat her with.
She's not really succeeding, she'd have to act completely unbothered by it all and be happy happy, and she's not capable of it.
... Lucy asking Al what he actually said is not only highly achievable but an entirely reasonable thing to do.
How on earth did Lucy become the victim in this?? Lucy was party to, and guilty of, the bad-mouthing of Amy, who cares who was the ring leader? Amy's feelings appear to be of secondary concern to Lucy's.
And just imagine what the anti-Amy brigade would have said if Amy only brought back 3 stars in her trial. It doesn't bear thinking about.
...
Yes, but we were both being 'informally statistical'. My informal statistical view was that, a) the majority of women discussed on the showbiz forum are young and attractive, so it would be quite noticeable if most of the bitching was about older or less attractive ones; b) Some of the bitching is indeed about older and less attractive ones; and c) Men are on average less discussed, but still seem to attract a proportionate level of bitching when they are.
It doesn't make a difference to what I said that your post can be described as "informally statical" too. In any case, much of your post was pointing to individual cases. You're still making much the same mistake by saying "some of the bitching is indeed about older and less attractive ones". So what if some of it is? What AOTB said wasn't categorical; it wasn't supposed to be without some exceptions.
Also, you're now changing what you said. You said "but most women in showbiz ARE young and attractive"; now it's "the majority of women discussed on the showbiz forum are young and attractive" -- which works even less well.
That men are less discussed works better against your view than for it; and it's far from clear that they attract a proportionate level of bitching when they are discussed.
I singled out Olivia Wilde because she strikes me as indisputably, extravagantly beautiful; but the lists were full of people like Anne Hathaway (nominated several times), Cary Mulligan and other beautiful young actresses.
I found the thread. I don't think it works very well for you, since it even includes women such as Jodie Marsh who have been criticised to an almost unbelievable extent. It clearly won't do as a list of women who aren't much criticised. Another interesting entry is this one:
Zoe Ball - read the 'nice and nasty celebs' thread and you'll not hear a bad word said about her.
There have been plenty of bad words said about Zoe, for instance when she was in Strictly Come Dancing, or earlier in her career when she was (dare I say it?) younger.
And if Olivia Wilde stands out to you compared to the others, that still suggests that the others aren't all that fantastic looking. In any case, the post you quoted wasn't only about looks but also about whether they'd seem a threat. I suspect that considerably narrows the choice of examples you could pick, though there certainly are some. It's trickier, though, to pick one who also isn't much criticised. (Olivia's relative obscurity helps there.)
It is a peculiar feature of the showbiz forum - and the reason why it seems bitchier than most - that it is frequented by a lot of people who fundamentally loathe the whole world of 'celebrity' and its manufactured stars. People like Dame Judy Dench do not sell stories of their weight loss to Now magazine, or encourage their agents to start a rumour that they are dating Calum Best. In fact celeb magazines (take out Hello, with its monumentally dull features on minor European royalty) have a remarkably small cast of characters: reality tv stars, all young, mainly female; a couple of young, female WAGs; whoever has got the current weight loss slot, always female, generally young.
So I think saying that the Showbiz forum is always bitchy about attractive young females is missing a link, and that celebrity magazines are the missing link. the Showbiz forum is bitchy about people who are always in the celeb magazines, and celeb magazines focus heavily on attractive young women. Attractive young women who are never in the celebrity magazines (or only snippets in the 'this person will NEVER give us an interview' editorial pages) do not get bitched about, or barely. I mean if you take Gisele Bundchen - by far the highest paid model in the world - she doesn't feature on the showbiz forum that much, but when she does it is nearly always in those 'hottest women in the world' threads; if she appeared on Celebrity Salon flirting with someone from Geordie Shore people might start making bitchy remarks, but not yet; and it would have to be judged against her actual behaviour.
It doesn't happen only in the showbiz forum. I think the showbiz forum was chosen because the language was especially bad there, because such comments seemed to be the norm there, and because they were even defended.
Besides, you evidently want us to think (a) that the Showbiz forum is bitchy about people who are always in the celeb magazines (and not about other celebs), (b) that the celeb magazines focus heavily on attractive young women, but that (b) can't be a reason for (a). That is, it can't be that the forum's bitching is mostly about people who are in the celeb magazines partly because the people who feature in the magazine are mostly attractive young women. It seems to me that it might be you who's missing a link.
But that surely works worse the other way round. There is no one who attracts comments so vicious as a fat woman on a rtv show.
Even if that were true (which is doubtful) it would not mean that the looks of good-looking, young women aren't a very significant (or even the main) factor in causing the objectionable comments about them.
I also think -- and this relates to the issue of what comments count -- that some people think nasty comments about a heavier woman's looks are especially bad, so that they're seen as more significant (and sometimes more numerous) than they are. For instance, we've seen in Big Brother (and not only in that show) that a heavier, less good looking, woman can be popular, and that her lack of looks can even seem to be a reason. That there are also some nasty comments about her looks does not negate that.
(Yes, good looking women can be popular too, and their looks can be a factor in that; but they nonetheless tend to be given a smaller 'margin of error', and judged more harshly than women who are less good looking.)
Yes, I agree that there is no way of automatic counting that could work, and that it would be fatally easy to bias the counting. It's the kind of thing I can imagine doing though. I do like a nice statistic.
I think you left out a key point: I don't think it's possible to do it properly by hand-counting in a reasonable amount of time.
I also don't think there's any way you could present the results that would let people tell whether they were correct or not.
None of them seem very interesting to me, not even the ones I like.
We've not really had an opportunity to discover how interesting any of them could have been but I can't believe that the are all as dull as ditchwater. By interesting I mean those with life experience such as David, Matthew, Annabel, Steve, Alphonso, Rebecca and Leila/Mo. They must all have great stories to tell and surely that's why we all loved former campmates such as David Gest, George Takei, Janice Dickenson, Carol Thatcher????
Just compare this series with series of previous years and it illustrates that IAC is on his last legs...........
We've not really had an opportunity to discover how interesting any of them could have been but I can't believe that the are all as dull as ditchwater. By interesting I mean those with life experience such as David, Matthew, Annabel, Steve, Alphonso, Rebecca and Leila/Mo. They must all have great stories to tell and surely that's why we all loved former campmates such as David Gest, George Takei, Janice Dickenson, Carol Thatcher????
It's certainly not why I loved them, since the only one on your list I even liked in IAC was George, and he seemed quite dull.
Carol Thatcher fooled a lot of people here. Is she somehow still popular? :eek:
Anyway, although I am interested in some people's stories, I wouldn't pick any of David, Matthew, Annabel, Steve, Alphonso, Rebecca or Leila/Mo (or any of the younger ones). Similarly, I wouldn't read their biography or autobiography.
I want to see how they handle the challenges this show offers, not hear their stories. If their stories are what makes them interesting, they should be in a different sort of show.
Just compare this series with series of previous years and it illustrates that IAC is on his last legs...........
I think it's been rubbish for years. I'm not sure it's much worse this year.
Comments
I think all of that is wrong. It would not be beneficial; it would not allow Amy and Lucy to put their case; it would not be hard to lie (or to claim something was a lie when it wasn't), and your 'public' vs 'private' distinction is questionable and would leave out some of the most important things -- such as the ones that show Lucy and Co have problems with Amy that aren't about chores or contraband.
They're not in the sort of position we are, where we can watch clips and are continually reminded (though often incorrectly) of what was done and said. Nor would they be able to discuss as objectively and dispassionately as we at least sometimes try to do.
It wouldn't work, and I don't think I've ever seen anything like it work in any reality show.
What interesting campmates did they get?
None of them seem very interesting to me, not even the ones I like.
We don't know if they are interesting or not as the highlights only seem to feature Amy first it was her and Joey, then the discontentment amongst the group at Amy's lack of team spirit.
They appear to have fun in the jungle but the producers choose not to show us those bits.
If we don't know, that that also applies to "why do they bother getting interesting campmates in the first place".
Exactly Veri. This is why I explained that this kind of public discussion could only be possible if it was directed and chaired in some way which simply wouldn't fit the format at all.
Clearly getting everything out in the open would be preferable but that seems an impossible achievement to me but Lucy asking Al what he actually said is not only highly achievable but an entirely reasonable thing to do.
I appreciate it may end badly and or the 'truth' may not come out but it seems weird IMO that Lucy doesn't even try to do this.
I think Lucy suspects she's been viewed negatively, as her friends have gone, and she's simply trying to ignore it all in case it turns out to be a stick to beat her with.
She's not really succeeding, she'd have to act completely unbothered by it all and be happy happy, and she's not capable of it.
How on earth did Lucy become the victim in this?? Lucy was party to, and guilty of, the bad-mouthing of Amy, who cares who was the ring leader? Amy's feelings appear to be of secondary concern to Lucy's.
And just imagine what the anti-Amy brigade would have said if Amy only brought back 3 stars in her trial. It doesn't bear thinking about.
It doesn't make a difference to what I said that your post can be described as "informally statical" too. In any case, much of your post was pointing to individual cases. You're still making much the same mistake by saying "some of the bitching is indeed about older and less attractive ones". So what if some of it is? What AOTB said wasn't categorical; it wasn't supposed to be without some exceptions.
Also, you're now changing what you said. You said "but most women in showbiz ARE young and attractive"; now it's "the majority of women discussed on the showbiz forum are young and attractive" -- which works even less well.
That men are less discussed works better against your view than for it; and it's far from clear that they attract a proportionate level of bitching when they are discussed.
I found the thread. I don't think it works very well for you, since it even includes women such as Jodie Marsh who have been criticised to an almost unbelievable extent. It clearly won't do as a list of women who aren't much criticised. Another interesting entry is this one:
There have been plenty of bad words said about Zoe, for instance when she was in Strictly Come Dancing, or earlier in her career when she was (dare I say it?) younger.
And if Olivia Wilde stands out to you compared to the others, that still suggests that the others aren't all that fantastic looking. In any case, the post you quoted wasn't only about looks but also about whether they'd seem a threat. I suspect that considerably narrows the choice of examples you could pick, though there certainly are some. It's trickier, though, to pick one who also isn't much criticised. (Olivia's relative obscurity helps there.)
It doesn't happen only in the showbiz forum. I think the showbiz forum was chosen because the language was especially bad there, because such comments seemed to be the norm there, and because they were even defended.
Besides, you evidently want us to think (a) that the Showbiz forum is bitchy about people who are always in the celeb magazines (and not about other celebs), (b) that the celeb magazines focus heavily on attractive young women, but that (b) can't be a reason for (a). That is, it can't be that the forum's bitching is mostly about people who are in the celeb magazines partly because the people who feature in the magazine are mostly attractive young women. It seems to me that it might be you who's missing a link.
Even if that were true (which is doubtful) it would not mean that the looks of good-looking, young women aren't a very significant (or even the main) factor in causing the objectionable comments about them.
I also think -- and this relates to the issue of what comments count -- that some people think nasty comments about a heavier woman's looks are especially bad, so that they're seen as more significant (and sometimes more numerous) than they are. For instance, we've seen in Big Brother (and not only in that show) that a heavier, less good looking, woman can be popular, and that her lack of looks can even seem to be a reason. That there are also some nasty comments about her looks does not negate that.
(Yes, good looking women can be popular too, and their looks can be a factor in that; but they nonetheless tend to be given a smaller 'margin of error', and judged more harshly than women who are less good looking.)
I think you left out a key point: I don't think it's possible to do it properly by hand-counting in a reasonable amount of time.
I also don't think there's any way you could present the results that would let people tell whether they were correct or not.
We've not really had an opportunity to discover how interesting any of them could have been but I can't believe that the are all as dull as ditchwater. By interesting I mean those with life experience such as David, Matthew, Annabel, Steve, Alphonso, Rebecca and Leila/Mo. They must all have great stories to tell and surely that's why we all loved former campmates such as David Gest, George Takei, Janice Dickenson, Carol Thatcher????
Just compare this series with series of previous years and it illustrates that IAC is on his last legs...........
It's certainly not why I loved them, since the only one on your list I even liked in IAC was George, and he seemed quite dull.
Carol Thatcher fooled a lot of people here. Is she somehow still popular? :eek:
Anyway, although I am interested in some people's stories, I wouldn't pick any of David, Matthew, Annabel, Steve, Alphonso, Rebecca or Leila/Mo (or any of the younger ones). Similarly, I wouldn't read their biography or autobiography.
I want to see how they handle the challenges this show offers, not hear their stories. If their stories are what makes them interesting, they should be in a different sort of show.
I think it's been rubbish for years. I'm not sure it's much worse this year.