Personally, I thought it was great that Nat refused to "play ball" and didn't do most of the task. I think it shows more guts to say no, I am not doing it - knowing what sort of reaction that will get. Why should Nat allow herself to be manipulated into doing any task she is given. It was great entertainment watching Ant and Dec squirm, the only downside was that she didn't pull Dec in with her.

Yes, she signed up to be in the programme but that doesn't mean she has to be manipulated into doing everything she is told. She already did one task - which she did well.

Surely it is more interesting to have a character such as Nat, who is a complex human and unpredictable, than some of the other dullards.

It is also open to question whether she should be in the show as she is showing great emotional unstability. I presume they see psychologists but maybe they want unstable people in there - hey, that will make better viewing - sod the individual - lets make great tele.

Regarding Sophie, I didn't like the way Nat acted but, it sounds as if she only said to Sophie's face what everyone else was saying behind her back. I know which I would prefer.

FB

Yes I thought that as well I really do hate the editing on these shows , why on earth cant they just show it like it is
and let us make up our own minds ? why do they HAVE to have a favourite ? is it because some are more marketable than others ?

the editing will really be the death of reality shows soon

Depends on what you want to see. Jason was 'unfairly' editted in BB5, yet Natalie is 'really like that'. or Jason is 'really like that' and Natalie is unfairly editted. Take ya pick. or any combination of the two.

I think editting is more to do with a story line they think will get viewers watching, rather than them having any favs or 'chosen ones'.

I agree up to a certain point FB , if she just went back and said there was no way I was doing that and thats that !! I would say well respect to her
But she never she played it up to the hilt and acted like the baby of the camp , I think the others when they watch her doing it when they come home will be fuming at the way she laid it on and let them all fuss around her

doing it for kate thornton!

i take it all back - she's gone too bloody far this time.

Iain

nat is an attention seeking brat, who wants everything her own way, a 5th rate, minor celeb`, who has been primed by her `p r` people to do anything to get noticed. She is shallow and pathetic,.... We can all see her for what she is, and she should be thoroughly ashamed of her behaviour.

Fine, you have just shown me not to read your posts again then. Defender of obvious idiots and attention seekers.....

Well spotted

Well I was a Jason fan on BB5. He was defintely edited in a pretty bad light with his preening and looking like a misery guts on the edited show, and yet on the livefeed at night with Victor, they both kept the night owls in stitches with their bitching. All depends on what you want out of your RTV show I suppose.

Unfortunately on I'm a Celeb none of us has the benefit to see what's really going on due to the cuts in sound on the livefeed. Therefore, we can only make the best out of what we do actually hear and see. Obviously the producers are going to make a caricature out of a particular character and Natalie has taken the bait. It could well have been Sophie had Nat kept her cool and not made such an arse of the task. Oh and also her hysterics on the first night of arrival.

ILet's face it, if you were the producer of this show, which way would you play it?

I can't see how Natalie can even begin to redeem herself now. Perhaps if it ran as long as BB she'd maybe have a chance, like Jason did, but it's too short so it doesn't look likely.

If Natalie wanted to redeem herself, I think she should go to the telegraph and explain that she has been overacting the part of a spoilt, desperate, immature, bitchy, dim, attention seeking insecure wannabe minor celeb to highlight how annoying people like that are. Then she should be "normal" and laugh about it. Somehow I don't see that coming though ...

Behaving normaly IMO, would be to grin and bear it for the sake of your fellow contestants. You so know now that there will be bitching about food and that will give Natalie another chance to go on about how she's afraid of absolutley everything and she's so sorry for letting everyone down.

For overacting, mega-melodrama and sheer childlike petulance she should have been forced under the surface of the fishguts until she agreed to stop name-dropping, acting the spoilt **** and pissing about with what amounts to a very costly satellite feed.
Then drag Dec in the fish guts (and the feathers and cockroaches, which I noticed were making a bee-line for Ant and Dec's feet later on...)
I wonder, if like me, your TV has a very tough cathode ray tube as can I hell as like get my foot through it when I see Natalie...

It was just a bad live television programme, an attempt at reeling in the viewers that went awry. We were left gazing at the "Top 3 Trials" emergency screen. It was obvious they weren't prepared for an early finish...

Which is why I ask myself, if these guys do edit everything to get a particular celeb to do the trial - surely they would not have chosen Natalie - the one least likely to go along with it?

Which brings me to my point - Natalie obviously behaved the way she did and wasn't unfairly edited - she was just annoyingly bitchy and argumentative. And now I must contemplate the fact that maybe we, the British public, do have some control over who gets the trial... scary.

No, it was edited so that we can have great fun on this forum debating about her. Give her credit - what else would we be talking about. I say keep her in.

Oh, I don't want to get rid of her - at least, not straightaway. But that is the one thing I like about I'm a Celebrity in contrast to Big Brother - the "positive" voting means that the dullards are the ones that leave first.... therefore, Natalie's safe until midway through the evictions, at least.

Absolutely. Let her suffer (and us) a while longer.

Back to the title of the thread (No More Live Trials), I get their ratings take a dip. that was THE most boring 1/2 hr of prime time TV !

That's spinning things a little....praising her bravery for caving into her fear......

Hi Mes,

not really, it takes more guts to say no than just go along with things. Most of the celebs just get manipulated into doing these tasks they don't want to. Why, shouldn't they say no.

Nat, must have realised that her not doing much of the task would not go down to well with the public or the other celebs.

Nat had to conqueor her fear of heights the other day. Why should she feel she has to do another task just to prove her bravery to the GBP. So, why shouldn't she "cave in to her fear" as she put it, I am sure that is something most of us do most days.

Lets be truthful, how many of us would do these challenges - or maybe we could do some of them but not certain ones.

FB

^^^ Sorry But i know for a fact that anyone with a REAL fear of heights would never even walked across the bridge let alone go up on that wire

there feet would not let them move an inch

I'm sorry FB...you really are spinning things....It takes guts to do the thing you don;t want to....when you're on a TV show doing things for charity and your teammates....you are not braver for refusing to do it....She showed cowardice not bravery....She totally caved in to her fear....to claim this is a sign of bravery on her part is going way to far....

Mes, me old fruit,

we never seem to agree .

Maybe my interpretation seems wrong to you but I still maintain it takes guts to go against the norm, which is what Nat has done.

Clearly, it also takes guts to do some of these tasks if you are frightened of heights, snakes or whatever. But a lot of the celebs just do them to further their own careers in the name of helping their fellow celebs to get a meal. Maybe, Nat is not that deparate to succeed. Afterall, success is not the be all and end all of life - failure is part of the learning curve too.

I mean, look how quickly they adapted to Brian going.

I am not sure I like Nat, although she is an interesting, unpredictable person but, then again, the amount of stick she is getting is way OTT, IMO.

Perhaps if some of her detractors told us what acts of bravery they had carried out lately, I might have more respect for their views. Otherwise, it seems a bit much, to look down on someone because they didnt do a silly trial.

kisses

(not for you for the wee one ).

FB

The thing is...if it takes guts to do a task...and it takes guts not to do it...then it's a bit of a win win situation isn't it.....I think you're spinning her cowardice into a strength when it isn't one....

"Perhaps if some of her detractors told us what acts of bravery they had carried out lately, I might have more respect for their views." That's a interesting way to wiggle out of it.....simply say you don;t have respect for people's views if they haven't wrestled an crocodile.....but then again...we need only refuse to do something brave and we'd have guts surely

Mes, I am deeply and utterly hurt.

First you ignore my kisses and then you give me the blue sulky one.

Firstly, whats wrong with win-win situations. It just seems to me that people knock others just because they don't conform and act in the way the GBP think they should.

Secondly, if people haven't been in a certain situation then their views have less value IMO than if they have. Its easy to throw mud from here but none of us have actually been in the celeb's shoes, so I get a bit naffed off with all this stick Nat has got.

Thirdly, bravery is surely subjective. What you would consider brave, might be nothing to someone else and vice versa.

FB

Mes and FB you clearly have us baffled

Not at the debate, but at the clear chemistry you portray. Hell, not physical, I mean intellectually.

You two should set up something. Anyway, I'm not intellectual enough. but you should get something going like a 'I agree'. 'I don't agree' sort of scenario. I think it would be brilliant.