Originally Posted by DaisyBill:
“Stating your own opinion as a fact is being a little arrogant as far as I'm concerned.”
“Stating your own opinion as a fact is being a little arrogant as far as I'm concerned.”
That's your opinion.
Eh? How??
3 of 5
Originally Posted by scone:
“Oh dear it's called irony and sarcasm love. Bill is a woman's name? Well whadya know, I learned something new today. Big star for me”
“Oh dear it's called irony and sarcasm love. Bill is a woman's name? Well whadya know, I learned something new today. Big star for me”
Are you referring to my 'username'? Bill can be either male or female. Daisy is [usually] a female name.
Now off you go and practice your sparkling wit and sarcasm on someone else. Love.
Originally Posted by DaisyBill:
“Are you referring to my 'username'? Bill can be either male or female. Daisy is [usually] a female name.
Now off you go and practice your sparkling wit and sarcasm on someone else. Love.”
“Are you referring to my 'username'? Bill can be either male or female. Daisy is [usually] a female name.
Now off you go and practice your sparkling wit and sarcasm on someone else. Love.”
I am very witty aren't I? Thanks for noticing love
EDIT: Oh I forgot, about your name, I assumed you were a man because of the Bill bit, I totally disregarded the Daisy part of it as I thought you was a man, I do apologize, however DaisyBill - so I have just been informed - is some kind of compensation scheme for us working folk, so keep up the good work
Originally Posted by Kabradoon:
“Eastenders is a blight on this country. The sooner Albert Square is nuked to dust, the better.”
“Eastenders is a blight on this country. The sooner Albert Square is nuked to dust, the better.”
I find it perfectly easy to avoid it (and the other soaps, none of which I would give house room). I read, or go on the computer or watch another channel. Sometimes I even telephone my friends.
I do understand what you mean. But TV has always had soaps and they fill a void in others' lives. I suppose we can't all like the same things.
Originally Posted by scone:
“It is not simply my opinion, it is the opinion of quite a few people, but unlike others, I did not pick up the phone and vote, hence why the winner wasn't who I expected.
And there are real grounds for deciding who is the best, Ashley did more in that camp as we ALL saw with our own eyes, Charlie did hardly anything which we too saw with OUR own eyes, it's not purely subjective
Continue trying to get a rise out of me DaisyBill?????? A man are you? Because it won't work, oh and if you say i'm arrogant then I must be, I'm just going to look at myself in the mirror some more. Please reply, I will get back to you, I love all the attention you are lavishing on me.”
“It is not simply my opinion, it is the opinion of quite a few people, but unlike others, I did not pick up the phone and vote, hence why the winner wasn't who I expected.
And there are real grounds for deciding who is the best, Ashley did more in that camp as we ALL saw with our own eyes, Charlie did hardly anything which we too saw with OUR own eyes, it's not purely subjective
Continue trying to get a rise out of me DaisyBill?????? A man are you? Because it won't work, oh and if you say i'm arrogant then I must be, I'm just going to look at myself in the mirror some more. Please reply, I will get back to you, I love all the attention you are lavishing on me.”
BIB - Says it all really.
Originally Posted by Cally's mum:
“I find it perfectly easy to avoid it (and the other soaps, none of which I would give house room). I read, or go on the computer or watch another channel. Sometimes I even telephone my friends.
I do understand what you mean. But TV has always had soaps and they fill a void in others' lives. I suppose we can't all like the same things.”
“I find it perfectly easy to avoid it (and the other soaps, none of which I would give house room). I read, or go on the computer or watch another channel. Sometimes I even telephone my friends.
I do understand what you mean. But TV has always had soaps and they fill a void in others' lives. I suppose we can't all like the same things.
”
I find Eastenders depressing and when I turn over and catch the end of it, it's always someone shouting or crying, do people want to watch all this sadness and depression especially over christmas time when some folk get even more depressed as some people spend the festive season on their own, I think the soaps need cheering up, no explosions, murders, deaths or WHY, just a nice, happy occasion for a change
Originally Posted by doe_a_deer:
“I'm pretty upset at losing out on £350 which - sadly - would be a significant winfall for me and I do intend to write a letter to someone involved in the making of the show, demanding an explanation to the points I raised above. This is a genuine, considered grievance and not just heat-of-the-moment anger at losing a bet.”
“I'm pretty upset at losing out on £350 which - sadly - would be a significant winfall for me and I do intend to write a letter to someone involved in the making of the show, demanding an explanation to the points I raised above. This is a genuine, considered grievance and not just heat-of-the-moment anger at losing a bet.”
So, because you lost money betting you're spitting your dummy out and complaining?
When you gamble, you win some, you lose most. If you're not prepared to lose your money, don't gamble it in the first place. Sorry, but it does come across as "heat-of-the-moment anger" to me. I doubt very much you'd write to them if you hadn't lost some money.
Clearly the voting was very close - Ant & Dec said the leader of the voting had changed since they had been on air, meaning Charlie got a boost of votes and overtook Ashley in the final hour. I put it down to eating trial, personally, as Charlie's reaction made people relate to what she was going through more than Ashley's reaction of "just get on with it."
Also, the "it might be you" selection isn't the bottom two. If you go back and look at previous years - normally around 25% of them are not the real bottom two. Yes, that means 75% was the actual bottom two, but we can't possibly know which is real and which is not (until the voting figures are released, at least).
I hope you've learnt your lesson as using Digital Spy as a guide.
As a fan of all reality TV shows, I use every reality TV forum on this site, and I can tell you that 90% of the time, the winner 'we' choose - as a whole - normally fails to win.
DS is a big site, but we're still a minority.
There's a mixture of reasons our favourites fail to win:
- Majority don't vote
- We analyse everything that is said and done and put a negative spin on it. Example: Charlie's shown airing her opinion about Helen. DS members have branded her "jealous", "bitchy", "hateful", "insecure" etcetc. The more casual viewer won't make such conclusions based on one or two comments and will think "fair enough" and move on.
Also, anyone claiming ITV played their part in making Charlie win really are talking rubbish.
Charlie was ignored after the first few nights up until the final four. Ashley has been given airtime since day one. In the beginning it was more a "narrative" role, but once the camps merged, they started to show more and more of her once they released her popularity - Ashley had the upper hand when it came to the editing.
It just so happened that it was a very tough call on the night, and that either one of them could have won. I highly doubt that there was more than 3% in it if they had swapped places in the voting with less than one hour to go. It's just one of those things...
Quote:
“1. What I had seen with my own eyes, ie Ashley being a surprising, breath of fresh air in terms of a global, American popstar being so down to earth and being such a bubbly, funny and likeable girl. There wasn't much between the two finalists but Ashley remained upbeat throughout and didn't really have one negative moment or comment shown on camera whereas Charlie had a few bitchy comments about Helen which I assumed would be more than enough to swing this Ashley's way.”
“1. What I had seen with my own eyes, ie Ashley being a surprising, breath of fresh air in terms of a global, American popstar being so down to earth and being such a bubbly, funny and likeable girl. There wasn't much between the two finalists but Ashley remained upbeat throughout and didn't really have one negative moment or comment shown on camera whereas Charlie had a few bitchy comments about Helen which I assumed would be more than enough to swing this Ashley's way.”
If you feel there wasn't much between them - why so shocked? I think rather than being bitchy about Helen, Charlie was one of very few who voiced the frustrations of the viewers, both to Helen and about her. It was one of the things that made me sit up and take notice. While the rest of them were wrapping her in cotton wool, Charlie was gently calling a spade a spade. Not bitchy at all - just honest. The person who was really bitch about and towards Helen was Eric.
She didn't have one bitchy moment or comment on camera - whereas the cameras panned to catch Charlie's response every time Helen was re-defining stupid. You think none of the others ever reacted? Really?
Quote:
“2. The polls on here, where Ashley had been miles ahead of everyone all week and a huge 4 to 1 favourite over Charlie. I know this poll isn't definitive and if the results had been in the 40-60% margin, I'd have taken them with a pinch of salt, but 80% in a two-horse race is a massive lead, even over a relatively small sample size of a few hundred people.”
“2. The polls on here, where Ashley had been miles ahead of everyone all week and a huge 4 to 1 favourite over Charlie. I know this poll isn't definitive and if the results had been in the 40-60% margin, I'd have taken them with a pinch of salt, but 80% in a two-horse race is a massive lead, even over a relatively small sample size of a few hundred people.”
It's like group think takes over on DS some times. It was quite literally impossible to say a word about Ashley that wasn't glowing without getting jumped on. Utterly unrepresentative - hardly for the first time on DS.
Quote:
“3. The fact that Ashley had never been in the 'It Might Be You,' supposed bottom two, whereas Charlie had, which gave us an indication that Ashley was indeed beating Charlie in the voting, on at least that occasion.”
“3. The fact that Ashley had never been in the 'It Might Be You,' supposed bottom two, whereas Charlie had, which gave us an indication that Ashley was indeed beating Charlie in the voting, on at least that occasion.”
It might be you doesn't mean you are necessarily in the bottom two.
Quote:
“If it was just one of these facts that I was clinging to, I wouldn't be surprised at the outcome, but taking all three into consideration, I am pretty astonished at the result we've just witnessed. To take it a step further, I'm also a bit disappointed and disgusted at how much ITV dragged the whole 'Kiki' (Charlie's daughter) angle into matters. A few mentions of her by Charlie were obviously to be expected but to choose to broadcast the exact part of a 4-minute phonecall where the 7-year-old daughter says something along the lines of 'Mummy I really want you to be Queen of the jungle' was just bizarre and completely unfair on the other contestants in my opinion. Surely the contest should be about what we as adults have perceived of these adult celebrities, not playing us some cute seven-year-old voice, pleading for their parent to win it, which for me was akin to one of those charity adverts pleading for money, by tugging at people's heart strings.”
“If it was just one of these facts that I was clinging to, I wouldn't be surprised at the outcome, but taking all three into consideration, I am pretty astonished at the result we've just witnessed. To take it a step further, I'm also a bit disappointed and disgusted at how much ITV dragged the whole 'Kiki' (Charlie's daughter) angle into matters. A few mentions of her by Charlie were obviously to be expected but to choose to broadcast the exact part of a 4-minute phonecall where the 7-year-old daughter says something along the lines of 'Mummy I really want you to be Queen of the jungle' was just bizarre and completely unfair on the other contestants in my opinion. Surely the contest should be about what we as adults have perceived of these adult celebrities, not playing us some cute seven-year-old voice, pleading for their parent to win it, which for me was akin to one of those charity adverts pleading for money, by tugging at people's heart strings.”
A) None of this is Charlie's fault - she wasn't editing the show.
B) One would hope that viewers would be discerning enough not to punish Charlie for something that the producers did. But maybe not.
Quote:
“Also, if Charlie had been a Coronation Street or Emmerdale actress rather than Eastenders, I would have suggested there was some ITV bias at play here. However, I can't see any reason why the show's makers would want Charlie to win this over Ashley or over any other candidates. So, do you think they saw how far ahead Ashley was in the voting all week and saw the Kiki angle as their best chance of making it a close contest of any sort?”
“Also, if Charlie had been a Coronation Street or Emmerdale actress rather than Eastenders, I would have suggested there was some ITV bias at play here. However, I can't see any reason why the show's makers would want Charlie to win this over Ashley or over any other candidates. So, do you think they saw how far ahead Ashley was in the voting all week and saw the Kiki angle as their best chance of making it a close contest of any sort?”
They didn't IMO; they wanted Ashley to win. She got far more airtime, Ant & Dec were backing her completely from the very start and they piled on the Kiki angle, as you call it, in the last few days to turn people off Charlie.
Quote:
“I'm pretty upset at losing out on £350 which - sadly - would be a significant winfall for me and I do intend to write a letter to someone involved in the making of the show, demanding an explanation to the points I raised above. This is a genuine, considered grievance and not just heat-of-the-moment anger at losing a bet.”
“I'm pretty upset at losing out on £350 which - sadly - would be a significant winfall for me and I do intend to write a letter to someone involved in the making of the show, demanding an explanation to the points I raised above. This is a genuine, considered grievance and not just heat-of-the-moment anger at losing a bet.”
Quote:
“(Incidentally, I was surprised they brought Charlie's daughter on to set BEFORE announcing the result. I thought it would have made much more sense and better telly to bring her on after her mum had won the show, so at that point I was even more convinced that Ashley had won and they were just giving Charlie and her daughter a nice moment to remember. However, this incident happened so near to the end of voting, or possibly even after voting had closed, so I don't think this affected the result in any way.)”
“(Incidentally, I was surprised they brought Charlie's daughter on to set BEFORE announcing the result. I thought it would have made much more sense and better telly to bring her on after her mum had won the show, so at that point I was even more convinced that Ashley had won and they were just giving Charlie and her daughter a nice moment to remember. However, this incident happened so near to the end of voting, or possibly even after voting had closed, so I don't think this affected the result in any way.)”
Good of you to accept that, at least.
Originally Posted by DaisyBill:
“Are you referring to my 'username'? Bill can be either male or female. Daisy is [usually] a female name.
Now off you go and practice your sparkling wit and sarcasm on someone else. Love.”
“Are you referring to my 'username'? Bill can be either male or female. Daisy is [usually] a female name.
Now off you go and practice your sparkling wit and sarcasm on someone else. Love.”
It is also a Surname.
It was my grandmothers maiden name.
Originally Posted by fruitloop27:
“Charlie won due to the furore over the trial where she didn't get to see her daughter. Personally I thought both her & Ashley were great (judging from last night's finale) & either of them deserved to win. But bringing out Kiki before the result was announced was fishier than a fish in Fishingdon.”
“Charlie won due to the furore over the trial where she didn't get to see her daughter. Personally I thought both her & Ashley were great (judging from last night's finale) & either of them deserved to win. But bringing out Kiki before the result was announced was fishier than a fish in Fishingdon.”
Agree 100%
Originally Posted by BirthdayGirl:
“Why cant people just accept the fact that Charlie won????
Its no big deal. Its just a game show. Its not life or death.”
“Why cant people just accept the fact that Charlie won????
Its no big deal. Its just a game show. Its not life or death.”
Nobody's saying it's life or death, I explained at the start that it's a matter of £350, which to me is a lot of money.
Originally Posted by Andybear:
“Since you placed a bet I assume you're over 18 and thus an adult - in age anyway. You chose to place a bet - you weren't told you had to, you did it by choice. So how are ITV to blame for you losing money when you placed a bet by choice? Grow up.”
“Since you placed a bet I assume you're over 18 and thus an adult - in age anyway. You chose to place a bet - you weren't told you had to, you did it by choice. So how are ITV to blame for you losing money when you placed a bet by choice? Grow up.”
In response to this and several other posts, I thought I was betting on a fair reality TV show contest between adults. I believe ITV's broadcast of a seven-year-old's plea for their mother to win was a biased promotion of one of the contestants which therefore made the contest unfair.
Originally Posted by jimdan:
“For every 3 Ashley votes there were 6 or more votes for Charlie”
“For every 3 Ashley votes there were 6 or more votes for Charlie”
How do you know this?
Originally Posted by Cally's mum:
“It was certainly biased. But I didn't see that the bias was toward Charlie. Indeed, for the first week, it was Helen, Helen, Helen. Then we got Rosemary and also, Ashley, David and Hugo (not to mention Eric) entered the mix. In fact, Charlie was in the background (and by the screening of the 'best bits/clips' on the winners show, we missed a LOT of what she was like in there - fun, funny, sweet and normal)! Those bits (and a whole lot more!) were never seen on the main show! Now that's biased editing - AGAINST Charlie.
The last few days was pretty much between Hugo, Ashley (although she was shown more and I was happy about that because I liked her a lot), David (especially the shower scenes and trials) and Eric and, finally, Charlie. The final two days were fairly equal.
So your argument doesn't even stand up as Charlie was shown the least of all of them. In fact, the editing was so skewed away from her that I am actually quite surprised she won (I don't mind, because I liked all of the final three).
And - writing a letter? Really? Because of an entertainment show? Unless you can prove actual fraud by the TV company (which you can't), then you're on a hiding to nothing. And I'm afraid this does all sound like what it probably is. Sour grapes that you lost some money.
It happens. It was a choice to put a bet on. Maybe you should just take responsibility for that choice. It certainly wasn't ITV's fault. They didn't force you to do so.
It's a shame people have to take these things so seriously. It's entertainment. Not life or death.”
“It was certainly biased. But I didn't see that the bias was toward Charlie. Indeed, for the first week, it was Helen, Helen, Helen. Then we got Rosemary and also, Ashley, David and Hugo (not to mention Eric) entered the mix. In fact, Charlie was in the background (and by the screening of the 'best bits/clips' on the winners show, we missed a LOT of what she was like in there - fun, funny, sweet and normal)! Those bits (and a whole lot more!) were never seen on the main show! Now that's biased editing - AGAINST Charlie.
The last few days was pretty much between Hugo, Ashley (although she was shown more and I was happy about that because I liked her a lot), David (especially the shower scenes and trials) and Eric and, finally, Charlie. The final two days were fairly equal.
So your argument doesn't even stand up as Charlie was shown the least of all of them. In fact, the editing was so skewed away from her that I am actually quite surprised she won (I don't mind, because I liked all of the final three).
And - writing a letter? Really? Because of an entertainment show? Unless you can prove actual fraud by the TV company (which you can't), then you're on a hiding to nothing. And I'm afraid this does all sound like what it probably is. Sour grapes that you lost some money.
It happens. It was a choice to put a bet on. Maybe you should just take responsibility for that choice. It certainly wasn't ITV's fault. They didn't force you to do so.
It's a shame people have to take these things so seriously. It's entertainment. Not life or death.”
Editing 24 hours of footage to find highlights is part and parcel of any show such as this though. We have to trust that the show makers are impartial and are simply choosing the most entertaining moments and don't have any ulterior motives in showing particular contestants' good points/bad points in the highlight shows. To be honest, most shows in the series were very formulaic - previous day's voting result, trial, dingo dollar challenge (hope I've got the correct name for it,) meal, eviction - so didn't leave much room open for positive/negative editing anyway.
My issue is not with them including any clips of Charlie discussing her daughter, not even with the clip of her daughter behind the door, or the phonecall from her daughter, as none of these things specifically related to her winning the show.
My issue is with them choosing a specific part of the phonecall between Charlie and her daughter where the daughter says something along the lines of 'I want you to win Mummy.' I believe they could have used any other parts of the 4-minute phonecall and to bring in a seven-year-old child's plea on behalf of one of the twelve contestants meant it was no longer a fair contest between adults.
Hopefully the voting figures will show that Charlie was well up there and winning anyway and the broadcast of Kiki's comment had no effect on the result of the show and the outcome of my bet, then I won't have to waste my time taking things further. However, if as I suspect and fear, that this plea resulted in a big and potentially decisive vote swing in Charlie's favour, then due to the amount of money I have lost from this, I will be taking things further.
And the moral is never bet on a reality show because the results are often unpredictable. Personally, although I wanted Charlie to win because I enjoyed watching her more, I believe the fact that one was Britsh and the other American was the deciding factor for many people. I don't think an American has ever won IAC.
Originally Posted by Order:
“So, because you lost money betting you're spitting your dummy out and complaining?
When you gamble, you win some, you lose most. If you're not prepared to lose your money, don't gamble it in the first place. Sorry, but it does come across as "heat-of-the-moment anger" to me. I doubt very much you'd write to them if you hadn't lost some money.
Clearly the voting was very close - Ant & Dec said the leader of the voting had changed since they had been on air, meaning Charlie got a boost of votes and overtook Ashley in the final hour. I put it down to eating trial, personally, as Charlie's reaction made people relate to what she was going through more than Ashley's reaction of "just get on with it."
Also, the "it might be you" selection isn't the bottom two. If you go back and look at previous years - normally around 25% of them are not the real bottom two. Yes, that means 75% was the actual bottom two, but we can't possibly know which is real and which is not (until the voting figures are released, at least).
I hope you've learnt your lesson as using Digital Spy as a guide.
As a fan of all reality TV shows, I use every reality TV forum on this site, and I can tell you that 90% of the time, the winner 'we' choose - as a whole - normally fails to win.
DS is a big site, but we're still a minority.
There's a mixture of reasons our favourites fail to win:
- Majority don't vote
- We analyse everything that is said and done and put a negative spin on it. Example: Charlie's shown airing her opinion about Helen. DS members have branded her "jealous", "bitchy", "hateful", "insecure" etcetc. The more casual viewer won't make such conclusions based on one or two comments and will think "fair enough" and move on.
Also, anyone claiming ITV played their part in making Charlie win really are talking rubbish.
Charlie was ignored after the first few nights up until the final four. Ashley has been given airtime since day one. In the beginning it was more a "narrative" role, but once the camps merged, they started to show more and more of her once they released her popularity - Ashley had the upper hand when it came to the editing.
It just so happened that it was a very tough call on the night, and that either one of them could have won. I highly doubt that there was more than 3% in it if they had swapped places in the voting with less than one hour to go. It's just one of those things...”
“So, because you lost money betting you're spitting your dummy out and complaining?
When you gamble, you win some, you lose most. If you're not prepared to lose your money, don't gamble it in the first place. Sorry, but it does come across as "heat-of-the-moment anger" to me. I doubt very much you'd write to them if you hadn't lost some money.
Clearly the voting was very close - Ant & Dec said the leader of the voting had changed since they had been on air, meaning Charlie got a boost of votes and overtook Ashley in the final hour. I put it down to eating trial, personally, as Charlie's reaction made people relate to what she was going through more than Ashley's reaction of "just get on with it."
Also, the "it might be you" selection isn't the bottom two. If you go back and look at previous years - normally around 25% of them are not the real bottom two. Yes, that means 75% was the actual bottom two, but we can't possibly know which is real and which is not (until the voting figures are released, at least).
I hope you've learnt your lesson as using Digital Spy as a guide.
As a fan of all reality TV shows, I use every reality TV forum on this site, and I can tell you that 90% of the time, the winner 'we' choose - as a whole - normally fails to win.
DS is a big site, but we're still a minority.
There's a mixture of reasons our favourites fail to win:
- Majority don't vote
- We analyse everything that is said and done and put a negative spin on it. Example: Charlie's shown airing her opinion about Helen. DS members have branded her "jealous", "bitchy", "hateful", "insecure" etcetc. The more casual viewer won't make such conclusions based on one or two comments and will think "fair enough" and move on.
Also, anyone claiming ITV played their part in making Charlie win really are talking rubbish.
Charlie was ignored after the first few nights up until the final four. Ashley has been given airtime since day one. In the beginning it was more a "narrative" role, but once the camps merged, they started to show more and more of her once they released her popularity - Ashley had the upper hand when it came to the editing.
It just so happened that it was a very tough call on the night, and that either one of them could have won. I highly doubt that there was more than 3% in it if they had swapped places in the voting with less than one hour to go. It's just one of those things...”
I'd rather you didn't just pluck figures out of the air, as I don't think that's helpful to the debate.
Somebody else said that it was over 90% of the time in previous shows that the 'It Might Be You' was indeed the bottom two. You're saying 75%. Where's your evidence for that figure? (75% is still fairly high, even if you are correct.)
Also, 90% of the time, the winner Digital Spy forum users choose turns out to be wrong? What, even when it's down to the final two? Again, you're going to need evidence to back up such a bold claim. If that was really the case, people would be making a lot of money betting against the results of Digital Spy polls. Maybe they are and it's a case of more fool me.
Originally Posted by itsashrubery:
“What is clear though from comments on the forums and also twitter & facebook is that a lot of people were voting on how much they liked Charlie as an actress and how great to see an actress From BBC winning?”
“What is clear though from comments on the forums and also twitter & facebook is that a lot of people were voting on how much they liked Charlie as an actress and how great to see an actress From BBC winning?”
Obviously I can't comment on what you might have seen on facebook and twitter, but that is not representitive of the opinions of this forum at all. Overwhelmingly, those who supported Charlie did so because they liked her personally. I did so myself. I have never seen her act.
Originally Posted by doe_a_deer:
“Can you expand on this a bit please. Why would they not be considered a good cross-section of the general public? Obviously I wouldn't use a poll on an Eastenders fansite or Pussycat Dolls fansite as evidence but on a neutral website 80%+ is a huge margin in my opinion. Where do you feel the huge discrepancy (30%+) between poll and result comes from?”
“Can you expand on this a bit please. Why would they not be considered a good cross-section of the general public? Obviously I wouldn't use a poll on an Eastenders fansite or Pussycat Dolls fansite as evidence but on a neutral website 80%+ is a huge margin in my opinion. Where do you feel the huge discrepancy (30%+) between poll and result comes from?”
Digitalspy polls are often wildly wrong. They are obviously only a tiny percentage of the voters. I can remember one Big Brother series where the winner was consistently bottom, out of all the housemates, in the DS polls; another series where the person who came second was often bottom; and this year's winner never, ever came top of a poll. On the whole, DS polls tend to overvalue 'big characters' and undervalue 'normal, relatable' contestants.
Quote:
“Also, it's not the result I'm disagreeing with, it's ITV's biased promotion of one contestant over the others.”
“Also, it's not the result I'm disagreeing with, it's ITV's biased promotion of one contestant over the others.”
I would have said that Ashley was VERY heavily favoured over Charlie for most of this series. There were numerous posts complaining, rightly, that charlie was barely shown for the first half - less than any other contestant except Limahl. They seemed to be trying to portray her as a bitch, constantly focusing in close up on her face if there was anything annoying happening, apparently hoping to catch her looking moody or disapproving. She only started to get more favourable edits when it was obvious that she WASN'T going to be a bitch, and was actually a nice, good-natured girl, whom no one had a word to say against. Even then, Ashley was treated as the series goddess by Ant and Dec. In the end, the people preferred, as I thought they would judging from past experience, the less confident, less glamorous girl next door rather than the sporting prom queen.
Originally Posted by doe_a_deer:
“Have you read the thread?
It's clearly not about whether my favourite person did or didn't win, it's about whether ITV's biased promotion of one particular candidate cost me money.”
“Have you read the thread?
It's clearly not about whether my favourite person did or didn't win, it's about whether ITV's biased promotion of one particular candidate cost me money.”
Must be awful. Perhaps Bob Geldof would organise a concert?
Originally Posted by patsylimerick:
“If you feel there wasn't much between them - why so shocked? I think rather than being bitchy about Helen, Charlie was one of very few who voiced the frustrations of the viewers, both to Helen and about her. It was one of the things that made me sit up and take notice. While the rest of them were wrapping her in cotton wool, Charlie was gently calling a spade a spade. Not bitchy at all - just honest. The person who was really bitch about and towards Helen was Eric.
She didn't have one bitchy moment or comment on camera - whereas the cameras panned to catch Charlie's response every time Helen was re-defining stupid. You think none of the others ever reacted? Really?
It's like group think takes over on DS some times. It was quite literally impossible to say a word about Ashley that wasn't glowing without getting jumped on. Utterly unrepresentative - hardly for the first time on DS.
.”
“If you feel there wasn't much between them - why so shocked? I think rather than being bitchy about Helen, Charlie was one of very few who voiced the frustrations of the viewers, both to Helen and about her. It was one of the things that made me sit up and take notice. While the rest of them were wrapping her in cotton wool, Charlie was gently calling a spade a spade. Not bitchy at all - just honest. The person who was really bitch about and towards Helen was Eric.
She didn't have one bitchy moment or comment on camera - whereas the cameras panned to catch Charlie's response every time Helen was re-defining stupid. You think none of the others ever reacted? Really?
It's like group think takes over on DS some times. It was quite literally impossible to say a word about Ashley that wasn't glowing without getting jumped on. Utterly unrepresentative - hardly for the first time on DS.
.”
I agree, completely.
Originally Posted by Order:
“So, because you lost money betting you're spitting your dummy out and complaining?
”
“So, because you lost money betting you're spitting your dummy out and complaining?
”
I said right at the start that that wasn't the case.
It's a perfectly calm and considered response. I hoped that Ashley would win, I'd win £350 and I wouldn't need to waste time delving into this further but unfortunately that hasn't happened.
Originally Posted by patsylimerick:
“If you feel there wasn't much between them - why so shocked?”
“If you feel there wasn't much between them - why so shocked?”
Actually I should maybe take that initial comment back. I felt there was a fair distance between them. Charlie was, like nearly every contestant this year, what you'd describe as neutral, didn't do anything majorly right or wrong.
I thought like so, so many others on here that Ashley was an absolute breath of fresh air and many people were completely smitten with her.
One thing that particularly surprised me was that both of the finalists are the same age (31)! To my eyes, Ashley looks 22 and Charlie 42, Charlie could easily be Ashley's mum. I don't even want to write that incase Charlie were to ever read something like that but it's just an opinion.
Originally Posted by patsylimerick:
“None of this is Charlie's fault - she wasn't editing the show.”
“None of this is Charlie's fault - she wasn't editing the show.”
Absolutely, hence why I'll be taking it up with the people who were.
Originally Posted by doe_a_deer:
“I said right at the start that that wasn't the case.
It's a perfectly calm and considered response. I hoped that Ashley would win, I'd win £350 and I wouldn't need to waste time delving into this further but unfortunately that hasn't happened.”
“I said right at the start that that wasn't the case.
It's a perfectly calm and considered response. I hoped that Ashley would win, I'd win £350 and I wouldn't need to waste time delving into this further but unfortunately that hasn't happened.”
Every week I HOPE I will win the lottery but it hasn't happened yet. Shall I complain to somebody?
Originally Posted by jeanoj:
“And the moral is never bet on a reality show because the results are often unpredictable. Personally, although I wanted Charlie to win because I enjoyed watching her more, I believe the fact that one was Britsh and the other American was the deciding factor for many people. I don't think an American has ever won IAC.”
“And the moral is never bet on a reality show because the results are often unpredictable. Personally, although I wanted Charlie to win because I enjoyed watching her more, I believe the fact that one was Britsh and the other American was the deciding factor for many people. I don't think an American has ever won IAC.”
Can you explain why you think that would make a difference to a single person, let alone enough people to swing the result? I can't see any reason why the nationality would matter?
Originally Posted by jeanoj:
“Every week I HOPE I will win the lottery but it hasn't happened yet. Shall I complain to somebody?”
“Every week I HOPE I will win the lottery but it hasn't happened yet. Shall I complain to somebody?
”
If you were led to believe you were putting your money on a fair competition and you saw evidence which led you to believe it wasn't a fair competition, then yes I'd suggest and hope you would complain.
Originally Posted by doe_a_deer:
“Can you explain why you think that would make a difference to a single person, let alone enough people to swing the result? I can't see any reason why the nationality would matter?”
“Can you explain why you think that would make a difference to a single person, let alone enough people to swing the result? I can't see any reason why the nationality would matter?”
I can't either but I have heard people say this. I think you will just have to accept that more people voted for Charlie than for Ashley - and even David Hay, who many people thought would win. I thought Charlie came across as a much nicer person and wanted her to win. The fact that she did pleased me but I didn't vote. Perhaps, in future, you won't put so much credence on DS polls (a very small minority of the viewers) and the betting odds (mostly people who do not necessarily pick up the phone to vote) and just watch the programme for what it is - entertainment. Betting is a mugs game (IMO) and I have never seen a poor bookie
3 of 5
