DS Forums

 
 

Great British Bake Off, 2016


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22-09-2016, 20:53
divingbboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ed Balls
Posts: 13,220
Don't think Ruby is a fan of Paul if her tweets are anything to by

ahhhhh a peacocking manchild lingering wherever the money is , I am shocked

this from a man who turned up to work revving a rental Lamborghini or was it a Ferrari I don't remember the air was thick w testosterone
I had Ruby pegged as many things, but 'a nasty piece of work' was not previously one of them. Her comments are really quite unpleasant and unnecessarily vicious.
divingbboy is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 22-09-2016, 21:49
Heatherbell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Scotland .
Posts: 5,660
Is anyone even remotely surprised that Hollywood wagged his tail where the money was being waved around.

He always stuck me as a glorified oompa loompa anyway.
I agree .
Seems all the ladies on the Bake Off team chose not to be infected by the disease that hits most shows that transfer to Ch4 or Ch5 . Maybe they just weren't up for getting sexed up and cramming themselves into the obligatory reality moulds beloved of those channels because they have ethics and standards .Well done ladies .
As for Paul? Let's be honest , he makes no secret of preferring sexy young female bakers no matter how badly they bake and I'm sure Ch4 will find plenty of those to keep him twinkling and flirting .
Heatherbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-09-2016, 22:23
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,462
Candice was a bit unbearable this week. She was a bit like a petulant child?
I certainly did not get that impression?
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-09-2016, 23:17
jonbwfc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bolton. lancs
Posts: 5,747
I had Ruby pegged as many things, but 'a nasty piece of work' was not previously one of them. Her comments are really quite unpleasant and unnecessarily vicious.
Her social media towards the end of the series she was in was..horrific, to be honest. Threats, abuse... ugh, really nasty. She got a massive amount of abuse and gave quite a lot back, which I kind of thought 'well, it's not the way I'd do it, but you can't really blame her'.

Then the series ended and the abuse heading her way largely died off (15 minutes of fame & all that), but the tone of her posts didn't really change much at all. Oh.

I don't know if the negative aspects of her GBBO experience have left her very bitter and defensive but that's definitely how she came across, up to the point where I decided to stop following her posts anyway. That's something I do very rarely. I think she has problems, and being in the public eye hasn't helped her AT ALL.
jonbwfc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 00:04
Kittygodfree
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 995
I think you need a degree of the formidable for this show exercised in the right places. Definitely need it to keep Paul in line and it doesn't hurt to have a touch to keep the contestants focussed. That said when I've seen Angela with amateur chefs and cooks on TV she has generally come over very supportive I thought and Rosemary generally bubbles with enthusiasm. I don't think either can be accused of lacking humour. I could see Jane in the role though. Mary is pretty formidable actually I think.

Re the hosts it is their job to counteract the scariness of the judges and be on the contestants' side. Nadiya +1 would be my choice too male or female but they'd need to be funny.
I take your point but still think they are a bit too 'yes chef' especially Angela, they are not what I would see as bakers. I agree that having a bit of sterness is fine ,but it has to be softened. I just dont see those two very talented ladies in a bake off role.
Kittygodfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 00:17
Monkseal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
I agree .
Seems all the ladies on the Bake Off team chose not to be infected by the disease that hits most shows that transfer to Ch4 or Ch5 . Maybe they just weren't up for getting sexed up and cramming themselves into the obligatory reality moulds beloved of those channels because they have ethics and standards .Well done ladies .
As for Paul? Let's be honest , he makes no secret of preferring sexy young female bakers no matter how badly they bake and I'm sure Ch4 will find plenty of those to keep him twinkling and flirting .
Sexy Young Female Bake Off Winners : 0
Reasonably Attractive Young Gay Male Bake Off Winners : 2

*Clearly* Paul's preference is actually for getting noshed off by 'mos, in which case he should find plenty of those at Channel 4 as well.
Monkseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 02:32
WinterLily
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Whimberry picking on t'hill
Posts: 3,589
I like Candice - I like that she's ambitious (everything is either Star Baker level or a complete disaster, and it's because she's pushing herself) and that she likes dirty jokes and that she cares enough that she cries when things go wrong (although I also like that Selasi clearly couldn't give a flying fudge about anything that happens, so maybe I'm just a man of extremes). She could do with twisting her mouth up less but she's great casting and I'd much rather her on the show than some aggressively mimsy lightweight like Andrew or Val.

I think the standard of baking peaked in Series 5 to be honest. The Top 6 were all very strong, and even someone like Norman who went out midway was a decent baker - he just wasn't interested in all the bells and whistles and funny forrin flavours that the show wants from the contestants. Last year's final four were all strong but I was never impressed by Mat, Alvin or Paul (outside of the infamous Bread Lion).
One doesn't have to shed one's tears at the drop of a hat to show one cares!

I like things a bit more stoical!
WinterLily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 06:36
Welsh-lad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,483
Her social media towards the end of the series she was in was..horrific, to be honest. Threats, abuse... ugh, really nasty. She got a massive amount of abuse and gave quite a lot back, which I kind of thought 'well, it's not the way I'd do it, but you can't really blame her'.

Then the series ended and the abuse heading her way largely died off (15 minutes of fame & all that), but the tone of her posts didn't really change much at all. Oh.

I don't know if the negative aspects of her GBBO experience have left her very bitter and defensive but that's definitely how she came across, up to the point where I decided to stop following her posts anyway. That's something I do very rarely. I think she has problems, and being in the public eye hasn't helped her AT ALL.
Hmmm. Well mitigated. I think it was obvious from the word go, long before she became a social media target.
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 08:07
PompeyBill
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,579
So Paul Hollywood works for a production company that sells its show to the BBC.
That production company gets a better offer and sells its show to Channel 4.
He continues to work for the same production company.
What's the big deal?

If anyone should be lambasted, it's the three that jumped ship.
He doesn't work for the production company, none of them did. They had free contracts, hence they could have stayed with the BBC or switched to Channel 4.

You need lambasted for not knowing what you're talking about.
PompeyBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 08:21
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
deleted, misunderstood
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 08:27
floozie_21
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,846
Let's get this right shall we?

The production company makes the programme, it is commissioned by the BBC for three years.

The production company then engages the services of Paul Hollywood for the length of that contract with the BBC, to be a judge in that programme, so Hollywood has a limited, fixed-length contract of 3 years (he is also, and has been, free to do other things with the BBC).

When the contract with the BBC finishes, so does his contract with the production company, at which point he is no longer engaged by the production company (i.e. out of contract) unless or until he agrees & signs a further contract with them.

Conversely, Sue, Mel and Mary, having reached the end of their 3-year contracts (so are also out of contract), have decided NOT to sign a contract for a further 3 years.
I don't get why people think he has to stay with the BBC though, where his future opportunities are unknown. What's wrong with following your job elsewhere?
floozie_21 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 09:20
PompeyBill
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,579
I don't get why people think he has to stay with the BBC though, where his future opportunities are unknown. What's wrong with following your job elsewhere?
Nothing wrong per se, but he's shot himself in the foot for future prospects. The BBC stuck with him during his 'personal issues', and this is how he's repaid them. He's chosen to go to C4, for a large sum granted, and that's fine if he's happy with taking the money and looking short term. But, then what?

Chances are that GBBO won't be a hit on C4, so what does he do after that? He's made himself unemployable by the BBC, when he could have taken less money, but with more solid future prospects with an involvement in Top Gear, as well as the inevitable replacement programme with Mel, Sue and Mary, with proven 'loyalty' to the BBC and future programmes.
PompeyBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 09:51
IvanIV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 25,199
He doesn't work for the production company, none of them did. They had free contracts, hence they could have stayed with the BBC or switched to Channel 4.

You need lambasted for not knowing what you're talking about.
Still, their contracts were for the programme, not for the BBC. I think there's too much drama surrounding this, people wishing Hollywood all the worst for having an audacity to not leave with the rest of them. I find that wildly out of proportion. There are worse things happening in the world than a TV programme changing a TV channel.
IvanIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 09:57
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
He's made himself unemployable by the BBC...
Don't be ridiculous.

Adrian Chiles left the BBC fairly acrimoniously but he's returned to present on Five Live (which happened while he was still at ITV) and occasionally Panorama.

Broadcasters aren't as tribal as you think.
Mark. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 10:07
PompeyBill
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,579
Don't be ridiculous.

Adrian Chiles left the BBC fairly acrimoniously but he's returned to present on Five Live (which happened while he was still at ITV) and occasionally Panorama.

Broadcasters aren't as tribal as you think.
Nowhere near as high profile or lucrative though, let's be honest.

I wouldn't call Chiles' departure acrimonious either to be honest, he took a bigger offer. Hollywood has done that after the BBC supported him through his marriage issues, although they did want to get rid of him at the time, and might have done so but for Mary Berry, if you believe reports. Can't see them taking too kindly to him doing what he has.
PompeyBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 10:37
Sullymo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 87

maybe I am one of the few people who finds Paul Hollywood easily replaceable. I have watched Bake Off since its inception and have found nothing special in Paul Hollywood.
Mary and Mel and Sue would be hard to replace but Paul- devoid of humour and so busy posing with his hands in his jeans pockets etc. Nah glad you're gone!
Sullymo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 11:12
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,462
Nothing wrong per se, but he's shot himself in the foot for future prospects. The BBC stuck with him during his 'personal issues', and this is how he's repaid them. He's chosen to go to C4, for a large sum granted, and that's fine if he's happy with taking the money and looking short term. But, then what?

Chances are that GBBO won't be a hit on C4, so what does he do after that? He's made himself unemployable by the BBC, when he could have taken less money, but with more solid future prospects with an involvement in Top Gear, as well as the inevitable replacement programme with Mel, Sue and Mary, with proven 'loyalty' to the BBC and future programmes.
And a significant part of income is usually from personal appearances, books etc etc and this is more when you are on the most popular programme on British television rather than a tainted programme on a minority channel which many fewer viewers.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 11:14
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,462
Don't be ridiculous.

Adrian Chiles left the BBC fairly acrimoniously but he's returned to present on Five Live (which happened while he was still at ITV) and occasionally Panorama.

Broadcasters aren't as tribal as you think.
The BBC can be forgiving but I am sure he would have had a much higher profile at the BBC by now on a wider range of programmes.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 11:17
Osusana
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,390
maybe I am one of the few people who finds Paul Hollywood easily replaceable. I have watched Bake Off since its inception and have found nothing special in Paul Hollywood.
Mary and Mel and Sue would be hard to replace but Paul- devoid of humour and so busy posing with his hands in his jeans pockets etc. Nah glad you're gone!
I tend to agree with this.
I could see someone like James Martin easily filling the Hollywood role.
Osusana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 11:18
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,462
Nowhere near as high profile or lucrative though, let's be honest.

I wouldn't call Chiles' departure acrimonious either to be honest, he took a bigger offer. Hollywood has done that after the BBC supported him through his marriage issues, although they did want to get rid of him at the time, and might have done so but for Mary Berry, if you believe reports. Can't see them taking too kindly to him doing what he has.
The acrimonious part was Bleakley because she appeared to try to squeeze more money out of the BBC and they just told her to go. She is now successful as a WAG but I would say that Alex Jones has been more successful on TV after replacing her on The One Show.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 11:19
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,462
maybe I am one of the few people who finds Paul Hollywood easily replaceable. I have watched Bake Off since its inception and have found nothing special in Paul Hollywood.
Mary and Mel and Sue would be hard to replace but Paul- devoid of humour and so busy posing with his hands in his jeans pockets etc. Nah glad you're gone!
I would also say that his specialist area, bread, is the least interesting part of the series.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 11:25
Janet43
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,132
He doesn't work for the production company, none of them did. They had free contracts, hence they could have stayed with the BBC or switched to Channel 4.

You need lambasted for not knowing what you're talking about.
He has said in the past that he doesn't work for the BBC but that he works for Love Productions.
Janet43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 11:33
IvanIV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 25,199
I find this counting ways in which Hollywood will fail and die poor and abandoned under some bridge quite ridiculous. If you think the GBBO is dead why it matters that he did not make it even deader.
IvanIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 13:17
duckylucky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,247
maybe I am one of the few people who finds Paul Hollywood easily replaceable. I have watched Bake Off since its inception and have found nothing special in Paul Hollywood.
Mary and Mel and Sue would be hard to replace but Paul- devoid of humour and so busy posing with his hands in his jeans pockets etc. Nah glad you're gone!
I agree , he is just a pompous git anyway
duckylucky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2016, 13:21
FusionFury
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,901
Candice can come bake round my house anytime.

She's the obvious Star Baker and winner of the show. You can see it a mile away. She has charisma, looks, personality, and she can bake ! the whole package. The X-Factor of the GBBO.
FusionFury is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.