|
||||||||
Showmance's should be banned and punishable |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
|
Quote:
My point was that showmances are too strong and other HM's should be wary.
But I'll give you a couple of examples of Showmances winning. Josie Gibson .. also had a huge hand in the win from the production team Aaron Allard-Morgan .. production even drafted in Fayes sister to bolster their numbers. Sure, Josie did win, but as you point out she "had a huge hand in the win from the production team". In any case, she didn't win because of a core group that formed around and because of her and John James as a couple. Nor did that happen with Aaron. (And, if anything, Jem made things harder for Aaron and Faye, rather than easier.) (BTW, how were Aaron and Faye a "showmance"?) |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Smiley Ho ☺♪♫
Posts: 9,693
|
Quote:
So out of all the BB series there's been, you've managed to find ... no convincing examples.
Sure, Josie did win, but as you point out she "had a huge hand in the win from the production team". In any case, she didn't win because of a core group that formed around and because of her and John James as a couple. Nor did that happen with Aaron. (And, if anything, Jem made things harder for Aaron and Faye, rather than easier.) (BTW, how were Aaron and Faye a "showmance"?) |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,418
|
A showmance is just a romance on a TV show. They may well be genuine but generally don't last much longer than the show.
A tactically contrived relationship should be called a fauxmance, whether on a TV show or in the media generally. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
|
Quote:
Because a relationship that's tactically contrived in there is (or was) a showmance - regardless of whatever happens afterwards.
What happens after can show that it wasn't tactical. Quote:
A showmance is just a romance on a TV show. They may well be genuine but generally don't last much longer than the show.
A tactically contrived relationship should be called a fauxmance, whether on a TV show or in the media generally. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
|
Quote:
How very judgemental of you, and why so serious
![]() Firstly, producers could do a lot more to prevent boring us all to death with the latest fake coupling, but they are blinded in their beliefs of what the viewers want - as long as it attracts media attention and provides exposure for the show - good or bad. 'Blohe' and 'Lewnie' was a new low, even for this programme. ... And it is entirely possible, after all, that the BB producers have a better idea of what viewers like than we have in an echo-chamber forum. Quote:
Finally, it's extremely naive of you to believe that a house sans fake relationships/showmances wouldn't be interesting, and consist of tea-drinking and weather chat! People are capable of insightful and intelligent conversation you know, including contributors to these boards, although you constantly appear to think otherwise! People are indeed "capable of insightful and intelligent conversation", but it's extremely rare in Big Brother. A whole series could go by without even one conversation that would normally be considered insightful and intelligent.A BB with interesting and intelligent participants .. isn't that just outrageous! ? .. ...
If someone is keen on insightful and intelligent conversation, BB must be one of the worst places to look for it. "A BB with interesting and intelligent participants" -- perhaps that happened once: Celebrity Hijack BB. But it's not how any other series could reasonably be described (which is not to say there weren't any int & int HMs in them). Anyway, I don't think BB romances are necessarily a bad thing. Even viewers who dislike most of them may find one or two that capture their interest. But the great majority of BB romances aren't interesting, and I agree with those who find most of them immensely tedious viewing. OTOH, I think Arthur_B has a point, above, when noticing "that if people don't like the couple, they'll automatically assume the couple is a showmance." |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
|
Quote:
...
My biggest issue with showmances, apart from the fact that they're as boring as ***k, is that they give the participants therein an unfair advantage over the singletons. BBs a game of mental resilience as much as anything else, and having a supporter/confidant/lover in the house means you don't have to be as strong an individual as you need to be if you're not part of a couple.....IMO And if friendships are an advantage, I think they're a legitimate one, so long as they develop in the house. Indeed, I think it's fine that HMs who are able to form friendships have an advantage, just as it's fine for HMs who are intelligent to have an advantage, or HMs who have appealing personalities. Whether showmances have any sort of unfair advantage is questionable. They at least don't stand out as having an advantage that can't be had in other ways. For example, they can get you more air time, but so can other things. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,475
|
Showmances should be banned and punishable:
So should Rylan. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:07.




...