|
||||||||
Diabolical Final 3 |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,425
|
Quote:
That's why I stopped watching after last night. Sam didn't stand a chance. Three overrated and preordained finalists zzzzz
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,310
|
Quote:
I don't. Load of moaning bollox. Best series so far. Lovely bunch. Hope Joel wins. Lovely bloke.
Nothing wrong with the cast - all seem like relatively good fun. I thoroughly enjoyed the first five episodes, before half the cast disappeared. Quote:
No-one is posting on here because there is no discussion anymore, it's all about fix theories, fakery and biased editing.
Quote:
Ain't that the truth!
I've said it many a time but why can't people enjoy the programme for what it is without looking for reasons to moan about it? Also, is it not possible that the ones being shown more are the ones that are simply better tv? Personally, I take part in topics that interest me; I don't enter just to bitch at those discussing the thread subject. Complaining about the forum being full of complainers... ![]() ![]() ![]() The old "don't watch it then!" argument never fails to amuse me. It's a discussion board, we're not all here for rainbows and unicorns. I enjoy the format, but when things annoy me, I'm going to speak my mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pembrokeshire.
Posts: 40,686
|
Haven't watched IAC for a few years ... Was put off by the edits pushing that woman from emmerdale on our screens all the time. So glad Carole thatcher won in the end over her.
Is this the closest final ever ?? |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,310
|
Quote:
Also, is it not possible that the ones being shown more are the ones that are simply better tv?
Take last night, for example, Scarlett commented in the hut where she found her cake, and where the rest found theirs. Why? Why does Scarlett have to be the one telling us? I'm not saying she should never narrate, but when she's already 90% of the highlights, does she really need to narrate everything, too? Why not - if Sam's so 'boring' - let Sam be the one to explain where the cakes were hidden? No personality required. Scarlett gets shown in camp, she gets shown narrating, she gets shown giving her opinions. Are you telling me in three weeks, HALF of the cast haven't said or done anything in the camp at all? Not had a little squabble? Not had a heart-to-heart? Not had a little cry? Not said one funny remark? Not shared anything about their life? Even though they're - apparently - in the jungle 24/7 with nothing and nobody else around for three weeks. They're just some kind of zombie robot? Let's say that's true - 50% of the cast are terrible dullards. Well, when the other 50% are busy "entertaining" us, why not let the dullards narrate? Why is it the likes of Scarlett and Vicky get these 'roles' night after night, even though they already get shown in camp and commenting 'witty' remarks in the hut to us? Why give them the narrator role, too? You'd think the show would want their money's worth out of all of them, but obviously not. The argument doesn't make any sense. It's flawed. Only those who don't want to believe the show has its own agenda push this belief the rest of them are boring. It's just as manipulative as the rest of these reality shows. Big Brother and The X Factor are well known for it - neither even pretend to hide it these days. IAC and SCD masks have started to slip, too, now. 'Reality' TV, my arse. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,846
|
Quote:
I find this way of thinking very naive.
Take last night, for example, Scarlett commented in the hut where she found her cake, and where the rest found theirs. Why? Why does Scarlett have to be the one telling us? I'm not saying she should never narrate, but when she's already 90% of the highlights, does she really need to narrate everything, too? Why not - if Sam's so 'boring' - let Sam be the one to explain where the cakes were hidden? No personality required. Scarlett gets shown in camp, she gets shown narrating, she gets shown giving her opinions. Are you telling me in three weeks, HALF of the cast haven't said or done anything in the camp at all? Not had a little squabble? Not had a heart-to-heart? Not had a little cry? Not said one funny remark? Not shared anything about their life? Even though they're - apparently - in the jungle 24/7 with nothing and nobody else around for three weeks. They're just some kind of zombie robot? Let's say that's true - 50% of the cast are terrible dullards. Well, when the other 50% are busy "entertaining" us, why not let the dullards narrate? Why is it the likes of Scarlett and Vicky get these 'roles' night after night, even though they already get shown in camp and commenting 'witty' remarks in the hut to us? Why give them the narrator role, too? You'd think the show would want their money's worth out of all of them, but obviously not. The argument doesn't make any sense. It's flawed. Only those who don't want to believe the show has its own agenda push this belief the rest of them are boring. It's just as manipulative as the rest of these reality shows. Big Brother and The X Factor are well known for it - neither even pretend to hide it these days. IAC and SCD masks have started to slip, too, now. 'Reality' TV, my arse. |
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South London
Posts: 5,105
|
In my books, Scarlett could never have a meaningful career for anything other than one followed by kiddywinks and young teens.
She may be 'bright' but her continuous using of the work 'like' peppering her sentences, is a complete turn off. Mind you, she is just one of millions of youngsters today who do this and I am not sure from where it originates. It should be stamped out somewhere in their education processes, however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
|
Quote:
No-one is posting on here because there is no discussion anymore, it's all about fix theories, fakery and biased editing.
![]() When there's nothing to talk about we need to make up our own reasons to post something. What else is there to say? They're getting on splendidly, they're smiling and happy, it's harmless (that's always what you say about a TV show which is soul-crushingly vapid and dull). Wonderful. Which is fine for some. But quite often it's that combination of reasons which can make for a TV programme which you'd have to force me to watch at gunpoint. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
|
Quote:
Ain't that the truth!
I've said it many a time but why can't people enjoy the programme for what it is without looking for reasons to moan about it? Also, is it not possible that the ones being shown more are the ones that are simply better tv? And if you aren't enjoying it then you don't have to look for reasons to moan about it because you'll have all your reasons already at hand. If the ones left were better TV I'd be watching it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
|
Quote:
Best series so far? You must've only watched the last two, then.
Nothing wrong with the cast - all seem like relatively good fun. I thoroughly enjoyed the first five episodes, before half the cast disappeared. Why not try making some thread discussions yourselves then? Personally, I take part in topics that interest me; I don't enter just to bitch at those discussing the thread subject. Complaining about the forum being full of complainers... ![]() ![]() ![]() The old "don't watch it then!" argument never fails to amuse me. It's a discussion board, we're not all here for rainbows and unicorns. I enjoy the format, but when things annoy me, I'm going to speak my mind. That can come from enjoying a TV show, but it can equally come from taking potshots at it. ![]() Good examples are the Children in Need and Eurovision threads, and simply terrible series which are so awful you know that they're going to die. Great examples of the latter category are The Antony Cotton Show and The Richard Hammond Show. Which of course not many will remember because they died a mercifully quick death a few years ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
|
Another thing, camp-mates who are rarely shown are described as more boring so that's why we don't see them featured much.
It's the same with any reality show really. But if they are rarely shown how are we to judge if they're boring? The only way we can make that judgement is if they show a lot of them. It really should be something which is left for the viewers to decide. Everyone needs to have a fair showing. Then we can say whether someone is boring or not. It's quite often the case, although not always, that some people who are rarely shown seem to demonstrate that they are not boring at all once they are released from the format of the reality show they've been on. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
|
Quote:
I simply don't let it bother me. Take it as it is and you won't get so wound up about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,769
|
Great Final 3 IMO prefer a Scarlet or Joel win over Adam
So so happy Sam went FINALLY last night |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 13
|
I voted for Sam all votes I had.... I felt from day one Adam/Scarlet be in final... Joel? Zzzzzzx boring and Wayne/Jordan did nothing.Unfortunately Danny rubbed the public up and got voted out too early for me. Carol did very well and I think fatigue got to Larry. It's going to be an Adam win runner up Scarlet.
Wish they would have a different final trial than the Cyclone boring now and eating trials. I like the up in the air challenges Carol and Sam did well and the water ones.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 18,686
|
I quite like Joel - some of the time. He's incredibly disingenuous, of course, and his tongue is planted in his cheek. But he's all right. At least he's able to conduct a semi-intelligent conversation and can be a little funny at times.
I don't see the appeal of Scarlett or Adam. But, then again, I knew from the first night that they were going to be in the final. It's so bloody predictable now. A dim but relatively attractive male 'lad' type. Tick. A gormless, unthreatening, over-exposed RTV graduate. Tick. It was almost as if the rest were supporting characters this year. Some way more interesting and likeable than the script intended, but non-final fodder from the off. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,310
|
Quote:
I simply don't let it bother me. Take it as it is and you won't get so wound up about it.
I'm not all that bothered. Maybe if the edit was bias to someone I disliked, but Vicky and this final three are all right. Just pointing out that the edit is manipulative towards the voting public and it's transparent as hell. Posts like yours, however, do irritate me. We're on the forum to discuss the show; I wouldn't go in the discussion thread and tell those making "negative" comments to turn it off / stop letting it wind you up. That's the whole point. People come on the forum to have a bit of a moan about silly things like Adam's fake fear of spiders, or Scarlett getting all the air time, or Ant & Dec not being as funny as they use to. If we all had your attitude, there wouldn't be a forum because nobody would be discussing anything! Maybe try adding something to the topic instead of looking down your nose at everyone as if you're above it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,214
|
To be fair, Sam got to the final 4 with minimum airtime, and she really wasn't that interesting. She was like a head girl from a Mallory Towers book. Even a little flirting with Joel would have been something.
So I trust that the final 3 had the most to say in there! |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Some Where Only I Know
Posts: 5,678
|
This show started well with no Z-Lebs for a change (Scarlett?). They were all getting on so well, brilliant at tasks, no hunger, no bitching, no show. What happened this year. It got so dull. It has been the Scarlett and Joel show all the way through. Some of the other camp mates never got a look in.
I am not continuing to watch another Reality TV Person crowned. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: the land of the hobbit.
Posts: 8,839
|
Quote:
Can't agree more. Sam was the only decent one left & she's gone. Tomorrow I will record & fast forward, so perhaps 3 minutes of viewing.
So we have these boring three. Worst line up this year in it's history. Hope they get real Celebrity people next year |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,315
|
As long as adam doesnt win.
Hes like a 3 year old trapped in a grown mans body, irritating like a buzzing fly Scarlett is immature for her age but I do feel she sometimes puts on an act. I have found Joel amusing and kind .....so to me out of the 3 the winner |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 1,269
|
Joel for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,309
|
Just given my 5 free votes to Scarlett - can't stand the other two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 132
|
Sam shits on these 3 imo , she's lovely and absolute nails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
I don't. Load of moaning bollox. Best series so far. Lovely bunch. Hope Joel wins. Lovely bloke.
A consequence of having so many people doing well on trials, and no thickos, is that no one is going to look particuarly better this year. There's no older candidate to look funnier, or more outstanding for their age, as the older males were all sent in to be drama providers. There's also not been much to separate Sam, or Scarlett, or indeed Ola, or Adam and Leon. |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,242
|
Thread title sounds like a computer game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,972
|
Quote:
I find this way of thinking very naive.
Take last night, for example, Scarlett commented in the hut where she found her cake, and where the rest found theirs. Why? Why does Scarlett have to be the one telling us? I'm not saying she should never narrate, but when she's already 90% of the highlights, does she really need to narrate everything, too? Why not - if Sam's so 'boring' - let Sam be the one to explain where the cakes were hidden? No personality required. Scarlett gets shown in camp, she gets shown narrating, she gets shown giving her opinions. Are you telling me in three weeks, HALF of the cast haven't said or done anything in the camp at all? Not had a little squabble? Not had a heart-to-heart? Not had a little cry? Not said one funny remark? Not shared anything about their life? Even though they're - apparently - in the jungle 24/7 with nothing and nobody else around for three weeks. They're just some kind of zombie robot? Let's say that's true - 50% of the cast are terrible dullards. Well, when the other 50% are busy "entertaining" us, why not let the dullards narrate? Why is it the likes of Scarlett and Vicky get these 'roles' night after night, even though they already get shown in camp and commenting 'witty' remarks in the hut to us? Why give them the narrator role, too? You'd think the show would want their money's worth out of all of them, but obviously not. The argument doesn't make any sense. It's flawed. Only those who don't want to believe the show has its own agenda push this belief the rest of them are boring. It's just as manipulative as the rest of these reality shows. Big Brother and The X Factor are well known for it - neither even pretend to hide it these days. IAC and SCD masks have started to slip, too, now. 'Reality' TV, my arse. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:29.





