The justification of support for housemates like Gemma (@Kirk)

[Jack_]

I typed all this out before the other thread was closed and it's not going to waste (plus it's a genuine, civil response so)...

I'm not attempting to tell any of you GC supporters who to support, but I would genuinely welcome any of you enlightening me as to just what it is about her that you find admirable or worthy of support, because I am genuinely baffled.

Let's see.

She has openly admitted she is just trying to 'make good TV' and is purposely exaggerating herself and to an extent playing a character in order to do so, which to start with is extremely commendable. It is about time more celebrities learnt that they need to earn their fee, instead of sitting on their arse and contributing **** all to the series, often sailing their way through undeservedly to the final and completely wasting the budget. The fact she realises this is an entertainment programme and is consciously providing both the viewers and producers with material is something to be applauded.

Furthermore, her ridiculously over the top outbursts and meltdowns that are so obviously fake - for reasons outlined above - are absolutely hilarious :joker: and what makes them so funny is not just because of their nature, but because the other housemates foolishly keep lapping up everything she is doing, when she categorically keeps spelling out to them that she is just 'trying to make a TV show'. They are playing right into her hands and it's so very silly.

I am sure someone will be quick to point out that this is not 'an act', and even if this is the case, this is a television show and not real life, so it doesn't matter. Nobody is denying that acts such as accepting a blow dry in return for sacrificing hot water for the rest of the house, or refusing to take part in tasks etc etc is selfish. Of course it is selfish, and if it weren't within the confines of an entertainment programme it would be condemnable, but there are of course two ways of seeing this since we're talking about such actions in the context of a TV show - one, on a personal level as something that is 'morally' wrong, but on the other as something that needs to be applauded for being something that 'rocks the boat', causes a discussion, pisses people off.

There would be nothing duller than in such situations for housemates to go 'nah guys I'm not that selfish, let's just keep the hot water' or 'I am going to be a team player guys!!!!'...because that's the scene over, and how boring is that? You need housemates that don't play ball and are difficult to live with. We, as viewers, are not living with them - and it's important for us to remember this. I am damn sure that if I were living with someone like Gemma I'd be pissed off at her actions, but I am not and this is not a morality competition, it's an entertainment programme. I am not seeking new friends or people to hang out with, so why would I judge housemates in such a way? You need housemates like Gemma (and countless others) to keep what is an entertainment television programme interesting.

[Dominic]

:clap1:

[MB.]

:clap2:

[Marsh.]

Maybe you should've opened a tumblr? :idc:

[SherzyK]

:clap1: :love:

[Jack_]

Maybe you should've opened a tumblr? :idc:

Maybe you should suck my d :idc:

[jet]

Brilliant! :clap1:

[Denver]

https://media.giphy.com/media/26CajVdGf4cqKN4Zi/giphy.gif

[Marsh.]

Maybe you should suck my d :idc:

:smug:

[Macie Lightfoot]

oooh this is so reminiscent of the Justification of Jem Palmer, which as a reminder can be found here:

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270062

[kirklancaster]

I typed all this out before the other thread was closed and it's not going to waste (plus it's a genuine, civil response so)...



Let's see.

She has openly admitted she is just trying to 'make good TV' and is purposely exaggerating herself and to an extent playing a character in order to do so, which to start with is extremely commendable. It is about time more celebrities learnt that they need to earn their fee, instead of sitting on their arse and contributing **** all to the series, often sailing their way through undeservedly to the final and completely wasting the budget. The fact she realises this is an entertainment programme and is consciously providing both the viewers and producers with material is something to be applauded.

Furthermore, her ridiculously over the top outbursts and meltdowns that are so obviously fake - for reasons outlined above - are absolutely hilarious :joker: and what makes them so funny is not just because of their nature, but because the other housemates foolishly keep lapping up everything she is doing, when she categorically keeps spelling out to them that she is just 'trying to make a TV show'. They are playing right into her hands and it's so very silly.

I am sure someone will be quick to point out that this is not 'an act', and even if this is the case, this is a television show and not real life, so it doesn't matter. Nobody is denying that acts such as accepting a blow dry in return for sacrificing hot water for the rest of the house, or refusing to take part in tasks etc etc is selfish. Of course it is selfish, and if it weren't within the confines of an entertainment programme it would be condemnable, but there are of course two ways of seeing this since we're talking about such actions in the context of a TV show - one, on a personal level as something that is 'morally' wrong, but on the other as something that needs to be applauded for being something that 'rocks the boat', causes a discussion, pisses people off.

There would be nothing duller than in such situations for housemates to go 'nah guys I'm not that selfish, let's just keep the hot water' or 'I am going to be a team player guys!!!!'...because that's the scene over, and how boring is that? You need housemates that don't play ball and are difficult to live with. We, as viewers, are not living with them - and it's important for us to remember this. I am damn sure that if I were living with someone like Gemma I'd be pissed off at her actions, but I am not and this is not a morality competition, it's an entertainment programme. I am not seeking new friends or people to hang out with, so why would I judge housemates in such a way? You need housemates like Gemma (and countless others) to keep what is an entertainment television programme interesting.

Thank you Jack. When the other thread closed so suddenly, I thought that I would not be receiving any type of serious answer, but though I do not like Gemma at all, I am now fecked, because I cannot in all honesty disagree with anything you have said above.

[Firewire]

I tried explaining this to people at work and just got dirty looks and "she's a ****" replies

[MB.]

I tried explaining this to people at work and just got dirty looks and "she's a ****" replies

Quit your job tbqh

[Marsh.]

I tried explaining this to people at work and just got dirty looks and "she's a ****" replies

If you threw a verbal essay at me in work you'd get a printer to the face.

[Will.]

I tried explaining this to people at work and just got dirty looks and "she's a ****" replies

ha.

[bots]

I'm afraid your defense of Gemma isn't realistic, and here is why.

1, Irrespective of whether its on TV or not, they are all staying their 24/7 (or at least should be) so they have to conform to social norms or be criticised. Gemma is not conforming to social norms.

2. Some may consider humiliating and abusing others entertaining, but the vast majority of viewers do not. Also, one only needs to look at her eyes to know she is not acting in the slightest.

[MB.]

Yeah Jack that told you

[jet]

I'm afraid your defense of Gemma isn't realistic, and here is why.

1, Irrespective of whether its on TV or not, they are all staying their 24/7 (or at least should be) so they have to conform to social norms or be criticised. Gemma is not conforming to social norms.

2. Some may consider humiliating and abusing others entertaining, but the vast majority of viewers do not. Also, one only needs to look at her eyes to know she is not acting in the slightest.

Examples? I didn't see any of this.

[Tom4784]

She's a harmless drama queen, she's too ridiculous to be mad about. I don't really understand why people are losing their **** over her.

[rusticgal]

Well said....and you are right.

However.....but she won't get my vote for doing it.

[bots]

Yeah Jack that told you

your sarcasm and wondrous wit are legendary :pat:

[Jack_]

I tried explaining this to people at work and just got dirty looks and "she's a ****" replies

I feel you, whenever I try to explain this argument to anyone in real life regarding any kind of housemate like this it's always '...:umm2: yeah but they're just a dick', they never know what to say :laugh: it's hard enough doing it on a forum let alone in real life

I'm afraid your defense of Gemma isn't realistic, and here is why.

1, Irrespective of whether its on TV or not, they are all staying their 24/7 (or at least should be) so they have to conform to social norms or be criticised. Gemma is not conforming to social norms.

2. Some may consider humiliating and abusing others entertaining, but the vast majority of viewers do not. Also, one only needs to look at her eyes to know she is not acting in the slightest.

1) 'Social norms' (within reason) go out of the window in the confines of a television set in Borehamwood. Big Brother is not real life. 'Nominating' two people you're living with for potential eviction from your residence is not real life. Dressing up as puppets and puppet masters, eating fermented eggs, transporting coloured liquids using various contraptions (while secretly all 'sabotaging' it) is not real life. The whole programme is not real life. It is faux reality, ridiculous 'tasks', sleeping within walls made of plasterboard with about a hundred mirrors, the withdrawal of outside contact (well, you know). The entire thing is a suspension of everything all of us know to be true. 'Social norms' cannot genuinely exist within such a contrived, false environment. And pretty much every housemate to ever leave the house has said that their judgement and rationality were altered through living within it, because it isn't normal. It isn't real life.

2) I don't personally see how she's abused or humiliated anyone but regardless...so long as it doesn't go as far as bullying, anything goes in that house. If you enter a programme that is notorious for its arguments, drama, difficult conditions, knowing full well you will live with ***** and be looked after by a deliberately evil production team, you subject yourself to all of it willingly. If you can't hack it, don't go in.

[Jake.]

this is so true. honestly it's a month of television and you'd think people would want them all sitting around drinking tea and being polite the way they go on

[jet]

She's a harmless drama queen, she's too ridiculous to be mad about. I don't really understand why people are losing their **** over her.

Thank goodness for common sense.

[MB.]

your sarcasm and wondrous wit are legendary :pat:

Not nearly as legendary as our lord and saviour Dame Gemma Collins, though

[ScottyT]

Her being a vile, nasty, malicious bitch is all part of her character? What kind of sociopath would want to be seen or portray that kind of person?

It isn't an act, she's just a horrible person.

[Ant.]

I'm glad to see some Gemma love. I know she's loved, but with the amount of hate she gets I feel as if I'm the only Gemma fan. Thankfully the queen is loved :clap:
She and Tiffany are tied as my favourite, but tbh I feel like changing my favourite to Gemma given how I haven't seen that much Tiffany airtime

Not nearly as legendary as our lord and saviour Dame Gemma Collins, though

[2]

[zakman440]

Well put Jack :clap1:

[Macie Lightfoot]

and even though I do love me some Gemma, here's what I have to say

-The idea of "you have to earn your fee" triggers my BB16 PTSD and is way too eerily similar to Marc (and the show itself) pushing forth the beliefs that this is Big Brother WHY ARE YOU ALL GETTING ALONG and that if you're not providing off-the-wall antics and arguments then you're wasting your time and you're not a good HM. I don't think reality TV is nearly as black and white as that dichotomy is, and I prefer quality over quantity.

-I also like to at least pretend that there's some human component to the shows I watch but the whole framework of Be A Good Housemate is completely disingenuous and is nothing close to human behavior. Like, it's literally antisocial behavior, and this is a show that is completely made up of human-to-human interactions. This also applies to the idea of BB being a morality competition, because I find this show REALLY hard to watch when its values are nowhere in line with my personal values (hence why BB15 and 16 are my two least fave series.)

-I don't really care about people's reactions playing right into Gemma's hands, because the idea of people duping each other in the BBUK house in terms of gameplay is so ****ing boring to me, but Aaron somehow won BB12 so I guess some people are into that.

But regardless of all of this, I still love Gemma! The two easiest ways to get into my heart are by being hilarious and by being righteous, and Gemma is most definitely the former. I place a high value on humor because BBUK might be the funniest show I watch, and Gemma's made this series enjoyable for me because her humor is right up my alley.

[luvjustin]

Beautifully put!

To be honest I don't think it's ALL an act. There is a lot of the real Gemma in there. She does have a vicious selfish streak in her character. (Don't we all) but I don't think she's gone as far as bullying as others would have you believe. She has had some bad reactions to situations but never once (that we have seen) initiated any kind of personal abuse.

[ScottyT]

Beautifully put!

To be honest I don't think it's ALL an act. There is a lot of the real Gemma in there. She does have a vicious selfish streak in her character. (Don't we all) but I don't think she's gone as far as bullying as others would have you believe. She has had some bad reactions to situations but never once (that we have seen) initiated any kind of personal abuse.

Personal abuse? Didn't she nudge Steph and then go outside and call her a nasty ****ing bitch or something? When her and Daniella left the game she went on about how she hates her etc. All personal abuse, take the GC-tinted shades off...

[Kizzy]

I'm afraid your defense of Gemma isn't realistic, and here is why.

1, Irrespective of whether its on TV or not, they are all staying their 24/7 (or at least should be) so they have to conform to social norms or be criticised. Gemma is not conforming to social norms.

2. Some may consider humiliating and abusing others entertaining, but the vast majority of viewers do not. Also, one only needs to look at her eyes to know she is not acting in the slightest.

Call the norm police :idc:

[Marsh.]

Conform to the norm of norm conform

[jaxie]

I feel the same way about Tiffany as Kirk feels about Gemma, her support baffles me. I can understand the Gemma support far more easily than support for Tiffany. What is so special about her? I find nothing about her appealing, she isn't amusing, she seems obsessed with getting it on with some guy, any guy, in the house and her behaviour over 'David is dead' was plain out of order and bizarre!.

[Jack_]

I feel the same way about Tiffany as Kirk feels about Gemma, her support baffles me. I can understand the Gemma support far more easily than support for Tiffany. What is so special about her? I find nothing about her appealing, she isn't amusing, she seems obsessed with getting it on with some guy, any guy, in the house and her behaviour over 'David is dead' was plain out of order and bizarre!.

The OP applies to just about any housemate who is objectively one of the stars of the show but receives criticism

In the case of Tiffany I would say 'David's dead' gate has to be one of the funniest things to ever happen on Big Brother, her ridiculously OTT reactions to being nominated, Megan's eviction are all hilarious, she's been involved in a few feuds, but she also has a very good read on what's going on in the house

[Ant.]

Personal abuse? Didn't she nudge Steph and then go outside and call her a nasty ****ing bitch or something? When her and Daniella left the game she went on about how she hates her etc. All personal abuse, take the GC-tinted shades off...

at least she wasn't locked up in a drama studio to pipe down lmao

[Stormy]

The reality is that we like who we like. Some like the villains, some like the drama makers, some like the perceived 'trod upons' or the underdogs.

For me, while I can't stand Gemma, personally....I would prefer that she win over someone like Darren, Scotty T. or Christopher. I can't stand housemates that can merrily go on their way while ignoring fellow housemates that are upset, having a meltdown, being ganged up on or isolated...and be rewarded with a win for it.

I'd much rather the panto villan or the crazy one or the drama queen/king win or even the noble one or the mother character win.

I hate rewarding the so called boring 'normal ones' who have made not a lick of difference being in the house or not.

[Kizzy]

Conform to the norm of norm conform

http://i4.cdnds.net/16/03/300x225/gemma-stephanie-jeremy-talk-cbb.jpg

I'll normin stormin that shiz performin freestylin borin hair formin numpty!

[Marsh.]

http://i4.cdnds.net/16/03/300x225/gemma-stephanie-jeremy-talk-cbb.jpg

I'll normin stormin that shiz performin freestylin borin hair formin numpty!

:joker:

[jet]

Beautifully put!

To be honest I don't think it's ALL an act. There is a lot of the real Gemma in there. She does have a vicious selfish streak in her character. (Don't we all) but I don't think she's gone as far as bullying as others would have you believe. She has had some bad reactions to situations but never once (that we have seen) initiated any kind of personal abuse.

You are correct. They think if they call Gemma a bully often enough, people will start to believe it. They forget we watch the same show.
For instance, take knickergate. I've read all over the place that Gemma was in the thick of it with her 'cronies' and how she was horrible to Steph about it. All made up nonsense. Gemma had nothing to do with it and the only things she said were 'Jeremy will wash them for her now' and then at the table 'it's not fair to leave them on the table'. That's it. She never said a word about it to Steph.
Yet they brushed off what John did as nothing. That's the sort of insidious falsehoods that they think will make people join them in their hatred.
It doesn't work - it only makes people want to support her more which in turn leads to more votes.

[luvjustin]

Personal abuse? Didn't she nudge Steph and then go outside and call her a nasty ****ing bitch or something? When her and Daniella left the game she went on about how she hates her etc. All personal abuse, take the GC-tinted shades off...

No dear. That's not personal abuse. That's playground bull****. Personal abuse would be to take down someone's character. Rip their whole being to pieces. To scream and shout a tirade of personal insults at someone. Show me the tapes of Gemma doing this.

[MrWong]

You are correct. They think if they call Gemma a bully often enough, people will start to believe it. They forget we watch the same show.
For instance, take knickergate. I've read all over the place that Gemma was in the thick of it with her 'cronies' and how she was horrible to Steph about it. All made up nonsense. Gemma had nothing to do with it and the only things she said were 'Jeremy will wash them for her now' and then at the table 'it's not fair to leave them on the table'. That's it. She never said a word about it to Steph.
Yet they brushed off what John did as nothing. That's the sort of insidious falsehoods that they think will make people join them in their hatred.
It doesn't work - it only makes people want to support her more which in turn leads to more votes.

:clap1:

[Vicky.]

I can't stand her tbh, but I appreciate that she is good for the show.

[ThriceShy]

I typed all this out before the other thread was closed and it's not going to waste (plus it's a genuine, civil response so)...



Let's see.

She has openly admitted she is just trying to 'make good TV' and is purposely exaggerating herself and to an extent playing a character in order to do so, which to start with is extremely commendable. It is about time more celebrities learnt that they need to earn their fee, instead of sitting on their arse and contributing **** all to the series, often sailing their way through undeservedly to the final and completely wasting the budget. The fact she realises this is an entertainment programme and is consciously providing both the viewers and producers with material is something to be applauded.

Furthermore, her ridiculously over the top outbursts and meltdowns that are so obviously fake - for reasons outlined above - are absolutely hilarious :joker: and what makes them so funny is not just because of their nature, but because the other housemates foolishly keep lapping up everything she is doing, when she categorically keeps spelling out to them that she is just 'trying to make a TV show'. They are playing right into her hands and it's so very silly.

I am sure someone will be quick to point out that this is not 'an act', and even if this is the case, this is a television show and not real life, so it doesn't matter. Nobody is denying that acts such as accepting a blow dry in return for sacrificing hot water for the rest of the house, or refusing to take part in tasks etc etc is selfish. Of course it is selfish, and if it weren't within the confines of an entertainment programme it would be condemnable, but there are of course two ways of seeing this since we're talking about such actions in the context of a TV show - one, on a personal level as something that is 'morally' wrong, but on the other as something that needs to be applauded for being something that 'rocks the boat', causes a discussion, pisses people off.

There would be nothing duller than in such situations for housemates to go 'nah guys I'm not that selfish, let's just keep the hot water' or 'I am going to be a team player guys!!!!'...because that's the scene over, and how boring is that? You need housemates that don't play ball and are difficult to live with. We, as viewers, are not living with them - and it's important for us to remember this. I am damn sure that if I were living with someone like Gemma I'd be pissed off at her actions, but I am not and this is not a morality competition, it's an entertainment programme. I am not seeking new friends or people to hang out with, so why would I judge housemates in such a way? You need housemates like Gemma (and countless others) to keep what is an entertainment television programme interesting.


D-

[Jordan.]

Just let people support who they want. I don't why every series people need to shove down others throat who is the ENTERTAINING characters like it isn't something that's subjective.

[Jack_]

Just let people support who they want. I don't why every series people need to shove down others throat who is the ENTERTAINING characters like it isn't something that's subjective.

People can support who they want, someone asked a question about how anyone could possibly support someone like Gemma (which is pretty much doing what you've just described) so I answered it. People can agree or not I don't really care :shrug:

[MTVN]

and even though I do love me some Gemma, here's what I have to say

-The idea of "you have to earn your fee" triggers my BB16 PTSD and is way too eerily similar to Marc (and the show itself) pushing forth the beliefs that this is Big Brother WHY ARE YOU ALL GETTING ALONG and that if you're not providing off-the-wall antics and arguments then you're wasting your time and you're not a good HM. I don't think reality TV is nearly as black and white as that dichotomy is, and I prefer quality over quantity.

-I also like to at least pretend that there's some human component to the shows I watch but the whole framework of Be A Good Housemate is completely disingenuous and is nothing close to human behavior. Like, it's literally antisocial behavior, and this is a show that is completely made up of human-to-human interactions. This also applies to the idea of BB being a morality competition, because I find this show REALLY hard to watch when its values are nowhere in line with my personal values (hence why BB15 and 16 are my two least fave series.)

-I don't really care about people's reactions playing right into Gemma's hands, because the idea of people duping each other in the BBUK house in terms of gameplay is so ****ing boring to me, but Aaron somehow won BB12 so I guess some people are into that.

But regardless of all of this, I still love Gemma! The two easiest ways to get into my heart are by being hilarious and by being righteous, and Gemma is most definitely the former. I place a high value on humor because BBUK might be the funniest show I watch, and Gemma's made this series enjoyable for me because her humor is right up my alley.

Agree with a lot of this (apart from loving Gemma). I've never cared for really contrived housemates and never will. Of course BB is an entertainment show but it's also supposed to be a reality show where everything is not perfectly scripted or all about manufactured drama: if I just wanted that then I'd watch a sitcom or a drama. I like seeing real behaviour, I like seeing how vastly different people interact when forced to and I like seeing how all the stresses and the reality of life in the BB fishbowl impact on a person. That is what has always been interesting about the show.

Just let people support who they want. I don't why every series people need to shove down others throat who is the ENTERTAINING characters like it isn't something that's subjective.

Also agree with this.

[Withano]

I hated GC before CBB. But nobody can deny her worth inside the house. Shes still awful as a living being.

[Jordan.]

Agree with a lot of this (apart from loving Gemma). I've never cared for really contrived housemates and never will. Of course BB is an entertainment show but it's also supposed to be a reality show where everything is not perfectly scripted or all about manufactured drama: if I just wanted that then I'd watch a sitcom or a drama. I like seeing real behaviour, I like seeing how vastly different people interact when forced to and I like seeing how all the stresses and the reality of life in the BB fishbowl impact on a person. That is what has always been interesting about the show.

I posted something similar to this the other day. Having contrived characters is the cause of BB losing it's originality, which is why I find it hard to support them.

[LukeB]

I do hate the "why would anyone like so and so housemate" tbh, it would be boring and dull if every single person hated/liked the same people. I love Gemma and I agree she's entertaining, in fact she isn't even a bully. But her being horrible isn't good viewing as such. Entertainment is meant to be fun/funny/enjoyable. Making someone miserable/upset is not entertaining at all...

[Northern Monkey]

I suppose it's all subjective in the end.What makes good viewing for one person does'nt for another.Yeah Gemma causes some **** in the house but then i find her obnoxious at the same time which overides the entertainment factor for me.Wheras Tiffany i also find entertaining but quite likeable at the same time.So two positives for her.

[RodHull]

You need housemates like Gemma (and countless others) to keep what is an entertainment television programme interesting.

Agreed 100%

We do need the Gemmas, Perez's, Helens, etc to make each series actually dramatic.

That doesnt mean we have to like them or actually justify their dick like behaviour. **** yes I want daniella and the bore snore crew out before her but I dont like her and never will and anyone who justifies her nonsense and makes excuses for her frankly needs to remove their head from their own ass.

I think thats the issue, fine find her hilarious and great tv but what we see a lot of her fans do is try to make out shes some saint, which clearly she isnt.

[Macie Lightfoot]

But drama in and of itself isn't entertaining, and a dramatic series isn't automatically anonymous with a good series. I found both BB15 and CBB15 to be absolutely dreadful, largely due to Helen and Perez's contributions.

[RodHull]

As someone who liked Helen (I know so shoot me) and tolerated Perez I cant very well completely hang GC out to dry I just dont think she has an ounce of Perez's slightly off the wall 'what planet is he from' weirdness or Helens amusing turn of phrase and wit in arguments.

I find her peggy mitchell mockney shtick very wearing and dull

[Macie Lightfoot]

Helens amusing turn of phrase and wit in arguments.

I mean, that's one way to interpret her character I guess?

[RodHull]

I mean, that's one way to interpret her character I guess?

I appreciate she is BB marmite and thats why I tentatively say its fine to keep GC in but I would never defend some of Helens behaviour, as much I thought she made that series I wouldnt go near her with a barge pole in real life.

[jennyjuniper]

I can aee where you are going Jack, but the thing is that I am not entertained by someone with no talent acting like a diva and being selfish. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just an occasional thing, but the programme is all about her.
It's easy to say, well the others are too quiet or dull, but they never really get a chance to shine when the producers concentrate on one housemate.