Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob!
Jim was tackled by one housemate throughout her time in the house and maybe brushed a few other people up the wrong way, but remained fairly stoic and level headed throughout the entire series.
Gary single handedly brought an entire house to it's knees whilst gaining support from the rest of the house's enemies and there was nothing anybody could do about it, despite ganging up on him.
Helen is probably the most shocking win in BB history (besides perhaps Ulrika) because she spent the entire 3 months being argumentative, aggressive and confrontational, whilst also managing to be offensive.
Helen is maybe the only one you could use a freedom of speech argument for.
|
The voting logic behind these three were of pretty similar mindsets, though. They're all largely relevant, polarizing characters with sizable fanbases who placed them on a pedestal, where they could do no wrong and
how dare anyone wrong them. Jim and Gary particularly had identical paths to victory, deliberately winding the others up and then playing the maturity trump card or the goodness and wholeness trump card before walking away before the others had the chance to air their legitimate grievances. The only real difference is that Jim's much more malicious and Gary's much more self-serving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mockinator
I actually think all three of the contestants there was quite entertaining, but I feel that the death of all the Reality TV Shows is that it's always constantly controlled by Conservative Housewives, and horny teenage boys and girls, any middle ground voters that voted for who actually was the best in these series have mainly stopped watching and we've got anarchy on shows like BB nowadays, and I think that it's killing TXF.
|
I mean, fair play if you value them as entertaining characters. I don't agree myself (especially not about Jim and Helen) but to each their own, you know? However, to continue to touch on what I was getting at above with Rob, what does concern me is the large number of voters who supported them because they see them as legitimate heroes.
Like, the people who view Jim as the wounded victim in incidents like Frank Carson's dressing room. The people who view Helen as some truth-telling goddess who constantly told it how it was even when she would just mishear people and twist their words. The people who praise Gary as the most lovely, kind, harmless Hollywood legend when objectively he was an exhaustingly eccentric and abrasive elderly man who went through a lot of **** including brain damage and drug overdoses, and even though the others treated him like **** their frustration was often reasonable at base level.
It's frameworks like those when I start to realize the mental gymnastics that the anti-PC crowd goes through to defend their favorites and we're already seeing the same thing with Katie Hopkins. The people who praise her as a truth-telling legend even though all she's done is give unfunny DRs, failing to live up to hype. The people who are vilifying Nadia of all people, if only because they fear she'll be Katie's main opposition soon enough. The people who actually stand by Katie's viewpoints and unironically worship her as a rejection of PC culture for saying the things that nobody dares to say. There really isn't much of a talent in saying whatever the **** you want with no concern for others, but the opposition to the PC brigade will continue to tell themselves otherwise and Katie will walk out of the house in a month or so, ostensibly "a changed woman" or some **** and probably the winner.
Alexander O'Neal,
As my top four supports at the mo at least are the exact same four in your siggy in that order.
Hybrid Mode
