Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

methodwriter85

Derrick Levasseur: 21 Jump Street

Recommended Posts

    So he's an undercover cop with a wife and baby daughter who once lived out a real-life version of 21 Jump Street. Discuss.

 

    He's pretty douchey but he's one hell of a player, someone I wish we could've had last year in the dismal BB15 season. I like how he, as well as Cody, waited a while before they started playing the game.

Share this post


Link to post

Derrick has been one of my favorites, just because he seems a few grains smarter than the rest. Now, I read from the sainted feed watchers that he's one of those, "I deserve to win because I have a child," people. I wish BB would just leave all the parents home with their children.

Edited by JudyObscure
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I assume we're not allowed to talk about the live feeds here, so I'll just say that I hate Derrick more than anyone else and I hate a lot of them a good bit.

Edited by peachmangosteen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

He is the worst liar, he can never keep eye contact and is always messing with his face, which are both pretty good telltale signs of lying. Plus he'll contradict himself within the same sentence. You would think that with all the lying he's been doing (plus working undercover) he'd get better at it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

If anyone watched tennis in the 80s and 90s, they would remember Steffi Graf sucking the life out of the women's game. She was so dominant and so business-like on the court that no one else even mattered. Finally, Monica Seles came along and gave the game a wake-up call.

 

That's Derrick: the Steffi Graf of Big Brother. If he had any competition, I'd probably be more amazed by his accomplishments.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Derrick told the HGs he worked in Parks and Recreation.  In Derrick's June pre-game interview with Rachel Reilly the name "Leslie Knope" was brought up.  Derrick didn't know who Leslie's character was. 


That was kind of funny to me!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Originally posted in the BB In the Media forum:

That's a fair argument and I'll concede on many points without discounting my own. But I stand by my argument. And I thought Derrick did kinda change or sidestep the subject with the Zingbot cracks, just not in the decisive manner you would have liked.

I think this discussion brushes up against an interesting ethical dilemma, both in society as a general rule and BB as a specific case; at what point does the cost of taking a stand on principle become too high?

I think it's a trifle disingenuous to suggest the ethical standards one applies in general societal discourse should also be applied in the exact same manner within the context of BB. For one thing - out in the world, one has options which don't exist in the BB microverse. You can make a statement of position ("Excuse me, but I don't think rape jokes are ever funny"), then - depending on its reception - either carry the dialogue further, or simply walk away. Carrying the dialogue further may clarify a genuine misunderstanding of interpretation ("I was talking about consensual drunk sex, not rape!"), or it may further solidify a point of friction ("Get off your high horse - it's a freaking joke, for crying out loud!"). In any case, even if the initial cause of the conflict was simple misinterpretation, the potential exists for feelings to get hurt, either temporarily or permanently.

In the real world, that's bad enough; friends might become estranged for weeks - months - years - permanently. The BB House, however, does not afford such real-world luxuries as cooling-off periods or walking away. Everybody is in everybody else's face for extended times every single day in an environment which actively fuels paranoia - a perfect storm of a pressure cooker to blow things out of proportion - which you simply can't afford to let happen if you're playing ANY kind of social game at all. The social game aspect of BB is pretty simple; s/he who gets along best with the greatest number of HGs wins. Figuring out HOW to get along - that's the difficult part. And this is just MHO, but challenging people on their ethics and/or morals probably isn't the best way to get along.

So the dilemma facing HGs is pretty clear-cut. You've signed up to be separated from everybody you care about - pretty close to everybody else on the planet too, now that you mention it - for an extended amount of time, to be cloistered with a handful of strangers in a contest for a prize. So - are you here to be the House's moral/ethical traffic cop, or are you here to win Big Brother? Because the two tend to be diametrically opposed.

This is why I give most of the HGs a free pass for not calling out exaggerated acts of (mis-) behavior; while doing so might give them a short-term case of self-righteous feel-good fuzzies, it jeopardizes their game in the long run. And this is a game - not real life.

ETA: corrected typos

Edited by Nashville
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly, I can't view this the same as I would in a normal situation because they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. It's why I gave leeway after I looked at the way they themselves were reacting to basically being sexually harassed and it was in pretty much the same way as they reacted to the joke.

Share this post


Link to post

The social game aspect of BB is pretty simple; s/he who gets along best with the greatest number of HGs wins. Figuring out HOW to get along - that's the difficult part. And this is just MHO, but challenging people on their ethics and/or morals probably isn't the best way to get along.

So the dilemma facing HGs is pretty clear-cut. You've signed up to be separated from everybody you care about - pretty close to everybody else on the planet too, now that you mention it - for an extended amount of time, to be cloistered with a handful of strangers in a contest for a prize. So - are you here to be the House's moral/ethical traffic cop, or are you here to win Big Brother? Because the two tend to be diametrically opposed.

This is why I give most of the HGs a free pass for not calling out exaggerated acts of (mis-) behavior; while doing so might give them a short-term case of self-righteous feel-good fuzzies, it jeopardizes their game in the long run. And this is a game - not real life.

 

I think Elissa proved last year that you can call people out on doing awful things and what will hurt your game more is not having an actual alliance.

 

Why I hold Derrick to a slightly higher standard and find his inaction a little more difficult to swallow than say, Caleb or Cody, is not only the fact that he's a husband and a father (and thus, an adult), but that his master manipulation skills mysteriously vanished in this particular instance. He could get houseguests to say or do or agree to pretty much anything to help him win money, but when it was standing up for another person (a tenet of the police force), his ability to manipulate others just...magically disappeared! And suddenly, Derrick -- who could get houseguests to agree to go up on the block, who could get them to love him even as he sent them out the door -- was simply powerless to stop another person from being degraded? Talking people out of wanting $500,000 for themselves was easy -- but shutting down talk about one rape joke was simply beyond his control? Really?

 

For someone playing in the service of such lofty ideals (to feed his daughter), they seemed to disappear at an awfully convenient time.

Edited by Eolivet
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

This is why I give most of the HGs a free pass for not calling out exaggerated acts of (mis-) behavior; while doing so might give them a short-term case of self-righteous feel-good fuzzies, it jeopardizes their game in the long run. And this is a game - not real life.

I understand the basic premise of what you're saying. In extreme cases, people might not stand up for what they think is right because they'll be killed or lose their jobs. In the game, some people in some situations fear being "injured" or "killed" in the game if they speak out. However, Derrick was not in any such situation with the sex with Victoria conversation. I don't think it would have jeopardized his game at all, not one iota, to gently or forcefully shut the conversation down. He chose not to and seemed to find the whole thing somewhat amusing.

 

I think Elissa proved last year that you can call people out on doing awful things and what will hurt your game more is not having an actual alliance.

 

Why I hold Derrick to a slightly higher standard and find his inaction a little more difficult to swallow than say, Caleb or Cody, is not only the fact that he's a husband and a father (and thus, an adult), but that his master manipulation skills mysteriously vanished in this particular instance. He could get houseguests to say or do or agree to pretty much anything to help him win money, but when it was standing up for another person (a tenet of the police force), his ability to manipulate others just...magically disappeared! And suddenly, Derrick -- who could get houseguests to agree to go up on the block, who could get them to love him even as he sent them out the door -- was simply powerless to stop another person from being degraded? Talking people out of wanting $500,000 for themselves was easy -- but shutting down talk about one rape joke was simply beyond his control? Really?

 

For someone playing in the service of such lofty ideals (to feed his daughter), they seemed to disappear at an awfully convenient time.

Exactly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if Derrick got a bit of cover in the early days from Donny being visibly the oldest one in the house. He was in his forties to Derrick's thirties, and that beard made Donny look older still. It might have been a bit easier for Derrick to fit in with the younger group since he looked closer in age to the twenty-somethings than he did to Donny. The baby face didn't hurt, either. I know he didn't lie about his age like some houseguests did. [Not naming names, because you all know who I'm talking about, and he doesn't deserve any attention in Derrick's thread.]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think Elissa proved last year that you can call people out on doing awful things and what will hurt your game more is not having an actual alliance.

 

I get what you're saying, and I effing LOVED Elissa, but there's a little fine print/gray area in your specific example. The BB15 hamsters knew that the Brenchel Army was backing Elissa, and knew that any help coming from outside was going to her. The way I remember it, they kinda knew that the only time to move on her was during a double eviction when America was taken out of the equation (just like Big Jeff in BB13). I think that's actually become an ironclad rule of Big Brother 101 ... get rid of the fan favorite  (proven or perceived) during a DE. The way I saw it, Elissa had the luxury of speaking her mind without consequence because no one was going to move on her until they knew it was a DE.

 

As a matter of fact, I think that move is what legitimized Andy's victory. He gets the most credit for that one ... even though I DESPISED his methods in pulling it off, the result is all that objectively matters.

Edited by Bob Sambob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I get what you're saying, and I effing LOVED Elissa, but there's a little fine print/gray area in your specific example. The BB15 hamsters knew that the Brenchel Army was backing Elissa, and knew that any help coming from outside was going to her. The way I remember it, they kinda knew that the only time to move on her was during a double eviction when America was taken out of the equation (just like Big Jeff in BB13). I think that's actually become an ironclad rule of Big Brother 101 ... get rid of the fan favorite  (proven or perceived) during a DE. The way I saw it, Elissa had the luxury of speaking her mind without consequence because no one was going to move on her until they knew it was a DE.

That's a bit of a history  revision on Elissa. She was evicted because as a number she was no longer useful and she couldn't make up her damn mind. Both Amanda and Andy have both said pretty adamantly in multiple  interviews they kept Elissa to control the MVP. They both have said they weren't manipulated to keep her. By the way I'm an Elissa fan and did not like Andy and Amanda, but I tend to believe them on this.

Edited by choclatechip45
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

That's a bit of  history  revision on Elissa. She was evicted because as a number she was no longer useful and she couldn't make up her damn mind. Both Amanda and Andy have both said pretty adamantly in multiple  interviews they kept Elissa to control the MVP. They both have said they weren't manipulated to keep her. By the way I'm an Elissa fan and did not like Andy and Amanda, but I tend to believe them on this.

 

This is pretty much what I was going for; you just said it better. There was reason to keep her. So again, Elissa had the luxury of speaking her mind without consequence because she was useful to the people in charge. But I do stand by Elissa being targeted specifically during a DE, because a). it had to happen in a small window where people couldn't compare notes, and b). outside forces can't intervene as easily during a DE.

Edited by Bob Sambob

Share this post


Link to post

 

This is pretty much what I meant. There was reason to keep her. So again, Elissa had the luxury of speaking her mind without consequence because she was useful to the people in charge. But I do stand by Elissa being targeted specifically during a DE, because a). it had to happen in a small window where people couldn't compare notes, and b). outside forces can't intervene as easily during a DE.

There wasn't much chance to get rid of her her though. She won veto, HOH and the other three times Judd (suspected of being MVP) and Jessie (who no one wanted to align with),Elissa won Veto,  Elissa won HOH and Amanda (no explanation plus Gina Marie struck a deal with Elissa the previous week). 

Edited by choclatechip45

Share this post


Link to post

There wasn't much chance to get rid of her her though. She won veto, HOH and the other three times Judd (suspected of being MVP) and Jessie (who no one wanted to align with),Elissa won Veto,  Elissa won HOH and Amanda (no explanation plus Gina Marie struck a deal with Elissa the previous week). 

 

But this still kinda helps my argument. In addition to the MVP stuff and the outside help, the fact that more powerful players had use for her (what was the term ... "weaponizing" her), and then she wins some HOHs and POVs, people couldn't get rid of her, so she could say whatever she wanted without consequence.

 

This isn't really about Derrick anymore, so I'll stop.

Edited by Bob Sambob

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently PreTV ate an earlier post of mine, so here we go again:

I think Elissa proved last year that you can call people out on doing awful things and what will hurt your game more is not having an actual alliance.

 

I think Elissa proved last year that you can call people out on doing awful things and get your ass booted before F4. :) And she was one of my favorites. Judd (my other fave) deserved to get HIS ass kicked for that bonehead move.

Why I hold Derrick to a slightly higher standard and find his inaction a little more difficult to swallow than say, Caleb or Cody, is not only the fact that he's a husband and a father (and thus, an adult), but that his master manipulation skills mysteriously vanished in this particular instance. He could get houseguests to say or do or agree to pretty much anything to help him win money, but when it was standing up for another person (a tenet of the police force), his ability to manipulate others just...magically disappeared! And suddenly, Derrick -- who could get houseguests to agree to go up on the block, who could get them to love him even as he sent them out the door -- was simply powerless to stop another person from being degraded? Talking people out of wanting $500,000 for themselves was easy -- but shutting down talk about one rape joke was simply beyond his control? Really?

 

I understand the basic premise of what you're saying. In extreme cases, people might not stand up for what they think is right because they'll be killed or lose their jobs. In the game, some people in some situations fear being "injured" or "killed" in the game if they speak out. However, Derrick was not in any such situation with the sex with Victoria conversation. I don't think it would have jeopardized his game at all, not one iota, to gently or forcefully shut the conversation down. He chose not to and seemed to find the whole thing somewhat amusing.

After Derrick's initial attempt to deflect the direction of the conversation, I always considered Derrick's lack of comment a strategic decision. I felt Derrick's "her father would want to punch you in the mouth" comment was a totally unambiguous warning to Frankie that his comments might make folks (viewers and other HGs) uncomfortable. Did anyone else besides me think this conversation seemed like it could've been a sound bite lifted straight from last season?

After that initial warning, however - if the conversation made Derrick uncomfortable enough say something, isn't it likely other HGs might also be uncomfortable/offended? At the point where Frankie's statements might adversely impact his relationship with other HGs, I am of the opinion the issue transitions from an ethical question to one of strategy. If Frankie is bound and determined to dig a hole for himself (using his own mouth as a shovel), why would Derrick bear any responsibility to stop him? If letting Frankie continue might make it easier for other HGs to vote him out later, I wouldn't lift a finger to stop him either.

One final note: in the context of the game, Derrick is NOT a cop - he is a contestant with a cop background. I have no doubt if someone was experiencing a real and immediate threat of physical harm, Derrick would step in at once. In and of themselves, however, mean words don't constitute an assault - not in the absence of an accompanying credible physical threat.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

After Derrick's initial attempt to deflect the direction of the conversation, I always considered Derrick's lack of comment a strategic decision. I felt Derrick's "her father would want to punch you in the mouth" comment was a totally unambiguous warning to Frankie that his comments might make folks (viewers and other HGs) uncomfortable. Did anyone else besides me think this conversation seemed like it could've been a sound bite lifted straight from last season?

Derrick actually made those kind of comments a lot this season, I hadn't thought of them as warnings before but thinking about it in this way it makes sense. He makes them in a joking manner, so as not to offend, reminds the HG he's talking to that family members are watching and are likely to be upset plus mentions how he pictures them reacting, usually violently because as he's said, it would upset him (which could be seen as him telling the other HG's to put themselves in the situation where it is their family member being spoken of that way so that they hopefully stop), the other HG instead continues with the offensive behavior so Derrick lets them dig their own grave so to speak.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

An interesting point no brings up regarding Derrick. I think he is our first  winner who is 30 and younger  who is married and has a child. I was thinking today most of the people who go on Big Brother who are married and have children are older. This season we had 3 contestants who had children who were 30 and younger. Jocasta is 34 and has children. If you want to be a conspiracy theorist maybe after the debacle of last season they wanted a family person to win.

Edited by choclatechip45
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

After that initial warning, however - if the conversation made Derrick uncomfortable enough say something, isn't it likely other HGs might also be uncomfortable/offended? At the point where Frankie's statements might adversely impact his relationship with other HGs, I am of the opinion the issue transitions from an ethical question to one of strategy. If Frankie is bound and determined to dig a hole for himself (using his own mouth as a shovel), why would Derrick bear any responsibility to stop him? If letting Frankie continue might make it easier for other HGs to vote him out later, I wouldn't lift a finger to stop him either.

One final note: in the context of the game, Derrick is NOT a cop - he is a contestant with a cop background. I have no doubt if someone was experiencing a real and immediate threat of physical harm, Derrick would step in at once. In and of themselves, however, mean words don't constitute an assault - not in the absence of an accompanying credible physical threat.

 

To me, that's an example of casual sexism, and also how that kind of behavior is perpetrated. People thinking "I don't have to say anything, I don't want to make waves" and having that be more important than a joke or comment that degrades other people. "Come on, lighten up, it's just a joke!" Derrick had these contestants eating out of his hand and didn't lift a finger to stop this behavior because he was afraid it would hurt his game. Choosing strategy over ethics is exactly what allows this type of behavior to be accepted and laughed off. Winning money was more important. Something else will always be more important.

 

I take your point about the fact that he's not a cop in the house. I still find the hypocrisy pretty striking, considering the guy did cast himself as a family man, with an emphasis on having a young daughter -- and he'd be the first person to punch someone in the face if someone insinuated it'd be pretty funny if a robot took her virginity. That's the epitome of casual sexism -- it's not OK to joke about "my" women, but those "other" women...well, he can't be expected to sacrifice his strategy for ethics. There's a line there!

 

You can't hang your hat on "I'm doing this for my daughter! My daughter! My family! My daughter!" and then when a tasteless sexist joke comes up...eh, no big deal. Because it's OK if it's not about your daughter, right?

 

I absolutely expect Frankie Grande -- social media mogul, desperate for fame, attention and notoriety, someone who wants to be a part of the Hollywood machine and absolutely craves drama -- to make a joke like that and laugh at it. But Derrick the dad laughing right along tells me all I need to know about his "strategy."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

Derrick had these contestants eating out of his hand and didn't lift a finger to stop this behavior because he was afraid it would hurt his game.

ITA with your whole post except I don't think Derrick didn't stop the behavior because he was afraid it would hurt his game; I think he thought it was funny. If it were just about being "afraid," he didn't need to join in the joking. (And the idea of him being "afraid" of these people is absurd.) The whole thing about smashing his computer if someone said such a thing about HIS daughter wasn't really calling the behavior out as wrong, it was extending the joke and, therefore, validating it. Same with Caleb's "There'll be a lot of blood." While Caleb's contribution was more explicitly disgusting, Derrick's contribution supported and added to the overarching sentiment that the conversation was funny and appropriate, if a bit off-color. I could see Derrick making a similar joke about seeing Tenley making out with her bf when she's a teenager. I think his reaction would be quite different if the joke were about Tenley's virginity being "taken" by two guys with "lots of blood."

 

I don't hold Derrick responsible for Frankie's or anyone else's behavior, but I do hold him responsible for his own. That conversation was disgusting and humiliating to Victoria, his "good friend." I would be HORRIFIED if a "good friend" of mine participated in a conversation like that about me, joking about how upset my dad would be to hear it while he chuckled along with the crowd. I don't buy that he had to do that for the sake of his game, but even if that was his motivation, I still think he deserves to be called out. One aspect of the game is seeing how low/far one will go to win the money. If Derrick is willing to sexually humiliate his "good friend" in front of thousands of people to win, that's his choice, but I find that gross (and unnecessary in this particular case). These people never, ever even thought of making a move against Derrick and I don't believe all of that would have suddenly changed if he shut down Frankie (whom everyone saw as disgusting anyway) when he was making an inappropriate joke. I also don't see him as really being susceptible to the groupthink of the house, so, to me, he doesn't have that excuse either. I might believe Caleb with the groupthink argument, but not Derrick. Derrick led the groupthinking, he didn't follow it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think TA as a whole crossed a bigger line than the "joke" which I understand some people view differently, some agree that Derrick tried to stop it in a joking way and others think he encouraged it. TA decided to paint Amber in a completely unflattering light and basically slut shamed her to win $5k, to me that was sexist behavior and they all partook in it.

 

Derrick was interested in controlling the group think as to how they voted, otherwise he was interested in fitting in, he didn't want to make waves. To me there's a huge difference. If he was seen as a leader he would have become a target, it's why he talked himself down as a competitor and propped everyone else up. At that point in the game, Frankie was seen as more of a leader than Derrick and he's a much better competitor that has been shown to have acted spitefully so it would not have been smart to rock the boat.

Edited by willpwr

Share this post


Link to post

TA decided to paint Amber in a completely unflattering light and basically slut shamed her to win $5k, to me that was sexist behavior and they all partook in it.

 

I agree. That whole thing was so gross. Frankie, Derrick, and Zach all laughing about it was awful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The only good thing is I don't believe TA gave them $5K for that task being "completed." Didn't they show all the completed tasks (the rumor, the fake rat, the scavenger hunt)? I was glad they didn't -- I thought they used that task to do the alliance's dirty work, and I'm glad the show saw through it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. That whole thing was so gross. Frankie, Derrick, and Zach all laughing about it was awful.

Zach wasn't part of TA. I thought the entire house laughing was disgusting but TA as a whole was just downright horrible. All three of them spread rumors about Amber.

Share this post


Link to post

But Zach loved the idea (like LOVED it and was SO excited to do it) and actually executed it, so he doesn't look good at all in the matter to me.

 

You're right, Eolivet, they didn't get the TA money for that task. 

 

It was funny to me because for quite some time they seemed to believe they did get the money for that. I don't know if Production was fucking with them and saying they did and if they just assumed, but either way it was hilarious since they actually didn't get the money.

 

Thinking about that reminded me of the time they got fish pizza as HNs the week Derrick was a HN and he thought it meant all the fish in the house and was running around telling everyone America loved them and he was just on such a high thinking he was loved and then when he found out it was just canned sardines his face totally changed. It was amazing!

Edited by peachmangosteen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Derrick said on the live feeds they got credit for the "calling someone out" task. The show said they failed, but why would the DR lie to them about accomplishing it?

Share this post


Link to post

Derrick said on the live feeds they got credit for the "calling someone out" task. The show said they failed, but why would the DR lie to them about accomplishing it?

 

Yea, I don't get that either. I think maybe at first Production was gonna give them that, but then they decided/realized it really didn't fit the criteria and so they decided not to give it to them. 

Share this post


Link to post

I remember Derrick talking to Frankie about it and he said the DR said as long as one person was going off for at least a minute it "counted". Bizarre. Someone needs to ask Derrick or Donny (I would never ask someone to willingly subject themselves to Frankie) about it. 

Share this post


Link to post

I remember Derrick talking to Frankie about it and he said the DR said as long as one person was going off for at least a minute it "counted". Bizarre. Someone needs to ask Derrick or Donny (I would never ask someone to willingly subject themselves to Frankie) about it.

I remember that as well - but even at the time, I recall wondering if someone in the DR Production staff was going off-script, or if something got misinterpreted. An argument (which is what America voted on) and a rant are two different things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

When Donny first explained that task (he was the TA member to get that card), he said there had to be a back and forth for something like 20 seconds or so. It wasn't very long. But then somehow Derrick/Frankie started talking like it could be one-sided.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad they didn't get credit for that, nor the "nominate a physical threat" and somehow have that mean "Amber." Funny how women were totally useless until $5K was on the line, and then one was a "physical threat." That was the task to which I was referring, and I thought they also said they got credit for that one.

 

I'll always wonder who the second highest vote-getter behind Derrick was for Team America, since he was the last one in after Joey was voted out. If Derrick and Frankie were never artificially "aligned," Derrick might've at least been nominated -- and then he might've actually had to think on his feet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad they didn't get credit for that, nor the "nominate a physical threat" and somehow have that mean "Amber." Funny how women were totally useless until $5K was on the line, and then one was a "physical threat." That was the task to which I was referring, and I thought they also said they got credit for that one.

 

Yea, them getting credit for that still annoys me. Derrick put 'physical threat' in air quotes when he spoke about in the DR for pete's sake!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

You're right, the mission failed, which I am glad it did because neither Derrick, Donnie or Frankie deserved any money for encouraging such behavior.

 

The problem wasn't TA.  The problem was the challenge "America" picked for them.  Some vicious sharks out there in fandom.  Though IIRC, the options weren't all that benign that week.  i.e. the real sharks are the BB producers and showrunners. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The problem wasn't TA.  The problem was the challenge "America" picked for them.  Some vicious sharks out there in fandom.  Though IIRC, the options weren't all that benign that week.  i.e. the real sharks are the BB producers and showrunners.

Echo echo. On more than one occasion I got the impression the TAFT members seemed to think America was thinking up the specific tasks. Maybe they thought viewers were voting on viewer-submitted suggestions...?

Share this post


Link to post

I just watched Derrick on Rob Cesternino's podcast about BB Canada (which I don't watch). Anyway, Derrick mentioned that he no longer talks to his father and Caleb but his father and Caleb talk to each other. He didn't really say what caused the fallout but it appears that Caleb stole his father in a weird way. Does anyone have the skinny on what went down here? It's sounds totally crazy!

Share this post


Link to post

I just watched Derrick on Rob Cesternino's podcast about BB Canada (which I don't watch). Anyway, Derrick mentioned that he no longer talks to his father and Caleb but his father and Caleb talk to each other. He didn't really say what caused the fallout but it appears that Caleb stole his father in a weird way. Does anyone have the skinny on what went down here? It's sounds totally crazy!

 

Maybe Caleb was more in need of a father figure than Derrick...?

Share this post


Link to post

That is very odd.  Shame on his father for cultivating this friendship.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

13 hours ago, Yeldarbe said:

Anyone catch Derrick on ID channel's "Is OJ innocent?" 

Yes! Though I don't think OJ is actually innocent... that show has a forum but I don't know how much crossover there is for BB fans. (Heading over there now to look since I now realize I haven't yet). I do like the show though, and I thin he's doing a decent enough job. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size