Quote:
Originally Posted by BB6
(Post 7955837)
Why do you hate the fact that the public are getting involved?
You're a fan of Big Brother, which is run by the viewers (well used to anyway). The way I look at it is that it's our show and we should have a say in who stays and who goes? Otherwise we'll be stuck with people we don't like till the end. Not to mention without a public vote, it increases the risk of a popular person being eliminated as they may be popular on the outside, but not in the villa.
I also wasn't a fan of how it was before, as without the public vote it was messy. One week we'd have two evictees, the next we'd have four. Not to mention the format was getting boring when you have so many evictions and all you're doing is re-coupling all the time, leaving the rejects to be eliminated. By having a public vote, it ensures the couples stay coupled up, and we get to judge them as couples as that's the whole point of the show.
I also don't think Omar was that big of a loss, either, but that's just my opinion. Not to mention the original show back in 2005/6 had a public vote, and the show was much better back then.
|
Because the public by and large know nothing (as evidenced by Big Brother), have no clue what they're doing and more often than not end up ruining TV shows because of it. Personally I don't see it as 'our show', that might be the case with Big Brother UK (although I don't think it should be anymore, for the same reason I just mentioned), but Love Island's a totally different programme and it doesn't
have to belong to, or indeed be controlled but the public. Especially when the voting on this is free, there's no financial incentive so I don't see why they're bothering.
I do agree it was a bit messy and inconsistent before, but I was still enjoying it. You've misunderstood the point of the show a little bit though. The point of the show is indeed to couple up, but not for us to judge them. The point is to stay in the game you have to be in a couple, it's what Caroline said on the opening night. And that brings me onto my last point...
This show has constantly referenced the fact that it's a ~game~, and that's a good thing. For far too long most shows on British TV have involved the public somehow, and as I said they usually ruin them, it's boring and there isn't
that much skill involved. By having the contestants themselves decide who stays and who goes, you add the element that I just talked about - where to stay in you need to be in a couple, so there's the possibility that you could play someone just to give yourself a better shot at the money. And that's interesting. Playing with someone's feelings for six weeks for a shot at £50k (it should be more but oh well), that's evil and twattish but it's a game and something we need more of in the UK. Paranoia, who to trust, lies, betrayal, people playing each other. Once you involve the public you remove all of that really, cause then they're just trying to come off well and that usually (especially under VTE) means them trying to be nice and flying under the radar.
Reality shows like Survivor and Big Brother US/Canada that have the people taking part voting each other out are so much better because there's strategy involved and the people who end up winning are far more deserving IMO than the people who win a show decided by the public. Also this is an unpopular opinion but I actually believe when the public are involved in controlling what happens in a reality show then it actually becomes
less real than if you left them up to their own devices, which is natural. Once you have outside interference you aren't letting things play out.
The game (albeit a developing, timid one) that it was in the early weeks > another bog standard reality show involving the public