Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeballPaul
I think Helen winning was the perfect ending to this series tbh.While i congratulate Helens fans for voting her to win and getting the result they wanted,The end result reflected what a terrible series this actually was.
The pass to the final was like ridiculous joke whoever would have got it.
The amount of meddling with nomminations made this more like a TOWIEesque drama than 'reality',The power being taken away from the voters.
The housemates being tipped off as to how they're doing in the show at every opportunity during tasks goes against everything that BB is about.
Ex house mates going in for tasks and parties and feeding information to them should not be allowed.
Discussing nominations with no punishments.
The awful editing and bias week in week out.
It's little wonder Emma's getting visibly pissed off with what's happened to Big Brother and seems dumb founded and embarrassed tonight,She is too good a presenter to be mixed up in this shambles.
Helen was the perfect winner for this series as the result highlighted what a joke it has been.It seems we now have a spoof or parody of BB.
I am glad Helen won in hindsight,Maybe in future series',Idiotic ideas like a pass to the final will be left on the cutting room floor and forgotten about.
Just my thoughts on this series but congrats to the people who got a good result,I mean that  |
No, the pass to the final showed the intrinsic weakness of the show, people like Helen should be allowed to flourish and go on a journey and under normal rules this wold never happen. She would have been out in the first one or two weeks.
I would champion a change in format, there is way too much interference from BB the only year in the series of the history of BB where a group where allowed to form a pact and strategically block vote others out and that group would watch each others backs, was the year Victor was in it and he should have won.
But there is an inherent weakness to the show where the strongest characters are voted out by the public and his shouldn't be allowed, We don't want to see blandness, we don't want to see boring, we don't want to see arguing for argument's sake (Christopher). Interesting conversation, yes, but how many of the victim's group offered us an alternative when they withdrew themselves? Exactly, all they did was screw their faces up and criticise.
I am not sure how you would change the format to have the most interesting remain in the house but that is what it needs, in my humble opinion.