[Stevep]

Ok, 'ruined' is probably too strong of a word as i'm still watching the series, but tbh i was hooked before reality stars became a permanent fixture in each series anyway.

BB was always about shoving in a bunch of individuals from various backrounds and watching how they interact with each other, if they clashed then it was due to a genuine difference in opinion that led to that disagreement, in other words the arguments were not manufactured. Whereas now, they seem to be to a degree, granted not all of them but a good chunk of them blatantly are. Farrah's argument with James the other day was imo created and manipulated by Farrah.

In the past accusations were always tediously made on whether a HM was being 'real' or not (i still cringe at that word), whereas today it's quite clear that only a handful of HMs are being 'real'. Farrah for example is quite clearly playing a game and acting up to her character outside the house, in other words the product she is selling and making her money. This was clearly evident on day 1 when she blanked Emma on stage. The point of blanking Emma? To cause shock and in turn an interest in her. No other reason can be used to explain her actions there. Spidey were also guilty of playing a game, as were Cami Lee and Katie Hopkins. Their whole deal is to be controversial in order to create entertaining TV so they get hired over and over.

So, have reality stars ruined CBB or made it more interesting/entertaining? Do you prefer arguments that develop naturally as they did in past CBBs or do you prefer them to be manufactured, as many are now? There is no doubt that manufactured arguments do create larger and more explosive disagreements between HMs and that does in turn create entertaining TV, but at the same time there is something distasteful about HMs performing for the camera, as Farrah clearly did the other day when she overreacted (acted) towards James 'staring' at her.