[Yaki da]

At this point it is. I hoped after Big Brother 14 (the most successful series on Channel 5) they would head in the right direction but they took their meddling to an all time high the following year and reduced the live coverage that we were given. I had hopes that the failures of Big Brother 15 would at least make them return to something closer to BB13/14 (Neither of which were close to ideal) but BB16 was even worse.

The thing that frustrates me is people who try to make out the first two weeks of BB16 were a return to the old days just because the housemates were "Nicer" than the previous year. Showbiz was evicted without a public vote (something that happened to Marlon and Danielle the previous year which led to a lot of complaints), Nick was told he had to nominate face to face every week (a punishment that meant nothing) and Jack won immunity for 3 weeks (after all the controversy with Helen). There was this sort of interference on the FIRST night. And the choice of housemates were appalling. The men were wimps and the girls were older and dull. It was a terrible series.

The fact is the producers can't help themselves. They're addicted to getting involved. It's nothing new. They did this on Channel 4 as well and ruined the programme back then. It was BB10 that was the first to take away a massive amount of live coverage and that was the worst rated series ever on Channel 4.

The last truly good series imo was BB9.

I would just add that I don't buy into the idea that BB was always for just "Normal people". BB1 was full of people who wanted television careers. Dean from BB2 was in a band that had had a recording contract and Narrinder was as fame hungry as anyone I'd ever seen on television. I don't have a problem with this. It's to be expected. But the choice of housemates is the least of the problems.