[starry]

Someone did a thread saying there should not be evictions through a series. I'm beginning to agree with this now. Maybe have evictions at the very end of the series but let the situation in the house play out with all HMs together.

This way the producers will not have to try to manipulate things to keep their favourites in, and HMs will not be so obsessed with groups and the gameplan. Instead you could see relationships develop over time instead of them just being short-term alliances. Part of the audience wouldn't control what the rest of us see either, there could continue being people in the house who satisfy all parts of the audience demographic.

There could still be twists to liven things up at times. Tasks would be more important so they would have to be better, longer and more challenging. That would be a good thing for the show too. It would be a more real reality TV show.

There would be less need to stick new HMs in later, which is indicative of the failure of the present system. They may start with slightly fewer HMs than the present format perhaps as well.

[vesavius]

Evictions are a core part of the show imo.

They are political drivers, and the shifting short term alliances that you seem to think are a problem to be solved are very important in fact I think.

Plus they are a real event each and every week that makes great (usually) TV.

As for the obvious BB bias (that we see on Ben) and hatchets jobs (that you would say Shunny recieved) that we see... well, I guess there would have to be a winner and BB would still do this. They still would want to control the 'story' and the ultimate winner as much as possible- the viewer would still be blatantly maipulated (and love it).

Nah... I think I like weekly evictions as they are, and new HMs etc are good TV as well usually, as well as shaking the old ones up to stop them becomign lazy and taking their place in their for granted.

[starry]

They would manipulate things but it would be over the longer term so it would be less annoying and obvious. Also they would have to give airtime to every HM as they are in for the long term, so they have to make use of them for the good of the show.

[arista]

No Evictions are Why Shhaby is a Utter Coward.


She can not face boo's.

Snob Tramp she is.



Evictions are the Power Point of this Show.

[starry]

People might walk without evictions anyway so I don't think that is a relevant point. The audience should be involved in the show in some way, maybe rating HMs on their performance in tasks, or how honest, or entertaining they are or something. If there are evictions I think they should be on a vote to save and only towards the end of the show, that way things are played out more fully in the house. Nominations could still be used for some purpose like rewarding or punishing HMs, but I don't want the HMs to have too much control over who is in the house or not.

[arista]

Originally Posted by starry

People might walk without evictions anyway so I don't think that is a relevant point. The audience should be involved in the show in some way, maybe rating HMs on their performance in tasks, or how honest, or entertaining they are or something. If there are evictions I think they should be on a vote to save and only towards the end of the show, that way things are played out more fully in the house.

They can Walk Anyway
Evictions are here to Stay.

[Claymores]

Evictions = viewership

Who wants to see a bunch of twats bumbling about for 2 months???

Also this "vote to save" each week is a pile of nonesense from fansites. Who'se gonna pick up the phone each week to keep the twats in except a few thousand fanatics from fansites? The public get motivated topick up the phone to rid their tellybox of a horror. It's a feel-good factor of a Friday.

Idiots who demand change should watch a different show. It's series 11 of a well known format, if you don't like it, go view summat else.

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by starry

They would manipulate things but it would be over the longer term so it would be less annoying and obvious. Also they would have to give airtime to every HM as they are in for the long term, so they have to make use of them for the good of the show.

No eviction would mean no noms, and so that entire driver for paranoia and politics would be ripped out of the show.

Nah, noms and evictions, and the drama they cause, are amongst my fav parts of BB

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by Claymores

Evictions = viewership

Who wants to see a bunch of twats bumbling about for 2 months???

Also this "vote to save" each week is a pile of nonesense from fansites. Who'se gonna pick up the phone each week to keep the twats in except a few thousand fanatics from fansites? The public get motivated topick up the phone to rid their tellybox of a horror. It's a feel-good factor of a Friday.

Idiots who demand change should watch a different show. It's series 11 of a well known format, if you don't like it, go view summat else.

Morning Clay

Agree totally.

[Claymores]

Originally Posted by vesavius

Morning Clay

Agree totally.

Bit of a rant, but glad you agree

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by Claymores

Bit of a rant, but glad you agree

rants are good, they clear the head

[big_bother]

It's all academic now anyway. Goodbye BB

[starry]

Originally Posted by Claymores

Evictions = viewership

Who wants to see a bunch of twats bumbling about for 2 months???

Also this "vote to save" each week is a pile of nonesense from fansites. Who'se gonna pick up the phone each week to keep the twats in except a few thousand fanatics from fansites? The public get motivated topick up the phone to rid their tellybox of a horror. It's a feel-good factor of a Friday.

Idiots who demand change should watch a different show. It's series 11 of a well known format, if you don't like it, go view summat else.

They've been changing how they do things in the show over the years. It's really just become more and more manipulated. Most people don't watch live feed which lends it to even more manipulation. Forcing the producers to spread the storylines around would be a good thing, people would become more engaged as they would know HMs over a longer period.

Nominations can still take place but for other purposes. It can still build up to HMs leaving the house but if should be left till the last few weeks. The first two months shouldn't be about short term alliances but about getting to know the HMs.

[starry]

Originally Posted by Claymores

Evictions = viewership

Who wants to see a bunch of twats bumbling about for 2 months???

Good program = viewership

Make sure you don't put in a 'bunch of twats' who are only of short -term value but people who are intelligent and interesting enough to follow for longer.

[stonedape]

No evictions ultimately equals no drama. You need to have the physical detachment for the group dynamic to change, and getting people out is why people spend money calling for evictions. There's no way they're getting rid of evictions.

I do think they should have switched to a "vote to save" format over "vote to evict", because it would have saved a lot of the later series and too many evictions to count.

[Claymores]

Originally Posted by starry

Good program = viewership

Make sure you don't put in a 'bunch of twats' who are only of short -term value but people who are intelligent and interesting enough to follow for longer.

Gawn yersel - I'd watch tiddlywinks on Sky Sports rather than that (I mean a prog with no evictions for 2 months)

[starry]

There can be lots of drama without evictions, and the group dynamics can be changed in other ways. And I'm not saying completely get rid of evictions but leave it till the last third of the series. Why spread them out over the whole time? Let the group develop and relationships grow and change so that we can get more involved with them. And when we do finally judge them we have alot more to go on.

[Claymores]

Originally Posted by starry

There can be lots of drama without evictions, and the group dynamics can be changed in other ways. And I'm not saying completely get rid of evictions but leave it till the last third of the series. Why spread them out over the whole time? Let the group develop and relationships grow and change so that we can get more involved with them. And when we do finally judge them we have alot more to go on.

Germany tried something of this ilk with the Villiage which was a perpetual show - it failed miserably and almost killed the idea of BB in the country.

If you feel you have an idea, then go tout it to Endemol - but I won't be watching

[StGeorge]

I think the general consensus here is that the OP is wrong.

I find it quite funny that there are still some out there that dont get the BB concept.

Its a social experiment to observe the interaction of strangers in a stressful situation.
The eviction criteria is an essential part of the stress.

If you want to see the same people and relationships develop, then go and watch Corry.
If you want entertainment....watch BGT or X-factor.

BB works....its only been ruined by Ch4s attempts to be a serious TV station.

[_Seth]

No, just bring in Vote to Save for every week.

[Jase]

What a boring friday show :/

VOTE TO SAVE

[Claymores]

BB is an unpopularity show starry where on a weekly basis the HMs set up their horrors then the public swing the bat on their most detested of those and get instant gratification

It's easy - if you don't like this, then watch something else.

[Claymores]

Originally Posted by Phlip

No, just bring in Vote to Save for every week.

Then you and 2000 others can spend your pennies every week saving you luvvies while the rest of the country switches off.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by starry

Someone did a thread saying there should not be evictions through a series. I'm beginning to agree with this now. Maybe have evictions at the very end of the series but let the situation in the house play out with all HMs together.

This way the producers will not have to try to manipulate things to keep their favourites in, and HMs will not be so obsessed with groups and the gameplan. Instead you could see relationships develop over time instead of them just being short-term alliances. Part of the audience wouldn't control what the rest of us see either, there could continue being people in the house who satisfy all parts of the audience demographic.

There could still be twists to liven things up at times. Tasks would be more important so they would have to be better, longer and more challenging. That would be a good thing for the show too. It would be a more real reality TV show.

There would be less need to stick new HMs in later, which is indicative of the failure of the present system. They may start with slightly fewer HMs than the present format perhaps as well.

I like this idea Starry!!

Try this one!
Nominations and public vote continue as normal!
With ...NO evictions untill the final!
But dont tell the housemates who has been eliminated from winning!
Finals night....housemates exit the house in order of lowest % of votes!

This way....we get to see the full gambit of the contestants gameplan!
And imagine how much better it would be to see the total disbelief on the face of you're 'most hated ones'....after 13weeks of mis-placed confidence!!

Deliciously evil!!

[starry]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

I think the general consensus here is that the OP is wrong.

I find it quite funny that there are still some out there that dont get the BB concept.

Its a social experiment to observe the interaction of strangers in a stressful situation.
The eviction criteria is an essential part of the stress.

If you want to see the same people and relationships develop, then go and watch Corry.
If you want entertainment....watch BGT or X-factor.

BB works....its only been ruined by Ch4s attempts to be a serious TV station.

Soap operas are not the same at all, they are not a social experiment. So I really don't understand your point there.