[Jack_]

What they needed to address was the nominations process to get some of the dull housemates up...the voting system was perfectly fine.

It's as if they read the feedback and do the opposite of what people ask.

[Black Dagger]

I could have just about tolerated one of these nominated going had it been vote to save.

Anybody who becomes a talking point will soon be shipped off, Jack and Joe eating crisp won't get them evicted, Callum suddenly being caught in a controversy however would.

Earlier I might have been in a rage of 'URGH GINA IS MY FAVOURITE AND SHE'LL GO AND I CBA WATCHING' and I still feel like that, it's just pathetic, they had everything going for them, and now anybody who does anything will be shipped out, because the public haven't got a clue. 'YES I CAN VOTE TO EVICT AGAIN, THANK YOU C5, LET'S GET EVERYBODY OUT, DALEY TO WIN XXX' **** off, go and watch Countdown.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Shaun

standard "THAT'S IT " nonsense from people who'll be watching before next week.

people need to get to grips that entertainment is defined differently by people.

people also need to get used to the phenomenon that, in the first few weeks, if not the very first week, the loudmouth obnoxious arseholes WILL make themselves known and WILL get themselves evicted. it's inevitable. if they had any intelligence or common sense they'd lie low and emerge as a big character midway. i'm so bored of people writing off a series after the eviction of one or two housemates: people were like this with Jasmine Lennard and then the house went onto multiple other talking points (Julie's domineering, Danica/Situation/Lorenzo, Coleen vs. Julie).

it's just... how are you still shocked and upset about the angry bitch going first every single series? it's been over ten years for christ's sake.

I have come to the conclusion their memory doesnt stretch from series to series its like a whole new outrage year after year series after series.
The predictable cycle of over being over excited only to be let down and then being angry enough to hope the show is axed and claim they are never watching again! yet within a week forget all about it and play out the same routine next time it comes around.

Someone should study this.

[pcro]

I agree that this is the worst of all worlds. Vote to Save and three or more nominees means a great chance to save big characters. Vote to Evict with three or more up means big characters almost certainly going home.

That being said, I'd wager if the casual viewers who make up the largest part of the audience were polled, Vote to Evict would handily win.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by PInternet

The series is/has always been ruined by the moronic public who always evict (and in this case nominate) the most dynamic characters and let the deadwood float on.

I'm just sincerely hoping that the person evicted this week will be evicted into "The House Upstairs" or a likewise twist.

Can't do that - because the public are voting to evict them It happened in BB7 and there was uproar.

DAMN. That's another thing, Vote to Save would of been great for BB14 - because it would of gave them the flexibility to bring housemates back or pull of stunts like a secret house next door - and get away with it.

Because the general conception is, is that it's okay to 'not really evict someone' if the public are voting to save housemates - where as if the public are paying to get rid of someone, that person effectively HAS to go.

[Bluerang1]

Why don't they save all the evicted housemates until half-way through just to keep the show entertaining. They can't win the money, they'll just be there for viewing pleasure.

[Jords]

Originally Posted by Bluerang1

Why don't they save all the evicted housemates until half-way through just to keep the show entertaining. They can't win the money, they'll just be there for viewing pleasure.

Doubt theyd stay LOL

[Ramsay]

thank god i didnt see BOTS to see the crowd reaction to it being VOE..i would of raged even harder

[Ramsay]

someone make a pros and cons list right now for VOE and VOS and then compare

[newsbb]

just get dexter out and well be fine!!!!

[Ramsay]

think you're a bit off there newsbb

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Karl

thank god i didnt see BOTS to see the crowd reaction to it being VOE..i would of raged even harder

I've just watched the rest of BOTS back that I missed, did you hear about the sweaty box woman at the end saying that people online were loving vote to evict being back? I almost punched the ****** through the screen, WHERE DO THESE PEOPLE GET THIS SH*T FROM

[Bluerang1]

Honestly though, they trolled us hard. First making it nominated THREE people, raising our hopes for a new minimum for evictions. But then they said it was a vote to evict. Also, unlikely, but had we known if was vote to evict, we may have nominated someone else, even harder. But alas.

[Jack_]

Ah, I've realised why Michael had to nom three people now...so they could pull this stupid midweek vote freeze to turn it into a head-to-head

[Shaun]

that i agree with too - two evictions from one set of nominations by the public ;_____; just horrible.

[camertone]

The producers totally suck at producing the show. BB should never let pubic nominate. I had high hopes for puppet twist, but so far it has been fruitless and damaging to the show.

[minny03]

I agree with everything that's been said by most people in here (Jack, Patrick, etc.) I mean seriously, what the **** are the producers doing?! I honestly don't get it. How do the producers benefit from getting all the big characters out in the first few weeks? How does this help the show? Do they not want their own show to be successful?

They know exactly what will happen with vote to evict and this is what initially killed the show in the first place. There is a reason why most US reality shows are STILL successful after being on the air for more than ten years. The producers in America know the importance of making significant changes to their show before it becomes stale and boring. Sometimes the changes work, sometimes they don't. But what matters is that they make a gamble and try to do something new or different to make sure viewers keep watching their tv show.

I just can't believe that they would do something like this. BB14 had the potential of being a fantastic series and the producers ****ing ruined it in one fell swoop. I honestly need a logical explanation on why they make so many stupid decisions like this. Even on a business standpoint, how does getting the polarizing housemates out first help this program? Do they not see the value in people like Gina and Sallie?!!

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by minny03

I agree with everything that's been said by most people in here (Jack, Patrick, etc.) I mean seriously, what the **** are the producers doing?! I honestly don't get it. How do the producers benefit from getting all the big characters out in the first few weeks? How does this help the show? Do they not want their own show to be successful?

They know exactly what will happen with vote to evict and this is what initially killed the show in the first place. There is a reason why most US reality shows are STILL successful after being on the air for more than ten years. The producers in America know the importance of making significant changes to their show before it becomes stale and boring. Sometimes the changes work, sometimes they don't. But what matters is that they make a gamble and try to do something new or different to make sure viewers keep watching their tv show.

I just can't believe that they would do something like this. BB14 had the potential of being a fantastic series and the producers ****ing ruined it in one fell swoop. I honestly need a logical explanation on why they make so many stupid decisions like this. Even on a business standpoint, how does getting the polarizing housemates out first help this program? Do they not see the value in people like Gina and Sallie?!!

*applauds*

Great post.

[pcro]

Originally Posted by minny03

There is a reason why most US reality shows are STILL successful after being on the air for more than ten years. The producers in America know the importance of making significant changes to their show before it becomes stale and boring. Sometimes the changes work, sometimes they don't. But what matters is that they make a gamble and try to do something new or different to make sure viewers keep watching their tv show.

careful what you wish for. The US big brother is not the standard to go by. They drained most of the essence of big brother out of that one years ago and we are left with show totally devoted to showmances and scripted bs. beyond that, it really hasnt changed in terms of format in years. Even the house stays virtually the same year after year save for new paint and fixtures. The housemates, when they arent actually returning players from previous seasons, are virtual replicas of previous players. Nah, for the disappointments that sometimes comes with BBUK, its still miles ahead of the yanks and canucks version.

[minny03]

I wasn't specifically talking about BBUS (that show annoys me at times, but it still manages to stay entertaining a lot longer than the BBUK version). I was thinking of other shows like Survivor or even Real World/Road Rules Challenge, which changes its theme and format every now and then from like "Battle of the Exes" to "Rivals" or to something else. I can't imagine where the show would be if they stuck to its original format.

What I'm trying to say from my original comment is that you can't expect a huge audience for a tv show if nothing ever changes. You have to change certain elements to keep your audience from straying. BBUK has been on since 2000 - but things are different now. What was entertaining back then for some people is not going to be entertaining now. You can't keep things the same. Something crucial has to change: like the VOTING FORMAT.

Producers from US reality shows understand this. On a show like Survivor, they brought in this stupid redemption island twist. And that lasted for like two seasons I think. You know why they got rid of it? Because it ended up being a boring disaster. They thought that redemption island would keep strong players from leaving too early and wanted to give those players a second chance in the game, but it did nothing good for the show. But at least they were smart enough to eliminate it and I respect them for trying to bring in something exciting to the game. Survivor, like Big Brother, is an aging show. You need to make changes once in awhile for it to survive.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by camertone

The producers totally suck at producing the show. BB should never let pubic nominate. I had high hopes for puppet twist, but so far it has been fruitless and damaging to the show.

I agree.

[Marc]

This thread

[arista]

No its to Early
to say its no good.


Give the Fecker a chance

[*mazedsalv**]

We need to vote out Dexter, it must happen!

But I bet next week if Dexter goes, it will be Gina vs. Sallie anyway.

[pcro]

Originally Posted by minny03

I wasn't specifically talking about BBUS (that show annoys me at times, but it still manages to stay entertaining a lot longer than the BBUK version). I was thinking of other shows like Survivor or even Real World/Road Rules Challenge, which changes its theme and format every now and then from like "Battle of the Exes" to "Rivals" or to something else. I can't imagine where the show would be if they stuck to its original format.

What I'm trying to say from my original comment is that you can't expect a huge audience for a tv show if nothing ever changes. You have to change certain elements to keep your audience from straying. BBUK has been on since 2000 - but things are different now. What was entertaining back then for some people is not going to be entertaining now. You can't keep things the same. Something crucial has to change: like the VOTING FORMAT.

Producers from US reality shows understand this. On a show like Survivor, they brought in this stupid redemption island twist. And that lasted for like two seasons I think. You know why they got rid of it? Because it ended up being a boring disaster. They thought that redemption island would keep strong players from leaving too early and wanted to give those players a second chance in the game, but it did nothing good for the show. But at least they were smart enough to eliminate it and I respect them for trying to bring in something exciting to the game. Survivor, like Big Brother, is an aging show. You need to make changes once in awhile for it to survive.

I agree you have to keep things fresh. But, in all fairness, few long running show today can expect to have viewers like it had 10 or even five years ago. There's just too many choices and fracturing of the audience. The aformentioned Survivor has lost three quarters of its audience from its glory days. Same goes for Amazing Race which has been on almost as long. Their audiences dwindle naturally but moreover they face so much for competition for viewers. All televison shows face this. It's just that few have been on for 10 or more years. BBUK is not immune to this. Nevber mind that it's moved to a much smaller channel. It's been on for 14 years and is long in the tooth and is competing for viewers in an entirely different marketpalce than was in place in 2000. At the end of the day, you can switch out hosts, spruce up the house, bring on twists etc. etc. The producers making better decision can slow the process but at the end of the day all shows simply have a lifecycle. The audience moves on. BB will never be restored to its former glory. But if it turns a bigger profit for Channel 5 than other alternatives it will carry on. If it doesn't it won't.