[*mazedsalv**]

It seems to me by Week 12 the ratings go falling, when it was on for 10-11 weeks in BB1-BB6 times, the audience would mainly maintain itself right through the end.

But BB8-BB9 all fell on Week 12 and it looks like BB10 is following the tradition on. I know that last nights slot got moved around, so hopefully the decrease is not permenant.

But it seems to me that since extending the show an extra 2-3 weeks, a decline happens, 3 and a half months is just too much.

It should have been cut back to 11 weeks imo to create a healthier figure. If that was so, than last Friday would have been the final.

Anyone agree about the cut back?

[AhmedFan2004]

I think you've drawn the wrong conclusions from a given set of outcomes. The viewing figures dropped for BB 8, 9 and 10 because of other reasons mainly. BB5 could have lasted for 5 months and people would have been glued to it. But a longer format will make a sub-par series drag on and ultimately become pointless. People will invest less time to a sub-par series.

[*mazedsalv**]

Originally posted by AhmedFan2004
I think you've drawn the wrong conclusions from a given set of outcomes. The viewing figures dropped for BB 8, 9 and 10 because of other reasons mainly. BB5 could have lasted for 5 months and people would have been glued to it. But a longer format will make a sub-par series drag on and ultimately become pointless. People will invest less time to a sub-par series.

I think however a show is, if you will have it for too long it will kill it. BB5 was lucky to end where it did, it was very entertaining, but if that was on for an extra month I think the ratings would have fallen alot.

[bananarama]

No i don't think it should be cut down......However I do believe the format needs tweaking a little.......

Vote to save with a minimum of three up for eviction any one time.

Refusing to nominate housemates should face eviction straight away without interview or crowds......

The first genuine eviction should not take place for at least four weeks. Giving both house mates time to stew together and the public to better evaluate the housemates entertainment value.

At least three time during a series all remaining housemates should be up for eviction so as to give the public the chance to vote out those slipping beneath the radar......especially in the penultimate week such as this.....

[Jords]

Ratings drop when interesting HMs go and when BB doesnt pull its weight in doing twists, tasks and therefore becomes boring.

[staceyxxx]

nooo,, we love having BB on for lots of weeks...
please put it on for longer x

[Jords]

Originally posted by bananarama
No i don't think it should be cut down......However I do believe the format needs tweaking a little.......

Vote to save with a minimum of three up for eviction any one time.

Refusing to nominate housemates should face eviction straight away without interview or crowds......

The first genuine eviction should not take place for at least four weeks. Giving both house mates time to stew together and the public to better evaluate the housemates entertainment value.

At least three time during a series all remaining housemates should be up for eviction so as to give the public the chance to vote out those slipping beneath the radar......especially in the penultimate week such as this.....

Vote to save throughout the show may work, but i quite like the whole voting for the one you want out scenrio. But no harm giving it a try 1 series right?

Im liking the 3 minimum up for eviction, because its more exciting the more people are up. Normally with only 2 HMs up, you can easily tell which one is going. I think Freddie vs Marcus was the only tough call this series.

If not having 3 minimum up, I think BB should be as harsh as hell, and like you said, non nominating housemates should not be giving a warning but just told that they will be punished (they should be punished like put to jail or something small seeming) but also actually be put up automatically - and not be told the fact they didnt nom got them up. Also every rule break = put up for evcition + another punishment.

4 weeks is too long, id say the first week nobody goes, and nominations start second week in.

Altho we as a public hate gameplanners, putting them all up will result likely for gameplanners to go, so therefore gameplans wont exist for long in the show, most gameplans involve trying not to get up for eviction, but with them all having to go up at sometime, people wont bother with this - and it makes good tv watching people try to gameplan - even tho we have it! But maybe every first week of a new month all HMs take part in a task in which 2 or 3 are immune for eviction and the rest go up - instead of nominating, its different from always having nominations.

Just some ideas based on yours

[AhmedFan2004]

Originally posted by bananarama
No i don't think it should be cut down......However I do believe the format needs tweaking a little.......

Vote to save with a minimum of three up for eviction any one time.

Refusing to nominate housemates should face eviction straight away without interview or crowds......

The first genuine eviction should not take place for at least four weeks. Giving both house mates time to stew together and the public to better evaluate the housemates entertainment value.

At least three time during a series all remaining housemates should be up for eviction so as to give the public the chance to vote out those slipping beneath the radar......especially in the penultimate week such as this.....

I agree the format needs changing drastically. The whole show needs re-vamping. It needs to be totally altered, new format, new types of tasks, appealing to different segments of the public, etc. The weekly evictions, gimmicky tasks, usual BB ways are exhausted now.

[wushyboo]

i think it would save Big bro the money just look at this weekends tasks a whistling task with no whistles and a wrestling match in a kids paddling pool and some baby oil they aint splashing out are they

[merv]

Formatt change yes bit this years Housemates are without doubt the biggest Turn off

[Tom]

Originally posted by bananarama
No i don't think it should be cut down......However I do believe the format needs tweaking a little.......

Vote to save with a minimum of three up for eviction any one time.

Refusing to nominate housemates should face eviction straight away without interview or crowds......

The first genuine eviction should not take place for at least four weeks. Giving both house mates time to stew together and the public to better evaluate the housemates entertainment value.

At least three time during a series all remaining housemates should be up for eviction so as to give the public the chance to vote out those slipping beneath the radar......especially in the penultimate week such as this.....

I don't think it should be 4 weeks, when they kept cancelling evictions in BB5 it got quite annoying and felt drawn out. The one thing BB8 actually got right was no eviction until 2 weeks in. The nature of Big Brother is that we kick out who we want, sometimes the big characters have to go for the smaller characters to come out of their shell, BB10 being living proof. We've lost big character week after week after week and the whole house as changed. But I think in week 4 (when early favourites are emerging), week 8 (when people start to back 1 or 2), and week 12 (when everyone knows who their favourite is) the whole house should be up for a vote to save with double evictions in those weeks.

[arista]

Originally posted by *mazedsalv**
It seems to me by Week 12 the ratings go falling, when it was on for 10-11 weeks in BB1-BB6 times, the audience would mainly maintain itself right through the end.

But BB8-BB9 all fell on Week 12 and it looks like BB10 is following the tradition on. I know that last nights slot got moved around, so hopefully the decrease is not permenant.

But it seems to me that since extending the show an extra 2-3 weeks, a decline happens, 3 and a half months is just too much.

It should have been cut back to 11 weeks imo to create a healthier figure. If that was so, than last Friday would have been the final.

Anyone agree about the cut back?

No Next year
Live 24/7 feed
so Increase time.


Not having Full 24/7 Live Feed has destroyed BB.

[liverpoolboy94]

No, they should never cut it back down to 11 weeks!!!

I think they should have BB that lasts a whole year!!!

And bring back the 24/7 live feed!!!