[echo cafe]

Originally Posted by Blink_Me

To me, it's not even Big Brother anymore.

it is a amazingly bad start yeah, but tonight was cool.

[Mac Hiavellian]

It's way too early to decide. Channel 4 had 10 years worth of BB, good and bad, with 22 series whereas Channel 5 aren't even half way through 1 series.

If I was gonna compare CBB8 with BB11 then I'd say I prefer Channel 5 because at least Channel 5 are supplying the HMs with alcohol and not seperating them the second they so much as raise their voices like they did the night John James and Sam Pepper argued

[slow&steady]

I'm intrigued, how is it possible to prefer 7 days of the ch.5 version (maybe getting better,sure) to 10 years of CH.4?? Thats just plain crazy.

[DigitalSid]

The channels don't make the show.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by DigitalSid

The channels don't make the show.

They must have some sort of involvement because C5"s highlight shows are completely different to C4"s highlight shows.

[Conor]

Channel 5, because C4 can never justify how ****ed up BB:CH, BB9, CBB6, BB10, CBB7 & BB11 were.

[Joelle.]

It's way too early to judge, but I went with C4 anyway.

[Vicky.]

Channel 4. but if c5 buck up their ideas and stick us some LF on, then C5. It just seems so fresh and new, and you can tell they are actually taking time on it, rather than c4 who seemed to just do nowt.

[Grimnir]

anyone who says about a week of channel 5 BB is better than the 10 years or so of channel 4 BB including the countless classic moments of BB history is clearly either a moron or not actually a BB fan at all

[Valdora]

What I find entertaining is that they added all this cheesy editing to "gain the new viewers" and it has barely kept them over the range the show had when it was axed. And worse they may have taited hardcord fans in doing so. For any wrestling fans this reminds me a lot of what WWE do. They try and appeal to the mainstream that has turned away from them, not by making the new Steve Austin but by claiming "We arn't Wrestling! Look we make straight to DVD movies!"

I've said it before and I'll say it again: There was nothing wrong with the shows format. What needed to change was the rules, the housemates and the public perception.

The new version just has this element of cheesyness that the original never had. Its all "gliz and glamour" now where as it used to be about stripping that away from the celebs and seeing the raw real people underneath. Don't get me wrong they have slowly but surely been toning it down, but they need to either get a better taste in music and graphics or axe them. Swear to God if I see one more good damn lense flair to club music! I don't need Big Brother the catwalk version.

So even though its way too early to tell I will take the c4 version at its worst over what we have now.

[VirginMediaPhil]

Firstly, let's look at the Channel 4 logo which hasn't changed at all (apart from the removal of colour in 1996) since 1982:

Youtube video

Obviously the idents have changed since then but the point here is that this is a well known logo, and the above animation was kept on screen for 14 years from 1982 to 1996. Not bad eh?

Now let's look at Channel 5's current logo which has changed no less than three times during the course of its much shorter 14 year history:



Now as you can see, even from the logos we can judge what channel is better than the other. Channel 4. Channel 5 even sometimes have to remind people that they're watching 'Channel' 5 and not just the number 5.

For further proof, just watch any of this week's Big Brother highlight shows, and you'll get the point.

[Jords]

Too early!

[rSlavenx]

Don't think its fair to make a proper judgement until Channel5 have done a full series.

[Joelle.]

Originally Posted by VirginMediaPhil

Firstly, let's look at the Channel 4 logo which hasn't changed at all (apart from the removal of colour in 1996) since 1982:

Youtube video

Obviously the idents have changed since then but the point here is that this is a well known logo, and the above animation was kept on screen for 14 years from 1982 to 1996. Not bad eh?

Now let's look at Channel 5's current logo which has changed no less than three times during the course of its much shorter 14 year history:



Now as you can see, even from the logos we can judge what channel is better than the other. Channel 4. Channel 5 even sometimes have to remind people that they're watching 'Channel' 5 and not just the number 5.

For further proof, just watch any of this week's Big Brother highlight shows, and you'll get the point.

This logo was much better, they didnt need to change it.

[Stu]

Channel 4 are better. Stop your internal dialogue.

[starry]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Channel 4. but if c5 buck up their ideas and stick us some LF on, then C5. It just seems so fresh and new, and you can tell they are actually taking time on it, rather than c4 who seemed to just do nowt.

But what have they added that hasn't been done before? All they have done so far is subtracted, their website is supposed to be much inferior to how the CH4 one was for example (even after they deleted the forums).

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by starry

But what have they added that hasn't been done before? All they have done so far is subtracted, their website is supposed to be much inferior to how the CH4 one was for example (even after they deleted the forums).

It just feels fresh and new in my opinion. Sorry if you dont agree

And I havent even looked at the website, that doesnt bother me at all.

[matie2011]

Channel 4 at the moment.

[Jay_Roberts441]

22 people seem to be watching Big Brother through rose tinted glasses.

Anyone who thinks this era of Big Brother is better than Channel 4's are insane, Channel 4 had EVERYTHING we want, what have Channel 5 given us Sweet FA, yeah ok they have brought BB back but how many people can say if they knew it was going to be this bad would have wanted it back.

Thanks Channel 4 for 11 great years, Channel 5 yeah ok nice try but epic FAIL.