About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

Maia · 06-06-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl

michael21 is that you?

Michael21's successor

Jack_ · 06-06-2012, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

It's not a fact. BB11 was an awful season so nothing "made" it, but Ben and Corin my two favorites so they "made" the season for me.

And once again that's not always true. Watching John James constantly degrade women and manipulate production was certainly controversial but in no ways was it for me entertaining. It's not illogical to want people like him to be evicted because they're vile wenches and a lot of the time, actually painful to watch. This whole archetype of Housemates (the Ziggys, Darnells, Siavashs, John James's, Aarons, etc.) don't bring anything positive to the show. The longer they last, the closer they become to ruining the season.

And please, don't tell me how I should be watching BB and judging the cast. It's possible to make good TV without being a vile creature. You don't have to be a prick or an asshole to everyone you come across to be entertaining. If that's all you find to be entertaining, then I'm sorry for you.

I know BB11 was an awful series, but it was saved by John James and in the latter stages Sam Pepper.

Corin? CORIN?! Because saying 'buzzin' and 'love it' sparks so much debate and is so wonderfully entertaining. Don't get me wrong I was still pissed she was evicted in that quadruple eviction as all four would've made good finalists but honestly, really? Corin? I have no words.

But the simple fact that it sparked so much venom, hatred and discussion all across BB world is what made him a great housemate. You only have to go check out the John James section of the BB11 forum to see that. That is entertainment and what being a great housemate is all about - creating storylines, arguments, drama, activity, stirring things up - giving the viewers things to watch, discuss, debate and argue about. A show like Big Brother thrives on that kind of thing, if we had a house full of Hira's and Rachel Rice's we wouldn't have anything to talk about, thus nothing to watch and eventually the series would crumble (as it has done in some years when the public have evicted the most entertaining housemates early). That's partly the reason why BB was originally axed on C4.

Being a prick, arsehole, being cool, whatever, it doesn't matter - so long as you are doing things that are getting the viewers talking, and giving us something to watch. Whatever that is. But if if it is something like being a prick, you have to look at it objectively and judge them as housemates, not people. We're not having dinner with these people, we're watching them on an entertainment television show - that in itself is big enough a guide for what kind of housemates need to remain on the show. It is just completely illogical to support housemates who offer nothing to the programme, and want those who do to be evicted. No one's saying you have to like John James types as people, because I certainly don't - but in the context of an entertainment TV show I do, because they give me something to watch, talk about and enjoy.

That, I'm afraid, is simple common sense and logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick

'Oh, 'am gettin' angry now... yep, gettin' real ******in' angry!'

What a legend.

Black Dagger · 06-06-2012, 08:48 PM

Why? We already know Rebecca is going in 150%?

End of discussion.

Marcus. · 06-06-2012, 08:50 PM

well we are making sure

Macie Lightfoot · 06-06-2012, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack_

I know BB11 was an awful series, but it was saved by John James and in the latter stages Sam Pepper.

Corin? CORIN?! Because saying 'buzzin' and 'love it' sparks so much debate and is so wonderfully entertaining. Don't get me wrong I was still pissed she was evicted in that quadruple eviction as all four would've made good finalists but honestly, really? Corin? I have no words.

But the simple fact that it sparked so much venom, hatred and discussion all across BB world is what made him a great housemate. You only have to go check out the John James section of the BB11 forum to see that. That is entertainment and what being a great housemate is all about - creating storylines, arguments, drama, activity, stirring things up - giving the viewers things to watch, discuss, debate and argue about. A show like Big Brother thrives on that kind of thing, if we had a house full of Hira's and Rachel Rice's we wouldn't have anything to talk about, thus nothing to watch and eventually the series would crumble (as it has done in some years when the public have evicted the most entertaining housemates early). That's partly the reason why BB was originally axed on C4.

Being a prick, arsehole, being cool, whatever, it doesn't matter - so long as you are doing things that are getting the viewers talking, and giving us something to watch. Whatever that is. But if if it is something like being a prick, you have to look at it objectively and judge them as housemates, not people. We're not having dinner with these people, we're watching them on an entertainment television show - that in itself is big enough a guide for what kind of housemates need to remain on the show. It is just completely illogical to support housemates who offer nothing to the programme, and want those who do to be evicted. No one's saying you have to like John James types as people, because I certainly don't - but in the context of an entertainment TV show I do, because they give me something to watch, talk about and enjoy.

That, I'm afraid, is simple common sense and logic.

It wasn't saved by John James. John James ruined the season. Sam was alright at first but soon he just became another enabler of John James/Josie.

And yes Corin. You don't need to spark debate to be entertaining. You have this misconception about what is entertaining and what makes/doesn't make a good Housemate. I'm not saying that Corin sparked debate and controversy, but she was still entertaining.

Sparking so much venom COULD make someone a good Housemate, but it doesn't automatically. John James wasn't entertaining. He was painful to watch. He bullied the women until they were evicted and when he got his comeuppance, he ran into the DR crying and begging for a phone call. That's not entertaining, that just ruins the season. He and Josie sucked up airtime by laying under the duvet, that's not entertaining. I'd prefer Hira and Rachel to a John James type of Housemate any day.

You can't just look at it objectively. It's human nature, you're going to like some people and you're going to dislike some people. I didn't like John James, I didn't find him entertaining, I didn't enjoy watching and talking about him. He just ruined the season for me and many others.

Jack_ · 06-06-2012, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

It wasn't saved by John James. John James ruined the season. Sam was alright at first but soon he just became another enabler of John James/Josie.

And yes Corin. You don't need to spark debate to be entertaining. You have this misconception about what is entertaining and what makes/doesn't make a good Housemate. I'm not saying that Corin sparked debate and controversy, but she was still entertaining.

Sparking so much venom COULD make someone a good Housemate, but it doesn't automatically. John James wasn't entertaining. He was painful to watch. He bullied the women until they were evicted and when he got his comeuppance, he ran into the DR crying and begging for a phone call. That's not entertaining, that just ruins the season. He and Josie sucked up airtime by laying under the duvet, that's not entertaining. I'd prefer Hira and Rachel to a John James type of Housemate any day.

You can't just look at it objectively. It's human nature, you're going to like some people and you're going to dislike some people. I didn't like John James, I didn't find him entertaining, I didn't enjoy watching and talking about him. He just ruined the season for me and many others.

Sam's constant sh*t stirring did make things more entertaining.

Alright then, so let's have a house full of people that don't spark debate or discussion - what is there to talk about? What's there to watch even? What's the point of this forum, DS? What's the point in talking about BB to friends and family? If there is nothing to talk about, please tell me what is even the point in the show being broadcast? Of course you have to spark debate to be entertaining, and vice versa, you have to be entertaining to spark debate. If we didn't have these characters the show wouldn't even be on air, that is simple common sense.

And you're taking 'bullying' way too far, yeah he wasn't very nice to some of the girls some of the time, but bullying? No, that is too far.

Well I'm telling you if we had Hira's and Rachel's there wouldn't be a show, because it gives us nothing to talk about or watch.

Gemmachi · 06-06-2012, 10:00 PM

Nvm.

Macie Lightfoot · 06-06-2012, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack_

Sam's constant sh*t stirring did make things more entertaining.

Alright then, so let's have a house full of people that don't spark debate or discussion - what is there to talk about? What's there to watch even? What's the point of this forum, DS? What's the point in talking about BB to friends and family? If there is nothing to talk about, please tell me what is even the point in the show being broadcast? Of course you have to spark debate to be entertaining, and vice versa, you have to be entertaining to spark debate. If we didn't have these characters the show wouldn't even be on air, that is simple common sense.

And you're taking 'bullying' way too far, yeah he wasn't very nice to some of the girls some of the time, but bullying? No, that is too far.

Well I'm telling you if we had Hira's and Rachel's there wouldn't be a show, because it gives us nothing to talk about or watch.

Until he just became another enabler of John James/Josie. Then it wasn't entertaining.

Once again, not everyone who is controversial is entertaining. Not everyone is entertaining is controversial. You act like there's a perfect correlation between controversy and entertainment but that's not the case at all.

It is bullying. He didn't like Rachael because "she made faces," so he attacked her and she was evicted. Rachael comes back, he's STILL an ass to her for no reason. When he finds out Nathan wants to kick his ass, he runs crying to the DR begging for a phone call. It's a show where you're not supposed to have any contact with the outside world, but once again John James is able to manipulate it around his circumstances. That's not entertaining, that's just bull****. Thank god Corin put him in his place

Well we've had Hira's and Rachel's in there and I've enjoyed them more than the John James's and Aaron's, as have others ^_^

Novo · 06-06-2012, 10:28 PM

Best be Anthony, don't think i'll be able to watch that mouthy fat girl she's annoying as ****

reece(: · 06-06-2012, 10:33 PM

Want Anthony now and I can see him being friends with Luke A and Scott

Fetch The Bolt Cutters · 06-06-2012, 10:34 PM

someone has been messing with the poll

smudgie · 06-06-2012, 10:41 PM

Rebecca.

Patrick · 07-06-2012, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smudgie

Rebecca.

So, is that elephant meant to be a representation of her?

Ramsay · 07-06-2012, 12:09 AM

lol

Robertocarlo · 07-06-2012, 12:11 AM

Too many women in the BBH already so has to be a bloke going in.

Patrick · 07-06-2012, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbrother12

can we get back to the wildcards

LOL.

I've noticed lately, in alot of threads about things happening in this series - the same crowd [myself included] come in, have a discussion about said topic - which then leads onto us discussing an aspect of a past series or housemate, we all laugh and share a chuckle, and everyone has a good time.

I like this way of forum life that we've established. Keep it going lads.

Ramsay · 07-06-2012, 12:20 AM

we cant take on season seriously at all it seems paddy lol

Patrick · 07-06-2012, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl

we cant take on season seriously at all it seems paddy lol

It's hard to nowadays.

Mr Neutral · 07-06-2012, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

Until he just became another enabler of John James/Josie. Then it wasn't entertaining.

Once again, not everyone who is controversial is entertaining. Not everyone is entertaining is controversial. You act like there's a perfect correlation between controversy and entertainment but that's not the case at all.

It is bullying. He didn't like Rachael because "she made faces," so he attacked her and she was evicted. Rachael comes back, he's STILL an ass to her for no reason. When he finds out Nathan wants to kick his ass, he runs crying to the DR begging for a phone call. It's a show where you're not supposed to have any contact with the outside world, but once again John James is able to manipulate it around his circumstances. That's not entertaining, that's just bull****. Thank god Corin put him in his place

Well we've had Hira's and Rachel's in there and I've enjoyed them more than the John James's and Aaron's, as have others ^_^

I couldn't disagree more with what you've been saying. You really do sum up what is wrong with Big Brother, when the fickle, bitter, ****** viewer's vote out any source of controversy and entertainment because they're "bad people" or "always causing arguments" or something.

People like you that ruined BB11. ****ing Josie though, what a vile, boring, unfunny.. Urgh, can't believe I'm still bitter over that.