[Josy]

Originally Posted by Hayden

Pretty much yeah. If itt's for the benefit of the show then they need to do it.

How can you possibly say it's for the benefit of the show if most people do not want her there?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Josy

So you are saying it's alright if the producers show favouritism towards a certain housemate as long as you deem that housemate entertaining?

100%. And I'm quite happy to sit here and accept that makes me a hypocrite because it's a TV show and certain things need to be done for its benefit whether people believe that's the case or not.

Similarly had the pass to the final been given to a bore as I had worried beforehand, then I would probably have been campaigning and hoping for it to be revoked (even if I do think doing so would be pretty cowardly on the producers behalf regardless), now that it's gone to a good housemate I definitely don't want that to happen.

Originally Posted by Josy

How can you possibly say it's for the benefit of the show if most people do not want her there?

Because viewers should never be listened to. They vote on impulse, with their hearts rather than their heads and with no logic, and actually vote to evict fosters and encourages these attitudes because it's a vote-who-you-hate-out unpopularity contest and that is no good for the show whatsoever. People love to hate, and detestable characters actually keep viewers interested and people talking about the show. If they weren't around and everyone was getting along, there is an almost certain chance very few people would be interested in watching and people (casual viewers I'm mainly talking about here) would be complaining it's boring.

I actually think if the majority of viewers don't want something to happen, then it should happen.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

100%. And I'm quite happy to sit here and accept that makes me a hypocrite because it's a TV show and certain things need to be done for its benefit whether people believe that's the case or not.

Similarly had the pass to the final been given to a bore as I had worried beforehand, then I would probably have been campaigning and hoping for it to be revoked (even if I do think doing so would be pretty cowardly on the producers behalf regardless), now that it's gone to a good housemate I definitely don't want that to happen.



Because viewers should never be listened to. They vote on impulse, with their hearts rather than their heads and with no logic, and actually vote to evict fosters and encourages these attitudes because it's a vote-who-you-hate-out unpopularity contest and that is no good for the show whatsoever. People love to hate, and detestable characters actually keep viewers interested and people talking about the show. If they weren't around and everyone was getting along, there is an almost certain chance very few people would be interested in watching and people (casual viewers I'm mainly talking about here) would be complaining it's boring.

I actually think if the majority of viewers don't want something to happen, then it should happen.

Jack seriously? do you ever read back what you post and take it in? you are saying that viewers of a show that from day one of it airing has been centred around viewers voting to get rid of housemates they don't think deserve to be there and also vote for who they think deserves to win the show and money should never be listened to?

People actually watch big brother because they get to have a say about all this stuff, they don't want to see nasty spiteful people kept in or crowned the winner and they certainly don't find nasty people entertaining, I can honestly say I am glad that the majority of the public disagrees with your views about the show.

Pauline is NOT entertaining, she stifles the other housemates and actually stops them from being entertaining.

[reece(:]

Originally Posted by Jack_

100%. And I'm quite happy to sit here and accept that makes me a hypocrite because it's a TV show and certain things need to be done for its benefit whether people believe that's the case or not.

Similarly had the pass to the final been given to a bore as I had worried beforehand, then I would probably have been campaigning and hoping for it to be revoked (even if I do think doing so would be pretty cowardly on the producers behalf regardless), now that it's gone to a good housemate I definitely don't want that to happen.



Because viewers should never be listened to. They vote on impulse, with their hearts rather than their heads and with no logic, and actually vote to evict fosters and encourages these attitudes because it's a vote-who-you-hate-out unpopularity contest and that is no good for the show whatsoever. People love to hate, and detestable characters actually keep viewers interested and people talking about the show. If they weren't around and everyone was getting along, there is an almost certain chance very few people would be interested in watching and people (casual viewers I'm mainly talking about here) would be complaining it's boring.

I actually think if the majority of viewers don't want something to happen, then it should happen.

I agree with all of this, and it is usually why BBUS esque shows are better.

[Headie]

Originally Posted by Josy

How can you possibly say it's for the benefit of the show if most people do not want her there?

It's similar to how you said "BB can change the rules at any time" earlier to someone who said it would be unfair if Helen's pass got revoked.

Would it be unfair if Pauline was saved by a fake eviction this week? Hell yeah. But BB can change the rules at any time, and of course they'll do what they think will get them more talking-points and headlines (and inevitably more profit from eviction votes since Pauline will be even more hated next week than she is now, and more people will vote to evict her).