[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Withano

Ive never seen the us show but i dont understand the point in watching if viewers get zero say. Might as well watch towie?

Not at all, TOWIE's a scripted docusoap while BBUS is a genuine reality show (albeit with some manipulation from the awful exec producer) that hell, even has 24/7 live feed.

There's so many reasons to watch because the viewers get no say. Firstly, the viewers largely know nothing and actually ruin programmes like these. Secondly, having no public interference makes succeeding in the game more difficult because you get as far as you do on your own merit, rather than whether or not you can win the public over (which isn't that difficult, just be nice) and lastly, I actually go so far as to argue that public involvement in shows like this makes them unreal and that it's more of a reality show the less public involvement it has. Think about it, if you leave the contestants to their own devices and let things play out that's far more pure and ~real~ and is as far away from outside contact as you can get, whereas once you start letting the public control what goes on people start altering their behaviour and it takes away from the reality aspect of it.

It's more interesting to watch, it's more fair (again, trying to win the people you're living with over is far more difficult than the public) and it's more real.

You should try it.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Not at all, TOWIE's a scripted docusoap while BBUS is a genuine reality show (albeit with some manipulation from the awful exec producer) that hell, even has 24/7 live feed.

There's so many reasons to watch because the viewers get no say. Firstly, the viewers largely know nothing and actually ruin programmes like these. Secondly, having no public interference makes succeeding in the game more difficult because you get as far as you do on your own merit, rather than whether or not you can win the public over (which isn't that difficult, just be nice) and lastly, I actually go so far as to argue that public involvement in shows like this makes them unreal and that it's more of a reality show the less public involvement it has. Think about it, if you leave the contestants to their own devices and let things play out that's far more pure and ~real~ and is as far away from outside contact as you can get, whereas once you start letting the public control what goes on people start altering their behaviour and it takes away from the reality aspect of it.

It's more interesting to watch, it's more fair (again, trying to win the people you're living with over is far more difficult than the public) and it's more real.

You should try it.

No i get that you think the public ruins the uk version but i still dont understand how a show without a public vote would work. The winner is the person who wins a task? Sounds dumb?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Withano

No i get that you think the public ruins the uk version but i still dont understand how a show without a public vote would work. The winner is the person who wins a task? Sounds dumb?

Easily and effectively. No it's not like that

There's a competition each week to determine a Head of Household (HoH), this can either be mental/physical or endurance. That person then nominates two other people for potential eviction.

The two nominees, the HoH and three other people selected by a random draw then compete in the Power of Veto (PoV) competition. Whoever wins earns the right to veto one of the HoH's nominations, or to leave them in tact. So if a nominee wins, they can remove themselves from the block, if the HoH wins, they can change one of their nominations or leave them the same. If a nominee is saved, the HoH has to name a replacement nominee.

Then on eviction night, every person other than the two nominees and the HoH goes into the DR and casts a vote to evict one of the two. In the event of a tie, the HoH breaks it.

When two people are left, the last 7 or 9 people evicted (whom have moved into a 'jury house' which is located somewhere in the country and isolated from the outside world) return, question the two finalists on why they believe they should win, and then each cast a vote for the winner. And that's it.

Winning over a jury is far more difficult than winning over the public, and also more fairer. They've lived with them, not the viewers.

[RichardG]

I've never watched BBUSA but I've watched all three seasons of BBCanada and its infinitely better than BBUK. I love the format, it's much more interesting to watch imo. Unfortunately strategic players are looked down upon in the UK for being 'game players' which is most bizarre as the show is, in fact, a game.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Easily and effectively. No it's not like that

There's a competition each week to determine a Head of Household (HoH), this can either be mental/physical or endurance. That person then nominates two other people for potential eviction.

The two nominees, the HoH and three other people selected by a random draw then compete in the Power of Veto (PoV) competition. Whoever wins earns the right to veto one of the HoH's nominations, or to leave them in tact. So if a nominee wins, they can remove themselves from the block, if the HoH wins, they can change one of their nominations or leave them the same. If a nominee is saved, the HoH has to name a replacement nominee.

Then on eviction night, every person other than the two nominees and the HoH goes into the DR and casts a vote to evict one of the two. In the event of a tie, the HoH breaks it.

When two people are left, the last 7 or 9 people evicted (whom have moved into a 'jury house' which is located somewhere in the country and isolated from the outside world) return, question the two finalists on why they believe they should win, and then each cast a vote for the winner. And that's it.

Winning over a jury is far more difficult than winning over the public, and also more fairer. They've lived with them, not the viewers.

Thanks for all that, ive got to be honest though, it doesnt appeal to me. I cant imagine how infuriating it must be when a person the majority of the public dislike ends up winning? Or how awful it must be when the fan favourite leaves just because the house voted them out. The public vote wont always go your way but it will go to the voting publics way and that sounds like a better way to determine an evictee and a winner to me tbh

And in reply to the op i think more tasks with strategy will be pretty fun to watch, but i dont think the public would take well to an openly strategic game player so i cant imagine it ever happening for too long without producer manipulation and we get too much of that already

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Withano

Thanks for all that, ive got to be honest though, it doesnt appeal to me. I cant imagine how infuriating it must be when a person the majority of the public dislike ends up winning? Or how awful it must be when the fan favourite leaves just because the house voted them out. The public vote wont always go your way but it will go to the voting publics way and that sounds like a better way to determine an evictee and a winner to me tbh

And in reply to the op i think more tasks with strategy will be pretty fun to watch, but i dont think the public would take well to an openly strategic game player so i cant imagine it ever happening for too long without producer manipulation and we get too much of that already

In all honesty it doesn't really happen that often, I know Troy will probably appear and say otherwise () but by and large the people that win are liked by viewers or if not the majority of them can accept that they played well enough to deserve to win, because the mindset of US viewers is different where it genuinely is a game and backstabbing and all that is part and parcel of the show. And also a lot of the time the people that in the UK house would be detested and evicted early don't always last that long in the US either. Because think about it, if the housemates are in control, you're gonna want to get the annoying people out early before you start targeting actual threats.

Sometimes your favourites do leave before you want them to, but when that happens it's (mostly) because of their own doing. As I said, how far you do or don't get is based upon merit and how well you've played in what is essentially a social game. If you get evicted, as a fan you just have to accept that they didn't play well enough. A game is a game, you win some, you lose some.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Jack_

In all honesty it doesn't really happen that often, I know Troy will probably appear and say otherwise () but by and large the people that win are liked by viewers or if not the majority of them can accept that they played well enough to deserve to win, because the mindset of US viewers is different where it genuinely is a game and backstabbing and all that is part and parcel of the show. And also a lot of the time the people that in the UK house would be detested and evicted early don't always last that long in the US either. Because think about it, if the housemates are in control, you're gonna want to get the annoying people out early before you start targeting actual threats.

Sometimes your favourites do leave before you want them to, but when that happens it's (mostly) because of their own doing. As I said, how far you do or don't get is based upon merit and how well you've played in what is essentially a social game. If you get evicted, as a fan you just have to accept that they didn't play well enough. A game is a game, you win some, you lose some.

It doesnt sound like a terrible idea for the show but i like the bbuk format far much more. The housemates, the nominations and the public evictions are to me, what makes the show great. Channel 5 have already basically scrapped the great housemates and the normal nominations but im still here for the public evictions! I might watch a bbus series one time, but it wouldnt seem like big brother.. The two seem completely different. Does the 'big brother is always watching you' reference even work when theyre not being judged by the public considering there would be no difference if they werent watching?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Withano

It doesnt sound like a terrible idea for the show but i like the bbuk format far much more. The housemates, the nominations and the public evictions are to me, what makes the show great. Channel 5 have already basically scrapped the great housemates and the normal nominations but im still here for the public evictions! I might watch a bbus series one time, but it wouldnt seem like big brother.. The two seem completely different. Does the 'big brother is always watching you' reference even work when theyre not being judged by the public if there would be no difference if they werent watching?

I was one of the people who slated the US format having never watched it before several years ago so I definitely know what you're talking about, but when I ended up giving BBCan's (which in mine and a lot of people's opinion is now the best produced Big Brother internationally) first season a go two years I fell in love with it straight away and then spent the whole summer watching almost all of the old US seasons, and now I'm a superfan.

The show is very different, very differently edited and takes a lot of getting used to at first and you have to watch it from an entirely different perspective as its own entity, it's own show and completely separate from BBUK. But it's good and it works. If you're going to try and BBUS season though make sure you do one of the earlier ones (or even try BBCan tbh, it worked for me! and it's more of a hybrid of BBUK/BBUS) cause the show isn't as good as it used to be these days.

One of the biggest pluses though is that both the US and Canada still have live feed!