[Ross.]

Originally Posted by Rob!

Tbh I think that's what the start of this series was supposed to be. There was barely any interference and the housemates developed nice and natural relationships. Ratings were dire. They threw some huge twists in, arguments started, ratings rose. It's not a hard equation for the producers, whether the die hards like it or not.

But the ratings aren't even that good though, and to sacrifice any credibility they had left for a short term ratings boost only for it to fall again the week after is silly really.

[Jamesy]

Ratings wise they need to learn from BB14. Quite a few twists but not too overpowering, the edit being fairly balanced, and of course a big mix of housemates. The fact that series got the highest ratings of a C5 series shows that's the series they need to learn from.

[RodHull]

Originally Posted by zakman440

This was discussed on the BBCouchPotatoes fansite show yesterday (http://www.spreaker.com/user/drdetro..._medium=widget). Would you like to see Big Brother go back to basics? This would include live feed, a consistent nominations format, very few twists and a break from all the manufactured drama.

And chickens bring back the chickens !!

[zakman440]

One more bump for the end of the current series...

[MB.]

Big Brother 17: Back to Basics Rations for a Basic Bitch

[Pete.]

Chloe winning shows how this show does not cater to TOWIE wannabes

[Ross.]

Originally Posted by MB.

Big Brother 17: Back to Basics Rations for a Basic Bitch

[Withano]

Id rather a Big Brother: People with regular jobs

[nonstop]

Channel 5 don't do simple. They prefer OTT, campy intros and production styles. Bring back Channel 4's simple tone. Less is always more.

[Denver]

Back to basics means

* no live launch

* no twists

* 10 housemates

* 60 days

* 50k winners fund

* chicken pen

* vegetable garden

* books

Non of these in want

[Gstar]

I loved the effort of BB14 being back to basics. The ratings reflect it too

[the_answers]

Voted don't know depends what the issue is.

Fairness ?
Countdown is fair but not inspired to watch it.
But yeah, BB "rules" feel like they've gone OTT quite a bit.
Maybe half the trouble with reg noms is, if it comes down to 2 friend groups in the house, larger one just pick off the smaller one which discourages individuality.

Lack of natural HM's ?
Many adopt gameplans to try to win the money.
Not sure Chloe did though ?

[Beetlejuice]

Originally Posted by Rob!

Tbh I think that's what the start of this series was supposed to be. There was barely any interference and the housemates developed nice and natural relationships. Ratings were dire.

Have you got a short memory? ON night one someone was evicted without a public vote. Someone was told he would have to nominate face to face the entire series and Jack got three passes.

Last year people complained about non-stop meddling with noms, free passes and eviction without public votes and then went and did all that on the very first night.

They threw some huge twists in, arguments started, ratings rose. It's not a hard equation for the producers, whether the die hards like it or not.

The ratings hardly went up at all. It remained the lowest rated series ever.

[Beetlejuice]

Originally Posted by adamski94

Back to basics means

* no live launch

* no twists

* 10 housemates

* 60 days

* 50k winners fund

* chicken pen

* vegetable garden

* books

Non of these in want

No it doesn't. That means back to the first series. Back to basics just means 24/7 coverage, normal nominations and less reliance on pointless twists and more creative tasks.

[jyunga]

I just wish they'd focus more on the people in the house and less drowning the public with things they THINK they want (ie: twists, old houseguests).

[MB.]

Originally Posted by Germyle

I loved the effort of BB14 being back to basics. The ratings reflect it too

It wasn't back to basics at all, it was the beginning of the twist-heavy modern BB era

[Gstar]

Originally Posted by adamski94

* vegetable garden

this would be cute

[Gstar]

Originally Posted by MB.

It wasn't back to basics at all, it was the beginning of the twist-heavy modern BB era

emphasis on "the effort", I was more on about everything around the series such as the house, garden, electric bike, live feed, daytime Sunday show etc.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Beetlejuice

No it doesn't. That means back to the first series. Back to basics just means 24/7 coverage, normal nominations and less reliance on pointless twists and more creative tasks.

Ack to basics means back to the first series

[VanessaFeltz.]

No - the twists and drama keep me watching. 3 6.25%

ew

[Mystic Mock]

I never want to see a show cancelled, so I would change it back to it's roots, even if the series isn't great it can't be worse than the shower of **** we've had to put up with for the most part on Ch5.

The ratings probably wouldn't recover, but Ch5 should try and send it out on a high, and it would probably boost CBB's viewers too if BB17 was seen as a good series.

[waterhog]

i think maybe they need to look at who they are selecting. do a bit more research to make sure we have decent people. or people that have something interesting to give.

[Josy]

Tried to get this through to the producers last yea with the surveys and they basically ignored every bit of it.

If any theme it has to be Back To Basics.

[y.winter]

This series was the mess of all messes - twist over twist, rule breaking over rule breaking, zero decent punishment, the housemates turned against bb wthout caring, single normal discrete noms, immunities without any reason, rebooting the series after two weeks, abandoning the original cast for a fast-food instant entertainment and a one man show, lack of transparency with the viewers. I can go on....
Heads need to roll in Elstree, they know it themselves, I hope they learn their lesson of how not to do a bb series.