[.Dozy Rosie]

Please stop saying people had a bad edit..they are shown doing and saying things that they did and said..BB are just showing (because of no live feed ) what they think the viewers want to see!!!!! So there!!!!

[snoinipO]

Last week, when Julie was still well-liked, people were saying Julie was the chosen one and it had turned into 'The Julie Show', and now that her true colours have shone through, people are saying that the producers are out to get her?

Get real, Julie did this to herself.

[scottishmag]

yes many people say that Danica was the victim of bad editing,,,,cant have it both ways

[Devon]

no one can ever put words into someone elses mouth .... julie only has her horrible self to blame for all of this .... she is reaping what she has sewn.

[.Dozy Rosie]

Originally Posted by snoinipO

Last week, when Julie was still well-liked, people were saying Julie was the chosen one and it had turned into 'The Julie Show', and now that her true colours have shone through, people are saying that the producers are out to get her?

Get real, Julie did this to herself.

Exactly!!!!

[Kopite1763]

In my opinion, Julie has made herself look bad, due to her behaviour and actions in the house.

She needed no help from BB nor indeed any other HM.

She has done a perfectly good job of turning quite a few people against her, and she has done it all by herself

[Cheddarcakes]

So when all mention of Danica's boyfriend was removed from her argument with Sitch that wasnt blatant bad editing?

Julie is shockingly two-faced and has lost the audience.From what I have seen Julie hasnt had her good side end up on the cutting room floor , if anything she has been cut a huge amount of slack for blatant noms rules breaking

[Throgmorton1]

I agree and disagree - clearly they will edit the show to suit whatever storyline they are pursuing at the time. On the other hand they have to choose clips that actually happened.

Is it possible to push one interpretation of events? - absolutely. Is it possible to portray as saint as a sinner? No

People are human - by default that makes everyone vulnerable they probably receive as many positive edits as negative - it is only the perspective of a blind adoration or hatred - that makes us perceive the edit as a dance for the devil.

[Bananafish]

Originally Posted by .Dozy Rosie

Please stop saying people had a bad edit..they are shown doing and saying things that they did and said..BB are just showing (because of no live feed ) what they think the viewers want to see!!!!! So there!!!!

The editing has been as subtle as a brick this time.

Remember the 'people are being 2-faced' nominations show edit? You can't spoonfeed things any more than that, now think of how they are casting the housemates in wider terms?

Housemates don't change from villains to victims and sometimes back again within weeks. It's a soap, you are just being told the role their character is in all the time. And what to think of them.

BB has story-editors for a reason, you have had them since BB5. And the current lot with BB13 and now CBB10 have pushed it to XF levels, to try and get as big an emotional response from viewers as possible.

You must either love housemates or hate them, NOTHING inbetween.

[.Dozy Rosie]

Julie has also had a lot of good things show...in the beginning..when she was "loving" everyone...obviously now false!!

[farscape]

Originally Posted by Devon

no one can ever put words into someone elses mouth .... julie only has her horrible self to blame for all of this .... she is reaping what she has sewn.

True but they can cut parts of conversations mid sentence and paste it to a later part giving a completely different meaning to the viewer.

They can show a HM doing or saying something without the context of why they are doing it.

They can cut a look from another HMs face from a point in the house and crudely paste it into a conversation to create a erroneous impression of what that HM is feeling.

They can get Marcus Bentley to outright lie during his narration not to mention come up with selective decriptions of events. X HM can go for a cig alone and be decribed as "scheming" while others can do the same and be described as "chilling".

They can only show a HM doing fun things and having a good time or being nice when in truth they hardly did that or show a HM not joining in or cherrypick less nice moments contrary to their default personality to create a false impression that fits their story.

Misleading and biased editing does exist. Of this there is no question,

[.Dozy Rosie]

At the end of the day it is not a look or smoking a cig that counts...it is the way you treat people!!! Surely we are intelligent enough to tell that when someone says somthing mean to someone..that is just how they are!!??

[Bananafish]

Originally Posted by .Dozy Rosie

At the end of the day it is not a look or smoking a cig that counts...it is the way you treat people!!! Surely we are intelligent enough to tell that when someone says somthing mean to someone..that is just how they are!!??

Do you believe that on XF?

[choccysar]

Not entirely sure on this but if it's correct then the best editing to date is when they tried to make it look like something nasty was said when someone was walking away but there was a costume change inbetween?! Having a conversation wearing one thing, bitching as you walk away wearing something else (I have yet to watch this but will be looking out for it when I do later)! That I would say is misleading at best or bad editing (not a fan of either by the way but thought it was wrong with the bad edits in the last series and pretty sure there are lots in this series at numerous hms)

[anielled]

Originally Posted by .Dozy Rosie

Please stop saying people had a bad edit..they are shown doing and saying things that they did and said..BB are just showing (because of no live feed ) what they think the viewers want to see!!!!! So there!!!!

Dozy you do realise this is a gameshow intended to make money out of idiots by actually picking up the phone and voting. It is manipulated to the extreme by the producers and is no less than a 'towie' type show now.

[daddynomates]

Editing can make a huge difference to how a HM looks.

Its not always whats shown its often what isnt shown.

I have seen whole conversations taken out of context or two conversations stitched together or an argument taken out of context. When we had live of course we were not so easily fooled

[daddynomates]

I remember when Rex and Rachel had an argument. Afterwards Rachel was sat in the garden upset. Rex came out and sat with her for a good 20 minutes. They talked and made up. That was on Live feed.

When i saw it on the EDITED show Rex sat down with Rachel didnt talk and then walked off smiling wich made him look like a right asshole.

So bad edits do happen

[rivethead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwepkVurCI

Charlie explains the "bad edit" well

[daddynomates]

Originally Posted by farscape

True but they can cut parts of conversations mid sentence and paste it to a later part giving a completely different meaning to the viewer.

They can show a HM doing or saying something without the context of why they are doing it.

They can cut a look from another HMs face from a point in the house and crudely paste it into a conversation to create a erroneous impression of what that HM is feeling.

They can get Marcus Bentley to outright lie during his narration not to mention come up with selective decriptions of events. X HM can go for a cig alone and be decribed as "scheming" while others can do the same and be described as "chilling".

They can only show a HM doing fun things and having a good time or being nice when in truth they hardly did that or show a HM not joining in or cherrypick less nice moments contrary to their default personality to create a false impression that fits their story.

Misleading and biased editing does exist. Of this there is no question,

all very true

[daddynomates]

I mean think about it ??

What have you been like today ?

A good mood all day ? No annoyed moments or bad language ?

What if i took all your bad moments from a day and none of the good ones ? Then showed that to someone. What would their impression of you be ???

[Kopite1763]

Originally Posted by daddynomates

I mean think about it ??

What have you been like today ?

A good mood all day ? No annoyed moments or bad language ?

What if i took all your bad moments from a day and none of the good ones ? Then showed that to someone. What would their impression of you be ???

The thing is, folk only bring up bad edits, when it's against someone they like. They don't even consider bad edits if it's someone they dislike and argue the point, for or against depending on who is being effected.

[Damanda]

Originally Posted by .Dozy Rosie

Please stop saying people had a bad edit..they are shown doing and saying things that they did and said..BB are just showing (because of no live feed ) what they think the viewers want to see!!!!! So there!!!!

I know its ridiculously simple to make the claim.

The last two BBs we had people relentless repeating what a terrible edit Aaron and Deana were getting, to "make them look bad" and yet they were loved by so many people, so the bad editing wasn't very effective was it?

Aaron and Dean were horrid people, Julie is doing what she is doing.

They don't choose a winner and villain and them set about editing them to make people think certain things, they edit the show to reflect the stories they think will make the show most popular and therefore encourage the most participation in voting.

Equally, all the HM's are playing a game, they are all trying to look good. etc.

[MACTOWIN]

Edit plays a huge part on peoples judgement of a h/m imo.

[jende]

The thing is people are aware of what Charlie Brooker did a short thing about, how someone saying something can be edited to look one way or another. His example was him saying a joke, one edit showed all laughing the other showed an awkward moment where no one laughed and looked like he'd died on his feet. I think BB do do that and I think that's why people think it could be shown to look bad when it was good or good when it was bad.

But we only get to see what they show us, so really you have to decide for yourself, whether they're trying to manipulate what we see with HM's. I do agree the words that come out their mouth are their views, but always a little wary of what we're not seeing. In the end, we just have to go with how we feel about HM and hope we got it right!

I think a good example of this was Luke S and the fake agent. On the vid we saw all he said and his last line of saying he would see how it went with Ash and basically the only bit that sounded like he liked her. On the highlights, they cut that last line and added his last two words,which made it sound he was saying them to what he'd said about The Batchelor stuff and not Ash. It made him look even more nasty. All they had to do was cut the line and it really came across he never said nothing ok about Ash. I couldn't stand Luke, but that was an edit to make him look all time evil and although the last line was exactly big time love declaration, it gave the whole thing a different feel.

But anyhoo, with the Julie edit last night, I think that showing Martin, Ash and Harvey acting as they did re her, pretty said more not so good things about them than Julie. I'm not even a Julie fan and it didn't look good for her, but I think the way the blokes were, didn't do much good for them either! But maybe I'm alone in feeling that!

.

[farscape]

Originally Posted by Kopite1763

The thing is, folk only bring up bad edits, when it's against someone they like. They don't even consider bad edits if it's someone they dislike and argue the point, for or against depending on who is being effected.

This is a good point however if it was all equal or spread out with then there would be little problem other than every HM would generaly come across as unlikeable.

The show in recent years has become obsessed with a hero and villain narrative which lends itself to boosting one HM up with constant postitve edits and one with negative ones.

Several HMs last year, including seemingly impartial ones all spoke about what a glowing edit Jay got in comparison to what he was like to live with one. More than one have outright stated he was the producers favourite. Harry was told directly by the producers that Jay was their favourite and got good treatment as a HM like him is more popular with the people who watch the show...I would argue that he is more a HM more likely to popular with their current target demographic.

Originally Posted by Damanda

I know its ridiculously simple to make the claim.

No it isn't.

The last two BBs we had people relentless repeating what a terrible edit Aaron and Deana were getting, to "make them look bad" and yet they were loved by so many people, so the bad editing wasn't very effective was it?

Just because it wasn't effective doesn't mean that they didn't try their best.

There was plenty of evidence via the fb vid clips, tweets and and diary entries to compare what we were seeing and none could deny there seemed to be important differences even moreso when HMs were evicted and gave interviews away from BOTS and gave a very different take on their fellow HMs and events. Of course this led to the theory that it was all reverse pshycology that they wanted us to think they had it in for him and vote accordingly but that doesn't wash with me. Traditionaly the HLs have been the most important thing and even with Aaron's win there was still people who felt he did little in the house but huff and that he was abusing and manipulating Faye for his vile gameplan.

Then there's behind the scenes stuff like a senior producer trying to pressure Faye to dump Aaron or treating his parents like dirt in comparison to Jay's who by all accounts were very well in with the shows staff.

By comparison this years series was much the same but less black and white but the tradeoff that it still didn't seem to work and they ended getting their "real winner"/

Aaron and Dean were horrid people, Julie is doing what she is doing.

No they were not. Aaron and Deana were people with both positive and negative traits. They were neither saints nor devils but the fact that any negative trait was overblown, exagerrated and completely overbown in comparison to some very nasty things done and said about them being portayed as fine and dandy is what made things seem very unfair to fans.

They don't choose a winner and villain and them set about editing them to make people think certain things, they edit the show to reflect the stories they think will make the show most popular and therefore encourage the most participation in voting.

Earlier in your post you seem to argue there was no erroneous editing but now you seem to say there is but with objective of maximising voting revenue.

It's a fine theory but there's little money to be made via voting, You could argue that is all the more reason to wring all they can from it but surely they would go about that a very different way than they have.