If you feel that you have grounds to report me then you must do so. I believe that you do not.

This post of yours illustrates your bullying .... you are clearly attempting to prevent me from posting. Needless to say, I shall carry on regardless, ignoring you when I choose to do so, but responding where I feel that I want to.

PS - BB1 did nothing of the sort. Lowest viewing figures and all that. It was more likely to have been BB2 with its great range of characters, coupled with continuous coverage on E4 as well as BBLB. But, I will not call you or your views 'simplistic' just because they are different to mine.

No. You declared in such a prima donna fashion that you would be ignoring my posts in future. So stick to it. Show some consideration for other FMs and don't drag your personal dislike of me into threads, taking them completely off topic.

If you don't like my writing style don't respond to my posts. Stick me on your ignore list. Simple as that.




Well, perhaps BB1 and its success - ensuring that it would become an annual TV event - is merely a figment of the collective imagination then.

That only works if you're not speaking English. 4 follows 3, which follows 2, which follows 1 - yes?
:yawn:

BB1 was a relative success for C4.

But you said, 'captured the imagination of the British public' . I believe that it was BB2 that did this & turned the show into something more than yet another good Reality TV show.

As for the rest of that quote ..... once again you show that you cannot allow anyone to disagree with you, without you being offensive when posting your reply.

Yet another brilliant post, Alrightmate. The cut-off point between being a voyeur and just being a ghoul is something that was passed with the behaviour towards Lisa and so many times in BB3, which is why I find the popularity of the latter series to be so generally depressing.

To quote yourself...

"I don't care what you think. Byeee..."

Yes indeed.

The whole point about the actions of the BB1 group was that when Nick's deception was exposed, they didn't just bitch about him when his back was turned, they didn't leave the room when he came in. They held an open meeting, and the whole issue was properly thrashed out in a civilised fashion before ultimately deferring to BB. What made it such a fascinating moment was that it showed how immersed they'd become in their bubble-like environment and how immersed we had become in watching them. It showed a group of people who very effectively and responsibly governed themselves, setting up their own internal politics and discipline.

This is the almost diametric opposite of what happened with the charmless inhabitants of latter BB communities, who were either a pack of ghastly, shallow morons (BB3) or a banal, insular, self-satisfied clique (BB4).

Also, it was quite simply beautifully executed television. The wonderful tight close-ups on the faces of Nick, Craig, Darren etc., and the fact that almost everything said by the HMs could have been scripted. As well as prompting the "demise" of walking catalyst Nick, it highlighted the personalities of the others in their responses. Tom and Mel appalled by his behaviour, but still trying to be loyal and supportive to the man they thought of as a friend, Craig showing new depths we'd not seen before, Anna's fair-minded diplomacy insisting that Nick should be given a chance to speak and defend his actions, Darren's righteous indignation and Nichola speaking for those who had left the house, displaying her great loyalty to her friend Caroline.

It couldn't have unfolded better if it had been a fictional soap opera - it was a timely masterstroke that this took place in the fifth week with the events over the past few weeks coming to a lovingly lingering denouement, with enough participants left to properly expose Nick's "nastiness". It was perfect - and none of it was engineered by money-grabbing producers. It was completely authentic and consequently an electric viewing experience.

Yes, this is the kind of BB I'd rather watch. But I fear that we shall not see its like ever again.
Last edited by ben4321 : 06-12-2003 at 08:43

Ben - I have to say you captured that BB1 Nick incident very well. It catapulted me right back to that whole business, that's very much how I remember it. That it unfolded as it did had us all riveted and I remember wondering how Nick would dare show his face when he got out, such was his ignominy!
There's the point though, it "happened" whereas TV has to force confrontations on us (as they had noted it gets viewing figures).
Talking of which, I think more people watched C4's BB1 than any other programme on C4 that year.

......from someone who drools and gets orgasmic over his "hero" Jon Tickle and spits venom at his "villain" Cameron Stout.

What an incredibly simplistic view yet again. You're running true to form.

Again, a very incisive point. Lisa got far more grief from her BB experience than anything positive and for that, she wins my sympathy and respect.

This argument is possibly more pertinent to the matter of Jade, easily the most perversely "charismatic" of all the BB3 HMs. I was struck by the sight of her going into hysterics and bawling her eyes out when she, along with Lynne, was nominated by the public for instant eviction by her fellow HMs and remember thinking "why have they chosen someone who is obviously somewhat emotionally immature and insufficiently equipped to deal with the trauma of being evicted?" Of course, she was chosen for her box office potential rather than the producers giving a toss about her psychological well-being. Whilst Jade was crying, Endemol accountants were presumably writhing in ecstacy.

Her constant obvious attempts to discuss nominations were continuously met with mere warnings from BB and as a token gesture, she was banned from nominating for a week instead of being disqualified like Nick. There was no way Endemol would countenance the loss of one of their biggest drawcards and adhere to silly things like the rules of the game.

They had to bring in a psychiatrist to talk to the HMs when Jade's nastiness towards Sophie was getting out of hand (any decent producer would've nipped this in the bud straight away), drum up audience antipathy for Adele through editing and introduce gimmicks such as the HMs being up for eviction for a chance to get a message from their families purely to resolve this train wreck of a TV programme and as a stay of execution for Jade.

An eviction night with Jade as the evictee at that point would've been very ugly and I doubt that Davina would've managed to get a coherent word out of her.

Things are working out for Jade post-BB but she is still basically an object of ridicule - "most stupid woman in Britain" etc.

A very high risk strategy for Endemol indeed and it could all have easily ended in disaster. That's why, for me, BB3 was such a horribly unsettling, unpleasant spectacle - jettisoning the integrity of a successful format to achive high ratings and more profits and moving the series into an altogether uglier arena. What's even more unsettling is the fact that some people can regard this stuff as mere "light entertainment".

It's still the very best BB has to offer. A common misconception about the events of that day was merely Craig "defeating" Nick, when what was far more interesting was not Nick's actions but the effect it had on the fragile sense of community amongst the others. I was particularly struck by Anna's participation, acting almost as a chairwoman. When the others interrupted Nick's attempts to explain himself, Anna immediately motioned for them to stop and "let him speak", establishing herself as a mature woman with considerable moderating power.

I've encountered several readings of that meeting that go along the lines of Bystander's post which is grounded in rather one-dimensional archetypal dualism i.e. the hero seeing off the villain, instead of acknowledging the events as the rather more involved set of interactions that it was. Personally, I'm interested in the complexity of the way people interact with each other and the way those interactions form situations and that is what I enjoy from BB. Cliches don't interest me, hence BB3 does nothing for me.



Exactly. However, it should be noted that BB1 had no real precedent. It was authentic with a fresh, pioneering spirit. Now, the contestants are all too jaded and self-aware, and I would argue that the voyeuristic format of BB is now redundant and that the series should end.

I would venture that BB2 was the last authentic BB, adhering to the true "fly on the wall" spirit taking us into proximity with a ready-made potted community of housemates rather than the stage managed multi-media event the show was from BB3 onwards. Let's watch the contestants enter the house - and just listen to those cash registers.


Yes. However, I'm not interested in ratings. I'm interested in the intrinsic quality of the product. I have no problem with BB1 being less overly commercial and more "alternative" than its follow-ups. It's the kind of programming that Channel 4 used to be good at.

My carer thinks I'm lovely and thinks that anyone who accuses someone with learning difficulties of having simplistic views is a very very bad person.

At least your carer thinks highly of you. Take comfort from that.

Ben - I only mentioned BB1's ratings because it has been mooted that BB1 didn't have the "draw" of subsequent BB's which, like yourself, matters to me not one jot.
BB1 epitomised the shock of the new and rather like watching a film twice the first time cannot be beaten.
The tableau of the Nick "interrogation" is one that Endemall are trying to recreate year after year but they failed before the end of BB2.
BB1 was absolutely unique and a different beast to it's progeny. At the time Channel 4 had banked an awful lot on screening so much live TV to an untried (UK) audience and it was a singular event. Sequels are invariably inferior and this has been borne out by subsequent BBs.
Already by BB2 we had "ready-made-celebrities" (in their own minds perhaps!) and by BB3 we had to tilt the barrel to scrape off the underside to reveal Jade et al.
BB4 was a homogeneous mish mash of gimmicks and rule bending that only this government could emulate in it's iniquitous insincerity.
To those who do not see BB1 as the quintessential BB then you are harbouring feelings for a totally different concept - Endemall's love of money.

I think Endemol are in a difficult position when they choose housemates. Nick and Lisa are adults with good jobs. They volunteered to go on the show and were probably surprised at the way they were "portrayed" (which is actually their real personna). Its a difficult situation they are in when deciding who should go in. It would be obvious to me that they wouldnt fit in (because their aim isnt to get along and be part of the group, their aim is to make people believe their perception of themself) but then why shouldnt they be given the opportunity because I disapprove ?

Something like that

Nick and lisa were different in that Lisa was a daydream believer whereas Nick was actually very insecure and his insecurity made him nasty in practice. Nick was like someone who goes skating that cant skate, and when he is about to fall he holds on to others to bring them down too.

I dont know how to explain Tim. He was in the same league as Nick.

What makes Lisa different is that she actually wants to be part of the group but forces her perception of herself on them orally and bores them to death.

On a national-level, I think Nick and Lisa and Tim have been invaluable to us in that they show behaviour patterns most(?) of us dont like. Its just a pity for them that everyone knows

I have no idea if this is relevant but for some reason felt like posting it

That's a good post Goodfella.

We probably see ourselves as a certain way,.but that's bound to be different to how others see us.

So we get these reality TV contestants going in,.thinking that they probably come across as okay.

So they probably don't know what they are letting themselves into.
They think they are fine,....*it will be some other guy who get's demonized*.

Nick, Lisa and Tim as behavioural barometers?

Great point.

Exactly.

BB1 was the foundation on which everything else was built on, and frankly it pisses on all the others - from a great height.

BB1 - a caustically compelling social experiment made palatable by an accessible game show format.

BB2 - Much more self-consciously stylised and "feel good". The happy-go-lucky younger sibling.

BB3 - The thoroughly objectionable red-haired bastard child.

BB4 - The runt of the litter.

Indeed.

:yawn:

Let's hope BB5 is the balding, hysterically senile Grandad.

BB4 was the retard imo. Only going by the winner.

This sort of thing was covered by BB1 when Andrew was nominated and struggled to reconcile his self-image with that of how others perceived him in the house.

And then he was evicted instead of Caroline, and his rant as he was packing his bags - along the lines of "how can they prefer her to me?" - was something to behold. Caggy was many things, but at least she wasn't a sore loser.

well I dont know about the word "barometers"

I hope I dont meet too many people like them. What I mean is hopefully they were role-models for behaviour patterns many of us dont like.

I actually think Nick is aware he is a baddie (hence his nervousness.) but Im not sure if Lisa was aware of her overwhelming boringness or whether Tim is aware of his Timminess

I would say out of the BBs, BB1 was the nicest crowd (once Nick had gone. Darren wasnt nice but he was pleasant enough when he wanted to be). I really like Mel, Anna and Craig.

I didnt see BB2.

BB3 wasnt a nice crowd but it was interesting dynamics

BB4 wasnt that nice a crowd really, but could get on to an extent (especially once Fed and Jon were out)

the way I see it, we all have 2 worlds: the real world and our own world in our head. The closer these 2 worlds match, the better. Most of us can figure out and participate in the real world to get along well enough. But some people insist on trying to convince us their dream world is the correct perception of them and they usually end up alienating themselves.

That reminds me, I forgot 1 of the other great characters ... sandy

Sandys problem was that he didnt know what he was getting himself in to (and was too old for the especially young crowd that year). He isnt very good at expressing himself but he wants to, so he gave it a go (with the child in him ) but eventually he just shut up shop and became an old moaner who sulked in the garden and talked about the others Eventually he reached meltdown and only cheered up once he knew he was going. Then he got a bit drunk and overdone the pent-up bad feeling and regretted it next morning. He was a very sensitive guy but doesnt seem to know how to express himself very well and has locked himself into old-girny-guy syndrome where not to be laughed at are the main aims (or something)

psychology has all sorts of labels they put on behaviour patterns. One label is the Parent/Adult/Child theory (bear with me, I dont know what Im talking about). In Sandys case the "parent" side of him is dominant (chastises, treats others as children) and he hasnt developed his "child" part very much (the playfulness. His playfulness was pretty basic and infantile (the kilt etc)). Im not sure about his "adult" side too much (thats the reponsible person in us).

something like that anyway

But most of us can be in the real world enough to communicate and get on with each other well enough. The dream world people are in the minority but they are common enough for most of us to know some