I think I know why.

The housemates were playing up to the cameras; to the public. The Public is responsable for who goes; so why appear as controversial, mean, etc when they are the people voting you out? I feel that if the public had absolutely *NO* control as to who goes; then the housemates could act more natural.

I mean, if a housemate goes into the diary room, and starts bitching at another housemate; they'll come off as an ass. The public will note this, and will wait until he/she's up for eviction.

Get what I mean? I think it would be more entertaining if there were no public vote; so the housemates could bitch, and do whatever. Subsequently, most of it can be done in the public's view, and not by the other housemates; so they don't have to fear about getting voted out.

What do you think?

No - I don't think that is the one particular reason BB4 failed. If anything ... the contestants from BB3 (imo Kate and Jonny) should of won the award for playing up to the cameras!

I don't think it was one particular failing in the case of BB4 .. more like a shed load. For example:

- Extremely biased Channel 4 coverage (nightly update show)
- Pre-ordained winner (and his visit to Sth Africa)
- Poor contestants / boring / unable to interact with each other
- Lack of suitable tasks
- BB never really sticks to its own rules (applied also in BB3)

What is the point of voting for the BB evictions? None

What also annoyed me was the scrolling bars and adverts - they were particularly bad during the first few weeks.

Contingency / emergency plans not well thought out (ie Lisa should of had more support and/or the other contestants should have been shown in their true colours on the update show)

I almost stopped watching a couple of times during the course of BB4 it really was that bad!

How about BB5 really being back to basics and the contestants actually having to stick to the rules? How about decent tasks which have to be completed according to the rules provided (not as in BB3) ........

More ... yes, there are loads more examples but lunch beckons

I think there is something in this, as well as lots of other things.

The HMs are now fully aware of what BB is about, they are BB savvy

They know that loud, annoying, shrieking, bitching, eccentric HMs get voted out asap, and also get nommed by the more placid HMs

Keeping your head down is a good strategy for getting most of the way through the show

It used to be the case that BB was considered, by most of us at least, as a nine week audition for minor cable TV shows and guest appearances on proper telly

But the HMs seemed to consider BB5 not as an audition but as their first professional engagement

They were just too professional. Of course over nine weeks the masks slipped now and then but the lasting impression over the pece was that they wanted to show themselves as safe to employ

I would love them to do away with public voting and leave evictions up to the HMs. Allied with scrapping the ban on discussing nominations this would make the show one of tactics, strategy, alliance building, alliance breaking, bluff and counter-bluff, scheming, duplicity, diplomacy.

Make the prize a million quid so it's the winning not the taking part what matters. They will all earn more than 70k in the year or two after appearing, so winning is irrelevant compared to staying in as long as possible

Needless to say, none of this will happen for the obvious reason - no money in it for Endemol

So i guess all we can hope for is a more interesting bunch of contestants on their way to minor TV celebrity

One word

Shameron

The format worked well for the first few BBs, but it has become stale.
The viewers are more cynical and the HMs have a better idea of what appeals to the wider public.

As I see it, the problem is that BB is a "niceness "contest.
If being nice wins, it's inevitable that the show will be dull.

That's why I preferred BB USA and Shattered, as neither made that mistake.
BB USA was a tactical game and Shattered was an endurance test.

So my advice to the producers of BB5 would be:- change the nature of the competition if you are going to prevent it from turning into a tea party!

I think it was simply down to poor choice of housemates. They were just... dull. We had no characters like Brian, or Nasty Nick (except for Jon of course).

They went heavy on the gimmicks in BB4. There's nothing wrong with the basic format - it's the people who make the entertainment.

What??? A contestant who's brother happened to be a media savvy Tv presenter with his own newspaper column who happens to sprint into the diary room after Big Bro mysteriously warns them something is going to happen and somehow has the fortune to have some very lucky editing.....who also appears as some sort of naive, quiet, religious innocent but in reality is an international businessman.......And you call him Shameron??? Very accurate....that bloke sums up all that was bad about BB4..........

But the bad news is looking at FA2 Endomol haven't learned a thing......

I really hope the producers do not go the way of BBUSA, I found that too far removed from our BB, it changes the dynamics of the group too much. (Although a separate new programme with the same rules as USBB would be interesting, but leave our BB alone!!!!) I can't see Endemol or Channel 4 giving up the revenue they make from voting anyway - in US most phone votes are free.

I hope they go back to basics, but with some element of surprise to keep the adrenalin pumping.

I will be very surprised if the calibre of housemates is much better than those in BB4. I should imagine the pool of contestants must be getting smaller. Those who have applied in earlier years will have been turned down for a reason, but will they they get through this year through shortage of applicants, or will the housemates be very young?? And with the bad press most housemates now get, I would question anyone's desire to take part. (Perhaps any would be housemates would explain why they want to take part)

Having said that I look forward to BB5 and just hope and pray it is not as dead as it appeared at the end of BB4

Horray for that. I got bored of USBB it very quickly and if ours had worked like that Jon Tickle would've been out very quickly. In BB4's defence, it did give us Jon's victory over Justine which has to be one of my all time favourite BB moments.

More Feds and Jons and no Camerons, Goses or Nushes and they'll do fine with the format the way it is.

First off , lets get one thing absolutely crystal clear , there is no way on gods green earth that endemol will get rid of voting. its a HUGE cash cow for them and they will be damned if they sacrifice that. It simply will not happen. The trick is to come up with a different slant on the voting process. My suggestion is that every week the public votes on who they want to stay ( ALL the HMs can be voted for ). At the end of the week the 2/3/4 or whatever with the lowest amounts of votes are up for eviction. The HMs then vote one of them off. This way , the boring ones are more likely to be up for eviction , we still get to see the housemates vote AND most importantly endemol still get to profit from the people who want to donate their money to the overpaid executives.

Second suggestion is GET RID OF THOSE BOOKS. How many times on BB4 did u tune into e4 just to see people sitting around in complete silence. For me that was probably the biggest mistake of the producers. WHAT were they thinking?

The whole point in voting in BB is voting negatively - i.e. the one you want out. I can't see Endemol changing this as viewers would not choose someone to keep in, especially in the early stages. As far as I can remember BB is the only reality show to use negative voting, I for one hope that doesn't change, it makes it more interesting. Incidentally the final week you do vote positively, but by that time people feel passionately who they want to win, but this is after nine weeks.

I for one have got wise to voting for reality events, I don't anymore (esp after Cameron!!!) I feel there is too much manipulation by producers.

I thought the whole point of BB was putting people in a house ( without outside influence ) and see how they interact with each other.


I think you would be suprised at how quickly people latch on to a favorite.


Makes it more interesting? You think it was interesting to have whats his name ( the scouse bloke who did NOTHING for weeks ) and Gos in there instead of say anuska or federico?


I take it you didnt watch bb3 then , thats when the manipulation started ( with jade ).

...................while Big Brother, after all that is the title of the show, pulls the strings.
Some people still don't quite get the most important part of the concept of the programme.
Big Brother makes the rules, can change the rules and even try and influence the minds of the viewers, to keep on phoning and texting. We all know that, yet people are still stamping their feet and wailing " Not fair Endemol, you're only in it for the money ".

Hold on bystander....You admiit they try to influencethe minds of the viewers and then you act all shocked when people aren't happy with it.....You'll just have to get used to the complaints mate.....

I love the complaints Mes.

I said that Big Brother can try and influence the minds of viewers to phone in and text messages, not influence how viewers vote, we're too smart for them to try that.

It failed because it was boring to watch (to state the bleeding obvious)

It was boring because for such a long time because no one wished to stand out. The effects of "standing out" were all to clear when anouska got nominated on that first night ...and that first night nomination was a poor decision, it immediately made BB be the common enemy and brought everyone together against BB, the producers first mistake.

When Fed (the unsung hero of BB5) cared to say something "controversial" Ray, on two occasions, told him to shut up because he was concerned that he (Ray) would be shown in a bad light to the outside world. That must have been a bit of a blow to the producers, on the face of it Ray appeared the typical "straight talking" Irish man, and instead he was going around telling others to mind their behaviour.

Okay there is an exception to the above, namely the bitch Justine against the "true winner" Jon, but that’s the exception that proves the rule. When there was some "action going on" that’s the only time BB5 was entertaining.

That Saturday reward was dire. The first week was okay, as the entertainment was the HMs reaction, but week after week of “.... this time it’s a DINER!!!!", so ****ing what? It didn't make good TV to see people who didn't have anything of interesting to say sit down and eat in a different setting week after week. this week there not saying much ....wearing a funny hat

The South Africa thing was just a disaster from start to finish. Perhaps it’s me, but where is the entertainment value in what they did? I don’t just mean the extremely odd decision for them to pick cameron at "random", but the whole concept of it. What were the viewers ment to get out of it? The reaction of the other HMs was (unsurprisngly) "good for Cameron, now lets talk about kittens and kids programs we grew up with")

The bringing Jon back in, could have worked, but hand on heart, I don’t think it did. Whatever the outcome of bringing Jon back in, at least the producers were more or less admitting the whole thing was in desperate need of "something".

I think the other problem is concept..

We were told by both the contestants and the psychologists that BB2 was designed to produce a "family" group where there were alternate candidates for each role (mother, father, entertainer, daughter) - the entertainers were strong (brian) and provided entertainment and the daughter provide romance (helen)

BB3's concept was never revealed, but the history of the contestants all displayed some leadership role or the person was pretty quickly seen as an alpha male/female by the other housemates/fans because of their personality, educational ahievement, looks or physique (think of the males then note that, Adele was school captain, Kate was games captain at school, Jade was reportedly the school gang leader, Sunita had obviously excelled academically and Allison had been a holiday rep leading a group of similarly aged people on holiday)

Arguably that was the idea - BB2 produced an obvious leader and mate - BB3 would produce competition between 12 people who would accept no leader. They then picked people who had flaws that were noticeable as well as meeting the potential leader criteria (for example: overenthusiastic Allison, plotting (but incompetent ) Adele, controlled Sunita, miserable Sandy, idle Spencer, Alex (think of the " why am I here ?" speeches) Jonny and the ultimate - posh but dim Tim. They then threw in Jade and the divide and let the pot boil. The contestant who emerged at the end actually having best survived and enjoyed the process won.

BB4 responded to the critics attack on BB3 by removing competition and any obviously flawed people who might become media targets like Adele, Jade or Tim. . I think with hindsight that you could describe most of the people in BB4 as nice, normal and relatively uncompetitive. I think they were also picked because they had smaller flaws that would create some tension over the series but which would not produce Jade, Adele, Jonny or Tim. For example think Federico and the tasks, steph and her jealousy of Nush, Ray and his temper, Cameron and his attitudes, Sissy and the tears, Anoushka and the noise. Even the loveable blonde beauty Nush could be annoying, self centered and giggly. . I think BB4 was designed to let these problems simmer and the one with a story would emerge as winner (even if Cameron's story was invented for him.)

BB4 failed because the simmering was pretty invisible and the housemates were too controlled. It also failed because the housemates took the obvious action and removed the oddest people as soon as they could. Unlike BB2 where the family removed the outsiders or BB3 where the competitors formed 2 groups , in BB4 the only logic of nominations was to maintain peace and quiet and nice scenary. The boys removed the annoying females and left themselves with the house maid and the house beauty. BB4 also failed because as there were no sides, no bad people or good ones and similar, slightly annoying, people, the public didn't really care who won.

I don't know what the concept for BB5 should be but some obvious ideas would be:
Competive people are better TV than non-competitive.
Reward rooms do not work - putting the losers in a sin bin for the day might be better.
A house divided into groups produces more interaction in the group and between it and other groups
Something has to be done to make sure the house does not divide boy-girl again - boys will vote out girls and girls will join them doing it .
You need an winner who looks like a winner. BB3 had 4 (Spencer, alex, Jonny, Kate) BB4 had no one.

I think that every BB after BB3 that did not equal it (cash, viewers, profile) would have been seen as a failure.

And I think they all will fail because I don't think Endemol/C4 brilliantly planned the success of BB3, I think they just got lucky with the contestants.

Pity, but there it is.

A very good sensible logic post "thenetworkbabe"

I think BB just has to go back to one important basic in order to succeed again this year. I think that only 10 housemates should be chosen to enter (like in BB1+BB2) at the start, which ensures that all housemates have a guarenteed stay of 2 weeks which is nice. If you look at BB3 and BB4 where they raised it to 12 housemates entering there have always been 2 housemates who shouldn't have been there, I.E.

BB3 -- Sandy, Sunita
BB4 -- Gos, Scott (more of a selection here cuz they were all pretty poor).

Big Brother should go back to 10 housemates. What's the point in evicting someone after 1 Week, hardly an achievement

The success or failure of BB is only about the contestants. Whether all the other stuff surrounding the show is good or bad, it's only window dressing and what makes the show really tick is the right mix of contestants and how they do or don't gel.
BB1 probably had a bit of extra interest due to it's novelty factor on being the first one.

I agree with your point, but disagree about Sandy.....I think he brought a lot to BB3..although it may not be immediately apparent..without his presence we would have had a very different series.

...I also believe his "going over the wall" was a defining moment for both contesants and viewers alike.

someone needed to keep the potatoes company

yep-one of my favourite moments.

Although Sandy didn't stay long, he created a lot of tension and devisions that affect the dynamics of the house for longtime after his stay.

Darling was right about the personalities being key - although I think the producers of BB3 did pick people for roles. Sandy was important as he and Adele effectively led a side which wanted to play to win and he bridged and confused the two sides because he was admired by Spencer. Tim would have been a better stayer (unless he found out early how he was disliked outside) but didn't perform those roles and might have upset the alex-adele relationship?

I suppose you could argue that they got Sandy wrong because he was too detached from the programme and actually didn't display the favourable leadership qualities that people associate with the army - they may have assumed he was more successful than his record suggested or hoped he would be slyer or nastier still.

The other obvious casting problem was Sunita but I don’t think Sunita was a mistake. Sunita staying would have been very interesting. Sunita was old enough and reserved enough to stop many of the excesses that got BB3 attacked. BB3 might have been as successful, but Sunita would have stopped Jade from stripping on live TV and was already alert to Jade in week one and wasn't afraid to argue with Jade. If Sophie had not entered the house, we also wouldn't have had the bullying of Sophie that caused Jade and Adele to really become hate figures?

The Lesson I suppose is you can't get everything right, but arguably BB3 was even cast to avoid what went wrong as well . It was packed with plots - with the drama of multiple possible winners, no leaders, two sides in conflict. surviving the divide and three (at least) sets of possible romantic relationships centered around Kate (Spencer/Alex/Jonny/PJ/Tim) , Adele (Alex, Jade, Kate) and Lee (Adele, Sophie). It might be luck that much of this happened but I suspect an experienced producer backed by psychologists could easily predict a good likelihood that say Spencer and Alex would like Kate or that Jade would be drawn to Adele.
.
BB4 I think just played far safer and expected us to be enthralled with Steph , Sissy, Nush and Anoushka being quietly bitchy, Ray quietly fuming as Federico failed another task and Jon annoying everyone. It was so nice they even provided the house with a cleaner and a chef.

BB producers learned from Jade that conflict makes Big Brother. So they picked pairs of 'conflict pairs' who would come to blows once inside the house. For example:

Athiest, scientist Jon with Bible-bashing Cameron.

Steph the poor, moralistic, dowdy ex-footballer's Wife versus Tania the monied, glamourous girlfriend of a footballer. (The battle of the Footballer's Wives)

Controversy-loving Fed was there to wind up flower-girl Nush (and it started to work in the end).

Had she stayed longer - I could have forseen almight rows between finicky, picky eater Sissy and everyone!

etc etc. Where did it go wrong?

1) Fed failed the tasks. No shopping list equals no alcohol equals few heated debates or naughty behaviour.

2) Housemates too media-savvy. They know bitching will be the end of them so it was done very subtly (Kate and Jonny were masters of this last year). So most of them were "nice" and bland except Ray, who cried and rowed and was the deserved runner-up because of this. You may not like him but as least he was real. And Jon and Fed of course.

While watching some housemates (Nush, Tania, Sissy, Cameron, Justine, Scott among them) in about week 2 while doing Live Updates one morning and listened to them talking on the brightly-coloured sofas and I remember thinking to myself "my god - they're all treating their Big Brother experience as an anti-room to their inevitable TV careers - it's like watching GMTV Training School".

The South Africa trip was too contrived for me. And the fact that it was leaked to the papers ruined it.

The winners are too predictable. I know Brian would win after about week 2. I knew Kate would win the minute she walked up the stairs and into the house. I knew Cameron would win after just seeing his audition tape.

I also find that the design of the house doesn't really change much and that's pretty boring. Did you see the spaceship that was the BB Auz house? Or the scruffy cosiness of the hostel that was the BB Africa house? Not only do the contestants have any character, the house doesn't either.

Add to that the fact that people are very cynical about Big Brother now - for so many reasons - and living in the shadow of BB's 1,2, and 3 - BB4 was bound to fail.