Just discovered courtesy of behindbigbrother.com that the Head of House format has spread to Brazil, and is rumoured for Australia.

In Brazil, the HoH is selected via a task

- The HoH then nominates one housemate for eviction
- The other housemates vote for the second nominee (with the HoH breaking any tie)
- Viewers then vote for who is evicted

Discussion of nominations is aloud, and as for viewing figures - well 50million isn't bad!

Personally I'd prefer the HoH to nominate 3 housemates, the other housemates then vote to save one of them before the viewers vote for eviction.

The HOH is something dreamed up by the Americans becuase they couldn't stand the boredom of watching something with no conflict. It will only lead to jelousy, back-stabbing, paranoia, alliances and unrest.

If you were a HM, how would you feel knowing people were ganging up on you on National TV? Nominations should be kept secret from other people. This is a fundamental part of BB. It just wouldn't be Big Brother if they were allowed to talk about Nominations.

And as far as I am concerened, there has always ever been, and should always only be one HOH: Big Brother himself.

The HOH is something dreamed up by the Americans becuase they couldn't stand the boredom of watching something with no conflict. It will only lead to jelousy, back-stabbing, paranoia, alliances and unrest.

If you were a HM, how would you feel knowing people were ganging up on you on National TV? Nominations should be kept secret from other people. This is a fundamental part of BB. It just wouldn't be Big Brother if they were allowed to talk about Nominations.

And as far as I am concerened, there has always ever been, and should always only be one HOH: Big Brother himself.

I dearly hope open Nominations and HOH never arrives in BB UK or BB OZ.

This could be interesting in that, unlike BB US, the public vote is kept with the introduction of the Head of House idea.

Having followed the American version last year I think the HoH format works very well - it's just the idea of removing the public vote I object too. Even if it's just for this series, I'd much rather see it tried than another year of the same old nomination process with a few twists here and there.

If nominations are kept, I think the format should be changed to that used in the first week last year - all housemates nominate one housemate who automatically face eviction. Then no housemate can try to tactically nominate so either they or the people they nominate face eviction.

In other words, a bit of exciting viewing....................

Yeah .....

That's what we want .....

No more cosy, sleepy BB4 .....

That sells it for me....


If I were a HM I'd be thinking how lucky I was to be chosen to get on the show that was going to make them some easy money, that they were desperate to get onto and they can leave any time they want and it's a bit late for feeling sorry for themselves, they weren't forced to go on the show.....

I didn't think having a HOH in UK BB was a good idea, but reading through this thread I've changed my mind. Can you imagine the stress it would cause, we could end up with a house full of Adeles!!!! Go for it I say, it could be the saving of BBUK!!!!

They missed a trick with Teen Big Brother really. Without the public vote it would have been a good time to trial the Head of House format with housemates voting which nominee is evicted. It would have given producers the chance to see the public reaction before deciding what to do for BB5.

Head Of House was done last year in the UK - granted it was only for one week but it was still done.

I can't remember now who was the HoH but I remember they were crying over their decision.

And remember we were bombarded with US BB last year too - so I think it's fairly safe to say - the UK Public now know how the HoH format works - and will all have their own opinions on if this a good or bad format to follow.

Ray was Head of House for that one week in the UK BB4 House. However, we only had a partial implementation of the US precedent.

Well said!

BB is partly a game and it can be a tense one for the HM and the audience. The tension comes from the voting patterns and the difficulty people have in deciding who to vote for. If the public supports some HMs (which is a way of saying it is a succesful BB) they share the tension as their favourite is nominated or not. Because alliances are not allowed in UK BB people are nominated usually for some reason supported by enough of their fellow HMs. Nominations day is the test of where the friendships and fault lines lie in the house. Nominations day is also when the decisive questions are answered. Will Darren change his vote and remove Mel, will Adele and Alex nominate Kate against Spencer or Jonny, who will Jade or Brian pick now they have the deciding vote, who will nominate Spencer?

Head of House ruins this. The winner of some task (and the tasks on UK BB have recently been childish and random) decides what he tactically or emotionally or randomly wants to do. There is no guarantee that he won't nominate all the females or all the favourites or all the interesting people so all the current problems remain. The choice may still be misguided (jon Tickle would always have nominated Cameron and who ever else was nominated would always have gone) The decisive choices for the game now become either more predictable if a committed person makes them or random if a neutral person does. The individual choices that each HM has to make each week are avoided (Brian over Josh, Adele over Jade, Kate over Jade,, Alex over Kate, Kate over Tim) and all you get is one person deciding. What is pretty certain is that the great standoffs of the past would have been unlikely - its very difficult to get an Alex-Spencer competition in BB3 with a HoH deciding one or both nominees . in BB3 Jade would have gone out to almost any HOH, Adele would have survived as only Jonny or PJ would have removed her. A tactically minded HOH would have put Kate, Spencer, Alex and Jonny up until only one was left and we would have known the winner as soon as the last vote was completed.

HoH just destroys the working out of the story. Imagine BB3 if Alex, Kate and Spencer have all gone and Jonny is left with Adele - who would be watching if 3 of the favourite characters had gone becausesomeone (say Jade) had won pass the parcel twice before she went herself? . It works in America because voters there are not part of the story and because the US game is a blatantly tactical one where nasty people can win. All you gain in the UK game are a few tears from Ray and a random outcome - such as when he took Nush out and left us with the total boredom that was Steph. its Bad Bad Bad and a poor substitute for a good theme for the show.

Yep - undoubtable it would be a different outcome and a different feel to the show, but the fans favourites would remain in if the public vote is kept. Under the traditional nominations process there have been weeks when hot favourites go head to head and surprise evictions of popular housemates. By having just the HoH nominate wouldn't completely ruin the chances of a popular housemate. While a HoH may choose people they think are a threat to them winning, it's highly unlikely they would nominate a "friend" within the house. What the HoH would do is bring some unpredicability to nominations - and with the rule that no existing HoH competes for the position the next week, housemates are eligible for nominations at all times except when they are HoH

I think individuals will vote either - randomly (Ray/Darren) or as the herd does anyway in a non-competitive show (BB4 expelling anyone odd or emotional or female) or for the other side if the house is divided or tactically (remove the potential winners and hope the one left comes unstuck).

Randomly is bad because it doesn't reflect the dynamic of the house and the voters might get 2 favourites to vote out or the show might lose a key character (remember the outcry when PJ and Kate were up and people were saying they wouldn't vote)

Following the herd gives you all the problems of BB4 again.

Voting for the otherside in a divided house is potentially fatal to the game. If you take a divided house and a HoH from one side arrives in power two weeks running you have a walkover for that side as they shift the odds totally in their favour. if the house is equally divided the odds on that happening are better than 50% as one side has already lost a member. In BB3 Kate nominates Alex and Sandy, Next week Allison nominates Adele and Alex. Odds are shifted straight away to one side. Alex is alone from week 2. Tension evaporates.

Tactically is also bad. One favourite stays to the end but we knew the winner when she defeated the last of the other favourites. Its BB3 so I nominate Jonny and Alex (who if you recall wasn't so popular at the start), You nominate Spencer and Jonny. Jonny beats Spencer. Jade nominates Jonny and Kate. After this vote we now know the winner and we have to watch as Kate amuses herself while Sandy, Adele and Jade try and get rid of her. You want as many as possible of the favourites and the people who the house collectively values to get to the end - not a surviving favourite and the Gos and Adele substittes. Its not only a better show its the best way for endemol to make money - as last year proved, dull people at the end don't bring in votes.

What would be so bad about removing the public vote?

I mean that would put an end to housemates/producers and their playing to the viewers/biased editing.

Also where does the perception that being HoH is the be all and end all? Last season in BB USA there was a situation where the HoH and his clique were certain they had the votes to send a home. When i say certain i mean certain like when C4 producers know that a has 65% of votes and b has 35% but still get Davina to tell the viewers it's very close. Guess what though, a stayed and b was sent packing to the shock of that weeks HoH and his group of friends in the house. How many times are the poll results wrong in BB UK? There is no element of surprise and the eviction is 95% of the time as expected.

If your favourite hm loses out in the BB USA game then that is too bad. It happened for me in BB USA last year but i accepted it as part of the game and continued watching. However when Jon was pushed out of the house by producers i stopped watching.

How can you people not stand to see a scenario of Ray or Cameron as HoH be responsible for Jon's exit but will happily carry on watching after a producers meeting where the very same thing has just gone down?

From Endemol's stance, money.

It does add responsibility within the house for an eviction. The traditional BB process means any guilt over nominations remains in the diary room. The HoH would mean that even if the public had the final say, one person is ultimately responsible for the nomination of that housemate - and everyone in the house knows it.