I can't decide between BB3 and BB5, cos they were both excellent.
Which Big Brother Series Do U Think has been the best so far?
3 of 3
BB2
BB4
BB5
BB1
BB3
Not fussed with the CBB's really, never have been but the last one of those was good. I watched quite a bit of that.
BB4
BB5
BB1
BB3
Not fussed with the CBB's really, never have been but the last one of those was good. I watched quite a bit of that.
Originally Posted by Vicky7:
“Not fussed with the CBB's really, never have been but the last one of those was good. I watched quite a bit of that.”
“Not fussed with the CBB's really, never have been but the last one of those was good. I watched quite a bit of that.”
yes, same as me.
Originally Posted by kazzor:
“5 easily ----- my mad daughter was kicked off through a stupid arrogant ****........ GREAT TELLY”
“5 easily ----- my mad daughter was kicked off through a stupid arrogant ****........ GREAT TELLY”
who was ur daughter
Originally Posted by whizzkid:
“who was ur daughter”
“who was ur daughter”
It is a rule of this forum not to discuss banned users as they are unable to reply to comments made about them.
Originally Posted by dawson:
“It is a rule of this forum not to discuss banned users as they are unable to reply to comments made about them.”
“It is a rule of this forum not to discuss banned users as they are unable to reply to comments made about them.
”
i apologise i didnt know she was banned
Originally Posted by GrandPiano:
“Theres those that watch the highlight shows only and we refer to them as the 'public'
”
“Theres those that watch the highlight shows only and we refer to them as the 'public'
”
But the HMs don't know what will be shown on the highlight shows. If there were "some real b*tches" who "never let the public see that side of them", which is the claim this is about (see elena's post above), then they can't magically avoid showing it on the highlight shows while showing it to other viewers who watch more. So they must not have shown it at all, and this is just another case of pretend mind-reading.
Originally Posted by elena:
“8. BB4. Now, I'm one of these people who thinks BB4 could have worked if it hadn't have been for some unlucky nominations and poor public decisions. However, even if housemates like Anouska and Fed had been kept instead of say, Steph and Scott, it still wouldn't have compared to previous BBs. Cameron is the worst winner of Big Brother ever, and it was obvious halfway through that the producers got more and more desperate when they realised it was a flop, and tried to throw twist after twist in to spice the house up, only for all of them to fall flat on their faces.”
“8. BB4. Now, I'm one of these people who thinks BB4 could have worked if it hadn't have been for some unlucky nominations and poor public decisions. However, even if housemates like Anouska and Fed had been kept instead of say, Steph and Scott, it still wouldn't have compared to previous BBs. Cameron is the worst winner of Big Brother ever, and it was obvious halfway through that the producers got more and more desperate when they realised it was a flop, and tried to throw twist after twist in to spice the house up, only for all of them to fall flat on their faces.”
No, it's BB5 that had the producers doing one thing after another to keep it interesting. Apart from the Africa awap, BB4 was much like other BBs; and at least Cameron has had the grace to fade from view, unlike Nadia.
Quote:
“Dull housemates who wouldn't let their guards down - there were some real b*tches in there, but they never let the public see that side of them.”
“Dull housemates who wouldn't let their guards down - there were some real b*tches in there, but they never let the public see that side of them.”
While in every other BB everyone was completely open and honest.
But ok, sure, Scott and Cameron were real b*tches who kept their guard up, but I wonder if they're the ones you had in mind.
Quote:
“Gos is probably the biggest waste of space in a Big Brother house ever. And the producers got more and more manipulative in this show - it was obvious they edited Cameron to be the winner, and since then they've been keen to carry on this audience manipulation. Shame.”
“Gos is probably the biggest waste of space in a Big Brother house ever. And the producers got more and more manipulative in this show - it was obvious they edited Cameron to be the winner, and since then they've been keen to carry on this audience manipulation. Shame.”
Keen because they don't know how to make BB a hit without it. And it works. BB5 had by far the most manipulation, and that's why BB5 has you saying it `probably had the biggest number of "goings on"' and `There was always something to talk about.'
Audience manipulation started in BB3 with the saving of Jade.....They went way to far and created a monster of course but it gave them an idea of what they could get away with....
You make some excellent points, Veri, and I'd just like to respond to a couple of them if I may:
Regarding "twists;" I did write in my post that the reason BB4, in my view, failed because of the "twists" was that, I quote: "the producers got more and more desperate when they realised it was a flop, and tried to throw twist after twist in to spice the house up, only for all of them to fall flat on their faces."
In BB5, it could be argued that many of the twists that were used ultimately worked: apart from the bedsit sound cockup that gimmick actually worked very well and provided for some classic moments. The boot camp task and shock eviction of Stuart also worked very well. I would argue that the BB4 twists did not work... first night nominations led to the eviction of Anouska, the double eviction removed both Jon and Fed, the reward room failed week after week because it just didn't hold people's attention, Head of Household was used only once and seemed tacked on, the Africa twist was a good innovation but was ruined by the obvious bias C4 used when selecting a candidate, and the return of one housemate distorted the rules far too much, was only introduced because the producers realised they needed the talking point (Jon) back in there, and ultimately failed as Jon didn't do anything that he promised he would, and never lived up to his old self.
You write that "BB4 was much like other BBs" however, I would argue that the amount of twists and gimmicks used was far too many. Sure, BB3 had a couple of twists, but no way near as many, and they were well thought out. BB2, the best series IMHO, had the shock arrival of Josh and the shock eviction of Elizabeth as twists - very few and not over-done at all.
I couldn't care less about Cameron's life outside the house - all I know is that he was the dullest, most insipid and dislikeable (once again, IMHO) winner of a BB, and the least-deserving due to his time in the house. No matter what you may think of Nadia (and I don't think much of her, for your information) it could be argued that the cigarette fiasco, camp comedy value and transsexual storyline made her a more interesting and, some may say, more deserving winner than Cameron.
I agree with your point on the b*tches - I perhaps did not look too closely at other BBs, and I would agree that there were may housemates who 'had their guards up' throughout. I would rephrase myself and argue that the ones that did put their guards up let us see nothing of their personality - Scott, Cameron, Steph, Gos - and when their personalities did come out at the odd moment - ie when Lisa entered - they became very bitchy, spiteful and cruel, which is perhaps what I originally intended to say.
Finally, I address your point on manipulation - and it's a really interesting one. I think it's very brave and commendable of you to argue that manipulation is not always a bad thing when it comes to the interest and entertainment value of a show. One thing I would say is that there was minimal manipulation (at least compared to later BBs) of BB2, and that always seemed to have things going on. And I would argue that if the producers cannot make "BB a hit without it" there needs to be a new production crew. I would agree BB5 had at least the same level of manipulation as BB4... but the reason I rank it higher is that the producers at least had some interesting goings-on to work with rather than vainly trying to make a story out of nothing (Scott-Nush, Steph-Cameron.)
Hope that all makes sense!
Regarding "twists;" I did write in my post that the reason BB4, in my view, failed because of the "twists" was that, I quote: "the producers got more and more desperate when they realised it was a flop, and tried to throw twist after twist in to spice the house up, only for all of them to fall flat on their faces."
In BB5, it could be argued that many of the twists that were used ultimately worked: apart from the bedsit sound cockup that gimmick actually worked very well and provided for some classic moments. The boot camp task and shock eviction of Stuart also worked very well. I would argue that the BB4 twists did not work... first night nominations led to the eviction of Anouska, the double eviction removed both Jon and Fed, the reward room failed week after week because it just didn't hold people's attention, Head of Household was used only once and seemed tacked on, the Africa twist was a good innovation but was ruined by the obvious bias C4 used when selecting a candidate, and the return of one housemate distorted the rules far too much, was only introduced because the producers realised they needed the talking point (Jon) back in there, and ultimately failed as Jon didn't do anything that he promised he would, and never lived up to his old self.
You write that "BB4 was much like other BBs" however, I would argue that the amount of twists and gimmicks used was far too many. Sure, BB3 had a couple of twists, but no way near as many, and they were well thought out. BB2, the best series IMHO, had the shock arrival of Josh and the shock eviction of Elizabeth as twists - very few and not over-done at all.
I couldn't care less about Cameron's life outside the house - all I know is that he was the dullest, most insipid and dislikeable (once again, IMHO) winner of a BB, and the least-deserving due to his time in the house. No matter what you may think of Nadia (and I don't think much of her, for your information) it could be argued that the cigarette fiasco, camp comedy value and transsexual storyline made her a more interesting and, some may say, more deserving winner than Cameron.
I agree with your point on the b*tches - I perhaps did not look too closely at other BBs, and I would agree that there were may housemates who 'had their guards up' throughout. I would rephrase myself and argue that the ones that did put their guards up let us see nothing of their personality - Scott, Cameron, Steph, Gos - and when their personalities did come out at the odd moment - ie when Lisa entered - they became very bitchy, spiteful and cruel, which is perhaps what I originally intended to say.
Finally, I address your point on manipulation - and it's a really interesting one. I think it's very brave and commendable of you to argue that manipulation is not always a bad thing when it comes to the interest and entertainment value of a show. One thing I would say is that there was minimal manipulation (at least compared to later BBs) of BB2, and that always seemed to have things going on. And I would argue that if the producers cannot make "BB a hit without it" there needs to be a new production crew. I would agree BB5 had at least the same level of manipulation as BB4... but the reason I rank it higher is that the producers at least had some interesting goings-on to work with rather than vainly trying to make a story out of nothing (Scott-Nush, Steph-Cameron.)
Hope that all makes sense!
3 of 3
