Just wondering, do you think it would work if BB put a separate public vote up during nominations where the public would have to vote for the most boring HM, and that HM would face eviction along with the others who were nominated? I think this idea would make good TV but at the same time it would bend the rules of BB. What do you all think?
New idea to get rid of 'invisible' HM's?
I don't think it would work because how do you define 'boring?'
The bed-hopping showmancers bore the tits off of me but others find all that shite entertaining.
I also don't think that those who don't hog the airtime and the limelight are necessarily boring HMs either.
I'm a noms purist - let them nom each week in the DR and BB shouldn't do any meddling.
The bed-hopping showmancers bore the tits off of me but others find all that shite entertaining.
I also don't think that those who don't hog the airtime and the limelight are necessarily boring HMs either.
I'm a noms purist - let them nom each week in the DR and BB shouldn't do any meddling.
It wouldn't work....people would just vote for whoever they wanted to be up for eviction anyway, regardless of if they were 'boring' or not.
Some people like 'boring' or 'invisible' housemates.
How would you define who is 'boring?'
Some people like 'boring' or 'invisible' housemates.
How would you define who is 'boring?'
In this fantasy I'd have Lee and Casey out. That has been one of he most boring repetitious aspects of the show.
BB has got more and more manipulated, but I do still value some vestige of democracy. If someone has not managed to generate enough public support, they go. If they have generated public support, they stay. Obviously there are exceptions, as in the last main BB when they manipulated the two quiet ones in being up with no nominations, then saw Dan go anyway. I hate that kind of thing. What an ugly programme it would be if only the noisiest, fightiest housemates got to stay.
In a very weak field (for me) Ollie, Sam and Casey are the three I want to see stay. If not enough people agree with me, they will go. That seems fair to me.
In a very weak field (for me) Ollie, Sam and Casey are the three I want to see stay. If not enough people agree with me, they will go. That seems fair to me.
Surely it's down to the housemates to nominate them in the first place. The so called boring housemates never get nominated because housemates actually like them as they are usually easy going pleasant people ie nice to live with. They're only boring to us the viewers.
What if the 1st couple of housemates votes were to save ?
Would that make the invisible ones put in a bit more effort ?
Would that make the invisible ones put in a bit more effort ?
I would say that this years "Invisible" HM's are Ollie, Liz and Sam and they have all bee saved by the public vote.
Originally Posted by bobbyd:
“What if the 1st couple of housemates votes were to save ?
Would that make the invisible ones put in a bit more effort ?”
“What if the 1st couple of housemates votes were to save ?
Would that make the invisible ones put in a bit more effort ?”
Nominate to save?
Wouldn't make much difference. Liz & Jim would be up every week.
There aren't any invisible HMs but there sure are shit CBB editors, the ones that kept showing Lee and Jasmine, thinking that was the only thing worthy of showing in the highlights.
Originally Posted by carnoch04:
“I would say that this years "Invisible" HM's are Ollie, Liz and Sam and they have all bee saved by the public vote.”
“I would say that this years "Invisible" HM's are Ollie, Liz and Sam and they have all bee saved by the public vote.”
... and Mildred, BB have been looking all over the place for her.
I was thinking about this the other day and posted in another thread. It's just the beginning of an idea really, but, what if each call to channel 5 gave you 2 votes, one for your favourite and one for your least favourite. The result then puts the "middle of the road" housemates in trouble. Of course you would have to keep crowd reactions away from the housemates so that they wouldn't know if they were being kept in because they are liked or disliked, fun to watch some of those big egos thinking they are popular when in reality...
At the end of the show you have two standing, the results are revealed and the loser takes a walk of shame while the winner take the glory.
It would mean we could legitimately vote to keep nasty housemates in the house without feeling that we are rewarding bad behaviour, clear out the dead wood and would also mean that channel 5 wouldn't have to keep manipulating the format to keep the cast entertaining. I'm sure my theory is full of holes, but on the surface it seems like plan!
At the end of the show you have two standing, the results are revealed and the loser takes a walk of shame while the winner take the glory.
It would mean we could legitimately vote to keep nasty housemates in the house without feeling that we are rewarding bad behaviour, clear out the dead wood and would also mean that channel 5 wouldn't have to keep manipulating the format to keep the cast entertaining. I'm sure my theory is full of holes, but on the surface it seems like plan!
It's a shame how much the GBP has changed. Today, everyone saves the 'nice' one and evicts the 'mean' one. In the early days of BB, the complex, interesting characters would be saved. For example, Nick and Melanie from BB1, two big game players, were the favorites to win back then. It was their manipulation and intelligence that made people want to watch more of them. If they were on this series, they'd be the first one's out. There weren't any 'invisible' or 'bland' personalities back then. Now we have sterotypical, one dimensional HM's. If you're nice you're boring, if you're entertaining you're an arsehole. I don't know if it's more to do with the fact the GBP have changed their opinions on HM's, or if the producers aren't as careful with who they choose to enter the house.
Originally Posted by carnoch04:
“I would say that this years "Invisible" HM's are Ollie, Liz and Sam and they have all bee saved by the public vote.”
“I would say that this years "Invisible" HM's are Ollie, Liz and Sam and they have all bee saved by the public vote.”
Ollie and Sam yes, but not Liz. She actually has an interesting, complex personality. There's a difference between being quiet and being boring. Ollie and Sam are bland.
Originally Posted by iMatt_101:
“Ollie and Sam yes, but not Liz. She actually has an interesting, complex personality. There's a difference between being quiet and being boring. Ollie and Sam are bland.”
“Ollie and Sam yes, but not Liz. She actually has an interesting, complex personality. There's a difference between being quiet and being boring. Ollie and Sam are bland.”
I didn't say boring, I said invisible. There were times when Liz wasn't seen on the highlights for days.
Originally Posted by iMatt_101:
“It's a shame how much the GBP has changed. Today, everyone saves the 'nice' one and evicts the 'mean' one. In the early days of BB, the complex, interesting characters would be saved. For example, Nick and Melanie from BB1, two big game players, were the favorites to win back then. It was their manipulation and intelligence that made people want to watch more of them. If they were on this series, they'd be the first one's out. There weren't any 'invisible' or 'bland' personalities back then. Now we have sterotypical, one dimensional HM's. If you're nice you're boring, if you're entertaining you're an arsehole. I don't know if it's more to do with the fact the GBP have changed their opinions on HM's, or if the producers aren't as careful with who they choose to enter the house.”
“It's a shame how much the GBP has changed. Today, everyone saves the 'nice' one and evicts the 'mean' one. In the early days of BB, the complex, interesting characters would be saved. For example, Nick and Melanie from BB1, two big game players, were the favorites to win back then. It was their manipulation and intelligence that made people want to watch more of them. If they were on this series, they'd be the first one's out. There weren't any 'invisible' or 'bland' personalities back then. Now we have sterotypical, one dimensional HM's. If you're nice you're boring, if you're entertaining you're an arsehole. I don't know if it's more to do with the fact the GBP have changed their opinions on HM's, or if the producers aren't as careful with who they choose to enter the house.”
It's because the whole show is built around negativity, it showcases bad traits of the housemates for entertainment reasons whilst also through vote to evict forces the public to make judgements because of these negative traits. Even with vote to save this focus on negatives still comes through with the audience, it's the reason why the crowd still chants to 'get someone out' and why they 'pull a Liz' to desperately make sure someone they dislike leaves. In this day and age the show has become so negative that it has become less about who you like the most and instead about who you dislike the least, and that is why nonentities like the two Sams are benefiting simply because they have had no negative traits showcased.
Originally Posted by k0213818:
“It's because the whole show is built around negativity, it showcases bad traits of the housemates for entertainment reasons whilst also through vote to evict forces the public to make judgements because of these negative traits. Even with vote to save this focus on negatives still comes through with the audience, it's the reason why the crowd still chants to 'get someone out' and why they 'pull a Liz' to desperately make sure someone they dislike leaves. In this day and age the show has become so negative that it has become less about who you like the most and instead about who you dislike the least, and that is why nonentities like the two Sams are benefiting simply because they have had no negative traits showcased.”
“It's because the whole show is built around negativity, it showcases bad traits of the housemates for entertainment reasons whilst also through vote to evict forces the public to make judgements because of these negative traits. Even with vote to save this focus on negatives still comes through with the audience, it's the reason why the crowd still chants to 'get someone out' and why they 'pull a Liz' to desperately make sure someone they dislike leaves. In this day and age the show has become so negative that it has become less about who you like the most and instead about who you dislike the least, and that is why nonentities like the two Sams are benefiting simply because they have had no negative traits showcased.”
If, by that comment, you are including Sam who won normal BB then all I can say is you didn't watch much LF
