Your comments may well demonstrate why Big Brother has changed and will never go back to its old format.

What people perceive as boring is exactly what some perceive as interesting.

What I'm trying to say, is that the old BB of live feed, real shopping tasks, real people and less interference maybe does not appeal to the modern viewer, who want (or are fed) a diet of less involved drama and tension - i.e made for us to watch without thinking.

And as we are now conditioned into thinking scripted 'reality' shows are the norm, so it's natural for Big Brother to take that path. Hence what you have termed 'boring winner' is what some (including myself) found appealing about the old style BB.

It was about real people. Whether they were perceived as boring or otherwise. I'm aware that the production team have never been crazy about so called boring housemates, but we had the beauty of live feed, normal shopping tasks and basic rations to entertain us back then. Arguments were slightly more realistic and evolved more naturally perhaps?

Now it just seems as though the producers have decided on a Towie style format, and BB seems to be suffering an identity crisis as a result..

Get back to basics.

I really think that is factually untrue.

1. However much of a 'wannabe' the early housemates were, they were on the whole people with perfectly normal jobs and lives. BB obviously selected people for loud, attention-seeking, rather childish personalities, but only some of them; at least half the earlier housemates would never get to first base these days.

2. There have always been people mocking the quieter, less confrontational housemates as 'boring', but tough luck really. Last year was the first one where two housemates were unequivocally put up for eviction just for being perceived as 'radar dodgers' and unlikely ever to get enough nominations. That is the route to a coarser, uglier BB, where people have keep getting attention on a daily basis if they want to survive.

3. The general pattern really did used to be nomination/ public vote/ eviction, even if it was often subjected to variation. And rightly - it is a fiendishly difficult system to play; try too hard to avoid nominations and the public will take a dislike to you; try too hard to play to the public and the housemates will not like you.

4. Live feed played an immense role in preventing BB presenting skewed personas. Linda Nolan was an obvious example; it was only because of the TINY bit of live feed that we realized she was not actually a grumpy moaner who talked about Jim Davidson all the time; she had been hideously edited, and too bad for her. With no live feed it is far too easy to say that someone is 'boring' and 'not doing anything', simply because they are not BB's chosen story; presumably they ARE 'doing something', and have not become disembodied spirits, but unless you are in a romance or a feud you can be almost literally invisible for the duration.

5. It has become increasingly obvious that BB will simply not allow someone they see as providing a 'story' to be evicted. In Ch 4 days we often had 'big evictions' mid series, and obviously fans of the evictee mourned and wailed, but that was just the way the game went. To keep unpopular housemates like Spiedi and Dexter from being up every week and out early required a very high level of editorial meddling.

the "first series" show would not get tv reality space... it just would not generate the rent of an alternative.. remember, tv time is contested for best performance.. this is not cuba.

it has also moved on. people loved the "statues" last year (where family or friends came in but the house had to ignore them)... while it is likely stage hands help set up tasks with the housemates because the audience expects "hd tv" these days not amateur productions and make up... if it was like series 1 it would look "flat"

the "live feed" distorted what people thought the show was about - ie, the main show is as it always has been, you just dont have the side information which is why you see it as being different

people have been wannabies ever since they saw the success jade had at being "dumb"

however you look at all the things people say are wrong with this series and you can see examples of all of them as far back as bb5 & bb6... in fact they are very clearly in those two series.. so all this "its new" is it is not.

those are the facts.. how you interpret them is opinion

All the show needs is people who love the show and understand it to produce it.

like someone who hasnt produced it (or has advice from) people who have made it across the world for years? oh, they already have that.

remember secrets & lies was based on the french version tried before it

Your only argument for it being "dirt cheap" is that the housemates are barely paid.

I don't think it is cheap to run, let alone "dirt cheap". It's on for an hour a night for months, plus BOTS, and they have to track it all day, every day.

From C5's point of view, there's also the large amount Endemol wants for it. I think that's what made C4 drop in in the end.


I'd like to see some actual evidence, or at least more of an argument, that it's cheaper to do than TOWIE.

The idea that they don't mind losing millions of viewers because they some left doesn't work very well either.

I see it as different because it is different.

Finding examples of similar things in earlier years does not show it is not different now.

I'm pretty good at remembering past examples, and I take them into account when I say BB has changed, and for the worse too.