DS Forums

 
 

at what point did the UK big brother start accepting the baddies


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-02-2015, 22:58
Skyrah
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 12,294
I'll raise you a Rex
beat you .... Carole, Dave the Monk, Bea, Steven, Connor
Skyrah is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 01-02-2015, 23:00
jobielad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,753
Imagine if Nick did now in BB what he did then.

The HMs would get the hot water switched off for a couple of hours and that would be the end of it.
Ha ha isn't that true? Still think back and it was so horrendous at the time and he really took some flack for wanting to win bless him. Wonder what Nick would be like in this house?
jobielad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 23:03
Nearly New
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 931
Get away!

You might have a point OP if all of these series were out-and-out good v evil scenarios, but you forget that alongside Hopkins, Davidson and Busey were Perez, Nolan and Jordan.

It's not as straightforward as you are making it.
Oh I'd agree on that too. Last CBB series it was James Jordan vs Busey and now it's Hopkins vs Perez.

There is no right on either side. Years ago Cheggars would be the obvious winner because of his qualities in the house but now oh no he's a boring character!
Nearly New is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 23:06
Menk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,821
I think the winner of BB or CBB very much depends on the mix of people in the house and how the house dynamic plays out throughout the series, plus the narrative that the show chooses to portray.

I think that the fact that a few of the past winners are viewed as 'baddies' is down to coincidence.

Almost every eviction, in every eviction show is a foregone conclusion as soon as the nominations are announced - it is due to the house dynamic that particular week - who has angered the public most that particular week (VTE), or who is the favourite (VTS).

But who wins over all is such a complex matter, with so many different viewpoints, so many things to take into account on choosing the best of the remaining few, that no real conclusions can be drawn on the reason that a particular HM won.
Menk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 23:27
revolver44
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In Front Of The OLED
Posts: 20,888
beat you .... Carole, Dave the Monk, Bea, Steven, Connor
Ok you win. But in my defence I'm getting old and I can barely remember yesterday
revolver44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 23:39
bbfivenever
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,616
♫one of these things is not like the others One of these things just doesn't belong here... (Gary Busey)
bbfivenever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 23:47
JVS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8,737
Hopkins, davidson, busey , wood what is it about these unplesant characters that made them popular as compared to the so called baddies of the past...
Can't understand the Wood win, something to do with betting syndicates or faulty vote counting system I suspect. But the other 3 won by default; Davidson won because of Linda Nolan, Gary Busey (although he wasn't nasty) won because of James Jordan, and Hopkins is popular because of Perez.
JVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 23:49
wonkeydonkey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 65,903
beat you .... Carole, Dave the Monk, Bea, Steven, Connor
But none of those people came anywhere near winning. (All right, Dave came second, but only because so many popular people had been evicted it was basically Josie and a group of hopeless cases.)

I agree with k0213818 (not often that I have to cut and paste a forum name) that there seemed to be a significant change in BB14. Gina in particular was given SO many special, flattering tasks and so much attention, and we barely saw Sam do a thing, even though the twins once said he was 'up for absolutely anything'. It was the first time I thought it was genuinely clear who the producers wanted to win.

And they never really took the risk again. Jim Davidson - friend of Richard Desmond, already signed for a Ch 5 special - was also given ultra-flattering tasks, and the other housemates were clearly gobsmacked by the difference between what they saw and what the viewers had seen. And the process of nominations/ public votes seems pretty well dead. I swear they have a staff meeting every day to discuss the best way to keep x in and get rid of y. Even reading the nominations footnotes on Wikipedia is torturous: the twists seem to have become labyrinthine.
wonkeydonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 23:51
Fanntastik
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,808
to this day, nobody can explain Helen Wood's win. Davidson had a lot of favourable edits and people took his side against Nolan + Busey wasn't that bad IMO but he also had the whole "house ganging up against him" edit and James jordan. But nothing really makes sense about Helen's win.
Fanntastik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 23:53
Salv*
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mayfair
Posts: 49,860
I don't know why Gary is included in that list. He never intentionally made someone feel like shite unlike half of the HMs in that series.
Salv* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 23:54
amyawake
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,160
Gary Busey was lovely. I didn't see any bad in him at all.
Me neither...difficult yes.
amyawake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 23:56
SnowStorm86
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Lincs
Posts: 16,173
Gary Busey was lovely. I didn't see any bad in him at all.
Although I found him to be a bit creepy, he was none the less the least offensive of the 2014 winners.
SnowStorm86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 23:57
amyawake
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,160
when it moved to the dark side AKA Channel 5
Ah yes...something in that. Also BB seemingly has to up the ante every year, so this is somewhat alarming.....where will it all end? Why can't they just try and change their formula, e.g. instead of getting antagonistic, horrid people in there go for, say, eccentric types with odd behaviour (who are not mad)...that would still cause conflict and also be entertaining.
amyawake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 00:03
king_kong1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,540
Sam winning was the straw that broke the camels back, the most boring winner in BB history.
After his victory people who never use to vote started to vote hence the swing towards better, entertaining HM's winning.
king_kong1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 00:04
jimdan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,500
Ever since BB1 the baddie was always detested by the public audience and Nick and other similar reprobates were commonly despised and evicted.

Until it came to Ashleigh. She was the first lowlife to attract substantial public support and although she wasn't allowed to win, the attitude of the public changed from that point onwards, culminating in committed public support for pond life such as Charlotte and Perez.

Its the audience that are changing, not the players
jimdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 00:08
Fanntastik
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,808
Ever since BB1 the baddie was always detested by the public audience and Nick and other similar reprobates were commonly despised and evicted.

Until it came to Ashleigh. She was the first lowlife to attract substantial public support and although she wasn't allowed to win, the attitude of the public changed from that point onwards, culminating in committed public support for pond life such as Charlotte and Perez.

Its the audience that are changing, not the players
Charlotte was before Ashleigh.
Fanntastik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 00:11
Scarlet O'Hara
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,586
But none of those people came anywhere near winning. (All right, Dave came second, but only because so many popular people had been evicted it was basically Josie and a group of hopeless cases.)

I agree with k0213818 (not often that I have to cut and paste a forum name) that there seemed to be a significant change in BB14. Gina in particular was given SO many special, flattering tasks and so much attention, and we barely saw Sam do a thing, even though the twins once said he was 'up for absolutely anything'. It was the first time I thought it was genuinely clear who the producers wanted to win.

And they never really took the risk again. Jim Davidson - friend of Richard Desmond, already signed for a Ch 5 special - was also given ultra-flattering tasks, and the other housemates were clearly gobsmacked by the difference between what they saw and what the viewers had seen. And the process of nominations/ public votes seems pretty well dead. I swear they have a staff meeting every day to discuss the best way to keep x in and get rid of y. Even reading the nominations footnotes on Wikipedia is torturous: the twists seem to have become labyrinthine.
The OP you mention said that the change came as a backlash to Sam winning BB14. It was me who said they changed the whole approach and tone of the show during that season.

I don't believe they wanted Gina to win. I think they wanted to give the public what it wanted. It was the first series where I became conscious that they were definitely reading social media and deliberately responding: and what the public apparently wanted in BB14 was to see Gina be the queen of the house and Hazel be tormented like some biblical Eve. And when the tide turned against Gina, the show was more than happy to let that happen too, hence her fall from grace having been a big favourite for much of the series.

It was just weird the way there'd be a theme on social media, like Wolfy being arrogant and weird, and next thing you know there's a poll designed to humiliate her and bring her down a peg or two.

Now of course, that stuff is par for the course. The questions they ask in opinion polls now are absolutely tied to what the internet is saying, and in turn they edit stories that play to our expectations of HMs: it's a reciprocal and very toxic 'feeding' arrangement.
Scarlet O'Hara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 00:15
Scarlet O'Hara
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,586
Just want to add that I think Twitter has played a big part in all this. Twitter IMO brings out the absolute worst in people, and the show is now consciously playing to that gallery. It's no coincidence to me that the rise of Twitter saw a change in Big Brother.
Scarlet O'Hara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 00:21
jimdan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,500
Charlotte was before Ashleigh.
I mean Charlotte Crosby, winner Celebrity Big Brother
jimdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 00:26
Fanntastik
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,808
I mean Charlotte Crosby, winner Celebrity Big Brother
yeah she was before Ashleigh

That series was aired in 2013. BB15 was 2014.
Fanntastik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 00:28
amyawake
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,160
Just want to add that I think Twitter has played a big part in all this. Twitter IMO brings out the absolute worst in people, and the show is now consciously playing to that gallery. It's no coincidence to me that the rise of Twitter saw a change in Big Brother.
Ah great, valid point!
amyawake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 00:28
Vicky8675309
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,875
Helen was horrible but I liked Gary. I almost stopped watching after Helen's win.
Vicky8675309 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 00:28
Salv*
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mayfair
Posts: 49,860
Just want to add that I think Twitter has played a big part in all this. Twitter IMO brings out the absolute worst in people, and the show is now consciously playing to that gallery. It's no coincidence to me that the rise of Twitter saw a change in Big Brother.
Twitter has changed TV in general, not just BB. As you said, Twitter brings extreme opinions of the general public be seen by TV execs and producers, and they see this to try and cause trouble. It certainly has affected I'm a Celeb too. I know they rarely (have they ever?) seen tweets in the jungle, but it's like a domino effect.

For example, in the recent series of I'm a Celebrity with Jimmy Bullard. He was a huge favourite then he did one thing wrong and it all turned. I remember Twitter exploding during the episode and it was like a domino effect. Maybe if people weren't on Twitter, people would have made up their minds whether they liked him or not, but with Twitter, you see a lot of dislike for a contestant, and people can't be bothered to make their own decision and follow the crowd.

I don't know if that makes sense, as I got confused typing that!

It's kind of the same as forums. We come on here and we get riled up. If we refused to go on the forum during BB, I guarantee that almost all of us would enjoy the show more.
Salv* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 00:29
amyawake
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,160
I mean Charlotte Crosby, winner Celebrity Big Brother
OMG forgot about her winning it! Her and Helen Woods.... the spiral descent
amyawake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 00:30
d_ream1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 320
Hopkins, davidson, busey , wood what is it about these unplesant characters that made them popular as compared to the so called baddies of the past.

Was there are defining moment that changed it forever.

Trying to think of what davidson did and where this new breed of voter appeared from.

They maKe interesting tv, they are probably despised by most people.
d_ream1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:25.