DS Forums

 
 

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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-02-2015, 00:38
Salv*
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mayfair
Posts: 49,786
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.
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with that, because before Sam winning, the "baddies" were doing well.

I personally think it started with BB12 with Aaron. Up until that point in most cases, the least offensive person won. I was a huge fan of Aaron, but I thought he wouldn't win because he was spoken about too much. Not sure whether there was a huge number of different people watching on Ch5 than Ch4, but it was a little odd seeing that two of the biggest talking points of the house were in the final 2. BB13 reverted back to form with a quieter less controversial person winning.

BB14 was a different one; an anomaly (up until that point and the BB15 followed). It was an evict vote, so I thought "Oh, so we will certainly get a dull final", but we didn't, we got a dull winner, but the two biggest characters were 3rd and 2nd, and Hazel also went far. I'm still surprised that Gina, Dexter and Hazel managed to survive evict votes, there must have been a lot of people thinking, "That's it, we want a good final, we must get them far enough". In Ch4 years, there is no way that these three Hms would have gone far. Sadly, people at the end opted to vote for the dullest HM of the series.

BB15 then followed, don't even get me started... I'm still confused with Helens win, the only thing I can think of is that she edged Ashleigh because Helen fans never had spent their money up until that point. And Ashleigh has been up quite a few times.
Salv* is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-02-2015, 03:52
Veri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
The support goes back as far as Maxwell and Saskia in BB6, Grace and Nikki in BB7, Charley in BB8, but yes for the nasties to actually WIN Big Brother these days is a poor reflection of how society is going/ ...


Ant won bb6. He wasn't much better than Maxwell or Saskia. In some ways, he was worse.
Veri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 04:00
Veri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
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.
That they failed in the end to get Gina to win doesn't mean they hadn't wanted her to win.

They were more successful when they tried with Helen, using some of the same tactics such as letting her spy on Ashleigh and hear her say "evil plan" like Gina had heard Hazle say "evil inside".

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.
And often the theme on social media had been prompted by the way something was presented in the highlights, or by comments on BOTS.

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.
Yes, and since it beings in some vicious cycles, it could take BB so far in some directions that it either loses enough viewers to be axed or has something happen that has viewers turn away in revulsion.
Veri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 04:49
Bafar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,196
Its down to the edit.

The main problem with BB as it is, is the loss of the live feed.

The highlight show was always a bit of a problem. Even from day one. There was always a narrative structure used in doing the edit. That's how it works with TV like this. Its to make a kind of soap. So often, even in the first BB, what happened in the highlights often didn't reflect the reality of what was seen live in real time.

This disjoint didn't matter so much, because it was much looser and given it was widely known and discussed. Plus even if it was off, the highlights would more often than not tell the same story, just being more economical with the screen time in order to tell it.

That's gone though. With only the highlights show, we only see what they want us to see. We see the story they want to tell, the narrative they wish to fashion.

It is incredibly easy to manipulate what the viewers are seeing and thus the perception of particular events and people.

For instance, Hopkins is coming across quite well. Because out of the small amount of time we see, 42 minutes a day, we aren't seeing or hearing her at her worst. She has obviously not been as well behaved as it seems, given there are 24 hours in a day and she is a rancid cow who isn't shy about giving her opinion on anything. She actively tries to be as offensive as possible as well. Plus, judging by comments of HM who have come out, Nadia wasn't shy and neither was Patsy.

The perception is though that she isn't that bad, she is nice really. That's the perception which has been given via the edit.
This is the same thing which saw Helen win. She wouldn't of still been in there if the live feed was available. She certainly wouldn't of won it.

This is why it isn't really BB anymore. The real innovation with BB was being able to watch it live as it happened at any time. This has been abandoned, not because it wasn't commercially viable. Its because it gives a greater editorial control. It gives a more normal editorial control, a structure which producers and directors are used to working within.

They can now build a story. They can give each housemate a character. Based on what they know and have observed throughout the audition and the initial first few days. Its even easier with CBB because they come preloaded.
They can then steer that character through a story, they can build them up, knock them down, make them the villain, play out a tale of redemption. That's exactly what they did with Helen. They might possibly be doing it with Perez.

It all so eliminates problems which have occurred in the past. If something controversial happens, they don't have to show it or they can edit it whatever way they like and show it however they like.

Truth is, its not reality. It never was. it was always a soap. From the moment that Bateman lied in the first one and became Nasty nick, that was it, it was cemented. Really all he did was lie on a game show. If it was now, he would have stayed in and not been booted. It would have been steered to see if he could bring it back, too what would happen next.

Trouble is BB wont really be the BB it was, unless the live feed comes back. That isn't going to happen though. Nasty people will continue to do well, because the narrative will be fashioned to keep people on the hook watching, to keep people hating and tuning in to hate.
Bafar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 09:38
wonkeydonkey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 65,903
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.
Yes, I agree with all of that. I don't think they had any positive objection to Sam winning - he had a little 'story' to catch the public imagination - but they certainly didn't see him as a series star. They have been pretty ruthless on Ch 5 about just cutting people from the highlights if they are not generating easy drama. And whereas they went to some trouble to avoid a Dexter/ Gina public vote, they were more than happy to risk losing Sam before the final.
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.
I agree with that as well. Twitter really does have the capacity to generate instant shitstorms. Once people see that something is catching fire, they all pile in.
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with that, because before Sam winning, the "baddies" were doing well.

I personally think it started with BB12 with Aaron. Up until that point in most cases, the least offensive person won. I was a huge fan of Aaron, but I thought he wouldn't win because he was spoken about too much. Not sure whether there was a huge number of different people watching on Ch5 than Ch4, but it was a little odd seeing that two of the biggest talking points of the house were in the final 2.
I think BB12 had an exceptionally weak line-up though. The fact that Alex, who was uniformly dull and not very likeable in the house, was often touted as a likely winner, shows how weak it was. Simply by being handsome, socially skilled and articulate, Aaron was head and shoulders above anyone else (Mark might have settled in and challenged him, but it was not to be.)

In Ch4 years, there is no way that these three Hms would have gone far. Sadly, people at the end opted to vote for the dullest HM of the series.
Well I did. It was a kind of default vote, because he was the only likeable person in the final. I'm sure it was for a lot of people. He was no angel - he seemed about 14 sometimes - but who else was there to vote for?





Ant won bb6. He wasn't much better than Maxwell or Saskia. In some ways, he was worse.
I think BB6 was a terribly weak house though. If Eugene had not collared a big money prize already, I think he would have won, awkward and late-coming as he was.
I Nasty people will continue to do well, because the narrative will be fashioned to keep people on the hook watching, to keep people hating and tuning in to hate.
I think the voters must have changed over the years (which is natural enough in a series that is 15 years old). It is far more a scripted reality show than it used to be, with people assigned roles and given opportunities to act them out. So it is very likely to appeal to people who already love scripted reality.

And I think it has a particular appeal these days to people who have rather an angry, pessimistic view of the world. People who say that someone like Katie Hopkins 'says what we are all thinking' obviously mean 'she says what I really want to hear someone saying'. She appeals to people who think the world is basically shit and people are mostly contemptible. And of course they are likely to enjoy a series geared towards fighting and bitching because it confirms what they already feel. It is almost impossible to imagine someone like Jack Dee or Mark Owen in a modern CBB; they would loathe every minute.
wonkeydonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 09:51
Aura101
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,561
They have always beeN supported in some way. It's just that support could never be shown because the public were always voting to evict!
Should have beEn Vote to save from the channel 4 years as well !
Aura101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 10:08
nattoyaki
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,703
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.
Someone above posted about betting syndicates. With the relative size of voters compared to the early years, and a pass to the final, they could have had a field day on that one.

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.
Some excellent points and analysis on this thread and this is one of the best posts for me. I'd just say that I don't think they wanted/expected Aaron to win his year, there was a big campaign for Jay imo.

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.
Also very interesting and I'm glad I'm not on there and don't follow it all. Everytime I hear something about it it sounds like a pack mentality or vicious wars of words that polarise so many.
nattoyaki is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 10:39
greenyone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: south wales
Posts: 3,403
Why isn't there up roar about bullying, like when that Shilpa Shetti year happened? Jade and the other girls got death threats after that. Nowadays people like Helen Wood gets a pat on the back and wins money out of her nastiness. Now it seems People are loving Hopkins. It just doesn't make sense to me.
From reading some of the posts on these forums and social media bullying seems now to be accepted and the norm which makes me very 😪
greenyone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 10:47
SegaGamer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 19,581
This forum was really unhappy with helen winning but get the feeling it will be fine with hopkins
It will be half and half. Hopkins is the forum favourite but she is also the most disliked. I can't believe that after everything people on here was saying about Helen they now like Hopkins.
SegaGamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 11:01
MargMck
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 17,635
So the OP doesn't like the last few winners. That doesn't make them "the baddies". Other viewers did like them and thought different HMs were "the baddies."
MargMck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 11:16
Hot Butterfly
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Essex/ex NW London
Posts: 1,410
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.
Absolutely agree with this. Even this forum has changed with many twits putting their nasty goading remarks in every post trying to get a rise from FMs (and succeeding). It's definitely the Big Brother forum that attracts this type of poster. The other forums are relatively free of them.
Hot Butterfly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 11:29
nattoyaki
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,703
From reading some of the posts on these forums and social media bullying seems now to be accepted and the norm which makes me very 😪
Defended by Katie Hopkins in the past on TV in a debate with someone who got death threats after investigating paedophiles (Sonia Poulton)...crazy world we live in.
nattoyaki is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 13:33
peterstone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,878


Ant won bb6. He wasn't much better than Maxwell or Saskia. In some ways, he was worse.
At least he never called Science 'Winston'
peterstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 13:33
peterstone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,878
I really disliked Gina. Really, really disliked her.

Awful housemate, awful person.
peterstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 13:40
peterstone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,878
I think BB6 was a terribly weak house though. If Eugene had not collared a big money prize already, I think he would have won, awkward and late-coming as he was.
Weak in terms of what? The characters? Surely not. I didn't like all of them but Makosi, Science, Saskia, Derek, Roberto....just off the top of my head.

They certainly weren't weak characters or people.

They'd knock spots off the housemates of the last 5 year or so
peterstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 13:42
peterstone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,878
Simply by being handsome, socially skilled and articulate, Aaron was head and shoulders above anyone else .
I'm a man but I never got that.

He looks like a young Richard Branson to me.

I found him a bit depressing as well. Always going on about his kid and just generally being off with that girl for very often seemingly no reason.

Also, when he danced in the toilet so nobody could see him having fun.....

That was just bizarre to me.
peterstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 14:06
wonkeydonkey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 65,903
Weak in terms of what? The characters? Surely not. I didn't like all of them but Makosi, Science, Saskia, Derek, Roberto....just off the top of my head.

They certainly weren't weak characters or people.

They'd knock spots off the housemates of the last 5 year or so
I don't think they were weak people, no. But BB6 was right in the middle of the era when people got behind the housemate they thought was nicest. Makosi in particular was rather a brilliant housemate: unscrupulous, irrepressible (eat your heart out, repressible Marcus), charming, unselfpitying and charismatic. But she was never going to win. It was just not the way the game worked then. Jade might be more dominant and 'entertaining' than Kate, but Kate will always beat her. Jon might be the witty one in the house, but Cameron, the toast of women over 30 nationwide, was always going to beat him. Loud, emotional, vulnerable Nadia was always going to beat any Jungle Cat. And Anthony and Eugene were the ones seen as likeable in a particularly unlikeable house.

( It continued with gentle Pete beating so many stronger characters, amiable Samanda and Brian beating...well, that wasn't a very strong line-up, and the ultimate example of Rachel beating popular and charismatic (but slightly evil) Rex.

It is always impossible to put one housemate in a different house, but I don't think Anthony would have beaten many other winners. He wasn't THAT likeable, and certainly wasn't sparkling. But he didn't have to be in that particular house.
I'm a man but I never got that.

He looks like a young Richard Branson to me.
I always thought he looked rather like Michael Cheshire from BB7: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...michael203.jpg (Excuse Spiral being in the picture as well.) But Aaron was in good shape: slim and athletic without being grotesquely muscly. I thought both he and Jay were good-looking, though they appealed to very different people.

I thought (and still more so when he joined this forum) that he seemed quite an angry person; but he did have a whole lot of charm. His appreciation thread was an ocean of swooning women (though come to think of it, most appreciation threads are. Where were Jay's swooning women? Not on digitalspy, anyway.)
wonkeydonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 14:26
peterstone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,878
I thought both he and Jay were good-looking, though they appealed to very different people.
Jay as well?

Wow, I really haven't got a clue about what women like.

peterstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 14:35
Bacon&Eggs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,806

When uk big brother (the viewers?) didn't vote Conor out after his rant at Deana.

I guess that happened because their we're many new viewers tuning in attracted by machiavelian game play during BB13. The Producers we're hell bent on change that series.
Bacon&Eggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 14:43
goldylookinfish
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,701
At the same time the public started to accept imbeciles as entertainment.
goldylookinfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 15:25
Veri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
...
I think BB12 had an exceptionally weak line-up though. The fact that Alex, who was uniformly dull and not very likeable in the house, was often touted as a likely winner, shows how weak it was. Simply by being handsome, socially skilled and articulate, Aaron was head and shoulders above anyone else (Mark might have settled in and challenged him, but it was not to be.)
I don't think BB12 was an exceptionally weak line-up by BB standards. However, many people seemed to have decided it would be rubbish before they even knew who the HMs were, because of articles (probably in the Star) that made it seem BB was aiming for younger viewers than before. The HMs then seemed unusually young, which then seemed to confirm suspicions. (The average age in bb12, 23.93, was the lowest ever, but it wasn't far below bb6's 24.44 -- rounded, it's the same -- or bb13's 24.76.)

I also don't think Aaron was one of the "baddies".

I think BB6 was a terribly weak house though. If Eugene had not collared a big money prize already, I think he would have won, awkward and late-coming as he was.
Eugene was quite nasty too, for instance talking of poisoning Science's food and of provoking him to do something that would get him thrown out.

I don't think they were weak people, no. But BB6 was right in the middle of the era when people got behind the housemate they thought was nicest. Makosi in particular was rather a brilliant housemate: unscrupulous, irrepressible (eat your heart out, repressible Marcus), charming, unselfpitying and charismatic. But she was never going to win. It was just not the way the game worked then. Jade might be more dominant and 'entertaining' than Kate, but Kate will always beat her. Jon might be the witty one in the house, but Cameron, the toast of women over 30 nationwide, was always going to beat him. Loud, emotional, vulnerable Nadia was always going to beat any Jungle Cat. And Anthony and Eugene were the ones seen as likeable in a particularly unlikeable house.
I don't think it's true that "BB6 was right in the middle of the era when people got behind the housemate they thought was nicest., and to make it seem that they did, you focus on the winners, as if only insignificant numbers got behind anyone else.

It doesn't even work all that well about the winners. Ant wasn't nice, so calling him "nicest" is misleading. Nadia wasn't nice and won bb5; she certainly didn't seem to be the nicest. Cameron, who wasn't all that nice, won bb4. (Also, Jon wasn't the witty one in the house; and Cameron didn't beat him by being nicer.) Pete was nice, up to a point, but I don't think it was the main reason he won. You try to explain away bb8, since Brian wasn't the nicest. And although Rachel arguably was the nicest in bb9, she didn't get a majority of the votes until the final state (when one of the final two would necessarily have a majority.) (Her final percentage was only 51.3%.)

People don't get behind only the winners.

Makosi was popular in bb6 until the pregnancy thing. Most people seemed to get behind the JCs or the LGBs in bb5, rather than the "getalong gang". (One of the main reasons bb4 was thought to be such a poor BB is, in effect, that the HMs were too nice.
Makosi was popular in bb6 until the pregnancy thing.) While Pete did win bb7, bb7 HMs didn't have to be nice to be popular. Richard, for example, was one of the most popular for most of the series despite being the worst re Shahbaz.
Veri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 15:25
Salv*
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mayfair
Posts: 49,786
I really disliked Gina. Really, really disliked her.

Awful housemate, awful person.
I really liked her. I can see why people didn't in terms of personality but she was by no means an awful HM. IMO awful HMs are ones that have added nothing to the show.
Salv* is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 15:30
peterstone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,878
I really liked her. I can see why people didn't in terms of personality but she was by no means an awful HM. IMO awful HMs are ones that have added nothing to the show.
What did she add to the show apart from her spitefulness and her boring lies about being some rich girl?
peterstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 15:32
Veri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
I really liked her. I can see why people didn't in terms of personality but she was by no means an awful HM. IMO awful HMs are ones that have added nothing to the show.
I think Gina was an awful HM and took away much more than she added. She also had help from BB. On her own, she didn't even have much of a story. Her biggest story came from something BB let her watch; and even then it wouldn't have been that big a story if not for Hazel. (Gine tried to do to Hazel what she'd done to Jemimah, but she wasn't up to the task.)
Veri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 15:43
Veri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
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.
Hmm. I'm tempted to agree with that, but I wonder ... When do you think Twitter became so significant (it's existed since 2006), and why do you think it was then? I don't think it works to pick the time by looking at what happened in BB or at which HMs were popular; there has to be some independent reason, so that we can see whether BB changed then or at some other time.

I also think that if BB were playing to this forum, the results would be much the same.
Veri is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:23.