I know it would never happen because Channel 5 want their voting money BUT its all a bit of a farce really as most celebs have a fanbase and a following and certain celebs will always do well or even win it depending on how big their fanbase is.

So would some of you prefer it if the decision was taken away from the viewers and it was left to the housemates to decide?.

There is a downside of course to this and that is that the producers would have a free ride to pick who leaves and who wins etc BUT the show is manipulated as it is and maybe that manipulation would go away if it was down to the celebs who gets evicted.

I don't know, there are ups and downs with either side really but it does get annoying how you can predict who will win or get to the final before the show has even started with the celeb version.

It would make a good "twist" for one of the evictions.

Well i'd like to see them try it for a whole series. It would be interesting to see what kind of highlights we would get when Channel 5 don't have to worry about manipulating the viewers and giving us good edits and hatchet job edits etc.

It made a terrible twist when they did that last summer though.

Edit: I do see the appeal, especially for a whole series and especially with CBB when people have huge fan bases before the series even starts. I can't see them doing it though after the outrage last summer, and it really was crap in the civilian version.

What happened? Did they get rid of someone popular on the outside?

Less manipulation would be great. But what about people already knowing each other before they enter the house?

Yes I've been saying for ages to take on the US format.

No, let's just leave it to the show producers and contract deals, as usual.

Oh is that what they do in the US?, i didn't even know.

No, we are supposed to decide. It's bad enough as it is now, let's not make it any worse.

All of the best HM's would be out early. They would vote out the entertaining ones as soon as they can.

It was at the start of Armageddon Week, the HMs had to pick someone to evict from the people with most nominations that week and Marlon went. He wasn't particularly popular, in fact he was pretty dull tbh (I had to google his name just now as he was so forgettable!), but there was still a lot of bad feedback because it abandoned the whole 'who goes? you decide' thing that's supposed to be central to BB. It was also a complete flop as a 'shock twist' because it was blindingly obvious that he was the one that would go, he was up against two HMs quite popular in the house (Ash and Ashleigh) and had saved himself from eviction in the previous week's nomination meddling resulting in bad feeling from the rest of the HMs.

I do see the sense of a twist like that for CBB, and it would be interesting to have a whole series run like that although I guess a lot of people would disagree - Perez would have gone immediately in that system, for example, and while personally I'd have been delighted by that a lot of other viewers enjoy the drama that comes from HMs like him that wind up and upset the house and are nearly universally hated by it. I do think it's interesting to watch the HMs react to people who are unpopular in the house staying in evictions over people the house like better.

Sorry for the essay

Yes. Unless pay is linked to days stayed you would have the situation of microphones off and "Vote me out, I need to start rehearsals for XYZ next Thurs".

No, thanks for the essay!

Absolutely not. The original BB format has public vote, and that should never be taken away. The vast majority of BBs worldwide have public vote... as far as I know only USA, Canada and Brazil have HM vote, and it really sucks.