|
||||||||
Total prize fund: £150k |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
|
Quote:
Surely not so blatantly as BB saying, "The prize fund will now be reduced for every time someone spoke" though?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
|
Quote:
Specifically what he said about BB getting to choose whether the money goes up, down or sideways, regardless of the actions of the HMs, was shown to be completely correct. I'm paraphrasing, obviously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 158
|
Wouldn't ch5 or more to the point bb be in trouble if the total prize fund didn't equate to £150000? Surely the housemates all signed contracts to that effect, unless of course the contract said upto a maximum of £150000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
|
Quote:
Wouldn't ch5 or more to the point bb be in trouble if the total prize fund didn't equate to £150000? Surely the housemates all signed contracts to that effect, unless of course the contract said upto a maximum of £150000.
In any case, the whole original amount was not given to HMs in BBs 5 or 10. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
How is what happened with Kitten any less "blatant"? If anything, BB was more explicit about what would happen in the Kitten case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
Of course he was right about it ultimately being BB that determined the prize. But the way the numbers add up doesn't prove that. It would be just as much BB determining it if the numbers didn't add up in that way, as they didn't in BBs 5 and 10.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
|
Quote:
First of all you'd have to explain to me what happened with Kitten. I wasn't making any sort of comparison, I was asking a question. My point being that if Kitten (or anyone else) was told to complete a task to win (or lose) a certain amount of money, it's less blatant than saying, "Right, you broke the rules!" and reducing the prize fund by £100k.
BB 5: The prize will be reduced by £1000 for every minute Kitten remains in the house. (Kitten was thrown out for excessive rule-breaking and was refusing to leave.) But that was not the only thing that reduced the prize in BB5. (See Wikipedia for specifics.) |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
|
Quote:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If the winner's prize fund was down £2,500 for Joel's pizza, £100 for each of the suitcases, et cetera then Joel would have been wrong.
Quote:
He wasn't. He knew damned well that BB was just messing around with them.
The winner still gets less than the original £150,000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
BB 16: The prize fund will now be reduced for every time someone spoke
BB 5: The prize will be reduced by £1000 for every minute Kitten remains in the house. (Kitten was thrown out for excessive rule-breaking and was refusing to leave.) But that was not the only thing that reduced the prize in BB5. (See Wikipedia for specifics.) We are making the same point, but have a different interpretation of 'blatant'. What I meant is flagrantly meddling with the prize fund, without specific warnings. Of course being explicit, as with kitten, could be described as 'blatant' too, I guess. I'd call it fair game. Does that clear things up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
|
Quote:
Okay, thanks.
We are making the same point, but have a different interpretation of 'blatant'. What I meant is flagrantly meddling with the prize fund, without specific warnings. Of course being explicit, as with kitten, could be described as 'blatant' too, I guess. I'd call it fair game. Does that clear things up? |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
|
*wrong thread*
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
Why would he have been wrong? I would still have been BB choosing how things ended up (by which tasks and twists BB chose to introduce and BB's decisions about what things meant in terms of the prize).
The winner still gets less than the original £150,000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
|
Quote:
Perhaps you should start again. I'm struggling to follow the thread of this conversation and we seem to be talking at cross purposes. What point are you trying to make? That Joel was right, or that he was wrong?!
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,498
|
Surely the budget for the prize fund was always gonna be 150,000 - how it was divided and played around with is just ***Showbiz***
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
|
Quote:
Surely the budget for the prize fund was always gonna be 150,000 - how it was divided and played around with is just ***Showbiz***
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
My point is what I said a few posts back: Joel was right about it ultimately being BB that determined the prize.
Quote:
But the way the numbers add up doesn't prove that.
Then how do we know he was right? The way the numbers add up shows that BB was always going to be giving £150k away, notwithstanding any Monopoly money deals.Quote:
It would be just as much BB determining it if the numbers didn't add up in that way, as they didn't in BBs 5 and 10.
I think you're employing a rather redundant interpretation of that phrase. Yes, if they said the winner gets £1 then that would be what they'd decided. The point is, they had already decided before the show began that they would be giving away £150k, they advertised it as such and they followed through with that plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
Since the prize was reduced in at least 2 BBs, rather than split but with the total remaining the same, why do people think it always going to be £150,000?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
|
Quote:
Nobody knew that is was always going to be £150k apart from the production team. It turns out that that is in fact the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
But people say "it was always going to be £150k" as if was known.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
|
Quote:
Some things are inevitable, it turns out.
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
Then it's fate and nothing to do with what Joel said about BB.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,498
|
Quote:
Since the prize was reduced in at least 2 BBs, rather than split but with the total remaining the same, why do people think it always going to be £150,000?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
|
Quote:
With hindsight we can see that Joel guessed correctly based on certain logical assumptions. The pizza was free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
|
Quote:
The pizza was freeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
We don't need hindsight, because we know that BB decides which tasks are included, what amounts they involve, and so on. BB is just as much in control regardless of whether the amounts given to HMs add up to the original amount or not.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:00.




We are making the same point, but have a different interpretation of 'blatant'. What I meant is flagrantly meddling with the prize fund, without specific warnings. Of course being explicit, as with kitten, could be described as 'blatant' too, I guess. I'd call it fair game. Does that clear things up?