In all honesty, what is so bad about bitching? Everyone bitches, and it happens all the time on Big Brother. Jenna has never been best friends with Chloe or Stevi, so why does she owe it to them not to bitch about them?

I just find bitching a part of human nature and I'm surprised people act as if it's such a terrible thing on here.

Are they going for 'the journey' then?

Channel 5 do love their "journeys". Helen Wood went on one apparently.......

I actually agree with you, I didn't think Jenna was that bad but it's whats made her unpopular so far this series and she was shown continuing acting that way. So I'm not sure where the redemption thing has come from.

Oh, I see what you mean. And yes I agree - aside from the talent show, she was exactly the same in the edit as she always is.

One of Jenna's twin sons is called Journey. Just thought I'd throw that in. The other is Jesse.

What makes you think that this edit was wrong and that the previous edits before now have been right?
Your opinions will have been largely shaped by the editing prior to tonight, yes?

You're 100% wrong. Like you BB can't stand those two and designed that task to embarrass them. Unfortunately (for them) it blew up in their faces and Jenna and Farrah came out looking pretty good.

Those two can still bump,grind and squirt chocolate sauce all day long.
Doesn't detract from the fact they are at the core nasty.

I think we can expect: the new positive edit to be as positive

as

the old negative edit was negative.

Like Helen Wood in BB15. Must be some sort of vote maximization strategy.

I have been asking that question for years. Pretty well every series there are discussions about the conspiracy on the part of the producers to ensure XXXX wins. Nobody has ever come up with one valid reason why the producers would care who wins. There are occasionally suggestions that it is because they have plans for a particular contestant for the future. But we have never seen winners ( or indeed other contestants) used in such plans except in the case of Rylan.

I agree. I think you've got it right there.
We truly don't know what it is actually like in there. We think the highlights give us an idea, but that idea is the idea which is presented to us.

Personally I don't think anyone this year is THAT bad. Plenty of them bitch quite regularly. Some I like, some I don't. But compared to the previous series I think there have been much more horrible people.
There have only been about two occasions where I think housemates have crossed the line. Once by Farrah and once by Bobby. But on the whole I think the housemates are pretty much alright with each other.

It has to be taken on board that although BB may have decided to present a kinder edit for Farrah and Jenna, the other housemates really enjoyed those moments and everybody was in good spirits and enjoying a happy atmosphere, which suggests that there is no real animosity between them all.
Other series have shown much deeper hostility between housemates.

I agree. I don't think the producers really care about who wins, their goal is ratings and putting together an entertaining show. That being said, I'm sure the editors and producers have their favorites just like we do and that probably influences their decisions.

Well you can't have been listening to the answers then.
It's simple. BB would like an ideal fairytale ending for a feelgood moment.
They will present the fairytale by contriving drama and providing a cast of goodies and baddies.
It really is that simple.
Most reality TV is about this. Most talent shows are like this Even those cheap 'mission' documentaries have become like this, where they provide a protagonist on a journey which will ultimately result in a predictable conclusion to round the story off.

I doubt that they'd 'fix' it for somebody in particular to win, although they did for Soapstar Superstar, but they will have a shortlist of potential winners who they'll think would make agreeable winners who they believe would make a nice way to end the story.

You call it conspiracy theories, I call it the process of making television for the most dramatic impact.

And that's precisely why they would care.
I'm sure that they've had winners who they weren't keen on winning. (Aaron, Rachel Rice, etc.).
Sometimes it's even evident.
On occasion you see the disappointment on BGT, when someone wins who wasn't quite their ideal winner.

But they will care. That's why we always see housemates being pushed, promoted, demonized, or sidelined. And we know that they do this. It may even change from week to week. But they are always promoting someone or demonizing someone at any given time. So it would be illogical to think that they wouldn't care who wins. In the final week they're going to want to produce what they believe to be a feelgood ending. They aren't going to just suddenly not bother in the final week and let things just sort of happen on their own with no interference.

You're absolutely right in that the show makers will have their own favourites which will influence their decision making processes. I think you've hit the nail on the head there. They're human beings like we are. They're not some rational machine which only functions on objective reason. It would be just about impossible for human bias to not play some factor in what happens.
In fact I'd say that it would be literally impossible to edit a show to get good ratings and provide entertainment with absolutely no bias involved.

Perhaps they're aware that they've overused immunity tricks ... although ... have voting lines already opened? Perhaps there's still time for a twist.

I've seen valid reasons posted quite a few times over the years; but I'd like to ask you this: do you also think the producers don't care who's evicted and who isn't? (Because if producers care who's evicted and who isn't, why couldn't they also care who won?)

Re "ever seen winners ( or indeed other contestants) used in such plans", how about Nikki and Princess Nikki, Josie and coverage in OK! etc, Helen writing a column for the Star and being brought back for bb16?

I don't think viewers just take on an idea presented by the highlights -- at least not viewers in forums as given to analysis and, often, cynicism, as this one. Instead, they bring a critical understanding to the highlights -- one developed over years of watching BB, often including years when there was a 24/7 live feed.


I find it hard to think of many HMs worse than Farrah. I don't much care whether the HMs think she's ok. Most of the bb6 HMs thought Leslah Sanderson was ok.

I don't think it was that great an edit for them. They did their best to edit out how Natasha and Sherrie sat with them at the table and had a grand old chat for a good part of live feed last night.

Shady editing giving the impression the last three Americans stayed up the night bitching. When it was the four girls who were the last to head off to bed (Jenna, Farrah, Natasha and Sherrie). It looked like an interesting conversation last night and I´d hoped that all the birdsong meant they were saving it for tonights highlights but no.......

That is very true. I like your point about the feel-good ending. An example would be the great edit Katie Price received her final week in the house. We saw her standing up to Cami Li, standing up to Hopkins several times, and embracing her "boring" title with self-depreciation. The highlights shown during the final was crucial for KP to win over Hopkins. It was probably the most positive edit I could think KP could have gotten. The highlights consisted of KP talking about how she'll never win and complaining about her boob job while cutting back and forth between scenes of Hopkins & co. bitching about KP not deserving to win. KP beating Hopkins was the definition of a "feelgood" moment for the show.

I bet you could look at all the moments of hostility amongst hm's and they'd be clustered around task's and twists. Indicating that the hm's have generally got along except when pitted against each other by BB. Even the wine shenanigans has in some way been down to how many wine bottles have been delivered.

And there's such a brilliantly strange atmosphere in the house during LF i often wondered if the hm's we're on a break from recording lol.

Decent bunch this year

A critical understanding to the highlights. The same highlights which have been selected for us. We may get clues, but reverting to patterns of thought based on previous experience does not equate to people forming accurate opinions about specific situations. In fact in some cases the idea that we are affected by our own previous experiences over the years is the perfect environment for our own biases to affect our thought process, which in turn may reinforce an existing bias.
An opinion formed by previous experience is almost the dictionary definition of bias.

It's still all based on what is presented to us, which is always very limited. We have to always take that into account.

As for 24/7 live feed, the truth is that nobody has ever watched 24/7 live feed, and even if anybody has somehow managed to they haven't watched a 24/7 live feed and seen all housemates at all times on all cameras.
Even if you watched a 24/7 live feed, what would be humanly possible to watch would still barely make up a fraction of everything that went on.




Generally speaking maybe Farrah is okay.
Maybe they all are.

You say that you find it hard to think of a HM worse than Farrah, and then straight afterwards in your next sentence you mention Leslie.
I think most people on here if they were genuinely honest with themselves, could think of at least 10 housemates, if not a dozen more, across all series who have been far worse than any housemate this series.

If it's of any help, I'll offer a comparison off the top of my head to start you off.
Farrah or Conor? Who's worse?
Once you start thinking about it you'll be able to quite easily reel off a substantial list of names of previous housemates who can cause nightmares in grown adults.

Yes I agree with all that.
With my hand on my heart I genuinely don't think the housemates this year are bad at all.
Don't get me wrong, there's some that I don't like, and some that I do. But even the ones I'm not keen on haven't really done anything really that bad to anyone.
One or two very harsh comments which probably crossed the line, but that's it.

I wouldn't boo or chant at any of them.
In fact I haven't really thought about it before until now, but I actually think that this is a pretty decent series come to think of it. By Channel 5 standards anyway.

Yes, they quite often try to play the 'good versus evil' storyline for as long as they can.
On occasion they sometimes have an accident and get a 'Helen Wood ending'. (No, I don't mean THAT type of ending). Or was it an accident? You can never be sure. Maybe they wanted a 'baddie' to win that year for a change?
I think you provided an excellent example of a 'story'. They won't literally fix it for somebody to win, but they'll certainly lead people down a path where in theory it should be relatively easy to deliver a fairytale ending.

I think that people often make the mistake of thinking that BB are trying to save someone because they are their 'chosen one'. It's probably more than likely that BB try to save these 'baddies' because they have the final in mind and want that mix of heroes and villains there. It's going to be what keeps viewers riveted to the screen and engaged with the characters.

How many great films have people really enjoyed and been engrossed in that didn't have a good story to hook you in?
It's not going to be that different with a series like Big Brother. For something which lasts for literally months I can imagine how the programme makers would want to try and shape events to some extent in order to create a framework which appears like a story plotline with subplots for minor characters (Stevi and Chloe anyone?) which the audience would find to be familiar to them. Like a film. Ever since BB4 they've probably feared a series which has no shape to it and things are just allowed to happen naturally all by themselves. So don't want to take that kind of risk again.
If any housemates appear to be acting as part of their own gameplan, it only serves to help BB and given them a subplot for extra filler.

A show like Big Brother is like watching a TV drama series box set.
It'll have its own beats and rhythms designed to take the viewers on an emotional journey, just like any drama would try to do.

I think it was a good edit for them compared to how they are usually edited.
I think it was mostly good for them, as there were plenty of bits shown which seemed to show more balance and showed a kinder more considerate side to them.

You're right about what they cut out with the women having a long chat. Personally I think they did this because they still want the viewers to make a clear distinction between Jenna and Farrah and the others. I think they still want viewers to see them as separate from the others, and don't want viewers to see them all mixed up with each other. Or at least no more than they are currently shown on the HL show. Probably because it allows them more freedom and options to take things in any direction they choose at the moment. Seeing them as getting on well with the other women may not be something they want to highlight at the moment.