They could improve it enormously by casting a more diverse set of house mates. These days CBB is the only time when the house isn't full of people who look like they've been turned down at TOWIE auditions.

Winter CBB should be canned this year. It's far too soon for another series and we've had a gut-full. Give the show a rest before it dies an inevitable second death!

Why would they can winter CBB when it usually gets half a million more than summer CBB? And this year, the last winter CBB got 1.2m more than summer CBB.

If anything, the summer CBB needs to eff off (despite me enjoying CBB16).

The amount of C5 series we've had has made it feel like a lifetime ago, but it really isn't. I remember the excitement when I heard it was coming back.

I think it's entirely possible that they're working on some pretty decent plans to make Big Brother good again - the question is whether they'll have the patience to stick with them. The last two series were dreadful, but BB16 was more disappointing because it came so close to being good. The first two weeks were fantastic - they had a really interesting and diverse group of Housemates who weren't all pseudo-celebrities, it was more low-key without focus on dramatic twists, there was a more humorous BIg Brother and the editing was more chilled and gave more focus to the day-to-day lives of the Housemates. There were some really nice moments - I am particularly fond of:

Harriet: I'm missing my family so much.
Big Brother: What do you think your family would say to you if they were here now?
Harriet: I don't know, probably just 'Chin up, girl, it'll be all right.
[Pause]
Big Brother: Harriet?
Harriet: Yeah?
Big Brother: Chin up, girl, it'll be all right.
[Harriet laughs]

I feel at though this year they were at least trying at first to listen to the complaints about the previous series. The problem was that when it didn't get massive ratings straight away, they pressed the panic button. The quadruple eviction of the Housemates who hadn't been nominated in Week 2 was heartbreaking, as there were some people that I really enjoyed watching and I felt they'd been robbed of their place really. Emma summed up the mentality completely: 'We had to do something, because you're all getting on so well!' The whole reason that people (including myself) find arguments entertaining is because it's something that we all recognise in day-to-day life and we have someone that we side with on the programme, so manipulating them into having arguments is a complete waste of time. If they're not natural, they're not entertaining.

I was hoping that either Kieran or Sarah would win, so it was a very bitter pill to lose them so early. Nevertheless, I continued watching for a few more weeks - it could still have been salvaged, there were still some interesting Housemates (my favourites were Jade and Harry). But then the TimeWarp Housemates entered, which really was the final nail in the coffin. The fact that they thought that bringing back Helen Wood, the very person who had driven so many people away in the first place, was a good idea continues to baffle me - I sincerely hope that the idiot who came up with that idea was fired. From that point on, BB16 had been well and truly destroyed - which is such a shame, because if you look back at the first two weeks, it was shaping up to be the best Big Brother on Channel 5 to date. I feel cheated out of a really decent series.

The thing that the producers don't seem to get is that Big Brother has got to a stage where lots of viewers have been alienated. You can drive loyal viewers away in a moment, but it takes time and effort to get them back. There is life within the format still, but no matter how much they listen to complaints, nothing that they do is going to instantly get good ratings. If they want to get it back to being unmissable television the way it once was, they need to start a new regime and stick with it. It won't get ratings straight away because people have given up on the show, and that's just something they have to deal with. If over time, something consistent is stuck with and major twists aren't being thrown in every other day in a desperate attempt to boost ratings, Big Brother will, very gradually, build up a reputation for being a bit better than it was. That is what will make more people watch it, and it won't happen straight away, in fact it will probably take years. But it is possible, and that is the only way. Otherwise it will just die a horrible, horrible death, which would be a shame because it is a bloody fantastic format.

I'm fully aware that the Winter edition performs considerably better than the unnecessary Summer series, I just think it's overkill (plus overkill). The format is crying out for a sabbatical and some meticulous planning.

24 hour live feed (gulp) is/was an integral and crucial part of the format, without it the show is relatively pointless IMO.

They need a massive campaign to promote BB17. Billboards,posters,advert slots on ITV and Channel 4,Rylan and Emma talking about it on daytime chat shows etc. They need something that will intrigue viewers. Such as the "#whatsthesecret" campaign for BB14. That lured people in and started an online buzz as to what was going on. Also the advertised return of a live feed would please alot of people. They need a diverse group of people of all ages who will instantly entertain and interest people. I think a new set would also help create a bit more excitement. They need to almost consider BB17 as a relaunch

The things that are needed are

1 / 24/7 live feed
2 / NO outside contact at all , no phone calls no family visits NONE AT ALL
3 / Tasks that last 24 hours a day for 4 or 5 days
4 / Make there own Bread etc
5 / Do there own washing including bedding without a washing machine
6 / No takeaways to cheer them up
7 / A mix of ages not just the 18 / 30 group
8 / NO singers , models , actors etc no wannabees with managers before they even go in and friends of C5 staff or friends of BBBots and NO Americans its UK BB after all
9 / No more Twists with evictions / nominations when its just to save someone BB want in
10 / stick with Vote to Evict , not vote to save

Yes i do want it to be hard in there , over the years they have had it too easy its like a holiday camp , and needs to stop and go back to basics , no cigs if they run out and no booze unless its out of shopping budget .

OK Rant over did i miss anything ?

Spot on , agree with every word, super post

The public can't be trusted with VTE. I agree with all of that list bar that. I think VTS in the long run is better and actually should in theory stop twists from saving producers faves. For VTE the producers have more of a motive to manipulate. In VTS they have less of that becauase bigger characters generally stay. Hence why CBB is no where near as manipulated as BB. In a VTS they don't need to (don't know why they felt the need to protect Perez in the first half of his series).

Sadly the no contact rule will never come back. Endomol love contact. Italian BB on air atm is 1000x worse with outside contact. They allow each hm every week get a surprise from a loved on (sometimes not even behind the glass). And Endomol is heavily involved in it (I hear more so than most other BBs).

So its not just bbuk struggling with a changeover ttime but every series across the world.

Posted a lot of ideas in this thread

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2116021



Including a dual vote system, scrapping the outdoor crowd and housemates 'income' and more. would love to hear thoughts.

I agree with most of this, but I don't fully agree with number eight. I don't have an issue with having singers, models or actors in the House provided that they aren't all singers, models and actors. The House is supposed to represent diversity, these people are still people. I'm an actor, and I nearly got onto BB13. Me being an actor had nothing to do with why I wanted to go on the programme, and to the best of my knowledge had nothing to do with why I got so far at auditions. I just wanted the experience. Actually, me being an actor was one of the things I was worried about - I thought it would harm my career, not help it. Similarly, I don't mind having a Housemate from the States, just as I didn't mind having John James from Australia, Deana from India, Rodrigo (now Rebekah) from Brazil or anyone else from abroad. So long as they audition in the ordinary way and get through fair and square, and so long as this description doesn't apply to a large number of Housemates, it doesn't bother me.

Having said that, I do agree that there shouldn't be people who are friends with the staff at C5 or Endemol. Most game shows have a clause that precludes that. I can't remember whether or not Big Brother does.


Thank you

Live feed is just not going to happen ! I think that has been made perfectly clear now. No point even debating it.
But the bulk of the people applying for BB are fame hungry wannabes and people with agents, there is not much that can be done about that. If they shoved 14 ''normal'' people in the house who all work in call centres then nobody would watch.
Vote to evict is absolutely dreadful as a voting system and is part of the reason the last 2 series have been utter shite. Should have been left with the channel 4 version never to return, and i suspect it wont be back for the next civilian series anyway...

Since it was Ben Frow who finally put an end to BB's obsession with Helen Wood, by saying they couldn't keep having her back on BOTS, I think it's possible there really will be some good and significant changes this time.

However, it seems we're promised big changes most years, without there being any change for the better, so I'm not ready to celebrate quite yet.

I don't think that's true at all. Who do you think was evicted because of voting to evict and would have made the series much better if they'd stayed? I don't think there's anyone. I think a far bigger problem is irritating show-ruiners staying because of vote-to-save, so I'm always glad when a series uses vote to evict.

Irony is Helen is not that bad compared to someone such as Trashleigne who they happily geared up for the big hoo harr with Farah, and no doubt will have her back on BBOTS next year.


''show-ruiners'' = ratings grabbers. hence the use of VTS on the more important Celebrity version.
i personally do not invest much time in civilian BB anymore, so predictable whos going almost every week with VTE, we were left with some right bores for the last finale. big players need to stay throughout, face it VTE is just dated.
i would rather them use VTS every week without any manipulation than use VTE every week and constantly try and manipulate results to keep certain people in.

I don't think any of that was true. I certainly don't see how there was a really interesting and diverse group of housemates. One of the biggest myths of C5-era BB is that BB 16 was a return to "normal" housemates and, unfortunately, a "normal" HM won, giving it one of the worst ever winners.

And if first 2 weeks were so great, why were the ratings so poor that big twists and ex-housemates raised them?

Actually, Helen is FAR worse then Aisleyne.


No, show ruiners are by definition HMs who ruin the show, not "ratings grabbers".


There no such "hence". If Endemol / C5 thought "VTS" was better, they'd use it for all BBs, not only the "celeb" one.


Neither system is any more "predictable" than the other, and it's a pernicious myth that "VTE" leaves us with bores.


As if those are the only alternatives. Besides, the idea that "VTE" requires "manipulation" is another myth. And if "VTS" kept the same people in (which it doesn't), it would be manipulation.

They could make some changes to BBOTS as well

1) Stop having the same panellists on all the time ie Biggins, McCrick, Visage, Nicola McClean, Nikki etc
2) Don't keep having the same "experts" on all the time. For example Doctor Dance can be a laugh but I think he was on BBOTS maybe 4 times during the most recent CBB!!!!
3)No obviously biased campaigns against particular HMs ie Aaron, Little Chris, Farrah...

Sorry Veri, this is all poppycock.
I would also be interested to know why you think Helen is worse than Aisleyne?

Well, I think they thought that Helen Wood was a so-called 'ratings grabber', but I'd say she made a lot of people switch off, in both series in which she appeared.

Yet the ratings went up AFTER she entered the house
May have been because of Brian (i doubt it), or even more likely Nicki, but we will never know.
I was just as shocked as anyone that they chose Helen to go in, however she was the WINNER from the previous series, which grumblers on this forum and the ofcom brigaide on facebook simply cannot get over.

Quadruple votes-to-evict are dreadful. Both times.

But for proper single evictions vote-to-evict remains the best, so long as they contunue with 3 or more up to prevent block vote nominations.

I wouldn't have minded, except I don't think she won fair and square. The fact that she was given a pass to the final on the second night meant that regardless of who won the final vote, she was given an immediate advantage over everyone else, which proved very significant. I'm not the sort of person who grumbles just because someone I don't personally like wins, because I realise that it's not all about my own personal opinion. But I think that to win fairly, the eventual winner needs to have had as much chance as anyone else to start with, and Helen didn't.

As for why ratings went up when she returned... that is actually an interesting point. May I ask how much they went up by? I feel that the ratings for BB16 were always going to be low because so many people had been put off by BB15. Maybe some of the few people who liked that style turned back on for Helen, but I think had she not been given that final pass in BB15, the ratings would have been higher anyway. Helen would likely have been evicted earlier, fewer people would have switched off, and therefore there would have been more viewers at the start of BB16 - I imagine more than there were after Helen came back. Just my personal belief of course, I have no way of proving I'm right.

Perhaps it seems that way from the POV of some of the myths and memes and propaganda lines that have sprung up around voting to save.

But feel free to explain why, for instance, if C5/Endemol thinks vote-to-save is better, they switched back to vote-to-evict for the longer-running, non-celeb BB.

Since "show-ruiner" is my term, I get to say what it means.

And I notice you haven't given any examples of HMs evicted because of voting to evict who would have made the series much better if they'd stayed.


I'd be interested in knowing why anyone could think Helen isn't worse, but no one has ever been able to explain it without using a very distorted picture of what happened in bb15, after bb15, and in bb16.

Fortunately, C5 (in the person of Ben Frow) finally had enough of Endemol's obsession with Helen Wood and put an end to her appearances on BOTS.