FIRST: Enough with the "stunts."
In almost every case, they backfired against the show.
--The "nominate after 1 hour" stunt simply led to the eviction of whoever was the loudest on the first night, since that would naturally be one of the highest-watched nights of the series and all of the viewers would be excited about being able to vote right away.
No matter how Anouska acted after that, she could never overcome all of the votes racked up on that first night. Which is a damn shame, since she clearly could have been an interesting person to watch for the rest of the series -- the HMs really liked her, and she was so engaging that producers sent her to Australia and then kept her in extra weeks down there because she was such a great pick-up for the house. Meanwhile, for some reason, the producers chose not to show any of BB Australia like they had done with Africa, perhaps because (like with Africa) we would have seen how much more interesting the other house was.
-- The "double eviction" stunt was simply an unmitigated catastrophe, since it ended up with two interesting & troublemaking HMs being evicted at exactly the same time. The viewability of the show took such a hit that it was as if it had been staked through the heart. It generated excitement and interest for one night, and then for the rest of the month it was like the show had plunged off a cliff.
(I'd also like to point out that both of these "stunts" were simply calculated to generate more phone votes, to pad the pockets of Endemol.)
-- The "swap" stunt was the least disastrous, but still injured the show because you had outsiders coming & going, which invades the "isolation" aspect of the show. It also included the priviso that the traveler would be immune from eviction for two weeks, which either overtly intentionally favored Cameron or simply gave the impression that it did, which in either case leads to accusations of a rigged game and therefore resentment among viewers. (Doing it late in the game also virtually guaranteed Cam would make it to the final four.)
SECOND: For GOD'S SAKE, give them tasks that are visual and which are conducive to interaction.
Tasks like "memorize facts about your HMs" do not make for good television viewing. Tasks like "discuss your opinions on controversial subjects in the diary room but then you are forbidden from discussing them (!) with your HMs" do not make for good television viewing. Tasks like "pretend you have imaginary invisible bells in your hand" does not make for good television viewing.
And, on a related note, the tasks should be fun & challenging, not difficult & frustrating.
The point of the tasks is to give the HMs something to do with their days, not to shaft them out of their shopping budget. Now, granted, Fed screwed up twice, but that's not the point: one person screwing up should not mean the entire house is without booze for the week. (Which can be quite dull to watch.) And that bell-ringing task was absolutely ridiculous -- just about outright impossible. What producer picked that as the task after the HMs had already failed for the first two weeks? Sack that idiot YESTERDAY, and then sack the idiot again today for good measure.
THIRD: Take away the books, and give them some games.
Yes, you need to give the housemates something to do to keep their minds occupied. But giving them books just means they're going to be sitting aroud reading. That doesn't lead to interaction and it certainly doesn't lead to interesting viewing. Give them playing cards, some board games, etc. -- these are naturally social activities, people still talk to each other when they're playing cards, and at the very least it could lead to arguments over rules, cheating, winning, etc. etc.
I mean, can you imagine how much more interesting it would have been to see a pitched Monopoly game, with wheeling & dealing, backstabbing, etc., rather than seeing a bunch of people sitting around reading? Or a housewide Tongo championship, maybe with the winner getting a small prize (box of chocolates, booze, etc.)? Well, you get the idea.
FOURTH: Big Brother should not be such a wet blanket.
Remember how fun it was to watch the BB3 HMs race around in those shopping carts, or try to change clothes in that big plastic tube? Those were games the HMs invented to amuse themselves, and they were brilliant. But the moment the BB4 HMs started "waterskiing" on the laminates, out of a desperation to fight off boredom (theirs and ours), BB but a quick end to it. What was that about?
AND HERE'S A FEW QUICK SUGGESTIONS...
-- No more manufactured romances... it makes the show look sad & desperate
-- No more preselected winners... it seemed obvious that producers were backing Cameron, but even if not true, at the very least when it became clear that the public believed this they should have taken steps to make it plain that they were showing both his good & bad sides.
-- Get a better mix of HMs... not just ages but people who will actually be themselves, not just try to play it nice for the cameras, creating as few waves as possible to stay in the house longer.
Hope all this somehow makes it back to the producers...
Best regards,
Kidradical
”
