DS Forums

 
 

Big Brother USA - original format with later contestants!!!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-09-2003, 22:45
Brekkie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cymru
Posts: 12,702

The difference between the first and later series of Big Brother America are clear. The first series had the original format of nightly shows, nominations and public votes which was replaced for BB2 with three shows a week, the Head of Household and no public vote, with the veto introduced in BB3?

The question I ask - did the success of later series have anything to do with the format?

From what I've read on the net, when comments are made on the first series, most label the houseguests as boring and rarely blame the format - although suggest the more interesting were voted out early on.

Comments on the later series seem to focus more on strong contestants and interesting characters, rather than labeling the format as the key improvement.

So maybe they just had the wrong contestants in BB1. Would BB2, 3 and 4 have worked with the original format given the characters of each series. Would BB1 have been perceived as more successful if the Head of Household format had been used?

I guess we'll never know the answers to these questions for sure, but what do you think?
Brekkie is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 09-09-2003, 12:11
KnowledgeSeeker
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 609
Using your example, if BB2, BB3 or BB4 used a public voting procedure for evicting HGs - it would not have the success the current winning format has & wouldn't have just been renewed for the next 3 years like it has.

If there ever was public voting after it bombed here in the first year - all of the most interesting HGs - like Will ("Dr. Evil") - who won BB2 - would have been evicted by the public early on. But the facts show his popularity rose dramatically from the lowest to among the highest as the season progressed. So giving the public the power to evict would have eliminated his chance to win & emphasizes boring HGs who are too afraid to alienate or upset the public for fear of losing their votes.

Another thing: BB1 vividly showed the inequity of a voting BB public when the wife of one of the HGs arranged with a local radio station for a computerized phone bank of calls to prevent her husband from being evicted. Unfortunately, it worked. So the very integrity of the game is in question with public voting.

But with the HGs doing BOTH the nominating & evicting there's an equal playing field. The public is privy to their candid & real attitudes regarding other HGs in their DR sessions - which would never be revealed to their face. So we're privy to their game strategy.

When you pose your other hypothetical question concerning the potential success of BB1 IF it had the current format, you're neglecting a crucial element: the superior creative innovation launched in season 2-4 by BB co-producers Arnold Shapiro & Allison Grodner. On the other hand, John de Mol & Endemol attempted to export their cookie cutter BB1 format to the #1 market in the world - the U.S.- and failed.
KnowledgeSeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2003, 13:46
hwirtz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 111
I agree with most of KS's assesment above, and just want to add that I disagree that "most label the houseguests as boring."

While it's true that 4 of the last 5 contestants (Josh, Curtis, Jamie and Cassandra) were boring, 4 of the first 5 evictees were great (Will Mega, Jordan, Brittany and George) and were victims of the negative vote. Had it been a "save your fave" format, the results would likely have been different in the middle (although I'm 100% sure Eddie would still have won, and WM would still have gone first).

Had Cassandra (a UN employee) gone earlier, things would have been better viewing, too, because she wouldn't have been there to defuse any and all conflict in the house. She seriously ruined the show's watchability in the later stages.

I do think that public voting could still play a role in USBB, in the form of positive voting to protect from nomination. Have a public vote and the two low vote-getters are on the block, and the house votes to evict. This would discourage sailing under the radar, and there would still be all the fun political machinations we see now, and we'd avoid the love-fest that the Final 4 of the public-voting versions usually see (OK, nobody loved Jade, but that's the exception that proves the rule).
hwirtz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2003, 14:44
Goodfella
 
Posts: n/a
Winning HoH is luck
except when its an endurance test of course (before anyone picked me up on my contradiction)

yikes, I just deleted my masterpiece oh well, I cant be bothered typing all that out again. I pressed the "edit" button instead of "quote" and deleted the whole of my post basically (apart from the quote above).
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2003, 22:09
r151996
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 229
I agree that in public voting the lowest vote to stay in the house should be the evictee instead of the highest total to evict. That format would likely encourage more voting as every time one's favorite was nominated there would be a need to vote to keep them in the game.

I would also like to see a public voting element in the US BB. The HOH winner would be immune from nomination. Then have the public's least favorite three be nominated, or nominate two from the public with the HOH making the third nomination. I want three original nominees to require the veto winner to remove a nominee from the block. Then the HGs vote for eviction as in the current format.
r151996 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:58.