Skip to main content

Episode BBAU 2020 - Episode 18 Discussion (15 July)

Who do you WANT to win?

  • Total voters
    110
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
the Theorist said:
This is true, but you can’t deny they are praising the show far too much. Benjamin especially absolutely knows better and, in my opinion, doesn’t fully agree with Seven’s version but makes out like it is the best thing since slice bread on that podcast. They’re definitely getting something out of it.
Click to expand...

I dont think they are praising the show that much. I watched last nights episode of their show and they completely bagged out last night's show and described the stolen furniture thing as being lame.
 
the Theorist said:
Not at all, @bleachy_dude. There’s a huge difference between overly praising a product unnecessarily and a healthy discussion involving constructive criticism.

Benjamin is very articulate and knows Big Brother inside and out. There is absolutely nothing wrong with healthily discussing the format and being analytical of it, even critical when it’s warranted (and there have been many times this season where it’s been warranted), but to call this the “best season of Big Brother Australia” and some twists the “best we’ve ever seen in the history of the show” is just plain stupid coming from somebody with his background. If anything, it would make the podcast more interesting if he actually leant in more to his beliefs and spoke truthfully about certain parts of the show. Nobody is asking for anyone to be negative, but the world (and this season especially) is far from rainbows and butterflys.

Besides, their ingenuity is more than obvious when they spend time completely trash talking HMs for weeks but as soon as they have them on the show they suddenly become their most favourite HM of the entire season and “the best in the house”. It’s just fake. But that’s another issue...
Click to expand...
They have actually been critical many times. They talked about how lame the furniture task was last night. They’ve criticised the editing plenty. They’ve wanted more social interaction. Robbo in particular has been vocal about housemates he didn’t like. Rob has been on about Dan and Mat being bullies in recent episodes.

But I think their aim would be generally to make a show for people who enjoy the show. So I think they’ve got a decent balance. They’re not as optimistic as I am, but you can tell they are actually enjoying the show.
 
the Theorist said:
Not at all, @bleachy_dude.

Besides, their ingenuity is more than obvious when they spend time completely trash talking HMs for weeks but as soon as they have them on the show they suddenly become their most favourite HM of the entire season and “the best in the house”. It’s just fake. But that’s another issue...
Click to expand...

I’ve really enjoyed their evicted housemate interviews because I think they ask questions that most other media don’t ask. They’re willing to go places Sonia or sunrise etc won’t go.

Also what is it? Do they trash talk HMs or are they being paid by seven to be overly positive about the show?
 
Just watching the Ben, Rob and Robbie show tonight and I’m pissed how much we are not being shown. If they showed all these interactions between the housemates the show would have been so much better.
 
the Theorist said:
This is true, but you can’t deny they are praising the show far too much. Benjamin especially absolutely knows better and, in my opinion, doesn’t fully agree with Seven’s version but makes out like it is the best thing since slice bread on that podcast. They’re definitely getting something out of it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with this.

I don't think they're getting paid by Channel 7, but generally it goes like this:

Almost everyone is receiving embargoed episodes (except us, wonder why). You can tell even Sportsbet are being given image assets to post to social media. I think some fan accounts too.

If you have embargoed episodes, you can pre-write your stories and hit publish the second the embargo drops to try and capture as many clicks as possible before steam runs out of the story.

If you write things that are negative about the show, maybe you'll stop receiving embargoed episodes and suddenly your competitors have an advantage. Which can be significant because online publishing profit margins are super thin. So then you have an incentive to just say nice things and not question anything.

Also I think Ben is hoping to springboard into a larger media career and you don't do that by badmouthing the already tiny Australian TV industry.
 
The trouble with unconditional positivity is it really does the show no good. Generally fans who are the most critical of the show are those who most want it to succeed and be the best show it can be. This season is far from perfect but there are obvious things which can be improved, even if they stick with the pre-recorded model which goes so much against the spirit of the show.

I think on the whole the challenge based format with housemates evicting has been accepted for what it is - although the audience still struggles to understand the gameplay that needs to go along with that, but that'll improve over time. And although some housemates have got flack as will always happen I think the general complaint is that we didn't get to see enough of the people they did cast, rather than about who was actually cast. Early episode complaints seemed to be that they could be spread over two episodes to give us more pure house content, whilst it's fair to say the complaint in more recent episodes has been somewhat the opposite with shows dragging, so I think from that you would look to expand episodes earlier on when there are more housemates, but pick up the pace towards the end with evictions every episode in the last week or two.

Introducing a Veto is a matter for debate - I personally think it overdominates the US format and has become arguably more important than HoH, so I'd rather they held back on that as a regular competition every round and instead just expanded the time between the challenge and the nominations, focusing more on the interactions that would occur if housemates did get time to influence the person with the power over their decision.
 
Who would have thought I'd have gone from supporting Sophie and hoping Dan and Mat got their comeuppance to swerving the complete opposite way within this week's episodes. I'm disappointed that Kieran took the money (good for him I guess) but he would have been a shoe in to return if he'd just left it. Sophie and Chad had 4 opportunities to get rid of Dan and Mat but they spent too much time pussy footing around it and left it too late, yet when Dan and Mat are smart enough to pull the trigger she loses her mind. Dan and Mat have every right to be pissed, hope Sophie doesn't last too long and gets the boot, my man Kieran should be in there now. Chad is probably my ideal winner but I'll take anyone over Sophie now
 
Meglos said:
The "Alphas" acting like big spoiled babies when things don't go their way.
Hey, it's just a game!
Click to expand...
No doubt all the sitting around sulking and zero eye contact or talking to Sophie when she came back in was edited to death. But yeah they were acting like entitled brats going to have a whinge in the diary room about it lol. Not a good look for the public vote.

For me Sophie going back in the house was the most satisfying moment this season since Angela winning her first challenge leading to Talia being evicted.

Loved Kieran when he said "I'm a thick boy who just stole $15K" that was brilliant. 😆 I think he's walked away with $15K more than Dan or Mat will be getting.

Chad, Sophie or Sarah for the win. They've been the most genuine and likeable of the remaining 5. Dan and Mat especially just come across as smarmy and entitled.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top