Skip to main content

Do you like the fact that the HMs choose whom to evict?

Do you like the fact that the HMs choose whom to evict?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 21 13.4%
  • No

    Votes: 136 86.6%

  • Total voters
    157
It's fucking awful. Australia doesn't even have a final say in who goes home - the HMs will have way too much control over who stays. The best players will be booted ASAP and the usually shitty HMs that the weaker HMs fawn over will last til the end. Imagine if this system happened last year - Tim would have lasted all of two weeks, and Ed/Matt/Caleb would have been final three. MESS.
 
I think it's awful. They already nominated who they don't like. It's supposed to be up to us to vote now. What's the point of us spending money to vote for it to be in someone else's hands anyway? Stupid.
 
HATE IT!

however, I really want the eviction audience to give cheers and BOOS like they do in the UK. Its literally my favourite thing watching their egos deflate the louder the boos get
 
No, it's bad for both the housemate being evicted and the person evicting them.
It would cut you deep, and many are going to stay offended and hold a damn big grudge.
 
I get the feeling we may be about to be shafted again on this one.

During the noms, it was clearly pushed to us that everyone was nominating Jake and Gemma to get rid of Gemma. And Sandra and David because they want David gone; etc. Theoretically the public votes to save every pair *but* Jake and Gemma, presuming because the noms were all "yeah, sorry Jake, collateral damage", Gemma will be the one the housemates pick when it comes time to separate the pair.

And whacko, double backflip time - the housemates also smell a rat, and "instantly" (on our screens anyway); Jake gets the flip. Because "tactics". It will be a mass, telepathic realisation for the HM's; and we'll never get to see why Jake has either fallen out of their favours, or Gemma has redeemed herself to them to cause the shift. And so the public don't get what they thought they were voting for.

Producer speak for this scenario is "GREAT TV!"; viewer speak is "yeah, don't waste money on votes because we know we're powerless afterall".

So to answer the original question: nope, don't like it at all.

You might very well think that...I couldn't possibly comment!
 
You might very well think that...I couldn't possibly comment!
Ah; see, that was the womantrap. You did comment. Not sure what the comment was about; but hey, it was a comment.
Nice avi though; at least you care enough to have one :)
 
Ah; see, that was the womantrap. You did comment. Not sure what the comment was about; but hey, it was a comment.
Nice avi though; at least you care enough to have one :)

Yes, it's a way of commenting without seeming to, er, comment!

My pleasure.
 
Not sure why I thought a dizzy Maru was the appropriate response; but yar; here he is.

h89171975
 
Yes, I like it. Simply for something different. Makes it more Survivor like. Mix it up a little.
Yeah l agree.

It is going to add to the emotional melting pot in the house. Do they know this yet?

I must have suffered a mini stroke, because l have missed the whole conversation about housemates being the lanes to decide.
 
Just really hope it isn't Gemma and Jake as that is what the HMs expect and it would give them what they want. David and Sandra is what producers want, but I think Lisa v Skye would be the most interesting one. Both are annoying in different ways and I couldn't really call it. Travis v Sam wouldn't be interesting enough to warrant attention.

Also interesting they're introducing a save on the Monday show - good they at least publish rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tee
Clearly, I'm the only person who should be able to decide who stays and who goes. Save the David!
 
On one hand it's not as if we're likely to lose the most interesting HMs, it'll end up being the 2 HMs we're most apathetic towards who will struggle to accumulate save votes. Saying that, letting the HMs choose which one of the boring batshits we get to keep is the most ass-backwards concept I've ever heard of. Public should have the final say. It's our show, not theirs. We have to watch it struggle through it, not them. Why has the public been regarded as inconsequential this season?
 
The issue is, will they evict stronger or weaker competition.

Surely if Gemma and Jake come up, they should if they were smart evict Jake.

The same with David and Sandra, they should evict Sandra.

However this is, 'if they are smart.'

I understanding why you may save someone who you are friends with, who will help you get through the house better, but if someone isn't a rock for you, or close to you. Evict them, not the person you hate and think the public will dislike.

I think we need to see. A lot of people are going on the assumption they will evict who they dislike the least. While I would bet money they do that, I do think there is a chance that they don't.

Once again, if they are smart.
 
The issue is, will they evict stronger or weaker competition.

Surely if Gemma and Jake come up, they should if they were smart evict Jake.

The same with David and Sandra, they should evict Sandra.

However this is, 'if they are smart.'

I understanding why you may save someone who you are friends with, who will help you get through the house better, but if someone isn't a rock for you, or close to you. Evict them, not the person you hate and think the public will dislike.

I think we need to see. A lot of people are going on the assumption they will evict who they dislike the least. While I would bet money they do that, I do think there is a chance that they don't.

Once again, if they are smart.

I remember Jason saying in the strategy room that he would nominate people he doesn't gel with, rather than vote strategically. I suspect the majority of the other housemates would do the same.
 
I remember Jason saying in the strategy room that he would nominate people he doesn't gel with, rather than vote strategically. I suspect the majority of the other housemates would do the same.


But, I always think there is an element of playing the game where people want to pretend they are not. Although there is a strat of keeping people who'll keep you in.

I still stand by we just have to wait and see. They may not.
 
Back
Top