Skip to main content

Evictions: Why are they "Vote to Save"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter White Will Smith
  • Start date Start date
W

White Will Smith

Guest
If it was vote to go, the results would be way different. What made the devs choose to make it vote to save?

If it was vote to go, I'd say the evictions would have been:

Jasmin
Tully/Tahan
Mikkayla?

But what is it that made the dev team make it save votes?
 
It used to be vote to go years ago, but this meant that boring people kept winning. It is much easier to fly under the radar with a vote to go system.
 
It makes more money for BB as if the public really want someone to go they have to vote to save 5 others
 
Producers prefer vote to save as it means they can manipulate the vote by editing out the people they don't want in the show.

Personally I prefer evict even if it means some casualties along the way - it means the show evolves more over the series. I feel with Vote to Save producers pick their key HMs early on and the show basically creates a path for them to reach the final by concentrating on their actions in the house and effectively using the other HMs as extras to be evicted over the first few weeks.


P.S. I really disagree too on it making more money - I think viewers are much more likely to be inclined to vote someone out than vote to keep someone. I know back when BBUK was at it's peak they switched to vote to save for one series of Celeb BB and despite there usually only being two nominees voting revenue fell quite dramatically.
 
Nah, Jasmin wouldn't have gone in first eviction. She did hardly nothing to spark passion. Tim would actually have probably been the first to go.
 
If it was vote to evict Tim and Tully would be out of the house. Same with Mikkayla possibly. I think vote to save is way better. Ed and Caleb would make it to the final in vote to evict. Sharon and Jasmin would still be in the house as would Xavier probably. Rohan probably would have went regardless.

Last year Ryan and George would have made it to the final and Estelle/Ben would have went in evictions 1 and 2.
 
What about in 06 when it was vote to save or evict? Why doesn't channel nine consider that way of voting?
 
Last edited:
Brekkie said:
P.S. I really disagree too on it making more money - I think viewers are much more likely to be inclined to vote someone out than vote to keep someone.
Click to expand...

I concur ... back in '06, I recall save and evict existed.
Remember? Gretel and her magic-equations-tally ???

Evict percentages (red column on the right) were normally 3x higher than saves (green column on the left).
 
Yeah as has been said above, it's so they can manipulate the show and choose who leaves when they allocate air time.

It does make you wonder though, if their phone lines can manage 6 nominees, why not have three next year and have both save and evict lines for each like back in 06?
 
starstruck said:
What about in 06 when it was vote to save or evict? Why doesn't channel nine consider that way of voting?
Click to expand...

I don't know why anyone would ever want to go back to that. If you're wanting to evict someone you don't want others to be trying to save them and vice versa. Trying to cancel and therefore waste each others votes.
 
starstruck said:
What about in 06 when it was vote to save or evict? Why doesn't channel nine consider that way of voting?
Click to expand...
It didn't really work. People were so use to voting to evict hardly anybody voted to save. I remember my favourite housemate of all time Michael2006 got evicted despite having way more save votes then the other nominated housemates because he received many votes to evict being the villain.
 
Until the final week where the save votes far outweighed the evict votes because people wanted a housemste to win!! Always annoyed me.

If vote to evict throughout the series at least for the final week have the public choose a winner and not do vote to evict because people made the excuse of...I didnt want that person to win...but I wanted to evict the other because I didnt want them to win..which was stupid because effectively you sre handing over money to someone you didnt want to win!!!
 
Brekkie said:
P.S. I really disagree too on it making more money - I think viewers are much more likely to be inclined to vote someone out than vote to keep someone. I know back when BBUK was at it's peak they switched to vote to save for one series of Celeb BB and despite there usually only being two nominees voting revenue fell quite dramatically.
Click to expand...

Yes, viewers are more motivated to evict housemates than to save them, and that's why people suspect voting to save may make more money. Viewers will vote to save multiple housemates but with the primary intention of evicting one housemate. That's what everyone is saying on Facebook regarding Tully. I don't think that the producers do it for that reason though.
 
Vote to evict is too negative, tabloidy and can cater to prejudices and stereotypes. In any TV program you need to watch it for something you like and can relate to, otherwise eventually you will just grow to despise it.
 
Vote to save is better. Although I would love to be able to evict HMs that really irritate me... no one particular, just when relevant.

I remember back in the 10 days when they would have vote to evict for BB and then for shows like Idol they would have vote to save, I always felt the latter was a far better indicator of who was worthy to win and was generally nicer, I always wondered if BB would ever change its ways.
 
Well in shows like Idol they're actually showing us talent and deserve to be saved. On Big Brother douche bags deserve to be evicted. End of story.
 
Vote to evict means the polarising housemates get out first. So even if a housemate is hugely liked, if they are also hugely disliked they get out.

Vote to save means the most boring, or the least attention-worthy housemates get out first. This means the more exciting/polarising characters stay in the long run, and in the end you get people like Estelle and Ben as the final top three in Big Brother last year.

Plus I also think the producers earn more money in the long run as fans have to 'save' all their favourite housemates week after week, while in vote to evict all votes are just concentrated on the single most hated housemate that week.
 
starry said:
Vote to evict is too negative, tabloidy and can cater to prejudices and stereotypes. In any TV program you need to watch it for something you like and can relate to, otherwise eventually you will just grow to despise it.
Click to expand...

I agree - people would rather focus on the positives than the negatives about someone. The housemates don't want to feel like shit when they come out of the house. Plus, as people said, it prevents the stool pigeons from winning (or at least it is supposed to do that).
 
An entirely different system was employed in 2008 where for the first few weeks the viewers would nominate housemates, and then the housemates would vote to evict someone. I think our system now is much better than that at least, as that means we have the final say...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top