Skip to main content

Format and production thoughts

I think that's a problem - three times a week in the US/Canada isn't so bad as they're spread across the week. I still think even in this pre-recorded state splitting the episodes across two nights so the first ends with the nomination challenge and the second is the nominations and evictions would make the viewing experience more rewarding. Certainly from a forum perspective it at least gives you chance to speculate who the winner would nominate for 24 hours and how the eviction might play out. Now there is nothing to really discuss between episodes as there are so many variables on how it might play out.
 
I have liked the shows when they are on as far as they go, BUT this format means all the interesting characters are seen as a threat and put up for eviction at the first chance. That won’t work a second time I dont think.
 
I have liked the shows when they are on as far as they go, BUT this format means all the interesting characters are seen as a threat and put up for eviction at the first chance. That won’t work a second time I dont think.

Agree. This format is very repetitive so I am not sure if viewers will come back for a second season of the same thing.
 
Hello.

Screen-Shot-2020-06-22-at-1-14-47-pm.png
 
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in:

My thoughts for 2021:
Partner with Netflix (or just use 7plus) for 24 hour streams (easy way for Ch7 to offload some costs)
Go back to the live format with:
Sunday Night Evictions (Live). Public vote to save one housemate from Monday prior (see below), then the house vote to evict (think Ch9 nominations room).
Monday Night Games (Live). Winner gets to nominate three housemates
Tuesday, Wednesday daily shows on the main channel. More traditional big brother fly on the wall.
Thursday, Friday daily shows on 7/7mate depending on AFL.

I like some of the scheming elements introduced, but it still needs to feel like big brother. The eviction nomination challenges should be more varied (less physical). There's still room for some more traditional big brother elements as well.
 
I still maintain that Big Brother is too soft on them. Someone, Matt? Called him mate in the diary room recently. Surely a simple way to add drama to the house is to push the HMs psychological limits? White room task anyone?
 
I’d like 12 housemates next season, 20 is far too many. 12 housemates allow for space to breathe between evictions and would create more variety in the episodes because of this. It just feels like they’ve put way too much on their plate for a first serve
 
I'm really leaning towards returning to banning Noms talk. Before you jump down my throat, consider this:

We currently have a highly compressed cycle per episode, but I find I'm not getting to know the people. So much time in this iteration is taken up by strategy/noms talk. If it were banned, we could hear a lot more 'normal' conversation.

Of course, if you don't believe the absence of normal conversation detracts from the BigBrother viewing experience, I don't expect any agreement.
 
A week in just thought it's worth taking stock now of what we've seen so far in more general terms outside of the individual episodes thread.

Firstly other than being pre-recorded the actual format is fine. It's not quite as strong as the US/Canadian format but it is the equivalent of where the familar BBUSA format began (19 years ago). Only difference really is 3 nominees instead of 2 and the nominees get to vote, plus housemates can win back to back challenges. I also think the house is great and the challenges are pretty good so far.

However it is the overall production and editing letting the show down, and specifically around the two key moments of each episode - the Nomination Challenge and the eviction itself. I think even though it's pre-recorded both these issues could be fixed too.


Beginning with the challenge adding Big Brother narrating in is just so awkward. Big Brother has never been the narrator of the show and generally never spoken to housemates outside of the diary room. The commentating on challenges just makes no sense at all, and adds nothing to the show. As annoying as cutting away to housemates speaking after the event may be at least it would give us more insight - we have no idea if all the housemates are trying to win challenges or how they feel about others winning challenges, and that would be more useful than "Big Brother" commentating on events. Failing that just use Sonia to update the situation as she is used for narration elsewhere. Big Brother is there to talk to housemates in the diary room or call them to the diary room - not to narrate for us.

One thing though that can't be fixed now is the timing between the challenge, nominations and eviction. There is just no time for proper strategy and gameplay with nominations being immediately after and the eviction later that night - at the very least have the nomination challenge the night before then nominations and eviction the next day.


The other big flaw is the eviction itself, or more specifically the voting, which I think is partly due to it not being a live show and being seen from the perspective of the house rather than the studio. I fear they're going more for tribal council than eviction show with Sonia questioning the housemates - that does happen in the US/Canada but usually remains quite light and generic. One thing we are missing here is a direct plea by the nominees - we're only seeing them respond to Sonia's questions.

What really needs to change though and could still be re-edited is the voting. Spending a few minutes on not showing us how the vote plays out is pointless - we need to see who is voting for who, and frankly if we've watched the show for an hour and a half we're not going to tune out 5 minutes from the end just because the votes have been revealed. That moment of us knowing but the housemates not knowing gives viewers the feeling they know something they don't (or at least didn't 4 months ago), and part of the expeirence of watching. Finally, and too late to change this, but even with no crowd I think Sonia should have greeted the housemate upon leaving the house and asked a couple of questions rather than us ending with the evictee talking in the car.


Other than that I think the show is struggling to get the balance between the traditional scenes of every day life and the gameplay and leaving everybody feeling somewhat short changed. However worth remembering though that 3 days into 90 minutes is about the equivalent of what the show had on Ten with the 30 minute daily shows for most of it's life - but then we had the 24/7 live feed and website to flesh out the characters and enable us to get to know what was happening in the house beyond what we saw on screen.

I also think packing everything into one night is doing the show no favours - it could easily be split into two with a format point (like Intruders arriving or a shopping task) and the Nomination Challenge one night and then the nominations and evictions the next night. Yes, it means shorter shows each night but it means Seven could schedule it 4 nights a week for 10-12 weeks rather than 3 nights a week for 6-8 weeks.


Overall ignoring the sin of pre-recording it's not as bad as I feared, although I do think episodes have dragged so far and it's not really kicked into life yet. It remains to be seen if it ever does.
Wanna see boys in shower naked
 
I'm really leaning towards returning to banning Noms talk. Before you jump down my throat, consider this:

We currently have a highly compressed cycle per episode, but I find I'm not getting to know the people. So much time in this iteration is taken up by strategy/noms talk. If it were banned, we could hear a lot more 'normal' conversation.

Of course, if you don't believe the absence of normal conversation detracts from the BigBrother viewing experience, I don't expect any agreement.

If they ban nom talk then they have to do audience voting.
 
If they ban nom talk then they have to do audience voting.
Whilst I admit I have a preference for audience evict votes (and live presentation), I disagree that the absence of noms talk means they can't vote from a nominated group.

In fact, it should force them to communicate more at many varying levels, so they can gauge who they like or (shock) hate.

At the moment all we have is people nominating and evicting because people are a threat to themselves winning. Listen up - that's going to be every other individual in the house.

"I'm voting because they're a threat to me winning/my gameplay" - like duh, every other HM is exactly that.

HMs could still chat to BB in the diary room about their secret strategy/method/targets etc.
 
Whilst I admit I have a preference for audience evict votes (and live presentation), I disagree that the absence of noms talk means they can't vote from a nominated group.

In fact, it should force them to communicate more at many varying levels, so they can gauge who they like or (shock) hate.

At the moment all we have is people nominating and evicting because people are a threat to themselves winning. Listen up - that's going to be every other individual in the house.

"I'm voting because they're a threat to me winning/my gameplay" - like duh, every other HM is exactly that.

HMs could still chat to BB in the diary room about their secret strategy/method/targets etc.

Maybe they could use the alphabet strategy?
 
I've said this elsewhere, but I really didn't like the unreliable narrator in the editing last night. I get why they did it for a surprise, however, it would have been far more interesting to have seen what was really going on. Instead of everything from the perspective of Garth.

If they do want to do this kind of selective editing, at the very least they should have a flashback segment showing what really went on. It's actually something that can work with this pre-recorded format and could be enjoyable.

I wouldn't have had an issue if after the vote tallies were announced, we then got a short package of everyone fooling Garth. Clips discussing it, plotting against Garth, fooling him and so forth. It'd be entertaining to have had an Oceans 11 style montage with music. Then I would not have been annoyed by the selective edit. I would have found it entertaining.

The way it is, it just left a sour taste in my mouth. We're meant to get an overview, not just selective edits for dramatic effect. I think they dropped the ball on this.
 
Last edited:
^^Agreed.

For me the show is starting to become extremely similar to survivor to the point where I actually had to remind myself I was not watching survivor and it's a bit annoying. From the way the show is formatted to the editing style. I get it's a strategy show, but I would've thought it would have been a good oppurtunity to add things like general convo to differentiate it from survivor and pay homage to the original social experiment. Don't know if it was a good idea to get Amelia Fisk as EP
 
Back
Top