Skip to main content

So...Back with "revised format"?

I also agree with this point. I believe the viewership (in terms of Australian BB) is significantly influenced by viewer participation and choice. We aren't always going to end up with a 'worthy' winner in each series, and i don't think it's because of 'people are to stupid to vote'. People make judgements which at times align to their interests i suppose. Not only that, most of the time those who are interesting or provide the public with entertainment generally get more screen time (even better when it's not family friendly!). Unfortunately...? - Housemates can also use this as a strategic ploy and stray away from their true selves which could of made them interesting in the first place?

Why can't we end up with a worthy winner though? I see nothing wrong with wanting the best each season. And the only way to do that is not to have the audience participate in at all because they will just get it wrong like they always do.
 
Why can't we end up with a worthy winner though? I see nothing wrong with wanting the best each season. And the only way to do that is not to have the audience participate in at all because they will just get it wrong like they always do.

Because a 'worthy winner' is perception based, what one person might think is a worthy winner someone else might not. Generalising every audience member is not the way to go about it either. There's been some winners in the past that i enjoyed watching throughout the season, and some that i didn't like or appeal to me at all that had won. What are your ideals that makes a contestant a 'worthy' winner?
 
Because a 'worthy winner' is perception based, what one person might think is a worthy winner someone else might not. Generalising every audience member is not the way to go about it either. There's been some winners in the past that i enjoyed watching throughout the season, and some that i didn't like or appeal to me at all that had won. What are your ideals that makes a contestant a 'worthy' winner?

I strongly disagree that a worthy winner is perception based. I feel that a worthy winner would be one who played the game of Big Brother the best. The one who outlasted and outsmarted all other housemates. Using the audience, who probably only switch on once a week whilst doing their daily yoga, would mean that big brother australia will not improve at all. And I want big brother australia to come back and thrive. And the only way to do that is by not involving the audience.
 
I strongly disagree that a worthy winner is perception based. I feel that a worthy winner would be one who played the game of Big Brother the best. The one who outlasted and outsmarted all other housemates. Using the audience, who probably only switch on once a week whilst doing their daily yoga, would mean that big brother australia will not improve at all. And I want big brother australia to come back and thrive. And the only way to do that is by not involving the audience.

This is perception based, not everyone may have the same opinion. What they do to outlast, and outsmart can be based on a variety of variables (such as characteristics) which in turn does influence voters choice. I'm a strategic person so i don't mind a bit of strategy, as long as the individual is not straying to far away from their identity as well.
 
This is perception based, not everyone may have the same opinion. What they do to outlast, and outsmart can be based on a variety of variables (such as characteristics) which in turn does influence voters choice. I'm a strategic person so i don't mind a bit of strategy, as long as the individual is not straying to far away from their identity as well.

But the person with the best strategy, in a big brother where the audience is not involved, would be a much more worthy winner than one decided by audience participation.
 
But the person with the best strategy, in a big brother where the audience is not involved, would be a much more worthy winner than one decided by audience participation.

I like the combination of both variables, because not everybody in the audience is the same. Survivor is already there for a strategic based show.
 
I like the combination of both variables, because not everybody in the audience is the same. Survivor is already there for a strategic based show.

And Survivor has been going on strong for many season now, which prove that these strategic reality shows resonate and last longer than one where the audience decides who wins.
 
And Survivor has been going on strong for many season now, which prove that these strategic reality shows resonate and last longer than one where the audience decides who wins.

Survivor shares similarities yes, but it is of different context to Big Brother. Just like how cooking shows are similar to each other, doesn't mean every one of them will succeed. I believe channel 9 ran Big Brother horribly, which is what caused its downfall, not audience voting lol. The casting crew and producers are the ones that put them in the house to be boring in the first place.
 
Survivor shares similarities yes, but it is of different context to Big Brother. Just like how cooking shows are similar to each other, doesn't mean every one of them will succeed. I believe channel 9 ran Big Brother horribly, which is what caused its downfall, not audience voting lol. The casting crew and producers are the ones that put them in the house to be boring in the first place.

I strongly believe that audience voting was a major factor in what caused big brother australia to fail so horribly. I also strongly think that the uninformed audience which voted ryan in as winner helped to cause the death of reality television in Australia.
 
I strongly believe that audience voting was a major factor in what caused big brother australia to fail so horribly. I also strongly think that the uninformed audience which voted ryan in as winner helped to cause the death of reality television in Australia.

Fair enough and that's your opinion.
 
Meh - strategy style BB probably wouldn't work here - they dipped their toe in a little and found that contestants were perhaps to worried about how they'll be perceived. Perhaps that's something uniquely Australian, I have no idea - and maybe the audience is shifting to a more selfish ilk, which might make it work here.

Ultimately, it looks like if it's core audience is preferred to be younger skewed, you'll get the "nice" contestant type (with a bitch/bastard thrown in for good measure). Remember the early days: the loud, obnoxious, bitch/bastard were the first to be evicted.

However, if they decide to put the show on later, and make it more 'adult', we might see bitch/bastard working better for HMs.

I personally don't much like the strategy stuff. I liked BBAU because it did away with it. It brought it back to more like "12 yobs stuck in a house trying to get along" rather than "12 yobs stuck in a house trying to kill off each other".

And remember, an "undeserving winner" is a chosen contestant before the show even starts, so maybe picking "deserving winners" begins with the HM selection process.

But, I'm an old fart now so maybe my reasons for watching and liking the earlier series is also an old viewpoint.

And finally, CH-NINE totally screwed it up, and the influence and interference of production was deplorable.
 
Meh - strategy style BB probably wouldn't work here - they dipped their toe in a little and found that contestants were perhaps to worried about how they'll be perceived. Perhaps that's something uniquely Australian, I have no idea - and maybe the audience is shifting to a more selfish ilk, which might make it work here.

Ultimately, it looks like if it's core audience is preferred to be younger skewed, you'll get the "nice" contestant type (with a bitch/bastard thrown in for good measure). Remember the early days: the loud, obnoxious, bitch/bastard were the first to be evicted.

However, if they decide to put the show on later, and make it more 'adult', we might see bitch/bastard working better for HMs.

I personally don't much like the strategy stuff. I liked BBAU because it did away with it. It brought it back to more like "12 yobs stuck in a house trying to get along" rather than "12 yobs stuck in a house trying to kill off each other".

And remember, an "undeserving winner" is a chosen contestant before the show even starts, so maybe picking "deserving winners" begins with the HM selection process.

But, I'm an old fart now so maybe my reasons for watching and liking the earlier series is also an old viewpoint.

And finally, CH-NINE totally screwed it up, and the influence and interference of production was deplorable.

Survivor seems to be working so it's hard to say that Australians aren't interested in strategic game-play... It's also hard to say what kind of strategies will evolve... I mean while they dabbled in introducing strategy they never really went all the way with it... It's also a slippery slope to walk when ultimately the viewers are the ones deciding who stays and who goes...

Given that one of the most frequent complaints I read during Nine's run was about the lack of Friday Night Live... For me that is a massive indication that the Australian audience are looking for more competition and strategy... At the end of the day that's something that's hard to deliver when the show is essentially a massive popularity contest...
 
Meh - strategy style BB probably wouldn't work here - they dipped their toe in a little and found that contestants were perhaps to worried about how they'll be perceived. Perhaps that's something uniquely Australian, I have no idea - and maybe the audience is shifting to a more selfish ilk, which might make it work here.

Ultimately, it looks like if it's core audience is preferred to be younger skewed, you'll get the "nice" contestant type (with a bitch/bastard thrown in for good measure). Remember the early days: the loud, obnoxious, bitch/bastard were the first to be evicted.

However, if they decide to put the show on later, and make it more 'adult', we might see bitch/bastard working better for HMs.

I personally don't much like the strategy stuff. I liked BBAU because it did away with it. It brought it back to more like "12 yobs stuck in a house trying to get along" rather than "12 yobs stuck in a house trying to kill off each other".

And remember, an "undeserving winner" is a chosen contestant before the show even starts, so maybe picking "deserving winners" begins with the HM selection process.

But, I'm an old fart now so maybe my reasons for watching and liking the earlier series is also an old viewpoint.

And finally, CH-NINE totally screwed it up, and the influence and interference of production was deplorable.

When did they dip their toe in it?
 
i watched big brother season 14, and a bit of Dr Will's seasons.

Would I be correct in saying that the scope of your knowledge is pretty limited then? In that case the best answer I can give you is to simply keep watching... The more knowledge you have of "the game" the more you'll begin to see where I'm coming from...
 
Back
Top