GUARDIAN ARTICLE BY PRODUCER OF BB7

[ooohchicken]

www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1853006,00.html

This link works if you paste it into your web address line

I have sent an e mail to the Guardian re this article - here it is

Subject: The five great BB myths


1. They're all nut ball freaks

Has Phil or Sharon been on the dole all their life & shuns friends? (like Shabaz).
Have they had anorexia from the age of 8 & attempted suicide twice & been in and out of insititions until the age of 20 & can't hold down a job. (Nikki, obviously)
Are either of them a pre-op transexual?

No, I thought not. They are successful media-savvy TV execs.
To claim they are like the contestants is deeply silly & irresponsible.


3. Big brother producers in crisis talks

Specifically the house next door and your claim that you ALL KNEW the house was not soundproofed...... Davina was heard saying she didn't know why she was whispering as the house was soundproofed - next time Phil boy, let your staff know what is going on and have them sticking to the same script

4. The big rip-off

I love this one...... Phil trying to blind us with figures........ 2,700 complaints to a regulatory body about one programme is HUGE and he knows it. People are very angry at getting ripped off. Oh and it's not just ofcom, it's icstis as well


5. It's all about ratings

Of course it is, this time though, the desperation has shown through with the farcical twists given to this series in its panicked gallop towards the cash finishing line. Another series....... dream on Phil Edgar-Jones, not for you after this thingy up.


Seeing as the Guardian decided to do this interview, thought I'd let you know what a load of rubbish has been spouted - shame on you for allowing this very non factual piece of fluff to be published

As you can see, I got very ticked off with this stupid interview

[frisky]

Endemol appear to think that we can be fobbed off with that crap. Unreal! They are openly patronising the public and laughing all the way to the bank.

[julian]

I agreed with most of the article, actually.

I don't believe there was any kind of crisis caused by the house next door soundproofing. It just made things more interesting.

I don't believe that Susie going in was a fix although the argument against it was a bit spurious. The most obvious motive would have been if Susie's millionaire husband had bribed the producers to fix it.

I think that voting people back into the house was a good twist and made the last few weeks a lot more interesting to watch. I don't think it cheated the voters because they were voting to evict and that's what happened. No one said it would be permanent and if they had known that there was a chance that the person they wanted out could be voted back in I don't think it would have made any difference to the voting.

You can argue that the majority voted for Nikki to go the first time but that's not necessarily the case at all. It's very easy for someone to be voted out in an 11-way vote and yet be the most popular overall. Nikki being evicted didn't mean that it was what the majority of the voters wanted and I very much doubt that it was. In a way, the mass vote is what cheated the public and allowing the public to vote her back was a way of correcting that mistake.

I don't think it's particularly fair for people to be allowed to have a rest, learn about the views of the outside world and then go back in but that's a question of fairness not a question of whether there was any legal problem with the voting. As it is, the situation worked more against Nikki than for her and, if anything, gave Aisleyne a boost from all the anti-aisleyne sentiment amongst the returnees.

I do think that some of the contestants appeared to be too emotionally unstable for the experience - particularly, Shahbaz - but no one seems to have suffered unduly from it and some of the most unstable or vulnerable have been the most liked and been the most successful (e.g. Nikki and Pete).

At the end of the day, I've got no complaints about BB7. I enjoyed it


Regards

Julian

[brockolly]

i'd just like to say 800,000 people did not vote people back in, there were 800,000 votes

[Cloud 9]

julian said:

I
I don't think it cheated the voters because they were voting to evict and that's what happened. No one said it would be permanent and if they had known that there was a chance that the person they wanted out could be voted back in I don't think it would have made any difference to the voting.


I don't think it's particularly fair for people to be allowed to have a rest, learn about the views of the outside world and then go back in but that's a question of fairness not a question of whether there was any legal problem with the voting. As it is, the situation worked more against Nikki than for her and, if anything, gave Aisleyne a boost from all the anti-aisleyne sentiment amongst the returnees.

Julian

I respect your opinion Julian, but I do think it was unfair.
You say no one said it was permanent, but come on it was an eviction vote and everybody who has taken part in an eviction vote since BB started is voting in the understanding that it is to evict the person from the house - for good.

'...and if they had known that there was a chance that the person they wanted out could be voted back in I don't think it would have made any difference to the voting. ..'

I disagree with this as well. People voted because they strongly disliked Nikki and wanted her out the house. I wouldn't be surprised if some people voted for the first time in their lives to get Nikki out, such was their dislike. They were also aware that although many hated her, she also had many fans who loved her. I think if they thought for one minute that Nikki might be returned, they would have had second thoughts about wasting their money (as people are not daft and realised she had a fan base at that time). Many sensible people who had voted most likely would have thought 'well if shes going back in why should I waste my money?' and not voted had they been informed.

I agree that Ais benefited from them returning, because they showed themselves up for the bitches they were - and with Ais continuing not to bi@tch but even support the ones who had been backstabbing her made the contrast between the two even greater. But thats all down to Nikki and Graces nastiness and stupidity. It still does not make the decision any less fair - and a smarter person could have used it to their full advantage - equally a person not as strong as Ash after seeing her enemy return so cocky and make out she was hated outside could have been enough for them to leave the house before eviction night

The whole purpose of BB (what is supposed to make it interesting) is to watch housemates deal with each other exclusively over a period of time, having no idea whats going on outside - or how their popularity is being effected over time. Not only did they introduce the ex-housemates, but they continued to allow loads of outside information to be spread around - which made a farce of the whole show and what it is supposed to be about. The fact that Mikey was not allowed to hear the England score (which lets face it doesn't effect house politics) yet Nikki, Grace and Lea were able to pass on to housemates who was popular and who wasn't just showed BB up as having no grasp on their rules or what the rules are supposed to be there for.

[Cloud 9]

Just to add - I agree that the lack of soundproofing was no big deal - and I don't know why people would get worked up about that. It might have been a bit of an embarrasment for the designers and the builders, but that was all. The housemates finding out early made no difference at all (apart from taking a little bit of the shock factor away when it was finally revealed to them).

I don't think there was any dodgyness surrounding Susys entry either.
Maybe I am a bit biased with that one right enough since I was delighted she went in. Not only did she invite the ones that were least expecting it to her dinner party but nominated Grace and Nikki as well. A job well done

[julian]

humptydumpty said:

I respect your opinion Julian, but I do think it was unfair.
You say no one said it was permanent, but come on it was an eviction vote and everybody who has taken part in an eviction vote since BB started is voting in the understanding that it is to evict the person from the house - for good.

Don't forget we've had precedent. Jon Tickle got voted back into the house after being evicted in BB4. Nobody raised a fuss then because he wasn't allowed to win but it's the same principle. People voted to get rid of him and yet they put him back.

I did say that I thought it was unfair but primarily unfair on the housemates not on the voters. I also think that it was unfair putting everyone up for eviction except Jayne for Jayne's rule breaking. That was unfair on whoever got evicted because of it -which happened to be Nikki.

If people knew that evicting Nikki would be temporary then maybe they wouldn't have bothered voting to evict her but that wasn't the case. As it turned out, all of the evictions were potentially temporary but only the four most popular of the evicted housemates would have a chance of going back in and then, out of them, only the one most popular with the housemates would be able to have another chance at winning. That's a lot of hurdles to jump through that the people who weren't evicted didn't have to jump through. It's the equivalent of the fastest losers being allowed into a final for track and field. They didn't win their chance in the final by winning their heats but they were the best of the losers and they're given another chance. Albeit, in the outside lane.

If you don't like someone you're going to want them to be the ones with the outside chance rather than the people you do like so you're still going to want to evict them.

In my case, there were people I would have voted out before Nikki but I heard that Nikki and Aisleyne were neck and neck in the betting odds so I voted for Nikki primarily to save Aisleyne and if I'd known the evictee had a chance of coming back that certainly wouldn't have stopped me trying to save Aisleyne from that situation.

I don't think they could have persuaded everyone to come back if they hadn't offered the chance to win but I don't think there was ever any chance of the returnee getting near the prize because of the innate sense of justice of the voters. Even the ones that liked Nikki were saying that they wouldn't vote for her to win because it wouldn't have been fair.

In the end I think the twist provided entertainment and a boost for Aisleyne. If anyone should have a real problem with the comeback it should be Nikki. She lost a lot of popularity over it, I reckon.

Regards

Julian

[Cloud 9]

julian said:

If people knew that evicting Nikki would be temporary then maybe they wouldn't have bothered voting to evict her but that wasn't the case. As it turned out, all of the evictions were potentially temporary but only the four most popular of the evicted housemates would have a chance of going back in and then, out of them, only the one most popular with the housemates would be able to have another chance at winning. That's a lot of hurdles to jump through that the people who weren't evicted didn't have to jump through. It's the equivalent of the fastest losers being allowed into a final for track and field. They didn't win their chance in the final by winning their heats but they were the best of the losers and they're given another chance. Albeit, in the outside lane.



In my case, there were people I would have voted out before Nikki but I heard that Nikki and Aisleyne were neck and neck in the betting odds so I voted for Nikki primarily to save Aisleyne and if I'd known the evictee had a chance of coming back that certainly wouldn't have stopped me trying to save Aisleyne from that situation.

Hi Julian

I agree with you that it wasn't an easy thing for the evicted contestants to get back into the house again - there were many hurdles in their way - I wasn't saying otherwise - but it was all at the voters expense - it was all their extra calls that had to get them through many of these hurdles. While you could argue that its down to personal choice whether they vote or not and no one had to waste their money in voting them back in if they didn't want to (which many wisely decided not to do) it still means that they had wasted their money previously for voting Nikki out. (Especially since the ones who voted for Nikki to go out are the ones who would have voted for anyone but Nikki to go back in, so since they were the ones not voting for the second time - it was even more than likely Nikki would get in).

I understand your reasoning for voting Nikki given the circumstances (and how you would have still voted for Nikki even if you'd been aware of the twist) but not all people are like you. Not all people have the same reasoning, not all people like the same housemates - not all people vote reguarly on the show either. I'm sure there are many like you who would have voted regardless - but that doesn't mean that there might have been many that wouldn't have. Just to give you one example: A voter might not have been a particular Ais fan - perhaps had no favourites - but really disliked Nikki. She might have not been a regular voter - but decided to vote for Nikki on this occasion as she thought it might be the only chance there would be to get her out the house. Lots of people were aware that she was well loved by a good proportion of people as well as being well hated by a good proportion too - and so a vote for eviction when she was up with lots of other housemates was the best chance people had to get her out. (Since they were aware Nikki fans would vote out the other person if she was only up with one other)

What I'm trying to say is that while you might have voted regardless, I'm sure there are many who wouldn't have - many might have voted for the first time on that occasion because they thought it was the only chance of getting Nikki out the house - and had I voted for Nikki to go out I certainly would have been very annoyed to not only see her go back in - but to see them asking the public to give them more money to get her back in.

Viewers pay a fortune on calls as it is, and I just feel that this was pushing things too far and a big insult to the voting public ....this whole business about 'you decide' and then overturning the rules left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm not a big voter (only voted a few times in my life) and maybe I take it more seriously than the big voters who dont' see it as a big deal, I don't know. But it did spoil things for me - I won't be watching another big brother because I don't want to get sucked into it all again - especially as I am not prepared to vote ever again.
I'm just glad that Ais was able to make my last BB a good one.

As I said, I agree with you that the twist eventually worked out in favour of Ais (due to the nastyness, vulnerability and stupidity of the others) but that doesn't take away the unfairness of it all in principle (the fact they knew exactly what the public liked and disliked about everyone; the fact they were less agitated or emotional because they had recent support from family and friends, whereas the other housemtates had been put through the grinder for far longer so were likely to be showing the worst side of their characters as you do under stress; the fact they had done their BBLB and other shows to promote themselves and give a better side to their character etc). Given all this and the fact they were permitted to compete against the others for the prize just went completely against what I thought BB was supposed to be about as they were not competing on a level playing field.

but of course I'm still glad that it all benefited Ash....eventually!

[bethduckie]

I was a big Tickle fan but will be the first to admit that putting him back into the house just didnt work. Why the producers thought it'd work for Nikki where it failed with Jon is beyond me...

Ah well... it persuaded me to stretch my one vote of the series (Ash, final night) into two votes. Last of the big spenders. LOL

[luckystar]

I think BB has been a sham from the begininthis year! The whole shebaz saga was totally uncomfortable viewing, then the Dawn episode which she was ejected for but funnily enough Jayne wasnt.

I never really got the gist of the house next door idea (it was too late in the game to introduce new housemates especially 5 of them)

housemates re-entering was a mistake (whether it was in ais favour or not) It may have not been so bad if they were not allowed to win but allowing them to do so was a slap in the face to all those who spent money voting nikki, grace, mikey and lea out, especially mikey I mean what was the point for spending the money for him to return a few days later. I switched off at this point.

BB producers changed the goalposts it was difficult to know what was going on!