Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In my opinion the reason behind Big Brother failing to really grip its viewers, was the core notion that everyone involved in the whole sham was fundamentaly aware of. Safety.


The contestants, viewers and those responsible for the show all knew that the 'guinea pigs' would come to no serious harm. This core repetition of policy was what really ruined it for most. We never saw them at their most desperate.


I'm not for one second suggesting that any sort of harmful menace be introduced to the house, be it a virus or dangerous animal. Just that the people who designed the house and the staff behind the mirrors excercised a bit of imagination when it came to manipulating the stresses and moral of these strangers who were living in such close proximity to each other.


For example...


Some of the main doors such as the ones that allow access to the bedrooms should've been able to lock. Not to facilitate any privacy for any amorous housemates, but to initiate what alot of viewers really wanted. Anxiety followed by mental and emotional torment. When all the housemates were safely tucked up in bed the Big Brother staff could lock the doors and subtly wake them. They would notice that in the communal area the lights were on and would proceed to investigate 'knowing' the doors would open. Upon finding the doors don't open they would become perplexed and wonder why they don't open. Then their attention should be drawn to the figures in the inaccessible comunnal area wearing Hazmat suits looking under cushions and carrying out tests on the drinking water. All knowledge of this nocturnal activity would be flatly denied by the Big Brother team.


Other methods of mental breakdown would be to cut off communication with their Big Brother custodians. Again, after a week normality would return and any hiccup would be flatly denied.


Turn off the drinking water for a week. Imply that a housemate may have been hoarding the valuable resource.




So there you have it. Nothing that would invite litigation upon the release of the tortured souls, but enough to ensure the audience nibbles through their Hobnobs faster than usual.


That's all.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/9682-the-failing-of-big-brother/
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...