★★★★★ 0/5

Big Brother: double standards or just poor editing?

What gives Big Brother? Benjamin & Sarah cop a strike for discussing nominations, but Ray doesn't?

34
Leave a comment

“He’s done the math in his head and he’s trying to work out who voted for who…. and he knows that I’ve voted for him and given him the big vote,” Ray told Bradley and George last Thursday night.

And in discussing housemate Benjamin, Ray instantly broke one of the fundamental rules of Big Brother: “Nominations cannot be discussed with other Housemates.”

But viewers didn’t see any reprimand nor punishment.

Last night Benjamin and Sarah were discussing nominations and theorising about who may have voted for them. Neither acknowledged who they voted for in the vision that aired (it was presumably a longer conversation edited down).

But both were hauled into the Diary Room and given their first strike by Big Brother. Three strikes and they are evicted.

So how come Ray, who openly admitted who he voted for, didn’t cop a strike?

A Big Brother spokesperson told TV Tonight, “Over the last two weeks there have been several conversations in the House that have hit that grey area of ‘were they, won’t they’ revealing who they nominated or were intending to nominate. The conversation involving Ray was certainly in this category.

“As a result, all Housemates were called to the Diary Room late last week and read the riot act about nomination talk – Big Brother told them all he had heard several conversations that skated a very thin line and there was to be no more discussion about nominations.

“After nominations on Monday night, Benjamin and Sarah had a conversation in which they both clearly intimated who they thought had nominated them and who they nominated. Big Brother listened to the conversation and there was no doubt they had gone against his directive. For this reason the decision made was to give them both a strike.”

But Nine’s editing did not make this clear in the storytelling, leaving viewers confused about why one housemate’s rule break appeared to be overlooked, while another received a penalty.

Without Live feeds there was little opportunity for the group warning to be witnessed by the audience.

While some of the series such as the fake house, Yes / No challenge, Surly the fish and host Sonia Kruger are proving popular with fans, the editing of stories is still below par.

34 Responses

  1. I could just watch this show for Ray. Sigh. Someone conned me into watching the very night Ray arrived with his request for beer and chocolate milk and that mischievous twinkle in his eye. Swoon. I think I’ve just outed myself ; )

  2. @CW…your post reminded me of the repeated confusion I see on their FB page. You vote to save, not to evict. I think some earlier series – pre-2008 – voted the latter way. I know you were making a bigger point of course.

  3. BBAU needs to take (another) leaf out of the UK playbook.

    When the housemates were found to be discussing nominations, Big Brother would gather them all on the lounge and repeat the entire conversation verbatim.

    All housemates then knew what was being said and who was saying it. It created tension, drama and it was hilarious to hear a serious BB repeat an entire conversation (profanity and all) in a serious tone.

  4. @james-original

    Not really. Survivor and BB are both social experiments where people have to try and stay in the game, which automatically involves strategy. By not being allowed to discuss nominations the purpose of the competition is defeated and it makes boring tv. BB Aus. is alright for now, but how many more weeks of unexciting conversations and challenges will viewers handle? It is already handicapped with the PG BB confidential. Compared to the US version of BB, Australia’s one is a total snoozer right now.

    Im also not a fan of Australia voting people out. Australia should be able to save just one person and then the housemates vote between the two remaining. Otherwise all the people who are somewhat interesting and actually create television such as Sarah will go too quickly, and alliance cannot form meaning the less popular contestants really have no way to save themselves. It is a competition between the housemates and I don’t think Australia should ultimately decide who stays and who goes.

  8. @jezza…you buy rights to the basic format and generally you follow that format. But actual decisions as David said for live feed or FNGames etc are up to the broadcaster. In this case and given how broke 9 is I think it reasonable to suggest that the limitations being experienced are purely related to lack of funds. Editing is the producers decision and network. Storylines being incomplete or not..producers and network. The ‘house’, the housemates and the broader format are all licensed.

  9. @ David, it does seem odd that SS produced and edited for both ch10 (R.I.P.) & ch9 and yet there is a lack of consistency with following storylines and enforcing key rules. Did they have a different brief? or is money$$ an issue?

  11. I’ve been doing a lot of wondering about how storylines are progressing and trying to make sense of it all.It’s such a shame we are not seeing the consequences of certain actions.I thought at first it was my imagination or that I’ve missed something along the line,but no it’s just poor editing.

  12. The trouble is that ch9 are in charge, they just like to do their own thing cos they think they know everything better than anyone else and to hell with what other people think or the history of a show. Eventually, despite some promising bits they will wreck BB just like they have wrecked or ‘overkilled everything else that they have bought……that is ch9…they know best

  13. Surly = fish. But when Surly talks he = producer. Being pedantic for those like Qubec who may now think the producer is a fantasy feature. 🙂

    9’s editing all round seems odd e.g. the Olympics. Perhaps they all went to the same film school or something.

  14. Fascinating that even David talks like Surly is a real decision-making entity. I *know* you don’t think that of course David…but Surly has become an unexpected hit with the fans. When some thought he had white-spot…they sought help!

  15. In terms of the ‘aftermath’ of the shoe incident, I think what usually happens (and this is from what I’ve seen on BBUK and heard from housemates in post-interviews) is that when something so out-of-the-ordinary happens like that, housemates assume its a secret task, and therefore don’t make a big deal out of it/talk about it in the hope that the whole house will get rewarded for that one housemate passing their ‘secret’ task.

    So really, I dont think that there was an aftermath. Still a shame that we are missing out on some crucial bits.

  16. I’ve always said the biggest mistake with the Australian version of Big Brother is the total ban on nominations talk. The producers call it a game, but it’s a game where the players are virtually incapable of admitting they are playing a game.

    Let the housemates talk about nominations – then we can watch them formulating strategies, making deals etc

    Otherwise, it’s just a popularity contest.

  18. @David..since you watch…please tell me you have not succumbed to talking about “nom noms” …or that you feel “cray cray”..and I believe there are others. Good grief. I’ve noticed this Eastern suburbs movement towards baby speak where women talk “poo” for shampoo etc. And everything is in quotation marks. Soon it will be:

    “Hey Dave “bay bay”. See that “cray cray’ “nom nom” last “nigh nigh”? It was “way way!”

  19. Also the Tuesday daily show is now starting with the fallout from the previous night’s nominations for a segment, then the next segment it appears to be the following morning, but infact is going back in time to that day before nominations.

    Lots of this sort of stuff going on which I’m not a fan of.

  20. I don’t watch it so gems like the shoes are elements I miss. But you’re right…no aftermath or consequence?
    @Qubec…the HM’s have quite strict rules to follow and throughout all the series, discussing nominations is one of them. They are usually ‘punished’ quite quickly. Of course, those punishments can make for interesting viewing. So, not only does the ball seem to have been dropped over various issues and house rules, but then the potential for great TV outcomes (via transgressions) has also been missed.

    1. I’m also still confused about how someone can throw someone’s shoes over the wall and there is no major follow up to this? All we saw was “hey did you just see that…weird?” Where was the real fallout?

  23. The editing in general has been questionable. The shows starts with the nominations aftermath and then cuts to earlier in the morning – very confusing! The Sunday eviction show has to fit 2 day’s worth of action into about 15 minutes. Crazy! I rather they dumped Confidential and had an extra show for the storylines they couldn’t fit in.

  24. I’ve thankfully avoided this show so far (Nine doesn’t like to treat their viewers well so I don’t bother with them any more), but surely letting them discuss nominations would allows sme drama and manipulation to occur. That could make some good TV. What a shame….

  25. Very true. Yes, the audience were asking a while back why BB was doing nothing about nominations discussion. Sometimes I feel like the production doesn’t actually know what’s going on until enough audience members crow about an issue on FB. That seems silly but it’s how it appears at times.

    I also wonder about voting. No-one up to end of last week – those who were posting that is – had received a confirmation for their SMS vote. Were they counted? No-one knows. After a raft of comments about this, the moderator started to push FB voting and only provided links to that method. This may have changed back. Is there a voting issue? When there was back in the Ten days, there was quite a stink about it. This time the issue seems very quiet.

Leave a Reply