|
Post by pinkegokane on May 16, 2006 20:22:32 GMT 1
on again from thursday
i'm going to watch the first to see which corners of society they've thrown to the lions this time around, then judge from there if it's watchable.
what're everyone else's opinions?
|
|
|
Post by Ben on May 16, 2006 20:25:04 GMT 1
if you watch it you might as well reject any moral values you have; it is the desbasement of all that is sacred in society. It is populist, divisive, counter-culture, and fashionable. Big brother I was a nice experiment. it worked, it was clever, it was well done. However, if i want to see two random strangers have a fight over something pathetic, i'll just stand outside the union until some idiot gets an idea in his head and starts ranting about Iraq again. That always stirs things up.
|
|
|
Post by pinkegokane on May 16, 2006 20:27:39 GMT 1
i think it's incredible that it can exist in such a pc society tbh, it's about the most open display of social cleavages (and chest-based ones) on tv. but at the same time, i like watching people get themselves into tangles and try and sort themselves out. it's especially good when they're all as stupid as the bb contestants usually are.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on May 16, 2006 20:30:08 GMT 1
well yes, very true. it's entertaining to me on some level, but it's just too fake. They have sensationalised it so that it is DELIBERATELY entertaining, which annoys me far more than anything else. People enjoy controversy, sure, but it's hardly controversial when everybody knows it's going to happen, and is going to enjoy it. It's fake, false television.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on May 16, 2006 20:37:35 GMT 1
its fake and false, but its very entertaining. there has not been a year where i havent been a devotee to BB, but i have no tv this year, let alone sky digital for the E4 24 hour coverage. and im not paying to watch it online.
|
|
|
Post by Arron on May 17, 2006 0:39:20 GMT 1
The first one was decent, I don't really know if good is going too far, but definitely decent. After that they've forced the 'contestants' into more and more depraving situations in the name of hello magazine styled television. As such, it's not even a social experiment anymore, just a window into how much emphasis this country puts on celebrity and the 'being on television' factor.
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on May 17, 2006 12:38:14 GMT 1
I always enjoy a bit of Big Brother. I love the way they intentionally choose the contenders that are guaranteed to piss each other off. It's like a twisted personification of paper scissors stone. Gay annoys conservative, conservative annoys liberal, liberal annoys salt of the earth type, salt of the earth type annoys gay....It's so volatile. Even if it is morally dubious, the volunteers know exactly what they're letting themselves in for, so they should not be pitied.
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on May 17, 2006 13:37:21 GMT 1
it just goes to show that theres no such thing as "good" fame
|
|
|
Post by Ben on May 17, 2006 19:50:59 GMT 1
elliot, of course they know what they're getting themselves in for...NOW. The first one was however, a perfect mix of experiment and self-finding. I still applaud Craig for giving the £70k away. However, more than anything, people enter because they think they will get famous. Hence, it's not even about who is on it any more, it's about how successfully they can influence the newspapers to support them after they come out. So, it makes me wonder really who is leading who? The media or the contestants? This isn't fame at all. It is a way to show that you can be a socially rejectable individual in the name of entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by pinkegokane on May 17, 2006 20:17:27 GMT 1
oh come on, he only gave that money away cos he knew he'd make a mint from the press.
and it's all about power and influence, and that's fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on May 17, 2006 21:05:50 GMT 1
erm, hardly. If anything he made so much less from it because of that. He didnt' get half the treatment nasty nick did, which proves that niceness isn't a good cause for fame. How many 'nice' individuals are there? Most people get there for controversy, or for having a talent. If you don't have a talent, you have to have something contrversial, and that's what BB is about. The first big brother was fantastic; hens for themselves, a great idea! living in a communal setting, brilliant! now it's "here is a corner to have sex in". Ugh!
|
|
|
Post by Rob on May 17, 2006 22:04:12 GMT 1
My friend outside of the indie soc (yes, they exist) said he'd rather put his head in the panini grilling machine at the Sackville Street Building Cafe then watch Big Brother. I sided with him.
|
|
mcv
When I Argue I See Shapes
Posts: 630
|
Post by mcv on May 17, 2006 22:09:08 GMT 1
the panini grilling machine now i feel hungry!
|
|
|
Post by dozyjulia on May 17, 2006 22:16:48 GMT 1
mmm, fried rob's head
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on May 18, 2006 12:43:57 GMT 1
But everyone forgets absolutely everything about all the contestants about two weeks after the live final! I can't remember anyone from last year...I certainly can't remember who won. If they do go in for fame, it's a fame that lasts for about three days. Then they lose all credibility for the rest of their lives, no matter what they do they will always live in the shadow of Big Brother...
...shit, it is quite sickening. But I guess whether or not you find this self mutilation entertaining is a matter of taste. You can't even enjoy it ironically, it seems. You have to be one sick individual to watch, tolerate and enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by pinkegokane on May 18, 2006 12:49:03 GMT 1
or a sheep!
i watch it for a combination of factors: bemusement, horror, entertainment, snobbery, mockery, and from what i like to think as an academic point of view but is largely a collection of pretentious opinions which have no basis in truth or reason.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on May 18, 2006 14:09:53 GMT 1
i agree Elliot, nowadays. But i still remember almost everybody in the first house. Because it was interesting, it hooked me. It had a catch. But the catch is gone, it's now just invasion of privacy on a larger scale.
|
|
laura
Fan (short for Fanatic!)
the eraser
Posts: 76
|
Post by laura on May 18, 2006 20:25:47 GMT 1
I missed almost all of the first series but I was hooked on the second, it was brilliant. Brian! ;D
The rest have been shit, frankly.
|
|
|
Post by pinkegokane on May 18, 2006 22:05:19 GMT 1
ugh, this year is fucking terrible. i'm not going to watch it.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on May 18, 2006 22:10:36 GMT 1
they are all awful, awful people...it's rubbish...
someone'll get kicked out tomorrow I reckon...no point it starting on a Thursday otherwise...
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on May 19, 2006 23:19:11 GMT 1
I'm not going to lie to myself. I know for a fact that any second now I'll be hooked.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on May 19, 2006 23:32:52 GMT 1
i usually say "im not gonna get obsessed with it this year" as it has fallen during exam period. i then decide i dislike most of the people in the house by the end of the first week, but by the end of the second, im totally addicted. perhaps not having a tv is good for me.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on May 20, 2006 15:52:39 GMT 1
TURN. THE. FUCKING. TV. OFF. ELLIOT.
(or to quote Keidis, Throw away your television...)
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on May 20, 2006 16:31:11 GMT 1
But it's not a repeat!
|
|
|
Post by Ben on May 22, 2006 8:24:34 GMT 1
well, it's as close as you'll get. it's so bloody formulaic...
|
|