Author |
Message |
Dogmommy
Member
09-10-2005
| Saturday, May 23, 2009 - 9:14 pm
I agree with Kminfinity. I hope they cast average people and not wannabe actors/actresses and models. I also don't want to see the twists where they already know someone in the house. As far as having some of the evicted houseguests remain in the house, I think it would only work if those houseguests weren't on the jury, and didn't have a say in the final vote. So it would only be those who are voted off before the jury that were allowed to stay. They shouldn't participate in the HOH challenge, but they should be able to participate in food challenges. Speaking of food challenges... the whole slop thing is getting old too. Why not change to rice or corn meal? Rice was good enough for the first few seasons of Survivor. LOL One last thing, and I'll stop, I promise. I would really like to see more of a diversity in ages. Instead of having one or 2 people over the age of 30 and 40, why not split up the ages so it's equal? How many seasons have we seen people say something about the oldest person in the game (Dick excluded because he was a bully and had his daughter there)? Why not split it up, like 4 people of each generation? 4 twenty's, 4 30's, 4 40's and 4 50's? 2 of each sex in each generation. That would be interesting to see in my opinion. Much more so than watching all the 20 somethings in their bikinis or flexing their muscles. Not to mention that the context of the conversations might be a hell of alot more interesting.
|
Harlequin
Member
07-11-2008
| Saturday, May 23, 2009 - 9:46 pm
In BB10 there were six individuals that were at least thirty (counting Keesha, who turned thirty halfway through). Many of the better conversations were also held by those in their twenties, particularly when Brian, Dan, and Angie were all in the house. Like the discussion on politics, sexuality, lifestyles back home even. Overall it was a group that was much better than some of the more recent groups. I'd rather they not have older people if they're going to be like Jerry, Dick or Sheila. The only older contestant I've enjoyed recently was Renny. And I realize the first three might not be proper representations, but maybe the casting just doesn't know how to get people like Gerry, Jack or Bunky anymore? As the years have gone on, new people have taken over the casting couch, and are too busy looking for large personalities instead of individuals we can relate to. (I love Renny, but c'mon. Not everyone travels around with boas and wigs and sequined jackets up the wazoo.) I don't care about age, race, sex, whatever. I just want people who entertain me, and if that's a majority of those in their twenties, thirties, forties, or nineties, then I'll take them.
|
Steviegirl
Member
07-07-2005
| Monday, May 25, 2009 - 1:12 pm
I don't like alliances - but unfortunately they're inevitable now it seems. A group of people get together, to better the chance of making it further, and then the other people left have no choice but to group up, or else they would be called "floaters".
|
Teachmichigan
Member
07-22-2001
| Monday, May 25, 2009 - 1:39 pm
Alliances will be there, but as long as they're strangers going in, it makes it a bit more interesting to see how they align themselves.
|
Llkoolaid
Member
08-01-2001
| Monday, June 01, 2009 - 9:25 am
I like trouble making manipulative people who stir things up , get caught , and get out of it, bring me more Will's, more Danielles, more people that can play the head game. Lose the bimbos with big boobs and the bozo's with big muscles, this is not survivor, this is a head game, I want sharp people.
|
Harlequin
Member
07-11-2008
| Monday, June 01, 2009 - 9:49 am
It's so hard to get players like that though. This game has somehow mutated in to a herd game where there are two flocks that fight to remain the largest flock of them all. Anyone not a part of that flock must go, and people not a part of either side must go first and foremost. I liked it before, when there would be something like this: A has a deal with B. B has a deal with C. A and C don't like each other. D likes A and has A's back. B doesn't trust D. E doesn't like anyone. C and D have a love-hate relationship. F likes to win things and everyone loves F. G has a deal with A and C, but not B, D, E, or F. H does have a deal with F, B, C and D. Yes, that may be confusing... But the game used to be something like that. (Somewhat. XD) It was an interweaving web of deals. Back then, Big Brother was an individual styled experience where everyone watched out for their own backs, and maybe one or two other people. There wasn't any "I want a two week deal of keeping me and A and B and C safe!" kind of stuff. And I REALLY hate this self-entitlement every single player has, where no one should DARE stab them in the back, and they need to be included on EVERYTHING or So-and-So is an AWFUL, AWFUL person who should be ashamed and is so totally going to hell because they aren't a "good person". I mean, I know dirt's going to come up, but tantrums being thrown by adults? Really? Wow, I really don't know where I got off on typing this rant. Basically, I agree with Llkoolaid, although I find it very unlikely. Then again, I'm a cynic. =P
|
Rosem4243
Member
06-27-2005
| Monday, June 01, 2009 - 11:02 am
Llkoolaid - Well said - I agree totally! A mental game needs smart, sneaky people. I don't care what they look like!
|
Willwillbee
Member
09-20-2001
| Monday, June 01, 2009 - 11:25 am
I'd love if the evicted HG not leave the house and still stay and participate, get half a vote AND if they won HOH return to full HG status. THAT would stop the polarizing alliances lol. AND the first one out of the HOH competition would automatically be put on the block. (possibly have 3 on the block)
|
Tntitanfan
Member
08-03-2001
| Monday, June 01, 2009 - 2:06 pm
Would that tptb would listen to all the great suggestions folks here come up with!
|
Wilsonatmd
Member
01-23-2001
| Monday, June 01, 2009 - 3:12 pm
A lone wolf that the other HG's don't like can't survive for long in the US House (unlike other BB versions, where if the home audience likes you, you're golden). So you need alliances to stay out of danger (unless you win every comp). And even with alliances, I can think of exactly 500,000 reasons why they don't last... and I'd personally have everyone stay in the house when the jury starts- the jury members can't play in or win HOH- but they can play for and win POV ;if a jury member wins POV, they can't themselves use it- but they have the option to either pass it to anyone left in play (even someone who didn't participate in the POV comp) or take a unknown bribe (form something very cheap to something very expensive) to sell the POV out of play...
|
Tntitanfan
Member
08-03-2001
| Monday, June 01, 2009 - 6:26 pm
We are soooooo much smarter and more creative than tptb!
|
Lyn
Member
08-07-2002
| Monday, June 01, 2009 - 8:31 pm
Oh a jury member win veto - automatically take it out of play for the remaining HGs (period) AND bonus money for the juror means that EVERYONE would play for it. No more throwing the comp. I'm so tired to thrown comps
|
Dutchey
Member
07-12-2009
| Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 9:41 pm
never liked alliances. this season just feels like forced alliances.
|
|