BB2 Casting Suggestions: The "Deserving" vs the "Needy"
The ClubHouse: Big Brother 2000: General - Archives:
Weeks gone by:
BB2 Casting Suggestions: The "Deserving" vs the "Needy"
Jayavy | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 09:45 am  If the producers are smart in casting the next edition of Big Brother, they should avoid choosing house guests with an obvious "need" for the money. How often we heard that Eddie NEEDED the money to pay off medical bills, to move his family away from cancer-causing power lines, and to send his brother to college. At times it seemed George thought he was a contestant on "Queen for a Day" (you're probably too young to remember this old radio show in which three women each told sob stories and the audience selected the one to win prizes); George constantly whined that his body was "toast" and he couldn't do roofing anymore and his business was over and he had a family to feed and he couldn't afford to send his daughter to college--he NEEDED the money, but poor Eddie NEEDED it even more! Some house guests used NEED as their reason (whether sincere or not) in the nominating process. Josh always said his nominees had a direction to their lives outside--in other words they didn't NEED the money--and should, therefore, be banished. Only two--Curtis and Cassandra--were consistent in keeping others' outside needs out of their reasoning. I would like to see NEED taken out of the equation as much as possible and DESERVE emphasized. How much better Eddie's victory would have been for everyone if his need for the money hadn't played a major factor in the way people voted. NEED excused the crudest actions, the filthiest language, farting, burping, and laziness--the most unacceptable anti-social behavior exhibited in the house. If NEED were not a factor, would we have a winner who only occasionally allowed us to see his sensitivity to others, his intelligence, his insight on playing a "game show," and his competitive spirit. Eddie may not have been my first choice to win, but I am not unhappy that he did. However, I don't know that he DESERVED to win so much as he NEEDED the money. A house guest who DESERVES the victory would be the one who BEST contributes to the operation of the household, forms relationships with the other house guests, leads the group-thinking, allows the other house guests and the audience to see the major facets of his or her personality, and provides an entertainment factor for the show. And perhaps Eddie was the best in doing that . . . |
Mystery | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 10:16 am  I agree completely with this post. No one has said anything to persuade me that Eddie's financial need was NOT the biggest reason behind the votes for him to win and CBS's censorship of things that would erode his support. But in the absence of meaningful challenges and rules for winning, I think there are people who will always vote for whoever they think needs the money the most. If, as in this case, that person also happens to be the one that CBS wants to win, then they'll be edited appropriately and they will win. Because I don't see CBS coming up with any meaningful challenges and rules for winning, and I refuse to watch another game show turn into a telethon, I won't be watching BB2. |
Mbliving | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 10:31 am  "A house guest who DESERVES the victory would be the one who BEST contributes to the operation of the household, forms relationships with the other house guests, leads the group-thinking, allows the other house guests and the audience to see the major facets of his or her personality, and provides an entertainment factor for the show." Hmm, you just described Karen. The need factor has been discussed a thousand times over. The people, myself included, have stated time and again that we voted for Eddie for the person he is NOT because he needed the money. I don't know one person on or off the board who voted for Eddie because he needed the money. The only way to keep the need/want factor out is to only have people who are wealthy and don't need the money at all or not have a cash prize for the winner. Everyone of the houseguests went on the show for a reason. Some for the money, some for the exposure, some for the escape from life and a couple for the experience. But I'm sure that the $500,000.00 at the end was a major consideration for all of them. |
Jayavy | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 11:47 am  Actually, Mbliving, I had Curtis in mind. To some degree or another, all the house guests participated in all those activities. The question is, who did it best? Perhaps, the producers could start the show by asking each participant what qualities they intend to use as the basis for their nominations? What do they think defines the winner of the game? And then as they nominate, ask them how their choices measure up to their original criteria, and if they want to change their criteria. An appropriate criterion for nomination would be how the nominee fits into the nominator's strategy. As far as the voting public goes, there is no way that NEED can be eliminated. I realize that, but perhaps the nominations would be more interesting if based on how they play the game rather than what they are going to do with the money. |
Jana | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 11:55 am  Maybe the prize should be something other than money....it should be a surprise and they should ALL get something....tenth place maybe a computer .....a Trinitron! or what not.....they could give away trips, cruises, furniture, cars, boats, "fabulous prizes!" |
Jana | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 11:59 am  the more i think about it, the more i like the idea! they could have gotten Jamie a spot on a soap opera...Jordan a spot on g-string divas! |
Voyeur | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 01:31 pm  I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think a major reason why BBUS did not live up to the example set by the European BB's is the money. None of the European shows had anywhere near that much as a grand prize. Therefore we got people who were more interested in the money than the chance to "let it all hang out" on national television. We saw how Cassandra was so much different in the house than she was on her application video. People shut down in the house so as not to risk getting voted out. It's much easier to say, "Ah, the hell with it!" when the big prize is so much smaller. |
Ocean_Islands | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 03:26 pm  Daily and/or weekly challenges should have a commercial prize. Could you believe how excited they all got about a Trinitron tv? Nobody got excited about grocery money. In fact, it was depressing. VERY depressing. The reason the prize money is so high is because in the US the show is done by commercial television which earns large amounts of money. In the European countries, the show was done on public television which has much less to spare. |
Lancecrossfire | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 03:41 pm  I have said all along that the best show would be one which has little or no financial reward. Although I said it from the aspect of anyone going on would be there to win and they would see that as the biggest reward (ok, some might go for the challenge or experience). Doing this would take "need" out as a possibility. For challenges, there should be no reward that deals with receiving anything to do with public appearances. (during or after the show) Also, show the audition/interview tapes right away to those who make the show. Air them to the HGs and the voting public. This would allow everyone to see how much crap (or not) was thrown in just to get on TV. Personally, I'd use it as a criteria to vote. (it's all part of showing the real you) If the need to have prize money has to be included, don't tell the HGs about any money until after it's all over. At the end of the show, tell those that won, a donation will be made to their favorite charity in their name. |
Jayavy | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 03:50 pm  You have a valid viewpoint, Voyeur. Another is to raise the amount of money, say to one million for the winner. That would be substantial enough that the house guests would really work for it. We might see some real strategizing from the house guests, some real playing of the game. They would have to strategize on their nominations, how to avoid being nominated themselves, and how their actions might be interpreted by the viewers. Of course there was some of that in BB1, but a really big jackpot might weed out those who just want the "experience" or the "exposure." Money is a potent motivator, but it has to be perceived as really enough money. Today, even a million dollars is not an unreachable goal for many, many people. I'm rambling on here, but what I'm really driving at is that more money might make house guests greedy enough so we aren't faced with a boring "family" atmosphere without the drama of competition. Lack of drama (everyone liked each other) is what everyone criticized about the US version of BB. By the way, more money does not go against my thoughts on having a DESERVING winner--with a more competitive atmosphere, fewer house guests will be likely to nominate on the basis of NEED. |
Katie | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 04:32 pm  I think that part of the reason we have problems picking who to win, is that there is not as much of a real criteria for who to choose and so we need some so we don't use things like lip gloss. I think they should have daily challenges for the grocery money. Each person would be rated depending on how they completed the challenge according to BB. At the end of the week the total grocery money would be added up for each person and then the total for the group. It would make the competition among the houseguests real because they wouldn't want to be the one to lose the grocery money for the others. It would give them a obvious reason to be banished. I would change the whole way the process works. I wouldn't have any banishment for the first month to give everyone time to get adjusted and for us to know them. I would have the viewers do the nominations and the HGs doing the final choice of banishment from among the top two vote getters. It would give the viewers more control and maybe change the dynamics of the house. I would have a live show once a week and have them vote during the show. I would have BB set up strict rules that they have to follow with real consequences, shut as getting demerits and after a certain number they are replaced with a alternate. I would allow no letters or phone calls or other family outside contact but I would bring in newspaper clippings or magazine article for them to discuss. If they discuss it well enough then they get beer and other stuff on Friday night. They would get no beer or such with grocery money but only for doing this well. |
Mbliving | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 04:50 pm  But bottom line, everyone will still have a different opinion on who is the most deserving. When I read your description on the deserve criteria I thought of Karen right away and you were thinking of Curtis. By the way, Karen is not one of my favorites but Curtis is my #2 guy. I don't remember Curtis ever cleaning or taking care of the chickens, etc. He did take over most of the cooking duties but not until the last few weeks. I always thought of Curtis as more of a follower and I would have loved to see more facets of his personality. He did not go through many emotions while in the house. I'm not bashing Curtis, he is one of my favorites. But just showing how different we all see people. |
Baronna | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 08:55 pm  I didn't want Eddie to win because of his filthy mouth and crude behavior. But when he did win, I couldn't be unhappy about it because I felt sorry for him having only one leg and talking about all the medical bills. I feel his unfortunate situation was played up by him, his organization, and perhaps editing to gain sympathy votes and it worked. I don't like him as a person, but he and his family have gone through some rough times. So, should the next BB show be about financial need. If so, CBS can get another handicap person with medical bills, or a homeless person, or a minority who feels financially needy because of race. I certainly don't mind having someone on the show who is handicap, but I would hope they wouldn't use that to their advantage. By the way, I believe Curtis spent time preparing meals toward the end of the show. |
Baronna | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 09:03 pm  I would like to add that Eddie didn't use his handicap to his advantage when it came to challenges, etc. In fact, he did as much or more than others during the challenges. I'm only speaking of the last month in the house when he talked a great deal about his medical situation and financial need. |
Zaney | Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 12:37 am  What about a cast where everyone really needs the money? Katie you have some good ideas. |
Shadowkat9 | Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 06:49 am  I think the reward for winning challenges should be immunity from being marked for banishment like it was on Survivor. That way, the person who plays the game the best wouldn't be allowed to be voted out. It would eliminate "popularity contests" or votes based on "need" between the hg's. |
|