| Author |
Message |
Mamapors
Member
07-29-2004
| Sunday, January 05, 2014 - 2:59 pm 
Is this Big Brother only 3 weeks?
|
Flagg
Member
06-01-2005
| Sunday, January 05, 2014 - 3:43 pm
yes, Celebrity Big Brother is always just 3 weeks
|
Mamapors
Member
07-29-2004
| Sunday, January 05, 2014 - 5:21 pm
Thanks Flagg I have just watched the Launch Night and it looks like it could be fun!
|
Kellee
Member
07-07-2004
| Sunday, January 05, 2014 - 5:36 pm
I am loving Ricky Gervais tweets about CBB, he has been a hoot
Ricky Gervais @rickygervais 4 Jan
This year's Celebrity Big Brother is a law suit waiting to happen.
Ricky Gervais @rickygervais 3h
Vote for what you'd like me to send into Celebrity Big Brother. RT for Psychiatrist or Favourite for Hungry Tiger.
btw the tiger is winning by 10X the amount
|
Willwillbee
Member
09-19-2001
| Sunday, January 05, 2014 - 9:25 pm
I *hate* *hate* *hate* losing a pair - I wouldn't mind losing half of any or all of those up for eviction but hate to lose both - noooooo!
I thought I would hate the handcuffs but it quickly forced them into the most awkward situations with the most unlikely allies. Evander & the girls doing makeup. Sam tethered to miss hot mess. At least this way, no one could go off on their own or go be with someone they felt comfortable.
Fair enough, no live feed this session but then why the deal with broadcasting Evander's admonishment, don't show the orig comments & then there is no need for broadcasting the other. I guess if they didn't they probably wouldn't have *any* footage of him. I'd like him to go, I just don't see him engaging with the group but I hate to lose his partner so soon.
I wish it was vote to save. I just don't think anyone will be motivated to vote for Lee & Casey but that's who I'd prefer to go for now.
I guess Dappy & Liz will go. I could do without him but will hate to lose Liz so early. I think she could be interesting. Dappy will just be playing a OTT character - at least he will keep Jasmine occupied. Her & Sam can go soon enough.
|
Flagg
Member
06-01-2005
| Sunday, January 05, 2014 - 11:50 pm
Well I have to give them credit for not yet caving in and booting Holyfield off the show.
If this show were in the US, he'd have been removed or "indefinitely suspended" and probably would have had his heavyweight titles revoked.
Of course they showed his comments, they love the controversy and resultant press.
Poor Jim Davidson, his substance abuse and alleged wrongful arrest sob story was upstaged by the born again christian's homophobic remarks.
|
Kellee
Member
07-07-2004
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 8:13 am
Willwillbee if they hadn't shown the comments they would have been accused of covering things up because things seem to always seem to come out.
I am hoping that they won't have to actually leave in pairs, would like if they give the housemates the choice of keeping one.
|
Flagg
Member
06-01-2005
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 10:43 am
If they really do evict a pair on Monday, then Dappy will have been screwed over by production for sticking him with such a lousy partner.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 12:08 pm
According to the tv schedule the evictions are Wednesday and Friday. Another show (or this one?) had three pairs put up for eviction, then after a certain amount of time the highest pair to save are safe and then you vote for the hms in the remaining pairs individually. It's possible they will open voting with three pairs after Monday's show, and reduce that to four individuals after Tuesday's show, then evict one on Wednesday. It seems too early fur a pair to go, especially with the risk that one of the pair was a keeper even if the other was boring.
I thought they handled Evander quite well, just basically told him he would offend people so he can't say that in the house. Luisa handled it well too, trying to close down the conversation then when he wouldn't, calmly saying what she thought without making a fuss.
They're all saying Dappy is sweet but I don't know, he's coming off very creepy to me. I'd be happy if he and/or Liz went.
I want to keep Lee and Casey, Lionel and Ollie, Jim and Linda. The rest range from ok to not ok but I've no strong feelings yet.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 12:36 pm
Forgot to say, do you guys know what Operation Yewtree is?
Jimmy Saville, a huge British entertainer (I mean HUGE) died in 2011 and after his death itv produced a documentary/expose about him and the cover up of his abuse of children/teens while working for the BBC and the charities that he'd come to represent over the years. He was big in TV from the 60s to the 80s so this was a LOT of children and a lot of cover ups over at least 30 years.
After the documentary the police investigated and very quickly found out the documentary was true, and so expanded their enquiries to other tv personalities who were around at the same time. A couple of people with prior offenses were picked up quickly but then there were quite a few more no one would every have dreamt would have been offenders, and Jim Davidson was one of those (and he and a couple of others have since been cleared).
Jimmy Saville was meant to have hundreds (literally hundreds) of victims but the public have kind of not known what to make about the other alleged offenders. It's produced a lot of women claiming to be victims who basically seemed like groupies - I mean girls who were 16/17 at the time and went to shows/concerts etc. specifically to meet with and often sleep with the DJs/stars - rather than the chidren in the original complaints against Saville.
In the 70s the environment was different, and if you were a star and screaming girls flung themselves at you, maybe nobody bothered to ask them their age, it was just how it was back then? So I don't know how legitimate some of the claims have been, and many have since been declared unfounded. Big actors have been instantly suspended from their TV shows and everything is instantly made public, and then they have to defend themselves from one allegation from 1978? How can they easily do that? It just hasn't seemed right, and even when the verdict comes back as no evidence, the suspicion always carries with them.
(Obviously I'm not saying offenses against children are anything but horribly wrong, but it seems like some women are just trying to make money out of a consensual event 40 years ago, and that's also wrong.)
|
Flagg
Member
06-01-2005
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 2:27 pm
I tried digging for info on what exactly Davidson was being accused of, but couldn't find much detail.
It was clearly stated often that whatever the allegations were against Davidson, they had no connection to Saville, so it sounds like he did get a raw deal being associated in the public eye with Saville.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 2:50 pm
The Saville expose' opened the doors to the investigation, and everyone has kind of been cast as the same, even though Saville almost exclusively abused children, and most of the later arrests were as a consequence of allegations by women who were older teens or adult women at the time of the incident. The operation basically made several big entities (I think mostly the BBC) reveal past complaints that they had hidden, and then the investigation spread from there.
Jim Davidson was accused of sex offenses against two women in the late 1980s when the women were in their 20s. I don't think the nature of the offenses was revealed, but I would assume they said he forced himself on them. He'd spoken out about the breadth of the investigation months before his arrest which could be either taken as suspicious, or as making him a possible target for someone who wanted to make some money by accusing him. With him I think it was the latter. (Plus he's been cleared, of course.)
|
Stormie
Member
03-01-2007
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 3:08 pm
I thought they handled the Evander situation well too. And I don't agree the US show would have booted him, wasn't last season full of racist and homophobic remarks? To me it looked like he really believed those things, but it then became a teachable moment and Luisa was very good at first trying to shut it down, but then expressing reality in a way that was straightforward and nonconfrontational, which is a good place for such a discussion. I thought she was great and with any luck, has given him a perspective he can grow on, bc people who don't know they are wrong, don't see anything else, but maybe now he, and some like him, will see that he is.
I miss AJ Odudu, I know she messed up, but I liked her energy. I saw some of the psych show with Ryan, Ian and Carol, and wanted to watch the whole thing, but I had to get my gums scraped.
|
Flagg
Member
06-01-2005
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 3:53 pm
Well I didnt necessarily mean that the US BB would have booted him, but pretty much any show in the US with the current PC climate.
Just look at all of the recent cases where a post on twitter or an ill advised magazine interview can destroy showbiz careers because those in charge are afraid of losing advertisers.
Most recent being that guy from Duck Dynasty on A&E.
Besides, the BB US racism/homophobia was from unknown nobodies, not international celebrities.
|
Jbw
Member
08-14-2006
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 4:16 pm
So this coming 'eviction' on Wednesday is a fake eviction. The couple will go to a blocked out part of the house and will return to join the others on Friday where they will reveal something to the rest of the HMs.
|
Flagg
Member
06-01-2005
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 4:25 pm
sigh.... yet another fake eviction.
That gimmick is getting a bit tired and worn out.
|
Jbw
Member
08-14-2006
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 4:34 pm
It amazes me that in both the UK and AU 'reality' shows do not have toll-free voting.
Here in the US, all reality TV voting is toll free and that has been the norm for over 10 years. That toll-free voting policy applies to all US shows (Survivor, Big Brother, X-Factor, American Idol, The Voice, Dancing with the Stars, etc.)
Guess, US shows would rather brag about the high number of votes that charge their viewers for getting involved in their show.
|
Willwillbee
Member
09-19-2001
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 5:08 pm
I'm glad no one is going so soon. I'm not too thrilled about all these "I'll do anything for fame/infamy" folks playing to the cameras.
Wasn't Det.Dan involved in the Saville case? I think that's how I first became aware of it.
|
Willwillbee
Member
09-19-2001
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 5:19 pm
JBW, AU BB charges outrageously ($40-70) just for a seat in the audience.
I can't imagine US audiences paying to vote or see a TV show. Since the US audience is so large, commercial space is expensive - they just need the large audience. I have been promoting both BBUK & BBAU to open themselves to the US market. I think most BB fans will love these versions & may not pay to vote but many would probably pay for 24/7 live feeds.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 5:44 pm
I think in the US people are used to free calls as local calls have (traditionally) been free.
In the UK ALL calls, even calling your neighbour, have traditionally cost money (in recent years, since the rise of cell phones you can now get inclusive plans on your home (cabled) phone where you pay more per month but then not per minute, but that's pretty new, last five years or so). So I think that might be why... in the UK you'd expect to pay to make any phone call.
|
Flagg
Member
06-01-2005
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 6:32 pm
The BBAU audience seat price includes admission into the theme park, so its not really that expensive.
AU and UK BB's will never open themselves for US audiences, whether they wish to do so or not.
CBS already pays Endemol for the privilege.
|
Jbw
Member
08-14-2006
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 6:54 pm
IIRC, the first season (and maybe the 2nd) of American Idol, callers were charged 25¢ or 50¢ per call. Then they and every other US TV reality show switched over to toll-free calls for voting.
I still can't believe the UK & AU TV networks can still convince their resident viewers to foolishly pay to vote. Unless you're a close friend or a relative of one of the contestants, who really cares who wins? (Heck, I usually dislike many of them by the time the season is over and try to forget the contestants as soon as any of the shows are over anyway.)
I especially don't understand viewers who waste their money voting for something like Celebrity BB UK where there is no additional monetary prize for the winner. Make no sense to me. If don't need the money or have plenty to spare, donate it to a worthy charity of your choice instead of giving it to Channel 7 AU, or Channel 5 UK and the producers of their shows.
Heck, I don't even vote in any US program and 'our' voting is free. I take that back, the only time I ever vote is for the "fan favorite" awards for BBUS & Survivor when there is an additional monetary prize for the winner of those 'awards'. Other than that, I don't really care that much who wins the latest season of American Idol, The Voice, The X-Factor, America's Got Talent, etc. to waste my time voting for FREE.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 7:47 pm
A large (about 30%) percentage of the UK vote always used to go to charity, which was another incentive to call. I think Ch5 stopped that though.
|
Flagg
Member
06-01-2005
| Monday, January 06, 2014 - 8:51 pm
Im pretty sure that there was a charge for votes on BBUS season 1 as well.
There is also a relatively sizeable charge for text votes on BBUS every season for worthless things like what the have-nots will eat that week.
|
Jbw
Member
08-14-2006
| Tuesday, January 07, 2014 - 2:28 am
Flagg,
There is no additional charge for text votes on BBUS. Your only cost is what your cell carrier charges you for texting. Since many to most people (especially those with teenagers) choose to have unlimited texting/data in their cell plans, a BBUS text vote is basically 'no additional charge'.
Now if you have a 'throw away' phone with a basic $15 month plan thru Net10 Wireless, where you get 200 minutes a month of 'air time', it costs you half a minute of air time for each text you send or receive. A half a minute air time in that plan works out to 3.75¢
According to the graphic on last night's CBBUK, a vote via mobile or BT landline costs 50 pence which at today's exchange rate is 82¢ US. That's 21.67 times what a 'text' vote costs in the US if you have a cell plan without unlimited texting included.
The British viewing audience is getting ripped off by CBB UK/Channel 5/British Telecom in comparison to how the US shows & US networks treat their viewers. US shows/networks pay the cost for the votes thru the toll-free numbers. UK & AU shows/networks make their viewers pay the price. You can also cast your BBUS or Survivor votes for free at the CBS.com website so you don't even have to pick up a phone to vote. Neither BBUK or BBAU allow you to cast your vote through their websites, let alone a 'free' vote.
|
|
|
|
