Big Brother

STAR RATING: ***** Unmissable **** Very Good *** Okay ** You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead * Avoid At All Costs

Every summer, 13 members of the public, who's personalities stand out the best in the eyes of the producers, are selected from a selection of video entries to compete in a live reality TV show in a specially built house, equipped with video cameras and trendy Ikea furnishings, to see who is the last person to be voted out by the public and win the prize money.

When BB was first introduced to the world in the summer of 2000, it seemed like a fresh, original, fun concept in my eyes. A good social experiment, shall we say. I was 16 at the time, on holiday in Cornwall with my family and there was something that was at least partially engaging about watching the antics of 'nasty' Nick the banker and warm-hearted scally Craig the builder (who'd only entered so he could win the money to pay for a heart operation for the little girl of a friend or something!), even if I didn't think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and I could ultimately give-or-take it. And, looking back on it now, I could see that the house was occupied by 'real' people, genuine, real people who were believable and you could buy were really like that probably if you met them in the street. Which is certainly not what it's come to now.

In my mind, in one way or the other, things rapidly went downhill from there. The first show was so successful that there had to be a follow-up. The emphasis on voyeurism and adult content began around here, and everyone could see this as a really see-through attempt to pander to people's baser instincts and win ratings. But I just found a lot of the contestants on the second series to be really annoying and up their own arses and that put me off. I suppose the same could be said for the third series, even though Jade Goody was entertaining in as much as she was genuinely thick, thinking Cambridge was in London and such, and I don't think she was putting on an act but just genuinely, un-self-consciously that much of a show-boat. I think series four pretty much just came and went (that was the big Asian guy, wasn't it? And Jon Tickle?) but by series five everything had, as I said, just lost perspective. That's not to mention the assault of spin-off shows we've had from it like Celebrity Big Brother or even Teen Big Brother (and we all know what went on there.)

The people entering aren't genuine, honest and 'real' anymore. They're just making as big an exhibition of themselves as they can in order to get on there in the first place and to make a big enough impression on the public that they will come out as the winners. No-one that shallow and super-ficial really deserves any of our time or attention, but it's likely that our 'baser instincts' may take us over again and we'll tune in just to pander to them. I could never have been a contestant myself, but by now it's unlikely I'd even know how to make a big enough show-boat of myself to have come out the winner on there anyway. Besides that, all objectivity in the game has been lost. The winner of the show who gets all the money is superfluous in the eyes of all the other contestants as they know that if they make a big enough impression on the public, they will be famous enough to attend a film premiere or two for a while afterwards and no doubt get paid a fair bit to endorse certain products or services (hence why Jade Goody's name still garners recognition three years after losing!) This show has come out, more than anything, as a huge testament to Andy Warhol's unforgettably famous claim that "in the future, everyone will enjoy their 15 minutes of fame", irrespective of how untalented, vulgar or desperate they are.

Aside from the contestants, there's the presenter, Davina McCall. A no doubt very pleasant, in her day, very attractive lady who just suffers from that very irritating habit of feeling the need to bellow out everything she says. She's served the show well, but she's a woman in her 30s who's a mother to at least one child who's having to try to keep up with the pace of 'youth TV', the majority of which are in their late teens or early 20s and there's been coverage in the media lately of how it may all be taking it's toll on her. I've heard rumours she's planning to retire and become a mid-wife (imagine an already delirious woman about to give birth being calmed by Davina McCall!) and, if that's true, I'm sure, as my mother said, she'll give it her 100% and no doubt be very good at it, because everyone has their day and everyone has to move on in life. But I wonder how much shelf-life the actual show has left and, if it's a lot, just where it'll go to from here. It's not a show showing 'real' people anymore who's personalities you can relate to, it's just a show showing people eager for instant fame and gratification who are prepared to make as much of an exhibition of themselves and even degrade themselves as it takes to get their names and faces in tabloid rags like The News of the World for their outrageous, degrading behaviour. No truly decent person can relate to people like that and, if they're the only type of people who are going to stand a chance of winning from here, one can only wonder what lies ahead for the show and, the future of humanity for that matter. **

We are talking about a show which was once introduced with the words "Day 21 - Derek is eating a sandwich". What sort of person carries on watching anything after that.

You'll see the phrase "like watching paint dry" through thousands of user comments across this website, on despised shows & films.

Never a truer word spoken here though & FOR TWO REASONS.

One because it is that dull - although that maybe a tad unfair on paint.

But secondly - the day British TV fell to it's knees (and went largely unnoticed). A few years back the housemates (there's better names for them than that - but wouldn't make it through the firewall) had to each paint a bench in a colour that reflected themselves. (I expected 12 grey benches). Anyway - after they finished painting them & went inside the camera remained outside, for several minutes - while the viewer did indeed "watch paint dry".

And still the public watched.

There is possibly one thing worse than Big Brother. The host. I won't give her the satisfaction of publicising her name (+or benal facial expressions) but we're talking about a woman who once introduced 3 OF THE 6 FEMALE ENTRANTS one year by their name & breast size. Never mind, name & job title, name & achievements, name and ambitions maybe. Nope, name & size of Charlies are all that counts nowadays.

Big Brother. Sure, so the concept has been sold to practically every country on the planet, (much like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire). And each time it's shown it takes the nation by storm. Everyone seems to be able to pick a member of the house with which they can identify with, and who they root for until, inevitably, they're voted out.

The first series was historical. It had every Brit watching in awe as a group of people feed chickens and talk about their lives. It was, for most, compulsive viewing. The 'inmates' became national celebrities and icons who were forgotten within six months, but were, for the summer they were in the house, heralded as heroes.

Some guy has commented, saying it's merely a copy of the American format, which to my knowledge, is quite untrue. The series was created and broadcast in a European country (Probably the Netherlands) and then sold worldwide. The British and American versions were screened at the same time, but that's not what this is about.

The thing with Big Brother, here in the UK, is this; If you watch it you wonder why you feel the need to view other people's lives (It's Blumner and Katz voyeuristic entertainment theory) and if you don't watch it you're catergorized as a pariah because no conversation is complete without a mention of the latest going-ons inside the Big Brother house.

As I've said before, the first series was classic, with the memorable 'Nasty' Nick Bateman, who scammed and cheated his way through until the house-mates caught on to his actions. This really was compulsive viewing, and yet the other two series failed to make a connection with myself, personally. Maybe I just crave the sheer drama.

In ending, you can't escape this show, no matter where you are in the country. The antics are front-page news and everyone's talking about it. And you know, there really is something in watching people in a house they are locked in. And then there's the chicken....

" Have you been watching BIG BROTHER " my sister asked me in a telephone conversation . I replied that I hadn`t . I knew what the show was because every single tabloid newspaper had hyped up the show from the very first day it started way back in the year 2000 . While the series is being broadcast it`s impossible to open a British popular newspaper without being greeted by page after page of the housemates life stories , but just out of curiosity I decided to give the show a chance and I must say I was totally underwhelmed by it .

It might surprising to know that I managed to avoid this show untill series four , but if this is as good as it gets I`ve missed nothing . A bunch of people sitting around drinking is not great TV unless the people involved are Oliver Reed , George Best , Alex Higgins etc . We have a big strapping Scotsman Cameron Stout and he never makes Anglophobic statements , never gets drunk and never pays flattering compliments to the female housemates ! Not a typical Scot I`m sure you`ll agree . Well Cameron won in a popularity contest that resembled vote for the least boring person because someone will win . I guess I would have voted for Cameron myself but that`s only because we`re both Jocks and the opposition were so bland

That said , if Channel 4 are thinking of doing a fifth series I wouldn`t mind having a go myself . After all the drink`s free and when`s the last time a Jock`s turned down free booze

Last fall I got a job outside of London and all I ever heard people talking about was the newest episode of "Big Brother." I was already familiar with the US series, but in America they broadcast an hour time slot, edited, and don't print what's going on in the newspapers.

I couldn't believe it when the last season's series managed to break front headlines news. I know the Daily Mail is tabloid, but even then, you'd think maybe real stuff going on would be featured - not the lives of people living in a house being exposed to television.

The show is a pain, mainly because everyone in England loves it, even older people, and you can't really go anywhere without hearing about it. Countless films I wanted to see were canceled only to display this message: "Big Brother is running over schedule, our film tonight will be rescheduled." The show broadcasts from about 12 at night to 6 in the morning sometimes, which is insane. I once stumbled across it while flipping channels late at night, only to see people sitting on chairs talking nonsense, the audio occasionally shutting off by error.

I just don't get it. WHAT'S THE POINT?! I'm one of those people who enjoys watching people when I'm out and about - just seeing how people interact, go about their lives, etc. (I get it from my mother's side) - but this is plain voyeurism, and BORING voyeurism. Who cares what some loser thinks about some guy living in a house? GET A LIFE! And I thought my social life wasn't the best! At least I don't revolve my conversations around the conversations of random people occupying a house together! Good grief! A few years ago I didn't like "The Truman Show" because it was too far fetched. I watched it again a few nights ago and it's not looking so far away anymore.