The last time I brought up this idea, I didn't get a lot of takers, but the early losses of Brian and Steven can't help but bring the topic up again. So here goes:

Remember the main reason why the Big Brother eviction vote was taken away from the American people in the first place? The theory was that the viewers spent the first BB season punishing those who created conflict and rewarding the bland and lowest-common-denominator--a dynamic which in turn drove the hamsters towards becoming even more bland. Restrict the vote to houseguests, and we would be more likely to see interesting players last further into the game.

For a while this seemed to work. Will Kirby, clearly the most interesting houseguest in Season 2 and probably the most interesting ever, was the winner that season, and it's obvious America would have voted him out early on had it been given the chance (he was nearly voted out anyway). There were a few exceptions over the years--the premature departure of David Lane really screwed over Season 4--but for the most part the more memorable players stuck around to make their marks, and the early boots were dominated by wallflowers and floaters. Last summer's pre-jury boots contained one would-be provocateur (Joe), but other than that it was the typical first week cannon fodder (Carol) and people were either bland or didn't understand the game or both (Mike, Kail, Nick).

Season Nine started out looking like more of the same with the early eviction of Jacob and Sharon. But Sharon came back in and lasted till the very late stages of the game without ever doing very much. More problematically, the early boots included the potentially interesting Parker along with Amanda, who was the dominant player in the first week in the house. Alex was popular with everyone inside the house and out, but he was gone early also.

And this current season saw two players who were popular with feedwatchers, Brian and Steven, leave in the first two weeks. The house now seems bland in comparison, at least on those nights when Ollie and April aren't in heat. There's lots of game talk, but few attempts at fun or even staying very active. Isn't it obvious that public voting on Season 10 could not have made things less interesting?

Big Brother could use a shot in the arm, and I think giving the vote back to America might do the trick. It would likely prompt more watching of the feeds. There's another factor too that I think is not appreciated, and that is that it isn't 2000 anymore. The summer of 2000, when BB debuted, was a time dominated by the first season of Survivor, where the "good vs. evil" storyline was taken very seriously in a way that seems naive and quaint today. The reality audience back then was primed to punish "villains," but while that dynamic hasn't totally disappeared, people are less scandalized than they used to be by the idea that someone might lie in order to win a game.

And the Big Brother fan base has taken to the likes of Jen Johnson in Season 8, who was never very popular inside the house and needed a lot of luck just to get halfway into the game. I honestly don't think there would be a risk in giving the vote back to America at this point, except that it would force a fullscale revision of the TV show, which mostly revolves around nominating and campaigning. But a show with more interesting houseguests lasting longer into the season would probably compensate.

Got a question? Ask Big Brother Here. Your question may be read on the air on CBS's Housecalls!

Recommend (0)

|  Comments (0)

|  Email

|  Share

Share  Facebook Digg del.icio.us