[Inkspot] If I can divert the subject from bad jokes for a minute, what makes a series of Big Brother good or bad? What is a "good" contestant (from the point of view of the people who watch it, rather than the producers)? On what grounds do people vote for someone to be evicted? In other words, how does the whole thing work?
Good contestants are those who cause conflict in the house, or stimulate responses in the other housemates. The problem with this series is that everyone gets on with each other too well, and there isn't any conflict, whereas last year, the final four contestants could hardly stand the sight of each other by the end. (Except Kate and Jonny.) And they still had to put on a show of liking each other as they wanted to win the prize, which made it all the more interesting. But it's impossible to guarantee conflict in the house. No-one would have guessed Alex would start sounding off about cleanliness the way he did, or that Jade would start backstabbing everyone. Conversely, they put Scott, Jon, Justine and Cameron together as they're all team leaders, and leaders normally make themselves unpopular - but none of them even tried to lead, except Jon, who's now gone. In fact, since he and Fed left, I've hardly watched the show at all.
The last two years (didn't watch series 1 from the outset, thinking it all a waste of time... my opinion hasn't necessarily changed, although my avidness has) there was a ruckus from pretty much the outset. For example last year Alex got upset at someone nicking a sausage that he quite fancied; the year before Penny was so barking she immediately managed to get peoples' backs up. Also, last year they had several gimmicks to spice things up: the rich-poor divide coupled with extremely arbitrary ways of deciding who would be on which side (e.g. scoring baskets). However these proved unnecessary as the contestants themselves provided enough agro to go round. I feel that this year's contestants with last year's set-up, or vice versa, might have been more fun to watch. The thing is, I think the format has now passed its peak: quite simply, people have wised up to how to play the game. You can reach the final stage by just not being nominated by your housemates which just means keeping your head down and not antagonising anyone. Of course, the housemates could wise up and start nominating the boring people rather than the antagonistic ones. But this would only work if everyone did it, so probably wouldn't be considered an optimal strategy from a game-theoretic point-of-view. Err, that's rather a lot isn't it. I note that the covers have come off at Wimbledon so maybe we'll see some tennis today after all.