Jul 19, 2001 01:10 AM
3153 Views
Reality shows have become the shows we hate to love but watch addictively. I honestly can't find one redeeming quality in any of them (except perhaps the scenery of the Australian Outback in the last Survivor series). But like many others, I find myself drawn to the TV. The US version of Big Brother has returned. Last year, the show was criticised for being too tame and lacking the controversy and tittilation of the European versions on which it was modeled. This year some aspects have been revamped and the new ''houseguests'' seem to have been chosen for their less admirable qualities to create a more exciting mix.
From the start, the changes were obvious. Beds are of varying quality from a double waterbed to a sleeping bag on the floor. One guest is chosen as head of household each week. This person gets a locked bedroom with extra food and other amenities. With these pleasures also come the responsibility to nominate two houseguests for removal for the weekly vote. The vote itself is changed. Last year the public voted. Now the houseguests, minus the two nominated and the head of household vote. This obviously creates far more tension and manipulation. Food is also a major issue as this is now determined by competitions. The winning side eats well, the losers have peanut butter and jelly.
So, is this new format working? From the point of view of the producers, I'm sure it is. The guests quickly divided into two factions-the so called ''real people'' and ''chill town''. These guests are much more direct and often downright mean to each other. One guest was removed after making threatening statements and actions toward others (including holding a knife to an inebriated housemate while kissing her). This group doesn't even bother to hide their disdain for others they don't like.
Big Brother II will undoubtedly be a greater commercial success than it's predecessor but I fear what this says about our culture.
