While the current, tenth installment of CBS’s "Big Brother" is a welcome step in the right direction after the show’s last two abysmal seasons, it could still be significantly improved, especially if the producers borrow some ideas from other countries’ versions of the show.
1. Better balance the competitive aspects with the social ones.
A major difference between the U.S. version of "Big Brother" and its counterparts around the world is the amount of strategy and competition in the U.S. version.
Whereas housemates in the U.K. are thrown in "jail" and housemates in Australia receive "strikes" for discussing gameplay elements such as nominations, the U.S. version is built almost solely on strategy, alliances, and other competitive aspects that are unsurprisingly similar to "Survivor."
Because of this, fans who only watch the show and do not watch the Internet feeds or "Big Brother: After Dark" miss out on most of the social interactions of the houseguests.
An easy solution to this is to air the show more often. In the U.S., the show only airs three times a week, one show for evictions, one for nominations, and one for the Power of Veto. A fourth show, or an extra hour on eviction nights, would significantly increase the visibility of the social interactions between the houseguests.
2. Increase the diversity of the houseguests.
Fortunately, this isn’t nearly as glaring of an issue as it used to be. "Big Brother 10" is taking the show back to its roots, according to the producers, and I’m inclined to agree. The houseguests actually seem to be ‘real people’ for the first time since the show’s All-Star season (#7).
Still, there’s room for improvement. The producers seem to think that diversity only applies to one’s physical characteristics and sexual orientation.
Diversity is so much more than that. Go find the interesting personalities, the ones that make you think long and hard, and challenge the way you look at other people. That’s true diversity.
3. Have one episode a week follow the "Big Mouth" format.
The U.K. and Australian versions of "Big Brother" air a show called "Big Mouth," which is somewhat along the lines of the "House Calls" webcast here in the U.S.
With a panel of hosts, consisting of comedians and former houseguests, the show would highlight recent events in the house with the panel discussing the houseguests. Additionally, the most recent evictee could make a prominent guest appearance, providing a much more in-depth interview for the "Big Brother" audience than the always-brief post-eviction interview by Julie Chen.
The show could incorporate a live audience by allowing them to ask the most recent evictee questions, similar to the U.K. version of "Big Mouth."
4. Make Big Brother a prominent character.
It seems that on every "Big Brother" besides the U.S. version, Big Brother himself is actually a character on the show, interacting with the houseguests and, in some cases, playing the role of the house villain.
In the U.S., it is almost as if Big Brother doesn’t exist. All you’ll ever hear of Big Brother is a "[name], please go to the diary room" or "stop that!"
You never hear Big Brother speak directly to the houseguests, not even in the diary room, unlike in other countries’ versions where these interactions with Big Brother are highlighted.
The U.S. version is missing a prime opportunity by not expanding on the Big Brother concept fully.
5. Give the power back to the people.
Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of the U.S. version of "Big Brother" is the minimal audience interaction.
The first season of "Big Brother" followed the traditional format of the houseguests nominating and the public doing the evicting, but in every subsequent season, the format has been closed-off to involve only the houseguests.
This makes the show more like "Survivor" than what the "Big Brother" concept was meant to be.
A compromise between the two systems would truly be a welcome twist.
For example, retaining the current Head-of-Household and Power of Veto system while forcing the nominated houseguests to face a public vote. Under that, however, it would be wise to require at least three nominees to add extra unpredictability to the results.
Overall, though, "Big Brother 10" is a welcome return to much of what has made the "Big Brother" series fun to watch. Hopefully the show will continue its improvement and will be around for many seasons to come.
In the weeks leading up to the third season finale of ‘Lost‘ last year, an anonymous tipster known only as "Lostfan108" delivered what he claimed to be spoilers for the season’s last two episodes to a Lost-centric spoilers blog.
After the episodes aired, Lostfan108’s spoilers were proven completely accurate.
The producers of ‘Lost’ were dismayed by the complete spoiling of the episodes, and went into "radio silence," abstaining from releasing any information about the next season and turning down interviews.
But Lostfan108 has managed to strike again.
Lostfan108 delivered spoilers to the DarkUFO ‘Lost’ spoiler blog for all three parts of the fourth season finale. While these spoilers were far less detailed than last year’s spoilers, the major revelations of the episode were available well before the episodes aired.
This latest successful spoiling has re-sparked a major debate about spoilers.
Many fans claim they taint the show and ruin the experience for all who read them, going so far as to say those who read spoilers are not true fans of the show. But others enjoy the experience of finding the information and knowing ahead of time.
We know the show’s producers loathe spoilers, but do the spoilers really have a negative impact on the show?
It can be argued that anyone who is going to read spoilers and not watch the episode would not watch the episode anyway, instead opting to read a summary the next morning.
But one can also make a very valid case against spoilers by pointing out that fans who read message boards or chat with friends, family, or co-workers about the show are extremely susceptible to unwillingly having the show spoiled for them.
What do you think about spoilers? Are they good? Bad? Do you think they have their place?
In ‘21,’ the fictionalized retelling of the story of a group of college students who teamed up to win millions playing blackjack in Las Vegas, it’s British up-and-comer Jim Sturgess who is the big winner.
Sturgess, best-known for playing Jude in ‘Across the Universe,’ portrays MIT student Ben Campbell. At the start of the film, Ben has been accepted into Harvard for medical school and is struggling to come up with a way to pay for it.
With the promise of quick money, Ben is recruited onto a blackjack team led by math teacher Micky Rosa (Kevin Spacey). Micky teaches the team how to count cards and flies them to Vegas to put their strategies to work.
Able to win thousands upon thousands of dollars at a time, Ben becomes enamored with the Vegas lifestyle, but his constant success attracts the attention of casino security. Card-counting isn’t illegal, but it is frowned upon by casinos, and they’re willing to go to violent lengths to keep their money to themselves.
While ‘21′ is based on actual events described in the book Bringing Down the House, by Ben Mezrich, the film takes significant liberties in its retelling, occasionally reaching the point of unbelievability.
But the plot holes and stretched facts are easily forgivable. The action never diminishes and there are plenty of twists along the way.
Though there are few big names on the cast of ‘21,’ the acting is particularly good all-around. Kevin Spacey nails the role of Micky Rosa, and Laurence Fishburne is truly intimidating as Cole Williams, a casino security agent.
Kate Bosworth, who played Anne Marie in ‘Blue Crush‘ and more recently portrayed Lois Lane in ‘Superman Returns,’ does a fine job as Ben’s love interest and blackjack teammate Jill Taylor.
The most notable performance, however, is that of Jim Sturgess. He expertly portrays the intricacies of Ben going from being a nerdy math-whiz to living the Vegas high-life and back again. It’s worth noting that he also does a very convincing American accent.
Sturgess is on the brink of mainstream success, and his lead role in ‘21′ may springboard him to it.
‘21′ has its share of incredulous moments, but it’s a highly-entertaining film overall, anchored by a fast pace, an excellent cast, and a series of clever twists that lead the way to a satisfying conclusion.
Score: 8/10
Last summer, during the eighth installment of CBS’s ‘Big Brother,’ I wrote about how the show could be so much better. Unfortunately, season nine has been an even bigger disappointment.
This season was rushed into production due to the writers’ strike, but considering the fact that the show has nine seasons’ worth of applicants to look through and choose from, the casting for this season has proven to be an abomination.
In seasons six and eight (seven was an all-star edition), it was clear that the show had taken a turn towards mostly casting the stereotypical Hollywood types you see on ‘The Real World,’ and I thought it took a little bit of the reality out of the show.
But I’d love to have that type of cast instead of the motley crew they dug up for season nine.
This season’s cast includes a paparazzo, one of Scott Baio’s ex-girlfriends, a former cocaine addict, a wannabe model, a gay porn actor, and a guy who calls autistic children"retards."
Even "Evel Dick" seems down-to-earth compared to this bunch.
Maybe CBS deserves a mulligan for this season, though. After all, it was hastily thrown together in a rush for programming to fill the void left by the writers’ strike.
Or, maybe not. After eight seasons, they should be old pros at this, so it’s hard to believe that anything was overlooked during casting. It’s more likely that the producers turned a blind eye to the less-than-favorable aspects of some of the cast members in hopes of creating ratings-boosting controversies.
One way or another, ‘Big Brother’ is going to be back for at least one more season. The tenth season is currently casting, and it’ll kick-off sometime this summer.
Have you watched this season of ‘Big Brother?’ What do you think of the cast?
Over the last four years, Judd Apatow’s comedies have won over audiences and critics alike. But the producer of ‘Anchorman‘ and ‘Talledega Nights‘ fell a bit short with ‘Drillbit Taylor.’
The film’s protagonists, Wade, Ryan, and Emmit, are high school freshmen who spend the entire film trying to fend off a pair of school bullies. The kids’ parents and teachers laugh off the kids’ complaints, so the kids decide to take matter into their own hands and hire a bodyguard.
The trio will seem oddly familiar to anyone who has seen Apatow’s ‘Superbad.’ Wade is a mini-Evan, quirky and nervous. Ryan is a mini-Seth, overweight and outspoken. Emmit is a less-funny and more-awkward mini-McLovin.
Considering the brilliant quirks of the ‘Superbad’ characters, the idea of this group of kids being similar doesn’t seem so bad at first. But several times throughout the film, you can’t help but wish you were watching ‘Superbad’ instead. While ‘Superbad’ doesn’t let up on the laugh-out-loud moments, ‘Drillbit Taylor’ proves to be hit-and-miss.
The striking similarities to ‘Superbad’ highlight the biggest flaw of ‘Drillbit Taylor’: it feels forced and manufactured, like an unnecessary sequel born out of a lack of creativity.
But things aren’t entirely super bad for ‘Drillbit Taylor.’ The title character, portrayed by Owen Wilson, is the highlight of the film.
Wilson nails the role of Drillbit Taylor, a homeless army deserter trying to earn (read: scam) enough money to make his way to Canada. While Drillbit’s character development is, like the rest of the film, consistently unsurprising, Wilson’s unique line delivery and physical humor is enough to keep audiences interested.
Ultimately, ‘Drillbit Taylor’ falls into the ever-growing category of cinematic disappointments. It’s not good, but it’s not bad either. It’s just your average assembly-line comedy, while trying extra hard to be ‘Superbad’ without the raunchiness.
Verdict: 5.5/10