Yeah, the scary thing is, the first series of Big Brother actually had some merit, in that they'd locked people of varying places, races, beliefs and classes, and left them to see what happened. As I've said before, the last, oh eight or so series, they just seem to pull up to a shity nightclub with a van, and bundle half the queue into it, and that's the show.
6 identical twat males and 6 identical twat females. I'd feel like I was being more decisive voting peas out of a pod, based on their personalities. Then Pamela Anderson as a 'celebrity housemate', as tho she's going to add anything. If I thought he'd ever done anything to deserve it, I'd send in Stephen Fry and cancel the voting, only him getting to choose who leaves. It'd be hilarious watching that lot try to impress him.
The worst I ever saw was one Charlie Brooker covered tho, the Swan. 'Winning meant you were an ugly ***** and only letting a psycho go at your face with a scalpel could give your life any value, nice lessons to teach there. Losing meant you were not only ugly but boring and ugly.
Even one I thought had some chance of being good, and I admit I enjoyed most of it, was 'Show me the Funny' where a dozen stand ups competed to earn a tour and dvd deal.
The biggest problem was, it wasn't who was the funniest, which I admit is hard to measure, but who could adapt the most to different audience, or perhaps just who had the broadest appeal. If that's a good way to choose a standup, and I guess it is if you want to sell dvds, then Dane Cook is superior to Bill Hicks.
That's one of my main complaints, by their very nature, they're never about 'best', always about 'most marketable to Heat magazine readers'.
