Don't think of me as completely naive for asking this question, but why does everyone think they have to make long-winded speeches when they nominate, use the veto, etc?
Normally the speeches upset more people than they appease. I mean, Danielle's speech when she vetoed herself was completely unnecessary (more a plea for sympathy from other players than anything else). Jen's speech when making her nominations only made her look delusional. Kail's nomination speech was the first BB speech I've EVER seen that made any sense. I know that the intent would often be to appease those who may have been offended, but normally the speech ends up offending them more, or offending other people, or the speech-giver flat out lies. So, the question again:
Why does everyone feel the need to dig their own grave with a speech? Why not just do it, say that's it, and go on?
Because they have to think up something to precede the words "with that said..."Seriously, though, I totally agree. The speeches should be strategically, yet subtly, crafted. For some reason, hampsters always forget that there's an end date to their HoH reign, and they forget they have to play the whole politics thing every time they open their mouth in the game. Especially when they have power.
Rolly made this.
I'm with ya'.
But sadly, the producers ask them to give these speeches.
So even if they'd rather just not say anything, as should have been the case with Dani's POV in both weeks, the producers will request that they do another version, until they get something worth airing.(In fact the producers will make them say things they don't want to just for the sake of a "well-rounded editorial".)
As much as one would believe that this is reality television. The only real thing about it is....um...gah, I forgot.
Exactly, there was some conversation this year about how the producers make them stand in front of the picture board etc.
Sharnina has outdone herself this time!
OK............If the producers are asking the hamsters to redo things, then they would be in violation of FCC game show rules, which prohibit producers from influencing, directing, asking for do-overs, etc. If you watch the bonus disc from the First Survivor season, Mark Burnett explains this (yet people still insist that it's rigged). Game shows, which reality contest shows fall under, must be spontaneous. Directing a hamster to improvise a long-winded speech influences the game, so I seriously doubt that actually happens. If you can give me evidence of this happening i'll listen. Honestly I think it's just the hamsters being stupid (I was just trying to figure out the stupidity).
Directing a houseguest to give a speech at a nom ceremony or to say certain things in the diary room is not the same as rigging a competition. Reality tv IS scripted and producers manipulate the events in the house all the time to heighten the drama between the houseguests. As far as do-overs are concerned, producers are known to do these if there's any type of malfunction while trying to film the show. This happened last year during the controversial Erika HOH do-over that resulted in another victory for Janelle. I don't believe that competitions are rigged, but I do believe that much of the drama we see on screen is staged by the producers, the contestants, or both.
If the producers are asking the hamsters to redo things, then they would be in violation of FCC game show rules, which prohibit producers from influencing, directing, asking for do-overs, etc.Nope.
As Josh stated above...a nomination speech and a diary room "confession" are NOT competitions.
When it comes to the comps, BB stays as "fair" as it can be.
Yes certain games might seem to favor particular HG's but only so much as a swimming comp would favor better swimmers in survivor.
All of the comps are thought of before hand, before the season even starts, so altering them to fit particular HGs is impossible, yet getting a particular sound bite from a HG regarding the outcome of said challenge/competition is completely within their rights and capabilities.Voting? Again, no, the producers don't have a direct influence, on the surface.
But asking the HG questions to perhaps peek their interest about certain outcomes is not out of reach.As far as redos go...Even Burnett does these. He often shoots challenges multiple times. In order to piece together the challenge without including cameramen and boom poles.
Not to invent an outcome, but to get many points of view, so as to be able to build the most drama.
BB, and I've personally heard them do and says these things, also does multiple "reshoots" and "do-overs" to get particular angles covered and such. Sometimes they blame it on needing to change reels, sometimes they just want to take into consideration the cinematography of a "scene".
Not to "fix" the game, but to be able to have many outcomes to choose from to better define their "story-line".Things in the show are often taken out of context and original meaning to give the perception that they are directs effects of something that happened prior. And as a live-feeder, I can guarantee that if they didn't do this with the episodic version, it would be a very boring, disjointed and confusing season.
I wish it were solely the HGs "stupidity" that were the cause of these unnecessary speechs. But it's not. BB makes them say these speeches. Not that the speeches themselves are "pre-scripted" but that the HGs are required to follow the whole BB format, and that format includes asking the nominees to give speeches as to why they would like to be given the POV, during the Veto ceremony. Even if the outcome seems obvious.
I agree with u..I would be blunt and quick to the point.
I agree that the players are obligated to make Veto and Nomination Speeches pertaining to their reasons (and in more than two words), but the hole they dig themselves into is out of their own stupidity. I too often wonder why these people are so oblivious to think that just because they are HOH that gives them the ability to say whatever it is they want without any consequence. In fact, being in that position one would think it's best to be far more tight with the words than any other time. Then again, let's remember the contestants....the type of people who play this game. For the most part most of these people are pretty catty individuals and people like that are constantly shoving their foot in their own mouth.What I'm sick of hearing is talk about the "harmony" and "balance" of the house. I figured ED would at least tell it straight and even he made pretty much the same speech as Jen!
I mean, honestly, I think it would be far better to say something along the lines of you've nominated and voted for me so obviously I am a target of yours....it's just business. To me that's far more reasonable and sensible than talk of love and lies.
Well, I must say that ED kept the speech short and to the point last night. In just a few sentences, he told why he nominated Jen (who put him on the block by nominating him) and Kail (for conspiring to have him evicted after Jen's nomination). I liked his direct, no nonsense speech which left no room for argument.
Caged by Snidget
ED's speech would have been fine had he not added the whole "disruption of harmony" bit into it. Maybe it was just his way of making a mockery of Jen's nomination speech?
Yup, I think you're right about ED's "disruption of harmony" phrase being a sarcastic reply to Jen's similar words when she attempted to justify nominating ED and Daniele for eviction in her speech. As I recall, he was looking directly at her when he said that.
