BB day 40 Tuesday

'Big Brother 15' Spoilers: A New Target and a New Final 4 Deal?
Tuesday, July 30, 2013

John Kubicek
Senior Writer, BuddyTV

The Big Brother 15 live feeds are truly maddening to watch. There have been so many lies, fake alliances and targets that I have very little clue what's real and what's not. While the present always seems to be in focus, the future is constantly changing, and on Monday, everyone decided to find a new person to scapegoat.

SPOILER WARNING: This article contains Big Brother 15 spoilers.

Somehow, Judd seems to be the newest person everyone is starting to turn against. Before I continue, I should note that I have no idea whether or not any of these things are real and it could all change. I've been quite certain about some things in the past, and I still believe wholeheartedly that Howard is absolutely going to be evicted on Thursday, but everything else is a mystery. This article is just about conversations that took place on Monday, so take them all with a huge grain of salt.

The unlikely trio of Aaryn, Helen and Amanda met up to discuss the state of the game, and while Howard is still the primary target, with Spencer and Candice as the next in line for the firing squad, they're already making plans for jury. Basically, they're all gearing up for war.

Talk turned to Judd, and suddenly everyone is very suspicious of his actions and behavior. The three women all concurred that he is playing a great game and is manipulating Jessie. They also believe he made up lies about Kaitlin to get rid of her, most notably the Grasshoppers alliance with Kaitlin, GinaMarie, Howard and Spencer. We, of course, know that wasn't a lie, but Judd DID make up a lie about Kaitlin saying she was coming after Helen.

Aaryn, Amanda and Helen also told each other that they believe Judd has been the MVP for the past two weeks, secretly making it look like Howard. Helen even compared Judd to Dan Gheesling, her go-to claim to throw someone under the bus (see: Nick).

I have no idea if any of these women believe this, but Helen did tell Aaryn and Amanda that, once jury begins, she would nominate Judd and Jessie because he's a dangerous player who could easily win the game. In the past she's also mentioned going after Amanda and McCrae, so I don't know what she'd really do.

The three women made a vow not to tell anyone else about this conversation, so naturally Amanda immediately ran to tell Andy and McCrae all about it and their suspicions about Judd. There is no such thing as a secret in the house, which should make it quite clear that no one is the MVP.

This is true and they seem to have forgotten that Candice had rightly deduced last week that the viewers were the MVP and had voted to put up Amanda as the third nominee.  But now they are back to their old paranoid ways and it remains to be seen if they will ever figure out that the viewers are the MVP.

Later on Monday, Amanda, McCrae, Andy and Aaryn met up in the HoH room to discuss Judd's shadiness and their worries about him. Then something truly absurd happened.

Amanda told Aaryn that the three of them had a Final 4 deal with Judd (aka the Goof Troop), but now that Judd is being weird and not being totally honest about things he's doing, she no longer trusts him. She then proposed a NEW Final 4 alliance with Amanda, McCrae, Andy and Aaryn. Amanda swore to God this is for real and Andy chimed in that he now trusts Aaryn 100 percent because of what she did this week.

I'm 100 percent confused. Is this real? Is the Goof Troop dead, with Aaryn taking Judd's place the same way she already seemed to take Elissa's place in the Knockouts? Is Amanda's paranoia about being nominated causing her to do crazy things?

I have no idea what to believe, but the fact that Amanda told Aaryn about the Final 4 deal she had with McCrae, Andy and Juddi is just a baffling move. I don't see the benefit in outing a real thing unless she's actually turning against it.

One thing is certain: the increased paranoia due to the MVP twist is causing everyone to make highly questionable decisions. I'm not sure if anyone in this house is actually playing a good game or not.

I'm not sure if any of this paranoia will create chaos over the next two weeks since people like Spencer, Candice and Elissa are still obvious mutual targets before jury, but even if that is the case, the post-jury game will be intense.

CBS Defends The Handling Of The GinaMarie Zimmerman And 'Big Brother' Controversy

By LYNN ELBER 07/29/13 09:14 PM ET EDT AP



BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — The "social experiment" that is CBS' "Big Brother" included appalling behavior this season but the network has responded appropriately, CBS Corp. CEO Les Moonves said Monday.

Contestants have been caught on the reality show's 24-hour-a-day Internet feed making boorish and racially insensitive remarks, and some were aired on one of the show's TV episodes.

"What you see there ... unfortunately is reflective of how certain people feel in America. It's what our show is. I think we've handled it properly," Moonves told the Television Critics Association.

The executive has a unique connection to the series: His wife, Julie Chen, is the host, and Moonves said he makes a point of watching each episode. The network responded when racially oriented comments became an issue with the contestants, he said.

In the online feed, contestant GinaMarie Zimmerman, 32, of Staten Island, N.Y., used the N-word to describe welfare as "insurance" for black people.

Another incident involving Zimmerman was part of the TV show. In an exchange with contestant Aaryn Gries of San Angelo, Texas, Zimmerman said a black house member is "on the dark side, but she's already dark." Gries responded, "Be careful what you say in the dark because you might not be able to see the bitch."

A network disclaimer that was shown on screen read, in part, "At times, the Houseguests may reveal prejudices and other beliefs that CBS does not condone" and which do not represent the network's views or opinions.

The remarks clearly disturbed other contestants on the show. Howard Overby, a youth counselor who is black, said he resisted expressing anger for fear it could hurt his chances in the game.

Broadcast's infatuation with the reality genre, which is both popular and can be cheaper to produce than scripted series, has made it an entrenched part of network schedules. But its pitfalls can include the contestants and their on- or off-screen behavior.

At the dawn of the reality cycle, Fox's "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire" drew scrutiny in 2000 over the financial and personal credentials of its centerpiece, Rick Rockwell. "American Idol" has jettisoned contestants who failed to disclose arrest records or have other issues.

Some critics have questioned how real much of reality TV is, given factors including casting and editing that are part of the quest for ratings.

"Big Brother," which gathers contestants in a house to live under the gaze of cameras as they compete to be the last one left, was established as a social experiment when it began airing, and "clearly that's what's happening this year," Moonves said. The series, which debuted in 2000, is based on a Dutch show.

While he finds some of the behavior "absolutely appalling," Moonves said, "it's what our show is."

He was asked if what happened might be the result of the network trying too hard to find outgoing, eccentric contestants for shows like "Big Brother" and "Survivor."

"Obviously, you don't want wallflowers on reality shows. You're going to take people that are interesting. ... Sometimes that leads to controversy," he said.

Referring to the original season of "Survivor," he recalled the casting of Richard Hatch, who is gay, and Rudy Boesch, an older man who "wasn't used to dealing with homosexuals at all."

"Now, these two guys became good friends on the island, and so they are social experiments. Trying too hard? I don't think there's any such thing," Moonves said.

He made an unexpected appearance at the Television Critics Association's summer meeting in place of CBS entertainment chief Nina Tassler, who was unable to attend because she was attending a friend's funeral.