Yeah, last year production went nuts in the DR to keep Jeff around as long as possible. By the time Kevin won HoH, to hear him tell it every DR session they screamed at him not to put Jeff on the block. He wisely (for him, of course) ignored them.
EDIT: Generally they can be more subtle about it. Using last year as an example, Jeff & Jordan would paranoy about Michele and Russel up in HoH for like an hour, finally deciding to put both up on the block. Then Jeff would get called to DR, come out, and go back up to HoH and sell Jordan on the idea of keeping Michele and Russell and instead nominate Natalie and Kevin.
Recappers would never fail to describe this in terms similar to: “Jeff comes out of DR, where they went at him with the rubber hose to keep Michele.”
They could easily just be asking him things like “Why don’t you trust Michele? Did she actually do something, or is it just because of what Kevin and Natalie told you?”
They talk to them in the Diary Room. How would you persuade someone of something without making it obvious that you’re personally invested in what you’re suggesting? They already ask them leading questions (when the HGs talk about something in the DR, it’s almost always because production asked them a question about it), it’s no huge effort to nudge those leading questions toward the desired goal.
Annie and the producers should have staged a big sabotage of some sort, making sure that Annie was one of the major targets and someone else was the major suspect. That might have helped her.
I was stunned when Julie announced that they’d be telling the house-guests they successfully evicted the Saboteur. I really expected them to keep quiet for at least a while (maybe even continuing the Saboteur video messages), just to keep the paranoia simmering.
Not in any meaningful way, especially since they all bought into the lie that the saboteur escaped the block. (I haven’t read feeds or watched BBAD for Friday yet, though.)
Annie got very little suspicion. The main suspects before Annie’s eviction were Brendan, Andrew and a little bit of Kathy because of her poor performances in challenges. Since Annie’s eviction Britney has become a suspect. Other than that, it’s all just been random idle speculation.
I’m kind of disappointed that Rachel didn’t put anybody from the Brigade up on the block. But I can’t say I’m surprised. They always let these powerful alliances coast until it’s too late, instead of nipping them in the bud right away.
I’m disappointed that once again on a reality show the early targets are the attractive women. Not that Rachel and Annie are any great shakes, but certainly better looking than Tammy Faye Baker. I mean Kathy.
So far this season there have been five people on the block, four of whom have been four most attractive girls in the house. One of which was voted out, and it’s certainly looking like another one will this week.
I always bag on Survivor for this, where the first or second vote always takes out a hot chick. BB11 was not like this, where the only early eviction to qualify was the weird looking Laura. (Braden, Laura, Casey, Ronnie, Jessie) Hopefully this season doesn’t go to Rachel’s script, which would be the two Mean Girls going next and we’re left with basically a sausage-fest.
EDIT: Ha! I totally forgot about Kristin, and she even got some airtime tonight. That girl is like a camera ninja, stealthily fading into the background even when she’s on screen.
Kristin reminds of Roz from Frasier, except younger and hotter.
Britney is getting on my nerves. Maybe it’s the editing (isn’t it always?) but she has a lot of “why me?? waaah…” in her, and with all of the time she spends snarking what does she expect?
I thought Rachel’s reaction to Matt outside was a little weird. I assume more went on off-screen. He didn’t seem to say anything that would make her want to put him up (I know she didn’t, but she discussed it.)
It’s way too early to handicap, but I like the way Hayden is playing. Rachel could either wind up being a good player or a an albatross for Brendon. Lane has been quiet, but I suspect he may be a player.
I WANT to like Rachel, if only because I cannot stand Mean Girls and Britney and Monet are SUCH Mean Girls, but she makes it really hard. She’s so determined to keep this showmance up with Brendon and she really strikes me as someone who may be good with math and science but isn’t very good with social cues. She’s not stupid, as such (although her vocabulary when it comes to semi-exotic words (like yarmulke) isn’t so great), but she’s a little…off? Her personality comes across as very big but not too smooth. And I’m sometimes a little embarassed for her.
Spoilers for live feed stuff (if you look, it’s on your own head):
She’s letting herself be very obviously manipulated by Brendon, who’s really getting a sweetheart edit so far (with a couple of assholish cues that got through to TV, though not aimed at Rachel). On the feeds, he’s manipulative and seems really insincere about his “showmance” with Rachel. He doesn’t like her talking to people without him around and he expected her to defer to him more in her HoH decisions than she is. Truthfully, I think the completely secret (so far) showmance between Hayden and Kristen is more sincere and real than Rachel and Brendon’s.
Apart from the showmance stuff – which I agree with you about – Rachel is starting to give the Mean Girls a run for their money.
Last night on BBAD she was laughing up a storm regaling everyone who’d listen her hilarious mocking of Monet about being a Have Not. Apparently Monet loves nuts, and so while Monet was sitting in a chair in HoH Rachel deliberately pulled out a bag of nuts and started savoring them, going on about how good they were. She even offered some to Monet.
In the retelling of this, she proudly claimed that she did all this on purpose. “Why?” asks Brendan. Rachel explains that Britney and Monet constantly forgot about the Have Nots the previous week. Kathy backs Rachel up, they did it all the time. “Do you think they did that on purpose, maliciously?” No, neither Rachel nor Kathy think they had any bad intent in this. Not at all.
How is Rachel’s malicious and intentional torturing of Monet over food restrictions better than Mean Girls making fun of bad boob jobs? It seems much worse to me.
EDIT: And Kristen went full-on Mean Girl with Hayden several days ago, so I see no difference between her, Britney and Monet.
Frankly, as per normal, I find the houseguests annoying. At this point, Kristin is the only that I find tolerable. And that is probably because she has been nearly invisible on the broadcast.
I still had Thursday’s show on DVR so I went back and watched so I could see what they blurred out Sunday night. Of course, Thursday being live, it wasn’t blurred. She did have panties or a swimsuit bottom on, and it wasn’t even high cut or revealing at all. I’m not sure why they blurred it.