It's only a game show...?
Gill Smith compares 'Big Brother' to sitcoms and soaps

I doubt anyone can have totally missed the hype surrounding Channel 4's 'Big Brother' experiment - unless you're locked in a house with ten complete strangers that is… This show - which recently gained the highest viewing figure for a Channel 4 programme ever - is interesting for those of us struggling to write for television, not only in the psychological interactions of the housemates, but also in the public's appetite for television like this. We seem to enjoy watching the gritty detail of other people's lives. Webcams in the bedroom have had their fan clubs for a while now, and fly-on-the-wall type documentaries vary in content and tone.

The trouble for those of us who write comedy is that our screens are being filled with this style of programming - and you just couldn't write this stuff! It disobeys all the rules of writing.

Firstly, give each character a memorable trait. Something that makes them stand out from the crowd, something that we can latch onto and identify with. It took several weeks, and some serious removal of anyone with anything approaching a strong character to actually find Tom or Anna a personality.

Secondly, make the plot unpredictable. We shouldn't be able to guess what's happening next. We should be guessing what happens next, not just when exactly it'll be that someone suddenly discovers - by Tom telling tales to Craig in those ever so harmless Tyrone tones - that "Britain's most hated man" Nick has been lying, scheming, manipulating and plotting from Day One. Whether they succeed on the tasks is a given - not that they will, just that it's obvious when they're going to be rubbish. And do we really need the long discussions on food, now that tofu is no longer a hot topic?

Thirdly, keep each episode self contained. The nature of 'BB' means that it completely fails on this one. Clearly it isn't easy to conclude Melanie's flirting, when she hasn't quite worked out whom to leap on, but the nomination news and breaking it to the housemates is a dragged out process. The tension - or lack of it - isn't helped by Darren's recent shouting of his nominations, giving the lucky producer of the day the chance to show two lots of dreary voting. The painstaking tasks get hyped up for several days, always to be a let down, whatever the result. High jinx with hiding the lighter, rizlas, or anything else, is dragged on, only demonstrating certain housemates inability to think- I mean several nicotine deprived smokers are definite candidates for hysterically funny TV. Even the attempts to eat the chickens were thwarted until the last day… will they roast one then?

Next, never, ever analyse your characters - the audience should know and accept their actions from the well-written characterisation. You shouldn't need a psychologist, desperate for a media career to explain why a new big-breasted arrival causes tension for some of the women - lesbian or otherwise. The audience should be considered capable of working out that Caroline wasn't that happy about being repeatedly nominated for eviction.

Similarly, if you wrote a thirty minute drama that spent five of those minutes worrying about the state of health - and sexual behaviour - of a bunch of chickens your rejection slip would arrive by the next post.

Even the supposedly real events seem flimsy, poorly thought out and - sometimes - fake. The way that Mother Hen Darren recovered from his chicken phobia demonstrated a 0-60 time that Ferrari would be proud of, even without any visible signs of capacity to think of anyone but himself. Unless you count Marjorie, his favourite hen, who demonstrates more character than certain housemates.

Another rule is to keep your characters constant - you can't go around changing them just to suit the episode. Anna has changed from sweet, quiet little ex-nun to the volunteer voice of Big Brother. Craig didn't waste any time reverting from conquering hero of the Nick debacle to pathetic pervert trying to check out Claire's breast implants. On which subject, how often are we told not to add new important characters late on - just because one of the existing ones isn't working out? Nor kill off too many old ones!

Annoying too is the fact that no self respecting producer would read beyond page one of a sitcom that featured a jolly scouse manual labourer, a couple of nice sweet gentle Irish folk, and an over-privileged upper class evil schemer who gets his comeuppance. Oh, and let's not forget the bald-headed basically weird arty northern lass and the dippy hippy chick practising her PR and yoga. (She may have slipped it into the conversation that she's about to launch her book!) Worse yet, you couldn't write a dyed-blonde Brummie with aspirations of a TV career with quite that laugh. Put this lot into a drama and you'd be accused of total stereotyping.

And yet, in spite of all this, it is great television. I know people who are glued to the webcams all day, in the hopes that something interesting will happen and they'll be the first to know. I can't explain why it works, because logically, it shouldn't. Why are we fascinated by the lives - or lack of lives - of ten total non-entities, made famous for being just that? Dull Darren, Randy Andy, Flirty Melanie, Thicky Nicky, Cackling Caroline, Nasty Nick, Tedious Tom, Auntie Anna, Crude Craig, Strange Sada and ex-'C' Cup Claire have suddenly become part of our daily lives.

Perhaps it saves us from noticing the lack of lives ourselves, as we slip out of the pub a little earlier this Friday night, to go and watch the eviction.

Do you agree with this harsh criticism? Do you want to defend all or any of the Big Brother stars? Who do you want to evict this week? Do you deny have being interested in any of the hype? Do any of the housemates deserve £70000? Have your say in the BSCW Forum.