RNO Roundtable: Was the Big Brother 3 Veto a Worthwhile Idea?

Big Brother 3 instituted two major changes this season. First, they gave us the Veto. Later, they gave us the returning houseguest. The Veto itself was threatened many times, but used only once - in the very first nomination. This leads us to wonder about just how worthwhile it is. So we brought the RealityNewsOnline team together to answer that question. O'Sean Aieghlans, David Bloomberg, C. Brian Devinney, Phil Kural, Susan Schechter, and Sting7 provide their opinions: Was the BB3 Veto Worthwhile?

David: I think the Veto was an interesting idea, but one that never really came to fruition. Yes, it saved Marcellas early on - but the Veto came back to bite him on the ass when he refused to use the Golden Veto on himself at the end. Certainly the course of play would have been changed without it, as Marcellas would have been gone and Lori still there going into week 2. But I doubt Lori would have stuck it out much longer, as she was already starting to snap at people and didn't really seem to want to be there anymore (witness her very low "bid" to get back in when the first four evictees were given the chance to return). Obviously, we cannot predict what would have happened - but one thing definitely did happen: Wednesday became a must-watch night for BB3.

I remember recapping BB2 last year, and the episode between the nominations and the evictions were the most boring to watch and write about. Nothing of real interest happened. But by adding in the Veto, the producers made every night an important one - well, potentially important, anyway.

One reason it was used so infrequently was the number of "pairs" in the house. While the Veto-holder was always immune to nomination, their partner was not, and that threat held Veto in check throughout the game. Still, the Veto produced some dramatic moments. Amy didn't word her promise to Roddy very well and said she would Veto him at the first opportunity - not including a disclaimer that would exclude this promise if she were also up. She ended up breaking that promise, but not before a lot of drama. As I already noted, Marcellas could have/should have used the Veto on himself at the end, but was too egotistical to think he would be leaving. There was also a lot of bargaining that went on with Vetos - promises on what to do or not to do if the Veto were not used.

So was it worthwhile? I'd have to say yes. It made the game more interesting, even if it was only used one time. Should it return next year? Yes - but maybe with some changes. Wouldn't it be interesting if the Veto holder not only could block one nomination, but also be the one to make the replacement? It would certainly take away some of the HoH's power and would also definitely lead to greater use of the Veto as people would not have to worry about who might be put up if they were to Veto one of the nominees. Definitely something to think about…

Sting7: I think that it was worthwhile. The machinations of the game kept it from being used, but the mental effect of the Veto changed the entire culture of the game. It kept anyone from feeling really safe. There were no Nicoles, who knew that as long as she kept trading HoH with Hardy, she was scot-free.

The Veto kept Marcellas in a lot longer than he probably should have been. It helped expose the true colors of the players, and let's not forget, it gave CBS a tasty lead-in to the eviction shows (and it seems the Wednesday night shows outperformed the Thursday shows, ratings wise).

I hope they keep it for my reign on Big Brother 4.

Brian: Was the BB3 veto worthwhile? I believe the answer has yet to be proven.

As the veto was only used once, not to mention on the least grateful person in the game, I don't know that the worthiness of the veto has been either proven or not. The one time that the veto was used it was not used to save a member of an alliance or a person whose nomination has turned out to be something in error due to another houseguest's actions or attitude. Marcellas' veto was done because Gerry thought an error had been made in terms of Marcellas himself. It was made, in Gerry's opinion, without the necessary forethought needed in order to accurately make such a decision.

However, the power of veto has been used successfully to keep the nominations in place that were beneficial to certain cliques within the Big Brother house. If you like how things stand, why use the power of veto? In the case of the nominations of Roddy & Chiara and Eric & Lisa, it was a strategic move to break up what was perceived as two power couples. One could make the same argument for the double nominations of Amy and Marcellas. In order to be assured that a power couple was eliminated and that neither member could cast what might be a deciding vote to keep the desired person in the house.

But the power of veto was also a double-edged sword. You could win power of veto but you never had any certainty as to whom the Head of Household would select to replace that person. In the case of the nominations of Eric and Lisa, Chiara held the power of veto but could not use it as it was highly hinted that Roddy would be put in the place of either person. As Chiara had a stronger bond to Roddy than to either Eric or Lisa, she decided to keep her man in the house and split up the first couple.