[elliebrew]

Having been terribly let down by Sov I have now dcided that winner is Stephanie. She's classy, can have a laugh, genuine, warm but most of all sh doesn't take herself too seriously. One of the best housemates ever and certainly in my top 5 of all time. Which just proves that even in its dying days BB can produce wonderful HM

[Jack_]

Jesus Christ. First Rachel, and now Stephanie?

No wonder Big Brother has been axed.

[Claymores]

I dislike the faux snobbynes from Stephanie - when in the 70s she got tats oot as an aspiring actress. I hated her days 1-3 but has gradually grown on me cos she's not so unworldly as the posh accent suggests.

[Claymores]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Jesus Christ. First Rachel, and now Stephanie?

No wonder Big Brother has been axed.

Please explain - I find the oldies such as Stephanie who have something to tell of life isometimes interesting rather than hide cans of beans for fun and a jolly jape/fauxmance

The blondes/fit blokes who appear on summer BBs killed it as we don't care what mag deals they're pushing for.

As far as CBB is concerned it has come down to hardcore viewers/voters which means Ulrika can win rather than a small person for the awwwww factor.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Claymores

Please explain - I find the oldies such as Stephanie who have something to tell of life isometimes interesting rather than hide cans of beans for fun and a jolly jape/fauxmance

The blondes/fit blokes who appear on summer BBs killed it as we don't care what mag deals they're pushing for.

As far as CBB is concerned it has come down to hardcore viewers/voters which means Ulrika can win rather than a small person for the awwwww factor.

I've got no problem with housemates having interesting things to tell of life, and infact, I don't even dislike Stephanie. However, being able to tell 'stories' doesn't warrant someone winning. I could quite easily go to the nearest retirement home and ask some of the old men and women what they got up to in their lives. To warrant winning I always feel you have to be 'entertaining', and under that word comes the subcategories of: funny, interesting, argumentative, out-going, likeable, game playing, but nice. Until a housemate has covered the majority of these I don't see why they should win. This is an entertainment show afterall.

In reference to the Rachel point, apart from being 'likeable' and 'nice', she did bugger all. Stephanie has so far covered 'nice', 'likeable' and 'funny'. She hasn't really got involved with many of the things going on in the house, and so doesn't deserve to win.

[newspresenter]

Originally Posted by elliebrew

Having been terribly let down by Sov I have now dcided that winner is Stephanie. She's classy, can have a laugh, genuine, warm but most of all sh doesn't take herself too seriously. One of the best housemates ever and certainly in my top 5 of all time. Which just proves that even in its dying days BB can produce wonderful HM

I agree, except, theres loads of potentially great HM's outthere, just that BB has a budget, so they can only afford a certain amount of stars, thats why Katia, Sisqo, Jonas, Alex, Ivana, Heidi and Sov are in there. Blimey thats 7 out of 12, and thats not inclucing Nicola Tampon.

[elliebrew]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I've got no problem with housemates having interesting things to tell of life, and infact, I don't even dislike Stephanie. However, being able to tell 'stories' doesn't warrant someone winning. I could quite easily go to the nearest retirement home and ask some of the old men and women what they got up to in their lives. To warrant winning I always feel you have to be 'entertaining', and under that word comes the subcategories of: funny, interesting, argumentative, out-going, likeable, game playing, but nice. Until a housemate has covered the majority of these I don't see why they should win. This is an entertainment show afterall.

In reference to the Rachel point, apart from being 'likeable' and 'nice', she did bugger all. Stephanie has so far covered 'nice', 'likeable' and 'funny'. She hasn't really got involved with many of the things going on in the house, and so doesn't deserve to win.

And who do u class as a winner then. Steh has completely engrossed herself in every task. She and Ivana create their own storylines, just because she doesnt get involved in the 'KIDS' house polotics doesnt mean shes not doing anything. Far from it.

[ILoveTRW]

she reminds me of derek from bb6

posh but not trying to control other peoples actions, just tuting

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by elliebrew

And who do u class as a winner then. Steh has completely engrossed herself in every task. She and Ivana create their own storylines, just because she doesnt get involved in the 'KIDS' house polotics doesnt mean shes not doing anything. Far from it.

Not really. Apart from making me cry with laughter last night when she was rubbing Ivana's back over the counter she hasn't really made me laugh. She's got involved with tasks, yes, but all housemates do that. So should all housemates win? No. Go figure. Face it, you just support people because they're nice and won't dare say a word out of place. If Steph was the type of housemate that would just start shouting at Sov saying 'YOU'RE AN INCONSIDERATE ****ING UGLY *******', you wouldn't support her, so don't even deny it.

I don't really class anyone as a winner yet, it's far too early and they've all been fairly good housemates. If I had to pick though, it'd probably be Stephen. But I still don't have any favourites yet.

[BB_Eye]

Stephanie is fantastic value compared to most middle-aged or older housemates. Acerbic and takes no crap. She is how I magined Lesley might have been if she had stuck around in BB8.

[Claymores]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I've got no problem with housemates having interesting things to tell of life, and infact, I don't even dislike Stephanie. However, being able to tell 'stories' doesn't warrant someone winning. I could quite easily go to the nearest retirement home and ask some of the old men and women what they got up to in their lives. To warrant winning I always feel you have to be 'entertaining', and under that word comes the subcategories of: funny, interesting, argumentative, out-going, likeable, game playing, but nice. Until a housemate has covered the majority of these I don't see why they should win. This is an entertainment show afterall.

In reference to the Rachel point, apart from being 'likeable' and 'nice', she did bugger all. Stephanie has so far covered 'nice', 'likeable' and 'funny'. She hasn't really got involved with many of the things going on in the house, and so doesn't deserve to win.

I've no problems with your points and you express them very well. I don't find fauxmances/hiding cans of baked beans/huffing to be interesting at all but rather something more suited to a Teen BB which C4 did once. For this reason I'd rather see the coffin-dodger Heidi stay.

You go on to the winning bit - I believe Rachel winning was a protest vote against 1 dimensional characters, as was Ulrika to some extent. I agree Stephanie has not covered all the bases and for this reason I've surprised myself by saying Mr Jones has so far.

I appreciate you taking time to explain rather than terse sentences.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Claymores

I've no problems with your points and you express them very well. I don't find fauxmances/hiding cans of baked beans/huffing to be interesting at all but rather something more suited to a Teen BB which C4 did once. For this reason I'd rather see the coffin-dodger Heidi stay.

You go on to the winning bit - I believe Rachel winning was a protest vote against 1 dimensional characters, as was Ulrika to some extent. I agree Stephanie has not covered all the bases and for this reason I've surprised myself by saying Mr Jones has so far.

I appreciate you taking time to explain rather than terse sentences.

Thank you, and I appreciate your time too. Usually I'm faced with '**** THEY ARE THE BEST HOUSEMATE EVA'. So it's nice to actually be able to discuss it for once.

On the subject of hiding beans etc, I don't really find these interesting either. What I do find interesting, however, is the arguments that will spin off from these. Sov may be 'bratty' and 'childish' but sooner or later she is going to blow, and she has done partially already. It's only a matter of time before an argument kicks off. It's the same story with Heidi, and that's why along with you, I want her to stay. Her blunt comments are hilarious and you can see she's ready to explode too. The combination of the two I'm sure will result in one hell of an argument. It's a shame that it's a double eviction, because I could deal with Katia going, even if she has offered something to the storyline, but the other two I feel have more to offer.

I also agree with the fact that Rachel winning was a protest, and that Vinnie has covered most of the bases. It took some time for him to come out of his shell but now that he has, I'm looking forward to seeing more.

[Claymores]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Thank you, and I appreciate your time too. Usually I'm faced with '**** THEY ARE THE BEST HOUSEMATE EVA'. So it's nice to actually be able to discuss it for once.

On the subject of hiding beans etc, I don't really find these interesting either. What I do find interesting, however, is the arguments that will spin off from these. Sov may be 'bratty' and 'childish' but sooner or later she is going to blow, and she has done partially already. It's only a matter of time before an argument kicks off. It's the same story with Heidi, and that's why along with you, I want her to stay. Her blunt comments are hilarious and you can see she's ready to explode too. The combination of the two I'm sure will result in one hell of an argument. It's a shame that it's a double eviction, because I could deal with Katia going, even if she has offered something to the storyline, but the other two I feel have more to offer.

I also agree with the fact that Rachel winning was a protest, and that Vinnie has covered most of the bases. It took some time for him to come out of his shell but now that he has, I'm looking forward to seeing more.

You could be correct my pal - Sov's "I want corned beef sandwitch" petulant kiddie thing has thrown Steph/Vinnie/Nicola/Dane into big dispute which is entertaining. Reading you words, I guess Heidi has no more to offer except the odd F words to Baldwin

(I'm riding on the assumption that Barat has taken Katia back to Khazakstan)

[Robbie]

hahaha her face dropping when she read out the crossword clue was HILARIOUS

[elliebrew]

Rachel winning was not a protest on my behalf anyway. And neither was Ulrika

Rachel won for the simple Fact that she displayed courage, class and patience in the face of adversity, she was quirky, fun and not afraid to help her other housemates.

We as a viewing public like to award positive traits in people.

So were as Rex and even Sara were great Value housemates, Rex was very much the Villain of the later half of BB9 so the public do not like to award negative traits.

Ulrika was simply the best out of the remaining housemates, she was fun, didnt take herself to seriously, motherly, articulate and interesting and didnt take any nonsense.

She won on behalf of strong women.

Im sick of FM members pandering to the male housemates because they think the way they act is cool and they are playing the geezer, when theyve simply demonstrated every loathsome characteristic of the male personality. Theyre morally reprehensible, vulgar, insensitive, selfish, chauvanistic etc etc

It pains when FM celebrate such vulgar characteristics yet are quick enough to lambast any female who shows even one of them

[Robbie]

rachel was the shittest most undeserving winner ever, just beatign anthony

[Raph]

Originally Posted by Robbie

rachel was the shittest most undeserving winner ever, just beatign anthony

Rachel was the best winner ever. <3

and i LOVE Stephanie (:

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by elliebrew

Rachel winning was not a protest on my behalf anyway. And neither was Ulrika

Rachel won for the simple Fact that she displayed courage, class and patience in the face of adversity, she was quirky, fun and not afraid to help her other housemates.

We as a viewing public like to award positive traits in people.

So were as Rex and even Sara were great Value housemates, Rex was very much the Villain of the later half of BB9 so the public do not like to award negative traits.

Ulrika was simply the best out of the remaining housemates, she was fun, didnt take herself to seriously, motherly, articulate and interesting and didnt take any nonsense.

She won on behalf of strong women.

Im sick of FM members pandering to the male housemates because they think the way they act is cool and they are playing the geezer, when theyve simply demonstrated every loathsome characteristic of the male personality. Theyre morally reprehensible, vulgar, insensitive, selfish, chauvanistic etc etc

It pains when FM celebrate such vulgar characteristics yet are quick enough to lambast any female who shows even one of them

But she was boring. Completely and utterly boring. What kind of entertainment did she offer? None at all. It took me at least five weeks to learn her name, and I'm being serious.

Rex was the deserving winner that year. He was a villain, but that's more entertaining that anything Rachel offered. Mikey would've been my next choice too.

That's utter bullshit and you know it. I've supported female housemates in the past; Makosi, Nikki, Tina Malone etc. It pains me when FM support housemates because they are 'nice'. This is a TV entertainment show. If you want to go and see 'nice' people, why don't you go out into the big wide world because there's plenty of them there? It's people like you that support these housemates, who yes are nice, but do **** all, that have partially led to the downfall of Big Brother. People are fed up with watching thirteen weeks to see the least interesting housemate win. What is the point, really?

[elliebrew]

Look at all the people you support, nasty pieces of work who walk all over the other housemates, it really says a lot about you when you support such hateful people.

YES they were entertaining, YES they gave us some great moments but this isnt a 'WHO GAVE US THE MOST ENTERTAINMENT' competition, its a popularity competition.

FACT is Rex wasnt that popular. He was NEVER the winner and it showed in him coming 4th

Repulsive ego

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by elliebrew

Look at all the people you support, nasty pieces of work who walk all over the other housemates, it really says a lot about you when you support such hateful people.

YES they were entertaining, YES they gave us some great moments but this isnt a 'WHO GAVE US THE MOST ENTERTAINMENT' competition, its a popularity competition.

FACT is Rex wasnt that popular. He was NEVER the winner and it showed in him coming 4th

Repulsive ego

It really says a lot about me when I support such hateful people? Really?

This gets better. As a matter of fact, I'm nothing like any of the housemates I support. If anything, I'm probably like Rachel, just with a better sense of humour (big headed alert). I support these housemates because they are interesting and worth watching. Let's set up a scenario here:

A) We throw in 8 Suzie from BB7 type housemates and 8 Rachel's from BB9 type housemates. Leave them for thirteen weeks and see what happens.

B) We throw in 8 Marcus from BB10 type housemates and 8 Makosi from BB6 type housemates. Leave them for thirteen weeks and see what happens.

Anybody with half an inch of intelligence can see which scenario will be the most interesting to watch. In option 'A' noting would happen. They'd sit around drinking tea stepping on eggshells because they wouldn't want to argue with each other. There would be absolutely no point in wasting time watching that. On the other hand, in option 'B', we would have housemates game playing (which is what the show is about, by the way), arguing, having in-depth conversations, drunken antics, interesting storylines...the list goes on.

The most popular housemate should be the person who has offered the most to the show. Not who is the most likeable. It's as simple as that really.

[elliebrew]

Originally Posted by Jack_

It really says a lot about me when I support such hateful people? Really?

This gets better. As a matter of fact, I'm nothing like any of the housemates I support. If anything, I'm probably like Rachel, just with a better sense of humour (big headed alert). I support these housemates because they are interesting and worth watching. Let's set up a scenario here:

A) We throw in 8 Suzie from BB7 type housemates and 8 Rachel's from BB9 type housemates. Leave them for thirteen weeks and see what happens.

B) We throw in 8 Marcus from BB10 type housemates and 8 Makosi from BB6 type housemates. Leave them for thirteen weeks and see what happens.

Anybody with half an inch of intelligence can see which scenario will be the most interesting to watch. In option 'A' noting would happen. They'd sit around drinking tea stepping on eggshells because they wouldn't want to argue with each other. There would be absolutely no point in wasting time watching that. On the other hand, in option 'B', we would have housemates game playing (which is what the show is about, by the way), arguing, having in-depth conversations, drunken antics, interesting storylines...the list goes on.

The most popular housemate should be the person who has offered the most to the show. Not who is the most likeable. It's as simple as that really.

Your not getting this Jack

BB is a story

Every story has hero, villain, comic relief and minor characters.

The Villain is always the most entertaining, they get the best lines, the best costumes etc.

But the most satisfying thing about the entire story is that the villain always gets beaten at the end.

If the villain were to win it would not be as satisfying.

I adored Marcus in BB10 and would have loved to have seen him in the final but definatley not win.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by sweety_samy

Rachel was the best winner ever. <3

and i LOVE Stephanie (:

Agree

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by elliebrew

Your not getting this Jack

BB is a story

Every story has hero, villain, comic relief and minor characters.

The Villain is always the most entertaining, they get the best lines, the best costumes etc.

But the most satisfying thing about the entire story is that the villain always gets beaten at the end.

If the villain were to win it would not be as satisfying.

I adored Marcus in BB10 and would have loved to have seen him in the final but definatley not win.

That's a good way of putting it, I'll give you that. Except Big Brother isn't really a story. A story is set out, Big Brother is not. What happens, happens, That's not what it's like in a story. So that's why it shouldn't have a 'satisfying ending'. The housemates who are most interesting are not always the villain anyway. They are just interesting, and so should win.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Jack_

That's a good way of putting it, I'll give you that. Except Big Brother isn't really a story. A story is set out, Big Brother is not. What happens, happens, That's not what it's like in a story. So that's why it shouldn't have a 'satisfying ending'. The housemates who are most interesting are not always the villain anyway. They are just interesting, and so should win.

Editing makes it a story man

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by InOne

Editing makes it a story man

Another good point. But then again, if it's edited, we are not seeing the full story...making it not a story. Confusing.