IT could have been marginally worse
 

Jamie nearly got eternal immunity :hehe:

You see my logic was I'd rather it go to someone irrelevant that also doesn't stand a chance of winning (i.e. Jamie or Bianca) rather than someone who does, so I'd have preferred him to get it over James

I think this has just solidified his win now, which kinda renders the rest of the series pointless

Yeah I see that point, if they continue to edit him as he is, he will win, they could twist it though, he must be dropping some clangers in there

It would. If the entire series hinges on who wins in the last 10 minutes of the final.

The winners never define a series. The series is never changed by the last ten minutes.

Did Anthony winning BB6 make the previous 11 weeks of golden television different? No, it all still happened.

To you maybe, what I said was of course in my own opinion (I'm just not gonna add that to the end of every post I make)

I put a lot of weight on the winners of reality shows, I wish I didn't but I do. I feel like I've wasted weeks/months of my life investing in a show if some ****ing irrelevance only goes and wins it :shrug: in much the same way that someone may feel cheated if the last ever episode of a drama they enjoy doesn't end the way they like, it works exactly the same. Yes in part it's about the 'journey', but I still think the winner can to an extent make or break a series

The BB6 example isn't as useful because Anthony actually was a fairly big part of the series, if a MOTR housemate wins (i.e. Pete, Brian B, Jason) I'll be disappointed but I can deal with it, whereas if someone like Sam Evans wins, my thoughts on the series take a huge tumble. I'd easily put BB15 above BB14 for example, whereas if Dexter or Gina had won it might not be so clear cut

It does sour a series a little for me if there is a terrible winner.