Quote:
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.