Quote:
Originally Posted by cub
He should have known he would have to work hard for votes. This includes being interesting and entertaining to the viewers. Not lazy and creepy.
|
Partly correct and mostly wrong ^
In fact, no, you do not have to work hard for votes even we did use your bizarre definition.
In fact the first thing that must be done is to 'not' become nominated by enough fellow Housemates.
This may be done (partly) by working hard during group tasks.
This part of winning BB can be done by 'working hard' to earn the trust of fellow HMs and be useful to them.
Steve actually has been doing that and your opinion or that of viewers doesn't have anything to do with this part.
The next thing here IS winning viewers but 'being entertaining to viewers' is only a part of it. (and not even necessarily part of it).
You can win viewers by showing them you will NOT become easily upset, stay positive, handle the stress and psychological pressure.
Now one could argue that is 'entertaining' if you are the viewer who finds that interesting and approves of seeing such a thing.
(example, I like seeing Steve behave in that way).
Another way to win is to 'work hard' at NOT being a dick, highly objectionable or at least 'not as much' as one other person nominated.
This is where the audience may approve of someone being less 'negatively interesting'.
Or you can even say not 'entertaining too much'
You can also win those votes by being 'identifiable' or you may do so by appealing to a specific but loyal demographic of voters (quality over quantity you may say).
Another problem is you have a possible contradiction when you suggest 'lazy and creepy' is the 'opposite' to being entertaining and interesting.
Not necessarily and both can be true.
For example - many people agreed that BB9s Mo Mohammad's laziness was entertaining and interesting.
It was often featured on Highlights and some of us found it hilarious and wanted to reward him with a longer stay.
'Creepy' could be quite interesting. In some cases 'creepy' may even be rewarded by viewers depending on who it's directed at. A hip-hop streetster with a comical attitude may earn votes making 'creepy' comments towards a highly unpopular HM.
They can 'work hard' to get the votes.
But BB is interesting in that the winner is exactly who deserves to win. Each time. Every time.
It is 'self-defining' in its very happening.
Rachel Rice can be said to 'deserve the win' because, in fact, everything she did was EXACTLY what (as proven) was required to win in that season.
The Winners very existence as winner is the 'proof positive' that WAS how to win.
Anyways.. that should hopefully clear up a few of your misunderstandings and misconceptions.