[elliebrew]

I seem to be in the minority that like the genuinley nice housemates

I love to see banter and fun and laughs and friendships as apposed to nastiness and controversy

The villainous characters and the alpha male types are all good for a storyline or two but the fact people think they should be anywere near the finish line for their awful behavior just strikes me as completely odd!

The best housemates ove the years have been the ones that have endeared me

RACHEL
AISLEYNE
BRIAN D
SHILPA

Aisleyne not winning BB7 still riles me to this day! She was without a doubt the best housemate we ever had on BBUK

[armand.kay]

I like the nice ones but the bitches are also needed otherwise we get bb4 ://

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by armand.kay

I like the nice ones but the bitches are also needed otherwise we get bb4 ://

Uh people in BB4 were actually pretty mean and vile and the complete opposite of nice.

Originally Posted by Turtle

When I saw Rachel, I knew this thread must be a joke, lol, good one.

Rachel Rice is the best winner ever <3

Originally Posted by Jack_

We all like the nice housemates, we all like nice people. But it's counter-intuitive to support them in an entertainment-based television programme. It's illogical. This isn't a tea party with your friends, you aren't living with them. If the house was full of these 'nice' people, nobody would watch because it isn't interesting. The cast this year is very poor, and Speidi (and Paula was) is holding it up. Without them it'd be one big harmonious happy ****ing family every highlight show and there'd be nothing to discuss, and in a show which thrives on discussion and debate, that's not very good.

If there's nothing to discuss at work, school, on forums, on spin-off shows, nobody cares, so nobody watches. Nice people do not generate discussions. Arguments, feuds, game playing, nasty, rude (whatever you want to call them) people do. No one's advocating their behaviour but this is TV, it isn't real. We're not electing somebody, we're crowning them the winner of an entertainment programme. It's no surprise viewing figures started to fall when Jasmine left CBB10, and there's many other similar cases in previous series. Controversial housemates carry the show, and it is illogical to want them out and to support those who do not contribute anything. If anything you're just wanting the show to fall flat on its face, and that's not very fan-like if you ask me.

But villains have to have a certain level of complexity instead of just being over the top, try hard caricatures (like Spencer is.) Some of these controversial characters "who need to stay in 2 carry da show!!!!11" are actually awful people and don't make good TV whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Tregard

Then why would anyone willingly play a villain knowing they can't win? They're needs to be the chance for anyone to take the prize. Not everything is as black and white as "Good guys and bad guys", the people on Big Brother all have the ability to be nice and nasty, and usually are, throughout the series. The problem is 'Villains' in recent years have been mindless and boring. Conor was a thuggish dullard, "The Wolfpack" were uninteresting to watch. That is why the nice people one, not simply because they were nice, but because they were more interesting (This is debatable, of course).

lol @ Aaron being the nice person who won, that's a joke

Originally Posted by TheManWhoLaughs

People hate boring villains the most - nobody likes Dennis or Conor. And the most popular villains are the ones people can relate to - Victors and Rexes. People are liking Spencer because they can relate to him and there is no-one in the show who is entertaining and nice.

Uh, there's nothing you can particularly relate to with Spencer. He's just a try hard wannabe loser who buys into his own hype and his "epic villain" moments are all really cringe-inducing and just bad acting.

[MTVN]

So why do you have Claire in your sig

[Turtle]

When I saw Rachel, I knew this thread must be a joke, lol, good one.

[Jack_]

We all like the nice housemates, we all like nice people. But it's counter-intuitive to support them in an entertainment-based television programme. It's illogical. This isn't a tea party with your friends, you aren't living with them. If the house was full of these 'nice' people, nobody would watch because it isn't interesting. The cast this year is very poor, and Speidi (and Paula was) is holding it up. Without them it'd be one big harmonious happy ****ing family every highlight show and there'd be nothing to discuss, and in a show which thrives on discussion and debate, that's not very good.

If there's nothing to discuss at work, school, on forums, on spin-off shows, nobody cares, so nobody watches. Nice people do not generate discussions. Arguments, feuds, game playing, nasty, rude (whatever you want to call them) people do. No one's advocating their behaviour but this is TV, it isn't real. We're not electing somebody, we're crowning them the winner of an entertainment programme. It's no surprise viewing figures started to fall when Jasmine left CBB10, and there's many other similar cases in previous series. Controversial housemates carry the show, and it is illogical to want them out and to support those who do not contribute anything. If anything you're just wanting the show to fall flat on its face, and that's not very fan-like if you ask me.

[elliebrew]

Originally Posted by Jack_

We all like the nice housemates, we all like nice people. But it's counter-intuitive to support them in an entertainment-based television programme. It's illogical. This isn't a tea party with your friends, you aren't living with them. If the house was full of these 'nice' people, nobody would watch because it isn't interesting. The cast this year is very poor, and Speidi (and Paula was) is holding it up. Without them it'd be one big harmonious happy ****ing family every highlight show and there'd be nothing to discuss, and in a show which thrives on discussion and debate, that's not very good.

If there's nothing to discuss at work, school, on forums, on spin-off shows, nobody cares, so nobody watches. Nice people do not generate discussions. Arguments, feuds, game playing, nasty, rude (whatever you want to call them) people do. No one's advocating their behaviour but this is TV, it isn't real. We're not electing somebody, we're crowning them the winner of an entertainment programme. It's no surprise viewing figures started to fall when Jasmine left CBB10, and there's many other similar cases in previous series. Controversial housemates carry the show, and it is illogical to want them out and to support those who do not contribute anything. If anything you're just wanting the show to fall flat on its face, and that's not very fan-like if you ask me.

MAYBE you didnt read were i said

I LIKE the villains, they create the storylines!

BUT

The good people should always win in the end! The villains are there to highlight the good people!

They shouldnt even be in with a shot of winning! But thats what the fandom cant grasp!

Its like voting for Voldemort to win instead of Harry Potter

[Tregard]

Originally Posted by elliebrew

MAYBE you didnt read were i said

I LIKE the villains, they create the storylines!

BUT

The good people should always win in the end! The villains are there to highlight the good people!

They shouldnt even be in with a shot of winning! But thats what the fandom cant grasp!

Its like voting for Voldemort to win instead of Harry Potter

Then why would anyone willingly play a villain knowing they can't win? They're needs to be the chance for anyone to take the prize. Not everything is as black and white as "Good guys and bad guys", the people on Big Brother all have the ability to be nice and nasty, and usually are, throughout the series. The problem is 'Villains' in recent years have been mindless and boring. Conor was a thuggish dullard, "The Wolfpack" were uninteresting to watch. That is why the nice people one, not simply because they were nice, but because they were more interesting (This is debatable, of course).

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by elliebrew

MAYBE you didnt read were i said

I LIKE the villains, they create the storylines!

BUT

The good people should always win in the end! The villains are there to highlight the good people!

They shouldnt even be in with a shot of winning! But thats what the fandom cant grasp!

Its like voting for Voldemort to win instead of Harry Potter

Like you - I don't like to see the nasties win. Up the goodies.

[Black Dagger]

We all like a nice house-mate, but if they are dull and add nothing to a series, then they are worthless, take Luke A, he was the nicer one in BB13, and he was a ****ing dullard, least Conor had people talking, mainly saying he's a bellend.

You need characters to create a series, nice people aren't entertaining.

[Gillian-73]

Great post Jack_ I agree!

[Black Dagger]

I always did like Ralph Fiennes though.

[armand.kay]

and all the people in your sig are shady and horrible :// (apart from Trisha(i think that's her name))

[smeagol]

nice people should always win but not boring people. they need to have personality

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by elliebrew

I love to see banter and fun and laughs and friendships as apposed to nastiness and controversy

so you laugh at other TiBB members' eye competition entries because...?

[Raph]

*prefer, sorry I had to

[Stu]

OVERUSE of CAPS.

[starry]

Nice ones aren't always nice and nasty ones aren't often that nasty, simply misguided. So I think some of the problem is your terminology and viewpoint. Making it a pantomime is a bit boring.

[sassysocks]

Nasty can be very boring.

[starry]

Originally Posted by sassysocks

Nasty can be very boring.

As can nice.

[InOne]

Nasty and game players all the way.

[TheManWhoLaughs]

Originally Posted by elliebrew

RACHEL
AISLEYNE
BRIAN D
SHILPA

They are basically the only entertaining nice housemates ever - except Aisleyne, who was mostly hated during BB7 as the villain, so I don't know why she'd fit.

People hate boring villains the most - nobody likes Dennis or Conor. And the most popular villains are the ones people can relate to - Victors and Rexes. People are liking Spencer because they can relate to him and there is no-one in the show who is entertaining and nice.

It's not even about "villains not winning" - the best finale would be a house of villains who all made the end being brilliant trainwrecks, then the one nice person left winning. Not a LukeA in a final of mostly nice dull people.

[Scream]

Don't the nice people always usually win anyway?

[King Gizzard]

I prefered the more light-hearted tame ''boring'' seasons. All the nastiness and fighting isn't my cup of tea at all. I just love the general banter and the **** tasks CH4 use to do, and BBLB/BBBM Must be the only one, trashy BB doesn't do it for me

I don't like the 'game show' concept, I preferred it when it was looked as more of an experiment/documentary kind of thing, staying up watching them talk **** at 3am

[SharkAttack]

Originally Posted by Nathan

I prefered the more light-hearted tame ''boring'' seasons. All the nastiness and fighting isn't my cup of tea at all. I just love the general banter and the **** tasks CH4 use to do, and BBLB/BBBM Must be the only one, trashy BB doesn't do it for me

I don't like the 'game show' concept, I preferred it when it was looked as more of an experiment/documentary kind of thing, staying up watching them talk **** at 3am

I think that's where a lot of us fell in love with the concept, before it became a TV show that people have prepared for. In the new era, it's been difficult finding as much of the experiment, but it's still there, although mostly in tatters.