[Mystic Mock]

It's a thread that Withano will love to discuss for sure.

Anyway the question is simple does air time automatically equal entertainment? I know that some people tend to think like this, and whilst I don't cheer on invisible Housemates, I don't necessarily think that just because a Housemate has the most screentime that they're the best because you've basically just been favoured by production for some reason.

What do you guys think?

[JTM45]

Nope!
It's gotta' be entertaining air time to be eeerrrrr.........entertaining!
It's a quality over quantity thing.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

It's a thread that Withano will love to discuss for sure.

I do think a lot of people choose their favourites based on airtime.. Which makes sense I suppose. But having a favourite who is having a lot of airtime for all of the wrong reasons (i.e Helen, Gina, Dexter) does not make sense to me! They're not nice people or entertaining people! They're just loud and on TV more than their competitors!

[Pete.]

It depends. For Jack, his airtime has been mostly negative and this series losts of airtime has negatively impacted some housemates' popularity while some housemates, like Eileen, have remained popular on mediocre airtime.

[Marsh.]

People will have favourites BECAUSE they have a lot of airtime. So they see more of them that they may like.

But I don't think anyone bases their favourite on the amount of airtime. Just tends to be the ones we see more of are the ones we can base stronger opinions on.

Having said that, people like Sam still picked up fans despite not featuring as much as many others.

[Jason.]

No.
Quality over Quantity.