Author |
Message |
Crzndeb
Member
07-26-2004
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 3:05 pm
I thought this would be a good thread to talk about this. It seems some posters are very vocal about how certain housequests have played. Personally, I think anyway a person gets to the end, regardless of how they got there, deserves the money....they outlasted, for whatever reason, their competition. Some people don't do well in physical challenges, while some others choke on question and answer challenges. Some have not been allowed to play in challenges, so should they be considered any less equal in their battle to the end. Even the HG's talk about floating....Well, hello, if they are still there, that means the heavy hitters didn't do their job eliminating the so-called floaters. Opinions, anyone?
|
Accalia
Member
09-07-2006
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 3:30 pm
I agree Crzndeb, if they get to the end does it really matter how they did it? And in all fairness, is riding someone else's coat tail any different than floating? IMO there are two remaining house guest that don't really do a lot of thinking on their own, they've allowed others to tell them what to do, even after earning the right to make the decisions, does this make them a floater as well? Everyone goes into that house thinking they have the BEST game plan, and all to quickly they find themselves throwing that plan to the side and adapting a new idea that I'm sure is changed many times depending on circumstances. Bottom line is making it to the end in what ever way deemed necessary. Now when it comes down to the jury choosing who "played the best game"... it becomes a crap shoot. It's all in how each individual views what in their mind is playing it best. Some may base their vote on who is most in "need" of the money, while others may feel the person that won most often in the competitions is more deserving. I personally feel getting to the finish line makes each of the final two equally deserving.
|
Toolhound
Member
06-22-2007
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 3:38 pm
Getting to the final 2 is the most important thing no matter how you get there. At that point you are then going to be judged and if you did nothing to get to the final 2 you are probably going to win $50,000.00 and not $500,000.00 Of course sleeping or praying or whatever your way to $50,000.00 is pretty nice.
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 3:39 pm
Like Survivor, outwit, outlast, outplay. Whoever gets there at the end deserves it no matter how they played to me.
|
Carochar
Member
07-25-2005
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 3:42 pm
I think getting to the end without the help of a blood relative (muchless your parent/child) deserves $1,000,000 this year. Unless everyone goes in with an extremely close relation that levels the playing field, those without should get double the prize.
|
Beckie03
Member
07-05-2007
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 3:46 pm
My cousin rode the coattails of two guys when she played Survivor. She openly admitted to doing it at the end of the game. She ended up getting second place, but she outlasted everyone else. I think it is great game play...especially if you can pull it off and not make it seem that you are... Anyway you play the game and it gets you to the end, you deserve to win especially in this game...people could have easily kicked you out if they didn't like your gameplay...
|
Naja
Member
06-28-2003
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 3:47 pm
Since I am a viewer, it doesn't matter to me how they got to the end, as long as they entertained me on the way. I suppose of the 6 left right now, if judged by my standards, Jameka is the least deserving by far.
|
Caprica
Member
02-10-2007
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 3:52 pm
Aside from the Boogie showmance Zach is playing the exact game that Erica played. Jamika was forced into her coattail situation with that one POV contest which by the way reminds me of a bad case of VD the way it keeps on screwing with peoples games even weeks later. Deserving depends on who you like and who you hate. I'm sure the jury will feel the same way.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 3:56 pm
Who is your cousin, Beckie? To answer the question, I think to a certain degree, finishing in the final two speaks for itself. Some people do get lucky with no defined strategy and blunder their way to the final two. Other people have a clear strategy of floating. So it's a little hard to define who is deliberately playing that way and who simply got lucky.
|
Beckie03
Member
07-05-2007
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 3:59 pm
Jimmer, Katie Gallagher...she should have won, but people like Tom more 
|
Bicbicz911
Member
08-20-2005
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 4:00 pm
Deserving depends on who you like and who you hate. I'm sure the jury will feel the same way. Ain't it the truth? Personally, I prefer final two to represent folks that have taken the chances and made the best of each situation that was thrown their way. I detest players that ride coattails, hide under the covers, and get others to do their dirty work for them. I couldn't stand Boogie, but he was a good example to me of one who actually played the game. Erika was a good example of one who played the other kind of game.
|
Seattlemom
Member
05-10-2005
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 4:00 pm
to me if you can make it to the final 2 no matter how, you deserve to be there! and any 2 people can form a strong bond in the house that will greatly help them out if applied right. Look at Will/Boggie they did great despite the fact that Jani,Kaysar,James and Howie went in as friends from the previous season. So just the fact that a parent/child goes in it's not all ways a help. Look at the Twins! If you play a hard game the jury may not like you but they have to vote on one of you.
|
Oregonguy
Member
02-12-2006
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 4:01 pm
was your cousin katie from s10 i believe? i always felt bad for her cuz she got raked over the coals.
|
Beckie03
Member
07-05-2007
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 4:02 pm
Yeah I think it was S10... Yeah, she got tore up about it, but she didn't decide to do that until she got to the show... I think she did great...to ride the entire game on the coattails and stay under the radar...that is the best...
|
Oregonguy
Member
02-12-2006
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 4:09 pm
i remember her tribal council, some of those people were just a-holes to her. i remember that she didnt do well in the challenges but was involved with the strategy of the 3. some are good a challenges and some are good at strategy. to me a floater is someone who does neither and thats were i think jameka lies.
|
Beckie03
Member
07-05-2007
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 4:15 pm
From what she has told me later...after many of them watched the entire season, they would have voted for her... BTW, that is a great definition of a floater...
|
Messalina
Member
06-19-2005
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 4:17 pm
I posted this on another thread but I'll say it again. I don't mind floaters winning in a game such as BB or Survivor. In both shows, surviving is the whole point. If a floater can get to the top, then I give them credit. They did something right. They are sitting in the finalist's chairs and the activists are sitting on the jury. I'd rather be in the F2. Jurors, in this instance, are losers.
|
Govols
Member
07-19-2005
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 4:24 pm
Riding Coattails/Floater = Boring / Lazy
|
Lancecrossfire
Animoderator
07-13-2000
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 4:31 pm
I think there are advantages and disadvantages to any approach—full bore like Colby, someone who just goes along for the ride without being involved in challenges or strategy and anything in between. And each approach’s success can vary depending on the group playing. Some groups would never let a “floater” get anywhere, where other groups haven’t targeted them till it’s been too late. I think the two hardest positions to play from is someone like Colby where you are going balls to the wall and everyone knows it. You play to win everything, and you are considered a threat by everyone. The next is those who play both sides. And I mean really play both sides such that you promise everything to everyone and have no true alliance person. Zach is like that, and so was Jun. Jameka was with Amber, so she isn’t a true player of both sides. Those who play both sides and are open about it (everyone knows Zach has no one and is making deals with everyone) can be seen as either a threat to go all the way if not booted or seen as someone now willing to take a stand and loses the respect of everyone (and you get booted for that). I have a personal preference for how I like a game such as Survivor or BB to be played. I like the Colby style—he played to win every challenge, for the most part he was honest with everyone and was upfront about how he was going to play with not just the TV audience but also each person he’s playing against. Mike Skulpin was the same way—but his injury took him out of Survivor. That would have been interesting to see how that would have unfolded. As far as the question of who deserves it? I’d have to say it’s the person who figures out how to get to F2 and still have the jury vote them to win.
|
Tobor7
Member
07-19-2002
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 4:39 pm
The one who says that they would give all the money to charity. That is who deserves it. Other than that we all win since they have to pay taxes on it.
|
Cricket
Member
08-05-2002
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 4:55 pm
I thought this would be a good thread to talk about this. It seems some posters are very vocal about how certain housequests have played. Personally, I think anyway a person gets to the end, regardless of how they got there, deserves the money....they outlasted, for whatever reason, their competition. In previous years, Crzndeb, I wouldn't have agreed with this statement, but this year, I completely agreee. Some of the HG's are soooo hard to like, let alone root for, the nicer ones happen to be the floaters and do deserve the money just for having survived in this year's house. LOL, Tobor..glad we get something out of this year. It's been a dud otherwise.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 5:06 pm
Thanks Beckie. I guessed it was Katie but I wanted to know for sure! I liked Katie a lot on Survivor (and I'm not just saying that because you are her cousin). I really enjoyed watching her and I found her entertaining and that is one of the best compliments that I can give someone on a reality show. That was a great Survivor season and definitely one of my favorites. Unfortunately for her, she was up against one of the toughest opponents ever in Tom. Some people end up in the final two by dumb luck. However, a deliberate floating game is a real strategy IMO. As I mentioned though, these are the skillful floaters who aren't really floaters but they are masquerading as floaters. They are really playing the game and working all sides to get ahead. Or they have been smart enough to carefully align themselves with strong players. It's a solid strategy and deserving of recognition. If I recall correctly, I enjoyed Katie's spirited defense of that at the final Tribal Council.
|
Darclyte
Member
07-11-2005
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 5:37 pm
So far, Lisa (Season 3) and Jun (Season 4) are the only floaters to win Big Brother. Let's hope it doesn't happen again. If Jameka somehow wins...oy.
|
Beckie03
Member
07-05-2007
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 6:08 pm
Well thank you Jimmer...I really like her too Yeah, Tom was an all around great guy...from what I have heard after Survivor, not soo much...I defintely don't like him anymore as a person... But thanks for the compliment with my family...too bad if I got accepted to BB...there is defintely no way I could use that strategy...
|
Crzndeb
Member
07-26-2004
| Friday, September 07, 2007 - 9:19 am
Bumping, since this is being talked about in Current Happenings right now
|
Spunky
Member
10-08-2001
| Friday, September 07, 2007 - 9:20 am
Actually Zach played an excellent game... he was floating right and left at the right moment and started winning comps at the rigth moment... I hope he keeps having those... right moments until F2.
|
Zachsmom
Member
07-13-2000
| Friday, September 07, 2007 - 9:29 am
who ever makes it to final 2 deserves to be there no matter how they got there. BUT along the way you need to think of jury votes if you want to win the 500,000.
|
Kidsatm
Member
07-08-2005
| Friday, September 07, 2007 - 9:49 am
Agree 100% Zachsmom ( though sometimes that is a bit harder to accept than other times )
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Friday, September 07, 2007 - 11:43 am
I think that people have to play based on their strengths. Some are better at competitions and have more luck and others are better at manipulating. Some are more outgoing and some have quieter personalities. Some stir things up and others play or stay in the background. Look at the final four this year. They have all played very different games and they are the final four. Occasionally I'll see someone make the finals of one of these shows that I think just got there purely by luck, but most of the finalists are deserving in one way or another.
|