Reality News Article - Big Brother 3: Did the Best Player Win?
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archive: Archive FOUR: Reality News Article - Big Brother 3: Did the Best Player Win?
 SubtopicMsgs  Last Updated
Archive through September 26, 2002 25   09/26 04:01pm
Archive through September 26, 2002 25   09/26 07:55pm

Llkoolaid

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 08:08 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Kapow, I agree with you about CBS, and no it wasn't meant for you. I find that in all the threads. I just don't like the fighting, I love the discussion but sometimes it gets out of hand.

Maris , I am a strong Dani supporter, ( hard to tell I bet lol) but I loved the way Roddy could manipulate people and I am probably the only person on this board who doesn't fault him for his persuasion of trying to make Amy use the POV.

I give a stab at trying to answer your question. Roddy is known to be a master manipulator and has a way of playing on peoples weaknesses to persuade them to his way of thinking. Look how he handled Jason. I say all the power to him.

Roddy expressed that he thought Dani was soul less and that he wanted Lisa to win. He said he was hurt by Dani for calling him the devil.

I believe that in an interview it was said that he was contacting all the evicted hgs. I am not sure if it was rumor or not that he was trying to gather support against Dani. I really didn't read that thread.

The jury had a big meeting to discuss Lisa and Dani. Given his powers of persuasion and I think he could have easily swayed some of the votes although I don't know if he did. If he did in the jury meeting that is fair with me, if he made it a personal campaign outside of the game then I think he was a poor sport. I don't know if he did or didn't do it. I think it is just an idea being tossed around that it is a possibity but I haven't read all the threads. I do think he would be able to sway some of the votes if he wanted to but I don't think it would have made that much of a difference, I think most of the jury was going to vote for Lisa, if in fact he did have any influence it was in making it 9-1. That's all I can say because I think if he wanted to do it he could have but I really don't know if he did.

Sorry if that isn't a good enough explanation but it is all I have.

Maris

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 08:14 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
no it is great LL, at least I can see some rationale. Before I just didnt get what people were going on about.

Adrian

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 08:20 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I love that article. It eloquently express the same feelings that I have.

Cindyluvsroddy

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 08:22 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
so, one side is complaining about sour grapes ...

another side is complaining about posters complaining about sour grapes..

looks like both sides are complaining ...

oh well! only a few days left before the drop off of people posting anyway

im just happy people can find something to post about :)

Loppes

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 08:26 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Cindyluvsroddy,
Scary thing is this isn't even the Complain About folder.
Lon

Woodpecke®

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 08:30 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I was wondering if a certain someone solved their power source problem. Hehe!

Kapow

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 08:40 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
thanks llkooaid

Does anyone else see the win as CBS engineered? Is it just me?

Llkoolaid

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 08:42 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
One thing I can say about Dani whether you were pro or con she sure gave us lots to talk about, so did Roddy and so did Josh. Those are the kind of players I like to see. Doesn't mean I like them personally, doesn't mean I don't, I try to leave that out of my reason for liking a player.

I think it is all about how you want to see the game played. I like it when things are hot and heavy with lots of charactors that are sneaky and evil, would I like to have them for friends, no but for entertainment value, that's what I want. I thought Lisa was a sweetheart, but I have to say I would rather have seen her win if she was able to pull of the thing with Marcellas and gotten rid of Jason and Danielle( as much as I loved them)then dumped Marcellas and taken Amy to the end. That would have been exciting and good game playing for me. I like when things are mixed up and crazy. I guess it all comes down to what you are looking for in a game.

Jimmer

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 08:44 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I'm tired of hearing the sour grapes comment. It's just another cheap shot at people who are trying to analyze the game. Over and over again. At least be original. If you have an opposing view then state it. And as for the argument, if you don't like it, you don't have to read it, I read the board looking for intelligent posts from all sides.

As far as the article goes, it was an interesting and controversial analysis of the game. However, the best defense of Lisa's winning is that she won - plain and simple. It was two against one at the end and she beat them. And, with hindsight, they should have taken Amy to the end instead of her in the first place.

As far as the voting goes, they obviously can base their decision on whatever criteria that they choose. However, it is hypocritical to say the vicious things about each other that they did during the show and then act the opposite and use different criteria to judge the finalists at the end.

As far as CBS engineering the win, they obviously influenced who would be there near the end. The competitions may have favored Lisa but she won them fair and square and is deserving of the win.

Llkoolaid

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 08:46 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think it is a definate possibility Kapow, and it could have been done by the editing of what was said in Dr. I do think that the pretty young woman winning a reality show was due to come. Is she the first, I think so but not sure.

Eden

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 08:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I agree completely with the article.

Llkoolaid

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 08:52 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think it would be a better game if the judges were given a specific criteria to base there vote on and that the houseguest should have prior knowledge to what it was. I also think it would be better if the jury had to give their vote and justify it. I think it would make a much more exciting game full of twists and turns. You wouldn't be able to sit back and slide, you would have to play the game.

Cindyluvsroddy

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 09:06 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
lol yes woodpeck - duracell baby :)

Hummingbird

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 09:08 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Dani did not play the best game. If she had, she would have won. She alienated the jury -- the number one game mistake. My vote for worst player? Marcellus -- hands down!

Woodpecke®

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 09:09 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Hummmmmmmmmmm

Llkoolaid

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 09:24 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Marcellas made a big mistake in not using the pov.

Did anyone notice that of the 3 couples ( I call Dani and Jason a couple) that it was the men who fell when they were needed most resulting in the couples being split up . With Eric and Lisa, Eric lost the hoh to Gerry and he left.
Roddy didn't stay in the tub, Chiara wasn't allowed to play and she got booted.
Jason let go of the key first when I think being a male and physically stronger her should have been able to beat the woman, then he lost the next game and he left. Just an observation, nothing more.

Llkoolaid

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 09:26 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
As my 8 year old daughter would say " Girls rule, boys drewl". lol

I know I can't spell "drewl" and I am too lazy to look it up.

Jimmer

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 09:26 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Interesting observation regarding the guys, but I cannot recall a man ever winning an endurance challenge on any of the reality series. Women just seem to be able to endure more.

Llkoolaid

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 09:34 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
That's cause we have babies and marry men , lots of practice enduring things. Lol, that is a joke.

Llkoolaid

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 09:36 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Seriously though, Jimmer that does seem to be the case, I wonder why. Men are physically stronger, you would think it would go the other way.

Jimmer

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 09:43 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Llkoolaid, Great comment … I agree. When my wife was having our first child, I asked a male friend who was a father a short time earlier for advice. His comment was I should ask for an epidural for myself in the parking lot. That way I could avoid the pain. But we do digress here, don’t we.

Whit4you

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 09:44 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Not sure why one persons opinion justifies an entire thread to itself... we could all have written just as biased an opionion of the outcome of this game as this poster did. Cause it's from a different board? Or is it supposed to be from a professional? If it is from a so-called-professional... um he/she's definately NOT professional. Where does the writer get off claiming that Gerry called the rest of that household racists for example?

The article is no more biased then any of the hundreds of posters on this board - and any one of us could write just as biased a 'article'

Obvoiusly the best player won - or she would not have WON. What's so hard to understand about that?

When one team wins the superbowl - and it's clear that an umpire made a wrong call - you MIGHT be able to say 'the best team didn't win' - but even then are they really NOT the best team? They may be the best team - if just they would have only LOST the game by that one play. Determining who is the best team really does not come down to one single play.

Now - to say that there was a 'bad call' in this game makes NO sense to me - the entire OUTCOME of the game is based on the vote of 10 people who are no more governed BY some set rules then Dani was in the game itself.

To IMPLY that the best player did not win because those HGs should have voted by some standards that writer has decided on makes NO sense to me. That writer has no more right to decide what criteria the HGs choose to use to vote, then Lisa's mother would have.

Lets imagine this - Lisa's mom decides the criteria for the vote. What do you think the outcome would have been?

Lets say Dani's husband were to determine the criteria for this vote. What do you think the outtcome would have been?

So this writer decides that the best winner didn't win because 10 players IN THE GAME did not vote based on HER criteria? Exactly what makes that writer feel that she has the right to determine the criteria that the 10 voters used?

And if they didn't use her criteria that means therefor that the best player did not win?

The best player..based on that writers personal vision of what the best player in this game is?

We have a few hundred here who could write their own articles - (we call them posts here) and determine who THEY feel was the best player.

To imply that the best player didn't win and say that Dani was the best player shows a biased a good writer would not use, not unless they admit that biased to begin with.

What determined that Dani was the 'best player' because she made it to the final 2? What about Jason? Why wouldn't he be the best player as well? Because he let his hand slip for one second...? He played just as good a game as Dani - to determine he was not the best player because of that one moment..that one fatal flaw... makes no sense and shows the bias clearly.

The same could be said of Marc... he went from being the biggest underdog... and would have been gone the first week if not for Gerry... His one moment where he declined to use that veto - means he didn't make it to the final to. So why wouldn't he be concidered the best player? Because he made one momentary mistake?

Here's the bottom line folks. Like the results or not. Here are the rules ok? I'll spell them out since people don't seem clear on this.

There are going to be 10 people voted out. Those 10 people will vote for whatever reason THEY choose to and that is THIER right as houseguest. If they want to vote for someone based on the color of their eyes that is THERE RIGHT. If they want to vote on someone because they mentioned the color red, and red happens to be their favorite color.

The person who figures out HOW TO GET MORE VOTES, or takes the person who will get LESS VOTES with them to the finals... is the best player. That's the bottom line.

If you want to classify someone who LOSES 450,000 as the best player - um then my guess is you could enjoy a nice little tea-party with those in the rabbit hole - most of whom think playing nice and using your god given right to be sweet and friendly and treat people good is horrible... I'm sure they'd enjoy the company!

In my little world - someone who loses 450,000 is NOT the best player, the person who WINS the game and WINS the 450,000 is.

Tea anyone?

Jimmer

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 10:28 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
The question hinges on whether it is possible to win something and not be the best player or the best team? Generally, that falls under the "we wuz robbed!" category of thinking. However, in rare instances I think it is possible for the winner not to be the best - especially where good or bad luck is involved. Having said this, it is an uphill battle to argue against the actual winner being the best. The victory speaks for itself.

Adrian

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 10:35 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Actually, I agree, Danielle is not best player (during the post-season, Lisa is. Danielle was the MVP of the regular BB3 season) because she did not win the grand prize. But then one's opinion in choosing the best player of this game is not unlike what's been happening in some sporting events, let's say in the NBA. A great example is 2001-2002 NBA season, the MVP of the season was being voted (BTW, Duncan edged Kidd and way ahead of SHAQ from the eventual champion Lakers) even way before the first NBA finals (Lakers vs. Nets) was played.

For many people, Danielle is the BB3 Best Player (like Duncan) during the regular season before the Final 2 (championship). Danielle wins by a landslide if the awarding is to be done before their championship game with Lisa.

Lisa is the SHAQ of BB3. She wins the Best Player award in the post-season (or championship game against Danielle).

Majority of Danielle's opponents were the ones who are the most vocal about Danielle as being the best player of the game. Go figure, if their votes are based on who played the best! Enough said.

Bernie

Friday, September 27, 2002 - 04:05 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Hypermom! Thank you, I got your email, and replied a little while ago-hope you got it! Thanks very much! :-)))

I'm sure everyone here knows that I'm an Amy and Jason fan, and not a fan of Danielle, but, I voted for her to win in the vote thread, and I agree with a lot that the writer of the article had to say. Thus I assume I would be immune to being accused of 'sour grapes!' I think the writer had some very valid points re the evictees and their motives.
I can't agree with what seems to me the simplistic notion that whoever won, deserved to win, or they wouldn't have won. I'm happy that Lisa won, but I don't think she played the best game, and I think Danielle 'wuz robbed.' She got where she did by not winning comps, not being nominated, and by getting her competitors evicted. I did not like her trashtalk, which was totally egregious, but that apart, she played well.
Lisa stumbled around without any real strategy despite her later protestations to the contrary. She was so clueless that she made a deal with Marcellas just before he was evicted, and it was only the loyalty of Danielle and Jason that allowed her to beat Amy into the final three.
It was Danielle's recruitment of her after Chaira screwed her that got her to the winning point, so IMHO Danielle had as much to do with Lisa winning as Lisa did-based on strategy, not the 'losing by default' theory.

Whoever said that there should be rules as to the criteria for voting hit the nail on the head. BB should explicitly state what is fair and what isn't and by what standards the winner should be determined. The houseguests themselves didn't really know, and seemed to think that the Survivor rules were valid, but BB is a very different game, and shouldn't be evaluated in the same way.
If we have to complain, I believe that we should toss this complaint into the mailbag with all the others we have for Arnold Shapiro, and send it to him for his perusal. Blurry concepts and vague unstated rules do not make for a good game. BB is good, but could be so much better!

Ocean_Islands

Friday, September 27, 2002 - 05:09 am EditMoveDeleteIP
By the way, the expression "sour grapes" only applies if the loser says, "The prize wasn't worth winning anyway." That is what is referred to by 'sour grapes' -- that "Those grapes are sour, and I didn't want them anyway."

It has nothing to do with feeling that a person should have won when they didn't, or expressing that.

If Danielle went around saying, "I should have won" then that would be 'poor sportsmanship'.

Tobor7

Friday, September 27, 2002 - 05:14 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Pretzel logic. The best player won because the player that wins is the best player.
How can this be argued?

My FAVORITE player didn't win... that's another story.

Bernie

Friday, September 27, 2002 - 06:20 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I think the sour grapes referred to in this thread are being used not only erroneously but have also been attributed unfairly.

Circular logic, Tobor! Loops around on itself and cannot admit any other logical conclusion within its confines-the worm Ourouboros-snake swallowing its own tail. ;-)

Bigsister

Friday, September 27, 2002 - 07:14 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Someone said that in order to win Big Brother you have to play two games, one inside the house and one outside the house. Danielle did a marvelous job with the inside-the-house game, keeping herself from being nominated, protecting her secret alliance with Jason, manouvering to have her rivals evicted, etc.

However, Danielle neglected the other half of the game almost as if she had blinders on. Did it not cross her mind that, once people leave the house they will see what she had been doing behind the scenes and behind their backs? And that these very people would come back to vote on the final winner?

It is hard for me to say that Danielle played the best game and therefore deserved to win, when she played half the game so woefully poorly.

Becca

Friday, September 27, 2002 - 01:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I personally think that it can be argued that when you get into the final 3 its kind of crap shot. It completely depends on who wins HOH. Lisa had a 33% chance of winning it. Plan and simple. Look at when Kim J in surivor won HOH over Ethan and Lex. You never know what can happen there. Keeping Amy, she could have won it. It's the one time you really can't control things.

Personally, I do think that Dani played a horrible outside game. HORRible. However, I wasn't to impressed with Lisa's inside game. Lets' face it, she was lucky. Plan and simple. She didn't plan on flying under the radar, it happened. She got as far as she did because Jason and DAnielle decided that she was "good people." We never even saw her trying to get on their good side. The planned on voting out Eric, and using the fact taht her entire alliance voted against her to turn her. Lisa was their pawn, a little more stable then Marc. Who won, only because well in the final 3, she had a 33 % chance at winning. The rest of the house was angry at her.

Personally, I think it can be argued that perhaps Jason played the best overall game. He didn't sit around and do nothing. He played the entire game. But, he was smart enough to keep his mouth shut in the diary rooms (and not make tons of promises to everyone in the house, that he wasn't going to keep.) While I still think it can be argued that Danielle was the best manipulator. I could have stomached a Jason win a lot better than a Lisa win, because Jason actually played the game.
Lisa was the Kim J of the group, Danielle is Lex, and Jason was Ethan. (People like to say Ethan did nothing but he and Lex did have a final 2 agreement, (they don't show all in survivor) Kim wasn't suppose to make it into the final 3 much less final 2, but well the best laid plans don't always work. One of the players accused Kim J of riding an alliance to the final 2, that wasn't the accusation EThan faced. He just quietly played. The only difference is that Lisa choose DAnielle, who she could beat (smartly) rather than the Jason (who I think would have won the game, for the reasons I stated. The final vote isn't so much about who was the best player. It depends on the other houseguests. Notice no one commented on how well Lisa played the game. IN fact, people barely commented on Lisa at all. This was a vote against Danielle.

Kapow

Friday, September 27, 2002 - 09:23 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I will add that I STILL think CBS was able to engineer the final two and hence the vote by use of DR entries we were not privy to. My belief is that CBS "needed" a different type of person to win from their last reality show winner - Vecepia. Dani was too similar, IMHO. I am not and have never been a Dani fan, so this is not "sour grapes". JMHO