Winning Big Brother versus Survivor
TV ClubHouse: Archive: Winning Big Brother versus Survivor
Spygirl | Friday, April 11, 2003 - 02:03 pm     I was talking with a friend at lunch today about the differences between the winners of Survivor and the winners of Big Brother. We don't know if the winner of Survivor could be someone like Deena who was playing the game so hard and so openly, or even like Rob who is playing people against one another. It seems their rug unravels on them. And yet, that strategy is exactly how Will won BB2 (as was pointed out in another thread), but I don't know if someone can win Survivor that way. Is it because the Big Brother "jury" gets to hear all that went on and come to terms with it before voting (i.e some have 2 1/2 months before placing their final vote whereas all the survivor emotions are way too high and raw when they have to vote), or is it because the Survivor prize money is larger and therefore more is at stake, or was Will a total reality TV winner fluke? or could it be because of a million other reasons I haven't thought of? I missed the entire first season of Survivor, so I don't really know the players, and I have a pretty limited memory on the other seasons. But, if you look at Big Brother (can't count the first season because it was different voting), you have one "evil" winner who played the game in a very manipulative way, and one "benign" winner who won...by being less evil than the other choice. |
Wilsonatmd | Friday, April 11, 2003 - 03:21 pm     Well in Big Brother, the jury members can see more of what's going on (they can actually watch the shows both before and after they've been eliminated, while the Survivor jury only has the TC's and the ousted players memories to guide their votes), so that has something to do with it. In BB3 for example, Dani lost because while she was nice to the HG's in the house when they were there, she was talking smack about them in the Diary Room. Dani didn't realize that material could be (and was) used on the broadcast shows, and she was caught in being dupicitous, thus she was in the classic no-win situation, being if Jason or Lisa has gone with her to the finals, the other contestants would have voted against her for basically lying to them.... With Survivor, the jury can discuss anything apparently except who they are going to vote for, so the ousted players can get info from later boots, but that information might be tainted with bad blood towards sombody, or be one-sided stories, or just facts are missing or wrong. In Big Brother, the camera is neutral (although the editing might be slanted one way), but the events shown actually happen, and the camera never lies, while the jury members could.......so the BB juries have more accurate info than Survivor juries have. |
Niceguy | Saturday, April 12, 2003 - 07:35 am     I think that of the three Big Brother shows people like Eddie, Nicole and yes, Dani and to a lesser extent Roddy are closer to the true spirit as to how the game should be played. Rich, Vecepia, Brian and possibly Mike from S2 are closer in spirit to the Survivor ethos than Tina or Ethan. I look at people like Jason from BB3 and Colby from S/Outback(Gabe too) as being too altruistic for this type of game playing. I still feel that Will Kirby is an aberration due to events beyond the scope of the game. So were Amy, Justin and MEGA. |
|