There are two fundamentally different ways of watching a BB series, mired in mutual incomprehension, particularly in that group A cannot understand group B.

Group A take what you might call the sports fans' attitude to BB. It is a game, a competition, its purpose is to entertain the audience. An ideal highlights show has a twist, an explosion, a melt-down, a huge drama ending in tears, tantrums and expletives. BB5 fight night is a kind of shangri-la, never quite equalled. It is absolutely maddening to people in this group that 'big characters' are so often voted out early. They often post on here about the stupidity of people who can't SEE that the game is going to be boring with 'the getalong gang drinking tea'. Pete, Rachel and Luke are often quoted as their worst winners: all three of them disliked confrontation; Pete would literally leave the room, Rachel's reaction to being quite unpleasantly picked on was to say nothing more than "well, you're entitled to your opinion" and refuse to engage with it, Luke spent hours after any criticism gnawing away at what he had done wrong instead of (apart from once) saying a big **** it. They did not create drama. They were not at the centre of conflicts, or at least not deliberately.

Group B take what you might call the virtual friends attitude to BB. They feel a strong emotional attachment to one or more housemates and identify with them as they go through life in the house. The big dramas are not the core point of BB. They (and I am one of them) are more interested in seeing a favourite housemate dealing with the minor dramas of BB life than in seeing 'big characters' creating conflicts. They exchange facts about a housemate's family. They follow them AND their family members on twitter or facebook. I am an extreme group B. I adored, for example, watching Dean in BB2 spending hours and hours trying to stack sugar lumps: it was quite emotional watching this very likeable man wrestling with a genuinely tough challenge, never giving up, and triumphing in the end. I loved it all over again when he returned in BB10 and did the same challenge with Lisa - by then she was totally marginalised, a bit low in spirits, defeated, just serving her time; for a few golden minutes the presence of a completely kind, unjudgmental, relatable, emotionally stable West Midlands peer relaxed her and made her sweet-natured, friendly and happy. If you offered me the chance to watch that scene again or BB5 fight night, I would probably choose Dean thawing Lisa out. (I have deliberately chosen an old example here in the hope that people will not feel too emotional about anyone involved).

Group A never seem to understand why such dull housemates keep winning. Pete, Rachel and Luke have all been diminished by the sneer 'sympathy vote'; replace 'sympathy' with 'empathy' and you have a point. They are three housemates who made people really care about them, even love them. They were 'radar dodgers' - and so would most of us have been. How many of us really want to go round stirring up conflict? Out of 13 series, there have only been two where my favourite has won, but I have no trouble understanding ANY of the winners. They won by making people care about them, feel happy when they were happy and sad when they were sad. All of them. 'Legendary' housemates, from Jade onwards didn't make enough people care about them to win.

I actually think (this is my last paragraph before I break the internet) that BB is not a brilliant series for a strong group A person. BB keeps trying to stir up drama - splitting prize money, twisting nominations, inventing very confrontational tasks - but a lot of that seems to be trying to compensate for the fact that the public just WON'T keep in the loud, fiery people they had put in the house to stir things up.

A good winner is someone who is able to combine both qualities, being interesting and contributing as well as being able to handle conflict without being nasty.

I think you have a good point there. But I really don't see myself in either group, because I can appreciate points from both sides. I think a mix of loud personalities and quieter housemates is needed and always makes for a better series. BB5 for example had your Victor's and Nadia's but at the same time had the Shell's and Stuart's to bring some stability to the house.

Ultimately, I think it's good for the show to lose a few "big characters" in the early stages and I never understand people mourning the loss of loud, shouty, gobby people in the 2nd week. There are certain people there that are cast just for that reason - to provide some drama in the early stages and swiftly get voted out. If they out stay their welcome then they start to dominate the show in a way that's detrimental to a series. They usually don't have much else to provide.

Then again, the people I consider big characters aren't usually the types other people would consider big characters beyond the obvious ones. I look for depth of character, complexity, intelligence and someone who slowly reveals themself over weeks. I mean I consider Deana to be a big character because she was fascinating to watch whilst others were calling her boring. At the same time, I found Conor / Ashleigh to be dreary dull because they don't have any depth. Yet they were the loud, shouty types that some people seem to notice.

I guess it all depends on your personal perception. I guess I'm closer to being in group B in that sense because I'd much rather see a group of people who can hold an intelligent conversation, have colourful back stories, have life experience and have many different layers than what people seem to typically class as a big character.

Yes, I agree absolutely. 'Big evictions' need to be scattered through BB. I always thought they made a big mistake in saving charley twice via twists in BB8: she became a suffocating show-ruiner, and if they had just allowed her early eviction people would have enjoyed the drama of it.


Yes, I agree with that as well. Deana sitting in brooding silence for much of the first month then suddenly showing a talent for bonkers comedy was one of the pleasures of the series. And Ashleigh was TERRIBLY dull imo. Mercifully BB gauged the level of support for Luke S and Ashleigh's romance accurately and hardly showed any of it.

I can't really comment on BB8 because I found it all dreary dull beyond the first few weeks (probably because it was full of so many vapid, shallow, one-note characters who made it far). But that's probably the best example of BB relying too heavily on one character and engineering farcical production decisions around it. Even though beyond her it was mostly Chanelle / Ziggy which was the most soul destroying romance in BB history



The thing I really don't understand is year after year BB casts more of these shallow types that bring not much of note to the show. Yet time and time again the audience proves that it not what they are looking for.

Otherwise we wouldn't have ended up with winners in Paddy, Aaron, Denise, Luke A and Julian. All older winners with a little but more life experience. They may not have been the louder characters in their series (apart from Denise) but they all had layers of depth and an interesting back story that made them far more enjoyable to watch than Jedward prancing about or Conor playing "hilarious" pranks or HAM constantly telling eachother they had their bruvs backs etc.

But BB continues to downgrade the show and try to capture this younger market when IMO the show would do far, far better if it grew up again.

Interesting topic WD.

I'd like to think of myself as someone who's in both A & B groups, and i think quite of lot of us are.
I love the big, colourful, outrageous characters who create the drama, but some of my all time fav hm's have been some of the quieter/more normal hm's and i enjoy watching them coping with and blending in with the big characters.
Imho, a house full of big, colourful characters fighting for airtime would soon become tiresome and probably as unwatchable as a house full of dullards.
For every Victor, Michelle and Nadia, i like to see a Stuart and Shell in there, and for every Shabaz, Lea, Ash and Nikki i want a Glyn and Imogen.
Imho, when there's been such casts is when we've had the best BB's.

That's generally a good distinction, wonkey. I do find extreme Group A-ers a bit weird.

You are indeed an extreme Group B-er. Surely the acid test is "Charley or Hira?" and you have Hira in your all-time top 5 .

'The Sympathy Vote' covers a range of motivations. I've been on the side of fans accused of it a good few times. On the other hand it does drive me f***ing nuts when someone says of an HM that they deserve to win 'because they've been through the most in the house" (as opposed to how they've coped with it).

Most recently that was said about Deana by a lot of fans. Now, there were a lot of reasons someone might have voted for Deana to win (even the sports fans). But let's not talk as though the only thing needed for Gos to have become a worthy BB winner would have been for someone to run into the BB4 house and kick him in the crotch once a day.
___
Of course it is possible to be a bit 'sports fannish' then leave off at the final vote. I think Makosi contributed a lot to BB6, but it never occurred to me to vote for her to win.

I tend more to the view that we're all essentially 'Group B' but we differ not only in our preferences for individuals (as IRL) but also in how aware we are of the abstraction.

In other words we all react to the HMs to an extent as if they were actually part of our social circle but some of us more than others simultaneously incorporate a more detached view in recognition of the fact that these are only virtual relationships.

It's a similar deal with scripted drama. Some viewers can totally immerse themselves whereas others are more consistently conscious of the artifice.

Ha ha ha.

I did like Gos though. He was far from the dullest person in the house - he was actually quite active and bright. Setting the bar a bit low I know, but I think he deserved to come above Nush or Steph.
___

well I'd have to say I very much disagree with your view of Rachel Rice (unless you're just putting forth he much 'quoted' fallacy about her ) she was very confrontational , she argued with most people in her house , and she was the one who'd take the argument to them , except hat she didn't rant and swear so these arguments wer usually left out of the edit.

You're so right, Virgil. BB edited her as the boring one but those of us (and thank goodness there were many) who watched her on LF knew she was anything but.

To go back to the main gist of Wonkey's thread, though, I am firmly in Group B. I identify with housemates too much sometimes, caring about them to the extent that I have withdrawal symptoms after the show is over because they're no longer on my screen!

Rachel was fine. She had a strong moral compass I think. I was just reflecting on what people DO keep saying about her..

Going slightly off the main topic, though this was mentioned above in passing, why were they so determined to hold on to Charley in BB8? Was she supposed to win or what?

what an interesting discussion....

and to add another dimension, this difference i think also links in to those who prefer live feed and those who are happy to watch editted highlights...live feed gives a much better insight into individual characters than highlights can ever do...

and also to the way that different production teams seem to treat the show ...


Im more in the B camp....looking for characters i can emphasise and identify with, or just like more, and i like to know more about the real person behind the external facade everyone tends to erect.

But its the big events..and the competitions that seem to draw in the highest viewing figures...so i spose thats why the BB emphasis has to be on this....

Which is something Conor couldn't do. He was as nasty as hell with Deana.

I have to agree about Dean! I miss the days of long conversations in the garden. I do think there needs to be big characters in the house but the producers idea of a 'big character' and mine are miles apart. In current BB, a 'big character' is either affectedly loud and self consciously wacky or obnoxious and aggressive. I can't see any room any more for the Alex Sibleys, Jon Tickles or Anna Nolans, all of whom I found fascinating and likeable. There are wannabe Victors, but Victor was an authentic strategian - I imagine him being just as analytical in his everyday life. I don't think enjoying gameplay is necessarily incompatible with enjoying watching people who are likeable but the current level of over production spoils the enjoyment of both aspects, to me.

Re 'Flying under the radar'. To me, that's what Ashleigh did in the last series. She wasn't up for eviction for weeks, managed to escape the first time by being up against people who were even more unpopular than herself then had the gall to complain that 'they always get rid of the big characters' when she was finally out on her ear.

Do you have to be an A or B person. Cant we enjoy the show for the heavily edited, contrived dross that it is.
We all know the Hm's are prodded and poked to trigger certain behavior and edited into one dimensional characters.We don't get to know the real them, just what BB wants us to see.Thats why I say I dislike them as HM's. I don't know them in real life.

Getting too emotionally attached is foolish Imo, its like falling in love with someone you met online, that you have e- mailed but never met. Its illogical and a form of projection.
I also feel some fans who become too attached become totally biased and defensive about the object of their love. Anyone who looks crooked at the loved one is vilified and attacked.There is also the point, that those who hate become as obsessed as those who love.
Using Makosi as an example of loud or controversial characters is unfair, she was very intelligent and entertaining and a great HM, much better than Anthony who won.Like Mickey BB 9, who coped with the house whilst blind.yet was vilified on here. The guy never played the victim, though the house must have been doubly hard for him, compared to others.

The guy was amazing, courageous and very funny.He should have won BB9 Imo for his strength of character, resilience and entertainment value. I liked Rachel,a lovely girl but Imo Mikey should have won. Rex was also a brilliant character in BB9 as was Darnell. These Hm's did have depth to them. The edited baddies can have as much depth and complexity as the edited goodies.


I like complex Hm's, I don't expect perfect people, as noone is.All I ask is that they entertain me and show who they are. I have no time for those who hide some of their personality. I also look at their life before the show, to get a picture of them other than the BB edit.
I think also, that we like people we can identify with or share traits with.
I also felt the dislike between Conor and Deana was always mutual, though she was clever enough not to admit it.She also had a unkind side and often invalidated people or went to far with comments.She seemed to be missing a sensitivity chip and enjoyed others discomfiture.I also found her self righteous and oblivious to her own flaws.
She was an excellent Hm though and certainly not boring, just not my cup of tea.Conor was out of his depth in the house, had no emotional control and it showed.He was not a winner by any means.
A lot of the Hm's this year were young and immature and older Hm's do cope better in the house.Its unfair to compare youth and experience.
Also Lorenzo Cbb, astutely pointed out, most convos in the house are for our ears to influence us, more than who they are speaking too.They are trying to influence our vote to get rivals out.

An example of an all round Hm, showing all aspects of himself would be Dan BB5.The guy was witty, fair and very funny.He argued and he was bitchy. Nadia is an example of the loud Hm winning, but she did have depth.

Its all down to individual taste Imo, I have seen fans here hate one Hm for certain behavior and love another the next year who does similar things.The difference being one was liked and the behavior excused and overlooked.The other disliked so the same flaws are exposed and vilified.
Emotions create bias either way and perception becomes selective. Its an edited show, that manipulates the emotions of the viewer at the end of the day.Its the matrix.

It probably is foolish, but it is how a lot of us watch BB. And all your discussion about how was a 'brilliant character' is the kind of thing people say when they don't really understand the group B point of view. Group B people find someone a 'brilliant character' because they are emotionally attached to them. The emotional attachment comes first. Rachel won because more people were emotionally attached to her than to Mikey; to be honest I am not sure how anyone got emotionally attached to Mikey. He could be funny, but he wasn't very warm or relatable imo.

I like housemates mainly based on my own personality and how they relate to what I like in real life.Alot to do with their principles,ability to handle conflict without compromising themselves,confidence,ambitious in real life,potential,educated,not bitchy.I dont fit in A or B and it is not really about the show for me.It is whether I identify with that person.I can care alot and develop motherly feeling but can detach as well and move when another one comes along.

I dont know how you can spend money and vote for a hm if you are not emotionally attached to them?

I doubt very many did in the traditional sense. His vote was about him overcoming his disablity. If Mikey had been a 'warmer' character he would have walked BB9 in my view.

Err..... do you only vote for housemates you don't care about

Sorry it was a typo.I have corrected it.I meant you only vote for those you have emotional attachment.Someone said above that getting emotionally attached it foolish.

Good post OP. Although you make a lot of very good points I'm not necessarily sure if I agree with everything. Especially the idea that people fall into either of one of two camps.

I think I myself have fallen into the trap of thinking of housemates as belonging to one of two different types of groups. But the problem is that I found that it can't work, as it occurred to me that in the past I've probably hypocritically bent this paradigm to suit who I liked and who I didn't.

In the end it ultimately comes down to who I like and who I don't. I can't say that's dependant on what 'type' of housemate they are.

What I don't like are housemates who are cruel in a nasty way because they enjoy making somebody else's life a misery, housemates who 'try to entertain' the audience, and housemates who simply don't appear to have humanity or care about somebody else who is unhappy, in other words a bit of a psychopath. Or maybe I don't like somebody because I just don't.

What I do like are housemates who pretty much display the opposite of those traits. But for lots of other reasons too of which there could be a long list.

I think right now that I don't care about how much misery one housemate can inflict onto another and thus promise lots of action in the forthcoming weeks. If I support that then I may not be in the best position to judge anybody. I think I would just like whoever wins some cash prize at the end to be somebody who I happen to like.
If that for some reason tends to make for boring television, then fair enough I don't have to watch, and sometimes I don't. I couldn't really complain. Then perhaps I'd have to come to the conclusion that the format of BB itself is flawed.
If I demand that housemates inflict misery onto others and I find that exciting and entertaining, then maybe I am flawed.

I don't think it's as simple as saying "There are two types of people in the world" as I think it's probably more complex than that.