It's about relevance. I've been reading a lot on these forums over the last few days about the way in which people choose to see the show and dictate on who should be considered worthy of winning as a result of that, with the recent 'two Sams' argument as probably the most extreme example of this so far of whether those with no entertainment value should be rewarded simply because they haven't showcased any negative behaviour (or any behaviour at all TBH). But I think at the same time though that those in the entertainment vs likeability argument always overlook a third way of perceiving the show which is in my eyes the most important; relevance to the story lines of the show.

I don't know about you but in my eyes I like to look at Big Brother in the same way that I would a scripted drama series, as of now is so heavily constructed that you can't look at it in the way that you could the older series, and for any drama series in my eyes the finale needs to have an ending which is both satisfying to the audience as well as making sense based on the last 3 weeks of the show that you have seen, and I think the same way in how any winner of BB should be chosen; which contestant has been most essential to the plots and story lines of the show and who would have been the biggest loss from a storyline point of view should they have never been in the house? For me the two big storylines of the season have been Jim vs the women and Lee's showmancing, so in my opinion one of those five (Jim, Linda, Luisa, Lee and Casey) should be considered the winner as they would make the most sense from a constructed drama point of view

Likeability (Sam and Ollie) and entertainment value (Luisa) is well and good, but it is relevance to the story which in my eyes that bares the most importance for me, it's the reason why I preferred Charlotte winning over Abz even though I liked Abz more, the reason why even though I found Luke dull I consider him a better winner then Sophie Reade. Is there anyone else who takes the relevance argument, or is this just me thinking about something too insignificant to care about?

Anyone?

Well I would like Casey to win although I don't think in reality she stands much chance.

It is likely that the viewers will either go for the soft nice guy option (Ollie) or Jim will pull it off.

I think most people would want to see someone they like and who has been engaging/fun to win.

For me it's about finding out about people's personality. As much as I love the drama and entertainment, the winner should always be someone who is a decent person. Someone who hasn't back stabbed, who hasn't been outrageous purely to shock, hasn't treated others disrespectfully. For me it's almost like good versus evil, and of course good should always succeed. )

So the winner must be one of the HMs that the production team has decided to focus on? Given that the result comes from viewers' votes, I don't think so. Personally, I find most of the interest in BB on the peripheries.

I agree and that was certainly true during the early years of BB but these days people don't seem to care if the winner is actually a nice person they just seem to rate them on entertainment value. Hence the support for Luisa who is interesting to watch but in my view she is not a very nice person.

Lack of live feed has seen a change in the way people vote imo, in the past we'd get to see a lot of every housemates personalities even if they were one of the quieter ones. Now if you aren't loud and brash you don't stand a chance.

Thank you that is a great post to read.

I liked Abz and Luke.

I never expect the people I like to win it has happened that rarely,

I go for likeability all the time really. I hate unfairness and I have voted on that basis too.

I think it is too early to say who should be the winner of this series its still a long time to the end but I would hope it is someone that has contributed to the series.

I would really hate Linda to win now as she is making me not to watch the show.

Drama is not always a good thing.

Sorry rushed answer on my phone

It's likeability, how interesting they are, storylines and how they are treated in the house. Also, I tend to feel sorry for underdogs and victims of injustice.

Then it's down to voting for the 'anybody-but' person when it's a head-to-head against somebody you don't want to win.


PS And they have to be real. Nobody 2-faced and no phoney gangsta acts for me.

Unfortunately putting the importance on relevance means it's entirely up to the editors who is relevant and who isn't, and I don't like the thought of my votes being that controlled.
Without live feed, I have to ignore how much time a particular housemate takes up in a highlights show. It's what the housemate does when they are shown that matters to me. A housemate who contributes a couple of minutes to each show I sometimes appreciate more than a housemate who hogs the spotlight.
Throwing a housemate in my face all the time and trying to make me think a certain way can sometimes make me rebel and react against it.

Though to be honest I don't think most of the audience put that much thought into it. They just react to whatever they are shown and don't tend to analyse things or look at them in hindsight, it's all very in the moment.

I think lack of live feed is a contributory factor but I don't believe the majority of voters watch it - however, having it means that some points are spread wider than just this forum.

I think the likeability factor went out of the window as soon as BB started to focus on the showmances to the exlusion of everything else. In most series now, the other HMs have an incidental walk on part.

It's great when they come out and talk about the fun things us viewers must have watched....no dear, just the 2 people snogging and fumbling in a bedroom.

I used to like the 'people watching' aspect of old-school BB. I don't like the desperate scrabble to find a hero and a villain, and I don't find constant screaming arguments and buggering about like five year olds, entertaining. In fact it's as boring as shyte. I prefer a little subtlety. I liked watching the natural ebb and flow of a group in an unusual and pressure-cooker situation.
It would appear now that BB requires a far lower span of attention, with conflict being blatantly contrived by the producers. It's now a pale shadow of its former self, and I find myself paying less and less attention to it,prefering to do something else while it plays in the background; knowing that any twists will be old and tired affairs by lazy and incompetent producers.

No, I don't think people should win just because they happened to have played up to the cameras more or treated people badly in order to progress. I think you have to like who you are voting for. Sure it annoys when the nice but boring people win but I'd rather see a decent housemate win by being true to themselves than see a horrible character win just because they 'acted' their way to the top. It's a reality show and there happens to be a lot of drama in it, but if I want to see people acting I will stick on a movie.

I think the winner should be an all-rounder. If I'm going to pay money then it's going to be for someone who is likeable and entertaining without being false. It's not the soap awards, We are not voting for who played the best character, but who has the best character.

It's a strange one to me because i'm usually entertained by those who i like.

The bigger characters oftentimes are characters that i don't like and don't really find that entertaining but it's not always like that for example with Luisa.

The real problem we face, i believe... is that with the current format and style of channel 5's Big Brother in it being more of an "entertainment" show, we're essentially told what characters are what instead of making our own minds up, in a sense.

The Sam/Ollie's are pushed to the background more and fit into a specific role designated by the editing focus/direction... where the bigger characters are pushed more out into the front to provide the focal entertainment and we're kind of told that these characters are this and those are characters are that, kind of/sort of.

Where in, past Big Brother series it was more open for people to make up their mind in who and what was entertaining.

I'm looking for connections rather than distant/disconnected entertainment, i suppose.
I used to find it was easier to get that, now in it's current style and the way it plays out, it's more difficult to find in that way. I'm finding almost forced to adapt in liking the bigger characters, and accepting certain thing as entertainment that i might not actually find that entertaining or like those people... if that makes any sense.

I always go for people I actually like, especially if they make me laugh. I detest nasty people (Linda and Luisa) but try not to let previous history (i.e. before they entered the house) sway my opinion. This series I am liking Jim, Ollie, Sam, Casey and Liz.

Agreed, basically it is how we decide who would like to have as friends.

I see what you're saying OP but like others have said, I'm not picking my winner based on what story lines the editors have decided to focus on - because we all know that those choices are made for publicity reasons etc as much as for entertainment value.

I like my winner to be interesting. Shrieking, shouting and shagging isn't all that interesting to me. I accept that we need to know about rows and tension in the house for a full picture but I like a get along gang house.

People who would never normally meet bonding is entertainment to me. Plus the things you learn about the HMs during tasks.

I'm interested in reality, I'm interested in people I'm interested in the effect that living in the BB house has on different types ofpeople and how relationships evolve in there - not play-acting and showmances.

for me this forum is all about the length of the O P

Excellent post, I heartily concur

I like the entertaining ones who are central and I hate losing them, but in the final I'm quite happy for an Ollie type HM to win, as long as they've done something.

I think we've seen enough of Ollie commentating and he's had a few moments in there.

Sam has barely been shown though so it is hard for people who want to be entertained to choose Sam over others as a winner.

I find a dull housemate fine to deal with usually. Most of the time I'm quite happy for them, (Sophie Reade, Sam, Rachel) it's when they're dislikeable that it bothers me: eg Denise, However a dislikeable HM is always liked by many to become the winner. So whilst I objected to Denise winning others clearly didn't.

Conversely I loved Aaron and thought he was a good guy, but it was clear he was dislikeable to many.

Any HM who is at the centre of storylines will have supporters and detractors so that really leaves you with the likeable wallpaper as the least offensive winner.

I'm going to do a poll on this if you don't mind to see people's opinions