DS Forums

 
 

Maybe the most intriguing & thought-provoking post about BB


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16-09-2003, 11:11
KnowledgeSeeker
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 609

Note: I've never posted a post here from another board that is analytical rather than factual in nature. But the following post is so intriguing & thought-provoking - & has received such overwhelming praise - that (despite its length) it will be the exception to the rule. Enjoy!

Source: posted by Onlyhuman at the General Discussion section at TV ClubHouse site at: http://tvclubhouse.bomis.com/discus/...2/1082599.html


THE CHANGING & VARIED PHILOSOPHIES USED BY THE BIG BROTHER HGs
By Onlyhuman, TV ClubHouse

BB, by virtue of the fact that the purpose of the group is to judge and eliminate others, needs to establish the norms as quickly as possible. When evicted HGs return to judge the final 2 contestants, they often make subtle or even obvious reference to these standards when making their final votes.

What I find particularly interesting is that not only have the BB HGs from each season held different standards, they are largely influenced by the type of behavior of the HGs from the previous season.

BB1 – Season One Philosophy:

In BB1 (a European-type version was used, produced by John de Mol/ Endemol) where HGs only nominated their fellow HGs, but did NOT evict them (the voting public did). Here the house had a general criteria for nominations that included how disruptive that individual was to the house and how productive that person was. There was also a huge emphasis on friendship and emotional connections. Audience members, for the most part, used this same criteria for choosing whom to evict. The most interesting but also the most disruptive HHs were the first to be evicted).

BB2 – Season Two Philosophy:

In BB2, (with new American producers) the advent of the HOH (& elimination of any outside voting by the public) gave control to the HGs and they were free to evict whomever they choose. The house quickly split into two groups, “Chilltown” and “TOP” (The Other People).

Chilltown’s philosophy was based on the idea that in BB1 everyone was boring and hence the ratings were low. Much of their actions were to get attention and to get ratings. Under this standard, almost any lewd or obnoxious behavior was acceptable. (One male HG was kicked out of the house by the producers after holding a carving knife to the throat of another drunken female HG. Another HG used the electric tootbrush of a male HG she disliked to clean the toilet bowl).

In response to this group, TOP formed and developed their own standards, with the goal being the annihilation of the other group. Members spouted drivel about not caring who won, about only wanting to make sure no one from the other team won. Promises were made that included people willingly leaving the house once Chilltown was conquered. Unfortunately, these were standards that could not be met in a competition for $500,000. When people returned to vote, they had to choose between a member of each philosophy. Will lived up to the standards set by his group, Nicole did not. Will won.

BB3 - Season Three Philosophy:

In BB3, many of the HGs appeared disgusted by Will’s win and many statements of wanting a “good” person to win this year. Nominations and evictions were based upon this philosophy. Liars (or perceived liars) were evicted early and nominations became an opportunity to explain how a person’s character resulted in their nomination. One HG,
“Roddy, who many perceived as a threat to win the money, survived many times because people chose to take out the “bad” person. It was only when “Dani” successfully painted him as “the devil” that he was finally evicted. In the end, though, (after the evicted HGs saw her DR sessions) they concluded that Dani had betrayed the values of the house and chose to award the money to “sweet” “Lisa.”

BB4: The X Factor - Current Season Philosophy:

From the beginning of BB4, the general philosophy has been one of “it’s just a game” and that anything that helps one win the game is acceptable. Many of the HGs feel that Dani’s game play should have been rewarded in the previous year and have seem determined to reward such behavior this year. This house has nominated and evicted based almost entirely on strategy. The two biggest exceptions are Dana’s eviction and Michelle’s nomination. The fact that Michelle was nominated at all had more to do with the emotional tone of the house that was dictating that Erika should leave. The mistake that Jee made was in believing that this tone would dictate how people would vote. Dana’s nomination was pure strategy on Ali’s part, yet the actual eviction was purely an emotional one. People wanted Dana out of the house because she threatened the emotional stability of everyone.

The "It's Just A Game Philosophy"

The “it’s just a game” philosophy is intriguing because the two people who pushed it the hardest, Ali and Jun, have been the most successful at using emotional manipulation to cover their own actions and distract others. When Jun and Dana were nominated together, Jun made numerous references to Dana’s “campaigning”, repeatedly stating that Dana (unlike herself) was untrustworthy and would do anything to win, which would seem okay if it’s really “just a game”. Ali’s use of emotional manipulation when she was nominated (i.e. that it wasn’t fair because Dana had lied to her about being safe) was also an effective motivator in turning the tone from “it’s just a game” to “I deserve to be saved”.

The Dream Team-3 Stooges (& others) Philosophy

Justin, Jee, Robert, Jack and, to a lesser extent, Erika, while espousing the “it’s just a game” philosophy seemed unable to keep themselves from imposing some sort of moral code upon the game, stemming primarily from their own beliefs about team play and fairness. They could not let go of their own personal moral code, though it interferred with their ability to do anything to win.

There is often a conflict between what a group says is appropriate behavior and what an individual feels is acceptable. This group repeatedly said that this was "just a game" and seemed to feel that any behavior in the house was acceptable under these rules. At some point, though, many found that they could not completely abandon their own ideas of right and wrong. For instance, Justin really believed in teamwork and loyalty. When he was nominated with Robert, he made no attempt to stay in the game, even though both Jee and Alison tried to convince him to do so.

They had such a lack of respect for the “floaters” as people and game players, and yet they all acknowledged that they were playing a good game. What they couldn't do was let go of their own beliefs about fair play, team work, and loyalty long enough to line up new alliances and long term plans. Erika & Jee were probably the weakest in this regard and most likely would have tried to jump sooner except they could not completely turn their back on their original loyalties. Essentially, they were all eliminated because their personal ideas of morality and game play would not let them truly embrace the house philosophy.This limited the amount of game play they could actually engage in.

The Philosophy Used By Both Jun And Ali

On the other hand, Jun and Ali, by embracing the philosophy wholeheartedly, managed to maneuver and manipulate, twisting the ideals of the others to help them while constantly reiterating the house mantra of “it’s just a game.”

In the end, Ali & Jun are going to the finals because they pushed they lived by the stated house philosophy while understanding and manipulating the personal philosophies of the individuals. It will be interesting to see which carries more weight with this jury...their personal beliefs or the house philosophy.

Ali & Jun, the ones who truly lived by the "it's a game philosophy" are going to get a nice monetary reward, just like my competitors who are concerned only with the bottom line will make a lot more than me every year. What's more, I doubt that Ali & Jun will lose any sleep over their behavior, because it is completely justified in their philosophy, just like my competitors will sleep soundly tonight. Ultimately, the only consolation I and the evicted HGs will ever have is that we could have done it no other way and lived with ourselves and, in the end, that's really all anyone has in this world.

Who The Sequestered Jury Will Pick

As to who the jury will pick, I'm not really sure. My gut says that they will probably choose Jun because she played a good game and at least gave the appearance of being mature, intelligent and occasionally loyal, which would appeal to some of their personal biases. I also think that Ali did a very good job of convincing everyone that she WAS playing an emotional game, which goes against the "it's a game" philosophy. On the other hand, guys, in general, are very results oriented and the hyper-competitiveness of these men may make them respect all of Ali's competition wins. So, really, I don't know what will happen.

The Impact That BB4 Will Have On BB5

My prediction is that next year we will see something of a backlash against the "anything goes" philosophy, with the HGs once again trying to have a "good" winner. However, I do think we will hear more of the "it's a game" philosophy, though they will try to more clearly impose standards of "acceptable" behavior. I think the judgment of "good" will be less on the character of the person and more a criticism of how one is playing the game.

Game wise, I think we will see multiple secret alliances. At the same time, I think that anyone who appears to be trying to mimic Ali's or Jun's game will be an early target.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, but that's just my guess based on past history.
KnowledgeSeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 16-09-2003, 14:09
HAZYWOMAN
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In the Village
Posts: 3,412
Very interesting.article.....
Is the author........an x housemate?
HAZYWOMAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-2003, 22:26
KnowledgeSeeker
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 609
No, Onlyhuman (the author) is a female teacher from California & a frequent poster at TV ClubHouse - not a prior HG.
KnowledgeSeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2003, 09:56
KnowledgeSeeker
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 609
With the Jury Vote approaching, the article is timely & worth reading.
KnowledgeSeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:44.