I still see Big Bruva as a social experiment like the foreign ones. If people don't like you, they won't work with you. If people don't respect you then they won't vote for you to win.
Sometimes watching the feeds I think the players overthink the game itself and just do too much -stares at Helen & Andy-.
Win a couple comps, get people to like you, take a lesser liked person to the end and win! Dats it. There's no need for all that extraness. Cause frankly if I was on the jury and someone keeps talking about how amazing their game was and how they controlled and manipulated this & that i'd be more annoyed than anything.. and probably just vote the person I enjoyed more in the house even if they sheeped.
Nattie I'd say Jordan fit this more but I guess he did do the same. He aligned with who he aligned with, stuck with them, won a couple comps, took the least likeable person out of his group to the end and won.
Blindsides, flip flopping, contstant strategy talk, throwing comps is just being over the top unless it's really necessary. And I think jurys are too persuaded now a days to vote who played a "better game". What is the definition of a good game? Just cause someone is more manipulative than someone else means they deserve half a million dollars? There's so many ways to win the show and I think it turned from a social experiment/someone of a strategy show to an all strategy & too much strategy talk show. If that makes sense.
Tbh I like BB when there are lying, backstabbing, and strategy. I dont want to waste my time on watching people just talk about their lives I want to see people play the game.
A live strategy game show or a social experiment?