kali4
Active Member
lol.. if it was smart gameplay that means he was being disingenuousIt wasn't disingenuous. It was smart gameplay from the most strategic housemate.
lol.. if it was smart gameplay that means he was being disingenuousIt wasn't disingenuous. It was smart gameplay from the most strategic housemate.
lol.. if it was smart gameplay that means he was being disingenuous
No one who has been voted out deserves to win imo. Plus Sophie is boring.
This is a new era of BB, this isn't about which housemate entertained you. It's about who played the best game.
Well if that's the case Daniel still wins over Sophie as he didn't have to rely on the white room twist to stay in the game.
Hooray for Daniel!
Pretty sure that Sophie has got this. Especially if voting is free, I can't see that many votes going to Dan. Sophie has been quite likeable.
I think Chad will win. A lot of people saying they want anybody but Mat or Dan to win on social media and the name that has popped up the most as people wanting them to win is Chad.
The reasons given were that he is nice and the most likeable person left.
This is a new era of BB, this isn't about which housemate entertained you. It's about who played the best game.
Which is another area the production has failed. This is a new BB format to the Australian public, they should have been pushing this point from the get-go. There should have been more Sonia-to-audience interaction where a point like this got reiterated over and over.The majority of the public are not going to vote based on gameplay but on who is most likeable.
Like:Which is another area the production has failed. This is a new BB format to the Australian public, they should have been pushing this point from the get-go. There should have been more Sonia-to-audience interaction where a point like this got reiterated over and over.
I don't see how Daniel and Matt's strategy or gameplay has been any better than Chad and Sophies,
Both relied on a primary alliance of two, with the only rule being to vote out anyone but each other.
Dan and Matt made a pre-emptive strike and broke their secondary alliances before anyone else had a chance to.
Making sure Kieran fails the challenges by pairing him with Mat.
Dan ensuring his and Mats safety by making that final four deal with Chad. Then taking the opportunity to get rid of Sophie when they had the chance. Just a shame that didn't work out for them.
See, you view these as admirable and noteworthy moves, whereas I see them as dishonest and lacking in character.
Such moves are necessary during the endgame, but Daniel and Matt were dishonest and disingenuous to everyone apart from themselves from the start. To spell it out : Sophie and Chad made deals and alliances they intended to keep until they had no other options, whereas Daniel and Matt were most probably lying even as the deals left their lips.
It is not like Survivors. Survivors has substance, feels real, after an episode you feel you watched something worth watching, I want to know about the show, about the contestants, I look forward for the next episode, I am invested in the show. The alliance, the game play, the interactions, the personalities, it is all so interesting to me.
This BB feels empty; I watch it and forget it straight away. I still watch it but with sadness that it is far too fake and scripted.
I don't see how Daniel and Matt's strategy or gameplay has been any better than Chad and Sophies,
Both relied on a primary alliance of two, with the only rule being to vote out anyone but each other.
Dan and Matt made a pre-emptive strike and broke their secondary alliances before anyone else had a chance to.
Obviously his strategy has worked if he gets to top 3...If chad wins they might as well go back to audience voting for the entire season because obviously strategy won't matter.
Obviously his strategy has worked if he gets to top 3...