Skip to main content

Episode BBAU 2021 - Episode 8 Discussion (9 May, 7pm)

Did you spoil your mum today?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 48.4%

  • No

    Votes: 16 51.6%
  • Total voters
    31
tungistend said:
Is it true that there's only 2 and a half weeks left? I read somewhere that this season was over 60 days long.
Click to expand...
Well, last year there was only 21 episodes, including the finale. It would be safe to assume this season will follow a similar schedule as there is a similar number of contestants. But given that three additional housemates are about to go in and Seven’s schedule is dropping from 4 to 3 episodes per week (at least for next week), they could stretch it out to the first or second week of June max. But that’s it.

Keeping in mind that we are almost mid May already.
 
the Theorist said:
Well, last year there was only 21 episodes, including the finale. It would be safe to assume this season will follow a similar schedule as there is a similar number of contestants. But given that three additional housemates are about to go in and Seven’s schedule is dropping from 4 to 3 episodes per week (at least for next week), they could stretch it out to the first or second week of June max. But that’s it.

Keeping in mind that we are almost mid May already.
Click to expand...
I.e. you might have been right at 2 and a half weeks to go or there could literally be more than double that! 😂

Who knows, just enjoy the ride haha.
 
Zcsund1234 said:
Wow I love Tilly but that was not a smart strategic move. Why nominate your own alliance member when your alliance is in the minority? Why not just nominate 3 people from the opposing side and guarantee one of them goes ?
Click to expand...

She’d have no friends from that either.

Housemates would see her as playing both sides. Her alliance would not be happy since a member is now gone. Other alliance will not be happy as one of their own is nominated. On top of that she is a challenge threat which would be ideal for eviction.
 
Zcsund1234 said:
Wow I love Tilly but that was not a smart strategic move. Why nominate your own alliance member when your alliance is in the minority? Why not just nominate 3 people from the opposing side and guarantee one of them goes ?
Click to expand...
I kinda get what she was thinking even though it was actually not very good game play. She was trying not to start a war.
 
Affable said:
She’d have no friends from that either.

Housemates would see her as playing both sides. Her alliance would not be happy since a member is now gone. Other alliance will not be happy as one of their own is nominated. On top of that she is a challenge threat which would be ideal for eviction.
Click to expand...

Tillys mistake was thinking that the two alliances were even in numbers.
 
Zcsund1234 said:
Wow I love Tilly but that was not a smart strategic move. Why nominate your own alliance member when your alliance is in the minority? Why not just nominate 3 people from the opposing side and guarantee one of them goes ?
Click to expand...

Her idea was to nominate one person from each alliance, and add a safe vote. She thought this would be a good way to keep harmony in the house (she didn't want to upset the apple cart). Whilst that's admirable, it was rightly called out by the housemates who are sick of "safe votes" and want people to show some balls and be daring when they nominate. I find that hilarious because, I bet, when it's those housemates turn to nominate, they also won't be too willing to be daring because they'll be afraid of placing a target on their back. Tilly's decision might have been called out by the housemates, but it worked for her in an unintended way ... she minimised the chances of getting a target on her back. She may not have intended to use a "strategy", but, without realising it, she did.
 
Last edited:
Affable said:
She’d have no friends from that either.

Housemates would see her as playing both sides. Her alliance would not be happy since a member is now gone. Other alliance will not be happy as one of their own is nominated. On top of that she is a challenge threat which would be ideal for eviction.
Click to expand...
bleachy_dude said:
I kinda get what she was thinking even though it was actually not very good game play. She was trying not to start a war.
Click to expand...
freddy said:
Her idea was to nominate one person from each alliance, and add a safe vote. She thought this would be a good way to keep harmony in the house (she didn't want to upset the apple cart). Whilst that's admirable, it was rightly called out by the housemates who are sick of "safe votes" and want people to show some balls and be daring when they nominate. I find that hilarious because, I bet, when it's those housemates turn to nominate, they also won't be too willing to be daring because they'll be afraid of placing a target on their back. Tilly may have made an interesting decision, but, she minimised the chances of getting a target on her back. Without realising it, I think Tilly has unknowingly and unintentionally used some "strategy" there.
Click to expand...

I understand the logic of her idea. But why not put up a floater like Charlotte? Why risk your own alliance member going when you physically do not have the numbers to save him? Nick made it a lot worse by not letting Mitchell scramble? It is like these people asked to have their alliance pagonged willingly?
 
Zcsund1234 said:
I understand the logic of her idea. But why not put up a floater like Charlotte? Why risk your own alliance member going when you physically do not have the numbers to save him? Nick made it a lot worse by not letting Mitchell scramble? It is like these people asked to have their alliance pagonged willingly?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a good point. Tilly could have put up a floater. And Nick did indeed make a mistake. This alliance keeps making these mistakes. Danny even noted it in the diary room when he acknowledged that Nick had done the wrong thing. The look in Nick's eyes and the slight shake of his head when Mitch was confirmed as the evictee showed that he probably realised it too.
 
Yes, strategically. As she alluded to in the diary room doing her vote, you need to do what is right by yourself to keep yourself in the game, even if you don't like it. Smart.
 
freddy said:
Yeah, that's a good point. Tilly could have put up a floater. And Nick did indeed make a mistake. This alliance keeps making these mistakes. Danny even noted it in the diary room when he acknowledged that Nick had done the wrong thing. The look in Nick's eyes and the slight shake of his head when Mitch was confirmed as the evictee showed that he probably realised it too.
Click to expand...

Had Tilly put Charlotte against Sid and SJ, then Charlotte or SJ go home. They manage to at least keep their alliance in tact. Nominate floaters to not piss off the whole opposing alliance sure, but why put your own allies in danger and actively ruin your own position in the game? However this goes without saying the opposing alliance is only stronger in numbers due to the fake double and also Mary and Sj being able to talk to Sid and Katie, they've relied on production twists to keep them safe. Neither side is excelling strategically, this just makes me wonder if Aussies are capable at all of playing Big Brother strategically. I think implementing the power of veto is paramount for this show to succeed in future.
 
I will miss Mitch, what an awesome guy. Should have been SJ. Agree Tilly should have put some balls into her noms... Terrible moves!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top