So despite this fun GIF, this post is not about Paras winning Big Brother Canada 6. Or at least its not just about Paras winning Big Brother Canada 6.
This post is a reaction to the term "bitter jury" and the growing belief among fans that we're in a new era of Big Brother, where gameplay is punished and the jury will always vote for the person they like more in the end.
I want to start with the phrase "bitter jury". My initial reaction to this phrase, is to use another cliche that "there is no such thing as bitter jury" only a mismanaged one. But really looking at it, this isn't quite true. "Bitter" is an adjective, with an objective meaning, that does pretty objectively apply to several jury votes in the history of Brother, and perhaps even to some whole juries. So "bitter juries" are a thing. But still I would argue that every "bitter juror" is a "mismanaged juror". Sort of a square and rectangle situation. But honestly, I don't believe that bitter juries deserve the stigma they have. Big Brother is not football or basketball, where the team that objectively gets more points wins, its a game where the jury (the last 7-10 people evicted) gets to decide who played the best game based on whatever criteria they want. And that includes refusing to vote for someone they're bitter at.
Without bitter jurors, if everyone voted for who they thought played the "best game" then I believe Paul would be a two time winner. Two seasons in a row he played the stronger, more aggressive, more dominant game, and two seasons in a row he lost to a weaker player, because the jury was pissed at him. (people will debate me on whether Nicole was a weaker player, but I believe she was, and I believe Natalie who was the swing vote, was voting based on bitterness.) But is that a bad thing? My stance is no. I firmly believe Paul deserved to lose, because even though he played a strong game, he also was horrible at jury management (pissing away Natalie's vote for no reason in BB18, and then coming back in BB19 and having learned absolutely nothing.) While I didn't think either Nicole or Josh were particularly good winners, I was okay with the jury deciding to award them essentially for NOT being Paul.
But Paul isn't the only recent finalist to lose to a bitter jury.
In Big Brother Celeb, we got Ross playing a totally dominant game and then losing to his sidekick Marissa, after she spent most of her jury speech stumping for Ross. I actually feel for the people who think Ross was robbed, because even though Ross did make mistakes in jury management, they were nothing compared to the mistakes Paul made, and I felt the celebs were being oversensitive. However, with Ross, we've now got 3 US seasons where the jury was bitter. So is this a pattern, is this a new era of Big Brother? Is it all the millennials fault? Was Kaela the latest in a series of superior players who lost to a bitter jury?
First off, if you are going to try to blame millenials, that doesn't explain Shannon Elizabeth and the other Gen Xers who voted against Ross. Secondly, as we continue to get reports from the BBCAN6 jurors, I am struck not by a sense that they were bitter against Kaela, but that they perhaps overestimated Paras' game. Kaela herself told people that Paras' social game was flawless, (while trying to get Paras nominated) and that narrative really took off. The BBCAN6 jury seems to have mostly discounted comps, and instead prioritized social game, and this narrative lead to Paras being considered the superior player. That isn't bitterness, because as I've said before, bitterness is an adjective with an objective meaning, and it is one that does not apply to most of these jurors, or at least not to their vote, because they were voting FOR Paras, rather than against Kaela. So no, I don't think Kaela is our fourth (third) superior player "robbed" by a bitter jury. But the question remains, is this a new era, where social relationships are valued more highly that gameplay. Has Big Brother become a popularity contest?
The answer is of course that this is not a new era, because Big Brother has always been a popularity contest. You can go back and watch Big Brother 2, and look at Dr. Will's game, and say that it was incredible, and he played a much better game than Nicole and deserved to win. But honestly, you could go back and say that Nicole was a more dominant player, that she did more, and that she deserved to beat Dr. Will. So how was it decided that Dr. Will beat Nicole? Simple. He was more popular with the jury than Nicole was. Will had a best friend, a girlfriend, his best friend's girlfriend (fiance?) all advocating on his behalf. He also had multiple people like Monica, and Kent who really didn't like Nicole. You might consider them the first "bitter jurors" in a way. As a result, Dr. Will won.
Then of course, in the next season, you have Danielle Reyes losing to Lisa, because the jury was pissed off at her. But, oh wait you say. BB2 and BB3 don't count, because that was before the sequestered jury. They were influenced by DRs. First off, Danielle know the jury would see DRs, but I agree the jury should always be sequestered, because I want hgs to be able to be villainous in their DRs.
So lets fast forward a bit. Big Brother 6, which both has a sequestered jury, and at this point there is enough Big Brother in the books for people to have built up what is and is not a good game. Now, I believe Maggie is a fantastic Big Brother winner. But is that why she won? This was a close vote, Maggie won 4-3. And two of the swing votes in Maggie's favor were Howie and Rachel, who actually broke ranks with their alliance to vote for Maggie over Ivette. Why? Because Ivette left Rachel a bitchy goodbye, and Rachel hated Ivette. So Maggie, a fantastic player, won because of a bitter jury.
So bitter juries are nothing new. Big Brother has always been a popularity contest, and always will be. That doesn't mean we won't get new fantastic winners in the future.
They just have to remember, that the social game is the most important part of Big Brother.
No comments:
Post a Comment