TV and Movies

[occasionalrain]

You can't have it both ways, admire Tiff for honoring her commitment to the CO and give her a pass for backstabbing Claire because it's acceptable to lie, betray to win. But honoring her CO commitment won't help her win, while betraying Claire will help her lose.

I'm not a fan of Claire, she allows herself to be used and then, when she is betrayed, she accepts with no more than a whimper. 

[Nancy Drew]

Claire is an odd one. I can't figure her out. She is also a terrible player for one who boasted so much in the beginning. Even Zingbot was a dud tonight. 

[SusieQ_2]

I don't need to have it both ways because, for Tiffany, there's always only been one way and that way is the CO. The CO isn't a player to be lied to or stabbed in the back--it's a goal that six people committed to from week one. Claire was never a final option for Tiff and, as live feeders, we've known that since the very beginning. 

As the audience (live feeders) Tiff is continuously telling us what her plan is. We know what she's thinking and planning. She has stayed true to that by doing exactly what she said she would do from day one (even though some people doubted she would). 

It's interesting how people are suddenly saying that staying true to the alliance won't get her to the end. Have you not been listening? She's said the same thing for two months now! That was her choice. That you don't like it, don't agree with it, or think it's stupid is irrelevant. It was her choice. And for those saying she could have gone with the girls including Hannah, Alyssa, Claire and Azah...that's as real as a fairytale. That group was never united together against the rest of the CO. Tiff couldn't have just snapped her fingers and had Alyssa, Azah and Hannah going against the guys even she had wanted to. 

Now, I will say that if she had made another choice earlier on I would have respected that as well. But that's not the route she chose to take. So, yes, I do respect her for her commitment and as much as some people hope the others will be angry that's going to be a disappointment as each player--Christian, Whitney, SB, DX, and now Claire have also said they understand and respect the CO.

If Tiffany goes out tomorrow or 3 weeks from now she's a great player and it's been a real pleasure to watch her for the past two months. Yes, imo, it's okay to lie and backstab in the game to get ahead but if Tiff had turned her back on her goal the person she would have been lying to would be herself. Apparently that wasn't worth it to her. 

From Claire's Twitter ~

"Reminder you can be Claire’s biggest supporter (hello, me!!!) and also support the historic goal of the cookout/appreciate their impressive strategy to accomplish it."

And I agree. 

[SloopJohnB]

I might be in the minority here in my thinking (no pun intended), but too bad the cookout alliance couldn't get to where they are today and subsequently a winner, without resting on their laurels.  

[gardenman]

I just want to see everyone doing what's best for them as an individual to win the game. What we're seeing this year is a lot of people making moves that hurt their chances to win the game, but further a cause. I want players whose only cause is to win the game and who will do whatever it takes to win. Keeping Xavier over Claire is bad for the individual games of everyone but Xavier. When you get the person who's most likely to win on the block, get rid of them. And Xavier is among the most likely to win. You may not get another chance to flush him.

[SusieQ_2]

I understand that's what you want to see, @gardenman, and you might want to sit down before I make this confession but I completely agree with you! Did you ever think you'd hear those five words from me this season? Haha...hopefully you know I'm joking with you as we actually tend to agree on a lot.

The main difference between the two of us, imo, is that your "job" here, if you will, is to report on what's happening and then go on to explain how it could have been done differently as both a means of expressing what you think is the optimal play for each houseguest as well as to be entertaining. I don't really have that job so I tend to be less critical and more accepting of the direction in which the season is going.

When I see, for example, that Tiffany is not going to turn on the CO I no longer say that I wish she would go after Xavier because I know she isn't going to do that. What I want, as a Tiffany fan, isn't in line with what's right for the choice she has made which I know will more than likely will tank her game. However, as her fan and, knowing what she will and won't do, all I can do is hope for the best with an awareness of what's coming. And, as much as I understand what she feels she needed to do, it's not at all what I would have chosen for her. My feeling at this point is that Tiff will be seen as one of the best players ever to play the game without actually winning and that breaks my heart a little for her (not to be too dramatic, lol).

What you want--to see the players do what's best for their own game--is coming up after the double tonight and I understand that's what you wished had happened from the start. So do I, and as much as I wish my girl Tiff would be sitting in one of those F2 chairs at the end of the game (and I believe she could have) I do still understand, that because of the long 21 year history of the game, they felt their best chance not to be picked off early was to stick together. Not because they hate white people, not because they feel better than, but because of the history of the game they felt they needed to make a commitment to finally change the narrative. And honestly, after seeing the nominations for week one, I can't fault them for believing it was the only way.  

[agb80]

If we are to believe the goals of the co are so lofty and that Tiffany had zero guidance to achieve it by the off camera counselors then why were non black players chosen who were inexperienced and weak in this season.  There were no Jackson types for example and people were counseled ahead of time who were not black to be mindful to racial sensitivities and in addition to that, no mention of the co to evicted hg.  Pretty sure this was a CBS mastermind and not so much something that came from Tiffany.  I personally found it hard to watch previous seasons and see black players get picked off so easily and of course one had to think if racism played any part of it yet after 23 seasons BB continued on the air. So, were previous seasons laced with racism and just ignored by the masses or was it really about the ability of each houseguest to be persuasive enough in their social game and physically fit enough to win comps and isn't that how the game is supposed to be played?   

[SusieQ_2]

Hi @agb80 ...first of all that's a lot to unpack, lol, but I'm willing to take a little time to give my opinion.

First...do I think this season's CO was a mastermind of CBS? Not in the least. Tiffany came into the game as a super fan as did Claire. You may have heard, having a "partner" playing with you isn't a new idea. It happened in season 12 with four players but they were unsuccessful and didn't even make it halfway--which is one of the reasons the CO is so impressive. If there has ever been a player that didn't need the guidance of production--it's Tiffany (and apparently Claire to hear her tell it). You be the judge of that, lol. 

Next...no Jackson types? You mean no racists or no comp beasts? Granted, I don't think Christian, Travis, and Brent were racist by any means but they could easily have held their own in comps just as Jackson did and be much more likable doing it (well, with the exception of Brent. He could have easily won comps but wasn't so likable). And Frenchie? He knew every player, every season, and every previous alliance's strategy so I don't always count on how far a players knowledge of the game will get them as much as I count on their adaptability and Frenchie had none.

Speaking of Jackson types, are you suggesting the players should not have been counseled about racial sensitivities? C'mon now, if you've been closely watching past seasons it's hard to think you would believe that, lol. As well, alliances are spoken about to pre-jury members only and only then if there is no possibility of a battle back. Even then, it's not a requirement. Players go through many exit interviews and learn what's up pretty quiclkly as the players this season have. Julie is not allowed to give away the player's games to a person headed to the jury house. 

As for whether or not previous seasons were laced with blatant racism I would say no, but it certainly has been a part of several seasons and CBS has tried their best to cover it up. Was it ignored by the masses? I'd say most of us white people didn't really notice the inequality of the races because, after all, they looked like us. Not until poc decided it was time to make things fair and equal did people really start to realize that "Oh yeah, there's a big majority of white people playing season after season." And what's the saying...once you know better you do better? That's what I believe happened this season with casting. 

As for this notion that "good players win" and "bad players lose" it's not too hard to understand that when you represent 12% of the house finding a great player in that 12% is a little harder than if you're a part of the other 88%. I get so tired of hearing "well, so and so was just a bad player." Yeah, maybe so, but we could go through every season and I'll show you two equally bad white players. Try finding a white winner for 22 seasons if they represented a 12% minority year after year. So, as far as numbers go, it wasn't a fair playing field for 22 seasons and people have finally woken up to that fact. I'm not sure why some people find it so threatening to think there won't be a huge majority of white people in future seasons. And, honestly, we don't even know if that's going to be the case.

Look at this very season...a guy named Frenchie came in saying he was tired of minorities and women being the first voted out so what did he do? He immediately nominated a Hispanic woman and black man. You tell me what's up with that. Are white players simply on autopilot? Because without the CO's intervention, it would have been the same old script on repeat. 

[tucka]

I do not think white people watching b.b. sat around each week watching and saying come on white boy get the black guy out,never did i think that.they went in as equals and if they didn't play hard enough then they were taken out. Nor do I believe white players sat around and said we have to get those black people out.

   This year was different, maybe b.b. intentionely picked not the brightess bulbs this year,so it was easier for a group to gang up and vote them out. I do think b.b. has alot to do with it and guided them through it,so sad we can't have a reality show like the beginning, with chickens and chicken george.

       The fact thst Derick Fraser said in the beginning ,lets do this for floyd, makes it clearly racists to me,so be it and wouldn't surprise me if he comes out as the winner this year for laying around and not hurting anyone,after all he was everyones friend wasn't he?

[occasionalrain]

When a person discriminates against another because of their race, they are racist. For Tiffany to nominate Claire, who has been a loyal friend to her from the beginning, soley because of her race is inexcusable and racist. It's disgusting and dishonorable. There are causes that are worthy, honorable, like those who seek to have the wrongly accused and convicted, exonerated. Having a black person win Big Brother is nether worthy nor honorable.