This site uses cookies. If you continue to browse the site, we shall assume that you accept the use of cookies.
Big Brother and online Hunger games.

What do you think about a "jury" voting for winners?

Sep 2, 2012 by Michaelz
In a lot of reality tv shows they use a jury of eliminated players from the season to decide on who wins the game, do you think that this is the best way of deciding who wins?


I honestly think that instead of having a jury decide on who wins, the final 2 players in the game should have to battle it out in an extremely intense, difficult, extreme challenge to decide who wins. My reasons for wanting an actual challenge to decide the winner vs a jury is that, yeah, sometimes the jury does pick a deserving person, but a lot of times a jury can be really bitter & bias to. I think an intense final challenge that pushes the remaining two contestants to their physical, mental, and emotional limits is also much more interesting than watching them beg and suck up to the jury.

Comments

unless the whole show was comp based, that's a horrible idea
Sent by porschefan101,Sep 2, 2012
The competitions can be altered by the producers then to benefit certain players.
Sent by I_PullDaStrings,Sep 2, 2012
The winner of a final challenge has nothing to do with how well someone played in the game.
The jury usually chooses the the right winner because a person who plays a good game knows that the jury will be choosing the winner and treats everyone in the house well.
Sent by tofutime,Sep 2, 2012
no

in terms of survivor it is a strategic and social game.. not a pure physical game. They play to make the end but in a way to win the jury over. Every winner deserved it to some extent because they did so.
Sent by Ghoul,Sep 2, 2012
But sometimes the winner isn't always the most physical! Like Will in BB2 or Danielle who should of Won BB3! And Dan who wouldn't of best Memphis had it been a physical challenge. It should come down to a jury I feel.
Sent by realitymogul04,Sep 2, 2012
I think there's a difference between treating people "well" and kissing ass for jury votes.
Sent by Michaelz,Sep 2, 2012
A jury is the best way to determine the winner. What better way to decide who deserves to win more than the ones they competed against?
Sent by LUPIE,Sep 2, 2012
I also said that the final challenge should be mentally challenging as well.
Sent by Michaelz,Sep 2, 2012
But what about a bitter jury? Don't you think that some people who played hard get screwed over because the majority of the jury decided that the floater who kissed up to them the whole time should win?
Sent by Michaelz,Sep 2, 2012
+ I'm not saying that going around pissing off the possible jury members is a smart move, but I don't think that some contestants should have to feel like they need to shy away or hesitate to make a huge game changing move that could get them to the end because they're worried about facing a pissed jury.
Sent by Michaelz,Sep 2, 2012
Juries don't magically become bitter. People make them bitter with their actions. If you have to a make a big move... be confident you can play it off at the jury session or take someone WORSE with you. It's not a new concept.. it's been in place since jury based reality shows began.
Sent by Ghoul,Sep 2, 2012
Michaelz. Someone can be REALLY strong physically, mentally and emotionally but played a horrible game, yet win in the end with your way. The jury is the best way to decide.
Sent by Loopux,Sep 2, 2012
and this format means Ozzy will win every season of survivor he competes in because his plan is to win challenges (mental, physical etc.)
Sent by Ghoul,Sep 2, 2012

Leave a comment