These stars are the same ones visible to the naked eye, even from city centres. Because very large telescopes mostly observe very faint objects, the brightest stars are also some of the most poorly studied stars. It turns out that the brightest stars are also the largest.
This completely ignores an important point: there are two types of brightness and they refer to both without distinguishing. One is intrinsic or absolute brightness, which is the brightness of the object as measured a standard distance away from it (and even here I must add a caveat to make things simple: that distance must be far away enough that the object isn't resolvable, i.e. remains a point source of light). The other brightness is the apparent brightness, which is dependent on distance: the same object will appear brighter the closer it is. So it isn't enough to say that the big telescopes tend to avoid bright objects. They tend to avoid close, intrinsically bright objects.

@ barakn

I agree.

If people would stick to the convention of using "magnitude" (apparent brightness) and "luminosity" (absolute brightness) properly, it would dispense with much confusion.

Brightness should ALWAYS include the qualifier "apparent" or "absolute". The lay public would better served, if the professional community were to stick rigidly to this convention.

Among themselves, astronomers and astrophysicists usually mean "magnitude", not "luminosity" when they use only the word, "brightness" without a qualifier.

So BRITE will be capable of possibly determining if the stars of prominent constellations like Orion the Hunter have planets in orbit? Good stuff :D

With a small change to ultraviolet lenses they could make sure that space telescope more unique