Survivor: Palau - Finale! [Spoilers]

[John Crichton]

Just to prove you cant please everyone all the time. Here's my take:

Ian's dive cemented this season as the WORST survivor since season 2 (when the dumb redneck gave away a million dollars to tina while 14 of the most boring people ever assembled on television looked on). Having some like Janu quit, is no big deal, but when you get down to the FINAL THREE and someone just gives up? UGH. shoot me.

This season was a disaster: from less than exciting personalities, to a complete massacre of one-tribe, to ian quitting. Next season would almost have to be better by default.

I'm sorry that you thought the season was boring the and personalities weren't your cup-o-tea. The reasons you gave are the reasons why it was actually interesting compared to the last 3-4 seasons. The one-tribe massacre was a great storyline. It made the first half of the season considerably more interesting because it was Survivor history in the making. No fan will ever forget Ulong's futility and Kotor's domination. It was like watching Yanks/Sox before 2004.

Ian didn't give up like Janu did or like the gutless Osten, the original quitter. He made a deal that removed him from the game. Obviously, some things are more important than money. After going through the long challenge and then doing what he did was one of those things that we'll most likely never see again on the show. No one saw it coming. It was very entertaining which is the whole point of watching the show in the first place. Would I have done what he did? Hell no. But that's me.

We also had a deserving winner. We had one player force another player out without a vote. We had 2 of the ballsiest players take it almost to the end. We saw a smart game get played by just about everyone. The finals could be seen as a joke but I saw them more as a footnote as everyone knew Katie didn't have a prayer. The journey to the end was lots of fun. I hope the producers have just as many interesting folks next time around who actually know how to play the game and want to play the game.

 

[John Crichton]

Tom said it too ... Ian just didn't have the [mental] maturity.

IMO the 'All-Stars' shouldn't have any previous winners ...

Why not? That's why they are All-Stars, because they already won once. One of the best things out of the first AS was seeing how everyone delt with the past winners, especially Hatch. Aside from the whole Rob/Ambuh thing ruining AS the first time around, it was one of the most watchable things about it.

It's like saying that the batting champion can't be voted into the All Star game the following year. Makes no sense.

Altho, I do think that the second AS should have people who have only played once before. Unless they don't have enough. Hmmm, this sounds like another thread waiting to happen...

 

[Wolf72]

Why not? ...

mostly b/c they already won a million dollars ... (yes yes, your reason makes much more sense, but it irks me seeing someone win another million dollars (well if they did) ... but then again if the group lets them win ...)

 

[Ghostwind]

If the last All-Stars was an indication, the fact that you did win previously, makes you a target for elimination almost right away. I seriously doubt that a prior winner could pull off an All-Stars win. Too many personality conflicts.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Just to prove you cant please everyone all the time. Here's my take:

Ian's dive cemented this season as the WORST survivor since season 2 (when the dumb redneck gave away a million dollars to tina while 14 of the most boring people ever assembled on television looked on).

Wow. Season 2 and the current season are the only two seasons of Survivor I cared to watch. I want there to be decent people I can root for. The other seasons (save the first, which I simply didn't get a chance to see,) were filled with people I couldn't stand to watch or care about.

 

[stevelabny]

and thats the difference. I don't care if the people are "decent" or not. Mainly because I'm smart enough to know that if someone is an idiot on Survivor, it doesnt mean theyre an idiot in real life. And vice versa.

i dont watch survivor to see nice upstanding human beings hug and kiss and cry.
its all ridiculous. youre only away for 39 days, and its a GAME.
any player who brings their emotions into the game is an absolute idiot who needs to buy a clue.

i watch the GAME to see people play the GAME.

there were two years where the game was completely lopsided for long periods and the game was just ruined at the end (season 2 after the fire and with colby giving the game away at the end and season 10 with the massacre and ian just giving up for no reason)
Those season suffered because of it. The game was less interesting, and then totally disrespected. Players must respect the game.

(one might argue that season 1 with the alliance was also lopsided, but season 1 gets the "it was new and it all felt new" exemption")

what many people see as a "good person" i see as a "moron who can't keep his emotions in check" or "idiot who forgot this is a GAME"
Giving Rupert a million dollars for nothing completely sickened me.

Boston Rob, Johnny Fairplay, Richard Hatch. These guys knew they were playing a game and acted like it.
Big Tom, Rudy, Rob C. These were great characters who respected the game.

If I watch a professional sport, I don't want to see one team quit or take it easy on their opponents because they feel bad. When the NFL bans each new form of trash-talking, I cringe. When athletes go into pre-scripted speeches about how everyone is respobisble for their sucess except themselves, I don't want to listen.

I don't want my DM to fudge a dice roll to save me.

If I'm playing Settlers of Catan, I don't feel bad if I cut someone off, or talk trade to see what cards people have, and then play a Monopoly card and steal it all. I don't feel bad if I place the robber on someone. I am playing by the rules of the game. I am trying to win. If it means that I make you lose...try harder next time, loser. There is nothing personal. There is only THE GAME.

When there is a game, I want to watch or play the game and revel in the skills and strategies involved. "there is no crying in baseball" or any other game.

Competition is FUN. If I whoop you at a game, and trash talk about it. I expect you to bring it back to me twice as hard the next time we play. And if you win, I'll take your trash like a man. Games do not exist just to pass time. Games were invented for a human's competitive nature. There are plenty of other hobbies or pasttimes without competition involved for the weak natured.

And I still wont be happy about any All-Stars in the future unless it involves these two PLAYERS: Johnny Fairplay, and Jeff Probst.

(edited for english)

 

[Silver Moon]

Well Stevelabny,

You and I watch the show from two very different perspectives. I watch it for the group dynamics and psychology side of it. I like to see people react, knowing that some are playing a game and others aren't. For me if everybody was a gamer and always in "Game Mode" the show would lose a lot of its fun. I also like the show for the national geographic elements of learning new things about a remote part of the world, and from the fact that Mark Burnett makes it a consistently interesting hour of entertainment each week.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

i dont watch survivor to see nice upstanding human beings hug and kiss and cry.its all ridiculous. youre only away for 39 days, and its a GAME.
any player who brings their emotions into the game is an absolute idiot who needs to buy a clue...

Boston Rob, Johnny Fairplay, Richard Hatch. These guys knew they were playing a game and acted like it.
Big Tom, Rudy, Rob C. These were great characters who respected the game.

Thing is, part of the game is exactly what you're pointing out- trying to divorce emotion from the cutthroat aspects of the game. It's not all that easy, much as it might seem to us armchair players (I often feel the same way, fwiw).

Consider, though, that you are on an island with these people 24/7- it's tough to keep your guard up that much of the time, especially when you have to cooperate with them, have to interact with them. Even great players like Boston Rahb have demonstrated that they aren't completely immune- witness his relationship with Ambuh.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

stevelabney:

I guess we're just completely opposite personalities. I don't believe playing a game is carte blanche to act like an . I also believe personal integrity and decency is something you don't check at the door in the name of all-important competition.

This is not to say that one shouldn't play the game at all. But I don't admire, nor am I entertained by, people who throw decency out the window in doing so.

Also, I'm not saying Ian did this. For the most part, I believe he did in fact both play the game, and remain for the most part a decent guy. Unlike Katie who, especially at the last Tribal Council, seemed to not only play the game, but throw out mean-spirited snide remarks whenever possible.

So I want someone who both plays the game, but also retains enough decency that I can feel comfortable rooting for them to win a million dollars. I simply cannot find it in myself to hope that an is given free money, regardless of how skilled they are at manipulating others.

 

[John Crichton]

mostly b/c they already won a million dollars ... (yes yes, your reason makes much more sense, but it irks me seeing someone win another million dollars (well if they did) ... but then again if the group lets them win ...)

I agree that seeing someone win the million twice isn't cool. But that would be an incredible feat, wouldn't it? To have such a huge target on your head and still pull it off?