TracerBullet42
Explorer
Trainz said:
Cool...just checkin'.
How come Rob C., Tina, Ethan, and Alicia didn't get to say A WORD at the reunion? Weird...
Well, SOMEBODY has to start a Survivor thread...[SPOILERS WILL FOLLOW!]
- Thread starter TracerBullet42
- Start date
Cool...just checkin'.
How come Rob C., Tina, Ethan, and Alicia didn't get to say A WORD at the reunion? Weird...
ASH
First Post
Wow... I dont really understand how the two of them made it. But, between a little backstabbing and a little stupidity on the parts of the rest of the players, they did it. Well, Amber did... I still think that Rob should have won. I hate grudges held by people. Mainly Lex, because he did the exact same thing to Ethan. But then, Lex was just making exuses for his own stupidity. On a side note, Rob and Amber can not share the money. Its in an agreement when they sign the contracts to go on the show that they can not share the money with another survivor. I am sure that they will have to sign a pre-nuptual agreement when they actually get hitched. Oh, and why did we let big tom even talk, he just drove me nuts and made little sense anyway. Jerri leaving was stupid. Seriously, get some thicker skin lady.
I will be voting for Rupert. Why? Because I like him. He seems pretty genuine. It as good of a reason as any to vote for anyone.
I will be voting for Rupert. Why? Because I like him. He seems pretty genuine. It as good of a reason as any to vote for anyone.
Tarrasque Wrangler
First Post
I'm voting for Rupert too, and here's why:
I look at it as whom would I want to be stuck on a desert island with. Yeah sure, there's some hot girls to pick from
, but Rupert proved time and time again that he can provide for others. He's tough as nails, not afraid to get his hands dirty, smart, and seems like a good conversationalist. Boston Rob may be the better player, but Rupe's the guy I would want on my team.
Oh yeah, and Lex is a big, huge, disingenuous, sanctimonious jerk.
I look at it as whom would I want to be stuck on a desert island with. Yeah sure, there's some hot girls to pick from
, but Rupert proved time and time again that he can provide for others. He's tough as nails, not afraid to get his hands dirty, smart, and seems like a good conversationalist. Boston Rob may be the better player, but Rupe's the guy I would want on my team.Oh yeah, and Lex is a big, huge, disingenuous, sanctimonious jerk.
Last edited:
John Crichton
First Post
I voted for Rob C. Out of all the Survivors on that list who didn't win he and Kathy were the 2 that I believed played the best games but just needed one more either immunity to take it all home. Rob C. played the best strategic game out of the two. He managed to work in backstabbing and lying along with savvy (what did he win - one immunity if that?).
Keep in mind that I'm not talking about either one of their performances on the All Stars version. I'm talking about their actions in the first game.
Keep in mind that I'm not talking about either one of their performances on the All Stars version. I'm talking about their actions in the first game.
Trainz
Explorer
I just finished watching it... *sigh*
My god. It was ugly. Past Survivors always a little ugliness in them, but this one was just disgusting. And Jerri behaving like they're victims of showbusiness and the entertainment industry... I wanted to puke. She is the BIGGEST attention whore in the real-tv fad, she's the one getting the most camera time. She has absolutely NO RIGHT saying stuff like that while benifiting so much from it.
Of course, she's absolutely right, but that doesn't diminish the fact that's she's absolutely and completely full of it.
And Lex... come on guys. He wasn't THAT bad. Before watching the show, with all the stuff I heard increminating him, I was expecting a MAJOR tantrum. Hey, he got screwed, with Rob coming to him teary eyed "Please take care of my girl" and he's back-stabbed by Rob. His reaction was warranted.
BIG TOM on the other hand... please pal, chill. He would have voted Rob out as soon as it would have served him. He just thought he could ride Rob;s tail till the end.
And that's the thing: Rob deserved everything he got. A lot of people were pissed at him because they were riding his tail, and he let them go eventually (well duh !). He played the game well.
However, him getting married with Am-buh kinda screws with the rules. The winner ain't supposed to share his winnings, you're not supposed to be able to make alliances with the unwritten promise that you will share it with whoever goes with you to the final two: that's exactly what Burnett productions let happen. Here's what should have happened:
Rob: "Am-buh, will you marry me ?"
Am-buh: "Yes !"
Jeff Probst: "Oh... you guys are getting married ?"
Am-buh: "Oh yes !"
Jeff: "Are you sure ?"
Am-buh: "Absolutely !"
Jeff: "Well, in that case, I'm sorry, but the money goes to the 3rd runner-up. Jenna, congratulations. You're our sole survivor."
That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.
My god. It was ugly. Past Survivors always a little ugliness in them, but this one was just disgusting. And Jerri behaving like they're victims of showbusiness and the entertainment industry... I wanted to puke. She is the BIGGEST attention whore in the real-tv fad, she's the one getting the most camera time. She has absolutely NO RIGHT saying stuff like that while benifiting so much from it.
Of course, she's absolutely right, but that doesn't diminish the fact that's she's absolutely and completely full of it.
And Lex... come on guys. He wasn't THAT bad. Before watching the show, with all the stuff I heard increminating him, I was expecting a MAJOR tantrum. Hey, he got screwed, with Rob coming to him teary eyed "Please take care of my girl" and he's back-stabbed by Rob. His reaction was warranted.
BIG TOM on the other hand... please pal, chill. He would have voted Rob out as soon as it would have served him. He just thought he could ride Rob;s tail till the end.
And that's the thing: Rob deserved everything he got. A lot of people were pissed at him because they were riding his tail, and he let them go eventually (well duh !). He played the game well.
However, him getting married with Am-buh kinda screws with the rules. The winner ain't supposed to share his winnings, you're not supposed to be able to make alliances with the unwritten promise that you will share it with whoever goes with you to the final two: that's exactly what Burnett productions let happen. Here's what should have happened:
Rob: "Am-buh, will you marry me ?"
Am-buh: "Yes !"
Jeff Probst: "Oh... you guys are getting married ?"
Am-buh: "Oh yes !"
Jeff: "Are you sure ?"
Am-buh: "Absolutely !"
Jeff: "Well, in that case, I'm sorry, but the money goes to the 3rd runner-up. Jenna, congratulations. You're our sole survivor."
That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.
John Crichton
First Post
For a second there, I almost thought that would happen. But it is CBS and they loooove the happy ending...Trainz said:Rob: "Am-buh, will you marry me ?"
Am-buh: "Yes !"
Jeff Probst: "Oh... you guys are getting married ?"
Am-buh: "Oh yes !"
Jeff: "Are you sure ?"
Am-buh: "Absolutely !"
Jeff: "Well, in that case, I'm sorry, but the money goes to the 3rd runner-up. Jenna, congratulations. You're our sole survivor."
That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.
Trainz
Explorer
Well, it was very obvious that it didn't jive too well with Jeff. He was quick to adapt and make the best of a bad situation (did I mention I think Jeff is an AWESOME guy ?), keeping in mind that it's live and all, but at the end of the show, it was clear that he was disgusted with the whole hour. The last ten minutes he just did all he could to keep his composure, and save this train-wreck.John Crichton said:
He had to deal with Tom's innane comments, the not-too-kosher engagment, Lex's dissatisfaction, Dick Hatch's attention whoring, Jerri's tantrum... I'm telling you, it was ugly, and I'm sure when he got home after that to his wife, he must have screamed "F%!& THIS S&!% AND ALL THOSE MORONS ! I'VE HAD IT !"...
Oh, and for the record, now that I've actually seen the show, I totally agree with Tracerbullet.
BTW John, I love your avatar quote !
Last edited:
TracerBullet42
Explorer
Trainz said:
Now, if everyone could just get on board and agree with me ALL the time...
Oh, and I think I'm going to throw an edited version of that into my sig...
Last edited:
Silver Moon
Adventurer
Interesting MSN article about Survivor from a few weeks back:
The Rules of the Game
Why does Survivor: All-Stars make experienced contestants look like amateurs? By Dennis Cass
Posted Thursday, May 6, 2004, at 2:00 PM PT
The immunity challenge on last week's episode of Survivor: All-Stars (CBS, Thursday, 8 p.m. ET; season finale, May 9, 8 p.m. ET) should have been a real nail-biter. In a reprise of the "Fire & Rain" challenge from Season 2's Survivor: The Australian Outback, the six remaining castaways had to tame the "fire scale," a wooden contraption that resembles a giant teeter-totter. Without going into too much detail—the task basically requires building and managing a fire on one end of the scale while pouring water into a bucket on the other—"Fire & Rain" is one of those rare Survivor challenges that doesn't favor the strong or the swift. Everyone had a shot at immunity.
And yet, with the exception of Big Tom, the eventual winner, every contestant failed miserably. Despite being provided with a box of matches, dry tinder, and plenty of wood—not to mention insight into how to succeed courtesy of the previous season—half of the contestants couldn't even get their fires to smolder, while Shii Ann and Boston Rob couldn't keep theirs lit. One by one, the players ran out of matches and lost by default. I'm sympathetic to the castaways—I'm sure this is all a lot harder than it looks—and a fan of the show, but still I have to ask: You call these all-stars?
Survivor: All-Stars had so much promise. Starting with 18 contestants culled from previous seasons, the cast featured four third-place finishers, one second-place finisher, and four sole survivors including the demure yet wily Tina, the hunky and capable Ethan, and Richard Hatch, the man who (literally) wrote the book on being naked and winning money. The season thus had the potential to be an orgy of tricky deals, power grabs, and mental manipulation—a master class in Survivor strategy, less an all-star game than a World Series.
Instead, Jenna M. and Susan quit (admittedly both had their reasons), while the remaining players have demonstrated a knee-jerk adherence to the alliance strategy pioneered by the aforementioned Hatch in Season 1. With the exception of Boston Rob, who presides over the camp with the potent calm of a silverback gorilla, the castaways all exhibit what might be called a second-place mentality. The consensus among the group seems to be that Boston Rob is assured a spot in the finals and the best anyone can do is tag along for the ride. According to a "tribal tidbit" on CBS's official Survivor site, 10 of the castaways (including all four sole survivors) have been voted out earlier than they were during their first time around. In most games, experience makes you a better player, but with Survivor it seems that the more you play, the worse you get.
My initial instinct was to blame the castaways, who seem content to outlast rather than to outwit or to outplay. (Where are you when we need you, Jonny Fairplay, last season's scourge, who faked a dead grandmother in order to stay alive? Or Sandra, that season's sole survivor who hid in the bushes and spied on people like a fourth-grader?) But the real fault lies with the nature of the game; the All-Star version has revealed the original show's inherent flaws (which we didn't notice since we were caught up in the drama). Granted, the producers have tried to shake things up—starting with three tribes instead of two, for example—but the changes have been largely cosmetic. Now that we are familiar with the characters, we can focus more on the game, and it's hard to escape the realization that Survivor is less complex than it once seemed; it's not the ultimate test of will, spirit, and political acumen, but a big roll of the dice—Yahtzee with some camping thrown in.
The producers naturally have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that Survivor is a content of wits. At tribal councils, host Jeff Probst, that khaki shaman, repeatedly invokes the "The Game" and all of its intricacies. The castaways have bought into this idea, speaking reverentially of The Game as if it were a dangerous mythological beast. The subtext is that you can master this beast, but in fact, the contestants are largely at the mercy of circumstance. A player is only as strong as the alliances he or she happens to make in the first few days, long before it's obvious who will dominate.
If Survivor were truly a game, there should be some way to orchestrate a comeback, and there isn't. This season, several castaways have actually been told Dude, you're next but have been powerless to change their fate because they've been unable to sever alliances formed early on. Even the vaunted immunity challenges are starting to look like a crapshoot. If a player is about to be voted off and happens to be met with a challenge that is not his or her forte—say, for example, you're not great at memorizing facts—has he or she failed as a player or just run out of luck?
There's still a chance that this season will redeem itself. In a parting shot, Shii Ann called out Amber as the person who is stealthily making her way to victory. Until now Amber has been under the protection of boyfriend Boston Rob, and hopefully Shii Ann has sowed some dissent between the two of them, thereby undermining Rob's power. (Boston Rob has fallen for Amber, and while her affection also appears genuine, there's a chance she's enjoying a vacation romance that also has great tactical advantage.) But what about future seasons? What Survivor needs is a new voting scheme that makes alliances disadvantageous. Perhaps requiring that people can only vote for one person one time, or maybe ending voting altogether and negotiating who gets booted each week. Something has to change. Right now, the only game that's being played is inside the producers' heads.
The Rules of the Game
Why does Survivor: All-Stars make experienced contestants look like amateurs? By Dennis Cass
Posted Thursday, May 6, 2004, at 2:00 PM PT
The immunity challenge on last week's episode of Survivor: All-Stars (CBS, Thursday, 8 p.m. ET; season finale, May 9, 8 p.m. ET) should have been a real nail-biter. In a reprise of the "Fire & Rain" challenge from Season 2's Survivor: The Australian Outback, the six remaining castaways had to tame the "fire scale," a wooden contraption that resembles a giant teeter-totter. Without going into too much detail—the task basically requires building and managing a fire on one end of the scale while pouring water into a bucket on the other—"Fire & Rain" is one of those rare Survivor challenges that doesn't favor the strong or the swift. Everyone had a shot at immunity.
And yet, with the exception of Big Tom, the eventual winner, every contestant failed miserably. Despite being provided with a box of matches, dry tinder, and plenty of wood—not to mention insight into how to succeed courtesy of the previous season—half of the contestants couldn't even get their fires to smolder, while Shii Ann and Boston Rob couldn't keep theirs lit. One by one, the players ran out of matches and lost by default. I'm sympathetic to the castaways—I'm sure this is all a lot harder than it looks—and a fan of the show, but still I have to ask: You call these all-stars?
Survivor: All-Stars had so much promise. Starting with 18 contestants culled from previous seasons, the cast featured four third-place finishers, one second-place finisher, and four sole survivors including the demure yet wily Tina, the hunky and capable Ethan, and Richard Hatch, the man who (literally) wrote the book on being naked and winning money. The season thus had the potential to be an orgy of tricky deals, power grabs, and mental manipulation—a master class in Survivor strategy, less an all-star game than a World Series.
Instead, Jenna M. and Susan quit (admittedly both had their reasons), while the remaining players have demonstrated a knee-jerk adherence to the alliance strategy pioneered by the aforementioned Hatch in Season 1. With the exception of Boston Rob, who presides over the camp with the potent calm of a silverback gorilla, the castaways all exhibit what might be called a second-place mentality. The consensus among the group seems to be that Boston Rob is assured a spot in the finals and the best anyone can do is tag along for the ride. According to a "tribal tidbit" on CBS's official Survivor site, 10 of the castaways (including all four sole survivors) have been voted out earlier than they were during their first time around. In most games, experience makes you a better player, but with Survivor it seems that the more you play, the worse you get.
My initial instinct was to blame the castaways, who seem content to outlast rather than to outwit or to outplay. (Where are you when we need you, Jonny Fairplay, last season's scourge, who faked a dead grandmother in order to stay alive? Or Sandra, that season's sole survivor who hid in the bushes and spied on people like a fourth-grader?) But the real fault lies with the nature of the game; the All-Star version has revealed the original show's inherent flaws (which we didn't notice since we were caught up in the drama). Granted, the producers have tried to shake things up—starting with three tribes instead of two, for example—but the changes have been largely cosmetic. Now that we are familiar with the characters, we can focus more on the game, and it's hard to escape the realization that Survivor is less complex than it once seemed; it's not the ultimate test of will, spirit, and political acumen, but a big roll of the dice—Yahtzee with some camping thrown in.
The producers naturally have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that Survivor is a content of wits. At tribal councils, host Jeff Probst, that khaki shaman, repeatedly invokes the "The Game" and all of its intricacies. The castaways have bought into this idea, speaking reverentially of The Game as if it were a dangerous mythological beast. The subtext is that you can master this beast, but in fact, the contestants are largely at the mercy of circumstance. A player is only as strong as the alliances he or she happens to make in the first few days, long before it's obvious who will dominate.
If Survivor were truly a game, there should be some way to orchestrate a comeback, and there isn't. This season, several castaways have actually been told Dude, you're next but have been powerless to change their fate because they've been unable to sever alliances formed early on. Even the vaunted immunity challenges are starting to look like a crapshoot. If a player is about to be voted off and happens to be met with a challenge that is not his or her forte—say, for example, you're not great at memorizing facts—has he or she failed as a player or just run out of luck?
There's still a chance that this season will redeem itself. In a parting shot, Shii Ann called out Amber as the person who is stealthily making her way to victory. Until now Amber has been under the protection of boyfriend Boston Rob, and hopefully Shii Ann has sowed some dissent between the two of them, thereby undermining Rob's power. (Boston Rob has fallen for Amber, and while her affection also appears genuine, there's a chance she's enjoying a vacation romance that also has great tactical advantage.) But what about future seasons? What Survivor needs is a new voting scheme that makes alliances disadvantageous. Perhaps requiring that people can only vote for one person one time, or maybe ending voting altogether and negotiating who gets booted each week. Something has to change. Right now, the only game that's being played is inside the producers' heads.
Similar Threads
