Jump to content

Improving Survivor


  • Please log in to reply

917 replies to this topic

#751

Isuzu

Isuzu

    Fanatic

Posted May 6, 2012 @ 11:43 AM

Earl really took them for both of those reasons.


But the thing is, Dreamz actually took Earl, since Earl never won an IC and Dreamz won the last one. In all likelihood, had the season been an F2 (and they thought it was since Cook Islands hadn't finished airing when they began this one), Dreamz would have won FTC, taken Cassandra and she would have won unanimously.

I think Bob Sambob and I agree, for example, that there was a goat at FTC in South Pacific. But the person I think was Coach's goat, Bob thinks was the mastermind.



I have a hard time seeing how someone who won three IC, was a core member of the strategies of the alliances (we saw her numerous strategic talks woth both Albert and Coach) and who was far more likely to win than Edna, Brandon and Rick combined and yet outlived them all can be a goat. No way. You may think she did less to win than Coach, with which I would disagree, but she's not a goat. On the other hand, the loon who alienated everyone with his religious hypocrisy and ridiculous posturing...(/kidding, at least partially, since I agree that Coach played a far better game than in his two latest outings).

Do Alicia, Christina, or Tarzan really have a chance to win?



Well... yes? I agree that Christina seems disliked by everyone and their mothers for reasons that we are not privy to, but Tarzan, as the last man standing could attract their votes, and Alicia... When has she actually been awful towards one of the members of the jury besides Christina, or even in front of them (even Tarzan still liked her more than Christina after her attitude in the sixth episode)? She has mostly kept her bitchitude in the confesionals and in her talks with Colton, both of which are completely irrelevant now. Yes, she seems pretty lazy around camp but other than that, have the others really been witness to her antics?

Edited by Isuzu, May 6, 2012 @ 11:44 AM.

  • 0

#752

musica

musica

    Fanatic

Posted May 6, 2012 @ 12:19 PM

Well... yes? I agree that Christina seems disliked by everyone and their mothers for reasons that we are not privy to, but Tarzan, as the last man standing could attract their votes, and Alicia... When has she actually been awful towards one of the members of the jury besides Christina, or even in front of them (even Tarzan still liked her more than Christina after her attitude in the sixth episode)?


I'll concede Alicia might be about to get some votes even against Kim, but right now, I just do not see Tarzan as contender, but more goat, for example. I just do not see Alicia being a contender, but if it came down to Tarzan, Christina, and Alicia, Alicia would probably win.

So getting more on point of discussion, I just think voting out weaker or more threatening players over stronger ones with the result being there is at least one goat or more during FTC is a little boring, but good strategy, I guess.

Like last session, it would have been fun to see Ozzy, Coach, and Sophie debate for win, for example. To me Albert, I just do not see him as contender. I agree with Coach may have thought Sophie was goat, but she have other plans.

I just like seeing the best compete regardless of circumstance, but even in sporting events, this is not possible most of the time.

Edited by musica, May 6, 2012 @ 12:23 PM.

  • 0

#753

Yogurt Baron

Yogurt Baron

    Fanatic

Posted May 6, 2012 @ 1:50 PM

Russell was a huuuuge goat. Twice.


Similarly to what Isuzu said about Sophie: the person who dictates the boot order and runs the game is not a "goat". If Russell had taken a disliking to Natalie on the first day and had chosen to align with Marisa, well, Natalie would've been the first out and Marisa would have won the game.

(Oh, and I was exaggerating about Sophie being a goat, just to show that different people have different perceptions of who's the power player and who's the goat. I don't think there were any goats in SP.)
  • 0

#754

Isuzu

Isuzu

    Fanatic

Posted May 6, 2012 @ 1:55 PM

Taking my answer to Musica to the South Pacific Thread in Past Seasons.

Yogurt Baron, who posted while I did: I think Russell was a sort of goat, especially in HvsV but also in Samoa, because it became apparent very early that he had no chance whatsoever at winning, no matter who was at the end with him. For instance, if you're Jaison/Natalie/Mick, you can let him run the show to his heart content: he's not likely to boot you, and if you're there with him at the end, you have a 50/50% chance at winning, which is great odds. Jaison failed, but Mick and of course Natalie succeeded. Also, I still do not think he was the one "dictating" the whole boot order. Sure, he was the one responsible for booting Marissa and Betsy, but with very few exceptions, the annoying young woman and the older woman (or man) are the first boots in a Survivor season. Ben: it was Jaison, Erik, it was Natalie, Kelly, it was Shambo (!) and the rest of the Galu were basically unanimous decisions. He was the one who talked endlessly in confessionals, but that doesn't mean that he was the one pulling all the ropes. I believe the other three when they said they always talked amongst each other and then let him make an ass out of himself because that increased their odds at winning.

It was even stronger in HvsV. In Samoa, people seemed to vote for Natalie rather than against Russell. In HvsV, they were actively hating him and voting against him. I also don't think he dictated all the boots on that season: I mean: once their alliance got the upper hand, the boot order was kinda obvious. Sandra was responsible for Coach, and Parvati/Danielle for Candice. the rest were self explanatory boot. The only two that he truly decided were Jerri and Danielle, and those were huge mistakes.

This is why, while your definition of a goat is sound, when it becomes clear for everyone but the person in question that he cannot win (Russell in HvsV), I think that also qualify him as a goat.

Edited by Isuzu, May 6, 2012 @ 2:39 PM.

  • 0

#755

Bob Sambob

Bob Sambob

    Fanatic

Posted May 6, 2012 @ 3:29 PM

This is why, while your definition of a goat is sound, when it becomes clear for everyone but the person in question that he cannot win (Russell in HvsV), I think that also qualify him as a goat.

I don't think anyone in this argument is wrong. Put simply, the term "goat" is all relative. Sticking to the HvV examples, it's all in the eye of the beholder: The other Villains knew that Russell was 100 percent beatable. Not sure if that makes him a goat. If he wants to do the dirty work for you, fine. Let him. But have your argument locked in and on point and be ready to destroy him in front of the jury. He was a very beatable "ally," not necessarily a goat -- the definition of that word in Survivor terms has changed too much over the years.

But in Russell's eyes, Sandra was HIS goat, like Natalie before her. His warped perception of the game told him that there was no way the jury would reward some who did "nothing" (nothing, in his eyes, at least). All it proved was that he never watched the show.

Edited by Bob Sambob, May 6, 2012 @ 3:30 PM.

  • 0

#756

Unconditional

Unconditional

    Loyal Viewer

Posted May 7, 2012 @ 4:54 AM

In all likelihood, had the season been an F2 (and they thought it was since Cook Islands hadn't finished airing when they began this one), Dreamz would have won FTC, taken Cassandra and she would have won unanimously.


I don't know how you can speculate on who would win a challenge that never happened. There's nothing to say that Earl wouldn't win it, especially after the Yau betrayal and knowing that Dreamz would come off way worse than he did thus making it imperative that he not let either Cassaundra or Dreamz have the power to choose. I'm sure going into the FIC in Africa that it was decidedly going to be an Ethan or Lex victory. Also, I don't see Edgardo or Stacy voting for Cassandra under any circumstances and Alex might have even shared the same sentiment.

I think Russell was a sort of goat, especially in HvsV but also in Samoa, because it became apparent very early that he had no chance whatsoever at winning, no matter who was at the end with him.


The entire cast did a mock-vote in the event of a Russell/Shambo/Jaison FTC and Russell had the majority. He likely would have won those same votes had it been Russell/Mick/Jaison. People just liked Natalie and appreciated her strategy. She didn't bring him to the end or have anything to do with him getting there. Russell doesn't really fit under the common definition of goat that most hold. In a way it's sort of a paradox because he was controlling things in his alliance most of the time, but it was the smarter players that would rather just give him that control than battle him for it just hoping he would ruin his game with it.
  • 0

#757

Isuzu

Isuzu

    Fanatic

Posted May 7, 2012 @ 9:05 AM

I don't know how you can speculate on who would win a challenge that never happened. There's nothing to say that Earl wouldn't win it, especially after the Yau betrayal and knowing that Dreamz would come off way worse than he did thus making it imperative that he not let either Cassaundra or Dreamz have the power to choose. I'm sure going into the FIC in Africa that it was decidedly going to be an Ethan or Lex victory. Also, I don't see Edgardo or Stacy voting for Cassandra under any circumstances and Alex might have even shared the same sentiment.


That's why I said in all likelihood :) Dreamz was a young professional athlete who won several challenges against Earl who was an ad executive who was decent at best. The odds were high that Dreamz would win (and if Cassandra were to win, she'd take Dreamz anyway). You're right that it's moot to argue about that, since it happened the way it did and there's no way of knowing what would have happened differently, but still. As for the hypothetic Cassandra/Dreamz F2, if Edgardo/Alex/Stacy wouldn't have voted for Cassandra, would they have voted for Dreamz? I'm not so sure.

The entire cast did a mock-vote in the event of a Russell/Shambo/Jaison FTC and Russell had the majority. He likely would have won those same votes had it been Russell/Mick/Jaison.


Yeah, those votes held after they had a chance to see the whole season, to discuss between them and to consult with their families and the fans on the Internet don't hold any weight whatsoever. It's true that the jury was not entirely poisoned against Russell like he would be one season later, and he might have won against Shambo/Mick, but it would have been an uphill battle, and I really doubt he would have beaten Jaison.
  • 0

#758

Yogurt Baron

Yogurt Baron

    Fanatic

Posted May 7, 2012 @ 2:00 PM

In all likelihood, had the season been an F2 (and they thought it was since Cook Islands hadn't finished airing when they began this one), Dreamz would have won FTC, taken Cassandra and she would have won unanimously.


I thought I was the only one who thought this! What a fine line it is between "9-0 winner" and "most forgotten player to ever make an FTC".

Quickest way to improve Survivor: bring back the F2. And Cassandra.
  • 0

#759

terxav

terxav

    Couch Potato

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 4:50 PM

By having the HII played after the vote, the HII is given more power than an immunity idol while no effort in a challenge is necessary to find one. I mean you can compete in a challenge standing on your toes for 45 minutes in order to win immunity and someone who is walking in the jungle and looks up in a tree is given a more powerful idol. Also put a TC limit on HII, so say the HII is good for 2 tribal counsels after it is found. That way alot more of them will be played and the game will be more interesting. Also it means that the hidden immunity idol's power is lessened, it protects the individual. Everyone will know before they vote who has the idol(s) and can make their votes accordingly.

The major change that would shake up the game to me would be, individual immunity is done away with, simple immunity is what is competed for, with only the lowest performing being up for TC. This would help balance out the alliance aspect of the game which has gotten crazy. Plus with all of the different types of challenges it can be constructed so everyone has a chance. This would make dropping out of a challenge mean something. If you drop out you are on the bottom. It would make the duration challenges shorter. The first two or three who drop out face TC. I would love this because the he/she is a bad person so we are voting them out is voided. Now even if you are an angel, you still have to compete. FUTR becomes much harder.

As far as working in the HII, this would be sweet, in a challenge each persons position is posted. If a person up to being voted out, plays an HII then the next lowest person is now in the voting pool.

So if you have a contest with: Bill, Chris, Constance, Illisha, Carmen (has an HII), Grant, "King"(some idiot), Jasper

the results from best to worst 1 Grant
2 Illisha
3 "King"
4 Constance
5 Bill
6 Jasper
7 Chris
8 Carmen


so originally Chris and Carmen would be on the block, the six voting would come up with their voting strategy and then at TC, after Chris and Carmen make their case, Carmen plays her HII . Now Jasper being the next in line is put on the block with Chris.

6 Jasper
7 Chris

8 Carmen

There will be no time to discuss strategy and the vote is made. And when you get to the final four, the three that place highest in the challege go to the FTC. It means making it to the final four means all bets are off, you only have to be 3rd best vs. having it decided by someone else. This allows the alliances to work through most of the game but keeps them in check in that you can't have two of your alliance members in the bottom.

And after watching this show for years I don't understand how contestants don't realize that everyone has 1 vote, no one "brings you or carries you" in the game. Each person casts one vote, no one person's is more important than anothers. By placing this change after the merge, each person has to earn their right to vote.

what do you think?

Edited by terxav, May 10, 2012 @ 4:53 PM.

  • 0

#760

Yogurt Baron

Yogurt Baron

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 5:20 PM

Your idea is interesting, and I agree with parts of it---I don't like the immunity idol much, and agree that

And after watching this show for years I don't understand how contestants don't realize that everyone has 1 vote, no one "brings you or carries you" in the game. Each person casts one vote, no one person's is more important than anothers.


But your idea about giving immunity to all but the very worst performers in the challenges would really switch the game from being social/strategic (which I like) to athletic (which I don't). Also, if you only needed to finish above second-last in a challenge to get immunity---say, tenth out of twelve---it would really hurt the un-athletic without helping the very athletic. There's a big gap in quality between the best challenge players (like Ozzy) and the worst...but there's not that big a gap between the ninth-best and tenth-best in any given challenge. Letting someone be one of two people on the chopping block because they finished tenth and not ninth would really take the game in a direction I wouldn't want to see it go.

I've thought before about whether it would be good to have the game go in the complete opposite direction: no immunity at all, just having to win on social play. But it would probably make for dull TV, just a bunch of people standing around talking strategy for an hour.
  • 1

#761

sienna gold

sienna gold

    Fanatic

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 12:08 PM

How to Improve Survivor:
Remind CBS of their history.

I've been getting Facebook Alerts about how for the first time in Survivor History, there's an all woman final.
No, CBS, it is not. If you call it the first final five female final, thats one thing (and I think that's just moot). Fans v. Favourites had a final four all woman final (first time in history) with Cirie, Amanda and Parvarti. I don't know why adding one more woman to the mix all of a sudden makes it all "OOOOO".

I think the game needs to have immunity, but I hope they re-take this One World, and do it how I thought it was going to be: ONE WORLD. The only time they "tribe up" is when they split off for immunity/rewards, and always have it a "pick a colour" thing so it is always random because then you really need to be on your toes. I think ti would make TC's a lot more dynamic because you have to really work hard to not lose your "Michelle' (Fiji) without being too obvious that "Michelle" is part of your alliance.

And without having a tribe per se I think it would make camp life a lot more interesting. DO they go into men/women, do they have one big happy family, do they divide because people hate one another. That's what I thought we'd be getting this season but nope. :(
  • 0

#762

kikaha

kikaha

    Couch Potato

Posted May 12, 2012 @ 11:59 PM

For instance, if you're Jaison/Natalie/Mick, you can let him run the show to his heart content


They didn't "let" Russell run the show. They were hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Down 4 to 8. Jaison whining about the elements, ready to pack it in. Natalie made one critical move right after the merge. But other than that, without Russell they were all gone in a New York minute.
  • 0

#763

Yogurt Baron

Yogurt Baron

    Fanatic

Posted May 13, 2012 @ 12:21 AM

For instance, if you're Jaison/Natalie/Mick, you can let him run the show to his heart content: he's not likely to boot you, and if you're there with him at the end, you have a 50/50% chance at winning, which is great odds. Jaison failed, but Mick and of course Natalie succeeded.


As unpredictable as Russell is, I don't think I agree with this, especially the bolded. Russell makes "alliances" with everybody and then boots them. Jaison, Natalie, and Mick could easily have been Marisa, Liz, and Betsy, if that's what Russell had wanted to do. And he seemed much more personally committed to his Danielle/Parvati F3 in HVV than he ever seemed to Jaison, Natalie, or Mick, right up until the moment he decided Danielle needed to go, at which moment Danielle went. Tying yourself to somebody like Coach - whose play is stupid and irrational, but generally predictable - makes for an easier ride than someone who'll be 100% committed to you one minute and then all of a sudden it's, "Yeah, you're not as easy to beat as Sandra. I'm Russell Hantz. See ya."
  • 0

#764

enlightenedbum

enlightenedbum

    Fanatic

Posted May 13, 2012 @ 1:44 PM

If you play him right it's not that hard. It's just playing him right involves totally removing your own ego, something which Survivor players are not known for.
  • 0

#765

Lantern7

Lantern7

    Stalker

Posted May 13, 2012 @ 5:44 PM

Russell is a good player. It's the whole "being nice enough to have players vote for you on Day 39" thing that he can't seem to grasp, and that's forty percent of the final grade.

I think "One World" works, and I hope Burnett tries to cover his ass by bringing it back in the near future, like with Redemption Island. If Sabrina wins, it would validate the format; if she wasn't forced to toss an idol to somebody in Manono, she wouldn't have given it to Colton, and he wouldn't have screwed his entire tribe using it to his advantage.

Edited by Lantern7, May 13, 2012 @ 5:47 PM.

  • 0

#766

Celtic Esquire

Celtic Esquire

    Loyal Viewer

Posted May 15, 2012 @ 6:39 PM

Personally speaking, Survivor has lost its appeal to me because I miss the actual survival aspect of the show. I remember the days when the contestants actually had to fish/catch their food and build a shelter without being given tarps, pillows and ropes. Nowadays, they give the contestants almost everything they need and the show has basically become an outdoor version of Big Brother.

Moreover, they need to get rid of the HII. No one ever actually uses it and it's rare that the players are actually smart enough to try and flush the idol. The HII is so easy to find and once a player gets it, he/she has a free pass to do whatever they want without ever actually having to outwit/outplay or outlast anyone.
  • 0

#767

xr11576

xr11576

    Loyal Viewer

Posted May 15, 2012 @ 7:43 PM

43 minutes is not enough time to cover what happened with 2 challenges per episode.

Get rid of the reward challenges; not only are they boring to watch (random carnival games), the winner is often arbitrary

Spend those extra 10 minutes showing the social interactions around camp; I don't mean strategy talk, as they dedicate a good 10 minutes to that, but just people bonding and showing who they are; a good example would be to see how the Alicia/Tarzan relationship was nurtured; Jay and Colton somehow had some kind of friendship, that would have been pretty cool to see unfold

except every few weeks there does need to be a variation of the 'chop someone's rope' challenge to flesh out where people are on the totem pole; this will cause more volatility and shakeups; you need like 4-5 of these a season, not 1

Tribal council drags out too long too, as Jeff tries to get people to reveal their inner thoughts and everyone just bluffs him; shorten this and you can get an extra 2 minutes that I would add to see more of what non dominant players like a Christina are thinking in terms of their confessionals

Put back the extra scenes online where people explain the reasoning for their voting at TC; they stopped doing this after Nicaragua, but it was pretty funny and gave you insight into how people really felt about 'person X'

Make the immunity challenges better; I don't care who can stack cards the best or whatever; they should all be ones that show who is a true 'Survivor' and just wants it the most; things that require an incredible amount of will power and determination (not always endurance though, because this is too easy for the athletic people)

and yeah, starve them more and stop putting them on tropical islands full of easy to find food

Edited by xr11576, May 15, 2012 @ 7:46 PM.

  • 1

#768

jersey guy 87

jersey guy 87

    Couch Potato

Posted May 16, 2012 @ 7:39 AM

Get rid of the reward challenges; not only are they boring to watch (random carnival games), the winner is often arbitrary


I think the reward challenges are a key element of the game - one of the problems with the whole redemption island concept was the lack of reward challenges. Particularly individual rewards - the winner almost always has to pick one or two people to take on reward, this reveals a lot of the true alliances/relationships. It also separates people without having to sneak off to have private conversations, allowing for planning and scheming to go on.
  • 1

#769

Unconditional

Unconditional

    Loyal Viewer

Posted May 16, 2012 @ 11:14 AM

Get rid of the reward challenges; not only are they boring to watch (random carnival games), the winner is often arbitrary


The winner is anything but arbitrary. We saw this season what happens when people are faced with the dilemma of who to take. That could have had a dramatic impact on the game, just like it has in previous seasons. It's an important variable in managing the game.
  • 0

#770

Kel Varnsen

Kel Varnsen

    Stalker

Posted May 16, 2012 @ 12:14 PM

Personally speaking, Survivor has lost its appeal to me because I miss the actual survival aspect of the show. I remember the days when the contestants actually had to fish/catch their food and build a shelter without being given tarps, pillows and ropes. Nowadays, they give the contestants almost everything they need and the show has basically become an outdoor version of Big Brother.


They really do need to bring this back. I mean anyone who has watched the show for more than a season can quickly figure out that if you lie around and don't expend too much energy, you can survive on the rice they give you. And if you can make it to the merge even better since most of the reward challenges are gigantic feasts. If you dial back the food and make people have to get it for themselves, then you have hungry people, and I think hungry people would be more irritatable and it would make the social game more interesting. Plus you then you get the whole thing where someone may or may not step forward to be a provider and the social dynamic that that person adds.


Get rid of the reward challenges; not only are they boring to watch (random carnival games), the winner is often arbitrary


I don't mind the reward challenges, but too many of them are too awesome. I mean post-merge pretty much every reward is an awesome excursion/feast. If you want them to be food, why not make them less awesome, like have some be a picnic on one end of the beach with a couple of slices of pizza and a glass of milk. Or for non-food rewards, have some excursions without food. Or basic camp stuff that would help, like a toilet, or the use of a shower for a day, or even just a bunch of rope. That said for the last reward challenge they should totally bring back the car or some really awesome prize, just to mix things up a bit going into final tribal.
  • 0

#771

sienna gold

sienna gold

    Fanatic

Posted May 16, 2012 @ 2:03 PM

I really wonder why they started feeding them. For some players, they are really putting on weight which is nuts. (where as before, it wasn't the norm - e.g.: Colby put on a few lbs because he kept winning food challenges. Koror kept gaining weight for the same reason, but it wasn't like it was a tremendous feast either).

When a reward used to be Dor-Reeit-Toes (tm Tina) and Mountain Dew and a slice of freaking pizza (or bowl of spaghetti at producer's camp - which they didn't realise that's what it was), to all these oasises with HUGE picnics... it's nuts and crazy. I am with people, bring back the starving and the "get your own food" aspect of the game. (but because they ARE feeding them, it makes me wonder if they are trying to eliminate some of the issues that could happen out there, and save themselves a lawsuit?)

I love the rewards. (because it makes you choose who to take, "goats vs. alliance members, vs. a blend of the two). But I want the final endurance challenge back. I've said this before, and I've said this again, I liked the main concept of it. Also - the "gross" food challenge, was a staple, this needs to be back too, in my opinion.
  • 0

#772

Jyn

Jyn

    Couch Potato

Posted May 16, 2012 @ 10:44 PM

They really do need to bring this back. I mean anyone who has watched the show for more than a season can quickly figure out that if you lie around and don't expend too much energy, you can survive on the rice they give you. And if you can make it to the merge even better since most of the reward challenges are gigantic feasts. If you dial back the food and make people have to get it for themselves, then you have hungry people, and I think hungry people would be more irritatable and it would make the social game more interesting. Plus you then you get the whole thing where someone may or may not step forward to be a provider and the social dynamic that that person adds.

I think this season actually sort of got back to the survival aspect. At least where the women were concerned. It seemed to only be after the swap that it sort of went out the window.
  • 0

#773

neplusultra

neplusultra

    Couch Potato

Posted May 18, 2012 @ 9:20 AM

Also put a TC limit on HII, so say the HII is good for 2 tribal counsels after it is found. That way alot more of them will be played and the game will be more interesting.


Oooh, I like that one, terxav!

I wouldn't mind seeing more "survival" in terms of making shelter and so on; but I disagree with the notion that they need to starve them more. Look at how much weight people lose in only a month, or less.

The improvement I'd like to see is pretty simple: get rid of the jury. Keep Ponderosa and the videos, but take away the jury's vote. Play it just like Stephenie vs. Bobby Jon: vote people out until there are two, then have a challenge (could be endurance instead of firemaking, or I'd say some kind of awesomely difficult combo challenge) to crown the winner.
  • 0

#774

Constantinople

Constantinople

    Fanatic

Posted May 18, 2012 @ 10:47 AM

The improvement I'd like to see is pretty simple: get rid of the jury. Keep Ponderosa and the videos, but take away the jury's vote. Play it just like Stephenie vs. Bobby Jon: vote people out until there are two, then have a challenge (could be endurance instead of firemaking, or I'd say some kind of awesomely difficult combo challenge) to crown the winner.


I would hate that.

It wouldn't be Survivor, it would be "Immunity Challenge Monster" or "Whomever happens to get lucky in the last challenge"
  • 0

#775

jersey guy 87

jersey guy 87

    Couch Potato

Posted May 18, 2012 @ 11:31 AM

The improvement I'd like to see is pretty simple: get rid of the jury. Keep Ponderosa and the videos, but take away the jury's vote. Play it just like Stephenie vs. Bobby Jon: vote people out until there are two, then have a challenge (could be endurance instead of firemaking, or I'd say some kind of awesomely difficult combo challenge) to crown the winner.


That takes away a huge part of Survivor, the art of jury management. Every other place in Survivor is decided by a vote, I don't like the idea of the winner being decided some other way. Although it would make an interesting argument earlier if you're in danger of being voted out. "But I'm completely lame at all challenges, you know you can beat me in the end."
  • 0

#776

musica

musica

    Fanatic

Posted May 18, 2012 @ 12:05 PM

I wanted suggest maybe sometime there does not have to be this controversial character like Colton was this season, and then Alicia and Colton, and then even Alicia.

I mean.. on one hand, these controversial statements these people make remind us all that there are still people out there in the world who think like they do. In a way is good lesson to be reminded just when we think human kind has evolved a little bit, we are thrown right back into reality, if you will, as if we do not get enough reality in the news from all the wars and just horrible things that people can do or say to each other, children, the less fortunate and even animals.

Also, for better or worse, these types of characters get people taking about issues, so I guess in a way, this is good, no?

On the other hand, what I do not like is the famewhore aspect of it all. This is what upset me--that children are at home watchinig, and these characters are getting more attention being assholes than their game play.

So I would like to see strong competitors for sure, And really Colton and Alicia were strong competitors, for example. But I do not like somebody like Colton get so much attention he think the show was more interesting with him than without him which to me and many others was not necessarily true at all. I think the show started being like Colton's Survivor to the point the viewing audience did not learn about anybody else, and it got boring. Plus, I started thinking of Colton as a joke, actually. I just cannot take anyone seriously when they say the things he did. To me, he was like this caracature of the spoiled rich kid, so who would give him a million dollars anyway? He would just be used like he may be used in life, too.

I think... if we have to have villains... because villains exist in society whether we like it or not, I wish the producers of Survivor could not make it all about the ratings and maybe give everybody else who are not villains a little more time.

Ideally, I would just like very strong, personable, dynamic players.. and I believe this is possible. But at the same time when we are talking about reality TV reflecting some sort of reality, there is no escaping the Colton's of the world--possibly a very good player that was really overshadowed by his asshole-ness.

Edited by musica, May 18, 2012 @ 12:10 PM.

  • 0

#777

neplusultra

neplusultra

    Couch Potato

Posted May 19, 2012 @ 1:03 AM

It wouldn't be Survivor, it would be "Immunity Challenge Monster" or "Whomever happens to get lucky in the last challenge"


How do you figure that? I am not advocating progressively getting rid of the person who is last in each challenge until only one is left. Sixteen players would still be eliminated through voting. So there would still be alliances and all that jazz. And I'm also not proposing there be individual immunity challenges before the merge. So someone couldn't avoid being voted out because they were a challenge monster (although there would be a tension, as there is already but moreso, between keeping someone to help win tribal challenges and eliminating them as a threat).

I don't see how making this one change would keep winners from being the ones who "outwit, outplay, outlast" (if the final challenge were an endurance challenge, it would fit even better than it does now).

ETA: Richard Hatch won because he randomly picked a better number than Kelly did. That strikes me as far more of a "whomever happens to get lucky" sitch than if he and Kelly had faced off in an endurance challenge--which are not, methinks, won by luck but by endurance and mental strength.

Edited by neplusultra, May 19, 2012 @ 1:05 AM.

  • 0

#778

Yogurt Baron

Yogurt Baron

    Fanatic

Posted May 19, 2012 @ 1:40 AM

Richard Hatch won because he randomly picked a better number than Kelly did.


Greg has said that that whole thing was an act and that he was voting for Richard the whole time.

Your idea is an interesting one, neplusultra. I would put it in my "it would be cool if they tried this for one season and saw what happened" pile. Heck, maybe even if they didn't tell the finalists that it would be an IC and not a jury vote. But if it became a regular feature, I just don't know what it would do to the game. Players' perceptions of their own and others' social abilities tend to differ more widely than their perceptions of their own and others' physical abilities. Which is to say, last season, Alicia didn't target Kim because she misperceived that she could beat her in front of the jury. And you can never truly know if you're more popular than somebody else. But you can sure know if you're more athletic. If it all came down to challenge prowess, of course Alicia would have moved on Kim, because even Alicia wasn't delusional enough to think she'd win a challenge between the two of them. In a season where you were playing not for jury votes, but to be up there in the end with someone you can beat in a challenge, I think everyone's sole preoccupation would be voting out who was objectively more athletic than them.

If you're up there with the people from Cook Islands, there might be some debate over who'd be tougher in front of a jury between Yul and Parvati, but there'd be no debate about who's toughest in challenges: everyone would want to get rid of Ozzy. Then everyone would want to get rid of Yul, because he's obviously second-strongest. Then Adam. And so on.

So let's say it proceeds like that. Every possible immunity-challenge threat is out, and you've got a final five of, from the weakest in challenges to the least-weak in challenges:

1. Billy
2. Cao Boi
3. Sekou-3b. Flicka (tied)
5. Brad (who's survived by winning eight consecutive immunities against the dregs that are left).

Everyone wants Billy with them in F2, or Cao Boi, if they can't get Billy, because they're the most beatable two. Then suddenly, Flicka flukes into an F5 immunity win over Brad. Brad says to Sekou and Flicka, "Jeez, this is heading toward a Billy-Cao Boi F2! We'd better take them out!" And they know he's right. They know their chances of making F2 are best if they take one of those two out. But they also know they can't win the game if Brad's in it; the only people they can beat in a challenge are Billy and Cao Boi. They can't even bet on beating each other. It's in Sekou and Flicka's long-term best interests to take out Billy, because he's the one everyone will want to go to FTC with...but short-term, they've got to take out the one remaining guy who can beat them in a challenge, because otherwise, they're playing for second-place to that person. They take Brad out. They have to.

F4, Sekou wins immunity. He knows that if Flicka wins the next immunity, she won't take him to the end; he's just won one, and is Flicka's last remaining threat. Flicka goes home 3-1.

F3 challenge, here are the possible outcomes:
1. Sekou wins the challenge; eliminates Cao Boi, because he thinks he'll have an easier time beating Billy.
2. Cao Boi wins the challenge; eliminates Sekou, because he thinks he'll have an easier time beating Billy.
3. Billy wins the challenge; like Lill in Pearl Islands, he knows he'll lose at F2, so he takes to FTC (more like FIC in this case) whoever he'd rather lose to. Sekou or Cao Boi wins the season based on being a)., one of the worst three at challenges, and b)., being better liked than the other by the person who was the very worst at challenges.

Only one of these options factors in the social game at all, and it factors it in in the most limited way possible. I think that would be a terrible game/show. Now, it's entirely possible that the change you've described wouldn't lead to the game changing so drastically. I'm not saying that would happen for sure. And who'll win an immunity challenge is never guaranteed---show of hands, who bet on Kim in Africa against the reasonably-fit reasonably-young dude and the professional athlete?

I would like to see F2-with-an-F3-endurance-challenge brought back, because you're 100% right: they're won by endurance and mental strength, and that's what we should be measuring at that point.

I wanted suggest maybe sometime there does not have to be this controversial character like Colton was this season, and then Alicia and Colton, and then even Alicia.


I'm with you, musica! I feel like Survivor used to be a bit more of a morality play. I still think Lisi from Fiji was worse than Colton---someone who calls a black man "ghetto trash" versus someone who thinks black people don't know how many zeroes are in a million, it's a tossup at best. But the editing went out of their way to make Lisi look a)., stupid, b)., objectively obnoxious (again, her snorting and her weird voices and stuff was way more over-the-top in terms of obnoxiousness than Colton), c)., really bad at "Survivor", at all times. Whereas he gets fifteen minutes at the results show: "Look how cute he is! He's sorry, kind of! His mom still loves him, and so does Blossom!" It's not just that there are villains; there have always been villains. It's that they're treating their villains like antiheroes these days. I hate it.

Edited by Yogurt Baron, May 19, 2012 @ 1:43 AM.

  • 0

#779

Unconditional

Unconditional

    Loyal Viewer

Posted May 19, 2012 @ 4:27 AM

The "challenge endgame" scenario wouldn't automatically push the nonathletic people through the game. If anything we would see more of the "you're good in challenges, let's be in an alliance" hookups early in season to ensure that people even have a chance at winning the game because they still need to have more people at the merge than the other tribe or they lose. That and people who were under the impression that they are athletic would also need to have a bigger target in the game in order to protect them for an extra couple of days (if they are smart at least). Thus we would still see the "weakest links" booted early and then the most-threatening people booted just before the merge (if the tribe has a significant numbers advantage) or shortly afterwards, which is exactly what we have now every season to various degrees.

That's not really why that change would be a bad idea. Having the jury decide the winner is the most crucial aspect of the game. It's what adds depth to Survivor and makes it different than the comparable reality-based TV shows because of the importance of social gameplay. Big Brother also has a jury but the way players eliminate one other in that game makes it not as important to have a strong social game.

***Just a short example: A returning player was able to win Big Brother 13 even though there was a group of 5 returning players in the house with 8 newer players. The winner won some competitions but was seen very negatively by virtually all of the new people and one of the returning players for the entire season, yet she won because of a traditional "us vs. them" divide in the house and she just happened to be the last "us" standing vs. an unpopular "them."***

The requirement to play a sufficient social game is what makes Survivor different. Challenges have their importance and almost every elite winner had to win a challenge or two at the most critical time and that's what allowed them to advance and go on to win, but losing the jury would be a dealbreaker in my opinion.

Edited by Unconditional, May 19, 2012 @ 4:28 AM.

  • 0

#780

Yogurt Baron

Yogurt Baron

    Fanatic

Posted May 19, 2012 @ 5:27 AM

If anything we would see more of the "you're good in challenges, let's be in an alliance" hookups early in season to ensure that people even have a chance at winning the game because they still need to have more people at the merge than the other tribe or they lose


See, I don't know if I agree with the bolded premise when it comes to a non-jury game. Imagine Palau, except instead of Steph, the last player standing on the one-person tribe is...this season's Tarzan. First individual immunity, Gregg wins. Now, you're Ian. You've watched Tom Westman basically singlehandedly win every team immunity challenge. You're really going to say, "This guy who's guaranteed to beat me at F2 is a much better person to keep around than this person I'm guaranteed to beat at F2, because the former's in my alliance/old tribe and the latter isn't!"? Of course not. You're going to take Tom out. In fact, because tribes don't matter, you're going to have taken Tom out instead of Willard when you had the chance, because the game has gone from being a very subtle, complicated social experiment to "who can win a challenge?", and Tom can win a challenge.

I know for 100% sure that's how I'd play such a season. Throw every challenge, tell everybody, "I can't beat you in the F2 challenge! Player X can! We've got to get him out! Look how well he did in that last challenge - when it's you against him, that's $900,000 out of your pocket!" At the end of the day, I'd probably come second and have won $100,000 for not being able to stand on a pole for one second longer than another player, unless the other person was as hopeless as me (which I'd try to make sure of), and then I'd win $1,000,000 for being able to stand on a pole for one second longer than Tarzan. Actually, hey, let's make this happen. I could use $1,000,000. (Not picking on you, neplusultra - I come up with lots of Improving Survivor spitballs that are worse than yours.)

Edited by Yogurt Baron, May 19, 2012 @ 5:28 AM.

  • 0