|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"S44-W10-E10 Title and Clues"
 |
|
Sheldor 4066 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
|
04-27-23, 07:29 PM (EST)
 
  |
|
2. "JP future juries watch challenges" |
Jeff Probst says future Survivor juries might watch challenges
With juries paying so little attention to the outplay portion of the game, should they be allowed to watch the challenges? The host says it may happen.By Dalton Ross
April 25, 2023 at 10:30 AM EDT
http://ew.com/tv/survivor-jeff-probst-juries-watch-challenges/ Winning challenges does not matter on Survivor. Well, that's not entirely true. Many a player has saved themself from certain elimination by claiming a super-fashionable immunity necklace after pulling out a big win. But why don't challenge wins matter when it comes to Survivor juries voting for a winner? Time and time again we have seen juries petty much totally discount challenge wins as a factor in selecting who should take home $1 million and the title of Sole Survivor. Look no further than just last season on Survivor 43, when Cassidy Clark and Owen Knight combined for six individual immunity victories yet could only muster up a single jury vote between them, compared to Mike Gabler's seven. Why are challenge victories constantly swept aside by juries when deciding on a winner? One theory I've floated for years is that the jury members are not there to watch the challenges as spectators, so their dramatic impact is severely watered down. Consider the first member of the jury: They only see one individual contest, and that is as a competitor, not a spectator, so they never get to watch a player hang on for dear life and gut out an impressive victory, or watch someone stage an incredible comeback in a puzzle, or come up big with a game-saving win when everyone wants them out. All that jury member sees is someone walking into Tribal Council wearing a necklace. And jury members who follow may be there competing in some of those follow-up immunity contests, but they are often solely focused on their own performance, not watching others. Compare that to hidden immunity idols and advantages, which are played to great fanfare and dramatic effect at Tribal Council. An illustration showing the gap between challenge and idol impact can be seen in season 35, Survivor: Heroes v. Healers v. Hustlers. In that season, Chrissy Hofbeck tied a Survivor record for most immunity wins by a woman by nabbing four individual victories — an impressive feat for a 46-year-old competing against a much younger cast. However, the jury was far more swayed by the super-dramatic "Ben Bombs" that kept being detonated right in front of their face by eventual winner Ben Driebergen, who scored five jury votes after playing three immunity idols in a row at Tribal Council. Chrissy — who won her challenges without an audience — got just two. With all that mind, would Jeff Probst and the producing team ever consider allowing jury members to actually watch the challenges? If the jury is trying to make a well-rounded decision on all three aspects of the game — outwit, outplay, outlast — wouldn't watching the physical element of the game play out with their own eyes aid in that endeavor? There's even a past model on the show to go by. Three different times, Survivor has used the Redemption Island twist, where players were voted off their tribe and then had to compete in duel against other voted-off players to stay in the game. In all three of those seasons, the players still on the tribes would watch those duels as spectators in a space called Redemption Arena. Couldn't producers arrange a seating area for current jurors to watch challenges? If they have a sit-out bench, they could certainly have a jury bench as well. We went straight to the source and asked Probst if he would consider letting Survivor juries watch challenges. "You want to come join our team?" responds Probst. "You have great ideas. Yes, we have considered letting the jury watch the challenges, and we've almost done it a couple of times in the past. Maybe your suggestion will be what tilts the scale, or maybe we've already got it planned for a future season!" Probst agrees that giving the jury more information can only be a good thing, especially with the rash of landslide 7-1-0 blowouts in the past three seasons. "It's a valid point that it might influence their decision," he says." If we do end up doing it, you can take partial credit for helping sway us." If it leads to another "F--- you, Brad Culpepper!" moment, we will consider the swaying well worth it.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Sheldor 4066 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
|
04-27-23, 07:36 PM (EST)
|
|
5. "Celebrity Reward" |
Jeff Probst considered a Survivor idea where players won a celebrity as a reward
Rachael Ray and Bob Villa are two TV stars that almost made their way to the island.By Dalton Ross
April 27, 2023 at 08:00 AM EDT
http://ew.com/tv/survivor-jeff-probst-celebrity-reward/ Survivor has added some pretty significant twists and changes over its 44 seasons, and — THIS JUST IN! — fans are not always happy about it. Host Jeff Probst decided to address the most controversial of those twists and format changes on the latest edition of his On Fire with Jeff Probst podcast. On the latest episode, Probst addressed head-on the things that fans complain most about, shared his thoughts on each of them, and then revealed whether they were things we would see again. Many will be happy to hear the host and showrunner promise we will never see the Do or Die twist again ("Mark it down, Do or Die is dead. That's a no."), nor the Hourglass (which he calls "Change History"). In fact, Probst goes so far as to say that he should be forced to wear something called "The Necklace of Transgression" for putting the Hourglass onto the show. "And I'd have to wear this necklace for the rest of time, like a bad tattoo, as a reminder of my bad decision." Many folks will be less enthused to hear his defense of the Edge of Extinction twist that allowed players to be voted out of the game, befriend the jury, and then come back to win. When asked by a cohost if we will see Edge of Extinction again, Probst responds, "Yes, absolutely. I think you could see it in a returning player season or some kind of a special season. Just as evidence: Winners at War, you get 20 winners to come back and play, you don't want to see two or three of them gone in the first few days. I don't. I like seeing them still in the game, fighting for another shot. That's part of the fun is watching these familiar people, so maybe we wouldn't do it in a regular season, but I could see doing it in a special season." But perhaps most interesting of all is a revelation that Probst considered but never put into action. After discussing the creative disaster that was the Medallion of Power for season 21, Survivor: Nicaragua ("Write it down: We will not be doing the Medallion of Power ever again."), Probst started reading a 2010 entry from his Survivor journal, and came across another musing for a possible twist: "What about a former Survivor as a reward? Example: What if a tribe won Ozzy to come help them in camp or compete with them in the next challenge?" As cohost and Survivor producer Brittany Crapper pointed out, that seed of an idea finally sprouted 13 seasons later when Debbie Wanner won a yacht visit and advice from former winner John Cochran. (Rupert Boneham also once served as a reward on the Israeli version of Survivor to teach the tribe how to fish.) But then Probst kept reading. "Or what if it was a celebrity? Rachael Ray could do food, or Bob Villa could build the shelter." Wait… what?! Yes, it turns out Probst mulled bringing celebrities onto the island to help players with certain tasks around camp life. It's actually something the show has kind of done before in terms of having local residents stop by a tribe beach to show players how to fish and forage and do other things around camp to make their lives easier — but never an American celebrity chef or the host of This Old House. Ultimately, Probst thought better of it, noting that "fortunately, nobody heard that idea." To fully experience the host sharing his take on other controversial Survivor elements, like 26-day seasons, the final three, and the fire-making competition, check out the latest episode of On Fire with Jeff Probst.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
