|
|
|
|
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."
|
|
|
"Reasoning behind a Final Three"
michel 10812 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-15-08, 10:17 AM (EST)
 
  |
|
1. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
LAST EDITED ON 12-15-08 AT 10:22 AM (EST)In China all 3 received votes. Todd won but Courtney had 2 votes and Amanda had 1. That being said, I don't like the F3 either. 
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
 |
|
|
Jims02 7328 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-15-08, 09:46 PM (EST)
|
|
4. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
Looking back at Micronesia, I tend to agree with you.A twist in the game early on is useful for shaking up some initial strategies and forcing the contestants to play a more complex game. Since so much of their strategy builds up to the endgame, such a change-up seems a bit cheap and arbitrary. There's no real way to plan out your strategy if you don't really know what the end game is. That being said, I see some upsides to a Final 3 over a Final 2. There is a better possibility for a more interesting Final TC, since you're bringing in more combos of people. I think seasons like Tom/Katie, Sandra/Scout, and Danni/Stephanie really made the producers go this way. It also makes the penultimate vote a little more interesting, as a 4-person vote can force a tie. With Final 2 seasons, the whole Immunity Winner vote seems pretty obvious what they're going to choose, usually resulting in good gameplayers getting axed. You could argue, though, that it just happens earlier with a Final 3 showdown, since people are scrambling to find two goats instead of just one. 
Pooky is the Mole.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Fishercat 4168 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
|
12-16-08, 00:37 AM (EST)
|
|
5. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
I think Jims nailed the real reason why we went to a Final 3. The ideal reason was to prevent slaughters at the FTC. With four straight easy wins at FTCs (Aras, Danni, Tom, and Chris with at least 5-2 wins against goats, maybe except for Danielle v. Aras), they needed to shake it up as the formula to the win was pretty linear.While the third person is usually a goat, it provides two pluses A) It's much harder to drag two people than it is to drag one
B) It prevents the final IC winner from deciding the matchup. Since then, we've had three of the four FTC's be competitive (no one player has more than four votes) as only Earl was able to drag two goats with him. Of course, if those were Final 2's, then at least two of the four would have been slaughters. Yul/Ozzy would take Becky and vote out the other one, whoever won in Gabon would take Sugar. Now, Fiji could have been very interesting if Dreamz beat Earl in immunity and took Cassandra, but if Earl won, another slaughter. China, who knows, so many possibilities there. In general, I think it's more competitive now since dragging two goats and making sure opponents don't win immunity is tougher now.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
michel 10812 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-25-08, 11:15 AM (EST)
|
|
14. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
"Not in my opinion. Even though Bob was not able to build a house of cards, he certainly deserved a chance to win. I was happy to see him win Survivor."That's not what I meant. Psychokitty had suggested that, if it had been a F2 facing the jury, Bob wouldn't have had a chance to win. I think that, if it had been a F2, Bob would have had a chance to win the F3 challenge which wouldn't have been the "house of cards" but, hopefully, an endurance one. That's the way Survivor should always play out in the end and that's what I meant: If Bob couldn't have won an endurance challenge against Susie and Sugar then he wouldn't have deserved the win. If Brian had lost that final challenge to Jan, he wouldn't have deserved the win. The viewers may have hated the result of Amazon but Rob didn't deserve the win after losing the F3 challenge. The biggest challenge in Survivor is making it to the end without losing the votes of the jury. That's Outwit, Outplay, Outlast. F3 is BS because it takes out those components in the end when they are most important.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
michel 10812 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-27-08, 03:14 PM (EST)
|
|
18. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
Let me return the best wishes for the Holidays."But I have to disagree with Bob "not deserving the win" because he would have lost the LAST IC. Do you disregard his record tying five wins in a row? Knowing how much you despise challenges, so you ignore that Bob was arguably the castaway with the best survival skills ever? HMMMM...wait a minute..."survival" skills on a show called "Survivor"?! WOOOOOW!!! How's THAT for a concept!" It's interesting that, after all this time, I still have to explain that I don't despise challenges but actually enjoy them. I also greatly enjoy the "survival" skills and I'm always fascinated in observing how certain tribes work well together while others collapse. In my opinion, Bob’s survival skills meant he deserved to make it to the merge. The first 20 days is when you have to demonstrate you deserve to be there. After that point, for me, surviving the elements becomes secondary because the true challenge begins: Surviving the biggest predators, the other players. The mental game takes over when the players move into the individual portion of the game and that's my favorite part. Some get that game, others don't:
- Winning individual rewards becomes a bad move. Bob’s behavior when he picked Crystal and Kenny to go on reward showed he was incredibly lucky that Sugar still liked him.
- Players should strive to be in a position where they don’t need individual immunity. It’s foolish to count on winning them. What did Bob do to Outwit the others? He even admitted that he did nothing as far as strategy was concerned. Had there been a F3 challenge maybe Bob would have been forced to think about whom to take with him in the end. If Sugar had won that challenge, maybe she would have considered taking Susie. Either way, we would have seen Bob forced to think about his end game. Also consider this: If Susie had won the imaginary F3 endurance challenge, she would have won 3 (THREE!) individual immunities including the most important two. If challenges are the #1 criterion, why wouldn’t Susie deserve to win over Bob? At least, I would be consistent and say that I didn’t like the way Susie won because she showed very little strategy. Funny enough, she still showed more than Bob by choosing sides when Marcus was eliminated!! To determine if someone deserved to win, I always go back to the original Survivor: In Borneo, we had a survival expert in Gretchen. We had a challenge expert in Kelly. We also had an incredibly likeable player in Rudy. Yet, I believe that Richard entirely deserved his win. He understood the game and it wasn’t about winning rewards and immunities or knowing how to build a shelter or pleasing the audience. It was about controlling the votes when voting someone out and receiving the votes from the jury in the end. I can see that Bob was part Gretchen, part Kelly and part Rudy all rolled up into one. It explains his popularity and also why I liked seeing him win. It still doesn’t mean he played a good game. Luckily for him and his fans, there were no Richards this time.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Aruba 1891 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
12-27-08, 08:24 PM (EST)
|
|
21. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
Sakes Alive!!!...Where do I start?First of all, even though Bob was the most deserving this season, he was far from without any flaws. He definitely had shortcomings including those you mentioned. A Tom Westman he was not; but clearly was the best of the subpar lot that was casted this season. I wouldn't be that critical with Bob's choices of Crystal and Ken. It was no secret that Matty, Susie, and Sugar appeared pretty tight. At that point in time it was understandable for Bob to think he had a better chance aligning with Cystal and Ken. When snake Ken immediately conspired to impliment the Anti-Darwin Syndrome and backstab Bob, it became easy fodder for Monday morning quarterbacking to second guess Bob's decision. If Susie won an immaginary endurance IC against Bob, then you could make a case for Susie. But come on...Susie beats Bob in an endurance contest??? Let's be realistic. And when assessing the challenge caliber of a castaway you cannot ignore team challenges. Bob was nothing close to the liability Susie was in team challenges. So even if Susie had won another ridiculous house-of-cards-like IC, I still would not put her in the same challenge catagory as Bob. Had Bob won the imaginary F3 IC I don't see how you could say Bob would be "forced" to think of an end game. It would have been a no-brainer. It would have been an easy decision to take Sugar and getting the necessary votes for the Survivor win heads-up against Sugar would have been even easier. PLEEEEASE...don't get me started to even remotely insinuate that a pathetic and inept player like Susie gravitating toward the weak and oppressed to help implement an Anti-Darwin move to eliminate Marcus as "strategy"???? Nuff said on that point. Finally on you recall with Survivor - Bonero: Gretchen was handy, but hardly a "survival expert". Kelly a "challenge expert"???? Sure, when the likes of Greg, Joel, Sean, and Gervase were Anti-Darwined out of the game, she got to be an "expert" against a fat gay man, a 70-year old grandpa, and whatever you want to classify Sue Hawk as. Obviously we have a different definition of "expert". Rudy was very popular among Survivor fans but I would not say he was an "incredibly likable player". Some went so far to call him an "grouchy old man"...doesn't sound all that complimentary to me.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
LFJ 363 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
12-28-08, 12:09 PM (EST)
|
|
24. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
Hey Michel,
"What did Bob do to Outwit the others? He even admitted that he did nothing as far as strategy was concerned. Had there been a F3 challenge maybe Bob would have been forced to think about whom to take with him in the end."
I would like to submit that Bob simply had to be Bob to Outwit the others. If I had to bet, I would bet he calculated every move he made. It is in his nature to do so. He is a very methodical and clear thinker. To wit (pardon a little play on words): "Wit (def.) - understanding, intelligence, or sagacity; astuteness.
Wits - powers of intelligent observation, keen perception, ingenious contrivance, or the like; mental acuity, composure, and resourcefulness: using one's wits to get ahead." Sagacity was the clear advantage he held over the others from the beginning. Add to that, a certain surprising physical prowess, resilience and willingness to help his teammates made him a winner, regardless of F3 or F2.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
michel 10812 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-28-08, 07:49 PM (EST)
|
|
26. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
Where was his "understanding, intelligence, or sagacity" when:- He didn't see that Randy had replaced him in the Onions?
- He didn't see that Susie was turning on him and Marcus?
- He accepted without questioning that Sugar had played her idol to vote out Kelly?
- He told Sugar his idol was fake?
- He didn't see that Kenny and Crystal really wanted to vote Matty out? (Showing his second fake idol only scared them in trying to flush it out)
And most importantly:
- He freely offered to give Kenny immunity? What made Bob a winner is Sugar. The F3 made it easier.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
Aruba 1891 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
12-27-08, 10:18 AM (EST)
|
|
16. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
Interesting thread and as opinionated as I am on these Boards, I have to kinda sit the fence on this one because I think there's a good case to be made for both a F3 or a F2.I agree it is harder to bring two goats with you to the Finals instead of one, and yes the Q&A at Final TC is more direct with only two finalists. But whatever they choose I definitely feel (as several posters already expressed) you need to advise the players of whether it will be a F2 or F3 BEFORE the season starts. Not only was Skankivor: Micronesia a travesty making that last minute decision to potentially blow anyone's end game strategy, it also gift-wrapped a win for Perv-ati. As for Pagonging...I don't see any way you will elminate that. And quite honestly I don't have a real issue with it so long as it occurs as a result of a team (or tribe) outperforming the other. Hey...why shouldn't a tribe who stepped up to the plate and outplayed the other be rewarded with further advancement in the game? Where I hate pagonging is when it's the by-product of the producers or show's twist giving one team (or group of individuals) an unfair advantage. In plain english...That Sucks!
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
michel 10812 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-27-08, 03:42 PM (EST)
|
|
19. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
LAST EDITED ON 12-27-08 AT 07:38 PM (EST)
Jeff also says there are good arguments for the F2 and the F3 but that's marketing. A showdown is always between 2 players. Let me know when three teams face off in the Super Bowl.
And it's not about eliminating Pagonging but I think the F3 favors it. That's bad.
As for LFJ's comment:
"Did I read or hear that as a child of migrant workers, Susie had little to no other leisure or fun time but than to sit with her siblings and build houses of cards?" Yes, Bob did mention that in an interview but it really is trivial. I wouldn't call that producer tampering. A small bit of luck for Susie if even that. Many kids built houses of cards. For massive producer tampering, consider Cook Islands with its uneven tribes, its bottle twist, the most powerful idol, the unannounced F3 and the very real possibility that someone "helped" Jonathan realize he would appear to be racist if he stayed with the all-white alliance.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aruba 1891 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
12-28-08, 10:35 AM (EST)
|
|
23. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
First you say that a showdown is "always with two players". When my response correctly reputted that statement, now you change the debate to ask, Well is there a sport where a winner is determined for three participants? That's OK...I like the challenge. Off the top of my head that was the case several times when I competed in High School Cross Country. Enroute to our undefeated season and eventual State Championship in my junior year, we had "duel" meets and "triangular" meets.A duel meet was between two teams. But a triangular meet, as the name would imply, was between THREE teams facing off in a showdown where the team with the lowest score (low score wins in X-C) would emerge victorious. There's an example where a F2 AND a F3 format was used...like we have in Survivor. Once again I am not saying you are wrong that a F2 has its benefits over a F3. I also feel other posters made a solid case for a F3 over a F2 as well. My stand for Survivor (much like it was for X-C in HS) was it doesn't really matter what format is used as long as the cream rises to the top. Some seasons we witness that; and other seasons we don't. My only pet peeve is that a F3 or F2 season should be determined BEFORE the season starts for all the castaways to know and strategize for. >Figure skating??? Yes, that's just what
>we need: 12 players facing
>the jury in the finals
>and the score depending more
>on reputation than performance.
The examples I gave, i.e., figure skating, diving, and gymnastics are contests where the winner is subjectively determined. Football is a contest where the winner is objectively determined by the play on the field.
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that in figure staking the score is skewed toward reputation than the current performance. Although that is an issue...at least the reputation is based on prior successes and the optimum effort the competitor put out to earn that reputation. That does NOT happen in many instances on Survivor...quite the opposite. Castaways are rewarded with advancement based on their reputation of how pathetic and inept they are. Because it is virtually impossible to eliminate any subjectivity from the game of Survivor...perhaps that IS what the show needs. An outcome based on reputation of POSITIVE attributes, i.e., solid play, optimum effort, victorious results, and not initiating any lies and deception. Imagine that???!!!
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
michel 10812 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-28-08, 04:44 PM (EST)
|
|
25. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
"Castaways are rewarded with advancement based on their reputation of how pathetic and inept they are."There are many more "Sonjas" and "Brianas" than there are "Cassandras" and "Butchs". And the so-called "pathetic" players advance because their vote is useful to someone. The F3 is just a way to increase the odds of winning for a fan favorite. The final 3 clearly favored Yul. And it made a tough game too easy for Bob and Earl. "An outcome based on reputation of POSITIVE attributes." You can keep your "beauty" contest. I'd stop watching if Survivor came to that. PS: I'm guessing your State championship was a "duel" meet. (Just like a finale should be!!)
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
garcor 432 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Daytime Soap Guest Star"
|
12-29-08, 11:37 PM (EST)
|
|
27. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
Personally don't much care whether it is final two or three. Do much prefer when there is at least two deserving players competing at final TC. Not sure that final two or three is more likely to produce this outcome.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Aruba 1891 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
12-30-08, 06:53 AM (EST)
|
|
28. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
>There are many more "Sonjas" and
>"Brianas" than there are "Cassandras"
>and "Butchs". I could (and will) flip the discussion over and say due to Survivor's flawed format there are more Hunters (S4), Andrews (S7), and Brandons (S11) than former deserving winners like Tom Westman and Bob. >The F3 is just a way to increase the odds of
>winning for a fan favorite. The final 3 clearly favored Yul. Although the HII favored Yul, I hardly credit a F3 format with his victory. The ONLY way he loses in a F2 format is if Ozzy wins the F3 IC and takes Becky to the Finals. Then we would have had a 9-1 Ozzy win and a tremendously more boring and predictable result than we had with the F3 format that season.
There were MORE winning options for Yul under an imaginary F2 format in Cook Islands. If Becky wins the F3 IC, she takes Yul with her to the Finals setting up another boring and predictable result. If Yul wins the IC, he has his choice of who to bring and is favored either way. With more winning options for Yul than Ozzy in a Cook Island F2, I don't see how a F3 "clearly" favored him more than a F2.
Sure Yul was "favored" in F3 format. He would have been favored in most F2 formats. Hell, I'd favor him in a F4 or F5 format...
Point being, Yul was the most "complete" player that season and deserved the win REGARDLESS of the format in the Finals. >You can keep your "beauty" contest.
>I'd stop watching if Survivor came to that. What in the world are you talking about????? What do the "positive attributes" I listed in my prior post (giving 100% effort, victorious results in the challenges, and not initiating any lies or being a backstabbing snake) have to do with a "Beauty Contest"? You lost me on that one! >PS: I'm guessing your State championship
>was a "duel" meet. (Just
>like a finale should be!!)
Wrong guess...the championship was NOT a duel meet. To crown a champion in an entire state the best 15-20 teams all went off together. But it really didn't matter to us whether we were facing one team or 100 teams in the State Finals. We knew we were the best, and because the Championship would be based on performance and not on subjective BIAS, we knew we would win deservingly.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
michel 10812 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-30-08, 08:23 PM (EST)
|
|
29. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
“I could (and will) flip the discussion over and say due to Survivor's flawed format there are more Hunters (S4), Andrews (S7), and Brandons (S11) than former deserving winners like Tom Westman and Bob.” Wow! If you feel that Survivor was flawed from the start, then of course you wouldn’t see a difference between F2 and F3. Along with 20 million fans, I liked Survivor and I thought the format was great… for the first 12 seasons. I’m guessing that part of the 7 millions fans that left since then did so because of stupid twists like the F3. Hunter wasn’t voted out because of a flaw in Survivor but because of his own flawed judgment, thinking he could impose his will on Rob and Sean. That was dumb.
Also, Andrew? Really?? The dumbass who immediately told everyone who was his top 4? Andrew wasn’t voted out because of a flaw in Survivor but because he stupidly REFUSED Rupert’s offer.
“Although the HII favored Yul, I hardly credit a F3 format with his victory. The ONLY way he loses in a F2 format is if Ozzy wins the F3 IC and takes Becky to the Finals. Then we would have had a 9-1 Ozzy win and a tremendously more boring and predictable result than we had with the F3 format that season.” So what if the final TC had been boring because we were robbed of an even greater television moment when Yul and Ozzy weren’t allowed to fight it out in a F3 challenge. That would have been a great way to finish that season. A decision on the playing field is always better than one from a jury. And, if what you like is a close vote then, surprisingly, a F2 of Ozzy and Becky wasn’t going to be a landslide. Jonathan himself wrote at Survivor Sucks that he doesn’t know which one would have won. « There were MORE winning options for Yul under an imaginary F2 format in Cook Islands. If Becky wins the F3 IC… » Becky ? Really ?? Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! « I don't see how a F3 "clearly" favored him more than a F2. Sure Yul was "favored" in F3 format. He would have been favored in most F2 formats. Hell, I'd favor him in a F4 or F5 format... » Why do you think Ozzy refused Adam’s proposal to flush the idol at F5? There are two possible answers: 1) Ozzy’s a moron. It’s certainly possible and most of the Ozzy-haters (and there are plenty) would say that was the only reason. 2) Ozzy figured he’d do exactly like Aras and Danielle had done and wait for the F3 challenge to beat and vote Yul out. Simple and smart strategy. Except the F3 twist robbed Ozzy of that opportunity, thus favoring Yul. The most powerful idol ever shouldn't have been valid until the jury round. That twist also favored Yul. Yul never had to worry about being voted out and that isn’t Survivor. (I wrote that somewhere else before but I’ll repeat it every time.) If I lost you with the beauty contest remark: A beauty contest is a boxing match where the fighters dance around for 12 rounds but never exchange a single punch. It's an election where the candidates don't tackle the issues. In each case, the voters base their decision on which one looked better.
Survivor should be like a boxing match where the combattants get bloodied. Cook Islands ended as a beauty contest. Because Sugar played for entertainment rather than the title, Gabon also ended with a "beauty" contest between Susie and Bob.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Aruba 1891 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
12-31-08, 06:39 PM (EST)
|
|
32. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
I'm not surprised by the millions of fans the show has lost as you stated. But you know as well as I that the show begins and ends with the CAST. The earlier shows had better casts, hence more viewers. That is a FAR larger factor than any twists.I am not saying that Hunter and Andrew were the sharpest tools in the shed. But they were not voted out for being "dumbasses"; they were victims of the Anti-Darwin Snydrome...plain and simple. HMMMM...Ozzy or Yul being able to stand in one place longer than the other would provide a "greater television moment" than a nailbiter as the final tally is read to crown the season champion??? Or perhaps they could have another house-of-cards contest for the final IC. WHOOPIEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! Hey if they did have another lame final IC why couldn't Becky have won a F3 IC??? So I wouldn't laugh TOOO hard given what we witnessed this season with Susie's house-of-cards victory. So Ozzy was "robbed" because he DEFINITELY would have won the F3 IC??? I'm sure Terry was licking his chops the prior season before he knew what the F3 IC would entail. We all know what happen with that. I'm not saying Yul didn't benefit from the HII. But it's not like someone just dropped the HII in his pocket without him looking. Sorry, you'll never convince me that Cook Islands ended in a "Beauty Contest". Here we go again with this rubbish that Sugar never wanted to win. Perhaps when she failed to realize you need jurors votes and she screwed up royally as a result of that oversight, she backed-in to her lame attempt of self-preservation she stated in her post-game interview. You really believe that??? Hey...I still have that bridge in Brooklyn if you're interested! 
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
michel 10812 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-31-08, 08:35 PM (EST)
|
|
33. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
I wrote that the F3 robbed Ozzy of an opportunity to beat Yul and then vote him out and that is fact. Whether he would have won that challenge is another matter but you have to say his chances were good. Ozzy dominated the challenges thoughout the season in a way never seen before. Even Yul said he was lucky to avoid that challenge.With her vote against "Ace-Hole", her Insider clip about being happy to finish 2nd behind Kenny, eliminating Crystal, one of the few players she thought she had a chance to beat, her horrible jury performance ("You don't have to vote for me, Charlie"; "Matty, what I regret most is voting out Kenny", etc...) Sugar showed she didn't care for the win. Only ENTERTAINMENT mattered. Since her interviews, Sugar has been accused of not playing the game, maybe even being a plant by SEG. Some have called her a terrible casting decision or said she played one of the worst games ever. Is that what you call self-preservation??? No, Sugar doesn't care about her reputation among Survivor fans just like she didn't care for the game. It's her right. I just think she cheapened the season. I really enjoyed the scene where she surprised Probst with a high-five after a challenge win, when she pouted after returning from Exile Island, forcing Probst to say: "Don't look at me, I didn't send you." She had many great scenes but I now feel they were all rehearsed. As far as Bob winning, I wonder who did less to earn a win: Him or Ethan? Tough call.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
sol 219 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
12-30-08, 11:11 PM (EST)
|
|
30. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
I am enjoying the exchanges between you two, and am particularly enjoying the comments on the duel cross country meet. Did you shoot at each other while running side by side? Or did you run to trees and hide; and then tried to pick each other off?Duel - a prearranged combat between two persons, fought with deadly weapons according to an accepted code of procedure, esp. to settle a private quarrel. Dual - of, pertaining to, or noting two. Of all the twists an F2 or F3 is the least annoying to me, and I agree that those parameters should be laid out for the players before the season starts. I would like to see more winners who are the best strategists, even if that means a pagonging (ulonging, or fanging).I actually enjoyed Palau when the producers left Ulong to the fate they chose. Ulong probably thought they would be saved with a tribal switch, there should be penalties (getting voted off) for stupid strategy. More seasons should welcome back those already voted off ... sorry, even I had to leave for a moment to lean over the porcelain stool and spew over that one. I can understand the desire of the producers to introduce something new to keep Survivor more interesting. The first change I would like to see is going back to selecting castaways from applicants rather than recruiting.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
michel 10812 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-31-08, 08:58 PM (EST)
|
|
34. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
Chet was an applicant, just sayin'.
Palau was loaded with quitters: Ashlee, Jeff, Kim, Ibe, Janu and Ian.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
michel 10812 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-03-09, 02:29 PM (EST)
|
|
36. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
LAST EDITED ON 01-03-09 AT 02:34 PM (EST)"I have long believed that 3 or 4 people are chosen each season as likely early evictions. These are people that are easily forgotten by the audience while giving watchers a chance to get to know the others who actually have game..." When a cast is assembled or teams arranged, I'm sure the producers look at how the game could proceed. So for sure, Chet could have been cast for that reason. If Chet and Kathy had been voted out in the first 2 TCs, Airai would have had a solid team to battle the Favorites and would have had some time to get used to living on the island. But as far as forgettable characters, Kathy was the most entertaining one in Airai's early days and it would have been a shame to lose her instead of "Mary Who?" All this to say that I don't have a problem with casting recruits. Both methods are valid. Both groups will have duds and stars. "I also believe that Micronesia would have had an F3 if James wasn't a medical elimination." (Medevaced or Disqualified, I wonder?) It's very possible. They've seem to have adopted that stupid F3 format. At least, players know to plan for it now. It's the "unfinished business" part of the F3 that I hate the most. At its core, the game challenges the players to find a way to eliminate the jury without losing their votes. They get to the F3 and the producers take them off the hook. It makes it even worse when the F4 is decided by a fire challenge. If one of them is going to win a MILLION dollars, they should sweat.
"I have always wondered what a dolphin trainer trains the dolphins to do." I'd say they trained them to beat ravens. Don't think it will happen though.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
garcor 432 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Daytime Soap Guest Star"
|
01-06-09, 06:48 AM (EST)
|
|
38. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
LAST EDITED ON 01-06-09 AT 07:02 AM (EST)Perhaps Kathy was the one with the story line because she lasted longer than Mary. Never got to find out who Mary was. Thought Ian might teach dolphins tricks for sea world type shows; or trick plays to keep with the football theme. Miami seemed to have their share of them. Write two million dollar checks? Or better yet, replay the season.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
michel 10812 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-06-09, 09:43 AM (EST)
|
|
39. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
"Perhaps Kathy was the one with the story line because she lasted longer than Mary. Never got to find out who Mary was."Maybe but consider this: The very first scene of Airai's beach included Kathy telling us she hadn't known a gay person since way back in the 19...eighties sometimes and she had told Tracy that she had never seen fake boobs before. Kathy didn't need to last long to be funny and memorable. Mary's story line was about being a nobody: When Kathy returned from exile island, Joel told her to vote Mary and Kathy looked as if she didn't even know that there was a Mary on the tribe. When Jeff told Malakal that Mary had been voted out, Eliza was seen wondering who was Mary. With a F3 and 7 jurors, there can't be a deadlocked tie. A 3-3-1 tie would be resolved immediately on the island with a revote and we would probably never even see it. Just like we never saw that the Fans' vote against Mikey first had a 4-4-1 tie between Mikey and Chet and an unaired revote. With the original F2 format, they'd never need to use those editing tricks.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
garcor 432 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Daytime Soap Guest Star"
|
01-06-09, 07:20 PM (EST)
|
|
40. "RE: Reasoning behind a Final Three" |
Considering Kathy's emotional state for much of the season it's no surprise she didn't know who Mary was. Not saying Mary was a particularly interesting person, but when someone is gone that quickly there is not much incentive to show footage of them unless they really stand out. And in Kathy's case, she didn't always stand out in a positive way.
|
|
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)
