URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID4
Thread Number: 4962
[ Go back to previous page ]
Original Message
"Maybe a Survivor Winners Only season? "
Posted by NedraSue on 03-05-10 at 05:13 PM
Granted, if Pavarti or Sandra win this season, you would have to wait a couple of seasons to get 20 winners...but if they can wait for Hatch to be released from his home arrest or whatever is going on...and then they would have to deal with Brian, but it would be pretty cool...all millionaires?

Then you take out the entire arguement of 'they've won before' classification. Everyone is a winner. Ethan would need to get a lot stronger! Wait another year or so!

It would be a great season...even if only 16 returned? The status would still be there. Just a thought.


Table of contents
Messages in this discussion
"RE: Maybe a Survivor Winners Only season? "
Posted by iltarion on 03-06-10 at 02:22 AM

A decent idea. I would watch, but I think this season is showing being a former winner doesn't put THAT big of a target on your back. We've had 4 boots so far, and all 4 winners are still there.

>

"RE: Maybe a Survivor Winners Only season? "
Posted by Colonel Zoidberg on 03-23-10 at 08:08 PM
Hmmm...let's see...who's the most useless-sack-of-poop winner we've had so far?

They're a lock to win Survivor: All-Winners.

"RE: Maybe a Survivor Winners Only season? "
Posted by michel on 03-23-10 at 09:29 PM
The goal of Survivor isn't to be the Most Valuable Player. It never was. The goal is to make it to the end and win the votes. To do that, you must get people on your side. If the MVP-type players made an alliance to the end, they could win. If they don't, they aren't smart enough, survivor-savvy enough, to win. They won't, they (almost) never do.

"RE: Maybe a Survivor Winners Only season? "
Posted by Spanky68 on 03-24-10 at 08:35 AM
Valid points, but the assumption there is that everyone has an equal chance to make those "survivor-savvy moves". I don't think they do.

If I was a middling-talented survivor and was looking to oust a big physical threat and set up an alliance with someone I could possibly beat in the final challenges, I don't even consider allowing a challenge-hog into that scenario. Instead, I plot with a Cerie or Candice type person to oust Ozzie.

I agree that maybe the challenge-hog isn't as intelligent as that survivor-savvy player. But maybe he isn't given the opportunities that the non-threat is given either.


Agman made this fancy sig for me

"RE: Maybe a Survivor Winners Only season? "
Posted by Colonel Zoidberg on 03-24-10 at 04:28 PM
Two points:

1. Amber and Parvati played subpar games their first times out - but did well in All-Stars. As such, I judged the likeliest winners to be people who didn't do so well their first times out.

2. Most winners are deserving. A lot of times, they win weak seasons (Pearl Islands' competition was pretty flat, and Amazon's editing was extremely deceptive, but I am hard-pressed to state that any winner didn't stake at least some legitimate claim to victory. Sure, there are others who may have played the game better that season, but, for example, Natalie wasn't entirely undeserving. Nor was, say, Aras.)

"RE: Maybe a Survivor Winners Only season? "
Posted by michel on 03-24-10 at 06:49 PM

Although Amber benefitted from not being considered a threat, your comparison comes short of considering the following: A$$ v.01 wasn't an all-winner edition, both Amber and Parvati improved their games greatly on their second attempt and Parvati was almost assured of F3 if production hadn't twisted CI upside down so much.

Regarding Ozzy, the first thing he did when NuAitu was formed was to plot against Yul's side and Yul did the same, targeting Cece to weaken Ozzy. That's what I meant by MVP-types not sticking together. LooK at the pathetic Heroes this season. Rupert talked to Tom about an alliance but Tom didn't follow-up on it.