|
|
|
|
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."
|
|
|
"Uneven at merge doesn't mean its over. *speculation*"
ivoryElephant 2257 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Seventeen Magazine Model"
|
10-19-01, 12:17 PM (EST)
 
  |
|
"Uneven at merge doesn't mean its over. *speculation*" |
I don't know how many of you followed the British form of survivor that ended this summer but one tribe Dominated the other. They entered the merge at 6-4.The weak tribe had 3 men and 1 woman.
The Strong tribe eliminated the three men and some of their own via Ogakor. The final four ended up being the 1 woman on the weak tribe, and two men and a woman from the strong tribe.
The two women ganged up on the men and were in the final. The woman on the strong tribe was seen as weak and her teammates were bitter that she was in the finals. The woman on the weak tribe was seen as the heroic underdog and won 7-0!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
justconnect 9 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
10-19-01, 02:40 PM (EST)
|
|
2. "RE: Uneven at merge doesn't mean its over. *speculation*" |
Maybe the two previous 5-5 merges have actually been the most 'dull' route possible -- maybe an uneven merge would lead to dynamics and schemes that we've never seen before. What would a 7-3 merge be like, for example?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
 |
Loree 8616 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
10-19-01, 04:58 PM (EST)
|
|
3. "RE: Uneven at merge doesn't mean its over. *speculation*" |
If Clarence makes it to the merge I could see him jumping to the other tribe. He doesn't feel wanted on his own tribe.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
Dalton 1271 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson"
|
10-20-01, 06:11 PM (EST)
|
|
4. "RE: Uneven at merge doesn't mean its over. *speculation*" |
Regardless of the "even" number at the Merge --- which Burnett has pulled off twice now.The Final Three has always come down to three members of the SAME tribe who made "binding alliances from the beginning". S-1 --- Richard, Sue, Kelly (and Rudy) S-2 --- Colby, Tina, Keith (and nobody else! LOL) Plus the fact that during S-2 Ogakor lost how many IC's in a row? And this board was posting constantly that "Kucha was going into the Merge STRONG; and would pick off the Ogakors one by one!!" WRONG! I can see Burnett breaking tradition and merging 6-4 for S-3. However, as of now, the ONLY really determined, binding alliance I can see lasting until the end is Samburu:
Carl
Frank
Teresa
and Linda. All in their 40's and all of the same mindset --- to Survive and Win! Dalton
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
mavsfan 693 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
10-21-01, 05:19 AM (EST)
|
|
5. "SI & II a fluke?" |
I don't think the pick off strategy we saw in SI and SII will work in most future SURVIVORS.It worked in SI because Americans had never seen a show like SURVIVOR. The innocent folks of Pagong were naive and failed to grasp the importance of having an actual strategy to get to the $1,000,000 and they were fairly easy pickings for the buzz saw of Hatch and company. In SII it worked because the Jerri/Amber alliance THOUGHT they had Colby in their corner which would have giving them the upper hand in the eventual show down against Keith/Tina. Jerri/Amber didn't have any reason to jump ship and join Kucha until Jerri got the boot. Amber then just didn't have the strategic skills to recognize she was the odd man out, and to see the value of joinging Kucha. Consider how different things would have gone if Jerri had realized she didn't have Colby on her side. Is there any doubt she would have jumped to Kucha and tried to cut the best deal there that she could, or lacking that, vote with Kucha anyways just to get even with her old team? Now that the importance of alliances have been so well established (or maybe more importantly the vulnerability faced by someone not in an alliance), I think anyone with a room temperature IQ or better who finds themselves odd man out in an alliance will be willing to strike a new deal with almost anyone at hand. For instance, suppose they go to the merge 7-3:
Sambura 7 - Carl/Frank/Linda/Kim/Silas/ & any other 2
Boran 3 - Lex/Ethan/Tom (or any 3 for that matter) Under this scenario Silas has tipped his hand and no doubt can be left he's with the old folks. The "any other 2" best chance is to join the Boran 3. The Boran 3 + "any other 2" then have the upper hand in a 5-5 TC vote because the "any other 2" should know which of the Carl/Frank/Linda/Kim/Silas alliance have prior votes against them. With This knowledge the Boran 3 + "any other 2" have the upper hand due to the prior vote tie breaker. I think this should hold true for most future SURVIVOR mergers of 7-3, 6-4 and many 5-5 mergers. ie. Any time alliance lines have been drawn, the 2 weaker alliances almost certainly will gang up on the strongest alliance.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
mavsfan 693 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
10-22-01, 11:15 PM (EST)
|
|
12. "You showed me the light" |
I'm glad you liked the explanation NS, your the one that gave me the logic of how it would work. Initially I figured MB would manipulate the competitions to favor the team with fewer players to get a 5-5 match up. But I also figured it would be harder for MB to manipulate since CBS sent a Standards and Practices rep with them this time. Failing a 5-5 vote, I was resigned to watching a few weeks of Pagonging, but when I read your post it was almost an epiphany. An unbalanced merge not only COULD cause a reshuffeling of alliances, it almost certainly WILL cause a reshuffeling of alliances. The odd man out (turn coat) of the stronger tribe will HAVE NO CHOICE but to join the weaker tribe after the merge to keep themselves in the game longer. The only real way to avoid this is if the odd man out doesn't realize he's the odd man out, or he's just competitively thrown in the towel like Mitchell from SII. In a Bizarre kind of way, a team may actually have an advantage if they go into the merge with only 3 or 4 members since it emboldens/encourages turncoats from the stronger team to switch sides and provide the oh so important info on who has prior votes. Consider, in a 5-5 merge there is little reason to be a turn coat, since doing so takes you from being the 5th member of a 5 member alliance to being the 6th member of a 6 member alliance, no improvement in status for the turn coat. Each 5 member team must then determine/guess who to vote for to win the prior vote tie breaker. This leaves getting the upper hand largely to blind luck. However,In a 6-4 merge the chances improve for the weaker 4 members since there is now a reason to be a turn coat. Being a turn coat from the 6 member side improves your position from 6th member of the team to 5th member. This gives the 4 member team the upper hand since they then have prior votes info. In a 7-3 merge there is even more reason to be a turn coat, since switching sides improves your position from potentially 7th member of the team to 4th member of the team (with the added benefit of having a fellow turn coat with whom to scheme against the original 3). Again the "weaker" 3 members gain the prior votes info. The more I think about it the more I think a team is better off going into the merge a player or two down.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
tribephyl 12393 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
10-21-01, 05:46 PM (EST)
|
|
9. "RE: Uneven at merge doesn't mean its over. *speculation*" |
This article is from Soap Opera Digest(not that I read it regularly) Survivor: Africa promises to push the limits of challenge and starvation in season three. “We’re certainly not going to mess with the structure,” says host Jeff Probst. “The notion of having two tribes and voting each other off every three days works. We just try to throw some twists and turns in there.” The twists that Probst are referring to are the immunity challenges that have become a staple of competition for the hopeful survivors. “The immunity challenges are a lot harder but they still involve teamwork and absolute strength. There were a couple that when these guys showed up, their jaws dropped. These are people that studied Survivor, but they looked at the challenges and thought, ‘No way.’ It’s always a balancing act, but they do just fine.”
Being physically fit enough to compete could pose a serious problem since food and nourishment will be scarce. “We’re not going to have anybody die of starvation,” Probst says. “They’re just given enough so they can survive and get by, but not so much as to make it easy. That’s where the rewards come in. They are given an opportunity to win spices to make their maize taste better and a chance to win a huge basket of fruit. Just going in, you know that food and water are big factors.”
“Every group has been diverse, but this group is really diverse,” Probst reveals. “You can see from the beginning that these are people who would never ever end up together and the fact that they’re going to have to live together makes it fantastic. There’s a pocket of this group that feel a bit more entitled. They get shocked when they get out there and find out there's no CBS honey wagon around the corner. They're on their own.”
Jeff says that they are not going to mess with the format and that the drama is already in the tribes.
I have looked for the interview with MB (Which is where the rumor of 3-tribes started). But have been unlucky, so far.But if my memory serves me correct. The interviewer asked MB if there would be a possibility of 3-tribes.To which MB said you will have to watch. This is neither confirmation nor denial. But just an off the cuff remark to get a buzz started in pre-show times. You know ratings.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Krautboy 2750 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"
|
10-24-01, 01:55 AM (EST)
|
|
13. "Cannot confirm or deny..." |
Here's the excerpt from the Mark Burnett "Teleconference Interview". Mark Burnett responds with the same well rehearsed response used by all the contestants when asked if they would be on Survivor: "I cannot confirm or deny"...-----------------------------------------------------------------
Any Change up when the merger takes place: split into 3 tribes? Mark: There's some unique changes... I cannot confirm or deny the 3 tribes thing, there are interesting twists that will make you laugh.
----------------------------------------------------------------- This has usually indicated that the answer is yes.  Krautboy
|
|
|
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)
