|
|
|
|
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."
|
|
|
"Animal Symbolism Reveals Twist!!!!!"
PlayFairBeNice 2 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
11-03-01, 10:11 PM (EST)
 
  |
|
"Animal Symbolism Reveals Twist!!!!!" |
In the preview for next week's Survivor, there is a short clip that holds the secret to the twist! You all know how CBS loves to use animal imagery to mirror what is going on in the show (e.g. showing a spider's web after an alliance talk in Survivor 2, a praying mantis when Survivors discuss voting a fellow tribe member off). Well, they did it again folks! If you watch the preview carefully, you will see that in one shot the camera focuses in on three different animals (an elephant, a zebra, and I think an antelope). This is CBS's twisted way of revealing what will be occurring in the next episode...THREE TRIBES!!!! Long live BORAN!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
dangerkitty 1913 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
11-04-01, 03:58 PM (EST)
|
|
1. "RE: Animal Symbolism Reveals Twist!!!!!" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-04-01 AT 04:00 PM (EST)It's true, the clip clearly shows these three animals as the voice over is talking about "a first". And all three are herd animals. I don't know if it means that, of course, but I'll agree with you that it's certainly there! Another thing about the preview: I don't know how much we can trust all the quick face shots showing the players distressed. The shot of Teresa wincing is definitely the shot from Ep 4, after Brandon said "Nuthin'!" (nothing is in it for you). So how many other of those clips are actually lifted from previous episodes? MB did throw us a bone, though - in the shots from previous Survivors, he showed the clip of Colby dumping Jerri over the obstacle course wall. Ahhhh, sweet memories. 
Edited to add: the shot of Lindsey saying "Oh my God" and looking off into the distance reminds me of last season's merge, when MB tricked them by sending guys instead of girls and vice versa. Maybe it's Boran members approaching, but not the one's she expected. Some kind of trick in the wording - telling them to "pick" members of Boran, and the opposite ones show up?
dangerkitty
Goddess of Words
|
|
|
Top |
| |
Krautboy 2750 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"
|
11-05-01, 02:26 AM (EST)
|
|
2. "RE: Animal Symbolism Reveals Twist!!!!!" |
Here's the picture your talking about and it definately looks digitally doctored. It seems unnatural to have these three animals all in such close proximity to each other.  Is MB teasing us about the three tribe speculation or is there really something to it. I'm still not a fan of the three tribe theory, but it is curious that this composite picture shows up in the prviews for this week...  Krautboy
|
|
|
Top |
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
littlesplitty 24 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Got Milk? Spokesperson"
|
11-05-01, 01:38 PM (EST)
|
|
6. "RE: I think it's inevitable" |
And just to add another instance of Occam's razor theory: When would there be the only good time to split the contestants into three equal teams? When there are 12 people! I know it sounds so simple, and I'm sure you will tell me that someone else has aleady posted this, but oh well. I had thought of it but not yet seen it on the boards. Splitting at 9 would be too late, and 15 would be WAY too early. 12 is the magic number, and the picture really seals it for me. Thanks so much for this thread. I love a good spoiler. :O)
<><
Splitt
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PepeLePew13 26134 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-05-01, 09:15 AM (EST)
|
|
4. "RE: Animal Symbolism Reveals Twist!!!!!" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-05-01 AT 09:20 AM (EST)There's no question in my mind it's digitally doctored and the animals are thrown together into one frame. In analyzing the picture, notice that the elephant seems awfully close to the gazelle yet they're almost the same size in the picture. Elephants are something like 4-5 times larger in size. If it was a naturally occurring image, then I can see MB just
throwing it in for window-dressing, but to me it's obvious this is doctored... so the question is: What does it mean for him to throw in a doctored picture like this? It obviously means something important. I think perhaps we need to get all the theories about a 3-tribe split together into one place and then break it down to see how plausible it is. Does someone out there have all the theories together from separate threads? Edited to add my take on the picture and how it's doctored
"Damn you, Carl, for leaving me here with a bunch of misfits."
Frank Garrison, Nov. 1/01
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
George Tirebiter 2982 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"
|
11-05-01, 03:05 PM (EST)
|
|
8. "RE: Animal Symbolism Reveals Twist!!!!!" |
Since I'm still anxious to be proven sane, this whole thing resonates with me. . . I have seen photos of a huge variety of animals together, but it seems to me that they're usually congregating around a large water hole--times of plenty, not a lot of reason to worry for safety of the majority--but I haven't seen any such thing in this location. Both tribes' water sources seem to be little more than mudholes, and not worthy of attracting this kind of grouping. And all three are basically HERD animals, yet they appear to be hanging out solo. . . Yes, it appears to be a doctored photo--but it's well-done (unlike Colby's lack-of-underwear shot last season--where his "penis" was easily proven to be pasted in over a mug. ) I tried running this through some filters to accentuate where it's had things pasted in, and it looks to me like someone's made extensive use of "feather" and the clone tool to soften the edges. And yes, it's one thing to doctor a PHOTO, but this is a vid cap--which some of you may not know can be fiddled with in essentially the same way; using Photoshop and AfterEffects, you can accomplish the same things--and for a clip this length, it wouldn't involve much work to stretch the effects from one frame to a whole clip. The clincher would be to be able to assess several frames from the clip in relation to each other. I know. . . blah blah blah. . . 
The things that stand out to my eye: there's an obvious oval area around the antelope that appears darker than the surrounding grass (which I've left untouched so it stands out); there are several areas with odd rectangular shapes to the right of the zebra (unfiltered and marked by the red circles); the zebra and antelope have some especially hard-looking edges at the top--not simply because that's where the sunlight is hitting them; the elephant especially looks like it's on a different layer than the other animals (perhaps the original layer? it fades out much more than the others--the antelope maintains more of its color and edge); the shadows from the 3 animals seem slightly askew--not necessarily from the same direction and not necessarily affecting the grass logically; and the perspective is odd--yes, the elephant is perhaps quite a bit in the distance, so it WOULD appear smaller than normal, but if it was as far away as it appears, the zebra's hiney should likewise be HUGE--but it's not. MB's animal shots have often been a real pisser (how many of us were waiting for Jerri to devour Colby in the end as the black widow would?) as are his wild proclamations of "shocking" events that turn out to be nothing remarkable. . . but I think it's valid to ask WHAT is behind the motivation to manufacture a shot with three unrelated animals and using it to promote what happens next episode. GT
(who may just break down and get another VCR just for the computer. . .)
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Thrill Seeker 220 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
11-05-01, 03:46 PM (EST)
|
|
13. "How much does it cost to fake a clip? A lot of $$$ " |
Not a bad video analysis GT but I have to disgree about several issues.
First off, Bungler's original vidpic looks a little choppy and might explain the strange rectangular shapes. I can see several more of those shapes in the picture. Bungler did a great job but there is a loss of accuity when you transform things from analog to digital, so I don't think you can analyze the picture at that level of detail because of digitizing errors.
Secondly, I think the perspective looks reasonably accurate. The zebra appears closest, then the gazelle, then the elephant. However, the elephant does look sort of fake.
Lastly, they are on a game preserve. Animals in game preserves tend to be more docile around people so they might have had some game wardens herding the animals into the shot. It wouldn't be that strange to see a zebra, a gazelle, and an elephant near each other assuming there were other animals of their kind in the near vicinity.
Maybe the picture is supposed to give a hint about 3 tribes, or maybe Burnett put this picture in the previews to make you think that.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
George Tirebiter 2982 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"
|
11-05-01, 05:28 PM (EST)
|
|
18. "A lot of $$$ ? Don't think so. . ." |
Thanks, TS--but I didn't use Bungler's pict, I used another copy of it, which was at a higher resolution. Obviously, the ideal would be to have the originals or something captured from a hard drive (like Tivo), but I used the best I could find for this pickyun stuff.And I don't think it would cost much to do this stuff--every production co. undoubtedly has the software and geeks on hand, and having seen a pro in action, I can attest that it could easily be accomplished before the morning coffee break. I agree--the real question is WHY MB showed us this--whether to hint at what MIGHT happen, what WILL happen, what HAS happened, or just to mess with people like us. Unfortunately, this is about all we have to work with this week. GT
(I SEE you taunting me, OFG! )
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Outfrontgirl 6830 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-05-01, 04:41 PM (EST)
|
|
15. "RE: Animal Symbolism Reveals Twist!!!!!" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-05-01 AT 04:55 PM (EST)GT--
I am always in awe of people like you with amazing visual skills. Thank you (and everyone of that bent) for looking at this in depth. I agree that the "doctored" aspect ought to mean that the pic means something... but what? As I just posted to RainCrow, who has pointed out how these animals relate to OFA, GXA, and Boran quite well--these three animals could also symbolize an existing grouping that must be shaken/stampeded, as they aren't co-existing very well! As to your motivation:
>>Since I'm still anxious to be proven sane, this whole thing resonates with me. . . Sorry my dear, I can neither confirm nor deny your sanity, although I'm pretty sure no one SAID you were dotty... Edit: OMG, I became a Centerfold and didn't even see it coming. So much for DAWing it up on OT! 
*seems like just yesterday I was a Got Milk Spokesperson*
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
Rain Crow 374 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
11-05-01, 03:04 PM (EST)
|
|
7. "Animal Symbolism = Current Tribes" |
Here is my take on the three animal/tribe symbolism.Tribes don't have to live in separate places to exist. In my opinion, the OFA and GXA are more tribal groups than alliances. Alliances are based on strategy and gamesmanship...which can change due to circumstances. Tribes are more of a pure loyalty/emotion situation and less strategy...particularly important during the episodes where there are two tribal camps. Tribal strategy must be true to the tribe as a whole in order to achieve the merge at even or better than even odds. The Samburu votes were more like tribal warefare than strategic planning...stupid to get rid of strong members when you need to beat the other tribe for RC and IC. Even though we call the OFA and GXA "alliances", it is perhaps more appropriate to note that they more closely resemble "tribes". Therefore, i believe that three tribes ALREADY exist: Boran, OFA, and GXA. Therefore, I do not believe we will see three tribes of four, either in one, two, or three camps. Furthermore, I do not believe shifting one person will work for a variety of reasons. I still believe we will see some sort of tribal shuffle. I prefer a shift of 3 each for maximum destruction of alliances and friendships. Fianlly, I give IceCat lots of credit for providing excellent arguments for an early merge and believe that to be the next best twist option. Check out the symbolism: Boran equals the zebra...sturdy, unpredictable, likeable, and black and white. OFA equals the elephant...old, grey, immovable, unchangable, strong, but ponderously slow. GXA equals the gazelle...young, lithe, tan, fast, skittish, and survives only in large herds.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
Outfrontgirl 6830 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-05-01, 04:10 PM (EST)
|
|
14. "RE: Animal Symbolism = Current Tribes" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-05-01 AT 05:06 PM (EST)RainCrow--
I do not discount your arguments, but I think we need to get our terms straight with respect to "tribe" and "alliance." You wrote:
>Tribes don't have to live in
>separate places to exist. Agreed. Tribal identity is a Burnett designation, not a place. They could merge into one campsite and live as separate tribes. Then they could barter with each other for resources like pots or spices/food and water. This has never happened in Survivor, but theoretically it's an option. >In my opinion, the OFA and GXA are more tribal
>groups than alliances. Alliances are based on strategy and
>gamesmanship...which can change due to circumstances. Tribes are more of a pure loyalty/emotion situation
>and less strategy...particularly important during
>the episodes where there are two tribal camps. Here is where I think you're ignoring that these terms are defined in Survivor by the producers, not by qualities.
For purposes of the game Survivor, tribe is defined as a named group that wears the same colors, competes in challenges as a tribe, shares the same supplies/resources, and most of all goes to TC as a tribe. By that definition OFA and GXA are part of Samburu, pure and simple. >though we call the OFA and GXA "alliances", it is
>perhaps more appropriate to note that they more closely resemble "tribes". Therefore, i believe that three tribes ALREADY exist: Boran, OFA, and GXA. I agree with you that the GXA have been stupidly behaving like a tribe, but they are still only an alliance with a majority in the tribe. That does not make them an existing tribe. If there was to be a merge this week, there would be ONE tribe, and these groups would be alliances (subject to shifting). Alliances can shift; tribes are determined by producers. Look at the GXA:
An alliance has power and meaning only as a voting bloc within a tribe. If the GXA were a tribe and they lost IC they would have to go to TC and vote off one of their own! As long as they are an alliance within Samburu, they can go to TC and vote off one of the OFA alliance--which is their plan to win. Were the GXA to become an actual tribe they would be done for, because they would have to start picking off their own weak members in order to win IC. >Check out the symbolism:
>Boran equals the zebra...sturdy, unpredictable, likeable,
>and black and white.
>OFA equals the elephant...old, grey, immovable,
>unchangable, strong, but ponderously slow.
>GXA equals the gazelle...young, lithe, tan,
>fast, skittish, and survives only in large herds. I like your symoblism, RainCrow.
On the other hand, Burnett initially divided up the tribes as evenly as possible according to gender and age, and if he does a reshuffle, I cannot see him making a young, an old, and a mixed group. I think the symbolism may show the CURRENT state of alliances, complacently going about their business, but that is a picture of a grouping that will end with the twist. Edit to shake my head at my typo: "symoblism"!
And from an English major too...
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
11-05-01, 05:11 PM (EST)
|
|
16. "RE: Animal Symbolism = Current Tribes" |
Outfrontgirl--As usual your logical reasoning is impeccable. You performed a masterful deconstruction of RainCrow's analysis. In no way are the GXA and OFA separate tribes in any sense of the words we have come to know. They compete together and vote together--that IS a tribe. RainCrow simply took the conclusion he wanted--that the three tribes means Boron, GXA and OFA, and then set up a definition of tribe to suit this conclusion. If someone familiar will Survivor were asked what makes up a tribe (at least pre-merge), I think just about everyone would say tribe name, competing together and going to TC together. People would not say--emotional attachment, that is the real definition of tribe. In NO real sense is Samburu two separate tribes--just one badly divided single tribe. As far as the symbolism of the Vidcap goes--it seems to me there are 3 possibilities--whether or not the photo is doctored. 1-MB just likes these three animals and either took a photo or doctored a photo to show these animals becuase he thought it would look nice, remind people of Africa and make them want to watch the show. 2-MB knows that Sean and Jeff V have spread this false rumor about 3 tribes and wants to throw us spoiler people off on this tangent to keep us from figuring out what is the real "twist" (again could be the case whether the photo is doctored or not). 3-MB is giving an allusion to the twist involving a reallignment into 3 tribes. I don't think figuring out whether the photo was doctored will tell us which of the 3 possibilities is correct. I do believe, however, that taken with all the other evidence we have, option 3 is most likely and there will be a 3 tribe twist.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Rain Crow 374 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
11-05-01, 05:21 PM (EST)
|
|
17. "Same Wavelength. I Think..." |
LAST EDITED ON 11-05-01 AT 05:23 PM (EST)I agree with you Outfrontgirl and appreciate your comments. I was just thinking out loud that this symbolism might explain (with a bit of stretching) some of the "spoilers" or "rumors" regarding a three tribe construct and how it might relate to the present situation. My viewpoint is more "situational" than "definitional" pursuant to the Survivor organization. The OFA and GXA are clearly acting like tribes even if they don't meet the Survivor definitions. I don't expect them to actually become a separate tribe...even though it would be fun to see the carnage at any TC! Yeah, I had fun with the animal symbolism and think it hits pretty close to home! I also agree that the twist is going to bring some of the present BS to a screeching halt. Can hardly wait!!!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
11-05-01, 06:48 PM (EST)
|
|
21. "RE: Same Wavelength. I Think..." |
Outfrontgirl--Just to expand a little on what you have said, as I understand it, if you look at the post below called "Jeff Varner on BB2 about S3" which was posted originally on Sept. 2, 2001 (with no edits to the original post), Jeff was quoted as saying "they will come together as three tribes living in the same area." That really would not be consistent with three tribes mean Boron, GXA and OFA. In context, to me, this pretty much has to mean offically designated tribes. Otherwise, Jeff V would have been referring to 3 alliances (and 2 people--Frank and Theresa is not much of an alliance) as if they were effectively 3 tribes post merge. Why would he say this? It would not be approriate to tell about specific alliances, which can always shift. If Jeff was telling the truth, he meant three real tribes, competing as a tribe in RC and IC.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
skierdude10 114 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
11-05-01, 07:31 PM (EST)
|
|
23. "RE" |
I still hath not made up my mind about what the twist is:-Early Merge -Three Tribes -Member switch I do not see any of these as what will happen we are going in the wrong direction, something inside of me tells me that we are off, maybe I am wrong, we shall seeth
at the comigth of survivor on thursday Skier
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
bondt007 3413 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity"
|
11-05-01, 07:29 PM (EST)
|
|
22. "RE: Animal Symbolism Reveals Twist!!!!!" |
I was thinking about that, Windy P... I think that is more likely than three tribes - and would be a bigger splash (or twist), instead of a ker-plunk!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
true 9689 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-05-01, 07:39 PM (EST)
|
|
24. "RE: Animal Symbolism Reveals Twist!!!!!" |
I'm not a fan of the 3 tribe theory, but while I was searching the vidcap previews from prior episodes, I found this picture from last week-
I'm not saying it is a doctored photo, or anything, but it does have 3 zebras. I don't know if fans of the animal symbolism theory would find this to be further proof, or not. It could just be another pretty animal picture.
true
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
Rain Crow 374 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"
|
11-05-01, 10:33 PM (EST)
|
|
26. "Three Theory # 3" |
I was feeling less than profound and kind of impish when I read Outfrontgirl asking if there was a 3rd Three Theory. Hmmmm, I thought, with so few spoiler clues, there is always room for another theory!!! Do I really want to toss something into the pot? Maybe I should just turn off my computer until after the show Thursday and save what little reputation I may have generated here? Naaah...here is one just for grins! Enjoy!New twist is they will use two existing tribes but three challenges for the next 2-4 episodes and then merge. First challenge will be a tribal Swedish Switch Challenge. Second challenge will be the Reward Challenge. Third challenge will be the Immunity Challenge. This has interesting possibilities, but to run three challenges would be...dare I say it...challenging. Time alone would make this one a real bear to do. There would have to be some additional rules, like the switched survivors could not be voted off...oops, that would be a form of immunity for two people! I could go on with this goofy idea and how it would fit some, or all, or none of the Episode 5 criteria, but will leave it to the spoiler community to laugh it off, or who knows, develop it further. If nothing else, this episode is making us think outside the box!
ThursdayThursdayThursdayThursdayThursday...come on Thursday!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-05-01, 11:52 PM (EST)
|
|
29. "Back to the Egg" |
The three tribe rumor has been around since the summer, when "Survivor: Africa" was still being filmed. It was originally part of the no-merge rumor, which has since fallen into the background clutter and deservedly so; ie. at some point in the game it would be absolutely necessary for a merge and individual competitions to commence, eliminating one player a week makes that necessary. Anyway, this all started when a reporter asked CBS bigwig Les Moonves about the rumor which previously had never been heard of by anyone. Who that reporter was, much less where he or she got the information on which to base the question, is a mystery. It is possible there was a leak somewhere or the reporter had sources in Kenya (essentially the same thing), but there is no way of knowing what from what in that regard.The point is, this rumor has been around a long time. So has the animal symbolism thing, it was noted in S1 and was regarded as a spoiling factor in S2. This is plenty of time for MB to have incorporated images into the promotional material which would play to the rumor, if he so chose, regardless of whether it would have any actual bearing on anything in the game. However, I am not out to dash hopes of the three team scenario, the facts previously stated are there for perspective. I have never been a fan of the three team scenario, but I will acknowledge that it would satisfy the hyperbole of the promos for episode five, at least in regard to breaking up alliances and friendships (testing them I think was how it was put) and being a big twist in the game you thought you knew. I have two questions. First, how can the three teams scenario be made to work within the existing dynamics of the game? Obviously, yes, it tests existing friendships and alliances, but how does the game progress within this structure? Are all the teams in one camp or are they in three different camps? Logistically three different camps would be extremely problematic on the production end of things, not to mention that there have to be protectors for the production crews who have to be concerned with performing their jobs rather than protecting themselves from the local predators: the easy answer is they would then have to all be in one camp. But then there are the matters of how are the teams selected and do one, two, or all three go to TC? How does all this fit withing the existing dynamics of the game? The second question I would have, drawing directly from the hyperbole of the promotional material itself, is simply this: Can all that actually be accomplished in the first 15 minutes (quarter) of episode five? Seems like a pretty tall order to me. "If the race of man should be left naked upon a desert island, we should become extinct in six weeks. A few individuals might linger, but in a year would become worse than monkeys." (Samuel Butler, "Erewhon")
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
11-06-01, 09:38 AM (EST)
|
|
30. "RE: Back to the Egg" |
dabo--Although I obviously do not know for sure how it will work (or even that the 3 tribe rumor is true), I don't think either of your questions are really that hard to answer. I think it is pretty clear that all three tribes would have to live in one location for the reasons you mentioned (this is also consistent with the report of what Jeff V has said about 3 tribes living in 1 location). I strongly suspect that the winning tribe in the IC would not go to TC and the other 2 would, but of course, MB could have all 3 tribes go but not allow votes for members of the winning tribe. Either way (or some other variation) would work. While the answer to this question may be of some academic interest, it is in no way an impediment to the 3 tribe approach. So if you were just asking the question because it is an interesting question then all right--it is an interesting question (and if the 3 tribe scenario is implemented we will find out the answer on Thursday). If you were asking the question because you think resolving it would be so problematic that it would impede MB from implementing a 3 tribe approach--I don't think so. If MB goes to 3 tribes, he will pick the rules he wants and that will be it--no real problem. Just think outside the box a little (i.e., assume some aspect of the game will be completely different than anything in S1 or S2) and the resolution to your question is not that big a deal. Remember, MB rules by fiat. As far as a 3 tribe scenario being implemented in the first 15 min of the show, MB can edit however he wants. If he wants to compress the process to 15 min (because he needs the rest of the episode for other things like challenges and TC), he will do it. Viewers may feel the process was rushed, but that is too bad. We will see people getting and reacting to the announcement--that only takes a few minutes; we will see Jeff get them together and announce the new teams--that only takes a few minutes. Plenty of time to get this done in 15 min. They even have time for a quick challenge to determine the new teams if the challenge is heavily edited (I am not convinced the new teams will be selected through a challenge, but they might). The movement to and reactions at the new camp with the reconstituted tribes would presumably come after the first 15 min. Only the "twist" is supposed to occur in the first 15 min., not everything related to the twist. In other words, if your questions were meant to dampen people's views on the likelihood of a 3 tribe approach--I personally don't think your questions raise any serious concerns.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-06-01, 09:56 AM (EST)
|
|
31. "RE: Back to the Egg" |
I asked the first question because I enjoy speculating what could be workable solutions to these problems. Like I said, I've never been a fan of the three teams idea, but what would be the best way to make it work is an interesting problem to work on. The biggest problem I see is fitting it within the dynamics of the game itself, which is about team-building and Machiavellian manipulation, as the three teams concept itself would seem to work against that, though having all the players in one camp would lessen the damage to the game somewhat. Anyway, I really am interested in what people think about what might be the best solution in this regard.As for the second question, I still see it as a tall order to fit it all into the first quarter of the show, though yes MB can edit it however he wants. But this involves getting one tribe moved (possibly both) so that they're all in the same camp, then introducing the new team concept in a way which seems fair (though surprising), then actually having the new teams selected and the rules regarding how things would now work established (at least partially). In my opinion the best television way to run things would be to introduce the new teams concept and then go into the commercial break, having the team selection itself as the stay-tuned hook going into the second quarter of the show, but would there be enough then in the first quarter to satisfy the hyperbole? I suppose, MB does stretch credulity sometimes. "If the race of man should be left naked upon a desert island, we should become extinct in six weeks. A few individuals might linger, but in a year would become worse than monkeys." (Samuel Butler, "Erewhon")
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
11-06-01, 10:54 AM (EST)
|
|
34. "RE: Back to the Egg" |
dabo--As I think more about it, I think that the reference to the twist happening in the first 15 min. really just means we will find out what the twist IS in the first 15 min. This is a fairly easy thing to do. Thus, it starts will the tree mail ("You've got tree mail"--as Zap2it names the episode) telling the tribe members that there will be a major change in tribe composition (not sure how specific the tree mail will be). Then we go to the reactions, many of which we have already seen in previews. Then we go to Jeff describing the exact nature of the 3 tribe scenario--i.e., how the teams will be picked, how RC, IC and TC will work, when the complete merge will happen (although they may leave this point unclear), etc.). Then you go to commercial--15 min. has passed and MB has kept his promise that the viewer would find out what the "shocking twist" will be in the first 15 min. The fact that the new tribes are not actually chosen in the fist 15 min. does not mean that the preview was false. The promise is only that we will find out what the twist IS in the first 15 min., not that it will be fully implemented in the first 15 min. I don't know if I have convinced you dabo, but I gave it my best shot.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-06-01, 10:40 PM (EST)
|
|
35. "RE: Back to the Egg" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-06-01 AT 10:42 PM (EST)Well, you've convinced me that the first 15 minutes is maybe not as important as the hype would suggest, just important enough to justify it. Maybe I should rephrase my querie. The dynamics of the game create three acts, a beginning and a middle and an end, with team building as the primary dynamic of the first act, threat elimination in the second act, and finally the end-game when it becomes the process of manipulation and politics as each of the end-players does whatever he or she can in order to win. Two of the scenarios for the twist, the three teams and the 3-3 switch, essentially create new tribes late in act 1, regressive rather than progressive. My question is whether there is a way for the game to progress forward while incorporating such a regressive twist? I don't know. I have tried to think of ways in which it could work, I can't think of any. All I can come up with is that it might be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. Still, I am very interested in any ideas anyone would have in this regard of how would the game move forward under these circumstances. If this is what MB actually pulls off, how is he going to pull it off? "If the race of man should be left naked upon a desert island, we should become extinct in six weeks. A few individuals might linger, but in a year would become worse than monkeys." (Samuel Butler, "Erewhon")
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
11-07-01, 09:37 AM (EST)
|
|
36. "RE: Back to the Egg" |
dabo--I am not sure how to put this without sounding either insulting or condescending because I have no intent to be either. Nevertheless--here it goes--you need to learn to think out of the box. You have this idea that the only way to structure a good narrative is one way--3 acts of team building, threat and elimination. I don't think it is nearly that restrictive. Remember last season's E6 in which Mike caught on fire. That structure certainly could not be followed there--although admittedly that was the result of event over which MB had no control (unless you believe the crazy theory that MB paid Mike to catch on fire). Most people think he made that episode work. And the thing that made it work was drama. Also, if you think back to S1, there were people who argued that the one thing we could be sure of is that Rich would not win because he was being portrayed as the evil mastermind and evil masterminds never win in a good story. Well, obviously MB disagreed with that story-telling rule (and I do NOT believe MB did anything to turn our view of Rich around--Rich was the master manipulator to the end when he forfeited the last IC to screw Rudy). I know that by the end, I was rooting for Kelly based on the way MB portrayed Rich. Nevertheless he went for what he thought would make for the best drama. The things that I believe MB finds makes good reality-based TV over all other components are unpredicability and suspense. That is why he tries to hide the boot order so closely. That is why he arranges the vote announcement to delay as long as possible information confirming who is booted (e.g., reading all of Silas' votes before reading 1 of Linda's because once the viewer finds out who any 1 of the GXA voted vote they would know who was booted). OK--so how does this relate to your precise question? If MB thinks that the best way to add unpredictability and suspense to S3 is to split into 3 tribes or swap members, he will do it. He will structure the "twist" episode a little different to accomodate the shift and he will necessarily have to give away one of the major suspenseful aspects of the episode (i.e., the nature of the twist) early in the episode. He will presumably then move to your three acts in a condensed form--tribe building in the new tribes, threat of elimination and ultimately elimination of another person. It really would not be that hard to pull off in 60 min., and MB apparently thinks it will reinvigorate a stale formula. Whenever someone argues that MB should not do something, they often have a good point. MB makes mistakes, and we are free to second guess him. But to say that MB CANNOT do something (or for all practical purposes cannot do something)--I have my doubts. Obviously he has certain physical and legal limitations. He cannot "rig" the voting (as Stacey has accused him of doing). He cannot throw people off a tower to their deaths. So yes, he has limits. But being constrained by a narrow concept of what makes for good story-telling, I think not.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-07-01, 11:03 AM (EST)
|
|
37. "RE: Back to the Egg" |
zzz--I appreciate your patience with this. I have not said MB cannot do anything, I am asking how can this be done without ruining the game. I am asking because I want to know. All good games have built-in dynamics to progress the game forward, when those fail the game bogs down. One of the built-in dynamics in Survivor is one of the most basic of all, time. I don't see how a regressive game dynamic at this point in the game can help the game. Make interesting TV, interesting story, yes, but it seems to me that it could destroy the game itself. Perhaps MB knows how to do this while propelling the game forward as it must go, if so I would like to know what he knows. The following are quoted from MB's S2 Field Guide -- "Act One is Arrival. The contestants are flung into their new home, wide-eyed and scared. ... This is the time when contestants must set aside their personal needs in favor of the tribe's greater good. Their efforts should be focused on work, winning Challenges ... "So, who gets voted off in Act One? Anyone who plain doesn't fit in, no matter what the reason. The tribe has no use for these contestants and they are jettisoned through Survivor's natural selection. By the end of Act One, when life has been forged in the wilderness and stasis prevails, personality usurps indispensability as an issue. ... "Act Two begins with ten contestants left, carries through the merger, then ends with the final six. This is the stage when threats are voted off. In the first Survivor, Gretchen and Greg went at the beginning of this act. ..." (Yes, I note from the Sue Hawk piece that it would seem that somehow MB has altered the game to make it different from what has gone on before, but I think essentially it must remain the same game whatever the changes made to it were.) "Act Two is a time of friction. The slow waltz toward the finish begins here. The Immunity Challenges get more competative, as each contestant realizes their fate is in their own hands. Contestants merge into a single tribe, allowing them to keep their enemies in sight at all times. ... Paranoia sets in as they realize anyone could be their friend and anyone could turn out to be their enemy. ... "Act Three is the last week of island life, concluding with the last Tribal Council. The food supply is either running low or running on autopilot, with a routine of three meals a day ingrained into contestant living. Nobody trusts anybody, though they're all dying for an ally, if only for peace of mind. The days are tense and long. Immunity Challenges are frantic affairs, with contestants clawing and scratching. The Immunity Talisman is worn to Tribal Council like the good luck charm that it was intended to be. "The meek are voted off and the competition comes down to the Final Three. This is when it really gets tight. Winning Immunity is everything. And then, of course, the Final Two. A contestant's past sins come back to haunt him of her, as those whose demise they orchestrated come back as jury members to decide Survivor's winner. "So, what makes a good Survivor? Well, Survivor's a different game every time. Like adventure itself, Survivor is however you make it out to be. I look forward to the day you can answer that question for me." So, that is essentially the thing itself, the game didn't need to be changed to be a good game and to produce a different result each time, that all comes down to the mix of the 16 contestants and how they play the game and who has luck working for them and who doesn't, and so on. The changes are being made for the sake of shaking things up for making TV, avoiding the predictability that sets in in Act Two. I get that. But the game itself still has to work, it still has to be the game, MB is not going to allow Survivor to degenerate in that regard. So, that's what I want to know: How does MB incorporate a regressive game pattern into Survivor while protecting the game from degeneration? "If the race of man should be left naked upon a desert island, we should become extinct in six weeks. A few individuals might linger, but in a year would become worse than monkeys." (Samuel Butler, "Erewhon")
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
11-07-01, 11:21 AM (EST)
|
|
38. "RE: Back to the Egg" |
dabo--Thank you for taking my comments in the spirit intended. I realize that I may have misunderstood your comments a bit. I think, however, that you pretty much answered your own question. MB has decided, based on S2 ratings, that Act 2 sucks. Act 2 becomes way too predictible and boring. So what is a story teller like MB to do. Well--how about extend Act 1 and shorten Act 2? How about shake up Act 1 to make the game even more unpredictible and different from past variations? How about splitting them into 3 tribes for a few episodes? You ask how to avoid getting bogged down. The answer to that is also easy. It has been reported that Jeff Probst has stated that there is really only 1 rule of Survivor--someone must get voted off every three days. That rule guarantees that the story will move forward. Each episode still culminates in the removal of another person. Each episode brings us closer to an eventual winner. You seem concerned that this "backward movement" will impair the quality of this storytelling. I disagree. If they introduced a bunch of new people--now THAT would be confusing. It took a few weeks just to get to know the people. But now we know them and they pretty much know each other. The "twist" merely makes it more difficult for the tribe members to maintain the comfortable alliances they believe they have built. That discomfort is what MB is going for and what makes for good TV. Thank you again for continuing this discussion with me--I find these type of academic discussions quite interesting.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
TheWanderer 267 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
11-07-01, 05:46 PM (EST)
|
|
39. "How's this for a twist?" |
Earlier in this posting someone brought up the idea of bartering.
In S2, when the rice ran out JP came up with a barter... rice for the flag.
Let's take this a bit further. How about barter between tribes?
It would be a new "twist", never have been done before and "...change Survivor forever"Obviously, Boran has the water, Samburu has the food. You can survive longer without food than you can water. IMHO, maybe the first 15 minutes involves JP coming to Samburu, in one of several scenarios:
First, JP gives the Samburu the "water is life..." speech and tells them they can not continue without water, so they have the following options: 1. Boran will give a share of water, but Samburu must give one member of Boran's choosing to Boran.
2. MB/JP give Samburu water, in exchange for one of their members going to Boran (either by vote or draw straws by Samburu, or selected by Boran.. choose your favorite permutation)
3. Samburu must vote off one of their members of the GXA for water.
4. They take an early merge, but they first must vote off one member. Taking that further, they may have to vote between the two people with the most votes (actually, the only votes) Silas and Lindsey. that would be the one to shatter the alliance!
|
|
|
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)
