|
|
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."
|
|
"Preview for ep. 9 (12/13) provides a spoiler"
FesterFan1 5947 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-29-01, 10:04 AM (EST)
|
"Preview for ep. 9 (12/13) provides a spoiler" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-29-01 AT 10:05 AM (EST)Here's the preview for episode 9 from TV Guide... Survivor: Africa Dinner, Movie and a Betrayal 60 min. By Alicia Calaway What's up with Lex? Taking Clarence aside to tell him he was getting voted out was the dumbest thing he could have done. It was certain to rub others the wrong way and it did. And he compounded the error by going on a witch-hunt to try and find out who voted against him. He doesn't deserve to win. If she's smart, Kelly will try to turn Tom and Ethan against Lex. They know he's a physical threat. And now they know he's a jerk. At some point, I predict Tom and Ethan will turn against Lex. That means the game is Ethan's to lose. If he continues to fly under the radar, he's golden. But he has to be careful not to appear to be too strong. That was the mistake I made. I went full-out every time because I'm a competitive person. I should have backed off a bit. In the outback, I should have jumped off of that pole much sooner and made myself seem weaker. Remember, Tina and Richard rarely won a challenge. Appearing to be weak can be your greatest strength.
The players are entering Days 25, 26 and 27. Some players will now tire of playing the game and it will show. When you feel vulnerable and you've reached your limit, you start to give up. As the game goes on, it's hard to think because you begin to suffer on every level. The environment, the hunger and the mental pressure all start to kill you. I guess Lex is safe for at least another week... Do you suppose his "witch hunt" was successful, which would mean T-bird got the axe? Fester
|
|
Top |
| |
|
MDSkinner 716 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
11-29-01, 11:32 AM (EST)
|
4. "RE: I disagree" |
I completely disagree with you here. I think in the past we have seen all kinds of flaws in what Alicia and Sue have speculated about the show. For instance a few weeks ago, when we were discussing the merge, Sue stated positively that the weaker members were going to once again be targeted, and since that time, Lindsey and Clarence were voted off. Lindsey was the strongest of the remaining GenXers, so that was very definitely speculation on Sues part. I think that this is no different. As of yet, I have seen little to no evidence that either of these two are given any more of a preview of the show than we are.In regards to your comment about the way Alicia mentions the "witch hunt", I definitely think that is speculation on her part. Just from the preview that we have seen as viewers, we have gotten a good idea for what Lex is going to attempt to do, adn I have seen a number of people here question his methods, and I know that none of us has seen the show. So I really don't see how that proves that she has seen the episode. If she saw the same preview that we saw, or if she, per chance, came and read this board she would have gotten the same information. If she has seen EP.8 it is not at all clear from this little article.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
FesterFan1 5947 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-29-01, 12:18 PM (EST)
|
5. "RE: I disagree" |
Logistically it just doesn't make sense for TV Guide to publish a preview for an episode where the commentary talks about people who are no longer on the show as still in the game. Are they going to change it after next Thursday's episode when theoritically Tom, Ethan, Kelly or Lex could have been voted out? These previews are meant to be accurate up until the show airs. Not everyone is going to read it 2 weeks before hand. It would reflect very badly on TV Guide to have such an oversight.As to Susan's projection about the weaker players being voted out. That was speculation. She was using judgement based on the fact that the merge was in question in the players' minds. Alicia's speculation includes Lex, Kelly, Ethan and Tom. Fact: Lex, Tom, Ethan and Kelly make it through TC in E8. Speculation: Kelly should try to convince Ethan and Tom to turn on Lex. There is the difference. I understand your skepticism and I know that you can't prove a negative (if all 4 make it to E9), but I am certain that the reviewers have seen every episode up until the one they are writing about. The past previews prove that, IMO, without a doubt. Some have included specific knowledge that none of us had at that point in the game, and none have provided bad factual information. Let's just say I'm not voting for Lex this week in the poll. Fester
|
|
Top |
| |
|
starshyn99 174 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
11-30-01, 12:21 PM (EST)
|
28. "RE: I disagree" |
I agree with you Fester. Also, (just a hunch here) I believe that based on Alicia's article that Lex wins immunity. She mentions that if Kelly is smart she will get Tom and Ethan against Lex because -they know he is a physical threat- I have not seen him do anything more physical than say Frank or well, anyone else. This leads me to believe that he wins a physical IC thus showing everyone that he IS a physical threat. Also, on another thread posted here, it gives possible proof of Lex with the IC necklace.
|
|
Top |
| |
Krautboy 2750 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"
|
11-29-01, 12:32 PM (EST)
|
6. "Questions?" |
Is the title, refering to an alliance between a male and female ("dinner and a movie")that ends in "betrayal" at TC?Is the betrayal between the two RC Challenge winners that end up going into town for "dinner and a movie" and later end their relationship with betrayal? Is the title just refering to the end of, what appeared to be, a pleasant alliance that ends in betrayal at TC? How much information does Alicia have access to? Are her articles less valuable since her last one was pulled and they may now be subject to much greater scrutiny? Krautboy
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PepeLePew13 26134 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-29-01, 01:15 PM (EST)
|
7. "RE: Questions?" |
>Is the title, refering to an alliance between a male and >female ("dinner and a movie")that ends in "betrayal" at TC? >Is the betrayal between the two RC Challenge winners >that end up going into town for "dinner and a movie" >and later end their relationship with betrayal? This could be just about anyone -- Tom taking Teresa with him with Teresa backstabbing him at TC, Brandon and KimP, Ethan and MamaKim or Kelly before the female switches over, Lex and anyone he takes with him to advise "well the rest of us are going to take you out, sorry, so I wanted to bring you with me for your last bit of enjoyment. Bon Appetit!" >Are her articles less valuable since her last one was pulled >and they may now be subject to much greater scrutiny?
I have wondered about this very point... how much can we read into what she is saying knowing that a prior article was yanked? Is she being coached on what to say and what not to say? My opinion on the issue discussed earlier in this thread... I believe that Alicia and/or Sue writes (or narrates with a CBS writer) their articles and then have it proofed by someone and that person would advise if one of the people they're talking about is gone so they can change that particular sentence if needed. "... and Teresa sides with so-and-so -- wait, you're telling me she's gone? Ok let's change it to 'Lex continues his witch hunt, blah blah' ..." "Damn you, Carl, for leaving me here with a bunch of misfits." Frank Garrison, Nov. 1/01
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Krautboy 2750 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"
|
11-29-01, 03:04 PM (EST)
|
10. "Multiple meanings" |
>>Is the title, refering to an alliance between a male and >>female ("dinner and a movie")that ends in "betrayal" at TC? > >>Is the betrayal between the two RC Challenge winners >>that end up going into town for "dinner and a movie" >>and later end their relationship with betrayal? > >This could be just about anyone Yes, that does seem to be the nature of MB's previews...they usually have double or triple meanings that apply to any of a number of different scenarios. MB is also inclined to overstate the actual events in his previews to make the upcoming show seem more interesting than it actually is...in which case the "betrayal" may be much less serious than we initially assume. It may be a betrayal that he reveals to us this week, but that does not actually result in any surprises at TC until several episdoes later. Krautboy
|
|
Top |
| |
|
MDSkinner 716 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
11-29-01, 03:00 PM (EST)
|
9. "RE: Questions?" |
I don't think that there is any more evidence that would lead a person to believe that it is Lex and Kelly and more than any other two people in the tribe. As a matter of fact, the way that I see it now, I would tend to think of betrayal as an almost shocking type of thing(Tom betraying Lex, or Teresa betraying Frank), and there is not a person here who would be shocked about Kelly betraying Lex at this stage, especially after all of the negatives that she pointed out last week.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PepeLePew13 26134 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-29-01, 03:23 PM (EST)
|
11. "RE: Questions?" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-29-01 AT 03:26 PM (EST)>Here's a thought on this: IF Alicia has seen ep. >8 and this is a reference to the reward, perhaps >we might believe that the two that go are Lex >and Kelly, since the theme of her article is speculation >that Kelly betrays Lex. I cannot see how Lex or Kelly would choose the other to go with him/her on a reward trip since it's clear that Kelly doesn't like Lex and wouldn't choose him, while Lex would be much more likely to take someone he's tighter with -- unless (a) Lex sees something that could take him far in the game with Kelly or (b) Lex wants to cut Kelly out and is going to tell her so face-to-face. Nahhh, not going to happen. The third possibility is that Lex and Kelly get stuck together by luck of draw, but would they win a physical challenge against some of the more athletic people still left in the game? Maybe we'll get to see Lex pull a Colby and toss Kelly around like a rag doll. "Damn you, Carl, for leaving me here with a bunch of misfits." Frank Garrison, Nov. 1/01
|
|
Top |
| |
|
red 140 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
11-29-01, 04:14 PM (EST)
|
14. "RE: Questions?" |
Here's the source of my confusion - is the title "Dinner, Movie, Betrayal" the official name for ep. 9 or is it Alicia's title for her article? If its the official ep. title then never mind. And I agree I don't think they're a likely pair. I was operating on the assumption that alicia titled her article this - in which case I was seeing that it would be thematically linked to her speculation that Kelly could betray Lex. But now I realize I might have been wrong.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
11-29-01, 04:35 PM (EST)
|
16. "RE: Questions?" |
I am pretty sure that CBS released this title to TV Guide and Alicia, and that it is NOT Alicia's title. She would have no basis to make a title for E9--even people who think she gets advanced viewing don't think she actually gets to see the episode she is previewing just the prior episode that we have not seen yet (I personally don't think she gets any advanced viewing).
|
|
Top |
| |
|
red 140 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
11-29-01, 04:39 PM (EST)
|
17. "RE: Questions?" |
If its the official episode title, then ignore what I said. I actually thought it was her title for her article, and was just reading in what that might mean looking at the main theme of her article. But I realize now that I was mistaken.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
11-29-01, 05:45 PM (EST)
|
22. "RE: Questions?" |
>zzz - do you think that >CBS lets her write or >narrate her story and then >vetoes any mention about someone >who is being booted the >episode prior (as I pointed >out in a post earlier >on this thread)? If >Alicia happens to say nothing >about the person who got >booted, so much the better >and no vetoing is needed. > Here is what I think. I think that CBS sends a very short description to TV Guide--it includes the title and the one sentence we see every once in a while that goes something like "Days 18, 19 and 20 of Survivor is hosted by Jeff Probst and a 7th person is voted off" or something like that (I know it is actually a little longer than that but you get the gist). I think that is the ONLY involvement of CBS and MB in the TV Guide listing--with the major exception of the twist where details were leaked to Alicia and Susan so that the previews would not be total gibberish for two weeks. I don't think CBS or MB reviews Alicia's or Susan's articles at all. They work for TV Guide--NOT for CBS or MB.So in this case, if Alicia assumes in her E9 preview that Lex is still around and it turns out that Lex goes in E8, too bad for Alicia and too bad for TV Guide (it would be too late by that point to change the print edition). That is the risk Alicia takes when she writes the article. I think that CBS and MB would love to have her make a mistake like this, mislead us, and have her have to explain herself in her next article. I could be totally wrong. Maybe they let Alicia view E8 before she writes the article for E9 so that it makes more sense and in return insists on veto power over what she writes (to make sure she does not give away too much knowing that the E9 article always comes out before E8 is actually shown). It is possible. I just have not seen any evidence (other than the issue relating to the twist). In defense of Fester and against what MD and I have said, Susan's remark about weaker players going off only means that she did not see E6 before previewing it, but does not prove she did not see E5, because E5 is where Jeff P suggested there would not be merge E7 (although as we know there ended up being one). In fact, that comment suggests she did see E5 before previewing E6. At a minimum, it appears that the possibility of a delayed merge was part of the leaked info given to Susan and Alicia in connection with the twist. So in the end, I am not sure what to think. I just have a hard time believing that CBS or MB would let them see an episode ahead of time--too much risk of a leak (although they already trusted them once with confidential info when they were actual players). I think we need to try to keep track of whether they ever assume something that clearly would not have been assumed if they had actually viewed the prior episode (actually, in most cases there are two unseen episodes at the time they have to turn in their article--the recap made this only 1 for E9 but generally it will be 2). If they do not have inside info, eventually they are bound to trip up.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Krautboy 2750 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"
|
11-29-01, 07:40 PM (EST)
|
24. "Clarification" |
EP8: "Smoking out the Snake" "...days 22,23,and 24..."EP9: "Dinner, Movie and a Betrayal" "...days 25,26,and 27..." The articles make reference to the days during which the episodes take place and it is clear that episodes 8 and 9 are both AFTER tonights recap show. Krautboy
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Lisapooh 12664 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-29-01, 04:59 PM (EST)
|
20. "RE: My take on things" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-29-01 AT 05:00 PM (EST)There's no reason to assume the betrayal is of one reward recipient against another. Last year, while Jerri and Amber had their food fest, the rest of their "alliance" did quite a bit of plotting against them. Let's not get married to one theory until we've dated them all. editted because of typos - UGH
|
|
Top |
| |
|
cowboyroo 590 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
11-29-01, 07:58 PM (EST)
|
25. "RE: My take on things" |
I think it can be proven that Alicia/Susan don't know what is going on by the article one of them wrote about "this is usually the time to get rid of the strong people but now you will want to get rid of the weak people" leading us to believe that the merge would not happen. I don't have the quote exactly, but it was the traditional merge episode.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Rose Red 419 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Daytime Soap Guest Star"
|
11-30-01, 02:59 AM (EST)
|
26. "IT'S THE TIE-BREAKER, FOLKS" |
Dinner, Movie, and a Betrayal, wasn't that Anthony Minghella's last movie? No. I'm kidding!GRREeat title, and immediately intriguing. But I think the interesting thing is that "The Betrayal" happens on the next upcoming episode that will have an EVEN number of contestants, and therefore a tie is possible. A tie will ONLY happen if one of the five remaining Boron.(I'm assuming a Sambooboob goes this week. Call me crazy...but call me)One of the five Boron HAS to betray one of their own in order for it to be a betrayal and therefore a tie happens. Some of the Boron have no prior votes(that leaves out, as of tonight, anyway, Ethan, Kelly and Mamakim) and puts only Big Tom and Little Lex in jeopardy. Lex's Skull/Torch on the vidcaps with the immunity necklace draped decoratively around it might mean that Lex has immunity on E9 and therefore cannot be voted against. So it's Tom. If Frank goes this week, watch for Teresa to bond like crazy with Kim Pee and Brandon. They're all they've got left. As far as spreading unreliable spoilage, it seems MANY people have heard the following in the next episode's previews "And we can't talk to Brandon" or "We don't talk to Brandon" or something like that on the promo. This has been heard in foreign countries where Survivor runs in time zones that precede ours. Which many are assuming means that they (the old Sammies)can't consult with Brandon about who and how they are going to vote this week, because he wins the Reward Challenge(I know it sounds unlikely) and he chooses to take a Boron with him as his guest. That would be Kelly, or maybe his new campfire bud, Tom, or even the gorgeous Ethan. And what can they say? No? They'd HAVE to go. After tonight's re-crap, it's seems Brandon's on a roll. A petite role, perhaps, just a croissant, but nevertheless a roll.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
11-30-01, 09:26 AM (EST)
|
27. "RE: My take on things" |
>I think it can be proven >that Alicia/Susan don't know what >is going on by the >article one of them wrote >about "this is usually the >time to get rid of >the strong people but now >you will want to get >rid of the weak people" >leading us to believe that >the merge would not happen. >I don't have the quote >exactly, but it was the >traditional merge episode. cowboy-- I am a proponent of the view that Alicia and Susan do not get to see episodes before hand, although they obviously got some inside information about the twist and possible delayed merge. Your quote, however, actually supports the view that they do get to see episodes before hand, but only the ones leading up to the one being previewed. Susan's statement about getting rid of strong people but that now there is incentive to get rid of weak people was for her preview of E6 (not E7 as you suggest), the episode BEFORE the merge. This is the episode in S1 where Joel was booted, in theory because he would be an immunity threat once the merge occurred next (although there are many other theories on why Joel went that episode). The people who believe Alicia and Susan get to see episodes before we do believe that they get to see the episodes leading up to the one they are previewed but NOT the actual episode being previewed (as if it were being written just before the episode airs--even though for deadline purposes it must be written over 2 weeks before the episode airs). So if Susan had no information about future episodes when she wrote her preview of E6, she only would have watched through E3 (the article went on line the morning E4 was to be shown that night). She clearly had knowledge beyond what was shown in E3 or would have even been knowable just from the promos for E4 and CBS description of E5 and E6. She had difinitive knowledge about how the realignment of tribes played out and the a delayed merge was possible. Assuming she was able to see E4 and E5 before writing the article, but NOT E6, she would have known exactly how the twist played out in E5 and that Jeff P said that the merge may not happen on time (said at TC at the end of E5). Thus, it would be logical to conclude that E6 would have a different incentive than normal. Her mistake was that Samburu went to TC in E6 and had a more important goal--maintaining old tribal majorities--that superceding any concerns about keeping the tribe strong if the merge were delayed. If Boran had gone to TC, however, I think Susan's theory very well may have played out with Teresa being booted over Clarence or Frank because of the perception that she was less valuable to the tribe if the merge were delayed (KimJ, even though the weakest, would have been protected because Ethan absolutely needed her). So Susan's comment was a logical one to speculate about by someone who had seen the episodes through E5 (even though--as I stated, it was written before E4 was broadcast). So your "evidence" that they do not see episodes before we do does not hold up at all. It may be evidence that they do not see the actual episode being previewed, but it is NOT evidence that they do not get to see episode that have not been broadcast yet. I think better evidence is that Alicia's article for E5 made NO mention of the twist at all (even though it was the episode in which the twist occurred). This still doesn't prove anything because even though it was written between E2 and E3, even if she got to see E3 and E4 ahead of time, she still would know NOTHING about the twist unless she was also shown the promo for E5 that gave the big hint that some rule change affecting alliances and friendships would happen in E5. So it is still possible that Alicia had seen E3 and E4 when writing her E5 article, but was not given any independent information that a swap of tribe members would occur in E5. So unless someone has other evidence, I do not think we can "prove" one way or the other whether they see episodes before broadcast. We know that sometime after Alicia wrote her E5 article, Susan and Alicia were given inside information about the twist and possible delayed merge. I don't think there can be any doubt about the that. The question is whether this was a one time special CBS did for them out of necessity (as I think) or whether they are always allowed to preview the 2 episodes that have not yet been broadcast but that will be broadcast before the episode they are previewing. Only if they end up saying something that someone would KNOW was not true if they had seen the immediate 2 prior episodes can we prove they do not get to see them before hand (e.g., if Lex, Kelly, Ethan or Tom are booted in E8).
|
|
Top |
| |
|
FesterFan1 5947 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-07-01, 11:53 AM (EST)
|
30. "Ooops, guess I was wrong!" |
zzz, It seems you were right and I was wrong. So, the first order of business is for me to strap on the bib and eat a nice serving of crow.I still find it odd that MB and CBS, who have to have some involvement here, would let a preview like that slip. It's one thing to provide speculation that turns out to be misguided, but to let them publish a preview that talks about strategy involving the player that just got booted is a big error, IMO. I say that they have to have some involvement because of the "twist" info they must have slipped to them. Perhaps that intervention was an isolated incident, and Alicia and Susan are "free agents" otherwise. An interesting note is that TV Guide has yet to post Susan's preview for E10. Perhaps they want to wait now to see what happens in the preceding week to avoid this happening in future. Fester
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-11-01, 11:54 AM (EST)
|
32. "RE: Preview for ep. 9 (12/13) provides a spoiler" |
Bumping this up and tossing in an idea I had while reading the ep 10 thread.Dinner = reward, obviously. Movie = reward as well, possibly "reminder from home" that always preceeds a player receiving a visit from someone in family. Betrayal = In ep 8 Lex put Brandon in the position of having to betray someone, the likely betrayal here would now be Brandon betraying Lex. Logic, unfortunately, doesn't exclude other betrayal possibilities, it could refer to Brandon maintaining his split from Kim P. (which he suggested in confessional in ep 7) although he shouldn't. "If all machines were to be annihilated at one moment, so that not a knife nor lever nor rag of clothing nor anything whatsoever were left to man but his bare body alone that he was born with, and if all knowledge of mechanical laws were taken from him so that he could make no more machines, and all machine-made food destroyed so that the race of man should be left as it were naked upon a desert island, we should become extinct in six weeks. A few miserable individuals might linger, but even these in a year or two would become worse than monkeys." (Samuel Butler, "Erewhon")
|
|
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 -
|
|