The Amazing Race   American Idol   The Apprentice   The Bachelor   The Bachelorette   Big Brother   The Biggest Loser
Dancing with the Stars   So You Think You Can Dance   Survivor   Top Model   The Voice   The X Factor       Reality TV World
   
Reality TV World Message Board Forums
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."
"Previous winners"
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
Archived thread - Read only 
Previous Topic | Next Topic 
Conferences Survivor Spoilers Forum (Protected)
Original message

esquire 1095 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Politically Incorrect Guest"

04-19-10, 11:28 AM (EST)
Click to EMail esquire Click to send private message to esquire Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
"Previous winners"
LAST EDITED ON 04-19-10 AT 03:41 PM (EST)

Its interesting to note that in the first Survivor All-Stars, so much discussion was on how everyone needed to vote out the previous winners. In that version of the game, Richard, Ethan, Tina and Jenna were all gone by the merge. In this version of the game, Tom was the only prior winner to get voted out pre-merge. Parv, JT, Sandra and Danielle all seem to be doing OK.

I wonder why there is such a difference in the attitude of the players regarding the previous winners?

  Top

  Table of Contents

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
 RE: Previous winners PepeLePew13 04-19-10 1
   RE: Previous winners Brownroach 04-19-10 3
       RE: Previous winners dabo 04-19-10 4
           RE: Previous winners Brownroach 04-19-10 5
 RE: Previous winners goldenmike4393 04-19-10 2
 RE: Previous winners michel 04-19-10 6

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

PepeLePew13 26134 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

04-19-10, 11:40 AM (EST)
Click to EMail PepeLePew13 Click to send private message to PepeLePew13 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
1. "RE: Previous winners"
Good question. I think the players are a lot more jaded this time around and it's more about alliance-building instead of focusing on previous status.

It could also be simply that today's Survivors aren't as well known in the mainstream media, while back then, the idea of being a Survivor winner meant being a mini-celebrity (see: Hatch, Dicque). So, there's less of the jealousy that was prevalent back then - I remember there was a lot of talk the first couple of episodes in All Stars that so-and-so was a former winner so he/she had to go asap! We didn't see that at all this time around.

There's a theory put out there that Parvati wants a 'winners alliance' because if she is able to get to the end, she can point to the other winner(s) and say "you can't base this vote on who needs the money more." So that might be why J.T. and, to a greater extent, Sandra are still there in the game.

For what it's worth, Danielle didn't win her season - she was the runner up to Aras.

  Top

Brownroach 15341 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

04-19-10, 03:26 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Brownroach Click to send private message to Brownroach Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
3. "RE: Previous winners"
Some of the non-winners may even feel it's desirable to go to the end with a prior winner just because the jury is less likely to hand them a repeat million.


A tribe glows in Brooklyn

  Top

dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

04-19-10, 04:28 PM (EST)
Click to EMail dabo Click to send private message to dabo Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
4. "RE: Previous winners"
Well, too, there were more previous winners this time, and more previous finalists, and everyone had at least made the jury previously. Two large tribes instead of three small ones to start with, and F3 instead of F2 to look forward to.
  Top

Brownroach 15341 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

04-19-10, 05:47 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Brownroach Click to send private message to Brownroach Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
5. "RE: Previous winners"
True, this time 12 out of the 20 are prior finalists. In the first A$$ it was only 5 out of 18.


A tribe glows in Brooklyn

  Top

goldenmike4393 303 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Cooking Show Host"

04-19-10, 12:47 PM (EST)
Click to EMail goldenmike4393 Click to send private message to goldenmike4393 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
2. "RE: Previous winners"
It's the Politics of Envy and Greed. PEG. You see it every election.
  Top

michel 10958 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

04-19-10, 06:02 PM (EST)
Click to EMail michel Click to send private message to michel Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
6. "RE: Previous winners"
I agree with Pepe when he writes: "today's Survivors aren't as well known in the mainstream media, while back then, the idea of being a Survivor winner meant being a mini-celebrity."

I'll add that it wasn't only being a winner, it was being a star, being viewed as a great player. Colby and Rob Cesternino had less chance of making it to the end than Ethan and Jenna.

  Top


Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

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 -
about this site   •   advertise on this site  •   contact us  •   privacy policy   •