GoodBye Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 ...which brings me to my OTHER criticism of the game, lol...I wish there were another way (or ways) for the stronger players to protect themselves. Just looking at this season, the final 5 players were not at ALL representative of the five strongest or most deserving players. It seems that most seasons it's the strongest players who are targeted early on and who end up getting sent to the jury. It just seems as though there should be more that an individual can to do earn protection. Oh well... The good news? Big Brother is back on July 7th!!!!!! Yay! Oh, and stop complaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Hmmmm.... like maybe win some immunity challenges? Or finding a hidden immunity idol or two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Well, in order to vote, one needs to register. That right there will offput most people who aren't vehemently opposed to RI. Sorry, but it looks like it's here to stay. Did I get the sense that Dave is still playing the game... learning from the Robfather? Endear yourself to the Survivor producers by marrying a fellow former castaway so as to increase the chance they give you another shot. And yeah, she does. Her reaction was something less than what I'd personally hope for... making some snarky comment and just sitting there, twice or three times repeating some remark about the game still blindsiding her. But hey, I don't wanna judge and I didn't see the season when she played to have a sense of her personality beyond being suddeny proposed to on national teevee.... I wish them very happy. Completely agreed. Anyone who's played more than one time in any season should be relegated to all-star shows. Otherwise it's like throwing a snake in a room full of mice. Having to register will also keep away casual voters who hate RI. Those who take the time to register would tend to be more interested in Survivor... and right now, the vote is:26 keep it 312 dump it Nevertheless, you are right, Probst likes it, & it's not going anywhere. ...which brings me to my OTHER criticism of the game, lol...I wish there were another way (or ways) for the stronger players to protect themselves. Just looking at this season, the final 5 players were not at ALL representative of the five strongest or most deserving players. It seems that most seasons it's the strongest players who are targeted early on and who end up getting sent to the jury. It just seems as though there should be more that an individual can to do earn protection. Oh well... The good news? Big Brother is back on July 7th!!!!!! BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG BROTHER!!! Can't wait, another awesome show! Only thing about Big Brother is you get more out of it the more time you can give to it, and that can be tough in the summertime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 Hmmmm.... like maybe win some immunity challenges? That doesn't help you at all prior to the merge, as Russell found out. It sounds like you don't actually like the game of Survivor... Why not just put a bunch of people on the island and take the ones who win the most challenges and are the strongest and put them on the finale show? Is BB going to be in HD this year? If not, I probably won't even watch. Survivor was the first of "reality shows", and if you go back and watch Season one you'll see the focus of the game was much different. Back then people who had survival skills were valued and the weaker players were the ones who were systematically voted off. Today there is a much greater effort to target the strong players and get them out asap. Nobody really cares if you can fish, or start a fire, or put up a shelter, etc. So do I like the game of Survivor? Yes. Do I like the way the players PLAY the game? No, often times not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 That doesn't help you at all prior to the merge, as Russell found out. Survivor was the first of "reality shows", and if you go back and watch Season one you'll see the focus of the game was much different. Back then people who had survival skills were valued and the weaker players were the ones who were systematically voted off. Today there is a much greater effort to target the strong players and get them out asap. Nobody really cares if you can fish, or start a fire, or put up a shelter, etc. So do I like the game of Survivor? Yes. Do I like the way the players PLAY the game? No, often times not. Yeah, Season 1 was SURVIVOR... they really had it rough, eating rats & all. Got no one to blame but the producers for making it easier since then. I do think I prefer the more psychological game of today though... except of course for the stupid twists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 Yeah, Season 1 was SURVIVOR... they really had it rough, eating rats & all. Got no one to blame but the producers for making it easier since then. I do think I prefer the more psychological game of today though... except of course for the stupid twists. True, I enjoy the psychological part of the game, as well. The enjoyment of the show far outweighs the few issues I have with it, for sure. That's also why I enjoy big brother and survivor are the two most intense, psychologically demanding reality shows IMO, but for different reasons. Can't wait to get it started...I just hope they pick a good cast...we need more (Evel) Dick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 True, I enjoy the psychological part of the game, as well. The enjoyment of the show far outweighs the few issues I have with it, for sure. That's also why I enjoy big brother and survivor are the two most intense, psychologically demanding reality shows IMO, but for different reasons. Can't wait to get it started...I just hope they pick a good cast...we need more (Evel) Dick! Hell yeah! Big Brother is much more intense than the Survivor of today imo... don't think I could do either, but I would choose to play Survivor 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Yeah, Season 1 was SURVIVOR... they really had it rough, eating rats & all. Got no one to blame but the producers for making it easier since then. I do think I prefer the more psychological game of today though... except of course for the stupid twists. Season 1 though was new and unique. No one except Richard Hatch thought of making alliances. Now people are teaming up within the first 10 minutes of hitting the beach. And the producers did "help" some. I saw an article that because it was raining so much they gave the tribes raincoats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Finally got all caught up. I thought the season was good and was glad to see Boston Rob get the win. I thought he was the biggest dick during the first All-Stars, but i really came to like him and his game this season. However, he got extremely lucky in that his tribe was filled with a bunch of empty-headed young kids who were more than willing to follow him. If him and Russell were on opposite tribes, they probably would have finished flip-flopped to where they did. I like redemption island, and i think the producers kept it going so long only because Rob's alliance was so airtight. There was no drama or strategy by anyone other than Rob the entire time, and they followed like sheep. Had someone caused a stir and broken things up, i think the redemption island player would have returned sooner. I've got no problem with it coming back, other than i miss the reward challenges during each episode. I like having 2 challenges per show. Regarding casting, i think they need to bump up the age limit. No more of these worthless 19 and 20 year olds. Get some people with some real life experience. Now, it was nice to look at natalie all season, but from a gameplay standpoint, she brought nothing. I'd rather have 2 tribes like the old Zapatera willing to mix it up and fight as opposed to a tribe of kids playing follow the leader. As for the returning castaways, i hope its 2 1-time players. I agree with everyone above in that they shouldn't bring back multiple repeat players. It aways the game too much in that they either get too much power or that they are immediately targeted. As to who it is, i think Mike from this season might be one of the people. As to the other, i'd assume its froma recent season, so perhaps Sash? (he was in the crowd at the reunion). After this season, i gotta put Boston Rob as one of the top 5 all-time players in the game, along with Hatch, Russell, and Parv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 Finally got all caught up. I thought the season was good and was glad to see Boston Rob get the win. I thought he was the biggest dick during the first All-Stars, but i really came to like him and his game this season. However, he got extremely lucky in that his tribe was filled with a bunch of empty-headed young kids who were more than willing to follow him. If him and Russell were on opposite tribes, they probably would have finished flip-flopped to where they did. I like redemption island, and i think the producers kept it going so long only because Rob's alliance was so airtight. There was no drama or strategy by anyone other than Rob the entire time, and they followed like sheep. Had someone caused a stir and broken things up, i think the redemption island player would have returned sooner. I've got no problem with it coming back, other than i miss the reward challenges during each episode. I like having 2 challenges per show. Regarding casting, i think they need to bump up the age limit. No more of these worthless 19 and 20 year olds. Get some people with some real life experience. Now, it was nice to look at natalie all season, but from a gameplay standpoint, she brought nothing. I'd rather have 2 tribes like the old Zapatera willing to mix it up and fight as opposed to a tribe of kids playing follow the leader. As for the returning castaways, i hope its 2 1-time players. I agree with everyone above in that they shouldn't bring back multiple repeat players. It aways the game too much in that they either get too much power or that they are immediately targeted. As to who it is, i think Mike from this season might be one of the people. As to the other, i'd assume its froma recent season, so perhaps Sash? (he was in the crowd at the reunion). After this season, i gotta put Boston Rob as one of the top 5 all-time players in the game, along with Hatch, Russell, and Parv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Finally got all caught up. I thought the season was good and was glad to see Boston Rob get the win. I thought he was the biggest dick during the first All-Stars, but i really came to like him and his game this season. However, he got extremely lucky in that his tribe was filled with a bunch of empty-headed young kids who were more than willing to follow him. If him and Russell were on opposite tribes, they probably would have finished flip-flopped to where they did. This is what kind ruined the season for me. I give Rob all the credit in the world; he played a perfect game from start to finish. But he had the worst SURVIVOR tribe I've ever seen (I've watched maybe 11 of the 22 seasons). I just can't give much respect to the win, and to the season overall, that I would like. And those two morons at the reunion saying they couldn't turn on Rob becuase they knew he had the idol...are you kidding me??? That doesn't get you off the hook, it makes you DUMBER! So you KNEW he had the idol and still never even considered voting him off BEFORE the final 4 when you KNEW he would use it? My god... AJ, you keep saying that you wouldn't focus on the stongest player, but how did that work out for everyone this season? If you want to win, there is no other choice but to vote out the strongest players as early as you can. If those dolts had voted out Rob, they might have had a chance. Letting your strongest competitor stick around longer is insane, no matter what the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 18, 2011 Author Share Posted May 18, 2011 AJ, you keep saying that you wouldn't focus on the stongest player, but how did that work out for everyone this season? If you want to win, there is no other choice but to vote out the strongest players as early as you can. If those dolts had voted out Rob, they might have had a chance. Letting your strongest competitor stick around longer is insane, no matter what the game. I hear what you're saying, but I think you actually have a tale of BOTH strategies from this past season. What that tells me is that it's all about timing. Yes, you definitely want to target the best players to get them out, but WHEN you do that is the difference between a savvy player and one who can't see the forest for the trees, IMO. Should they have focused on getting a guy like Russell out of the game? Hell YES. Should they have done so asap and and to the detriment of their tribe? Hell NO. Sticking with Rob during the initial tribal phase was the smart thing to do. Not ever making a move to get rid of his ass AFTER the tribal phase was not smart. Then you have the reverse...getting rid of Russell prior to the merge was asinine. But if he HAD made it, then you need to immediately target the guy, and I'm quite certain that would not have been all that difficult to do given his reputation. Survivor is two separate games, and you can't have the same strategy for both phases, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 This is what kind ruined the season for me. I give Rob all the credit in the world; he played a perfect game from start to finish. But he had the worst SURVIVOR tribe I've ever seen (I've watched maybe 11 of the 22 seasons). I just can't give much respect to the win, and to the season overall, that I would like. And those two morons at the reunion saying they couldn't turn on Rob becuase they knew he had the idol...are you kidding me??? That doesn't get you off the hook, it makes you DUMBER! So you KNEW he had the idol and still never even considered voting him off BEFORE the final 4 when you KNEW he would use it? My god... AJ, you keep saying that you wouldn't focus on the stongest player, but how did that work out for everyone this season? If you want to win, there is no other choice but to vote out the strongest players as early as you can. If those dolts had voted out Rob, they might have had a chance. Letting your strongest competitor stick around longer is insane, no matter what the game. All the girls had to do was boot Phillip, and then they could have targeted Rob in the final 4. Either way, them voting together would have all but guaranteed Natalie and Ashley a spot in the finals even if they didn't win immunity. I've watched survivor every season, and one thing usually happens. Some group always tries to make a big move a little too late. They can't see far enough ahead to know when to make the big move. Those that can see that far ahead usually end up at the top. The Ometepe 6 should have made a play when there was 1 or 2 Zapatera remaining if they wanted to take the game away from Rob. On an unrelated note, one twist i'd love to see would be that in the event of a tribal council tie, both players voted for are safe, and everyone re-votes for someone else. It would completely change the strategy of trying to split votes, or simply hoping for a tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 On an unrelated note, one twist i'd love to see would be that in the event of a tribal council tie, both players voted for are safe, and everyone re-votes for someone else. It would completely change the strategy of trying to split votes, or simply hoping for a tie. It already works that way. If there's a tie, they vote again (except for the people in the tie, I believe). If it's a tie again, then there's another vote but you can't vote for those two players. Or something like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 It already works that way. If there's a tie, they vote again (except for the people in the tie, I believe). If it's a tie again, then there's another vote but you can't vote for those two players. Or something like that... I could be very wrong, but it seems like I recall that if it's a tie again, it goes to how many votes a person has received throughout the game. Can't remember why I think that though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) I could be very wrong, but it seems like I recall that if it's a tie again, it goes to how many votes a person has received throughout the game. Can't remember why I think that though... Thats how it was the first couple of seasons, but it hasn't been like that in a while. The last few, if there's a tie, there's a re-vote for 1 of the 2 people in the tie by everyone else. If its still tied, they've been going to a challenge-style tie-breaker. (ie-whoever starts a fire first wins) It's been a few seasons since there was the double tie however. I'm waiting to see what happens the first time there's a 2 or 3 way tie for the million bucks. Edited May 18, 2011 by Ramius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Thats how it was the first couple of seasons, but it hasn't been like that in a while. The last few, if there's a tie, there's a re-vote for 1 of the 2 people in the tie by everyone else. If its still tied, they've been going to a challenge-style tie-breaker. (ie-whoever starts a fire first wins) It's been a few seasons since there was the double tie however. I'm waiting to see what happens the first time there's a 2 or 3 way tie for the million bucks. From Wikipedia: "In the event of a tie before there are four contestants remaining, a revote among the non-tied contestants will occur, in which the only candidates for elimination are the tied players. If the revote does not resolve the tie, the tied players are granted immunity and the non-tied players (except anyone who has won individual immunity) are forced to choose rocks out of a bag without looking; the player who chooses the differently colored rock is eliminated. In earlier seasons, the tied players were asked how many votes they had received in the past and whoever had more was eliminated. In Africa, the tied players competed in a nature quiz challenge and whoever lost was eliminated." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_%28TV_series%29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 People are still bitching about the Redemption Island twist... and Probst responded to an open letter last week, thought this was pretty good. I can see where he's coming from: Probst response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 People are still bitching about the Redemption Island twist... and Probst responded to an open letter last week, thought this was pretty good. I can see where he's coming from: Probst response Wow, I bet Jeff slept like a baby after writing that lol. He clearly got a lot off his chest, and he did it in a very respectful, intelligent, fair manner. One of the lessons that most of us learn in life is that you just can't please everyone. It's not within the realm of possibility. If Oprah can give away NEW CARS to her entire studio audience, and people still find a way to complain (that they had to pay the taxes/insurance), it's pretty clear that you just can't win sometimes. You also have people who ALWAYS criticize. They literally look for opportunities to be negative and critical, and they are rarely, if at all, positive. There are people like that on this site, too. Obviously Probst is doing a hell of a lot of work to keep Survivor relevant and he's doing a great job of it. There are things I don't really like about how the show works too, but it's pretty clear to me that Probst and CBS are doing the best they can and I respect that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodBye Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 People are still bitching about the Redemption Island twist... and Probst responded to an open letter last week, thought this was pretty good. I can see where he's coming from: Probst response I love this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts