October 19, 2007

"You wanna know what you're playing for? The right to be punished for winning, that's what."

Throwing Things analyzes the twist on last night's "Survivor." Personally, I liked it. I like when the team — tribe — that is down figures out a way to save itself from doom. The twist did seem manufactured to give them a shot. It injected competition back into the game. I assume the producers don't plan all the twists and challenges in advance, but come up with things to make a better show. Who wants to watch a dominant player proceed inexorably toward the million dollars? It was cool to see the underdog Peih-Gee figure it out and bring in Jaime who had the power over — he's a virgin! — Erik.

Television Without Pity has the full recap up already. Very nice.


Mark Daniels said...

When I first saw this headline, I thought that the speaker could have been Joe Torre, now the former manager of the New York Yankees. Joe though, would never say something like this.

But if anybody had the right to make such a statement, after twelve years of working for the perennially unappreciative George Steinbrenner, Torre probably would have.

Mark Daniels
Better Living: Thoughts from Mark Danels

john said...

OK, Ann, one comment so far is lame. You need a little help to get this thread going. This seems to work most of the time:

Al Gore
Al Gore
Al Gore
Al Gore

Your welcome,


MadisonMan said...

Her welcome what?

Christy said...

Presonalities do matter. They keep us watching. If Jaime hadn't giggled throughout the throwing of the immunity challenge, if PG didn't always have such a sour face, and, most importantly, if I didn't luvvvvvvvvvvv James, I'd have been okay with it. As soon as everyone I like gets voted off, I tune out. I'm only watching next week to see if TPTB throw in another twist that saves James.

john said...


john said...

See, its working

You're welcome,


Bender R said...

This is very simple, and elementary to any competition -- if you throw a challenge, if you intentionally lose, then you should be immediately disqualified and kicked out of the game forever. Taking a dive is disgusting, and it is not something that will lead to increased viewership.

Jeremy said...

As pointed out in the show, it's not about winning challenges but about winning the game. Think of it as a strategic retreat.

Unknown said...

I can't believer the "big strong men" on this show haven't figured it out yet.

The only way for one of them to win is for them all to stick together no matter what initial tribe they are in. Until they realize this the girls and girly men will rule.

My memory is poor, but have we had a big strong male winner since Ethan the soccer player?

Dunstan said...

Patrick, last season's winner, Earl, was no slouch physically, though perhaps not a "big strong" guy. Certainly Tom Westman was a challenge stud.

Ann, having TWoP recaps go up quickly is a little like the proverbial restaurant that serves terrible food -- but at least the portions are huge!

Methadras said...

Ann Althouse said...

Who wants to watch a dominant player proceed inexorably toward the million dollars?

Then why allow the game to include dominant players then? If being dominant in this game means you proceed inexorably towards the million dollars, then there is something wrong with the game, no? Also, I thought reality shows were supposed to be real, as long as certain rules are adhered to then they don't interfere or manipulate. It appear, from your telling that this isn't the case. Am I to assume that other reality shows aren't reality genuine then?

Anonymous said...

“The silver leash of the will ----
Inexorable. And their pride!
All the gods know destinations.
I am a letter in this slot!
I fly to a name, two eyes.
Will there be fire, will there be bread?
Here there is such mud.”

Trooper York said...

Al Gore does plan to be on survivor next season. Not as a contestant. As the locale.

Harkonnendog said...

Totally disagree that PG is using strategy here. There are too many unknowns. This was an irrational decision made to assuage egos, not to win.
Nobody knows when or if the merge will happen.
Nobody knows whether old tribe loyalty would decide anything. Maybe NEW tribe loyalty would decide. Maybe alliances would.
Nobody knows who the other tribe would have axed, (and in fact they probably would have gotten rid of Jean Paul.)
My guess is PG's a control freak and the thought of trying hard and losing again scares her. She'd rather purposefully lose than take the chance of failure.

Jeff with one 'f' said...

"The right to be punished for winning..."

Hilarynomics, anyone?

Christy said...

Dunstan, I agree about the quick turnaround on recaps at TWoP. I miss the funny and the snark that seems to have disappeared this year. Drat their selling out to Bravo!

Dunstan said...

Harkonnendog, I don't see how you can say that she's not using strategy. It's a strategy that has some risks due to all the unknowns, and it may be a strategy that you disagree with, but it's definitely a strategy. People who are afraid of failure don't make bold moves like throwing a challenge, knowing that Jeff Probst and a big chunk of the Survivor audience will rake you over the coals for it. The "easy" thing to do is just cruise along and walk right into the Pagonging, then talk about how HARD you tried!

I really doubt that Jean-Robert would have gotten the boot last night if the challenge had gone the other way. I'm sure he's not terribly popular with his tribe, but they were pretty clear about voting off the newcomers first.

It could be that a couple more days could buy Frosti and Sherea time to worm their way in and allow J-R to tick his tribe off further. But that's all the more reason why P-G and Jamie were right to throw the challenge!

I do think they took a stupid risk not making sure Erik was on board with throwing the challenge, though. If he wasn't so smitten with Jamie, I think he might have flipped. The fact that they didn't consult him first ought to tell him that he SHOULD flip.

Finn Alexander Kristiansen said...

First off, that episode annoyed me a whole lot, mainly because of Erik.

It was in fact good strategy (possibly) to vote off the two men, but the manner in which it was undertaken was not too smart:

They did not get Erik on board up front. In theory the men could have banded together to dump the women.

Then you had the giggles, smiles, and uttertly obnoxious manner of the two women. They could have done it quietly, and seriously. But no, it was all so much fun. Of course, one can see aspects of real life in there too.

Because there is always some guy, thinking with his crotch or his emotions, who will bend over backwards to allow a woman to do something that normal fair competition might not allow her to do. Thanks Erik.

One of the problems with the women's strategy is that they let their actions be known, and thus will not be trusted by anyone going forward.

And finally, have the contestants actually realized that keeping "strong" players or physical types on hand is meaningless? Why? Because it is a show and the producers are not gonna have an entire season that is lopsided. So to the extent one team loses physical players, then the challenges might end up more mental, or a re-alignment will be made.

And I hope we don't sit through another thrown competition next week, and that they create a twist or penalty for being uncompetitive asses.