२१ डिसेंबर, २००९
"May the best man win."
That's not what you want to say when you're competing against a woman, and women are judging the contest. But I would have voted for you, Li'l Russell. Come back soon — on an "All Stars" show.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४ टिप्पण्या:
Total rip-off this season. I felt like I devoted all that time watching for what.....the stupid blond to win a popularity contest?
This seasons jury will forever go down in history as the Survivor OJ jury.
America should get to vote the "Sole Survivor." Jury pool is way too tainted:)
Maybe Russel will receive an honorary doctorate in sociology or psychology. He deserves at least that.
Well,surely you understand that the "popularity" contest part of Survivor is the essential element to winning Survivor - it's really the twist that makes the game challenging - not the "surviving in nature" aspect. That's the rub -to be able to avoid elimination while avoiding turning the potential jury against you. Russel really wasn't very good at that part of the game - he was about as subtle as a bull in a china shop. And I guess based on the raised hands at the end - he made a critical misstep in booting Jaison and not Natalie.
Should a woman judge vote for a man in a man vs. woman contest would she be breaking ranks with the sisterhood? The answer is yes. Because, as we all know, the first duty of a member of an oppressed group is the duty to maintain solidarity against the oppressor group. Feminism in a nutshell.
The 'jury' format is what makes the show unwatchable, in my opinion. Basically, it rewards the toady. Every bully has a toady, and it generally takes a bully to get to the final two or three, and that bully needs a toady by their side, but the 'jurors' feel animosity against the bully, so they vote for the toady instead.
Bunch of lackwit spoilsports in my opinion. If you get bested in a contest, recognize excellence and stuff your wounded pride.
The show will be on its 20th iteration next up, it's time to try something different. I don't think they expected this show to become high school, but the very first winner used that strategy and almost every winner since has played the other contestants more than they competed the elements and challenges.
I guess they're afraid to lose a chunk of their audience if it were to focus on competition and competence rather than backstabbing and clique management, but they've already lost a huge chunk of their audience from the early years, so maybe they'll attract a bigger audience with a shift in the rules.
The show will be on its 20th iteration next up, it's time to try something different.
Drop them off on an otherwise uninhabited island with nothing but remotely cameras to monitor their progress. Pick them up in one month. See who survived--literally.
@XWL - I've been surprised how often the jury votes for the bully over the toady. They often buy the argument that the bully played the better game and deserves to win. But not this time.
I was pulling for Russell. He won me over during the course of the season so I'm disappointed in the result. And did he ever look upset. I was afraid he'd melt down, but he kept it together. Offering $100k for the title "Sole Survivor" was a hoot. I think that's one reason I liked him. He kept things interesting.
Question: Can anybody explain to me the mechanics of this show? I get the impression they film everything over 39 days, except the live finale, and then show the program over however many weeks before they do the finale? Anybody know if that's right?
@John - I'd sign up to be a contestant on that show! Unless there were killing, of course. Knocking off your opponents would be too much. Dying of natural causes on the other hand ...
The version that allows offing competitors would have to have a different name, I'd think. Something like "Warlord" or "Isle of Strife."
Deceitful editing to portray Russell as the worst villain ever.
He deserved to win, but was cheated out of the win by sore losers.
Natalie didn't play a better game by having no strategy except to latch on to the bully. She needed to step into the game and play it herself. She didn't initiate anything-in fact, when told she might be the target of the remaining men, she puffed up her lip and behaved like a girl.
The jury epitomizes the Obama administration. Sore losers, whiners, egoists....
Doubly disappointed here. Missed the show AND Russell lost.
In one of her interviews after the win, Natalie claimed that her "strategy" worked perfectly. She wanted to keep a low profile, noticing that high profile players often get booted sooner. Secondly, she claims to have set out to get to know all the players as "humans", which would help her in the final showdown.
Original Mike, you are right about the mechanics.
Wonder how this year's ratings compare to previous seasons? I found Russell so unpleasant, with no one else enticing, that I only watched 2 episodes. Seeing Russell in the promos didn't help. Survivor may have lost me completely.
Thanks, Penny. I wonder how they keep the contestants quiet for the 2 months it takes to show the program?
Christy, you should have stuck it out a little longer. You might have come around. I hated Russell too at first, but I grew to respect his gamesmanship and energy.
Since it's been bugging me slightly, I went ahead and fixed Survivor, now all Mark Burnett has to do is hire me, and he can use my template to create an awesome 21st Survivor season.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा