Author |
Message |
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 7:54 am
I was impressed with Brenda in the first Ponderosa video. For a young person, she stepped up and put the game aside and made the quitters feel welcome. I probably would have needed more time, like Alina did. I wonder if Survivor will change any rules for future players, that if you quit near the end you do not get to be on the jury? Do they really hate that 2 players quit (we know Jeff does), or do they love it because it creates drama?
|
Marameko
Member
07-15-2002
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 8:08 am
Thanks for posting the Ponderosa clips; it was great that Marty and Brenda took the high road regarding the 2 who quit . It is however a real pity that these 2 who voluntarily left the game are on the jury. Too bad they were not shipped out the next day.
|
Puzzled
Member
08-27-2001
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 8:09 am
How do you know they're definitely on the jury, Lexie?
|
Pdxtransplant
Member
07-09-2010
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 8:12 am
Butting in here - Puzzled, Jeff said they were on the jury. I think it is ridiculous.
|
Nerovh
Member
06-11-2005
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 9:27 am
Kel-- I think you posted your info regarding Dan not being an option to step down from reward at the same time I was posting my complaints about him. I wasn't ignoring you, I just didn't see your post before I put mine up ). I still say he's completely useless, though lolol. Watching him sit in that big chair swinging his legs while the others were busting butt just kind of defined his whole time on the show. If I was on the jury, I would definitely be upset about the quitters. As hard as Alina scrambled to stay, and these two who weren't in immediate danger just up and quit so near the end? Geez. What a bitter pill to swallow.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 9:40 am
Wasn't there a rule that no one could sit out back to back challenges? Does that rule not apply to Dan? It was a "school yard" pick for teams. No one picked him. Not surprisingly.
|
Lexie_girl
Member
07-30-2004
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 9:45 am
Yeah, that too Karuuna.
|
Bonbonlover
Member
07-13-2000
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 10:04 am
I am disgusted with NaOnka and disappointed that she and Kelly quit. I also hope that Survivor doesn't continue down the road of promoting silly movies. Let them go sightseeing, get a massage, local dance... something other than bringing Hollywood to our screen.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 10:19 am
I agree. The movie thing was a ridiculous and obvious product placement and an insult to the intelligence of the viewer. We're used to seeing this stuff on Big Brother (which is rather amusing for its tackiness) but I thought that Survivor was a step above this sort of thing. Plus they're supposed to be out surviving in a jungle. Too large a disconnect.
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 10:21 am
I just finished watching and... I've never been a fan of Naonka but even *I* was appalled at her callous (and rude) attitude. And I laughed my butt off (and scared my cat) when she said she KNEW she could win. Um, yeah, you'd make it to F2 only cuz everyone knows you'd get maybe ONE vote (from Alina). I'm pretty sure Kelly S wouldn't have left if Naonka hadn't said she was leaving first. I almost have no words for this episode, the actions of those two women. And even this season!
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 10:40 am
It seemed pretty obvious as they sat in the rain at Tribal that neither one would change their mind. They were miserable just sitting there. Even Jane looked miserable, but she's made of tougher stuff mentally. Interesting that Survivor coughed up a new tarp and rice; they almost never do that unless the conditions are truly miserable. But still, you had to feel for the three in the jury sitting there who really wanted to stay in the game. They had to sit and watch two people willingly give up their spots. I wonder if they were gracious at Ponderosa because they knew the conditions were pretty tough to tolerate?
|
Bonbonlover
Member
07-13-2000
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 11:03 am
If I recall correctly, there was only one other time that the survivors lost everything due to natural disaster. I can't recall which season, but they came back from a challenge and their camp had been washed away by a flooding river (??) I think they had no food for a few days... Mysteriously it became on of the rewards... I remember asking myself then, as I did last night, 'What if someone didn't step up and choose to forgo the reward? Would the producers let them go even longer without food?' (It seems to me that in the earlier seasons food was much more of an issue. We don't really hear of them starving)
|
Tishala
Member
08-01-2000
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 11:11 am
Bonbon, IIRC that was Australia.
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 11:15 am
Right. I think, even though it was due to actions of the survivors that their camp burned, the producers decided to offer a chance to obtain at least some food and shelter. Jeff has said numerous times that they are not there to starve the survivors, and if they lost all their food except for a small amount of rice... well, the producers aren't there to torture them. Just make life difficult. I will say this... that constant rain did look uncomfortable. But while Jane looked miserable, Holly didn't and neither did the guys.
|
Prisonerno6
Member
08-31-2002
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 12:08 pm
I couldn't help wondering why they didn't try to cover the holes in the tarp with palm fronds, or find some way to use the old tarp to lash some to the sides of the shelter to keep the rain from pouring in that way as well. People have lived in the rain forest for a very long time without the convenience of a tarp.
|
Happymom
Member
01-20-2003
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 12:54 pm
Awesome remarks by Jane at TC! Very irritating that the two quit. I am happy not to have to listen to NaOnka every week now though. Jeff seemed incredulous and angry last night and in his blog. P.Kelly was so far under the radar that she may have been able to win this. Holly has really changed. I have a much higher opinion of her now than when she soaked the shoes and talked about quitting. I like Benry more each week. Marty sure looks so much better at TC than during the game. He was on local tv or radio recently. I didn't hear him, but I heard that he was acting just as arrogant as he acted on the showing behaving like he was smarter than everyone else and the best strategic Survivor ever. So, I guess seeing himself on the show did not make him realize how poorly he played the social game. Wanting to be a good player and actually being a good player are not the same. I feel bad for Marty, Alina, and Brenda ... two of them should still be playing.
|
Panda
Member
07-15-2005
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 12:57 pm
I'm pretty sure Kelly S wouldn't have left if Naonka hadn't said she was leaving first. I agree with this, I think she felt okay with it since someone else was doing it, too.
|
Spear
Member
08-06-2001
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 1:23 pm
Anyway, the rule for sitting out challenges only applies within the same episode. Here's what Jeff had to say last season: http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/02/26/jeff-probst-blogs-survivor-episode-3/
quote:Side note: Some of you may be wondering about the sit-out rule pertaining to back-to-back challenges. That rule only applies within an episode. Each new episode it starts fresh. Typically we have two challenges within an episode, but not always. So Courtney was able to sit out the last challenge (last week’s episode) and sit out again in this week’s challenge (new episode.) Hope that clears up any questions.
Jeff also updated this week's blog (link in other thread). The rule about quitters on the jury is going to change in future seasons, although he didn't say exactly how it's going to change.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 1:40 pm
I think if someone quits, the last person voted out should come back!
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 2:58 pm
At one point when what's his name quit, I remember thinking "uh oh, then the jury will be an even number and there could be a tie." So that's why I though he got to stay. From reading Jeff's blog update, though, I see that it was more about alliances during the game than the jury at the end game. I can see how remaining players could yell "unfair" if one of their alliance quits and isn't allowed to vote, but I can see others yelling "unfair" if someone quits and alliance and yet is still around to benefit that alliance by voting for someone to win. It's a bit of a Catch-22 conundrum for the producers. And having said all that, I think Naonka and Kelly S have no right to remain there, enjoying the perks (and pay) of Survivor, and then the TV exposure at the reunion. Both of them should be the two who are forgotten!
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 3:02 pm
I don't agree with Jeff's and the Producers' logic. A key part of the game is making alliances with people you believe that you can rely on. If one of your alliance members chooses to quit, then you are simply suffering the consequence of picking a poor alliance member. There is absolutely nothing unfair about it. It is purely a part of the game.
|
Scooterrific
Member
07-08-2005
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 3:07 pm
Costa said conundrum!!!! I love that word!!!
|
Lexie_girl
Member
07-30-2004
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 3:21 pm
Jimmer, don't faint, but I actually agree with you.
|
Spear
Member
08-06-2001
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 3:42 pm
I think it is unfair when the rules change without warning, so I kind of agree with Jeff's reasoning. There was precedent for a quitter going on the jury, so theoretically, contestants had strategies that took that into account. Now, if they explicitly state a change in the rules regarding quitters before the next season starts (as it seems they plan to do), I wouldn't have a problem with that. Tied jury votes have been possible ever since the first 3-person final so they're ready with a final tiebreaker if they need it. (I don't think they've ever revealed what it is, though.)
|
Oregonguy
Member
02-12-2006
| Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 4:34 pm
Well just got done reading interviews with Naonka and kelly at realitynewsonline and they both don't really seem to give a crap that they quit. IMO if someone voluntarily quits the game then they are done period. No jury, no post game interviews, no appearing at the finale, NO NOTHING. Do the eliminated get to go on little adventures anymore? If so, then the quitters shouldnt be able to go on those either.
|