Is it just me...?

The ClubHouse: Archives: Is it just me...?

Fabnsab

Friday, May 11, 2001 - 12:49 am Click here to edit this post
Is it just me or did you guys like the people from the second survivor better? I know they have gotten a lot of flack for be prettier and looking like an Abercrombie & Fitch ad but they were so much more likeable. Every article I read with the S1 cast, they're whining about their show being better, or how they were more real or interesting. I find them all irritating, to be honest. They seem to be more into the "what's in it for me" mode whereas S2 people seem to be more giving and family oriented. Is anyone with me on this?

Gail

Friday, May 11, 2001 - 02:20 am Click here to edit this post
I like the group from S2 much better. Part of that is that I did not start watching S1 til it had been on for a while whereas with S2, I started watching from day 1 and got involved a lot more. I actually had this conversation with someone at work the other day. I think the S2 people were more caring towards each other. Better senses of humor and just more fun to watch.

Jerri and Kimmie you loved to hate and the survivor gods cooperated and voted them off. People like Mad Dog, Mitchell, and Jeff made you smile.

I felt like S2 - the show itself had more tender moments. Like the internet chats and Colby's mom showing up to visit with care packages for everyone. On the final show when the last three were walking past all the torches of the past survivors was nice too.

I also liked that even though Rodger and Elisabeth were from the other tribe, they did not get voted off til later. It was more of a let's keep the nice people around longer instead of methodically taking them out. If, somehow, Elisabeth had won immunity on her final show, who knows? She could have made it to the final 2 and won the game.

One thing S1 had that I did not care for was Susan and her disgusting display on the final show. It seems like the people from S2 were just better sports for the most part.

I think it would have been a whole different game with a much different outcome if Michael had not been hurt. That was unfortunate, especially, because his tribe had played so well and in all likelyhood may have made it to the merger on top. That kind of showed us how unpredicatable the show could be. I am not sure if it was just creative editing but though it was a bad blow, they didn't harp on it.

I think for the most part, I really liked the entire cast of S2 - a couple I liked less then others :) but these guys just seemed more colorful and more like people you would like to be friends with.

After the merger, with the exception of Jerri, there wasn't a single one of the remaining group that I would have not wanted to see make it to the end.

Fruitbat

Friday, May 11, 2001 - 07:24 am Click here to edit this post
I liked things about both shows and casts.

The heightened hardships on 2 created a different atmosphere. In the beginning many of us mourned the more lighearted first group. They had nifty camp sites, a beautiful beach, played cards, ate fish, etc. It was lighter. The alliance was new to us and I saw it as very clever and interesting.

I found Colleen, Jenna, Joel, Gervase, Gretchen and Rudy to be very nice looking. I think Rich's face is beautiful and Sues smile sparkling.

We also complained that the second group jumped right in with the alliance and game playing and didn't seem as interesting or kind. As time went on and we came to know them, that perception shifted and their personalities surfaced.

The after coverage on #1 was nil. The second group is getting far more attention so it is easier to connect. Showing them at home in their lives was great.

I am anticipating #3 will be far different still and expect to compare those players with the first 2 groups and on and on.

Wonder how many of these before we say it is getting old.

Jeff P said the next one will be tougher. I am not sure tougher will create a better show. They may cross a line. The second group ran out of steam and many complained that all they talked about was hunger and fatigue. So do we really want even more of that? I don't want another Eco Challenge.

Lancecrossfire

Friday, May 11, 2001 - 10:41 am Click here to edit this post
Fabnsab, Gail, Bat--all great points. Gail, I'm pretty much in line with everything you said.

Bat, I agree on the point about jumping into an alliance right away in S2. I wish it could have waited. Oh well.

Concerning the alliance thing, I noticed something very different between the two shows. There was a lot of air time given to the alliance issue in S1--and it prevailed over the course of the entire show. In S2, they seemed to focus on it at the beginning, although didn't show much of it later. And they showed nothing to indicate the level of alliance that Tina and Colby had all along. So while the alliance issue may have been as much a part of S2 as S1, that fact was suppressed through editing.

I think that a couple of factors are involved in such a difference between the two shows. First is that things may have been learned from doing the first one. maybe they listened to what people had to say about wanting more of the "person" included in the show, and not just the issues of the game.

Hence the challenge at the end about remembering the place and the people, including making the totems and throwing them into the river to "give something back".

The show last night is another example of where MB could be listening to the audience about wanting more about the people behind the contestants. This was the only show that was not done in S1--they had the reunion for them as well.

Another factor could be the people themselves on S2. By either design or chance, this could may well be more into what the game was about rather than just winning a million. Based on how may people experienced this AND communicated it (as well as how sharp MB seems to be), IMHO it was by design.

In the end though, the people make it happen. They can't show something to us that wasn't there to begin with.

I agree with Bat that making tougher won't automatically make it a better show. In that same vein though, it won't automatically make it a worse show.

I wonder of MB is doing a little experimenting, trying different approaches to 1) see if one works better than the other, 2) trying to balance giving us what we want and him giving us what he wants us to see, and 3) making it so he can't be accused of just doing the same old thing for every show.

For popularity of people (the persons, not the contestants) it will be hard to beat some of these folks. Roger and Elisabeth caught the hearts of many of us. Colby caught the spirit of many as far as what a true competitor is all about. Michael and Keith showed us that the experience can be so much more than just dollars if you just let that part in.

Will the next one be tougher physically, mentally, or both?? (actually anytime something is tougher physically, it's also tougher mentally)

Seamonkey

Friday, May 11, 2001 - 11:52 am Click here to edit this post
Many good points above. I definitely liked the second cast more. Can't wait to see the next cast. OK.. I can wait ..