Ways to Keep DESERVING Survivors in the Game
TV ClubHouse: Archive: General Discussions:
Ways to Keep DESERVING Survivors in the Game
Caycaye | Monday, November 24, 2003 - 08:37 pm     In the future, why can't CBS figure out a way that "popular" players can stay longer in the game....Let's say that each wekk starting after the merger, or even in the beginning....anyone who wants to vote for their favorite can vote ONCE a week (they check email addresses)as to who they would like to have immunity. Well, the game would be played the same way each week, but when the votes were read, even if it was 8-2 against, say Rupert, then Jeff would pull out the "immunity envelope" and read the most popular person's name . If it is Rupert, he will not go....whoever got the other two votes would go. In the case of like a 10-0 vote against someone who turns out to have immunity...the other survivors would get right back up again and vote someone else out. Then at the end, the people's weekly popularity vote would count for ONE jury vote for the million dollars, so we would have SOME input, but not affect the outcome completely. What do you think Mark Burnett? |
Konamouse | Monday, November 24, 2003 - 08:53 pm     unfortunately, Survivor is played out months before the show airs on TV. Big Brother is played out in real time - and should include the viewing public in more than just "America's Choice". 'squeek' |
Gina8642 | Monday, November 24, 2003 - 09:33 pm     I've always said there is no such thing as a survivor more deserving than another. However, I do think they way the show is now structured it greatly favors the bland, the weak, and those seen as least likely to be able to compete in challanges. This year the castaways were giving multiple chances to rid themselves of anyone they preceived as threats. Any 'strong' player is easily eliminated. Andrew, by the shock of the merge. (Big dog in his own tribe goes down) Ryan - zero chance of survival in the coconut challange. Rupert - zero chance of survival in the dart challange. I think MB has tried soooo hard to eliminate alliances with all the twists, and odd merges, bring backs of outcasts, etc - he's eliminated the opportunity for a strong personality or strong pysical presence to make it very far. It prevents some of the boring mid-season pagonging, but it makes the end really suck. I will not be shocked at all if the weakest and boringest players make it to the end this year. Darrah is looming large right now. The most boring lump of a survivor in a long time. She'll win the last few immunities just like Jenna did last year, be unintelligible during final arguments, and win the whole thing because she's the least objectionalble, or because all the cool kids like her. Ugh!! |
Caycaye | Monday, November 24, 2003 - 11:57 pm     You are so right Konamouse...(brain freeze for a moment! LOL)...But what about even a percentage of the final voting to go to who America likes the most. Maybe it would help so someone like JENNA would not win in the end at the "live" show???? |
Kep421 | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 04:34 am     Konamouse... America did get to vote out the houseguests in BB1. I remember the big controversy when George's family and fans had a rally to flood CBS's phones with votes for Brittany, when he and Britt were both up for eviction. I know it wasn't George's fault, but it changed my opinion of him because his family and friends were not out to play fair. I thought letting the viewing public decide who was voted out was a great idea...until that happened. We viewers can get either too ruthless or too passionate (depending on how you look at it) when it comes to our favorite players... |
Jami | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 04:57 am     I think the merge should come much later. If you are competing as a team you will, in most cases, try and keep the better player for your teams safety and your own. |
Lorry | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 05:55 am     Thank you Caycaye, for an interesting topic. I just don't think there IS a way to make any of these reality games totally fair. The entire purpose of the game is to vote out the biggest threats. The fun, or the drama, is when the players forget the purpose of the game, and vote emotionally. The public having a vote has the sound of being more fair, but as Chicken George's family has shown us, their idea of fair is far different then our idea of fair. There really is no way to make sure it doesn't happen again... probably why we don't get to vote any more. I guess...lol I think this is a great topic to discuss... there just might be a way to make the game fair to the players, and to the viewers.... but so far... well...lol Come on people, toss in your ideas, you just might have the answer. |
Csnog | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 06:51 am     No seperate tribes. Just 16 people living together and when they go to IC divide them up by picking a # into 2 teams for that challenge. That way you might be against someone you are in an alliance with. They all go back to yell and scream at each other, but may be on the same team at the next IC. They would have to interact with all the people. |
Maris | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 07:13 am     I think anyone who makes it to the end and gets the jury's vote is deserving of the win. I may not support the manner in which they arrived at the end but they played their game and it worked. Did Rupert deserve the win? I don't think so because he played himself right out of the game. He knew he was a threat after the merge and I think his temper also worked against him. Remember the survivors talked about it a few times to make sure that he didnt find out what was going on because they would have to deal with his temper. They voted him out because he was a threat to win every immunity competition and they didnt feel like being on the receiving end of his temper. I would have voted him out as soon as the merge took place and would have tried damn hard to convince everyone of what a threat he was. My only objection for a win this year would be if either Lil or Burton wins this game. They were voted out and should have stayed out. I do think with the exceptio of the evictees coming back, this is probably the best survivor show ever and the only one that really makes me wish for live feeds. |
Cousin_Jake | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 07:13 am     I like this idea Csnog - eliminates some of the predictability of the evictions and it's new so it would be hard for the players to base their game on any previous survivor's strategy. |
Gen | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 07:50 am     A third vote for Csnog's idea. Not only would it make alliances had to keep, but one team would not be able to win every challenge. What happened to the Morgan team could not occur with this set up. |
Sheilaree | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 07:52 am     The one who I can't belive they aren't getting rid of is the one who is acting like stupid. Is Jon, I would have tried to get rid of him, because he is getting on my nerves, I hope he doesn't win if he does I am not watching it again Rupert deserve to win, I hope he wins the all star. |
Catfat | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 09:21 am     How about having the immunity challenges geared so that whoever wins that competition has immunity, relying only on him/herself, not being eliminated by others through deception or accident. That way the best would advance, and the others would be up for elimination, simple and clean. |
Essence | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 11:23 am     I don't understand how "popular" equates "deserving" in the game of Survivor. As much as I hated the fact that Tina, Ethan, and Jenna all won their respective Survivor seasons they were voted on by the people who played the game with them and thus deserved the win. The premise of Survivor is not for America's choice to win. It is for the person who Outwit, Outlasts, and Outplays everyone else. With the exception of Vee (who still wasn't my favorite from her season) I haven't liked any of the winners, but I can admit that they all did what they had to do to win the game. I know Rupert is a fan favorite, but he screwed up. He didn't even have all of his alliance members (Sandra) voting with him. I'm not a fan of his, but I admit he did a lot for the show. Had Rupert been smart he would have started to lay low and let others be picked off. Not bellowing to people about voting him off. Did he not think others in the game were there to win? I guess they were just supposed to sit around and hand him the game. I think Survivor is just the way it should be. A few twists here and there to keep players on their toes, with the original concept determining the winner. |
Pantageas | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 11:38 am     I'm with you Essence. I think that "deserving" goes right out the window in a game like Survivor. And in the seasons that I watched regularly, you could make a case for either of the final 2(although I vote Kelly over Richard, Colby over Tina, and Matthew over Jenna). And I don't see how you can get more "fair" than having everyone go through the same challenges and play the same games... ...and as far as 'popular' goes, Brian and Clay may have been the least popular twosome on any of the shows - but they played a better GAME that any of the other competitors that season. Should we punish them for not being more 'popular'? |
Maris | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 12:21 pm     I agree with Essence and Pantageas. This isnt a popularity contest. I may not be crazy about the winners but they won by being the last one standing. What was it Patton said about war, "No b*stard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b*stard die for his country". |
Catfat | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 01:07 pm     I agree with Maris, Essence and Pantageas--this isn't about popularity or neediness. If that were true, only poor but likeable people need apply. I would still like to see the immunity competitions structured so that the person who wins by him/herself wins that competition. I don't like to see someone knocked off because of another person's ineptitude or vengeance. I, too, am losing interest. |
Texannie | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 01:18 pm     Now that would be an interesting show. Send them out into the jungle, starve them, make them do all sorts of challenges and then let American decide who leaves! LOL |
Csnog | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 01:53 pm     I didn't like a lot of the winners either. I just would like to get away from the "hate the other tribe" at all cost mentality after the merge. I still want to see one season where Jeffy puts them all together. My what egos we could see. How many would step up to be leaders and how many would slink into UTR. Lets see more one on one challenges and/or draw straws to make them compete against different people as temp. tribes each time. I understand that ASS put on layered clothing because they saw what happened this season. Too many people expect the same thing to happen such as 2 different tribes. I like the mixers that Jeff throws at them as long as it's not the purple rock. I like the cast this year as there doesn't seem like a lot of wannabees with agents but I don't want to see Burton win because he has a past on Marks other show. |
Pantageas | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 02:24 pm     Had to add - LOL Maris, to both you and Patton! |
Caycaye | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 03:06 pm     Yeah..I guess Csnog's idea would be the best...Imagine how hard it would be to try to form an alliance, if new teams were picked by straws or something for each week...i.e. challenge and immunity that week would have same teams.... That would be sooo weird....For weeks there would be different people making up the team that lost immunity. How weird would that be at Tribal Council?? Some people would be VOTING over and over....some people would have votes cast against them...and certain people would never go to Tribal Council till the merge. It would be interesting. You would have very little time to try to make an alliance for the night! LOL How obvious would that be??? LOL |
Sweetpea1994 | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 06:25 pm     I agree with some other posters that the last two IC's were not fair. They allowed other players to pick off members. IC's should be completely about who can win the challenge. |
Llkoolaid | Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 08:08 pm     Sweetpea those are the only challenges I don't like, it should be on your own skills and not a pick off. I basically like Survivor the way it is, about the only thing that I would change is have the jury give a sound reason for their vote. This picking numbers is crap to me. I want to know their reasons just like I would like better explanations on BB. |
Kep421 | Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 12:42 pm     I kinda like the idea of all 16 in one tribe to begin with...beginning to end... would make the jury REAL interesting. I believe the Survivor powers that be scan these boards for suggesstions....hopefully they will pick up that one for their next NEW AND EXCITING... NEVER DONE BEFORE ON SURVIVOR...twist... |
Texasdeb | Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 01:00 pm     I like the idea of all 16 together. They could split the 1st IC into 4 sub-teams of 4 and allow the 4 members of the winning sub-team to have immunity at tribal council. All 16 would vote & 12 people would not be safe. As the numbers dwindled, they could have fewer sub-teams with the sub-team members changing each IC comp. Finally, when they get to the last 9 or 10 they could announce it's individual ICs from now on. |
Puzzled | Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 01:34 pm     I think Csnog's idea would make for a very interesting show, too. |
Karuuna | Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 01:35 pm     Why not have rearranging teams and some kind of point system? Only the bottom 3 or 4 players (maybe bottom half?) in the point rankings could be voted off. Or maybe the top three players in the cumulative rankings have immunity? Or even the top three in the individual immunity challenges all get immunity? It just seems to me that they do vote off those that actually 'could' survive in these situations, which is part of the premise of the show. On the other hand, it also shows that several less talented folks can band together to be stronger than someone more talented, which is not such a bad thing either. |
|