Who Likes The New Outcasts Twist?
TV ClubHouse: Archive: General Discussions:
Who Likes The New Outcasts Twist?
Leafsgirl | Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 09:58 am     Survivor was becoming too predictable and to conicide with the Pirate theme they brought in the outcasts as a twist. What was the result? They had higher ratings than Friends for the first time in 2 years. Which is all that CBS cares about. They had lost the general viewing audience because the game never changed and was too predictable. This was an exciting twist that has people talking whether they support it or not. Personally, I like the idea of them having a chance to come back. It will make future survivors think twice before they assume anything will happen. Rupert always warned Drake that there are no guarantees. It's even in the contract they signed. |
Rslover | Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 10:55 am     I think this is one of the best survivors, making up for the WORST BIG BROTHER! |
Tabbyking | Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 11:39 am     you won't hear any disagreement from me about BB being the worst ever!!! |
Enigma2 | Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 12:36 pm     O.K. We've got our own survivor challenge going here. It's 'Tribe Twist' vs 'Tribe Notwist.' Gen; Leafsgirl; Caycaye (thanks for the heads-up, Caycaye) and anyone who wants to join us. Spread out across that slope, team-mates. We've got to stop that snowball. We're up against a rough team. Headed by Seamonkey. With the inspiration given by Chubby Checker, we will prevail.... |
Gina8642 | Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 01:03 pm     I know next to nothing about professional sports, let alone how they structure their playoffs - but don't they have 'wildcard bearths'? Where a team they didn't do so well in the regular season can get into the play-offs? I mean once you're out of the play-offs you're out. But didn't some of the teams that get wildcarded into the play-offs not do so well in the regular season? So, these players could be seen as wildcards - didn't do so well in the regular season (pre-jury/merge) but get a chance in the play-offs (post-merge). Just trying to complete the analogy. I could be completely wrong about what a wildcard is (in sports), but when I hear the word, this is my assumption. But I rarly bother to read any detail in to the nitty gritty of a sport's game structure details. |
Leafsgirl | Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 01:30 pm     Speaking of wild card births weren't the Florida Marlins who were just crowned World Series champions a wild card birth? You are correct Gina, the wild card birth is for the teams that don't win the division they're in, but have a good enough record to make it to the playoffs. The game has to keep evolving to ensure that the interest doesn't fizzle out. Their ratings over the past couple of seasons will show you that that was indeed what was happening. Predictability is a killer. |
Lancecrossfire | Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 01:57 pm     The wild card concept was developed to fill the appropriate number of teams needed for what they consider a decent playoff season. Personally, I'm against teams with 50/50 records being able to be in the play offs. Without regard to my thoughts about that, the how the wild card teams are determined is known way in advance. And it stays consistent. Basically there are a certain number of teams that make it to the play offs--division champs always make it. Then to fill the rest of the spots, they have 'wild card' teams--those not leading in a division, but the next best teams--even if that means poor records. So you always have the best 12, or best 10 or best 20 (whatever the number) playing. They never put the team with the worst record in all of baseball or all of football in the playoffs. I agree with Enigma that good players get voted out early, and that "bad players" win the whole thing. Although the game isn't set up to have the best players win--actually it's set up so that is less likely to happen. From my perspective, to fix that though, I don't see this as the correct solution. I'll continue to hold that by rewarding someone who is at the bottom of the record, so to speak, dose the game no good. And as I also said, it might work great for ratings--for me that is 2 very separate issues. FOr those who are bored with Survivor if it stays basically the same, you must be going nuts with all current sports, as the rules and the way they pick the play off people have stayed the same for years and years. I guess it comes down to the priority you feel is most important--just being entertained or the game. Try playing a game though, where the rules are changed all the time or there are no rules at all. Most playing would say a victory means less and less because you have nothing to measure the victory to. Part of Survivor is indeed being able to adjust to different conditions. Hey, why not at the end, just remove both of the final 2 and throw in two of the people who got voted out--and draw purple rocks to see who it is. That would be a twist, wouldn't it? See, you have to draw a line somewhere. And the fix to the boredom should balance out with creating a good game. |
Pantageas | Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 02:38 pm     Enigma2, sign me up for "Tribe Twist". |
Spear | Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 02:49 pm     I agree that the twist is unfair but it's not as if the worst players were automatically rewarded -- the Outcasts still had to win the competition. They barely beat Drake after all. (No, I don't believe the challenge was rigged to help the Outcasts.) This is very different than arbitrarily tossing out two players and choosing two others at random. Survivor has been introducing twists since Africa. I don't see this as being that much worse than previous ones. I don't think it has a huge effect on one's game strategy -- you still have to form the right alliances and win immunity challenges. I don't think future contestants will be playing for an early exit just to get (at best) a 2 in 6 chance of re-entering the game at a later stage. |
Sugar | Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 03:56 pm     I enjoyed the twist. These are game shows with rather loose rules, it seems that just about anything goes. You can say anything you want, many contestants lie with nearly every breath they take and have the temerity to think they played admirably and with honor. As far as Survivor goes, I think most of the winners have simply outlasted, not outplayed and very rarely outwitted the others. Richard is the only winner I recall who did all three. Jenna and Vecepia where pathetic players, just plain lucky!! I'm hoping the game keeps changing to keep from being dull and predictable. I wasn't sure I would continue to watch Survivor, however, Rupert and the rest, sans Jon, (I think Jon is made out of penicillan cause he gives me hives!), have made this series worth each hour. In fact, I often wish it was a 90 minute or 2 hour show. (I must need another hobby . I suppose I won't like all the twists that come along, X Factor comes to mind, but that's life, reality and TV. |
Maris | Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 04:46 pm     It is very hard to tell who outplayed or outwitted who. We only get snippets of video and do not have access to a lot of the goings on in the tribes. People that we the viewing audience think are absolute losers (Jon) seem to be appreciated by their tribes and then you have other players who are detested for no apparent reason. Who knows, if we had internet feeds 24/7 we might have totally different opinions of the tribes. I would love to see all the tribal council meetings since every evictee has said the tribal council meetings last for over an hour and we seem to miss a lot especially when Jeff has a player in his sights. |
Cricket | Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 05:25 pm     I guess I'd have to be on Seamonkey's team. They didn't need to do this. It's Survivor meets Big Brother. Did they think the players weren't compelling enough to carry the show? Who could have predicted Drake would throw an immunity challenge? MB is going too far to 'control' these shows and he is leaving reality and spontaneity behind, making them less and less interesting. In trying to make them 'unpredictable' he is making them into game shows rather than reality TV. |
Texannie | Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 06:47 am     http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/tv_and_radio/article/0,1406,KNS_357_2405074,00.html By TERRY MORROW, morrow2@knews.com November 6, 2003 "Survivor" executive producer Mark Burnett went on the defensive last week when reporters questioned the latest twist he injected into his hit reality game show. In last week's episode, ejected contestants came back as members of the Outcasts tribe and forced the two existing tribes to each vote out one tribe member. Advertisement It was the first time in "Survivor" history that contestants "voted out of the tribe" had a chance to re-enter the game. The trick paid off in ratings. Nearly 20 million viewers watched "Survivor" last week, giving the show one of its largest audiences in months. But not everyone was buying the latest twist. "One long-term ramification of this move is that castaways in future seasons of 'Survivor' will be far warier about stabbing their tribe mates in the back for fear that their victims will return, better-rested, to return the favor - and that could make the show less interesting in the end," wrote Phil Rosenthal, who is television critic for the Chicago Sun-Times. "Survivor" has always been noted for setting the trends in the reality show genre. However, this latest gimmick has been used on other shows, such as "Big Brother." Does this latest move cheapen the credibility of "Survivor" now that the audience can compare it to the low-rent shenanigans of "Big Brother" and others of its ilk? "I've never, ever seen an episode of 'Big Brother.' I have no idea what they do," Burnett said. But the executives at CBS certainly have. "CBS has no say in this," he said. "Why would they have any say in what I do in the game?" Well, maybe because CBS is the network airing "Survivor." But let's not digress. Burnett also deflected the notion that the ousted contestants had an unfair advantage because they had more food and better accommodations during their time away. These "outcasts" had been living on skimpy essentials, too, just as the others left in the game had, he said. Many noticed, though, that the rejected contestants looked fresher than their counterparts still in the game. It has also been suggested this gave them an unfair advantage to win the challenge, opening the way for two castoffs to be back at the start of this week's episode (airing at 8 tonight on WVLT, Channel 8). "I think it was a totally level playing field," Burnett said, though he did admit that the former castoffs had "a better night's sleep" than the rest of the cast. "Survivor" has altered the game before. In the "Africa" edition, some contestants switched tribes midway through, causing a drastic shift in alliances. Meanwhile, Burnett said he wanted to keep mum about the details of the upcoming all-star edition for now so as to not take away from "Survivor: Pearl Islands." |
Enigma2 | Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 06:48 am     Pantageas, you're just in time for us to declare 'Tribe Twist' the winners. (Hey, there's not much that anyone can do about it. The twist 'is' a reality...) Next is who –of the outcasts– do we vote back in: Let's send Burton to Morgan. {He's strong enough to help win competitions. He could use his good looks; turn-on-the-charm and win Darrah and Tijuana into an alliance. He could work at ousting Andrew –the declared enemy of any outcast.) For Drake, there's Trish (a strong player and –well– I sort of have a 'crush' on her); Lil (just because she's Lil), and Nicole (a darkhorse 'cause we have no idea what she is capable of...) Lil might be the best choice, 'cause I can see her really getting along with the Drake powerhouse: Rupert. (Just had this thought of Lil turning Jon into her boy-toy.) Am seeing alliance of Rupert, Lil and Christa (who rocks) ousting either Sandra or Jon. Of course, none of this will actually happen...But one can dream.... |
Pantageas | Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:51 am     I think the show gets "best" by sending Burton to Morgan and Nicole to Drake: Burton - strong competitor - would aid Morgan. He just made his 'move' too soon Nicole - not around long enough for the Drakes to get a bead on her, may not actually have made TOO many enemies in Morgan ---------------------------------------- Lil - nice person, but didn't shine Ryan - nice guy, what would he bring back to the game? Trish - left on bad terms Michelle - almost as good a choice for Morgan as Burton... |
Tobor7 | Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 03:59 pm     I'll say I liked the twist. It is good to keep the people in the game and those who may be in future games on their toes. This may teach them NOT to vote out the strongest ones first... because there MAY be a team of all strong players to deal with later. I hope that there is NO MERGE this year as well. I don't know how is would work, but anything that breaks the "normal" rules and routine is good in my book. I like the "expect the unexpected" stuff. I know they can't please all the people all the time, but this viewer is pleased in this instance. |
Gidget | Friday, November 07, 2003 - 07:07 am     Has anyone speculated about how this effects the payouts. I mean first out gets $X, 2nd out gets $XX, etc. Lil was out early like 2nd or 3rd? So she would have gotten week 3 money. Let's assume she now gets to week 11. Does she get week 11 money or week 3 money. And does the 4th bootee now move down to 3rd bootee? |
|