That's fine if the audience crowns who the producers want, even better. By involving the audience more it will make ratings go up plus you have the possibility of getting 10 million votes at 99 cents each (or $2, whatever price they set). Sounds like a better business model to me. They could also have the audience vote at the end as just a what if to compair the results to the judges results.
Any Survivor fans? I thought this was the best season ever... but...
- Thread starter MattinSTL
- Start date
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
They can already do this by slanting challenges in favor of proven skill sets and probable body types.
When they have people balance on top of a barrel full of water (on it's side) and then let the water drain out... who do you think lasted the longest? The lightest weight person? Wow... great guess!
The show has no contract with the viewing public. The members would still have to try to make it TO the end... which means they'd be playing the same game they would have played anyway... the only thing that would change is the members would be able to play to US, in private... and yes, this would enable the producers to edit for a certain winner, but generally speaking I think it's a no-lose prospect.
The show becomes more interesting... the players play how they play but fill "us" in on strategy and reasons why they're kicking ass (or not)... editors still edit for the most interesting show (trust me, this won't change... they want the show to be compelling first and foremost because that equals success)... and in the end... who cares if they skewed something A LITTLE... do you think they're going to NOT show conflicts or drama in order to influence the vote? No way... the show will be edited for the most interesting content... no matter the politics.
My .02
When they have people balance on top of a barrel full of water (on it's side) and then let the water drain out... who do you think lasted the longest? The lightest weight person? Wow... great guess!
The show has no contract with the viewing public. The members would still have to try to make it TO the end... which means they'd be playing the same game they would have played anyway... the only thing that would change is the members would be able to play to US, in private... and yes, this would enable the producers to edit for a certain winner, but generally speaking I think it's a no-lose prospect.
The show becomes more interesting... the players play how they play but fill "us" in on strategy and reasons why they're kicking ass (or not)... editors still edit for the most interesting show (trust me, this won't change... they want the show to be compelling first and foremost because that equals success)... and in the end... who cares if they skewed something A LITTLE... do you think they're going to NOT show conflicts or drama in order to influence the vote? No way... the show will be edited for the most interesting content... no matter the politics.
My .02
JConnors
Veteran
I think thats why they tend to do a little more puzzle type challenges to make it even for everyone. I've heard a few interviews with Jeff Probst and he was saying they try and mix up the challenges so that everyone has a chance at them.
I'm curious if they have the challenges already mapped out in advance (I would assume they do for the most part of the show) or if they get closer to the end and they want to make it more challenging based on the competition left and break out a challenge they had on the back burner. I know there all tested before hand to see how they play out.
The Coconut challenge towards the end of this season was one they were going to pull. Apparently it took them close to 4 hours to finish the challenge. Editing made it look like 10 minutes.
I've heard Probst say that over the past couple of seasons they have been shying away from the marathon challenges (which I love, think it makes for great TV) based on the fact that it kills their production schedules and is extremely hard on the crew. Who remembers the end challenge in Palau with Ian vs Tom that was classic, something like 12 hours. It's going to be really cool to see Tom back in the game. I think that might have been my favourite season, they kicked everyones ass.
These past two seasons have been great though too. I wasn't all the impressed with Surivivor China. Thought Gabon was great and a different but great environment. Tocantins was awesome with JT and Stephen basically running the show and Coach's ridiculousness. Going to be good to see some of these characters back.
I'm curious if they have the challenges already mapped out in advance (I would assume they do for the most part of the show) or if they get closer to the end and they want to make it more challenging based on the competition left and break out a challenge they had on the back burner. I know there all tested before hand to see how they play out.
The Coconut challenge towards the end of this season was one they were going to pull. Apparently it took them close to 4 hours to finish the challenge. Editing made it look like 10 minutes.
I've heard Probst say that over the past couple of seasons they have been shying away from the marathon challenges (which I love, think it makes for great TV) based on the fact that it kills their production schedules and is extremely hard on the crew. Who remembers the end challenge in Palau with Ian vs Tom that was classic, something like 12 hours. It's going to be really cool to see Tom back in the game. I think that might have been my favourite season, they kicked everyones ass.
These past two seasons have been great though too. I wasn't all the impressed with Surivivor China. Thought Gabon was great and a different but great environment. Tocantins was awesome with JT and Stephen basically running the show and Coach's ridiculousness. Going to be good to see some of these characters back.
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
So what about my earlier point... that producers are able to skew the show's results through both challenges and the better/worse camp... as well as clues and other variables? Certain people/teams almost always do better in the challenges you expect them to based on their intelligence and body-types.
My point? They can affect the game's outcome already. What is the downside for being able to influence "america's vote" through editing? And... if this is the sticking point... why take this side of the issue? Do you think the final voting will be LESS FAIR then it is now? Even in Jeff Probst's blog he says Russell was robbed... and this happens in MOST seasons!
I'm basing my opinions on the actual history of the show... not on who I thought should win each season, but who MOST people think should have won each season... by far. There are certain things that come up that can't be edited into something else... choices and schemes that people carry out... skills they reveal through the course of the show (fishing, strength, smart ideas about camp, etc.)... and I think it would be harder to edit for an "unearned" winner then it would be to simply edit for the most interesting show... <- to repeat my point earlier... and to back that up:
I have Showtime... and Big Brother After Dark is unbelievably boring... it's 28 minutes of minutia for 2 minutes of R-rated content. I was really excited about that show... but after 3 tries... I think the editors are doing a fine job with the regular edit.
My point? They can affect the game's outcome already. What is the downside for being able to influence "america's vote" through editing? And... if this is the sticking point... why take this side of the issue? Do you think the final voting will be LESS FAIR then it is now? Even in Jeff Probst's blog he says Russell was robbed... and this happens in MOST seasons!
I'm basing my opinions on the actual history of the show... not on who I thought should win each season, but who MOST people think should have won each season... by far. There are certain things that come up that can't be edited into something else... choices and schemes that people carry out... skills they reveal through the course of the show (fishing, strength, smart ideas about camp, etc.)... and I think it would be harder to edit for an "unearned" winner then it would be to simply edit for the most interesting show... <- to repeat my point earlier... and to back that up:
I have Showtime... and Big Brother After Dark is unbelievably boring... it's 28 minutes of minutia for 2 minutes of R-rated content. I was really excited about that show... but after 3 tries... I think the editors are doing a fine job with the regular edit.
Last edited:
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
I like how I don't have the right to use the term "earned" as a viewer but you do?
"If you don't get the votes, you didn't earn it."
This is a fallacy going against the crux of my argument. Yes, I understand your point here... that this IS a part of the current game... and it's the very point I'm arguing against... To clarify WHY it's a fallacy (a logically porous counterpoint) is because it's a simple statement about a complex situation... like saying "if he didn't get convicted, he didn't do it" (jury)... NO... it means "he didn't get the votes"... not "he didn't earn it".
I have never once implied that you don't have a right to your opinion (which you're ignoring was ALSO formed through the edit)...
"He should have seen that he was dealing with a group of people playing the game on a personal level."
When, in 20 seasons... have people NOT been playing on a "personal level"?
I'm agreeing with this logic... and I think most other fans of the show (another "integral part" of any show) will as well... if it ever goes this way.
To say "why have any challenges at all" and other such statements is bringing negative emotions instead of valid points.
I'm not talking about changing anything about the show other then the dynamics of the end game (and making the private interviews much more interesting)... everything else that you're offering as counterpoints changes the fundamental game itself... ("why have challenges?" now that is just arguing to argue... each show is 3 acts with drama based around those 3 acts... a reward challenge to set up winners and losers... creating drama... and later... jealousy and separation... then immunity challenge to set up winners and losers... creating drama... and later more drama through the power given to one person... and finally tribal... creating drama... so let's take away 2/3 of the show? I'm not making that argument... and never was.)
Nobody will GET to the "end game" unless they keep doing what they're already doing... for 20 seasons now. So if the beef is with editing... and the ability to skew the public's perception of players... again... how does that change even 1% from what it is now? (end game aside)... and... since we agreed that they can skew challenges for particular people... we're still back to square 1. Nothing's changing through these arguments except the end game... which has been my whole, unchanging... point... since my first post.
Last edited:
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
So... when you post something and I sh*t on it... and you reply to make your case... can I say "stop whining"...?
When somebody says "well that's your opinion, this is mine"... I don't mind (see, that is respectful)... when somebody says "your opinion doesn't count"... or they say "stop whining" (see, disrespectful) I feel compelled to follow up. Especially when ripped by guys that sign up just to argue... low post count "trolling"...? Probably multiple name registration, my guess.
My .02
Everything in the Film Section is a "stupid movie" to a lot of people... so should there be replies to the people discussing films... to shut up? Go post that advice on the Star Wars Sucks thread... or any other thread where people express any criticism against a film/video production... and we'll change the color scheme to two shades of beige... and call it the milquetoast hide-away.
When somebody says "well that's your opinion, this is mine"... I don't mind (see, that is respectful)... when somebody says "your opinion doesn't count"... or they say "stop whining" (see, disrespectful) I feel compelled to follow up. Especially when ripped by guys that sign up just to argue... low post count "trolling"...? Probably multiple name registration, my guess.
My .02
Everything in the Film Section is a "stupid movie" to a lot of people... so should there be replies to the people discussing films... to shut up? Go post that advice on the Star Wars Sucks thread... or any other thread where people express any criticism against a film/video production... and we'll change the color scheme to two shades of beige... and call it the milquetoast hide-away.
Last edited:
Honestly, I was just making an observation that you seem to be obsessed with a TV show. Being a fan of a TV show is fine. Being obsessed with a TV show isn't healthy.
Stop, take a breath and look at the situation objectively. You're seeing everything as a conspiracy theory. The CBS producers are involved in a conspiracy. Apparently I've conspired against you as well.
You need to take some time off and get some rest. Clearly you need it.
Stop, take a breath and look at the situation objectively. You're seeing everything as a conspiracy theory. The CBS producers are involved in a conspiracy. Apparently I've conspired against you as well.
So this is your conspiracy theory? I signed up three years ago, made 754 other posts since then and I've waited for this very day to "troll" Matt. Would this qualify me as a "sleeper troll" ? I'm not a therapist, but it sounds like you're paranoid and delusional.
You need to take some time off and get some rest. Clearly you need it.
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
OK... so once again... disrespect.
Where's my "conspiracy theory"?
Ryan Paige... of 17 post counts... has all his replies deleted from the thread... see me quoting him about "earned votes" above? Where did I quote that from? Post gone.
I was referring to Ryan Paige as a low-post count troll. YOU are assuming I meant you. Re-read my post... "Especially when ripped by guys that sign up just to argue... low post count "trolling"...? Probably multiple name registration, my guess."
Ryan has 17 posts... oops (15 now)... search his name... look up other threads. 4 out of the 8 theads he's participated in are CLOSED, the two threads he started... he removed his personal contributions from... 2 of his (now 15) posts are a total of this -> "."
15 posts... half his thread participation ends in a closed thread. Do the math.
Stating a simple PROPOSAL for a change in voting system isn't "conspiracy" theory... but basing an entire argument around "the show is edited to control the outcome" IS.
If I need a break... you need a dictionary.
Here's the ONLY two threads Ryan started:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=179022
and
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=179022
So... do I think he's a valuable member? To QUOTE Ryan... "nope".
Where's my "conspiracy theory"?
Ryan Paige... of 17 post counts... has all his replies deleted from the thread... see me quoting him about "earned votes" above? Where did I quote that from? Post gone.
I was referring to Ryan Paige as a low-post count troll. YOU are assuming I meant you. Re-read my post... "Especially when ripped by guys that sign up just to argue... low post count "trolling"...? Probably multiple name registration, my guess."
Ryan has 17 posts... oops (15 now)... search his name... look up other threads. 4 out of the 8 theads he's participated in are CLOSED, the two threads he started... he removed his personal contributions from... 2 of his (now 15) posts are a total of this -> "."
15 posts... half his thread participation ends in a closed thread. Do the math.
Stating a simple PROPOSAL for a change in voting system isn't "conspiracy" theory... but basing an entire argument around "the show is edited to control the outcome" IS.
If I need a break... you need a dictionary.
Here's the ONLY two threads Ryan started:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=179022
and
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=179022
So... do I think he's a valuable member? To QUOTE Ryan... "nope".
Last edited: