Any Survivor fans? I thought this was the best season ever... but...

MattinSTL

MattinSTL

Sound Modulator
I'm bummed that by the end people seem to lose focus that the whole time, it's a GAME.

I'm a little sick of the fact that weenies unite and rally behind whoever is the most weenie-est of the final 3. The final vote in Survivor has almost always been about the jury's resentment over being beaten... and then voting for whoever played the SMALLEST role in THEIR loss.

For me that is definitely the one real weakness in the show.

Most of the power-players use the same tactics the entire time... and then somehow turn into "moral beacons" for the world when THEY don't win through a combination of barely missing a few lucky opportunities... and being genuinely outwitted by another player.

I feel the show would be better served through something to equalize this phenomenon... or at least inject some additional luck and/or skill at the very very end... so that there's a chance for somebody to win... even if the jury doesn't really want them to... because MOST of the time, the jury doesn't vote for the real winner... they vote for the person that's closest to their own position in the game, literally... they're usually voting for the next runner-up... the person that would have been on the jury NEXT if the show went one more week.

They gotta' fix the phenomenon of the weakest final link being the most likely to win through the resentment of the most recent losers.

I realize this hasn't always happened, but that's how it generally ends up. In 20 seasons I think the "real winner" has won only about 3 times.

My .02
 
russell not winning is a joke. the girl that won rode his coattails the entire time and then benefitted because the jury members were bitter about being bested by russell.
 
The jury did not do it's job. She didn't outwit or outplay anybody.

Here's a clue, jury: I didn't know her name until the final days. Nor the other guy's. Neither name pops into my head at the moment. Still.

(Admittedly, we only see what the editors want us to see. They could very well have downplayed both those two to make the "suprise ending" happen. That would piss me off just as much as this nonsense.)

And next season will be a waste. Who cares about the losers from past seasons?
 
$1,000,000 so it's taken pretty seriously. I know the girl who won Survivor Guatemala, it's all politics off camera that determines the winner. Ohh, her $1,000,000 is paid out over a period of something like 20 or 30 years so she only gets $2k-$3k a month.

Another friend made the final elimination for the next Survivor and I'll bet she makes the show, 99% of the other applicants have been eliminated. I'll ask her to give me the off camera political rundown when they are done filming.
 
I agree whole-heartedly guys. I've kind of tuned out this show over the years, but when I saw ONE episode this season and saw how candid and calculated Russell was, I HAD to watch.

He didn't pull any punches with the jury and it was a crime that he lost.

I agree with Matt, they really do need an equalizer with the final decision.
Even shows like Idol have judges, but ultimately it's the public who decide the winner.

Look who the public voted for as the ultimate player: Russell.
 
Neal Buconjic said:
I agree with Matt, they really do need an equalizer with the final decision.
Even shows like Idol have judges, but ultimately it's the public who decide the winner.
Click to expand...

After sleeping on it... I think the best thing to do is the American Idol system (as suggested above)... the jury should vote for 2nd place ($100K)... and let "America" vote for the winner. In another words... simply switch the current system... a possible bonus idea is to not TELL the jury until AFTER the vote! That would still give a real-world time frame of a week+ to vote... and more importantly:

1) Boost the show's already successful run... by:
2) Pulling fans further into the show... by:
3) Creating an even more suspenseful ending... and:
4) Still allows the show to play politics however they want (through selective editing)... and mainly:
5) Fixes my big point about weenies united behind the next closest loser.

It would be way more fun to see somebody win who deserves it... especially if the cast hated the winner... but watched America hand him/her the prize... and it makes it possible for the same person to win twice. I see no downside to this.

I hope you're listening Mark Burnett... why don't you scoop this turd out of the Survivor pool?


EDIT: Amazingly... in typical Russell form, he himself says it perfectly ON THE CBS WEBSITE!

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/video/?pid=KVSDHcF4CCchZFD6kahuI14Eqk4SJrxs

The CBS site does a redirect... not letting this link work directly... but click to Russell Red Carpet Interview.

"They need to scratch that 'outwit' off the Survivor banner... because you will never see somebody win who outwits the other players... it's always going to be the nice looking girl... or the nice looking guy... who rode on the back of an aggressive player."

Like I said... THIS is the guy who deserved to win... and I honestly think he's the best player Survivor has ever seen.

*robbed*


The preview of next season proves that they still don't get it... They don't understand the selling points of their own game. Villains? Because they showed skill in deception, etc? (Yes I know it's "sales"... I'm just sayin'...)

That's like calling a defensive end a villain for getting the most sacks.

Um, Survivor? Deception is one of the major strategies of your whole freakin' game.

You guys should thank your lucky stars that you at least OCCASIONALLY get players who are revolutionizing the show... and making it interesting for the rest of us. I'd wager that more then half the viewers of this last season would have tuned out w/o Russell. I've lost interest in the show before the end... for almost every season... with the exception of Hatch, Fairplay, Rupert, Boston Rob, Brian (this was by far the weakest and was barely interesting because of Brian), and now most recently... Russell.

Each season I'm amazed at how incredibly boring 90% of the cast is... and when the interesting 10% goes out of the game... the show becomes a 5-10 minute Tivo session where I stop a couple times to check for something interesting... and then stop to see if tribal is interesting... and then click to the half-way point of the vote reading.

When you have an interesting character on the show... I look forward to the show all week... I plan for "Survivor Thursday"... and I watch the whole damn thing.

Please, please, please fix your show's one major weakness!
 
Last edited:
i wish they had the jury vote by answering a simple question that would easily identify who outwitted, outplayed, and outlasted.

"who was more responsible for you being voted off? russell or natalie?"
 
Yeah, it's been quite awhile since I watched a season of Survivor. About half way through this season I happened on the show again and "discovered" Russell. He drew me into the show for the rest of the season. I agree completely with your assessment, Matt. If anyone ever "deserved" to win, it was Russell. It's easy to see why he's a successful businessman.
 
I see your points- all valid. However I do like the 'jury' system. Russell knifed everyone in the back then expects for their votes?

I agree he was the mastermind who outplayed everyone.

However petty this is, human emotion seems to rule the votes, and certainly his arrogance didn't help. For Russell not to account for this cost him the game.
 
I like the idea of America voting for 1st place and the jury voting for 2nd. This would also drive ratings higher by getting the viewers more involved.

You should email Burnett. He's pretty easy to get a hold of from what I hear.

EDIT: Ohh and at .99 cents per vote they would make a couple million more.
 
MikeyP said:
Russell knifed everyone in the back then expects for their votes?

I agree he was the mastermind who outplayed everyone.
Click to expand...

To say "knifed in the back" is to forget the point of the game...

If the point of the game was to be nice and polite, and simply OUTLAST everyone else through 100% deserving ACTIONS... isolated from planned schemes... then the show would never have made it past a season or two.

The "villians"... as they call them... are the ones who provide the conflict, drama, suspense... and uh... INTEREST in the show!

Imagine M*A*S*H w/o Frank Burns... or even Winchester... so then what drives the show? I mean... really, what drives it? All of the great stories of humanity involve "villains"... or the stories themselves would barely exist.

Survivor just happens to be a show BASED 33% around the concept of OUTWIT. Using a more courageous and cunning person as a human shield is only "outwitting" in a coward's circles... I say they need to FIX that. The "losers" on the jury need to grow up and realize what it was all about... and ADMIT to the fact that they would have done the very same thing, given the chance.

The show needs to reward people for doing what the show was designed to do... and then I think the program would make a transformation from it's current success to something magnitudes more popular.

ChipG said:
EDIT: Ohh and at .99 cents per vote they would make a couple million more.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I thought Chip... then "we" would pay the prize. There's no downside.

Thank you all for your comments. I half-thought that I'd get flamed for this rant. A buddy of mine is a HUGE Survivor fan... and I have to roll my eyes when he sounds like I do in this thread... but this season converted me. The last 6 episodes were flat out incredible... only to witness a ridiculous injustice at the end.

I'm going to look into emailing Mr. Burnett... thanks Chip. I find it hard to believe that a guy like that... or even his "inner circle" could be reached by some schlub... but I'll give it a shot.
 
Last edited:
Can you imagaine how more cut throat the show would be if the players know America will be the jury. Man, it'll really make some good tv :)
 
Complete bullshit that he didn't win. You could tell how pissed he was too. Man, they guy dominated the game more than any other players I've seen play and they didn't vote for him because he made them all look like idiots.

He basically clarified his stance on the game throughout the season. "This is a game and I'
ll do whatever it takes to win". And during that last tribal council he said exactly that, it's stupid that they hold that against him. I think the one mistake he made was letting it out what he did. I think people saw that he didn't need the money and that's what really influenced their decision. It's a shame, the fact that he masterminded a comeback being down like 8-4 was unreal, something that's never been done on the show.

From the preview last night it looks like he might be on the next season (which was shot, pretty much right after the last one). They did that with two other people when they did the Fans Vs Favourites a couple of seasons back. I really hope there was a bit of a turnaround to get him on the cast. They sure made look like he was going to be part of it.
 
Here ya go, ask to speak with his assistant Dan Paschen but it might be just as easy to speak with Mark.

Mark Burnett Productions, Inc.
640 N. Sepulveda Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90049
CA Tel. 310-903-5400
 
ChipG said:
Can you imagaine how more cut throat the show would be if the players know America will be the jury. Man, it'll really make some good tv :)
Click to expand...

Chip I thought the same thing... it would dramatically increase the depth of the show's characters... realizing that those private moments with a cameraman would actually translate into revealing strategy... and sharing [upcoming] moments with the viewers.

If I were on the show, and that was the premise... I'd specifically TELL the audience my plans... and then they'd be in on the joke, so to speak.

Since I'm getting a funny feeling that this thread COULD be seen by somebody who matters... let me add a humble suggestion... I wouldn't have the cast speak directly into the camera. Stick with the off-cam interview style candids...




/side topic/

Oh... and yes, night vision got really good in cams in the past few years... you guys need to play that back a bit... and add some green back in. The night shots are mostly too clean at this point. Unless it's a 2-shot (or group), let the sky create backdrops around silhouetted plant/tree shapes... then use a smaller IR light source (an IR light inside of a white lexan globe, or small softbox, to maintain the feeling of intimacy... of the person sneaking away from camp to talk candidly.

Sorry to dilute my larger point... but as long as we're talking Survivor... a few years ago I posted a suggestion about actually "lighting" the night scenes with IR... and how I'd do it... and I'll be damned if they didn't actually do that... but it's gotten TOO clean... and takes away the guerilla filmmaking style that the night shots really need for drama.

If there's motivated lighting... moon, moon reflection, campfire, torch... go nuts... but when it's one guy in the middle of the woods, out of camp... the 100% "albino" IR bodies reveal too much of the shot, eliminating too much drama. Night time has got to have shadows... or some combination of light and dark.

/end side topic/
 
Last edited:
Russell was robbed...plain & simple! He was by far THE best player the game has ever seen. I think everyone here agrees.
 
Just ask Russell & he'll tell you he's the best. I realize the point is to outwit, outplay. But again my point is you know the rules when you enter - whether we like them or not. Not accounting for personal feelings of those on the jury was a miscalculation on his part. Lets not forget the jury vote is the final component of outlast.
 
MattinSTL said:
The "villians"... as they call them... are the ones who provide the conflict, drama, suspense... and uh... INTEREST in the show!
Click to expand...
Of course, every story needs a villain. But that doesn't mean the villain needs to win. I loved it - he looked like he was going to come out of his skin he was so pissed. He's so full of himself that he was offering money just to be called the sole survivor, how pathetic. It's hypocritical if you give credit to Russell for doing dirty deeds to advance himself in the game but you don't give the jury any credit for giving Russell a lethal dose of his own medicine. Boo Hoo the jury was unfair, it's so unfair! Gimmie a break, Russell's entire strategy was based on being dishonest and screwing people over, how's that for fairness. In the end when the jury had a chance to screw him over they did. Good for them. What goes around comes around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top