Will there be a Final 2 or Final 3 for Tocantins?

0 Kudos

Started By	Comment
token lunatic		#41	[-]
Posts: 22663 (02/15/09 9:10 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Survivor is best/worst when it is cruel, which is why my spouse refuses to watch for very long, b/c of all the manipulation involved. He doesn't have the detached stamina it takes to sit and watch people who have to choose between winning money and compromising their integrity time and time again. Telling Wanda and Jonathon they were gone from the outside was cruel. Telling Cirie there would be no F3 was cruel, esp after several seasons of F3's. Telling Darrah her F4 immunity was null was totally cruel. But it keeps the viewers watching. And it keeps us talking. So, F3 or nor F3, we will still be watching.
Quiddity		#42	[-]
Posts: 4798 (02/15/09 9:26 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	^Darrah failed to beat the jury in that competition, and knew the rules beforehand. That one I'd say was not cruel. :P
CrystalOwnage		#43	[-]
Posts: 103 (02/15/09 9:34 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	If I remember correctly she wasnt even close...Fairplay was the only one who came close at beating the jury at F4
survivorisdabest		#44	[-]
Posts: 2425 (02/15/09 9:48 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	If Tocantins is a F3 i will throw up everywhere
MikeHaggarKJ		#45	[-]
Posts: 22 (02/15/09 9:53 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Its A Flavin wrote: MikeHaggarKJ wrote: Why does sucks hate final 3's so much? I would say the number one reason to hate the Final 3 is that it provides less incentive for larger alliances to break down and encourages Pagonging. If three people within a sub-alliance know they can make it to the final tribal council together then the last chance for someone within the larger alliance to flip and take the top people out is final 7. With a final 2, such a flip can occur as late as Final 5. This makes the later portions of the game more predictable. It also limits the value of immunity, not only at the final 3 but from final 7 onwards. If you can form a solid alliance of three then you have the option to vote out people outside your alliance regardless of immunity , barring contestants being willing to force the drawing of rocks, up to the final 4. In short the final 3 guarantees nothing but an easier path to the final tribal council. While the final 2 will sometimes result in a landslide the tensions of the final 3 immunity challenge makes for good TV, which is what Survivor is really all about. That's a very good point. I hadn't thought of that. I've read all posts about it, i understand why it's so disliked now. I think I'm just still bitter by how Amazon ended.
AlwaysAwesomeAdam		#46	[-]
Posts: 1524 (02/15/09 11:57 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Final 3 sucks because it lets a challenge whore who didn't play a strategic game a win.
srvivrfreakevelrich		#47	[-]
Posts: 294 (02/15/09 11:57 AM) Admin Reply Quote More Recent Posts	survivorisdabest wrote: If Tocantins is a F3 i will throw up everywhere dibs on not cleaning that up
Quiddity		#48	[-]
Posts: 4799 (02/15/09 12:02 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	AlwaysAwesomeAdam wrote: Final 3 sucks because it lets a challenge whore who didn't play a strategic game a win. A good point; while F3 supporters will say it is there to prevent the F3 challenge winner from deciding who wins, the fact remains that the F3, combined with the late merges we've had in many of the F3 seasons (Cook Islands, Fiji, Gabon)and the pre-merge jury members all end up with a strong male who is good at the challenges having more of an advantage than the standard F2 with a 7 member jury and merge at ten. Not saying that it means thats always gonna happen, but it certainly gives the so called 'alpha males' an even bigger advantage.
AlwaysAwesomeAdam		#49	[-]
Posts: 1526 (02/15/09 12:26 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Quiddity wrote: AlwaysAwesomeAdam wrote: Final 3 sucks because it lets a challenge whore who didn't play a strategic game a win. A good point; while F3 supporters will say it is there to prevent the F3 challenge winner from deciding who wins, the fact remains that the F3, combined with the late merges we've had in many of the F3 seasons (Cook Islands, Fiji, Gabon)and the pre-merge jury members all end up with a strong male who is good at the challenges having more of an advantage than the standard F2 with a 7 member jury and merge at ten. Not saying that it means thats always gonna happen, but it certainly gives the so called 'alpha males' an even bigger advantage. I want a winner that played the game in both aspects. I hate it when somebody who just won challenge after challenge wins endgame.
Kirblar		#50	[-]
Posts: 7592 (02/15/09 1:50 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Late merges are the biggest contributor to boring post-merge games, imo. Starting with 10 forces 6 people to band together, and an alliance of 6 is much unstable than an alliance of 5.
Krossedge		#51	[-]
Posts: 408 (02/15/09 3:07 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	lemurwrench wrote: Polyester Bear wrote: a final one (tyson christ) this must happen This WILL happen!
Quiddity		#52	[-]
Posts: 4801 (02/15/09 6:57 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Kirblar wrote: Late merges are the biggest contributor to boring post-merge games, imo. Starting with 10 forces 6 people to band together, and an alliance of 6 is much unstable than an alliance of 5. Definately. Combine a merge at 9, where five people have the advantage, and a F3 where the three in that fivesome have a 3-2 advantage, and what do you get? Four person pagonging, then two person pagonging of the two outsiders in the fivesome. It boggles the mind with me at least why they've had so many late merges the last few seasons. I would infact prefer to see an earlier merge, preferebly at 12 (I greatly prefer merges at even numbers to odd numbers as it requires more people on the winning side, and hence a shakier dynamic), particularly in this seasons with more than 16 people. It is crazy that with all the twists they've had so far, they still haven't done an early merge.
Mikester		#53	[-]
Posts: 1104 (02/15/09 7:05 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	idc what you all think: f3 <3 f2 </3
Kirblar		#54	[-]
Posts: 7597 (02/15/09 8:02 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Quiddity wrote: Kirblar wrote: Late merges are the biggest contributor to boring post-merge games, imo. Starting with 10 forces 6 people to band together, and an alliance of 6 is much unstable than an alliance of 5. Definately. Combine a merge at 9, where five people have the advantage, and a F3 where the three in that fivesome have a 3-2 advantage, and what do you get? Four person pagonging, then two person pagonging of the two outsiders in the fivesome. It boggles the mind with me at least why they've had so many late merges the last few seasons. I would infact prefer to see an earlier merge, preferebly at 12 (I greatly prefer merges at even numbers to odd numbers as it requires more people on the winning side, and hence a shakier dynamic), particularly in this seasons with more than 16 people. It is crazy that with all the twists they've had so far, they still haven't done an early merge. Exactly. It's the same reason even-numbered starting tribes are better as well.
Pulau Tiga		#55	[-]
Posts: 4753 (02/15/09 8:31 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Quiddity wrote: It is crazy that with all the twists they've had so far, they still haven't done an early merge. They like capitalizing on their pre-merge challenge drama and keeping the warring tribes dynamic going for as long as possible. But I'm with you; I'm still waiting for them to spring an early merge on an unsuspecting group of players sometime soon.
Condescending		#56	[-]
Posts: 47 (02/15/09 9:03 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I think Survivor Tocantins will actually be a FINAL 1. It will be Ghandia vs. her right hand vs. her left hand! TUNE IN!
spyzsrvvrcharmd		#57	[-]
Posts: 933 (02/15/09 11:59 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	EddieDASurvivor wrote: MikeHaggarKJ wrote: Why does sucks hate final 3's so much? I hate the final 3 becuase im a purist and i enjoyed survivor when it was final 2. The final 3 adds nothing it just gives the jury another vote "against" option. The game is to out last the others as far as you can get. The Final 3 according to Jeff Probst was supposed to give a chance for all those "good" players who came in 3rd. I think if they were good enough they would have made it to F2. I mean Gabon having Bob as a winner is Bullshit he was worthless. He did make fake immunity idols but shit This! Bob is the worst winner so far. I like him but he's not a good winner in my book.
SS MagicMark		#58	[-]
Posts: 1357 (02/16/09 2:18 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Yes, there wil be a Final 2 or Final 3 for Tocantins.
Ambient Nite		#59	[-]
Posts: 809 (02/18/09 12:19 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Clever.
Torchflame		#60	[-]
Posts: 391 (02/18/09 2:28 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I think when they have 20 Castaways it should be a Final 3, but when they have 18 or 16 it should be a final 2.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Will there be a Final 2 or Final 3 for Tocantins?