Come here to convince everyone else that your personal tastes are the best. in Lions, Tigers, Survivors

0 Points

Come here to convince everyone else that your personal tastes are the best.

Started By	Comment
SwineForkbeard		#321	[-]
Posts: 2605 (12/15/09 12:31 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I used to have a handle on ads, but it broke. Remove this ad Ozzy said he would have taken Becky, but the geeky, small penised haters blocked that out and kept insisting that he would have taken Yul so they'd have one more imaginary reason to bash him.
SirCrocodilep		#322	[-]
Posts: 280 (12/15/09 01:43 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	SwineForkbeard wrote: Ozzy said he would have taken Becky, but the geeky, small penised haters blocked that out and kept insisting that he would have taken Yul so they'd have one more imaginary reason to bash him. like who???
Thailandsurvivor		#323	[-]
Posts: 8952 (12/15/09 02:22 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	SwineForkbeard wrote: Ozzy said he would have taken Becky, but the geeky, small penised haters blocked that out and kept insisting that he would have taken Yul so they'd have one more imaginary reason to bash him. Yep, and Becky would have beaten him.
CSCin3D		#324	[-]
Posts: 13604 (12/15/09 02:27 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	^Or it would have been a very tight vote. It depends on how far back the jury was extended. Becky wins with a jury of seven.
Thailandsurvivor		#325	[-]
Posts: 8954 (12/15/09 03:14 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	CSCin3D wrote: ^Or it would have been a very tight vote. It depends on how far back the jury was extended. Becky wins with a jury of seven. Seeing how it was always a jury of 7 before Cook Islands fucked up and changed the format, that's what I meant.
tullfan2		#326	[-]
Posts: 4020 (12/15/09 06:15 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Contrary to what is usually assumed here, the editors did the worst job during the early seasons. The three that really stand out are Australia, Marquesas and Amazon. For each of those seasons, the editors made lame decisions intending on making the endings shocking. Instead their attempts fell flat and left the viewers scratching their head and thinking what the f**k? (see the Sopranos finale which also sucked). After Amazon, the editors finally realized that the season should be presented so that the viewers are left with adequate closure. Australia climaxed after Jerri was voted out as the editors decided to focus on Mike and Jerri in the early going. There was no story to show after that except to show how miserable the contestants were (see also Africa and Marquesas). The editors decided to completely hide the final 2 alliance and relationship between Tina and Colby. This was a bad move. Instead of completely hiding this they should have developed this relationship so that the viewers would have been satisfied at the end that this alliance succeeded and it would have been somewhat more understandable why Colby voted out Keith. The editors chose to make Marquesas the story of Kathy O'Brien. The viewers were left feeling greatly disappointed and empty when Kathy was backstabbed by the contestant, who eventually won, who had been virtually ignored during the season. The editors should have shown less of Kathy and more of Vecepia's thoughts on gameplay. With Amazon, the editors chose to make the viewers sympathize with Christy the deaf contestant and demonize Jenna mainly because of the Survivor auction. But, Christy had an attitude somewhat like Shambo and wasn't worthy of all that much sympathy. Jenna was condemned for being selfish and self-centered for her behavior at the auction. In normal circumstances this was justifiable but Jenna's mom had late stage cancer and it was not unreasonable that she became upset when she did not bid the highest for the letter. The editors should have been less harsh with Jenna's edit for this event and it even caused the viewers to get unnecessarily upset when Jenna was declared the winner.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#327	[-]
Posts: 9965 (12/15/09 07:07 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	^That's an interesting theory. I agree with you that Marquesas and Amazon should have been more nuanced in portraying the winners , but it seems like the viewers who actually pay attention figured out Tina just fine. I remember people talking about what a snake and a two face that Tina was for voting out Mad Dog. If anyone was upset by her winning, it was the hoards of people who just watched the show thinking it was only a physical survival contest or just watched the show for entertainment. I was definitely one of the latter during the Outback finale, as I didn't learn to appreciate strategy until the next season. Anyway, I would much rather have the old style editing. Even if Jenna and Vecepia were misrepresented or underestimated, they sure as hell got more valuable screen time than most of the newer winners.
ilovekelly752		#328	[-]
Posts: 697 (12/15/09 08:10 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	tullfan2 wrote: Instead their attempts fell flat and left the viewers scratching their head and thinking what the f**k? This. I just finished rewatching Australia, and in the beginning of the episode they're all like "Roger and Elisabeth know they're going next", then no strategy talk for the rest of the episode, then TC comes and Amber goes home? What? They don't even explain it in the next episode either.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#329	[-]
Posts: 9980 (12/15/09 08:14 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Yes, because viewers have to figure it out for themselves or listen to outside sources.
ShanesThinkingSeat		#330	[-]
Posts: 501 (12/15/09 08:58 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I used to have a handle on ads, but it broke. Remove this ad ilovekelly752 wrote: tullfan2 wrote: Instead their attempts fell flat and left the viewers scratching their head and thinking what the f**k? This. I just finished rewatching Australia, and in the beginning of the episode they're all like "Roger and Elisabeth know they're going next", then no strategy talk for the rest of the episode, then TC comes and Amber goes home? What? They don't even explain it in the next episode either. I agree (and it's really annoying), but IMO the good things about the early seasons make up for that tenfold. I still feel they're much better than recent seasons. (including the editing. Despite the lack of information at times, the presentation of the actual show was 50 times better back then)
tullfan2		#331	[-]
Posts: 4022 (12/16/09 10:19 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: ^That's an interesting theory. I agree with you that Marquesas and Amazon should have been more nuanced in portraying the winners , but it seems like the viewers who actually pay attention figured out Tina just fine. I remember people talking about what a snake and a two face that Tina was for voting out Mad Dog. If anyone was upset by her winning, it was the hoards of people who just watched the show thinking it was only a physical survival contest or just watched the show for entertainment. I was definitely one of the latter during the Outback finale, as I didn't learn to appreciate strategy until the next season. Anyway, I would much rather have the old style editing. Even if Jenna and Vecepia were misrepresented or underestimated, they sure as hell got more valuable screen time than most of the newer winners. I wasn't at all upset with Tina winning. The problem I had with Australia editing is that the decision to hide the Tina/Colby final 2 alliance was completely artificial. We did not see Colby and Tina interact at all during the episodes. We saw a similar relationship between JT and Stephen that was not hidden and the viewers were provided with adequate closure at the end when they succeeded in being the final 2. I'd rather see inconsequential contestants be ignored (as they do in recent seasons) than the editing be manipulated to try to make the ending shocking. That device didn't work for me in any of those 3 sesaons.
ilovekelly752		#332	[-]
Posts: 709 (12/16/09 02:14 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	a few more opinions - Sierra is a more entertaining character than Coach. - Aras played a better social and strategic game than Tom, and I'm wlling to argue this with anyone. - Parvati played a great game in CI, and an even better one in FvF
ShanesThinkingSeat		#333	[-]
Posts: 520 (12/16/09 03:38 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	ilovekelly752 wrote: a few more opinions - Sierra is a more entertaining character than Coach. - Aras played a better social and strategic game than Tom, and I'm wlling to argue this with anyone. - Parvati played a great game in CI, and an even better one in FvF I don't think they make big enough X's than that post deserves. 100% agreeance. Coach tried WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too hard to be entertaining in my book, and while I was amused by him, Sierra was more interesting to watch. Tom's game is one of the most overrated. I feel he gets way too much credit. Parvati is a top tier winner, and a top 2 female winner.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#334	[-]
Posts: 10025 (12/16/09 05:28 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	ilovekelly752 wrote: a few more opinions - Sierra is a more entertaining character than Coach. - Aras played a better social and strategic game than Tom, and I'm wlling to argue this with anyone. - Parvati played a great game in CI, and an even better one in FvF X I'm a big fan of Westman, but he depended more on Ian than Aras relied on Cirie.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#335	[-]
Posts: 10026 (12/16/09 05:33 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	tullfan2 wrote: I wasn't at all upset with Tina winning. The problem I had with Australia editing is that the decision to hide the Tina/Colby final 2 alliance was completely artificial. We did not see Colby and Tina interact at all during the episodes. We saw a similar relationship between JT and Stephen that was not hidden and the viewers were provided with adequate closure at the end when they succeeded in being the final 2. I'd rather see inconsequential contestants be ignored (as they do in recent seasons) than the editing be manipulated to try to make the ending shocking. That device didn't work for me in any of those 3 sesaons. I think that the relationship was inferred by Colby, Tina and Keith all voting together for Mitchell and their collective dislike of Jerri. We don't have to ignore certain contestents just so we can here Colby actually say "We have a bond". The editing wasn't so shocking if you were paying attention. The only ending that really suprised me was Jenna's, and even that made sense in hindsight. I'm much more willing to forgive editing faults when it leads to an overall better finished product. If we need everything spelled out for us on the show, than that makes the apocryphal material completely redundant.
WylDawg		#336	[-]
Posts: 21345 (12/16/09 05:54 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I'm a big fan of Westman, but he depended more on Ian than Aras relied on Cirie. Ian saved Tom's ass with the Gregg situation, I agree, but that was it. Cirie took out half the people in Exile Island which Aras was clueless that they were even threats to him. It's not even close. And I hate when people say that Tom is overrated or "got lucky" despite the fact that he dominated the game in pretty much every aspect, and then some of you turn around and say that Morasca was an epic winner because of one immunity she won or Amber played a stellar game because she convinced Kathy to keep her around. Narrow perspective, much?
tullfan2		#337	[-]
Posts: 4026 (12/16/09 05:55 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: tullfan2 wrote: I wasn't at all upset with Tina winning. The problem I had with Australia editing is that the decision to hide the Tina/Colby final 2 alliance was completely artificial. We did not see Colby and Tina interact at all during the episodes. We saw a similar relationship between JT and Stephen that was not hidden and the viewers were provided with adequate closure at the end when they succeeded in being the final 2. I'd rather see inconsequential contestants be ignored (as they do in recent seasons) than the editing be manipulated to try to make the ending shocking. That device didn't work for me in any of those 3 sesaons. I think that the relationship was inferred by Colby, Tina and Keith all voting together for Mitchell and their collective dislike of Jerri. We don't have to ignore certain contestents just so we can here Colby actually say "We have a bond". The editing wasn't so shocking if you were paying attention. The only ending that really suprised me was Jenna's, and even that made sense in hindsight. I'm much more willing to forgive editing faults when it leads to an overall better finished product. If we need everything spelled out for us on the show, than that makes the apocryphal material completely redundant. Disagree. The way the season was presented, it made Colby look like an idiot when he chose Tina over Keith for the Final 2. If they would have developed the alliance and relationship between the two of them (as they did with Stephen and JT in Tocantins), his decision would have been more easily and readily accepted by the viewers as he would have been viewed as holding true to his alliance. Instead it appeared that he stupidly threw away $900,000.00. Jenna's win was understandable if you ignored her negative edit and contrasted the Final 2 from the jury's point of view.
Maniacboy888		#338	[-]
Posts: 3254 (12/16/09 05:57 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	WylDawg wrote: I'm a big fan of Westman, but he depended more on Ian than Aras relied on Cirie. Ian saved Tom's ass with the Gregg situation, I agree, but that was it. Cirie took out half the people in Exile Island which Aras was clueless that they were even threats to him. It's not even close. And I hate when people say that Tom is overrated or "got lucky" despite the fact that he dominated the game in pretty much every aspect, and then some of you turn around and say that Morasca was an epic winner because of one immunity she won or Amber played a stellar game because she convinced Kathy to keep her around. Narrow perspective, much?
ThrowMeGabon		#339	[-]
Posts: 1163 (12/16/09 06:29 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	WylDawg wrote: I'm a big fan of Westman, but he depended more on Ian than Aras relied on Cirie. Ian saved Tom's ass with the Gregg situation, I agree, but that was it. Cirie took out half the people in Exile Island which Aras was clueless that they were even threats to him. It's not even close. And I hate when people say that Tom is overrated or "got lucky" despite the fact that he dominated the game in pretty much every aspect, and then some of you turn around and say that Morasca was an epic winner because of one immunity she won or Amber played a stellar game because she convinced Kathy to keep her around. Narrow perspective, much? Tom was the most dominant winner in Survivor history. More than Hatch, more than Heidik. Still, it wasn't that exciting.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#340	[-]
Posts: 10027 (12/16/09 06:38 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I used to have a handle on ads, but it broke. Remove this ad tullfan2 wrote: Disagree. The way the season was presented, it made Colby look like an idiot when he chose Tina over Keith for the Final 2. If they would have developed the alliance and relationship between the two of them (as they did with Stephen and JT in Tocantins), his decision would have been more easily and readily accepted by the viewers as he would have been viewed as holding true to his alliance. Instead it appeared that he stupidly threw away $900,000.00. Jenna's win was understandable if you ignored her negative edit and contrasted the Final 2 from the jury's point of view. You may have a point. Instead of footage of Keith badmouthing Jerri, we could have seen the relationship between Colby and Jerri. As long as we keep the "fried green tomatoes" scene and the "Sex-Chocolate" dichotomy scene, I could do without the others featuring "being evil".

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Come here to convince everyone else that your personal tastes are the best.