Yuku free message boards

SFC wrote:

---

Actually Alot of people find it amusing when players like Chet and Cirie can beat powerful meatheads such as Joel and Ozzy

It would be great tv if Chet and Cirie COULD beat Joel and Ozzy, and it would be a great show if we could see that happen. Unfortunately, the current show just allows the threats to be voted off by the weakling-mob.

Use the final-3 challenge as an example.

Parv didn't give a shit because she knew her buddy would save her = boring, the worst part of Survivor.

Amanda and Cirie battled it out to the end, that challenge was worth $1,000,000 for Cirie as she had no one to save her, no "strategizing" left = the best of Survivor.

All challenges should display that level of competition, and under my system they would, for all players. Under the current system, Parv can smile her to way to victory without breaking a sweat.

Result?

No one cares. No one respects "winners" who didn't earn it. Worst ratings in the history of the series. It's broke. Fix it.

SFC wrote:

---

That is the best part about Survivor, you don't have to be strong to win, you just have to be smart, and Parvati did that by just "smiling her way to victory"

She wasn't strong or smart, she failed at the physical and the intellectual challenges. The only thing she did was find enough losers to vote out the threats. Again, what makes this strategy unfair and dull is that the game is divided into teams first, and then individuals.

It's a higher concept than most viewers (especially here) seem to understand, but the only reason the team-portion of the show exists is to allow the weak to outnumber and vote out the threats. Thats it. There is no point to "teams", they don't need teammates to get food, or to help with challenges, because none of it matters and the players know it. The show has become "bond with weak, vote off strong" and there is nothing impressive or entertaining about that. The producers started it this way so the better players would not dominate, but now its backfired and the 2-part system is skewed to favor the weak.

Result?

The final 6 people in a game called "Survivor" were 4 weakling bims, a chubby old nurse, and a little slow boy. Once the slow boy gave up, everything in the game was entirely predictable except the challenges. There is no reason to defend it unless you want the weak to have an unfair advantage, and if thats the case, than you are just as pathetic and weak as those you identify with. That is why the show is not only not gaining any new viewers, but they are losing regular viewers. Thats why the finale was the lowest in the series history. Thats why there are threads like "Survivor demise is complete" and disgusted viewer threads all over.

lemurwrench wrote:

---

the strongest players are always outnumbered. ever heard of a standard distribution?

It's called "normal distribution", dummy.

Even Bunim / Murray have figured out a better method; the players don't vote out one, they vote for two, and then the two then compete in a challenge, the loser of which goes home.

Parvati didn't have what it takes to compete in the final 3 challenge, let alone put up a good fight. But under the current system, she not only remains in the game, she wins.

colorofcoils wrote:

---

TW After Life wrote:

---

Did you really want a million dollars to be decided by who can balance a marble on a stick the longest? Really?

I've always wanted Survivor decided by that.

So did the producers, thats why it did decide who won and who didn't win a million dollars, and thats why it was the most entertaining moment of the last few episodes. The problem is it was not decisive for all the players, Parv didn't give a shit either way which is why her segment was dull as shit, but thats what happens when you devise a system that allows weaklings to skate by.

Only on "Survivor" could you have one of the most epic challenge contests between two competitors, and its the third that quit early wins the big prize. Epic failure.