#685758 - 05/14/07 08:58 AM
Re: What did you think of Survivor: Fiji?
[Re: Gambler]
|
Silk Zapper
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 2858
Loc: VA, USA
|
I have to say that it is clear that Survivor is losing it's "freshness." I believe that the Have/Have Not scenario was a strategic blunder the likes of which have not been seen since the 'Outcast Tribe' in Panama let voted out players back into The Game. If Burnett wants to make a distinction between tribes, what about: Experience vs. Expertise: Cast 10 people who are major fans of the show (here, here, pick me, pick me) against 10 people who have actually played - but not made it to the jury. So you have 'beach smarts' vs. 'school smarts.' Stop casting types: And go back to casting people who apply and want to play. Tell the players the rules: Keep it fresh by not telling the viewers but throwing random chaos at the players makes The Game more luck and less strategy. Staggered rewards: Does anyone else hate it that the first reward (fire) becomes a given after the first tribe wins it? In the second challenge, offer the next reward, or the previous one. That way they can decide whether they need fire (for example) or fishing gear. This would serve to make the tribes' decisions matter more than luck. Hidden Immunity Idol: They finally got it right, must be played after the vote but before the decision is read. But stop telling people how many there are and do not make them look the same. That way someone saying 'it's a turtle' would not have told Earl, for example, if it was real or not. CAST ME
_________________________
"The Scribe Has Spoken"
|
|
Top
|
 Reply
 Quote
 Quick Reply
 Quick Quote
|
|
|
|
#685759 - 05/14/07 10:26 AM
Re: What did you think of Survivor: Fiji?
[Re: Was_John_F]
|
Silk Zapper
Registered: 05/05/05
Posts: 2579
Loc: Iowa
|
Quote:
I have to say that it is clear that Survivor is losing it's "freshness."
The freshness was gone a while ago, as one would expect with a show on the air for this long, but it can still be a good show if done well and with fun players.
Quote:
I believe that the Have/Have Not scenario was a strategic blunder the likes of which have not been seen since the 'Outcast Tribe' in Panama let voted out players back into The Game.
Absolutely. I know they are just trying to give the viewer something different each season, but this time they overshot big time with the initial twist. It flat out ruined the first part of the season.
Quote:
Stop casting types: And go back to casting people who apply and want to play.
They should probably cast more people who are big fans of the show and did apply, but if you don't go out and recruit you are missing out on a lot of great players. There are millions of people out there, like Yau-Man, Earl, Yul, and Ozzy, who would love to be on Survivor but they are very busy with work and family and the idea of actually applying for the show never crosses their minds. If you want Yau-Man on the show, you have to go out and recruit him. That said, what in God's name were the producers thinking when they recruited Lisi and Cassandra to be on the show? Could they not see that Lisi was a wacko jerk and Cassandra is the most uninteresting person on Earth? Maybe they thought throwing a wacko into the mix would make for good tv, but I seriously do not understand how people like Cassandra make it through the casting process. I'm sure there are other friendly 40 year old women out there who actually have great, outgoing personalities and who would actually bust their asses at camp and in challenges 24/7.
Quote:
Tell the players the rules: Keep it fresh by not telling the viewers but throwing random chaos at the players makes The Game more luck and less strategy.
I want them to throw some small twists at the players to keep them on their toes, but some of these twists are definitely too luck-based. Michelle was screwed because the producers split the tribe AND did not allow pre-TC discussion. She was playing a good game, but the producers basically threw her to the wolves. I also think that if they are going to change the final vote format (like going from 2 to 3 players in front of the jury) they need to tell the players sooner. It really isn't very fair to pull the rug out from under players at the end of The Game... letting a player think they have time to vote someone out only to then inform them the rules have changed and they are now stuck in a final vote against a popular player they can't beat.
Quote:
Hidden Immunity Idol: They finally got it right, must be played after the vote but before the decision is read. But stop telling people how many there are and do not make them look the same. That way someone saying 'it's a turtle' would not have told Earl, for example, if it was real or not.
I agree, they got the formula right this season. However, two hidden idols (one at each original camp) is enough. Re-hiding idols that have been used is overkill and adds too much randomness/luck to The Game. It gets a bit absurd when half the tribe is holding some form of immunity.
|
|
Top
|
Reply
Quote
Quick Reply
Quick Quote
|
|
|
|
#685762 - 05/14/07 01:03 PM
Re: What did you think of Survivor: Fiji?
[Re: Was_John_F]
|
Silk Zapper
Registered: 06/19/03
Posts: 2844
Loc: The Great White North
|
Quote:
Experience vs. Expertise: Cast 10 people who are major fans of the show (here, here, pick me, pick me) against 10 people who have actually played - but not made it to the jury. So you have 'beach smarts' vs. 'school smarts.'
Or cast 10 "major fans" that applied as you stated against 10 who have never watched/heard of the show and see who does better. Unfortunately I don't think they will ever give up the casting, which is why I suggested this way.
But they do have to get back to putting more poeple that have actually applied on the show, otherwise why as people to bother.
|
|
Top
|
Reply
Quote
Quick Reply
Quick Quote
|
|
|
|
#685765 - 05/19/07 02:34 PM
Re: What did you think of Survivor: Fiji?
[Re: Canuck]
|
My Claim To Fame is "The Zappers"
Registered: 02/12/03
Posts: 24624
Loc: The Golden State
|
i like the idea of the castaways not knowing whats coming...not knowing what will happen... example... say you have 18 survivors...place them at one location...make them all work together...than they play the challenges while alliances are not strong yet... in each challenge the bottom 1/2 will go to tribal council causing the survivors alliances to fall through... but during the challenges change things up...where say the winner of the challenge "must" choose one of the bottom 1/2 members to switch places with one of the top 1/2 members causing even more strife... survivor unfortunately has become to predictable...we know they get together and some are picked off quickly...in what i described the first 5-6 ppl evicted could be very exciting...and could make the beginning more controvercial... 
|
|
Top
|
Reply
Quote
Quick Reply
Quick Quote
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
