-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
HAS SURVIVOR LOST IT ?
- Thread starter gregg75
- Start date
lol, I thought this was going to be a thread about how they may have "lost it"
deciding to go on and on in February with the "new rules" Survivor...
deciding to go on and on in February with the "new rules" Survivor...
Frankly I'm surprised it hasn't dropped further. Here's my spin:
1. The concept/format has gotten old and predictable (not surprising given the number of seasons they've had). The events in the game, which once were innovative and surprising, are now repetitious and rote.
2. The contestants which were once surprised by the twists and turns of the game have now seem plenty of them and know what to expect. The challenges are mere variations of ones broadcast many times before.
3. Survivor was once pretty dreadful in that living conditions and food were poor and absent respectively. The past few seasons, aside from lots of rain, their beach locations haven't been all that bad and there have been many more food-oriented reward challenges.
4. But the biggest letdown of recent seasons IMHO have been the inability of the producers to select contestants who bring something besides mouth to the game. There is always the token old fart who gets bounced early, the bigmouth man or woman who incites loathing in everybody but isn't voted off because he/she wouldn't win at the final, a bevy of beauties who look good in swimsuits (and corresponding cut guys). Even adding 'celebrities' such as Coach Jimmy didn't help the game.
If C(BS) really wanted to resurrect Survivor it could be done. Herewith a few suggestions:
1. Get back to the original premise of the show, i.e., "stranded" teams on a beach/desert/mountain somewhere who must establish their living quarters with what nature provides and eat what they can catch. As was done one season, grade the teams on their ability to do so and not on their abilities solving puzzles.
2. Forget the gimmicky men v woman, old v young teams and match contestants with the challenges. If the season will feature physical challenges then select contestants capable of competing.
3. Do not select contestants looking for their "15 minutes of fame". The rewards of the game should be enough to motivate contestants to do their best at survival and not posing or mouthing in front of the camera to gain publicity for future endeavors.
4. Expand the game to enough time to show more interaction between players. Nothing is more frustrating to a viewer than watching someone being voted off and having no idea why. One hour per week is not enough time to get to know the players. Either reduce the number of players or expand the show.
5. Drop the "loved ones visit". The whining and crying taking place by so-called adults is nauseating. My buddies in the military were away from home for much longer periods of time and none of them carried on like these children.
1. The concept/format has gotten old and predictable (not surprising given the number of seasons they've had). The events in the game, which once were innovative and surprising, are now repetitious and rote.
2. The contestants which were once surprised by the twists and turns of the game have now seem plenty of them and know what to expect. The challenges are mere variations of ones broadcast many times before.
3. Survivor was once pretty dreadful in that living conditions and food were poor and absent respectively. The past few seasons, aside from lots of rain, their beach locations haven't been all that bad and there have been many more food-oriented reward challenges.
4. But the biggest letdown of recent seasons IMHO have been the inability of the producers to select contestants who bring something besides mouth to the game. There is always the token old fart who gets bounced early, the bigmouth man or woman who incites loathing in everybody but isn't voted off because he/she wouldn't win at the final, a bevy of beauties who look good in swimsuits (and corresponding cut guys). Even adding 'celebrities' such as Coach Jimmy didn't help the game.
If C(BS) really wanted to resurrect Survivor it could be done. Herewith a few suggestions:
1. Get back to the original premise of the show, i.e., "stranded" teams on a beach/desert/mountain somewhere who must establish their living quarters with what nature provides and eat what they can catch. As was done one season, grade the teams on their ability to do so and not on their abilities solving puzzles.
2. Forget the gimmicky men v woman, old v young teams and match contestants with the challenges. If the season will feature physical challenges then select contestants capable of competing.
3. Do not select contestants looking for their "15 minutes of fame". The rewards of the game should be enough to motivate contestants to do their best at survival and not posing or mouthing in front of the camera to gain publicity for future endeavors.
4. Expand the game to enough time to show more interaction between players. Nothing is more frustrating to a viewer than watching someone being voted off and having no idea why. One hour per week is not enough time to get to know the players. Either reduce the number of players or expand the show.
5. Drop the "loved ones visit". The whining and crying taking place by so-called adults is nauseating. My buddies in the military were away from home for much longer periods of time and none of them carried on like these children.
After my post I found a write-up on Survivor which had many comments. For those of you, like me, who didn't understand the final outcome and wondered why Sash was virtually ignored at the final vote and Reunion Show:
"Apparently (and this comes from an airtight spoiler source who has been 100% accurate on the smallest detail this season), Sash told Jane she was going out, and offered to pay off Jane’s mortgage if she would turn the jury in his favor upon arriving at Ponderosa (rumor has it he tried a non-monetary version of the same thing with Purple Kelly when he found out she was quitting). Jane then told everyone what happened at her Tribal Council. TC was stopped, the cameras were turned off, and producers were brought in to determine what to do, as prize money sharing is THE cardinal sin on Survivor. Eventually, it was determined that it was a he said/she said situation, and all records of this were expunged, with gag orders brought down on everyone including (one would assume) Dalton. If you are wondering why Fabio would take someone who was an obvious jury threat like Sash, and the most strategic player didnt get a single vote (even from Brenda), or why everyone seemed to despise Sash to such a degree (unusual, as his actions werent any worse then what we have seen a zillion times on Survivor), or why a final 3 contestant didnt get even a single question lobbed his way on the reunion show….now you know. The season honestly doesnt even really make much sense without this crucial piece of knowledge."
That, of course, is not from the show's producers but does make a lot of sense.
Other things that make sense were the number of comments forwarded to the show complaining about the 'quality' of the contestants this year and that the two contestants who quit were allowed to be in the jury and thus decide the outcome. According to Jeff Probst this may have already been addressed for next season.
"Apparently (and this comes from an airtight spoiler source who has been 100% accurate on the smallest detail this season), Sash told Jane she was going out, and offered to pay off Jane’s mortgage if she would turn the jury in his favor upon arriving at Ponderosa (rumor has it he tried a non-monetary version of the same thing with Purple Kelly when he found out she was quitting). Jane then told everyone what happened at her Tribal Council. TC was stopped, the cameras were turned off, and producers were brought in to determine what to do, as prize money sharing is THE cardinal sin on Survivor. Eventually, it was determined that it was a he said/she said situation, and all records of this were expunged, with gag orders brought down on everyone including (one would assume) Dalton. If you are wondering why Fabio would take someone who was an obvious jury threat like Sash, and the most strategic player didnt get a single vote (even from Brenda), or why everyone seemed to despise Sash to such a degree (unusual, as his actions werent any worse then what we have seen a zillion times on Survivor), or why a final 3 contestant didnt get even a single question lobbed his way on the reunion show….now you know. The season honestly doesnt even really make much sense without this crucial piece of knowledge."
That, of course, is not from the show's producers but does make a lot of sense.
Other things that make sense were the number of comments forwarded to the show complaining about the 'quality' of the contestants this year and that the two contestants who quit were allowed to be in the jury and thus decide the outcome. According to Jeff Probst this may have already been addressed for next season.
landtuna said:
CLOSE. In the "new rules" Survivor starting in Feb. 2011, they ARE forcing someone voted off to return wether anyone likes it or not.
They vote someone off, then vote someone else off, then one of the two return.
(something like that...)
F
FreddyE1977
Guest
If Survivor "loses it" it will be the single best thing to happen in our culture
in about 2000 years. That show is a virtual celebration of backstabbing at work.
in about 2000 years. That show is a virtual celebration of backstabbing at work.
FreddyE1977 said:
Oh puleeze! Survivor is a staged farce where the most unfortunate 'victim' gets voted out of a trashy camp and into wonderful food and a life of leisure (at least for the duration).
Get the axe in the workplace and you lose a ton more than a chance at a million bucks.
If you're really concerned about our national culture I'd say it exists much more realistically in shows like Law & Order and West Wing and hopefully not in anything hosted by Howie Mandel.
??? What's wrong with Howie Mandell? ???
In the event anyone cares, here is a somewhat humorous, and very critical, opinion of the most recent season: http://tvrecaps.ew.com/recap/survivor-nicaragua-finale-winner/
Survivor still makes me think of Temptation Island and the Bachelor(ette) and Jersey Shore and Jerry Springer and all the other scripted/"nonscripted" shows that glorify and/or devolve into cutthroating, as if cutthroating makes you a good person outside of a "reality" show.
quadraphonic said:
Survivor is not scripted but some scenes seem to be staged and, obviously, the interviews are "prompted". I've also believed for some time that the challenges and questions asked by Probst in Tribal Council are fluid depending upon how the game is going at the time.
It is definitely a game show and not any sort of "reality" and it is proper to remember that it is a game after all. "Cutthroating" and deception are part of the game as are alliances and performance at the challenges. Those of us whose careers were played out in the corporate world fully recognize that these same type of "games" are played for real.
I would not compare Survivor to any of the shows you mention. Although it has its flaws it doesn't belong in the "junk" genre with the others.
It's "unscripted" but really how unscripted is it? The contestants are chosen, the producers pick what you see on tv and what they focus on. So it's not the actual dialogue that's scripted, but the themes, the plot, and the characters are all laid out ahead of time, the characters have in mind what they are going to do to come out "on top," then it's condensed into one-hour and 90-minute increments (or 2 hours if they have those).
Oh yeah, trust me, I have seen cutthroating play out in the corporate world. Politicking, all that mess goes on. Man-boy love, prostitution, selling people for money, selling your mom and your brothers out to get ahead, lying, chicanery, hooliganism, fantastic visions, bitter memories, hopelessly pathological attitudes, selfish behavior of all sorts, people who can't admit anything is true or false, it all goes on. I don't need to watch condensed into an hour-long program for me to watch it still going on. It's futility in its basest form (except for the million dollar winner, if that works out to the good). I've already seen it played out a thousand times, why do I need to understand it in any depth, much less celebrate it?
That's just me speaking from my perspective though. I'm sure there are plenty who enjoy the thrill from watching all of the above in person and on tv. I lumped them all together because I saw similarities that I can't justify spending much more time on than I already have. That was based on my interpretation of content and attitudes more than on a strict application of the rules and presentation and whatnot. To each his own. Word to ya mutha and all that. MERRY CHRISTMAS. God still rules.
Oh yeah, trust me, I have seen cutthroating play out in the corporate world. Politicking, all that mess goes on. Man-boy love, prostitution, selling people for money, selling your mom and your brothers out to get ahead, lying, chicanery, hooliganism, fantastic visions, bitter memories, hopelessly pathological attitudes, selfish behavior of all sorts, people who can't admit anything is true or false, it all goes on. I don't need to watch condensed into an hour-long program for me to watch it still going on. It's futility in its basest form (except for the million dollar winner, if that works out to the good). I've already seen it played out a thousand times, why do I need to understand it in any depth, much less celebrate it?
That's just me speaking from my perspective though. I'm sure there are plenty who enjoy the thrill from watching all of the above in person and on tv. I lumped them all together because I saw similarities that I can't justify spending much more time on than I already have. That was based on my interpretation of content and attitudes more than on a strict application of the rules and presentation and whatnot. To each his own. Word to ya mutha and all that. MERRY CHRISTMAS. God still rules.
To each his/her own for sure and I am not saying that Survivor is the epitome of game shows. That said, I think the earlier seasons were much more enjoyable than more recent ones. Experimenting with male/female, old/young, same ethnicity tribes hasn't worked out very well and all too frequently results in one-sided contests.
It also seemed that earlier seasons showed viewers a more "unedited" version of the background activity so it was easier to understand why certain things happened. It seems more recent seasons have seen the backstory being "emphasized" by the editors so as to confuse or discriminate for or against certain contestants. While I appreciate this sort of thing in a mystery movie I don't in a game show. The producers also seem to depend more on "characters" (good or bad) to "game" up the show - most of whom I find repulsive (see Naonka from the last season as an example). I'm also not a big fan of bringing back contestants from previous shows whether they were popular or despised.
Nevertheless, Survivor established the genre and has continued to set the standard. While it isn't my favorite show I still watch it although I don't know for how much longer as I find myself watching less and less TV each year. Aside from a couple of well-done comedies it seems only sports attracts my attention and even those have dwindled to a very few.
It also seemed that earlier seasons showed viewers a more "unedited" version of the background activity so it was easier to understand why certain things happened. It seems more recent seasons have seen the backstory being "emphasized" by the editors so as to confuse or discriminate for or against certain contestants. While I appreciate this sort of thing in a mystery movie I don't in a game show. The producers also seem to depend more on "characters" (good or bad) to "game" up the show - most of whom I find repulsive (see Naonka from the last season as an example). I'm also not a big fan of bringing back contestants from previous shows whether they were popular or despised.
Nevertheless, Survivor established the genre and has continued to set the standard. While it isn't my favorite show I still watch it although I don't know for how much longer as I find myself watching less and less TV each year. Aside from a couple of well-done comedies it seems only sports attracts my attention and even those have dwindled to a very few.
- Status