Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2021 21:37:28 GMT -5
Next up is One World, the only season of the first 29 I haven't seen yet. We'll see how Kim's game stacks up with Earl's and the other elite winners. This will tell a lot about what you value in ranking your winners! I see a lot of talk of strength of cast when stacking winners against each other and I'm not sure how fair that is. Kim is the best and nothing else matters.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Jun 22, 2021 21:39:58 GMT -5
This will tell a lot about what you value in ranking your winners! I see a lot of talk of strength of cast when stacking winners against each other and I'm not sure how fair that is. Kim is the best and nothing else matters. I... can't disagree.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 22, 2021 23:22:29 GMT -5
What does everybody think about the Season 41 & Season 42 rumored casts? For Season 41, I am personally rooting for Sara & Sydney. They just seem like they can be such an iconic duo. As for Season 42, literally, every single female r great. To be completely honest, the casted males r not that great so hopefully, there will be a female winner. I haven't looked at the Season 42 cast yet, but I have seen 41's. Honestly, I can't imagine picking people to root for before the game even starts.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 22, 2021 23:49:18 GMT -5
Next up is One World, the only season of the first 29 I haven't seen yet. We'll see how Kim's game stacks up with Earl's and the other elite winners. This will tell a lot about what you value in ranking your winners! I see a lot of talk of strength of cast when stacking winners against each other and I'm not sure how fair that is. I'm not sure why some Survivor fans are so defensive about considering the quality of the competition that the winners had to face. Like in sports, we all understand that strength of schedule matters. Sure, it's not the fault of a Survivor winner if they benefited from an exceptionally weak cast, but it's also not the fault of a mid-major that their conference is so much weaker than the power conferences. It still matters. That said, I know enough about Kim's game that I would be pretty surprised if I don't end up ranking her win in the top six, which are the S-tier wins, along with Tony (WaW), JT, Tom, Natalie A, and Earl. My guess is that it won't be in my top two, but I doubt it will be lower than sixth. But I need to watch the season to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 23, 2021 0:44:20 GMT -5
Next up is One World, the only season of the first 29 I haven't seen yet. We'll see how Kim's game stacks up with Earl's and the other elite winners. This will tell a lot about what you value in ranking your winners! I see a lot of talk of strength of cast when stacking winners against each other and I'm not sure how fair that is. At any rate, I'm still in the process of ranking all the winners, but I consider the following criteria, no particular order: -How many votes were cast against you during the season (votes negated by idols still count)? -Were you ever seriously targeted, and if so, why? -How many votes did you lose at Final Tribal Council and why did you lose them? -How good or bad were your performances in late tribal councils, particularly at Final Tribal Council? -How many votes were you on the wrong side of and why didn't you vote with the majority (successful vote splits don't count)? -How many people on the jury would you lose to if they were among the finalists at the Final Tribal Council? -How many immunity challenges did you win? -Did you find any idols or advantages and if so, how did you use them? -Did you ever need to play an idol to not go home? -Did you need to win an excessive number of challenges (like three or more) to not go home? -Did you make any really stupid moves that easily could have cost you the game but you got away with them? -How lucky or unlucky were you in general? Did you benefit from or suffer from anything extraordinarily lucky or unlucky? -Can your win be attributed in large part to late-game production interference (I think this only applies to Cook Islands, Micronesia, and HHH)? -How strong was the quality of the competition (any returnees who played against a bunch of new players get a significant downgrade)? -Are there any other notable things about your game that should be considered? There are mitigating circumstances for all of these criteria. Like I'm not going to hold it against Natalie that she didn't get three votes at Final Tribal Council in San Juan Del Sur or that Tony didn't get four votes in Winners at War, as I think all of those votes were virtually impossible for them to get. These are just all the things I look at holistically to try to rank the winners. At the moment, I've tentatively separated the winners into several tiers. One thing I will say is that I'm a big proponent of the importance of jury management, and I think having complete strategic control over the votes is a little overrated. The truly great games have both, but games like that aren't very common. I'm significantly higher on, say, Jenna and Michele than some people are. Conversely, I'm significantly lower on Rob and Brian than a lot of people are. They both lose to basically everyone on their juries, so I view both as bottom 10 winners.
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on Jun 23, 2021 2:21:46 GMT -5
In general on Survivor, I think it's better to lose the game before Final Tribal Council than to make it there and get destroyed by the jury. I don't think this is the case anymore in recent Survivor seasons. I mean jurors no longer vote on emotion and feeling jaded, they're more than likely to vote based on who played the game and played it well. Even if that meant the juror was stabbed in the back by the person they voted for.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 23, 2021 3:19:17 GMT -5
In general on Survivor, I think it's better to lose the game before Final Tribal Council than to make it there and get destroyed by the jury. I don't think this is the case anymore in recent Survivor seasons. I mean jurors no longer vote on emotion and feeling jaded, they're more than likely to vote based on who played the game and played it well. Even if that meant the juror was stabbed in the back by the person they voted for. You can still get trashed at Final Tribal Council, though. Just look at what happened to Angelina in David v. Goliath. Granted, that wasn't really because she backstabbed people--the entire jury didn't respect her game and found her to be extremely annoying. There's a great image in which she's talking about getting the tribe the rice for the millionth time, and the entire jury looks so over her. I suppose because of the terrible new Final Tribal Council format, the Katie/Dawn/Russell-style total eviscerations don't happen to the same degree anymore. I still wouldn't want to be Angelina, though. I also think it's a bit of an oversimplification to say that jurors don't vote on emotion anymore. It does seem like more votes are based on strategy than in older seasons, but all four of Natalie's votes in Winners at War were based on either pre-game friendships or relationships that she developed on the Edge. In Parvati's juror speaks video, she pointed out all the problems with Natalie's game and all the strengths of Tony's, but she still voted for Natalie due to friendship. And at least four jurors outright refused to vote for Natalie because she alienated them when they were on the Edge together. In David v. Goliath, Davie proclaimed that whoever was responsible for blindsiding him would get his vote. That person was Mike, but Davie still voted for his friend Nick. Etc.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Jun 27, 2021 19:58:32 GMT -5
You can still get trashed at Final Tribal Council, though. Just look at what happened to Angelina in David v. Goliath. Granted, that wasn't really because she backstabbed people--the entire jury didn't respect her game and found her to be extremely annoying. There's a great image in which she's talking about getting the tribe the rice for the millionth time, and the entire jury looks so over her. I suppose because of the terrible new Final Tribal Council format, the Katie/Dawn/Russell-style total eviscerations don't happen to the same degree anymore. I still wouldn't want to be Angelina, though. I do prefer the new final tribal format more than the OG jury Q&A, however, it is unfortunate that means we'll never be provided any BRILLIANT moments like Trish & Tony's FTC interaction. That was... legendary. Also, (un?)popular opinion, I would love to see Trish on a Second Chance season.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 27, 2021 20:02:47 GMT -5
You can still get trashed at Final Tribal Council, though. Just look at what happened to Angelina in David v. Goliath. Granted, that wasn't really because she backstabbed people--the entire jury didn't respect her game and found her to be extremely annoying. There's a great image in which she's talking about getting the tribe the rice for the millionth time, and the entire jury looks so over her. I suppose because of the terrible new Final Tribal Council format, the Katie/Dawn/Russell-style total eviscerations don't happen to the same degree anymore. I still wouldn't want to be Angelina, though. I do prefer the new final tribal format more than the OG jury Q&A, however, it is unfortunate that means we'll never be provided any BRILLIANT moments like Trish & Tony's FTC interaction. That was... legendary. Also, (un?)popular opinion, I would love to see Trish on a Second Chance season. Not sure if it's unpopular. I think most people like Trish. Cagayan has already had a lot of returnees, but I'm not against it. Agree to disagree on FTC format, though. It also annoys me that the new format includes "outlast" as an actual criteria, which is only relevant in RI/Edge/Outcast situations. In most normal seasons of Survivor (i.e. with no reentry mechanic), all the finalists outlasted everyone else, so it's a waste of time to even consider it.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 27, 2021 20:06:27 GMT -5
I started on One World and watched the first episode-and-a-half. I was surprised when almost all the women were getting along so well with Colton, who was extremely annoying in Blood v. Water. But sure enough, by the second episode, he has already managed to annoy them to the point where they're asking him to leave. Kim had to patiently explain to him that he is in fact a member of the other tribe and not actually one of the women. I think the one world twist itself is an interesting idea, but I think they should have just done that and not also men vs. women at the same time. I also think that if they had a better overall cast, the twist might have worked out better. I doubt they'll being it back, given how unpopular this season is among the fans.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Jun 27, 2021 20:13:46 GMT -5
I do prefer the new final tribal format more than the OG jury Q&A, however, it is unfortunate that means we'll never be provided any BRILLIANT moments like Trish & Tony's FTC interaction. That was... legendary. Also, (un?)popular opinion, I would love to see Trish on a Second Chance season. Not sure if it's unpopular. I think most people like Trish. Cagayan has already had a lot of returnees, but I'm not against it. Agree to disagree on FTC format, though. It also annoys me that the new format includes "outlast" as an actual criteria, which is only relevant in RI/Edge situations. Cagayan is really just such a great cast... potentially my favorite all-rookie cast of all time. I mean we need an early boot season to just bring back J'Tia alone. I like how different this FTC format is compared to Big Brother (which I absolutely loathe due to the time constraints). I like hearing the discussion, and it gives less airtime to the vapidity of some juror questions. Missing iconic juror diatribes like Trish, Corinne, or Reed really is sad though.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 27, 2021 20:19:51 GMT -5
Not sure if it's unpopular. I think most people like Trish. Cagayan has already had a lot of returnees, but I'm not against it. Agree to disagree on FTC format, though. It also annoys me that the new format includes "outlast" as an actual criteria, which is only relevant in RI/Edge situations. Cagayan is really just such a great cast... potentially my favorite all-rookie cast of all time. I mean we need an early boot season to just bring back J'Tia alone. I like how different this FTC format is compared to Big Brother (which I absolutely loathe due to the time constraints). I like hearing the discussion, and it gives less airtime to the vapidity of some juror questions. Missing iconic juror diatribes like Trish, Corinne, or Reed really is sad though. I mean, the vapidity is sometimes part of the appeal. Who can forget Morgan asking Tony how he could get men to follow him without even having breasts?
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Jun 27, 2021 20:21:05 GMT -5
Cagayan is really just such a great cast... potentially my favorite all-rookie cast of all time. I mean we need an early boot season to just bring back J'Tia alone. I like how different this FTC format is compared to Big Brother (which I absolutely loathe due to the time constraints). I like hearing the discussion, and it gives less airtime to the vapidity of some juror questions. Missing iconic juror diatribes like Trish, Corinne, or Reed really is sad though. I mean, the vapidity is sometimes part of the appeal. Who can forget Morgan asking Tony how he could get men to follow him without even having breasts? Or Natalie asking Parvati how her strategy correlates to the bedroom.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 27, 2021 20:24:24 GMT -5
I mean, the vapidity is sometimes part of the appeal. Who can forget Morgan asking Tony how he could get men to follow him without even having breasts? Or Natalie asking Parvati how her strategy correlates to the bedroom. Between Natalie's bedroom prowess query, Ozzy professing his love for Amanda, and both finalists failing Eliza's pop quiz about the other jurors (not shown, but apparently neither Amanda nor Parvati could name any of Cirie's kids, Alexis' brothers, etc.), Micronesia's FTC was a mess.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Jun 27, 2021 20:25:25 GMT -5
I started on One World and watched the first episode-and-a-half. I was surprised when almost all the women were getting along so well with Colton, who was extremely annoying in Blood v. Water. But sure enough, by the second episode, he has already managed to annoy them to the point where they're asking him to leave. Kim had to patiently explain to him that he is in fact a member of the other tribe and not actually one of the women. I think the one world twist itself is an interesting idea, but I think they should have just done that and not also men vs. women at the same time. I also think that if they had a better overall cast, the twist might have worked out better. I doubt they'll being it back, given how unpopular this season is among the fans. During quarantine (which thank God for Winners at War during that time btw. I would FaceTime with my family after those episodes as we all live in different states with no easy means to visit another. COVID created some real struggles in our family and I will never forget everyone answering the call after that family visit just bawling) I was picturing what a Survivor season correlated to what we were all going through would look like and I was picturing a Survivor: New World. Where instead of everyone living on one beach everyone was segmented on an island like a sundial. You can only correspond with your neighbors, or in a central meeting zone, socially distanced where anyone can hear you if you're strategizing with others too far or too loud. It was certainly a... dark idea.
|
|