[starry]

..I do have problems with some things. Nothing is perfect is suppose even though it has given me enjoyment looking through some of the seasons as there are some big characters and good drama.

A relatively small thing which gets to me is how music is used sometimes. Most of the time obviously I'll accept it, you get used to it and it can add to the drama. But sometimes in a challenge it signals the climax and end of it just in advance so taking the suspense away. Maybe they could just hold back the music until we actually see the challenge ended on screen.

But the main thing I suppose is the whole jury thing. As I say nothing is perfect, and just like the public vote method in Britain I think the jury way to decide a winner is definitely flawed in some ways. Having the losers decide who the winner is doesn't make that much sense, it sounds paradoxical just saying it.

I was looking at Samoa and it was strange seeing some members of the jury talk as if Survivor somehow represents real life and isn't actually a game at all. It reminds me of how people in Britain talk about Big Brother HMs as if somehow they know them, as if life in Big Brother is just the same as it is on the outside. It just seems delusional to think that a game to eliminate people is exactly the same as what goes on in everyday life.

And another thing they look at is how rich someone is. Maybe it would be better to award people hardly any money for winning, then the title of Sole Survivor could be awarded not dependant on tears at the Tribal Council or whether someone has lost their job or not.

In some ways I like the way The Amazing Race ends the most. The person first to the finish line wins, much more objective and not really dependant on subjective opinions. I wouldn't actually mind some challenges at the end of Survivor or the US Big Brother to decide who actually wins. That would make someone actually win for themselves rather than have to depend on someone else giving them the win. They can always have another prize with the public voting, or with contestants voting, but for the main title I think it needs to be more objective.

[tally]

But that's the whole point of Survivor. How do you get people you've probably tricked, lied to and double crossed to give YOU the million bucks?

There's loads of ordinary game shows where the winner is decided by merit and first past the post. But not Survivor. This is what makes it so brilliant in my eyes.
I would hate for it to just be the person who is deemed by the producers/public to deserve the win. Or a challenge. Final TC is a highlight of any season for me. Games are won or lost on how well or not the survivors face the jury.

A million bucks was the lure in the beginning as there were real concerns when it started as to how normal people would cope with the extreme deprivations. They thought it would take a huge prize to lure the right people ( this was in the days pre "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire"

Survivor 24 is a different beast from the first ones, much more hardships ( they were given food, fire and luxury items back then) and much more savvy than the first contestants apart from the overweighting of MTA's that casting relies so heavily on.

Of course there's tweaks that could made it better, but no show lasts this long if it doesn't get most things right. No messing with the way the result is arrived at please. Russell Hantz would have won his argument if that happened! Perish the thought.

I used to love TAR before I got bored with it after about 12 seasons. But if you want winners who "deserve" it than stick to that.

Survivor has always been a one off, long may it continue.

[Yobaba**]

If they never had the jury vote, it probably encourage players to be a lot more cut-throat and less pandering to the jury which would be a good thing from a viewers point of view. But, I don't know what they could replace it with. Definitely wouldn't want to see a public vote... I'd say jury is the best way to go overall.

[daisyduck1976]

I love the US survivor. I was so excited all those years ago when it came to the Uk, and then so disappointed when they made such a right royal cock up of the whole thing Since then I have always watched the US ones online.

I love the Jury aspect. Yes they sometimes make funny decisions, but the whole thrill of the thing is basically finding a way to pick people off one by one, regardless of their affiliation to you, and yet persuade them to vote for you, despite any betrayals.

I enjoy the ridiculously complicated challenges. Love Jeff and his commentaries in challenges. Love a good blindside

I have recently been making my way through some of the earlier series that I have missed. Didn't realise there were two a year! I'm on series 16 Cook Islands at the moment

[starry]

Yeh I'm looking at Cook Islands.

I just find it annoying when you get people on their way out trying to give 'posthumous' threats to people saying 'I'll be on the jury, so do as I say'. Often you just get a lot of bitter people who will vote for the weaker person in the dominant tribe who prevailed as they were on the weaker tribe who lost. And I don't think there is that much persuasion involved, at the final Tribal Council you often just have to listen to a lot of bitter people who have their minds made up and just want revenge. Ultimately they have lost and for people with a losing gameplan to judge people who had a winning gameplan is a bit cranky.

Another thing as well that I don't get is those who keep going on about being full of integrity while they say others aren't. I think that's a load of crap. It's a game, and they all want to win it. There aren't really heroes and villains, they are all contenders looking to win by whatever means they can.

Also I get a bit frustrated by the merge twist at times, I think it tends to happen too early while I want to see the whole separate tribes thing played out.

[Kyle123]

Sorry, but I totally disagree. For me, the jury vote is what makes Survivor so exciting. Having the entire result decided in-game guarantees the strongest result. The true beauty about Survivor is that there is no set-way to play - no correct strategy. You just go into the game with nothing but the knowledge that there are 20 other people with the same goal as you. Everything you do from then on is upto you - you have to figure it out for yourself. The players don't start even - some will be strong, some will be socially useless etc, but ANYONE can win Survivor. They just need to figure out how to do it.

If you take the result out of the game or leave it down to chance in a challenge, you just open the door for unsatisfactory winners. Whilst the jury decisions can sometimes be questionable, they ultimately will make the correct choice in 99/100 situations, because evidently the winner did something crucial that the runner up didn't. They may not have played the most exciting game, or have the most viewer friendly persona, but ultimately they played it right. People throw around the "bitter jury" arguement, but no jury starts off bitter.

Survivor wouldn't have lasted so long if the result was decided any other way. If you leave it down to a challenge, then in the end the person best suited to the challenge wins. If you leave it down to the public, the most likable (or most rammed in our faces) wins. Leaving it down to the players is consistent to the game. The game by nature is survival of the smartest. The endgame needs to be consistent with the rest of the season or the result is just wrong.

This whole post would have been a lot clearer and I'd have gotten my point of view across a lot better if it wasn't so late.

[Kyle123]

Originally Posted by starry

Yeh I'm looking at Cook Islands.

I just find it annoying when you get people on their way out trying to give 'posthumous' threats to people saying 'I'll be on the jury, so do as I say'. Often you just get a lot of bitter people who will vote for the weaker person in the dominant tribe who prevailed as they were on the weaker tribe who lost. And I don't think there is that much persuasion involved, at the final Tribal Council you often just have to listen to a lot of bitter people who have their minds made up and just want revenge. Ultimately they have lost and for people with a losing gameplan to judge people who had a winning gameplan is a bit cranky.

Another thing as well that I don't get is those who keep going on about being full of integrity while they say others aren't. I think that's a load of crap. It's a game, and they all want to win it. There aren't really heroes and villains, they are all contenders looking to win by whatever means they can.

Also I get a bit frustrated by the merge twist at times, I think it tends to happen too early while I want to see the whole separate tribes thing played out.

The key point though is that nobody starts off being bitter. A jury member becomes bitter because of the way they were voted out of the game. The key to winning is a way to find a successful strategy to take out these players but to not piss them off in the process.

[Ad_Jackson]

i love survivor!! i remember catching vanautu on irish tv when i lived in limerick for a bit before uni and instantly got hooked!! i remember it was on a sunday afternoon always at a different time and because the channel was in another language i never knew when it was on! it would have gaelic subtitles and what else was really funny was it had a gaelic narrator. whenever its a shot of say the tribe flag with what day it is or a crab running over the sand a female narrator would pop up and say something in gaelic!! lol

i've since watched every season and still love it! though for a few faults. I too have always hated the music giving away the end of a challenge. so annoying

what i dont like is that we get generally less challenges per episode. It used to be each show was 3 days. Day 1 reward challenge, Day 2 tree mail or summit else to keep them entertained, Day 3 Immunity challenge/Tribal. Since that ridiculous redemption island (that apparently probst himself came up since now he's a producer) instead we would get loads of airtime wasted on the whole 'redemption' thing and the shitty little one-on-one 'duel' and then a combined reward/immunity challenge. even since this there have been alot more 'combined' challenges to make room for sh*t!

will still watch and enjoy just prefer the original structure.
love the jury aspect, having to vote people out yet still gain they're jury vote. The viewers get they're vote with the sprint player of the year award. great social strategy show! would love to compete! roll on philippines

[KingOli]

I started watching US survivor relatively recently and have raced through a fair few seasons, generally I have loved the end tribal councils with the jury questions and I think jury management adds an extra element to the show, however the last season I watched HvV the jurys decision to give prize to a completely inept player sort of soured what I thought was an amazing season.

Overall I don't think the show would be anywhere near as good without the jury I guess I just wish they would give a bit more weighting to good tactical play and a bit less to personal grudges.

[starry]

Originally Posted by Kyle123

Having the entire result decided in-game guarantees the strongest result.

The true beauty about Survivor is that there is no set-way to play - no correct strategy.

but ANYONE can win Survivor.

If you take the result out of the game or leave it down to chance in a challenge

If you leave it down to a challenge, then in the end the person best suited to the challenge wins.

Leaving it down to the players is consistent to the game.

The game by nature is survival of the smartest. The endgame needs to be consistent with the rest of the season or the result is just wrong.

I completely disagree that the strongest result is guaranteed in any way.

Yeh leave it to the players, to the players left in the game and not the losers.

Survival of the smartest yeh, so why let losers get involved? Be consistent and let it be the sole survivor from those left in the game.

There is an obvious strategy with the jury, let someone else do the so called 'dirty work' (even though it is actually just the game) for you, pretend you love everyone.

As for challenges at the end, they can be made varied and long, and not just a simple quick knockout. No reason they have to just suit a particular strength. As I am sure you are aware they often mix physical and mental aspects in the same challenge anyway.

The fact that ANYONE can win, even someone who is a very weak player and not that good at challenges either isn't a point in its favour.

[starry]

I was looking at Cook Islands and you've got this arrogant guy Adam and he's crap at challenges and the strategic game. He knows he is on his way out but threatens a better player than him that if he doesn't get rid of Jonathan when he wants he won't get his jury vote. I just think it's ridiculous that someone like that decides who wins the main title. And then you have questions on the last Tribal Council asking people about their lives outside the game such as what is the worst thing you have experienced. Surely they should be judging people by their strategy and ability on Survivor not outside factors.

The whole proceedure of the jury vote is completely different to the rest of the show and is bound to bring up more rogue results. Indeed they can even try and bribe people. I know on Big Brother last year one of the contestants Adam basically said his vote could be bought. Porche agreed to giving him about 10,000 dollars I think. Rachel didn't and I think she was the more deserving winner anyway, luckily it didn't cost her.

[starry]

I do like Jeff as the host, but there are a couple of things...

Most of the time he is ok at Tribal Councils but now and again I wonder if he brings too much outside interference. Normally he is ok though and is just stating the obvious, which I think is how it should be.

Another thing which isn't really that important really but can seem a bit pointless is the cliched advice he often gives to a tribe after they have eliminated someone.

[tally]

Originally Posted by starry

I actually find you quite patronising and arrogant, and to say that it's only me that has a problem with some of it I find a bit ridiculous. And if you don't want to discuss my thoughts why are you even doing it? Anyway I won't let you wind me up, you obviously don't like it if someone else has a different opinion to you.

Hahaha. I thought I'd been a model of politeness in my first couple of replies, but nothing will make you realise that your views are your own, which is fine.

I'm not discussing your thoughts, I just was pointing out that you are on your own in your views on here, but you are perfectly entitled to them. As for not liking it if people have a different opinion to myself, you obviously have no idea of my 10 years of debate ( on subjects where debate is possible! Sadly your posts aren't.)

But carry on, you can post away to your hearts content and I dont have to click on this thread. Normally I read everything Survivor connected avidly, but for you I will make an exception.

You have this nice thread you started where you can post away on everything you dont like about every Survivor you watch.

I have yet to see one person agree with you, so I wish you well.

[starry]

Funny how you reply in a different thread so people can't see what I'm replying to rofl. Also what you say, as usual, just points out your blinkered nature. There has been debate on topics in this thread, so you lie there. Ad_Jackson did agree with one of my points so you lie there too. lol. You say you aren't discussing my thoughts, when quite clearly you have in some posts. By all means don't read anything I say again here, I am perfectly happy with that.

And I did consider starting a thread on things people like about Survivor, but then I thought why should I should I do that just for someone like you who takes a TV show so personally and thinks that everyone else has to worship a show as much as yourself.

[Tigerpaws]

Originally Posted by starry

I was looking at Cook Islands and you've got this arrogant guy Adam and he's crap at challenges and the strategic game. He knows he is on his way out but threatens a better player than him that if he doesn't get rid of Jonathan when he wants he won't get his jury vote. I just think it's ridiculous that someone like that decides who wins the main title. And then you have questions on the last Tribal Council asking people about their lives outside the game such as what is the worst thing you have experienced. Surely they should be judging people by their strategy and ability on Survivor not outside factors.

The whole proceedure of the jury vote is completely different to the rest of the show and is bound to bring up more rogue results. Indeed they can even try and bribe people. I know on Big Brother last year one of the contestants Adam basically said his vote could be bought. Porche agreed to giving him about 10,000 dollars I think. Rachel didn't and I think she was the more deserving winner anyway, luckily it didn't cost her.

It's against the rules on survivor to offer to share any of your winnings.