BEAUTY FADES; DUMB IS FOREVER: I have very little to say about the Survivor finale
-- it was a satisfying end to an unsatisfying season, with perhaps the lamest cast since Survivor Thailand (Pornboy Brian's triumph). So, instead, two questions: (1) What would you have had them do in the case of a 4-4-1 tie at Final Tribal, which nearly was the case? The rulebook (p8) leaves it to the producers to decide. So: fire-lighting contest on an LA soundstage? Split the money? Re-vote now that everyone has watched the season? (2) Are you interested in the Redemption Island twist for Season 22, and would you like it more if (as rumored) Rob Mariano and Russell Hantz will play some role in the season?
(1) Split it. If you can't figure out a way to get 5 votes out of 9, then you don't deserve the full amount of the prize (which, as Bill Simmons has been saying, should probably be bigger - it's been $1 million for 10 years now).
ReplyDelete(2) Not very -- it sucked when it was called "Outcasts" and it'll probably suck again, although at least this time the players will know the wrinkle in advance and can develop game strategy around it. So it'll probably suck differently. And no, I would not look forward to seeing Russell AGAIN. Boston Rob, yes (albeit with less information about what baby parts were poking out of what Ambuh parts); Russell, no.
Ditto Adam C.
ReplyDeleteBut I hate the idea of the final three. It should be a final two, with nine jury members, as God intended.
The problem with a final two is that it encourages the "drag the carcass of the unlikable/unworthy person" strategy -- if there were a final two, wouldn't Dan have been in it this year?
ReplyDeleteIn the case of a 4-4-1 tie, Justice O'Connor's opinion controls. More to the point, I think the jury should be told that they have deadlocked in this way, given an opportunity to deliberate and revote.
ReplyDeleteI'll disagree on the re-vote idea. I think that would leave too much of an opportunity for the decisions of Burnett and his editing crew to shape the outcome.
ReplyDeleteWell, they could tally the vote down there and tell them it's a tie and have the revote on-site rather than wait for the reunion show.<span> </span>
ReplyDeleteStill wouldn't like it. It's not like a tie elimination vote, where the voters have a very specific incentive to change at least one vote so they themselves don't wind up on the chopping block. This would just be a do-over -- no drama, little real incentive for a juror to change his/her vote (beyond the producers screaming at you, maybe). If we can live with a tie at the Oscars, we can live with a tie on Survivor.
ReplyDeleteWell, on a revote you could forbid votes for the person who came in third -- which doesn't help if it's a 3-3-3 time, of course, but at least it's a start.
ReplyDeleteI like the "start a fire" idea, or some challenge related to knowledge of a) the locale of the game or b) the other players.
ReplyDeleteIf Russell gets featured in another season, I won't be watching, since they will probably feature him heavily. at the expense of other players. As usual on Survivor, TPTB producers seem to think that sombody being an ass makes for compelling television, but I couldn't disagree more.
What about 3-3-3 tie? It could happen....
ReplyDelete