An idea to improve Survivor so that weaklings dont comprise the finals

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
ArtieeLange1		#481	[-]
Posts: 96 (06/05/08 6:01 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	tubecam wrote: Artie, if your idea would be more entertaining than the Survivor franchise, then why dont you shop your idea to the competitors of EPMB, I hear FOX wants to do something. It's not a competing idea, genius. It's a complimentary system that eliminates the luck that allows the weak and the dumb to prosper, everything the spirit of "Survivor" is against. Get back to the roots, make the players earn their fire and food. All things that will improve the failing game (and the failing ratings).
Ellivision		#482	[-]
Posts: 21 (06/05/08 6:26 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Artiee, whose ghostie are you precisely? You say the show is lagging and must be reformatted when the page before you said it had "16 seasons of sucess". Uh...so which is it? Failure, or sucess? Oh, and in Borneo they were GIVEN food, and essentially fire.
ArtieeLange1		#483	[-]
Posts: 97 (06/05/08 10:03 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Ellivision wrote: the page before you said it had "16 seasons of sucess". I said RW/RR Challenge had 16 seasons of consistent ratings success. And I spelled "success" correctly. Survivors ratings are as bad as they have ever been, due to one aspect: weaklings in the finals, due to one aspect: team-segment fosters loser-mobs bumping off threats, with the simplest solution: modify and/or remove team-segment of game.
Kitty Pryde1		#484	[-]
Posts: 4506 (06/05/08 12:15 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: Ellivision wrote: the page before you said it had "16 seasons of sucess". I said RW/RR Challenge had 16 seasons of consistent ratings success. And I spelled "success" correctly. Survivors ratings are as bad as they have ever been, due to one aspect: weaklings in the finals, due to one aspect: team-segment fosters loser-mobs bumping off threats, with the simplest solution: modify and/or remove team-segment of game. How many times do we have to fucking say it? Loser mobs do not exist until the merge, at which point strong players still have a good chance of winning.
benc33		#485	[-]
Posts: 12 (06/05/08 1:42 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: Ellivision wrote: the page before you said it had "16 seasons of sucess". I said RW/RR Challenge had 16 seasons of consistent ratings success. And I spelled "success" correctly. Survivors ratings are as bad as they have ever been, due to one aspect: weaklings in the finals, A lot more people watch Survivor
nhagelin1026		#486	[-]
Posts: 382 (06/05/08 2:11 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: Survivors ratings are as bad as they have ever been, due to one aspect: weaklings in the finals Dude, the ratings aren't even that bad, Survivor still pulls in 12million+ viewers a week! Your system would make most viewers go "WTF?!" and then the show would do even worse, and probably be cancelled. You don't know why the ratings arent as good as in earlier seasons (or you have no proof that weaklings are the reason), so stop making assumptions, and just STFU already. Survivor HAS had 16 seasons of success, dont get it twisted.
ArtieeLange1		#487	[-]
Posts: 98 (06/05/08 2:39 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Loser mobs do not exist until the merge Right, and Chet, Kathy, Courtney, and dozens more bypassed other players because they earned it by themselves
craig		#488	[-]
Posts: 13293 (06/05/08 2:57 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Weren't Rich, Rudy, and Sue the origional alliance of weaklings? Ganging up on people like Greg and Gervase and Sean. People would get so bored if Tom Westman won every season.
oh ehm gee		#489	[-]
Posts: 1074 (06/05/08 3:21 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Loser mobs do not exist until the merge Right, and Chet, Kathy, Courtney, and dozens more bypassed other players because they earned it by themselves Right, and Chet and Kathy (the two you use as an example the most) made it to the merge. Courtney won a challenge (in fact, I distinctly remember asking about Courtney earlier in this thread). The fact is, sometimes you can get ahead by not being a gratuitous asshole, which for some people (surprisingly) is a fairly difficult job (Joel, Mikey, yourself). Since you champion the RW/RR challenges, here are two things to think about: 1) If the RW/RR challenges played by Survivor rules (merge, jury, etc.) then, in your opinion, it would basically get rid of the douchey alpha males (Derrick, Bananass) and allow for the catty girls to cannabalize each other during the merge (either leading to a victory by Brad, who remained unscathed, or by any number of the hilarious girls who would have to navigate a bitter jury in the process). This, of course, would be entertaining as hell. What, then is the difference between Survivor under Survivor rules and RW/RR challenges under Survivor rules? Decent casting. 2) The final challenge in RW/RR challenges are inherently biased against teams with more people (since with more people, there's usually a greater chance of something debilitating to befall a player), thereby reducing the incentive for teams to win challenges and not send people home (hence why teams throw challenges so often), which, if I'm assuming correctly, goes against your goal of making people actually try in challenges/spare those who are good in challenges. Therefore, you cannot honestly say the RW/RR challenges > Survivor in terms of game structure (entertainment, yes). Last Edited By: oh ehm gee 06/05/08 3:26 PM. Edited 1 times.
ArtieeLange1		#490	[-]
Posts: 99 (06/05/08 5:43 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	benc33 wrote: A lot more people over 50 years old watch Survivor Fixed
ArtieeLange1		#491	[-]
Posts: 100 (06/05/08 7:55 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	oh ehm gee wrote: Right, and Chet and Kathy (the two you use as an example the most) made it to the merge. Courtney won a challenge Right, and Chet and Kathy got voted off because the system works, not because they gave up like quitting bitches. Courtney won a challenge specifically designed for an anorexic girl, which isn't necessarily unfair, but the small amount of competitors left it the game by that time makes it another irrelevant victory, and point.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#492	[-]
Posts: 3847 (06/05/08 8:15 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Art, I understand where your coming from, but your wrong.First of all, this should be in LTS(n00b!). I have a problem with your idea that a certain person "should" win Survivor. Survivor is a Darwinian contest,yes, but human beings also contain things like "conscious" and "integrity" and other factors which relate to why everyone doesn't make optimal moves. This is interesting because it reflects reality.If human beings were communitarian,then society would be alot different. We wouldn't even be having this conversation,as it is not productive to an orderly society.Thats what you want isn't it,an "orderly" Survivor where your definition of who is worthy survives? Survivor is a much better show then your idea because it is an exaggerated microcosm of real life.
SFC		#493	[-]
Posts: 358 (06/05/08 8:17 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Art, I understand where your coming from, but your wrong.First of all, this should be in LTS(n00b!). I have a problem with your idea that a certain person "should" win Survivor. Survivor is a Darwinian contest,yes, but human beings also contain things like "conscious" and "integrity" and other factors which relate to why everyone doesn't make optimal moves. This is interesting because it reflects reality.If human beings were communitarian,then society would be alot different. We wouldn't even be having this conversation,as it is not productive to an orderly society.Thats what you want isn't it,an "orderly" Survivor where your definition of who is worthy survives? Survivor is a much better show then your idea because it is an exaggerated microcosm of real life. X
phoenixtobootcamp		#494	[-]
Posts: 795 (06/05/08 8:21 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Why won't you people just. let. it. die?
survivoronline2005		#495	[-]
Posts: 922 (06/05/08 8:22 PM) Guatemala Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dear God. I agree with Dr Will Hatch for once!
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#496	[-]
Posts: 3849 (06/05/08 8:28 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I like you too
ArtieeLange1		#497	[-]
Posts: 101 (06/05/08 9:11 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: I have a problem with your idea that a certain person "should" win Survivor. Survivor is a Darwinian contest,yes, but human beings also contain things like "conscious" and "integrity" and other factors which relate to why everyone doesn't make optimal moves. This is interesting because it reflects reality.If human beings were communitarian,then society would be alot different. We wouldn't even be having this conversation,as it is not productive to an orderly society.Thats what you want isn't it,an "orderly" Survivor where your definition of who is worthy survives? Survivor is a much better show then your idea because it is an exaggerated microcosm of real life. Look at the big brain on Dr Will. You think you've discovered something, uncovered some flaw in my system or my thinking. In doing so you failed to realize that you understand neither, and I will now enlighten your ignorance. The crux of the problem with Survivor is that it offers advantages to certain players (weak) and disadvantages other players (strong) during the team-phase. Survivor mimics real life when this random, forced, semi-permanent teaming is over, and the individual immunity starts. Thats what people like about most game-shows, contests, and sports; the fairness and meritocracy ensures that the best compete against the best. Big sporting event coming up Saturday, the Belmont Stakes. Under Survivor system, "Big Brown" would not be in the race because the lesser competitors would have mobbed up and voted him off. Then you have a race, a finale, of weaklings, something no one wants. That in a nutshell is why Survivor ratings are dropping like bird shit, whether you can accept that or not. Last Edited By: ArtieeLange1 06/05/08 9:14 PM. Edited 1 times.
m0t0 maj1		#498	[-]
Posts: 580 (06/05/08 10:21 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Where did Dr Will become sarcastic in his post?
SFC		#499	[-]
Posts: 360 (06/05/08 11:35 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: Thats what people like about most game-shows, contests, and sports; the fairness and meritocracy ensures that the best compete against the best. Big sporting event coming up Saturday, the Belmont Stakes. Under Survivor system, "Big Brown" would not be in the race because the lesser competitors would have mobbed up and voted him off. Then you have a race, a finale, of weaklings, something no one wants. I'm pretty sure viewers enjoy entertaining characters. Take Cook Islands and Fiji for instance, both seasons "Strong" yet boring characters were the ones who made around near the end (Yul, Ozzy, Adam, Nate, Earl, Alex, Boo, Mookie, Edgardo). Yet the ones that were the most talked about and Fan Favorites were the "Weak" (Cao Boi, Jonathan (to an extent), and Yau Man). Only James and Ozzy are the two "Strong" contestants to be favorites. And James was popular for his personality not his Challenge wins, while Ozzy was the only real Immunity favorite. And about Big Brown, it would suck under the Survivor rules because that is not what the fans want to see, They want to see a good game. It's just like what would happen to Survivor under your system the fans want to see Blindsides, Backstabbing, and Lying.
tdugan333		#500	[-]
Posts: 3780 (06/06/08 12:56 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Teams then a merge (challenge ability, wits, social game are all in play): Initially, the "weak" will be voted off for the most part in order for the team to continue to win immunity until the merge After that the alliances tend to re-form and new strategies put into play. It's anyone's game at this point. Social strategy, backstabbing, secret deals, blindsides and alliance betrayals galore the entire 39 glorious days. Yay! Fun stuff! No Teams no real merge (completely challenge based): The "strongest" player on the losing side will be voted off in almost every possible instance in order for the "weak" to stay in the game and move up closer to the winning side. The losing "weak" players will most certainly circle the "strongest" player like sharks after chum to get them out of there. No strategy needed what so ever. "Hey guys JoeBlow one one challenge already and we haven't....kthxbye." Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

An idea to improve Survivor so that weaklings dont comprise the finals

Quick Reply