ncassaro wrote:Within the concept of Survivor, yes I can see where some stick to the integrity of the game and would never give a million dollars to someone who had been previously voted out. Yet here is the rub comes in. For me, neither Burton and Lill (and the Outcast Tribe for the matter) had any control over whether or not they could come back into the game. It was not as if on their own accord Burton and Lill arrived at their respective camps and said, "I'm playing the game again." This was a twist set by the producers of the show to fit with the theme of pirates, ghosts, etc. It is for that reason I don't hold the Outcast twist against either of Burton or Lill. They were given a second shot, which I think anyone would have taken had they been in their position. I remember a lot of people being pissed about the Outcast twist, and understandably so. Yet, if the finger pointing is going to start, point it at Burnett & Co. since it was their concept in the first place. Jeff Probst even said he was arguing against it until they finally said, "Shut up. We're doing it."
WarningSpoilerAhead wrote:
There are two seasons where I think most of the entire jury voted bitterly, those juries were from Pearl Islands and Fiji. Notice the fact that in each scenario there were people who were on the outs of their initial tribe. Lill on the outs at Morgan, Dreamz/Cassandra on the outs at Moto. Yet both of them overcame their majorities, and thus were placed on the jury. Ryan O and Darrah were not going to put Lill's name down. Neither was Burton, Rupert, Jon or Christa. I'm just satisfied that Tijuana came and saw Lill's gameplay and not based her vote on personal feelings.
Honestly, had I been a juror in PI, the only way Lil would have had a shot would have been against Burton. She didn't beat anybody and didn't deserve to win. Whoever faced her in F2 (with the exception of Burton) would have automatically gotten my vote even if they had played a truly shitty game (which Sandra didn't, btw.) I don't think it's bitter at all to vote against Lil since she truly didn't deserve to be there after she was voted out, let alone in the F2.
Like it or not, the Outcast twist was a part of the game for that season. And the moniker of being voted out stuck with Lill and she was lambasted for it. Though it could've been a combination of her personality as she wore her heart on her sleeve, cried alot, but then would strategize and seemed vindictive when talking game. Either way, Lill was the perfect scapegoat in the end.
I mentioned this in another thread about how I would've voted had I been on the jury and I noted that I would've voted for Lill.
As far as her not being deserving, this has irked me. As I said, I don't hold the fact that she had been voted out against her, and her game play did a complete 180 when she came back and she did vote for every person on the jury, and I felt she was wise to vote Savage out due to the fact that nothing had changed in the time she was gone. It astounds me how far Probst will go to praise Andrew, who wasn't the nicest or friendliest guy in the world, and simontaneously dog Lill as a "least deserving Final 2 member." Lill, in my estimation, did the best she could with what she was given.
Lill was voted out, yes. She was given a second chance, yes. She was damned if she did, and damned if she didn't.
Which makes me wonder, even though Big Brother is a different show. How come there isn't such an uproar over Amy, Kaysar or James' return to their respective games? Because they didn't make it to the end? Should the same rules apply in that scenario as well?
edited for spelling errors
