| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
birdseyeview |
|||
|
If a fan claims that they won't watch the show after Jeff is gone, then they aren't a TRUE fan. This show was, and will never be about Jeff Probst.
It's a one-of-a-kind social experiment.
|
|||
Dictatorship |
|||
|
Agreeance, birdseyeview. I still don't understand where people are coming from when they say Jeff IS Survivor. that's bollocks. Survivor doesn't
need his shitty, diva biases. He needs Survivor.
|
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 8374 (06/16/09 10:33 PM) Registered user |
Dictatorship wrote: What morons think this? I have noticed a gradual increase in Jeff Probsts "buzz" presense at the expense of the show, where is this coming from? |
||
Dictatorship |
|||
|
Check the page back. People are saying that Survivor will crash and burn without Jeff.
If anything it would have crashed and burned after the 1st season, or 2nd season, or 8th season, but hell it's going into season 19, being in the top 10-20 every night. that's impressive |
|||
JerseyJerk |
|||
|
Idk....I for one don't think I would care tooooo much if they lost Jeff as long as the new host premiered on a back to basics type season like China so
people can't argue that "Now a new host so they gotta add this bullshit everyone on one tribe twist or this season with 20 people where after 4 eps we
have a double boot when the other tribe votes out a member of the opposite tribe"
Just a 8 vs 8 season and cast like S1 people....a normal non milfy mom, a hick, one young hunky guy, a SWEETHEART....shit like that....and maybe just do a reshuffle...but thats it. |
|||
Mypoody2 |
|||
OzzyRules wrote:THIS. Is no one reading the explanations? |
|||
Bowie.thehole |
|||
|
NOT A TRUE FAN if we wouldn't watch the show post-Jeff?
Bullshit. It's like, oh... saying a Legend of Zelda player is no longer a true Zelda fan if they stopped playing because for some reason Nintendo decided to omit the lead character Link! Some things just go naturally together and only watching the show if Jeff stays proves that we have been utterly engaged in the show-host relationship for 10 years -- true fan status -- more so than it would prove the opposite...? |
|||
Fokkerdr1 |
|||
|
The Tonight show was Johnny Carson. PERIOD. The Price Is Right was Bob Barker. Jorney was Steve Perry and Greg Rolie. The USA was the Constitution Pre 16th ammendment which was not legally ratified and falsely assumed. Survivor is Jeff Probst. Sure there might be others but they won't be right. |
|||
JerseyJerk |
|||
|
Ok well then get ready for "not right" Survivor.
|
|||
birdseyeview |
|||
|
Survivor is NOT Jeff Probst. It's about the game, not the host. The show won't ever be quite the same without him, but that's no reason to stop
watching.
|
|||
valentine79 |
|||
|
Some people are just resistant to change. Sometimes change is good. I love Jeff and would rather have him host than anyone else, but I would much prefer giving
someone else a chance rather than give up on the whole show. Who knows, maybe the show would be better with someone else.
|
|||
JerseyJerk |
|||
|
They need someone who will step back.
He's 'out there' too much...he needs to just shut up, we are not blind and we editing (though shitty) still does a good enough job to point things out to us. I want someone more personal who doesnt just have an asshole chip on their shoulders and has a smart ass attitude about everything. I want someone who will make the castaways PEOPLE and not just players. "Joan how is it being away from your kids Susie and Mitch" "HEY MIKE! WATCH OUT YOU'RE GUNNA SLIP IF YOU DO THAT!" "Tara...you're a lawyer....can't Jimmy sue Nina for slander after saying something like that haha" Just more personal shit to get us to care about the castaways and their lives. Jeff has failed regarding that aspect. |
|||
Fokkerdr1 |
|||
Just more personal shit to get us to care about the castaways and their lives. Jeff has failed regarding that aspect.I could really care less about who they are. I would love to see a show with nothing but trained Survivalists. I want to see Lions killed and eaten. Crocks killed and eaten. I loved my fellow Michigander Mike Skupin. I'm only interested in survival and competing in challenges. But that's part of what makes the show great. It has a little something for everyone. Oh and I LOVE the TNA and Islands! I'm so glad S20 is going back to Islands. I would lure a 6 foot shark to the beach and kill it. |
|||
Wezzie |
|||
|
Fokker, check Mark Burnett's new Reality series, Expedition Africa. Four survivalists, experts in their own fields, are following the route
Stanley took to find Livingston.
I'd prefer to have Probst remain host, but I can see why he's considering making a change. It's been a long ten years. Even hardcore fans have dropped off the boards and all they had to do was read and post. I think Jeff is still doing a great job. He has good looks, great dimples and charisma. If there's anything I'd like him to do differently, it is to stop telling us how to think. I'm sure he's just promoting the story and characters for the organizations (CBS and SEG), but I'd prefer that they tone that down. Maybe I shouldn't read his blog, <note to self> Btw, the crew slept in the tent cabins in Fiji. I remember that SEG rented the Grand Eastern Hotel in downtown Labasa. Don't know where Probst rested his head, though. |
|||
pushingjate |
|||
|
I'd still watch without Jeff Probst as host, but Jeff Probst is Survivor, just like Julie Chen is USA Big Brother. It won't be the same without them.
|
|||
JerseyJerk |
|||
I could really care less about who they are. The Highest rated seasons.....seasons that had introductions of players..... People cared about the "Fat Naked Fag" and "The Bitch Jerri" and "The "Slut" Heidi" |
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 8377 (06/17/09 4:50 PM) Registered user |
Wezzie wrote: I wish a Survivor would openly oppose him playinh favorites and influencing, and stop his shenanigans every step of the way. |
||
Dictatorship |
|||
|
funny thing is that when a Survivor does do that, he immediately attacks them with his "well I'm just pointing it out" shit. The producers really
need to intervene with his diva bullshit rigging.
|
|||
Bowie.thehole |
|||
Fokkerdr1 wrote: I think you mean "couldn't". |
|||
Fokkerdr1 |
|||
|
^
A bit of history first: the original expression, of course, was I couldn't care less, meaning "it is impossible for me to have less interest or concern in this matter, since I am already utterly indifferent". It is originally British. The first record of it in print I know of is in 1946, as the title of a book by Anthony Phelps, recording his experiences in Air Transport Auxiliary during World War II. By then it had clearly become sufficiently well known that he could rely on its being recognised. It seems to have reached the US some time in the 1950s and to have become popular in the latter part of that decade. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only there. It may have begun to be used in the early 1960s, though it turns up in a written form only in 1966. Why it lost its negative has been much discussed. It's clear that the process is different from the shift in meaning that took place with cheap at half the price. In that case, the inversion was due to a mistaken interpretation of its meaning, as has happened, for example, with beg the question. In these cases people have tried to apply logic, and it has failed them. Attempts to be logical about I could care less also fail. Taken literally, if one could care less, then one must care at least a little, which is obviously the opposite of what is meant. It is so clearly logical nonsense that to condemn it for being so (as some commentators have done) misses the point. The intent is obviously sarcastic - the speaker is really saying, "As if there was something in the world that I care less about". However, this doesn't explain how it came about in the first place. Something caused the negative to vanish even while the original form of the expression was still very much in vogue and available for comparison. Stephen Pinker, in The Language Instinct, points out that the pattern of intonation in the two versions is very different. There's a close link between the stress pattern of I could care less and the kind that appears in certain sarcastic or self-deprecatory phrases that are associated with the Yiddish heritage and (especially) New York Jewish speech. Perhaps the best known is I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often "I have no hope of being so lucky", a closely similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning. There's no evidence to suggest that I could care less came directly from Yiddish, but the similarity is suggestive. There are other American expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means "Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already". These may come from similar sources. So it's actually a very interesting linguistic development. But it is still regarded as slangy, and also has some social class stigma attached. And
because it is hard to be sarcastic in writing, it loses its force when put on paper and just ends up looking stupid. In such cases, the older form, while still
rather colloquial, at least will communicate your meaning - at least to those who really could care less.
|
|||