| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Osten Carty |
Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
Osten, Janu, Melissa, Cliff... can't go wrong with recruits
|
|||
Alffmix |
Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
Lol @ Cliff
Love your avatar Osten ! What does he say exactly ? Booownage |
|||
SurvivorRacer |
Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
There's always a risk in casting, whether it'd be recruits or even applicants. Let's look back at Thailand applicant, Stephanie; the producers saw something in her but she turned out to be a dud.
|
|||
SuperJude |
Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
I think most average viewers have no clue these are recruits. None of my IRL Survivor fan friends seemed aware of this fact.
I think the last tough chick we had was Timber Tina right? -SJ |
|||
SurvivorDude |
> Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
I agree that there have been some great players who were recruits, but that doesn't change the fact that SEG has advertised/pushed the show as being a "contest" that anyone watching could apply to and if you are qualified and meet SEG's requirements could be on the show.
On the one hand SEG is telling everyone "you could be on Survivor" and that is one of the things that makes the show interesting....having "regular" people on the show. People from your city or neighborhood or someone you can identify with because he/she took the time to apply, went through the selection process and now they "deserve" to be there. Not someone who fit the "preceived need" of SEG. Yes I liked some of the recruits but I would have been more of a fan if that person went through the regular channels and made it on the show. Just being a 50 year old asain woman/40 yr old black man/60 year old white guy shouldn't be the main criteria..... The recruits had a wonderful opportunity handed to them. Good for them. But don't ask me to be thrilled that Survivor is becomming more scripted and less of the show it was. Bye the way some recruits really really sucked..... |
|||
WylDawg |
Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
The average Survivor fan indeed doesn't know about the recruiting thing. Maybe if they visited the website and saw that 75% comes from LA they'd get a clue.
My brother is a hardocre Survivor fan, but whenever I tell him how much recruiting is ruining Survivor, he just shrugs his shoulder. Clearly he either doesn't care or doesn't even know what I'm talking about. However, the average does agree about the declining of quality on Survivor, but they probably just assume it's because it's been on the air for so long. |
|||
Francois40 |
Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
Quote: I think Cristina [insert gun drawing here] was supposed to be a "tough chick", but the bunch of Gen Y mallrats she ended up with on Raro was her downfall. |
|||
SenseiKreese |
Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
The ratings and quality of Survivor were inevitably going to go down because the show is now in its FIFTEENTH season. There's no way it could possibly expect to stay at the top of the ratings for more than seven years. Hell, Seinfeld only had 8 or 9 seasons and it was one of the longest running shows of the past two decades. The addition of recruits hasn't make a rat's ass worth of difference. If anything, it's prolonged the show and kept it from turning into attack of the gamebots. If every player on Survivor was a hardcore Survivor expert, the show would be dreadfully boring and predictable to watch.
Face it. Survivor was going to decline in quality eventually. One day, we'll be talking about it as an important part of TV in the 2000's. But the show is clearly on its last legs (in terms of quality, importance, and relevance) at this point. And that has absolutely nothing to do with recruits in the slightest. Stop your whining. |
|||
SurvivorDude |
> Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
[b]"The addition of recruits hasn't make a rat's ass worth of difference."[/b ]I disagree. SEG by recruiting a "certain type" of person rather than picking the best people that applied is " scripting the show" SEG could just keep picking the best people out of the 40,000 people that apply. I can't believe that they cannot find a decent 16 players out of 40,000 people. The issue is can they find a "decent" player or a "player they want to fill a demographic" The issue isn't can SEG continue to cast contestants...clearly they can do what they want. The key is will people who really enjoy the show, the die hard fans, will they put up with it. After awhile I will hang up the remote and move on. I can watch scripted TV all day. I watch survivor because I want to see people who have gone through the process and desrve to be there, not casted people who fill a "slot". Hopefully SEG will get it before they lose their true fan base. |
|||
beatles20147 |
Re: > Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
The only really bad thing about recruits is having practically the entire cast consist of them. You definitely need people unfamiliar with the game but there's still a ton of fans with entertaining personalities that the show shouldn't overlook just because they applied.
I couldn't care less where the contestants come from as long as they're entertaining. I used to be all anti-recruits but maybe just as my interest in the show has started to dwindle or the fact that my dream of one day playing the game is completely gone has made me not really care about them as much. My only real complaints about the show now are having more than 16 contestants and the final three. Besides, TAR still casts mostly applicants. Now if only it got better ratings to the point where it'll still be running when I'm 21. |
|||
ANDand19 |
Re: > Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
I agree, a couple recruits aren't bad, but a cast of all of them sucks. I think Vanuatu only had a couple like Ami and John K.
|
|||
SenseiKreese |
Re: > Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
Quote: SEG has always cast this way. They have always cast by "type". It has been this way since day one. The only difference now is that they are lazier (or less subtle) about it. Quote: Well according to their definitions they ARE casting the best people. If they want a used-car salesman, they'll go find one. If they want a UC Berkeley Asian math professor, they'll go and get one. According to what their needs are, they ARE casting the best people. Quote: Filling a demographic is clearly a higher priority to them. That's probably because they are casting a TV show. They aren't running a "free million dollar giveaway" soup kitchen. This show really isn't open (and never has been open) to everyone. Quote: I love when this argument comes up, because it is such a Survivor Sucks specific complaint. This message board is NOT the prime viewing demographic of Survivor. It never has been. In fact, I'm guessing maybe 99% of the Survivor viewing audience has never even logged in here even once. The people here are not the ones who make or break the show. This is a fringe demographic at best. So the "casual fans" that are often bemoaned around here are way more important than the "diehard" self-important delusionists on the internet. What is said on this message board has absolutely zero importance to the people who are putting together the Survivor television program. Quote: You have always been watching people who filled a slot. Notice there has never been a cast made up of 16 Cesterninos. The only reason some people have been more "deserving" than others is because their demographic in the cast hadn't quite been filled yet. Quote: Which of course, around here means "OMFG! THE DIE-HARD INTERNET FANS AT SURVIVOR SUCKS!!!!" |
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
Posts: 9963 (05/19/07 7:18 PM) Registered user |
I never said that I want an all recruit Survivor. The point of this thread was to criticize the idea that the cast is the problem.thats mostly false, its mb's lazieness
|
||
SenseiKreese |
Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
I doubt MB even watches this show anymore. I don't think he's had a direct hand in any of the day-to-day Survivor activities for a long time. In my opinion, he got lbored and moved on to different projects somewhere around Thailand.
|
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
Posts: 9963 (05/19/07 8:05 PM) Registered user |
I heard that PI was the first season MB didn't stay the whole time
|
||
CSCin3D |
Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
Maybe the average viewer doesn't know nor care that people are recruited, but when they watch and see all the fake people from LA they tune out. Another myth is that recruits are needed to keep the game fresh. Total BS. Becasue the people don't know the game, it's turning out the same every season now. Weak people out before the merge, boring pagonging and a "deserving" male winner.
|
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
Posts: 9963 (05/19/07 9:45 PM) Registered user |
but a person from LA doesn't necessarily have to be "fake"
|
||
cuauhtemocace2 |
Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
Quote: Complete and utter agreeance. |
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
Posts: 9963 (05/19/07 9:55 PM) Registered user |
and CSC I agree with you, but I disagree with your utter hatred of anyone from California. Cali has been generous to Survivor. The problem with the show lies with what I wrote in the first post
|
||
SenseiKreese |
Re: > Re: In defense of recruits | ||
|
The problem with the show has nothing to do with the casting. The problem is that it's just not Survivor anymore. Hidden immunity idols, exile island, stunt casting, more than two tribes, expanded juries, multiple twists, etc. None of these are part of what made Survivor interesting. It's an entirely new show from what people fell in love with seven years ago. People just blame recruits because it's such a convenient scapegoat.
|
|||