It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
fanofcoils	Re: It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons	#81	[-]
Posts: 3177 (05/24/07 8:41 PM) I need a life Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	*Quote:* but then you leave off Jamie, Rafe, Bobby Jon, Ian, Dreamz, Twila, Rory, Sarge, Clarence, Mariano, Lex (ASS), and others? Sarge and Clarence weren't major characters. Sarge was only a good (but not major) character from episodes 1-3. Then he sucked in episode 4. Finally he joined Twila and became a MOR character. When he was voted out, he was a very average character. A little bit offensive you think he is such a big character. The same with Clarence. If Clarence wants to steal cherries, then he should at least play up his character to make the audience entertained. The problem is that he was pretty boring after that. He was an overall OK character at best.
Quiddity	Re: It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons	#82	[-]
Posts: 6809 (05/24/07 9:24 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	*Quote:* Um--no. Those racial groups weren't represented at all, except for like 4 seasons prior to CI, so even if there were supposed duds, that's better than not having any Did you even watch Exile Island, the season directly before Cook Islands? Because I saw an asian person there. I saw a hispanic person in Guatemala too, which only had a one season gap between it and Cook Islands. That's hardly '4 seasons prior'. :P The bolded portion of that statement is completely ridiculous IMHO. Why should race even matter? That's my opinion on the matter, not just with Survivor, but in general. When it comes to casting Survivor, their race should be 100% irrelevent. The casting should be based on what they bring to the table, strategically, socially, from an entertainment perspective, and challenge ability. Race should be 0% a factor. And BTW, it doesn't matter to me or not whether they're a recruit or not, as long as they bring that stuff to the table. Far too many on this board forget that great characters like Johnny Fairplay and Jonathan were recruits. The fact of the matter is, the majority of the people who apply for Survivor are white. Regardless of the reasons behind it, that's the way it is. And what that means is when it comes to choosing from a pool of applicants, the number of minorities to choose for the show is gonna be a lot smaller. And all things being equal, that means you're simply not gonna be able to get the same number of good cast members that are minorities as whites. Meaning the show has to rely on casting rather than choosing from applicants. Now when the producers show the ability to cast well, that's not a problem. But in Cook Islands and to a lesser extent Fiji the producers proved to us that they couldn't cast well. Sekou, Cecilia, J.P., Jenny, Rebecca, Sundra, Brad, Becky, Stacy, Lilliana, Edgardo, Rita, need I go on? I know from our history that you'll disagree with me on whether these and others from these two seasons were duds or not. In my opinion a ridiculously huge portion of the Cook Islands cast and a fair portion of the Fiji cast were. And that is a key, if not the key reason why you're finding so many people on this board critical of Cook Islands, and Fiji to a lesser extent. So when you make the statement that you don't care if casted minorities are duds simply because they are minorities, I find it to be a completely ridiculous statement. It amazes me that any Survivor fan would openly say they don't care whether someone casted was a dud or not. It's not a matter of race at all, if they didn't cast a single white person next season but casted 18 people who were all very interesting, intriguing and entertaining characters, I think that would be great! But to openly accept duds simply because they're minorities? I think that's absurd.
RavuRules	Re: It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons	#83	[-]
Posts: 1765 (05/24/07 9:56 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	*Quote:* Did you even watch Exile Island, the season directly before Cook Islands? Because I saw an asian person there. I saw a hispanic person in Guatemala too, which only had a one season gap between it and Cook Islands. That's hardly '4 seasons prior'. :P Oh, excuse me. 5 seasons not 4. I was SOOOO wrong. And again, that's 1 token out of 16 or more on those seasons *Quote:* Why should race even matter? That's my opinion on the matter, not just with Survivor, but in general. When it comes to casting Survivor, their race should be 100% irrelevent Race matters. Especially in a political game like Survivor. Just ask Sean Rector *Quote:* The casting should be based on what they bring to the table, strategically, socially, from an entertainment perspective, and challenge ability. Well obviously--ideally. But you can never tell who's going to be a good until it happens. So casting is a big crap shoot before that *Quote:* Race should be 0% a factor There's a reason why casting usually includes 1 or 2 ethnic minority tokens each season. Race is always a factor both from a demographic and marketing standpoint *Quote:* The fact of the matter is, the majority of the people who apply for Survivor are white. Regardless of the reasons behind it, that's the way it is. And what that means is when it comes to choosing from a pool of applicants, the number of minorities to choose for the show is gonna be a lot smaller. And all things being equal, that means you're simply not gonna be able to get the same number of good cast members that are minorities as whites I agreed until the last statement. Because then you could easily turn around and say that you're not going to get the same number of BAD cast members that are minorities as whites. If we assume that you'll get both good/bad castaways of any race, then it doesn't matter what race you end up with on your show right? So then, the issue comes back to recruits (where most of the minorities come from) versus non-recruits, and we've all established that being recruit doesn't necessarily equate to worse character. Conclusion? No harm in having more ethnic minorities on the show, especially for just a couple seasons out of 16 *Quote:* Meaning the show has to rely on casting rather than choosing from applicants. Now when the producers show the ability to cast well, that's not a problem. But in Cook Islands and to a lesser extent Fiji the producers proved to us that they couldn't cast well Who decided that? You? If we're going there, then I think they didn't cast well for the first 5 seasons, since I was basically pretty bored with those casts. And those people were applicants not recruits. So I mean, seriously--stop the justifying *Quote:* Sekou, Cecilia, J.P., Jenny, Rebecca, Sundra, Brad, Becky, Stacy, Lilliana, Edgardo, Rita, need I go on? I know from our history that you'll disagree with me on whether these and others from these two seasons were duds or not. In my opinion a ridiculously huge portion of the Cook Islands cast and a fair portion of the Fiji cast were. And that is a key, if not the key reason why you're finding so many people on this board critical of Cook Islands, and Fiji to a lesser extent Well honestly, the common denominator seems to be race--not recruitment. I don't think people are being racist, but I do think many Caucasian viewers aren't relating to the ethnic minorities, and that's specifically why they don't like Cook Islands and Fiji as much. People are trying to hide their biases with bashing recruits and Californians, but it seems to be race to me. And unlike other minorities like Cirie, Bruce, Sandra, etc. these minorities aren't special or marginalized, because they started off with 5 of each, so people really don't like them. Instead of seeing the other "losers" from other seasons as duds, people are more easily able to hate on the CI "duds" due to non-existant attachment due to a combination of race and editing. That would be my hypothesis of what's going on here. It explains why clear distinct and deserving individuals like Ozzy, Yul, and to a lesser extent Nate, Sundra, Becky, etc. are disliked. People would probably hate Fiji more too if the characters hadn't been such strong personalities. You can say there are duds from CI, but what I can't understand is that you're saying these "duds" are worse than any of the other "duds" from past seasons. Like, I don't get that *Quote:* So when you make the statement that you don't care if casted minorities are duds simply because they are minorities, I find it to be a completely ridiculous statement My point was that you're going to have losers and "duds" in any season. At least, you can say they were ethnic token duds for once, instead of a normal, non-eventful one. At least, MB has made a clear attempt to cast minorities for a couple seasons and change interpersonal dynamics up a bit. That was my point. I'm never for duds, but again, can you really predict who's going to be awesome and who's going to be non-eventful? The Survivor team are professionals and they know what they're doing *Quote:* It amazes me that any Survivor fan would openly say they don't care whether someone casted was a dud or not Um, I didn't. You misunderstand. Your bad *Quote:* It's not a matter of race at all, if they didn't cast a single white person next season but casted 18 people who were all very interesting, intriguing and entertaining characters, I think that would be great! But to openly accept duds simply because they're minorities? I think that's absurd Yeah, but again, how can you tell who's going to be interesting and who's going to be a dud? There's no way of predicting. Whether you're white, non-white, a recruit, an applicant, etc. there's no way of knowing. That's why they do things the way they do Seriously, people are always looking for things to bitch about and be negative. You've guys have loved the show for how long? Just accept the changes and keep an open-mind. People come into seasons already hating it and wanting to be proven right that things are going down the shitter. It happens all the time and not just in TV. People are always looking to a past golden age, and see change in a negative light. I hate these kind of negative, sour grapes attitude. That's what kills shows. The Apprentice is basically dead, due to the natural disenchantment that occurs over time. Survivor and TAR are the most successful of the reality shows, and I'd hate to see them die due to a lack of support from pessimistic fans who didn't put their faith in the team that created such a great show in the 1st place
Kirblar	Re: It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons	#84	[-]
Posts: 8576 (05/24/07 11:13 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Hey, Ravu, go take a look at the Census. 75% White 12.5% Black 12.5% Hispanic 3.6% Asian That means....that 2/16, or 1/8 African American contestants is.... STATISTICALLY CORRECT. That also means that a sole Asian representative is.... STATISTICALLY CORRECT. America's a majority-white country. Most of the applications to the show are white. One directly correlates to the other. *Quote:* and I'd hate to see them die due to a lack of support from pessimistic fans who didn't put their faith in the team that created such a great show in the 1st place Don't fucking blame people for complaining. We're fans here, and none of us want to see the show (and this board) go under. That's one of the most ignorant and disgusting things I've ever seen written on this board, and I read the "Friendship" fan posts. Viewers have tuned out of the show in droves this season, and since ASS. To blame US for that is fucking ridiculous. We haven't seen voting patterns like PI or Amazon since ASS. They've made the past 2 seasons cater to an Alpha leader, complete with long pre-merges and a merge at 9, creating satisfying but absolutely predictable winners. There's a reason Dalton's predicted the last 2 winners pre-game. They had very little competition. And none of this is due to us "pessimistic fans."
RavuRules	Re: It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons	#85	[-]
Posts: 1765 (05/24/07 11:50 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	*Quote:* Hey, Ravu, go take a look at the Census. 75% White 12.5% Black 12.5% Hispanic 3.6% Asian That means....that 2/16, or 1/8 African American contestants is.... STATISTICALLY CORRECT. That also means that a sole Asian representative is.... STATISTICALLY CORRECT. America's a majority-white country. Most of the applications to the show are white. One directly correlates to the other. So what's your point? It's not like I disagree with you on this *Quote:* Don't fucking blame people for complaining. We're fans here, and none of us want to see the show (and this board) go under. That's one of the most ignorant and disgusting things I've ever seen written on this board, and I read the "Friendship" fan posts. Viewers have tuned out of the show in droves this season, and since ASS. To blame US for that is fucking ridiculous. Why can't I blame you for complaining? You don't think negative posting has an impact on the general attitude of casual fans who read the msg boards? Don't you think that bashing the show demoralizes people and makes them sort of have a meh attitude about Survivor generally? A negative attitude isn't just bad in the game of Survivor for tribe unity; it's a life thing. I know for sure, I was influenced indirectly by Sucks opinions before I did my own thorough analysis of the seasons. So don't tell me a negative attitude and criticism doesn't affect people's attitudes about the show You can keep complaining if you want. It's a free country, and you can say whatever you want. But don't be surprised when you create a bunch of negative attitudes around you and then you get criticized yourself. When you talk smack, it makes other people talk smack and it just creates a really negative atmosphere. It becomes war. If that's what you like--fine. But don't be surprised, since you're an active participant *Quote:* They've made the past 2 seasons cater to an Alpha leader, complete with long pre-merges and a merge at 9, creating satisfying but absolutely predictable winners. There's a reason Dalton's predicted the last 2 winners pre-game. They had very little competition Yeah, because the producers really control and care who wins the game. They have control in terms of the challenges, twists, and the composition of their cast and tribes, but everything else is the contestants. Stop blaming the producers for a result that you personally don't like And BTW, if you want to hate on "predictable winners" and "weak competition" you're being very selective, since the early seasons were x10 more predictable with their straight-up Pagonging and NO resistance to the winners. Borneo LITERALLY defined Pagoning. The difference, is that Survivor was new at the time, so you may have not seen it coming. But as a viewer who saw those seasons LATER, it was terribly boring and predictable. So I don't wanna hear your tunnel vision and hypocrisy
Cuauhtemock Cosby	Re: It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons	#86	[-]
Posts: 854 (05/25/07 12:50 AM) I need a life Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	You can't use BORNEO, the FIRST SEASON, as your example.
A Dying Clown	Re: It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons	#87	[-]
Posts: 11674 (05/25/07 2:53 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	*Quote:* Yeah, because the producers really control and care who wins the game. Yeah, they haven't been deliberately looking for strong black/Asian player to win the game. Can you imagine how pissed CBS would be if Candice/Adam won? They can't totally micromanage it, but they can control the cast in the hopes of getting the outcome they want (see TAR5's lack of alphas, after the alpha-dominated TAR4).
RavuRules	Re: It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons	#88	[-]
Posts: 1765 (05/25/07 6:08 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	*Quote:* You can't use BORNEO, the FIRST SEASON, as your example I totally can, because my point is valid. I respect it as the 1st season, but I'm not putting it on a pedestal and giving it aristocratic privileges just because it was the original 1st season. People are using its respected position to badmouth later seasons. Like, you can't complain about "Pagonging" and not expect me to bring out the origins of the word -.-' *Quote:* Yeah, they haven't been deliberately looking for strong black/Asian player to win the game. Can you imagine how pissed CBS would be if Candice/Adam won? They can't totally micromanage it, but they can control the cast in the hopes of getting the outcome they want (see TAR5's lack of alphas, after the alpha-dominated TAR4). Um, are you speaking FACTS or are you pulling stuff out of your ass? I'm betting on the latter. It sounds like you're trying to justify the victories of the last 2 winners--Asian-American and African-American respectively by claiming some sort of reverse-racism If that were true, then consider the fact that Asians have only been cast 4 times (Shii-Ann twice) prior to Cook Islands. While, blacks have usually had at least a male and female per season, they're still a whole lot less compared to Caucasians. Your claim doesn't make any sense. The producers haven't wanted Asians or Blacks to win that badly apparently And quite frankly, Probst seemed to be sabotaging Yul with HatGate, so your claim that production wanted Asians to win doesn't seem supported at all. BTW, if they didn't want the Caucasians to do well, they wouldn't have put a hardcore Survivor fan like Candice who had 3rd-world experience and a perfect math SAT score on the show in the 1st place. They would've put on some old, stupid, unathletic, ugly chick instead I've heard some people claim and imply that production interfered on behalf of these late winners, and it's just really sad and sick to hear stuff like that. No one has ever really questioned production before, but as soon as a number of ethnic minorities are involved, people come up with these wild hypotheses and then have the balls to assert it as FACT. You can wonder it, you can be discontent about the result; but to play the reverse-racism card in that way without proof--it's just so dispicably--racist I know not everyone is making the reverse-racism claim, so I'm not talking to you guys. But there are those who are. I have always given people the benefit of the doubt, and never accused anyone here of being racist even if I sort of wondered privately. But some people are starting to come close to that line in their posts, so I want to be clear, you better have detailed FACTS (NOT speculation) backing up your arguments if you're going to breach the race subject
A Dying Clown	Re: It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons	#89	[-]
Posts: 11674 (05/25/07 7:46 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I don't think there was an enormous conspiracy for a minority contestant to win but it's naive to say that it wouldn't be a huge disappointment for a season promoted based around racial diversity to have a white winner. Reality shows always balance their cast in the hopes of getting a desirable winner - sometimes they can almost totally manipulate the result (ANTM), sometimes the best they can do is try to urge the players in a certain direction (BB). That said, although I think CI is by far the worst season, race doesn't having anything to do with it except that it made them cast a lot of boring characters. *Quote:* If that were true, then consider the fact that Asians have only been cast 4 times (Shii-Ann twice) prior to Cook Islands That's the point - after having little to no representation, an Asian or Hispanic win could be promoted as a great thing for the franchise. *Quote:* No one has ever really questioned production before Unless it involves Romber, of course.
GoalKeeper1	Re: It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons	#90	[-]
Posts: 109 (05/25/07 8:39 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Entertainment wise: 1. Australia 2. Vanuatu 3. Exile Island 4. Marquesas 5. Pearl Islands 6. Fiji 7. Cook Islands 8. Africa 9. Borneo 10. Amazon 11. Palau 12. Guatemala 13. Thailand 14. ASS Gameplay/Strategy wise: 1. Vanuatu 2. Marquesas 3. Pearl Islands 4. Fiji 5. Exile Island 6. Cook Islands 7. Amazon 8. Guatemala 9. Borneo 10. Africa 11. Australia 12. Palau 13. Thailand 14. ASS Vanuatu is a much underrated season. It had great personalities like Twila, Eliza, Ami, and Chris, and some damn good gameplay both before and after the merge.
Pulau Tiga	Re: It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons	#91	[-]
Posts: 5765 (05/25/07 9:24 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	*Quote:* Well, you're not offended by the opinion, because you AGREE with it Pulau. I'm not offended by your opinions, either. In fact, I honestly can't say I ever get offended by someone offering their perspective on something around here. It's a forum for discussion and the posting of personal opinions. People are going to do that, and quite a few of them are going to contradict your own opinions. There's no reason to get offended by them, no matter how much they may restate them or how much they believe them. Nobody here has an "agenda," I assure you. Nobody here is interested in making everyone else think the way they think. If someone hates CI, I don't see why you should be offended that they denounce it time and time again. Disagree with them all you want, but come on - we're discussing our perspectives on a silly television show here, for crying out loud. *Quote:* Can you see how I'd see such a statement as an indirect personal attack or see you as arrogant for trying to factualize your SUBJECTIVE opinion? No, I really don't. I don't really personally know you or anyone else here, and there's no way I could launch a personal attack even if I wanted to. I state my opinion, and try to explain my personal justifications for it. That's not arrogance. Disagreeing with you does not mean I'm attacking you. *Quote:* I thought CI had a very complex cast, and I was very invested with the results. Okay. I just don't really understand how you can care about characters who aren't given any development, that's all. I don't understand how you can refer to characters like Rebecca (or Brad or Jenny or Becky or Sundra or Cecilia or, hell, even Yul or Parvati or Ozzy) as "complex" when they weren't given any dynamic character development or edited with complexity in any way, shape, or form. *Quote:* Well, technically, the episode count remains about the same, because people are weeded out by twists like double-councils. Episodes count remains the same. The amount of episodes with boring, bland boots increases. *Quote:* Those racial groups weren't represented at all, except for like 4 seasons prior to CI, so even if there were supposed duds, that's better than not having any I'd rather have an entertaining white person on the show than a boring minority person. *Quote:* And anyways, it seems like you and most other people labeled the non-stars as "sucky" from the get-go, so of course you were setting yourself up for disappointment with the result. They were non-stars because they were sucky. And all of them prevailed, with the stars all being picked off. So yeah, it was disappointing, and yeah, we probably set ourselves up for it. *Quote:* It's pointless to try to create "well-reasoned argument" for OPINIONS about a season. If that's the case, you're in the wrong place, guy. The forum's for discussion and arguments of opinions about a season. That's really all you're going to see around here.
XtremeInnovator420	Re: It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons	#92	[-]
Posts: 2601 (05/25/07 9:37 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Just thought I'd say I agree entirely on the "I'd rather have an entertaining white person on the show than a boring minority person." comment.
TheIsraeliDevil	Re: It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons	#93	[-]
Posts: 2147 (05/25/07 9:54 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	1. Borneo 2. Pearl Islands 3. Marquesas 4. Exile Island 5. Australia 6. Guatemala 7. Vanuatu 8. Amazon 9. Cook Islands 10. Africa 11. Fiji 12. Palau 13. ASS 14. Thailand
7o62x39	Rankings	#94	[-]
Posts: 158 (05/25/07 3:02 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	After considering a lot of great posts here, I'm modifying my vote: 1 - Australia - Great site, character development, tainted by Tina-Colby deal 2 - Borneo - Great cast, Pagonging was predictable, CBS puts out faked images to stop original Sucks Board from spoiling the show. It did suck us in. Made Survivor huge and sold reality in Prime Time. 3 - Marquesas - Lots of characters, weak ending 4 - Africa - solid cast, horrid location, Big Tom was funny 5 - Exile Island, very good cast 6 - Guatemala - Stephanie and Bobby John was gimmicky. Lacked diversity, one ethnic minority. Very well constructed tribal dynamics. Very complex play, lots of people playing the game well. I was a semi-finalist and not cast penalty 7 - Amazon - decent cast, mediocre location 8 - Vanuatu - weak males and gender split hurt the season, women were solid. I was a semi-finalist and not cast penalty 9 - Pearl Island - Bringing back the dead hurt what would have been a very good season, I'm not a big Rupert fan. Lil penalty. 10 - All Stars - Enjoyed Robfather, resentment/envy voting killed show, one season too much of Rupert's baby-talk mumblings. Creepy Rich-Sue incident. 11 - Cook Islands - Liked the diversity, hurt early by too many silly people, the ending was a disaster 12 - Palau - Too predictable, too many wannabies, recruits and people who cared nothing for Survivor 13 - Fiji - Too many utterly ridiculous people that lasted too long, too many Survivor know-nothings, painful to watch idiotic play, too many recruits, even Yau's innovations (trading car, fake II) were ideas he learned from the Boards yet were played for poor effect. Message delivered: if you don't live in SoCal you're a boring dolt. If you're a hard core fan/applicant you're a pathetic loser. I live in Colorado, aka Eastern California, does that count? ... oh yeah ... Stacey. 14 - Thailand - Brian was unlikable, few gamers, Ghandia's groping incident
fanofcoils	Re: Rankings	#95	[-]
Posts: 3177 (05/25/07 3:07 PM) I need a life Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	There was little character development on Australia. With Tina, all we saw was she was a kind of nice lady who played with strategy. But the strategy wasn't developed much, even though she apparently had it. Colby did nothing in the beginning/middle of the season in terms of being entertaining, then he finally was late in the season. So there was character development there. Jerri had no character development. She acted the same from start to finish, and she was boring. Elisabeth and Roger had no character development. They weren't emphasized enough as characters. They never explained why Keith hated Jerri. They also never explained in sufficient detail why Colby all of a sudden hated Keith. The real big characters in Australia other than Colby were the hardship situations during mid/late season. Those two things carried the season, but only carried the season to make it a mediocare season. Watch Australia again, it really isn't that great.
Quiddity	Re: Rankings	#96	[-]
Posts: 6809 (05/25/07 5:11 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Ravu: *Quote:* Well obviously--ideally. But you can never tell who's going to be a good until it happens. So casting is a big crap shoot before that There's always gonna be the occasional bust, and we've had it since the beginning, whether you want to talk about Nick Brown, Zoe, Stephannie, Darrah, etc... But the difference is that until Cook Islands it was generally one or two people per season. Not over half the cast (with perhaps Palau being the only exception). So naturally one has to take a look at how casting was so different for Cook Islands than it was for earlier seasons. The notable difference is that where in earlier seasons there was maybe a couple of recruited people per season, in Cook Islands there was a huge portion of them (and Fiji everyone but one). And thats because the producers were casting with the major factor being not how good they would be on the show, but what their race was. *Quote:* There's a reason why casting usually includes 1 or 2 ethnic minority tokens each season. Race is always a factor both from a demographic and marketing standpoint Let the record show that it was Ravu who stated that the minorities who have been on the show before were 'tokens'. I've never viewed them that way and I don't think they were casted because of that. Gervase, Sean, Alicia, etc... all brought something to the table regardless of what their race was. Unlike Cook Islands, if they were absolute bores they wouldn't have been on. *Quote:* I agreed until the last statement. Because then you could easily turn around and say that you're not going to get the same number of BAD cast members that are minorities as whites. If we assume that you'll get both good/bad castaways of any race, then it doesn't matter what race you end up with on your show right? And how does the track record prove that? Until Cook Islands there were very few BAD cast members per season. In Cook Islands a huge number of the cast members were bad. *Quote:* So then, the issue comes back to recruits (where most of the minorities come from) versus non-recruits, and we've all established that being recruit doesn't necessarily equate to worse character. Conclusion? No harm in having more ethnic minorities on the show, especially for just a couple seasons out of 16 Being a recruit does not on its own make a cast member bad. But conversely, filling the vast majority of your cast through recruiting turned out quite bad. There is no harm in having more ethnic minorities if the same standards are followed. Meaning, they've got the potential to be great cast members and the fact that they're a minority as well is a bonus. Casting people knowing they're going to be horrible cast members but still doing so because those people happen to be minorities deals a lot of harm to the show. *Quote:* Who decided that? You? If we're going there, then I think they didn't cast well for the first 5 seasons, since I was basically pretty bored with those casts. And those people were applicants not recruits. So I mean, seriously--stop the justifying Its been well documented at this board how much people here loathe the Cook Islands cast. We all know you thought the Cook Islands cast is great. The majority disagrees with you. Doesn't prove anything, its all still opinion, but you're gonna find few, very few, maybe none who agree with your opinion that the first 5 seasons had poor casts and Cook Islands had a great one. *Quote:* Well honestly, the common denominator seems to be race--not recruitment. I don't think people are being racist, but I do think many Caucasian viewers aren't relating to the ethnic minorities, and that's specifically why they don't like Cook Islands and Fiji as much. People are trying to hide their biases with bashing recruits and Californians, but it seems to be race to me. It has little to nothing to do with race. There's always gonna be some racists out there, that's just the way it is. But to imply that the main factor in dislike of the Cook Islands cast is race is yet another ridiculously absurd statement. I would agree that one problem with Cook Islands and Fiji was that people had hard time relating to the cast. But I don't think that really has much to do with the race, but more the fact that the vast majority of the cast was from California. For Californians, that's great. I won't deny that I'd love it if we had a season full of Bostonians and that I'm more inclined to like an ultra despised person like Boston Rob or Danielle than other posters here because they come from the same place as me. But there's 49 other states out there. While I would love to have a cast full of Bostonians, I know that it would severly harm the show doing that. Having 13 of 20 people in Cook Islands and 10 of 19 people in Fiji being from California is absurd. You've got to admit that having 23 of 39 people, over 50% of the cast the past two seasons being from a single state on a show that for years prided itself on having a diversity of people from across the country is going to bring tons of criticism on the producers. *Quote:* It explains why clear distinct and deserving individuals like Ozzy, Yul, and to a lesser extent Nate, Sundra, Becky, etc. are disliked. People would probably hate Fiji more too if the characters hadn't been such strong personalities. You can say there are duds from CI, but what I can't understand is that you're saying these "duds" are worse than any of the other "duds" from past seasons. Like, I don't get that I wouldn't say Ozzy and Yul are disliked. Yul gets a lot of flak in the winner threads, but that's the producer's fault, not his. I'll admit right now that Yul played tremendously and deserved to win. People generally give Yul the credit for being a great player and Ozzy the credit for being such a tremendous challenge performer, perhaps the game's best ever. The HII and F3 which in the first 12 seasons the winner didn't get the opportunity to have however is going to make it tough for everyone to rank Yul as one of the best in a winner's thread however. Very few will agree with you that Becky and Sundra were "clear, and distinct". Deserving? Yeah, I wouldn't deny that. Sundra deserved to get to fourth and deserved to not be able to get any further than that. Becky deserved to get to F3, and also deserved not to get any jury votes. In relation to how far they got in the game, they are among the two most invisible ever, especially Becky. The only real competition in that area is Darrah. Again, that there were duds in Cook Islands was not the problem. It was that there was so many of them. The usual 1 or 2 became 10+. *Quote:* My point was that you're going to have losers and "duds" in any season. At least, you can say they were ethnic token duds for once, instead of a normal, non-eventful one. At least, MB has made a clear attempt to cast minorities for a couple seasons and change interpersonal dynamics up a bit. That was my point. I'm never for duds, but again, can you really predict who's going to be awesome and who's going to be non-eventful? The Survivor team are professionals and they know what they're doing Okay, that statement makes a lot more sense then. You made it sound like you were supporting removing interesting characters from the cast solely to get duds on there because they were minorities. :P *Quote:* Seriously, people are always looking for things to bitch about and be negative. You've guys have loved the show for how long? Just accept the changes and keep an open-mind. People come into seasons already hating it and wanting to be proven right that things are going down the shitter. It happens all the time and not just in TV. People are always looking to a past golden age, and see change in a negative light. I hate these kind of negative, sour grapes attitude. That's what kills shows. The Apprentice is basically dead, due to the natural disenchantment that occurs over time. Survivor and TAR are the most successful of the reality shows, and I'd hate to see them die due to a lack of support from pessimistic fans who didn't put their faith in the team that created such a great show in the 1st place You think this is bad? Check the ratings thread in the Speculation section! Man, the doom & gloom there is past the point of absurdity. That so many are talking of cancellation past season 16 when CBS has no reasonable alternative for Survivor that will keep the ratings makes you want to pull your hair out :P People are going to have a hard time accepting a conversion of 1 to 2 people a season being duds to over half of the cast being duds. If Survivor goes down its going to be because they ruined the casting to a point where no one cared, not because people were negative. If people are negative, that's because the show gave them a reason to be. The Apprentice didn't get cancelled because of a negative attitude by the fans, it got cancelled because Trump made the show such a joke that people were quitting and laughing in his face when he fired them, and THAT is what caused the negative attitudes that caused all the fans to leave in droves. That people are complaining about the casting shows that they care, that they want the show to improve. It'd be far more dangerous if they were passive towards it and the show destroyed itself because of that. When a show brings upon itself negative comments, it generally deserves them.
sweEt Mauritius	Re: Rankings	#97	[-]
Posts: 836 (05/25/07 6:12 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	*Quote:* Race matters. Especially in a political game like Survivor. Just ask Sean Rector See, this is the problem I have with our country. Any time anything happens to a minority, it's racism. No one can ever just accept the truth. That above statement sounds like something those assholes Rev. Al Sharpton or Geraldo Rivera would say. If anything happens to a black person, it's racism, no matter how many white people the same thing has happened to. The illegal immigrants happen to be Mexican for the most part, so thats racist to kick them out/punish them. Give me a break. Sean Rector might have though things in the game that happened to him were racist, but he's just a delusional "victim" Do you think that Gervase, Alicia, Joanna, Shii Ann, Tijuana, Rory, Cirie, Bruce, etc. would agree that race matters??? NO! And why should they? Race DOESN'T matter! I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone and I'm sorry for getting worked up, but statements like that annoy the crap out of me. They're ridiculous and unfounded, and on behalf of the white race I'm tired of being accused of racism all the time!! Just give it a rest, please!
RavuRules	Re: Rankings	#98	[-]
Posts: 1765 (05/25/07 9:06 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	*Quote:* I'm not offended by your opinions, either. In fact, I honestly can't say I ever get offended by someone offering their perspective on something around here. It's a forum for discussion and the posting of personal opinions. People are going to do that, and quite a few of them are going to contradict your own opinions. There's no reason to get offended by them, no matter how much they may restate them or how much they believe them. Nobody here has an "agenda," I assure you. Nobody here is interested in making everyone else think the way they think. If someone hates CI, I don't see why you should be offended that they denounce it time and time again. Disagree with them all you want, but come on - we're discussing our perspectives on a silly television show here, for crying out loud. In a forum, an online sub-society, there is a political dimension. You're either naive or you're quite the player Pulau. =P. You know I don't care of people contradict my opinions (just look at my winner's analysis thread). What I HATE is the MORALIZING. There's moralizing in the game of Survivor, and then there's moralizing on the messages boards in several forms: (1) Season opinion = Irrational like/dislike for seasons (2) Gameplay style = Irrational hate for UTR players Now you can like and dislike whatever season you want. I don't care. You can post about it. I don't care. But when you try to attach a logic to a subjective opinion about seasons and then try to use that as leverage for legitimizing your PERSONAL opinions as FACT--then I'm going to step up and say something *Quote:* Okay. I just don't really understand how you can care about characters who aren't given any development, that's all. I don't understand how you can refer to characters like Rebecca (or Brad or Jenny or Becky or Sundra or Cecilia or, hell, even Yul or Parvati or Ozzy) as "complex" when they weren't given any dynamic character development or edited with complexity in any way, shape, or form. When Stephanie decided to stick with the girls instead of Sekou, I thought that was complex. When players like Jenny and Rebecca took the initiative, formed a temporary female alliance, and turned the tables on J.P. I thought that was complex. When Brad and Adam lied to their male ally J.P. I thought that was complex. When Sundra managed to work her way into the majority Aitu alliance despite being on the outside of the Cecelia boot, I thought that was complex Now look at a season like Outback. Varner decides to quit the immunity challenge, because he wants food. You might say that's complex in terms of being a strategic dumbass, but I say he helped kill his tribe and the season right there. Then, you have Alicia, Nick, Rodger, and Elisabeth got Pagonged--I was bored. When Jerri and Amber got turned on, I thought that was complex--until Tina told the camera that they did that because they wanted "deserving" people to get far--in which case, I had to conclude it was mainly moralizing and thus just about Jerri being a biatch. So, Jerri is complex, and the others aren't. Pre-merge, the only interesting person to me was Michael. Everyone else was weird (Debb, Kel) or were easy boots (Maralyn, Kimmi, Mitchell) and totally boring if you ask me. Do I care that someone is a vegetarian? Does that make them a complex personality as you guys call it? So, I'll just turn around and say the same thing to you: "I just don't really understand how you can care about characters who aren't given any development, that's all" *Quote:* I'd rather have an entertaining white person on the show than a boring minority person. No shit sherlock, but being white doesn't make you more entertaining in and of itself *Quote:* They were non-stars because they were sucky. And all of them prevailed, with the stars all being picked off. So yeah, it was disappointing, and yeah, we probably set ourselves up for it. They were non-stars, because of public opinion, not due to inherent suckiness. In terms of gameplay, they proved that the general public doesn't know WTF they're talking about and doesn't realize how luck-centered the game of Survivor is *Quote:* If that's the case, you're in the wrong place, guy. The forum's for discussion and arguments of opinions about a season. That's really all you're going to see around here. You can have your opinions, but don't moralize and pass your subjectivity as objectivity and FACT. Call it like it is *Quote:* There's always gonna be the occasional bust, and we've had it since the beginning, whether you want to talk about Nick Brown, Zoe, Stephannie, Darrah, etc... But the difference is that until Cook Islands it was generally one or two people per season. Not over half the cast (with perhaps Palau being the only exception). *Quote:* I see what you're saying, but the problem is that you're already assuming/asserting that the CI cast was a dud on the whole, and I totally disagree. You're also asserting that the other seasons had only a few duds, and again, I disagree. You can say that you personally thought they were duds, but to try to base more objective conclusions off of a subjective opinion--I have issues with that *Quote:* So naturally one has to take a look at how casting was so different for Cook Islands than it was for earlier seasons. The notable difference is that where in earlier seasons there was maybe a couple of recruited people per season, in Cook Islands there was a huge portion of them (and Fiji ever The complaints about "recruitment" and "Californians" is a facade for "race". If recruitment was the problem, people would've be complaining about it long before CI. The clear common denominator about the last 2 seasons is the race factor. Let's call it like it is *Quote:* And thats because the producers were casting with the major factor being not how good they would be on the show, but what their race was Really? Or did the producers try to do both? I don't think the producers said to themselves, "Let's cast X, because their an ethnic minority, even they end up sucking on our show". Again, you can't predict with clear accuracy who's going to be a good castaway for the show. I bet no one saw Penner coming. So these arguments are pretty mute. People are trying to justify their dislike for the ethnic castaways, and it's pretty sad. I'll have more respect for those who just admit they don't relate to the minorities (I don't necessarily consider that racist) rather than try to dance around it and claim other crap like they don't like recruits or Californians (to which I'm personally offended as a Californian--so you lose either way) *Quote:* Let the record show that it was Ravu who stated that the minorities who have been on the show before were 'tokens'. I've never viewed them that way and I don't think they were casted because of that. Gervase, Sean, Alicia, etc... all brought something to the table regardless of what their race was. Unlike Cook Islands, if they were absolute bores they wouldn't have been on Being a token, doesn't mean you're not bringing anything to the table. Being a token means that producers include a certain number of individuals of a demographic niche on their show for each season, and if you look at the minority record of the first 12 seasons, I don't think you can really argue. The number of ethnic minorities on any season ranged from about 1-3 for the most part. I don't consider CI boring at all, but I do think that the fact that 15 ethnic minorities casted is a significant factor in viewer opinion *Quote:* And how does the track record prove that? Until Cook Islands there were very few BAD cast members per season OH REALLY? Tell me, how memorable was Diane Ogden of Africa? I had to look her up personally. And although I liked Guatemala, you can't tell me Brianne Varela was any more interesting than the early boots of CI like Cecelia. I mean, even Billy was 1 of the most interesting early boots of all. C'mon people. I could give you a list, but I think the selectivity in you judgments and opinions are clear *Quote:* Being a recruit does not on its own make a cast member bad. But conversely, filling the vast majority of your cast through recruiting turned out quite bad. You guys are assuming that. I mean, if casting did what you guys said, and filled a season with fans, then Survivor would turn into 1 of the old seasons of Survivor--which would be BORING, because it's been done before. The producers change things, because they understand that. Tradition only goes so far people. People WILL bitch and complain about SOMETHING. It's human nature. In this case, you guys are scapegoating casting and twists, but if those things weren't there, something else would take its place. I guarantee it. Survivor has done VERY well considering it's going on its 16th season, whereas other greats like The Apprentice have fallen by the wayside. A loyal fanbase (you guys) + the novelties and revolutions of the game have allowed it to stay popular. It's both and people should acknowledge it *Quote:* Its been well documented at this board how much people here loathe the Cook Islands cast Couple things to say about this. First, it seems like there's a certain number of CI hater LEADERS, which I've been pointing out. They politick and make several CI hate posts in various threads creating the illusion that A LOT of people hate CI, because most people don't really pay attention to who posts what. Once an atmosphere of CI hate has been established, newbies, intimidated by general Sucks negativity, don't want to be called out by these haters, and thus go along with the CI hate. And I was 1 of these newbies, so I know what I'm talking about Second, even if it were true that the MAJORITY hates CI, that doesn't make mass opinion any more factual and legitimate. I could point to Nazi Germany as a clear example of how "majority" doesn't equal "right" *Quote:* We all know you thought the Cook Islands cast is great. The majority disagrees with you. Doesn't prove anything, its all still opinion, but you're gonna find few, very few, maybe none who agree with your opinion that the first 5 seasons had poor casts and Cook Islands had a great one Yeah, that's fine. Nothing new to me. I'm not even trying to change opinions. I am trying to kill the atmosphere of hate though and the raincloud that follows anyone who thinks differently from the majority *Quote:* It has little to nothing to do with race. There's always gonna be some racists out there, that's just the way it is. But to imply that the main factor in dislike of the Cook Islands cast is race is yet another ridiculously absurd statement. IS it absurd? What is special about CI? The recruits? No. Done before. The most special thing about CI is the number of minorities. It was the 1st season of the racial twist. That's the clear common denominator. I'm not going to say it's race FOR SURE, but since none of people's arguments about recruits is holding water, the race issue seems to be the most logical reason as to what's going on here *Quote:* I would agree that one problem with Cook Islands and Fiji was that people had hard time relating to the cast See!? That's honest. I don't consider that racist. At least, that's honest *Quote:* But I don't think that really has much to do with the race, but more the fact that the vast majority of the cast was from California Oh great, another cover story. And either way, I'm offended *Quote:* . For Californians, that's great. I won't deny that I'd love it if we had a season full of Bostonians and that I'm more inclined to like an ultra despised person like Boston Rob or Danielle than other posters here because they come from the same place as me. But there's 49 other states out there. While I would love to have a cast full of Bostonians, I know that it would severly harm the show doing that. Having 13 of 20 people in Cook Islands and 10 of 19 people in Fiji being from California is absurd. You've got to admit that having 23 of 39 people, over 50% of the cast the past two seasons being from a single state on a show that for years prided itself on having a diversity of people from across the country is going to bring tons of criticism on the producers. This is a legitimate complaint. I love seeing Californians, but I can totally understand how non-Californians would be pissed about this. I liked the regional diversity at times (although I clearly like the Californian casts better) and Survivor was distinct in that way That being said, Survivor has never been about equality, nor was it obligated to represent an accurate cross-section of America's demographic composition. Producers casted on what they believed would be most entertaining and rake in the viewers. They were never obligated to cast around the country or cast applicants. They're a business, and to survive, they need to net viewers. Naturally, there have been many viewers who have stopped watching due to the changes. However, they've also gotten new viewers. They have to make calculated risks. Should they add twists and stack their casts? It might potentially alienate their loyal fan base, but at the same time they might acquire new fans and keep interest in the show fresh and novel. You have to look at things from all POV, not just your own as a viewer *Quote:* I wouldn't say Ozzy and Yul are disliked. Yul gets a lot of flak in the winner threads, but that's the producer's fault, not his. I'll admit right now that Yul played tremendously and deserved to win. People generally give Yul the credit for being a great player and Ozzy the credit for being such a tremendous challenge performer, perhaps the game's best ever. The HII and F3 which in the first 12 seasons the winner didn't get the opportunity to have however is going to make it tough for everyone to rank Yul as one of the best in a winner's thread however. Well, I do believe the focus on the HII, and the non-focus on other luck factors like "early magical alliances that last the whole game" and "non-competitive opponents" might have something to do with his race. As someone pointed out, a lot of people either hate or love Yul, and I think HII is just a cover story for sublimated racism *Quote:* Very few will agree with you that Becky and Sundra were "clear, and distinct". Deserving? Yeah, I wouldn't deny that. Sundra deserved to get to fourth and deserved to not be able to get any further than that. Becky deserved to get to F3, and also deserved not to get any jury votes. In relation to how far they got in the game, they are among the two most invisible ever, especially Becky. The only real competition in that area is Darrah. I also find the hate for Becky and Sundra odd. UTR kingmaker players is nothing new, but people seem to dislike them more than a lot of people. They're more hated than villains!!! Like, when has BORING become worse than BOSSY or SOCIOPATHS? Race might be an issue. Again, I've never actually said this before, but there does seem to be a sad correlation *Quote:* Okay, that statement makes a lot more sense then. You made it sound like you were supporting removing interesting characters from the cast solely to get duds on there because they were minorities Thank you for understanding my position *Quote:* People are going to have a hard time accepting a conversion of 1 to 2 people a season being duds to over half of the cast being duds. If Survivor goes down its going to be because they ruined the casting to a point where no one cared, not because people were negative. If people are negative, that's because the show gave them a reason to be. Negativity is an attitude. You choose what you decide to be bothered by. People didn't like the multiracial casts, so now they're trying to prove what a failure it was by politicking about how horrible the CI cast was *Quote:* That people are complaining about the casting shows that they care, that they want the show to improve. It'd be far more dangerous if they were passive towards it and the show destroyed itself because of that. When a show brings upon itself negative comments, it generally deserves them I'm all for that, but I hate it when people start believing they're the voice of all viewers. That's arrogant. Personally, I don't think the show needs to improve significantly. I love it. I don't want these heralds of doom speaking for me, that's all--and that's why I'm making MY voice heard *Quote:* See, this is the problem I have with our country. Any time anything happens to a minority, it's racism. No one can ever just accept the truth. That above statement sounds like something those assholes Rev. Al Sharpton or Geraldo Rivera would say. If anything happens to a black person, it's racism, no matter how many white people the same thing has happened to. The illegal immigrants happen to be Mexican for the most part, so thats racist to kick them out/punish them. Give me a break. Sean Rector might have though things in the game that happened to him were racist, but he's just a delusional "victim" I see what you're saying, and I hate it too. However, you're reading too much into the situation and mistaking 1 context for another. No one is saying anyone is racist. But that doesn't mean race is a non-factor. Things aren't black and white (pun intended). Race is always going to play a role in social dynamics, especially in a political game like Survivor where social differences are magnified. Will it be a dominant factor? It depends. But you can't just ignore race, like most of us do in our society and pretend it doesn't exist or play a role. Or actually you can do that, but it's not really accurate *Quote:* Do you think that Gervase, Alicia, Joanna, Shii Ann, Tijuana, Rory, Cirie, Bruce, etc. would agree that race matters??? NO! And why should they? Race DOESN'T matter! Well, race mattered for Shii-Ann--or culture, I guess. Daniel thought race mattered. I would say race might have mattered a bit for Cirie and Bruce, seeing how the majority alliance was all-white. Rory was excluded, and it might've just been because he's Rory, but I can't help but wonder if his visual difference help to exclude him. Alicia didn't really have an ally on ASS. Coincidence? Maybe. Race is always a factor somewhat on some level. People don't like rocking the boat, because it's such a controversial subject, but it's a very real issue that exists even today *Quote:* I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone and I'm sorry for getting worked up, but statements like that annoy the crap out of me. They're ridiculous and unfounded, and on behalf of the white race I'm tired of being accused of racism all the time!! Just give it a rest, please! I know where you're coming from. Trust me. But I hope you see the other POV too
Dr Will Hatch two point oh	Re: Rankings	#99	[-]
Posts: 10031 (05/25/07 9:22 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	this discussion reminds me of that old reality show "black.white" where both families seemed to have misconceptions
A Dying Clown	Re: Rankings	#100	[-]
Posts: 11674 (05/26/07 2:46 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	*Quote:* OH REALLY? Tell me, how memorable was Diane Ogden of Africa? I had to look her up personally. And although I liked Guatemala, you can't tell me Brianne Varela was any more interesting than the early boots of CI like Cecelia. It's pretty easy to find underdeveloped players early on - you rarely find a stretch of bland players like Brad/Jenny/Rebecca/Sundra/Becky etc. making it so far. Brianna got more development than Cecilia, anyway - we saw Steph turn against her because of her lack of athletic experience and her attempts to fight back. We saw no personal character-based background on Cecilia - I could tell you nothing about who she was based on the show. Her boot was just "Whites + Asians in alliance, booting strong opponent". And that was one of the few interesting boots, even though the players was reduced to cardboard cutouts.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

It's That Time Again--Rank The Seasons

Quick Reply