Page 3 of 4
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:20 pm
by Golden
All talk spoiler tagged, is a good policy. I probably can't watch until your Thursday either.
I have to start my next blog tonight... I've seen the first 7 minutes of the episode and thought about the new twist (the one that's been publicly announced) so that's enough to get going.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:47 pm
by Scotty
Golden wrote:All talk spoiler tagged, is a good policy. I probably can't watch until your Thursday either.
I have to start my next blog tonight... I've seen the first 7 minutes of the episode and thought about the new twist (the one that's been publicly announced) so that's enough to get going.
Agreed. Until at least we're several weeks in.
We should all put out our top 3's and whoever wins wins a win
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:10 pm
by Golden
Is this your final 3, or top 3 guesses for who wins?
My top three guesses for who wins are:
The third one is me giving the end to the terrible season of terribleness, but I think they could beat some others they would get to the end with in that scenario.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:04 pm
by insertnamehere
My top three guesses for who wins:
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:04 pm
by insertnamehere
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:19 pm
by Scotty
Ok! I done caught up I tells ya.
Did a fancy little draft with some friends, and here are my picks for final 3:
insertnamehere wrote:But seriously...
Really?
Sandra? Really? Naw bro. She's too much of a threat. She's the first or second boot at merge. She and Tony got into that spat where she said "no one would vote for a winner at final tribal" and if she truly believes that, she is wrong. They would win in a heartbeat if the others are foolish enough to let Jen get that far. They're not gonna get that far. I would even go so far as to say that the patsy JT will outlast her.
Don't misunderstand though- she's one of the best characters here.
Michaela tho? That one I'm even more perplexed about. I WANT her to win. She's my woman. I love her and her short temper and inability to contain facial expressions. But not only does she have that working against her, she also is coming from general obscurity. I think that she and Zeke will find themselves on the outs early rather than later, because I don't think this group wants another Russell hantz situation on their hands. Which sucks, because she's great.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:23 pm
by Scotty
Also hilarious is that it is pure coincidence that I named a tribe in my game 'Mamana' when a tribe of similar colors in this season is called 'Mana'
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:12 pm
by Golden
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:16 am
by Golden
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:07 pm
by Ricochet
Ok, sell me on one Survivor season.
One.
You can collaborate at will on this one.
And not the first one, I've seen that one back in the day. I actually still strongly remember Richard for how much of a vile, yet laudable ass he was. Dammit, I even vividly remember the last 3 challenge, that Rudy lost after, what, nine hours or something? I think my parents were heartbroken by it or something. Damn you brain, why you choose to keep these memories, of all things!!
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:24 pm
by Golden
It's funny looking back now and watching season one... Richard doesn't seem at all vile any more.
Before there is any pitching - from your one season only perspective, what do you like about the idea of Survivor, and what do you not like about it?
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:47 pm
by Ricochet
The Last-Person-Standing-like challenge, competition and spectacle would interest me the most, by some distance. I attribute the challenges more towards the episodic nature of the series, so with exceptions that are gripping or truly interesting (like the Rudy stuff I mentioned, stuck in my brain webs), this will probably not attract me as most. Further down the rainbow, I don't see myself either perceptive enough or downright interested in the (actual) survivor skills on display throughout the tournament.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:52 pm
by Golden
Do you likely to be more or less interested in social dynamics forcing strategy (say, conflict in real life views) or in pure gamesmanship defining strategy? What's your tolerance for strategic jerkiness?
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:10 pm
by Ricochet
I'd be tolerant to watching mostly anything unfold, methinks. But that's as far as I can understand your question. It would not be the same as saying I also condone what veers on edgy and dirty or that I'd intentionally ask for big drama to go with my popcorn. Then again, I've watched enough Weakest Link to know gamesmanship and strategy don't always match.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:43 pm
by Golden
Ricochet wrote:I'd be tolerant to watching mostly anything unfold, methinks. But that's as far as I can understand your question. It would not be the same as saying I also condone what veers on edgy and dirty or that I'd intentionally ask for big drama to go with my popcorn. Then again, I've watched enough Weakest Link to know gamesmanship and strategy don't always match.
Aha, how true! But a big part of the appeal of Survivor (in my opinion) is figuring out who is playing well, and who is not (the worst seasons, however, are the ones where a bunch of people aren't playing at all).
My pitch to you is:
Pearl Islands, season 7.
Here's a few reasons why this season would be a good season for you to watch.
1) The season has a number of surprises and also a number of evidently good and bad decisions. In terms of watching the battle to be the last man standing, it's a pretty good watch. Power plays and attempted power plays abound. It's a formative season for what good Survivor strategy looks like.
2) The cast is diverse. It includes a number of Survivor's most recognisable faces playing for the first time. There's a good mix of the one dimensional, but plenty of two dimensional characters as well (and the one dimensional characters are still very compelling TV). There is douchiness but not to an obnoxious level that affects enjoyment of the season.
3) There is a certain evolution to Survivor, that I think makes the show more compelling if you watch a couple of earlier seasons first. Pearl Islands predates the invention of many of the twists the show has thrown at us, and while many of those twists have been fantastic and added strategic options for good players, I think it's best to get a compass of what 'good play' looks like while the game is still relatively raw. I'd give you a short list of seasons to watch to get a crash course in the evolution of the game, but since the rule is one season, this is probably the best.
4) In a recent poll of fans, Pearl Islands managed to come in second to top in terms of 'what is the best season'. It's popularity hasn't waned for a reason.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:53 pm
by insertnamehere
PEARL ISLANDS = BEST SEASON
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:58 pm
by Golden
Now that's what I call collaboration!
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:52 pm
by Ricochet
Well, since this seems a thread of three lately, I say that'll be enough and that the tribe has spoken.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:54 pm
by Golden
I look forward to your review
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:12 am
by juliets
I'll be interested in seeing your blog about this week's show Golden.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:43 pm
by Golden
juliets wrote:I'll be interested in seeing your blog about this week's show Golden.
No kidding! As I was watching it play out I was thinking 'how do I even begin to make sense of this'. I'll do my best!
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:37 am
by Scotty
Golden wrote:juliets wrote:I'll be interested in seeing your blog about this week's show Golden.
No kidding! As I was watching it play out I was thinking 'how do I even begin to make sense of this'. I'll do my best!
Spoiler alert:
IM MORE PISSED THAN DEBBIE WAS IN THE PREVIEW FOR NEXT EPISODE. MY BOY MALCOLM WAS ROBBED. ALSO NO ONE CAN SPELL HIS NAME RIGHT. HOSERS.
I think Varner, Sierra and Troyzan are in pretty spots though.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:15 am
by insertnamehere
Hey, it saved Sandra for another week, so I'd call it a good twist.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:09 pm
by Ricochet
Ugh, and I told myself I wouldn't do this. #shutthisreviewingfactorydown #shut.it.down
Pearl Harbour ep1
See, even an introductory, low stakes episode such as this highlights what draws skepticism and cynicism from me in regards to these highly-televised, highly-monitored, heavy on post-production reality shows. It was impossible for me not to think that a narrative was threaded, making it all look like "Morgan Tribe shits the bed - The Episode" - granted, with that group having a very poor, scattered challenge and bonding performance, overall. But compared to it, nitpicking into Drake issues was like, what -- "oh, Jon turns into a drunktard jokester?" Riveting.
That being said, I nearly anticipated a karma bitch moment of Morgan winning the immunity challenge overall and it ALMOST happened. Not that I could make much sense of that high-pace editing. Drake seemed dead stuck, then suddenly no steam left for Morgan? Shouldn't they have been a mile ahead by the time Drake finally pulled on the better sand route? No idea how Morgan blew it, tbh. And that's considerate, given that their opening strategy was "let's carry each component of this cannon separately", good grief
.
One thing I didn't understand or even disliked during the imm challenge was the rocks clearing phase. It seemed like Drake did all the clearing, while Morgan just recovered and waited in the back? How was this fairly set out for a dual confrontation?
Rupert's lootin' kinda earned mad respect from me, lul. He ain't wrong about being cheeky whilst also focused on the prize. Even more serious cred for all that fishin', especially after [two macho men, whomever those personality-less chaps were] barely farted one catch. Sandra being a genuine trump card for this team during the trades was also notabl
hey hold up isn't this the lady in INH's avatar??. These two seem jury material, at least, easily. I think Jonster the Jokester will be fine for a while, too, even if he was the only thing the rest of Drake could grimace at. Has a bit of edge that I think will keep him afloat.
Over on These-Poor-Folks' side, the only thing I noted was Lillian's doing her scout stuff when appropriate and at this point I wouldn't say I can fault Andrew for what he attempts or speaks out as a leader. Very surprised human bulk Osten got away easy during Throwing Under the Bus phase; literally no mention or beef. He must have been aligned with the other two powerhorse macho figured and left alone. I honestly didn't see the bit about Ryan S. not pulling his weight during the challenge because MALE NAKED BUTTS PULLING AND PUSHING STUFF. As soon as Nicole went trying to hook people into eliminating [Tijuana? Tijuanda?], I sensed she went too tryhard into this scheme and it would backfire. Good choice, I suppose, but nothing too thrilling about this, per se. Both Ryan S. as a challenge fail scapegoat and Nicole as "cash me ousside howba dah" drama seemed fairly routine elimination routes.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:25 pm
by Golden
Survivor's production values are higher than most - while there's no doubt that they craft a narrative for their 42-minute synopsis of three days of real life, most contestants say it always broadly reflects what actually happened (and those that don't are usually blowhards who came off looking like jerks because they are jerks). The one exception being that they will almost always endeavour to make you believe there is more than one name on the table going in to tribal council to allow for suspense, even if the vote was actually straightforward.
I've sat amongst people who are in the prediction game for a long while and... some seasons they get it right, some they get it badly wrong. Survivor editors are notable for deliberately toying with your expectations of the edit. But they're still bound to ensure that even the most casual of viewer can feel like they can understand what happened.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:01 pm
by Ricochet
Didn't plan on watching a new episode for at least one or two days, but I didn't pick a movie for this evening, so I said to myself, whatevs
Pearl Harbour ep 2
I generally feel I got the same viewing experience as on the first episode - The Woes of Morgan. Drake conflicts were again trivial, although that fishing spear mishap was serious and cool drama. And what Sandra did to them, looting their tarp, oh da sizzle.
Which brings me to Skeptic-Moment-of-this-Episode, in regards to the post-edit drama. So here's me watching:
a. Andrew and Osten (Morgan) fearing Drake might steal their tarp
b. Sandra comes here: "Ola. Hhmm... how 'bout tarp?"
and I'm like
Now onto Morgan - with comments on at least the relevant people (half of them were totally in the shadows this episode):
1. Skinny Ryan having been sent first into the reward challenge (treasure picking in the water) -
why?!?!. I seriously could not even understand this mismatch between "hey, we hate Skinny Ryan for not pulling his weight, being to our disadvantage; let's send him into the water!"
2. Still like Andrew's chops, he was especially superior in the first part of the imm challenge...
3. ... which brings me to the second part. How.
How. Did Morgan just got stuck at the finish line like this.
4. My reactions to Osten's should I stay or should I go antics were pretty negative. Just like Lillian said, it was clear Osten is kinda pussying out. Didn't like him from minute one in this series, so every argument he brought about feeling spent just sounded disingenuous to me.
5. ...that being said, also having in mind what Golden pointed out in the post above, I was dead sure Osten would not get the boot and the tribe (majority) answer to that will be "sorry, we still need the manpower". Still feeling bad for Skinny Ryan, especially given my point 1. It's like they sentenced him to death.
So there you go, I'm rambling on a Survivor episode just like my grandma rambles on how Sheik Uzgün's wife cheating on him with his brother in her TV soap.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:38 pm
by Golden
You have no idea how relevant that simile is going to be...
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:47 pm
by Ricochet
That what?
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:49 pm
by Golden
Ricochet wrote:That what?
The simile you used in your last sentence!
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:49 pm
by Scotty
Ricochet wrote:That what?
A simile is like a metaphor
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:52 pm
by Ricochet
Oh, well you see, for a second, I thought you typo'd smilie lol
Also, being a music man, simile is first of all "similarly / the same way".
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:52 pm
by Golden
Scotty wrote:Ricochet wrote:That what?
A simile is like a metaphor
No, a simile is a metaphor
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:02 pm
by Scotty
Golden wrote:Scotty wrote:Ricochet wrote:That what?
A simile is like a metaphor
No, a simile is a metaphor
Mine is righter (hi Epi)
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:02 pm
by Golden
Scotty wrote:Golden wrote:Scotty wrote:Ricochet wrote:That what?
A simile is like a metaphor
No, a simile is a metaphor
Mine is righter (hi Epi)
No, yours is a simile and mine is a metaphor. Both are equally correct
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:03 pm
by Golden
In case you missed it, here is my episode 4 blog
http://www.truedorktimes.com/s34/martell/e4.htm
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:03 pm
by Scotty
Golden wrote:Scotty wrote:Golden wrote:Scotty wrote:Ricochet wrote:That what?
A simile is like a metaphor
No, a simile is a metaphor
Mine is righter (hi Epi)
No, yours is a simile and mine is a metaphor. Both are equally correct
Correcter*
Almost as correct as 'Malcom'
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:06 pm
by Ricochet
Golden wrote:Scotty wrote:Golden wrote:Scotty wrote:Ricochet wrote:That what?
A simile is like a metaphor
No, a simile is a metaphor
Mine is righter (hi Epi)
No, yours is a simile and mine is a metaphor. Both are equally correct
So they're...
simile.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:18 pm
by insertnamehere
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:20 am
by Scotty
I bet Debbie came in 12th place in her acrobatic qualifiers out of 11 people.
But hey, she has experience.
Holy fucking shit balls. Never have I seen the editors so blatantly set her up as a doofus as much as they did this episode. I mean, she is a bonified idiot, but man...that flashback to 2 minutes prior really takes the cake for the most forcefed labeling I've ever seen.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 12:41 am
by Golden
I can only describe that episode of Survivor as absolute tier one on every level. What I don't really understand is why Brad didn't just say to the rest 'lets throw the challenge'. They should have put Debbie on the balance AND on the slingshot and let her die on her own sword.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 6:08 am
by Scotty
Golden wrote:I can only describe that episode of Survivor as absolute tier one on every level. What I don't really understand is why Brad didn't just say to the rest 'lets throw the challenge'. They should have put Debbie on the balance AND on the slingshot and let her die on her own sword.
Nah, because that would have been Bossy Brad's fault.
Dude, Debbie's going all the way.
As the goat
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:11 am
by Ricochet
Forgot to write an update in here just as much, over the weekend.
Business as usual, but still an uneven spectacle. I've yet to describe anything serious going on over at Drake or remember any faces, apart from Sandra, Rupert and Jon. I sort of enjoy, quasi-schadenfreude-like, how nothing really works strategically for Morgan, i.e. remove the weakest link -> the muscle pack still don't manage nothing in challenges afterwards. Commendable effort, though, in the imm challenge, their best change and fight so far.
I'm kinda disappointed with the vote choice, although the montage beforehand didn't offer, I felt, a clear picture of why people went this way. Maybe they didn't get enough footage or it was just plain meh. I didn't see the advantage of keeping Darrah. The episodes I downloaded also don't have that post-credits talk and full vote reveal, so I'm not sure what "tactic" Andrew spoke of, but whatevs. He is still a figure I respect, even if he ends up on the losing side of the stick time and again, compared to, now that Lil is gone, a bunch of others I have not learned a thing about or that I do not like (Osten). Makes me feel this tribe should just sink completely - or get reshuffled, to provide at least different results for different people.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:04 pm
by Ricochet
Pearl Harbour 04
Hey now, consider this the first episode I liked. Not in its entirety, 'cause come on, its first half was like a redux of the second episode's Let's Show How Osten Is Actually Pretty Suck at the Physical Prowess He's Supposed to Actually Have. But after Drake decided to stir things up, drop the imm ball on purpose and such, boy did things get interesting.
I was pretty much on board with Rupert that trying to shake things up just out of boredom or lose a challenge on purpose was silly or that Burton's first attempt at an alliance was so tryhard it stank. I'm satisfied overall with Burton getting punished for it, though the pre-Tribal stuff was a fair jumble of several people being under fire, with no discernable lead.
I liked the twist of the imm challenge loss also costing Drake Rupert. Plus, in light of all those prior Rupert - Burton machinations... so funneh. Of course, though, Rico Cynico resurfaced, as surely this twist was easy to prepare, following a whole day of filming Drake wanting to lose on purpose and stir stuff and such.
I liked how reprobable Jon behaved throughout all of this. Knowing myself, the guy instantly jumped to my top spot of undesirable trickery personalities in the game. I disliked his attitude, especially during the Tribal Council, but the ballsiness also made me kinda restless. This could be a dangerous player in the brew.
I liked Jeff picking on them instead of just holding a therapy session talk.
This episode had a lot of Drake dumb move that might cost them the edge.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:51 pm
by Golden
You didn't like the premiere? The whole 'buy supplies in the village' is one of my favourite Survivor openings.
In any given season, the pre-merge usually has some weak episodes, especially around eps 2-3 like this season.
Fair enough for Rico Cynico to surface, although my cynicism over single events has waned over time as Survivor shoots itself in the foot just as frequently with their twists (just this season a big twist eliminated one of their most beloved contestants to the benefit of a complete no-name). I do think there is evidence that, more often than not, they are pre-planned - and the kidnapping twist fits with the pirate theme. Besides that, though, I believe that production will never tell people how to vote or endeavour to control the outcome of a tribes decision, but they are more than willing to do things that can influence the game that fall short of that. This is far from the only time in Survivor history that a healthy dose of cynicism about a twist is appropriate.
Is it possible this twist was cooked up simply because Drake wanted to throw a challenge? Sure. As it happens, in my this weeks blog on the last Survivor episode, I talk about the merits of throwing a challenge, and one very firm view I hold is that production will do what they can to make sure it doesn't work out for you, since they don't want it to be seen as a popular or successful strategy (as that undermines the basic concept of tribes and challenges). In that sense, I could completely believe that this twist was cooked up on the spot. It still required the other tribe to pick Rupert (which was highly likely but not guaranteed) or potentially Burton (their most likely second choice), which also might have changed the course of events, so production fell short of giving Rupert immunity from being blindsided.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:34 am
by Ricochet
Golden wrote:You didn't like the premiere? The whole 'buy supplies in the village' is one of my favourite Survivor openings.
Mine too, but did I
like like the entire episode, as I've written? Mneh.
Golden wrote:
Fair enough for Rico Cynico to surface, although my cynicism over single events has waned over time as Survivor shoots itself in the foot just as frequently with their twists (just this season a big twist eliminated one of their most beloved contestants to the benefit of a complete no-name). I do think there is evidence that, more often than not, they are pre-planned - and the kidnapping twist fits with the pirate theme. Besides that, though, I believe that production will never tell people how to vote or endeavour to control the outcome of a tribes decision, but they are more than willing to do things that can influence the game that fall short of that. This is far from the only time in Survivor history that a healthy dose of cynicism about a twist is appropriate.
I am willing to believe this.
Golden wrote:Is it possible this twist was cooked up simply because Drake wanted to throw a challenge? Sure. As it happens, in my this weeks blog on the last Survivor episode, I talk about the merits of throwing a challenge, and one very firm view I hold is that production will do what they can to make sure it doesn't work out for you, since they don't want it to be seen as a popular or successful strategy (as that undermines the basic concept of tribes and challenges). In that sense, I could completely believe that this twist was cooked up on the spot. It still required the other tribe to pick Rupert (which was highly likely but not guaranteed) or potentially Burton (their most likely second choice), which also might have changed the course of events, so production fell short of giving Rupert immunity from being blindsided.
I am willing to believe this, as well.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:53 am
by Ricochet
W-what happened? O.o
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:05 am
by Ricochet
Anyhoo
Pearl Harbour e05
Ricochet wrote:This episode had a lot of Drake dumb move that might cost them the edge.
I'm not even going to call myself a prophet for this. It had it written on them.
It's interesting how much I identify with Rupert on what he's thinking or saying. Even though I would for sure not be a Rupert in this game. I'd probably be worse than Skinny Ryan. Alternatively, assuming I'd bulk up for a year in preparation for this, I'd probably only do better than a guy like Osten.
Speaking of which, that man is a p u s s y. Those two minutes of him saying "why not wait for the worse to come" was the dumbest shit I've seen a human say - and I'm a certified procrastinator, mind you. I'm glad the episode only had two minutes of him having an opinion on anything.
Bit surprised, still, how bad Drake did in the reward challenge. Up until now, apart from the strength challenge in which he came ahead of Osten, I did not necessarily take Rupert to be the lynchpin of Drake's success. I thought teamwork and the push to fight till the end (in those challenges that Morgan almost had the upper hand) was the reason. But now, sans Rupert... wow, wtf. How did Jon not frigging know what a steering pad is.
Bit confounded by the vote this time. Not so much, if going back to the early phase of the episode, where Michelle was shown in a severe minority, after Burton's exit. For a moment I though the pre-voting montage's intense focus on Michelle would mean that she ain't going home, but color me surprised, I supposed. My issue moreover is whether the rationale was, like Jon said on camera, that Michelle downplayed her skills in the upcoming immunity challenge. Cause... why should that matter, she still did well in the challenge. Not so much that it counted, since the whole thing was tied during normal rounds, but still "Yeah Imma vote you because you bitched too much about doing poorly in an upcoming something, which you then didn't" sounds like kindergarten nitpicking. I didn't care much about this contestant, but I had a feeling she was a worthier elimination contender last episode (vs. Burton and Christa) than here.
Fair, good episode. That seafood stuff especially gave me the ewwsies. Most funny part was Rupert trying to talk voting while Michelle was barfing.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:42 am
by Ricochet
Pearl Harbour e06
Enjoyable and engaging, with a strong finish just like the previous time. But on the whole a bit more watchable than the previous one. I pretty much surfed through the reward challenge, cause meh go on and shoot ya things and stuff. But after that, there was more to observe and interpret. For once, the post-edit montage during Drake's loot and the imm challenge was rewarding. It paired Andrew's getting affected by Jon/Drake's shenanigans and trolling, followed by his sublime performance in the imm challenge. That was heart stuff.
Also, Jon... that dude needs to get blindsided like nobody else. Throw him to the Kraken style. He seems to have ended up on the loner side of alliances after how this vote turned out and I think Drake will keep losing, so hopefully there'll be a next chance to target him.
I'm also enjoying more Drake's undoing compared to the first three episodes of "welp, there goes Morgan again, faceplanting". And this, despite Trish's mistake having been basically identical with Nicole's, back on Day 3 - and it's now Day 18. Tsk tsk. There's backstabbing and there's blindsiding and I'm glad to see Sandra (only focusing on her because Shawn, well, he pretty much went with the wind on this one), for one, had enough dignity now to mess up with Rupert on a power play move as small as this. But so early, overall, to try a big removal, wow.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:12 pm
by Golden
Episode 6 remains one of my favourites. Perhaps it's because Rupert was a favourite. Perhaps it's because we had never seen someone pull off a countermove so overtly and, frankly, with as much cockiness as Sandra did. Whatever, that episode is an indelible one for me. For all we know Trish would have been a good Survivor player, but she got got first.
Re: SURVIVOR
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 8:01 pm
by Ricochet
Interesting. Didn't see Sandra as cocky, at least not at this stage, not with this rebuff.
