[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'232628\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 06:37 AM\']If the best (and most deserving) player doesn’t win, to me it’s a major turn off, and “why even bother?”[/quote]I think that this is a problem. Maybe just one of semantics, but still. I have a hard time watching a show like Survivor and saying "Oh, thus-and-so deserves to win." One guy might be an ace at the challenges, another might be brilliant at forming alliances. And someone might be the snake in the grass that no one sees. Who is more deserving out of that group? I don't know. If the "best" player won every game show, that'd be fairly boring. Sometimes you have a bad roll, or spin Bankrupt, or a category you just know. And sometimes the chips fall right into place. That variable quality is what makes game shows...viable, even.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'232671\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 12:37 PM\']Look, I get the "hey,
Survivor is a political game just as much as it's anything else" argument. I think the disconnect (and opinions will certainly vary from person to person on this) is the belief as to whether it should remain a political game all the way through the final vote, or whether the jury should step away from the political game at the final vote and award the victory based on who played the game the best. You are in the former camp, I'm in the latter, and that's fine.[/quote]One of the things I liked about Beauty and the Geek was that they changed the way that the champions were crowned each year. I'm not sure how you'd do that for Survivor: have one mammoth challenge where each vote gives that player an incremental advantage? Have a sequestered jury watch episodes and bonus footage and award the money? Roshambo for it? I think there does need to be some sort of change, because the amount of sanctimony at the end is just too much, when every juror comes up and kicks sand in the face of the people who managed to beat them at the game.
Russell's only failure was in mis-estimating the amount of butthurt on the jury. I believe it was Chris Daugherty in Vanuatu who accurately assesed what the jury wanted to hear, gave it to them, and won the game because of it.
I think Chris D. also was the beneficiary of the perfect challenge at the perfect time. All the players took a "True Colors" poll, and as Jeff read out the questions and answers, the women started to turn on each other. Chris tented his fingers, said "EXcellent!" and let them implode.
[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'232878\' date=\'Dec 23 2009, 05:38 PM\']Were the jurors being sore losers? Maybe, maybe not. But that's why you don't sabotage and demoralize your team so they lose 5 of 6 immunity challenges and come into the merge down 7-4.[/quote]I don't know how you say 'maybe' with a straight face. There were more sore losers than gracious ones on that bench, for sure.
