My take on the Survivor surprise

[cyberjoek]

Question to Parliboy:

Do you consider Weakest Link to be a game show?  
If so wouldn't it not be a game show under the standers you state because they have to re-shoot things (in the case of a slip-up on occasion) and most of Anne's lines are scripted?

Or how about most any other game show you care to name?  Doesn't every show have the occasional time when they re-shoot things?  Isn't that why pretty much every game show has the item in the credits "some portions of the program, not affecting the outcome, have been edited or reshot prior to broadcast"?

-Joe Kavanagh
Survivor and traditional game shows are much closer than some people like to think....

[parliboy]

Anne's lines are not part of the competition.  And there's a big difference between shooting a pick-up and regularly showing us something other than the actual competition.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'parliboy\' date=\'May 10 2004, 03:09 PM\'] Anne's lines are not part of the competition.  And there's a big difference between shooting a pick-up and regularly showing us something other than the actual competition. [/quote]
 The question, I guess, is your use of the word "regularly".  Weakest Link shoots (excuse me, "shot") a lot of pick-ups.  Survivor shoots a lot of pick-ups.  I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if Weakest Link actually shot more than Survivor, but I really have no idea either way.  (Survivor, BTW, regularly shows us a LOT more than the actual competition, which makes up only a small part of each episode.)

Survivor by its very nature is a more visually complicated program than a studio-bound, traditional game show.  As long as the competitions are legitimate, I don't see that it matters what they need to do to present it in a visually interesting way to the home audience.  And no one has come close to proving that the competitions are not legitimate.

[starcade]

Two comments of my own:

1) This is SO manipulated that Rupert get a million for himself that it's not even funny.  He's been the most popular Survivor and essentially took two consecutive series out from his wife (discussed on the first reunion special last Sunday) to do this...

2) I sense this is a response to a fairly open collusion on the part of Amber and Boston Rob, which would be in violation of the (VERY few) rules of the game...  They were openly referring to "their money" and "their future" on the 2nd to last show last Thursday...

[starcade]

Matt, you know I had to respond to your rant:

I do think Survivor is rigged and plan to write the FCC on it when I get a computer to myself over the summer.

Even after last year's Johnny Fairplay debacle (making just two of many examples I could cite), Probst said there were two standing rules of Survivor:  No physical assaults, and you could not share the money.

Then please explain to me either:

a) Rich and Sue.  If Sue's gripes were legit, Rich sexually assaulted her during the competition by brushing his dick up against her.  (Sorry to the board ops -- that's what he was claimed to have did...)  If not, her departure was clearly scripted for dramatic effect.

b) Rob and Amber.  Does a marriage proposal invalidate the collusion rules?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'May 11 2004, 04:35 PM\'] I do think Survivor is rigged and plan to write the FCC on it when I get a computer to myself over the summer.



 [/quote]
 Boy, I bet they're champing at the bit for THAT email. I'd be laying in a supply of Cheesy Poofs and getting ready for a good laugh, myself.

a) Rich and Sue.  If Sue's gripes were legit,

...then she would have pursued legal remedy, like Kobe Bryant's accuser is doing. instead, she went out and got a boob job. Yeah. She was scarred for life.

If not, her departure was clearly scripted for dramatic effect.

What, you're saying that one of the main media whores of the first series DIDN'T want to be the center of attention and make a loudmouthed exit from the game?

And even if it was, why is that illegal?

b) Rob and Amber.  Does a marriage proposal invalidate the collusion rules?

Why is it a collusion? Who's to say they get married? Who's to say Ambuh doesn't make Rob sign a phat prenup to make sure she keeps the Benjamins if it doesn't work out? And what if Rob won? Would you be crying "collusion" then? HE asked HER.

Quit while yer behind, dude. Yer so far out of yer league here, you don't even have an idea.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'May 11 2004, 07:32 PM\'] 1) This is SO manipulated that Rupert get a million for himself that it's not even funny.  He's been the most popular Survivor and essentially took two consecutive series out from his wife (discussed on the first reunion special last Sunday) to do this... [/quote]
 I completely agree with you that Rupert is going to win the "home viewer" million, and that everybody who has more than a passing interest in the series thinks so too.  (Well, maybe a couple of really deluded castaways think they have a shot.)

Still, dude, the public is voting and the one with the most votes wins.  How is that manipulated?  And how do you know that this bonus prize wasn't planned all along from the beginning of the season, long before any viewer favorites had been established?  You don't.  You've got a hunch, an instinct, a gut feeling about these things based on rumors you've read.  The FCC won't have any interest in that.

2) I sense this is a response to a fairly open collusion on the part of Amber and Boston Rob, which would be in violation of the (VERY few) rules of the game... They were openly referring to "their money" and "their future" on the 2nd to last show last Thursday...

Um...OK, I'll give you this one.  Even before the proposal (and since the votes hadn't been read, the game was technically not over in my mind) I wondered about the whole collusion issue, and what (if anything) Burnett would do to enforce it.  I even entertained in my mind for a moment that the "shocker" CBS promised would be to disqualify them both from getting any money.  Hey, THAT would have gotten some attention!

Still, I'm a little unclear on how easy it would EVER be for Burnett to stop collusion from happening.  What stops a duo -- ANY duo -- from coming up with a pact that says a year from now, after all the attention has died down and no one's paying any attention to us anymore, we split whatever we make?  Just another example of how sixties-era scandal-based rules and regulations for traditional game shows just don't matter to this new breed.

[inturnaround]

I've been wondering how US law applies to a show that was produced in Panama? Wouldn't Panamanian law supercede? I mean, the sexual assault alleged by Sue Hawk happened in Panama. Or does the fact that it's an American company matter?

Take this another step further. Say Survivor WAS fixed (I know...I don't think so either)...would it still be subject to the same laws as TPiR and Super Millionaire or would it be something different? What about foreign game shows with foreign contestants? Say one was rigged and aired on US television...what would happen?

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'inturnaround\' date=\'May 11 2004, 11:23 PM\'] Take this another step further. Say Survivor WAS fixed (I know...I don't think so either)...would it still be subject to the same laws as TPiR and Super Millionaire or would it be something different? What about foreign game shows with foreign contestants? Say one was rigged and aired on US television...what would happen? [/quote]
 Burnett wants to have it both ways.  On the one hand, he insists that he's not rigging the outcomes (and again, we have no proof that he is).  On the other hand, he feels as though the rules governing game shows don't apply to the kind of shows he's doing anyway.  And until someone actually challenges it in court, who knows?

[ChrisLambert!]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'May 11 2004, 09:43 PM\'] I completely agree with you that Rupert is going to win the "home viewer" million, and that everybody who has more than a passing interest in the series thinks so too.  (Well, maybe a couple of really deluded castaways think they have a shot.)
 [/quote]
 Rob C. has a rather clever sales pitch in his video at cbs.com, though.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'ChrisLambert!\' date=\'May 12 2004, 08:04 AM\'] Rob C. has a rather clever sales pitch in his video at cbs.com, though. [/quote]
 Not really. If people buy into him sharing it with Rupert, why not just vote to give it all to Rupert?

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'May 12 2004, 08:52 AM\'][quote name=\'inturnaround\' date=\'May 11 2004, 11:23 PM\'] Take this another step further. Say Survivor WAS fixed (I know...I don't think so either)...would it still be subject to the same laws as TPiR and Super Millionaire or would it be something different? What about foreign game shows with foreign contestants? Say one was rigged and aired on US television...what would happen? [/quote]
Burnett wants to have it both ways.  On the one hand, he insists that he's not rigging the outcomes (and again, we have no proof that he is).  On the other hand, he feels as though the rules governing game shows don't apply to the kind of shows he's doing anyway.  And until someone actually challenges it in court, who knows?[/quote]
On the other hand, even if CBS isn't watching Burnett on "Survivor," the fact that the standard disclaimers appeared on every episode of "The Apprentice" (and the disclaimer regarding Trump's deliberations on elimination) would seem to me to indicate that at NBC he did have S&P watching him on that show.  Interesting that two networks are treating Burnett's brand of competition show differently--if they are.

[Clay Zambo]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'May 11 2004, 09:43 PM\'] Even before the proposal (and since the votes hadn't been read, the game was technically not over in my mind) I wondered about the whole collusion issue, and what (if anything) Burnett would do to enforce it.  I even entertained in my mind for a moment that the "shocker" CBS promised would be to disqualify them both from getting any money. [/quote]
 Actually, I was sort of hoping that would be it--or something similar thereto.

The home viewer voting...eh.  It's not simply a matter of Burnett jacking up the payout, since another player will collect, but it rated a big, yawning, "So what?" in my living room.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'May 13 2004, 12:40 AM\'] The home viewer voting...eh.  It's not simply a matter of Burnett jacking up the payout, since another player will collect, but it rated a big, yawning, "So what?" in my living room. [/quote]
 Yeah, I agree.  After I'd specifically said that Burnett doesn't go in for that "Mo' Money" thing, the fact that they're giving away an extra million doesn't really strike me as a "shocker" that's "guaranteed" to "blow you away". I did note that Probst made a point about saying CBS was putting up an extra million, suggesting that the stunt may just be a network thing to stretch out interest in a second reunion special, and something Burnett had little to do with.

As far as interesting live television goes, Rob's surprise proposal was MUCH more engaging than teasing us an hour with what turned out to be an anticlimactic additional contest.

[starcade]

I'll address Matt's response to me in a bit (probably tomorrow -- going off on AI's farce has kinda sapped me today), but Probst was referring to the surprise as a "twist" throughout the reunion special.