Skip to main content

Australian Survivor: Articles

hooleydooley said:
no ..... dont pick on sam :( (he is my sweep) and I do not have the time to look up stuff to defend him. i can only say suicide is horrible and you can sometimes draw on your own inner strength to make that decision... snake or not ... maybe the word were not in context
Click to expand...
..

...sadly Hooleydooley... I do have to agree that calling Sam a 'total wanker' is in the right context... he could have actually been called a lot worse to be honest... he's an advocate of suicide prevention (which is great nobility in itself) but isn't very good in showing that nobility by showing that bullying hatred that he showed towards Nick for instance... you just have to go back and see his hatred and contempt for Nick in earlier episodes... especially when Nick got voted out... the smug look on Sam's face was terrible to see... he backs a very noble cause but didn't do anything nice to promote it by his behaviour sadly... so I do agree with Rose711... sadly for Sam... cheers.
 
http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2016/10/australian-survivor-sets-a-date-for-tempestuous-finale.html

Australian Survivor sets a date for “tempestuous” finale

The Australian Survivor finale is on the way, with one contestant set to walk away with $500,000 -one of the bigger prizes in Reality TV.

The last week sees three episodes beginning with a blindside and culminating in a finale on Tuesday October 25, with the final three contenders in a six hour Immunity Challenge.

While TEN isn’t confirming its plans for the finale, Head of Light Entertainment Stephen Tate hinted to TV Tonight, that it had already been filmed.

What can we look forward to for the finale?

“Tempestuous best describes the finale. Both the location and outcome,” he said.

“All I can reveal is it’s a closed set.”

It suggests the finale was filmed in Samoa at the end of the shoot, but upcoming episodes still promise plenty of twists.

“A really smart and subtle game is about to unfold and Aussie mateship will play a much bigger part than even we could have predicted,” he said.

Producers have had to be nimble with the show to meet TEN’s scheduling, which beefed up episodes early on from 2 to 3 a week, but fans have responded enthusiastically to the season overall.

“Yes it’s been hard on the fantastic post team at Endemol Shine Australia, who at times only delivered a few hours ahead of broadcast. But they certainly continued to deliver a quality show under extreme pressure,” Tate continued.

“We are thrilled with the both the TV and digital viewing figures and also relieved we have lived up to the Survivor fan’s expectations.

“Both CBS in the US and Castaway in the UK have been really impressed with our production values and storytelling. Plus everyone absolutely loves Jonathan’s performance.

“We’ve also had some really high praise from some of the US cast on Twitter.”

And as for 2017, Tate is keeping cards close to his chest, but TEN’s Upfronts are due in early November.

“Too soon for hints I’m afraid, but we are very happy with the series performance so far,” he teased.

Australian Survivor continues 7:30pm Sunday and Monday on TEN.
 
Matt TarrantVerified account‏@MattTarrant
"Matt literally told me yesterday that he once had 62kgs of Chicken Nuggets in his freezer"
1f648.png
1f648.png
1f648.png
1f602.png
hahaha @nickiadanza #sorryChester

CuoO_BjVIAAUI1Q.jpg
 
Meglos said:
"Aussie mateship" doesn't bode well for us. Who are the closest "mates", Lee & Sam? Please no.
Click to expand...
Didn't Lee and Sam decide it was ok to play the game now?

Do Krystie and Matt have mateship because he promised not to vote her out?

The definition of "mateship" is hard for me to grasp exactly. It's not the same meaning as "friendship" in the US or it seems not to be? It's not like "bros" either.
 
Another well known US survivor podcast weighs in on Australian Survivor. Caveat: I haven't listened to this one so no idea if it's positive or negative.
 
Rose711 said:
Didn't Lee and Sam decide it was ok to play the game now?

Do Krystie and Matt have mateship because he promised not to vote her out?

The definition of "mateship" is hard for me to grasp exactly. It's not the same meaning as "friendship" in the US or it seems not to be? It's not like "bros" either.
Click to expand...

Just think of it like friendship, with a lot of emphasis on loyalty and sticking to your word. It's not like "bros" because it isn't gender-based. Men can be mates with each other, men and women can be mates, women can be mates with each other. To men like Lee and Sam, betraying a mate would probably be the worst thing you could do, even if it means giving up a million dollars.
 
Meglos said:
I don't think Matt and Kristie are mates, but Matt could stay loyal to her due to his promise, things like that are generally also very important in Aussie society.
Click to expand...
It's very hard for me to grasp this inside the context of a game for half a million dollars.

I think in the US most (but not all) people would feel a primary responsibility to themselves and their families that supersedes a promise made to a stranger you've known at most a few weeks. The obligation to yourself and your family is just much higher than to a friend, even a close one.

Those that don't feel that responsibility are operating under a different framework like if they felt lying in a game somehow compromised their religious belief.

Obviously that kind of loyalty has happened in US Survivor where people took a stronger opponent with them to the end and then lost. Maybe because we've had so many more seasons of the show it's easier to see it as a game that you are playing to win. Within the rules of that game, deception and breaking you word is perfectly acceptable.

There have been people who are very bitter after having their trust betrayed. Most people are bitter actually, not as bitter as Brooke for the most part. But generally people understand that it's ok to betray someone in a game so you can win. It isn't real life. Your family is real life. Even single people talk about getting money for their parents, so that is understandable priority to the audience - at least now the show is so familiar.

It's also strange because it seems that mateship makes it ok to treat others that aren't your mates badly. So you only have to be honorable to a few chosen people, but you can deceive everyone else. The religious (or honor code) people on US Survivor don't tend pick and choose - they refuse to be deceptive though maybe not volunteer information.

No wonder this game went straight down tribal lines.
 
So could Lee step down to let Sam win so Sam gets money for his charity? Would that be mateship- or going beyond mateship?
 
Excellent post.

Colby taking Tina to the finale is the biggest example of what you are talking about happening in US Survivor, but it certainly was atypical in the later years.

I don't know where the mentality of labelling people not in your alliance as "snakes" comes from, I don't think that's part of Australian manners, though it could be associasted with Sam feeling he's somehow more decent or worthy (in other words, better) than Nick. Which means he's not, just by acting that way.

I have no idea whether Matt will face a moral dilemma over Kristie or not. Maybe he will need to align with her anyway if his real alliance keeps crumbling, or maybe he will put aside a promise made in a game, for the sake of his family. It will certainly be interesting.

Rose711 said:
It's very hard for me to grasp this inside the context of a game for half a million dollars.

I think in the US most (but not all) people would feel a primary responsibility to themselves and their families that supersedes a promise made to a stranger you've known at most a few weeks. The obligation to yourself and your family is just much higher than to a friend, even a close one.

Those that don't feel that responsibility are operating under a different framework like if they felt lying in a game somehow compromised their religious belief.

Obviously that kind of loyalty has happened in US Survivor where people took a stronger opponent with them to the end and then lost. Maybe because we've had so many more seasons of the show it's easier to see it as a game that you are playing to win. Within the rules of that game, deception and breaking you word is perfectly acceptable.

There have been people who are very bitter after having their trust betrayed. Most people are bitter actually, not as bitter as Brooke for the most part. But generally people understand that it's ok to betray someone in a game so you can win. It isn't real life. Your family is real life. Even single people talk about getting money for their parents, so that is understandable priority to the audience - at least now the show is so familiar.

It's also strange because it seems that mateship makes it ok to treat others that aren't your mates badly. So you only have to be honorable to a few chosen people, but you can deceive everyone else. The religious (or honor code) people on US Survivor don't tend pick and choose - they refuse to be deceptive though maybe not volunteer information.

No wonder this game went straight down tribal lines.
Click to expand...
 
Meglos said:
Colby taking Tina to the finale is the biggest example of what you are talking about happening in US Survivor, but it certainly was atypical in the later years.
Click to expand...

But Colby took Tina to the finale because he despised and loathed John (?) the chef, the alternative, too much to let him take home second prize (he stated words to this effect) - and because he severely underestimated Tina's popularity with the jury. It wasn't altruistic.

I lay awake almost all night in shock after Colby lost, wondering how he must feel!
 
Meglos said:
it could be associasted with Sam feeling he's somehow more decent or worthy (in other words, better) than Nick
Click to expand...
I think that stems from high school pecking order bullshit: To Sam, he and Lee are the hot cool kids and Nick is an annoying dweeb that should be put in his place. Same for the approach of the mean girls, too, it must be said. Kristie and Phoebe weren't cool enough to play with them. All the more reason for a Kristie win IMO.
 
Melore said:
he despised and loathed John (?) the chef, the alternative, too much to let him take home second prize
Click to expand...
Colby only had himself to blame. His bitterness against the other guy cost him the win.

Anyway, anyone named after a piss weak cheese that's 80% water deserves to lose.
 
People say Woo made the biggest mistake ever but he did the same as Colby. Woo was an honor and loyalty guy because of his background in martial arts. He also thought he would win because Tony had voted everyone out.
People in the US mostly hated that move.
 
Jonathan LaPaglia Retweeted
#TVWEEKmag ‏@TVWEEKmag 4h4 hours ago
#SurvivorAU host @JLa_Paglia gives us a run-down on the remaining castaways: http://oak.ctx.ly/r/55pkp

Cuxn7P7UEAE7Gcx.jpg





El, 33
"She is physically strong and tough. Strategically, El is quite a cunning player and one to watch out for."

Flick, 23
"She's a student of the game, who understands it and makes some great moves - particularly in the individual part of the game."

Kristie, 24
"She's a dark horse. She's somewhat eccentric, which makes her fun to watch. She's also a student of the game."

Lee, 40
"He's the physical powerhouse. It's fun to watch him discover the game as it progresses and try to work out what he needs to do to stay in it."

Matt, 29
"He's an interesting character who is strong physically and mentally. I think he finds it more difficult to read people than he thought he'd be able to."

Sam, 28
"He's similar to Lee in that he's also a challenge beast. Also like Lee, he's entered the game not knowing much about it."
 
Which one is Kristie? She is unrecognizable to me. I also realized I've been spelling her name incorrectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top