-
Welcome to the discussion forums. To get posting, register an account.
Australian Survivor: Articles
- Thread starter Columbo
- Start date
Melore
Tiny Member
Adelaide gets one and two tonight.
Meglos
HAVE A NECTARINE, GONK
Meglos
HAVE A NECTARINE, GONK
Would have been interesting if Des had stuck around longer, can you imagine the confrontations he would have had with the girls?
Meglos
HAVE A NECTARINE, GONK
Sue in the eighties, if the denim is anything to go by.
Oh dear yes lol
FatPants
Dogs are the best people
Totally. Acid wash high waist jeans. You don't get more 80's than that.
FatPants
Dogs are the best people
Yes. Would have been a different game I think.
FatPants
Dogs are the best people
Survivor Australia eviction: Sue Clarke slams ‘mean girls’ alliance, says they had a ‘stranglehold’
October 5, 20167:04am
Sue is eliminated from Australian Survivor
Tiffany DunkNews Corp Australia Network
UNLESS something dramatic happens, there is no way a man — or anyone outside the core “mean girls” alliance - can win Survivor Australia, says booted contestant Sue Clarke.
The 59-year-old from Perth is the latest to have her torch snuffed in the reality TV competition and she puts her exit from the game solely down to the triumvirate of Brooke Jowett, Flick Egginton and El Rowland.
“El, Brooke and Flick, yeah they had a stranglehold, but only because the men were cruising along with them and letting them call the shots,” said Clarke.
“The three girls were just sitting there with their staff and going, ‘You’re next, you’re next, you’re next,’ and that really got my goat up.
“They were a tight knit group, impenetrable actually. It was extremely frustrating ... The hardest thing for me to do the whole game was to keep my mouth shut. ”
Girls are dominating the game on Survivor. Picture: SuppliedSource:Supplied
Along with Jennah-Louise Salkeld, Clarke attempted to let the men left standing in the game know they were an endangered series.
But it was to no avail and, when asked if it’s possible a man could take out the game at this point, Clarke gave an emphatic “no”.
“I thought Lee Carseldine might have had a good chance at some stage because he’s a really nice man but I think his alliance with the three girls tarnished it a little bit,” she said.
“If he had have stepped up more he would have romped it in.”
Fans watching at home have been frustrated at some of the game play in the Australian season, including the failure for contestants to look for immunity idols or bid for advantages in the game.
Despite being warned he was on the chopping block, Matt Tarrant chose to stick with the girls he believed had his back.Source:Supplied
Clarke said that even though she knew finding an immunity idol could have kept her safe in the game for a while longer, she doesn’t regret not actively searching for one.
“No one looked for it because, believe it or not, it makes you an immediate target,” she said.
Now part of the jury who will decide the winner of the game, Clarke said there will be “lots of eyerolls” as the remaining episodes play out.
Her torch was snuffed but Clarke has no regrets about the way she played Survivor.Source:Supplied
But despite not making it as far in the game as she’d hoped, Clarke has nothing but happy memories of her time on Survivor.
“I’m always trying to push myself outside of my comfort zone and challenge myself because that’s just who I am,” she said.
“And that’s what I hope to do post show — to push people out of their comfort zones. Everybody has the ability to reach that little bit further and they just don’t for some reason.
“Who would have thought at 59 years of age I’d be on Survivor? Never ever doubt your ability. And never not reach out for something because you don’t think you can do it or your not worthy of it.”
http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...d/news-story/a72088eee14a6d41d009030e8140171c
October 5, 20167:04am
Sue is eliminated from Australian Survivor
Tiffany DunkNews Corp Australia Network
UNLESS something dramatic happens, there is no way a man — or anyone outside the core “mean girls” alliance - can win Survivor Australia, says booted contestant Sue Clarke.
The 59-year-old from Perth is the latest to have her torch snuffed in the reality TV competition and she puts her exit from the game solely down to the triumvirate of Brooke Jowett, Flick Egginton and El Rowland.
“El, Brooke and Flick, yeah they had a stranglehold, but only because the men were cruising along with them and letting them call the shots,” said Clarke.
“The three girls were just sitting there with their staff and going, ‘You’re next, you’re next, you’re next,’ and that really got my goat up.
“They were a tight knit group, impenetrable actually. It was extremely frustrating ... The hardest thing for me to do the whole game was to keep my mouth shut. ”
Girls are dominating the game on Survivor. Picture: SuppliedSource:Supplied
Along with Jennah-Louise Salkeld, Clarke attempted to let the men left standing in the game know they were an endangered series.
But it was to no avail and, when asked if it’s possible a man could take out the game at this point, Clarke gave an emphatic “no”.
“I thought Lee Carseldine might have had a good chance at some stage because he’s a really nice man but I think his alliance with the three girls tarnished it a little bit,” she said.
“If he had have stepped up more he would have romped it in.”
Fans watching at home have been frustrated at some of the game play in the Australian season, including the failure for contestants to look for immunity idols or bid for advantages in the game.
Despite being warned he was on the chopping block, Matt Tarrant chose to stick with the girls he believed had his back.Source:Supplied
Clarke said that even though she knew finding an immunity idol could have kept her safe in the game for a while longer, she doesn’t regret not actively searching for one.
“No one looked for it because, believe it or not, it makes you an immediate target,” she said.
Now part of the jury who will decide the winner of the game, Clarke said there will be “lots of eyerolls” as the remaining episodes play out.
Her torch was snuffed but Clarke has no regrets about the way she played Survivor.Source:Supplied
But despite not making it as far in the game as she’d hoped, Clarke has nothing but happy memories of her time on Survivor.
“I’m always trying to push myself outside of my comfort zone and challenge myself because that’s just who I am,” she said.
“And that’s what I hope to do post show — to push people out of their comfort zones. Everybody has the ability to reach that little bit further and they just don’t for some reason.
“Who would have thought at 59 years of age I’d be on Survivor? Never ever doubt your ability. And never not reach out for something because you don’t think you can do it or your not worthy of it.”
http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...d/news-story/a72088eee14a6d41d009030e8140171c
Melore
Tiny Member
Oh for the love of God:
http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2016/10/bumped-survivor-2.html
This is frustrating….
Nine has bumped Survivor out to an 11pm start next Thursday after just 2 outings.
After multiple fast-tracked seasons early evening on GO! fans weren’t happy it was pushed to a later start on Nine this season -largely due to Nine hopping to piggyback on the interest in Australian Survivor.
Last night it screened at 9:40pm but only drew 260,000 which is clearly too low for the timeslot.
Nine is now pushing it out to 11pm, replacing it with a repeat of The William Shatner Roast at 9:30pm next week. It is the third timeslot in 3 weeks.
For fans not keen to wait up, episodes are due to be available on 9Now from 3pm each Thursday. Get onto it.
http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2016/10/bumped-survivor-2.html
This is frustrating….
Nine has bumped Survivor out to an 11pm start next Thursday after just 2 outings.
After multiple fast-tracked seasons early evening on GO! fans weren’t happy it was pushed to a later start on Nine this season -largely due to Nine hopping to piggyback on the interest in Australian Survivor.
Last night it screened at 9:40pm but only drew 260,000 which is clearly too low for the timeslot.
Nine is now pushing it out to 11pm, replacing it with a repeat of The William Shatner Roast at 9:30pm next week. It is the third timeslot in 3 weeks.
For fans not keen to wait up, episodes are due to be available on 9Now from 3pm each Thursday. Get onto it.
...Channel 9 is just showing it's sheer contempt for US Survivor as does it's viewers... I'm positive that Channel 9 actually hates it's viewers... they treat us like dirt... if Channel 9 burned to the ground it would be better viewing for all of us in my opinion... I hate them as much as they hate us viewers... they should be so ashamed of themselves... cheers.
I don't think te William Shatner Roast ever played in the Us. I've never heard of t. Was it Australian?
If they wanted to piggyback off Australin Survivor they shouldn't have made the first episodes so hard to watch.
I will never understand Australian tv programming and how poorly they plan and how reactive they are. I wonder if other countries are the same.
Mean girls fight back:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/enterta...s/news-story/99ff72a76a8272c91f5ce31074e82f40
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/enterta...s/news-story/99ff72a76a8272c91f5ce31074e82f40
re: Nine being stupid with the US version. Is there a possibility now that Ten has the local rights that the rights to broadcast the US version could transfer to them too - hence Nine deliberately pissing viewers off.
Even if Nine retain the US rights they probably now see it as promo for a Ten show.
Even if Nine retain the US rights they probably now see it as promo for a Ten show.
...as much as I dislike the 'mean girls' within the show (Flick/El and Brooke) I don't actually 'hate' them just because they are blitzing this because they are so damn good at 'playing this game' strategically... well done to them!... they have out-smarted all of the dumb idiots left around them (the men mainly)... if nothing else... I actually admire them for having done what they have to further the cause for enabling other women to win this instead of it always just being men slowly getting rid of them one by one for a change... they are strong and smart... there's nothing wrong at all with that...
...I think that my main dislike in them as 'mean girls' is not because of what they have been doing... it stems from the fact that the men (mainly Sam and Lee) are such whimps and are so clueless about how the game is played and that being so makes it so easy for the girls to be able to walk over them... the 'mean girls' are playing a brilliant game... they are great material for my Photoshop's but I can't help but admire them for what they have achieved... well done to them and to all of those people hating on them so much on the outside of the show... shame on you!... they were just playing the game as it should be played... even Nick would admire that... as for Sam and Lee?... arse-wipes!... you should never had been on a show that you have never even watched you simpletons!... cheers.
...that is a great point... Channel 9 would see it that way I imagine... as I've said before in here... they are capable of anything!... cheers.
Meglos
HAVE A NECTARINE, GONK
Social media is harsh, full of idiots with opinions. Obviously death threats, threats of violence etc is uncalled for.
However, the rest comes down to reality show contestants whining about how they are portrayed. If they didn't want to come across as mean, then maybe they should have considered that as they played the game, and toned down the glares, smiled a bit and interacted with the people not in their alliance. I don't think it has anything to do with them being women. If three men were doing the same, with no trace of humour or friendliness, I'd feel exactly the same way.
My reaction is purely as a viewer of reality tv shows. I don't have any personal feelings towards any of them. It doesn't matter if we like them or not, we don't know them.
I totally agree with their opinion of Sam and Lee though. It's like they were just there to be manipulated, so you can't really blame a gameplayer for seizing the opportunity when it presented itself.
Last edited:
Melore
Tiny Member
We don't do roasts! So must be American. I don't understand those "roast" things. Very uncomfortable viewing. Australian TV programming is ludicrously reactive and shortsighted and often times just so plain dumb. Well, a bit like Aus politics, also.