Skip to main content

Episode Australian Survivor (2016) - Episode 17 Discussion

Pepsi said:
Yes it's fair in a way that the twist is decided well in advance and not based on how the event is progressing. That would be worse.

However, even if it's decided well in advance, they should at least think it through a bit of how it will turn out regardless who cops it. It's one thing to have a bit of luck elements in twists which players just have to deal with it and there's outright silly and predictably unfair twist that will greatly affect the unlucky poor losing player. Production need to be more careful in choosing between the two types .
Click to expand...
Yes, but life throws unexpected curveballs too. If you want soapies, not the show for you. I like the unexpected, even if I personally don't agree with the end result.
 
Tuttle said:
Fuck off El, why does Flick need one?
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. I did like Kristie's gesture. I am fairly sure I'd do the same as a letter from home isn't much on the importance scale for me and she secured immunity from Matt's votes, if what he says is true. I would like to be told if anyone or the dog took ill or died though.
 
Tuttle said:
Yes, but life throws unexpected curveballs too. If you want soapies, not the show for you. I like the unexpected, even if I personally don't agree with the end result.
Click to expand...

I love watching survivors and have been for the past 10 years or so. Making the show a relatively fair for all participants is not soapies. I also do agree that having a little bit of luck thrown here and there will also make it more interesting. It doesn't have to be truly fair because survivor isn't.

However the moto of the game is Outwit Outplay and Outlast. Not surviving ridiculous "unexpected curveballs" that will surely gets one whole tribe demolished based on a single challenge. Might as well gets them to arm wrestle at tribal as a twist from now on rather than voting then. Would love to see the 3 girls surviving that curveball.
 
Tuttle said:
It would be pure poetry.
I really dislike anyone who plays this game stating that they're safe. No one ever is.
Click to expand...
She said she was only 90% safe. I do wonder what the Pag thinks of the contestants and their blatantly ridiculous answers. He knows they're lying through their teeth and tries to call them on it without making it glaringly obvious, but are they too invested in themselves to see it or are we as outsiders seeing it more realistically, considering we don't see everything?
 
Consuela said:
How many bloody idols do they think there are! I thought idols were meant to be a rare thing not as frequent as their rice deliveries.
Click to expand...
I didn't think there was one after the one Nick played last night unless someone is holding onto a very early one.
 
Pepsi said:
I love watching survivors and have been for the past 10 years or so. Making the show a relatively fair and even playing field for all participants is not soapies. I also do agree that having a little bit of luck thrown here and there will also make it more interesting.

However the moto of the game is Outwit Outplay and Outlast. Not surviving ridiculous "unexpected curveballs" that will surely gets one whole tribe demolished based on a single challenge. Might as well gets them to arm wrestle at tribal as a twist from now on rather than voting then. Would love to see the 3 girls surviving that curveball.
Click to expand...
Okay. I've watched all of them, what I've learnt from watching, and living, life is not fair. Shit happens, what do you do with that shit? Wear it or learn from it? Adapting is part of life for most people, eventually.
These people know full well what they sign up for. They know the show is Survivor, not Play School, not Neighbours. There is never an even playing field because people start the game with preconceived ideas about others. What production throws at them should be something that they just go with.
Which is why at this point of time, if the fracture continues, Sue, Kristie & Kylie with Sam (possibly) are looking good for a win.
 
Khun Khun said:
She said she was only 90% safe. I do wonder what the Pag thinks of the contestants and their blatantly ridiculous answers. He knows they're lying through their teeth and tries to call them on it without making it glaringly obvious, but are they too invested in themselves to see it or are we as outsiders seeing it more realistically, considering we don't see everything?
Click to expand...
We don't see everything, but we see enough to know when someone is full of shit.
 
Tuttle said:
Okay. I've watched all of them, what I've learnt from watching, and living, life is not fair. Shit happens, what do you do with that shit? Wear it or learn from it? Adapting is part of life for most people, eventually.
These people know full well what they sign up for. They know the show is Survivor, not Play School, not Neighbours. There is never an even playing field because people start the game with preconceived ideas about others. What production throws at them should be something that they just go with.
Which is why at this point of time, if the fracture continues, Sue, Kristie & Kylie with Sam (possibly) are looking good for a win.
Click to expand...

Okay. That is your opinion and I will respect that. I still stand by that the quality of the show also depends on production planning. It reminds me of Survivor Fiji, where the tribe were separated into 2 groups that aren't even remotely balanced - 'Haves" and "Haves-not" 'Haves' camp were given luxuries; toilet, kitchenwares, fires, showers, furniture etc where else the Haves-not merely got a machete and a pot.

Predictably, the Have-nots kept on losing the challenges due to being weak. Even Jeff Probst went on record saying that he was disappointed on how the production turned out. That was a silly twist and production fault imo which is just shit for the players at the wrong end of the stick.
 
Last edited:
Pepsi said:
Okay. That is your opinion and I will respect that. I still stand by that the quality of the show also depends on production planning. An example I can think of is Survivor Fiji, where the tribe were separated into 2 groups 'Haves" and "Haves-not" 'Haves' camp were given luxuries; toilet, kitchenwares, fires, showers, furniture etc where else the Haves-not merely got a machete and a pot.

Predictably, the Have-nots kept on losing the challenges due to being weak. Even Jeff Probst went on record saying that he was disappointed on how the production turned out. That was a silly twist and production fault imo which is just shit for the players at the wrong end of the stick.
Click to expand...
I recall that season, but that's not what happened here, both however were decisions made prior to participation. Your fav got the raw end, well, paddle harder. That's part of the game.
 
Tuttle said:
I recall that season, but that's not what happened here, both however were decisions made prior to participation. Your fav got the raw end, well, paddle harder. That's part of the game.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, overall, I'm still very happy and enjoying watching our version. Best thing to happen on Australian TV so far. Im just a little disappointing with the imbalanced twist. That said, with the core alliance being so tight and mushy, it will even be even better and great watching when eventually the core 5 or so is all that is left remaining and have to turn on each other. Will be super awkward! Actually looking forward till then.
 
Last edited:
Pepsi said:
I love watching survivors and have been for the past 10 years or so. Making the show a relatively fair for all participants is not soapies. I also do agree that having a little bit of luck thrown here and there will also make it more interesting. It doesn't have to be truly fair because survivor isn't.

However the moto of the game is Outwit Outplay and Outlast. Not surviving ridiculous "unexpected curveballs" that will surely gets one whole tribe demolished based on a single challenge. Might as well gets them to arm wrestle at tribal as a twist from now on rather than voting then. Would love to see the 3 girls surviving that curveball.
Click to expand...
Agree completely. I want to see them tested its just more fun for the viewer and it's basically terrible game design. All the people who suffered and starved have been at the bottom. I want to see how the girls would fair if they had been in Krysties spot.
It has absolutely nothing to do with a soap opera,it's a competitive reality show.
Maybe shows are designed differently next week.
 
Question: has Sam seen the show at all? He didn't seem to know about the merge and seemed surprised a bit that Nick will be on the jury?

Also his whole high horse about who deserves to be there is revolting. He can join the Ed BB team with Lee. Guys who attack others for playing the game no good reason but yet break their word.

It's like they don't understand that strategy is a fundamental part of the game!
 
Melore said:
Sam is the CEO of a charity that supports mental health and suicide awareness. I don't think that quite fits "jock wanker". Or "total moron".
Click to expand...
Does his mental health charity support putting someone down and calling them names without any evidence? It's ugly, self righteous behavior to me. I don't like the players that decide they are the good guys so somehow they deserve to stay -it's like that girl gang against Tahan.
Nick has been loyal in every vote. Sam hasn't.
Sam has been lucky in this game and he feels he deserves his spot because he's a better person. It's gross.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top