The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: CherryPizza on May 08, 2004, 09:20:03 PM
-
The second-last episode of Survivor All-Stars aired here in Australia last night, as did the preview ads for the finale with the announcement that there's a "surprise so big it'll shock the world"...
Everyone pay attention to the fact that this is the one time that the word "twist" hasn't been used to promote something that we weren't supposed to expect, so Edy is thinking that maybe the game itself isn't what's going to deviate, it's gotta be something that one of the contestants does.
Now, on the previous episode, despite Rob's claims that he's not giving up to million for anyone (even Amber) we saw Rob and Amber so close together making claims that the money will change "our lives", note the use of the plural term. Now this is probably more wishful thinking than fortune telling on my part, BUT... maybe Rob and
Amber are on the brink of breaking the golden rule about not being allowed to conspire to share the money. Ever the back-stabber/strategist (what did Shakespeare say about a rose by any other name?) maybe all it's gonna take is for Rob to say something along the lines of "If we're gonna be together it doesn't matter which
of us actually WINS the money" which could then cause the shit to hit the fan and see Rob getting his arse expelled from the game. Ok it probably won't happen, but it's the only thing I can think of that will be big enough to be promoted as a "surprise so big"...
either that or Rob votes off Amber, or vice versa, or somebody breaks an alliance, or some piddly little bit of game play that has been blown out of proportion by the promotions folk.
Oh, and all I have to add on the matter is...
Go Rupert! Go Rupert!
-
[quote name=\'CherryPizza\' date=\'May 8 2004, 09:20 PM\'] Everyone pay attention to the fact that this is the one time that the word "twist" hasn't been used to promote something that we weren't supposed to expect ...
... maybe Rob and Amber are on the brink of breaking the golden rule about not being allowed to conspire to share the money. Ever the back-stabber/strategist (what did Shakespeare say about a rose by any other name?) maybe all it's gonna take is for Rob to say something along the lines of "If we're gonna be together it doesn't matter which
of us actually WINS the money" which could then cause the shit to hit the fan and see Rob getting his arse expelled from the game. Ok it probably won't happen, but it's the only thing I can think of that will be big enough to be promoted as a "surprise so big"... [/quote]
There's been a lot of rumbling in alt.tv.survivor about this, but Jeff Probst was on The View Friday, and he said the twist does not involve Rob or Amber. Naturally, I don't know what it is, but it would really be a letdown if the twist involves Sue Hawk's makeover, because that's WLW-type news.
Go anyone but Rob!
-
[quote name=\'CherryPizza\' date=\'May 8 2004, 09:20 PM\'] either that or Rob votes off Amber, or vice versa, or somebody breaks an alliance, or some piddly little bit of game play that has been blown out of proportion by the promotions folk. [/quote]
I'll be really disappointed with CBS if this "surprise" is less than impressive. In the first place, it's bad marketing. The show has plenty of momentum building toward its finale anyway. If they promise something and then don't deliver, all they do is disappoint people who were going to be into the finale regardless.
Misleading promotions is usually NBC's department. The daytime crew is currently promising the "biggest shock in daytime history" for The Deidre Hall Show. (That IS what they're calling it now, isn't it?) Can you imagine how outrageous you'd have to be to have the *biggest* shock in the history of daytime television?
-
I doubt Amber will turn on Rob or Rob will turn on Amber. I mean, for many Survivor fans, their romance has been the talk ever since it began.
One may not like either one, but I have to admit, if it's Amber and Rob in the final 2, I don't know who to route for in particular, as to who should win the million.
And if neither are in the final 2, all I have to say is: Go Rupert. If you win the million THIS TIME, you will have redeemed yourself from losing out on it last time on Pearl Islands.
-
The thing is, about the only person he CAN take to the Showdown is Ambuh. The way he's played the game has been effective in terms of keeping himself around, but the jury is so obviously nauseated by him that the only way they would give him the million is if he was sitting to someone EQUALLY unscrupulous, AND unrespectable.
For Jenna and Rupert, the critical challenge is the first immunity challenge on Sunday. If either of them win it, they can band together, knock out Rob, and it's a new game.
Whether or not they win it, the CRUCIAL one is of course the SECOND immunity, 'cuz winning that one takes you to the Showdown. Not so much so for Rob (if he's around), since he'll go regardless, either by winning himself or by being such a noxious alternative as to be the obvious choice.
It's almost as if Rob has been playing this game all along to finish second. And playing to guarantee yourself 100K is not a bad paycheck at all.
-
Maybe, what with Super Millionaire existing, and the fact this is essentially a kind of champion of champions thing, they're going to surprse everyone by revealing the prize to be $10m, rather than the usual $1m?
The copy I downloaded (that's right, see me single handedly destroy the entire American TV industry) didn't have a preview of the final on so this "surprise" business has passed me by.
This said, I can't predict who is likely win so it should all be quite exciting anyway.
-
It actually might be a "winning more than $1M" thing...I do recall reading in another JP interview that the surprise was going to be revealed during the reunion show...and since that is live, it can't have anything to do with the actual game play.
And here it is from Zap2It . . . .
And then, of course, there's that Huge Surprise that CBS has been promoting for the past week. Naturally, as gentlemen don't tell secrets, Probst refuses to give even the slightest indication of what the surprise will entail, only warning viewers to expect it on the live reunion show.
"There's a pretty good reveal on the live show," he promises. "We're going to share something on that show that is certainly significant, completely unexpected and will definitely have people talking."
-
If the vast majority of us are lucky, the suprise will be that it's the LAST Survivor, and we won't have to deal with this soap opera any more.
-
Merely giving the winner a bigger paycheck is hardly shocking, and incredibly wasteful. Any one of these attention-hounds would probably have played the game the same way if the top prize was $100,000.
Mark Burnett is one producer who understands the ridiculousness of "Mo' Money Syndrome". Remember that while every "expert" now says that you can't have a successful reality show anymore without a top prize of at least a million, Burnett downsized the payoff for The Apprentice (to say nothing of the fact that it's an actual job the winner now has to perform) and had himself yet another hit.
BTW, reportedly the runners-up this time around get a good deal larger chunk of change than in previous editions, including $250,000 for second. However, since that's not really being made into a huge deal, that falls more in the category of giving these "All-Stars" a compensation worthy of their "celebrity" status than it does throwing more money at a show to improve its ratings.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/.../09/452390.html (http://\"http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/Spotlight/2004/05/09/452390.html\")
-
[quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'May 9 2004, 11:04 AM\'] If the vast majority of us are lucky, the suprise will be that it's the LAST Survivor, and we won't have to deal with this soap opera any more. [/quote]
My understanding is that there's no Federal mandate requiring you to deal with this soap opera NOW. I'm sure there's a charming rerun of some version of Law and Order for you over on NBC. Hey, there's probably even a book on your bookshelf you've been meaning to read.
If you don't like a show -- any show -- then don't watch it. But to knock discussion of one of the most popular series on television merely because it's popular is the laziest form of criticism there is.
-
My gut tells me its something to do with all the All-Stars - not just the ones on the jury. Maybe the others kicked off will have some sort of say, or veto power or something, on who wins the million. Granted, their opinions might be tainted by the editing of the show - only seeing what we see. But I still think all the All-Stars will have a bigger role in the outcome of the show, not just the usual sit-there-and-answer-the-question stuff.
Just my $0.02.
-
Oh, and all I have to add on the matter is...
Go Rupert! Go Rupert!
Amen to that...he's the one I've been pulling for through most of the series and would really like to see him win the $1M. And I'm not just saying that because I'm a Yankees fan, LOL.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'May 9 2004, 10:13 AM\'][quote name=\'DrBear\' date=\'May 9 2004, 11:04 AM\'] If the vast majority of us are lucky, the suprise will be that it's the LAST Survivor, and we won't have to deal with this soap opera any more. [/quote]
My understanding is that there's no Federal mandate requiring you to deal with this soap opera NOW. I'm sure there's a charming rerun of some version of Law and Order for you over on NBC. Hey, there's probably even a book on your bookshelf you've been meaning to read.
If you don't like a show -- any show -- then don't watch it. But to knock discussion of one of the most popular series on television merely because it's popular is the laziest form of criticism there is.[/quote]
He did not knock it in that statement simply because it was popular. He knocked it because he viewed it as a soap opera, and to an extent, I have to agree.
Burnett's shows have had multiple allegations laid against them of game fixing in various forms, and I tend to personally believe that there must be some grain of truth to them. Heck, even Combat Missions had "reenactments".
Is Survivor popular? Yes. Is it unscripted? Hardly.
I like my game shows / reality TV to be real, and my pro wrestling to be staged. Not the other way around.
-
I wasn't knocking it because it was popular. Although I'd knock discussion of "The O.C.," "The Simpsons" or "Friends" in this forum.
Survivor is not a game show, it is an unscripted soap opera.
If you want to discuss it, fine, but I think it belongs in here as much as, say, birthday greetings.
-
[quote name=\'parliboy\' date=\'May 9 2004, 01:51 PM\'] Burnett's shows have had multiple allegations laid against them of game fixing in various forms, and I tend to personally believe that there must be some grain of truth to them. Heck, even Combat Missions had "reenactments".
Is Survivor popular? Yes. Is it unscripted? Hardly.
I like my game shows / reality TV to be real, and my pro wrestling to be staged. Not the other way around. [/quote]
Now, see, THIS is a valid point worth debating and arguing.
Burnett has freely admitted to the press that certain stagings and even competitions were "recreated" in order to get decent camera shots. But there's a huge difference between doing that and rigging the competitions and votes in order to dictate a particular outcome. The only specific first-hand allegations about doing anything like that were made by a disgruntled player who didn't do as well as she wanted, and she could offer no specific evidence to back up her claim.
Of course the program is not "unscripted". You think Probst makes up the words he says? But if you're going to make the case that Burnett has the whole thing planned out and knows in advance who's going to win (as in the pro wrestling analogy you made), you're going to have to do a lot better than "multiple allegations", when as far as I know, every single allegation about real manipulation has been shot down.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Burnett's a saint. I've said separately that The Apprentice isn't a real competition because he and Trump could huddle after every program and decide the fates of the players totally at whim. But dozens of people have played Survivor and hundreds of people have worked on it. If Burnett was doing something really wrong, we wouldn't have just had these vague accusations by now, we'd have a full-blown scandal. And you know anybody except CBS would jump on the chance to expose it.
-
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....
-
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 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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
[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.
-
[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.
-
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?
-
[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 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. :)
-
[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?
-
[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.
-
[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.
-
[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.
-
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.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'May 13 2004, 11:57 AM\'] 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. [/quote]
Interesting point.
And, yes, Rob and Amber pretty much sucked the excitement right out of the twist. Was that the sound of CBS execs slapping their foreheads, saying, "We're spending a million bucks and this little twit is stealing our thunder?"