|
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by NiCK Crush
(Post 10665686)
Here's an interesting thought - I wonder if tribe's will start voting off stronger castaways in order to ensure Russell gets beaten. That's of course, if Russell beats Matt (which I think he will).
|
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by aktick
(Post 10665700)
I'll be interested to see if they try to cater challenges to Russell's strengths (though I'm not really sure what they are, as far as challenges go...he's not real athletic, but pretty tough, and IIRC he doesn't seem to be great at puzzles).
Also, Probst said that all the duels are mini versions of previous Survivor challenges, so obviously Russell is going to have an advantage. |
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by arminius
(Post 10665654)
I always hate it when a tribe loses on purpose. As many others have stated, it was too early to start eating your own. If the other tribe wins the next one I think they are toast.
|
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by NiCK Crush
(Post 10665102)
The whole "let's tell him Fran won" thing is pointless. What does it really do? Besides show that he was lied to... big deal, people lie all the time in Survivor. It's not like he gets to RI and immediately have to duel. So the whole "it'll throw him off" doesn't work either.
He got there, realized it was Matt that won, and that was it. Who cares.
Originally Posted by NiCK Crush
(Post 10665686)
Here's an interesting thought - I wonder if tribe's will start voting off stronger castaways in order to ensure Russell gets beaten. That's of course, if Russell beats Matt (which I think he will).
I do wonder if we'll see something like that this later in the game though. Such as if there is a power shift and Rob gets voted out and they take out Grant next so Rob has a tough match up at RI. |
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
It reminded me of a tamed down version of MTV's Gauntlet thing.
|
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by davidh777
(Post 10665730)
Historically this always backfires. I was going to say you'd think people would learn, but recruits are rarely fans of the game.
It didnt backfire for Ethan who won his season and Ozzy who finished runnerup when he did it in Cook Islands.. |
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this so far in the season threads, but...
Presumably, Russell has won some money over the past 2 seasons, yes? Probably more than $50? then why in the hell does he have a shitty, $50 tattoo on his arm????? good god, with the tattoo artist talent that is out there nowadays, he gets something that HORRID? |
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Russell is a millionaire before he went on Survivor so it's not a money issue.
|
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by NiCK Crush
(Post 10665686)
Here's an interesting thought - I wonder if tribe's will start voting off stronger castaways in order to ensure Russell gets beaten. That's of course, if Russell beats Matt (which I think he will).
|
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by zuffy
(Post 10666009)
Russell is a millionaire before he went on Survivor so it's not a money issue.
Maybe it's just me - I'm big into tattoos and can't for the life of me understand when people have HORRIBLY done tattoos a la http://www.ugliesttattoos.com |
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Besides, they'd get more satisfaction at making Russel his "friends" to stay alive in the game.
|
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by Howie2000
(Post 10666010)
I think that would be pretty moronic. No one knows when that person reenters the game. Even if its as soon as the merge it would mean he has to beat anywhere from 6-8 people in a row. For any player that would be an almost impossible task let alone for someone of his physique.
|
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by Bill Needle
(Post 10665108)
Exaclty. Russell's medicine never consisted of douchy and half-assed excuses and denials.
|
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by Howie2000
(Post 10666010)
I think that would be pretty moronic. No one knows when that person reenters the game. Even if its as soon as the merge it would mean he has to beat anywhere from 6-8 people in a row. For any player that would be an almost impossible task let alone for someone of his physique.
|
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux
(Post 10666026)
the money thing was rhetorical. of course he has enough money for a good tattoo. But his looks like a friend did it in the backseat of a moving Yugo.
Maybe it's just me - I'm big into tattoos and can't for the life of me understand when people have HORRIBLY done tattoos a la http://www.ugliesttattoos.com |
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by D'ohboy
(Post 10664329)
Why not just a small graphic tally at the bottom of the screen or better yet use the empty pillars along the sides. (Sorry non-HD viewers.)
|
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Finally got a chance to watch last night. I think they really blew the Redemption Island idea.
Here's what I think they should have done: Each person gets voted off and goes to RI. We as viewers, and they as players, do not get to see the challenge or who wins. The shows are exactly like all the other seasons, but we know the person getting voted off is going to RI. Then at the merge (or whenever the new person enters), we have Jeff saying "and now entering back into the game ...." then cut to the players all gasping in who they see, but we still don't know who it is yet. They have a special episode of all the challenges on RI. We, as viewers, get to see who got off the island and how. then the next episode starts with them reacting to whomever comes back into the game. I think thats a much better way of handling it. It solves a lot of issues like the flow of the episodes isn't very good now. We don't get much of the "at camp" footage that we're used to. Everything seems sped up. And with my way, CBS gets an extra episode out of it that isn't some recap filler crap. Its a win-win. |
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by Maxflier
(Post 10668156)
What empty pillars? The show is 16:9.
I don't know why. |
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by Joeboo835
(Post 10668985)
Finally got a chance to watch last night. I think they really blew the Redemption Island idea.
Here's what I think they should have done: Each person gets voted off and goes to RI. We as viewers, and they as players, do not get to see the challenge or who wins. The shows are exactly like all the other seasons, but we know the person getting voted off is going to RI. Then at the merge (or whenever the new person enters), we have Jeff saying "and now entering back into the game ...." then cut to the players all gasping in who they see, but we still don't know who it is yet. They have a special episode of all the challenges on RI. We, as viewers, get to see who got off the island and how. then the next episode starts with them reacting to whomever comes back into the game. I think thats a much better way of handling it. It solves a lot of issues like the flow of the episodes isn't very good now. We don't get much of the "at camp" footage that we're used to. Everything seems sped up. And with my way, CBS gets an extra episode out of it that isn't some recap filler crap. Its a win-win. |
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by Joeboo835
(Post 10668985)
Finally got a chance to watch last night. I think they really blew the Redemption Island idea.
Here's what I think they should have done: Each person gets voted off and goes to RI. We as viewers, and they as players, do not get to see the challenge or who wins. The shows are exactly like all the other seasons, but we know the person getting voted off is going to RI. Then at the merge (or whenever the new person enters), we have Jeff saying "and now entering back into the game ...." then cut to the players all gasping in who they see, but we still don't know who it is yet. They have a special episode of all the challenges on RI. We, as viewers, get to see who got off the island and how. then the next episode starts with them reacting to whomever comes back into the game. I think thats a much better way of handling it. It solves a lot of issues like the flow of the episodes isn't very good now. We don't get much of the "at camp" footage that we're used to. Everything seems sped up. And with my way, CBS gets an extra episode out of it that isn't some recap filler crap. Its a win-win. |
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by Howie2000
(Post 10666007)
I think it's a bad move this early but that doesn't mean it's a game changer at all.
It didnt backfire for Ethan who won his season and Ozzy who finished runnerup when he did it in Cook Islands.. |
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Originally Posted by JuryDuty
(Post 10669404)
This is an excellent idea. Jeff Probst specifically said on his blog a couple weeks ago that they were looking for viewer feedback concerning the implementation of Redemption Island. You ought to go to jeffprobst.com and repost this there. Who knows, maybe someone who makes decisions will see it.
|
Re: Survivor: Redemption Island -- March 2, 2011
Redemption Island is a huge fail. Tribe members should have been kept in the dark about who comes back into the game.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.