Survivor

I_Hate_You88 wrote:

You aren't taking into consideration the fact that if there was a final two they would know. Becky knew her odds so she would backstab if she had to. If they knew there would be a final two Becky could have taken the idol from Yul and got her and Sundra to vote out Yul and try to win the final immunity and take Ozzy out. Iy can happen.

Besides what's really the point of a final three if nobody votes for the 3rd person, they seem like dead wieght/taking up space.

For all of you haters busting on Bob, Sugar, and Suzie for their performance at the FTC:You think you would have done better? Fill out an app and get on the show, I'd be HAPPY to be on your season and prove you miserably wrong.Or, if you are afraid of going head to head with me, then just sleep in your backyard for 39 days, only eating what you can catch.Bob, Sugar, and Suzie did the best they could do, from the "place" where they were. It's very easy to sit on your couch and think otherwise....

zvelf wrote: I_Hate_You88 wrote:There seems to be some inability (almost deliberate obtuseness) to comprehend the role of the third person here in a F3. The third person is not there to get votes. The third person is there to make the voting between the other two more interesting, one of whom would not be there otherwise.

2 is BORING. 3 makes it more a wild card!!

Final 3 just makes it where we hear even less from each contestant. This time we didn't hear closing remarks WTF?!

I think it should be 2 only. both times there were 3, one person got NO votes. How humilating for them.

I do hate final three. I wish it were Final 2 with the winner of the challenge choosing who they want to take.

keyanuesmom wrote: I think it should be 2 only. both times there were 3, one person got NO votes. How humilating for them.

Anyone who supports the final three or removing the jury element of the game does not understand the concept of Survivor at all."1) The "winner" can't win by default by just dragging the most unlikeable #2 along with them."Of the 13 seasons that had a final two, 8 of them resulted in the final immunity challenge winner losing in the final vote (Kelly in Borneo, Colby in Outback, Kim in Africa, Neleh in Marquesas, Lill in Pearl Islands, Rob in All-Stars, Danielle in Panama, and Amanda in Micronesia). This argument doesn't hold any weight."2) It gives the jury (typically) at least TWO valid contenders to choose between."Yeah, Earl really had an uphill battle in beating both Cassandra and Dreamz. And while Courtney did surprisingly well at the final TC, neither she nor Amanda gave Todd a run for his money."3) It keeps us from getting a Brian/Clay F TC."So we occasionally get a crappy winner (subjectively, since Brian's actually one of the strongest strategic players this game has ever seen). Boohoo."4) Unlike the US Presidential Election, it is WAY more likely to give us someone to vote/root FOR, rather than vote AGAINST."Because comparing a reality show to a presidential election makes an iota of sense. Ok."5) Choice is GOOD."Maybe I'm just not good at math, but when you have two people sitting in front of the jury and those jurors get to vote for one of them, they have two CHOICES."6) Terry Dietz vs. Danielle. 'Nuff said."I love how your first argument in favor of F3 is "The final challenge winner can't just bring a goat to the end" and yet one of your subsequent arguments is how a guy who made it to the final three solely by winning challenges (and finding a hidden idol) would have won the game if there were a final three.So why is final two better?1. First off, structurally, the show/game is like Ten Little Indians, with one person getting knocked out each round until only one remains. Except in a final three, where it suddenly drops from 3 to 1. Doesn't make any sense.2. Final two with an odd number of jurors (the way it always was except when James' evacuation prompted them to switch from F3 to F2 at the last minute in Micronesia)? No chance of a tie. F3 with any number or jurors? Not only is there a chance of a tie, but it's happened, and Fiji officially has two second-placers because of it (both got the full $100K btw--more money out of CBS' pocket). There's no revealed tiebreak procedure if there's a tie for the winner. How are the contestants expected to play a game where the rules aren't explicitly known?3. Final two is, plain and simple, more entertaining. Everything is edited down heavily with F3, and contestants like Becky are just flat-out ignored. It's also much more rushed.4. The final challenge is usually pretty epic with just three people. Remember Richard Hatch stepping down? Never would've happened with F3. It's just much more dramatic to watch when the stakes are raised.5. It rewards poor final three positioning. This is what separates the Richards and Tinas from the Kathys, Cesterninos, and Terrys. Richard and Tina brought themselves into final threes where either of their opponents would bring them to the end if they'd won the final challenge. For Kathy, Cesternino, or Terry, they needed to win the final challenge if they wanted to win the game. Put simply, there is such a thing as playing the game "too good," and it's all about the delicate balance of having the jury respect you but not seem like a F2 threat to your opponents. Too bad that subtle strategy doesn't matter anymore.6. There is no more incentive to make power plays towards the end of the game. If you're in a solid three-person alliance, why would you ever want to upset the apple cart and make moves? You've got a solid chance at facing the jury, so you have no reason to change the course of the game. The exception of course is for Sugars and Mattys who don't care about winning so long as a "good person" does. You don't get contestants like that too often, especially not in the final five. Final three encourages complacency, which is boring to watch.7. From a dramatic standpoint, the final vote is much more interesting when it lies completely in the hands of one person, even if it's obvious who they're voting out or if they're bringing a goat to the end. It's a perfectly valid strategy, and again...bad winners happen. It's a TV show. It's not the end of the world.8. One of the major appeals of the show from the start was the fact that anyone could win, whether you were a mastermind 'villain' like Richard or a nice guy like Ethan; a challenge dominator like Tom or a major challenge liability like Sandra. Three of the four winners from the final three fall into the "nice guy" group, and all four of them are males. It's nice to have likable winners, but you need a balance or else it just becomes expected and consistent, and consistency is boring.I could go on, but I'll stop there. Final three is easily the worst thing to happen to the show and the game.

When Box of Rocks Susie won & was part of the final 3 I was so pissed off I wanted Matty,Bob & Sugar as the 3. The 3 that voted for Susie just proves what losers they were too.

thewipf wrote:

keyanuesmom wrote: I think it should be 2 only. both times there were 3, one person got NO votes. How humilating for them.

Sugar not getting any votes really isn't humilating. She wasn't playing to win. If she had been playing to win she could have beat both Bob and Susie. All three of Susie's votes were votes against Bob and Sugar not votes for Susie.

You need to take into account that three of Bob's four votes were against Sugar and Susie. That arguement goes both ways pal.

I_Hate_You88 wrote: Final 3 just makes it where we hear even less from each contestant. This time we didn't hear closing remarks WTF?!

keyanuesmom wrote: I think it should be 2 only. both times there were 3, one person got NO votes. How humilating for them.

Good discussion.

anthontherun wrote: Anyone who supports the final three or removing the jury element of the game does not understand the concept of Survivor at all."1) The "winner" can't win by default by just dragging the most unlikeable #2 along with them."Of the 13 seasons that had a final two, 8 of them resulted in the final immunity challenge winner losing in the final vote (Kelly in Borneo, Colby in Outback, Kim in Africa, Neleh in Marquesas, Lill in Pearl Islands, Rob in All-Stars, Danielle in Panama, and Amanda in Micronesia). This argument doesn't hold any weight.

anthontherun wrote: "2) It gives the jury (typically) at least TWO valid contenders to choose between."Yeah, Earl really had an uphill battle in beating both Cassandra and Dreamz. And while Courtney did surprisingly well at the final TC, neither she nor Amanda gave Todd a run for his money.

anthontherun wrote: "3) It keeps us from getting a Brian/Clay F TC."So we occasionally get a crappy winner (subjectively, since Brian's actually one of the strongest strategic players this game has ever seen). Boohoo.

anthontherun wrote: "4) Unlike the US Presidential Election, it is WAY more likely to give us someone to vote/root FOR, rather than vote AGAINST."Because comparing a reality show to a presidential election makes an iota of sense. Ok.

anthontherun wrote: "5) Choice is GOOD."Maybe I'm just not good at math, but when you have two people sitting in front of the jury and those jurors get to vote for one of them, they have two CHOICES.

anthontherun wrote: "6) Terry Dietz vs. Danielle. 'Nuff said."I love how your first argument in favor of F3 is "The final challenge winner can't just bring a goat to the end" and yet one of your subsequent arguments is how a guy who made it to the final three solely by winning challenges (and finding a hidden idol) would have won the game if there were a final three.