I don't care how many challenges you've won in a row. You do not intentionally throw an immunity challenge. If the entire tribe is fed up with someone and will be happier if that person's gone, that's the silver lining in the event of a loss-- it's not an excuse to make the loss happen. And Drake wasn't even in that kind of unanimous situation. Burton was an enormous fool, one whose final words reveal he was awfully full of himself. Before you worry about what'll happen after the merge, you've got to get there first, moron. Burton got what he deserved, and Drake just lost a hell of a lot of karma points.
Was it just me, or was Jeff Probst looking daggers at Jon? The guy was making a complete ass of himself, and I'd have been equally happy to see his pale butt taking the walk of shame.
The most foolish thing about Drake's decision to take a dive is that they appear to not have considered the repercussions to morale, tribe unity, and trust. Combined with Rupert's conscription onto Morgan, we may have seen a key turning point in the game. Morgan got a much-needed morale boost, and it looks like Rupert is going to be making friends fast as he provides them with food and shows them how to fend for themselves. Next week I don't think Morgan will be the despondent losers they've been up to now. Hopefully there won't be a Drake backlash against Rupert. He appears to have a solid support base, though, and they'd be insane to follow up the eviction of Burton by voting off Rupert.
Then again, they've already taken a calamitous nosedive into idiocy. All bets are off.
Posted by Peter at October 10, 2003 01:19 AMBoo to the producers for once again shaking up the game just when we're finally getting to a point we've been waiting for. This reminds me of when they unnecessarily realigned Tambaqui and Jaburu last season, among other instances.
Why didn't Jeff Probst show the note to any of the players after the immunity challenge? Hmm, is it because the "note" was blank, and either way the challenge went, Drake would have had to give a member to Morgan? I figure at best, Drake's victory would have only allowed them to choose who left for Morgan. (Actually, that might have been more interesting... Put on the spot, they might have chosen Burton or Jon out of dislike, which would have shaken up the voting. Oh well.)
Missed opportunity: This is a pirate-themed game. The Drake member taken over to Morgan should have been called their "prisoner." Maybe the show could have taken it even further by locking that player up with chains.
Posted by: Scott Hardie on October 10, 2003 04:59 AMI had thought that Drake had their act together, but it's looking like only Rupert has his act together. Throwing a challenge? What planet are these people from? I suppose we'll find out at the next reward challenge whether Rupert, besides clearly being the strongest player, is also the smartest. Someone has been doing an excellent job of planning tactics for the Drakes, and I've assumed it was Rupert.
If at the next challenge, the Morgans seem to have their act together and the Drakes run around like chickens with their heads cut off, I think we'll have our answer.
And yes, Jon is one of the most annoying SOBs the game has ever seen.
I do think Rupert is going to have a tough time holding onto an alliance once it gets to the single-immunity phase. No one is going to want to go with him to the final 2; he'd win in a landslide.
Posted by: Don Munsil on October 10, 2003 10:59 AMStrangely, I've never watched any of the "reality" TV shows (outside of an occasional vegetative state in front of "Blind Date"). I have been catching up (on the TiVo) on the documentary "Reality of Reality" which is quite fun. I was surprised that they mentioned a couple of my favorite reality TV shows ("1900 House", "Frontier House" and "Manor House" ... guess I lied about not watching any).
Obviously, I'm a big film guy, and very, very aware of editting to create a story; this topic was well illustrated on R-of-R (they showed two edits of the same raw footage that were diametrically opposite).
I wonder how many people who watch Survivor et. all are fully aware of how much they are being manipulated or even lied to?
Peter ... how does this aspect factor in to your enjoyment of "the game" ... given that the game may by partially rigged; certainly, you like to second guess everyone's motivations, but how do you know what their real motivations actually are (between people playing to the camera and aggresive editting of content by the producers)?
Posted by: Howard M. Lewis Shp on October 10, 2003 11:25 AMI can't speak for anybody else here, but I'm not cynical enough to believe the audience is clueless. I think a lot of viewers know the shows are manipulated in the editing room (and beyond) - not even the footage on the nightly news is completely real any more. But as someone who enjoys "Survivor," I decided a long time ago that I could obsess over which details are fake and which are real, or, I could watch the show in peace, knowing that "some" details are fake and leaving it at that. I chose the latter.
Posted by: Scott Hardie on October 10, 2003 12:50 PMYep. Even my wife, who does not play games and isn't a huge Survivor fan, was yelling at the TV last night over Drake's decision to throw the immunity challenge. Unbelievably dumb.
And we will both be thrilled when John's dopey ass is thrown out. What a boob.
Posted by: Stephen Glenn on October 10, 2003 02:54 PMPeter, since you're the game expert, maybe you can answer this: What game did the immunity challenge most resemble? The board looked kinda familiar.
Posted by: Matt Jones on October 11, 2003 06:17 PM