I can't remember the last time I looked forward to Superbowl Sunday as much as I do today. And it has nothing, of course, to do with the Patriots, or the Panthers, or the Homer Simpson Mastercard commercial.
You know me better than that.
It's all about Survivor, baby. Three teams of six repeat castaways each, mano-a-mano for another million. This time, not only do we all know the players-- so do they. That's gonna make things really interesting from the get-go. And the gamemaker in me is very curious to see how Burnett's going to capitalize on the three-way action in challenges.
Quote of the day, from a story in the Philadelphia Daily News, about the contestants:
"They hang, they talk, they go to charities," Probst said. "It's a big part of their lives, 'Survivor.' So they talk about it all the time with each other." Yet, as you'll see in Sunday's premiere, none of them has apparently spent any time talking about how to make fire.
That cracks me up. You'd think that for their second chance, they'd have brushed up a bit on their basic survival skills-- especially the ones that gave them trouble the first time around.
And another quote, also from Probst:
"One by one, they e-mailed me or called before we got out there and said, 'I just want to let you know: I'm not gonna give you anything good at tribal council.'"I went into the game thinking, 'How am I gonna get good stuff out of these guys?' And it turned out I got the best stuff I've ever gotten."
I am so looking forward to this.
I am so sad.
Posted by Peter at January 29, 2004 4:26 PMThe word you are looking for is "geekycool".
There was talk of some repeat-offenders 24/7 game taking place in the UK featuring sundry veterans from Bigs Brother, Survivors et al and possibly even stray celebrities gotten out of there, but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. Fingers crossed that this lives up to expectations.
Posted by: Chris M. Dickson on January 29, 2004 4:59 PMNo, it's actually happening after all - see http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds13106.html for lots of names which won't mean anything to you, but certainly at least four of the first six names announced are excellent - the best possible? - choices from their respective shows and the only reason I can't say that about the other two is that I didn't watch the shows in question. Looking good.
Posted by: Chris M. Dickson on January 30, 2004 5:24 AMBut Peter, wasn't the show taping during the airing of Pearl Islands? Rupert wasn't available for his morning-show interview after being voted off, because he was taping this show, right? Which means the others had not seen him play the game. Right?
I don't know how that may or may not help him.
Posted by: Danny on January 30, 2004 5:41 AMCorrect, Pearl Islands was airing while All Stars was being taped. The other All Stars didn't have much chance to see Rupert. Whether that will work in his favor or against him remains to be seen.
Posted by: Peter Sarrett on January 30, 2004 11:24 AM