Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

NutMeg

Member
  • Posts

    2.1k
  • Joined

Posts posted by NutMeg

  1. 3 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

    Anyone wanna bet it's Cynthia Nixon that is the hold up?  I can see her wanting assurances Miranda and Che are still starring in their own rom com.  

    https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/sexy-and-the-city-author-candace-bushnell-slams-and-just-like-that-1235184202/

     

    From the article:

    “I’m really startled by a lot of the decisions made in the reboot,” Bushnell said. “You know, it’s a television product, done with Michael Patrick King and Sarah Jessica Parker, who have both worked with HBO a lot in the past. HBO decided to put this franchise back into their hands for a variety of reasons, and this is what they came up with.”

    I guess that is her polite way of saying yeah it sucks.

     

    The quote in the Variety article is taken from a longer article, or rather an interview of C. Bushnell in The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/candace-bushnell-is-back-in-the-city which I found well worth reading.

    The Carrie of the first two seasons of SATC is much more closely based on Bushnell than I ever knew, and I've been thinking of how more interesting her character could have been had that continued to be the case.

    When first hearing about the reboot, I had thought it was going to be based on Bushnell's Is There Still Sex in the City? I haven't read it, but based on some reviews (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/45897976-is-there-still-sex-in-the-city), I understand it as having a format relatively similar to that of Sex and the City (the book), only about people in their fifties or more generally middle aged. Can someone who's read it confirm, and would you recommend it?

     

    • Useful 3
    • Love 1
  2. 4 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

    Is that what the contract actually says or is that her legal team's interpretation of it though? And if it is something that is unclear does the contract have a claus about who gets to do the interpretation?

    My understanding is that once the release was moving to streaming, she wanted to renegotiate the initial contract. And I think Disney is the bad guy here. From this article:

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/jul/29/scarlett-johansson-suing-disney-black-widow-streaming-wars

    Quote

    (from a previous article) Johansson claims that her salary was based on the box office performance of the film, which opened strong with $80m in the US but suffered the steepest second week decline of any entry within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, dropping 67%.  

    (from the article quoted above) Its underwhelming theatrical showing (the film suffered a 67% decline in its second weekend stateside, the worst for any MCU movie) has been attributed directly to its availability at home and Johansson’s original contract guaranteed her a share of its box office receipts which are now far less than expected.

    Another articles (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/jul/29/scarlett-johansson-suing-disney-black-widow-streaming-release) explains that

    Quote

    The complaint claims that Johansson’s lawyers reached out in 2019 to Disney with concerns about the film being given a multi-platform release. They later tried to renegotiate her contract after the release strategy was changed.

    Clearly, the renegotiation went to nought. Now, I am aware that actors get paid amounts that only CEOs maybe don't find excessive, but the thing is that a deal is a deal, as I see it, and if an actor generate shitloads of money and by contract they are entitled to a percentage of it, it is very wrong to deny them that right.  

    • Love 17
  3. This show is brilliant, this season more than ever. Despite unlikely hijinks, like Diane representing the firm at that panel, it still manages to be both crazy and relatable. The brilliant posters who posted before me already made excellent points, so I'll just add what was not said yet:

    - it's been in all episodes so far and I wasn't a fan at first, but the idea of this parallel, disrupting court is growing on me. I like the idea of a forum where an arbitration is available for free at a time when hiring a lawyer or suing with cause is too expensive for people who might need it the most. I also liking the "disguising" of the parties, even if it didn't make sense this episode because we a video of the plaintiff was shown in "court";

    - the office app is bonkers but so reflective of office culture, and of the way well-intentioned initiatives can end up being extremely time consuming, distracting from the work that needs to be done, and produce unintended consequences;

    - loved Diane's evening of woes with classical music at high volume and brandy; (also her convos with RBG, or rather her view of what her convos with RBG would be like)

    - diverging political views amongst friends or lovers used to be a interesting topic for (sometimes heated) debate, but the chasm that has built up makes it much harder to overcome, and it's a rare show that goes there (or maybe there are more that I'm unaware of - please let me know if that's the case); 

    - absolutely loved the Liz/Diane conversation at the bar. This work relation which has the potential to become a real friendship between two clever women who respect each other and are willing to talk about serious issues without sugarcoating them is definitely something I will always want more of. (For those who watched the Good Wife, there was so much potential there too once, and it all went to dust.) I fully get where each of the two is coming from, and I very eagerly don't want a chasm to build up between them. 

    • Love 8
  4. On 7/22/2021 at 11:09 PM, shlbycindyk said:

    But only after the librarian has removed her glasses, taken her hair out of a bun, and has then shaken her head around so her hair will flow in the breeze.  I tried this once and I did get some attention but it was only because I got dizzy while trying to shake my head around. 

    Reminds me of a time a girl friend of mine and I were waiting for our respective planes at an airport in Barcelona. There was a very good looking woman with a bun and glasses in what looked like a work meeting at another table in the bar, and my friend says, figure it, now she removes the glasses and shakes her hair... We collapsed laughing. 

    20 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

    I'm a bit of an introvert and almost never have an alibi outside of working hours.  If I'm ever accused of a crime I am effed.

    Well, on the flip side, on a weekly zoom class I take, I have the camera off, and the sound is mute most of the time. I could theoretically be able to zip and strangle someone and be back in time to make it like I never missed the class. If I could do it, you could too, you just need to sign up on a virtual class :)

    18 hours ago, Bastet said:

    Since my cat wouldn't alibi me in an admissible language, I would have to subpoena detailed internet and satellite TV records to prove I was at home at the time, since that's where I usually am.  And if I was reading, cooking, etc. at that time, with not only no witnesses but no electronic record, yeah, I'd just have to emphasize the burden of proof.

    A lot of people live alone, or live with someone who keeps different hours; the "well, that's not much of an alibi, is it?" sneering when someone says they were home alone at the time of X scene is particularly tired these days. 

    Ooooh, I love that. My cat is clever but not that good with internet or satellite tv so if I am not seen during my zoom class and get suspected of a crime I would definitely use this. 

    16 hours ago, Zella said:

    If I had to provide an alibi:

    "No, nobody can vouch for my whereabouts, but if you look at my phone and internet records, you'll see that I was at home all day posting strident comments about pop culture on the internet and not murdering Colonel Mustard. But please don't look at my search history because that's weirdly incriminating. I was trying to fact-check the pop culture I have strident opinions on, you see." 

    Probably why more and more series and movies are set in the past :)

    • Love 5
  5. Nothing surprising in Britney Spears behaving like a teenager or ever pre teen - that's the age she was when she last had agency in the best case scenario.

    I don't know how you can go suddenly from a teenage state of mind to that of an adult, I think it's a process that would take time and involve many errs. It would have been smoother if the adults in her life had helped along the way, but that was not the case, and she might have to just leap across 15-20 or how many years of life (sometimes toughly earned) experience in one go, if she is allowed to - poor kid, and I call her kid and not woman here because I feel for the kid she once was and still is somehow and who was not able to grow as she should have.

    I hope this woman is allowed to get back control of her life. Many other women "get crazy" after having kids, or when being stalked 24/7. Kanye West was never the victim of these, is known to not take his medication for a known condition, and will still never be submitted to what she has been. Britney S. needs, once she can, to find a very good help for navigating all her missed years and the future that she should be able to define and look forward to.   

    • Love 16
  6. On 7/1/2021 at 8:23 PM, bobbyjoe said:

    Wow, the look that Liz gives Carmen when she says “I admired your father” feels like it has even more weight coming right at the same time as the Cosby news.  I know the writers didn’t plan this, but, wow.  Knowing what we know about everything Liz had to go through after the revelations about her dad, I suspect “I admired your father” is exactly the wrong kind of suck-up to say to her. The Liz-Carmen dynamic should prove interesting this season.

    On the same note, kudos to the show for establishing right off the bat that the Carmen character is not just there to be Lucca 2.0.  They plunge Carmen into deep waters right from the start; I mean she’s literally threatening a prisoner her first episode in. 

    The Judge Wackner storyline was fun, but this is one of those cases where it’s 50-50 if the writers spin this storyline into something genuinely interesting throughout the season or we end up with another Roland Blum/Michael Sheen scenario where you have a really good actor playing a character who’s written in such a cutesy and obnoxious manner that you start hating it every time he shows up on screen.

    So glad to have the show back!
     

    I love the new Carmen character, the actress is playing it beautifully and this opens up a lot of potential new avenues.

    On 7/2/2021 at 4:38 PM, marny said:

    I saw the “I admired your father” comment more as shade with plausible deniability. 

    I like your way of thinking - it's definitely very intriguing.

    Again, so happy to see this show back, and rather thrilled with the new cast additions / new story lines. Eagerly waiting for the next episode!

     

    • Love 3
  7. So happy that the show is back, and on good form too, based on this first episode. I really liked the flashback to events we all lived through and were affected by and seeing how they affected our protagonists. Also, how happy I was to hear the theme song, I absolutely love it and enjoy the various visual iterations we had with it. On to the second episode!

     

    • Love 3
  8. Just catching up after seeing the first 3 episodes of this season.

    Jane's "if men had to do it, they'd find a better way than have their balls crushed" (approximate wording) is something anyone who ever had a mammogram thought. This procedure is an assault on biology  😞

    It's also sad to me that the print edition ceased to be. I used to be a regular reader of the print editions of magazines that ceased to print, and their online successor never filled the void (not only are the articles shorter and more generic, but now I seldom click on an article that doesn't seem like it'd interest me, whereas in the past I used to read all articles, and learn a lot I had no idea I'd be interested in). But mostly, there's no sense of closeness (for me) in reading online. And I never reread anything, so the impact is not so great.

    As for Jacqueline's marital woes, they would make sense if she had been unemployed for more than a minute. As it stands, it's weird that a reversal to the status quo of the last how many years causes so much problems. Was her husband who's now having his job opportunities left and right a stay home guy for 20 or so years until now? Jees, I wish it worked that way for stay at home women when they feel they want to go back to whatever they were doing 20 years before.

     

    • Useful 1
    • Love 1
  9. On 12/19/2019 at 6:56 PM, RescueMom said:

    IMO, this is the reason I think every woman who plays *should* be pushing for an all-women's alliance. Not because of woman-power or women sticking together or men not being good alliance-mates, but because the reality is that women who make it to the end are far more likely to get credit for their gameplay if they are sitting with only other women. 

    That was exactly Parvati's thought process, clearly articulated in game to James in FvF. 

    On 12/20/2019 at 4:20 PM, Eolivet said:

    Cough, fire-making. It's the fire-making. That is the only thing that's changed in five years notably from the previous five.

    Indeed, but mostly in that this freaking fire making potentially gives an in to people who would have been out at 4 otherwise when losing the final immunity challenge because their social game was not strong enough to keep them in otherwise.

    And most often than not, it is men who are reliant on winning immunities to get to the end when they don't have strong connections that can take them to the end regardless of the outcome of final tribal.

    If we go back and imagine how this rule would have played out had it been in place, some of ours (by that I mean favourite of each posters, which is obviously subjective) winners wouldn't have won. Just on the top of my head, YaoMan might have won Fiji, Ozzy wins South Pacific, Malcolm might have won Philippines. In the latter two, a woman won because she better worked the social angle with players still in the game, but was liked less by the jury that the alternative.

    With fire making at F4, Tina might have won Bvsw, Spencer might have had a shot at Cagayan, Kelley Wentworth in Cambodia, Cidney in Khao Rong, etc. and in each case it would have meant a completely different gameplay that penalised the social game in favour of the more physical one.

    And this is why this fire making is so detrimental to women's game. Because the women who won the game did so by playing powerful social connections, even when they were also challenge beasts (Kim, for instance). But the fire making challenge allows an outcast with no blood on his or her hand to make it through at what used to be the most difficult point in the game to navigate. 

    On 12/21/2019 at 5:34 AM, BK1978 said:

    One thing I do notice about the Australian players are, they tend to vote out whomever is the leader quicker than the Americans do.  That happens regardless of gender.  Obviously some slip through to the later rounds but for the most part if you are viewed as a gamer then you are gone sooner rather than later.

    Same in the French version. I only watched one season, but I liked that the non leader, non physical threat but highly strategic player managed to win it, though.

    On 12/23/2019 at 7:11 PM, Alice Mudgarden said:

    I'd argue that it's not the sole reason, just for the fact that the EoE itself lends to social bonding that is now happening there as opposed to on the actual tribe beach(es). Of course EoE castaways were going to vote for whichever one of them went back that made it to F3. Which, of course, proves that no matter how hard the show tries, at its core it's still a show predominantly predicated on social skills and EQ, and not challenges, idols and twists.

    Where EoE (the season) loses me is that Chris - who generally seems fine outside of the stupid twist and tried to play the most he could once he made it back - was up against Gavin, who had one of the strongest cases you can make for winning the game in never even having a single vote cast against him in all 39 days. Even with the social aspect being the major determining factor for the jury, that still should have given Gavin the W. To never get a vote cast against you ever means that socially, you're doing something very right. That mattered to only four out of thirteen jurors, because of EoE. That's the mark of a truly awful gimmick, IMO.

    Yes, indeed. That's a huge flaw because it actually helps with jury management if you are voted out early.

    If I was a returning player on S40, I would definitely look into exploiting that loophole if voted out early.

    • Love 5
  10. On 10/21/2019 at 10:58 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

    What made 1991 Gaston so effective was how entitlement was the root of his evil: his popular jock persona, his appeal to the ladies (save for Belle, clever girl), his belief that Belle should marry him, and his disbelief that she didn't even like him... all come to a head and reveal the monster he really was. 

    And the frightening, tragic thing?

    There are countless Gastons in the real world.

    We see them all the time: harassing women, beating up nerds, reveling in popularity they don't deserve, and committing horrific crimes because they know they'll get away with it, and why? Because there is a subset of people who love and stand behind their Gastons, blind to how awful they are, and will blame their victims, because they don't know any better. 

    So, yeah, 1991 Gaston is one of the all-time great villains, while 2017's Gaston is a mewling twerp who could get knocked over with a stiff breeze.

    I love your whole post (which I only quoted part of here). I do love in the 1991 version how Gaston is a text book catch, because that's exactly the kind of person who feels entitled to anything and anyone. I'm sorry to hear that he's different in the 2017 version, because I remember thinking way back then how great it was that the villain was not your typical moustache twirling one but instead the super popular dude who can appear attractive at first, but who turns out to be looking less for love than for a confirmation of his status as he sees it. It was quite refreshing to see back then, especially in a cartoon movie. 

    • Love 8
  11. I'm thinking this convos with Rob and Sandra are not helping anyone. Except Kellee, so far (who was clever to hide the II in her hair and go full on Actor's Studio on her tribemates).

    That's not to say I don't like seeing Rob and Sandra, even though I think they don't add much - but it kind of make me want for see them in Jeff's role. What would add more is having them discuss strategy with who comes up, hear what the dynamics are, advice based on the strengths and weaknesses they see in the person they meet, and to maximise strengths/minimise weaknesses. But that's not what Survivor is supposed to be, just a wish in case we have to have living Idols and how I want to use them better.

    What mostly caught my attention were the flashbacks to previous seasons. Poor Erik has to be there again, but those were very good examples on how you play on what someone wants to influence them. Less so were the examples of Parvati. Once again, she's shown as having a strategy of flirting. But really, she too gave everyone what they wanted, and in that respect she's one of the best influencers in the game: she convinced Cirie to join her when Cirie was the swing vote, she made friends with the newbies to help her get to the end (and they voted for her), but she still kept her promise to Cirie and Amanda to go to the end; she even was clear with James that she needed an all female finale. So I know she said she was going to flirt, and TBTB sure run with that to make her seem one note, but really that was just one note of her sonata (I agree she's not a full orchestra, but she's a damn good sonata). Her first season, she had Becky and Sandra wanting to keep her further, which scared Yul - she is very much the female equivalent to Boston Rob, getting more flack because she's using some 'female wiles', when he was doing just the same.

    Back to the current players,  I really like the cast, and enjoying the episodes - and the outcomes surprised me. But it seems they think they HAVE to make big moves/engineer blindsides. What's fun for the viewers isn't necessarily what's best for the players, and based on the gameplay we've seen or the editing, only a few contestants are really playing well without looking to make big moves.

    Oh, and that hidden idol? looked like a real fake!! How are poor hamsters to know what's fake and what's not? 

    • Love 6
  12. @ParadoxLost, you have all my sympathy. If at all possible, I'd say try to take a week off, and after three days of rest see what approach feels right for you. It's never easy nor optimal to make decisions while you're bang in the middle of things.

    I trust you'll find out what's best for you, my best wishes to you for getting some rest, finding peace of mind and keeping or getting the job you really want.

    • Love 2
  13. Three episodes in, so far so good, mostly.

    The casting is good, and we see more of player dynamics than on earlier seasons.

    BUT we do lose a lot of airtime getting invested in people who will go to Big Head Island (TM @goldil), and as this episode showed it can be all for nought. Spending how many minutes of a 45 min episode on the 3rd person voted out is excessive (only makes sense if all newbie seasons are now casting opps for future returnee seasons). Especially as we didn't even see how Vince and Elizabeth interacted or not about Big Head Island, or why Vince was really voted off, or why it was Elizabeth, the only one who'd been to Big Head Island, seemed to lead the charge against Vince because of his probability of having an idol.

    Also, the Coming up section before the episode has to go. Because there are no credits or previously on, it's hard to skip without missing the beginning of the episode.

    In summary: good cast, so so edit, bad gimmick that takes away for more important gameplay.   

    • Love 4
  14. On 9/25/2019 at 5:00 AM, DoctorAtomic said:

    Yes her. She was a big wackadoo conspiracy theory person at the start. 

    I just loved that she was, yeah some of you clones aren't much. 

    Yes not only did she think the clones looked nothing like her, but because she had conspiracy theories of her own she though theirs were really crap - as in I'm better looking than you, and my script is way better than yours.   

  15. On 8/20/2019 at 7:30 AM, 27bored said:

    I think I’ve said it before but Nicki Minaj is actually an underrated singer. She’s at least as good a singer as Rihanna. Here’s an under-the-radar song — that sounds 2016-ish even though I think it came out last year — by her and ZAYN. It’s kinda nice. 

    I agree that she's very underrated. I put it to her very often featuring on other singers' songs in mostly the same way. The first time I saw an other side of her was in Grand Piano. There are other gems on that album, such as Bed of Lies, featuring Skylar Grey. Those were never singles, so are not very well known, unfortunately. I can't seem to add links after the first so I'll just leave Grand Piano here. Overall, I think her singles are very limitative as to her whole range.

    On 9/14/2019 at 12:43 AM, 27bored said:

    Don’t Call Me Angel by Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus, and Lana del Rey is #1 on trending. 

    The song isn’t the bop it should be. It’s the lead single for the new Charlie’s Angels movie. But they got three chicks who just aren’t doing it for me. For one, I don’t find any of them sexy. Ariana is cute, Lana is at best kind of pretty, and Miley looks rose hard and put away wet. I have no idea why she’s aging badly (well, I have an idea, but I have no confirmation). 

    That said, Miley works the best for the song and video. Ariana is still doing the pretty girl doing pretty singing while looking pretty thing, but there’s too much of her. She has a verse and she sings the hook. Then Lana, who I’ll admit I was most interested in hearing what she did with the song, comes in and basically does an entirely different song. To be fair, I wish they would’ve left her part out and wrote an entire song around it because it works in its own way. She invokes a certain menace that could work on its own, but in a big pop song like this is supposed to be? It sounds out of place.

    I hope pop music makes a comeback, but I’ll be honest and say I wish this song had a female rapper on it. I think an Iggy Azalea or Meg thee Stallion (whom I would’ve preferred) would’ve worked great. 

    I fully agree! The song is blah, the video has too much Ariana and too little Lana. Miley seems to work the best, but soon becomes a bit cliché. I kind of wish, weak as the song is, that we could have three different versions, by each singer, we'd have three very different stories despite the same lyrics. 

    On 9/14/2019 at 4:21 AM, UYI said:

    I absolutely love Lana Del Rey's new album, Norman Fucking Rockwell! (NFR! for short). There are a few music critics who feel it's one of the best pop albums of the year, if not THE best, and, well, I can see (or in this case, hear) why.

    She follows her muse to the point where she'll never fully be a mainstream pop artist with big top 40 hits, but that's okay. Her fan base is loyal and she's true to herself. That's enough. 

    Also, I LOVE the cover she does of Sublime's "Doin' Time". She somehow makes it work, both for herself and within the context of the album.

    Love it too. She has a very strong history of covers, among my favourites are Blue Velvet and God Knows I Tried, she's also had at least a song covered, Gods and Monsters, amazing version in American Horror Story performed by Jessica Lange.

    On 9/14/2019 at 6:22 PM, Billina said:

    Okay, so, I totally don't get Lana del Ray.  Granted, I haven't listened to an album of hers in its entirety, but what I have heard has been slow, and melancholy.  Total downer music, the kind I want to slit my wrists, to.  What is the appeal?

    Well, I'd say in good part it could be that singles (that make it on the radio) are far from a good showcase. But I do think she's an acquired taste, and it's taken me a few listen of her albums to really get into them, and end up loving most songs. What I like is that often each song tells a story, like a short novel, or a short movie. She has cited among her influences David Lynch, and it's easy to see why. She also has a very wide vocal range, spanning IIRC three octaves.

    I give you Off to the Races, for the David Lynch cinematic vibe and High by the Beach, for a very different vibe:

    • Love 1
  16. On 8/12/2019 at 5:06 AM, 27bored said:

    Yeah that was weird to me as well given Gaga has been outspoken about sexual assault. At first I thought she was trying to stay out of it — and I wouldn’t blame her — but then she took that song she did with R. Kelly down, and it just looked desperate.

    I don’t know. I feel like the expectation of celebrities that they Speak Out is a little unrealistic. I think when people start speaking out for certain causes, there’s an expectation that they keep it up even after the moment has passed. And the thing is, they’re usually only saying something when it’s advantageous to do so.

    Circa 2012-13, when we still heard about “rape culture” on college campuses, and Gaga still had a pop career, she was all over that. Smash cut to a few years later, she’s older, pop career has cooled off a bit, the hits aren’t coming as quickly, and now she’s mum on speaking out about R. Kelly.

    And I don’t say this to defend him, but it feels a bit too easy to go after R. Kelly. He’s not keeping the lights on at a record label, business people don’t need him to keep his engagements to have a successful show, and he isn’t paying dozens of people. So it feels like because the industry doesn’t need him that it’s open season to trundle out accusations we’ve known about for decades. Whereas, back when he was abusing young girls, he was cranking out hits for himself and others, so everybody had incentive to look the other way.

    I think the fact that Gaga didn't speak out makes sense. She seems quite introvert to me (yeah, yeah, I know, her public persona, which I'd say is in large part a mask) and probably needed time away from the public to process all new info that may very well have been news to her - not sure what song she did with him and when.

    I'm less lenient tough towards his producers and all who worked with him in close proximity for years, and did nothing to stop his behaviour.  

    • Love 1
  17. Well, as this is the unpopular opinion thread, let me say that based of the trailers I'm quite intrigued by the Joker. My interest has nothing to do with him being a part of the Batman universe. (Truth be told, while I really liked two Batman movies, one from Burton, one from Nolan, I'm quite remote from the whole background story, etc.). My interest in Joker is based on what I see as a compelling drama that to me seems interesting and played/directed with interesting insights. I would still root for Batman against the Joker in any instance, but that's not the point, because I don't even see this story as connected to the Batman universe, but more like a Carrie of sort, if you will.

    Otherwise, I also wanted to answer a post about Nothing Hill (sorry I somehow lost the quote), saying it was neither romantic nor funny. It always felt to me as an attempt to replicate the charm of Four Weddings and a Funeral that unfortunately only kept the more pedestrian parts and neglected all of what made the OG such a delight.

    • Love 5
  18. @Suzy Rhapsody, if she wants to celebrate her birthday with you on the actual day, I would say take her up on the offer, and do it as you feel like, or as you used to, including family. It doesn't have to be a late affair if you work early, and you could do it at home if easier. Just take it as an opportunity to celebrate her and show her you love her. Try not to let her get you into what you don't like about her actions. Basically, show that you're someone who'll love her, no matter what. And keep in mind that loving her is separate from not giving her all she wants or agreeing with how she lives her life. But somehow, I think it's important you keep showing her you love her, if not her choices.

    (One of my great aunts was a bit like your daughter. She messed up big time but instead of asking her parents for help she never got in touch with them ever again - we think she was afraid of being judged, or maybe couldn't take "we told you so". Hard to call, as I never knew her parents, but it seems to me that maybe she felt she was only loved with conditions. This personal family history and my thoughts about it colours what I said above.)    

    • Love 3
  19. 4 hours ago, Nashville said:

    That’s pretty much how Gavin replied when Probst dinged the finalists about not hunting idols The Rick Way; Gavin said he wasn’t spending all his time and energy hunting for idols because he he felt his social game position was strong enough that he didn’t need them.

    Thanks, for some reason my recording cut off before final tribal council, and to make it even weirder I first clicked on the wrong episode and heard Jeff annonce 'Chris has just won Survivor' before even watching the final episode. This season having been just a dud, it didn't even bother me to be spoiled which is a first, because I always avoid spoilers like the plague 😉 So I watched whatever I had and didn't bother looking online for final tribal council.

    That being said, I'd say Gavin had a point. I liked it better when idol clues were hidden in napkins at reward challenges (another option to add to my suggestions above :D).

    2 hours ago, Angeltoes said:

    One good twist would be to do away with idols and not tell the contestants.  See how long it takes them to realize that they don't have that loophole.

    Stop bringing back old contestants.  Enough people try out for this show that they should be able to find new and interesting players.  And stop over-picking the young ones.   I know they want to bring on eye candy but, speaking as someone who's staring down Social Security, there are some damn good looking older folks (looking at you, Sam Elliott).  

    No more islands of extinction or exile.  When you're out, you're out.  People will fight harder to stay in the game.

    Get some new challenges.  I'm tired of the same ol' things. 

    I think the no-idol-season has gone, TPTB are too much enamoured with the scenario where one person survives on an Idol diet. Same with the bringing back old contestants, it's not looking like it's in the cards - I even think they only do all-new contestant seasons now so as to find new blood (given how when there are returnees they get a disproportionate amount of screen time, it's the only way we can get really introduced to new players). I do hope though that the 38 format will get sent to the dungeons, never to return, but I'm not as hopeful as I would have been in the past, because the format of next season is proof that introducing new crazy gimmicks is how TPTB see the future. I'm with you though on wanting new challenges, or more specifically a variety of challenges that require different skill sets. If it means bringing back memory game and story time, so be it!

  20. You may have a point here.

    But I realised after posting that the reason I'd like clues or idols hidden at camp/challenge/tribal is that it could change the dynamic by allowing people who focus more on the social part of the game (spending more time at camp with others) to have the same chance of finding idols without jeopardising their social game by spending hours away from camp.

    It's no accident that a majority of people who keep looking and finding idols tend to have a weak social game.

    • Love 3
  21. The problem as I see it with how idols are rehidden after being played is that they are hidden in similar places, and so there is a sort of learning curve to finding them, and that means we easily find ourselves in a situation where the same player keeps finding them one after the other.

    It would help to hide them in very different ways and places each time, to avoid the advantage of familiarity with the potential hiding places. Alternate a mix of trees, buried in the sand, hidden in plain sight in challenges, or even at tribal council, spread clues in random places that are part of life at camp, the pot, behind the flint, in the tree mail, the pile of wood for the fire, any random place in the shelter, make some clue only partial information rather than 'dig there' type.

    • Love 5
×
×
  • Create New...