S29.E13: Let's Make A Move

[KimberStormer]

I don't think it's ever happened, but as far as I know the votes against the idol player "don't count" so it's like they didn't get any votes.  I think they would be eligiable to vote on the revote.

[henripootel]

I don't think it's ever happened, but as far as I know the votes against the idol player "don't count" so it's like they didn't get any votes.  I think they would be eligiable to vote on the revote.

I'd reorganize that logic to say 'they got votes even if they were spared the consequences', and if they got votes, the can't re-revote.  Would be interesting if this is correct - great way to flush the idol and negate it, presuming of course that the HII protects you in a revote.  Do we know this?

[Nashville]

As producer shenanigans goes, I rank this near the bottom on the offensive scale.  Far more benign than, say, casting clearly unstable trouble makers and allowing them to run amok for 'tv gold'.

Oh, it's not the worst by any means. I simply dislike Production's negation of any strategic elements for what THEY think constitutes "good television ", because they are frequently wrong. When it comes to "hitting the mark" on what will resonate with the audience, there are some days I don't think TPTB could hit a Buick with a rock if they were standing on its hood.

[jumper sage]

Go Natalie go!  That was awesome use of the "tie".  Jon just sat there and was so egotistical.  I loved when his wife said he envisions what will happen and it always does.  I can't wait for her freakout next week.

[samuel]

I loved how happy Jeff seemed at the result of this Tribal, and I understand why. I like when people who are feeling like they may be on the outs have a plan and are able to execute it perfectly. This was a fun episode.

[KimberStormer]

Oh, it's not the worst by any means. I simply dislike Production's negation of any strategic elements for what THEY think constitutes "good television ", because they are frequently wrong. When it comes to "hitting the mark" on what will resonate with the audience, there are some days I don't think TPTB could hit a Buick with a rock if they were standing on its hood.

 

By now surely "they show as many votes as they can" is a known rule for Survivor players, and one they must take into account.  Also, in the olden days, if there was a tie, past votes determined who got sent home, so it was definitely necessary to show them.  Overall I have to say I think giving people the maximum amount of information is surely best not only for the audience but for the game.  I'd actually prefer it the other way around, if Jeff didn't do the "that's five, that's enough" thing, and showed every vote.

[ptuscadero]

What I saw tonight was Natalie pulling off a Sandra, my favorite Survivor ever. Sandra was loyal to Rupert, and it was annoying, but once he was booted, she started playing for herself and was awesome. That's what I'm starting to see in Natalie. Jeremy was her Rupert, now she has no loyalties, and is playing the hell out of this game and I am loving it.

 

Perfect analogy. I've been feeling like Bizarro Jerry the last few weeks - wondering, "what kind of topsy-turvy world is it when I find myself both impressed with and rooting for a TWINNIE??" since they annoyed the shit out of me on TAR. Natalie is playing her own game. As Sandra often pointed out, "I don't care who goes home, as long as it's not me."

[pennben]

 

Since Final 5 is the last time that a HII can be played, I hope Natalie can get herself sent to Exile Island to pick up Jon's re-hidden one. She can give it to Keith or Baylor and then boot the survivor of her choice.

 

Well, I hadn't even thought about that HII being put back in play.  Very interesting.

[Nashville]

Since Final 5 is the last time that a HII can be played, I hope Natalie can get herself sent to Exile Island to pick up Jon's re-hidden one. She can give it to Keith or Baylor and then boot the survivor of her choice.

 

...or play one, keep the other for a souvenir, and tell everybody else to go to hell.  :)

 

If Natalie did find the Exile Island idol, however, her smartest move would be to give Baylor the idol "they" found before heading to TC:

1. Natalie would still be protected by the EIII.
2. Doing so would be a display to cement Baylor's loyalty.
3. It would cement Missy's loyalty as well - as the last remaining couple, Missy and Baylor represent a twofer.
4. If B&M + anybody else have any "let's blindside Natalie" shenanigans planned for TC, it would be a great way to expose their duplicity - to the Jury and everybody else.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Nashville

[Donny Ketchum]

Well, I hadn't even thought about that HII being put back in play.  Very interesting.

I don't think she can be sent back there.  That only happens after Reward Challenges, and I'm pretty sure that the finale coming up will only have Immunity Challenges.  No way she can find a new one.

[ProfCrash]

There is normally a reward challenge at final five so there is a possibility that she could go back to exile Island. It would make sense for her to go since she has an immunity idol and does not need to win the reward challenge. If she finds the one on exile, she gives it to Baylor. If she wins individual immunity, she gives it to Missy. Vote out Keith.

[Drogo]

"When I give my speech to the jury"

"I would win against her in a F2"

"Don't ever give someone else credit when I do a big move"

I have to say the worst thing about Jon is the way he speaks to Jaclyn. And the ugliest thing about Jaclyn is the way she allows Jon to speak to her.

If I were cast with my wife before our children, or before our wedding- never in a million years would I use as many "Me"'s and "I"'s and "My"'s and "Mine"'s as Jon does.

And "Jax" lets it happen. My wife (even as my girlfriend) would have put me on my ass for any one of those me/my/mine/I's.

Can you imagine that not once has he mulled over whether he or "Jax" would win if they both made F2?

[peachmangosteen]

Oh, I saw Jaclyn put him to task for that shit plenty. But then I'm one of the few that thinks if anyone in that couple can do better it's Jaclyn and who much prefers Jaclyn to Jon.

Edited December 15, 2014 by peachmangosteen

[Drogo]

 

Jaclyn put him to task for that shit plenty.

 

I see it differently.  In her most defiant moment, she gave him the silent treatment for a few hours, revenge flirted with Alec- she became apologetic when Jon noticed the revenge flirt and flipped the script.  At the end of the day, she still did what he wanted at TC.  Mehh on Jaclyn's demand for respect. 

 

I also prefer Jac to Jon, and I truly feel for her struggles with not being able to have children, but ultimately I find her as unpleasant as Jon and l think they deserve each other.  Imagine having them as dinner guests?  His nose deep in a swirling glass of vino, her nose neatly submerged in his ass. 

 

Jon's Website

Jaclyn's Website

[Way Wes Jr]

I agree.  But what an interesting dynamic we saw there in that conversation.  I mean, I assume before the show started Missy and Baylor pledged to each other that they would be one team and they were going to find a way to win:  mom and daughter, unbreakable force.  And then, Missy is explaining to Baylor why she can't vote against Jon, even though Baylor is explaining to Missy that they can't win against Jon.  I feel like that was an uncomfortable insight into their real life, reinforced with Baylor's confession paraphrasing now:  here we go again.

 

I just wanted to hear Baylor say, "Do you want Jon, (or Jaclyn,) to win the Million dollars, or do you want it to be me, (or you.)"  Blind loyalty to the person who is seen as "running the game," is the least productive thing one can do for ones own game.

[Way Wes Jr]

Green stole most of my points, but I want to chime in regarding the discussion of editing.  I, too, prefer fewer threads, rather than more; the Balkanization of subject matter limits discussion rather than expand it.  Moreover, not discussing editing on a message board about television is tantamount to belonging to a book club where one isn’t allowed to discuss an author’s use of foreshadowing, parallel plot structure, or irony.

 

The editing of a particular episode may often be the most germane thing about it.  For example, my favorite episode this season happens to be the one I felt had the best editing, the obvious boot of Drew.  The production team took a potentially “by the book,” episode and turned it into comedy gold.  (I understand that others may feel that Jeremy’s blindside was the best job this season, I will not disagree with their opinion.)

 

The editing of prior episodes provides context.  When a non-entity gets two confessionals before the immunity challenge, well - that’s an example of bad editing.  But, redemption story-arcs, underdog story-arcs, and mastermind stories can only play out looking backwards.

 

Now, I think that the real problem lies with some of us using “edit” as a shorthand term, that can often feel as if we are engaging in speculation, rather than a discussion of an episode at hand.  I could write, (prior to this episode,) “Boy, Jon is being presented as a ‘Golden Boy,’ after those first few ‘likeable goof,’ episodes;” but instead I choose to write, “With Jeremy and Josh out, Jon is getting a ‘winners edit.”  I’m not speculating that Jon was going to win, I’m using a shorthand vernacular developed after watching, reading, and writing about fourteen years of this program.  As a community developed via thoughtful communication, (rather than boob gif’s and coarse insults,) this is a natural occurrence.  It may be jarring to a newcomer, but as a group, we are pretty welcoming, and willing to explain our written “tics.”

 

“Winner’s edit, narrator’s edit, first jury member’s edit,” etceteras exist as shorthand terms for, in some cases, sentences upon sentences of supporting text.  They’ve become shorthand terms because the Survivor editing team, up until this year, have been very predictable.  (and as for my theory on that - I probably should go to the conspiracy thread...)

[peachmangosteen]

They’ve become shorthand terms because the Survivor editing team, up until this year, have been very predictable.  (and as for my theory on that - I probably should go to the conspiracy thread...)

 

Please do! I'd love to hear your theory.

[RedheadZombie]

I'm not sure why this just occurred to me - while getting his massage, how many times did Keith spit on that poor woman's foot?

[Hanahope]

I loved the camera showing Alec's slack-jawed face at TC.  Pretty much sums up his game play.  I hope Jeremy realizes Natalie booted Jon for him (as well as herself).

 

I don't know that there will be another reward challenge at this point.  They have 2 hours and have to go through at least 2 IC and 2 TC, plus the F4 or F3 "feast" and the FTC.  I will assume they will cut the 'march of the dead players' bit, they didn't do that last time.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Hanahope

[ProfCrash]

Alec's slack jawed face. Drew was voted out before the Jury, but that says something about this season as well

[AZChristian]

We were on the east coast on vacation last week, so I didn't get to read spoilers and know who was going to get booted off before the show (as I usually do).

 

All I can say is, Mr. Christian and I were jumping up and down and high-fiving when Jon got voted off.  Delicious blindside.  What  made it doubly sweet was his confident acknowledgement earlier in the episode that he was already putting together his comments for the FTC.

 

LOL. 

[Hanahope]

Whooops.  Fixed that.

[jjj]

  I will assume they will cut the 'march of the dead players' bit, they didn't do that last time.

 

I love the "march of the dead players" -- it always gives me time to make a loaf of bread in the next room while they ramble around.  What I really would love would be if they would come across one of the names of an early bootee, and say, "Does anyone remember him? No? Are they messing with us?" Could happen, if someone is booted out by players who are no longer in the F3/4.

[Donny Ketchum]

What I really would love would be if they would come across one of the names of an early bootee, and say, "Does anyone remember him? No? Are they messing with us?" Could happen, if someone is booted out by players who are no longer in the F3/4.

Actually, something like that happened back in Micronesia.  At the F3, Parvati, Amanda, and Cirie all did the walk, and when they got to Mary, who was booted second, Parvati said, "Hmm. . . . I don't really remember Mary," or something along those lines.  That was because they'd been on the Favorites' tribe, while Mary had been booted from the Fans' tribe before the tribal swap had happened.  None of them had gotten the chance to know her.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Donny Ketchum

[Special K]

I think it's happened, where all the finalists are from the same original tribe, and none of them even met some of the early other-tribe bootees.  They're all like, "well, he seemed really to love...uh...playing Survivor, right?"

[Drogo]

 

I see almost no one on this jury being all that bitter.

 

Does this look like the face of a bitter jury member?

 

[blackwing]

Is that the face of a "famous model"?  Is long hair on men still "in" for models?  Thought that was back in the 80s.  I think Drew and Alec are two of the biggest tools we have seen on Survivor.

 

Was there a Rememberance of Dead Survivors on either of the past two seasons?  I'm pretty sure there wasn't one last season.  Because, honestly, what would Dim Bulb Woo have to say about anyone?  He'd just sit there staring at the name, we'd have to picture the synapses in his brain desperately trying to connect.  Then he'd open his mouth, nod and just say, "Duuuuuude.  Yeaaaahhh."  But I also don't remember Tyson/Gervase/Monica doing one either.

[eurekagirl mOo]

Green stole most of my points, but I want to chime in regarding the discussion of editing.  I, too, prefer fewer threads, rather than more; the Balkanization of subject matter limits discussion rather than expand it.  Moreover, not discussing editing on a message board about television is tantamount to belonging to a book club where one isn’t allowed to discuss an author’s use of foreshadowing, parallel plot structure, or irony.

 

The editing of a particular episode may often be the most germane thing about it.  For example, my favorite episode this season happens to be the one I felt had the best editing, the obvious boot of Drew.  The production team took a potentially “by the book,” episode and turned it into comedy gold.  (I understand that others may feel that Jeremy’s blindside was the best job this season, I will not disagree with their opinion.)

 

The editing of prior episodes provides context.  When a non-entity gets two confessionals before the immunity challenge, well - that’s an example of bad editing.  But, redemption story-arcs, underdog story-arcs, and mastermind stories can only play out looking backwards.

 

Now, I think that the real problem lies with some of us using “edit” as a shorthand term, that can often feel as if we are engaging in speculation, rather than a discussion of an episode at hand.  I could write, (prior to this episode,) “Boy, Jon is being presented as a ‘Golden Boy,’ after those first few ‘likeable goof,’ episodes;” but instead I choose to write, “With Jeremy and Josh out, Jon is getting a ‘winners edit.”  I’m not speculating that Jon was going to win, I’m using a shorthand vernacular developed after watching, reading, and writing about fourteen years of this program.  As a community developed via thoughtful communication, (rather than boob gif’s and coarse insults,) this is a natural occurrence.  It may be jarring to a newcomer, but as a group, we are pretty welcoming, and willing to explain our written “tics.”

 

“Winner’s edit, narrator’s edit, first jury member’s edit,” etceteras exist as shorthand terms for, in some cases, sentences upon sentences of supporting text.  They’ve become shorthand terms because the Survivor editing team, up until this year, have been very predictable.  (and as for my theory on that - I probably should go to the conspiracy thread...)

OH please let's not not 500 boards for every little thing. I want to discuss stuff without a million "rules". This is one of the very few places you can discuss things and not get slammed by trolls and I think all those boards just give trolls more places to go. We all discuss like adults and I don't see any reason that would change.

[green]

I love the "march of the dead players" -- it always gives me time to make a loaf of bread in the next room while they ramble around.  What I really would love would be if they would come across one of the names of an early bootee, and say, "Does anyone remember him? No? Are they messing with us?" Could happen, if someone is booted out by players who are no longer in the F3/4.

 

If this do it this season it will be more like "the hobble of the dead players" with Missy along.

[Turtle]

I think it's probably an F3, but realized it could be an F2, if Missy gets pulled or quits.  I've had badly sprained ankles, and they often get much worse over the course of a few days before they get better, especially if you're not able to ice it and stay off of it.  So, if Missy leaves without a tribal, then the finale could have two boots, leaving an F2. 

 

As I mentioned before, an F2 could be problematic for Natalie if she thinks it's an F3 and plans to go with Missy and Baylor, because they would obviously boot her if she didn't win immunity.  At this point, I think Natalie's best move is to get Keith and Jaclyn to vote out either Missy or Baylor, making F4 a vote between 4 singles, instead of 2 singles and 1 couple.  That protects her whether it's an F2 or F3.

 

In case it wasn't clear, I'm hoping for a Natalie win.  Although, a part of me thinks a Keith win is what this season deserves.​

 

Technically, they did just that.  I'm pretty sure there is a rule that say players 'have to compete' but I'd bet it was intended for contestants who might feel lazy that morning or maybe that they were gonna lose anyway.  Nope, you have to compete.  But what does this mean in Missy's case?  You want her to hobble for a while as the others race ahead?  How much does she have to do before she tried to 'compete'?  Better to just let her slide - no way she's gonna be able to do anything on even the easiest of challenges (of the type we've seen).

 

I'm not a fan of letting her stay in the game if she can't even start the challenges, which is likely if there is a "stand on a small thing for a long time" endurance challenge, very common at this stage of the game.  That said, Survivor has always been pretty obvious about making decisions about rules or applying rules on the fly.  For example, the girls taking off their top for peanut butter and chocolate year ago, all the random tribe swaps when it looked like a Pagonging was about to happen, or this year, bartering for more rice or letting Nat place an order for what food would make her give up on a challenge.  So while I may like it, I think it's one of those things that is in the show's discretion, and it's probably written in to their contracts that way, something like "If medical pulls you, you're out, but if medical doesn't pull you, it is up to the producers whether you continue."  

 

By now surely "they show as many votes as they can" is a known rule for Survivor players, and one they must take into account.  Also, in the olden days, if there was a tie, past votes determined who got sent home, so it was definitely necessary to show them.  Overall I have to say I think giving people the maximum amount of information is surely best not only for the audience but for the game.  I'd actually prefer it the other way around, if Jeff didn't do the "that's five, that's enough" thing, and showed every vote.

 

Actually, in those days, Jeff didn't always show all of the votes, so it was still somewhat of a crap shoot if you ended up in a tie.  

 

Oh, I saw Jaclyn put him to task for that shit plenty. But then I'm one of the few that thinks if anyone in that couple can do better it's Jaclyn and who much prefers Jaclyn to Jon.

 

 

I'm one of the few with you.  Jon seems unable to navigate the world without assistance, while Jaclyn seems a little bratty but capable of understanding how people work.  

[Nashville]

I'm one of the few with you.  Jon seems unable to navigate the world without assistance, while Jaclyn seems a little bratty but capable of understanding how people work.

Actually, I think Jon is one of those types whose ship will chart some amazing and successful courses in life - so long as he has a strong woman at the rudder. :)

[Miss Scarlet]

I thought it was weird that last week Jaclyn mentioned that Jon usually gets super excited for things that don't work out, then super disappointed, but this week mentioned that he's big on visualizing the win and things usually work out for him. Wha?

[Nashville]

I thought it was weird that last week Jaclyn mentioned that Jon usually gets super excited for things that don't work out, then super disappointed, but this week mentioned that he's big on visualizing the win and things usually work out for him. Wha?

If "usually" = "what most recently happened" - sure, why not? ;)

[Nashville]

Does this look like the face of a bitter jury member?

 

 

Exactly HOW close are they to Panama?  Boy looks like he's been pitching in on the Red harvest.