S31.E12: Tiny Little Shanks To The Heart

[needschocolate]

From one of Joe's exits, he explains how Keith voted for Tasha that seemed out of nowhere. Apparently, he played both sides. He went to Jeremy, Tasha and Spencer to try and get Abi out. Then he went to the women (Abi, Wentworth and Kimmi) and Keith, and told them to get Tasha out. He went on a confessional afterwards and when he came back, the mood apparently changed, so he had an idea there's a strong chance he was going home. Obviously the three women would not vote Tasha out because they're trying to form the women alliance, but didn't tell Keith in fear of him telling Joe.

 

I find it comforting to know that Keith "stuck with the plan!"

[Zuleikha]

If the person in question was nasty, then fine, they deserve nastiness but Joe has not been shown to be nasty.

Joe flipped on Kelley and was tightly allied with Savage, who was one of the ringleaders of calling Kelley, Ciera, and Abi worthless and despicable. Based on the exit interviews, it also seems like Joe was trying to work with everyone but the three women post-merge--which was both stupid play on Joe's part (because that had him trying to work with people who didn't need him and ignoring the people who did) and insulting to the women.

 

So while Joe's not nasty the way Savage is nasty, he was opposing Kelley's survivor game in an obvious way. I don't blame Kelley for being happy to have a difficult obstacle removed from her path forward. Now she needs to take out Jeremy.

[elizacat]

For the record I don't hate Kelley.  I didn't call her a mean girl even.  I just said I didn't understand the weird dramatic postures and rooting against him at the challenge.  I did say eye rolls at tribal but I guess they would be better described as looks of disbelief and disdain at Joe. 

 

For a women's alliance to work they don't necessarily need to get rid of Joe.  Get rid of Jeremy, Keith or Spencer.  Joe's already shown he's willing to vote with the women. 

 

Hell, get rid of Tasha and keep Joe.  She outed the plan. 

They don't know Tasha outed the plan.

 

I also think they would rather take their chances with Tasha than Joe.

[cleo]

I'm team Jeremy or Tasha and a final three of Jeremy, Tasha, and Spencer would be great. But all I could think when the jury walked in for TC this week was how much I did not want to hear anything any single one of those people would have to say at the final tc.

Ciera alone is enough to chase me away and it just gets worse from there. Maybe the first time I have to read about it here rather than watch.

Edited December 5, 2015 by cleo

[Sarahsmile416]

Joe flipped on Kelley and was tightly allied with Savage, who was one of the ringleaders of calling Kelley, Ciera, and Abi worthless and despicable. Based on the exit interviews, it also seems like Joe was trying to work with everyone but the three women post-merge--which was both stupid play on Joe's part (because that had him trying to work with people who didn't need him and ignoring the people who did) and insulting to the women.

So while Joe's not nasty the way Savage is nasty, he was opposing Kelley's survivor game in an obvious way. I don't blame Kelley for being happy to have a difficult obstacle removed from her path forward. Now she needs to take out Jeremy.

Except that Joe told Ciera early on about the plan to vote out Kelley in the vote that took out Savage so he was clearly talking to them then. I don't disbelieve the exit interviews but I truly doubt he completely ignored them.

[wait.what]

As others have said, I think joe passed out from looking up for so long. There are sensors in the arteries in your neck that regulate blood pressure. Add to that dehydration: I think it was his pressure. Once he fell and his pressure started to normalize he seemed to "come to". Low blood pressure could make his legs "feel numb".

And I did notice Jeremy's reaction. Typical first responder! Go, Jeremy!

[rose711]

No way Jeremy loses after that meeting with Val.

I find most of these played Unlikable now. Rooting for Jeremy.

[KimberStormer]

Winston9-DT3, on 04 Dec 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

For the record I don't hate Kelley.  I didn't call her a mean girl even.  I just said I didn't understand the weird dramatic postures and rooting against him at the challenge.  I did say eye rolls at tribal but I guess they would be better described as looks of disbelief and disdain at Joe. 

 

For a women's alliance to work they don't necessarily need to get rid of Joe.  Get rid of Jeremy, Keith or Spencer.  Joe's already shown he's willing to vote with the women. 

 

Hell, get rid of Tasha and keep Joe.  She outed the plan. 

 

I think it pretty much had to be Joe.  Clearly not Tasha if they're attempting a women's alliance.  I believe Spencer and Jeremy would go to rocks for each other, and maybe even for Keith; plus Jeremy would use his idol to protect himself or Spencer (though presumably Kelley etc didn't know this).  And Tasha would probably be a lot less likely to vote for one of those other boys.  Joe is the only man who was frightening enough a threat for the other men to vote for.  The women's alliance is a great scenario for Kelley--if she can win final immunity, she's all set for the win, almost certainly.  Her real agenda was not to get rid of Joe qua Joe, but to get rid of a man, this I agree with: but practically speaking, Joe was the only man who could be gotten rid of at that moment.

[Guest]

I agree Kelley and really anyone is probably guaranteed a win if they can get to the end with Kimmi, Abi or Tasha.  And if Kimmi or Tasha flip to get to the end, then they don't even have the 'extreme loyalty' resume card to play, and are even less of threats.  But I'm basing that mainly on their edits, which their opponents don't see.  

[Nashville]

What's weird is that when Ciera and Kelley Wentworth celebrated the idol play in such a nasty way at the TC when Savage was voted out out, it was considered hilarious. When Ciera rolled her eyes out of her head at one TC after another, no comment was made. When Kelley celebrates the golden boy's loss and rolls her eyes a time or two in his direction, she's a horrible human being.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I sound their behavior disgusting all of those times. I never found them funny, or cute or charming.

 

Same here.  I generally find such antics juvenile and graceless, regardless of which gender is performing them or who is going home.

Same with catcalling someone when they're walking out the door - unsportsmanlike in the extreme.  Functional definition of a sore winner.

 

So many balance challenges you can't help but wonder if the show did it specifically to keep Joe's immunity streak going.  Did Joe ever have to figure out a puzzle?   Or perform some individual task that required logic, reasoning or just plain old common sense?

 

Perhaps the abundance of balancing challenges is because they were trying to make things "more fair."  Obviously, Joe is great at the balancing challenges, but I think he would be near the top at most any physical challenge and he has done well at puzzles too (he apparently sucks at remembering details).  Balancing is supposed to favor women due to their, generally, lower center of gravity (not sure how that will help you hold a statue over your head). Seems to me that Keith and Spencer both did well on balancing challenges in their original seasons.  Even though the powers that be must have known that Joe would be good at balancing, they could have also thought that balancing challenges would be the most likely ones that someone else could beat Joe on.

 

All of the above, as previously discussed.  Absolutely no reason to think any balancing challenge would favor any male - including Joe - over a female.

Of course, if TPTB had focused on challenges requiring any physical activity more strenuous than balancing - anything not absolutely sedentary, for that matter - I expect folks would have complained about those challenges being biased toward Joe as well.  :)

 

I am confused as to how knowing that your cousin is now in prison for murder is going to make you a better or worse jury member.  Besides, at least 5 of the people who are still playing and got to see their family member will eventually be on the jury - how is letting the already-on-the-jury people see their family members any different?

 

I don't know that it would, one way or the other - but neither does Production, for that matter, and I don't think TPTB are particularly inclined to take a chance on permitting any information conduits into the Jury which they do not tightly control, on the off-chance it might.

And I wasn't specifically thinking about information relating to a player's own family - although that could be a distracting element - but more in terms of info relating to other players.  I'd be more than a little surprised if the players' families weren't communicating or at least keeping tabs on each others' social media activity, for example - and visitor-introduced conversation about "Did So-and-So know his wife is pregnant?" or "Did you know So-and-So is already a millionaire several times over?" could definitely have potential to impact a Juror's vote. 

Or maybe not. 

But why should Production risk it?

 

It's nothing personal.  It shouldn't be anything personal.  Voting people you like out is like making your mom pay rent when she lands on your property in Monopoly: it's just the game.

Total agreement here.

 

It's not "mean" or evil or anything to vote out someone when it's good for your game to do so.

I am not talking about the actual vote, but rather the antics during TC discussion or (sometimes) after the vote.  IMHO it's unsportsmanlike in the extreme.  Every player out there is doing their level best to make it to the end by whatever means they can devise - and even though another player's agenda may be diametrically opposed to my own, I fail to see how mocking their attempts to keep their game alive advances my own. 

Is this supposed to be some subtle strategy of working the Jury?  If so, I simply don't get it.  Some of these displays come across to me as childish in the extreme - and if I were on the Jury, I'd feel little incentive to award a million dollars to a child.

 

YMMV.  Me, I don't even participate in the "You Suck" chants at the hockey games.  :)

 

In this situation, what's the difference, how can you tell between one and the other?

 

Being happy and celebrating success with your allies ("We made it!  It worked!") is one thing. 

Kicking them when they're down and jeering them as they walk out the door ("At least you made Jury!") is another.

 

I went back and looked for the Kelley eye rolls that people are talking about. I didn't find any, just a look of disbelief and an "Oh my God" when Joe said Abi isn't really worried about getting votes:

 

And Kelley shaking her head when Joe encouraged everyone to stick with his plan so they could "move forward":

 

Reminds me of second grade.

[Superpole2000]

The immunity challenges have been pathetic attempts to level the playing field between men and women. And the men (or really just one or two men) still outperformed the women so much that they awarded gender-specific necklaces this episode. There has to be something more interesting than watching a display of balance endurance. This just isn't very good television. The only reason this particular challenge was somewhat interesting was because someone passed out (which is a bad reason for something to be interesting).

 

It's getting harder for me to enjoy this show. 31 seasons, and I'm just not excited anymore. People are too aware now, and they are getting rid of the "most deserving" contestants before they get to the end. That leaves a sea of Keiths and Kimmies that leave me wanting less of this show, not more.

[Guest]

I like the challenges.  There are puzzles (yay, a word puzzle this week!), obstacles, balancing, endurance, folklore/listening challenges, etc.  No underwater camera challenges (boo) but no Connect Four or coconut 'bowling', either.  Though we did see skee ball earlier, didn't we?  I guess the carnival/preschool games are ok if they mix it up.  

 

Weren't there some seasons when they acted like they were super afraid of injuries and it seems like every challenge was something like a beanbag toss or other baby game?

 

The balance challenges have dominated the immunity ones but I don't mind those.  I think it's fair to give the women a leg up.  This week's with the arm strength component really favored men, though.  I think the four women went out quickly, right? 

[Oscirus]

To me , this season is amazing. Has there ever been a season where two brand new (and real) alliances were formed this late in the game.  Also at this point, it's still anybody's game. Well except Abi but 6 out of 7 ain't bad.

[Zuleikha]

The balance challenges have dominated the immunity ones but I don't mind those.  I think it's fair to give the women a leg up.

I don't mind the balance challenges, but I don't like that there were so many in a row and that at least three of them involved a combination of balance and keeping a ball in place. It felt too samey. I wish the folklore challenge had been an immunity challenge instead of reward and that there had been something that involved swimming... just mix things up a bit.

[KimberStormer]

Oscirus, on 05 Dec 2015 - 4:59 PM, said:

To me , this season is amazing. Has there ever been a season where two brand new (and real) alliances were formed this late in the game.  Also at this point, it's still anybody's game. Well except Abi but 6 out of 7 ain't bad.

 

Totally agree.  Did Probst hype this season at all?  He was over the moon about last season and it was a complete pile of garbage, whereas this one is amazing and yet I don't feel like I've heard any such claims from him.  Maybe he only hypes up the shitty seasons to get people to watch and wonder when on earth it's going to get good?

[LadyChatts]

Totally agree.  Did Probst hype this season at all?  He was over the moon about last season and it was a complete pile of garbage, whereas this one is amazing and yet I don't feel like I've heard any such claims from him.  Maybe he only hypes up the shitty seasons to get people to watch and wonder when on earth it's going to get good?

 

He barely hyped it, but he did say that if last season didn't live up to his hype, he would keep his mouth shut going forward.  However, I remember initially him hyping SJDS and that one fell flat.  Even he wasn't a fan after the fact.  But when he went off the rails hyping last season and the cast (I still can't get over that one), he mentioned that the hype from the season before came back to bite him.  So that's why he made the vow, if WA didn't live up to his hype he would never hype again.  He's had good things to say about this season, and as the game has progressed I think his hype has come out more.  But nothing like he gave last season.  I remember hearing after filming finished that it was supposedly one of the strongest seasons.  In reality, I think only 4/7 have an amazing chance at winning (Wentworth, Jeremy, and Spencer, with Tasha bringing up the rear).  Tasha, however, falls into my 'if she does this to get there' category.  I don't see Abi having any shot in hell.  Kimmi and Keith, it will again depend on the 'if' factor.  There are probably several seasons I'd rank above this one at this point (we'll see when it's all said and done) but it is 1,000 times better than the last two.  Last season had to have been one of the absolute worst.  And Probst's hype did not help!  I think he genuinely thought it was a great season.  He told the cast at a TC that he was loving it so much and wanted to bring them all back to play together again.  So he was already feeding the egos.  Of course, Probst may have been oblivious to some of the comments going on in TH or thinking that what he thought would make those dramatic TV moments were going to have an extremely negative effect on the season.  And, of course, he didn't see the edited version.  But this season, it is refreshing to see people actually playing the game.

[Oscirus]

On a different note. DO the survivor advertisers think that we're sociopaths who want to see somebody get their skulls caved in by a statue? Why would they edit their commercial like that?

[Nashville]

On a different note. DO the survivor advertisers think that we're sociopaths who want to see somebody get their skulls caved in by a statue? Why would they edit their commercial like that?

!!!DRAMA!!!

[Tdoc72]

The immunity challenges have been pathetic attempts to level the playing field between men and women. And the men (or really just one or two men) still outperformed the women so much that they awarded gender-specific necklaces this episode. There has to be something more interesting than watching a display of balance endurance. This just isn't very good television. The only reason this particular challenge was somewhat interesting was because someone passed out (which is a bad reason for something to be interesting).

 

It's getting harder for me to enjoy this show. 31 seasons, and I'm just not excited anymore. People are too aware now, and they are getting rid of the "most deserving" contestants before they get to the end. That leaves a sea of Keiths and Kimmies that leave me wanting less of this show, not more.

re: gender specific necklaces (because it won't let me bold or snip)

 

They have done that before, although I don't have a list of examples.  I do remember in Vanuatu (men vs women), John, who won immunity, got a 2nd necklace to give to a woman.  He got to visit their camp for a little while, and at tribal, once the men were done, he got to stay and listen, then give away the necklace right before the vote.  I've always thought that was very interesting.  They should do it more.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Tdoc72

[vibeology]

The balance challenges have dominated the immunity ones but I don't mind those.  I think it's fair to give the women a leg up.  This week's with the arm strength component really favored men, though.  I think the four women went out quickly, right? 

 

Of the balance challenges, a few of them have been the straight up balance on X. Those are fairly equal challenges and may even favour women. Any hold this and balance challenge starts to lean towards favouring men. Holding a 16 foot pole in the air for an hour and a half? That just becomes an arm strength challenge. Same with the one only Joe and Keith did with the ball above their heads.

 

It would be one thing if the challenges were all similar to give the women a chance, but since balance x on y still ends up favouring upper body strength, I'd much rather see some different types of challenges. Use the water, have some puzzles, let them race and get physical. At least that's more interesting than watching people stand as still as possible for 10 minutes. 

[Village]

I am absolutely fascinated by the way Jeremy has managed to endear such loyalty in his allies. Consider for a moment the last few episodes. Tasha, Ciera & co. go off for reward. Ciera brings up Jeremy as being able to win this game and should be targeted, Tasha subtly re-directs the target to Wigglesworth. Last week Spencer decides that maybe he's not as tight in his alliance with Jeremy & Stephen as he once thought. So what does he do? Targets Fishback only. This week Kimmi is fully on "Team Women" but when she lists the voting order for the men, Jeremy is last. Now I'm sure that's partly due to Jeremy's lack of challenge prowess but it certainly says something that he'd be last on Kimmi's list if she had her way.

 

So even when they're all making moves that they think will improve their game individually and not including Jeremy in their voting schemes, somehow they do so while still protecting him. That's some feat.

 

And then when you include Savage & Stephen before them ...

 

I know people say Jeremy has done nothing in this game but he's gotta be doing something right for people to have this much of a blind spot when it comes to him.

 

 

Just wanted to add that watching from the comfort of my couch, I sometimes have to chuckle at just how UTR Jeremy is playing.  In strategy meetings, he casts his eyes downward and for the most part, listens quietly.  He says all the right things at TC.  He's not a challenge beast - at the moment, Spencer and Keith seem more physically threatening than does Jeremy, the ripped firefighter. I remember how he carefully re-positioned himself at Savage's feet while Savage swayed in the hammock and discussed voting strategy.  When he wants to be persuasive, he does so in a low-key way.  And then there's that extra idol chilling in his back pocket.  It's pretty brilliant.

 

All of this. Body language is so key as to why people are being lulled by Jeremy and not seeing that he's a threat. And it's very smart.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Village

[peachmangosteen]

Body language is so key as to why people are being lulled by Jeremy and not seeing that he's a threat. And it's very smart.

 

It is smart, but it can also really hurt you in the end if people can't see what you've done. You have to, well, be a man, and also take the right people with you to the end. I think Jeremy will be fine, but if he takes Spencer he might have a hard time convincing people he did more strategy-wise than Spencer did simpy because Spencer's gameplay is so much more overt.

 

Of course this is why I'm sure Jeremy would rather go to the end with Kimmi/Tasha/Abi/Keith.

[Oscirus]

It is smart, but it can also really hurt you in the end if people can't see what you've done. You have to, well, be a man, and also take the right people with you to the end. I think Jeremy will be fine, but if he takes Spencer he might have a hard time convincing people he did more strategy-wise than Spencer did simpy because Spencer's gameplay is so much more overt.

 

Of course this is why I'm sure Jeremy would rather go to the end with Kimmi/Tasha/Abi/Keith.

Spencer's problem is that the majority of the people on that jury was at one time or the other part of Jeremy's brolliance.  So far on that jury, the only people that Jeremy has wronged are the same people that Spencer has wronged.

 

Jeremy's biggest problem will be getting to the end. He's at the final seven with no more shields and the other side in power numbers wise.  At this point in the game, Jeremy should be targeted by both his allies and his enemies for as long as he remains in the game. 

[Village]

It is smart, but it can also really hurt you in the end if people can't see what you've done. You have to, well, be a man, and also take the right people with you to the end. I think Jeremy will be fine, but if he takes Spencer he might have a hard time convincing people he did more strategy-wise than Spencer did simpy because Spencer's gameplay is so much more overt.

 

Of course this is why I'm sure Jeremy would rather go to the end with Kimmi/Tasha/Abi/Keith.

 

Absolutely. If Kelley gets to the end she would be hard to beat IMO. But I'm with Oscirus in thinking that while Spencer is a more visible and overt player, he might look more like a cog in an "alliance" that was perceived to be lead by Jeremy - if that makes sense. Though if Spencer makes it to final 3, he is capable of making a case for himself. For Jeremy, on the other hand, if he does make it to Final 3, as you said, can he make the argument that he played the best game? I don't know.

 

For any of these three, I think they'd be thrilled to go to the end with any combination of Abi, Kimmi, Keith. Tasha's a bit of a wild card because while she has been very active this season it doesn't seem like she's made many friends on the jury.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Village

[KimberStormer]

Village, on 06 Dec 2015 - 1:39 PM, said:Village, on 06 Dec 2015 - 1:39 PM, said:

I am absolutely fascinated by the way Jeremy has managed to endear such loyalty in his allies. Consider for a moment the last few episodes. Tasha, Ciera & co. go off for reward. Ciera brings up Jeremy as being able to win this game and should be targeted, Tasha subtly re-directs the target to Wigglesworth. Last week Spencer decides that maybe he's not as tight in his alliance with Jeremy & Stephen as he once thought. So what does he do? Targets Fishback only. This week Kimmi is fully on "Team Women" but when she lists the voting order for the men, Jeremy is last. Now I'm sure that's partly due to Jeremy's lack of challenge prowess but it certainly says something that he'd be last on Kimmi's list if she had her way.

 

So even when they're all making moves that they think will improve their game individually and not including Jeremy in their voting schemes, somehow they do so while still protecting him. That's some feat.

 

And then when you include Savage & Stephen before them ...

 

I know people say Jeremy has done nothing in this game but he's gotta be doing something right for people to have this much of a blind spot when it comes to him.

 

 

All of this. Body language is so key as to why people are being lulled by Jeremy and not seeing that he's a threat. And it's very smart.

 

Yes, I agree with all of this.  I think there's a kind of "field" and "point" distinction in Survivor.  (Forgive me, this vocabulary is terrible, just what I can come up with right now.)  The "field" being their general, 24-7, day-to-day existence in the game, and "points" being specific moments--challenges, lies and bamboozlement, votes and idol plays, final tribal performances, etc.  The "field" is essentially impossible to capture on camera, but it's probably more important in the overall scheme.  (I think this is what Kromm is talking about when he talks about the social game being not what people think the social game is.)  There are people who win the game, or sometimes get voted out as a threat, when we feel like we've seen essentially nothing from them--it's just the general field of their island presence that makes them good.  Maybe Sandra as an example, or Denise from Philippines.  People like to be around them, respect them, want to play with them, swimming in this incorporeal field.  Then there are "points", moments of action, very dramatic, very filmable, which can be bad or good--Cirie pulling off the three-way split, Tyson voting himself out, etc.  People like JT (in Tocantins) and Kim Spradlin have such a good "field" game that their good "points" of action are almost extraneous to their wins, whereas some people like Boston Rob need to get it right at every "point" to succeed.  (Though I don't think there's ever been a winner with a really bad "field"--certainly Russell's mistake is thinking only of "points" while having one of the worst "fields" in Survivor history.)  I feel like Jeremy has made some bad decisions at "points" in the past few episodes; but his "field" is still quite amazing.  It's why he reminds me of Kim, although I don't think Kim would have done something like the Stephen-idol move, or the blindside-WIgelsworth move, which seem to me like mistakes. 

 

(If anyone can grasp this gruesome paragraph, and has a better way to express it, plz help me, this is so ugly...)

Edited December 7, 2015 by KimberStormer

[sadiegirl]

I'm not sure this is much better KimberStormer, but I was thinking in terms of roommates.  You can be a fantastic everyday roommate or a roommate who throws fantastic parties.  As much fun as the parties may be, they are few and far between and the great everyday roommate usually comes out on top in Survivor.  Not that a person can't be both, but even if the great everyday roommate throws good parties, lots of times he doesn't even have to because people want to visit and hang out even without the party.  So, there's my tortured attempt.

[phlebas]

I am 100% done with Abi, by the way.  Her horrifying smile throughout Joe's whole ordeal.  She was so goddamn gleeful.  That's a sick person.   I never even saw her give up one mistaken or deliberate flicker of concern through the whole thing, from start to end!

[ghoulina]

All of the above, as previously discussed.  Absolutely no reason to think any balancing challenge would favor any male - including Joe - over a female.

Of course, if TPTB had focused on challenges requiring any physical activity more strenuous than balancing - anything not absolutely sedentary, for that matter - I expect folks would have complained about those challenges being biased toward Joe as well.  :)

 

Except this isn't Joe's first season. So TPTB would know that Joe is a male who is very good at balance challenges. I'm still not entirely sure that the plethora of balance challenges was intentional for anyone's sake, though. My complaint is more just how boring it is. There are SO many other things they could do for IIC, it's just getting old. I've always loved the folklore challenge, so I was glad to see that, but it might have been better as an IC. And how about the ones where they have to guess the tribe's opinions on other players, and then get to strategically take each other out of the running? That's another fun one. I just think they could have done a better job of mixing it up. 

[truthaboutluv]

I'm still not entirely sure that the plethora of balance challenges was intentional for anyone's sake, though. My complaint is more just how boring it is.

 

This. I've never been one who buys into conspiracy theories about the show, so I'm not saying the producers were trying to set things up for Joe but come on, 5 or how many it was, immunity challenges that all involve balancing in some way is boring. Balance a stick, balance a ball, balance on your foot, etc. And yes, it does make me wonder about how long Joe would have lasted when the very few times a challenge did not involve balancing, he wasn't even close. 

Edited December 7, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[Guest]

I honestly think if they did stack the deck with balance challenges, it was more to help out the women.  Our lower center of gravity (hips area vs. chest area on men) makes balance a lot easier.  I practice yoga and balance isn't something that all yogis learn.  Some people do well with it, some never do.  Most men don't do well with it, compared to most women.  

 

I wonder if balance challenges are just easier logistically and cheaper than say building obstacle courses and such?  They seem to have included a lot of the prior, fancier challenges this season (on reward and tribal immunity), maybe they'd burned through their challenge budget on those.  

[Rough Draft]

Yes, I agree with all of this.  I think there's a kind of "field" and "point" distinction in Survivor.  (Forgive me, this vocabulary is terrible, just what I can come up with right now.)  The "field" being their general, 24-7, day-to-day existence in the game, and "points" being specific moments--challenges, lies and bamboozlement, votes and idol plays, final tribal performances, etc.  The "field" is essentially impossible to capture on camera, but it's probably more important in the overall scheme.  (I think this is what Kromm is talking about when he talks about the social game being not what people think the social game is.)  There are people who win the game, or sometimes get voted out as a threat, when we feel like we've seen essentially nothing from them--it's just the general field of their island presence that makes them good.  Maybe Sandra as an example, or Denise from Philippines.  People like to be around them, respect them, want to play with them, swimming in this incorporeal field.  Then there are "points", moments of action, very dramatic, very filmable, which can be bad or good--Cirie pulling off the three-way split, Tyson voting himself out, etc.  People like JT (in Tocantins) and Kim Spradlin have such a good "field" game that their good "points" of action are almost extraneous to their wins, whereas some people like Boston Rob need to get it right at every "point" to succeed.  (Though I don't think there's ever been a winner with a really bad "field"--certainly Russell's mistake is thinking only of "points" while having one of the worst "fields" in Survivor history.)  I feel like Jeremy has made some bad decisions at "points" in the past few episodes; but his "field" is still quite amazing.  It's why he reminds me of Kim, although I don't think Kim would have done something like the Stephen-idol move, or the blindside-WIgelsworth move, which seem to me like mistakes. 

 

(If anyone can grasp this gruesome paragraph, and has a better way to express it, plz help me, this is so ugly...)

 

This is an excellent and insightful post.

[Nashville]

Yes, I agree with all of this.  I think there's a kind of "field" and "point" distinction in Survivor.  (Forgive me, this vocabulary is terrible, just what I can come up with right now.)  The "field" being their general, 24-7, day-to-day existence in the game, and "points" being specific moments--challenges, lies and bamboozlement, votes and idol plays, final tribal performances, etc.  The "field" is essentially impossible to capture on camera, but it's probably more important in the overall scheme.  (I think this is what Kromm is talking about when he talks about the social game being not what people think the social game is.)  There are people who win the game, or sometimes get voted out as a threat, when we feel like we've seen essentially nothing from them--it's just the general field of their island presence that makes them good.  Maybe Sandra as an example, or Denise from Philippines.  People like to be around them, respect them, want to play with them, swimming in this incorporeal field.  Then there are "points", moments of action, very dramatic, very filmable, which can be bad or good--Cirie pulling off the three-way split, Tyson voting himself out, etc.  People like JT (in Tocantins) and Kim Spradlin have such a good "field" game that their good "points" of action are almost extraneous to their wins, whereas some people like Boston Rob need to get it right at every "point" to succeed.  (Though I don't think there's ever been a winner with a really bad "field"--certainly Russell's mistake is thinking only of "points" while having one of the worst "fields" in Survivor history.)  I feel like Jeremy has made some bad decisions at "points" in the past few episodes; but his "field" is still quite amazing.  It's why he reminds me of Kim, although I don't think Kim would have done something like the Stephen-idol move, or the blindside-WIgelsworth move, which seem to me like mistakes. 

 

(If anyone can grasp this gruesome paragraph, and has a better way to express it, plz help me, this is so ugly...)

 

Change "field" to "forest" and "point" to "tree" (or "trees"), and I'm with you 100%. :)

 

I honestly think if they did stack the deck with balance challenges, it was more to help out the women.  Our lower center of gravity (hips area vs. chest area on men) makes balance a lot easier.  I practice yoga and balance isn't something that all yogis learn.  Some people do well with it, some never do.  Most men don't do well with it, compared to most women.  

 

I wonder if balance challenges are just easier logistically and cheaper than say building obstacle courses and such?  They seem to have included a lot of the prior, fancier challenges this season (on reward and tribal immunity), maybe they'd burned through their challenge budget on those.

The thought had crossed my mind of a certain degree of Production bias in the run of back-to-back balance-oriented challenges - but in my thinking the bias may have been more of ageism than sexism. Due to the basic nature of 2nd Chance, the average player age of this season is somewhat (significantly?) higher than has been the norm the past few seasons (BvW being another significant exception, incorporating as it did so many parent/child pairs). I don't know if it were truly necessary or not, but I've had the impression at times TPTB may have toned down the raw physical component of challenges somewhat to level the playing field for older players.

[Guest]

Good point.  

[Oholibamah]

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but there's no way endurance challenges are cheaper than "eat this gross spider" or "memorize this sequence of symbols". There's been a steady trend toward endurance challenges the last few seasons - And they used to be my favorite! - but that many in a row is excessive.

[Sarahsmile416]

This. I've never been one who buys into conspiracy theories about the show, so I'm not saying the producers were trying to set things up for Joe but come on, 5 or how many it was, immunity challenges that all involve balancing in some way is boring. Balance a stick, balance a ball, balance on your foot, etc. And yes, it does make me wonder about how long Joe would have lasted when the very few times a challenge did not involve balancing, he wasn't even close.

Except that he has done other types of challenges during RC's and last year and has done well. The two challenges where he unequivocally did badly were memory challenges. The RC that Stephen won this year and the IC that he lost last year (as I remember). His Achilles heel seems to be his memory...

[Miss Scarlet]

The editing on this show has never been great, but this season feels particularly choppy. I feel like almost every week they reveal some group who, although we have never seen them interact before, are apparently super tight. Like Kimmi and Stephen or Wiglesworth and Joe. I don't think the temporary threesome of Spencer, Stephen and Jeremy was explained that well or why the group drifted towards the Savage/Jeremy group after the merge and then back to the Ciera/others group afterwards. 

 

I guess I'm dead inside, because I just can't get into the family visits. They feel too dramatic and emotional for me. Jeremy and Val were sweet, and Spencer and his girlfriend were kind of sweet, but I didn't need to see them make out and exchange "I love you's" multiple times. We get it, show. Survivor has saved Spencer years of therapy money. It is the best show everrr.

 

As other posters have mentioned, it was so classically Probst to yell out in such a surprised tone "Spencer has a girlfriend!" Does he seriously think that "nerds" are not capable of functioning in society and having normal lives and relationships just like everyone else? I mean, I know that's how he thinks because his knowledge of people operates at such a crude, stereotypical level, but yeesh. The people I know who are in the most successful relationships and got married the youngest were "nerds". So Probst doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

It reminds me of Linda Holmes' tweet from Cagayan about Probst introducing the Brain tribe where she said something like "Is there anyone in TV who's more bitter towards intellectuals than Jeff Probst?" and she was pretty much right. Does the anti-intellectualism bias on Survivor ever bother anyone? Or not really because it's basically to be expected from this type of show and the type of people they cast?

[Miss Scarlet]

True. Women are expected to act docile and quiet. Men are expected to act macho, strong and powerful.

 

That's why Stephen got a bumbling idiot edit, because hey, that's not how a real man acts. A real man can chop wood and doesn't cry about gastrointestinal illnesses. While the likes of Jeremy, Joe, Spencer and Savage got the hero edit and hero music whenever they did something "amazing" in Survivor context, like, I dunno, catch fish or win a challenge.

 

And when women were trying to upend the apple cart, they were called witches. When men try to shake the majority alliance, they're amigos. I don't see anything that was smug tonight from any of the women, except Abi, who went personal, that was the level of Savage smugness of "she's only saying that because she's on the bottom and we're all playing a better game than her."

This articulated the problematic gender dynamics of the show really well. I've mentioned this before and some posters made a really excellent point that Survivor can be cathartic when it comes to these issues because the jerks get their comeuppance in a way that rarely happens in real life. The thing that's unfortunate though, is that not all of the jerks on the show get a hilarious blindside episode that illuminates their douchebaggery. It's not just one awful contestant that perpetuates these problems on the show. These problems are pervasive. It's a bunch of contestants, it's the editing, it's Jeff, etc.  So sometimes the show makes me feel a bit icky. And I know a lot of people would say "well, this is the way the world is, so the show is just reflective of that". And that's true. But there are also shows  that try to take a more balanced approach with these issues and illustrate that not everyone thinks this way.

[Guest]

It doesn't seem anti-intellectual to me.  It just seems to paint people into stereotype boxes.  But that's reality shows.  Viewers would rather watch the Nerd vs. the Jock vs. the Bimbo because it's simple.  It's almost like sports teams.  

[KimberStormer]

Nashville, on 07 Dec 2015 - 09:44 AM, said:

 Change "field" to "forest" and "point" to "tree" (or "trees"), and I'm with you 100%. :)

 

Definitely better, an appropriately nature-based metaphor!

[ForeverAlone]

I agree that Jeff very much has a prejudice against intellectualism. I saw a similar vibe last season with his constant love over blue collars. If you listened to Jeff, you would think that only blue collar persons contribute to this country in any way, and anyone else are basically shiftless or useless losers. Considering how he is very much NOT blue collar in any way, his love affair with them (to where he basically said that blue collars were the only ones who built this country), just seemed even weirder. But Jeff very much has his preferences, which seem to be basically alpha males. He more often than not seems to dismiss anyone that doesn't fit that category, and that includes more introverted, non-alpha males, and most women (especially ones who don't use their sexuality in any way to advance in the game). 

[slowpoked]

Well, things just got a little more interesting...

 

 

 

At tribal council, we saw a small glimpse of Abi and Joe bickering back and forth, however, this apparently went on for much longer and got far more personal.

A lot of the big reaction shots from tribal – the excited faces/the jury laughter – didn’t actually happen when Joe was voted out like the episode presented. Those reactions were in response to the argument between Joe and Abi. It was a continuation from the previous week’s tribal council, in which Joe had apparently told Abi that nobody liked her, and a similar argument took place at this week’s tribal. Joe was trying to tell Abi how she could play a better game and she responded “I’m not going to take advice from a 26 year old who sleeps on his parent’s couch.” That is the line that caused most of those big reactions, and probably why in an interview with ET Canada, Joe said after tribal council he “…wanted to punch Abi in the face.”

[peachmangosteen]

LMAO at “I’m not going to take advice from a 26 year old who sleeps on his parent’s couch.” They should've shown that. Although it probably would've led to even more death threats from Joe's fans, so the editing team probably made the right call.

 

Kelley said on twitter she would explain later why she made that one face and I bet this is why.

[Guest]

Again with the "punch in the face" thing out of context.  Why do you think he wanted to throw Spencer off a cliff?  Did Spencer also make a momma boy joke and that's just how Joe rolls... with violence as a response?  

 

Of course, the gossip-for-sale site would post it that way.  At least the professional gossipmonger included the link to the actual interview.  

[LadyChatts]

Again with the "punch in the face" thing out of context.  Why do you think he wanted to throw Spencer off a cliff?  Did Spencer also make a momma boy joke and that's just how Joe rolls... with violence as a response?  

 

Of course, the gossip-for-sale site would post it that way.  At least the professional gossipmonger included the link to the actual interview.  

 

My guess on Spencer is that Joe trusted him, and Spencer screwed him over by voting him off.  Joe must have realized he was just used to get rid of Stephen so Spencer could be Jeremy's first mate instead.

 

Also, Joe may be a mama's boy, but I don't think he cares who knows it.

Edited December 9, 2015 by LadyChatts

[Guest]

Yeah, I meant that kind of rhetorically.  Parvati jokingly asked Joe who he hated more, Abi or Spencer (for voting him out).  Since it was clear from the interview he doesn't hate either, he jokingly made up a hate-meter of "I wanted to punch Abi in the face, and throw Spencer off a cliff."  While laughing.  

 

It's kind of funny that people had to dig into an audio exit interview from Canadian ET to find something potentially controversial he said.  And now it's being said it was a threat he made to Abi on the island and was taped!?  

[LadyChatts]

Yeah, I meant that kind of rhetorically.  Parvati jokingly asked Joe who he hated more, Abi or Spencer (for voting him out).  Since it was clear from the interview he doesn't hate either, he jokingly made up a hate-meter of "I wanted to punch Abi in the face, and throw Spencer off a cliff."  While laughing.  

 

It's kind of funny that people had to dig into an audio exit interview from Canadian ET to find something potentially controversial he said.  And now it's being said it was a threat he made to Abi on the island and was taped!?  

 

It would have helped if I read your post a little closer lol  I agree that comment seems to have taken on a life of its own.  It appears there may have been a lot left out from that TC (or that it was shown grossly out of context) but I believe that comment wasn't said there.  And somehow I don't think it had to do with Abi's comment about Joe still living at home, but just his general feelings towards Abi. 

 

Here's the funny thing about that, Shirin is suddenly on the anti-Joe bandwagon, calling him arrogant and disrespectful.  I don't pay much attention to Shirin's twitter, but that's the first negative thing I think she's said about him.  She followed that up with some gifs from that basket brawl challenge where he was knocking some of the women down (oddly she chose not to show the one where Wentworth attempted to bite Joe's hand).  And also chose to ignore the fact that that particular challenge calls for that type of behavior.  But this came after Joe's comment about pushing Spencer off a cliff.  I've seen it said on here several times that Spencer claimed her and Shirin are friends for life.  My guess is for life or until he says something that offends Shirin and she adds him to her ever growing list of Survivors who wronged her and this cause of hers that she's taken up.  If Shirin ever gets a third invite, she'll probably have no one left to make pre-game alliances with.

Edited December 9, 2015 by LadyChatts

[green]

LMAO at “I’m not going to take advice from a 26 year old who sleeps on his parent’s couch.” They should've shown that. Although it probably would've led to even more death threats from Joe's fans, so the editing team probably made the right call.

 

Kelley said on twitter she would explain later why she made that one face and I bet this is why.

 

Yes they should of and it would have been hilarious.  But that doesn't fit their narrative of Joe as the golden boy hero and example to us all.

[Guest]

I get the feeling Shirin gets up in arms about any man who ever remotely insulted any woman, game-related or not.  She seemed to have an irrational hate of Terry over his one argument scene with Cirie in their season.  

[slowpoked]

  But this came after Joe's comment about pushing Spencer off a cliff.  I've seen it said on here several times that Spencer claimed her and Shirin are friends for life.  

I'm actually surprised that Spencer and Shirin are friends, and it looks like they really are, Spencer has posted a few pics where they've met up and done lunch/dinner, etc. I just didn't think they would be friends, at least from Spencer's side. I thought he would find her too much work, or like similar to Kass.