Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
RescueMom

Survivor In The Media

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, BK1978 said:

One that I did not agree with was [Russell Hantz] ranked Ozzy over Yul.  Which is just mind numbing to me.  How can you have the guy that won the season behind the runner-up. 

Seriously, you’re asking this of Russell Hantz???  You know where Russell placed in his first two outings, right???   😂😂😂

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

7 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

What?! Awesome! Do you happen to know what channel it is?

That's so Russell lol.

The 'Dark Shadows' channel on Pluto is 535. I love the show also, but I watched a lot of the episodes when Tubi put the whole run on it's site a while back. I will probably still check out the channel on Pluto often, just to see what story line they are in. I think they just started both shows a week ago, so DS is still in the early years, although Barnabas is already on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, willco said:

The 'Dark Shadows' channel on Pluto is 535. I love the show also, but I watched a lot of the episodes when Tubi put the whole run on it's site a while back. I will probably still check out the channel on Pluto often, just to see what story line they are in. I think they just started both shows a week ago, so DS is still in the early years, although Barnabas is already on.

Off topic but did they run the whole pre-Barnabas stuff?  Like the Phoenix?  It has been about twenty years since I watched DS but from the looks of it when I watched it yesterday it seemed to be right before the 1700's flashback (The first flashback they did).

Back on topic Pluto was showing season nine of Survivor today (I am too lazy to look up the spelling and I am a terrible speller.  It was the season with Scout, Twila, Eliza, Ami, and Chris).  Then they went right back to Pearl Islands.  So I guess they are doing what they do with the Challenge and only showing the same seasons which in this case would be Pearl Islands, All-Stars, and season 9.  Which Pearl Islands was one of my favorites but I was not a huge fan of All-Stars and season nine was good to see again, having not watched it since it first aired.

I forgot how attractive I found Eliza.  I am not sure what it is about her, but I just dig her. 

Edited by BK1978
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I recently installed the Pluto app and glad to see Survivor is on there!  Even though it is on other apps-and I see The Amazing Race is on there as well.  I installed it due to Rescue 911, the show that gave me nightmares as a kid (it’s why I refuse to have a real Christmas tree at my house to this day, and why I wanted to learn CPR as a kid).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, BK1978 said:

I forgot how attractive I found Eliza.  I am not sure what it is about her, but I just dig her. 

She's got a great pair of...eyes.   😜

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, tvgoddess said:

Lex is back 🙄, and he basically wants credit for Rob and Amber's marriage.

https://ew.com/tv/survivor-africa-all-stars-lex-van-den-berghe-quarantine-questionnaire/

He needs to let it go because continuing to try to justify himself (17 years after the fact!) only makes him look worse.

Quote

I’m sure I don’t need to mention it, but I would’ve tried much harder to convince Kathy that we should vote out Amber and keep Jerri on All-Stars. Unfortunately, a significant part of my Survivor legacy and what many people remember me for, was the game-ending decision to save Amber, which subsequently teed up Boston Rob to dominate the rest of the game. Most people don’t know this, but the decision to keep Amber in the game was actually Kathy’s.

Not that I believe this because, you know, I saw the damn show, but if this were true then why the hell has been crying all these years about how Rob owed him?

Quote

We would’ve had the numbers (Big Tom and I were locked and loaded before we even left the States) and we would’ve capitalized on Rob’s weakness, with him having lost his partner.

Or, in other words, Rob was correct when he said he knew Lex was loyal to Tom and not him.

Quote

I also think you could argue that if Amber had been voted out, she and Rob likely would never have married. Thing is, Amber would’ve been the last non-juror voted out and would’ve spent the last few weeks of the game in an exotic locale with someone she had romantic history with (you do the math). I’m still waiting for that thank you card from the Marianos!

Yeah, this is just gross. He's suggesting that Ethan and Amber would have hooked up again at pre-Ponderosa, despite the fact that Ethan's then-current girlfriend Jenna Morasca was at home with her dying mother.

Edited by fishcakes
  • Like 6
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

IT'S BEEN 17 FUCKING YEARS MAN GET OVER IT!

I used to defend his anger but damn. I feel sorry for him. His life must be shitty lol. On the other hand, I sort of almost respect his level of petty and ability to hold a grudge.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

On the other hand, I sort of almost respect his level of petty and ability to hold a grudge.

I also like the part about how he has increased tolerance and diversity with the power of his tattoos.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 5
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, tvgoddess said:

Lex is back 🙄, and he basically wants credit for Rob and Amber's marriage.

https://ew.com/tv/survivor-africa-all-stars-lex-van-den-berghe-quarantine-questionnaire/

Whatever cynicism one might have had about Rob and Amber's relationship during All Stars while it aired, after 15 years of marriage and four kids, they've proven that it was the real deal. I don't think voting Amber out on Day 24 would have made any difference to their post-game relationship. At most, Lex would have deprived them of the 15 days of post-merge game/Ponderosa. Big whoop.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like Boston Rob has gone onto Survivor legendary status, and had all kinds of opportunities thanks to his relationship with Amber (2x on The Amazing Race, their reality show, televised wedding), and Lex is known for being one of the worst players of the game, and an extremely bitter player on top of.  I'm only convinced he and Big Tom got a spot on All-Stars because of the screw up during the F4 IC in their original season.  

Also this:

Quote

Most people don’t realize that Survivor: Africa winner and my good friend Ethan Zohn nearly declined my alliance, which arguably would’ve cost him the game.

Aligning with Lex probably cost Ethan the game anyway, so it seems like he was screwed no matter what.

Quote

Within a few minutes of discussion, Tom and I were shaking hands and had forged what I believe to be the strongest alliance in Survivor history. 

I'd disagree.  Most alliances that are strong typically don't fall apart or make horrible choices because of pre-game friendships.  Honestly, reading Lex's interview makes me feel like an English teacher.  Every time he says something, I want to quote it and correct him on it.   

Edited by LadyChatts
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2020 at 5:29 PM, fishcakes said:

He needs to let it go because continuing to try to justify himself (17 years after the fact!) only makes him look worse.

And crazy...don't forget crazy. Because um, yeah. This is sad. 

 

On 9/17/2020 at 5:29 PM, fishcakes said:

but if this were true then why the hell has been crying all these years about how Rob owed him?

Because he's always been full of shit about this. And Lex, to those who were paying attention and didn't drink the "Rob is the worse who betrayed Lex" koolaid, yeah we knew the decision was Kathy's because they showed it IN THE DAMN EPISODE. 

That's why I've always said that no, Amber was no great Survivor mastermind, but it wasn't fair when some said she did nothing to save herself because they actually showed Amber and Kathy talking where Amber made the pitch to Kathy that if they saved her, she and Rob had Tom firmly with them back at Chapera.

And so the three of them - Rob, Amber and Tom, could pair up with Lex, Kathy and Shii Ann and be a strong six. Because even with taking out Amber, Lex and company were down a number against the old Chapera. That was what swayed Kathy, who then took that offer to Lex. 

 

On 9/17/2020 at 5:29 PM, fishcakes said:

Yeah, this is just gross. He's suggesting that Ethan and Amber would have hooked up again at pre-Ponderosa, despite the fact that Ethan's then-current girlfriend Jenna Morasca was at home with her dying mother.

Not to mention Amber and Ethan's brief relationship was already ancient history to both of them by that point, two, Amber and Rob's feelings were already pretty strong and three, Rob and Amber have both stated their relationship truly developed after they got back from filming. 

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2020 at 5:29 PM, fishcakes said:

He needs to let it go because continuing to try to justify himself (17 years after the fact!) only makes him look worse.

Not that I believe this because, you know, I saw the damn show, but if this were true then why the hell has been crying all these years about how Rob owed him?

Or, in other words, Rob was correct when he said he knew Lex was loyal to Tom and not him.

Yeah, this is just gross. He's suggesting that Ethan and Amber would have hooked up again at pre-Ponderosa, despite the fact that Ethan's then-current girlfriend Jenna Morasca was at home with her dying mother.

Lex refuses to admit that he lost the game on his own. All he had to do was beat Rob when individual immunity was up for grabs. Lex would have voted Rob out and the game would have changed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

One thing I notice about these EW interviews, is I feel like some of the players from older seasons are more lengthy than the newer players.  Joel's reads like a novel.  Anyway, Borneo is infamous for a lot of things, and some might remember the Stacey Stillman lawsuit over Mark Burnett orchestrating her vote off over Rudy.  Joel kind of confirms that, in his own way (I'll leave that up to you whether you believe it or not).

Quote

 

 The suit claimed Mark had influenced the cast to vote in certain directions — directions that we would later deduce were to help appease an older CBS demographic. CBS at the time was the “Tiffany Network”… 60 Minutes was a network institution and it drove the image of the organization. After Sonja was voted out, Mark saw that B.B. (64-years-old) was the next on the block. He was also trying to save Rudy (72-years-old) on the opposing tribe. Mark was trying to make the show a success and was not interested in leaving his long suffering baby to chance.

Mark started making moves of his own — some of them blatant, and some a bit more covert. Some of these moves directly lead to Stacey getting voted out. Stacey didn’t catch wind of this till months after the show. In the limo line after the Emmys, actually. That story in and of itself is amazing and too long for this format. Point being… if people would have known all the shenanigans that were pulled between first season production and cast, they would be shocked. Stacey got pretty beat up when she filed a lawsuit claiming unfair practices by the production. In the end, she came out with a win, but I don’t think it was worth it for her or anyone else involved. I am happy Mark came out unscathed from the scandal and has had a historic and influential career.

 

 

Also, the days when they wanted to appeal to an older demographic and not let all the older contestants get voted off as a result.  How times have changed.  Joel was also one of the ones who, when All-Stars was filming or came out (can't remember exactly when) he was one of the contestants who would talk to anyone who would listen about the manipulation on the show, and how he found out about the Tagi 4 alliance from a camera man, who asked him to walk down the beach for a camera shot, and Joel said that would do things like that, or repeat conversations, or whatever, for info about the other camp.  

He also had this to say about what he would change about the show (involving Probst):

Quote

 

Let me preface this answer as well. I am so happy with all of Jeff’s success with the show. In that first season, he was just trying to make it in the entertainment industry like everyone else. He was a relatively last minute addition to the show, and I cant imagine he would have foreseen the success the show would have. He is also a legit film director, and if you haven’t seen Finders Fee, its worth checking out.

Love Jeff, buuuut… I think he has become too integral to the outcome of the show. I understand why he would want this, since having is face on such a high profile show has been an incredible vehicle for his career to say the least… but “live Tribals” and probing questions born of voyeuristic production information can all but channel the winner Jeff desires. If you ain’t giving good sound bites, you probably will not be around too long. It is a television product after all, and I think the competition has suffered because of all the production involvement.

His influential participation in Tribal Councils and incorporating popular societal causes all but cancels out the multiple days of personal strategy conducted by the contestants.  Someone could have done a ton of moves for days, and all that can be washed away by Jeff interjecting too much or allowing the whole thing to devolve into a Jerry Springer episode. The interpersonal manipulation is a large factor in the show. It made it so much more desirable than a show centered around challenges. I do wish him all the luck in the world though, and its made 40 seasons…so what do I know😉

 

 

  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

At least someone is saying what we've been saying for ages - that Jeff needs to shut up and just let it naturally unravel. 

and clearly Lex hasn't watched Frozen because then he would have learned to Let it Go.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 3
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Daisy said:

clearly Lex hasn't watched Frozen because then he would have learned to Let it Go.

If Lex could let things go, we wouldn't have gotten the Mohawk of Hypocrisy.

  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

One thing I'm noticing with a lot of these interviews that I've been reading, is that many players (especially old schoolers) think they need to tone down all the idols and advantages, and go back to a more classic season.  I can see why the old schoolers would think that, but seeing some of the new schoolers say that Survivor needs a re-fresh is...well, refreshing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, peachmangosteen said:

That's from 5 years ago. Does anyone know how it turned out lol?

From what I could find out, TIG Insurance v. Culpepper is still working its way through the courts.

  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

On 10/27/2020 at 4:07 AM, SVNBob said:

Huh.  There was more to the Billy and Candace connection than we knew.... 

An interview with her that makes his declaration make a little more sense.

I am always amazed at how well Candice comes off in interviews and how blah she comes off on the show. I never understood why she was brought back twice until I heard her and her husband on Rob Has a Podcast and finally saw what it was that the casting people saw. I suppose it doesn't help that she's never made it very far into the post-merge game, so there was never much reason to give her a lot of airtime as a major character on her seasons.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I never liked Candice much until BvsW, when she won a special place in my heart for when she trash talked Brad Culpepper during the RI duels.  Anyone that does that is good in my book.

Edited by LadyChatts
  • Like 5
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

https://ew.com/tv/cbs-reality-series-casting-representation/

So it looks like CBS is actually making the push to make sure their non scripted shows are at least 50% non-white, starting next year.  At this point, I just want Survivor back.  Ultimately, I also just want an interesting cast that's there to play the game.  Survivor hasn't done too terrible in IOTI regarding casting POC, although this may be a challenge for Big Brother.  It shouldn't be, but somehow it is.  

 

Edited by LadyChatts

Share this post


Link to post

https://ew.com/tv/cbs-reality-series-casting-representation/

Survivor and Big Brother have pledged that future casts will have 50% "black, indigenous and people of colour" representation.  The article then goes on to almost exclusively talk about the problem Survivor has had with portrayals of black contestants on the show.

I would assume that the "people of colour" would include Asians and Hispanics.  Is "indigenous" the new term for Native Americans?  If both of these answers are yes, then I think this is a good thing.  Many say how awful the "race season" was, but I thought it was great in terms of representation.

I have mentioned more than a few times about how I think the Asian American male appears to be the most undesirable casting type on reality TV.  Shows like Survivor in particular have perpetuated this, if they feel like casting an Asian contestant, it seems more likely that they will cast the "exotic" "alluring" and "mysterious" Asian female instead of an Asian male.  I think back to the season where there were THREE Asian females and zero males.  The last one left actually commented in her post-boot about how she was pleased to have been the "last one left".  Of course, those three were three of the first four boots, so it wasn't a particularly notable accomplishment.

I'm especially curious as to how the casting department is going to define "person of colour".  If the purpose is to get more minorities on the show, then I hope they will cast people who historically haven't been as represented on the show.  For example, if the show puts somebody that looks like Jennifer Tilly or worse, Hailee Steinfeld, on the show and tries to claim that this person is Asian, then it's just lip service and they will prove that they are doing nothing but trying to fill a quota.

Every season always has its share of young white buff bohunks and young white (blonde) beach babes, so I am curious to see what this actually will look like in the future.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, blackwing said:

I have mentioned more than a few times about how I think the Asian American male appears to be the most undesirable casting type on reality TV.

Yul might disagree with you on that point.  😉

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I regret all the times that I whined about anything in the show (stupid twists, bad casting, boring episodes and so on). Now I wish I could have a new season of survivor...:(

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Nashville said:

Yul might disagree with you on that point.  😉

True, but he's like the only one.  I am hard pressed to think of any other Asian American male that was relatively successful in the game and was considered by Probst as an alpha male and just as "cool" as those young hunky white guys that he always salivates over.  The others have been mostly portrayed as strange/outcast (Tai, Yau Man, Cao Boi, Vince), dumb (Woo, Mookie) or just plain forgettable (all or most of the rest).

I'm cautiously optimistic about this new casting pledge but I hope it just doesn't turn into lip service.  The "race season" was in response to casting criticisms and then things quickly went back to business as usual.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/9/2020 at 4:32 PM, blackwing said:

https://ew.com/tv/cbs-reality-series-casting-representation/

Survivor and Big Brother have pledged that future casts will have 50% "black, indigenous and people of colour" representation.  The article then goes on to almost exclusively talk about the problem Survivor has had with portrayals of black contestants on the show.

I would assume that the "people of colour" would include Asians and Hispanics.  Is "indigenous" the new term for Native Americans?  If both of these answers are yes, then I think this is a good thing.  Many say how awful the "race season" was, but I thought it was great in terms of representation.

I have mentioned more than a few times about how I think the Asian American male appears to be the most undesirable casting type on reality TV.  Shows like Survivor in particular have perpetuated this, if they feel like casting an Asian contestant, it seems more likely that they will cast the "exotic" "alluring" and "mysterious" Asian female instead of an Asian male.  I think back to the season where there were THREE Asian females and zero males.  The last one left actually commented in her post-boot about how she was pleased to have been the "last one left".  Of course, those three were three of the first four boots, so it wasn't a particularly notable accomplishment.

I'm especially curious as to how the casting department is going to define "person of colour".  If the purpose is to get more minorities on the show, then I hope they will cast people who historically haven't been as represented on the show.  For example, if the show puts somebody that looks like Jennifer Tilly or worse, Hailee Steinfeld, on the show and tries to claim that this person is Asian, then it's just lip service and they will prove that they are doing nothing but trying to fill a quota.

Every season always has its share of young white buff bohunks and young white (blonde) beach babes, so I am curious to see what this actually will look like in the future.

So, Survivor has chosen to embrace racism and racial discrimination and make it official policy.

I cannot condone this hateful, reprehensible action.  I am done with Survivor, and IMO, anyone who continues to watch it is supporting racism.

 

Very sad.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

So, Survivor has chosen to embrace racism and racial discrimination and make it official policy.

I cannot condone this hateful, reprehensible action. 

It's hateful, reprehensible, and racist to have a policy to have more BIPOC on the show than there has been historically?  (With the exception of 3 seasons)

Or do you mean it's racist to have fewer white people?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know what Bryce Lynch meant, but some could argue that considering races exists and considering that you can classify human beings in différent races is the first step towards racism. This measure also aknowledge that there are white people on one side, and all non-white people on another (and I'm not quite sure when someone stops being classified as "white"). However, society being what it is, I'm afraid this decision by Survivor is a necessary evil, because it's sadly true that occidental societies consider that white people are different (and usually, better treated). It's a biologically baseless decision, but socially it's understandable.

I'm from a country that refuses to classify people according to ethnicity, for fear of fueling racism, so I may have a different feel on this. Note that this does not stop racism (or clearly, white privilege) to rise in the country, so I'm not sure it's the right approach either. In an ideal world, diversity should be there without needing to induce and advertise it, but we are not in an ideal world.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, SVNBob said:

It's hateful, reprehensible, and racist to have a policy to have more BIPOC on the show than there has been historically?  (With the exception of 3 seasons)

Or do you mean it's racist to have fewer white people?

Racial quotas are racist in general.  But, this racial quota is especially reprehensible.

The non-Hispanic white population is over 60%.  The white-Hispanic population is about 9%

So, depending upon whether they treat white-Hispanics as POC or not, they are capping the representation of about 60% or 70% of the population at 50%.

This would be like making a rule that no more than 10% of players in a season could be black, when black Americans are about 12% of the population.

If they capped non-Hispanic whites at about 60% it would still be wrong, but at least they would be trying to match the demographics of the American population.  Under this policy, they are deliberately discriminating, based upon race, to achieve a mix that is far different than the demographics of the American population.  

What makes it worse, is that the "problem" they are trying to address no longer exists.   They has reached a white/non-white distribution that approximated that if the American population, in recent seasons.  

I would have absolutely no problem with seasons with 50%, 60% or 80% "POC", as long as they got there by picking the best contestants.  But, racial discrimination is ugly and even when it "favors" minorities, I believe it harms them more than it harms white people.

It declares that the most important thing about minorities is their race.  This marginalizes them.  There is also the evil implication that they must not good enough to make it on their own, so they need discrimination to help them.

BTW, I despise the racist, woke hypocrisy of the term "people of color".  It is an absolute synonym to "colored people", which was deemed a slur about 50 years ago.

It is just an example of our modern, woke racial insanity.  Just treat all people equally.  That is the Only way to end what is left of racism.  Instead, the woke mob has created an ugly revival of the racism that was nearly dead 10 or 15 years ago.  This is a tragedy.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

On 9/17/2020 at 5:29 PM, fishcakes said:

He needs to let it go because continuing to try to justify himself (17 years after the fact!) only makes him look worse.

Not that I believe this because, you know, I saw the damn show, but if this were true then why the hell has been crying all these years about how Rob owed him?

Or, in other words, Rob was correct when he said he knew Lex was loyal to Tom and not him.

Yeah, this is just gross. He's suggesting that Ethan and Amber would have hooked up again at pre-Ponderosa, despite the fact that Ethan's then-current girlfriend Jenna Morasca was at home with her dying mother.

Lex is definitely one of those people you can't have a logical, linear argument with. He makes the case against himself with his own words, but somehow thinks he's explaining himself brilliantly. Like his remarkable leaps of logic to justify knifing his friends and alliancemates while screaming bloody murder when Rob did the same to him.

Rob got rid of Lex to avoid Big Tom jumping ship back to Lex's camp, but Lex doesn't seem to connect the dots to see that Rob read him like a book and acted accordingly.

Quote

Whatever cynicism one might have had about Rob and Amber's relationship during All Stars while it aired, after 15 years of marriage and four kids, they've proven that it was the real deal. I don't think voting Amber out on Day 24 would have made any difference to their post-game relationship. At most, Lex would have deprived them of the 15 days of post-merge game/Ponderosa. Big whoop.

Arguably, it would have deprived them of far more than that. Namely, 1 million dollars plus 100,000 dollars because Amber only won because Lex & Co. couldn't bring themselves to vote for Rob, so even if he'd managed to find his way to the end even without his Number 1 alliance mate, all of the people who were so upset with him would've had someone else to vote for. 

Also, by winning the game, their story became THE story of the season. Amber going home midway means they're just another showmance that warrants a brief "so, are you guys still together?" moment at the reunion. Which in turn means no magazine covers, no televised wedding, no Amazing Race, none of the opportunities that came their way primarily from being the story of the season.

In other words, even though the relationship was obviously the real deal, the circumstances of their lives would have been vastly different  in a number of ways had Amber been cut loose at that point. 

Not that I'm giving Lex any credit for any of it and I could make the same argument for him, HIS life might have been the one dramatically altered had he been able to see past the end of his nose and assess the situation correctly. He misread Rob and overestimated his place in the game and it cost him.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/13/2020 at 8:18 AM, Bryce Lynch said:

 

It is just an example of our modern, woke racial insanity.  Just treat all people equally.  That is the Only way to end what is left of racism.  Instead, the woke mob has created an ugly revival of the racism that was nearly dead 10 or 15 years ago.  This is a tragedy.

 

 

 

 

I can't be bothered arguing for or against planned representation. I just stopped in to say that it is hyperbole of the first order to call anything to do with Survivor, a "tragedy".

 

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/9/2020 at 4:32 PM, blackwing said:

https://ew.com/tv/cbs-reality-series-casting-representation/

Survivor and Big Brother have pledged that future casts will have 50% "black, indigenous and people of colour" representation.  The article then goes on to almost exclusively talk about the problem Survivor has had with portrayals of black contestants on the show.

I would assume that the "people of colour" would include Asians and Hispanics.  Is "indigenous" the new term for Native Americans?  If both of these answers are yes, then I think this is a good thing.  Many say how awful the "race season" was, but I thought it was great in terms of representation.

Ionde) beach babes, so I am curious to see what this actually will look like in the future.

Sort of a weird thing to put out.  Why 50% black?  Is the US 50% black?  Are they going to cast by percentages including gender an age?  Would LOVE to see Native Americans included.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/13/2020 at 6:18 AM, Bryce Lynch said:

Racial quotas are racist in general.  But, this racial quota is especially reprehensible.

The stated “quotas” do not reflect general population representation with technical accuracy, true - but a couple of other factors to consider:

  1. During the many many seasons (of Survivor and other rTV shows) of minority underrepresentation I don’t recall a significant outburst from technical purists (other than myself on the odd post from time to time) decrying the inaccuracy and discussing appropriate population-representative values, so fussing about overrepresentation might be perceived as being a trifle disingenuous.  Just consider it in the nature of a reparation overcorrection and move on.
  2. When it comes to a clash between technical accuracy vs. marketability, we already know on which side of THAT fence Production is going to land; TPTB are going to market to the young GenZ wokesters who make up the bulk of their broadcast market viewership share - and at that point, expecting a demand for technical statistical accuracy from a generation which was never taught how to reconcile a checkbook is kinda unrealistic.  😉

 

Edited by Nashville · Reason: Typo
  • Like 7
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, marys1000 said:

Sort of a weird thing to put out.  Why 50% black?  Is the US 50% black?  Are they going to cast by percentages including gender an age?  Would LOVE to see Native Americans included.  

Not 50% black.  50% BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color).  That would include Native Americans (or First Nations, or whatever term(s) those individuals prefer).

The best way to think of this in Survivor terms is Cook Islands, but with 2 white tribes instead of 1 and without one of the other 3 tribes instead.  That's the type of initial cast composition this measure is meant to ensure.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, SVNBob said:

Not 50% black.  50% BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color).  That would include Native Americans (or First Nations, or whatever term(s) those individuals prefer).

The best way to think of this in Survivor terms is Cook Islands, but with 2 white tribes instead of 1 and without one of the other 3 tribes instead.  That's the type of initial cast composition this measure is meant to ensure.

Cook Islands was a one time social experiment, within the social experiment of Survivor, and it was very controversial.  IIRC, they reshuffled the tribes very early, which took a lot of the potentially more problematic, "Which race is best at Survivor?" element, and turned it into more about how people of different ethnic backgrounds would interact and how ethnicity might affect alliances, etc.  

The new rules mandate discrimination against white applicants, as non-Hispanic whites are over 60% of the American population.  

Also, depending upon how the classify other ethnicities, it could be even worse.  About 9% of the population identifies as white Hispanic.  Will they be considered "POC" in Survivor's new Apartheid scheme?

In addition, just this morning, I read an article reporting that a school district announced that Asian students are not considered "students of color", by "white".   It appears they may have walked this back, in response to criticism.   But, this brings up the possibility that Survivor might deem Asian-American applicants to be "white" or "non-BIPOC" and use quotas against them, as many universities have done to Asian-American students.  

You don't eliminate discrimination, with discrimination.  You eliminate it by treating everyone fairly.      

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

19 hours ago, Nashville said:

The stated “quotas” do not reflect general population representation with technical accuracy, true - but a couple of other factors to consider:

  1. During the many many seasons (of Survivor and other rTV shows) of minority underrepresentation I don’t recall a significant outburst from technical purists (other than myself on the odd post from time to time) decrying the inaccuracy and discussing appropriate population-representative values, so fussing about overrepresentation might be perceived as being a trifle disingenuous.  Just consider it in the nature of a reparation overcorrection and move on.
  2. When it comes to a clash between technical accuracy vs. marketability, we already know on which side of THAT fence Production is going to land; TPTB are going to market to the young GenZ wokesters who make up the bulk of their broadcast market viewership share - and at that point, expecting a demand for technical statistical accuracy from a generation which was never taught how to reconcile a checkbook is kinda unrealistic.  😉

 

If underrepresentation happens due to quotas, it is wrong.  If if happens due to a lower number of applications and well qualified applicants, from certain groups, there is nothing wrong with it, though I would support reasonable efforts to try to change it. 

For example, I have zero problem with the fact that 74% of NBA players are black, and any effort to try to change this with quotas would be outrageous.  

Do GenZ wokesters really make up the bulk of viewership?   The NBA has seen its ratings collapse as a result of it going ultra-woke.   I suspect the same could happen to Survivor.  It seems like a lot of companies are making these woke choices rashly without really evaluating the impact on ratings or sales.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

It's 50% BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) so their goal is basically just to try to include more non-white people, which I don't think could ever be considered a bad thing.

Well, ya know Peach, if you let the those people be 50% of reality TV shows, which according to God and arithmetic should be 60.00000001% white, then they might want other things, like fairness in housing, education, employment, access to health care, and a full and accurate Census count. If you let 9 of the those people on Survivor instead of ... uh ... 7 the those people, 10 legally-and-morally-entitled-to-appear-on-Survivor white people and one person who's mostly white but maybe has like a Filipino grandmother or something, then the next thing you know, the those people will be demanding not to be murdered by the police. Slippery slope, my friend, slippery slope.

  • Like 8
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

Well, ya know Peach, if you let the those people be 50% of reality TV shows, which according to God and arithmetic should be 60.00000001% white, then they might want other things, like fairness in housing, education, employment, access to health care, and a full and accurate Census count. If you let 9 of the those people on Survivor instead of ... uh ... 7 the those people, 10 legally-and-morally-entitled-to-appear-on-Survivor white people and one person who's mostly white but maybe has like a Filipino grandmother or something, then the next thing you know, the those people will be demanding not to be murdered by the police. Slippery slope, my friend, slippery slope.

So, you support intentional, systemic racial discrimination?   
 

I think they should just choose the best contestants based upon rational criteria like their ability to play the game well, and how interesting they might be to audiences.  If some seasons, that means,70%, 80% or 90% BIPOC (or more correctly PORC - "People of the Right Colors", wonderful!  I enjoy seeing a diverse group of players.   

But, racial quotas are despicable and IMO much more harmful and insulting to those they supposedly "benefit".  Having such quotas is essentially saying, "There are enough non-whites who could be good Survivor contestants,  so we need to make a rule to force the show to take more."   That is a wicked and destructive lie.       

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

So, you support intentional, systemic racial discrimination?   

Absolutely not. I am against this nation's long history of intentional, systemic racial discrimination against [checks notes] white people, especially in the area of appearing on a reality TV show, which is a fundamental human right. My god, the suffering.

  • Like 7
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

It's 50% BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) so their goal is basically just to try to include more non-white people, which I don't think could ever be considered a bad thing.

I'm not saying I don't think they shouldn't have a more diverse cast (and not be stereotypical with the editing).  But I also don't know about casting diversity for the sake of casting diversity.  Cook Islands was a great season, heavily recruited (was anyone a traditional applicant?) but then there was Fiji, also heavily recruited (I think only one person applied the normal way), and the season was bad.  I don't think it was as bad as most people, especially on re-watch, and I actually wonder how it might have turned out had they been able to copy the theme from Cook Islands and divide everyone along racial lines in tribes, as originally intended.  One of the arguments I've seen casting directors of these shows make about the lack of diversity is that those people aren't applying, which is why they need to recruit, and they don't always get players who are really familiar with Survivor.  I think most of these shows are recruited nowadays anyway, or you get on based on who you know or if you were a previous applicant years ago.  I really want them to cast people who can handle the elements, are there to play the game, and have interesting personalities.  Not saying they can't do that with a diverse cast (as I said, Cook Islands was awesome for a lot of reasons, and Sean Rector still remains a legendary player to me), but I also would need to be convinced that they aren't just going to cast to meet their mark and have it blow up in their face.  

Edited by LadyChatts
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Where do people get the idea that "Survivor" should represent the amount of white people in America?  I don't get that?  Where does it come from?  Why must it be a perfect 1:1 ratio?  If they did an all Asian Survivor season, an all Black Survivor season, and all Native Americans Survivor season, and all Canadian Survivor season, -- so what?  What is the big deal?  I don't understand the outcry?  It would be wonderful.  I'll never understand this idea that 40+ seasons must always have x number of white people on the show to be "fair".  To be fair to what, to whom?  It makes no sense to me..... 

On 11/16/2020 at 1:39 PM, Nashville said:

 

  1. When it comes to a clash between technical accuracy vs. marketability, we already know on which side of THAT fence Production is going to land; TPTB are going to market to the young GenZ wokesters who make up the bulk of their broadcast market viewership share - and at that point, expecting a demand for technical statistical accuracy from a generation which was never taught how to reconcile a checkbook is kinda unrealistic.  😉

 

I don't think Gen Z watches cable.  I can barely find fellow Millennials who do.  They watch streaming apps.  

But hey, I'm all for more representation on "Survivor".  Always have been, always will be.

How could this "blow up in their face"?  The show already hit its lowest point by casting Dan who kept molesting people.  He is white.  It's not like this show has had the most pristine casting record by keeping the majority of Survivor contestants white, and now they're going to muck it up.  They're going to cast how they always cast, except not make the majority of the cast white anymore, except white people will STILL make up the majority, versus any other demographic.

Edited by Ms Blue Jay
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

They're going to cast how they always cast, except not make the majority of the cast white anymore, except white people will STILL make up the majority, versus any other demographic.

You hit the nail right on the head there lol.

They always recruit people. They always cast people who have no idea what Survivor is. They always cast a few people who have actually watched the show. They always cast some complete duds. Everything will be exactly the same, just now with more non-white people. 

Quote

Where do people get the idea that "Survivor" should represent the amount of white people in America?  I don't get that?  Where does it come from?  Why must it be a perfect 1:1 ratio?

That always comes up when there are calls for there to be more non-white people anywhere. It is an argument that never makes any sense imo.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size