Season 34: Previews and Speculation

[LanceM]

On 12/17/2016 at 11:44 AM, jsm1125 said:

I'm so glad to see that I'm not the only one excited to see Hali get a second shot. I thought she had a lot of potential pre-merge in Worlds Apart.

Hali is actually the one player I am most excited to see come back next season.  She was by far my favorite in Worlds Apart and I pinpoint her getting voted out as the point in which that season quickly went downhill.  

[Trick Question]

It occurs to me that if the original "winners vs. jury vs. non-jury" plan fell through but the show still wanted an all-returnee season, why not simply do another Second Chance online vote?  The first one created a lot of social media buzz about the show, so I just assumed it was only a matter of time before that gimmick was revived.  I guess "second chance" limits the player pool and prevents the likes of Sandra, Cirie, Ozzy from returning, but maybe just some kind of "third chance" theme?

[truthaboutluv]

Per conversation that started in Adam's thread, regarding an all past winners season and the possibility of Amber ever playing again.

Quote

I don't think she'll ever play again precisely because of the Lamber stuff and the fact that most people think Rob handed her the spot at the finals in All-Stars, but it would be interesting. Much as the thought of a 5-time player doesn't thrill me, I still think it would be the most interesting Blood Vs Water-type showdown of all time if Rob and Amber had to play against each other. 

See I disagree and I have always loved me some Rob and actually think he and Amber are adorable (I am totally copping to watching their wedding special and I feel no shame). I don't think them together in a Blood v. Water season would be that interesting because the other players would get rid of one of them immediately, likely Amber. And if they didn't then well that would have to be the biggest bunch of idiots assembled in a season. Rob and Amber together is what made everyone realize that you don't leave couples or any type of romantic pairings in a game.

They were able to do what they did in All Stars just from a 39 day relationship. What do people think will happen with them now married for years? If they didn't turn on each other back when they weren't even sure if the other was genuine and playing them for the game, they damn sure wouldn't now. And Rob is a player you never let get far in the game. It's why in his four times playing, twice he didn't even make the jury. Because anyone with a brain knows you don't let him get deep in the game. 

I think Amber would be far more interesting and have a better shot playing by herself because I suspect people would underestimate her, likely because most people believe she only won because of Rob. And as a person who unpopular opinion, didn't believe she was an undeserving winner (though I would have been fine with Rob winning instead) but more importantly, was a lot more devious than people realized, I could see her using that to her advantage and being able to stay under the radar and get through some votes while others with bigger egos, seemingly bigger threats, destroy each other. 

Edited January 4, 2017 by truthaboutluv

[LauraAnders]

On 2016-12-15 at 4:47 AM, KimberStormer said:

I think a lot of these people should not play Survivor anymore, not because I dislike them, but because I like them: Cirie, Sandra, JT, etc.  I fear to see their legacies tarnished, but I expect it.  I also think Malcolm and Ciera both got called back too soon and this is too soon yet again.  Also Ozzy, go home man.  And there's a lot of people I dislike.  BUT then again I was completely wrong about Cambodia, which I thought was going to be terrible, so I guess we'll see.

I think the jury sequester is very likely.  Probst has been wanting it forever.  I'm sure they've noticed the increasing tendency towards unanimous votes.

I'm not sure what you mean by "jury sequester". But I think Probst is like many other maniacal personalities that become more and more crazy with any success they experience.

I wouldn't be surprised if he intends to keep each juror in isolation from all the others until the vote is taken.

[MissEwa]

1 hour ago, LauraAnders said:

I wouldn't be surprised if he intends to keep each juror in isolation from all the others until the vote is taken.

That's what I thought was meant by jury sequester. My only thought is how boring it would be for the jury members, especially early ones. It's also weird to do it on an all-star season where they all already know each other and have pre-existing alliances and probably FTC voting deals. 

Edited January 6, 2017 by MissEwa

[LadyChatts]

I don't know if they'd go as far as waiting until the finale to cast their votes live, since sometimes the argument is certain things weren't seen.  However, AS seasons are s little different.

I'm going for a jury sequester, since Probst mentioned Kyle and Scot specifically in Ponderosa.  Either that or Probst brings up statements made in Ponderosa by potential bitter jurors and gives the final 3 a chance to explain their side.  Regardless, I doubt it'll matter.  This game is often won on popularity, and sequestering a jury won't change that.  It might even make it worse.

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, MissEwa said:

That's what I thought was meant by jury sequester. My only thought is how boring it would be for the jury members, especially early ones. It's also weird to do it on an all-star season where they all already know each other and have pre-existing alliances and probably FTC voting deals. 

 It's not that bad.   There's about 2 weeks left when jury starts.  When Big Brother does a "let an eviticee return to the house" twist, the first houseguest booted is in sequester for 4 weeks.

[LanceM]

I seriously doubt they will sequester the jury. I don't see that happening at all.

[Guest]

They could just do what Big Brother does (I think) and tell the jurors no discussing the game in the jury house, and have cameras peppered around to help enforce it, or handlers.  

I don't see a physical sequester happening.  I think if Jeff ever really wanted it he'd have done it, plus it sounds like a pain for all for little benefit.  

[MissEwa]

As far as I understand it (or did), they're not supposed to discuss their intended votes at all while they're in Ponderosa, but that doesn't mean they don't, or that they don't talk about the remaining players in a way where it's pretty obvious. I'm not sure how banning all game talk would work, given they're not in a house, as such, but given run of a resort, and the (very understandable) need to decompress when they get out. I do feel like the game-talk has become a much bigger thing in recent ponderosas, though. Remember when they went on outings and started rock bands? 

That said, I don't watch US BB (Australian BB is a public vote for the winner so no jury) so I don't know how they make it work. I'd be curious to see them try.

[LanceM]

19 minutes ago, MissEwa said:

As far as I understand it (or did), they're not supposed to discuss their intended votes at all while they're in Ponderosa, but that doesn't mean they don't, or that they don't talk about the remaining players in a way where it's pretty obvious. I'm not sure how banning all game talk would work, given they're not in a house, as such, but given run of a resort, and the (very understandable) need to decompress when they get out. I do feel like the game-talk has become a much bigger thing in recent ponderosas, though. Remember when they went on outings and started rock bands? 

That said, I don't watch US BB (Australian BB is a public vote for the winner so no jury) so I don't know how they make it work. I'd be curious to see them try.

They still do these things. Michelle in an interview said the jurors went ziplining over the jungle one day.  In Cambodia Kass mentioned that they all went to a karaoke bar where her and Andrew Savage sang "Islands in the Stream" together, (how they could not resist showing us this is a mystery to me).  And there is also no doubt there was much drinking and partying going on there as there is every season.

Edited January 6, 2017 by LanceM

[MissEwa]

10 minutes ago, LanceM said:

In Cambodia Kass mentioned that they all went to a karaoke bar where her and Andrew Savage sang "Islands in the Stream" together, (how they could not resist showing us this is a mystery to me).

I dislike both those people but that sounds adorable. It would be awesome to get more of this kind of Ponderosa footage - I liked back when each person got 3 clips, where one was a 'directly after/intro to ponderosa/maybe game talk' and the rest were more fun group times.

[KimberStormer]

6 hours ago, LauraAnders said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "jury sequester". But I think Probst is like many other maniacal personalities that become more and more crazy with any success they experience.

I wouldn't be surprised if he intends to keep each juror in isolation from all the others until the vote is taken.

Yeah, that's what I meant!  Probst has said many times he wanted that to happen, but it was too expensive to actually do.  The expense is the only reason they didn't do it, as far as I know.  So I could see it happening, if they figured out how to do it logistically.  I agree it would be hellishly boring for early jury members (even, probably, for an introvert like me) but I do think unanimous juries are boring and would prefer more dynamics at the vote.  I sort of miss the days when someone like Tom, who pretty much dominated the game from start to finish, could not get a unanimous vote because people were that pissed off.

[Guest]

Assign a small group of interns to escort the jurors around and monitor their conversation.  And put the prohibition in the players' contracts.  I think the BB jury house has monitors and BB doesn't spend shit on their show.  Maybe Jeff wants to milk physical cells for jurors for the drama.   

[kikaha]

I like the jury members talking among each other, sharing information, learning more of what took place -- from actual participants and witnesses.  Same as in a court of law.  If you believe Survivor should sequester its jury members from each other, why wouldn't that apply to court cases as well?

[LauraAnders]

10 hours ago, MissEwa said:

As far as I understand it (or did), they're not supposed to discuss their intended votes at all while they're in Ponderosa, but that doesn't mean they don't, or that they don't talk about the remaining players in a way where it's pretty obvious. I'm not sure how banning all game talk would work, given they're not in a house, as such, but given run of a resort, and the (very understandable) need to decompress when they get out. I do feel like the game-talk has become a much bigger thing in recent ponderosas, though. Remember when they went on outings and started rock bands? 

That said, I don't watch US BB (Australian BB is a public vote for the winner so no jury) so I don't know how they make it work. I'd be curious to see them try.

I am reminded of the eternal struggle between people who fight for peoples' freedom to encrypt messages to keep them private and government agencies who want to be able to decrypt those messages so they can know just what those people say.

When the producers say that "people are not supposed to discuss" certain topics while they're in Ponderosa, it is essentially challenging these people to find a way and discuss whatever they want. As far as I understand, the people fighting for encryption have a very serious lead over people fighting against it.

In other words, it is much easier for people to find a way and talk with each other about whatever they want than it is for other people to spy on them and learn exactly what they are saying. There are so many ways for two people to talk about who they want to vote for - so many ways. It has to be just about impossible for any producers to prevent them - no matter how Fascist they may be. I'd be interested to know if most people find these kinds of restrictions against free speech to be as objectionable as I do.

I mean, "How DARE you try to tell me what I may talk about and what I may  not talk about." When you try to do that, it makes me think you must be some kind of ignoramus and deserve to get smacked down. It is just so laughable to think that people seriously believe they can stop other people from discussing certain topics. There are just so many ways to disguise or encrypt the discussion. The people who want to spy on you just have no chance. No chance at all.

IMO, the answer for the producers is for them to structure the environment in such a way as to make it impossible for any of the people to discuss those topics. It's really not that difficult given the place where they are staying and the length of time they will stay there.

It's just downright stupid to expect you can try to enforce anti-freedom rules against people and expect them to salute you and say, "Yes Sir". The clever ones may say, "Yes Sir". But in their minds, they will be saying something very different. Fascist Pigs!

So many easy ways to defeat peoples' attempt to collaborate when you wish them not to. You can just give them a numbered list of specific choices and then ask them to vote using one of the code number. You don't ask them to vote for who they want to win. You just phrase the questions somewhat differently and give each person an envelope containing a different question with a different list of coded answers. Even if they all discuss the game with each other and decide they want "John Doe" to win, the question and answers will be very different and they won't be able to know which answer to choose in order to help make "John Doe" win.

Many other ways the producers can defeat people from collaborating without having to make any stupid "rules" telling people what they are free to discuss and what they are prohibited from discussing.

Edited January 6, 2017 by LauraAnders

[Guest]

Well, it's a game.  They can make the rules whatever they want and it's not censorship or fascism, in my opinion.  

I'm sure they're told not to discuss all kinds of things during game play, since the producers don't want or can't have that stuff in the aired show.  Like people can't walk around singing copyrighted songs.  I think they ask people not to discuss prior seasons and players, too, given that would be the obvious favorite topic of conversation out there but we never see it happen, virtually.  

[peachmangosteen]

10 hours ago, MissEwa said:

That said, I don't watch US BB (Australian BB is a public vote for the winner so no jury) so I don't know how they make it work. I'd be curious to see them try.

They don't make it work lol. The jury 100% discusses the game in BB. It's ridiculous to think they wouldn't. The only way to truly keep them from discussing it would be to sequester them. Which ...

1 hour ago, kikaha said:

I like the jury members talking among each other, sharing information, learning more of what took place -- from actual participants and witnesses. 

This! I hate the idea of sequestering the jury. It would complete change the dynamics of the game imo. But it might be an interesting thing to try, I guess, because I agree with @KimberStormer's point about being bored by all the unanimous votes.

[Guest]

I must be wrong about BB.  I've never been a feeds or BBAD watcher.  But sometimes I'd scan those forum threads and I thought I saw that there were people in the house who monitor them to keep them from discussing the winning vote.  It doesn't sound ridiculous or impossible to me.  

But I agree that it's better to let them discuss it.  I don't mind unanimous decisions, either.  That at least puts a damper on *some* of the "____ was ROBBED" baloney.  

[peachmangosteen]

6 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I must be wrong about BB.  I've never been a feeds or BBAD watcher.  But sometimes I'd scan those forum threads and I thought I saw that there were people in the house who monitor them to keep them from discussing the winning vote.  It doesn't sound ridiculous or impossible to me.  

I mean there are people who 'monitor' them, but it makes no difference, they still discuss it. Unless they sequester people or truly threaten them and mean it they're gonna discuss the game. That's human nature.

[Guest]

I just don't think it's that hard to avoid forbidden subjects while you're being paid or hosted or otherwise subject to someone's rules.  I mean, we all avoided 'boards on boards' at TWOP (for the most part) because it was a rule, despite it being very much human nature to discuss other peoples' opinions.  We censor our speech all the time.  I cuss freely in the car alone but never in other situations.  Heck, Rob enforced a buddy system to censor allowed conversations on the island.  The show with its contracts and cameras could easily enforce rules, I feel like.  They keep them from talking on the drive to and from TCs and all kinds of other difficult stuff.

[Nashville]

6 hours ago, LauraAnders said:

I mean, "How DARE you try to tell me what I may talk about and what I may  not talk about." When you try to do that, it makes me think you must be some kind of ignoramus and deserve to get smacked down. It is just so laughable to think that people seriously believe they can stop other people from discussing certain topics. There are just so many ways to disguise or encrypt the discussion. The people who want to spy on you just have no chance. No chance at all.

IMO, the answer for the producers is for them to structure the environment in such a way as to make it impossible for any of the people to discuss those topics. It's really not that difficult given the place where they are staying and the length of time they will stay there.

It's just downright stupid to expect you can try to enforce anti-freedom rules against people and expect them to salute you and say, "Yes Sir". The clever ones may say, "Yes Sir". But in their minds, they will be saying something very different. Fascist Pigs!

 

3 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I just don't think it's that hard to avoid forbidden subjects while you're being paid or hosted or otherwise subject to someone's rules.  I mean, we all avoided 'boards on boards' at TWOP (for the most part) because it was a rule, despite it being very much human nature to discuss other peoples' opinions.  We censor our speech all the time.  I cuss freely in the car alone but never in other situations.  Heck, Rob enforced a buddy system to censor allowed conversations on the island.  The show with its contracts and cameras could easily enforce rules, I feel like.  They keep them from talking on the drive to and from TCs and all kinds of other difficult stuff.

I'm with @Winston9-DT3 on this one.  The Survivor environment is not a free society; it is a workplace, and the contestants have all signed employment contracts with the production company which clearly spell out specific restrictions on their civil liberties for the duration of the season.  If a contestant takes the job - and the pay - then the contestant is obliged to abide by those restrictions.  "Freedom" only enters into the equation in the sense that if a contestant doesn't feel s/he can abide by those restrictions then they have the freedom to NOT sign the contract, and give the show a skip.

The same applies outside the Survivor environment as well.  They're called NDAs - Non-Disclosure Agreements.  :)

Edited January 6, 2017 by Nashville
Expansion

[MissEwa]

On the one hand, it's maybe unreasonable to expect people not to discuss something that it's very much human nature to discuss, but yeah... this is Survivor. They're playing for a lot of money and in return they agree to a bunch of rules. It's not Survivor-specific. Many workplaces have NDAs, doctors and lawyers etc. have confidentiality rules. 

It's easier to police in the game, I guess, partly because a) smaller environment, more cameras and b) players are still in with a chance to win so less likely to break those rules for fear of jeopardising their chances. For example, aside from the rumours about Nicaragua (and your thoughts on Romber), nobody's ever made a financial deal for F2/3, which is a MASSIVE no-no, and probably really tempting as a player. 

It's harder on Ponderosa because they're no longer under the threat of losing the million. But there are still penalties that can be applied - loss of the  game fee they did get, no appearance at the reunion (and thus no fee), probably, depending on the size of the breach, damages set out in those textbook-sized contracts they sign. But yeah, 'I'm voting for Adam. You should vote for Adam' is one thing, 'Adam played a great game, didn't he? I don't know if you know this but he engineered Blah's ouster. Such a good move!' is another. 

You can ban ALL game talk, applying penalties if people break it, but I actually think sometimes that would make the FTC vote worse. In this Probstian Utopia of multiple blindsides every season, people get voted out and they're just like '...WTH?' and it's at Ponderosa that things get pieced together. I kinda like that. I wish we saw more of those moments where people are completely lost and people at Ponderosa explain what happened. But yeah, it a fine line between that and discussing who they want to win. 

This is probably getting a bit OT for S34 speculation though. I'm interested if the jury sequester is their big twist and if so, if it'll mean... anything. Ponderosa is a bit of a niche thing anyway, isn't it? 90% of viewers wouldn't know or care. 

[Guest]

I think Big Brother does a particularly poor job at enforcing their rules, and much else, in comparison to Survivor.  I'd love to know what both their budgets are per season.  

Last BB season the contestants would whisper on camera about their pre-existing deals to pay each other off at the end, wouldn't they?  And those were returning players so they must've known BB doesn't have its shit together enough to either (a) notice rules being broken or (b) care.  I guess that's why I liked Vytas being uninvited from the reunion.  They should enforce the rules, they made them for a reason.  

[Hera]

2 hours ago, MissEwa said:

You can ban ALL game talk, applying penalties if people break it, but I actually think sometimes that would make the FTC vote worse. In this Probstian Utopia of multiple blindsides every season, people get voted out and they're just like '...WTH?' and it's at Ponderosa that things get pieced together. I kinda like that. I wish we saw more of those moments where people are completely lost and people at Ponderosa explain what happened. But yeah, it a fine line between that and discussing who they want to win. 

Count me in as someone who likes that jurors compare notes. Survivor is a social game and, even though the jurors aren't in the running for the $1 million anymore, I still see them as part of the game, and think the social aspect should extend to them as well.

Besides, knowing that the jurors are talking to each other about the game forces the finalists to own the moves they made. They can lie about their motivation, or the reasoning that led them to a particular action, but it would be very hard for them to get away with lying about how they voted, which players they were targeting, or who they were working with at various points.

I think all that would go away if they had the assurance that the jurors couldn't talk about the game at Ponderosa, and Final Tribal Council would become less about getting people to justify their moves and explain why they deserve $1 million, and more about individual jurors trying to understand what happened to sink their own games. That's boring for me as a viewer (I've already seen everyone get voted out), and also means that people would potentially vote for a winner having only heard a maximum of three extremely one-sided and self-serving accounts of what happened. I realize that can happen anyway (and who really knows what goes through the minds of people like Special Agent Phillip Sheppard, Coach, or Kat Edorrson when they go to vote?), but it just wouldn't sit right with me to have the jury choose a winner without giving them at least the opportunity to have the same facts and background knowledge as each other, and I just don't think they'd be able to get that from Final Tribal Council alone.

8 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I hate the idea of sequestering the jury. It would complete change the dynamics of the game imo. But it might be an interesting thing to try, I guess, because I agree with @KimberStormer's point about being bored by all the unanimous votes.

Does the winner's margin really matter, though? Earl, JT, Cochran, Jeremy, and now Adam are the only unanimous winners, and I wouldn't say any of them ran the table the way Kim or Boston Rob (on his fourth try) did. Plus, the size of the jury from season to season is pretty variable—so does that mean JT's 7-0 win the same as Jeremy's and Adam's 10-0 wins, or did he do as well as Kim, who also got seven votes to win (but didn't win unanimously because the jury had nine people)? Or is it somewhere in between? For me, a player either won or didn't.

[MissEwa]

42 minutes ago, Hera said:

 Does the winner's margin really matter, though? Earl, JT, Cochran, Jeremy, and now Adam are the only unanimous winners, and I wouldn't say any of them ran the table the way Kim or Boston Rob (on his fourth try) did. Plus, the size of the jury from season to season is pretty variable—so does that mean JT's 7-0 win the same as Jeremy's and Adam's 10-0 wins, or did he do as well as Kim, who also got seven votes to win (but didn't win unanimously because the jury had nine people)? Or is it somewhere in between? For me, a player either won or didn't.

It doesn't in any meaningful way. It's definitely not an indication of the quality of play or how much each juror wanted a certain player to win (I think it was in the s33 finale thread that it came up that you can win unanimously if each juror is on the fence but ultimately sways the same way). But I am one of the Hannah fans who has expressed a wish that S33 wasn't unanimous, simply because - completely irrationally - it feels like it matters. Maybe I'm too conditioned by sports scores in which 10-0 is more impressive than 6-4. 

Also - again, quite irrationally - I just feel really bad for the shut-outs that none of the jurors will be able to give them a hug afterwards and say 'I voted for you, I'm sorry you didn't win.' I don't think anybody should vote out of pity, but it just makes me a teeny bit sad. 

The only tangible thing (for me as a viewer) is the level of suspense at the reading of the winners votes. But that's, what, forty seconds out of a season? It's probably not worth the effort of a sequester. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, MissEwa said:

I just feel really bad for the shut-outs

I think if I came in second I'd almost rather it be a shutout.  I'd rather not spend the rest of my life thinking, "If only I would've been nicer to so-and-so..."

When it's a shutout, the suspense only lasts about 5 seconds because if the first two votes read are for the same person, you know it's a shutout.  Otherwise, they mix it up.  

[peachmangosteen]

On 1/6/2017 at 7:11 PM, Hera said:

Does the winner's margin really matter, though? 

No, but I find it boring and all I care about is whether the show entertains me!

I was just thinking that if they do try a sequestered jury it's probably not the best idea to do it during a returning players season. These people all know each other anyway so I don't think it'd be as much of an impact as it could be in a season with all new players who are strangers. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by peachmangosteen

[ljenkins782]

On January 6, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Winston9-DT3 said:

I think if I came in second I'd almost rather it be a shutout.  I'd rather not spend the rest of my life thinking, "If only I would've been nicer to so-and-so..."

When it's a shutout, the suspense only lasts about 5 seconds because if the first two votes read are for the same person, you know it's a shutout.  Otherwise, they mix it up.  

Like Ozzy in Cook Islands, when Adam said his vote was based solely on his promise to Yul that he'd vote for him if he ditched Penner before Adam. Ozzy was all "wait, we ALL made that choice" but too late. And Elisabeth in Australia who voted for Tina because she thought Colby was going to be a big star and make his own money. 

[himela]

On 16/12/2016 at 1:18 AM, peachmangosteen said:

I'm always surprised when there's a full returnee season and Rob C isn't on it.  I don't watch RHAP so I don't know if he's talked about it, but I feel like maybe he just doesn't want to play again.

Having listened to so much RHAP (thank God there's Rob and the other great guys and girls surrounding him...) I will take a guess that Rob does not want to play in Survivor at this stage of his life. He has two very young kids, his RHAP podcasts seem to get better by the day, he has taken over many stuff with the podcasts and the live meetings about Survivor and Big Brother and I bet he knows he will be voted out first if he plays Survivor. That way he misses a whole season of podcasting just like Stephen did. Playing Survivor is not something Rob counts on anymore I would guess. Survivor has given him everything that he could ask for and even more. I would like so much for Rob to read that and give us his opinion :)

[LadyChatts]

I would think it would take something incredibly huge to get Rob to return.  However, I heard him say on more than one occasion that it would be hard for him to play again with people he's profiled, interviewed, and in some cases had not so kind words for during his season recaps (something along those lines).  Rob is one of those players that, despite being old school, I think could adapt extremely well to Survivor's evolution of game play.  I wish there had been a long gap between Amazon and AS, since I don't think that did him any favors there.

[thehepburn]

I think in a vacuum, Cesternino would play again but he doesnt live in a vacuum. He would lose more than he would gain from missing a Survivor podcasting season. And I think Fishbach's traumatic experience on S31 has removed any lingering desire he ever had to play for a third time.

[kikaha]

Rob would only have to miss podcasting Survivor if another season was getting aired while he was playing. 

Analyzing/interviewing the season he played on could be real interesting for us and challenging for him.  My hunch is he could wear both hats quite well. 

But I doubt he plays again.  Wife, children, and a growing business all stand in the way. 

[himela]

26 minutes ago, kikaha said:

Rob would only have to miss podcasting Survivor if another season was getting aired while he was playing. 

Analyzing/interviewing the season he played on could be real interesting for us and challenging for him.  My hunch is he could wear both hats quite well. 

But I doubt he plays again.  Wife, children, and a growing business all stand in the way. 

 

He wouldn't be able to podcast while having played in the season just like Stephen couldn't. They are not allowed to talk to press as far as I know.

Playing in Survivor has nothing to offer to Rob.

[LadyChatts]

Wrong thread

Edited February 8, 2017 by LadyChatts

[ByaNose]

Right thread. I almost read the spoiler one. Yikes!

Anyhoo, it's back and I'm soooooooooooooo happy. Some of the cast members are questionable with the title theme. If it was named something else I think most people wouldn't be too upset. That said, having both Halli & Sierra on this season is a bit much. I didn't hate them or anything and they were really cute but sort of boring. I could understand having one of them back but both?! That's a bit much. I can't wait till March. Yippppieeeee!!!

[LadyChatts]

57 minutes ago, ByaNose said:

Right thread. I almost read the spoiler one. Yikes!

Anyhoo, it's back and I'm soooooooooooooo happy. Some of the cast members are questionable with the title theme. If it was named something else I think most people wouldn't be too upset. That said, having both Halli & Sierra on this season is a bit much. I didn't hate them or anything and they were really cute but sort of boring. I could understand having one of them back but both?! That's a bit much. I can't wait till March. Yippppieeeee!!!

I like Hali and am glad she's back.  Unlike Sierra, I do think Hali would have played a better, less quiet game given the chance.  She was trying to work some magic behind the scenes that we didn't see, but was voted out early enough that I can see why they left it out.  Jeff liked her, so I'm not overly surprised she returned.  Sierra was an alternate and filled in for Natalie Anderson, but she was the best alternate they could get?  Her inclusion I really don't understand.  I watched her cast video, and she's already talking about making moves and aligning with anyone and everyone.  I don't have high hopes, but we'll see.  I did laugh during the cast video when Sarah compared Ozzy's 4 attempts at the game and losing to 4 attempts at marriage (although that could also apply to Cirie).  

[peachmangosteen]

1 hour ago, LadyChatts said:

Sierra was an alternate and filled in for Natalie Anderson ...

Ugh, now Sierra's presence here is even more annoying to me. Why did Natalie have to drop out?

I just saw the cast pic and it somehow made me even more sure this season will suck. I just hate almost everyone so hard.

[LadyChatts]

3 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

Ugh, now Sierra's presence here is even more annoying to me. Why did Natalie have to drop out?

I just saw the cast pic and it somehow made me even more sure this season will suck. I just hate almost everyone so hard.

From what I understand, she had work commitments.  But again, why Sierra?  It's not even like she's a Natalie lite.  She's the exact opposite.  

i agree with your assessment.  I've gotten about half way through the videos and am already nervous (and completely over the theme).  Jeff said getting someone like Sandra or Cirie out first would turn the season into a bloodbath.  I guess he's even trying to convince himself that we're in for something good.  Getting those two out first isn't a bloodbath.  It's actually smart game play, but may make for a boring season.

Edited February 8, 2017 by LadyChatts

[peachmangosteen]

Where are the cast videos?

[LadyChatts]

If you go to YouTube and type in Survivor CBS they should come up.

[peachmangosteen]

Now, to decide if I care enough to watch them lol.

[ByaNose]

2 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

I like Hali and am glad she's back.  Unlike Sierra, I do think Hali would have played a better, less quiet game given the chance.  She was trying to work some magic behind the scenes that we didn't see, but was voted out early enough that I can see why they left it out.  Jeff liked her, so I'm not overly surprised she returned.  Sierra was an alternate and filled in for Natalie Anderson, but she was the best alternate they could get?  Her inclusion I really don't understand.  I watched her cast video, and she's already talking about making moves and aligning with anyone and everyone.  I don't have high hopes, but we'll see.  I did laugh during the cast video when Sarah compared Ozzy's 4 attempts at the game and losing to 4 attempts at marriage (although that could also apply to Cirie).  

I totally agree with this. They could have come up some other replacement for Natalie. How about the other Natalie.....Natalie Tenerelli. At least, she was more memorable, made the Final 3 & was in contention for Second Chances. I know everyone is cast for a particular "role" and Natalie T doesn't have blonde hair but C'mon! 

[LadyChatts]

33 minutes ago, ByaNose said:

I totally agree with this. They could have come up some other replacement for Natalie. How about the other Natalie.....Natalie Tenerelli. At least, she was more memorable, made the Final 3 & was in contention for Second Chances. I know everyone is cast for a particular "role" and Natalie T doesn't have blonde hair but C'mon! 

Or Natalie Bolton.  Talk about the carrot forever dangling in front of the horse with that one.  

[LanceM]

Just starting to read and watch the interview now. I had to laugh at this Hali comment:

 "I've also become a bonafide criminal-defense attorney, which involves battling cop shenanigans on the daily, which I expect may be a thing in this game."

Not surprisingly in her interview with ET Canada she says she wants Tony out first.

[SVNBob]

4 hours ago, LanceM said:

Just starting to read and watch the interview now. I had to laugh at this Hali comment:

 "I've also become a bonafide criminal-defense attorney, which involves battling cop shenanigans on the daily, which I expect may be a thing in this game."

Snerk.  That's a good line.  I love meta-humor.  If she wasn't already relatively high on the fan favorite list (for being an attractive and intelligent young woman that tried to rely more on her intelligence than her attractiveness in the game), that joke would get her there.

[peachmangosteen]

Literally the only reason I am even a little bit curious about this season is Hali. Well and Sandra, but I'm preparing for her to be booted early anyway.

[violet and green]

I can't wait for this season to start. So many favorites I can't even list them. And it's Survivor! It's my favorite reality show of all time, and has got me through many a bad year, just knowing  it would be on in a short while. Even a bad season of Survivor is a good season.

[LadyChatts]

Quote

IT'S AN EPIC SHOWDOWN AS TWO LEGENDS IN "SURVIVOR" HISTORY SET THEIR SIGHTS ON ONE ANOTHER, ON THE TWO-HOUR SEASON PREMIERE OF "SURVIVOR," WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8The Premiere of "Game Changers" Marks the 500th Episode of the Series"The Stakes Have Been Raised" - It's an epic showdown as two legends in SURVIVOR history set their sights on one another, on the two-hour season premiere of SURVIVOR, Wednesday, March 8 (8:00-10:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. Also, two castaways attempt to put their past behind them and start a new game while another castaway introduces the "spy shack" 2.0.

Episode 1 title: "The Stakes Have Been Raised"

[Lantern7]

Five hundred episodes. Damn. Impressive. Also . . . gee, I wonder who will build a "Spy Shack"? If you didn't roll your eyes, you're probably new to the show. Tony had game, but he was such a spaz in many ways.