FAQ |
Members List |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
23-12-2019, 05:37 AM | #451 | |||
|
||||
Meow Meow
|
Quote:
But anyway some of the recent losing females include: Chrissy, Laurel, Angelina, Julie, Noura ... like I don't think there's any gender bias with the results here. Based on edits they didn't exactly do all that much and/or didn't manage their relationships with the jury well at all. I think Chrissy maybe could've/should've won but the rest don't exactly scream winner material based on ANYTHING the jury could judge on whether that's big game moves, likability, respect, etc. Quote:
Last part not true either. Could've still easily been Lauren, Janet boots instead of Janet, Lauren. And idk if Janet is a lock to get more votes than Tommy anyway if they're both in the F3 (it surely would've been a closer battle tho).
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
23-12-2019, 05:48 AM | #452 | |||
|
||||
Meow Meow
|
I guess Chris kinda wasn't deserving but when it's a F3 of Chris/Gavin/Julie ... yikes at picking a winner lol... at least what he did (his journey to the end) was something not seen yet in Survivor
But after all, Chris must've been most deserving if he managed to get the jury to want to vote for him despite already being voted off (such bad logic that everyone who wins was a deserving winner because you have to get the jury to want to vote for you in the end and obv the winner every season accomplishes that)
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
25-12-2019, 09:33 PM | #453 | |||
|
||||
As Told by Troy
|
There's also a lot of inherent sexism within the game and the structure of the game that has gotten us to the point where the F3 is traditionally two men who split votes and a woman who people just pat on the head and condescendingly congratulate for making it to Day 39. Women like Gonzalez and Mari and Molly were singled out immediately for being massive threats and "Parvati 2.0" which absolutely comes from Probst reducing to Parvati's gameplay to "she flirted with the men and then voted them out." Plenty of people have earned just as much of a target on their backs, but for some reason there's a repeated fear of what a woman can do on Day 39 that starts on like Day 6. We also saw this with Elaine almost getting booted first this season because "if she makes it to the end she'll sweep the Jury" which is laughably dense logic to have during the premiere. We've also seen repeated instances of "male/female are a POWER DUO and we are...... going to weaken the guy by taking out the girl :3" This was the Chelsea vote this season, the Liz vote in Kaoh Rong, the Elyse vote in South Pacific, and sooooo many more in between. The players have conditioned themselves to believe that smart women are only harmful and never beneficial, whereas even a shifty dude is often kept around because "he's an asset in Challenges," the logic that saved Dean early on despite the fact that he was embarrassingly bad at anything physical and mental. Despite alpha males continuing to win year after year after year, we continue to hear about the dread all girls alliance and Parvati 2.0s and never about the Ben 2.0s or the Boston Robs or literally any other successful male archetype.
AND this doesn't even bring us into the bastardized format of the show now. We moved from a F2 to F3 because Jeff was upset about players like Terry getting axed right before the FTC and getting "robbed." The F4 fire-making twist was introduced because Jeff was upset about players David and Spencer and Malcolm and Ozzy getting axed right before the FTC for being too threatening and getting "robbed." There used to be a level of finesse needed to minimize your threat level and get people to not take you out before the FTC, a level of finesse that many of Probst's favorites lacked. Because of this, Jeff has decided to reward their gameplay by completely breaking the format to favor the in-your-face, alpha male type of gameplay. Idols and Advantages are rehidden immediately after they're played, creating a revolving door type of effect where the same players can and have become immune over and over again. Twists like Redemption Island and the Edge of Extinction were literally created to give people like Russell Hantz and Boston Rob and Joe Anglim a second chance if they were ever booted. And even with all of these changes to the endgame, Idols can still be played at F5. We're at a point now where you can play Survivor with the subtlety of a foghorn, play an Idol at F5, win your way through F4 either by means of Immunity or fire, and then win Survivor because of how much you've "overcome" or because of how flashy your game was. There are fewer consequences for playing recklessly. Camp dynamics create a dynamic where it's more difficult for women to leave camp, leaving men to more often find Idols an Advantages and thus a free ticket to the F4, and then these men can just put on a show and win $1,000,000. We saw Michele "play like a girl" and win through her social game, and as a result Probst completely changed the format of the show where you can now "play like a guy" and win year after year after year like Adam and Ben and Wendell and Nick. And again, it does matter when the statistics have become frighteningly one-sided. It does matter when the show is literally preaching women empowerment while still operating in a way that fundamentally rewards male players. Just because you're content with the outcomes since the players you root for do well in this format doesn't mean you should stick your fingers in your ears and tune out what's right in front of you. The last part is true as could be. Janet was explicitly taken out at 5 because she was the best fire-maker and the Jury loved her. The whole theme of the finale was "if Janet makes it to the end we're ****ed, so we need to nullify her Idol" which is still a laughably stupid concept. Even when we do get a woman who can win under this F4 fire-making format, she's not even allowed to get there because of an IDOL NULLIFIER that was literally won through the flip of a coin under the pretense of "teaching Dean a lesson about Jury management." This entire franchise has become a comedy of errors.
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
25-12-2019, 09:33 PM | #454 | |||
|
||||
As Told by Troy
|
Also here's my damn edgic chart
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
25-12-2019, 11:43 PM | #455 | |||
|
||||
it’s a mad, mad world
|
Did someone say Edgic?
Spoiler: Last edited by Matthew.; 25-12-2019 at 11:47 PM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
26-12-2019, 05:05 AM | #456 | |||
|
||||
Meow Meow
|
Quote:
"Twists like Redemption Island and the Edge of Extinction were literally created to give people like Russell Hantz and Boston Rob and Joe Anglim a second chance if they were ever booted." - Is this not sexist thinking when in reality the women can easily win any of the challenges they put out there? "We also saw this with Elaine almost getting booted first this season because "if she makes it to the end she'll sweep the Jury" which is laughably dense logic to have during the premiere." - This had absolutely nothing to do with her gender and absolutely everything to do with her likable personality & her story coming in. "The players have conditioned themselves to believe that smart women are only harmful and never beneficial, whereas even a shifty dude is often kept around because "he's an asset in Challenges," the logic that saved Dean early on despite the fact that he was embarrassingly bad at anything physical and mental." - This is just not true & you're looking at it with tunnel vision of what you want to see as "inherent sexism within the game" when in reality a lot of the females that were viewed as smart & voted off in current and past seasons just simply weren't subtle enough in trying to not look smart with the cast. The same subtlety that Tommy showed when he took a back seat a lot and tried to not look threatening - he let Lauren look like the mastermind because she was more out there and literally willing to show how smart & powerful she was in the game compared to Tommy who downplayed a lot to a lot of people. Sandra is an excellent example of a subtle "smart" player that makes herself look like a goat when she is very aware of the game and how to get through and get the votes in the end. As she was then awarded for it twice. She is a woman. "Women like Gonzalez and Mari and Molly were singled out immediately for being massive threats and "Parvati 2.0" which absolutely comes from Probst reducing to Parvati's gameplay to "she flirted with the men and then voted them out." Plenty of people have earned just as much of a target on their backs, but for some reason there's a repeated fear of what a woman can do on Day 39 that starts on like Day 6." - This doesn't just happen to women. Men are just more likely to be seen as a benefit in challenges based on their performances OR their muscular build and therefore are kept around a lot of times in the early couple days. And then the physically fit men that can win challenges are constantly viewed as immediate threats at the merge and compared to "Ozzy 2.0" & "Joe Anglim 2.0" and typically get voted off one of the first few times they don't win immunity. But you probably have no problem when it comes to that strategizing against a physical man. Anyway, comparisons are made, people are voted out for the comparisons that are seen as crucial to take out in order to win. Nothing groundbreaking. Nothing about gender.
__________________
Last edited by JerseyWins; 26-12-2019 at 05:24 AM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
26-12-2019, 05:20 AM | #457 | |||
|
||||
Meow Meow
|
Also from the ranking thread to further prove the blinders you have towards seeing anything anti-female related that isn't really there:
Quote:
2) Which yeah he didn't align with just straight men, he even mentioned a F2 with Elizabeth in FTC and included her in trying to protect in the game. Weren't his couple of main allies: Chelsea, Tommy, Aaron, Elizabeth? That's two women, 1 white man, 1 POC man 3) No offense but they... were goats lol. It was Noura & Karishma? But yeah so was Dean. He also saw himself as a goat but thought he was moreso making himself look that way and could actually win in the end. On finale night he said something like "from goat to ... *listed his immunity necklace, idol, nullifier*" thinking he was suddenly not a goat after turning it up with advantages & a big challenge win. Anyway, that entire "Dean is a sexist dumbass" reasoning was trying to find something anti-female that wasn't actually there which is exactly what the above post is as well.
__________________
Last edited by JerseyWins; 26-12-2019 at 05:27 AM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
26-12-2019, 06:10 AM | #458 | ||||
|
|||||
As Told by Troy
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sexism/implicit gender bias in Survivor isn't an all-or-nothing matter either. Citing Sandra winning twice in the previous decade, long before the game was littered with Idols and Nullifiers and Advantages and Fire-Making twists, doesn't negate the current gender imbalance of successful men compared to successful women. Quote:
__________________
|
||||
Reply With Quote |
26-12-2019, 01:07 PM | #459 | ||
|
|||
Senior Member
|
Many "threatening" women have been voted off early, yes, but what about David Samson? Garrett Adelstein? Jason Linden? Garrett was booted for his physical prowess when they could've ousted J'Tia. Jason from this season was also booted over Lauren.
In a lot of ways, women are more powerful than men at Survivor because the Spencer Bledsoes of the world are very transparent whereas the Parvati Shallows will mist you right up until the F4 when they win immunity and you realise they made it to the FTC and you're screwed. Of course that doesn't excuse people like Mari Takahashi randomly being voted out for being a threat, or Molly Byman getting blindsided because the mere thought that she may potentially run the game at some point was too much for the rest of her tribe. But other women have had roles in these blindsides too. People like Molly and Mari were not ousted by Men Only clubs. Castaways like So Kim were blindsided early in an instance where another powerful woman led the charge (Carolyn). Ultimately, I know the statistics of women reaching the FTC and winning pale in comparison to the male castaways we've had, but people like Kim, Denise, Natalie Anderson and ofc Parvati have managed to be successful even when they were painted as huge strategic threats OR after a long trajectory of adversity where they could've easily been voted out at any time (Denise is the biggest example of this). I agree with what you said about the F4 firemaking twist and the EOE twist being put in place to prevent Probst's favourites from being robbed. However, to claim that it is inbuilt for the purpose of only benefiting men is not only untrue but kinda a discredit to women on your part for assuming they don't also have an ability to make fire or win a challenge???????? |
||
Reply With Quote |
26-12-2019, 04:48 PM | #460 | |||
|
||||
Meow Meow
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
26-12-2019, 11:03 PM | #461 | |||
|
||||
As Told by Troy
|
Quote:
Quote:
This largely is a bigger issue with societal gender bias that seeps into the game, but then the show doubles down on it by creating advantages and twists are are designed to help a certain type of player and then we end up in a situation like now, where we've had an 8-2 male/female split of the past winners and the last five FTCs have only had two votes cast for a woman to win. Quote:
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
26-12-2019, 11:10 PM | #462 | ||
|
|||
Senior Member
|
For what it's worth, I just remember how Dawn was treated by the jury in Caramoan and I thought she played an excellent game and deserved votes but the jury just did not see that in her future at all.
I didn't watch HHH but I'm slightly familiar with Ben's game and yeah, that's **** tbh. It was bad before, but I think that HHH is the season when Survivor became truly ridiculous with the constant toying of the format. |
||
Reply With Quote |
28-12-2019, 03:32 AM | #463 | |||
|
||||
Meow Meow
|
Randomly just skim-rewatched the Survivor finale to kill time before going out and wow... it's definitely one of the best I've seen, still keeps all of its greatness on rewatch.
Dean closes out the first 3-4 commercial breaks STRONG with really excellent charismatic confessionals and all. The entire 10 minutes after Noura's F4 immunity win is just ****ing hilarious and while Dean had the majority of the rest of the big highlights for me, Noura blabbing in those 10 minutes is for suuuuure the best part of the finale Lauren/Tommy/Dean all do their part too in different ways. And Dean just steals the show in the FTC period. WHEW this is a finale! Shame it's for such a mediocre overall season lol
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
31-12-2019, 03:31 PM | #464 | |||
|
||||
Inactive
|
I saw a thread on Sucks that said Sandra's winning games probably wouldn't even get any votes in modern Survivor because that type of gameplay is so snubbed nowadays.
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
31-12-2019, 10:40 PM | #465 | |||
|
||||
Mode: Broken
|
I do admit it would be nice to see Survivor get back to it's roots, no hidden immunities, no hidden advantages, no clues to anything. And no twists.
Only tribal and individual immunities via challenge wins, reward challenges and everything else is social interaction between contestants. Last edited by Calderyon; 31-12-2019 at 10:48 PM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|