Quote:
Originally Posted by Jigs
(Post 10737877)
I thought this season was amazing. I'm surprised so many people here have such negative things to say about it considering it clearly generated a lot of talking points. The cast was extremely likable (minus Dan) so if your biggest gripe with season 39 were characters as painfully inoffensive as Tommy f*ing Sheehan then I think that's a good result!
There's a very stark difference that exists between visibility and tokenism. Does it really matter that the season was won by a white male? Does it matter that Noura got 0 votes and this was the fourth season this has happened? It sounds like a cliché but Survivor is a microcosm of real life and the winner wasn't picked by production, he wasn't picked by the viewing public, he was picked by the people who have gotten to know him over 39 days and who valued his game more over literally TWO others (both of which were goats anyway tbh). Lauren and Missy, two African-American women, were both taken out for being such huge threats (Missy physical; Lauren social), so to discredit the season/show in general simply because the winner does not come from your preferred demographic is silly.
A black winner does not make a good season.
A female winner does not make a good season.
Just ask Ghost Island and San Juan Del Sur~
|
Okay so there is A Lot to unpack here but ~the talking points~ were exhausting and kind of offensive? We're at a point where the show is constantly trying to be woke and faux feminist, but then the mechanics of the game and the decisions production makes entirely negate this. Casting Dan at all in the first place was irresponsible, but to let him get all the way to Day 36 is frighteningly offensive considering the signs were there literally since the premiere. This is
not the first instance where the show has shoved feminism down our throats, only to slap us across the face with it. We had Sandra literally proclaiming that a woman will win this season, only for that to be immediately followed by a reverse #MeToo movement where a woman speaks up and gets voted out, her two most vocal defenders are voted out or gastlit and ostracized, and only one male was voted out after the merge double episode. The show is basically trolling its viewers at this point, and we're at a point now where the statistics comparing successful males and successful females is increasingly alarming. It's the first time we've had five male winners in a row, men have received 50/52 of the FTC votes in the last five seasons, and the endgame format changes and absurd advantages have been well-documented at this point. A lot of the blame lies with production for the changes they have made to the game, but a lot of the blame also lies with the casting team if you ask me. When you look at the recent players cast for the show, the men are more often Serious Strategists while the women can occasionally be strategists, but are more often bikini fodder or recently Kooky And Zany Characters. We're at the point now where any given Survivor season will start off with 8-10 men who realistically can win, but only 5ish women who realistically can win since the other half of the female cast consists of Nouras and Karishmas and Angelinas and Wendys and Reems.
And this isn't even getting into the Jury and how when a woman plays a UTR social game and the man plays an OTT "loud" game, the man wins for being DOMINANT and the woman is ripped apart for doing nothing, but at the same time when a man plays a UTR social game and the woman plays an OTT "loud" game, the man wins for being a social butterfly and the woman is ripped apart for being obnoxious.
I guess my point is that the demographic of the winner absolutely does matter when the show has had the same demographic winning season after season AND when the show teases us with hopes for change but then completely blue balls the viewers and denies us of anything different. But even when you exclude that, this season peaked pre-merge and became offensively grim at the merge and BORING in the endgame. And the pre-merge will certainly fade on rewatch when you know what's to come with the Dan/Kellee thing and the Janet thing and Lairo getting Pagonged and Tommy only winning because Dean flipped a coin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jigs
(Post 10738569)
Sweetie what on Earth was good about it besides Natalie Anderson like honestly enlighten me~
Sorry if the race topic seems out of the blue, I was just referring to several posts I’ve witnessed over the last few weeks. A few people in this thread have complained about the show at every opportunity and I wanted to remind them that a show can still be good even if it doesn’t go your way. Tbh if I had my way we would’ve had a Missy win this season but what I was trying to illustrate is that no one should feel the season sucked just because we got another white bread winner
|
San Juan del Sur has Natalie, Jaclyn, Missy, Keith, Baylor, Jon, Jeremy, Julie, Drew, Val..... the cast is pretty excellent from top to bottom with a few particular exceptions (Reed, Josh, John), the gameplay has a perfect blend of strategically-driven and emotionally-driven decisions, the characters pop and have intricate relationships with each other, and the season just continued to get better and better with each phase of the game. I'm rewatching it actually so you can enlighten yourself more in the rewatch thread when I post updates :)
