Am I being cold and heartless when I say that Adam from this most recent season 33 should not be permitted to tell his story about his mother's stage 4 cancer?
Why do I think this? Well, look, everybody has a sob story outside of the game. But, the $million$ is given to the "most deserving" based on how that person played the 39 days of Survivor. I totally accept that the situation makes Adam look like a winner because he held it together throughout a very difficult time. But, the news from his brother seemed to have increased his motivation, not weakened it at all. Plus, Adam would not have known about the latest problems with his poor mother's treatment if he had not (by chance) have been put into contact with his brother who told him about it.
It's too late for this season but there is a simple solution - STOP OUTSIDE SOCIAL CONTACT because it kills the whole game.
Probst and Co. will never cut that section of the show of course because the deep and genuine emotions shown by contestants is great T.V. - but all that manipulation of the viewing public really is just basic neuroscience, and for the other contestants, certainly the other 2 at the end, it is just like the 39 weeks never mattered.
Btw, I get it, Adam would have won without the cancer story, but it doesn't make any difference to the point I am making about 'bad justice'. Of course, there should be no outside influence to affect the result, unless it is medical.
omg, i have waaay too much time on my hands.
17-12-2016, 08:34 PM
Reply With Quote
Good T.V., but bad justice is not OK!
Linear Mode
