I'm halfway through the episode, tempting to call it even more boring than expected, but that would be hyperbole. It's pretty much as boring as my low expectations, and a little more annoying.
(This morning's post on why the season was doomed here.)
The one surprise was watching Dimples drone historic as if "Survivor History" matched up with Normandy. It went on and on and all I could think was, Then why are you taking a big dump on it?
The most telling moment was Amanda saying, "James, myself (sic) and Cirie--you know we've played this game together before. I've played this twice with James . . ."
God, how boring is that?
Some of the casting is downright puzzling. Randy? He was this big emply blob of annoyance, who never did anything but whine and complain and wish bad on people, though I don't recall him ever getting anyone together to inflict his evil plots. He was one of the dullest players ever. And Sandra? Shrill, nasty . . .
Ugh. Who wants to be around these people?
And I forgot that the show taped before Russell's season aired, so they don't know he's (literally) a psychopath, and we get to watch him try the whole bit again. Didn't we just suffer through that last season? This group is much less likely to fall for it. Is that supposed to be the interesting part?
I haven't been able to sit still through much of it. I got up, made dinner, ate it, did the dishes . . . That FF button is looking mighty tempting.
---
OK, I "watched" the rest in the background while I caught up with emails and facebook. I FF'd a few of the more repulsive players.The jury got mildly interesting, and I was mildly curious about how it would turn out.
In between, it got pretty sad. Sugar going back off the rails. Damn. I really want that girl to make it (her life) work. Not happening yet.
I adored sugar because she really seemed to come into herself there her first season. But given what followed then, and particularly tonight, it appears her self doubt and self loathing runs so deep that it was only a momentary glimpse of confidence. She is so incredibly needy, it would drive anyone nuts. I still like her a lot, and really want to help her--or see her get help--but you can't do it for someone. I'd probably have voted her out, too. She's not really up to it.
So in all candor, there were a few interesting moments. And a whole lot of boredom. Sad.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
kfujioka
Nick Leshi
Judy Berman
Christopher di Spirito
SaucyB
gaypersonsofcolor
Salon.com
Comments
This show normally knows its limitations, and grasps that by the end of 39 days, that has run it's course. The lab rats are all now very familiar with the maze. The experiment is no longer radical; it has ceased revealing new things about them. By that point, the audience joy is in watching the results play out: so how does it turn out.
For some reason--(profit?)--Burnett and Co lost sight of that when they put on the first all-stars.The show had none of what made it work. It was a bunch of people retreading the same ground.
I guess it appeals to people who like movie sequels--even the ones that are just remakes of the original film. I can't sit through those.
A symptom of the problem for me last night was during the selection and building of the shelter. After all these seasons, I still find that element mesmerizing year after year: because it's a whole new group of people who have never faced anything quite like that--particularly in a situation where it is primarily NOT about building a shelter, but building relationships and alliances while a shelter is being built.
And it's amazing to watch year after year how unresponsive the human species is, in general, to learning. At least half the contestants still don't get it--or can't make themselves behave the way they know they ought to--and treat it as if the primary goal is a shelter.
Watching the groups last night had none of that. It was a chore they had done before, and they all knew what it was really about.
The sense of discovery is missing--theirs and mine.
But if you like watching familiar characters in familiar situations and you were still interested in them when they finished up before, you can, should and will enjoy. But that's not what the show has ever been about for me.
That's why I went into the first all stars with an open mind and hated it, hated the next half-all-stars and already hate this. There are tidbits of interesting things going on, of course, but not the stuff I came for. I don't watch this show because it's a good soap.
---
Bonnie, thanks for the career advice. You are correct that I was not focused on nuances in the show: I was focused on the big picture of why it was a colossal failure.
You and I disagree on Rupert - hell, "you love him or you loathe him" - so I'll check it out for him.
I could never watch an entire season in real time again. Tivo makes it bearable.
I wish someone were recapping L O S T; or, if someone is, I would like to be alerted asap!
he really wore on me by season 2, and now . . . enough. i thought this poster on my forum captured him well:
"I really don't get why Rupert is popular. Seems like a homeless man with a fourth grade education trying to appear insightful. He's goofy and homely, but at least he is not evil . . . "
That's about my take.
I'm with you on the tivo, aim. No commercials, and freedom to FF when it gets really dull.
Bonnie, I got you the first time. Writing is my career, and I write about what interests me, particularly on my blog.
I do hear you that a blog by someone who hates the setup this season would not be appealing for long to someone who loves it. But it seems like it would be a fit for someone who also hates it and is maybe disgusted with the producers, and/or perhaps would enjoy seeing it made fun of. Sounds like it's an issue with you choosing what to read more then with me choosing what to write.
I don't know how long I'll continue watching this season, or whether I'll be compelled to write more about it. If I feel the compulsion I will.
i think i'm less of a short-story person, though. i prefer novels, because i like time to get to know a person and see them develop and change. 13 weeks seems perfect for these characters.
my favorite is Project Runway, because you get to see young (mostly young, developing) artists and see their artistic process.
it surprised me, because i'd never thought much of fashion as art, or designers as artists, but bad on me. of course they are. it's the best show i've ever seen for transmitting that.
i was surprised to enjoy the hell out of the first several seasons of The Apprentice, despite previously hating Trump. you really saw people grapple with real challenges, work in their field. of course the challenges were contrived, but they had to figure out a way to make it work. and insightful, clever judges.
i also love survivor, hence my anger and frustration at them for what they are doing to it.
---
it's interesting to hear a bit hear of what appeals to different people. i guess if you love the Survivor characters each season and can't get enough of the more colorful ones, then it's a good experience to get them back and see them go at it again.
for me, the individuals on the show are participants in a fascinating lab experiments, and it's fascinating to watch them while the experiment is still in progress. there are only a handful each season i really love as people, and would like to spend more time with--and if i did, it would probably be over dinner, not watching them go back into the maze they already know.
for me, it's about the process they go through, the experiment, not these individual performers. if you like the performers and as performers doing their schtick, then it's probably a great season for you.
But I'm with Mary. Are you nuts!? This was great. That first challenge was almost better than hockey. C'mon Coach dragging Colby over to the villains mat. Then Boston Rob getting the fire going, while Sandra keeps calling him Boston Bob. Hilarious.
Then the heroes just falling apart because of stupid strategy....oh yeah, let's just put all the physically weak people on the puzzle--as though puzzle skills --in a FOUR TIER PUZZLE--don't matter.
Then JT strangling that chicken! I love him. Then Cirie (the gangster in a Oprah suit) tries to get Stephenie kicked off! Who cares that she shrugged off a shoulder dislocation! And the Tom tries to get Cirie kicked off. As if the girls would ever go for that. Of course Sugar had to go. She was the only one annoying enough for everyone to agree on.
Personally I'm rooting for Courtney. Love that red fighting underwear.
(Here's an analogy: Some fans of Project Runway say they love watching the catfights between designers and also the cattiness of the judges. They watch it as soap. For me, that is so far down the list of why I watch the show. For me, it's about watching the artistic process. So if a season or episode or whatever was great in soap but devoid in artistic process, it would be loved by someone who watched it as soap, hated by me.)
That's why I tend to bristle when people ask Were we watching the same show? Sure, but we weren't watching for the same reasons. We were attracted to it for different reasons in the first place.
---
As for the Haiti thing, I've been thinking about it since you posted yesterday in the other thread, and I'm baffled.
What is the connection? Networks should wait a suitable period before showing things set in the tropics? (Or on an island?) If a film set in the tropics is set for theatrical release this month, should it be pulled? Why? What does the tropical setting have to with it? Because the setting reminds you of Haiti?
Or is some other connection rather than island or tropics? I sincerely don't get it.
And yes. Given that they just finished a show less than a month ago, I think if would have showed a little class to hold it until next season out of respect for the hundreds of thousand of people who are less than a four hour flight from U.S. right now starving and injured for actual reasons, not because Mark Burnett has them chasing B list fame and a million dollars.
If someone had made a Hollywood blockbuster about a school shootup and released it a week after Columbine, I'm sure you would found the timing a little off. After 9/11 there were 45 Hollywood films that delayed and re-edited. So Americans have no problem postponing things when it's about their tragedy.
I live in a city with one of the biggest Haitian ex-pat community in the world, so maybe I'm a little more conscious of the poor timing.
Nevertheless I'm watching it, so I'm not going to lecture anyone for the doing the same. But, again, I'm baffled by your bafflement.
They WERE filming near the places devastated by the 2004 tsunami, IIRC. I think Burnett et al gave huge donations. And believe me, I think it counts as cheapskating when gazillionaires buy off the locals/the media/goodwill from consumers.
I guess I'm getting involved in this argument, with two of my favorite writers...
So, really, it's a useless argument to say what "they" should or should not be doing because it's insulting to assume that those countries are our poor brethren, incapable of knowing what is happening. And that is exactly what Survivor sells - the adventure of the unknown in exotic places like...Samoa.
I would be interested in a Survivor - Tundra. But they always say that their contestants would never last more than two days in the cold. This just verifies that watching people in exotic locales continues to be somewhat exciting.
I don't get the Haiti connection directly. I DO get that there is a rather wide swath of cultural imperialism taking place. That is entertaining.
I am now carefuly stepping off of my soapbox and going back to my blog.
We're still talking about it in my town. But as I mentioned we have a lot of Haitians here.
Sounds like you guys have moved on.
Juliet, I understand why Survivor is offensive to you - or, rather, I THINK I understand - and I agree on so many levels that excess constantly mocks every life that is considered beneath and substandard. Including me - I work for hourly wages, when I work. Or tips.
I don't think CBS had any responsibility to cancel the show or to reflect upon Haiti. It was filmed before the earthquake in a place very far from Haiti..
Do you think the Olympics should be tied in with Haiti? Maybe that is happening. I don't know.
I obviously don't know much!
I do think it is easy to tie all different causes and subjects together and end up with a pretty mess.
OK, between me and Juliet: who would last longer on Survivor? I think Juliet would, because she's, well , younger , smarter and more fit.
But what if Dave was there? We could have a good alliance!
I'm with AIM on Haiti. I don't know why you think we have "moved on," just because we're not getting the connection to Survivor, as I said above. (I get the connection of school shootings to Columbine, and 9/11 to 9/11. And I get why a TV show about an earthquake right now could feel like bad timing. But Survivor is not about an earthquake. I don't get how it's like an earthquake. That's the connection that I'm not hearing.)
The possible connections I can see mentioned in your posts are that 1) both involve islands (or the tropics); 2) the earthquake involves starvation and Survivor contestants are hungry; 3) both involve injury and suffering.
Are those the correct connections? Those seem like really weak connections to me. Nearly all cop shows are centered on people suffering, for example. It never would occur to me to pull them from the air in deference to Haiti.
If those are not the correct connections, let us know what connection you mean. That's the part I'm not hearing.
This incomparable tragedy is about politics and poverty, as anyone who has been keeping up with this tragedy knows. So, the spectacle of Americans trying to recreate impoverished and difficult circumstances, at a time when world is more conscious of the discrepancies between nations than it has been in a very long time, is, in my opinion, tasteless.
I get that you think that it's irrelevant. And we're not going to agree on this. So we should let it go.
And Juliet, thanks for finally expressing the connection you see between Haiti and Survivor. You're right, I find it a canyon of a stretch, but at least we know what connection you're trying to make.
But what's with all the barbs in your comments? You open with "Are you nuts!?" and then the, "as anyone who has been keeping up with this tragedy knows." Is that really necessary?
This is a recap. You're giving your first, unguarded impression on a show you half watched when you weren't eating and washing the dishes.
And I'm giving my unguarded opinion on your unguarded opinion. And we're discussing TELEVISION.
I'm sorry. When I did recaps of my guilty pleasure (So You Think You Can Dance) , it never occurred to me that I should take very different and passionate opinions about a stupid television show personally. So it never occurred to me that after expressing a strong, spontaneous opinion that you would take disagreement personally.
Same goes for Haiti. I expressed an opinion that was directed at Mark Burnett. I've been asked what , three times now? to defend criticism I directed at SOMEBODY ELSE, a criticism I still think is totally obvious. So, yeah, my tone on this subject is getting a little barbed. And if you want to continue arguing about this I can guarantee it will get even more barbed. You want to take that personally? Tough.
i don't think anyone else to witness bickering between us, so i'll make a few clarifications and then take this offline with juliet.
1) i have no problem with different opinions, but i sometimes do with the way people address each other.
2) i don't believe aim or i asked you to defend your position so much as to clarify what it was. i for one, had no idea what connection you had in mind between Haiti and Survivor.