February 27, 2004Survivor All-Stars Notes - Ep#5Posted after Ep #5, Feb 26, 2004. This post, and its comments, may contain spoilers.... Is it me or does Big Tom drink alot? Saboga loses the do-or-die, paddle your raft, reward challenge. Another Rupert design fails. Did you notice that Boston Rob waited for Amber before crossing the finish line. Picking Jerri over Jenna was a mistake. The schoolyard pick order was: Ethan, Rupert, Jerri, Jenna. Jenna looked so bummed to be picked last. Chapera doesn't know that Rupert was screwing up. About the hut and the boat design. They all just seem to like him from seeing him in Pearl Islands. Will Jenna tell the new tribe about Rupert's recent failures? In any event, Rupert and Boston Rob will be at each other's throats fast. Boston Rob establishes himself as a strong player in Immunity challenge. What was up with Richard and the two women on the balance beam? Jeff seemed genuinely annoyed. Ethan is now the only remaining #1. Africa still unbloodied. Australia still 3 of 5. # Remaining from the Meta-Tribes Latest tribe lists # Chapera (7 members) # Moga (6 members) Comments
Posted by: sherman on February 28, 2004 12:29 AM
Okay, i'm confused. Everyone was in on the agreement to dump Richazrd. The vote was unanimous against him. The 3 women pretending to form an alliance was all something to keep him distracted, keep him off balance. Colby, the other dude and my all time favorite hottie Ethan knew about the women faking out Richard. It was all one big sham that they pulled off. But there were conversations that suggested the sham was not a sham but real that occurred when Richard was not around. Which means the group, including the women -- especially the women -- were fooling the camerapersons and producers? Could that be? How did those scenes occur if all the women ended up voting off Richard. I am confused.
Posted by: Jack Hodgson on February 28, 2004 06:29 AM
It seemed to me that there really was some genuine exploration of a dump-Colby strategy. And that the editors may have made it look like more than it really was, in order to keep the outcome from being too obvious.
Posted by: sherman on February 28, 2004 03:51 PM
By the way, what ever happened between Naked Richard and I Don't Care If She's Married She Is So Definitely A Dyke Sue -- i think it's coming back next week. Previews show a ballistic lesbian yelling at a stunned host about how she was humiliated. I suspect that comes from whatever happened. Maybe he was wagging it back and forth at her. I'm glad he's gone. He was lucky to be on the first Survivor because I don't think he would have won future ones as people figured out that strategy was necessary. He was lucky that no one had any prior knowledge of the game when he played. I'd be hard pressed to say who's more annoying: Richard or the skinny geek from Rupert's season.
Posted by: sherman on February 28, 2004 04:36 PM
I am not going to post anymore of Dalton Ross' material that should have been paid for if we're going to post it here and don't worry Jack, we'll be there for you and visit you in jail if he doesn't stop actively suggesting that Ethan should be voted off soon. Not Ethan!!!!
Posted by: sherman on February 28, 2004 04:37 PM
I have a 20 dollar bill with your name on it if you can correctly diagram the first sentence of that last post.
Posted by: beth on March 1, 2004 08:13 AM
Well I have to say...as much as I liked Richard's antics and comments...I'm glad he's gone...he was just getting to obnoxious and offensive with his nudity...I mean it's not like he was getting naked and had a bod like...say...Colby. And that's another thing...Jerri, how can you possibly wish gorgeous Colby any ill will.
Posted by: Jo Ann on March 2, 2004 05:34 AM
Finally just watched the most recent Survivor and read the notes and comments. Hey, Sherman are you talking about diagramming your run-on sentence up there? Hmm... that job might be worth more than a 20. Wow! Richard's outta there! Not sure how smart it was at this stage, but it was an entertaining episode. Richard makes for fun TV, but his cockiness (no pun, really) was just irritating. I agree that he acts like he invented the game, being the first to start an alliance, when all that stuff was completely inevitable. I think I know what was going on with the "Richard, Sue and Kathy thing" during the challenge. Richard was naked (of course!) and was trying to be intimidating as always, so Sue and Kathy challenged him on it and went right up to him to say "you won't intimidate us" and took it a bit too far with the simulations and Jeff got fed up with it and put a stop to it. Did ya notice the preshow advisory about the show not being appropriate for younger viewers? That was either for that Richard, Sue and Kathy thing that they blurred out or just a general warning about Richard's blurred out nakedness! Another fallout from the Janet Jackson incident, I suspect! Geesh. I saw Jeff Probst on Ellen DeGeneres after Super Bowl Sunday and he mentioned that the next episodes would have a much bigger blur around Richard! Guess they won't have to worry about that anymore... I think the preview of the next show with Sue going ballistic is a whole new incident. Sue is one wacko chick! And Sherm, I'm with ya and your gaydar on her! Come on! Jack, I agree with you about Tom and his love affair with the bottle. Man, he is one stereotypical hillbilly kind of a drunk. A little too much "Deliverance" goin' on there! Is there a way to warn them all to run if they hear the sound of banjos in the distance? One prediction I have, the winner will be someone totally under the radar to win this time... maybe Shii Ann. Just a thought.
Posted by: beth on March 2, 2004 07:11 AM
I also noticed the advisory, and thought it might have to do with what went on between Richard, Sue and Kathy. It couldn't have been cause of Richards nakedness cause he's been naked on every single episode. I'm thinking it has more to do with this whole "five second delay" censorship thing going on.
Posted by: Jack Hodgson on March 2, 2004 10:13 AM
My question about the "Jeff gets really annoyed by the Hatch/Kathy/Sue foolishness" is, why did they even leave it in? It really wasn't all that interesting, and it may have been the thing that triggered the warning at the top of the show. So why not just cut it out? I think the best guess is what Sherm said, that it is the setup for Sue's blowup next week.
Posted by: Jo Ann on March 2, 2004 05:41 PM
Hmm... Jack, ya really think the preview of this week's blowout was from that last episode's scene? Maybe, but I'd put my money on it being something new... Sue is known for flipping out, afterall! Beth, I think you're right that the parental advisory notice was because of that Richard, Sue and Kathy scene. But since the Janet Jackson incident, things have been slowly escalating. The censors have gotten more and more extreme as time has gone on, I'm sure it will dissipate after awhile, but right now it's at it's craziest! They could put the notice up for Richard's nakedness now, even though they wouldn't have before, just like how the blur got bigger. But that other incident would have been more cause for the censors, I'm sure. Looking forward to this week's Wacky Sue adventures!
Posted by: sherman on March 2, 2004 08:28 PM
I'll take that question, Jack. You just take it easy and rest from your hard day of work and...oh, that's right. I'll take it anyway.
Posted by: The Answer Man on March 2, 2004 08:34 PM
Posted by: Jo Ann on March 3, 2004 06:11 AM
Okay Sherman--thanks for the detailed answer. You may be right. (I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you're looking for.) At any rate, I need to take a shower now. So, we'll see in just a couple days what Sue was flipping out over. Maybe so, maybe not. By the way, I love the new "The Answer Man" segment to the show!! Post a comment
|
|