FTA-TV Survivor 40 (Winners at War)

[Gasometer]

It was very dry & dusty, and didn't make for great viewing.

The cynic in me suggests that the lack of bikini-clad females may have lowered the viewer numbers. Whatever the case, they vowed after that to never do another dry survivor.

Well not that I remember the whole deal but I can remember being entertained by that Farmer and Ethan. Simpler gain play in those days rather than what happens these days. And watching skeletons in bathers ain’t much fun.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

A question - would you want to get to the Final 3 but receive no votes in the final?

I think Michele would. It was quite apparent that she had some baggage from being an 'undeserving' winner so to get to final 3 under her own steam in a season of returning winners, cements her legacy, compared to someone like Amber. Michele must have silenced a lot of her critics now, she played a great game.

 

[Vader]

And then immediately broke it by planning to do season 4 in Jordan?

Fortunately they have these things in the United States called rivers, Brazil and Guatemala have similar but it's called a "rio" there, so water probably won't be a huge factor in determining the next filming location either way.

Jordan... by the river.

 

[revo333]

If they ever decide to do EoE again with fire tokens, they had better limit the amount of challenge advantages you can buy to just 1.
That was an absolute load of bullshit that she was able to buy 3 basically because she was there the longest and had the most time to accumulate them.
Hated that so much, was disappointed that 4 people voted for her when she was the FIRST person voted out ffs

I liked the winner of the immunity challenge getting 2 fire tokens.

 

[Loonerty]

I think the only very good game by a female player in the last 15 seasons to not win was Kelley Wentworth in Cambodia, and she actually might've won if the mandatory F4 Fire rules were in place then.

I reckon Chrissy in HvHvH played a good game too, but I think would've lost to Devon if not Ben.

 

[Loonerty]

VERY happy with the result.
Tony is absolutely the GOAT now. How the * did he reach the end without receiving a single vote?

That's just insanity.
Now let's all agree to never do Edge of Extinction again.

PS add me to the "Michele didn't deserve to be the no vote finalist" group thx

 

[revo333]

I havn't seen Adam or Nicks seasons so those will be the next I watch.

 

[Loonerty]

The Tony/Sarah arc is one of the best in Survivor history.

Formed an alliance early in Cagayan, get separated and ultimately end up on opposite alliances where Tony takes her out and goes on to win.
Six seasons later, both return for Game Changers where Tony tries to replicate his game in Cagayan and is voted out second. Without Tony, Sarah goes on to win the game.
A further six seasons later, both return for an all winners season and control the game after the merge with a bump or two along the way and almost reach the final three together but are forced into an epic firemaking challenge which Tony wins, and then goes on to win the season.

 

[trueblue_91]

This. He was not the first person to benefit from a twist, but it's one of the more memorable, completely game altering twists that has since become the norm. It's the first person to benefit from it who cops it, despite them having no say in the matter.

Exactly, technically Tony benefited from this twist, so some Survivor purists might think his game was 'flawed' (or at the very least not perfect). However, I see a world where Sara + Tony bot vote Michelle and Michelle + Natalie both vote Tony, so it would have come down to fire anyway. I freaking love Tony, thought he played an incredible all round game, and personally think he is a deserving winner.

FWIW I hate fire at the final 4. I understand why they put it in there, but it really waters down the foundations of the voting mechanism (not as badly as EoE does though).

 

[dales.girl38]

I havn't seen Adam or Nicks seasons so those will be the next I watch.

David vs Goliath (Nick's season) is one of my absolute favourite seasons, probably my favourite new player seasons. Enjoy

The Tony/Sarah arc is one of the best in Survivor history.

Formed an alliance early in Cagayan, get separated and ultimately end up on opposite alliances where Tony takes her out and goes on to win.
Six seasons later, both return for Game Changers where Tony tries to replicate his game in Cagayan and is voted out second. Without Tony, Sarah goes on to win the game.
A further six seasons later, both return for an all winners season and control the game after the merge with a bump or two along the way and almost reach the final three together but are forced into an epic firemaking challenge which Tony wins, and then goes on to win the season.

It's an incredible, satisfying arc. On an interview Tony did with Rob Cesternino he said that as one of only 2 or 3 winners on Game Changers he knew he had zero chance to win, so he played recklessly with the expectation that he'd go home early. He said he didn't want to struggle for 30 days and lose, he'd rather go and eat. I don't think he would have returned on another season that wasn't all winners. Not sure if he's just rewriting history, but he did play a crazy game in GC.

 

[Jaymin]

Would have been interesting if Natalie gave up immunity to make fire against Tony and beat him (like Chris Underwood), would she have beaten Sarah? Rob intimated that he probably would have voted for her and I’m guessing Amber and a few others would have as well.

Which leads to the thinking that if giving up your immunity to make fire is giving you the best chance to win, surely the final 4 fire challenge is broken.

 

[Vader]

Would have been interesting if Natalie gave up immunity to make fire against Tony and beat him (like Chris Underwood), would she have beaten Sarah? Rob intimated that he probably would have voted for her and I’m guessing Amber and a few others would have as well.

Which leads to the thinking that if giving up your immunity to make fire is giving you the best chance to win, surely the final 4 fire challenge is broken.

If she'd taken out Tony, then she probably would have won. Tony got credits for bossing the game, particularly when he took out Sophie through a brilliantly executed blindside. Tony had a resume that none of the other remaining players had built. He was always going to win, provided he made it through to the final 3.

Natalie didn't have a resume from the Island, because she'd only been there for a few days. She did, however, absolutely boss EoE and she dominated the game after returning in the 2nd challenge. She knew, from talking to the other evictees, that Tony was going to win - but she didn't get her strategy right, and failed to eliminate him. That cost her the game.

 

[squashface]

Would have been interesting if Natalie gave up immunity to make fire against Tony and beat him (like Chris Underwood), would she have beaten Sarah? Rob intimated that he probably would have voted for her and I’m guessing Amber and a few others would have as well.

Which leads to the thinking that if giving up your immunity to make fire is giving you the best chance to win, surely the final 4 fire challenge is broken.

I think that’s the only way you can win coming back from the Edge when you were voted out early (Underwood and Natalie) like Boston Rob alluded to. You have to play the perfect game when you haven’t been in the actual game for very long. Giving up immunity is one of the only resume builders you can use.

 

[Ochre]

Natalie played terribly since coming back from the Edge, and Tony who came in with a huge reputation and played an incredible game, still only just beat her (Danni, Rob and Amber were close votes, couldve easily been 9-7)

If Natalie put herself in fire and beat Tony she wins in a landslide, if Sarah had beaten Tony in fire, I think Natalie wins.

 

[glenferry23]

It’s one of those little quirks in the game that the both times the final 4 immunity challenge has been won by the recently returned Edge player.

Then the precedent was set by Chris, and perhaps almost expectancy Natalie needed to follow that. Certainly seemed to cost her the vote of Rob, who knows how many others though.

I doubt the same expectation would apply to another player who endured that deep in the game. ie, Michelle or Sarah if they’d won, wouldn’t be expected to give up their immunity and go head to head with the dominant player (Tony) to try and oust him.

 

[Loonerty]

Natalie played terribly since coming back from the Edge, and Tony who came in with a huge reputation and played an incredible game, still only just beat her (Danni, Rob and Amber were close votes, couldve easily been 9-7)

If Natalie put herself in fire and beat Tony she wins in a landslide, if Sarah had beaten Tony in fire, I think Natalie wins.

Which is why the likes of Adam and Nick didn't end up voting for Michele apparently.

It’s one of those little quirks in the game that the both times the final 4 immunity challenge has been won by the recently returned Edge player.

Then the precedent was set by Chris, and perhaps almost expectancy Natalie needed to follow that. Certainly seemed to cost her the vote of Rob, who knows how many others though.

I doubt the same expectation would apply to another player who endured that deep in the game. ie, Michelle or Sarah if they’d won, wouldn’t be expected to give up their immunity and go head to head with the dominant player (Tony) to try and oust him.

Yep - especially considering it was basically the last thing they saw before they left to play.

 

[squashface]

I think her answer to Rob about it was poor too. Something along the lines of “I won immunity so I thought I had done enough and didn’t need to put myself in fire”

 

[Lefthanded]

I think her answer to Rob about it was poor too. Something along the lines of “I won immunity so I thought I had done enough and didn’t need to put myself in fire”

What do you think she should have said? The answer I suspect as honest of 'I wasn't confident of being able to beat him' wouldn't have cut it either. In the same way Rob (I think) questioned Natalie about her social game on EoE, one wonders if she practiced making fire on EoE (or did practice and wasn't good at it).

 

[Visions]

I am in awe at how Sarah and Ben stuffed up their alliance in these last episodes after being in such a dominant position. To not even get two of that alliance into FTC is mind boggling.

First off Sarah adamantly telling Tony not to worry about an idol from Natalie and then giving her TC speech about gender bias, when ironically she was almost sent home herself then and there, and Tony was right all along and the correct play would have been to vote Denise and keep the idols.

Then at F5, Ben telling Sarah it was okay to vote for him. Cmon, WTF? It’s near the end of what is supposed to be the best of the best in Survivor dude. Play the game.

At least we got a worthy winner in Tony. Really bossed the game, especially from mid season.

Unlike others I just didn’t rate Michelle’s game so was okay with her not getting any votes. Not being in charge of the game at any real point and scrapping through all the time was how I saw it. Glad the jury voted for who they thought was the better player and not given her pity votes just for the sake of it.

Natalie only had 2 chances to win. First, putting herself up and beating Tony in the fire challenge, or having Tony and Sarah both sitting with her at FTC and hoping they would take votes off each other (think Sarah would have her measure if she got to FTC instead of Tony).

Going forward, they really need to extend the early episodes. At the start there are so many contestants that there is always going to be an abundance of gameplay going on which needs to be shown otherwise it leaves the viewer confused. Then as more contestants are voted off, they can go back to 1 hour episodes as life gets more boring on the island. As we saw with less and less players it made more sense and they didn’t have to edit as heavily and still had an hour to fill.

 

[revo333]

Probst confirmed on Instagram that he wants to do a Survivor that has a tribe of teenagers.

Thoughts?

 

[eth-dog]

Probst confirmed on Instagram that he wants to do a Survivor that has a tribe of teenagers.

Thoughts?

Don't like it for a couple of reasons:

1. Unless they're manchildren, they'll struggle physically against the adults (and probably will anyway) and will lose most of the early challenges.
2. Emotional maturity has to come into question. Can you really see a 16 year old surviving 39 days with no contact from family?

These kids don't need to be subjected to Survivor. Hell, 18 or 19 year olds would struggle to cope with the demand, let alone 16 year olds.

 

[Underarm]

Probst confirmed on Instagram that he wants to do a Survivor that has a tribe of teenagers.

Thoughts?

Dan Spilo, Richard Hatch, Mike Skupin.

Who would agree to send their 16 year old daughter to be on a season with people like them?

 

[BrutThough]

Probst confirmed on Instagram that he wants to do a Survivor that has a tribe of teenagers.

Thoughts?

It's a terrible idea. On top of the reasons already mentioned, if one of the teenagers makes it to the end - no matter how the play - no one is going to want to give them 1 million dollars. You then have a whole tribe basically drawing dead before the game has even started.

It's similar to what happened to Spencer in Cambodia but on a bigger scale. Part of the reason the Jury was so bitter towards him was because they didnt want to admit they were beaten by a 22 year old.

 

[akkaps]

If they want to involved teenagers, then the whole cast should be at most 21 years old.
They all need to go through a psychological test.
The location needs to be USA or Canada.
The challenges need to be less physically demanding.
And possibly more food for them.

 

[dont bowl there]

Probst confirmed on Instagram that he wants to do a Survivor that has a tribe of teenagers.

Thoughts?

Did he give a reason as to why this would be a good idea? Plenty of reasons not to do it as outlined above.