Tribune legacy bloggers Jeanne DePaul and Susie Engle give their thoughts about “Survivor” from Feb. 3.
Susie: Talk about wicked games. “Survivor” goes from favoring schoolyard picks in which the perceived old, weak and scrawny players are shunned like science geeks at the dodgeball court to first impression votes, where perceived old, weak and scrawny players are shunned like … well, you know where I’m going.
The already-formed tribes thought they were voting off the old lady, Sandy, and the weak girl whose name I have already forgotten. Of course, this being “Survivor,” they were just giving them a helicopter ride to camp. Good thing for the girl with the strep throat. I always wonder about the avowed fans who vote off the “old folks.” Have they never watched this show before? Young does not necessarily equal strong and it often does not equal smart and savvy. Getting rid of the smart players early in the game will only guarantee a lot of hungry days and cold nights when the incompetents realize they don’t know how to build a shelter, find and/or cook food or build a fire.
Jeanne: No, old doesn’t always mean weak and stupid. But in this case Sandy means not very bright, because she had time, it seemed, to find that hidden immunity idol and she didn’t. “What are paces?” Yikes! And it took her forever just to find the stupid stick on the beach, and then she couldn’t seem to track down the lone palm tree standing there in plain view. I mean, really.
I also wonder about her teammates, though, who didn’t explore enough to find the beach and see how all the sand was recently disturbed. Hmmmmm. Didn’t they think she might be up to something?
For all her posturing, Sandy isn’t too bright, but she’s strong and probably less annoying than Carolina, which is why she stayed.
As with most first episodes, only a few stand out. I already don’t much like Benjamin, or “Coach” as he apparently wants to be called. I’m already well tired of Tyson, the naked guy, but I sort of like Spencer the youngster.
Susie: Agreed on Sandy, who would probably drive me insane if I had to spend extended time in her presence. Still, they were voting on her based upon age alone, which is ironic. At 53, she’s only four years older than the former Army Guard guy and seven years older than the muscular blonde woman who is a principal in real life.
Speaking of real life, I’m a little vexed over the proliferation of wealthy folks popping up on this season. Brendan Synnott started Bare Naked Granola and sold it for a gazillion bucks. Taj is a Grammy-nominated recording artist who’s sold a gazillion albums and there’s a couple of others. I guess they love the game, but they sure don’t need the money and, as has been pounded into our heads over and over again for 17 seasons, it’s all about the money. I have to wonder how many of the millionaires are going to get to 20 days in and decide it’s time to bag on the deprivation.
And I’m with you on Coach and Naked Guy. Both get my vote for the Most Annoying prize. I had to laugh at Coach’s soliloquy on leadership and all. Carolina tried the leadership route, but got dogged and voted off for being whiny and bossy. For my money, Coach is way more bossy than Carolina. Of course, men get away with it more than women do.
Jeanne: That’s it exactly: When women try to lead, they’re pegged as bossy female dogs. And when men try to lead, they’re pegged as … well … leaders. Hmmmmm.
I don’t mind the rich people influx. For one thing, they have to love the game to live with the deprivation so that’s a nice change from the people who are recruited for the show, never having seen an episode. They also likely to bring some cunning to the game, since generally they got — and stayed — rich because they’re not dumb. It will be interesting to see if the rich folks step up the plate, or wilt like hothouse flowers at the first freeze.
You know, I’m not sure I’m ready for this edition of the show. I still haven’t gotten over Sugar getting aced out of either of the top prizes last fall, after she outplayed everyone. Bob wasn’t evil, but he didn’t play as well as Sugar.
Way back in the beginning of time, when Richard Hatch won, my friends and I yelled at the TV because he was so evil. But everyone on the jury said they voted for him because he had played the best game. And that made a certain amount of sense, because he really did. “Survivor” has turned from rewarding those who outplay everyone to a popularity contest about who’s the nicest and that’s a drag.
OK, that’s what we think. Now what do you think?













