LogFAQs > #879909310

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Survivor: Game Changers Topic 5: At Least It's Better Than Cambodia
Inviso 05/27/17 12:41:31 PM #308:	Also, to the people saying Cambodia had a more cohesive storyline than Game Changers. Uh...no. As much as it sucked, the ending of Game Changers made complete sense. Sarah and Brad were both painted as strong competitors in their own right, but Sarah was given more credit for her strategic and social game while Brad became more of a background character come the merge. As such, Sarah scored a 7-3 victory that still allowed Brad a modicum of respect in the number of votes he received. Compare that to Cambodia. Tasha getting zero votes was fine. They built her up as a bitch and a follower that the jury wouldn't vote for. But they edited the season as Jeremy is good, but look at how Spencer is the STAR and this is gonna be a clash of the titans...right up until Jeremy scores a 10-0-0 blowout. The editors didn't bother making Spencer look bad enough to explain getting outright shut out until the final 4 tribal council. Plus you have storylines like Abi hating Woo, but then she actually votes him out (and she was the reason Woo was targeted over Andrew) and neither one is the focus. Kelly Wiglesworth goes from invisible to HUGE SOCIAL THREAT that warrants an unnecessary blindside. Keith and Kimmi get completely ignored (and unlike Aubry/Troyzan who didn't really play a strong role in the season, they were actually involved in things). Cambodia was the first season to really start the whole "episodic" feel of Survivor. Sure, Game Changers had similar problems, but Game Changers also had more heart and soul for the first half, whereas Cambodia was pretty much below average from episode one onwards. --- Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier. Inviso <cite>Inviso posted [p:879909310] in Survivor: ... [t:75383455]...</cite> <quote>Also, to the people saying Cambodia had a more cohesive storyline than Game Changers. Uh...no. As much as it sucked, the ending of Game Changers made complete sense. Sarah and Brad were both painted as strong competitors in their own right, but Sarah was given more credit for her strategic and social game while Brad became more of a background character come the merge. As such, Sarah scored a 7-3 victory that still allowed Brad a modicum of respect in the number of votes he received. Compare that to Cambodia. Tasha getting zero votes was fine. They built her up as a bitch and a follower that the jury wouldn't vote for. But they edited the season as Jeremy is good, but look at how Spencer is the STAR and this is gonna be a clash of the titans...right up until Jeremy scores a 10-0-0 blowout. The editors didn't bother making Spencer look bad enough to explain getting outright shut out until the final 4 tribal council. Plus you have storylines like Abi hating Woo, but then she actually votes him out (and she was the reason Woo was targeted over Andrew) and neither one is the focus. Kelly Wiglesworth goes from invisible to HUGE SOCIAL THREAT that warrants an unnecessary blindside. Keith and Kimmi get completely ignored (and unlike Aubry/Troyzan who didn't really play a strong role in the season, they were actually involved in things). Cambodia was the first season to really start the whole "episodic" feel of Survivor. Sure, Game Changers had similar problems, but Game Changers also had more heart and soul for the first half, whereas Cambodia was pretty much below average from episode one onwards. --- Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier. Inviso</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1