TV: Survivor: Season 47 - Fall 2024

shakes the clown

Registered User
Jan 11, 2010
1,156
838
Chicago
The final 3 stuff needs to go, Sue had 0 chance of winning and didn't deserve to be in the final.

The fire making was the only time I actually enjoyed watching that because Teenie choked so bad on that.

Rachael winning makes sense with how this season went but I think it's ridiculous that Sam only got 1 vote, he had a great tribal and played a great game. I really thought it was going to be closer than that. It's also another reason why it needs to go back to the final 2 instead of having the pointless 3rd wheel. Hell even Sue talked less during the final tribal.
couldn't disagree more about Sam. I do agree that he had a great tribal, much better than Rachel. But I think he played a horrible game. Did nothing of value post merge. Choked in literally every immunity challenge. How many times did he get to the puzzle first and then get blown out?


This was a weird season. it was entertaining, but no one really played a great game. The best players were people who really only did one or two impressive things in the game and were also terrible at other times.

I thought Rachel dropped the ball at final tribal not talking about her brilliant play of the shot in the dark. That was her best move all season.

I don't hate the outcome but a 7-1 split is anticlimactic given how this season started by putting knives at throats and firing off guns. It put its foot on the gas and never let up. The only way the finish matches the craziness of the course of the season is if we get a redux of Ghost Island where we are tied 4-4 and Sue has to cast a winning vote. Had that happened, this season might have been the GOAT.

I'm sorry but seasons like Heroes and Villains and Winners at War is propped up waaaayyyyy too much. Literally no one is clamoring to watch the likes of Rob, Amber, Ethan, Candice from Raro and Danielle (Exile Island) again. It's a nostalgia thing watching your favorites compete when other seasons have much better strategy or entertainment value
I disagree. I would (and do) love watching Boston Rob in any show you put him on.

When you say "new era" do you mean when they started doing final 3 as opposed to final 2?
no, new era refers to Survivor going woke and focusing on cast diversity and getting as many alternative lifestyle people on the cast as possible while also having less and less strong alpha type men on the cast.
 

SensBrawler

Registered User
Jun 24, 2013
7,294
1,460
Splitting the finale in two was not a great idea. It was basically over 15 minutes into the episode when Rachel won immunity. It was pretty clear that nobody was going to beat her. I like Rachel as a winner although I do understand the comparison to winners like Mike and Ben. I think she's better than both though. She never had as big a social blunder like Mike during the auction and she didn't really solely on finding idols like Ben. Dee still remains the best player of the new era.

Overall, this season was solid. It was a step below the last two, but it was still fairly entertaining. Aside from the premiere, the pre-merge was great. I do think the post-merge was pretty bland, but Operation Italy and the first part of the finale were both great episodes.

In terms of my ranking of the new era seasons, I'd probably have it as...

45>46>47/42>41>44>43

42 and 45-47 are all good seasons, but I'm not a fan of the other three.

If another woman wins in Season 48 it might be time to wonder if the new format isn't creating a disadvantage to men. That's gonna be a 6-2 split since the New Era started and that's not a problem you can just gloss over.
From seasons 26-40 we had twelve male winners and only three female winners. I don't think it's a big deal to see more women start to win more and close the gap a bit. I don't really see anything specific about the new era format that's putting men at a disadvantage.

The final 3 stuff needs to go, Sue had 0 chance of winning and didn't deserve to be in the final.

Do you think we should have had a final two instead? If it was a final two, Sue would have been there no matter what. If Rachel won final immunity, she would have voted out Sam and if Sam won, he would have voted out Rachel. Final threes at least allow for the possibility of two good players making it to the end. Most final twos these days would just a decent player and a goat.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad