| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Torchflame |
|||
|
I am hoping for a final two too.
|
|||
Bayou |
|||
|
I want a F3
|
|||
token lunatic |
|||
|
Please expound on the merits of an F3. So one can be virtually ignored? So the third can be a throwaway vote? What is the point?
|
|||
SurvivorFan1989 |
|||
|
F3s are annoying, making them think it's a F3 and having it F2 would be funny, especially if Marcus/Charlie/Corinne are F3 and they think they've made
it to the end, only to find out one of them has to go home. But I really hope there is no M/C/C F3, that would really be upsetting, just funny for the
situtation.
|
|||
PrettyGoodYear1988 |
|||
|
F3's were good when they were surprises to the Survivors (which only happened in Cook Islands and Fiji). If there hadn't been F3's those seasons,
we would have ended up with either Ozzy or Yul decimating Becky (which would have been deserved but relentlessly dull), or Cassandra winning against Dreamz
(since Earl's chances of being brought to the finals were slim to none, but fortunately for him they were better than Yau Man's).
|
|||
CSCin3D |
|||
Cassandra winning against DreamzWhich would have been a 10,000 times more satisfying and fun ending. |
|||
lemurwrench |
|||
|
random contradiction: the reason for having a final 3 is so that the finalists arent totally dependant upon who won the last challenge and yet burnett and
probst ect. seem to favor the alpha-males.
thoughts? |
|||
Thailandsurvivor |
|||
kishuu wrote:How does that give us more crazy stuff? Instead of the end game scramble we get a bunch of pussies just riding their final three alliance until the end. |
|||
PrettyGoodYear1988 |
|||
Only if they had edited the season differently. As it was, Cassandra was given a total UTR edit. She did a good job in wrapping a strong male who had no shot at winning around her finger, and he likely would have fell on his sword for her (straight up Colby style), but the fact that neither of them ended up with a single vote made that storyline pointless.Cassandra winning against DreamzWhich would have been a 10,000 times more satisfying and fun ending. And seeing how quiet and unassuming Cassandra was in her confessionals, I'm not sure it would have been that interesting even if they had given it more airtime. Cassandra played a Tina-like game and could have won if it had been F2, but she wasn't entertaining. |
|||
Sole Survivor Genius |
|||
|
Hmmmmm
I think it will be a final 7 with all the Kota people facing the jury. I mean obviously! |
|||
LibrasAbandonedChild1 |
|||
|
Well, F2 completely SCREWED Cirie last season so my view of it is a little </3 because of it so I guess i'm hoping for a F3.
|
|||
Thailandsurvivor |
|||
LibrasAbandonedChild1 wrote: Had it been a final three, we would have had the worst winner ever in Amanda. Cirie would not have won. I'm tired of saying this. And anyone who calls themselves a fan of the show will never want to see the final three again. It is by far the worst twist in Survivor history. |
|||
883872 |
|||
|
i want F4.
|
|||
SuperJude |
|||
Thailandsurvivor wrote:No, Outcasts was certainly the worst twist in Survivor history, throwing 2 people who got voted out back into a game they could not possibly have won. -SJ™ |
|||
The Purple Parrot |
|||
|
Final 2 please.
|
|||
unduli clone |
|||
CSCin3D wrote: X F3 trumps the repetitive and retarded use of HII's as worst twist ever. F2 needs to stay permanently. |
|||
Thailandsurvivor |
|||
SuperJude wrote: You seem to forget how entertaining that season was because of that twist. Even if you didn't like it, you can at least appreciate Lill during the final three IC. The final three twist, on the other hand, not only ruined the integrity of the game, but it makes the end game (and jury questioning) much more boring. Riding a final three alliance to the end is not exciting at all compared to the end game scramble that's delivered even in the lesser seasons. |
|||
unduli clone |
|||
|
^ I have to agree with that one. The F3 was intended to make the FTC less obvious and therefore more exciting, but it's eliminated a good deal of exciting strategy along the way. Three-person alliances are much more stable and have less of a need for shake-ups and double-crosses. It also eliminates a potentially emotional F3 TC, given that one person has complete power, which is fun to see. AND the FTC's with three people aren't as entertaining as the two person ones, unfortunately. |
|||
027huds |
|||
|
F3's suck. As mentioned above, there's only ever been 3 people alliances in a final 3. You can also count Micronesia, as they were playing as if there
was going to be a final 3. They've also got rid of one of the most tense parts of the game along with the final 3 as well - the final 3 immunity challenge.
|
|||
emjoi |
|||
|
Yeah, what makes the last weeks of a Survivor series fun is the final scrambling and backstabbing.
The numbers keep on dropping until you have to start killing your own friends. That final murder... someone choosing one and dumping the other... is a great moment. And F3 removes that. And having some mystery about who is the winner, which F3 is supposed to provide, doesn't matter all that much. It's always pretty obvious. |
|||