Probst signed for two more seasons, so it won't be until after 2011 (season 22) if that were to happen.

On your last point I did microfailure sucked , this heros vs villans has shapped up great, but mostly cause of Russ and how bad the heros are.

Well, Natalie certainly got one of the weaker edits for a winner. The theory is that some seasons are edited to be the story of "why the loser lost" rather than "why the winner won". All-Stars (Why Rob lost), Guatemala (Why Steph lost) and Samoa (Why Russell lost) are the 3 examples of this. Amber, Danni, and Natalie were pretty under-the-radar winners.

Even with her "weak" edit, Natalie still maintained visibility in all episodes, was given a few scenes of personal growth, and was heavily attached to the main story of the season (Russell).

Well, and that's the vibe I was starting to get after the Tom boot. Colby could have an amazing redemption edit. This season would be a lot of fun if that happened.

But if he doesn't have that amazing redemption edit, I agree that the "quitting" scene is gonna make it pretty hard for Colby to have the credibility to host.

colby doesn't even appear like he'd want to host this show. he's lost his drive.

He also would be pretty bad at it. I think you need some personality to be a TV host. I hope they don't just cast his name and pretty face. There are literally dozens of former survivors that would be better choices.

disgree kk. I think in the same way he can be somewhat confrontational with Probst he could do a solid job. Of course, the moment Probst leaves, the show jumps the shark regardless of who the replacement is.

I am probably being a little to hard on Colby. I just don't think he's the right choice for a lot of reasons. Put Parvati, Cirie, or Cesternino up there and you might even improve on Probst.

parvati as host would probably kill the show completely

Why do you say that? She's a genius, and incredibly hot. She's confrontational and is always very aware of what is going on around her. What are your objections to her, exactly?

The sense that Probst could survive on his own in the Survivor environment lends massive credence to his authority. Parvati offers no such confidence and therefore might as well be Joanna Kruppa.

can you honestly imagine her asking questions at tribal? or explain a challenge?

wouldnt seem serious at all imo

I think people are missing a very key point that Rob screwed up

You need to know what every person in your alliance (or, really, every person, period) wants. He should have known Tyson wanted Parvati gone as his first priority. Russell knew, and used that fact to his advantage. Had Rob been paying attention - and not assumed he was significantly smarter and better at Survivor than Russell - he'd have had Tyson voting Parv in the first place, with Jerri & Coach. Always give the people what they want. You can't flip a vote if it's already where it wants to be.

On our next new upcoming episode of The Real World, Survivor Edition we have both teams meeting on the beach. Who will be snuggling with whom. Who has the makings for the next sizzling alliance. Tune in for the next shocking episode.



Yeah, that would go over really well.

Man I won't even bother with this one...

If Rob was playing even close to a perfect game, he wouldn't tell Russell to his face that he was trying to get rid of him - he'd have an alliance with him. Maybe he doesn't remember how he got rid of Rob C.

I'm really confused, I didn't think I was the only one who put Parvati in the GOAT conversation. I did rule her out rather quickly, but I thought everyone here considered her a top 10 player. This really isn't the case?

Also, completely off topic, what are people's thoughts on using your jury vote as currency? You talk a lot about bitter juries, but what if someone, like Jean-Robert did, says "I won't vote for you on the jury if you backstab me." Is this fair gameplay? Is a person who keeps their promise on the jury considered bitter? I think it is a fair weapon you have, and I think it's reasonable to follow through on the threat.

Rob NOT having an alliance with Russell is probably the smartest thing he's done. He recognizes that Russel can't be controlled, and that Russel is smart enough to try to get him out. What he hadn't realized in time is that Russel is at least as smart as he is, and that cost him big in the last vote.

Oh yeah I mean a fake alliance, with every intention of booting him ASAP.

That hurts him. He needs to show that he's going to be completely loyal to his alliance, and if he makes a fake one to get rid of Russel, that's going to make everyone else doubt him, and probably get him booted sooner rather than later

Interesting, I never knew this....

Stephanie is dating Kyle Kendrick of the Phillies

Good for Kyle imo.

Actually, not that I think a little further, this really helps Russell if he gets wind of it before he's booted (not unlikely, imo), because then he can get together his own alliance of 5 and sell them on the idea that HE will be loyal to them, and Rob is just going to use them and lose them as soon as something better comes along

Never jumped on the anti-kk pro-Russell bandwagon in the thread even though I'm a big big Russell fan, but I think this is a far more interesting and less bias/fanboy type thing to argue about so I will.

I think this is something I think you're 100% wrong about though. Cirie? Parvati? These would be terrible choices to host Survivor in my opinion. I don't think Cesterino would be that good either.

Gary made a good point: you just get the feeling Probst could go out there in the wild and survive. He runs the show out there while hosting too. Can you imagine Parvati, Cirie, or in fact any other woman from any previous season stopping a challenge to disqualify someone like Ben in Samoa? This sounds really sexist, probably because it is, but I'm just so used to seeing Probst and hear him declare challenge winners and give warnings/lay down the law that it would feel strange to have anyone else host the show. Obviously I recognize the bias I have towards having a male host. Anybody would be a downgrade but I think Colby is about as good of a replacement as their could be.

edit: Also, to be honest I don't know about how much personality Probst comes across as having. We've now seen him kind of buck heads with people at tribal when he asks the good questions (like at Rupert earlier this season) but TV hosts are far from having great personalities (like Phil from The Amazing Race, I don't know anyone who seems more robotic than that).

I dont know if any of the survivors i've seen would do a good job, and the show is dead in the water without him. Colby seems like an ok choice - maybe Tom or Hatch would be better.

For amusement value picture Rupert attempting to run a tribal council... hehe amusing myself now - Dreamz