Ian was obviously wore down mentally by the competition. He knew he couldn't beat Tom. Mentally he was beat. He quit because the game proved to tough for him, not because he didn't want to win.
This brings me to my next point...what is so bad about quitters? The problem is not that a few people have quit survivor. The real problem is that Survivor is not demanding enough for us to expect people to quick. This is frickin' SURVIVOR. I'd love to see the stakes raised to the point that there are as many people quitting as being voted off. When that happens, the true cream of the crop will rise to the challenge. That would end the days of people "skating" on to victory.
Last edited by VectorWega; 06-28-2005 at 06:25 PM.
In this past it has been thrown out that competitors should compete somewhere in the cold where it is very rugged. This would be interesting, but could also become boring. So how about Survivor taking place somewhere where it is both HOT and COLD (ie parts of South America). In addition to winning immunity, winning teams would have the luxury of staying the night in their beach camp. The losing team must spend the next few days in the rugged cold up in the mountains (transportation would have to be figured out).
I also love the idea of having multiple teams, in multiple locations, playing individual survivor games prior to combining into a larger game that they had no clue about (maybe one team at a beach, one in a jungle, one in the mountains)
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.