u/cantdecide76

This episode felt like the first one in forever that production wasn't solely focused on drama between people in the villa or when they weren't purposely adding elements to the show for the sake of generating drama.

Regardless of how you feel about each islander and couple, it was good to see these people all interact with their partners in a way that was completely for bonding and fun because it feels like since Casa started its just been non-stop drama and stress for this cast. Tonight everyone actually looked happy and we finally got to see some personality out of everybody so thank you production for adding in a challenge that finally brought back some of the love to Love Island (even if it was immediately followed up by a dumping lmao).

I'm hoping for some help in finding the song that's played at the end of the immunity challenge in this clip from the first episode of Marquesas.

It starts at 4:20 of the video and its a song thats used tonssss of times in the early Survivor seasons when someone or a tribe wins immunity, but for some reason I can't find the name or the song itself anywhere so hoping for some help from my fellow Survivor peeps on this lol

This is probably a debate that's as old as music itself lol but its especially pertinent in the rnb genre given how many of our all time (and even some current) rnb artists have either been convicted of or allegedly done some terrible things things which I won't go into detail about because I don't want this post to be about any 1 specific artist, but search it up if you don't know any rnb artist that would fit within this category because as I said there are quite a few.

My questions to yall are where do you personally stand on this topic? Are you someone who separates the music a person makes from the actual artist themselves? Or will you completely stop listening to them once you find out what they have done no matter how iconic the artist is or how big of a fan you have been to that point?

Additionally, does it matter to you whether or not the things the artist did are allegations that haven't been proven vs someone thats actually convicted, and whether or not they have apologized for the actions at any point either.

Last part is, if you are a person that completely stops listening to someone, then are there certain types of crimes that you would be okay with an artist getting accused/convicted of? Or are they done for you no matter what the crime is.

For the record my vote is they stay together for a year or longer. Its not that I want that to happen because if it were up to me she would've left him weeks ago lol but imo she loves that man and he loves her (he's just a pathological liar so love doesn't mean as much for him).

Plus now that she will have seen everything bad he's done, there's nothing more for her to find out post villa.

View Poll

I see a lot of talk about people like Zach and KC (pre-Casa) being guys who are just here to "play the game" additionally that has been a term used for a lot of people on past seasons too but 98 percent of the people that term is used for don't even play the game well.

If you come to Love Island with the express purpose of playing the game in order to win the money at the end then by far the most important part of that is playing the viewing audience and step 1 of that is being aware that cameras are on you 24/7 and the producers can literally show anything.

A lot of these guys who are accused of being game-players will present a "good guy" facade to their partners and in front of the other islanders but then when they're just 1 on 1 with a close friend or in their confessionals they let the mask slip and will say things to turn people off which is SO stupid because ofc to play well you need to keep your partner hooked but you more so need to keep the viewers voting for you hooked into thinking you're a genuinely great person.

Prime example of this would be the boys reactions at Casa. Of course they didn't know they were being filmed, but any smart game players would realize that anything is possible and in past seasons they have shown the girls some of what they guys are doing (AND movie night is a thing), so that alone should be enough to ensure you don't act up, but beyond that do you REALLY think the viewing audience (most of who are women) are gonna like you more after seeing you so excited to makeout with women that aren't your day 1 partner? Like c'mon now that should be textbook Love Island strategy lol you pick someone as close to day 1 as possible and ride it out with them through the season OR you figure out who the most liked person is and try your best to get them into you (like Bryan did last year).

Basically to summarize all of this, most of the people that are called gameplayers likely aren't because if they were then they'd be doing a VERY bad job at playing to win. I believe that Bryce has real feelings for Trinity, BUT if someone were to be a good gameplayer then he's a great example because he has the audience hooked and stuff like crying in Casa is exactly what you need to lock in your status as best couple.

I get that the guys didn't know the women were watching but like you are still on TV and you know they're gonna see at some point so for the love of all things holy I truly don't understand what was going through KC, Zach, and Corbin's heads to be that disrespectful of your basically day 1 couples THAT soon after getting to Casa.

You can have fun in a challenge all you want, but all the little side comments about switching partners and changing your gameplan is crazy, and for KC specifically why are you acting like you haven't felt the touch of a woman in decades. SIR you were just in bed with Aniya last night like damn.

So with all that being said I want to give props to Bryce and Sincere (yes I know I'm as shocked as you all are) for keeping it as respectful as you can in a heart rate challenge and for most of all not saying anything to disrespect or fully embarrass the woman they're coupled up with. Not saying either of them won't go crazy later (especially Sincere i have my eye on that little mfer), but they're off to a good start compared to the other 3.

Edit: Until further notice I've decided KC and Corbin will now be referred to as the human honey packs. If they start acting right then that shall change but as of right now they are too damn horny to be called their real names.

All credit to u/JEX2124 for the post idea

The opinion you usually keep quiet. No judgment, no dogpiling. This is the amnesty thread. Drop the take you've never been able to defend in the comments and let's see how alone you really are.

So obviously we just capped off 50 seasons which took about 26 years so assuming the show were to keep the current pace it means they'd hit season 100 by about 2051. My question is what do you guys realistically think the chances are that Survivor lasts another 25 years and hits that 100 season mark?

A few factors to consider before answering that I'll outline below:

1. By that point (assuming/hoping he's still alive) Jeff would be about 89 years old. Obviously in all likelihood an 89 year old can't host a tv show that requires as much movement and exertion as Survivor so at some point they'd have to replace Jeff on the road to season 100. In that case if the show were to continue post-Jeff, the safest option would be an ex-player to host (similar to how Australian Survivor replaced Jonathan with David Genat) however would this be too much of a change for the core fans or would the change in hosting be welcome? My bet is they'd welcome it but who knows.

2. Network television in general has been in a steep decline with the rise of streaming and that trend will definitely continue. Will it get to the point in the next 25 years where the major networks stop producing network shows altogether? I honestly don't know, but even if they did I'm sure that Survivor would pull similar numbers even if it was only on streaming so that wouldn't be an issue in terms of continuing the show.

3. Over the years CBS has systematically cut costs at every chance they've gotten to the point where I'm not sure how much more they can actually cut and still produce a viable show. The golden question over the next 25 years would be at what point is the show no longer financially viable even though its already quite cheap to produce. If Survivor can hold steady viewership then it will stay on forever because its very cheap and new seasons can be made quickly. However if viewership go on a steady decline for a run of 5-10 seasons then I could easily see a scenario where the network pulls the plug after a certain point.

4. Last point is the game has already evolved so much that some would argue its not even "true Survivor" anymore based on the original game laid out back in Borneo. As years go on the producers have kept adding twists and changes to the game in an effort to keep the product from going stale and just repeating the same things over and over again. Given how much things have changed over the last 50 seasons its interesting to wonder what more the producers would even be able to come up with in terms of new twists and how drastically those twists change the game. If the format gets changed too much they could risk losing large groups of the audience altogether because the game would be unrecognizable from the one fans fell in love with (this has already happened to an extent). A scenario like that could've lead to it getting canceled sooner rather than later if new fans are not brought in to circumvent the loss of old ones.

Anyways thats about it lol it was a bit of a long write-up but I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

I was having this talk with one of my friends and basically I argued that it makes no sense to ban meta characters in lower ranks whereas he said that some characters should be perma-ban no matter the rank.

My reasoning is that most broken characters that are perma-banned are only really broken when played at a high level from someone that has good mastery of their kits. Take Gambit for example, even when he was at his most broken, it still took a decent amount of overall game sense/skill plus good knowledge of how to maximize his kit and manage his cards/cool-downs in order to play him to a level where he'd be broken.

In the higher ranks a lot more players are able to play these broken characters to their max potential because most high rank players are overall better for obvious reasons. In low ranks the chances of you running into a player that has a high level of mastery over broken characters kits are much lower because the ones that do will move out of low ranks relatively quickly.

So overall imo if you're in the low ranks it makes MUCH more sense to ban the characters that are easily playable/crutches for people (such as Moon Knight, Wanda, CnD, Squirrel Girl, etc) because chances are you'll run into a lot more players in those ranks that can only play the "easier" characters well compared to the meta characters.

Curious to hear what everyone else's thoughts on this are.