Wrong, everyone is not there to win the game. Last year, Sonya was there to prove to herself and to others that cancer victims can survive. Many others since have said that while they first went into the game solely to win, that priority quickly changed during the course of this game. Despite a very few number of rules, each person can determine for themselves what that “game” really is.
Cite please? I mean, you have absolutely no idea how genuine that joy was, or how much it could have meant to Colby to see Tina win.
That is a very true statement, one that I want to remember. However, the games involved in winning a silver medal and the game involved in Survivor are entirely different. Consider the fact that Rudy, Sue, and Kelly have been on TV shows. Consider that Colleen Haskel had a commercial and is starring in a movie. Stacey had a Reebok commercial, and Sonya had a cancer survivor commercial. While we don’t see silver medalists on Wheaties boxes, we DO see Survivor personalities in the media, despite where they finished.
First off, you can’t split the money - its against the rules. Secondly, while I don’t exactly agree with the choice of the word “ethics” in this context, I think you discount the friendships that form during this game. Call it mutual respect, call it professional courtesy, call it what you want, but relationships were formed, and decisions are made that are affected by those relationships.
When was Tina unethical? I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Regardless, I think your points are legitimate.
Well, I’ll take my lumps for suggesting that ethics may play a role in a grotesque spectacle such as “Survivor” (silly notion!). Nevertheless, I still think that for any of us to criticize Colby for his actions is a bit pointless.
In addition, I remain completely appalled by the way that certain among us behave like the audience of “The Running Man”, treating with contempt those who choose not to play the game with the ruthlessness that the producers have deemed appropriate. And really, I’m appalled at myself, because I’ve behaved the same way. At least they don’t kill off the failures on “Survivor”; instead they merely become national laughingstocks.
How wedded we are to the idea that money is the surest measure of our achievements, and how we despise losers (i.e. those who do not make the maximum effort for the maximum cash).
Personally, I like the idea that Colby may have made a decision that allowed him to live with himself, that subverted the producer’s attempts to guide the “story”, and that, perhaps best of of all, overturned the smug, cynical expectations of the audience.
Of course, that’s probably just what Burnett & Co. wanted me to think.
Keep in mind that Colby himself said that he was sure he could beat Keith but thought he only had a fifty fifty chance against Tina. So regardless of what would have happened, you have to agree that he was taking what he perceived as a risk.
As I said before, I think Colby decided he’d rather take the risk of losing $900,000 rather than face the certainty of handing Keith $100,000. If true, that makes his decision petty and vindictive not selfless and high-minded.
As for the ethics, as many of pointed out, it’s just a game. Do you ever see one of the contestants on Jeopardy tell Alex Trebeck “I know the answer to this one, Alex, but I’m going to let Fred take a shot at it first. I figure that’s only fair because we really bonded in the green room before the show.”