Purple Rock Survivor Podcast: Cambodia Episode 12 “Tiny Little Shanks to the Heart”

It was the by-the-numbers episode we’ve been expecting for when it was finally time to get rid of Joe. The Purple Rock Survivor Podcast will try to make our episode a little more than by-the-numbers to compensate. Like Joe, we may fail.


Purple Rock Survivor podcast: Cambodia episode 12 “Tiny Little Shanks to the Heart”

Subscribe on iTunes
Subscribe on Stitcher

In this episode, we discuss:

  • Is it possible to have a realistic expectation for a player like Joe?
  • Does targeting Abi-Maria make sense?
  • What are Spencer and Tasha up to?
  • Given the success of Jeremy, Kelley, and Keith, do we need to reassess San Juan del Sur?
  • This family visit was actually worth while!
  • But should you try and win it?
  • Is Kelley too far under the radar, or is she positioned just right?

Of course, we always welcome your comments. You can leave a comment here, tweet us @purplerockpod, or email us at purplerockpodcast on gmail. Thanks for listening and/or watching!

56 thoughts on “Purple Rock Survivor Podcast: Cambodia Episode 12 “Tiny Little Shanks to the Heart”

  1. One reason for Tasha to tell Jeremy and Spencer is to preempt Kimmy repeating her Monica game plan. Tasha has to be somewhat worried that Kimmy goes back to Jeremy, tells them about the women’s alliance, and fingers Tasha as traitor and target.

    Now, I think this would be a misread of Kimmy’s plans. But I don’t think it’s an irrational misread, given Kimmy’s game thus far.

    1. The problem with the Dietz hierarchy isn’t with the logic, it’s that Terry had no clue how not to be a dick about it.

        1. It’s not that there’s a lot he could do game wise, because at that point all of them would have been idiots to work with him, but it’s just a lot an unpleasant moment because you can see Aras and Danielle getting more and more upset about how Terry is describing their relationships with with their mothers and him just not getting it and being really committed to being right.

          And then contrast that with Aras, who is fucking half Terry’s age and doesn’t need Terry as much as Terry needs Aras, immediately being like ‘welp gotta smooth things over’ after blowing up at him in the next challenge, and it’s just soooo thoroughly not a good look for him.

    2. I haven’t watched Panama, but I know what Terry did. My question was why did Cirie and HB get stuck on the beach instead of going with Terry and his wife?

      1. Because Shane’s loved on was his teenaged kid and there was just no way Survivor was letting a minor hang out on the beach.

  2. Has this season had more Andy yelling at strawmen than normal or has that always been the case? I haven’t noticed before.

    1. Too, I think it’s a byproduct of fan protectionism and a returnee season that is causing all these arguments on other sites that the guys feel the need to discuss, postulate, and/or shoot down.

      1. I think this is part of it. People are really pickings sides HARD this season. Which I find odd, since there’s so many good players to cheer for, I don’t know why people have to take such hard stances for one or two of them.

        1. Yeah, I don’t get this at all. I’ve made it clear that I’m a hardcore Spencer fan, but if Jeremy or Kelley wins (because it’s straight up not one of the other 4) I’m not going to complain.

          1. My two favorites went out in the first four votes, and I’m enjoying the hell out of this season. And I’m happy with any of the current top 3 winning.

          2. Casting, take note: these people playing this season…these are the types of people you pretty much always want playing Survivor for any season. They’re just giving us good tv. Excepting Wiglesworth. Hell, even if the show took a screaming left turn and suddenly started spotlighting Keith in a late-breaking winner’s edit (no chance, but still), I would STILL love this season!

        2. it’s harder not to in a returnee season. I think any of the 3 who look like they could win would be a really satisfactory winner for me. But honestly I could have dealt with a win for anyone but Keith or Savage.

          1. To be clear, I don’t really have an issue with people rooting hard for their favs. It’s the rooting AGAINST others hard and then trying to justify those opinions as legitimate analysis rather than just fan behaviour that has probably made me this way this season.

  3. As you noted, Spencer immediately flipping back to Jeremy was him channeling Tony. Joe was also applying the lessons of his season. The “too many goats” speech made very little sense from coming from him, but he saw first hand how much damage letting Will/Dan/Sierra stick around did to the likes of Jenn and Tyler (not to mention the damage to the Survivor audience, and humanity in general).

        1. Admittedly, she doesn’t belong in the same class of goat as Dan and Will (now THAT’S a low bar!). But the point isn’t whether she was actively terrible, but whether she was safe to corral to the end in order to get no votes. A Tennerelli, rather than a Philite.

          1. I see your point, and she’d definitely be a goat for many of the post merge people. But considering that was goat island, I think she would have beat Dan and Will easily, possibly even Rodney (since no one seemed to respect his game until after the show, but I admit it’s a stretch).

          2. I agree Sierra would have won an all-goat finale in a landslide, but somebody has to win (hey Fabio). That was the point of the “too many goats” speech: don’t let goat island happen in the first place. At this point in the game, an abundance of goats is a bug, not a feature. A misfit toys final 3 of Keith, Kimmi, Abi is far from out of the question (Keith goes on an immunity run, Jeremy and Wentworth misplay their idols, Tasha and Spencer are simply outnumbered).

      1. Nah, she was a goat. The general impression among those there that she did nothing and wasn’t going to get votes from the jury.

  4. Based on your tweets I was expecting %100 more discussion of the problems with Emma’s unfamiliarity with the work of Outkast.

    Also, because Andy linked it, I had to rewatch the Player’s Ball video and the two reactions I had were: 1.) Goddamn Andre and Big Boi look so young and 2.) I have not watched that video since my life led to me spending so much time in East Atlanta and it’s weird how familiar all of those setting look to me now.

    1. Do you ever go to the Starlight Drive In? When I lived in Atlanta I would go there almost weekly, where my friends I would grill and drink and be merry.

      1. Nah the Starlight is far enough from anyone I know that I never go there.

        For a while I was dating a girl who lived on McPherson right off Moreland, but we broke up, so now if I’m in that part of town it’s cause I’m at my brother’s place off Flat Shoals.

        Which now that I think about it isn’t that far from the Starlight, but we never go there cause it’s easier to just get drunk at his place.

        1. I lived in Midtown because I was a student at Tech. None of us lived near Starlight, we just used it to watch summer blockbusters. We should show up as soon as the gates opened, block off some spots, get the grill going, and really had a sweet setup.

          1. I still haven’t been to Starlight. It’s a gaping hole in my movie nerd/native Atlantan Venn diagram. But I’ve heard it’s gone downhill in recent years.

          2. How dare you. I’ve been as recently as 2013, so I doubt much can happen that quickly. They even upgraded to digital projectors.

            There is also not much to ‘go downhill’. There are screens and places to park your car to listen to movies. It was never ritzy.

      2. 3rd thing, movie theater related: One of my buddies in college was a movie nerd in the same way Andre 3000 is, and they used to see each other all the time at the same theater (the Regal off 85 by Shallowford) and he was always down to discuss whatever he had just seen.

    2. I know their singles! It’s much worse for Matt, he doesn’t have the age excuse that I (and to a lesser extent, Mark) have.

        1. I was not quite four when that album came out. My music knowledge was at the mercy of my older brother, which is why I’m quite familiar with Dookie and Tragic Kingdom.

  5. Follow-up on “Internet opinions Andy Yells About”:

    – “People who are using SC to create a revisionist history about SJDS” comes from out of nowhere to take the cake!

    1. I had that one saved up from last week. It ended up being even more appropriate this week with the return of Dale and Val.

      1. I feel like those people used to be (rightfully) pretty underground, but Josh Wiggler has really ignited the fire and they’ve really come out of the woodwork.

        1. Rob and Josh also tried to push the “South Pacific isn’t as bad as you remember it” narrative. Which is fine, as long as you’re acknowledging that it still sucks and can rank no higher than 25th.

          1. South Pacific is boring so I’d rather watch SJDS but the play is better. Basically if you are only rewatching 10 seasons there is no way one should be South Pacific. If you are rewatching 20 South Pacific probably shouldn’t be one.

      2. I find SJDS enjoyable because of the crazy post-merge BUT enjoyable and good are not the same thing. It would be a bottom 5 season without Natalie winning but it’s bottom third with her winning.

          1. OK, I meant directly in the context of Survivor. I think, moreso than most other shows, that what makes Survivor good for you is how enjoyable you find the experience. Whatever that enjoyment stems from. I don’t think there is a type of form of Survivor that is “better” than another type.

    2. I’m pretty positive on SJDS, but my opinion hasn’t changed since the season ended, basically. I think it’s silly to suggest because people are doing well from that season this time that the season needs to be reconsidered.

      Don’t like the between the lines trashing of Jon Misch that goes on though. But I’m used to it.

      1. My rewatch of SJDS made me pretty clear on my feelings for Jon Misch, he is a puppy, he’s sweet and energetic and not all that bright.

      2. That was my bigger point: nothing about this season should change any opinion (positive or negative) about SJDS. Especially since we’re talking about the fifth and ninth place finishers of that season.

    3. SJDS is pretty interesting in that, post-merge, I was never quite sure what was going to happen from week to week. No one was really playing a good game, and some people weren’t really playing at all, but at least it was unpredictable, which is more than I can say for bottom tier seasons like Redemption Island or South Pacific.

  6. I’d love to see John on another podcast with a sane co-host who wasn’t Abi-Maria-level defensive, Abi-Maria-level passive-aggressive, and Linbaugh-level convinced of the absolute, objective truth of all of their opinions and the stupidity of anyone who has the audacity to disagree with them.

Comments are closed.