Purple Rock Survivor Podcast: Cambodia Episode 4 “What’s the Beef?”

We say a sad goodbye to Jeff Varner in the fourth episode of Survivor: Cambodia while saying hello to our special guest, Cory Barker from TV.com and Complex Pop Culture.

Purple Rock Survivor podcast: Cambodia episode 4 “What’s the Beef?”

Subscribe on iTunes
Subscribe on Stitcher

In this episode, we discuss:

  • What is a respectable TV critic appearing on a Survivor podcast?
  • How the loss of Jeff Varner from our lives affects us personally.
  • If we should be giving Abi-Maria more credit
  • Where Jeff Varner ranks among the all-time best narrators in the history of the show
  • If new Kass is robbing us of our desired Kass experience
  • What a neutral observer thinks in our ongoing us-against-the-world stance on Andrew Savage
  • If Survivor has irreparably screwed up the tribe expansion
  • What would have happened if a woman would have volunteered to do the hero challenge?

You can follow Cory on Twitter @corybarker or find his podcast, Totally Tubular, on iTunes.

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!

23 thoughts on “Purple Rock Survivor Podcast: Cambodia Episode 4 “What’s the Beef?”

      1. In a sense, losing interest was in fact a very concise form of commentary. Sorta like a mic drop but with more ennui.

    1. Great narrator for me. No one had captured the narcissism and pure sublime ridiculousness of Survivor and then we had Jeno.

    1. Yup. It’s possible, just maybe, that Varner is being unfair to the people responsible for his downfall.

  1. For the record, Kelly Wiglesworth wasn’t on 100% of the ballots because it seemed really obvious from her pregame that this was going to happen.

    1. That’s a good point. She may have been on 100% for the first few days until people heard/read her interviews.

  2. So I went back and looked at all the previous seasons with 20 players. (Palau was really a season of 18 despite nominally starting with 20, so I didn’t include it here.) Here’s some data:

    NE = total number of actual (non-recap) episodes
    F = number of players remaining going into last episode
    DE = episode numbers where two players went home (e = evacuated, q = quit)

    Season NE F DE
    Cook Islands 14 5 6, 10
    Micronesia 14 4 6e, 7q, 12e
    Samoa 14 5 2e, 13
    Heroes vs. Villains 14 5 6, 12
    Nicaragua 14 5 6, 12q
    Caramoan 14 5 4e, 12
    Blood vs. Water 14 5 3q, 9

    The general trend seems to be that you have 14 episodes leading into a final 5 in the last episode, which leaves room for two double elimination episodes. When not forced by an evacuation or quit, production seems to like to stage the first one at episode 6 and the second one in the vicinity of episode 12. Since next week is Cambodia episode 5, I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that it’s not a double elimination. But they could certainly surprise everyone and change it up.

    1. that is good data, but I would argue that the three tribe format alters the equation just enough that it will come next week at episode 5 (which is only one episode off). A double boot in episode 6 would be very odd because it would mean a remerge to two tribes with an unequal number

    2. I love the investigative work her. I think a reason they might switch it up would just be to save us the drudgery of watching Angkor deplete for two more episodes. Or at least that’s my hope.

      1. I wonder how much of this is predetermined and to what degree they can call an audible. Obviously they have to have a fair amount of flexibility built in because they have to be able to cancel a planned double boot if there’s a quit or evacuation. But to what extent will they mess with the schedule for purely game reasons? On one hand there’s Ulong where everybody assumed they’d jigger with the merge but they didn’t. On the other hand, I think everyone agrees that they did a disservice to Angkor and they should recognize the need to course correct.

        Another thing I noticed was that there is far less consistency about when the merge happens than I seemed to remember. In past seasons with 20 players, the merge has variously occurred with 9 players (Cook Islands), 10 (Micronesia, HvV), 11 (BvW), and 12 (Samoa, Nicaragua, Caramoan.) The BvW 11 is effectively a merge at 12 for the purposes of pacing because the eventual returnee adds an extra boot, but it does show that a merge with an odd number is not necessarily a total outlier. 12 certainly seems like the modern standard, and if that’s what they’re going with then you’re probably right — a double elimination now puts it down to 14, giving two episodes for a reshuffling to simmer until a merge at 12.

        1. HvV is almost certainly a case of production planning a 12 person merge and then pushing it back when it looked like the Heroes could rally and tie the numbers up. In addition to the fact that you have pre-merge boots on the jury for the first time since Cook Islands, of the challenge they run in that two episode stretch- one is a challenge that’s only otherwise been run individually, one could easily be an individual challenge run in heats, and one is the return of freaking Survivor bowling.

          If I had to guess, in Cook Islands and Micronesia the were tinkering with the formula, but Samoa they knew 12 person merge, 9 member jury was what worked, and HvV just represents them calling an audible for dramatic purposes.

    1. Yes. And I thank LeBron profusely for his four years of mercenary work. I actually went to an ECF game against the Pacers. It was an awesome series. If only I’d been there in person for Ray Allen’s clutch shot in the Finals.

      1. Well, good for you and I’m happy, albeit a little bit envious that you had that experience of being in the arena and cheering for your team on it’s way to the title (or did you mean you’ve been last year? Anyway, I’d still be happy fy and envious). Then again, seeing how I almost died of suspense in front of my computer in 2011, having that little ocean to keep me from attending playoff-games might be just right.

        1. I only did regular season games the year of their first championship, then went to the ECF the year of the second title.

          But that Ray Allen shot still gives me chills. I actually jumped up out of my seat while watching at home. I’m fine with the Spurs winning the next season, because they each deserved a title.

          1. Believe me, anybody observing me watching Dallas’ playoff-games on a 14,1″ TFT screen, especially during that ’11 run, would have looked at a crazy person.

            But I have to relate the bulk of my response to the part where you implied that you count 2012 as the Heat’s first title year and disregarded whatever happened in ’06. I’m right there with you but it surprised me a little bit hearing that from you. It was probably just an honest mistake, but I won’t hear you if you’re trying to tell me that:
            2006 shall forever be the year Dirk righteously claimed the first Larry-O’Brien-trophy for his Mavs, although it’s hardly ever referenced due to the unusual circumstances which led to that finals-series being cut short after just two games.

            I can’t begin to tell you how happy I am that I found a Heat fan that shares this sentiment/ way of memorizing.(nananana_istillcanthearyou_nanana)

            We’re best friends now. Here’s to a great season!

          2. Look, we split 2 trophies. You can debate which of the two your team deserved more, but we each got one.

            (Shhh, if you listen closely you can still hear the refs giving Wade all the calls…)

      1. While that is objectively correct, for me a Wade-loyalist is even harder to stomach than a Lebron-bandwagoner. But I’m going to try and and stay civil.

        Nice WARP-reference btw!

Comments are closed.