Purple Rock Survivor Podcast: Kaoh Rong Episode 4 “Signed, Sealed and Delivered”

TV.com critic Cory Barker joins us to discuss the fourth episode of Survivor: Kaoh Rong so we can debate which is more fun, seeing players almost die or seeing players want to kill each other.

Purple Rock Survivor podcast: Kaoh Rong episode 4 “Signed, Sealed and Delivered”

Subscribe on iTunes
Subscribe on Stitcher

In this episode, we discuss:

  • Just how dangerous was that reward challenge? Was it irresponsible?
  • Was this truly the most dramatic medical evacuation ever?
  • What Caleb was like on Big Brother compared to what we saw on Survivor.
  • Which was more fun to watch, Caleb almost die or Jason and Scot fight with Alecia?
  • Was this bullying or justifiable?
  • What do we make of Jason’s edit?
  • What should Alecia have done once the inevitable was made clear?
  • Will Peter get his foreshadowed revenge?

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, @purplerockjohn, @purplerockandy), or email us at purplerockpodcast on gmail. Thanks for listening and/or watching!

Note on our Explicit rating: This is not a particularly explicit podcast, but we do have some in our archives that qualify and we are sometimes more lax in our editing (this one might have let one slip through). So to comply with iTunes, we’ve erred on the side of caution and put in that rating. However, we will always warn listeners if a particular podcast is actually explicit before it begins.

97 thoughts on “Purple Rock Survivor Podcast: Kaoh Rong Episode 4 “Signed, Sealed and Delivered”

  1. There will be no more in-game evacuations. Jeff said there were three evacuations, two of them happened after the person got voted out. One was Liz, so there is only one more medivac but it won’t impact the game because it happened after the vote-off.

      1. Literally exactly what it sounds like. I don’t it’s ever been dealt with before, but apparently, once Liz got to Ponderosa, it turned out she had a serious staph infection and they were like “yeah, you’re not going on the pre-jury trip, you’re going to a hospital.”

          1. PurpleRock posted it on Twitter. I saw the first photo and that was it. No more for me. For the record, serious staph infection is one of the things claimed about Osten in Pearl Islands. I’ve never been sympathetic, but if he had sores like that, I owe him an apology.

  2. America is wrong about the metric system with two exceptions. One is volumes for liquor bottles, where we use the metric system. The other is temperature. Marking a temperature scale by where water freezes and boils at sea level is a useless metric.

    1. I figured it out after several years of living overseas: 0=snow, 10=cold, 20=perfect, 30=hot, 40=unbearably hot (YMMV in Georgia).

      1. Yeah, but 40 degrees really is just not enough range to describe the temperatures people live in.

        1. That’s the advantage of F. 0-100 covers the normal range, and anything outside that is “holy shit, why the fuck does anyone live here?”.

          1. As a Californian, 0 C is the low end of the survivable range as far as I’m concerned.

        2. You really need to have a more defined difference than 16 C and 17 C? (61-63 F) You can’t tell the difference between those two temperatures, I don’t see how more specificity is useful at all.

          1. If you make it about a 1 point change obviously it’s not going to matter. The more you increase the difference, the more useful it gets.

            But the larger point is that the idea that Celsius is more precise makes no sense. The marking points for the Celsius scale are completely arbitrary, and the illusion of logic only exists because it’s part of a system where the rest of the units are logical.

          2. I don’t follow your logic. Is Farenheit any less arbitrary? Are metres? Are feet? All units of measurement are arbitrary, the annoying thing is it would be handy if everyone used the same ones. I imagine there’s been deaths caused by unit conversion error somewhere.

          3. Didn’t a Mars probe crash a few years ago because someone forgot to convert?

          4. They’re all arbitrary, but some follow a better internal logic. F uses notoriously variable points for calibration (freezing point of seawater and human body temperature). C uses better defined calibration. Although, now I’m sure they’ve both been carefully and precisely calibrated to something insane, but that is at least objective and non-variable. They both have arbitrary zeroes because absolute zero is the only non-arbitrary one. Generally, I like metric because base 10 is more convenient for scientific work.

          1. Wait, 48 degrees?!? How does that not just kill a person instantly?!? I’m even more angry now that I was then.

            I don’t think I’ve ever experienced anything hotter than 35.

          2. I’ve been in France in 50c and it’s fucking brutal. We mainly just stayed inside and drank a fucking tonne of water.

          3. Which was a point I made: people typically aren’t forced to be out in the sun when it’s that hot.

          4. Maybe it was 40C, it was that summer in 2003, that huge heatwave summer where people were dying all over Europe. I think it was like the hottest day of all. I was like 15 so I may have exaggerating in my mind. But if 40+ is hot enough that 70,000 people died across Europe 50C is way way to hot for people to be on sand.

          5. 50c never happens in Europe that’s why i commented. Its just not a temperature we reach. Even at the worst of the heatwave of 2003 we had like 40/43 max in france, and 46 in one place in the South of Spain. Because you don’t use celsius you don’t realize how ridiulous it is to ear for someone who does that it was 50 degrés in france. 🙂

            Still plenty hot, you still can’t do anything in this weather but stay home and drink.

            But to reach 50 c you have to go in desertic places with minimal oceanic influences. Like the Sahara or Death Valley. And that’s gonna be a all-time hot.

    2. It really has to do with resolution. A degree C is about double a degree F. But, as a species, we are able to feel temperature at a resolution that is more in line with F. For all those who defend Celsius as making so much more sense, I’m a scientist, and I would argue that any temperature scale that doesn’t have absolute zero as its zero point is utterly arbitrary. So I’m going to enjoy this 276 K evening in Massachusetts, and fuck all of your random, senseless, temperature scales.

      1. The difference between temperature and other metric conversions is the the zero points don’t mean the same thing, so there’s no simple conversion (kg = 2.2lb, mile = 1.54km etc.) C and F converge at -40, which is useless below the Arctic Circle.

    3. English measurements make NO f’ing sense. That being said, I can’t convert in my head to save my life, and I as a math minor….

    4. The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that’s the way I likes it.

      But seriously America, change to metric. You are only 1 of 5 countries that don’t use it. You’re really gonna stick with Liberia and Burma?

      1. It’s great, the UK is metric except in all the things we aren’t like Pints of Beer, Acres, Hands to measure horses, inches, yards, miles.

        1. For all of Canada’s talk about being metric, we still use gallons when buying gas even though the pumps also have the liter amount listed. And the average Canadian probably uses feet and inches when describing their height.

  3. Hey that was me who was predicting a merge instead of a swap. Point taken about why a merge at 13 is different this season than last (next?), but I think you kind of whistled past the problems with a 7-6 swap. Plus I still can’t figure out why they didn’t do the swap after Caleb’s evac. It was a little unseemly putting them through another physically demanding challenge, and the outcomes ranged from forgone at best (Alecia, Peter) to cruel at worst (forcing Beauty to lose another member so soon).

    1. Genuine question- what IS the problem with a 7-6 swap? Just the assymetry and people sitting out of challenges? I mean, a 7-7 swap generally leads to a 7-6 tribe distribution an episode later without causing major issues.

      1. Well, yeah, exactly. Maybe its not the biggest handicap in the world, but the 6-person tribe has effectively lost a challenge and gone to tribal once right out of the gate. Plus the dynamics of a 7-person tribe and a 6-person tribe are so different (particularly heading into tribal). Not to mention, they deprived us of seeing Alecia try to save her game (watching her blab to her new tribemates about Jason’s idol and how awful he and Scot were to her would have been so much more entertaining than the perfunctory boot we got).

        1. I don’t think it’s a crazy theory. I just don’t think they’d do it. Although, I might not have thought they’d do it last season either.

          1. I agree with you guys: Merging at 13 is fine with all returnees, but not with newbies, some of whom are still invisible. My prediction was more based on seeing downside (and zero upside) to swapping at 13 rather than 14.

        2. there is one way they could do a 7-6 swap, they could have one person pick the tribes and then has to go to the losing tribe. i think they did something similar in… Panama

          1. Yeah, except it was a schoolyard pick. Bruce didn’t get picked, so he went to Exile and would join the tribe that lost the next challenge.

            They did the same thing at the start of Fiji, except the method was beforehand Jeff asked who the leader was, and, when the consensus was Sylvia, she got sent to Exile by default.

            The problem is that Exile doesn’t exist this season, so they have to figure out something else to do.

          2. They won’t be using the Ankor beach after the swap.

            I didn’t know that about Fiji (haven’t seen it). That’s a really good solution to the inherent handicap of being sidelined for 3 days (even if you don’t develop near-fatal constipation).

          3. oh right maybe i was thinking of fiji. But you don’t have to do exile, its just the picking person sits out the challenge and goes to the losing side.

          4. Because you’d have to have that player somewhere during the challenge I think options are limited on how to do that without exile. I see this working two different ways, One of which I like and one of which I don’t. Did you see another way to run it?

            1.) You do a pick, run a challenge, and go to tribal in immediate succession, with the non-picked player waiting on the sidelines/jury bench the whole time. I think this is something that might work with returning players, but I’m not sure how stoked I am about doing it with new players.

            2.) Do the pick, run the challenge with the non-picked player sitting out, then send the non-picked person back to camp with the losers to figure out who’s going to get voted off. Maybe they get rid of that person. Maybe something insane happens. Either way, this option intrigues me.

    2. They should do a double-elimination next week and do the swap after the first tribal. Doing a swap into two tribes where one tribe has an extra member just feels wrong.

      They really should have done a swap before the immunity challenge this past week to really shake things up.

      Or (puts tin-foil hat on) they should have sent Brawn to tribal after the first challenge this week because we all know that was a reward/immunity challenge and they changed it in post-production! Come on, no one plays that hard for just salt and pepper! And on Caleb’s RHAP exit interview he kept saying that he was playing for immunity. Wake up, sheeple!!!

  4. On the Kyle being nice to Cydney thing – Nothing about it is out of line with the sort of misogynist he’s portrayed as being. When a woman is weak, he can feel for her, but when she stands up for herself, he behaves like a toddler. Yes it’s irrational, but all bigots are irrational.

    1. Kylon is in my zero percent club, and I don’t like him, but I don’t know exactly what kind of bully he is yet. Cydney has always seemed to like him and Jenny was only annoyed by the way he treated Alecia. He’s a giant piece of shit (Russell is the G.O.A.T.!!!), but I’m still working out the details. Bigotry seems like a good bet.

  5. Are you all arguing that Neal is getting a Max Dawson edit? They are both Eccentric guys who are slightly invisible but slightly perceived to be threats.

    I have a weird hunch that Debbie is going soon-ish because they like showing the clip where she says that she is the mastermind. They even included it in the NTOS montage. Swaps can make self-proclaimed masterminds implode quickly.

    1. I’d say that Max had a bigger edit than Neal has at this point. Which is a bad look for Neal.

    2. The Max edit is more like what Jeff Varner got – early boot who doesn’t really affect the season but is feeding production too much material for them not to use it. There was a whole episode where the narrative was about shifting the target off of Neal, and he still got next to no airtime.

      1. Yeah, that is why they are getting a similar edit to Beauty in Cagayan. My only issue is that I feel like the characters in Cagayan were more clearly defined at this point. We only really know a lot about Debbie, Tai, and Jason at this point, whereas in Cagayan, we had an idea of who Morgan, Tony, Kass, Spencer, and Tasha were as people. The editing in the regard seems odd.

  6. To defend myself on the Scot thing, I didn’t see the twitter responses and stuff like that before I posted my defense. My argument basically boils down to you can’t judge people as people by how they act on a reality show in ridiculously stressful and unrealistic conditions.* How they present themselves in social media is more fair game for sure.

    *Except Ben Browning. Screw that guy.

    1. You make a point worth remembering: we’re seeing a highly edited presentation of a group of people selected for their ability to “pop” on camera, subjected to conditions that are likely to bring out the worst in them. its easy to overlook that. But the that doesn’t mean anything behavior can be excused.

    2. Rule of thumb: I rarely, if ever, rant about the opinions expressed here. You are all very reasonable.

      If I do, I generally will refer to the person or at least that it came from our site.

  7. I’m kind of hoping one of these seasons production shakes things up and randomly decides to give some pre-merge boots a jury spot.

      1. Ohhhh yeah. I guess I was thinking more of a scenario where it would be known in advance that the jury would include, let’s say two randomly picked people booted from the first 15 days of the game and the remaining players wouldn’t know which ones until the jury started.

        1. If you listened to our preview podcast, at the very end we discussed a change to the jury system that actually will happen. It was/is a spoiler in that it reveals a twist of this season, though.

          1. Don’t worry, I was on the podcast and I also missed that part. Because John is misremembering his conversations again.

          2. I do not like that twist, it is bullshit. I’d rather be on the pre-jury trip than have that happen.

  8. I would like to say that as someone who was OBSESSED with “Full House” when it was originally on TV (It was my favorite show ever, I was right about Stephanie’s age for it’s run), I have ZERO desire to watch “Fuller House”. It looks painfully awful. I don’t have Netflix and this damn well isn’t going to be the reason I get it.

    Gilmore Girls, however? I may just get Netflix for that. Because I <3 that show. I will watch ANYTHING Amy-Sherman Palladino writes (Long Live "Bunheads")

    P.S. It's "Cut it out", not "Cut that out". Sheesh. It's like you didn't grow up in the 80's… or had decent taste in TV.

    1. Yeah, I was really looking forward to the X-Files revival, DVRd the whole thing, but somehow never had time to start it (even as I caught up on old seasons of Survivor I missed), and ended up deleting it a couple days ago. It wasn’t the mixed reviews, it was the realization that I’ve simply watched more than one lifetime’s worth of X-FIles (and I watched seasons 8-9 extremely sporadically).

      The next all-returnees season should bring back one particular season’s cast intact. Even better, make it the Heroes vs. Villains cast.

      1. Yeah, my husband was big on X-Files in the 90’s, but he had zero interest in watching the reboot. Although, if they had rebooted Babylon 5, he would be waiting with the popcorn….

      2. The issue with redoing a whole season is there’s always going to be a hold out who wouldn’t want to come back. So, with HvV, I’m pretty sure Tom has health reasons preventing it.

        Unless you want to redo Worlds Apart. I bet they’re all available. Very available.

          1. Before I can start listening to your latest episode I have to get a crazy longshot suggestion off my chest, that could help to further alienate your non-basketball-loving audience. Are you interested at all? Anyway, I assume you guys know that the podcasting-artists formerly known as The Basketball Jones are doing an NBA-TV show now (The Starters), but they’re also still doing a weekly audio-only podcast. For four weeks now, there is a tiny podcast within that podcast (which half of them show open disdain to), called The Merge, where they follow Scott Pollard’s path through the show.
            Since you had a guest on last week, I thought it would be not totally outlandish to think that, brought to your attention, you might want to try and make something out of that fact. A cooperation just seems like a natural fit, and one or two from the half more enthusiastic about this season even seem to know their Survivor. Maybe you could get one of them, if you want.
            Two big ifs, but I’d love it too much not to bring it up. Let me know if you have any questions(not concerning my sanity)!

          2. Oh, we are well aware of The Starters. Are you suggesting should reach out to see if Taco Trey will come on our podcast? Maybe Andy could try to relate to them over shared Canadian-ness?

          3. See, so many overlaps! And yes, I was thinking maybe you could try to get one of them for an episode when Scot does something interesting or gets voted out. I’m actually not sure that Trey was participating in the Survivor-Talk at all, but Skeets, JD and Matty-O were, I’m quite positive.

            I will attempt to identify who’s watching and to what degree on their latest podcast.

        1. I feel like San Juan Del Sur would work, and be interesting with a new view on Kelley Wentworth and Jeremy, but I mean…that cast.

        2. I’d watch it as a season built around Jenn’s apparent hatred for Tyler would be awesome.

      3. I’d also nominate a cast v cast scenario of you can’t get a full cast, try for Micronesia v Caramoan (FvF v FvF) or SJDS v World’s Apart.

          1. Shamar, Reichenbach, Eddie, Reynolds and Malcolm/Andrea, Corrine, Sherri, Julia Landauer and Francesca vs Penner, Joel, Mikey B, Siska and Ozzy/Alexis, Natalie Bolton, Tracey, Ami Cusack and Eliza.

      1. Sutton Foster is a national treasure. I saw her live in “Anything Goes” (with Joel Gray, and Kelly Bishop, actually) She sang the title song, tap danced for like 4 minutes straight, and belted a high note at the end like it was nobody’s business. We were in the second to last row in the theater and my jaw was on the floor.

        And Bunheads was SOOOOO good. I wonder if it would have done better if it:
        a) had a better title
        b) was on a streaming service instead of cable tv (I can’t imagine “Mozart in the Jungle”, for example, would have been successful on traditional media )

        1. I just realized that you’re the target market for Mozart in the Jungle. (I watched 2 or 3 of them and realized I’m not the target market.)

          1. 100% the target market, except that I’m enough of an amateur classical musician to know how much of it is ridiculous as hell. I enjoyed the first season in a guilty-pleasure kind of way but never got around to watching the second. I kept saying “Oh, I should watch that…” and never did.

          2. You should give it a shot- the second season is MUCh better than the first. Steers into the unabashedly goofy parts of the show that work, steers away from expecting us to actually care about Hie-Lie.

        2. I tell people in like only 16 episodes it was the tv show that had the most realistic representation of female friendship I’ve seen in forever. The Michelle/Talia friendship was so realistic it was amazing.

  9. I had a really interesting epiphany that hit me after listening to your podcast. The two reasons why we got Shirin’s story was to set up Mike’s underdog edit and to set up her FTC speech. I then started to flashforward and came to a similar realization about Stephen’s edit. We got so much of him because it sets up Jeremy’s winner story as well as the fact that he had the vampire vote. I wonder if this is a new style of modern editing: the big “character” who actually feeds into the winner’s edit.

    1. I think you are right, especially in regard to the Will incident but I think another reason we got Shirin’s story is because the producers love growth arcs as generally they are easy to sell to the audience and make interesting drama/underdogs. Going from being annoying and watching/reenacting monkey sex to relating her past and become in-game friends with Jenn, Hali and Mike is a journey that the producers might have included even if Mike lost as Dan and Will were probably never going to win so making them look bad doesn’t affect the winner’s edit.

      However, I do agree that final speeches like Shirin’s and Tina’s answer to Jerri’s question in Australia, which mentions the beef jerky incident do affect how people/events are edited and that non-winners are used to prop up the winner, especially if they can give effective confessionals.

      1. Good point. I still think that the best edited story to FTC question has to be the Sue/Kelly relationship in Borneo. If we didn’t have one element of their story, Sue’s speech comes off as being even harsher than it is, but we didn’t and Sue’s anger makes absolute sense.

Comments are closed.