An interesting argument that was made during the original Survivor All Stars was made by Jenna Lewis when she exclaimed that previous winners Tina and Ethan should be voted out first from their tribe due to the fact that they won previously and thus shouldnt be "allowed" a chance to win again.
When Survivor Heroes VS. Villains began, we were reminded of this line of thinking when Tom and JT decided to form a loose alliance based on the fact that they "needed each other" due to them both being previous winners and would need to try and get to the end of the game together so that the jury would have no choice but to name one of them the a two-time champ.
The question I have here is "Why doesnt a previous winner deserve to win again?" Why is there this line of thought out there amongst the players that a former winner will have an exponentially difficult time winning again? Or that they dont deserve another million bucks? My opinion is that if a previous winner played another great game, than why shouldn't he or she be given another million dollars???? If JT, Tom, Parvati, or Sandra get to the end of the game again, than I believe they stand a great chance to getting another million dollars and are just as deserving as anyone.
What do you all think? What is your opinion on this issue??
No comments:
Post a Comment