Admittedly, I didn't watch Season One until late in the game (Postal Challenge). I finally watched that entire season on a snowy weekend in the middle of Season Two. Looking back, I found myself intrigued by the use of immunity so often in the competition that first season and so very little this year. I've got my own ideas how immunity could be used (and Team BPR spoke to Tim Gunn about immunity at 'The Blog Producers' Meeting'). But I want to know what you think about immunity ... is it a good thing or a bad? Do you see ways to use immunity to make the competition better? Do tell us!
You share your ideas and I'll share mine.
12 comments:
The great thing about immunity is that it causes the designers to try harder to win! There is generally less mediocrity.
Of course you can almost predict that the following week the judges will say, "Well it's a good thing that you have immunity because without it, you would be off this week!"
Immunity is only good in a competition where there are teams. If the challenges are between individuals, immunity is not a fair prize.
I like the idea of immunity being used sparingly. I think though if they're going to hand out immunity, they really shouldn't wait until so late in the season where it can so drastically tip the final results.
The great thing about PR is that it really is a merit based competition and it is judged throughout by experts in the field. No audience voting so no pandering to the lowest common denominator. I think some contestants may have made it further in the competition than they would have due to immunity but I'd hate to see someone mediocre kept on while someone better got eliminated because they didn't have immunity. I say use it VERY sparingly and I agree that it should only be used early in the competition. I hate Survivor and all the other "reality" shows because the winners come down to whomever the producers showcase or whomever appeals to the most of America. Who wants to see fashion designed by middle America? If I want to see that I'll check out the Kathie Lee collection at Wal-Mart. Stick to what makes this show so good and what the critics all tout as it's best feature; honest, real judging. Immunity would make it seem more like a game of chance. I'd rather see the judging be more consistent (I thought it was somewhat inconsistent this year) and I'd like to get rid of the uneasy feeling that the producers may occasionally intervene even though Tim and Nina and Michael swear they don't.
I really, really don't like the use of immunity. It's really the only reason La Peppper made it to the final three in Season 1.
I have mixed feelings about immunity. It does allow designers that should have failed a challenge to coast on through.
On the other hand, right now there is no reward for taking risks and trying to win a challenge. In fact, it's in your best interest NOT to take that risk - because it means you might lose. And until the final three, winning doesn't matter - not losing matters.
A lot of the judges' comments were about designers playing it safe. Well, that's because it was set up so playing it safe was the best strategy. Immunity is one way to make risk taking a more attractive strategy.
Marcia.
immunity is great as a motivator for the designers to take risks and not play it safe like we saw so many times in season 2 (borring)...but it seems like many times immunity bites the judges in the ass the next week as the winner has little motivation ro really listen to what the judges say cause they know theyre safe (even santino said he wanted immunity so he cud send out some outrageous piec)...so how do you motivate designers without another wendy pepper situation or even with daniel this year? up to the producers, although maybe a better incentive to take risks and try to win challenges wud be like extra money for the net piece or something fun like on ANTP where they get to go shopping or to a party
While occasional immunity would be OK, I like the idea of having something other than immunity as a prize for winning. It gives them incentive but doesn't affect the outcome of the next challenge. I agree that it's tempting for some designers to just make it through to the next round, so they don't take risks.
The prizes could be related to more time/money next time, dinner at a local restaurant, a meeting with an established designer, a gift certificate at Mood (not for use on a challenge), etc.
Love this site! I'm a frequent lurker. Just wanted to comment on a comment. I didn't like all of the time spent on model selection during Season One. The time spent on Jay's irresponsible model was especially grating.
As for immunity, I'm not crazy about it. If it's used, I think it should only be for teams and in the early stages of the season.
Thanks for such a wonderful site for all things "Runway".
I thought immunity was a bit too copycat and best left to the likes of Survivor or Apprentice. If immunity appears in Season 3, I'd rather let the immune designer and model have a day off.
immunity is a great reward, but so is having a barbie with your designs...
As long as the reward matches the challenge and the judging is consistant, immunity really is just a bonus to me.
I think immunity can make each designers work harder, but that also might be group dynamics.. having some one like Jay and Kara-saun in the work room might push me to be more creative too! where as Santino was always criticized for his pushing limits. Even Guadalupe's creative designs were not encourages.. in my opinion.. I blame lack of creativity on the designers and the judging..
not the rewards.
aka. asiangirl
Immunity was a pass...not a challenge. I saw nothing good come of it. The designer loses momentum. I still would like the challenges make them dig deeper...Bananna Republic??? Give me a break.
Post a Comment