Saturday, April 22, 2006

More on Immunity

When we spoke to Tim Gunn back in March, the issue of immunity came up. He mentioned that he believed immunity gave the designers the incentive to move away from, 'just good enough.' This discussion stemmed from the assertion of some (I know you've read it in comments here and on message boards) that the Season One designers were more talented than Season Two. I had thought that good designers should produce good designs and that they wouldn't need motivation to take risks.

Prior to hearing Tim Gunn's take on immunity, I was altogether against it. I had thought that designers from Season One had advanced further than they should because of immunity. But, it is important to remember that Wendy, for example, never had immunity. She won the Banana Republic challenge and the Nancy O'Dell challenge ... both of them being reward challenges ... and she was thrilled to have done that. It is also important to remember that Jay failed to win a single challenge and thus never had immunity and yet was able to win Season One.

Click here to continue.


OurBoyDaniel said...

So is there really that big a difference between what it takes to win week to week, and what it takes to win the big show? Week to week is a survival game with standards and stipulations that vary depending on the nature of the challenge, and then evidently the rules change for the final challenge. Since it's not the same game at the end, maybe it doesn't matter how you get there -- immunity or none.

Anonymous said...

Immunity is just a pass & I've seen nothing come of it. Better challenges to, maybe, designer houses where they have to dig deep.