The ones biting him looked like CGI to me, but I could be wrong.

As for his being a hoarder of venomous snakes, I'd say that he probably is… they first showed his snake pit back in Season 1. If nothing else, he's definitely an enthusiast ;)

60% of the time, it works every time.

Der Hubbahubbahaus.

I was born in Baltimore and I approve this message.

That I totally agree with. The question was simply about shows that killed off the main character on purpose. I think that fits.
I think Vikings will suffer with the loss of Ragnar, but I'll be honest, I didn't really enjoy his storyline with the Asian slave woman whose name I can't remember right now, and continued…

Fair point, but at that point in the series we were following Ned's story. All the other stories in Westeros at the time were extensions of his story. There was absolutely enough time to get attached to him. He was the main part of ALL the marketing material, and that key visual of him on the Iron Throne still pops up…

Sean Bean was THE main character on GoT until he was offed. That's all that springs to mind at the moment.

Sounds like a Harry Potter title

Right now that is definitely the case. Movie studios won't let directors be creative anymore because there's such pressure for mass-market films that do well at the box office. That's why we don't see many mid-budget films anymore (Deadpool was a rare exception). TV (and Netflix/Amazon originals) can cater to niche…

I binged the entire season over a week after it finished airing, knowing absolutely nothing about it, and am coming back to read these episode reviews after finishing. I figured some of the plot points out shortly before the reveal (e.g. that Bernard was a Host), but theories like William=MiB and multiple-timelines…

Oh no, I don't equate them. It was just the way this sentence was worded that made me wince lol:
The fact that he could be that crazy of a liar and not get voted off *and* also win made him good TV for me.

That in and of itself would kind of be an awesome twist. Players would be strategising around twists that would never come (e.g. splitting votes, hunting all over the island for idols). It would make Survivor feel like it used to - where anything could happen, and nothing was guaranteed. Like the time they did the…

Though I would add that the "villains" and the Japanese Trade Minister are much more compelling than the series leads, who are a bit bland. But they're so good that it makes up for it imho.

Exactly. I personally think it's a good enough premise and executes it well enough that it makes up for any small stumbles. And it's VERY bingeable, which does seem to be a marker of quality these days, to be fair. If a show makes me want another episode immediately after the one I just watched, right from episode 1,…

That's a pretty awesome idea, actually. I'd watch that :)

I've been enjoying it so far. And as noted in the review, it's a much more chilling watch this season.

I'd love to see that. Or someone revealing at FTC that their entire persona was an act. Can you imagine if Philip came out and said that his whole Federal Agent crazypants persona was completely fake and duped every single player out there? That would be amazing.

They did not NEARLY blow up that spot enough. She was like, "No, Figtails is no more, it didn't work outside of the game and I wish I'd relied more on myself instead" and then Jeff was all "Hey Taylor, you're a new dad, so congratulations are in order." Not "So yeah no, we're not together anymore because he had a…

Hey, they already did that in Cambodia ;)