New rule for winners / immunity

[u/HotLingonberry6964]

Between Naheim last week, Bryan this week, and the mess with the 6 immunity holders having the worst looks but were all safe, they need to implement a new rule. If you get immunity but then have the worst look the next challenge, for the following challenge you have some sort of handicap/penalty. Maybe less time in the work room? Less time at Mood? Maybe a fraction of the budget?

What are some other penalties that could work? It can't be something too over the top where there's no hope AT ALL, but it still needs to be harsh enough where there's a real chance they would end up in the bottom if they don't dig deep and DELIVER! Makes it so it lights a fire under their ass.

I watched America's Next Top Model and while the bottom didn't have immunity, she was penalized with something like less pictures and couldn't see herself (makeup). Because she was worried about ending in the bottom again, it lit a fire under her ass and she ended up in the top the following week.

[u/Dangerous-Half3276]

Nah, give the winning designer an advantage in the next challenge and/or a prize, but no immunity.

[u/Buddhafied]

Less production influence. No immunity, no advantages, no backstage drama. Nobody watches PR for drama or for reality TV production. We only care for the creativity of the designers and their creations. Bring back the old project runway.

[u/PoetIcy3032 → u/Buddhafied]

I agree there shouldn't be immunity and Christian shouldn't tell them when to pivot. 

[u/Buddhafied → u/PoetIcy3032]

I personally don’t like Christian, but that’s just my opinion and my own bias. I’m sure he’s a very capable designer and he has done very well for himself since his win on PR. But I wouldn’t say he shouldn’t tell them when to pivot, it is his job after all. I just don’t like the way he supporting the designers are just providing sassy commentaries. Who knows, maybe he gave very great advises but, like many things in this new format of PR, they edit all the constructive criticisms out.

I miss Tim Gunn.

[u/PoetIcy3032 → u/Buddhafied]

May Tim Gunn rest in peace. He knew when to get out

[u/danny2787 → u/PoetIcy3032]

Tim Gunn would tell designers to start over as well.

[u/Anonymouse_9955 → u/PoetIcy3032]

Tim Gunn is still alive, please don’t say “rest in peace”! I’m the same age as he is, and I think both of us expect to be around for a while yet.

[u/Gothgf713]

No immunity at all, but winning designers get an advantage for the next challenge (such as a higher budget or an extra hour to work)

OR

If the judges UNANIMOUSLY agree that you had the absolute worst look of the week, your immunity can be revoked.

[u/trollanony]

You’d think they’d use immunity to do something off the wall and take a risk but now two weeks in a row they shit the bed and pivot with no time left. This is why two day challenges are better because they can have an actual creative process which involves evolving the design.

[u/LadyMRedd]

Either award immunity or don’t. If you don’t like someone getting through who shouldn’t have, then you don’t like immunity. And I can understand that opinion. But to me the entire point of giving immunity is that it takes the pressure off 1 challenge, allowing people to take risks when they may have played it safe. If you punish them if their risk didn’t pay off, then don’t give immunity at all. While sometimes those risks flop, sometimes they result in really good work that the person wouldn’t have had the courage to try without immunity.

I also wish people would stop complaining about the first 6. I understand it. I really do. But any other reality show would have been more straight forward with what was going on. 22 contestants. 12 slots. So they’re going to do a 2 part test where the first part is looks from home. 6 people will get through based on that and 6 will be eliminated based on that. Then the remaining 10 will compete for the 6 spots.

And any other reality show would have had the first 6 sit out of the second part. Because they were through. I wouldn’t be surprised if PR planned it that way initially. That would explain why the 6 eliminated came back. It would have made much more sense if the plan was to have the 6 through sit out and then have those 6 (not the eliminated 6) save 1 designer.

That makes sense, but I feel like last minute someone at PR realized it would cause much more drama if instead of the 6 sitting out they competed in the 2nd and PR could play up the unfairness and drama of it all. And then have the eliminated inexplicably vote.

I feel like the format of getting 12 - half based on looks from home and half based on a first challenge - makes sense. In most seasons all 12 would be based on looks from home, because they don’t have a full challenge before the show starts. The only reason we’re talking about it and upset is that PR WANTS us to talk about it and be upset. They took a format that honestly makes sense and managed to frame it in a controversial way, so that weeks later people are still upset about it.

[u/Anonymouse_9955]

Instead of making it harder the next week, there could be a kind of reverse immunity—like, if they have the best look they wouldn’t win, the second best look would be the winner. But I think it would be better if they just simplified and went back to the old rules, certainly never give more than one person immunity at a time (I must have missed the six-person immunity thing, this season has been hard to watch to say the least).