Russell, especially in Heroes vs. Villains, did all he could to actively make every jury member hate his guts as much as humanly possible every single second of the game. He didn't self-destruct in the 11th hour, he was a walking explosion.
Survivor 26: Caramoan |OT| Fans (Recruits) vs. Favorites (Crazy People)
- Thread starter 789shadow
- Start date
- Status
matthewwhatever
Member
Exactly. Rob may have pissed off Lex (and Tom, too --I'd forgotten that, but during Final TC at All-Stars, Tom was livid at Rob), and thrown Grant under the bus, but that was the definition of his whole "Robfather" schtick. He obviously refined it more the more he was on the show, but from All-Stars on, I don't think he ever tried to hide the fact he wanted total control, and he didn't care if he had to get rid of disposable people along the way.
By contrast, if you're like Dawn and your whole game seems to be about building personal relationships with people...if the people end up feeling used, then that's your game up in smoke. And as we saw, she made it worse at Final TC by trying to have it both ways -- on one hand, she said she was trying to build personal relationships, but on the other, she implied that she'd only built the relationships to help her win. Not very sound strategy.
I was just loving how delusional Sherri was going in to final tribal. Like, she genuinely thought she had a chance of winning. It was pretty hilarious to watch her completely fail with her opening speech. Basically as soon as Eddie went home they may as well have cut Cochran the cheque, it was game over at that point.
Yep. Most clueless player in Survivor history, Russell has no idea how to actually win the game.
Incendiary
Banned
The Funny 115 Write-Up does the best job of explaining why Russell was a terrible terrible terrible player, and it wasn't just the Jury phase that he screwed up at.
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
Alicia was also really bitter towards Rob. I think it's important to note, with regards to the Lex situation and all of that, that All Stars was new ground (something I recall being discussed on RHAP a couple of times). No one had ever played Survivor with people they had preexisting relationships with before, and there were a lot of beliefs of how that would play out in the game. People were bitter towards Rob (chiefly Lex and Alicia) because they felt like Rob had used their friendships and tossed them aside for game purposes. With later returning players seasons, the expectation that your existing relationships didn't really mean anything already existed, so Parvati and Cochran didn't really have to face the same bitterness from people.
matthewwhatever
Member
I liked when she snapped at Erik. She realized she had no shot at winning, so why sit there and just take it? Especially from someone like Erik! I mean, who is Erik to stand there and lecture someone about playing a passive game? The guy made the absolute dumbest move in the history of the game, and if you listen to Rob C's podcast they imply that he faked feeling ill just to avoid being voted out. Plus his gameplay this season consisted of fading into the background and hoping no one noticed him, with a little bit of beard-stroking to the camera about how he was a swing vote. Sherri played a significantly better game than he could ever have hoped to.
My Wife thought it was so mean that the jury were laughing at her when she claimed she wasn't carried. We both agreed with the Jury though, of course.
Apparently Erik had more to say during the Sherri questioning but it was cut by the editors. He didn't want to finish on a fight with Sherri so he asked Cockers a lame question like "You smell, when do you think you'll have a bath?"
Terrible player but I thought that the comeback during Samoa was pretty cool. Heroes Vs. Villains was ruined the moment he beat out Rob, though.
In any case, I'm sick of him and his family.
UberTag
Member
It's not like she ever had a chance of winning. Maybe if Erik didn't bail out she could have pulled off a Cochran eviction and won over Dawn and him. We'll never know, though.
Considering what she had given to her, tying for 2nd place money isn't such a bad deal.
This article is freaking amazing. Doesn't hurt that I'm an unabashed Sandra fan, but it is a brilliant recap of the story of that season: how Russell (and Parvati) lost.
Sometimes, the "how _____ lost" stories are the most fascinating. Guatemala wasn't a great season, but Stephenie's transformation after Palau -- and how it both got her to the end and lost her the season in Guatemala -- was really interesting.
I'm dying. This is great.
Erik Reichenbach is doing an AMA RIGHT NOW!
http://www.reddit.com/r/survivor/comments/1efgn6/erik_reichenbach_of_survivor_fans_vs_favorites/
http://www.reddit.com/r/survivor/comments/1efgn6/erik_reichenbach_of_survivor_fans_vs_favorites/
bump for more people.
UberTag
Member
This entire column is must-read worthy and well worth trotting out anytime someone casts aspersions against Sandra as a player or goes off on how Russell should have won at Survivor.
The problem I have with Sandra's style of play is that she never has control over her fate in the game. Had people wanted her out, she'd be gone, but because she is weak in challenges and isn't the type of player to try and command an alliance, she isn't seen as threatening.
And honestly, she isn't a threatening player. She has won twice only because of who she winded up sitting next to, which, once again she had no say in.
And honestly, she isn't a threatening player. She has won twice only because of who she winded up sitting next to, which, once again she had no say in.
Sandra played to her strengths. She was argumentative and passionate without being annoying or a "goat". She had strong social skills without forming hardcore alliances that would become bitter at her.
She also gave two of the best FTC performances of all time, confidently backing up her "anyone but me" strategy.
Furthermore, the opposite would also be true for physical contestants who become seen as threats: if they were truly smart, they would avoid the spotlight by fumbling in challenges and not relying on immunities to stay safe - this is why Malcolm, for example, was targeted in both of his seasons.
And everyone relies to some degree on shitty people making it to the end. Boston Rob, Todd, Kim, JT, Richard Hatch and most of the other great winners of all time all luckily ended up with some duds in the final - or their alliance mates completely fumbled under the pressure of backing up their play.
SlowRevolution
Member
Ideally, yes; players like Malcolm should downplay their challenge prowess. I really don't think it's feasible though, as the strong guys are depended upon to win challenges in the tribal stages of the game. Winning these challenges is the number one priority at that point, so how could anyone not try their hardest? Especially if food/reward is on the line? Unfortunately, you're right in that it dooms these kinds of players to 'big threat' status as soon as the merge hits.
The difference between these players and Sandra is that they generally TRIED to take weaker players than themselves to the end, or they were confident they could beat their allies at the end; Sandra NEVER has control over who she sits next to.
Oh, and strong FTC arguments? Sandra had won both games before the FTC even started. In Pearl Islands she was against Lil of all people, so she could have said anything and still won. In HvV the Jury absolutely despised Russell (and Parvati by association), and so Sandra won again.
I love Sandra as a Survivor character, but I don't think she ever gets to the end based on her own merit.
SecretMoblin
Member
One of the many things that makes Sandra great is that she proved - twice! - that you don't need to be in control to play a fantastic, winning game. Denise just played one of the most remarkable, subtle games in Survivor history, attending and surviving every single tribal council during the season and never being in control of a major alliance.
The only requirement for staying in the game is not being voted out, and the only requirement for winning is getting a plurality of votes from the jury. Sandra realized this, played to her strengths as Bowie said, and wound up $2 million richer than her peers.
The only requirement for staying in the game is not being voted out, and the only requirement for winning is getting a plurality of votes from the jury. Sandra realized this, played to her strengths as Bowie said, and wound up $2 million richer than her peers.
You can't undersell Sandra's performance in the FTC. You can easily just point on the flipside of her to Amanda as someone who is really good at the game and getting there (Much moreso than Russel which is why I won't bring him up), but COMPLETELY choking the final tribal. I love Amanda but she basically hands the game away from herself. Sandra probably wouldn't win up against certain other players, but she does make the steps she needs to to keep the game moving in a direction where she can be at the final and ideally against complete failures socially. It's a joke to say she doesn't play at all, under the radar is not the same as oblivious.
Amanda's apparently very "cliquey" and it makes FTC a huge problem for her, socially.
Doesn't matter! Amanda is the absolute hottest survivor of all time!
What's the deal with Erik getting blacklisted?
Also, have to agree that Probst is a great host but poor showrunner. Maybe it's just rose tinted glasses, but I feel like the quality has dipped as a result of only focusing on a handful of characters per season.
RangersFan
Member
probst really seems like like guys who are strategic and play the game hard. erik, at least according to the edit was really passive this season and really seem disinterested in forming alliances and playing strategically. it seems his plan was the fly under the radar and try to win individual immunites, which in my opinion is certainly a strategy if you have the physical ability. it almost worked for him, and judging by ponderosa if he didn't get medievac he would have had a strong chance at winning if he made the final 3.
SecretMoblin
Member
Not sure if I'm entirely on board with his conclusion, but goddamn he goes in hard. And there's not really a lie in there.
And I hadn't seen that Allie Facebook post before. It is incredible.
And I hadn't seen that Allie Facebook post before. It is incredible.
There's a severe disconnect between what Probst thinks the audience likes and what the audience actually likes, and its a huge problem right now.
Sandra has a legitimate strategy, I just don't think it is a game-winning one 99% of the time.
The only reason she has managed to win twice is because she was lucky enough to wind up sitting next to players who were either disliked or disrespected. Lil had already been voted out of the game and as such had no case to win. Russell and Parvati were despised by the Jury.
In both cases, Sandra had basically no say in who she sat next to at the end of the game. In fact, she was actively trying to have Russell voted out for the majority of Heroes vs. Villains to no avail. Sandra had no real impact on Heroes vs Villains at all...none. Her goal for the entire game was to have Russell (the person she NEEDED at the end to have a shot to win) voted out.
Brian Fellows
Pete Carroll Owns Me
Her FTC was actually pretty terrible. All she did was talk about the things she tried but failed to do.
SecretMoblin
Member
Yeah, I totally agree. I'm just not sure Probst should be kicked off the show entirely. The show would suffer something fierce if he were to leave.
Ratings are sliding and his decisions as EP almost certainly have something to do with it, but I can't imagine the show would rebound with a different host. He's more essential to the Survivor formula than Seacrest is to American Idol or Chen is to Big Brother.
So what you're saying is, Sandra was trying really damn hard to get what she wanted to happen, to happen, and is able to use that to the jury to indicate that she was playing the damn game. And it worked. She felt the heat and was trying to get Russell out, once it became obvious that he was no longer going to go, she leveraged her position to him in order to make HIM bring her to the final tribal despite knowing that she would beat him. She continually manipulated who he and parvati were going to boot (seriously, watch her talking to him throughout the season) while STILL trying to have him eliminated. Sandra is the ultimate type of player who can plant a bug in someone's ear, while still remaining seemingly timid and neutral and never draw a target onto herself.
Again, the huge distinction between flying under the radar, and not playing the game. You say she didn't control who she was next to, I say she did so with flying colors. She recognizes what changes she can effect in the game, and makes it happen in the most subtle ways possible so that she comes out smelling like roses, then she explains it in the most succinct manner possible in the FTC and goes in for the kill. Yeah, she can't control if she's up against like, Lil or Johnny Fairplay, but she's going to decimate either of them so it doesn't even matter. Same thing in HvV, once it gets down to the wire she's convinced the goats that SHE is the goat, and she's completely safe, all the while knowing that she's going to crush them for their unlikeability.
I actually don't really agree with this, it makes Sandra seem too calculated, when she's not. That's like the antithesis of her strategy.
Sandra is the best at going with the flow, staying in the moment, and adapting and being flexible.
You can't stick Sandra on every season of Survivor and not have her be one of the first boots once in awhile, but more often than not, it's a recipe to go extremely far, and thus to claim that "99% of the time" she doesn't win, when, uh, she won twice, is laughable.
I thought that was kind of exactly waht I was describing? She's going with the flow but she does what she can to alter where the flow is going. She does it subtly enough to not be seen as a threat, which is hugely important. I think she would win way more often than not.
RepairmanJack
Member
I agree with everything said here. The only thing I really want Jeff involved in is the tribal councils.
The show definitely needs a new showrunner, along with new editors and new casting producers.
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
Damn, she really let them have it there. Incredible.
I hope that people keep raising a fuss about this and prevent Probst and CBS from pulling off this bullshit at another reunion show.
matthewwhatever
Member
I don't know how much you can blame falling ratings on Probst -- ratings are down everywhere, and even if the show isn't hitting the same highs as it did ten years ago, neither is anything else.
That said, he could definitely stand to take a step or two back. He plays favourites way too obviously, and at times during his Tribal Council questioning, he comes off as a bully, especially towards women.
This is so true. Probst's problem is that because he so actively wants to tell a particular story, he doesn't watch and listen and let the story tell itself. A good example of this is how he kept pushing Dawn to apologize to Brenda in the way that he thought it was supposed to happen.
Overall, I think he's a very good host. That he's terrible at the reunions (and oh my god does he suck at that) isn't such a big deal. The problem is that he tries to push narratives at tribal councils, when he knows everything that's been going on in camp (despite what he sometimes claims in interviews).
And I'm sure he has a hand in the editing, which has been hit-or-miss in recent seasons. It's gotten to be more Amazing Race-like (in a bad way), in that audio clips from three separate interviews will sometimes be stitched into a single sentence. Also, more and more of the solo interviews are done (again like Amazing Race and the MTV challenge shows) after challenges, but the interviewees are coached to speak as if it were before the challenge. (e.g. having Eddie talk about how confident he was at beating Cochran at a challenge right "before" Cochran beats him at a challenge.)
The game is so good on its own -- even the worst seasons have been worth watching -- but Probst doesn't completely trust it to be. So he tries to push or create his own storylines, and those storylines, as you say, often have little to do with what the audience likes.
VGChampion
Member
I'm amazed Jeff actually looked at that article. I really hope he learns from it and doesn't outright dismiss it. I'm already going into the next season completely uninterested because of Colton and the family idea. Survivor is one of my favorite shows ever and I really enjoy re-watching the seasons but starting with Nicaragua, it got boring to re-watch. I don't even want to try going through S22+ at the moment. Philippines was the best since HvV but even the insane edit on Lisa drags it down.
CitizenVectron
Member
Yeah I'm not watching next season for exactly the same reasons. I could maybe handle the family angle if we weren't just coming off another favourites season, but the fact that they asked Colton to come back is a deal breaker for me. If they want drama they should let it develop, don't try and force it.
But rating are falling, and after so many seasons of just letting the game play out on it's own has covered every possible strategy and scenario. Perhaps that is getting boring. So now Probst is adding manipulation to the mix as something new.
We've seen what people think about this with Big Brother, and that's just production. With Probst as the host and directly influencing the game on camera, that brings a whole new level of manipulation to the game.
Good or bad? Ratings will tell, but it certainly puts Probst in the spotlight as the Survivor antagonist as he screws over some contestants and benefits others. If Big Brother is any measurement, making the game unfair hasn't really hurt the ratings.
Hopefully he'll be inspired to not produce another shitty season.
He knows that people are upset with how he's handled some things, but I don't think he totally understands why. He seems to think that critics are just haters who'd never be happy. There are always some people like that, but those aren't necessarily the people complaining now.
Credit to him for at least acknowledging that he should work on getting better. I think it'll be tough for him to figure out how to do that while he's showrunner and host, though. I like having a host who's somewhat removed from the game, who can only speak to what he hears and sees (and doesn't have access to all the footage and preexisting relationships with contestants from previous seasons), and who is an avatar for us in the audience.
Honestly, it's not an easy job. Probst is very adept at much of it. It's just too bad that he's gotten worse over time by virtue of trying too hard to manufacture drama, when there's already plenty. It's not a new thing, though. It really started (as far as I can remember) with Osten's departure, way back in Pearl Islands. That was when he started becoming a participant -- though even that looks kind of tame, now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll