Support NeoGAF

[Mercury Fred]

Sandra was the least hated of the final 3, bottom line is that is why she won. Nobody liked Parvati or Russell from the start, they weren't going to vote for either of them regardless of who was up against them at the end. Jerry would have won had she been there even though she played as pathetic of a game as Sandra did.

If the bitter tears jury continues this game is going to be awfully boring from now on because everyone is going to be so worried about making other people mad. If the bitter players trend continues this show will only continue to go downhill fast.

:lol

The jury and the feelings of the jury, bitterness included, have been a part of this show since the first season. You know, that one that aired a decade ago. Personally, I found this season to be one of the more entertaining ones in a while.

 

[Baker]

:lol

The jury and the feelings of the jury, bitterness included, have been a part of this show since the first season. You know, that one that aired a decade ago. Personally, I found this season to be one of the more entertaining ones in a while.

Oh it was definitely one of the best seasons. It usually just takes me a couple days to erase the finales out of my mind and remember the good times.

 

[op_ivy]

Oh it was definitely one of the best seasons. It usually just takes me a couple days to erase the finales out of my mind and remember the good times.

i agree completely. maybe the vote should be held at the live finale, after people have had time to consider the events they experienced and heal from it AND got to see everything else from the season on tv.

 

[t-storm]

:lol

The jury and the feelings of the jury, bitterness included, have been a part of this show since the first season. You know, that one that aired a decade ago.

Yes.

The show has been on for 10 years, it's utter idiocy and moronic (Russell) to sit there at the reunion show and say you don't care about the jury aspect of the game. Tool. You want the title of sole survivor so bad but you don't agree with the formula because you can't win it. Right. Extremely logical and sensical.

To prove this, I especially loved when Russell was trying to explain the formula for what he thought would make for a less flawed game by adding America's vote. Jeff quickly shut him down by saying that was not the game of Survivor and encouraged Russell to play that different game elsewhere.

i agree completely. maybe the vote should be held at the live finale, after people have had time to consider the events they experienced and heal from it AND got to see everything else from the season on tv.

That is irrelevant and again would make for a different game entirely (one that would be so less interesting in my opinion). The game is a social experiment within a specified timeframe. You know how 39 days is always so prominently displayed and flashed in the opening credits? I think it's to the viewer's benefit to keep everything contained to that 39 days in terms of strategy, stress and drama amongst the castaways. Final tribal council would be so anti-climatic and boring othewise.

 

[Revolver]

I quit closely following Survivor the first time Sandra won. I was sick of seeing people that did nothing but lay low win the money. I got hooked back on it this season and Sandra wins again. :lol

I think Parvati or Russell should have won. But Russell really had burned too many bridges and rubbed people's noses in the ashes. I think if he'd taken Jerri to the final then Parv probably would have won narrowly over Jerri. Russell really needs to work on his social skills.

 

[jstevenson]

All this said - I do think they should cast Russell on Big Brother.

Would watch.

 

[bill0527]

:lol

The jury and the feelings of the jury, bitterness included, have been a part of this show since the first season. You know, that one that aired a decade ago. Personally, I found this season to be one of the more entertaining ones in a while.

The reason you were entertained is because of the way Russell and Parvatti played the game, the reactions, and subsequent fallout from all the moves they made. You might have enjoyed even seeing the heroes have a melt-down early on. You might have been entertained for any number of reasons.

I can't fathom that anyone could have possibly been entertained by seeing Sandra hiding in the fucking bushes all the way to victory for the 2nd time. Her Pearl Islands victory was just as empty as this one.

 

[Mercury Fred]

The reason you were entertained is because of the way Russell and Parvatti played the game, the reactions, and subsequent fallout from all the moves they made. You might have enjoyed even seeing the heroes have a melt-down early on. You might have been entertained for any number of reasons.

I can't fathom that anyone could have possibly been entertained by seeing Sandra hiding in the fucking bushes all the way to victory for the 2nd time. Her Pearl Islands victory was just as empty as this one.

Actually, the most entertaining aspects have been watching Russel's increasing self-delusion and his mini-meltdown at the jury vote and at the reunion. Although at the reunion, he should have gotten about one tenth of the air time he actually got.

 

[The Chef]

I have to ask everyone who thinks that Russel is a moron and that he shouldn't have played the game the way he did etc etc. if you feel satisfied that Sandra won?

I just cant wrap my head around this. Russel played this game SO intensely and so strategically. Some of those blind sides the Russel pulled off (aka boston rob) were so incredible.

So I'm wondering, for everyone who supports the jury arrangement. Do you really feel like Sandra (the woman who was destined to mediocrity for the whole game) should win?

 

[soma27]

Russel's game, while lacking in social skills, has now allowed him to win $200k on two seperate occasions. His game was good enough to place him better than 95% of his competitors - I would say that it is not bad game play.

If you were to tell him that he can keep playing the way he does, guaranteed to get $200k, or totally change his social game for a 1/20 chance at a million dollars - I think he takes the $200k every time.

 

[ElyrionX]

Sandra revealed Russell's game to the Heroes after the merge and then offered to jump sides after JT was gone. She essentially won herself all five of of the Heroes votes with these two plays, and she did so without putting herself at risk. EVERY SINGLE HERO VOTED FOR SANDRA. That's enough to win the entire game (not to mention that she already had Courtney's vote wrapped up from her previous alliance.)

The fact that Sandra was able to do all of this without the Villains realizing it was pretty impressive. They had no idea what kind of game Sandra was playing and didn't know what kind of offers she had made to the other side. By flipping Candice, Russell was able to ruin Sandra's plans; but that doesn't mean that he completely erased all the work she had done up to that point. She had been giving the Heroes olive branches the entire time and Russell was still too stupid to view her as a jury threat. Russell, by his own admission, didn't care about the jury. Sandra, in contrast, was smart enough to keep her eyes on the prize.

The only reason Sandra was able to do this was because she was the Villains outcast. She got lucky there.

It's a huge pity Boston Robb got voted out so early. It would have been epic with him in the combined tribe.

 

[Mercury Fred]

I have to ask everyone who thinks that Russel is a moron and that he shouldn't have played the game the way he did etc etc. if you feel satisfied that Sandra won?

I just cant wrap my head around this. Russel played this game SO intensely and so strategically. Some of those blind sides the Russel pulled off (aka boston rob) were so incredible.

So I'm wondering, for everyone who supports the jury arrangement. Do you really feel like Sandra (the woman who was destined to mediocrity for the whole game) should win?

Sure. It's not the olympics. It's not a presidential race.

Russell is a crazy-eyed sociopath and Poverty is a shrill, smug asshole. The fact that someone (Sandra) who did so "little" won is highly satisfying as it's a direct smack down to the efforts of the other two in the final three.

Now if everyone tried Sandra's gameplay tactic of doing very little then she'd probably have to change her approach. She was smart enough to know that her strategy would get her to the end, so yes, she deserved to win.

 

[Slacker]

I have to ask everyone who thinks that Russel is a moron and that he shouldn't have played the game the way he did etc etc. if you feel satisfied that Sandra won?

Yes. I think Parv should have won, and I think she's probably the best player the game has had, but Sandra figured out a winning strategy for final tribal council and she knocked it out of the park when it was time to execute.

I just cant wrap my head around this. Russel played this game SO intensely and so strategically. Some of those blind sides the Russel pulled off (aka boston rob) were so incredible.

So I'm wondering, for everyone who supports the jury arrangement. Do you really feel like Sandra (the woman who was destined to mediocrity for the whole game) should win?

Saying you don't support the jury arrangement is like saying you don't like the picking suitcases aspect of Deal Or No Deal. It's the whole point of the show. Russell played hard, and intense, and made some great moves. Certainly saving Parv early on and snowjobbing idiot Tyson are two of the best moves of the season. But he did not play strategically all the way to the end. If he had, he would not have voted out Danielle, who can't argue in Tribal Council for shit, and was a 100% vote for Parv if sent to the jury. And he wouldn't have pissed people off repeatedly when there wasn't a reason to do so. He played a great game, but he made some major mistakes in the end.

 

[X26]

last season was the first survivor I had seen in a loooong time but the way it ended, with the fat blonde who did nothing winning solely due to the jury being bitter at russell having outplayed them all so badly, I decided not to watch this season

thank god for that, since the same thing happened yet again

 

[Manics]

last season was the first survivor I had seen in a loooong time but the way it ended, with the fat blonde who did nothing winning solely due to the jury being bitter at russell having outplayed them all so badly, I decided not to watch this season

thank god for that, since the same thing happened yet again

You support the Habs who get badly outplayed all the time and managed to fluke off series wins, this should be right up your alley!

 

[Slacker]

last season was the first survivor I had seen in a loooong time but the way it ended, with the fat blonde who did nothing winning solely due to the jury being bitter at russell having outplayed them all so badly, I decided not to watch this season

thank god for that, since the same thing happened yet again

If you want us to take your comments seriously, calling a girl who is probably 100 pounds soaking wet "fat" is not the way to go.

 

[X26]

If you want us to take your comments seriously, calling a girl who is probably 100 pounds soaking wet "fat" is not the way to go.

she looked like she had gained a lot of weight in the reunion show

 

[Slacker]

she looked like she had gained a lot of weight in the reunion show

You're right, she's up to at least 110 lbs here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlTARWMcfxw#t=2m55s

 

[Fixed1979]

Now if everyone tried Sandra's gameplay tactic of doing very little then she'd probably have to change her approach. She was smart enough to know that her strategy would get her to the end, so yes, she deserved to win.

If everyone tried Sandra's gameplay Survivor would be one of the least watched reality shows on TV. Everyone tuned in for the Russel and Partarti show and got what they wanted (until the end).

 

[Baker]

All this said - I do think they should cast Russell on Big Brother.

Would watch.

I said that yesterday and I have no idea why it took so long to realize it.

There's no way he could pull it off now, but if Russel broke his reality cherry in BB instead of Survivor, words could not explain the awesomeness.

But he did not play strategically all the way to the end. If he had, he would not have voted out Danielle, who can't argue in Tribal Council for shit, and was a 100% vote for Parv if sent to the jury. And he wouldn't have pissed people off repeatedly when there wasn't a reason to do so. He played a great game, but he made some major mistakes in the end.

Voting off Danielle was his fucking strategy. He didn't do it for the sole purpose of being a dick.

He saw that Danielle/Parvari were closer than Russel/Parvati. When it came down to the end, they would have teamed up and plowed through him. Although Russel is insanely reactionary, many of his moves are to prevent future scenarios, not just to fuck things up in the moment.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I don't think Russell's personality could work in confined spaces. Either he would go batshit insane or drive others crazy. At least in Survivor you can get the hell away from camp when you want to and get some space.

 

[Baker]

I don't think Russell's personality could work in confined spaces. Either he would go batshit insane or drive others crazy.

That's the point!

 

[ToxicAdam]

He would flame out spectacularly like Cappy did many seasons back. They have similar personality types.

 

[Baker]

He would flame out spectacularly like Cappy did many seasons back. They have similar personality types.

But then Jerri could build a shrine for him.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

Great show, great season. Can't wait for next.

:lol @ the tears in this thread. I'm surprised people are still on the Russell bandwagon after the numerous bad plays he made. I thought we had already resolved that he was a bad player. Hes mediocre for a male physically, a net negative socially, and OK strategically. He made tons of strategic mistakes both this season and last; he only gets by because everyone knows that he has no shot to win so they keep him around as the goat. How anyone thinks he somehow "controlled the game" is beyond me; people controlled him the entire way through. Whatever argument you guys are making makes no sense at all.

I feel bad that Parvati didn't win, because I think she played the best of everyone. She was put in a miserable position early, and fought through a lot to get to the end. Sandra played a hell of a game though, and I can't say she didn't deserve it. Getting away with locking up all the Hero jury votes without any Villain realizing it was brilliant. Parvati's big mistake was not mingling with the Heroes more.

Overall, I think this season established Parvati as the best player ever in my mind even though she didn't win. Her physical, mental, and social prowess easily trump everyone in comparison. She even managed to convince Russell to take her over Jerri. Sandra is a hell of a player, and easily one of the best ever, but Parvati is the queen bee. Simply amazing play.

I hope all-stars seasons happen relatively frequently because they tend to be the best. No dud players that waste episodes (except Sugar and Randy) and usually the highest level of play. Its also nice to compare the best survivors of each season, and to see them pitted against one another. This season was incredible, and its got me pumped for the next one.

 

[The Chef]

The fact that someone (Sandra) who did so "little" won is highly satisfying as it's a direct smack down to the efforts of the other two in the final three.

Once Courtney was voted out she pretty much was lying around waiting to die so I disagree that she had any sort of strategy.

What if the voting for the final 3 was done, not from a jury, but more like an American Idol public voting sort of way? Could be interesting.

 

[Mercury Fred]

What if the voting for the final 3 was done, not from a jury, but more like an American Idol public voting sort of way?

Then Survivor would suck, lose its entire personality and end up being cancelled within a season or two.

 

[The Chef]

Then Survivor would suck, lose its entire personality and end up being cancelled within a season or two.

ok

 

[Mercury Fred]

ok

Glad we got that settled.

Cheers.

 

[Justin Timberlake]

Once Courtney was voted out she pretty much was lying around waiting to die so I disagree that she had any sort of strategy.

What if the voting for the final 3 was done, not from a jury, but more like an American Idol public voting sort of way? Could be interesting.

...you either didn't watch the show or fundamentally misunderstand why Survivor is so good :/

 

[Greg]

Once Courtney was voted out she pretty much was lying around waiting to die so I disagree that she had any sort of strategy.

What if the voting for the final 3 was done, not from a jury, but more like an American Idol public voting sort of way? Could be interesting.

It would certainly encourage more aggressive play (what the viewers tend to appreciate) and weed out the bitter losers.

However, the show is only an hour a week - that doesn't leave much interpretation up to the viewer beyond what the crew decides to edit. Besides challenges, they obviously sell certain aspects of the characters once they know how everything pans out.

 

[op_ivy]

That is irrelevant and again would make for a different game entirely (one that would be so less interesting in my opinion). The game is a social experiment within a specified timeframe. You know how 39 days is always so prominently displayed and flashed in the opening credits? I think it's to the viewer's benefit to keep everything contained to that 39 days in terms of strategy, stress and drama amongst the castaways. Final tribal council would be so anti-climatic and boring othewise.

i suppose, but it makes for an extremely frustrating climax time and time again, when the survivor least deserving, wins. sandra, once again, did not play the game well. she just managed to float to the finale, and got votes because she didnt piss anyone off. russle and parvati made moves to ensure they made it to the final 3, sandra lucked out.

 

[Baker]

...you either didn't watch the show or fundamentally misunderstand why Survivor is so good :/

Once Courtney was voted out, Sandra didn't do a single thing. She tried to join the Heroes once but Candice fucked it up.

Other than that she just kept her mouth shut (in her own special kind of way) and sat there until the finals. Even with 3-5 episodes left, I think she knew Russel was going to make it and probably take her.

i suppose, but it makes for an extremely frustrating climax time and time again, when the survivor least deserving, wins.

This is not a knee-jerk from last night's finale. I seriously think from now on, I'm not going to watch the live show and just randomly get it spoiled the next day. There will be a lot less emotional turmoil. :lol

 

[op_ivy]

This is not a knee-jerk from last night's finale. I seriously think from now on, I'm not going to watch the live show and just randomly get it spoiled the next day. There will be a lot less emotional turmoil. :lol

absolutely, except i'll quit just prior to the final tribal council. ugh.

 

[Greg]

This is not a knee-jerk from last night's finale. I seriously think from now on, I'm not going to watch the live show and just randomly get it spoiled the next day. There will be a lot less emotional turmoil. :lol

I saw a boot list the first week the show aired, and it was correct all the way to the end (even the order that 3rd/2nd/1st finished).

At first I didn't want to believe it because of all the big moves Russel was playing, but as the jury started filling up the bitterness became clear - it all made sense.

What a bunch of shit. :lol

 

[t-storm]

Glad we got that settled.

Cheers.

:lol

i suppose, but it makes for an extremely frustrating climax time and time again, when the survivor least deserving, wins. sandra, once again, did not play the game well. she just managed to float to the finale, and got votes because she didnt piss anyone off. russle and parvati made moves to ensure they made it to the final 3, sandra lucked out.

I do think you're right in that there are hits and misses in some seasons but I don't think that applied to this season. I don't think Sandra floated to the finale and I don't think she wasn't playing with any strategy as others have already articulated.

 

[Greg]

I do think you're right in that there are hits and misses in some seasons but I don't think that applied to this season. I don't think Sandra floated to the finale and I don't think she wasn't playing with any strategy as others have already articulated.

She admitted defeat more than Colby, and her only attempts to make moves in the game failed.

The only thing she did right was agree with Russel when he said he was going to take her to the finals, and that's not strategy.

 

[VGChampion]

I'm honestly a little surprised this is still being talked about.

You just have to remember, it's a game and no matter how big of a fan you are for these people, you probably don't really care about them. Let it go and enjoy the show.

Any changes to the mechanics of the game and it changes. You let the jury members get swayed by watching the show and voting at the end or letting America have a percentage of the vote just does not work at all.

See you all around next season.

 

[Greg]

I'm honestly a little surprised this is still being talked about.

You just have to remember, it's a game and no matter how big of a fan you are for these people, you probably don't really care about them. Let it go and enjoy the show.

Any changes to the mechanics of the game and it changes. You let the jury members get swayed by watching the show and voting at the end or letting America have a percentage of the vote just does not work at all.

See you all around next season.

Surprised a show involving real people is still being talked about the day after the finale... when just one board over people talk about games that are decades old?

I just enjoy the discussion is all.

 

[diamondstar]

Russell lost in Season 19 because the jury was bitter. He lost this time around because he completely self-destructed and made horrible judgment calls near the end of the game.

Perfect fucking write up. My thoughts exactly. I really can't believe the end move by Russell. I actually thought his move should have been in the running for one of the dumbest moves in survivor history. He had absolutely no chance against the girls and had atleast a slight chance against Colby and Jerri. And his final tribal council speech didnt at all help his cause. Russell can you atleast be a little humble and maybe kiss a little ass to the people that may hand you a million dollars?!

 

[jstevenson]

Perfect fucking write up. My thoughts exactly. I really can't believe the end move by Russell. I actually thought his move should have been in the running for one of the dumbest moves in survivor history. He had absolutely no chance against the girls and had atleast a slight chance against Colby and Jerri. And his final tribal council speech didnt at all help his cause. Russell can you atleast be a little humble and maybe kiss a little ass to the people that may hand you a million dollars?!

Colby would have probably swept the five hero votes. That's the only reason he voted him out. He, along with Parv/Jerri, should've realized Sandra was their next biggest threat.

Russell burnt all his bridges, playing a hyper version of his game from last season --- thinking he had won the million dollars last time as well - or if not, thinking these players would respect his game.


Regardless, I still believe that the current 9-member jury/3-finalist set-up distorts the balance of the 7-jury/2-finalist original set-up. But that's me.

 

[BJK]

I didn't watch the finale, and I don't know if that helps or hurts my analysis of the way things ended, but here are my thoughts:

1. Sandra's strategy - and she did have one - was to do whatever it took to survive for another 3 days. Sandra's the one who got Coach voted out of the Russell-Parvati faction in order to break the status quo (if Courtney were voted out instead of Coach, Sandra's next no matter what she does). She flat-out played Russell. Post-merge, she had the freedom to work between the heroes and villain factions, but played the social game well enough not to turn on Russell during the council votes and make herself a target. By moving between the two camps, she made sure she was never the target(s) to be voted out. Not to mention, that she was able to keep an immunity idol hidden from everyone she was playing against at the time.

I agree with everyone who doesn't like her play-style, and I don't think she played the best game, but she played well enough that her win doesn't bother me.

2. Russell was never going to win. Parvati Shallow played the best game, came in with the target on her back, and did everything well. She did as much - if not more - to run the alliance, while allowing Russell to be himself and poison the jury pool. Parvati was even smart enough to do the jury math, and tried to convince Russell to boot Sandra. As long as Russell took her to the final 3, she was going to out-poll him. His best chance to win would have been to carry 2 followers into the finale....but he took away that opportunity when he cast Danielle aside. (When I defended the move earlier in the thread, I didn't know they were going with a final 3 this season.) Danielle, Russell, Jerri -- no heroes, no Parvati -- was the only final 3 he could have won.

3. Unless Sandra could win a final immunity challenge, Parvati would have won a 2-person final vote. Coincidentally, I don't like the 3-person finale, as it makes it easier for weak (non-immunity winning) players like Sandra to make it in front of the Jury.

 

[artist]

Sure. It's not the olympics. It's not a presidential race.

Russell is a crazy-eyed sociopath and Poverty is a shrill, smug asshole. The fact that someone (Sandra) who did so "little" won is highly satisfying as it's a direct smack down to the efforts of the other two in the final three.

Now if everyone tried Sandra's gameplay tactic of doing very little then she'd probably have to change her approach. She was smart enough to know that her strategy would get her to the end, so yes, she deserved to win.

What an idiot. Survivor is a game that involves telling lies - Sandra did it too and on many occasions.

The only reason Sandra won was because she had common ground with a whiny jury (twice in a row now) - she hated Russell. I think the best game played this season and the player who truly deserved to win was Parvati. She played both aspects well and got jury votes too. She wasnt a waste of a space that tried to get Russell out 100 times and failed. Also I feel that the point where most of the deciding votes changed was when that prick of a person (Courtney) decided to make out wireless with Sandra and gave her a chance to plead her case for the second time and that 400 pound knuckle-head Rupert saying THANK YOU. People hating on Russell forget that Sandra did the same bad things that Russell did (sabotaging his tribe) plus she made no, absolutely zero fucking game changing moves.

To sum up, best season, worst finale. Survivor had the flip side too, worst season, better finales. We just dont seem to get a best season and a finale to match it. :/

 

[artist]

I didn't watch the finale, and I don't know if that helps or hurts my analysis of the way things ended, but here are my thoughts:

1. Sandra's strategy - and she did have one - was to do whatever it took to survive for another 3 days. Sandra's the one who got Coach voted out of the Russell-Parvati faction in order to break the status quo (if Courtney were voted out instead of Coach, Sandra's next no matter what she does). She flat-out played Russell. Post-merge, she had the freedom to work between the heroes and villain factions, but played the social game well enough not to turn on Russell during the council votes and make herself a target. By moving between the two camps, she made sure she was never the target(s) to be voted out. Not to mention, that she was able to keep an immunity idol hidden from everyone she was playing against at the time.

I agree with everyone who doesn't like her play-style, and I don't think she played the best game, but she played well enough that her win doesn't bother me.

2. Russell was never going to win. Parvati Shallow played the best game, came in with the target on her back, and did everything well. She did as much - if not more - to run the alliance, while allowing Russell to be himself and poison the jury pool. Parvati was even smart enough to do the jury math, and tried to convince Russell to boot Sandra. As long as Russell took her to the final 3, she was going to out-poll him. His best chance to win would have been to carry 2 followers into the finale....but he took away that opportunity when he cast Danielle aside. (When I defended the move earlier in the thread, I didn't know they were going with a final 3 this season.) Danielle, Russell, Jerri -- no heroes, no Parvati -- was the only final 3 he could have won.

3. Unless Sandra could win a final immunity challenge, Parvati would have won a 2-person final vote. Coincidentally, I don't like the 3-person finale, as it makes it easier for weak (non-immunity winning) players like Sandra to make it in front of the Jury.

Agreed on 2 & 3.

 

[CoolTrick]

It's just shocking that so many people do not understand this basic concept:

Most Survivors COULD play like Russell, but they don't because they know they'd never win the jury vote if they did.

End of discussion. You may not like Sandra's play or thought she didn't do anything, etc.


but the amount of constant praising for Russell's strategy goes entirely against the point of Survivor.


Playing the game "so strategicially" as someone whined Russell did -- he didn't.

He played like a sociopath. Without regard to how anyone felt, or any of the future jury consequences.

Russell Hantz was not a genius who came up with new ways to play, he just did shit no one would do because it was obvious to everyone else that if they played like that, they'd lose.

It's amazing how people would rather whine that there's a flaw in the game after 20 seasons instead of just accepting that Russell played the wrong way.

 

[Y2Kev]

But then Jerri could build a shrine for him.

:lol I want to see this. Could we have survivor castaways in the BB house?

 

[artist]

It's just shocking that so many people do not understand this basic concept:

Most Survivors COULD play like Russell, but they don't because they know they'd never win the jury vote if they did.

End of discussion. You may not like Sandra's play or thought she didn't do anything, etc.


but the amount of constant praising for Russell's strategy goes entirely against the point of Survivor.


Playing the game "so strategicially" as someone whined Russell did -- he didn't.

He played like a sociopath. Without regard to how anyone felt, or any of the future jury consequences.

Russell Hantz was not a genius who came up with new ways to play, he just did shit no one would do because it was obvious to everyone else that if they played like that, they'd lose.

It's amazing how people would rather whine that there's a flaw in the game after 20 seasons instead of just accepting that Russell played the wrong way.

If you mean play in the sense of just being in-your-face bullying type of game then not really true. Everyone's got a personality and you cant go from a victim to a bully just like that. Most bullys can play like Russell? Yes, they can. But only in terms of bullying people around. If you've seen the show long enough, you should realise that not many people have found idols without clues, used Idols to make game changing moves (+1 Parvati for her double Idol play too) etc. the list goes on. Russell played the game like no other, his main flaw being that he doesnt realise when to tone it down, his lacks this thing called subtlety if there is such a word. Russell was a genius, he didnt realise that people would take the game personal. I guess he saw the first season where Hatch won and thought all the rest of the seasons, the jury was as grandeur or less bitchy.

 

[CoolTrick]

Sigh.

No. Just, no.

 

[Manus]

Then Survivor would suck, lose its entire personality and end up being cancelled within a season or two.

How so? I've heard a lot of people are quitting the show after the past two seasons outcome. Seems like it would help the show more than hurt.

 

[Foov]

How so? I've heard a lot of people are quitting the show after the past two seasons outcome. Seems like it would help the show more than hurt.

Watch the first season of US Big Brother and then you'll know the horror that would await you.