Support NeoGAF

[Justin Timberlake]

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.

And yet Survivor continues to get monster ratings while remaining one of, if not the best, shows on television.

The jury system is fine. Its the players' fault for not recognizing jury threats for what they are, or in the case of Parvati, who has an inhuman sense of the game, taking out those jury threats after you recognize their danger. If a strong jury player is truly coasting along and can be taken out easily, then it is the responsibility of the better players to take them out. If they don't, they are dumb.

The thing is, Sandra was most definitely not coasting like people are characterizing her, and she positioned herself safely at just about every tribal perfectly. Its not a coincidence shes won twice now; she is very good at the game of Survivor.

 

[TheDuce22]

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.

Bolding something doesnt make it true.

 

[CoolTrick]

You're right, bolding something doesn't make it true.


Since I don't want that to detract from the truth of my statement, why don't I repost it for you, unbolded:

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

 

[TheDuce22]

You seem to be suggesting anyone can go in, play exactly like Russell, and guarantee themselves a spot in the finals.

 

[yellowjacket25]

The thing is, Sandra was most definitely not coasting like people are characterizing her, and she positioned herself safely at just about every tribal perfectly. Its not a coincidence shes won twice now; she is very good at the game of Survivor.

Sandra won twice because because she just happened to be playing with the two biggest villains in survivor history. In her first season the only reason that she made it to the finals is because Lil hated Fairplay so much. Lil gave up a guaranteed 1 million dollars just to keep Fairplay out of the finals. Its one of the dumbest moves in survivor history and should have been up for the award at the finale. Sandra won her second survivor because people would rather vote for Hitler then Russell or anybody associated with Russell. A true villain will never win this game and whoever the villain decides to drag with them the whole game is going to win instead. Sandra, Natalie, Amber, etc. They are all the same.

 

[Greg]

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

Yeah, most Survivors could choose to make it to the finals, but they choose to get voted off early instead.

Just like most Survivors could play like Sandra, but they'd probably die from boredom.

 

[artist]

You're right, bolding something doesn't make it true.


Since I don't want that to detract from the truth of my statement, why don't I repost it for you, unbolded:

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

Repeating something doesnt make it true either, you forgot to grow up.

Yeah, most Survivors could choose to make it to the finals, but they choose to get voted off early instead.

Just like most Survivors could play like Sandra, but they'd probably die from boredom.

ZING!

 

[CoolTrick]

You seem to be suggesting anyone can go in, play exactly like Russell, and guarantee themselves a spot in the finals.

To a degree?

Yes!

Remove the willingness to spend dozens of hours in the wilderness tracking down HIIs for a moment.

You don't think any old jock couldn't just go in and bully people, lie to people with no remorse, promise things, etc. etc., and take advantage of everyone's disposition?

Why do you even think Russell MADE it to the finals, not counting all the very lucky breaks he got?

WHY do you think people trusted him?

Because he made lies that people wouldn't want to naturally do if they were going to break them!

He swore on his daughter, used religious artifacts, a ton of shit. It's EASY to swear on shit like that, and low and behold, people tend to believe you -- whether they should or not!

They're fault? Of course.

Russell's fault when they're pissed? Um, yes.

And then what do the other players see? A HUGE GOAT.

Russell could not get to the finals if he did not play exactly the way he did. It's a gameplay style that explicitly gets someone to the end of the game only to be reamed by the jury.

You cannot win the game of Survivor playing like Russell. That's why people don't DO it.

What is so hard to understand about this concept?

Just like most Survivors could play like Sandra, but they'd probably die from boredom.

They could, and smart ones do.

The irony about bringing up Dr. Will in this thread, who threw every challenge, and has a LOT of similarities to Sandra's gameplay (even though sexist Dr. Will fans wouldn't want to admit it), is nauseating.

Sandra plays like she does partly because she's naturally predisposed to play like that (weak in challenges, very social, scrappy). And it works for her.

 

[xbhaskarx]

Yes!

The mods needs to disable your bolding/underlining abilities.

 

[CoolTrick]

The mods needs to disable your bolding/underlining abilities.

Oh teh noes i ahve no argumentes s0 lemme nock the boldd!1

 

[Chris R]

They could, but they're not smart enough to.

Thanks for making me laugh.

 

[CoolTrick]

Thanks for making me laugh.

I dunno, the strategy of a two time winner, getting 12 votes to win in total, versus the strategy of a two time loser, getting two votes combined?

Hm.

Hm.

Hm.

Wonder which is more successful.

Russell fans crybabying about the result just need to accept that what THEY think is successful gameplaying -- is NOT.

 

[Galang]

Talk about a controversial ending, again... While I can see both sides concerning Sandra winning, even if she did coat tail a lot of the way, when you look back at past winners/runner-ups who got votes just because the jury was bitter - Sandra has tried/done a lot more than most of those people. Sandra's social game wasn't really as weak as people are making it out to be, she did try to flip, she did try to get others to make game changing moves and did talk strategy. Last survivor in her alliance and found an idol as well, not as big today... but I mean in comparison to Natalie and co it's a huge improvement. Natalie has done stuff out of her comfort zone - clearly yes, but she never attempted to do much of anything. Suzy and Courtney pretty much rode it to the end, and did what? Still managed to get the runner-up title... And if you include finalists then Cassandra, Becky, Mike, Sugar... I've seen Sandra talk more strategy than all these people combined. So even if her level of play was pitiful in comparison to Russell and Parvati - I just don't feel that she's all that undeserving of the title.

I agree part of the game is not pissing of the jury as well, so I don't deny Parvati should of won. But out of all the merged tribe mates Sandra's game was still one of the top this season. Rupert's the only other person who's done really much of anything this season. Would of been horrible to see Colby or Candice win. JT/Amanda were pretty much doomed from the start. JT is too likable, Amanda as well, despite her back to back losses I really think she would have won if she got to the end this time. Her best chance was gone when she went against Parvati. If Jerri had won, now then we'd really have something to complain about =/.

 

[yellowjacket25]

If Jerri had won, now then we'd really have something to complain about =/.

Why would Sandra deserve to win more then Jerri? Jerri actually competed in challenges, actually had to make decisions in the game, and played probably an equal social game to Sandra. Sandra didnt have one decision to make the entire game. She had to keep playing the hand that Russell and Parvati dealt her and hope for the best. She never had an ounce of power. She had no chance at any challenge. She eventually won the who gets to sit next to Russell and Parvati and collect their free million dollars sweepstakes.

 

[Insertia]

Awesome season.
Russell should have won.

I've come to realize the entire point of this show. You have amazing players like Russell who do what is necessary for him to advance...but players like this will never win. Why give the guy who's running circles around your ass a million bucks when you can give it to a player that hasn't out-played you.

I always look for a season where the weak players are voted off ASAP, and the final three is a pact of players that actually deserve to be there.

 

[Forceatowulf]

Welp, we all knew it was inevitable. As awesome and great as King Russell is he just can't win with the way he plays. And I'm completely OK with that honestly. What I am not ok with is weak players who didn't even try hard and ride coattails for 39 days winning a million dollars. It's happened twice now back to back and it's just a sad sight to behold.

As much as I've loved King Russell and his antics and the show in general I've come to the realization that this show is just not for me. The way the game is formatted towards the end of the season is just bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Seriously, can anyone imagine what would happen in major sports if teams that got eliminated from the playoffs got a chance to Vote on which team deserved a Title?! And they got to vote against the very teams that beat them to advance to the championship round? No, you probably can't imagine it because that would be insanely stupid.

But... the game is what it is. The rules are the rules and in order to win you have to play a certain way. That's the game.

I'm just really glad I got to see Russell in action for two straight seasons. He is in my opinion the greatest reality star of all time. Of. All. Time. But I wont be watching this show anymore because I can already tell, in the end, it just isn't for me.

With that being said...... ALL HAIL KING RUSSELL!!!

 

[BowieZ]

The best player won. Sandra knew what she was doing.

Both seasons she played and won.

And yeah, people who glorify winning challenges and vicious strategic moves (and those who say "but the jury at the end is not what the game is about") have simply forgotten that Survivor is at the end of the day a democratic experiment.

Not only is there a jury at the end, but castaways vote each other out through the entire game, at "tribal councils". :lol Furthermore, immunity challenges are merely a tool a player can use to help them survive the social element. But that's exactly the point: the social element is what is being survived here. You win immunity to help you survive. The immunity challenges themselves don't send anyone home.

Sandra didn't need immunity once, she played her hand perfectly and deserves her $2 Million.

The problem with many people in this thread (in my opinion) is that they decided from Day 1 that Russell was the best player and were totally blinded to any other types of strategies or social maneuvers, especially subtle ones. But Sandra's moves were all presented for everyone to see and her victory was an enjoyable shock but at the end of the day not really surprising... the perfect result in my opinion -- just like a murder mystery where the reveal of the culprit is "impossible!" at first but the more the solution sinks in, the more it can be appreciated as the inevitable outcome.

What's neither shocking nor surprising is Russell's back-to-back placement in the finals and back-to-back defeat. As much as he may deserve the Player of the Season reward for being one hell-of-an-entertaining player, he will go down in Survivor history as one of the most delusional contestants.

 

[Galang]

^Definitely one of the most delusional players to ever play the game, fans are possibly worse. I was a big Russell fan last season, and for the first half of this season... then I did a complete turn around. I still think he's a great player, but nowhere near the best. I think in the times I've enjoyed him, it was pretty much because he was the underdog. This season was the same, but as soon as he took control it seems as though he made all the wrong moves.

Why would Sandra deserve to win more then Jerri? Jerri actually competed in challenges, actually had to make decisions in the game, and played probably an equal social game to Sandra. Sandra didnt have one decision to make the entire game. She had to keep playing the hand that Russell and Parvati dealt her and hope for the best. She never had an ounce of power. She had no chance at any challenge. She eventually won the who gets to sit next to Russell and Parvati and collect their free million dollars sweepstakes.

Seriously? The only decision Jerri made was joining Russell, and from then on she was pretty much completely manipulated and intimidated by him. She won two challenges, not like anyone really expected Sandra to win challenges anyway. It's just not in her strengths, many past winners were physically unable in the same way.

One of the villains biggest mistake was keeping Sandra over Courtney.

 

[yellowjacket25]

Seriously? The only decision Jerri made was joining Russell, and from then on she was pretty much completely manipulated and intimidated by him. She won two challenges, not like anyone really expected Sandra to win challenges anyway. It's just not in her strengths, many past winners were physically unable in the same way.

One of the villains biggest mistake was keeping Sandra over Courtney.

Yes seriously. Jerri was definitely manipulated but did have to decide what to do about Danielle, and what to do about Boston Rob. She put herself in a pretty good position in the game and would have won if Parvati won the final immunity challenge or if Russell picked her instead of Sandra to go to the finals with. What did Sandra do the whole game? Alliance with Rob, that didnt work out now what does she do? Try to get Russell out. That didnt work either so the next decision was to sit around and follow the villains and hope they wont vote her off. It ended up working but it wasnt exactly an impressive game. I would agree though that keeping Sandra over Courtney was a mistake.

 

[Baker]

Fallon was great last night with the finalists. He pretty much spent the whole interview saying Sandra sucked and the petty jury ruined it.

Edit: link...

http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/blogs/2010/05/the-survivor-heroes-vs-villains-finalists/

 

[BowieZ]

Looks like I don't need to adjust my opinion of Jimmy Fallon in any way, then.

But yeah, Survivor is 100% a social game, always has been. Every episode, castaways vote people out of the game, and in the final episode, two more people are voted out, and then people who have been voted out vote for a winner. Some of you may have forgotten that Richard Hatch -- as arrogant as he may have been at times -- was a gentleman throughout Season 1, and his final tribal council performance was elegant and charming.

Making bold moves and using idols and voting out threats is not something new. Russell didn't invent this. Todd did this every episode and won China. J.T. (and Stephen) did this for most of Tocantins. Parvati did this in Micronesia. Yet they all won because they were politicians (charming deceivers) throughout the game and worked hard at forming and sustaining meaningful friendships.

The flaw in Russell's back-to-back defeats is that he refused to do this.

 

[Revolver]

Sandra seemed to be getting pissed at Fallon last night. :lol

OT: I had no idea Lydon had reformed PiL. I'm really out of the loop.

 

[Manics]

Russell still crying?

*Checks thread*


Yup, carry on.

 

[Baker]

Making bold moves and using idols and voting out threats is not something new. Russell didn't invent this. Todd did this every episode and won China. J.T. (and Stephen) did this for most of Tocantins. Parvati did this in Micronesia. Yet they all won because they were politicians (charming deceivers) throughout the game and worked hard at forming and sustaining meaningful friendships.

That's my point though.

The politician excuse is bullshit. It doesn't matter that they smiled and laughed with the competition. The majority of Survivors still back stabbed and blind sided multiple times to get to the end. That's an extra level of deceit if you ask me.

Russel just skips the extra step of convincing the dumbasses that it was a good thing. He wants (and maybe wrongly so) for the game to played as a game not as some self-serving pity party.

Sandra seemed to be getting pissed at Fallon last night.

Haha yeah. She definitely said something during commercial because when the show came back, Fallon made some half-hearted "apology" right before the musical guest performed.

 

[Axion22]

The flaw in Russell's back-to-back defeats is that he refused to do this.

I wouldn't call it back to back, that doesn't seem fair, because he shot 19, then 20, then came back and found out he lost 19, and then lost 20. He never got an ending to look back on.

 

[BowieZ]

I wouldn't call it back to back, that doesn't seem fair, because he shot 19, then 20, then came back and found out he lost 19, and then lost 20. He never got an ending to look back on.

I wasn't making a point of it, though, but still, wouldn't it make sense to try something different the second time in case his abrasiveness was not well received the first time? This is the delusion that people speak of. He is deluded into thinking that no matter what, any jury comprised of any people every time will vote for him because he made it to the end. But there are other finalists, too!

And guess what.

Those finalists bring Russell to the end because (a) Russell's a jerk; (b) they can read the jury better than Russell and know that they won't vote for a jerk.

Seriously... Russell was calling Rupert a dumbass and going bananas out there. He was SCARY during Samoa... Natalie looked scared in the final episode. He constantly berated the other players in both seasons.

Berated them.

It's not needed. However, I will say this: that COULD be a valid strategy to win. "I'm gonna berate everyone so they hate me so much they want to take me to the end." However, that should comprise your jury speech. Had Russell made that speech, made a point that it was his strategy to be a villain to be brought to the end, proven that he is a likeable person with a wife and kids and had everyone fooled... or something... that would have garnered some respect. Maybe not enough to win, but still.

Yet Russell's jury delivery on both occasions stank. Many winners were tipped over the line thanks to great eloquent jury speeches (Richard Hatch, Todd, Sandra in Season 7), or stumbled and failed thanks to poor ones (Amanda! Sugar! etc). Even if Russell may have deserved to win, he refused to present a convincing argument why.

It'd be like entering a debating competition, berating the judges and saying "I'm right! I don't have to pander to you!" and expecting them to profoundly realise that there is a flaw in the sport of debating.

That's my point though.

The politician excuse is bullshit. It doesn't matter that they smiled and laughed with the competition. The majority of Survivors still back stabbed and blind sided multiple times to get to the end. That's an extra level of deceit if you ask me.

Russel just skips the extra step of convincing the dumbasses that it was a good thing. He wants (and maybe wrongly so) for the game to played as a game not as some self-serving pity party.

As many people have said, he knew the rules going in. He refused to play by them, knowingly. He refused to accept that there may be political fallout when you are a horrible, horrible bitch to 19 other human beings for 39 days.

 

[Baker]

I wasn't making a point of it, though, but still, wouldn't it make sense to try something different the second time in case his abrasiveness was not well received the first time?

Not if he ended up winning Samoa. Then it would have been stupid in retrospect to change his plan.

Yet Russell's jury delivery on both occasions stank. Many winners were tipped over the line thanks to great eloquent jury speeches (Richard Hatch, Todd, Sandra in Season 7), or stumbled and failed thanks to poor ones (Amanda! Sugar! etc). Even if Russell may have deserved to win, he refused to present a convincing argument why.

I 100% agree that Russel just makes it worse during the jury questions. If he had any semblance of speaking ability, he could easily explain why he played the way he did.

I'm really interested in seeing some of these allstars' take on the Samoa season. I haven't read any mention of it yet, though.

 

[Baker]

Sorry for the double post, but Probst's blog on the finale just went up.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/05/18/jeff-probst-survivor-heroes-villains-finale/

 

[Axion22]

I wasn't making a point of it, though, but still, wouldn't it make sense to try something different the second time in case his abrasiveness was not well received the first time?

That's all hindsight. Why change a strategy that, for all intents and purposes, worked? I think most people's problem with the outcome is that the word "jury" implies some kind of justice and Sandra winning does not seem like a just outcome. Russell's not completely deluded because J.T. was obviously above being butthurt about the way he went down.

 

[Zombie James]

But my opinion of Russell changed when he admitted to Boston Rob that he did not play to win. You can’t be the best if you’re not playing to win. He can hoop and holler all he wants about “America choosing” but that’s not this game. This game is about convincing a jury of your peers that you are the most deserving person. He didn’t do that. But my problem is not that he didn’t accomplish that goal, it’s that it wasn’t his goal in the first place.

Boston Rob plays to win. The fact that he hasn’t won doesn’t change the fact that he plays to win. It’s a philosophical approach to the game and if Russell truly doesn’t play to win then he has no claim to greatest player.

Here’s the rub… I am not convinced Russell truly feels that way. Stay with me. I think Russell did play to win. 100%. I think he just misjudged and didn’t fully understand the game well enough to achieve his goal. So now he is changing history. I believe that last night he was scrambling to make sense, scrambling to defend, scrambling to justify another loss, so he decided that all he ever wanted to do was get to the end.

That’s what I mean about “out of balance.” The man needs a break. He needs a retreat somewhere far away where he is not allowed to talk about Survivor, not allowed to talk at all. He needs a rest. I don’t imagine he’ll take one. I imagine he’ll let the anger stir inside him and it will haunt him for a long time to come.

Russell, if you’re reading this and I know you are – I hope, I truly hope you will give yourself a break and let the game go… at least for a while. Come back and revisit it with a fresh mind and see if you can find ways to improve your game. Otherwise you are doomed to be frustrated by this game and continue to make silly suggestions like “let America vote.”

Pretty much spot on.

 

[Galang]

Sorry for the double post, but Probst's blog on the finale just went up.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/05/18/jeff-probst-survivor-heroes-villains-finale/

Thanks, very interesting read:

- Good Jeff Agrees Parvati should of won, but also like his defense on Sandra
- His advice to Russell is good, he definitely needs a break from the game... and learn to play to win, not just make it to the endgame. Looks like it's confirmed he'll return to the next all-stars season, although that was pretty obvious!
This time for sure, he'll have a much bigger target on his back from the start.
- Rupert lost the players vote by 2000?! That sucks :lol

 

[unomas]

Fallon was great last night with the finalists. He pretty much spent the whole interview saying Sandra sucked and the petty jury ruined it.

Edit: link...

http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/blogs/2010/05/the-survivor-heroes-vs-villains-finalists/

Ouch on the Fallon link! I couldn't even watch the whole thing as it was cringe worthy, and Survivor will definitely continue to decline in viewers if they don't fix the voting system, rewarding poor players with a million dollar gift is not a satisfying ending. Russel and Parvati were both far more deserving, hell Jerry was more deserving.

 

[BowieZ]

I'm really interested in seeing some of these allstars' take on the Samoa season. I haven't read any mention of it yet, though.

Well, for what it's worth, while I utterly defend the outcome of Sandra winning HvV, I personally was rooting for Russell during Samoa, and chalked up his Final 5 blowups as 'understandable under the conditions'. Also, Natalie and Mick were shown to both be absolutely hopeless.

This is the main reason why I'm posting here. I don't really wish to get into any longwinded arguments, but I feel Sandra is being short-changed because of Samoa comparisons.

Sandra =/= Natalie. I don't know about you, but I was conscious of many moves and personal insights and considerations and strategies by Sandra all throughout this season. Yet Natalie really did do almost nothing, except for be smart enough to be a bimbo and ride Russell's coattails. However, in Natalie's defense, she eloquently outlined this strategy in the finals and more power to her.

But Sandra is in a completely different class from Natalie. Not only were we simply shown many more confessionals about how Sandra was consciously behaving in order to get ahead -- "just three more days! as long as it's not me! i come here, play Survivor, get my million dollar check and go home" -- but just from her attitude and demeanor you can tell that she wasn't bullshitting us. You knew her mind was whirring all day long. You knew she was calculating how much camp work to do, how many relationships to form and with whom. Yes, her Russell-defeating strategy didn't work, but there were other more subtle strategies at play. All season long.

Natalie may have been like that, too, but the evidence -- the footage we got to see -- simply didn't represent this at all. But again, her jury speech was captivating.

Meanwhile, the real issue may not lie with the game itself but with the editing. For, had Russell hardly ever been shown, and bold moves were shown to be mostly Parvati's doing (which is not untrue), then Russell's loss would probably be easier to stomach for many people. It feels like, people were rooting for Russell from Day 1, but not only that, the editing glorified him repeatedly, everything was about Russell. Russell this Russell that. I can understand the feelings of disappointment when he absolutely failed.

That's all hindsight. Why change a strategy that, for all intents and purposes, worked? I think most people's problem with the outcome is that the word "jury" implies some kind of justice and Sandra winning does not seem like a just outcome. Russell's not completely deluded because J.T. was obviously above being butthurt about the way he went down.

No, I'm saying, because he had no hindsight, why not change it up in case? And again, Russell's delusion is that J.T. wouldn't be butthurt. His delusion was that the Samoa jury wouldn't be butthurt.

But he had enough people on the jury whom he didn't backstab. He could have won. But he was an utter bitch to almost everyone on the jury the entire game. They hated him. Democracy won out.

 

[Galang]

^ Pretty much what I've been saying these last few pages.

Again, Sandra is a huge improvement over Natalie winning against Russell. And huge improvement over Mick, Suzy, Sugar and everyone who people loved to hate for supposedly coat-tail riding.

People are really blind against anyone else's gameplay that's not Russell's. Last season I could understand people's disappointment, but this season it's not as if he dominated the social game-play as in Samoa. If Sandra really rode it all the way to the end as badly as people are making out to be, then you could argue Russell did the same. He was only kept around because people knew the jury hated him, despite making big moves that did help him get further.

 

[BowieZ]

Survivor will definitely continue to decline in viewers if they don't fix the voting system, rewarding poor players with a million dollar gift is not a satisfying ending. Russel and Parvati were both far more deserving, hell Jerry was more deserving.

No. All returning television series are declining in viewers as the years go by, but Survivor has held on the strongest of all of them and consistently rates in the Top 10 shows every year in terms of Adults 18-49 ratings, the key demographic.

The voting system is fine. Sandra was a great winner, and I personally was incredibly satisfied by the ending and think it was probably the best season ever.

Again, if anything, what they need to revise is the way they edit footage. Sandra's subtle, conscientious maneuvers were simply overshadowed too much by Russell's blatant arrogant plays. I think Russell's strategy only seems more valid than the other because it's just a dead horse being beaten every. single. week. But hey. Maybe I am wrong and Survivor is a "flawed game".

 

[Axion22]

No. All returning television series are declining in viewers as the years go by, but Survivor has held on the strongest of all of them and consistently rates in the Top 10 shows every year in terms of Adults 18-49 ratings, the key demographic.

The voting system is fine. Sandra was a great winner, and I personally was incredibly satisfied by the ending and think it was probably the best season ever.

But hey. Maybe I am wrong and Survivor is a "flawed game".

I agree, best season yet. But I think Sandra's a horrible winner because she wasn't chosen as the best player, she was chosen as the alternative. Anyone but Russell was the jury's answer, and it's clear the reason is their hurt feelings.

I think the jury should be treated like a real jury, sequestered and not allowed to talk about "evidence" outside "court."

 

[bill0527]

Russell was on The Bob & Tom radio show this morning. He called in for a quick 10 minute interview.

-- He still thinks he was the best player as evidenced by being voted the people's champion twice

-- He said he had a 10-day turnaround from when Samoa ended and he had to go back for HvV

-- Said that this was just a game to him, he plays all games to win, even board games with his children.

-- He then pointed out a difference between him and Sandra. He talked about burning Jaison's socks in Samoa as a means to weaken the tribe and get better control of them, whereas Sandra burned his hat just to be vindictive because that's how she is in real life

-- He mentioned that he did not get to see his first season on TV, so he was not able to see what mistakes he made and correct them, compared to the rest of his fellow players who had gotten to see themselves already, some multiple times, and try to fix what went wrong previously

-- He would play the game a little differently if he was to do it a 3rd time. He would still run people into the ground, but he wouldn't stomp on them once they were knocked over

-- When asked if he would play the game again if asked, he said that he's really not sure (sounded very negative about it)

-- Talked about having an oil tanker business in Houston and his dad and brother are running it. He said he has no plans to go back to real life anytime soon and will see what this Survivor experience opens up for him. Says he really enjoys reality TV.

-- Mentioned that he and Rupert are going to do something together in the future (gave no specifics at all - could be a charity event, or a TV show of some kind. I think Rupert produces some kind of nature show)

 

[ToxicAdam]

Need to get Russell on Amazing Race. Hopefully it won't be his wife, who he probably emotionally abuses.

 

[Baker]

I will whole-heartedly agree that Sandra > Natalie.

This season was just so much more intense, it kind of "hurt" more.

 

[BowieZ]

I agree, best season yet. But I think Sandra's a horrible winner because she wasn't chosen as the best player, she was chosen as the alternative. Anyone but Russell was the jury's answer, and it's clear the reason is their hurt feelings.

And that's why Sandra went into bed with Russell towards the end and wanted him in the finals. They all wanted Russell in the finals, because they were all smart enough to know that Russell was hated. They were all prepared for a bitter jury because they were putting Russell into the jury so that the jury would be bitter! Do you see?

If they didn't take Russell to the finals... then the jury wouldn't have been "bitter" and then Sandra's chances would be weaker because there would be no bitterness. Sandra's social and political senses were extremely heightened all throughout the game, right to the end, whereas Russell was not conscious at all that even all-star players are humans who get hurt. It's disappointing to me that some of you guys just don't quite appreciate that but oh well.

I think the jury should be treated like a real jury, sequestered and not allowed to talk about "evidence" outside "court."

Totally agree. Ponderosa isn't a good thing for the game.

 

[Axion22]

And that's why Sandra went into bed with Russell towards the end and wanted him in the finals. They all wanted Russell in the finals, because they were all smart enough to know that Russell was hated. They were all prepared for a bitter jury because they were putting Russell into the jury so that the jury would be bitter! Do you see?

If they didn't take Russell to the finals... then the jury wouldn't have been "bitter" and then Sandra's chances would be weaker because there would be no bitterness. Sandra's social and political senses were extremely heightened all throughout the game, right to the end, whereas Russell was not conscious at all that even all-star players are humans who get hurt. It's disappointing to me that some of you guys just don't quite appreciate that but oh well.

I don't give Sandra that much credit, no. It wasn't until Day 2 of the merge she realized that she needed to keep Russell around - only after the almost blew the whole thing by telling Rupert. Her stated goal was to get rid of Russell from Day 1, not take him to the end.

 

[Baker]

I don't give Sandra that much credit, no. It wasn't until Day 2 of the merge she realized that she needed to keep Russell around - only after the almost blew the whole thing by telling Rupert. Her stated goal was to get rid of Russell from Day 1, not take him to the end.

Sandra made two plays in the game (that we were shown).

1) Convincing Russel to vote out Coach. This was a non-issue and a two-year-old could convince Russel to do anything when he's in paranoia mode.

2) Voting with the villains when she found out Candice was flip flopping. That tiny action had a pretty huge impact on her future in the game IMO.

 

[BowieZ]

I don't give Sandra that much credit, no. It wasn't until Day 2 of the merge she realized that she needed to keep Russell around - only after the almost blew the whole thing by telling Rupert. Her stated goal was to get rid of Russell from Day 1, not take him to the end.

Yeah, she definitely changed her strategy about 3-5ths of the way through. She wanted Russell gone, it didn't work. Heroes didn't want a bar of it and they all paid the price.

Knowing that Russell was screwing all these Heroes over, she decided it was in her best interests to stick with the numbers (Villains) and keep Russell to the end (she never saved Rupert with her idol, she was happy to see Rupert go for this reason), especially as the longer they were out there, the more repulsive Russell became, so it was a wise decision, and she finally got into the bed with him only at the last minute ("I'm happy with runner-up to you!" and other ego-stroking).

That Sandra was constantly thinking about and adjusting her strategies from the very beginning (very wise!), that she flaunted her physical weaknesses so that she would be strung along as a minority pawn by Russell's alliance(s), and that she appeared on the surface as opinionated and abrasive yet still forming strong friendships, in full embrace of her Villain status, and still got awarded the million dollars (twice) makes her in my opinion one of the very, very best players ever.

 

[Axion22]

Yeah, she definitely changed her strategy about 3-5ths of the way through. She wanted Russell gone, it didn't work. Heroes didn't want a bar of it and they all paid the price.

I just don't give her that much credit for what could be happy accidents. She doesn't strike me as all that intelligent. How do you not know you have to play the numbers after the merge? All she really did was make sure it wasn't her name coming up that particular day, which wasn't even in her control. She didn't really win it convincingly as much as Russell lost it for himself, and that's disappointing.

 

[bill0527]

That Sandra was constantly thinking about and adjusting her strategies from the very beginning (very wise!), that she flaunted her physical weaknesses so that she would be strung along as a minority pawn by Russell's alliance(s), and that she appeared on the surface as opinionated and abrasive yet still forming strong friendships, in full embrace of her Villain status, and still got awarded the million dollars (twice) makes her in my opinion one of the very, very best players ever.

Ya know... flaunting your physical weakness gets you voted off your tribe 9/10 times.

She was damn lucky she had Boston Rob to carry the Villains to all of those early victories.

 

[BowieZ]

Ya know... flaunting your physical weakness gets you voted off your tribe 9/10 times.

Not since about Season 12

She didn't really win it convincingly as much as Russell lost it for himself, and that's disappointing.

That's a fair summary, I agree.

 

[BowieZ]

Meanwhile, I love this .gif :lol

 

[Baker]

:lol

I was cracking up at that part during the show. It took me the whole time to realize it was Stephanie and not some drunk fan crashing the stage.

 

[BowieZ]

:lol

I was cracking up at that part during the show. It took me the whole time to realize it was Stephanie and not some drunk fan crashing the stage.

On a certain Survivor fansite, Stephenie is known as and referred to as "StepheME" because of how attention-seeking and dramatic she is in every season. :lol

What a great way to cap off her third season with a vigorous bout of audience waving! "ME! ME!" :lol

 

[Galang]

Wow completely missed that thing with Stephanie... :lol And it was her third time playing? Didn't know that!