# Survivor Finale



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Once again the voters are complete and utter morons.


----------



## peitsche (Nov 13, 2002)

I'm sorry but that final vote has to be the worst in the history of the show...even worse than Vee winning many years ago...

and if people like the utterly dazed and confused Jaison still don't get that this is a game and not real life, well, then there is no hope. 

Russell seems like a sore loser now but the real sore losers are the members of the jury who just couldn't admit to themselves that he was the most deserving of the three left...


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

that's some bullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll****

wow

wow

bull****

I don't think he's acting like a sore loser so much as he's acting confused and frustrated that he just had the game stolen from him.

He's got much more composure than I, that's for sure.


----------



## StanSimmons (Jun 10, 2000)

If I were Russell, I'm not sure if I could have stayed on the stage after that travesty of a vote.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Guess I'll be alone. I didn't agree with Natalie, per se, but I agreed with what Jaison said at the reunion. Russell ran a negative game-no matter how well you think he played-and paid the price in the end.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT VOTE!!!!

The jury members were just bitter.
Survivor has never been about just playing an honest game.
It's *outwit, outlast, outplay* by any means necessary within the confines of the rules.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Worst. Finale. Ever.

Wtf?


----------



## jtonra (Oct 19, 2001)

Russell was robbed!!


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

At least Russell got the popular vote and $100K. That's some vindication.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

You mess with people and you expect their vote? C'mon! If it were you being messed with would you really give that a-hole the money?! Very satisfying finale for me at least!


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> You mess with people and you expect their vote? C'mon! If it were you being messed with would you really give that a-hole the money?! Very satisfying finale for me at least!


Yeah, this.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

so who won


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

So glad Natalie didn't take the 10K. He would probably try and sue her ass for the money later. Don't trust that arrogant jerk Nat?!


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

markz said:


> Worst. Finale. Ever.
> 
> Wtf?


Might be worse even than Sandra or Vecepia. Utterly unimaginable how they can vote that way.


----------



## DLL66 (Oct 21, 2002)

Those Galu were just bitter that Russel outwitted and outplayed them all. Jaison was just pissed because he didn't get to go to the final 3, which he really didn't deserve. Russel sure took it bad. He did think he had it in the bag, but got outwitted by Galu for spite. The joke is on Galu when Russel won the 100K for the best play.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Yeah, this.


I'm sorry but that means you don't get the rules. Outwit, Outlast, Outplay. He did all of them. I think he was mean and sneaky but the other two did nothing but ride the train. All the moves were his. He found the idols. He convinced Shambo to defect. Absent that, none of the final three would be there. To merge with 8 to 4 odds and have the final three from the 4 is mathematically unbelievable. Natalie did nothing to earn that vote, this is just tired, delusional idiots acting out. I think if they had seen the TV show instead of living it, the vote would be 9-0.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

The only time I didn't like Russell was during the final 4. He talked too much crap, although only one of those people ended up on the jury.

I loved Russell offering a sock to Jaison and then dropping it in the fire!


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> You mess with people and you expect their vote? C'mon! If it were you being messed with would you really give that a-hole the money?! Very satisfying finale for me at least!


That's the whole point of the game, to mess with people. Reward and Immunity challenges are created soley as catalysts to having people mess with each other even more.

I absolutely would have given him my vote if I was any of those jury members. Maybe I would need a few hours to cool down, but it's not even a minor stretch to come to the conclusion that he deserved that win.

Oh...and the Jaison speech. Please. The guy clearly doesn't understand that he was playing a game. It's like condemning an actor for playing the part of a jerk in a movie. Not. Real. Life.

Natalie seems like a nice and smart girl, but no way her game play was even in the same ballpark as Russel's.

I'll keep watching, but it's definitely tarnish on an awesome season for me.


----------



## fliptheflop (Sep 20, 2005)

Natalie won pretty much because she was nice and Russell was mean. Its so stupid. She wouldn't even be there in the final 3 without Russell doing what he did. I don't ever recall her saying no Russell don't do that its mean. If you want a Miss Congeniality watch Miss America. Its survivor which means do whatever you have to do to survive.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

I don't know why I keep watching this when the winner is so often a letdown. Amazing. This is the worst jury ever

Even when: the game was brand new; when the blindsides were true blindsides, before they were even called blindsides, because nobody know what to expect to expect in the game; when the game was so raw with real emotion because of all the unexpected lying and backstabbing; when the game was taken personally; the jury still got it right and voted for Richard to win.


----------



## montag (Mar 10, 2001)

I'm out.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

SnakeEyes said:


> I don't know why I keep watching this when the winner is so often a letdown. Amazing. This is the worst jury ever
> 
> Even when: the game was brand new; when the blindsides were true blindsides, before they were even called blindsides, because nobody know what to expect to expect in the game; when the game was so raw with real emotion because of all the unexpected lying and backstabbing; when the game was taken personally; the jury still got it right at voted for Richard to win.


You watch for the same reason we all do, it's damned entertaining. I loved every show, I just hated the result.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

I think they are lucky they have the all stars show next season. When the show doesn't payoff with the greatest player ever winning it has to harm viewership for next season; especially considering that the show has been on forever.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I'm sorry but that means you don't get the rules. Outwit, Outlast, Outplay. He did all of them. I think he was mean and sneaky but the other two did nothing but ride the train. All the moves were his. He found the idols. He convinced Shambo to defect. Absent that, none of the final three would be there. To merge with 8 to 4 odds and have the final three from the 4 is mathematically unbelievable. Natalie did nothing to earn that vote, this is just tired, delusional idiots acting out. I think if they had seen the TV show instead of living it, the vote would be 9-0.


While I totally agree Russell deserved the votes, there are no "rules" in Survivor.

Russell's downfall was the social aspect of the game. I think if he would have played the same basic game (play hard, find immunity idols first, etc), but been more straightforward about it and likable throughout the game, he might have won. By being to focused on the win at all cost, he basically ignored another important aspect of the game and it bit him in the end.

And obviously he'll end up


Spoiler



On the Villain team come February on "Survivor: Villains vs Heros"


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

He's on it.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I'm sorry but that means you don't get the rules. Outwit, Outlast, Outplay. He did all of them. I think he was mean and sneaky but the other two did nothing but ride the train. All the moves were his. He found the idols. He convinced Shambo to defect. Absent that, none of the final three would be there. To merge with 8 to 4 odds and have the final three from the 4 is mathematically unbelievable. Natalie did nothing to earn that vote, this is just tired, delusional idiots acting out. I think if they had seen the TV show instead of living it, the vote would be 9-0.


Perhaps I don't. I really dislike the show, and only watch it because my husband does. I watched early on, but I really don't care for it overall.

And again, it's my opinion. I don't really care if no one agrees. Not even my aforementioned husband does.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I have to say I am sorry Russell didn't win, as arrogant as he was about it, he played a hell of a game.

I think he would have maybe done better with the jury if he hadn't been so heavy handed but rather reminded them of him finding four immunity idols and the loyalty of bringing the 3 he promised to be the last four of the tribe.

edit- what peter said.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

betts4 said:


> I think he would have maybe done better with the jury if he hadn't been so heavy handed but rather reminded them of him finding four immunity idols and the loyalty of bringing the 3 he promised to be the last four of the tribe.


This is probably closer to how I feel about the whole thing.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

1) Travesty of justice. Sorry Russell.
2) Nat's game was to not play strong because she knew strong women get eliminated? Sorry if I don't believe that. It's like a backronym...she filled that all in after the fact, trying to come up with some fantastic story to make her look good after the fact.
3) Erik's comments...was he trying to propose or something? I thought he was about to drop to his knees and start crying with the praise. What's oddest about the way he lambasted Russell was, remember back to the tribal when Russell first played the II. He pulled it out and everyone realized he wasn't going home, Erik was right there on the jury practically screaming "YES!!!!!".


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Perhaps I don't. I really dislike the show, and only watch it because my husband does. I watched early on, but I really don't care for it overall.
> 
> And again, it's my opinion. I don't really care if no one agrees. Not even my aforementioned husband does.


So, stop watching. Easy peasy.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> While I totally agree Russell deserved the votes, there are no "rules" in Survivor.


When I said rules, I meant how the game is played. Clearly, there are no rules. For people to say that Russell shouldn't win cause he wasn't nice clearly indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of how the game works.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> So, stop watching. Easy peasy.


If I want to spend time with my significant other on Thursday nights, I can't.

Listen, I'm grouchy and not feeling well and I think Russell's a ******. He made several important mistakes along the line, socially, that ruined the whole game for him. He did NOT play a perfect game.

ETA: And if you go back to some of the more recent threads, you'll see I actually predicted that.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> You mess with people and you expect their vote? C'mon! If it were you being messed with would you really give that a-hole the money?! Very satisfying finale for me at least!


Sorry, I woudn't deny a guy a million dollars because he burned my socks.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

LordKronos said:


> 1) Travesty of justice. Sorry Russell.
> 2) Nat's game was to not play strong because she knew strong women get eliminated? Sorry if I don't believe that. It's like a backronym...she filled that all in after the fact, trying to come up with some fantastic story to make her look good after the fact.


I think #2 is Russell's downfall. He probably would have been better off to let the two idiots go into the final council cold without thinking about it. I think Nat won it there by coming up with a line of crap that they bought hook, line and sinker.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

Obviously they hated Russell a lot more than we did.  To only get TWO votes? Wow.

I think Russell was really "mad" because


Spoiler



he just got back from All-Stars and he was exhausted... he had horrible raccoon eyes and an outfit to cover any weight he'd lost.


Plus, if I had been him, I would have thought I had it in the bag. To lose 7-2 would piss me off big time.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

martinp13 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> he just got back from All-Stars and he was exhausted... he had horrible raccoon eyes and an outfit to cover any weight he'd lost.


Perhaps. Filming ended nearly 3 months ago. They filmed seasons 19 & 20 back to back this time; there was barely a month between the end of season's 19's filming and the start of season 20.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Russell didn't look good, that's for sure. And I think Eric won it for Natalie with his "question." I'm surprised Jeff didn't pick up on that.

As for everyone saying Russell was robbed, think of it this way. There is no one reason why someone should be voted the winner. There aren't three reasons (Outwit, Outplay, Outlast.) In this season, there were nine different reasons. Russel's demise was thinking the the jury could be swayed to view him as the winner because he thought he deserved it. Everyone on the jury has different values: Russell never took the time to know them all enough as people, to relate to them, and to use that knowledge to frame himself as the person they, as individuals, should vote for. That was his downfall.

Edited to add: Laura is a grandmother? HFC!!! She's only 39, and has a two year old grandkid!


----------



## latenight (May 5, 2005)

Completely rediculous vote. Natalie trying to say that she hid in the background because the 2 most vocal women went out first .. Now thats funny. She hid in the background because she had nothing to offer. 

Jaisons high and mighty speech was hilarious... ITS A GAME MORON... Outwit Outlast Outplay.. Not lets all be team players working for the same company. I'm glad Russell burned his socks  

LOL

Any predictions on how quickly Russell finds the idol without a clue? My guess no one else from 19 makes it to All Stars so his strategy will work again.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

MonsterJoe said:


> That's the whole point of the game, to mess with people.


Actually, no. The whole point of the game is to get to the end and get the jury votes. Everything else is fluff. The immunity challenges, the reward challenges, the concept of strategy, playing a "good game", integrity, backstabbing, all of it is just fluff.

I guess I am one of the few people that thinks the right person always wins Survivor. Each winner has to figure out how to get the votes from the specific jury they are going up against (a jury they are creating along the way). As great as Russell was at some of the fluff aspects of the game, he didn't figure out how to win the only criteria that really matters.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

montag said:


> I'm out.


Yeah, there's no way I can continue watching after that travesty.


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

Erik practically proposed to and voted for the person who voted him out? WTF. Didn't he condemn Russell for playing a dirtty game?


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

That vote wasn't a travesty at all: it just revealed a critical flaw in Russell's game play. He used and abused people, laughed at them getting voted out, and spit on their graves. But they weren't dead. They had one last chance to stick it to him, and they did. His arrogance, and his assumptions that people would reward his cunning and forgive his duplicitness were wrong. Perhaps a different jury would vote differently, but Russell gave no reasons to vote for him other than the ones HE thought were worthy. None of the jury identified with him.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

stalemate said:


> Actually, no. The whole point of the game is to get to the end and get the jury votes. Everything else is fluff. The immunity challenges, the reward challenges, the concept of strategy, playing a "good game", integrity, backstabbing, all of it is just fluff.
> 
> *I guess I am one of the few people that thinks the right person always wins Survivor. Each winner has to figure out how to get the votes from the specific jury they are going up against (a jury they are creating along the way). As great as Russell was at some of the fluff aspects of the game, he didn't figure out how to win the only criteria that really matters.*


For the most part I agree with this. But it seems that Nat won not for something she actually did, but won because people didn't want to give it to Russell. That doesn't feel like she "earned" it, which is why it has a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Russell's play reminded me so much of Hatch, and I was glad when Hatch was named the winner.

I am curious if any of the jury members were swayed by Erik's speech. I am thinking no. I think the women on the jury minus Shambo already decided to give it to Nat, so that was 3 votes. Jaison was pissed at Russel, so that was a 4th vote. Shambo we knew would vote for Russell. Erik's vote surprised me. I thought he would have given it to Russell. I do wonder who the other person to vote for Russell. Probably John. Which means likely that Dave and Brett voted Natalie as well.


----------



## bleen (Aug 9, 2008)

I think Russell's downfall was being a little too specific in mentioning virtually person by person how he outwitted & outplayed each of them. Any chance of them forgiving & forgetting was certainly lost then & there. Plus as someone else mentioned he should have played up finding the HII's as a sign of his superior gameplay that wouldn't have been so directly confrontational.

Conversely (and despite the sentiments of many on here), Natalie in fact made one of the best strategy moves in getting Galu to turn on Erik, but saved that tidbit for the reunion when all was said & done, not dredging it up during Final Tribal where it could go either way as a sign of great gameplay or get Erik & others against her.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

bleen said:


> Natalie in fact made one of the best strategy moves in getting Galu to turn on Erik, but saved that tidbit for the reunion when all was said & done, not dredging it up during Final Tribal


This was a great move of hers and was critical to the downfall of Galu. She did mention it at the Final Tribal, but only when asked what moves she made, not as part of her opening statement.


----------



## tetspa (Mar 17, 2005)

I am trying hard (and it really is hard) to accept that the vote was anything other than a galu jury determined not to award the player that beat them like the idiots they were.

Russell should have given a better opening speech...something to the effect of "I came to the merge behind 8-4...I did what I had to do. I cut deals with anybody and everybody and scrambled to keep our heads above water. It was only a game...and I played the game to the best of my abilities. I found idols with no clues...I got Galu players to jump over and vote with us. It was not personal...just my trying to play the game. Regardless of who you vote for, I hope you accept that if any of you Galu went into a merge behind 8-4, 1) you would have probably done the same, and 2) you would have hoped beyond hope to have a player like me as one of the 4 to help you survive. Regardless of your personal feelings, I hope you take you job seriously as a juror and vote for the best player.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

tetspa said:


> Russell should have given a better opening speech...something to the effect of "I came to the merge behind 8-4...


Yeah, after he intentionally weakened his own tribe pre-merge. If he hadn't been such an ass even within his own tribe early, he might have made a much different path for himself.


----------



## Jody164 (Mar 3, 2003)

This was the worst Jury vote since Colby lost. This and another All Star season spells "Jump the Shark"


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Philosofy said:


> That vote wasn't a travesty at all: it just revealed a critical flaw in Russell's game play. He used and abused people, laughed at them getting voted out, and spit on their graves. But they weren't dead. They had one last chance to stick it to him, and they did. His arrogance, and his assumptions that people would reward his cunning and forgive his duplicitness were wrong. Perhaps a different jury would vote differently, but Russell gave no reasons to vote for him other than the ones HE thought were worthy. None of the jury identified with him.


This.

Russell got exactly what he played for. He was an obnoxious bully. That got him into the last three. But it couldn't get him a win.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

Jody164 said:


> This was the worst Jury vote since Colby lost. This and another All Star season spells "Jump the Shark"


Another All Star's for Season 20 isn't bad. Nothing wrong with voting for Tina. That was Colby's fault. The worst was Vecepia and Sandra Diaz Twine


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

stalemate said:


> Actually, no. The whole point of the game is to get to the end and get the jury votes. Everything else is fluff. The immunity challenges, the reward challenges, the concept of strategy, playing a "good game", integrity, backstabbing, all of it is just fluff.


obviously the point of the game is to win, lol. maybe poor choice of words on my part, but you don't really believe the game isn't set up to instigate this type of game play, do you?

From the last Probst blog:
http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/12/18/jeff-probst-blogs-survivor-samoa-episode-14/#more-42979



> there is a specific reason that we will often run a "team" challenge during the individual portion of the game and that is because we want to *continue *to mix things up and cause conflict.


he didn't get the jury votes, and didn't win. That much is irrefutable. what I see most people arguing here is that the jury was a bunch of morons with a chip on their should who don't understand how the show intends the game to be played..it's not even a Survivor thing....it's a reality show thing. It's just common knowledge at this point.

People saying Russel didn't play the social game aren't thinking it through. His moves wouldn't have been possible had he not. He played socially enough to get people to vote how he wanted. It wasn't until they were voted out themselves that they had a problem with it.

Lucky for Natalie she was able to keep her hands clean for the majority of the show. I wouldn't turn down the 1 million dollars or anything, but I'm sure even she knows she shouldn't have won.


----------



## SoakinginSoap (Aug 11, 2006)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Once again the voters are complete and utter morons.


This just about sums it up for me to! I have watched every episode of Survivor and this had to be the shocker of all time. My husband, who only watched three or four episodes here and there, because I was watching it, even thought from what he saw, that Russell should have won.

I am not a fan of Russell. I despised him from day one. But Survivor is about outwit, outlast, outplay. NO ONE came close to out maneuvering Russell.

I come here after every episode and read these messages. There was a discussion by many people on how they felt that the jurors would get it right and vote for the person that outwitted everyone else. That they would not let emotions get in the way. I didn't agree because I know how strong human emotions are, if they think they have been wronged. Sanity does not set in because the hurt is raw. IMO, Laura was a very bitter person and helped persuaded the juror. Erik sounded like a lunatic to me.

Talking about ungratefulness. Jaison, Natalie and Mitch would have been long gone if it had not been for Russell paving the way for them to stay. No way wouldn't Galu have eaten them alive if Russell had not made the moves that he made. The only person that truly appreciated that effort was Shambo.

Another thing, they should show, who voted for whom. Someone said it was 7 for Natalie and 2 for Russell. I must have missed this because they did not call out 7 votes. I heard 5 and 2. Would love to know exactly who voted for whom.

Natalie floated and I hope this is not the way future episodes are going to turn out.

I am not making light of any situation but after the votes came through that Natalie had won, the outcry of the OJ verdict came to mind.

I hated Russell but he deserved the million dollars and I would not have had any problem writing his name down.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

So disappointed. Russell should have won that money - NOBODY has ever played the game like him.

Idiot voters. Once again, a weak hanger-on won. I will never understand the human race, equating people who cling to power as equal to those who create power.

:down: :down: :down:


----------



## SoakinginSoap (Aug 11, 2006)

justapixel said:


> I will never understand the human race, equating people who cling to power as equal to those who create power.
> 
> :down: :down: :down:


Well said!


----------



## Knives of Ice (Nov 8, 2006)

just proves once again how insanely dumb people on reality shows are for the most part. SURVIVOR IS A GAME. why these people vote personally just seems insane. Russell was the clear winner, he played the best game in survivor history. he was robbed. robbed.


----------



## USAFSSO (Aug 24, 2005)

This is the reason why I haven't watched the last 12 seasons of this show.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Watching the finale I was shocked. I then came to read this thread and I have quoted a lot as I think there is a lot of good discussion to have here about this finale.



gossamer88 said:


> You mess with people and you expect their vote? C'mon! If it were you being messed with would you really give that a-hole the money?! Very satisfying finale for me at least!





YCantAngieRead said:


> Yeah, this.


It is a game. Most times you will have to make deals, get your hands dirty somewhat and lie some to move forward. I really do believe there can and are two "Evil" Russells. There is survivor Russell and there is real life Russell. Monopoly is a game and I will maybe make trades that are not favorable to me in order to hurt some other player more then it will hurt me to complete that trade. It is all gameplay and people need to realize this and not take it personal.



SnakeEyes said:


> I don't know why I keep watching this when the winner is so often a letdown. Amazing. This is the worst jury ever


Granted I missed a good number of seasons in the middle, but I have to agree. I usually have a favorite in shows like this in who I want to win and sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, but this is the first time I really felt cheated in the outcome. Nat seems like a great person, but she didn't do much in this game besides not being Russell.



Philosofy said:


> As for everyone saying Russell was robbed, think of it this way. There is no one reason why someone should be voted the winner. There aren't three reasons (Outwit, Outplay, Outlast.) In this season, there were nine different reasons. Russel's demise was thinking the the jury could be swayed to view him as the winner because he thought he deserved it. Everyone on the jury has different values: Russell never took the time to know them all enough as people, to relate to them, and to use that knowledge to frame himself as the person they, as individuals, should vote for. That was his downfall.


I think Russell did all he could do and the jury is mostly bitter individuals who have no clue about Survivor. It would be very interesting to take all the past Survivors (or jury members from prev seasons) and have them vote who they think deserved to win this season. Yes I know these people personally played with Russell, etc. but I am fairly sure that many survivor contestants who did win didn't take the time to know their other contestants, they played the game, made deals, made some lies and moves and got to where they were.



bryhamm said:


> For the most part I agree with this. But it seems that Nat won not for something she actually did, but won because people didn't want to give it to Russell. That doesn't feel like she "earned" it, which is why it has a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Russell's play reminded me so much of Hatch, and I was glad when Hatch was named the winner.
> .


100% Agree with this one. I think Mick was almost more deserving then Nat to win but both of them came no where near Russell's playing and strategies. The jury didn't want to vote for Russell because they wanted to vote off pure emotion and not logically think it through (which is atypical) and so Nat was just in the right place at the right time. Sure may have been her strategy but most will agree that is a piss poor strategy that she got lucky with and it payed off this time.



Jody164 said:


> This was the worst Jury vote since Colby lost. This and another All Star season spells "Jump the Shark"





montag said:


> I'm out.


I was going to ask if a reality show in which the producers have no control of the outcome could "Jump the Shark" or not, but I do wonder if MB is wondering if this is the start of the end of Survivor.



Jody164 said:


> This was the worst Jury vote since Colby lost.





SnakeEyes said:


> Nothing wrong with voting for Tina.


In Season 2 Colby's gameplay mistake was taking Tina to the finals. In S2 both were equal footing in how they played the game. No one person really outshine the other so it came down to who would get more jury votes. Colby was a nice guy and stuck to his word with Tina and unfortunately that cost him the game.

---------

None related to any quotes above: I hope Russell doesn't beat himself up for not taking Shambo and Jaison to the final 3 as I think the game easily could have changed significantly if they voting order did not go down as it did. Sure if it was Shambo, Jaison and Russell in the final 3 Russell presumably would have won (notice that two jury members didn't vote) however it would have had to been Shambo, Jaison and Russell in the final 3 for that to happen. Russell could have been voted out before that time, we never know what could have happened.

Also what this season reminds me of is a poker game. Here we have Russell who knows how to play, knows the strategies and makes all the right moves and then we have the other players who will call almost anything even if it is the worst possible move and just by dumb luck the donks win and beat the Pro. Here Russell had a bad beat and I don't blame him for looking so dang bummed during the finale.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

The jury was just as clueless in voting for the winner as they were in playing the game. If Galu had any intelligence at all the four Foa Foa would have been gone right away. They clearly had no concept of how the game was played and that same stupidity chose the wrong winner. Russel may have played too hard, but Natalie hardly played at all. Maybe her strategy got her to the final three, but so did Russel's. He deserved to win. Can you imagine how boring this show would be if everyone played Natalie's strategy? Can you imagine this jury playing Hide and Seek? They would all stand out in the open because it would be deceptive to hide. Maybe this jury vote was a product of the "no one is a loser" generation.

And as far as Natalie orchestrating Eric getting voted out, I recall Russel saying something along the lines that he had his Foa Foa stirring things up so that Galu would vote off one of their own. She may have sold the deal, but it was Russel's strategy.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Russell should have stood up at final tribal and said "neither of these two would be here without me, but if I had had any other 2 people in my alliance, I'd still be here."


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I don't get why the heck Jaison, Mick & Natalie (and Brett) didn't vote out Russell when they had the chance after Brett won the first immunity. Russell was clearly the strongest player. They were all just so focused on getting rid of Brett.

I guess in the end it was the right move for Natalie. But I was flabbergasted there wasn't even a HINT of discussion about getting rid of Russell.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

Yeah, I think they're all idiots too, or just treating it like a popularity contest rather than a vote for a player. ( Think of a figure skating judge basing the score on looks not skill ).

The comment about people coming to work and Russell wanting to play was so bassackwards. They were voting based on people who wanted to play around and Russell was the one who was "working" it the hardest.

Offering $10K, then $100K to get Natalie to say he was the "Sole Survivor" was a bit crazy. He's got the money, not from his personal stash but the winnings for #2 plus the Sprint cash, but it's still a bit nuts. I'd also have to say it's crazy talk to think he was doing it so he could sue her for the million.

I really dislike the "All Star" versions of the show, so I'm not happy that's what's coming next. If Russell was on and won, good for him, but I'd rather they just moved on with new people. His best chance would be if the others haven't seen this season, so his gameplay wasn't outed. He'd also have the advantage of seeing most of the others play before.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

http://www.russellgotscrewed.com/

Warning, annoying music automatically plays.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> And obviously he'll end up
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



Would not surprise me if he wins. No one playing in February Survivor has seen Survivor Samoa as Villains vs Heros was in filiming when Survivor Samoa was showing on YV.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

brianric said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Would not surprise me if he wins. No one playing in February Survivor has seen Survivor Samoa as Villains vs Heros was in filiming when Survivor Samoa was showing on YV.





Spoiler



Maybe he doesn't win and that is why he was so pissed at the reunion. The other is over and done and he is back.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Russell was robbed.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

I think Russell may do well in 20 as noone else playing would have seen his game. When queried about why he is on the Evil side, he can just talk about everything other than the HIIs.

We'll see


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

Playing the best game does not automatically equate to or mean the best player should win. I think Russell played the best game by far, but Even having played the best game, he lost due to how he played to be the best. He pissed off too many people that would then be judging him. Just like he and many believe he should have won, the jury has the right to vote how they think and feel, like it or not, right or wrong, it is the way it is.

It seems on a lot of different Survivor forums, newbies are coming out of lurking and making simplistic comments in frustration of Russell losing. While I agree Russell is the best player and played the best game, some don't get the fact of what I mentioned above. Some on the CBS Survivor site are claiming the rules and way the jury votes needs to be changed. Talk about sore losers, that is the classic definition...wanting to change the rules when you or your team loses.


----------



## Gene S (Feb 11, 2003)

I think it's funny that some people here posted, that the jury that was "actually" on Survivor, don't understand the rules, and don't know how to play. 

Hands down, Russell was probably the greatest strategic player in history. And he was also an entertaining character to watch. 

But "Outwit, Outlast, Outplay" are just words on the Survivor Logo. Those aren't the defining criteria everyone on the jury "must" use to determine the winner.

"Lie, Cheat, and Steal" is a strategy one can use to try and win the game. It's worked in the past on other juries. Russell tried that strategy this time around, and it didn't work. He forgot the second half of the game; you need votes from those you kick off. For whatever reason, this jury didn't care for his strategy. A better player would have kept that in mind.

I'm not rooting for Nat by any means. I can't stand "coat-riders." But she made a good point explaining her strategy. She saw a pattern on how people were getting voted off, then made sure her game play didn't resemble that pattern. That got her to the end. It was then Russells lack of social game with the jury, that gave her the win.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> I don't get why the heck Jaison, Mick & Natalie (and Brett) didn't vote out Russell when they had the chance after Brett won the first immunity. Russell was clearly the strongest player. They were all just so focused on getting rid of Brett.
> 
> I guess in the end it was the right move for Natalie. But I was flabbergasted there wasn't even a HINT of discussion about getting rid of Russell.


They probably thought trying to get rid of Russell was futile because Russell had the immunity idol.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

SoakinginSoap said:


> Another thing, they should show, who voted for whom. Someone said it was 7 for Natalie and 2 for Russell. I must have missed this because they did not call out 7 votes. I heard 5 and 2. Would love to know exactly who voted for whom.


Well, the official website says:


> ...and with 7 out of the nine votes cast in her favor, Natalie White...wins...


Even without reading that you should know. Every season the final vote is always dragged out to be as suspenseful as possible. If there had been another vote for Rus in the urn, Jeff would have pulled it out.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

stalemate said:


> I guess I am one of the few people that thinks the right person always wins Survivor.


That type of logic strikes me wrong...sort of like the "waterboarding can't be torture, because the United States does not torture" logic.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Make no mistake, Natalie didn't beat Russell. Russell beat Russell. He lost it because his game was flawed. Even when he was talking to Natalie about his speech to the jury, I could tell he might be in trouble. It wasn't about winning, it was about beating other people. How smart he was, etc. He made the jury dislike him even more.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

LordKronos said:


> That type of logic strikes me wrong...sort of like the "waterboarding can't be torture, because the United States does not torture" logic.


Survivor is a unique game in that it is defined ahead of time that to win you have to get the jury votes. That is the only requirement for winning.

Sure, maybe the jury voters are morons. Russell had over a month to get to know and understand those morons and figure out how to get their votes. He didn't so he lost.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

MonsterJoe said:


> obviously the point of the game is to win, lol. maybe poor choice of words on my part, but you don't really believe the game isn't set up to instigate this type of game play, do you?
> 
> From the last Probst blog:
> http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/12/18/jeff-probst-blogs-survivor-samoa-episode-14/#more-42979
> ...


Honestly, I don't think there is a certain way the game is intended to be played. Whatever works with that set of people is how it needs to be played to win. That's it. I think the concept of a "good game" in Survivor changes from season to season and you can't completely know what it is for that season until it is over.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

peitsche said:


> I'm sorry but that final vote has to be the worst in the history of the show...even worse than Vee winning many years ago...
> 
> and if people like the utterly dazed and confused Jaison still don't get that this is a game and not real life, well, then there is no hope.
> 
> Russell seems like a sore loser now but the real sore losers are the members of the jury who just couldn't admit to themselves that he was the most deserving of the three left...


This. A great season spoiled by a truly stupid jury. Before they revealed the vote I said to my sons that Russell wins this 8-1 or 7-2 (we already knew one vote, and perhaps Brett is so smitten with Nat, he votes her way too). I was shocked when they revealed Natalie winning. She did absolutely nothing to win, and I don't buy that her strategy the whole time was sticking with Russell. If Russell wanted her gone, she would have been.

Russell's expression was priceless. He was TOTALLY stunned he lost. I think through the whole reunion he was STILL in denial about it!! Just when I think I have this game figured out, I don't. It's funny, Big Brother almost ALWAYS votes for the best player, this game....well, I'm shocked!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Maybe I'm smeeking, but....I think Russell made a fatal flaw by NOT empahsising over and over how he found all those immunity idols without clues, and how he played them to his advantage. To me, that alone means he wins this game.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Philosofy said:


> Make no mistake, Natalie didn't beat Russell. Russell beat Russell. He lost it because his game was flawed. Even when he was talking to Natalie about his speech to the jury, I could tell he might be in trouble. It wasn't about winning, it was about beating other people. How smart he was, etc. He made the jury dislike him even more.


He made the unfortunate assumption that the jury members would respect strong gameplay above all else in the end and be forced by moral conviction to give him their votes, with grudging admiration even.

It's not really a bad assumption to make, and it might even be best to create your strategy based on that assumption--at least for him in particular. Put Russell up against 100 different juries, and that assumption might get him the greatest percentage of wins. Being a little less arrogant might increase that percentage slightly, but I think more than anything the outcome was decided by the character of the jury, and that character isn't easy to assess within the game itself.

His gameplay wasn't flawless, but the vast majority of his decisions were correct, and his mistakes were small. He had some good luck during the game and a lot of skill, but very bad luck in jury selection. It doesn't mean he deserved to win, but it does make him a little unlucky, and the best player by far this season.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I'm sorry but that means you don't get the rules. Outwit, Outlast, Outplay. He did all of them. I think he was mean and sneaky but the other two did nothing but ride the train. All the moves were his. He found the idols. He convinced Shambo to defect. Absent that, none of the final three would be there. To merge with 8 to 4 odds and have the final three from the 4 is mathematically unbelievable. Natalie did nothing to earn that vote, this is just tired, delusional idiots acting out. I think if they had seen the TV show instead of living it, the vote would be 9-0.


I wonder sometimes if the editing has some effect on the way we see the game. Perhaps there was a lot of things Russell did to pi** off the jury members we didn't see. With that said, another mistake Russell made was once he realized that things were going his way, he needed to tone down the arrogance. Things like flaunting the immunity idol, or telling everyone how he had this game won, and making deals with everyone and then TELLING them that he did so. I can see where a jury member would look at this and be turned off by it. That said, I STILL think he played the best game and should have won.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> When I said rules, I meant how the game is played. Clearly, there are no rules. For people to say that Russell shouldn't win cause he wasn't nice clearly indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of how the game works.


I guess the game just doesn't work the way you think it does. Unfortunately, we've seen too many of these things happen. But usually they get it right.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

martinp13 said:


> Obviously they hated Russell a lot more than we did.  To only get TWO votes? Wow.
> 
> I think Russell was really "mad" because
> 
> ...





Spoiler



It has to be interesting going to All-Stars not knowing if you won (or perhaps thinking you did).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Philosofy said:


> Edited to add: Laura is a grandmother? HFC!!! She's only 39, and has a two year old grandkid!


Does that make her a GMILF?


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

Russell often said the others were a bunch of idiots. He was right.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

SoakinginSoap said:


> This just about sums it up for me to! I have watched every episode of Survivor and this had to be the shocker of all time. My husband, who only watched three or four episodes here and there, because I was watching it, even thought from what he saw, that Russell should have won.
> 
> I am not a fan of Russell. I despised him from day one. But Survivor is about outwit, outlast, outplay. NO ONE came close to out maneuvering Russell.
> 
> ...


Anyone wonders what the outcome might have been if there was a final 2? I wonder who Russell would have taken with him. I'm guessing Nat, since he seemed to struggle between Mick and Jaison for the final 3. Interesting how he thought that Mick could possibly beat him but Mick got no votes.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Does that make her a GMILF?


I wouldn't touch Laura with a ten foot pole.

So no.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> I don't get why the heck Jaison, Mick & Natalie (and Brett) didn't vote out Russell when they had the chance after Brett won the first immunity. Russell was clearly the strongest player. They were all just so focused on getting rid of Brett.
> 
> I guess in the end it was the right move for Natalie. But I was flabbergasted there wasn't even a HINT of discussion about getting rid of Russell.


Maybe they knew something we didn't (and this could be editing). Perhaps they had an idea that there was no way the jury would vote for Russell. Their thought was that Russell got enough people mad that the would be able to beat him in the finals. Nat did say that she hid behind him and let him be the villain. (paraphrasing, obviously).


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

I think this comes down to a discussion of the game as a whole. There are multiple ways people can make the final 2/3. A strategic player like Russell, who makes alliances, breaks them, connives. A challenge monster like Ozzie (or Brett), who doesn't depend on allies but uses his skills to make it. And a low-flyer like Natalie, who stays friendly, keeps their nose clean and stays under the radar.

But once you reach the Final 2/3, you never know how your specific jury will judge you. Do they value type a, b, or c? Do they vote based on personality? Personality won't get you to the final, but it might make you win.

Those of us who value type A most feel very dissapointed in this outcome. I think the problem I have with coat-riders is that they don't control their fate at all. Natalie's one decent decision was allying with Russell, who then make all the decisions and good moves to get her to the end. It's almost just lucky. I'm sure others wanted to play that way. Kelly for example even admitted playing that type of game. Where did it get her? On the jury, because she didn't control her fate.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Maybe they knew something we didn't (and this could be editing). Perhaps they had an idea that there was no way the jury would vote for Russell. Their thought was that Russell got enough people mad that the would be able to beat him in the finals. Nat did say that she hid behind him and let him be the villain. (paraphrasing, obviously).


I think Mick and Natalie both thought Russell would win, pre-Final Tribal. Their actions around camp while Russell was being a jerk made it seem that way at least, plus their confessionals.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

billypritchard said:


> I wouldn't touch Laura with a ten foot pole.
> 
> So no.


I thought she cleaned up pretty nice


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

I'm surprised so many think Russell was robbed. The end game is to get the jury votes and Russell's mistake was that he took them for granted. He alienated and lied to nearly everyone being voted out even when there was no reason. If Shambo didn't have a crush on him she would seen this as well. His arrogance and ego led jury members to disrespect the social area of his play which quite frankly was one of the worst ever for a potential winner. Even Richard Hatch recognized its importance to some degree when he complimented Greg during Tribal (who was the deciding vote).

Survivor is more than backstapping and lies. Yes Russell did some great things like finding the idols with no clues and winning the clutch challenge. But the key to Survivor is to not just to make everyone a pawn, but to make people feel like they were more than just a pawn. Russell was content at tribal and during the game to throw it back into people faces and believe they would be stupid enough to still vote for him. That is a flaw and it rightfully stabbed him in the back.


----------



## tem (Oct 6, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Does that make her a GMILF?


the whole "but I'm a granny !" thing was ridiculous and obviously why she made it on the show in the first place. her only selling point was that she got married/knocked up at 18 and her subsequent spawn got knocked up young as well.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

The thing that bothers me most is that if Russell hadn't found the hidden immunity idol, all 3 of them would have been voted out. The fact that he found it and played it to their advantage is what caused the other 2 to be still in the game. That alone tells me that Russell should have won.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DancnDude said:


> The thing that bothers me most is that if Russell hadn't found the hidden immunity idol, all 3 of them would have been voted out. The fact that he found it and played it to their advantage is what caused the other 2 to be still in the game. That alone tells me that Russell should have won.


I think that was definitely one of Russell's fatal flaws. He need to emphasize this a LOT more during the jury grilling. As you said, to me, the key to him winning was the II. The fact he FOUND all three and the fact that he used them so strategicially. He just didn't play a good social game and didn't know how to NOT make the game personal on some level. Yeah, it may be a game, but these are not computer animations as jurors, these are real people that you need to pander to, at least a little bit.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

I didn't read through all four pages yet so forgive me if I smeek. But I was very happy with the results. The jury vote has always been the final say on who gets the money. If Russel was reckless enough to piss them all off on his way to the top, then he got what he deserved.

Secondly, instead of eating some humble pie at the final vote and explaining that he did what he did just to win, he bragged about how he used everybody. He might as well have just shoved a stake through his own heart at that point. 

To all those who think he should have won... you're wrong. He played the game wrong. Watching him on the morning show this morning was the perfect example of what an ****** he is, when he called Natalie his cheerleader on the sideline. Russell, old buddy, you weren't playing football. 

I didn't like Russell in the beginning. But then I started liking him when they were the underdogs. But then when they got on top he started showing what an extreme ass he is so I started disliking him again. He ended up getting just exactly what he deserved... the $100,000 for being a fan favorite, as he made the show interesting to watch. But that's about it.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

What did you expect from this jury a smart decision? They went into the merge up 8-4 and didn't get one person into the finals. They were idiots. Of course they blew the vote.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

JFriday said:


> What did you expect from this jury a smart decision? They went into the merge up 8-4 and didn't get one person into the finals. They were idiots. Of course they blew the vote.


It's their vote. They voted for the winner. Everybody else is a loser. Russell was just the first place loser.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

Here's another thing I was thinking about how Russell potentially blew it. I didn't get a chance to go back and double check, but didn't Russell make some negative comments about the other players during the "fallen comrades" portion? Whatever he said about Monica even got Nat to sort of cringe, and Brett kind of came to her defense. That part of the show is generally about paying your respects to the other players, and Russell didn't do that. I wonder if Brett mentioned it to the jury members after getting voted out. At that point, it wasn't about Russell playing the game to get an advantage over them (which could be excusable)...it was blatent disrespect.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

retrodog said:


> It's their vote. They voted for the winner. Everybody else is a loser. Russell was just the first place loser.


I agree, I'm just wondering why people are so outraged with the results.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

JFriday said:


> I agree, I'm just wondering why people are so outraged with the results.


Maybe it's a glowing example of how edited the show is.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

JFriday said:


> I agree, I'm just wondering why people are so outraged with the results.


Because the jury members are dunderheads who got it wrong.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

I think Russell figured out he overplayed his hand during the final tribal counsel. He realized he got a little too mean and cocky. The other tribe was able to blame Russell for tricking them into voting out Eric, therefore he was the reason they lost and they were going to make him pay for it.

I am a Russell fan. I think he played the best game out there. He did make some mistakes. I don't think he should have taunted his teammates about the speech on the last day. This season started out pretty boring, but turned around hardcore at merge. all due to Russell.

One of the things I enjoy about Survivor is coming back to the TCF forums to see how it played out. Great season guys, lets do it again in Feb.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> Because the jury members are dunderheads who got it wrong.


Yea they were dunderheads, they were up 8-4 and all lost, why are you suprised they got it wrong?


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Anyone wonders what the outcome might have been if there was a final 2? I wonder who Russell would have taken with him. I'm guessing Nat, since he seemed to struggle between Mick and Jaison for the final 3. Interesting how he thought that Mick could possibly beat him but Mick got no votes.


I find it really interesting that the coattail strategy only works for woman. Sandra, Vecepia, Parvati and now Natalie. I can't recall a single guy who backed into the win. Look at Mick. Same basic strategy and he got NO votes.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> Because the jury members are dunderheads who got it wrong.


Says you. And I'm betting that you weren't even there. You're just judging them based on a highly edited show.

I find it ironic that Russell brags about manipulating and lying to the others in one breath and then whines about Natalie using him the other.

Russell tried to lie even at the end when he told everyone that his philosophy outside the game was loyalty, honesty and such. But here's a better look at him in his own words..








russell said:


> "I control my family. I control my﻿ job. I even control my friends."


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I find it really interesting that the coattail strategy only works for woman. Sandra, Vecepia, Parvati and now Natalie. I can't recall a single guy who backed into the win. Look at Mick. Same basic strategy and he got NO votes.


Didn't you see Natalie in her bikini?


----------



## stark (Dec 31, 2003)

Idearat said:


> I really dislike the "All Star" versions of the show, so I'm not happy that's what's coming next. If Russell was on and won, good for him, but I'd rather they just moved on with new people. His best chance would be if the others haven't seen this season, so his gameplay wasn't outed. He'd also have the advantage of seeing most of the others play before.


If he is put on the "Villains" team, I think he automatically loses the option of playing the nice guy. I certainly wouldn't trust anyone I didn't know who was placed on the Villains team.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I find it really interesting that the coattail strategy only works for woman. Sandra, Vecepia, Parvati and now Natalie. I can't recall a single guy who backed into the win. Look at Mick. Same basic strategy and he got NO votes.


The curly haired soccer player. Can't remember his name but he just ended up winning because he didn't piss anybody off and never really did anything to get there.

Ethan: Africa


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I find it really interesting that the coattail strategy only works for woman. Sandra, Vecepia, Parvati and now Natalie. I can't recall a single guy who backed into the win. Look at Mick. Same basic strategy and he got NO votes.


Ethan maybe? I don't remember him doing much.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

DancnDude said:


> Ethan maybe? I don't remember him doing much.


I'd argue with that response but...


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

Russell was robbed. The jury was bitter. Russell was probably the best player on Survivor, ever.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I find it really interesting that the coattail strategy only works for woman. Sandra, Vecepia, Parvati and now Natalie. I can't recall a single guy who backed into the win. Look at Mick. Same basic strategy and he got NO votes.


I don't remember which season it was but I remember the winner's name was Chris. He won by letting all the girls vote eachother off. He was pretty much the last one standing.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

wow that was frustrating finale! If I was Russel I would have flipped my lid during the live show.

And the jury still had no idea about the water, the socks, or the mugging to the camera when they voted.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

pmyers said:


> wow that was frustrating finale! If I was Russel I would have flipped my lid during the live show.
> 
> And the jury still had no idea about the water, the socks, or the mugging to the camera when they voted.


The water and socks wouldn't have mattered to most of the jury because they were the opposing tribe. He did the water and socks stuff to his own tribe members. So you had Jaison and that was about it.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

7thton said:


> Russell was robbed. The jury was bitter. Russell was probably the best player on Survivor, ever.


And you can see how bitter the jury was. If Brett was in the Final 3 he would have easily walked away with the win (due to the informal vote Jeff did). The only thing I remember Brett doing was winning 3 IC near the end. Near the end you have an easier luck draw of winning vs. right after the merge. Most jury members will be pissed when they are first voted out but after some time will have a cool head and realize the gameplay behind the moves that got them to the jury. As others said it was basically a bitter jury that voted for anyone but Russ because Russ kicked their butts up and down the field in gameplay and strategy.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Einselen said:


> And you can see how bitter the jury was. If Brett was in the Final 3 he would have easily walked away with the win (due to the informal vote Jeff did). The only thing I remember Brett doing was winning 3 IC near the end. Near the end you have an easier luck draw of winning vs. right after the merge. Most jury members will be pissed when they are first voted out but after some time will have a cool head and realize the gameplay behind the moves that got them to the jury. As others said it was basically a bitter jury that voted for anyone but Russ because Russ kicked their butts up and down the field in gameplay and strategy.


Actually if you watched Ponderosa most weren't pissed after being voted out. Most were relieved.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

goblue97 said:


> I don't remember which season it was but I remember the winner's name was Chris. He won by letting all the girls vote eachother off. He was pretty much the last one standing.


I disagree with this. He got the women to fight with each other and vote each other off. In essence, by himself he did was happened to Erik this season ... the group with the numbers advantage decided too soon to turn on each other and then it snowballed out of control and they ended up losing it. It happened that season with the women that were still left, and it happened this season with Galu.


----------



## KMan (Dec 24, 2001)

JFriday said:


> Actually if you watched Ponderosa most weren't pissed after being voted out. Most were relieved.


Are there any rules about discussing/planning the final vote at the Ponderosa?


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

JFriday said:


> Actually if you watched Ponderosa most weren't pissed after being voted out. Most were relieved.


By most jury members I am talking about overall all 19 previous seasons. Also with that said it is not all jury members but the ones who get voted out due to game play as they pose a threat or it is one tribe slowly coming back from being the underdogs at the merge.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

This was the perfect example of what will happen when you have the record number of blindsides ever. 

Russell orchestrated many of them and he paid the price.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

I think Russell knew last night before the vote that he had lost. At the beginning Mick and Natalie were joking around and chatting. Russell just looked sick and didn't say a word. It seemed odd. He looked way more nervous than the other two did.

I think he should have won, too. I do understand why he didn't though.

tk


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Einselen said:


> By most jury members I am talking about overall all 19 previous seasons. Also with that said it is not all jury members but the ones who get voted out due to game play as they pose a threat or it is one tribe slowly coming back from being the underdogs at the merge.


But you equated it with this jury being bitter because they were pissed they got their butts kicked.


----------



## dfergie (Aug 27, 2006)

retrodog said:


> Maybe it's a glowing example of how edited the show is.


It's an example of why Survivor needs to stop "hiring" or "casting" contestants most of who have never watched the show and do not have a clue...


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

JFriday said:


> Actually if you watched Ponderosa most weren't pissed after being voted out. Most were relieved.


That may be what they said to the camera after leaving. However, I was watching the videos on the website of just before the final tribal. John's impression is that a number of them ARE bitter, so he must have seen something at the ponderosa to give him that idea.

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/surviv...oa_secret_scenes/index.php?week=1&playvid=8#8


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Philosofy said:


> As for everyone saying Russell was robbed, think of it this way. There is no one reason why someone should be voted the winner. There aren't three reasons (Outwit, Outplay, Outlast.) In this season, there were nine different reasons. Russel's demise was thinking the the jury could be swayed to view him as the winner because he thought he deserved it. Everyone on the jury has different values: Russell never took the time to know them all enough as people, to relate to them, and to use that knowledge to frame himself as the person they, as individuals, should vote for. That was his downfall.


I've often wondered whether anything said in front of the final jury even makes a difference. Most of those people already have their minds made up and just want to mug for the camera or throw darts at the people they lost to. It's pretty rare that a jury member is influenced by what's said during that last council.


Idearat said:


> I really dislike the "All Star" versions of the show, so I'm not happy that's what's coming next. If Russell was on and won, good for him, but I'd rather they just moved on with new people. His best chance would be if the others haven't seen this season, so his gameplay wasn't outed. He'd also have the advantage of seeing most of the others play before.


I'm thrilled that there's an All-Star season coming up. Usually, the first several episodes of any season of Survivor are mostly boring, as we're still trying to figure out who everyone is and whether we like them, there are just too many people to keep track of, etc. But in All-Star seasons, we already know most of the competitors and the game is on right out of the gate. Plus, we get to see Russell again!


Philosofy said:


> Make no mistake, Natalie didn't beat Russell. Russell beat Russell. He lost it because his game was flawed. Even when he was talking to Natalie about his speech to the jury, I could tell he might be in trouble. It wasn't about winning, it was about beating other people. How smart he was, etc. He made the jury dislike him even more.


I did cringe when he was berating Nat and Mick that final morning, and rubbing it in their faces. I thought that was pretty classless, and thought it might be the champagne talking. But I don't think that had much of an effect on the jury votes, as I'm pretty sure most of them already had their minds made up.


goblue97 said:


> I don't remember which season it was but I remember the winner's name was Chris. He won by letting all the girls vote each other off. He was pretty much the last one standing.


Chris won three of the final four individual immunity challenges down the stretch in that season, essentially forcing the girls to cannibalize each other. Unlike Brett this season, he won his way in front of the jury.

Also, I don't remember who said it in this thread (and I can't find it now to quote it), but a big part of the reason Foa Foa was able to beat Galu after the Merge is because they'd already been losing and having to strategized and vote people out. Galu had just been having a happy-go-lucky time up until that point, and they really hadn't started playing the strategic game. By the time most of them woke up to what was going on, it was too late. Whether it's because Russell sowed seeds of discontent or because Mick was a "feckless" leader, or simply because their tribe sucked, the fact that they had to start playing the game right from the start played a big part in Russell, Natalie and Mick making it to the final three.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

LordKronos said:


> Here's another thing I was thinking about how Russell potentially blew it. I didn't get a chance to go back and double check, but didn't Russell make some negative comments about the other players during the "fallen comrades" portion? Whatever he said about Monica even got Nat to sort of cringe, and Brett kind of came to her defense. That part of the show is generally about paying your respects to the other players, and Russell didn't do that. I wonder if Brett mentioned it to the jury members after getting voted out. At that point, it wasn't about Russell playing the game to get an advantage over them (which could be excusable)...it was blatent disrespect.


I agree with this, and with Retrodog, Russell got what he deserved for abusing people on his climb up to the top of the mountain, and those same people were the ones he needed to convince to win, and he didn't.

I agree he was a great player, and fantastic to watch, his finding of the HIIs will go down in Survivor history, but part of outwit, outlast, outplay is that you have to get the jury votes, and he didn't have a chance with them, especially after his rant on what everyone did wrong, he long ago crossed the line of confidence into arrogance, and that was IMNSHO why he lost.

Diane


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

SnakeEyes said:


> I don't know why I keep watching this when the winner is so often a letdown. Amazing. This is the worst jury ever
> 
> Even when: the game was brand new; when the blindsides were true blindsides, before they were even called blindsides, because nobody know what to expect to expect in the game; when the game was so raw with real emotion because of all the unexpected lying and backstabbing; when the game was taken personally; the jury still got it right and voted for Richard to win.


That jury voted for Rich 4-3, and one of Rich's votes was a result of him guessing closer than Kelly the number in Greg's head. 



Peter000 said:


> While I totally agree Russell deserved the votes, there are no "rules" in Survivor.
> 
> Russell's downfall was the social aspect of the game. I think if he would have played the same basic game (play hard, find immunity idols first, etc), but been more straightforward about it and likable throughout the game, he might have won. By being to focused on the win at all cost, he basically ignored another important aspect of the game and it bit him in the end.


Yup, it probably wouldn't have taken a lot of diplomacy, just a touch may have made the difference.


Philosofy said:


> Edited to add: Laura is a grandmother? HFC!!! She's only 39, and has a two year old grandkid!


And she has the nerve to play up this angle about showing what a granny can do, or being underestimated as a grandmother...oh, please. She was only the 3rd oldest woman in the game.



stalemate said:


> Actually, no. The whole point of the game is to get to the end and get the jury votes. Everything else is fluff. The immunity challenges, the reward challenges, the concept of strategy, playing a "good game", integrity, backstabbing, all of it is just fluff.
> 
> I guess I am one of the few people that thinks the right person always wins Survivor. Each winner has to figure out how to get the votes from the specific jury they are going up against (a jury they are creating along the way). As great as Russell was at some of the fluff aspects of the game, he didn't figure out how to win the only criteria that really matters.


I agree with that. If I was there, based on what I saw, I'd have voted for Russell. But I can't argue with what that jury voted. They were there, they had the power, it's their right to vote how they want.


janry said:


> Russell often said the others were a bunch of idiots. He was right.


Maybe they knew he thought that, which would be idiotic of him to reveal.



heySkippy said:


> Because the jury members are dunderheads who got it wrong.


By definition, they can't get it wrong.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

I don't think this is a spoiler, but I will hide it anyway. I just saw on TVSquad:



Spoiler



Surviving Survivor (working title) will air on February 4, a 10th anniversary hour with the best of Survivor from the last decade.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

hefe said:


> Maybe they knew he thought that, which would be idiotic of him to reveal.


The one flaw IMO of Russell's play was he ran his mouth too much to the other contestants.

However, I don't think he revealed to anyone on the jury that he considered them idiots. At least, not directly that I can remember.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

It is naive (or stupid) to consider everyone who is less intelligent than you as stupid or idiots. Russell is obviously suffering from numerous emotional and psychological issues that are evident by how he continuously demeans others. I'm not sure if it correlates to the Napolean complex (little guy who wants to over compensate by ruling the world), or tied to his inability to deal with his baldness by wearing a hat all the time, but if you watch the videos of his interviews (during and after the show) and really study them... it becomes quite apparent that he is a very disturbed and troubled individual. 

At times he is very bully-ish. Other times, he is very manipulative to the point of making others around him very uncomfortable. He also exhibited very strong signs of resentment and vindictive behavior, as could be seen by how mean he was the Asian chick and others. He was just plain mean at times. 

I think that one of the biggest mistakes being made by most of the fans on this season was to look only at how he played the game in terms of strategy and planning, while paying little attention to his interpersonal skills and how childish he could be at times. He has some of the true characteristics of someone who could be very evil and rationalize just about anything. 

Russell also shows signs of compulsive behavior. Unfortunately, this is what will really work against him over the next few months (and maybe the rest of his life). He will continue to believe that the title was stolen from him and will hang on to that belief forever. He won $100,000 last night but trust me... he is a very very miserable little man and he will probably continue to be that way for a very very long time.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Philosofy said:


> Laura is a grandmother? HFC!!! She's only 39, and has a two year old grandkid!


She's a GILF. Hubba-hubba. 



retrodog said:


> Maybe it's a glowing example of how edited the show is.


This is what I was thinking while reading the posts here. The jury had been living this game 24/7. We saw 72 hours edited down to about 40 minutes per episode. We were presented with a show with themes and twists creatively edited by the producers of the show. I think that when you are actually living the game round-the-clock, that your views as a jury member in the heat of the moment could be considerably different than if you were asked to cast your vote "live" at the reunion show rather than at Tribal Council.

I think Russell's mouth is what took him down. I also have a premonition that he didn't last long in the upcoming Villains vs. Heroes season, which added to his disappointment at the results show.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

It's kind of funny to me reading the reactions to Russell's being voted off. Most of the people who supported Russell FTW are calling the Jury "idiots," "morons," & and my favorite "dunderheads."

EXACTLY how Russell saw and treated most of the jury during the show.

Russell seeders don't seem to get that even if another IS an idiot, or a pawn, or whatever, they don't like to be TREATED like that. 

People will tolerate a lot of crap with the right leader, one they respect. In the end Russell didn't win the respect of everyone on his way up, so he paid the price (dearly) in the end.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

retrodog said:


> Russell is obviously suffering from numerous emotional and psychological issues that are evident by how he continuously demeans others. I'm not sure if it correlates to the Napolean complex (little guy who wants to over compensate by ruling the world), or tied to his inability to deal with his baldness by wearing a hat all the time, but if you watch the videos of his interviews (during and after the show) and really study them... it becomes quite apparent that he is a very disturbed and troubled individual.
> 
> At times he is very bully-ish. Other times, he is very manipulative to the point of making others around him very uncomfortable. He also exhibited very strong signs of resentment and vindictive behavior, as could be seen by how mean he was the Asian chick and others. He was just plain mean at times.
> 
> ...


LOL!! Great analysis. I tend to agree with most of what you said.
Russell reminds me very much of someone I know (except for the baldness issues ... LOL!).


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

getreal said:


> She's a GILF. Hubba-hubba.
> 
> This is what I was thinking while reading the posts here. The jury had been living this game 24/7. We saw 72 hours edited down to about 40 minutes per episode. We were presented with a show with themes and twists creatively edited by the producers of the show. I think that when you are actually living the game round-the-clock, that your views as a fury member in the heat of the moment could be considerably different than if you were asked to cast your vote "live" at the reunion show rather than at Tribal Council.
> 
> I think Russell's mouth is what took him down. I also have a premonition that he didn't last long in the upcoming Villains vs. Heroes season, which added to his disappointment at the results show.


Yes, that's what I was eluding to. If we had been there for the whole duration, I think we would have seen him over-doing it like everybody else probably did. He was allowed to break the other group apart due to their weaknesses but he probably did a lot of mouthing off and made too many negative comments to ever realistically expect to win. He thought he fooled everybody. He did, to some degree, but many of them knew what he was up to. They just underestimated him.

*And this is where it gets tricky, and the logic gets a little more complex than what most of the Russell fans what to consider, but many of the players think they can count on a certain degree of honesty from each other because the jury vote is always a consideration and they know they everybody knows it. This, as a constant consideration, should give you a reasonable degree of protection from someone pulling some of the crap that Russell did. But Russell, being infinitely arrogant and reckless, thought he could get away with it. He did not outsmart the other contestants. He outsmarted himself.*


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

janry said:


> I don't think he revealed it to anyone on the jury, at least that we know of.
> 
> However, the one flaw IMO of Russell's play was he ran his mouth too much to the other contestants.


Not directly, but that kind of thing gets around when you talk like he does. His arrogance was on display. When you need people to vote for you, maybe you should have a contingency plan beyond "I played best, so they have to vote for me."


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

I think it would be interesting to do away with the jury entirely. The voters are all going to be bitter because they are losers. Let the winner be the one who outwits, outlasts and outplays. Let the winner be determined by an extreme battle of wills between the last two contestants.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

I have to admit, I had no idea what Shambo was talking about when she said "feckless" either. I had to look it up: it means feeble or ineffective.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

tiams said:


> I think it would be interesting to do away with the jury entirely. The voters are all going to be bitter because they are losers. Let the winner be the one who outwits, outlasts and outplays. Let the winner be determined by an extreme battle of wills between the last two contestants.


Not sure I would go that far, but I'd love to see some kind of shake-up in the end game format. Something to reward bold and innovative play and to mitigate against petty vengeful bonehead jurors. This isn't the first time this has happened, it's just the most egregious example.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

DancnDude said:


> I have to admit, I had no idea what Shambo was talking about when she said "feckless" either. I had to look it up: it means feeble or ineffective.


It also means "without feck", as in "I didn't give a feck".


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

getreal said:


> It also means "without feck", as in "I don't give a feck".


WTF?

(What the feck)


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I enjoyed the season and appreciate that Russell played a great game. But he only played a great PART of the game, not the whole game. He wasn't great with challenges, yet he won the most important one. He found the Immunity Idol four times. He didn't get along with everyone, yet he was able to get the people he wanted to go, voted off. He made it to the final three.

I think his downfall was his attitude. I felt like if he could have not been so plainly arrogant to the jury he may have gotten more votes. He interrupted Mick to speak out about how great he was and I thought that was a big mistake. If he had better interplay with the jury members - Jaison for example, instead of just sitting there and smirking, it may have made a small difference.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

betts4 said:


> I think his downfall was his attitude. I felt like if he could have not been so plainly arrogant to the jury he may have gotten more votes. He interrupted Mick to speak out about how great he was and I thought that was a big mistake.


He also interrupted Natalie when she was asked about her best strategic move in the game and she mentioned ousting Eric, but Mr. Ego had to correct her to say that her best move was aligning with him. Was that at TC or the Reunion Show?

The thing is, all of Russell's moves seemed to be working for him, so you can understand how it might go to his head, but he just couldn't restrain himself from self-praise. If he could have just held back on the arrogance, he'd have another million in his bank account, along with his other $1.7m he claimed to have earned the previous year.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

tiams said:


> I think it would be interesting to do away with the jury entirely. The voters are all going to be bitter because they are losers. Let the winner be the one who outwits, outlasts and outplays. Let the winner be determined by an extreme battle of wills between the last two contestants.


That would be my preference, but it wouldn't fit with desires the majority of reality TV watching people.

Unfortunately for Russell, he was playing like he wanted to be class valedictorian, but the others were voting for homecoming queen.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

getreal said:


> He also interrupted Natalie when she was asked about her best strategic move in the game and she mentioned ousting Eric, but Mr. Ego had to correct her to say that her best move was aligning with him. Was that at TC or the Reunion Show?


That was on the reunion show.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

tiams said:


> I think it would be interesting to do away with the jury entirely.


Then you wind up with the ridiculous system of the American Idol phone-in voters. :down::down::down::down::down:


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

I liked that the first vote read 'Ratalie!'

Russel needed to take more unlikeable people along with him to the end.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

getreal said:


> Then you wind up with the ridiculous system of the American Idol phone-in voters. :down::down::down::down::down:


....or they just have 2 more immunity challenges and one person just wins. (although I don't especially like that idea)


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

heySkippy said:


> Not sure I would go that far, but I'd love to see some kind of shake-up in the end game format. Something to reward bold and innovative play and to mitigate against petty vengeful bonehead jurors. This isn't the first time this has happened, it's just the most egregious example.





Idearat said:


> That would be my preference, but it wouldn't fit with desires the majority of reality TV watching people.


Hey, I'd be all for giving a game like that a chance, it's just not _this _game.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

getreal said:


> Then you wind up with the ridiculous system of the American Idol phone-in voters. :down::down::down::down::down:


Yeah, and the whole thing could be rigged with editing then. The current jury system is the only way to avoid the pitfalls of jury tampering with editing.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

5thcrewman said:


> I liked that the first vote read 'Ratalie!'
> 
> Russel needed to take more unlikeable people along with him to the end.


Shambo.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

I thought Russell had been robbed but after reading all these posts I've changed my mind. I didn't like him at first, grew to appreciate his gameplay and then, near the end, lost respect for him.

Russell did achieve the stated strategy "Outwit, Outplay, and Outlast", but he didn't realize there is one unwritten element: gain the respect of the jury. So is he really such a brilliant player to have overlooked that? I don't know. Didn't seem to work too well for him. 

Did Nat deserve it? Probably not. But the jury had to pick somebody and it wasn't going to be Russell. 

I can't believe Shambo still likes Russell. And I thought her "questions" were a surprise as she never revealed a lot of anger during the game. 

I don't get why anybody should be appreciative of Russell getting them into the final 4 or 5 and then orchestrating their demise. If I'm targeted to be dumped before the final 3, then do it early on so I don't have to struggle through the rain and hunger and bamboo beds.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

DancnDude said:


> ....or they just have 2 more immunity challenges and one person just wins. (although I don't especially like that idea)


I think they should determine a winner by a dance-off!


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Wow. I hate to say it, but I saw it coming. I KNEW when Jaison was acting like Russell had it "in the bag" at the last Tribal that they may have been planning a "blind side" of their own. I think that's what this comes down to. They all wanted to get the last laugh on Russell. Then, I think they realized how petty it would all look and changed their tune to make it sound like they didn't want to reward treachery. That's my take. 

Having said that... 

I was PISSED at first but then I began to think about it. One of the great things about Survivor is it's inherent ability for "instant Karma". Being in the business I'm in, I unfortunately have had the displeasure to work around and tolerate, many, many, "snakes". Ruthless business men who's greed is only surpassed by their their lack of integrity. Their only rule is "don't get caught". So there's a part of me, that really likes to see the snake get burned in the end.

Having said THAT... 

I still think they really just took away his million dollars out of pure spite. They will go down in history as the most petty jury in Survivor history. Russell will go down in history as the "best player to have never won". So I guess you could say I'm torn...


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Is there a list of the money a contestant gets per their standing at the end of the game?


----------



## GadgetFreak (Jun 3, 2002)

Johnny Fairplay was such an a$$ that some discussed bringing him to the end knowing that nobody would vote for him. I was surprised there was no talk of ousting Russell earlier -- and also expected to hear comments from people saying that they wanted to bring him to the final because nobody liked him. Maybe that didn't happen, or maybe they were just edited out.

I do think Russell played hard, but he made a ton of mistakes. Richard Hatch played a strategic game, and I think the greatest part of his strategy was getting people to believe that the double crossings were gameplay -- that in real life he was trustworthy. Regardless of gameplay, you get to know someone when you are stranded on an island with them and I think the jury did not like what they saw. 

If you get to know someone and found them to be a mean spirited slimeball, voting for a hot blond instead does not make you stupid IMO.

I would have loved Jeff to poll the jury on how many votes were swayed by Erik's speech.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

janry said:


> I don't get why anybody should be appreciative of Russell getting them into the final 4 or 5 and then orchestrating their demise. If I'm targeted to be dumped before the final 3, then do it early on so I don't have to struggle through the rain and hunger and bamboo beds.


The longer you stay in the game, the more money you make. It can mean many thousands of dollars to making the final 4 or 5 vs. getting voted out early. If your comfort is worth that to you, then you probably aren't the best candidate to play the game.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

betts4 said:


> Is there a list of the money a contestant gets per their standing at the end of the game?


There's never been an official listing, but people have put together some general info from some data...from Wiki:



> Every player receives a stipend for participating on Survivor depending on how long he or she lasts in the game. In most seasons, the runner-up receives $100,000, and third place wins $85,000. Sonja Christopher, the first player voted off in Survivor: Borneo, received $2,500. The stipend was increased for Survivor: All-Stars. The known prizes for Survivor: All-Stars were as follows: 2nd = $250,000; 3rd = $125,000; 4th = $100,000. Tina Wesson, the first player voted off in Survivor: All-Stars, received $25,000. In Survivor: Fiji, the first season with tied runners-up, the two runners-up received US$100,000 each, and Yau-Man Chan received US$60,000 for his 4th place finish. The prizes for other seasons with more than sixteen contestants are unknown.
> 
> All players also receive an additional $10,000 for their appearance on the reunion show.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

wendiness1 said:


> Did Nat deserve it? Probably not. But the jury had to pick somebody and it wasn't going to be Russell.
> 
> I can't believe Shambo still likes Russell. And I thought her "questions" were a surprise as she never revealed a lot of anger during the game.


Shambo has a man-crush on Russell. No way in hell she wasn't voting for him in any scenario which is why she is on the jury. IMHO it would have been better tho have Jaison with Russell instead of Natalie. It would be harder for the jury to give votes to a guy who rode coat-tails than a girl and its not like Russell was forced in the game to choose Nat over Jaison. In the end Survivor is playing the game and then convincing the jury and Russell did a poor job of the second.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

wendiness1 said:


> I can't believe Shambo still likes Russell. And I thought her "questions" were a surprise as she never revealed a lot of anger during the game.


Of everything I saw last night this was the most shocking. Shambo knows Russell was in charge and no one leaves unless Russell wanted it, so he wanted her out and Shambo's bitterness should have been more directed at Russell then the players who did nothing.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> The longer you stay in the game, the more money you make. It can mean many thousands of dollars to making the final 4 or 5 vs. getting voted out early. If your comfort is worth that to you, then you probably aren't the best candidate to play the game.


I didn't know there was were $$ involved. Makes sense then.

(you quoted me. I don't know how it got attributed to Janry.)


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

Was anybody else surprised that Eric and Laura indicated they would have voted for Shambo had she been in the final three with Russell?


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

wendiness1 said:


> Was anybody else surprised that Eric and Laura indicated they would have voted for Shambo had she been in the final three with Russell?


Nope, it fit right in with the rest of the bizarro decisions they made.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

flyers088 said:


> Of everything I saw last night this was the most shocking. Shambo knows Russell was in charge and no one leaves unless Russell wanted it, so he wanted her out and Shambo's bitterness should have been more directed at Russell then the players who did nothing.


But she also praised their loyolty to each other. She didn't leave bitter at the remaining players.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

stark said:


> If he is put on the "Villains" team, I think he automatically loses the option of playing the nice guy. I certainly wouldn't trust anyone I didn't know who was placed on the Villains team.


I am thinking about it, I hope they don't split them into teams per se, but just mix them up. Let them guess who's a villain and who's a good guy. But I guess if they split them up by "type" then I could see the Villains eating their young...so to speak LOL


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

I love it when Retro puts his psychoanalytical hat on for us. 

I don't care what Russel is like IRL. He is only around to entertain me.   I only know what he's like on TV, and he was born to play Survivor and I think he played it very well, better than anybody ever has. He never quit, not for one second. He directed the show from beginning to end. 

I also saw most of his comments as being directed towards the camera and not the other contestants. I'm not sure how nice or mean he was to them on Samoa and I didn't get the sense he was hated - just feared for his strength.

You can't take away the jury - that's just crazy talk. It's a game of outwit, outplay and outlast - AND a social game. Unfortunately, it seems to be only the social aspect that counts now.

I wonder how many on the jury would change their votes AFTER watching the edited show? That might be interesting. Have two votes - one right there when they are in the heat of their angerand while they are still gossiping about each other, and one months later when they've seen the entire season, and can get some distance from it. Maybe tally the results of both votes.

I have no clue if anybody would change their votes or not, especially after seeing what Russell had said to the cameras about some of them - but on the other hand, a few might have enough distance to admire his game play.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

You guys can talk all you want. It's just ridiculous to vote for someone in this game because they were nicer than the other guy. Of course it's an aspect of the game. My opinion is that it sucks and shouldn't be because nobody watches the show to see people being all cum baya...I'd watch 7th Heaven if I wanted that. There really is no comparison in game play between the two finalists. It's funny (albeit expected) that the debate continues. Clearly, nobody is going to change anyone's mind about it, so I'll let that part rest.

about the jury...I wouldn't want to see them take it away, but I would be happy if they were FORCED TO ASK QUESTIONS, rather than posture and give speeches. How are you making an informed decision if you're not asking questions? You can't. Someone giving a speech has already made up their mind, rendering the jury useless. Flawed...so call it a firing squad instead, maybe

Russel's was clearly the best of the opening statements, but he could have worked it a little better...not that I think it would have made a difference.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

wendiness1 said:


> I didn't know there was were $$ involved. Makes sense then.
> 
> (you quoted me. I don't know how it got attributed to Janry.)


Wow, that's weird. I don't know how it got attributed to janry either. I knew I was quoting you.


justapixel said:


> I wonder how many on the jury would change their votes AFTER watching the edited show? That might be interesting. Have two votes - one right there when they are in the heat of their angerand while they are still gossiping about each other, and one months later when they've seen the entire season, and can get some distance from it. Maybe tally the results of both votes.
> 
> I have no clue if anybody would change their votes or not, especially after seeing what Russell had said to the cameras about some of them - but on the other hand, a few might have enough distance to admire his game play.


The problem with that is that what is shown on TV is highly edited and is done in such a way as to paint certain people to be a certain way. The way this season was edited, it was almost a certainty that Russell was going to win the fan vote, but it's entirely possible that they could have edited it another way to make Shambo or Natalie or Mick or Jaison or Brett win that fan vote as well. And I'm sure they could have edited it so that not a single viewer liked Russell and we were all glad when he didn't win.

That's why it's difficult to base anything off of what's shown on TV and why it's so important that the voting is complete before all the contestants have a chance to see what the other players are saying in their confessionals, etc.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

LordKronos said:


> 2) Nat's game was to not play strong because she knew strong women get eliminated? Sorry if I don't believe that. It's like a backronym...she filled that all in after the fact, trying to come up with some fantastic story to make her look good after the fact.





bryhamm said:


> For the most part I agree with this. But it seems that Nat won not for something she actually did, but won because people didn't want to give it to Russell. That doesn't feel like she "earned" it, which is why it has a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Russell's play reminded me so much of Hatch, and I was glad when Hatch was named the winner.


the coattail strategy is a legitimate strategy. people say natalie did nothing to deserve the win.. but she came in with her strategy and it worked. and she should and did get credit for this...

my contention for russell winning is:
if there is no russell, there is no natalie. strategy wise, russell deserved it.. and he messed up in tribal.



IJustLikeTivo said:


> I find it really interesting that the coattail strategy only works for woman. Sandra, Vecepia, Parvati and now Natalie. I can't recall a single guy who backed into the win. Look at Mick. Same basic strategy and he got NO votes.


it does only work for the girls... the reason is if a guy coattails, they are perceived as weak and useless, and it stands out more.. so people are more willing to vote them out early. they are bigger targets cuz they are guys, and are perceived as threats, whereas girls are harmless, and can't win the physical challenges.
plus you add in the flirting strategy with the coattail strategy, and you have a real threat to win the game. cuz they play the social game, which is what helped natalie with the jury. guys can't flirt.



Peter000 said:


> I don't get why the heck Jaison, Mick & Natalie (and Brett) didn't vote out Russell when they had the chance after Brett won the first immunity. Russell was clearly the strongest player. They were all just so focused on getting rid of Brett.
> 
> I guess in the end it was the right move for Natalie. But I was flabbergasted there wasn't even a HINT of discussion about getting rid of Russell.


this is more of the genius that is russell....

he didn't give them a chance to want to vote him out.... he secured everyone, in an alliance to the end... so they all thought they were safe... esp mick and jaison... russell put it in their mind that they vote each other out, so no reason to go to each other and get russell... as far they knew, they were in the final. natalie wasn't going to initiate, cuz she's a coattailor.

genius.

and then, he had the foresight to go to brett and secure an alliance with him... whether it would've played out, we don't know... but it's genius to at least do it.

he set himself up to pick his final 3 from daveball on... and took all precautions to make sure noone flipped... genius. just messed up in the tribal council.

and boy, was mick a nonfactor


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

MonsterJoe said:


> Clearly, nobody is going to change anyone's mind about it, so I'll let that part rest.


On the contrary. See my post earlier:

"I thought Russell had been robbed but after reading all these posts I've changed my mind. I didn't like him at first, grew to appreciate his gameplay and then, near the end, lost respect for him."

I realize now my post is confusing. Despite losing repect for him I still thought he should have won. But this discussion has caused me to change my mind.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

bruinfan said:


> my contention for russell winning is:
> if there is no russell, there is no natalie. strategy wise, russell deserved it.. and he messed up in tribal.


That's exactly what he should have argued at TC. Without Russell, Natalie probably loses with the rest of Foa Foa. Without Natalie, Russell probably still finds a way to do what he did with whomever was available.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

hefe said:


> That's exactly what he should have argued at TC. Without Russell, Natalie probably loses with the rest of Foa Foa. Without Natalie, Russell probably still finds a way to do what he did with whomever was available.


and to add to that, if russell had not made it to tribal, and it was natalie, jaison, and mick, natalie could argue she's the most deserving of the 3... but not with russell there.

ETA: i mean if russell got voted out 5th or 4th, after he brought natalie this far


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's why it's difficult to base anything off of what's shown on TV and why it's so important that the voting is complete before all the contestants have a chance to see what the other players are saying in their confessionals, etc.


I don't know if it's that important, and I'm not sure why my version wouldn't work. They would vote at the same time they always have - and then get another vote later.

The edited version, of course, creates villiains and good guys but ALSO shows strategy that they may not have seen before. Then hold another vote and see what happens. Because they were there - they can see if the editing rings true to what they have experienced or not. I think it would be really interesting to see if, once they get some emotional distance and truly understand why people did certain things, if they'd change their minds.

Especially since the juries don't even ask questions about strategy or gameplay. They either make speeches or ask a dumb question to point out nobody paid attention to them. They don't really appear to be very interested in voting anything but their emotions at that point, and it makes it very unsatisfying for the viewer to always have the nicest, coattail rider, win.

It would be an interesting strategy in itself to have them vote emotionally right away, and then be allowed to change their mind after seeing the show the way we do.

I'd love to ask any of them on the jury if after seeing the show, they would change their vote.


----------



## ThePhoenix (Feb 13, 2008)

peitsche said:


> I'm sorry but that final vote has to be the worst in the history of the show...even worse than Vee winning many years ago...
> 
> and if people like the utterly dazed and confused Jaison still don't get that this is a game and not real life, well, then there is no hope.
> 
> Russell seems like a sore loser now but the real sore losers are the members of the jury who just couldn't admit to themselves that he was the most deserving of the three left...


Wow! I was so pleased to come to this thread and have the first two posts reflect exactly what I was thinking!!!

THIS. Exactly.



latenight said:


> Jaisons high and mighty speech was hilarious... ITS A GAME MORON... Outwit Outlast Outplay.. Not lets all be team players working for the same company. I'm glad Russell burned his socks
> 
> LOL


I despise Jaison. He is arrogant and beyond foolish.

My two cents:

First, I think Natalie actually did have a good point about the strong women being most at risk. I agree that a woman trying to play Russell's game very well could have been a big early target. Sex, age, and culture all definitely play a role in the game of Survivor. You have to learn to deal with it, like it or not.

I am still waiting for a final three contestant to point out that lying and backstabbing IS a moral value in Survivor. There are many games where lying and deception are required as a function of the rules. Survivor is one of them. The people who claim their "integrity" is intact because they didn't lie lose my respect completely because they don't understand the game of Survivor. If Russell made one mistake it was failing to make a case for the integrity of lying in Survivor.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

justapixel said:


> Especially since the juries don't even ask questions about strategy or gameplay. They either make speeches or ask a dumb question to point out nobody paid attention to them. They don't really appear to be very interested in voting anything but their emotions at that point, and it makes it very unsatisfying for the viewer to always have the nicest, coattail rider, win.


This is exactly why I think that what happened at the final tribal council doesn't really have an effect on the outcome. These people already knew who they were voting for, they already knew what they were going to say to either make someone look stupid or praise someone. The final tribal council is all about grandstanding and very little about substance. These people spend a lot of time together at Ponderosa sharpening their bitterness and it all comes out at final tribal and in their votes. I'm fairly certain that it didn't matter what Russell said at TC - he wasn't going to win no matter what.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

justapixel said:


> It's a game of outwit, outplay and outlast - AND a social game. Unfortunately, it seems to be only the social aspect that counts now.


It is only a social game and that is all it ever has been. The only reason to do any of the rest of the stuff like helping at camp or being good at challenges is to make people want to keep you around.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

hefe said:


> That jury voted for Rich 4-3, and one of Rich's votes was a result of him guessing closer than Kelly the number in Greg's head.


Right. But given everything else I said about the original season.. you still had four people willing to give Richard their votes. Last night there were only two that would do so for a guy that played even better than.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

jlb said:


> I think Russell may do well in 20 as noone else playing would have seen his game. When queried about why he is on the Evil side, he can just talk about everything other than the HIIs.
> 
> We'll see


Russelll can't keep his mouth shut.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

well. i think natalie winning definitely proves prayer works, and there is a god...


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

I thought another great play by Russell was setting up Mick vs. Jaison at the Final 5 Tribal Council. By making both of them think it was the other going, he ensured they didn't even think of doing the smart thing, which was voting his butt out!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

EW has a six-part interview with Russell. Let the fireworks begin!


----------



## 6079 Smith W (Oct 2, 2000)

I'm another person that started out hating Russell, then grew to appreciate and even root for him and am now happy that he did not win. He did it to himself.

At the final TC, he should have turned off the arrogance and appealed to the jury's respect for a game well played. He should have, as others have already pointed out, emphasized his finding un-aided and playing the HII at perfectly strategic points. He should have humbled himself and made it clear (even if it wasn't actually true) that there was nothing personal in his using everyone on the jury to get where he was. He should have pointed out that in spite of all his double-dealings, he had stayed true to the two other people next to him. All of that *might* have changed a few minds and gotten him votes.

But, having seen him off-show, I believe that he is as conniving and unscrupulous in real life as he was on the show and am glad he lost.

His "sick" look at the reunion show before and after the votes were read made me think that he was freaked out because he had been so convinced that he won the million that he has already "spent" it.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> This is exactly why I think that what happened at the final tribal council doesn't really have an effect on the outcome. These people already knew who they were voting for, they already knew what they were going to say to either make someone look stupid or praise someone. The final tribal council is all about grandstanding and very little about substance. These people spend a lot of time together at Ponderosa sharpening their bitterness and it all comes out at final tribal and in their votes. I'm fairly certain that it didn't matter what Russell said at TC - he wasn't going to win no matter what.


For the most part, I think you are right. In fact, I'm pretty darn sure about it. But there are a few who come to the last council with the ability to swing one direction or the other. It's usually only one or two, but it happens.

I think the big thing that might have affected it last night was that last question/speech about infinite arrogance and unjustifiable entitlement. Well those are the best that I can remember the wording anyway. It kind of struck a nerve and made people reconsider their previous thoughts about "weak Natalie" right when it counted the most... immediately before voting. Until that moment I didn't really think she had a chance. But right after, I found myself thinking, "Yeah, why shouldn't her strategy be just as respected?" Maybe a few others on the jury thought the same thing.

These things always seem to work out like our elections. The vote doesn't come down to who people want to vote for, but rather who they want to vote against.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

ThePhoenix said:


> I am still waiting for a final three contestant to point out that lying and backstabbing IS a moral value in Survivor. There are many games where lying and deception are required as a function of the rules. Survivor is one of them. The people who claim their "integrity" is intact because they didn't lie lose my respect completely because they don't understand the game of Survivor. If Russell made one mistake it was failing to make a case for the integrity of lying in Survivor.


He could try to make that case, and persuade the jurors along those lines, but there is no way you can objectively make the statement, "lying and backstabbing IS a moral value in Survivor." There is a jury that decides what is or isn't a moral value in the game, and they get to determine whether it is or not.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

The jury came into the final tribal expecting to vote for Brett. They were going to vote for whoever was the last Galu standing, excluding Shambo. There was no chance they were going to vote for a Foa Foa if they could vote for one of "their own." It was beyond their collective intelligence to consider that the one person who was instrumental in getting them all voted off deserved to win. They were too bitter to realize they were all outplayed by Russel. Shambo was the only one who realized it was a game and respected Russel for his decision, even if he lied to her face.

Russel was arrogant, but I don't think it ever showed until the very end. I don't remember him ever being mean or nasty to anyone, unless someone directly threatened him. And much of his arrogance stemmed from his confidence, and was not necessarily mean spirited. When he was coaching Mick and Natalie before the final TC, I felt he was truly trying to help them. He was trying to get them to come up with reasons why he shouldn't just walk away with it. If anything, this was what ultimately led to his downfall. Russel didn't play a perfect game, but he did play the best game.

One thing I did find odd was that Jaison seemed to go out of his way to take the millionaire stigma off of Russel. He basically told the jury that it was ok to vote for Russel if you thought a player was undeserving because they were wealthy. Maybe that was his own little blindside.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> EW has a six-part interview with Russell. Let the fireworks begin!


huh...i agree with pretty much everything he said.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

justapixel said:


> You can't take away the jury - that's just crazy talk. It's a game of outwit, outplay and outlast - AND a social game. Unfortunately, it seems to be only the social aspect that counts now.


I don't think it's any different than it ever was. There were a couple times, I guess, when people voted out of respect for someone's "performance" in the game alone, Tom comes to mind, but he was likable too...so he played both sides well.

But it's always been a social game primarily.

This was from an interview with Mark Burnett during the filming of the first edition in 2000.



> "Survivor is probably two parts adventure contest, eight parts surviving the peer group. It's the politics of island life. Just because you may be the fittest and strongest and best survivor, if you treat people badly and act like a jerk, you will be kicked off. Conversely, if you're a very, very congenial and nice person but are completely useless and can't provide any meaningful contribution to island life, you'll also be kicked off. I think Survivor is about someone who is capable and also extremely likeable. It's about can you get along with complicated team dynamics under pressure."


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I agree with most of what he said, too.

Did ya see this?

http://www.russellgotscrewed.com/


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> EW has a six-part interview with Russell. Let the fireworks begin!


I'm sure I'm totally alone in this, but I have no problem with arrogant people when they live up to their arrogance. Russell did play the game better than everybody, and he did manipulate everybody around him - so much so that nobody even considered getting rid of him although they had their chances. He isn't wrong when he says those people are weak - from his perspective, he's absolutely right. Even I think Jaison was weak.

I wouldn't say those things about other people - but I don't really think it's awful that he did. He wasn't wrong from the perspective of being on Survivor, he was disappointed and he did say nice things about some of them along with his opinions about their weakness.

But, I am just not one of those people who expects people to be nice all the time.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

justapixel said:


> I'm sure I'm totally alone in this, but I have no problem with arrogant people when they live up to their arrogance.


In the context of the game, I don't think I would have held that against him, and would have voted for him. But as a real-life trait? I don't care if you can back it up, being arrogant about it will count against you in my personal judgment of what I value in a person.



justapixel said:


> But, I am just not one of those people who expects people to be nice all the time.


Neither am I.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I agree with the poster who said the jury just wanted to get their own blindside of Russell in to make themselves feel better.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

Kablemodem said:


> *The jury came into the final tribal expecting to vote for Brett. * They were going to vote for whoever was the last Galu standing, excluding Shambo. There was no chance they were going to vote for a Foa Foa if they could vote for one of "their own." It was beyond their collective intelligence to consider that the one person who was instrumental in getting them all voted off deserved to win. They were too bitter to realize they were all outplayed by Russel. Shambo was the only one who realized it was a game and respected Russel for his decision, even if he lied to her face.
> 
> Russel was arrogant, but I don't think it ever showed until the very end. I don't remember him ever being mean or nasty to anyone, unless someone directly threatened him. And much of his arrogance stemmed from his confidence, and was not necessarily mean spirited. When he was coaching Mick and Natalie before the final TC, I felt he was truly trying to help them. He was trying to get them to come up with reasons why he shouldn't just walk away with it. If anything, this was what ultimately led to his downfall. Russel didn't play a perfect game, but he did play the best game.
> 
> One thing I did find odd was that Jaison seemed to go out of his way to take the millionaire stigma off of Russel. He basically told the jury that it was ok to vote for Russel if you thought a player was undeserving because they were wealthy. Maybe that was his own little blindside.


Wasn't Brett already in Ponderosa then?


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

I wish Russell would have won. I enjoyed watching Russell, and I respected his game play immensely, but I am going to have to go against the grain and say that Natalie "outplayed" him. Playing Survivor, the goal is to make it to the end and get the jury votes by whatever means possible. I agree with others that have said that the jury can't be wrong. The goal is to get their votes.


----------



## Dssturbo1 (Feb 23, 2005)

on the Morning show they showed a pic of the real $1M cashiers check to Natalie. it was dated 12/3/09...... so the producers had already opened the votes and gotten the check prepared weeks ago. they blanked out account info and such, no biggie just odd when they let things slip by. they want you to think nobody knows the winner till it's revealed on the finale.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Interesting tidbit from that interview. According to Russell all but two of the jury have come to him and admitted they "made a mistake". I think JAP has a point. Once they got some distance and saw the edited footage they probably realized how totally lame and petty they all looked and changed their minds.


----------



## Dssturbo1 (Feb 23, 2005)

So what about the big mistake from Russell letting anyone know that he was a business owner that made over a million dollars last year???

he played the best game but going against an already spiteful jury that couldn't help. couldn't be confirmed and could be game play by others and shouldn't have been part of the game but it's just normal once info is spread to use it while considering who to vote or not vote for.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Dssturbo1 said:


> on the Morning show they showed a pic of the real $1M cashiers check to Natalie. it was dated 12/3/09...... so the producers had already opened the votes and gotten the check prepared weeks ago. they blanked out account info and such, no biggie just odd when they let things slip by. they want you to think nobody knows the winner till it's revealed on the finale.


I don't think they want viewers to think that nobody has opened the vote jar since they left the island. Of course they have. The producers knew the score as the votes were cast, since there are cameras filming the people as they cast their votes. They need to be able to know who won in order to edit the show. They throw in clues in the editing all the time, and I'm sure that part of the reason we saw Russell being so beligerent to Natalie and Mick on that final morning is because they knew he was going to lose and wanted to provide some context for why the jury might be voting against him.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> ...I'm sure that part of the reason we saw Russell being so beligerent to Natalie and Mick on that final morning is because they knew he was going to lose and wanted to provide some context for why the jury might be voting against him.


I wanted to express my opinion on this topic since you've mentioned it twice....I really think that Russell was trying to help them (but did get carried a way) with the jury. It seemed to me, he was playing the devil's advocate and asking them questions that any normal jury would ask, and they did ask some of them.....he did seem to take it too far at the end and I did ask myself if he was drunk or something...


----------



## chrispitude (Apr 23, 2005)

I disagree with those who say "the jury just doesn't understand how this game works." The jury is composed of a bunch of human beings who are free to vote using whatever criteria they want. Their under no obligation to vote any way except how they choose. It's Russell who failed to realize that getting to the end of the game is not a win; it's getting there with enough jury votes in the bag that constitutes a win. If he got to the end using methods which made them angry, it's pretty clear that he didn't really understand how to win the game.

Enumerating how he screwed each person over during his final speech probably didn't help his cause, but it does nicely support my point above.

- Chris


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> I wanted to express my opinion on this topic since you've mentioned it twice....I really think that Russell was trying to help them (but did get carried a way) with the jury. It seemed to me, he was playing the devil's advocate and asking them questions that any normal jury would ask, and they did ask some of them.....he did seem to take it too far at the end and I did ask myself if he was drunk or something...


I don't think he was doing it to be helpful. I think he was rubbing their noses in the fact that he'd been planning this from Day 1 and that there was nothing they could say to the Jury to make them seem more deserving than him. He may have tried to spin it a couple of times to look like he was trying to help them formulate their arguments, but that's not why he was talking like that. He was very full of himself, felt like he had the game in the bag, and simply couldn't hold it in any longer. I'm sure the alcohol had something to do with that.

Don't get me wrong. I wanted Russell to win in the worst way, but I simply didn't think this was a very smart move on his part. But I don't think it had any effect on whether or not he won the game.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

bareyb said:


> Interesting tidbit from that interview. According to Russell all but two of the jury have come to him and admitted they "made a mistake". I think JAP has a point. Once they got some distance and saw the edited footage they probably realized how totally lame and petty they all looked and changed their minds.


This gets a bit sticky though. The jury based their votes on the conditions while they were there and not what they seen after the fact. Which now is right and which is wrong? Also, Russell does have a domineering and influential personality. How many are now willing to flip based on his unrelenting push to convince everyone he "deserved" to win. He did it quite well on Samoa and is still at it.
Based on what we have seen and what we know, I think beyond a doubt Russell was the best player and played the best game by far, but that doesn't equate to should have won or being deserving of a win due to *the fact there is a jury who can vote based on how they think and feel.*

Regardless of how anyone thinks or feels about the outcome, the part I bolded in red needs to be given more weight, because that is exactly why the jury voted as they did and is completely within the context of the game.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

Nobody got rid of Russell because they all thought they could beat him in a vote. They were right. 

I watched the 6 part interview and talk about your cases of sour grapes. Geez. In one breath he is saying that he respected the game too much to do certain things, but then in the next breath he's continuing to whine about his undeniable defeat publically... which is a pretty good sign of lack of respect for the game and how it operates. 

Here again, he's showing some pretty emotionally unstable logic, whereas he is blaming his failure on the weaknesses of others instead of being accountable of it himself. He's not going going to get better any time soon. Poor poor little Russell. And the ultimate irony is that he's describing others as insane. What a dumbass. 

All aboard for Russellville. The pain train is loading up.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I just loved his glassy eyes throughout the reunion episode. He plays this evil villain (burning people's belongings, calling women dumbasses, etc.) and now we're supposed to feel sorry for him?! If you can dish it out...


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

hughmcjr said:


> Wasn't Brett already in Ponderosa then?


Minor detail.  What I meant was that they were never going to vote for a Foa Foa if they could help it. They never considered the best player of the game as a voting criteria.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

chrispitude said:


> Enumerating how he screwed each person over during his final speech probably didn't help his cause, but it does nicely support my point above.
> 
> - Chris


He was pointing out how he was responsible for the plans that got each of the players voted out, and that neither of the other finalists could claim they played the game as hard as he did. He didn't screw anyone over, except himself, apparently.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

retrodog said:


> Nobody got rid of Russell because they all thought they could beat him in a vote. They were right.
> 
> I watched the 6 part interview and talk about your cases of sour grapes. Geez. In one breath he is saying that he respected the game too much to do certain things, but then in the next breath he's continuing to whine about his undeniable defeat publically... which is a pretty good sign of lack of respect for the game and how it operates.
> 
> ...


You've pretty much said everything I've been thinking in this thread. Retro now speaks on my behalf when it comes to Russell.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

YCantAngieRead said:


> You've pretty much said everything I've been thinking in this thread. Retro now speaks on my behalf when it comes to Russell.


And with that statement - we now know you are capable of winning a million dollars on Survivor.

Sorry Retro, man.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

I'm finding it funny that people continue to feel the need to point out that the jury members are allowed to vote how they want. Of course they can, and did. Nobody is saying otherwise...they're saying the way they voted is stupid.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

Blah. Russell got screwed.

Anyone wanna speculate who will be on next season?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

scottjf8 said:


> Blah. Russell got screwed.
> 
> Anyone wanna speculate who will be on next season?


you haven't seen the list? It was posted in an earlier thread but I can't seem to locate it now. Some of the people shown on the preview were rumored not to be on the show.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

justapixel said:


> And with that statement - we now know you are capable of winning a million dollars on Survivor.
> 
> Sorry Retro, man.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

scottjf8 said:


> Blah. Russell got screwed.
> 
> Anyone wanna speculate who will be on next season?


Here is an article that has some of the info.

http://www.realityblurred.com/reali...es_vs_villains/2009_Jul_22_cast_possibilities


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

there is an unconfirmed confirmed list out there thanks to the spoiler slueths. Fairplay is not on it.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

pmyers said:


> I wanted to express my opinion on this topic since you've mentioned it twice....I really think that Russell was trying to help them (but did get carried a way) with the jury. It seemed to me, he was playing the devil's advocate and asking them questions that any normal jury would ask, and they did ask some of them.....he did seem to take it too far at the end and I did ask myself if he was drunk or something...


It may have been lightly veiled as "help" but it seemed more to me, like he wanted to hear their arguments to the jury in advance so he could begin formulating his counter arguments. See what they had in their hand.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

I gotta agree with Joe that I wish the producers would change the way the jury questions the finalists. I think that the jury should have to ask all finalists the same question and it has to be a question. The way it is now may be more entertaining and create more drama but I am starting to get sick of the jury taking out their pettiness on individuals because they were voted out. If they want the fireworks and the snake speeches, then limit the jury members a nice little 2 min speech at the start and then make them ask a question all 3 jury members can answer.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

MonsterJoe said:


> I'm finding it funny that people continue to feel the need to point out that the jury members are allowed to vote how they want. Of course they can, and did. Nobody is saying otherwise...they're saying the way they voted is stupid.


As funny as I find it that people continue to feel the need to point out that the way they voted was stupid, when they were under no obligation to consider any of the points that are the basis for why people think their vote is stupid.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Totally off topic but hefe I am a geek.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Einselen said:


> Totally off topic but hefe I am a geek.


Indeed you are.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I didn't like that the final 3 didn't get a chance to say any final words after the questions. I thought they always got to do that.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

I wonder. If Russell had been on the jury, would he have voted for the person who orchestrated his demise? Somehow I can't see him giving that person a million $.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Also I was going to say that Mick should have responded to whoever (I think Dave it was) that said he was not a leader. Mick should have responded and said that sure he was as Foa Foa was sitting the final 3 and none of Galu. Even though they were loosing he was able to keep his tribe together to survive post merge and sit at the finals in the top 3 and not on the jury (even though Russell did probably do most of the planning an work). Sure mean spirited but the comment to him was just as bad.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

hefe said:


> As funny as I find it that people continue to feel the need to point out that the way they voted was stupid, when they were under no obligation to consider any of the points that are the basis for why people think their vote is stupid.


I dunno. You can find it funny I guess, but it's not the same thing. One side is expressing an opinion about the outcome of the show, and the other is pointing out an obvious fact about how voting works.


----------



## murrays (Oct 19, 2004)

I didn't read all 7 pages of posts here, but I'm going to say this anyway, Smeak or not 

Does anyone ever think of what goes on that you don't see? IOW, maybe, just maybe, Natalie was doing more than the producers chose to show. I agree, from what they showed (less then an hour per several days on the island) I would have voted for Russell. Then again, Russell got a ton of airplay because he was entertaining and good for ratings. We got to see his blathering about "dumb blonds" far more than what Natalie was doing.

Bottom line, the jury knows a heck of a lot more about what was going on than any of us. Even if the edited show was fairly accurate, Russell didn't get jury votes and he lost so he still needs to work on part of his game.

I fully expected Russell to win, but I'm not at all disappointed that an insulting jerk got beat by a "dumb blonde" 

-murray


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Jeff's blog is now updated: http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/12/21/jeff-probst-survivor-russell/

I like this quote: "I do not believe the jury voted for Natalie, I believe the jury voted against Russell."


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

pmyers said:


> Jeff's blog is now updated: http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/12/21/jeff-probst-survivor-russell/
> 
> I like this quote: "I do not believe the jury voted for Natalie, I believe the jury voted against Russell."


You may have liked it, but it wasn't close to the point of his comments.

This is closer,


> I think Russell was the victim of a jury of bitter people.


He said he'd have voted for Russell himself and believed "outwit, outlast, outplay" would be his motivating factor.

He thinks Russell should have won. He did present the counter argument - but doesn't himself agree with it.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

MonsterJoe said:


> I dunno. You can find it funny I guess, but it's not the same thing. One side is expressing an opinion about the outcome of the show, and the other is pointing out an obvious fact about how voting works.


Even if you think the voters are big dummies, the game he was in required getting those votes from those dummies. He had plenty of time there to figure out they were dumb and figure out how to get them to vote for him. But he didn't. All he did was figure out they were dumb and told them about it.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

Philosofy said:


> I wonder. If Russell had been on the jury, would he have voted for the person who orchestrated his demise? Somehow I can't see him giving that person a million $.


Russell said he'd have voted for Brett, because he played the hardest game aside from himself. The fact that Brett hung on and won challenges after his tribe was gone impressed him.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

murrays said:


> Does anyone ever think of what goes on that you don't see? IOW, maybe, just maybe, Natalie was doing more than the producers chose to show.
> 
> -murray


I think since they know who is final two or three before the final edit, they take all the interesting bits that illustrate each person and how they got to the end.

There was nothing interesting about Natalie except she picked Russell to hide behind. Or, rather - he picked her and she remained inoffensive to him.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Philosofy said:


> I wonder. If Russell had been on the jury, would he have voted for the person who orchestrated his demise? Somehow I can't see him giving that person a million $.


He said he would have voted for Brett because it would have meant Brett won 4 or would it be 3 immunities in a row. That was if Brett had won the last immunity and he was voted out. He said winning all those immunities when needed would have made him the 2nd best player.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

justapixel said:


> You may have liked it, but it wasn't close to the point of his comments...


?


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

JFriday said:


> He said he would have voted for Brett because it would have meant Brett won 4 or would it be 3 immunities in a row. That was if Brett had won the last immunity and he was voted out. He said winning all those immunities when needed would have made him the 2nd best player.


I'm thinking if it was Jaison, Mick, and Natalie. If Jaison or Nat were the mastermind, no way Russell would vote for them.


----------



## murrays (Oct 19, 2004)

justapixel said:


> I think since they know who is final two or three before the final edit, they take all the interesting bits that illustrate each person and how they got to the end.
> 
> There was nothing interesting about Natalie except she picked Russell to hide behind. Or, rather - he picked her and she remained inoffensive to him.


I agree, they didn't _show_ anything interesting about Natalie, but then neither of us saw what the didn't show which is 95+% of what happened.

-murray


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

Has anyone mentioned the best line of the show? Shambo to Nat "the word to describe you starts with a c......". I was LOLing.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

pmyers said:


> ?


Well, I guess I should have said "?" to you too. You said you liked a quote in the article with zero explanation of why you liked it. That quote wasn't representative of Probst's point, which was basically that he thought Russell got robbed.


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

gossamer88 said:


> You mess with people and you expect their vote? C'mon! If it were you being messed with would you really give that a-hole the money?!


Have you not watched any of the previous 18 seasons of Survivor? The jury always rewards the more strategic, manipulative player over the "nice" person...until this season. Russell was just unlucky to have a jury that voted unlike any of the juries we've all seen on previous seasons.

What was that holier-than-thou speech by Eric? If there was anyone who acted more dispicable and arrogant than Russel, it was Eric. Remember how he kept talking down to (and about) the other tribe around the time of the merger?

The proof that the vote by the mostly Galu jury was just sour grapes (and not because they valued Natalie's "nice-ness"), was when they re-polled the group on the reunion show to see how they would have voted if it were Russell, Jaison, and Shambo in the final three (instead of Russell, Mick, and Natalie). Russell would've easily won in that scenario according to the repolling, even though Jaison was just as nice as Natalie. That's because the repolling took place after they had all watched the show and seen how brilliantly Russell actually played the game...it had nothing to do with valuing "nice-ness" over Russell's gameplay.

Worst jury vote since the OJ trial.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

murrays said:


> I agree, they didn't _show_ anything interesting about Natalie, but then neither of us saw what the didn't show which is 95+% of what happened.
> 
> -murray


Right. But, my point is that knowing who won, or is at least in the final three - they WOULD have showed something interesting about her, had such a thing existed. As exciting as it got was her killing a rat and praying with Brett.

Remember, that the producers and editors WANT the viewer to be happy. They don't want to frustrate the majority of us. They had to show a lot of Russell because he was so good and interesting. But, knowing Natalie was going to win, they would have shown more about how had the footage existed. All they could show was that she agreed with Russell's decisions and looked great in a bikini.

I'll bet all those unshown hours of her was of her agreeing with people and praying. Not great television.

I have realized I can't go on this show. Cancer kind of finalized it for me, but now I know I'm just not the type to hide behind the coattails of a man. I would probably get voted off after 15 days, which is about as long as I can keep my mouth shut.


----------



## murrays (Oct 19, 2004)

justapixel said:


> Right. But, my point is that knowing who won, or is at least in the final three - they WOULD have showed something interesting about her, had such a thing existed. As exciting as it got was her killing a rat and praying with Brett.
> 
> Remember, that the producers and editors WANT the viewer to be happy. They don't want to frustrate the majority of us. They had to show a lot of Russell because he was so good and interesting. But, knowing Natalie was going to win, they would have shown more about how had the footage existed. All they could show was that she agreed with Russell's decisions and looked great in a bikini.
> 
> ...


You may be (and probably are) right, though the "controversy" created by Russell losing isn't hurting publicity for the show 

It has to be frustrating for women to have the double standard, either play meek or get booted by the men who are expected to play aggressively.

-murray


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

MonsterJoe said:


> I dunno. You can find it funny I guess, but it's not the same thing. One side is expressing an opinion about the outcome of the show, and the other is pointing out an obvious fact about how voting works.


I do see it as quite the same. Both things are said in support of an argument for an opinion.

Pointing out how the voting works, understanding what is or isn't required of the voters, simply supports the opinion that nothing the jury can do is stupid or wrong. It just is. It has the power, and it decides what is right, wrong, or stupid. That can be completely arbitrary to the observer, but it has to be respected as true. (As a religious adherent would treat the will of God. You don't question it, since God decides what is right and wrong by the simple fact of being God.)

And the side that says the jurors were stupid are pointing out that what they based their decision on is wrong. The repeated statement of this opinion is no more or less effective or relevant than the repetition of the fact that supports the opposing opinion.

So yeah, I just see it as the same...two sides going back and forth...


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

justapixel said:


> I have realized I can't go on this show. Cancer kind of finalized it for me, but now I know I'm just not the type to hide behind the coattails of a man. I would probably get voted off after 15 days, which is about as long as I can keep my mouth shut.


If you played with a pancake on your head, no one would mess with you.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

hefe said:


> Pointing out how the voting works, understanding what is or isn't required of the voters, simply supports the opinion that nothing the jury can do is stupid or wrong. It just is.


Ridiculous. By that logic, *nothing* is stupid or wrong.

IMO the jury was stupid and wrong. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with me, it's just my opinion, but to say the jury flat-out can't be stupid or wrong is rather, er, well you know.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> Ridiculous. By that logic, *nothing* is stupid or wrong.
> 
> IMO the jury was stupid and wrong. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with me, it's just my opinion, but to say the jury flat-out can't be stupid or wrong is rather, er, well you know.


Stupid and wrong are really different things. I don't think the Jury was "stupid" in this case. Maybe wrong. Irrational, most definitely.

But really, in a show with basically no rules the person who got voted out (or out voted in this case) is the wrong one. Wrong in one assumption or another. And the next "Russell" can learn something. Perfect strategy and game-play doesn't out-trump an a-hole.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Dnamertz said:


> Have you not watched any of the previous 18 seasons of Survivor? The jury always rewards the more strategic, manipulative player over the "nice" person...until this season. Russell was just unlucky to have a jury that voted unlike any of the juries we've all seen on previous seasons.


Seriously, have you watched Survivor either? Off the top my head a few names come to mind: Tina, Vecepia, Sandra, Amber, & Jenna M. And that's the winners I remember. Looking at Wikipedia, only about half of the winners are reconizable to me (and some just barely.)


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)




----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

Jebberwocky! said:


>


lol

:up:


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)




----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

heySkippy said:


> Ridiculous. By that logic, *nothing* is stupid or wrong.
> 
> IMO the jury was stupid and wrong. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with me, it's just my opinion, but to say the jury flat-out can't be stupid or wrong is rather, er, well you know.


That's right. By that logic, the jury is the only entity within the confines of the game that gets to determine what is valuable, what is deserving...by definition, they as the ultimate judge cannot be "wrong."

You can disagree. Hell, I said that I would have voted the other way myself. But unless there were some direct orders to the jury on what to consider and weigh in making their decision, I wouldn't call then wrong or stupid. Besides, they experienced the game and saw what they saw. I watched it on TV as a relatively omniscient observer. I can allow for the possibility that things looked and felt differently to them.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I think if they had seen the TV show instead of living it, the vote would be 9-0.


Just watched the finale last night so if this was mentioned aleady, well, I'm not reading every post to find out! 

The fact is, we see 1 hour a week while these people live it. And, on a weekly basis, we are misdirected by editing in terms of tribal council, so we are surprised as viewers. Why not the same thing building towards the finale?

With that in mind, do any of us really know everything that went on there, what Natalie actually did (thru editing we saw her to be utterly useless but we don't know that), and maybe Russell was mean all the time just for the sake of it when it served no other purpose, rather than what they showed, which were only snippets that were amusing. Could have been total misdirection for a shocking vote while he pissed them off so badly on a daily basis that, as humans, they couldn't get past it, which we wouldn't know.

From what they showed us, he played a great game. Who find idols without clues, much less 3 of them (and from what they showed, it seemed he found those idols without much difficulty but he said that he was looking for a long time - more misdirection).

We don't really know very much about what went on at all given the minuscule percentage we are exposed to based on what CBS decides to show to maximize ratings (about 2% I guess if you take 22 (estimated # of episodes x 1 hour episodes divided by 39 days x 24 hours per day). So can we really be in a position to say it was wrong?


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

There are many viewers who are coming out of the woodwork that have been lurking a long time at the CBS Survivor site. Many signed up just to complain about Russell losing. Many are pissed off and very emotional and don't like the fact that the jury was subjecitve. Well, guess what, the jury was pissed off and emotional as well.

It doesn't matter who played the best or is the best at the game. It comes down to the jury. Like it or not, it is the jury who decides. It comes down to the jury, not what Russell thinks, Jeff thinks, or any of us think. I thought Russell played a great game as well and given the situation played survivor better than anyone, but again IT COMES DOWN TO THE JURY!!

I know some viewers actually want to change the rules, like most sore losers do when they play a game and lose. 

Some claim Russell deserved to win. No, the player the jury decides who they want to win, deserves to win. Russell, as good as he played and possibly being the best Survivor ever, failed at one aspect of the game, human interaction. He literally lied to EVERYONE including Natalie and the jury did not like that part of his game, hence they didn't vote for him.

Think about it. There were 8 galu members on the jury and one person he lied to from Foa. How did you think they were all going to react? The jury has every right to vote how they see fit regardless of who played the best game or not.

Playing the best game, being the best at Survivor DOES NOT mean you deserve or are entitled to win as that isn't how the game works.

While there is objective things to be good at like challenges, Immunity idols, etc. is is the subjective part of the game that ultimately matters.

The rules of the game do not dictate an objective set of criteria that the jury must base their votes on. The rules allow for subjective voting and in doing so, virtually eliminate judging objectively particularly if the jury member doesn't like the contestant and was treated poorly and lied to by the contestant.

What happened is Russell got so far up people's butts mentally and emotionally, they can't except the fact that the game allows for the best NOT to win by the simple fact that it is a SUBJECTIVE game, much more than objective. Most of what takes place is subjective socializing like it or not. In the end the ultimate test is to face a subjective jury of your peers. This is how the game works.

Russell is the best player this season, but there is no rule that says the best wins. There is no deserve to win or should win, when there are no strict objective criteria to win by and this is what so many aren't getting when they claim Russell should win by some sought of entitlement.



Spoiler



And I think Russell was so pissed at the reunion, because he lost at season 20 as well. I would bet money he does not win season 20.

He already let a comment or two slip in some interviews.
One interview Russell was asked a question about the game and he accidentally slipped and asked, "this season"?
In the EW interview with Dalton Ross, he made a comment about Jaison being messed up for the rest of his life due to being on Samoa, and then RUssell said people like Jaison and Coach need help. I would surmise he says that about Coach not because of how he saw coach on tv, but rather personal experience.

It should be an interesting season if we get to see RUssell and coach "interact".



All in all it was a fun ride, but NOT one of my favorite seasons. Really I took a liking to no one and thought none of the contestants were all that.

Did anyone pay attention to all the contestants at the reunion?? WOW. They are virtually all miserable and unhappy. Erik, Kelly especially, Laura, Monica, DAve and on and on just looked pissy. I think this season had some really negative and unappealing characters outside of Russell and if mean, lying etc is appealing,...UGH!

OK so the t&a wasn't bad.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

justapixel said:


> You may have liked it, but it wasn't close to the point of his comments.


He edited just like they do. You can be selective and make anything look plausible. I think Russel probably played the best game but had no idea how *****y this group of losers might be. In most years, I think he would have won based on respect for his gameplay but this group was too juvenile to see it. He led them to the water but couldn't make em drink. He showed them all how he outwitted, outlasted and outplayed. But they outwhined, outcryed and outvoted him.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

jr461 said:


> With that in mind, do any of us really know everything that went on there, what Natalie actually did (thru editing we saw her to be utterly useless but we don't know that), and maybe Russell was mean all the time just for the sake of it when it served no other purpose, rather than what they showed, which were only snippets that were amusing. Could have been total misdirection for a shocking vote while he pissed them off so badly on a daily basis that, as humans, they couldn't get past it, which we wouldn't know.


No, of course, we don't. But, they can't add things that didn't happen. I think if they realistically had better footage to make Natalie look more deserving they would. Same is true for all the coattail winners ( all woman as I noted earlier ). They can't make it defensible and understandable cause it isn't. Sometimes, I get why they did it, normally the other winner is equally repellent. In this case, Russel wasn't nasty to their faces, just to the confessional.

If he had been that nasty in the game he wouldn't have been able to convince them to go along with his plans. They just feel like he screwed them when what he did was play them as foils and fools in his game. No one likes to look stupid and they chose to embrace that and be childish instead of seeing how well he played them. You could see it coming watching the ponderosa footage. They were all pretty pissed about losing and felt they had been abused when in fact they had been duped by someone who was better at that than they were.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> Stupid and wrong are really different things. I don't think the Jury was "stupid" in this case. Maybe wrong. Irrational, most definitely.
> 
> But really, in a show with basically no rules the person who got voted out (or out voted in this case) is the wrong one. Wrong in one assumption or another. And the next "Russell" can learn something. Perfect strategy and game-play doesn't out-trump an a-hole.


To extend what Peter is saying here (and what I posted initially) people here are giving Russell all of the credit for manipulating people, etc. But unlike any player in Survivor history, he crossed the line from manipulative to cruel. He intentionally damaged his own tribe's ability to compete in challenges. I've seen people on this board go crazy over a contestant throwing one challenge. Russell effectively caused multiple challenges to be "thrown" by leaving those with whom he was sharing a camp without drinking water and foot protection. Then, Russell exploited what was essentially a flaw in the game design - hidden immunity idols + Exile Island works. Just having immunity idols hidden around camp doesn't so much.

Finally, Russell behaved like an oaf toward everyone else in the game. He knew that they were the people who were going to be voting on the jury, but he continued to taunt and ridicule them to the end. So Jeff's right - they didn't vote for Natalie, they voted against Russell. But Russell's behavior is what led to that vote.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Contrast how Russell played to how Yul did. He was a mastermind as well, but at the end people applauded him for it, and gave him the money. Yul took the jury's feelings into account, Russell didn't.


----------



## SleepyBob (Sep 28, 2000)

Fool Me Twice said:


> He made the unfortunate assumption that the jury members would respect strong gameplay above all else in the end and be forced by moral conviction to give him their votes, with grudging admiration even.


Yes. The problem I see is that in Survivor, you either take control of the game, or you hope that whoever is in control doesn't decide to toss you overboard.

Russell could have dumped pretty anyone he wanted and ended up with nearly any combination of final three that he wanted out of the last 6 players. So for someone else to win, who is basically there on the sufferance of Russell is frustrating.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> This is exactly why I think that what happened at the final tribal council doesn't really have an effect on the outcome. These people already knew who they were voting for, they already knew what they were going to say to either make someone look stupid or praise someone. The final tribal council is all about grandstanding and very little about substance. These people spend a lot of time together at Ponderosa sharpening their bitterness and it all comes out at final tribal and in their votes. I'm fairly certain that it didn't matter what Russell said at TC - he wasn't going to win no matter what.


Agreed. And I have this nagging feeling that Shambo was trying to argue Russel's case, but only succeeded in getting on everyone's nerves. That may have hurt him.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> I didn't like that the final 3 didn't get a chance to say any final words after the questions. I thought they always got to do that.


It's actually been like this for several seasons now. They realized that opening and closing statements was just too much, since rarely did the players actually say anything worthwhile in either speech, so giving them the chance to make two of them was a waste of time better spent on other things.


Dnamertz said:


> Have you not watched any of the previous 18 seasons of Survivor? The jury always rewards the more strategic, manipulative player over the "nice" person...until this season. Russell was just unlucky to have a jury that voted unlike any of the juries we've all seen on previous seasons.


As already pointed out to you, this was not the first time the jury voted for a coat-tail rider over someone who played a better game. It's actually probably more common in the history of Survivor that a coaster won than that a truly dominant, strategic player won.


jr461 said:


> Just watched the finale last night so if this was mentioned aleady, well, I'm not reading every post to find out!
> 
> The fact is, we see 1 hour a week while these people live it. And, on a weekly basis, we are misdirected by editing in terms of tribal council, so we are surprised as viewers. Why not the same thing building towards the finale?
> 
> ...


Two things - First, I think they showed the best thing they could about Natalie, which was when she made a comment right after the merge about getting rid of Erik. There's no indication that when she said it, it had any real effect on the game. But the producers threw it in there because it was about the only thing they had to make Natalie look like a real player.

Second, there aren't 22 episodes of Survivor every season. There are usually between 11 and 14, so you need to revise your calculations. We only see about 1% of what actually goes on. But when you consider that there are multiple things going on at the same time (one group talking by the fire, one group walking on the beach, one person looking for an idol, one person doing a confessional interview, etc.), we're probably seeing less than 0.5% of what actually goes on.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Philosofy said:


> Contrast how Russell played to how Yul did. He was a mastermind as well, but at the end people applauded him for it, and gave him the money. Yul took the jury's feelings into account, Russell didn't.


Yup, and Yul beat Ozzie who won 5 of the 6 individual immunity challenges.


----------



## GadgetFreak (Jun 3, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> He edited just like they do. You can be selective and make anything look plausible. I think Russel probably played the best game but had no idea how *****y this group of losers might be. In most years, I think he would have won based on respect for his gameplay but this group was too juvenile to see it. He led them to the water but couldn't make em drink. He showed them all how he outwitted, outlasted and outplayed. But they outwhined, outcryed and outvoted him.


I agree with you that there were not a lot of smart players this year. But in most years, Russell would have been ousted earlier. That same strength that should get you votes at the end can kill you earlier on.


----------



## GadgetFreak (Jun 3, 2002)

pmyers said:


> I wanted to express my opinion on this topic since you've mentioned it twice....I really think that Russell was trying to help them (but did get carried a way) with the jury. It seemed to me, he was playing the devil's advocate and asking them questions that any normal jury would ask, and they did ask some of them.....he did seem to take it too far at the end and I did ask myself if he was drunk or something...


I listened to an interview of Russell discussing this -- he said he was trying to hurt them by planting ideas in their heads.


----------



## Cindy1230 (Oct 31, 2003)

RussellGotScrewed.com was registered nine days before Survivor Samoas finale


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

There is talk of spoilers about next season on the RussellGotScrewed site, so be wary. I haven't seen them, just heard about them so wanted to warn.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Magister said:


> There is talk of spoilers about next season on the RussellGotScrewed site, so be wary. I haven't seen them, just heard about them so wanted to warn.


Also, just an FYI. Spoiler tags do not work in the email notifications that we get from TCF. So if you know anything about who won next season (or who didn't) keep it to yourself. Spoiler tags notwithstanding.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

I checked out Russell's 6-part whine interview from the earlier link. He needs to get over himself and man-up and accept his lot in "the game" as runner-up after the jury blindsided him just as he had done to others throughout the game.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

hughmcjr said:


> There are many viewers who are coming out of the woodwork that have been lurking a long time at the CBS Survivor site. Many signed up just to complain about Russell losing. Many are pissed off and very emotional and don't like the fact that the jury was subjecitve. Well, guess what,* the jury was pissed off and emotional as well*.
> 
> It doesn't matter who played the best or is the best at the game. It comes down to the jury.* Like it or not, it is the jury who decides*. It comes down to the jury, not what Russell thinks, Jeff thinks, or any of us think. I thought Russell played a great game as well and given the situation played survivor better than anyone, but again IT COMES DOWN TO THE JURY!!
> 
> ...


I highlighted key points here.
At first, I disagreed with the final result. But by following this thread, I've had time to calm down and realize it is what it is.
I think my mistake was my thinking how the jury should have voted, using my criteria. As said above, this is not how it works.

There's no reason to change the rules. They have obviously worked well enough or we wouldn't have had 19 seasons.

And I don't think Survivor or CBS dare to change the rules now. Look at the controversy stirred this season. The execs are probably creaming their pants right now.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

I don't watch Survivor-I just happened to tune in to the finale and have 2 thoughts-probably said by many before-just call me Smeekette...
1. Dave is super-creepy (I wouldn't be comfortable sleeping anywhere near him)
2. Shambo had a chance to shower and style her hair and THAT is really how it looks?
WOW!
That is all.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

Regina said:


> I don't watch Survivor-I just happened to tune in to the finale and have 2 thoughts-probably said by many before-just call me Smeekette...
> 1. Dave is super-creepy (I wouldn't be comfortable sleeping anywhere near him)
> 2. Shambo had a chance to shower and style her hair and THAT is really how it looks?
> WOW!
> That is all.


It is funny you picked those two out. Hey, everyone has something, but Dave and Shambo do have some screws loose. Shambo seems ok, but there is just a little something off in her and you can see it when you see her smile. Dave says things like he just got off the acid boat that left 1969. He is so smart he borders on insane.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

steve614 said:


> I highlighted key points here.
> At first, I disagreed with the final result. But by following this thread, I've had time to calm down and realize it is what it is.
> I think my mistake was my thinking how the jury should have voted, using my criteria. As said above, this is not how it works.
> 
> ...


Hey, I am with you and agree completely. I am with many who believe RUssell did play the best game and was one of the best contestants ever, but he didn't play the best game to the very end.

I wanted him to win as well even though I didn't care for him much.


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

TriBruin said:


> Seriously, have you watched Survivor either? Off the top my head a few names come to mind: Tina, Vecepia, Sandra, Amber, & Jenna M. And that's the winners I remember. (and some just barely.)


Those are nice people who won, but they didn't win because they were nice vs an "great strategic" player like Russell...that was my point. For example, Tina won but she beat Colby who was also extremely nice.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

Russell was robbed.



KMan said:


> Are there any rules about discussing/planning the final vote at the Ponderosa?


I think I read in one of Jeff's blogs (but I don't recall exactly) that they aren't segregated so jury members can taint the decision-making process...tell lies, make crap up, convince others to agree with them...basically whatever they want.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I agree with hughmcjr and steve614; Russell has no one but himself to blame. He is a great player, but not as good as he thinks! 

Thinking back on previous seasons, Brian, the used car salesman from several seasons ago, also ran the game from start to finish, but he managed to not piss off everyone so that they were willing to vote for him in the end. Yul pretty much ran the game, too, and still won.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

latrobe7 said:


> I haven't read the whole thread, but I agree with hughmcjr and steve614; Russell has no one but himself to blame. He is a great player, but not as good as he thinks!
> 
> Thinking back on previous seasons, Brian, the used car salesman from several seasons ago, also ran the game from start to finish, but he managed to not piss off everyone so that they were willing to vote for him in the end. Yul pretty much ran the game, too, and still won.


Brian was also smart in that he took someone unlikeable with him to the finals.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

sushikitten said:


> Russell was robbed.
> 
> I think I read in one of Jeff's blogs (but I don't recall exactly) that they aren't segregated so jury members can taint the decision-making process...tell lies, make crap up, convince others to agree with them...basically whatever they want.


The fact that seven out of nine of them voted for Natalie lead me to believe there was some collusion going on at the Ponderosa. I understand the vote was for "not Russell" but the fact that Mick didn't receive a single vote makes me think it was organized.

tk


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Brian was also smart in that he took someone unlikeable with him to the finals.


Who did he take again? Did that season have two or three people in front of the jury?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

latrobe7 said:


> Who did he take again? Did that season have two or three people in front of the jury?


There were just two before the jury, and it was Brian and Clay. IIRC, Clay was an older guy that was kind of ornery. Even still, it was a very close 4-3 vote. Check out the details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Thailand


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> Who did he take again? Did that season have two or three people in front of the jury?


It was a final 2 and I don't remember the other guys name but he kind if resembled a hobbit just a tiny bit. To me Bryan played the best game we have seen. I don't think anyone ever voted against him and the final vote was unanimous. He was so smooth with the whole thing.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> There were just two before the jury, and it was Brian and Clay. IIRC, Clay was an older guy that was kind of ornery. Even still, it was a very close 4-3 vote. Check out the details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Thailand


Huh... I had thought Bryan swept that vote but I guess not.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> There were just two before the jury, and it was Brian and Clay. IIRC, Clay was an older guy that was kind of ornery. Even still, it was a very close 4-3 vote. Check out the details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor:_Thailand





stalemate said:


> It was a final 2 and I don't remember the other guys name but he kind if resembled a hobbit just a tiny bit. To me Bryan played the best game we have seen. I don't think anyone ever voted against him and the final vote was unanimous. He was so smooth with the whole thing.


I just went to the wiki page and then on to the CBS page; it's amazing how long ago that seems! Yeah, I remember Clay now, he was kind of a curmudgeon - seems to me using Brian's template, Russell's mistake was not getting Shambo into the final! But then this time it was three in front of the jury... geuss he should have taken Jaison and Shambo then!


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

latrobe7 said:


> guess he [Russell] should have taken Jaison and Shambo then!


Then it probably would have been unanimus votes for Jaison since Russell and Shambo were both hated.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

steve614 said:


> Then it probably would have been unanimus votes for Jaison since Russell and Shambo were both hated.


Not according to the "informal" show of hands that Jeff asked for at the finale. The Jury said if it had been Jaison and Shambo with Russell that Russell would have won. Not sure I believe it, but that's what they said. Of course they also said, it six months or so after the fact. My personal thinking is that they all got together and decided to do a "blind side" of their own. They probably thought America would love it, and only later after seeing the edited footage realized how petty it made them all look and they changed their tune to try and make us all think that Natalie "deserved it".


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

sushikitten said:


> Russell was robbed.
> 
> I think I read in one of Jeff's blogs (but I don't recall exactly) that they aren't segregated so jury members can taint the decision-making process...*tell lies, make crap up, convince others to agree with them...basically whatever they want.*


Just like Russell?


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

Off topic spoiler for next season concerning cast:



Spoiler



So the theory is that Coach had no clue about RUssell, yet they are supposed to be at Villians vs Heroes together. How could Coach not know about Russell when he was blogging about him since Sept. over at the CBS site on the Immunity Blog section with Debbie. Was Villians vs Heroes filmed right after Samoa and then COach blogged about the RUssell he met, yet he didn't let on?


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

hughmcjr said:


> It is funny you picked those two out. Hey, everyone has something, but Dave and Shambo do have some screws loose. Shambo seems ok, but there is just a little something off in her and you can see it when you see her smile. Dave says things like he just got off the acid boat that left 1969. He is so smart he borders on insane.


Thanks for the insight-since as I said, I didn't watch any of this or any other season. When Shambo winked at Russell before the vote it was a little evident that something was off...


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

Samoa was filmed June to July and HvV was filmed in August to September.


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

hughmcjr said:


> Some claim Russell deserved to win. No, the player the jury decides who they want to win, deserves to win. Russell, as good as he played and possibly being the best Survivor ever, failed at one aspect of the game, human interaction. He literally lied to EVERYONE including Natalie and the jury did not like that part of his game, hence they didn't vote for him.


We don't really know WHY they voted how they voted. I was waiting for Jeff to ask on the reunion show why they voted for Natalie, but he never did. The only person who really made it clear in his jury questioning why he was voting for Natalie (and not Russell) was Eric. But to say that the jury did not like that he lied to everyone doesn't make sense. If that was their reasoning, then why did the jury say they would have voted for Russell over Jaison/Shambo had that been the final three? Jaison was a nice person too...but all of the sudden the jury would reward Russell's lying had he been up against Jaison?


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

The most ironic thing is, almost everyone of those jury members lied and blindsided at least one person as they voted out another Foa Foa member each week after the merge...and yet, once in the jury they have a problem with someone else lying and backstabing?


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Dnamertz said:


> *We don't really know WHY they voted how they voted.* I was waiting for Jeff to ask on the reunion show why they voted for Natalie, but he never did. The only person who really made it clear in his jury questioning why he was voting for Natalie (and not Russell) was Eric. But* to say that the jury did not like that he lied to everyone doesn't make sense. * If that was their reasoning, then why did the jury say they would have voted for Russell over Jaison/Shambo had that been the final three? Jaison was a nice person too...but all of the sudden the jury would reward Russell's lying had he been up against Jaison?





Dnamertz said:


> The most ironic thing is, almost everyone of those jury members lied and blindsided at least one person as they voted out another Foa Foa member each week after the merge...and yet, once in the jury they have a problem with someone else lying and backstabing?


I feel like we are going in circles.


----------



## KMan (Dec 24, 2001)

sushikitten said:


> I think I read in one of Jeff's blogs (but I don't recall exactly) that they aren't segregated so jury members can taint the decision-making process...tell lies, make crap up, convince others to agree with them...basically whatever they want.


I wonder if this was a case where one or two strong willed players (Laura and Eric?) swayed other weaker players (Kelly, Dave, Monica) to vote against Russell.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Dnamertz said:


> The most ironic thing is, almost everyone of those jury members lied and blindsided at least one person as they voted out another Foa Foa member each week after the merge...and yet, once in the jury they have a problem with someone else lying and backstabing?


Nah, the most ironic thing was how everyone cheered when Russ orchestrated all the blindsides on them, but then got dismayed when Russell himself was blindsided.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

The problem Russell had was he made bold-faced lies right to people's faces. Like he'd tell Jaison "Ok, the plan is to vote out Nick" and then he'd vote out Jaison. Other people were more deceptive than outright lying. They might say "I don't know who I'm voting for. I need to think about some things."

Russell would essentially tell people "You're 100% safe. There's no way I'm voting for you." and then he'd vote them out. That just builds up too much resentment for people to then turn around and give him the prize.


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

stalemate said:


> I feel like we are going in circles.


I was _assuming _that they had a problem with his lying, since that is why some people here are saying he lost.


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

Philosofy said:


> Nah, the most ironic thing was how everyone cheered when Russ orchestrated all the blindsides on them, but then got dismayed when Russell himself was blindsided.


There is a difference between a blindside when evicting someone, and a "blindside" when picking the winner...at least in my mind.


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

warrenn said:


> The problem Russell had was he made bold-faced lies right to people's faces. Like he'd tell Jaison "Ok, the plan is to vote out Nick" and then he'd vote out Jaison. Other people were more deceptive than outright lying. They might say "I don't know who I'm voting for. I need to think about some things."
> 
> Russell would essentially tell people "You're 100% safe. There's no way I'm voting for you." and then he'd vote them out. That just builds up too much resentment for people to then turn around and give him the prize.


But many of the Foa Foa jury did the same thing. They told Eric he was safe. They told John he was safe.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

With Russell, it was much more than just lying to people that cost him. Lying has pretty much just become an accepted part of the game. But it's his other behaviors that turned the jury against him. Taunting the other players, actively engaging in conduct that was destructive (and in some ways downright dangerous) to his own tribe, and generally acting like a bully was his downfall. You can get away with being a jerk. You can get away with being a puppet master. But you can't get away with both.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Dnamertz said:


> But many of the Foa Foa jury did the same thing. They told Eric he was safe. They told John he was safe.


Is it a good thing to tell the person your going to vote off that your going to vote them off? Of you tell them they're safe so they won't try to rally the troops and save themselves?


----------



## murrays (Oct 19, 2004)

JFriday said:


> Is it a good thing to tell the person your going to vote off that your going to vote them off? Of you tell them they're safe so they won't try to rally the troops and save themselves?


Well, one strategy has a better chance of getting you to the final three, one has a better chance of giving you the title of "Sole Survivor".

-murray


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

AJRitz said:


> With Russell, it was much more than just lying to people that cost him. Lying has pretty much just become an accepted part of the game. But it's his other behaviors that turned the jury against him. Taunting the other players, actively engaging in conduct that was destructive (and in some ways downright dangerous) to his own tribe, and generally acting like a bully was his downfall. You can get away with being a jerk. You can get away with being a puppet master. But you can't get away with both.


Well said.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

AJRitz said:


> With Russell, it was much more than just lying to people that cost him. Lying has pretty much just become an accepted part of the game. But it's his other behaviors that turned the jury against him. Taunting the other players, actively engaging in conduct that was destructive (and in some ways downright dangerous) to his own tribe, and generally acting like a bully was his downfall. You can get away with being a jerk. You can get away with being a puppet master. But you can't get away with both.


But alot of what you described they had no clue he did it until it was aired and their votes were already in.


----------



## dfergie (Aug 27, 2006)

JFriday said:


> But alot of what you described they had no clue he did it until it was aired and their votes were already in.


Exactly... they need to keep the jury separated until the vote so the weak minded are not swayed...


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

So Russell wins the last immunity and guarantees himself a spot in front of the jury. He joins the overwhelming majority of survivors to win the last immunity and lose the jury vote. Only 6 times in 19 seasons has the winner of the last immunity won the million.

Brian Heidik in Thailand
Jenna Morasca in the Amazon
Chris Daugherty in Vanuatu
Tom Westman in Palau
Danni Boatwright in Guatemala
and JT in Tocantins.

The last immunity gets you further, but does not assure you the vote.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I was thinking about how it seems every season is "the best Survivor ever!" or at least has some interesting twists. Enough to keep us talking about it for weeks and then another one starts and we forget the old season. 

I remember Rupert and Boston Rob because that was the first Survivor I ever watched. Boston Rob ran that game, but he ran it with Amber as his partner not hanging on a coattail.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

betts4 said:


> I was thinking about how it seems every season is "the best Survivor ever!" or at least has some interesting twists. Enough to keep us talking about it for weeks and then another one starts and we forget the old season.
> 
> I remember Rupert and Boston Rob because that was the first Survivor I ever watched. Boston Rob ran that game, but he ran it with Amber as his partner not hanging on a coattail.


It is amazing how they manage to keep this show interesting season after season. I enjoyed this last season as much any I can remember. There's been a few duds along the way but for the most part Survivor is till one of the most consistently good reality shows on TV. I'm looking forward to next season too. It's nice to know all the players right up front every once in a while and it does keep things interesting.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

MegaHertz67 said:


> So Russell wins the last immunity and guarantees himself a spot in front of the jury. He joins the overwhelming majority of survivors to win the last immunity and lose the jury vote. Only 6 times in 19 seasons has the winner of the last immunity won the million.
> 
> Brian Heidik in Thailand
> Jenna Morasca in the Amazon
> ...


Wow. That's an interesting factoid. Hmmm....


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

JFriday said:


> But alot of what you described they had no clue he did it until it was aired and their votes were already in.


Actually they did know and even talked about it in out take videos over at the CBS site. They all knew Russell was being an idiot while they were there.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

Dnamertz said:


> We don't really know WHY they voted how they voted. I was waiting for Jeff to ask on the reunion show why they voted for Natalie, but he never did. The only person who really made it clear in his jury questioning why he was voting for Natalie (and not Russell) was Eric. But to say that the jury did not like that he lied to everyone doesn't make sense. If that was their reasoning, then why did the jury say they would have voted for Russell over Jaison/Shambo had that been the final three? Jaison was a nice person too...but all of the sudden the jury would reward Russell's lying had he been up against Jaison?


While we don't know exactly why the jury voted the way they did and we can't read minds, we can surmise quite a bit from what took place.

Russell lied to Jaison and he was in this tribe and close to the end. Almost beyond a reasonable doubt, Jaison didn't vote for Russell cause he was lied to and felt backstabbed and because of the money issue. The rest knew about RUssells lying and were resentful of his lying to EVERYONE and they didn't like how he rubbed it in their faces at the end. He showed no humility at all and thought he was above them. They did resent Russell probably for many reasons, most of which we seen.

We also can deduce a lot based on the fact that Russell was so over the top at how well he did control the game and the reactions to it.

I also watched the video's prior to tribal voting of the jury members talking about how they were going to vote.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

hughmcjr said:


> Actually they did know and even talked about it in out take videos over at the CBS site. They all knew Russell was being an idiot while they were there.


I don't think anyone thought he was an idiot. They think he was a snake or other worse words, but don't think anyone really considered him an idiot.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

Magister said:


> I don't think anyone thought he was an idiot. They think he was a snake or other worse words, but don't think anyone really considered him an idiot.


That is what I meant, jerk, mean, etc. I meant acting like an idiot, not the literal meaning of the word.


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> With Russell, it was much more than just lying to people that cost him. Lying has pretty much just become an accepted part of the game. But it's his other behaviors that turned the jury against him. Taunting the other players, actively engaging in conduct that was destructive (and in some ways downright dangerous) to his own tribe, and generally acting like a bully was his downfall. You can get away with being a jerk. You can get away with being a puppet master. But you can't get away with both.


He seemed to get along with eveyone OK, and tried to avoid conflict. In fact, he liked sitting back and let other people argue, making themselves the target.

Yes Russell lied and mislead people, but for every blindside vote he made Natalie made the same vote...and I don't remember her going to any of those evictees and giving them a heads-up. That includes the vote for Jaison. Natalie blindsied Jaison right along with Russell. In fact, every blindside Russell made he had a majority of the remaining players blindsiding right along with him. None of those people blindsided were expecting it, so no one was honest in this game.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

betts4 said:


> I was thinking about how it seems every season is "the best Survivor ever!" or at least has some interesting twists. Enough to keep us talking about it for weeks and then another one starts and we forget the old season.
> 
> I remember Rupert and Boston Rob because that was the first Survivor I ever watched. Boston Rob ran that game, but he ran it with Amber as his partner not hanging on a coattail.


Your first season must have been Survivor All-Stars, because Boston Rob and Rupert were not originally on the same season.


Dnamertz said:


> He seemed to get along with eveyone OK, and tried to avoid conflict. In fact, he liked sitting back and let other people argue, making themselves the target.
> 
> Yes Russell lied and mislead people, but for every blindside vote he made Natalie made the same vote...and I don't remember her going to any of those evictees and giving them a heads-up. That includes the vote for Jaison. Natalie blindsied Jaison right along with Russell. In fact, every blindside Russell made he had a majority of the remaining players blindsiding right along with him. None of those people blindsided were expecting it, so no one was honest in this game.


The point is that the jury recognized (correctly) that it was Russell that was the mastermind behind all of those votes, so they were holding it against him, but not so much against his alliance, because they were simply following the strategy that would get them the farthest.

If you listen to the RFF Radio podcast from 12/21, they play an interview with Russell and Natalie where R & N basically get in a fight about who played better. Natalie simply points out that she won the money because she played a better social game, despite the fact that Russell may have been more strategic. Russell is trying to claim that the social game doesn't matter, and that if Survivor were only a social game, it never would have made it past the first season. Natalie gets feisty and throws it back in his face, that he didn't win because he didn't consider all the factors of the game, and Russell continues to try and claim that he played better than she did, and was simply unfortunate to run into a bitter jury. It's pretty funny (if you can get past the insufferable RFF Radio hosts).


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Russell was robbed...

but Natalie also played the "mean girls" for all they were worth...she was always in the hut talking to the girls...and when the girls were gone, she was always in the hut being all cute with the guys...you saw that week after week...it wasn't anything interesting, but it was always there in the background...


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Your first season must have been Survivor All-Stars, because Boston Rob and Rupert were not originally on the same season.


My first was whatever one Boston Rob and Amber won. I guess I remember Rupert from another season. I just remember Rupert stealing all the shoes from one of the teams when they were in the village collecting stuff the first day or so. And how loved he was by the fans by the end of the show.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

betts4 said:


> My first was whatever one Boston Rob and Amber won. I guess I remember Rupert from another season. I just remember Rupert stealing all the shoes from one of the teams when they were in the village collecting stuff the first day or so. And how loved he was by the fans by the end of the show.


Those are two different seasons. The season where Rupert stole the shoes was Pearl Islands. All Stars was the next season and was filmed in the same place and also included Rupert, as well as Boston Rob and Amber.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Might be worse even than Sandra or Vecepia. Utterly unimaginable how they can vote that way.


Just a note, but we just watched the Pearl Islands season of Survivor over the weekend and Sandra doesn't belong in the coat-tail group. She was a strong player the whole game. While she wasn't a physical threat, she was very proactive maintaining her alliance and took several risks in confronting others who threatened her place in the game. She played the game well.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> Just a note, but we just watched the Pearl Islands season of Survivor over the weekend and Sandra doesn't belong in the coat-tail group. She was a strong player the whole game. While she wasn't a physical threat, she was very proactive maintaining her alliance and took several risks in confronting others who threatened her place in the game. She played the game well.


While your recollection is obviously better than mine, since I haven't seen this since it originally aired, I remember being very disappointed when Sandra won, and at the time couldn't remember any moves she made other than flying under the radar and being non-threatening to the more strategic players.


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

I am a big fan of survivor and have watched every episode of all 19 seasons to date. My first reaction to the vote was the same as many here...that Russell got screwed. But the more I look at it, the more I think about it, the more Natalie seems deserving of the title. There are three reasons that come to mind:

1) She was not a coattail rider. You can argue that Shambo was more important to the Foa Foa comeback than Natalie was, but if it wasn't for Natalie getting all the girls to vote for Erik...Foa Foa would have been history. She had active roles in other vote swings as well, but the Erik vote was her masterpiece.

2) She was smart. She was smart enough to recognize how to survive in Russell's shadow, unlike others that challenged him and found themselves gone. This is not as passive a strategy as it seems. It takes intelligence to recognize a situation and adapt yourself to it to survive.

3) She wasn't a tool. While Russell was clearly in control, he was also mean spirited and manipulative, he was lazy around camp and contributed very little in the team oriented challenges. While he was great at strategy and overall game play, he added very little else to his tribe mates and their experience in the game. That social aspect is what bit him in the butt.

You can argue that others were rewarded for their superior play even if the social game was lacking. But Richard Hatch and Brian Heidik (the car salesman from S:Thailand) had the advantage of having a two person final tribal with an even less likable person sitting beside them. 

I have seen Natalie compared to Vecepia Towrey (from S:Marquesas) and Sandra Diaz-Twine (from Searl Islands) as coattail riders undeserving of the money. Those two also took even less deserving people to the final 2 and won on the vote.

The final 3 prevents you from targeting one person to sit beside in the final for the win. Even though it opens it up to possible tie scenarios, that hasn't happened yet because one person so obviously is been undeserving that they receive either 1 vote (Amanda in China) or 0 votes (Becky in Cook Islands, Cassandra and Dre in Fiji, Sugar in Gabon, and Mick this season).

Overall I loved this season. I loved to hate Russell. I loved cheering for the Foa Foa comeback...and Russell in particular for his play. I screamed in outrage at Russell not winning, and then enjoyed the screaming and moaning and debating on the boards in the aftermath. If I were on the jury, I would hope that I could be mature and reward good solid play. But there are very real human emotions that take exception to being punched in the mouth and then 5 minutes later rewarding the person who took such glee in punching you in the mouth.

I hope the next season is nearly this enjoyable.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

heySkippy said:


> Just a note, but we just watched the Pearl Islands season of Survivor over the weekend and Sandra doesn't belong in the coat-tail group. She was a strong player the whole game. While she wasn't a physical threat, she was very proactive maintaining her alliance and took several risks in confronting others who threatened her place in the game. She played the game well.


I suspect that this is mostly 20/20 hindsight. It was nearly as universal then that she did not deserve to win as it was this time for Natalie. Only when you're prepared to look for evidence to bolster that position can you see it. Basically, numerology or other similar things looking for patterns where none exist.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I suspect that this is mostly 20/20 hindsight. It was nearly as universal then that she did not deserve to win as it was this time for Natalie. Only when you're prepared to look for evidence to bolster that position can you see it. Basically, numerology or other similar things looking for patterns where none exist.


I don't know if I agree with this in full. I haven't seen a Survivor repeat but as part of the human race, I agree our brains are ALWAYS looking for patterns. What I don't agree with is it's not just in hindsight.

I think watching Survivor as it airs biases us towards the kind of people we like and so early on, we start to root for them and sort of ignore the contributions of others.

I like brash people so really did like Russell almost from the beginning - at least as soon as he stopped being destructive and started playing a real game. That probably would have made me ignore the contributions of the others at the time. (had their been any). As an example, by the time Brett got air time and proved himself a formidable player - I was rooting against him all the way.

On rewatching with a fresh eye, you might see a bit more of what you had ignored before because you were so involved with one character. Maybe there were scenes of Brett playing all along that I had noticed because I was so focused on Russell.

Now, again, I've never rewatched a Survivor. I'm pretty sure that if I rewatched Samoa I would not see Natalie making any contributions to change the game. 

Honestly, I don't even remember Sandra so I am not speaking to this particular show but human nature in general. We are biased people who see what we want, no matter the circumstances. That is especially true in a show where the point is to root for somebody.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

MegaHertz67 said:


> I am a big fan of survivor and have watched every episode of all 19 seasons to date. My first reaction to the vote was the same as many here...that Russell got screwed. But the more I look at it, the more I think about it, the more Natalie seems deserving of the title. There are three reasons that come to mind:
> 
> 1) She was not a coattail rider. You can argue that Shambo was more important to the Foa Foa comeback than Natalie was, but if it wasn't for Natalie getting all the girls to vote for Erik...Foa Foa would have been history. She had active roles in other vote swings as well, but the Erik vote was her masterpiece.
> 
> <snip>


In the aforementioned RFF Radio podcast interview, Russell and Natalie argued about this as well. She claimed that she played a crucial role in ousting Erik, while Russell tried to say that, "You really think your five minute conversation with some other girls played a bigger part in getting Erik out than all the strategizing and scheming I was doing behind the scenes?" She continued to be adamant that her conversation was key, he continued to claim that it was just window dressing on the foundation he had already been laying.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> Just a note, but we just watched the Pearl Islands season of Survivor over the weekend and Sandra doesn't belong in the coat-tail group. She was a strong player the whole game. While she wasn't a physical threat, she was very proactive maintaining her alliance and took several risks in confronting others who threatened her place in the game. She played the game well.


I'll agree that she didn't really ride coattails to the end. Whose coattails was she riding? Lil? I don't think she really took many risks though. She said afterward that her strategy was just to make sure that she wasn't the one voted out that week never thinking about anything longterm. She got lucky that the 2 ghost tribe members came back since she likely couldn't have beaten anyone else that hadn't already been voted out.

I think Ethan was the ultimate coattail rider. His strategy was to be "assistant coach" to Lex. The coach complains to him about the other players and the other players complain to him about the coach.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> In the aforementioned RFF Radio podcast interview, Russell and Natalie argued about this as well. She claimed that she played a crucial role in ousting Erik, while Russell tried to say that, "You really think your five minute conversation with some other girls played a bigger part in getting Erik out than all the strategizing and scheming I was doing behind the scenes?" She continued to be adamant that her conversation was key, he continued to claim that it was just window dressing on the foundation he had already been laying.


And I call BS on all of giving credit to either of them two regardless if Natalie put the bug in someone's ear or not. 
I say, Laura, Laura, Laura...once she got it in her head it was all her and everyone else followed. Natalie didn't convince the rest of Galu, Laura did. It was already the Galu men and women against each other prior to the merge. The talk about it happening in five minutes is BS too, because of what I just mentioned which is the fact that there was already dissension between the Galu men and women. Laura and her click destroyed Galu, because of Laura's control issues. Laura pushed Shambo away, alienated John and wanted to hang him out to dry and on and on. That is what brought Galu to it's knees... and it was all Laura behind it whether or not she was passive or aggressive about it. Alienating Shambo, voting out Erik, and then using John. Russ and Nat had nothing to do with that.


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

clique


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

KyleLC said:


> clique


I live in Oregon, trust me its click here. Lol. like Crick. I forgot on this forum people won't mistake it for clinique or think I am speaking French, but click is one letter shorter and easier on the keyboard than clique.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I'd hate to imagine this season without Russell....I think we dodged a bullet!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

pmyers said:


> I'd hate to imagine this season without Russell....I think we dodged a bullet!


oh yes...it would have been all shambo, all the time


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

pmyers said:


> I'd hate to imagine this season without Russell....I think we dodged a bullet!


That is only because the focus was on Russell and between him and CBS's editing they sold a good package. Come on admit it, you bought it.  Most of us did. It is easy to make the claim that it would have been boring in hindsight.  Really though this season would have been fine and someone else and many other dramas would have been the focus.

Last season many said it would have been boring without Coach....

Russell S would have been great to see how far he could go, bummer he med left.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

hughmcjr said:


> Last season many said it would have been boring without Coach....


It would have been a boring unremarkable Survivor season w/o Coach. What story angle would have kept you glued week after week last season. Who can Sidney draw into her seductive web next? Stephen - JT Bro Love? Tyson flashes X body part? Sierra whine to the Nth level? IMHO Coach made last season must see live TV. The producers saw a star in the making and ran with it.

Similarly this season Russell made it worthwhile. Without him or someone who would engender such a a love/hate response it would fade into Survivor trivia and I don't see anyone in the remaining cast that would fill that role like Russell.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

my worry now is that Survivor -- already stocked with wanna-be-actors -- will devolve into wacky and crazy antics and mugging for the camera...

two seasons of focus on strong personalities (Coach then Russell) might change the whole thing for the future...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

hughmcjr said:


> I live in Oregon, trust me its click here. Lol. like Crick. I forgot on this forum people won't mistake it for clinique or think I am speaking French, but click is one letter shorter and easier on the keyboard than clique.


The two words are pronounced the same, but believe me, "click" is not the correct word to describe an exclusionary group of people, like you're trying to describe. In the English language, we don't just get to spell things however we want because it might be shorter or easier.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> The two words are pronounced the same, but believe me, "click" is not the correct word to describe an exclusionary group of people, like you're trying to describe. *In the English language, we don't just get to spell things however we want because it might be shorter or easier*.


I was joking. You really thought I was serious that click is used here or how some people spell it?  
I think most would get what I meant. I have seen some use clic as well for click and of course clic is not an actual word, but it is used.

I have also made mistakes like using the word one when I meant won or vice versa, because I was thinking of something else or distracted.

And yes we do get to spell things how we want on the internet and with texting. UNless I missed the rulebook somewhere that dictates we cannot. This isn't some formal venue or business meeting that we have to use proper spelling or grammar etiquette although most of us try. And I hear what you are saying, but you can't be totally serious with your post, since you post on the net. I mean come on now, lol, IIRC, blah blah blah and other abbreviations... People are constantly spelling many words in interesting and different but understood ways when typing in forums like these. Come on now admit it the q is seldom used and a ***** to reach for and the flow of typing just isn't there like it is with click. 

I don't think anyone would actually think I mean click like Laura clicked her heels together and destroyed Galu. Then again, there are people from other countries who probably speak and understand only formal English and they would be confused.

Often I spell theater, theatre or night, nite, or I use some euro and informal versions of words although I know most don't. And yes the spell check doesn't like theatre or nite, but they are correct and accepted.

On another forum I was joking with someone on their incorrect use of grammer. Yes, I spelled it wrong intentionally to see if they would catch it. It is an old grade school trick teachers would use on us for spelling and grammar checks to see if we were paying attention. Sure enough I got ripped apart for several posts from others saying I was so high and mighty for correcting him yet I didn't even know how to spell. 
I challenged them to test me and ask me to spell any word they could. You know, this is all in text on the net, so you get the idea. So far no one has come back and tried to test my spelling by posting a word for me to spell. 

Are you as bored as me and just wanting the next season to start?


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

hughmcjr said:


> I was joking. You really thought I was serious that click is used here or how some people spell it?
> I think most would get what I meant.


I got it and was surprised at DevdogAZ's response.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

KyleLC said:


> I got it and was surprised at DevdogAZ's response.


I would have thought the "Oregon" reference would have given it away.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

^^yeah guys my apologies if I come across as an ass. 

I have been in Oregon 20 years, but am from NY originally. Can I use NY as an excuse? It just got voted the unhappiest state. Its all that money. 

I think at times I do say crick, ruf for roof, etc. Some people say warsh for wash or Wa(r)shington here. That is nasty and worse than those dreaded Brooklyn accents. What is interesting is that although there is some some twang in the ranch lands in the east side of the state and occasionally you might hear a yocal say something with a twang, people here speak the closest to how words are supposed to be pronounced going by the dictionary. NYers, especially Long Island(ers) where I am originally from, definitely mispronounce words. I think it is mainly the A's we tend to drag out in NY.  If I am remembering right....Like in NY we screw up the long and short vowels.
My kids always make fun of me saying Mario and donkey. I say it like marryo and they say Mahreeo. I say dunkey and they say donkey. 

I will use clique from now on.  It looks cooler, but it sought of puts a sophistication on Laura the way it looks and she doesn't deserve it. Click fits Laura better. 

Anyway, way off topic.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Sorry to get this blown out of proportion. I didn't realize you were joking, Hugh. I noticed the misspelling in your original post and was glad when KyleLC pointed it out to you. But I was kind of surprised that you claimed "click" was the common spelling in Oregon - clearly I got zoomed with that joke. My apologies, and let's get back to Survivor.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> let's get back to Survivor.


I don't know if anyone's mentioned it yet, but damn Russell sure got screwed.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

heySkippy said:


> I don't know if anyone's mentioned it yet, but damn Russell sure got screwed.


I don't think I have laughed out loud that hard after reading a post like that on the net in quite a while.

That is perfection in terms of changing the mood and direction and giving me a good laugh. That is comedic timing. :up:

In that light....Natalie sole survivor.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

Has anyone seen a new and updated list of next season's cast?


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

Winners of my two favorite reality shows - spoilered because the winner of the last Amazing Race is shown



Spoiler













Or should I say should have won


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Jebberwocky! said:


> Winners of my two favorite reality shows - spoilered because the winner of the last Amazing Race is shown


:up:


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

I think Russell lost because he wears a stupid hat.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

goblue97 said:


> Has anyone seen a new and updated list of next season's cast?


I've seen several versions of the list, but the one I think is most reliable is:


Spoiler



*Men:*
Colby Donaldson, Australia/ All-Stars
Rob Mariano, Marquesas/ All-Stars
Rupert Boneham, Pearl Islands/ All-Stars
Tom Westman, Palau
James Clement, China/ Micronesia
Randy Bailey, Gabon
James "J.T." Thomas Jr., Tocantins
Benjamin "Coach" Wade, Tocantins
Tyson Apostol, Tocantins
Russell Hantz, Samoa

*Women:*
Jerri Manthey, Australia/ All-Stars:
Sandra Diaz-Twine, Pearl Islands:
Stephenie LaGrossa, Palau/ Guatemala:
Danielle DiLorenzo, Exile Island:
Cirie Fields, Exile Island/ Micronesia:
Parvati Shallow, Cook Islands/ Micronesia:
Candice Woodcock, Cook Islands:
Amanda Kimmel, China/ Micronesia:
Courtney Yates, China:
Jessica "Sugar" Kiper, Gabon

*Heroes: *
Colby (Australia, All-Stars)
Rupert (Pearl Islands, All-Stars)
Tom (Palau) 
Stephenie (Palau, Guatemala) 
Cirie (Exile Island, Fans vs Favorites) 
Candice (Cook Islands) 
James (China, Fans vs Favorites) 
Amanda (China, Fans vs Favorites) 
Sugar (Gabon) 
JT (Tocantins).

*Villains:* 
Jerri (Australia, All-Stars) 
Rob (Marquesas, All-Stars) 
Sandra (Pearl Islands) 
Danielle (Exile Island) 
Parvati (Cook Islands, Fans vs Favorites) 
Courtney (China) 
Randy (Gabon) 
Coach (Tocantins) 
Tyson (Tocantins) 
Russell (Samoa)


A few former winners, several former runners up, almost half the cast playing for the third time. But did we really need three people from Tocantins? Really?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I've seen several versions of the list, but the one I think is most reliable is:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I wonder why, if it's true, 


Spoiler



Coach is in the Villians. I got the impression that he regarded himself as a hero, at least. Pretty benign villain. And he's on again with Tyson, his "partner-in-crime."


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I've seen several versions of the list, but the one I think is most reliable is:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I hope Jerri still looks as good as she did then.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I hope Jerri still looks as good as she did then.


and I hope she gets blindsided one more time...high comedy!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> I wonder why, if it's true,
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I don't think you could view him as a hero. He may view himself that way, but I think we'd all agree that he's delusional. If there was a "villain" that season, it was definitely him.


IJustLikeTivo said:


> I hope Jerri still looks as good as she did then.


She's 39 now. Not that she can't still look good at 39, but it's been 9 years since she was on the first time. It will be interesting to see how several of those early contestants look now.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

I know it's late but I wanted to chime in. I loved this season - the best in years.

I think Russell was certainly more deserving than Natalie - she is one of the least deserving winners ever.

Russell's downfall, though, was that he got cocky and made some key mistakes. He had to go before a bitter, petty jury and he never seemed to account for that. It's easy to say that Natalie played a better social game but I don't think it's that simple. Russell would have been better off bringing Shambo to the final three instead of Natalie because the jury did not respect and did not like Shambo. They wouldn't have given Shambo a million dollars as a screw-you to Russell, and he gave them an easy out by bringing Natalie along. Also, he should have read the room better and kissed up to the jury more during final tribal council. He seemed to take the approach that he was entitled to win and the jury would recognize that, which was a huge mistake. He made a lame attempt to compliment Laura, but that was about all he did. Finally, bragging about his income/wealth was a big mistake. He should have stuck with his story from early on about being a Katrina victim. For a guy who employed some brilliant strategy, he also made some stupid moves.

So I think Russell should have won, but I don't think he got screwed. I think he screwed himself and shouldn't have been so shocked by the outcome.

As for next season:



Spoiler



I'm surprised and very disappointed to see that Dani Boatright - one of the great Survivor winners and the hottest Survivor chick ever - isn't on the Heroes team.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

tivoboyjr said:


> I know it's late but I wanted to chime in. I loved this season - the best in years.
> 
> I think Russell was certainly more deserving than Natalie - she is one of the least deserving winners ever.
> 
> ...


They may not have voted for Shambo but why wouldn't a bitter jury just vote for Mick?


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

I don't think this jury would have gone with Mick as a "screw you" vote against Russell. They seemed to think Mick was a weenie and at least some of them seemed to think he didn't deserve to win because he's a doctor and didn't need the money. Russell seemed to think he'd be evaluated fairly vs Mick and I think he was right about that.


----------

