# Survivor: Heros vs. Villians Finale 5/13/10



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I'm shocked there isn't a thread for this already.

One of the best opening statements ever by Pavarti. "[Russell] was the dragon, and instead of slaying him, I kept him as my pet."

AWESOME. She's got it, IMO. At least my vote.

EDIT: And the three best players of the game ended up at Tribal, which makes me happy.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

I am SHOCKED that Russell kept Paravati over Jerri. Once again Russell's ego took him out of the game.

I may eat my words in about 20 minutes, but at this point, I think it is Paravati's game. Unless she makes a huge blunder in Tribal, she has got it in the bag.


----------



## mostman (Jul 16, 2000)

I'm confused. Did Russell say, at about an hour and a half in, that he did not win last season? How would he know that?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

mostman said:


> I'm confused. Did Russell say, at about an hour and a half in, that he did not win last season? How would he know that?


Well, it was his correct assumption. He said, I think in the reunion show, that he knew he didn't win the million during final council by the way the jury was behaving.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

And in further news, Coach is still an idiot. If Colby thinks Russell is delusional, what must Coach be?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> And in further news, Coach is still an idiot. If Colby thinks Russell is delusional, what must Coach be?


"King Arthur's journey has ended"


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

I called it 3 weeks ago. Here was my post on 4/30/2010. As a reminder, this was the night when Amanda voted off instead of Parvati because Candice and Sandra voted off Amanda.

_I couldn't understand Sandra's vote until now. Now I think her vote was a really smart decision to increase her odds of winning the game. My analysis is assuming that she's playing this game to win. She probably would prefer to vote off early rather than going to the final 3 and lose.

So let's compare the 2 final 3 scenarios for Sandra.

Remember that the final 12 consists of 7 villains and 5 heroes. These are the pool for the jury.

Scenario 1: Sandra making to final 3 with the heroes

Jury: 6 villains + 3 heroes. The 3 heroes vote will go to final 2 heroes not Sandra. Sandra will not get 4 villain votes (Russell, Parvati, Danielle, Jerri) because she betrayed them. She will probably get Coach and Courtney's votes. Tally: 2 votes. Sandra has zero chance of winning and a hero will win it all.

*
Scenario 2: Sandra making to final 3 with the villains

There will be 5 heroes and 4 villains in the jury. She can easily get 5 heroes vote because she tried to work with Heroes. She can argue that she voted Amanda only because Candice jumped the ship. We saw Sandra trying to convince Candice to vote off Parvati but Candice wouldn't listen. Sandra will also get Coach and Courtney's vote. Tally: 7 votes, Sandra wins in a landslide. I think Candice did a great favor to Sandra, if Sandra eventually wins.
*
We never hear any strategy about how to get the jury's vote in the confession. But I'm sure Sandra did the math and concluded Scenario 2 is better for her.

I'm not saying Sandra is going to make to the final 3. But given that she makes it to the final 3, she has much better chance of winning if she goes with the villains.

Instead of final 3, if the final vote is between the final 2, then the same logic still applies. Do we know it's final 3 or final 2?_


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

I've come to one conclusion after all these years of watching. The reason the jury seldom votes as we expect is that they spend 1/2 the game hanging out at the ponderosa and that changes their feelings. I think they should all be isolated till the vote and see nothing but tribal. The questions they ask clearly reflect that they've been influenced by the other survivors once they leave the game.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Well, I guess "this jury" DOESN'T respect Russell's game play either. Not a single vote! 

Now, can we rank Sandra (a two time winner) above Russell (a two time loser)?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Wow. Sandra. Well, kudos to her. Didn't expect that at all.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

Another GREAT season with a horrible result.


----------



## fliptheflop (Sep 20, 2005)

The flaw in this game is that its played by human's. Stupid emotions. They should have robots next season.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

TriBruin said:


> Well, I guess "this jury" DOESN'T respect Russell's game play either. Not a single vote!
> 
> Now, can we rank Sandra (a two time winner) above Russell (a two time loser)?


I won't but she will. Russel had one huge huge huge disadvantage going in. He never saw his same on TV before he played again. He had no way to know how they were going to show his character and how it would influence the way the game worked. If he had been home for one season before going out again, he would have played a very very different game.

What I still can't figure out though is why they voted for Sandra instead of Parvati who played a better game in every possible way.


----------



## mostman (Jul 16, 2000)

Garbage. 

I agree. Isolate them. Turns into high school.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I won't but she will. Russel had one huge huge huge disadvantage going in. He never saw his same on TV before he played again. He had no way to know how they were going to show his character and how it would influence the way the game worked. If he had been home for one season before going out again, he would have played a very very different game.
> 
> *What I still can't figure out thougParvati who played a better game in every possible way.h is why they voted for Sandra instead of*


:up:


----------



## Double-Tap (Apr 18, 2002)

What a season it was. The last time, I thought Russell deserved it more than Natalie, as venomous and cocky as the guy is. This time I definitely thought Parvati (she rocks!) owned sole Survivor more than either Russell or Sandra. I really wish she would have gotten the title because she's a hell of a player.

But what can you say, that's the way the game works and it's up to the jury to decide. I only have to wonder if people on the jury rethink what they thought before and tend to regret their choice? Still, congrats to Sandra FTW.

Russell has always been a snake and a HUGE bully! (I mean no disrespect to snakes, BTW.) I think it's Russell's cockiness/smugness that ultimately did him in more than how he played the game.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I won't but she will. Russel had one huge huge huge disadvantage going in. He never saw his same on TV before he played again. He had no way to know how they were going to show his character and how it would influence the way the game worked. If he had been home for one season before going out again, he would have played a very very different game.


Honestly, I doubt it. Watching the Reunion, he still doesn't get it. He truly believes that his game play is the best. Even with two straight loses.



> What I still can't figure out though is why they voted for Sandra instead of Parvati who played a better game in every possible way.


I think Parvati had the stink of Russell on her. I totally agree she played a better game than Sandra. But I think many on the jury could not separate her and Russell.

Also, I think the Heroes felt they owed Sandra a vote for not listening to her earlier.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Double-Tap said:


> What a season it was. The last time, I thought Russell deserved it more than Natalie, as venomous and cocky as the guy is. This time I definitely thought Parvarti (she rocks!) owned sole Survivor more than either Russell or Sandra (love ya, hon). I really wish she would have gotten the title because she's a hell of a player.
> 
> But what can you say, that's the way the game works and it's up to the jury to decide. I only have to wonder if people on the jury rethink what they thought before and tend to regret their choice? Still, congrats to Sandra FTW.
> 
> Russell has always been a snake and a HUGE bully! (I mean no disrespect to snakes, BTW.) I think it's Russell's cockiness/smugness that ultimately did him in more than how he played the game.


I'd agree as well. Russell should have won last time but this time is should have been Parvati.


----------



## Clarkey (Dec 29, 2004)

Brutal! As much as I dislike the guy (Russell) you *have* to give him credit for how he played the game, in BOTH seasons. No votes!? This show has turned into a popularity contest, which is why its days are numbered.


----------



## fliptheflop (Sep 20, 2005)

Russell plays the game to win but his problem is he counts on the jury to pick the person who did the best in the game. That just doesn't happen anymore.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I won't but she will. Russel had one huge huge huge disadvantage going in. He never saw his same on TV before he played again. He had no way to know how they were going to show his character and how it would influence the way the game worked. If he had been home for one season before going out again, he would have played a very very different game.
> 
> What I still can't figure out though is why they voted for Sandra instead of Parvati who played a better game in every possible way.


Here's what I said 2 nights ago about what Parv should be doing. Unfortunately, she didn't and admitted it was a mistake.

_
Let's guess the votes for the final 3 (Russ, Parv and Sandra).

I think Sandra has locked 3 votes from Coach, Courtney & Rupert. Parv has locked Danielle & Jerri's vote. I'm not sure about the rest 4 votes (JT, Amanda, Candice, Colby).

*For Parv to win, she needs to convince the jury she was not involved with Russell. She needs to distance herself from Russell, which may work nicely because Danielle was voted off.
*
For Sandra to win, she needs to convince Amanda that she voted Amanda because Candice wouldn't listen to vote off Parvati. And Sandra needs to remind JT that she tried to relay the truth about Russell. If she can convince Amanda and JT, Sandra wins. Alternatively, Sandra can argue that Parv & Russell was together from day 1 behind all the blindside.

I think Sandra has easier task than Parv. But Parv has a great people's skill and she can work the jury really well. So if Parv makes a great speech, she wins. If not, Sandra wins. I'm calling it._


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Russell so proud he made it to the end twice. Who gives a crap! I rather get out early and not "suffer" then to get to the end only to lose!!


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

BTW, I do believe Russell should have won this time. As hateful as he was, he managed to get people NOT to vote for him. The Heroes have themselves to blame for him even gettin' that far.


----------



## mostman (Jul 16, 2000)

fliptheflop said:


> Russell plays the game to win but his problem is he counts on the jury to pick the person who did the best in the game. That just doesn't happen anymore.


I don't agree with this. I think making it to the end is only part of the battle. Getting the votes is just as important. With that said, the wrong person won.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

gossamer88 said:


> Russell so proud he made it to the end twice. Who gives a crap! I rather get out early and not "suffer" then to get to the end only to lose!!


I'd rather make it to the end and get paid more.


----------



## AccidenT (Oct 25, 2004)

Sandra seems to me to be just as cocky and rude as Russell, but didn't have enough strategy to actually get anyone voted off, so they don't hold a grudge against her.


----------



## fliptheflop (Sep 20, 2005)

mostman said:


> I don't agree with this. I think making it to the end is only part of the battle. Getting the votes is just as important. With that said, the wrong person won.


Right it is. But to me someone who controlled the game and called a lot of the shots should mean as much or more then picking the person you like better. The players should have to worry about playing the game and what those decisions will mean to the jury. But the jury should put more into then I just don't like this person. It will completely ruin the game if everyone is afraid to go out on a limb. What if everyone just sat back. That would be pretty boring. But it seems like that's how you win the game now.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

AccidenT said:


> Sandra seems to me to be just as cocky and rude as Russell, but didn't have enough strategy to actually get anyone voted off, so they don't hold a grudge against her.


But she also "seems" to be able to keep her mouth shut when she needs to in the game. That is something that Russell can't do.

And I say seems because it could just be editing.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

fliptheflop said:


> Russell plays the game to win but his problem is he counts on the jury to pick the person who did the best in the game. That just doesn't happen anymore.


Russell's problem is that he thinks that he knows better than everyone else what the best and that the jury will automatically agree with him. He forgets that they jury is people with emotions and their own opinion. As long as the jury is the sole decision maker, Russell or a player like him will never win. Getting to the jury only gets you third (or 2nd). To win, you need to understand the jury.


----------



## Double-Tap (Apr 18, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I won't but she will. Russel had one huge huge huge disadvantage going in. He never saw his same on TV before he played again. He had no way to know how they were going to show his character and how it would influence the way the game worked. If he had been home for one season before going out again, he would have played a very very different game.


Absolutely. And there's Coach saying basically what you said. And of course, the talk he had with Tyson had a reawakening impact on him, too.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

A very interesting end to the season. First of all, I can't even fathom why Russel chose to get rid of Jerri. I can only guess that he was putting a huge emphasis on the jury not awarding the million dollars to a previous winner. Whatever his reason, it didn't really matter anyway, at least as far as him winning. Russel never had a prayer. Parvati, on the other hand, would have probably won against Russel and Jerri, so that kind of sucks for her. Overall, I'm happy to see Sandra win, though. She's a good player that made some very strategic moves. Parvati may have deserved it more, but at least it's not a complete travesty like when Natalie won last season.

Edit: I agree that the final vote would be much more interesting if the jury members were kept in complete isolation until the final tribal. You could just tell from watching some of the Ponderosa footage that the Russel hatred was growing exponentially as time went on. I believe you should be able to lie to people during the game without the risk of them comparing notes once they're voted off. Of course, this would be a different game entirely, but a better one IMHO.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

TriBruin said:


> I think Parvati had the stink of Russell on her. I totally agree she played a better game than Sandra. But I think many on the jury could not separate her and Russell.
> 
> Also, I think the Heroes felt they owed Sandra a vote for not listening to her earlier.


Both of these probably added up to Parvati's loss (see ace's comment too). I think we as viewers see things the players don't. We knew P was playing her game hard, and using Russell as much as he was using her. The others didn't see that in its entirety. She had the "stink", as you say, and it cost her. She played a better game, but Sandra came out looking better.

And for anyone to think Russell had a chance of winning, you are delusional. He runs roughshod over people. It can keep you alive, but will not win votes. That's not how you win. ZERO votes shows the results of his game play.

Sandra has to be the most unpopular player to ever win twice. Because she was certainly one of the most unpopular to ever win once. I think what we as viewers find as boring and coattail riding, must appear different to the players.

I do think this was another case of more people voting against P than for S (forget R, he had no play in this).

Last word---BEST season EVER!


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

astrohip said:


> \
> Last word---BEST season EVER!


Yeah!

Even though I don't necessarily agree with the Jury's choice of Sandra, I'm not upset or think "the wrong person won." I loved this season. Hardly a dull moment.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Russell seems much less "bitter" about losing this time.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Double-Tap said:


> Absolutely. And there's Coach saying basically what you said. And of course, the talk he had with Tyson had a reawakening impact on him, too.


I think Russell's arrogance will not have changed his game play at all.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

astrohip said:


> And for anyone to think Russell had a chance of winning, you are delusional. He runs roughshod over people. It can keep you alive, but will not win votes ...


Precisely. At some point, you become even more likely to stay around simply because people WANT to go against you in the finals. This was certainly the case with Russel. There was absolutely no reason for Parvati or Jerri to even consider breaking their alliance with him, because they knew everybody hated him and would never give him a vote.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Now I remember why I quit watching Survivor. I can't remember a season where I ever agreed with the jury. I think I am done with it.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

Can you name one thing that Sandra did wrong this season?


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

mostman said:


> I'm confused. Did Russell say, at about an hour and a half in, that he did not win last season? How would he know that?


I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

too many interviews with Sandra during the show left me convinced that she would win...

I'm happy with Sandra...I think she deserved it more than the other 2...she played the game better than them and played the Jury better than them...I didn't like her the last time she played but she deserved it this time...

I know I'm in the minority with this opinion but you guys keep saying Russell is an idiot for alienating the jury...so how come Sandra isn't smart for befriending the jury?


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> Russell so proud he made it to the end twice. Who gives a crap! I rather get out early and not "suffer" then to get to the end only to lose!!


Well, he's got $200,000 plus whatever stipend they provided. Not a bad haul for 2 months of work.

I think he could have his cake and eat it too (play how he wants to play and win)...if he could just throw together a genuine argument for it at the end. I don't think he should have to in the company of adults, but obviously it's necessary.

...and I think I said it last season, but I'll say it again. The final tribal is lame as hell. 9 jury members...how many actually asked a question? maybe three? how many of those three even allowed the contestants to answer? I don't think any of them.


----------



## nmiller855 (Sep 26, 2000)

My favorite saying of tonight was something like "It's not only what you stand for it's also what you fall for."


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

acegolfer said:


> Can you name one thing that Sandra did wrong this season?


Just as soon as I recall something that she actually did.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Danielle put it best when she told Russell he had zero jury management skills. Sandra has the best. I thought Parvati deserved the win, but Sandra didn't piss people off. That's the toughest thing about Survivor: you have to get rid of people in a way that they still want to give you a million dollars. Russell will never get that.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

I thought Coach would vote for Sandra. Won't they in the same alliance within Villains?

Coach's vote was the only non-emotional vote. The other 8 votes were very predictable.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> The final tribal is lame as hell. 9 jury members...how many actually asked a question? maybe three? how many of those three even allowed the contestants to answer? I don't think any of them.


Yep. They basically just sat there and preached at the three of them. I expected a lot more from a group of all-stars, but I guess at the end of the day they were simply bitter that they got outplayed. In the old days, didn't the remaining contestants get to end with a closing argument, or am I thinking of a different show?


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

SnakeEyes said:


> Just as soon as I recall something that she actually did.


This.

I personally dislike the whole jury setup. The people are always bitter and don't vote off gameplay. They just vote based on whether their feelings were hurt. I would hate to see them vote who should win playing a poker game because you would be the bad guy for bluffing.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

acegolfer said:


> Can you name one thing that Sandra did wrong this season?


Yes, she failed to entertain us. I understand she must have a certain appeal to her fellow players, but for my life I can't figure it out. She's just boring to watch play. But it's hard to argue with results.


innocentfreak said:


> Now I remember why I quit watching Survivor. I can't remember a season where I ever agreed with the jury. I think I am done with it.


Did you enjoy watching this season? I loved it, and will be back. I do not like Sandra, and am not thrilled that she won (again). But it was a great season, and entertained me. That's what I ask from Survivor.


mostman said:


> I'm confused. Did Russell say, at about an hour and a half in, that he did not win last season? How would he know that?


Also would like to know that? It appeared that he was surprised when he lost the first time, and since that result show was after this season was filmed, how could he know that?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

gweempose said:


> In the old days, didn't the remaining contestants get to end with a closing argument, or am I thinking of a different show?


I was waiting for the closing arguments also. Felt P could have saved herself with a good appeal.

We'll never know . . .


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

innocentfreak said:


> This.
> 
> I personally dislike the whole jury setup. The people are always bitter and don't vote off gameplay. They just vote based on whether their feelings were hurt. I would hate to see them vote who should win playing a poker game because you would be the bad guy for bluffing.


You're not playing against robots. I for one feel Russell deserved it this time. But if he burned me I would not give it to him either. If the final vote were live then maybe he'd have a chance.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I've come to one conclusion after all these years of watching. The reason the jury seldom votes as we expect is that they spend 1/2 the game hanging out at the ponderosa and that changes their feelings. I think they should all be isolated till the vote and see nothing but tribal. The questions they ask clearly reflect that they've been influenced by the other survivors once they leave the game.


Exactly, and that's what I've said several times this season. No matter how good you might be, there is a lot of luck at the end, because it is so hard to predict how people are going to vote and whether they'll reward or punish aggressive/dirty gameplay. I think the ultimate demonstration of just how much Ponderosa affects the outcome of this game is to look at Jerri. In her speech after being voted out she said she's leaning towards Russell. Then not even 24 hours later, suddenly it doesn't sound like Russell is even in the running for her vote.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Yes, she failed to entertain us. I understand she must have a certain appeal to her fellow players, but for my life I can't figure it out. She's just boring to watch play. But it's hard to argue with results.
> 
> Did you enjoy watching this season? I loved it, and will be back. I do not like Sandra, and am not thrilled that she won (again). But it was a great season, and entertained me. That's what I ask from Survivor.
> 
> Also would like to know that? It appeared that he was surprised when he lost the first time, and since that result show was after this season was filmed, how could he know that?


There was really no doubt that he wasn't getting votes at this last tribal....maybe his look from the first results show was knowing that he had no chance in the second one and it was his only shot.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Too many interviews with Sandra during the show left me convinced that she would win...


Sometimes the editing can be a dead giveaway for what's going to happen. For example, you can usually tell which team is going to tribal council that night simply based on what the editors choose to focus on.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I won't but she will. Russel had one huge huge huge disadvantage going in. He never saw his same on TV before he played again. He had no way to know how they were going to show his character and how it would influence the way the game worked. If he had been home for one season before going out again, he would have played a very very different game.


I doubt that. I am a Russel fan, but he still doesn't believe he has to play a social game.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

astrohip said:


> Did you enjoy watching this season? I loved it, and will be back. I do not like Sandra, and am not thrilled that she won (again). But it was a great season, and entertained me. That's what I ask from Survivor.


Not really. I enjoyed watching Russell pull off what he did, but the only reason I watched this season was his last season was the first one I had enjoyed in a long time. Of course since he lost that one, I thought he might have a shot being these were all-stars. I guess I gave them too much credit. I got to the point I skipped everything but the challenges and votes.

I have learned from past seasons of Survivor it only matters how they play the game on whether or not they hurt other peoples feelings. As a result I don't get into the show as much as most.

It is tough to get into a show when you know the ending will be disappointing.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

astrohip said:


> Yes, she failed to entertain us. I understand she must have a certain appeal to her fellow players, but for my life I can't figure it out. She's just boring to watch play. But it's hard to argue with results.


I'm sorry you felt that way. I'm not a Sandra fan. I didn't even know her before this season. But I never thought she was boring. It was interesting for me to analyze her decisions from early on. She made several subtle but critical moves that earn her the million.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> The final tribal is lame as hell. 9 jury members...how many actually asked a question? maybe three? how many of those three even allowed the contestants to answer? I don't think any of them.


I agree. Very lame.

Coach: "I didn't plan any questions because I thought I'd be here listening to my ipod, but I left it at ponderosa so I guess I'll be listening to whats said tonight"

Courtney: "Sandra, you are so awesome. I love you. Can we make out later? Keep an eye on me, I'll be blowing you kisses from the jury"

Rupert: "Russell, you are a jerk, though I was more than happy to team up with you, I can't vote for you because you didn't need to hurt my feelings"

Danielle: "Russell, can you please grovel at my feet an apologize for being mean to me, even though we both know it won't change my vote."

I think Jerri was the only one I appreciated. She wanted to get a little insight into why the voting went the way it did. That's the type of jury questioning I love...when people go back to the past and say "why didn't you take a different path".


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

mostman said:


> I'm confused. Did Russell say, at about an hour and a half in, that he did not win last season? How would he know that?





acegolfer said:


> I was thinking the same thing.


Yeah, I caught that too. Something fishy about that.

tk


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

gossamer88 said:


> You're not playing against robots. I for one feel Russell deserved it this time. But if he burned me I would not give it to him either. If the final vote were live then maybe he'd have a chance.


No but it looks like you are playing against children who throw tantrums when their feelings get hurt. Just look at the preaching at the last council. It has gotten more and more preachy since the series has gone on and less about asking questions.

I guess that is the difference between you, the jury, and I. I would have no issues about separating my feelings from a game and voting on who played the best and not who played the game the way I think they should.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> No but it looks like you are playing against children who throw tantrums when their feelings get hurt. Just look at the preaching at the last council. It has gotten more and more preachy since the series has gone on and less about asking questions.
> 
> I guess that is the difference between you, the jury, and I. I would have no issues about separating my feelings from a game and voting on who played the best and not who played the game the way I think they should.


No offense, but that's easy to say sitting at home with your ass in the easy chair.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

What did Sandra do to entertain us?

She burned his frigging hat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After watching Russel burn socks, bury machetes and numerous other things just to 'fluster' his teammates....her burning his hat was awesome!! I was cheering her on for that.

Now, I am also sorry that Parv didn't win. I think she should have. She was playing a great game this season and should have gotten it.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> No offense, but that's easy to say sitting at home with your ass in the easy chair.


No offense taken.

I don't think it is a stretch because I don't take games or competition personally. I very easily separate my feelings from decisions. If anything I find it difficult to understand why other people can't.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

I find it odd that Russell chose Parvati over Jerri, I don't think it would have mattered as the jury was anti-russell. Also I though Sandra lost it at the final TC when she answered that her strategy was to get rid of Russell and she went to the heroes but they had their heads up their a** (that is the way it sounded like to me, basically she called the heroes idiots for not going with her to get out Russell) and she was all concentrated on how her strategy was to get rid of Russell yet there he was sitting next to her in the Finals.  I think all the heroes heard from that was Sandra saying she didn't like Russell so they all agreed and liked her and Parvati unfortunately aligned with the wrong person.

I am also in the boat in feeling the wrong person won, it should have been Parvati with those final 3, however it was a great season!


----------



## latenight (May 5, 2005)

Russell does not nor will not ever understand the social game and the the need for the social game so he would never win if he played 20 x's. 

That being said he is the strongest player to ever play the game and I don't think anyone can argue he made the past 2 seasons worth watching. Has there ever been a player more people feared crossing and who at will could get rid of any player they wanted? 

Russell assumed that people who had played before would respect gameplay more than the social aspect and tonights result showed it is the complete opposite. Social trumps all which is a shame. 

Get to the end and don't piss anyone off and you will win most of the time. 

I know many will say Russell is arrogant this and that but did anyone listen to Sandra after the win? all of these players have ego's and thats not a bad thing.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

mostman said:


> I'm confused. Did Russell say, at about an hour and a half in, that he did not win last season? How would he know that?


One of the people I was watching the finale with said that they probably filmed both. "Now Russell, let's say you DO win Samoa, answer this question. Okay, now answer it as if you did NOT win Samoa."


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

martinp13 said:


> One of the people I was watching the finale with said that they probably filmed both. "Now Russell, let's say you DO win Samoa, answer this question. Okay, now answer it as if you did NOT win Samoa."


Russell would never answer the second question.

I think he just knew by the end, both times in final tribal, that he didn't win. He could sense the mood of the Jury. It's hard not to... it was pretty obvious.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

Einselen said:


> Also I though Sandra lost it at the final TC when she answered that her strategy was to get rid of Russell and she went to the heroes but they had their heads up their a** (that is the way it sounded like to me, basically she called the heroes idiots for not going with her to get out Russell) and she was all concentrated on how her strategy was to get rid of Russell yet there he was sitting next to her in the Finals.  I think all the heroes heard from that was Sandra saying she didn't like Russell so they all agreed and liked her and Parvati unfortunately aligned with the wrong person.


I thought her answer about trying to get rid of Russell was a very very calculated and strategic move. That probably won her the million. It reminded the heroes that 1) Sandra was genuine to them and 2) it made Parv close to Russell. As a result, all 5 heroes voted for Sandra.

Personally, her greatest strategic move (before the final TC) was voting off Amanda even though she could have voted off Parvati. It cleared the path for Sandra to be in the final 3 with the villains instead of heroes. If she went to final 3 with 2 other heroes, Sandra had no chance.

She was smart not to say this, when Amanda asked the question. I think Amanda was trying to test Sandra at the final TC. Sandra passed Amanda's test.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I'd agree as well. Russell should have won last time but this time is should have been Parvati.


This!!


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I won't but she will. Russel had one huge huge huge disadvantage going in. He never saw his same on TV before he played again. He had no way to know how they were going to show his character and how it would influence the way the game worked. If he had been home for one season before going out again, he would have played a very very different game.


Nope. The poor bastard still doesn't even understand what game he played and he thinks he played perfectly. In fact, he says the game is flawed and should be modified to let him win.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

latenight said:


> Russell assumed that people who had played before would respect gameplay more than the social aspect and tonights result showed it is the complete opposite. Social trumps all which is a shame.


Social aspect *is* the gameplay and always has been.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

I'm happy with the winner. I think Sandra is a great player and I am glad to see her win. I would have been ok with Parvati too.

Russell didn't deserve it because by his own admission he doesn't even care about or plan for the jury. He has a fundamental misunderstanding of the game to the point that he thinks the game should be modified to fit him. It is kind of sad in a way.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I'd agree as well. Russell should have won last time but this time is should have been Parvati.


For Parv to win, the final 3 would have to be Russell, Parv and Danielle. Parv had a long shot against either Sandra, Colby or Jerri.

This is why Parv was so upset when Danielle voted out. I'm sure she knew it would be hard for her to win out, once Danielle was gone.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

Why did Russell keep saying he played 1 time?

Does it mean that he knows that his game is flawed now but won't admit it? He's just so full of himself.


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

betts4 said:


> What did Sandra do to entertain us?
> 
> She burned his frigging hat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


 I thought the hat burning was nothing but mean spirited. Sandra had no intention of it influencing the final tribal council even though Russell gave her credit for it on the reunion show, even though Russell probably said that to show her he did'nt care.

Russell, whether it was effective or not burned the socks and hid the machete early on for what he thought was a strategic reason


----------



## scarpent (Feb 16, 2010)

Russel would say he played one time to minimize the ego-damage from being a two-time loser, but would talk about "every time" in reference to making it the end, etc.

I think the Russell fans should consider that he's getting to the end because people want to sit next to him. This isn't an amazing new insight, but think about it. He could play 20X and if he kept playing this way, he would frequently get to the end. It's not that you're good when you're a complete ass, it's that the smarter players want to be sitting next to you.

I thought Parvati would win it and deserve it, but was happy with either of the women getting it. I thought Sandra played a good game also.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

omnibus said:


> I thought the hat burning was nothing but mean spirited. Sandra had no intention of it influencing the final tribal council even though Russell gave her credit for it on the reunion show, even though Russell probably said that to show her he did'nt care.
> 
> Russell, whether it was effective or not burned the socks and hid the machete early on for what he thought was a strategic reason


Of course it would not affect the jury. But it could affect Russell in a negative way.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

acegolfer said:


> Why did Russell keep saying he played 1 time?
> 
> Does it mean that he knows that his game is flawed now but won't admit it? He's just so full of himself.


He said he played one time because he did back to back seasons, and also, I assume, because he didn't know the flaws from his first game. But then he had that comment in there that he knew he didn't win the first time, so I'm confused.

Sandra won because he had the jury convinced that, if they had listened to her, it would be them sitting there instead of Parvati and Russell. That's what the jury needed to hear. Plus, she wasn't Russell, and wasn't allied with Russell. That's why she won.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Philosofy said:


> Sandra won because he had the jury convinced that, if they had listened to her, it would be them sitting there instead of Parvati and Russell. That's what the jury needed to hear. Plus, she wasn't Russell, and wasn't allied with Russell. That's why she won.


She also did a good job of telling them that without being overly arrogant about it. She almost made the failure to get Russell out seem like her own flaw at times. She knows *how* to talk to them, IMO.

If it would have been reversed and Russell would have needed to make that argument it would have came out something like "you guys were all too dumb to listen to me."


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

stalemate said:


> She also did a good job of telling them that without being overly arrogant about it. She almost made the failure to get Russell out seem like her own flaw at times. She knows *how* to talk to them, IMO.
> 
> If it would have been reversed and Russell would have needed to make that argument it would have came out something like "you guys were all too dumb to listen to me."


Exactly. Russell's flaw is that he plans on how to make it to the final, then tries to think of a way to get those idiots to give him a million dollars. He thinks his problem is that he hasn't found the right words to make those idiots give him the million. His actual flaw is that he thinks of the jury as idiots, and he can't hide that fact.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Philosofy said:


> Sandra won because he had the jury convinced that, if they had listened to her, it would be them sitting there instead of Parvati and Russell. That's what the jury needed to hear. Plus, she wasn't Russell, and wasn't allied with Russell. That's why she won.


Exactly.

Rupert practically won it for Sandra, both in his "questions/speech" and most likely back at the ponderosa.

Sandra was simply covering her butt, and flipping sides to try to stay alive. Rupert falls on the sword and says to all the heroes "Sandra was right, we should have listened to her." She's the real hero amongst us.

I think Sandra won basically by being lucky enough to be there, weak at competitions, and because the jury didn't want to give it to Russell or Parv.

But a win's a win. I don't find her a very good player. More of a lucky one. Any number of things happen differently (that had nothing to do with her game play) and she is basically an unknown to us.

So, they need to do the Rob vs. Russell -- let them each pick 9 other contestants from any season and those are the two tribes. The pick teams just like 3rd grade kick-ball and then dump them on the island. That'd make a great season. :up:


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

uncdrew said:


> I think Sandra won basically by being lucky enough to be there, weak at competitions, and because the jury didn't want to give it to Russell or Parv.


Was she lucky? Yes.
Was she weak? Yes.
Did jury want to give it to Rus or Parv? No.

But you also forgot to mention that Sandra was very strategic and played a flawless game.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

acegolfer said:


> Was she lucky? Yes.
> Was she weak? Yes.
> Did jury want to give it to Rus or Parv? No.
> 
> But you also forgot to mention that Sandra was very strategic and played a flawless game.


I didn't find her all that strategic.

When they merged, she approached the heroes and told them what was up. Uh, anyone in her place would have done that. Shutting up and going with the flow certain weeks? I guess you could call that strategy, but again not terribly impressive or brilliant.

Maybe I'm forgetting something. She should have been outed when Courtney was snuffed, and Sandra did nothing at that point to save herself -- just got lucky.

Russell's in game moves were brilliant. How he saved his butt against Boston Rob. How he saved Parv by giving her the idol. How he got rid of Danielle.

That stuff was amazing. And it's a little hard for me to say that since I really didn't like the guy.

It's just my opinion of course, but Sandra was just your regular below the radar player, who did what anyone in her shoes would have done. I didn't see it as very impressive or intelligent.


----------



## Knives of Ice (Nov 8, 2006)

all i know is Survivor is really going to suck without Russell. he has made the past two seasons fantastic. love him or hate him, without him the seasons are much duller. to me, he is the greatest survivor ever. the social game makes horrible tv and i could care less about it. russell and how he plays makes great tv.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

I've never liked Sandra but she played the jury perfectly. If Russell had any sense of how the rest of the players felt he would have won (again). 

It's just not true that 'you can't know what the jury is going to do'. Both Parvati and Sandra knew Russell didn't have a chance; they were laughing about it on the last day. Russell is completely tone-deaf for the jury game.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

Sucky ending. I was rooting for Russell, but I'd have been very OK with Parvati winning, but not lame ass Sandra. Again.
All her blathering about strategy when her single move was to duck.

As with too many other seasons I'm back to looking at this as a real game for $100k with a crapshoot for a million if you make it that far. 
Unless you have immunity every time and make it to final, you _are_ playing a social game, because the only thing keeping you in w/o immunity is social. If you have immunity and give it away and still go on you've played a social game.

I agree I'd have got rid of Parvati instead of Jerri if I'd been Russell, but as the game turned out that probably didn't make a difference at all, at least not to him. Then again, with a whacko jury voting who knows.

I can understand Russell's frustration. The jury claims to be voting based on some set of standards, but not the standards they used before getting voted off. They played the same game and the same way as the Parvati and Russell, but just not as well. They voted for the benchwarmer instead.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

Philosofy said:


> Exactly. Russell's flaw is that he plans on how to make it to the final, then tries to think of a way to get those idiots to give him a million dollars. He thinks his problem is that he hasn't found the right words to make those idiots give him the million. His actual flaw is that he thinks of the jury as idiots, and he can't hide that fact.


I'm not sure I'd call Russell's plan flawed: He's beat out 33 people with that method. In a 3 month timespan it got him probably $250k. If you make it to the final tribal you win a LOT more money than if you go home early or are sitting on the jury. And he did it twice, back to back. Nice guys finish last, not 2nd or 3rd. There were too many sports analogies used already, but he made it to the playoffs in back to back seasons, with zero returning teammates.

And he's right, the jury are idiots, no one can hide that fact. He might have done better if he pretended he didn't know, but with idiots, you never can tell.

Add in the Sprint money: closer to $350k


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

My opinion is that Parvati played the best game, even better than Russel, and deserved the win. If not Parvati, then Russel deserved it just for strategy, although I know he would never win due to his pathetic social skills... I don't like Russel and I'm not sad that he didn't win.

I just don't think Sandra did ANYTHING to deserve the top spot, and I don't like it when people win just for not doing anything to make anyone mad. That's not playing, that's just letting everyone else do the hard, dirty work, then swooping in at the end and grabbing the prize. If it weren't for everything Parvati and Russel did would Sandra even be sitting there? Not in my opinion.

I have to say, the Heroes were zeroes to me. Their gameplay was sub-par, and their attitudes and votes on the jury seemed petty and childish.

This post sounds very bitter but actually I don't care all that much . I was definitely entertained this season and Parvati will undoubtedly be just fine... she looked amazing at the live show. So many times the women look better during the game than they do all dolled up for the live show, but Parvati didn't overdo it: she looked stunning.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Idearat said:


> I'm not sure I'd call Russell's plan flawed: He's beat out 33 people with that method. In a 3 month timespan it got him probably $250k. If you make it to the final tribal you win a LOT more money than if you go home early or are sitting on the jury. And he did it twice, back to back. Nice guys finish last, not 2nd or 3rd. There were too many sports analogies used already, but he made it to the playoffs in back to back seasons, with zero returning teammates.


Please. If he'd played the jury game, he would have won two million.



> And he's right, the jury are idiots, no one can hide that fact. He might have done better if he pretended he didn't know, but with idiots, you never can tell.


Sandra and Parvati could tell. Sandra could tell twice. And as a result, she did win her two million. But yeah, no flaw in Russell's plan at all.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

latrobe7 said:


> Please. If he'd played the jury game, he would have won two million.
> 
> Sandra and Parvati could tell. Sandra could tell twice. And as a result, she did win her two million. But yeah, no flaw in Russell's plan at all.


So his plan was bad because he beat only 33 people? At least sixteen others played "the jury game" and were out.

Feel free to think Parvati or Sandra's plan was better, but going to final both times put him farther ahead that all the losers rolling their eyes from the benches.

Griping about Russell's game would like calling up a Silver and Bronze Olympic medalist in the marathon to tell him he was a loser.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

Russell, Russell, Russell . . . he just doesn't get it. I don't know how Jeff could have made it more clear that there is a social element. And yet Russell simply didn't hear him.

Rob put it well: "Russell plays to get into the final three instead of to win." 

Poor Russell still doesn't understand that his presence in the final three probably has nothing to do with his brilliant game play but rather, as has already been stated, because he's perceived by the other players as being no threat at all in the final three. I also noticed that this time around he didn't tell the others that he was already a millionaire (which, I think, has already been revealed as untrue anyway). I think he believes that was a factor in his not winning the first time. Aside from all this, I find it amusing that, for all his claims to brilliance, he has, in both games, brought to the final three at least one contestant that poses a considerable challenge. If he's so smart, why doesn't he instead bring two players that he knows cannot get a vote?

As for Sandra, I liked her under the radar play. She's so low-key there's no telling just how much strategy she actually employed - and she's far too cagey to let anybody in on it. She's not there to entertain anybody - she's there to win and if means being quiet and boring and ineffective in the challenges, audience be damned. I like that. We may be unimpressed but she's cashing a big check. As many here have stated for quite some time, the trick is being able to get to the final three without alienating the jury. I don't think there was a single person on the jury who disliked her enough to vote against her (maybe prefering someone else to win, but not voting AGAINST her.) That's a considerable achievement and is exactly how the game is played. (I'm pretty sure the game does not specifically require the contestant to also be entertaining.) Oh, and I loved that she burned his ratty old hat.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

Idearat said:


> Griping about Russell's game would like calling up a Silver and Bronze Olympic medalist in the marathon to tell him he was a loser.


Well, not really. Bronze and Silver medalists are second and third because their skill got them there. Russell isn't in the final three because he's a great player but because the others believe he doesn't stand a chance.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

stalemate said:


> Russell didn't deserve it because by his own admission he doesn't even care about or plan for the jury. He has a fundamental misunderstanding of the game to the point that he thinks the game should be modified to fit him. It is kind of sad in a way.


The sad thing is that he's right, IMO.

If Colby won the final challenges there's a good chance he wins the million. Not because of game play and moves, but because the jury liked him more. This game is pure entertainment, and I know going in that the best player rarely wins. It happens time and time again. I enjoy it for the journey not the finish.

Instead of the "best player" winning, it's usually the most liked player _still around_ wins.

Sandra or Courtney were gone at one point and Sandra only survived because Russell's alliance decided to keep her. Not because of anything she did. Also, if Parv doesn't give her (and Jerri) the idol, she was gone again. Those moves were completely out of her hands and if she were gone, we wouldn't be talking about her at all.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

wendiness1 said:


> Well, not really. Bronze and Silver medalists are second and third because their skill got them there. Russell isn't in the final three because he's a great player but because the others keep him around becaue they believe he doesn't stand a chance.


But that is part of his strategy and why he doesn't care about whether the jury likes him. He feels that if can control the game and make everyone despise him so that they will want to take him to the finals, he will make it to the end and the jury will respect his masterful strategic play and choose him as the winner. What he fails to understand is that the other players value "nice" over game play. Sandra even pointed out in the final TC that, as hard as she tried, she couldn't get rid of Russel. He beat her every time. Russel didn't seize on that in his argument to the jury.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

acegolfer said:


> But you also forgot to mention that Sandra was very strategic and played a flawless game.


There is no such thing as a "flawless game" in Survivor.

Just looking backwards at the winner and then showing that the must have played flawlessly is ignoring the times they were potentially gone. It's called results oriented thinking.

Tom said it best at the reunion:
You can solidly win one season, and then be cast aside early the next.

I personally think a better question is, "Are there certain players who were in a situation that made it essentially impossible for them to win?" (Randy perhaps? Sugar?) I personally think yes. Just like in poker, you can run into a guy with better cards every time and that's just the brakes. In Survivor, there are times where you could make _your_ best move possible every time and still never win.

That's the flaw, or intriguing, part of Survivor, depending on how you look at it.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

innocentfreak said:


> This.
> 
> *I personally dislike the whole jury setup.* The people are always bitter and don't vote off gameplay. They just vote based on whether their feelings were hurt. I would hate to see them vote who should win playing a poker game because you would be the bad guy for bluffing.


so you dislike the game really.

The jury setup is the game. It is how it works and is an integral part of the game. The juries are not just bitter and they do vote based on game play. The idea that they vote just because they are bitter is an excuse, but doesn't justify anything. Russell's game play is both some of the best and worst of any player. Look how many times he lied and got caught and then continued to lie to their faces even when confronted with the truth. Look how many blunders he made this season. What the jury has is absolute disrespect for Russell and more importantly how he plays. It isn't their fault for feeling and acting like they do. Russell creates that tempest and attitude in others. How many times have the others said he was delusional. Look how the woman actually owned him this season. It was pretty funny watching Sandra and Parvati laying there at the end discussing how out of touch with reality Russell is.

Jeff tried to appeal to Russell and not just once, but several times. He just wouldn't listen. His stubborn arrogance and ego has him blinded with ignorance. Some people have more self awareness and want to better themselves and change, not just to get others to like them, but because they sincerely want to be better people. We had a great example tonight with Coach saying what he did. He knows he was/is an arrogance ass and said it himself. He isn't saying it to get people to like him. He is saying it because he had seen what he looks like on tv and hated it and wants to be a better person. Russell doesn't and couldn't give a F and that stubborness and ego will continue to leave him angry and bitter.

The people playing this game are human and have feelings and emotions. THe outwit isn't just while you are on the island, but how you outwit the jury with the social aspect while on the island or where ever they play. Humans are social creatures and true aspects of human nature come out especially as the game wears on. Russell's game play may outwit other Survivor's while playing, but that style does nothing to outwit or impress anyone, especially a jury of your peers.

And you don't have to be "nice" to win the game, but you certainly can't act like Russell and treat people the way he does and then have the audacity to believe you should win. The old, don't ****e where you eat.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

I think justice prevailed and loved how this ended up. The jury couldn't ream Russell enough. I didn't even think they would go that far. 

Russell believes he is ABOVE the game, as in he is better than it, the players, the creators of it, earth, the heavens. He made the most arrogant claim anyone playing can make which is why the "best" survivor has lowered himself to the worst survivor IMO, and the insane part is he doesn't realize it or understand it. Russell is not stupid and in fact he is fairly intelligent. His flaw is that he is ignorant combined with a massive ego and arrogance.
Jeff finally set the record straight by trying to bring Russell "down" to reality which is more like up from the hole, when he said, Russell that isn't *this* game.

The jury votes reflect more than just simple anger or resentment. The jury is *not bitter*, that is an excuse,  and a lame one at that, , and if anything the reverse is true and that is a cry baby tactic Russell or supporters use to further their bogus claim. The jury had to deal with him for how ever many days they were with him. They see and know how he is and like last season the others couldn't stand him, but what they really have no respect for is how he plays. Two juries in a row is pretty telling. The reason he wins "popular" vote I am sure has to do with the demographic of who's watching.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

While I think Russell was robbed last time (Natalie would not have been there without Russell, but Russell could have been there with anybody), this time I think Parvati should have won. I also thought when they got rid of Courtney, they should have gotten rid of Sandra instead.

Now, the really funny thing, is if Russell ever plays again, EVERYBODY will want to team up with Russell. After all, who is more likely to get you to the final 3, *and* who else would you rather be sitting next to at the final tribal than him?


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

And here is why Russell wins player of the season:

I would surmise the 40-60 age group has a much different perspective than the 20-40 age group.

Ahh this didn't take long to find:
_*
"More significantly, its audience among viewers in the 18-34 age range - the youthful end of the 18-49 demographic, the Holy Grail of TV advertising - had increased more than tenfold. The average age of a CBS viewer was 53; the average for Survivor viewers, 39. "Every network worries about the demo," Bresnan said. "It's terribly important."
*_

from this link:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/enter...#axzz0oAfYrpw1

I am 48 and definitely have a different take than the "majority".


----------



## DLL66 (Oct 21, 2002)

Rupert is gullible!

This was Pavarti's game. Glad a military spouse won it. I think it is hillarious that Russel did not get any votes!


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Idearat said:


> Add in the Sprint money: closer to $350k


Russell also won Sprint's money in Season 19.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Great season!

I can't begrudge Sandra her win. She played the game almost perfectly with what she has. Personally, I think Pavarti should have won, but the jury gets the final word.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Dalton's blog.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20369851,00.html


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

heySkippy said:


> Great season!
> 
> I can't begrudge Sandra her win. She played the game almost perfectly with what she has. Personally, I think Pavarti should have won, but the jury gets the final word.


I'm glad that you saw what I saw in Sandra's game. Given what she had, she played a flawless game. I have not seen yet a single post pointing a flaw in her game plan.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

inaka said:


> There is no such thing as a "flawless game" in Survivor.
> 
> Just looking backwards at the winner and then showing that the must have played flawlessly is ignoring the times they were potentially gone. It's called results oriented thinking.
> 
> ...


So are you saying that Sandra's game was flawed? If so, please tell me one thing she did wrong. People kept saying that it was flawed but couldn't name a single flaw.

I tried to find a flaw in her game, but couldn't. Given the short hand she had, I think she played a perfect game. Correct me, if wrong.

If you read my other posts, you should know that my analysis is far from result oriented thinking.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

The only flaw Sandra had was letting luck decide who went: her or Courtney. She was dangerously close to going home, and had no way out.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

acegolfer said:


> I'm glad that you saw what I saw in Sandra's game. Given what she had, she played a flawless game. *I have not seen yet a single post pointing a flaw in her game plan.*


Again, results-oriented thinking. She played a hidden immunity idol that she didn't end up _needing_ to play. This exposed she had it all long, she didn't tell anyone and was potentially a bigger threat. (I personally think it was obviously the right move since it was the last day to use the idol anyway but that's besides the point.) It didn't matter because she won the game, but if the next week that was the excuse the others used to vote her out, you'd say that exact same move was a flaw. The entire time her goal was to get Russell out. She never did. Again, does it matter since she won? Nope. But you're working backwards. Again, results-oriented thinking.


----------



## Byteofram (Oct 29, 2004)

What a great season..too bad it comes down to the wrong person winning. We all knew Russell had no shot of winning (no matter who he took to the final 3), so between Parvati and Sandra...Parv should have won hands down. Like him or not, Russell dominates the game except in the one area that you need to be good at...the social part. If Russell isn't in this season, Boston Rob wins it all is my prediction. He is like Russell, but with the social aspect (and probably better at challenges as well). For those that say Sandra played a great game strategically...I just don't see it. Her big strategy to get rid of Russell....never happened. Her putting the crown on after she won almost made me want to throw up. Really? You think you are the queen of Survivor? I give her props for winning twice, but she is far from being the queen and I lost a lot of the respect I had for her with that move. 
Ponderosa does play too much into the jury votes and the jury gets one side of the story usually. They should keep them separated until after the vote. 
So many more thoughts...but it was a great season...sad to see it end. Sandra you didn't deserve it, but I get some consolation that your husband serves our country and for that alone you get a pass.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

Philosofy said:


> The only flaw Sandra had was letting luck decide who went: her or Courtney. She was dangerously close to going home, and had no way out.


If you were in Sandra's shoe, how would you played differently?

Which card you are dealt with is a luck not a flaw. How you play with is the game plan.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

A few points:

Sandra - Her skill seems to mostly be overlooked by posters because she is too great a player for many here to appreciate it. Sorry....... She lost her entire alliance and still survived. She played under the radar so well that even great player Parvarti didn't realize the Jerri vs Sandra decision was obvious. She had the best tribal council ever by making the "I was always against Russell" arguement (that strategy BTW was likely determined long before because if she really wanted Russell gone she could have pushed it). And how about as seen on The Reunion Show... she has as big an ego as Russell. Did anyone know this about her after two seasons of watching her? She played the "coat tail person" for two seasons... how many players in Survivor history have attached themselves to someone as strong as Boston Rob live to the end (after winning it once before as a coat tail person no less)? That's a true survivor!

Parvarti - Great player too, but she didn't win because she underrated Sandra's game. She should have pushed Russell towards Jerri, but didn't. That's how good a player Sandra is. She fooled the greatest players ever, won twice, and made it look like she wasn't even good at the game.

Russell - Still a good player, but it does give you an advantage if you just lie to everyone with no regard to jury game. He got kept around because everyone else understood what he did not... which was you wanted Russell sitting beside you at the end. That taints the greatness posters think of him.


----------



## Byteofram (Oct 29, 2004)

acegolfer said:


> I'm glad that you saw what I saw in Sandra's game. Given what she had, she played a flawless game. I have not seen yet a single post pointing a flaw in her game plan.


Part of her game plan was to get rid of Russell...didn't happen. That's pretty big, because had that happened who knows who the final 3 would have been. I'm having a hard time going back now and thinking about what even happened during the season...I'm sure there are more, but that's the biggie that sticks out.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

acegolfer said:


> So are you saying that Sandra's game was flawed? If so, please tell me one thing she did wrong. People kept saying that it was flawed but couldn't name a single flaw.
> 
> I tried to find a flaw in her game, but couldn't. Given the short hand she had, I think she played a perfect game. Correct me, if wrong.
> 
> If you read my other posts, you should know that my analysis is far from result oriented thinking.


It's absolutely results-oriented thinking.

She played a perfect game? Did she get every vote from the jury? It was a total coin flip out of her hands whether her or courtney was going home at one stage. At the end, Russell could have taken Jerri instead of her, and she doesn't win...doesn't even make the final three.

There's no such thing as a flawless or perfect game of Survivor unless you work backwards from the win, which is the exact definition of results oriented thinking. There's no formula when luck/humans are involved. Again, that's what makes it intriguing and frustrating at the same time.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

inaka said:


> Again, results-oriented thinking. She played a hidden immunity idol that she didn't end up _needing_ to play. This exposed she had it all long, she didn't tell anyone and was potentially a bigger threat. (I personally think it was obviously the right move since it was the last day to use the idol anyway but that's besides the point.) It didn't matter because she won the game, but if the next week that was the excuse the others used to vote her out, you'd say that exact same move was a flaw. The entire time her goal was to get Russell out. She never did. Again, does it matter since she won? Nope. But you're working backwards. Again, results-oriented thinking.


1. So if you were in Sandra shoe, you would not play the HII? If you admit that it was the right move, how is that a flaw?
2. Saying voting out Russell was her goal is a great strategic move to convince the jury not to vote either Russell or Parv and vote for Sandra. I explained why she had to do this *3 days ago*. How could that be a result oriented thinking/working backwards?

I even analyzed that Sandra had a great chance of winning, 17 days ago. You call that working backward/result oriented thinking?


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

Byteofram said:


> Part of her game plan was to get rid of Russell...didn't happen. That's pretty big, because had that happened who knows who the final 3 would have been. I'm having a hard time going back now and thinking about what even happened during the season...I'm sure there are more, but that's the biggie that sticks out.


If she really wanted Russell gone, she could have done it by voting off parvati instead of amanda (Russell won the II that week). Then Russell will be vulnerable the next week.

Instead, Sandra voted off Amanda, which was probably her best strategic move. Amanda knows this too, and asked this during final TC. But Sandra didn't fall for this trap and gave the ultimate answer. She said her objective was to get rid of Russell. What a great answer!


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

acegolfer said:


> 1. So if you were in Sandra shoe, you would not play the HII? If you admit that it was the right move, how is that a flaw?
> 2. Saying voting out Russell was her goal is a great strategic move to convince the jury not to vote either Russell or Parv and vote for Sandra. I explained why she had to do this *3 days ago*. How could that be a result oriented thinking/working backwards?


You're justifying everything because she ultimately won. If that's the case, then I guess half or maybe more of the other Survivor contestants could have played a flawless/perfect game. Please tell me what flaws or bad moves that Sugar made this season? (see what I mean now?) Sounds absurd since she was voted out and lost. But the question is the same.



acegolfer said:


> I even analyzed that Sandra had a great chance of winning, 17 days ago. You call that working backward/result oriented thinking?


Yes, I do. Because if she lost, you wouldn't even be referring to it.
Joe Namath's famous "guarantee" only sounds legendary because the Jets won. If they didn't win, few would care/remember.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

acegolfer said:


> So are you saying that Sandra's game was flawed? If so, please tell me one thing she did wrong. People kept saying that it was flawed but couldn't name a single flaw.


People have already answered that several times before you even asked, so perhaps you aren't reading. Flaws in her game play? OK, if Russell is such an A-hole and he's a lock to get no votes at the end, why did she spend half of the game trying to get rid of him? So the fact that she spent half the game trying to get rid of her ticket to victory? Flaw. The fact that she utterly failed in every attempt to do so? Another flaw. As her luck would have it, those 2 flaws cancel each other out, so she still ended up with her meal ticket at the end.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

inaka said:


> It's absolutely results-oriented thinking.
> 
> She played a perfect game? Did she get every vote from the jury? It was a total coin flip out of her hands whether her or courtney was going home at one stage. At the end, Russell could have taken Jerri instead of her, and she doesn't win...doesn't even make the final three.
> 
> There's no such thing as a flawless or perfect game of Survivor unless you work backwards from the win, which is the exact definition of results oriented thinking. There's no formula when luck/humans are involved. Again, that's what makes it intriguing and frustrating at the same time.


As I said 3 nights ago, she could not get Danielle and Jerri's votes. I predicted a 7:2 vote. I was surprised to see Coach voting for Parvati instead of Sandra. Other than Coach's vote, my analysis was spot on. How do you say that it was results oriented, when I predicted 3 nights ago with 5 players left?

Sandra could have been gone early. But that was not her flaw. It was the card, she's dealt with. What would you have done differently when you were in her shoe, when it's either Courtney or her?


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

acegolfer said:


> Why did Russell keep saying he played 1 time?
> 
> Does it mean that he knows that his game is flawed now but won't admit it? He's just so full of himself.


What I think he was trying to say, but was having a hard time with, was that because he played back-to-back, he never had any chance to see and reflect on what he did right or wrong in the first game and to alter his gameplay the second time around. He just played the second game the exact same way as he played the first game. He had no time for "lessons learned".


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

inaka said:


> You're justifying everything because she ultimately won. If that's the case, then I guess half or maybe more of the other Survivor contestants could have played a flawless/perfect game. Please tell me what flaws or bad moves that Sugar made this season? (see what I mean now?) Sounds absurd since she was voted out and lost. But the question is the same.
> 
> Yes, I do. Because if she lost, you wouldn't even be referring to it.
> Joe Namath's famous "guarantee" only sounds legendary because the Jets won. If they didn't win, few would care/remember.


Yes, I didn't see Sugar's flaw in this game. She had too little on screen time to analyze her move. On the other hand, we had much more time with Sandra and I can't think of any bad decision she made. She could have made several mistakes given the opportunity but she didn't.

Am I justifying Sandra's move? Probably. Had she not won, my analysis 3 weeks ago would be meaningless. Have you read it? If not, please go ahead and read it and criticize. I dare to say her voting off Amanda 3 weeks go was the greatest move she made this season.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

LordKronos said:


> People have already answered that several times before you even asked, so perhaps you aren't reading. Flaws in her game play? OK, if Russell is such an A-hole and he's a lock to get no votes at the end, why did she spend half of the game trying to get rid of him? So the fact that she spent half the game trying to get rid of her ticket to victory? Flaw. The fact that she utterly failed in every attempt to do so? Another flaw. As her luck would have it, those 2 flaws cancel each other out, so she still ended up with her meal ticket at the end.


I read that. But as I explained, she said that at final TC only to win heroes' votes.

When Sandra had the chance to get rid of Russell, she didn't pursue it. I guess people didn't see that.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

OMG...you guys are nuts...enough already with the "Parv was the best and should have won"

Parv is stupid...don't let the cool act fool you...she can't even count to 5!

why 5? that's the number of heroes on the Jury...the only hero she talked to was Amanda and that was to tell her that she didn't trust her and promptly voted her off...she never spoke to any of the other heroes...

she and Russell were idiots...they got to the final 3 but had no chance of winning because they ignored 5/9th of the jury (well, Russell ignored the entire jury; which is a little worse than Parv)...

Russell was an idiot and everyone points it out...well, PARV DID THE SAME THING...why is she a genius?!


----------



## Roadblock (Apr 5, 2006)

gweempose said:


> In the old days, didn't the remaining contestants get to end with a closing argument, or am I thinking of a different show?


This final tribal council seemed much weaker than in most seasons. Hardly any questions and no closing arguments. Russell surprised me by being so weak with his arguments. Despite being unliked, he could have at least pointed out how many people he personally targeted and got out, and mentioned the good strategic moves he made.



LordKronos said:


> I think the ultimate demonstration of just how much Ponderosa affects the outcome of this game is to look at Jerri. In her speech after being voted out she said she's leaning towards Russell. Then not even 24 hours later, suddenly it doesn't sound like Russell is even in the running for her vote.


I disagree. Jerri changed her mind when Parvati told her that Russell had voted her out because he was 100% sure Jerri would still vote for him.



omnibus said:


> I thought the hat burning was nothing but mean spirited. Sandra had no intention of it influencing the final tribal council even though Russell gave her credit for it on the reunion show, even though Russell probably said that to show her he did'nt care.


Also disagree here. Sandra wanted to rattle Russell and make him go to final TC without his hat. And Russell was the most mean-spirited guy out there, give me a break.



uncdrew said:


> It's just my opinion of course, but Sandra was just your regular below the radar player, who did what anyone in her shoes would have done. I didn't see it as very impressive or intelligent.


What people seem to miss is how easily Sandra deflects suspicion or blame. She's a great talker and she shows attitude at the right times to get people to back off. Russell is one of the most paranoid players ever. He asks Sandra, "Are you with me or against me?" and she tells him right to his face "I'm against you, Russell." When other people gave off even a hint that they were against Russell, he got rid of them ASAP. But with Sandra, he sees her as a non-threat the entire way and takes her to the final 3. Yet nobody wants to give her credit for that.



Idearat said:


> Griping about Russell's game would like calling up a Silver and Bronze Olympic medalist in the marathon to tell him he was a loser.


Nah, bad analogy. It's more like if the bronze medalist in downhill skiing is using clearly inferior skis and could win gold with better skis, but refuses to use them and says he doesn't care about his skis because he has the best technique.



inaka said:


> Sandra or Courtney were gone at one point and Sandra only survived because Russell's alliance decided to keep her. Not because of anything she did. Also, if Parv doesn't give her (and Jerri) the idol, she was gone again. Those moves were completely out of her hands and if she were gone, we wouldn't be talking about her at all.


We also wouldn't be talking about Russell if Tyson weren't a moron.



inaka said:


> Again, results-oriented thinking. She played a hidden immunity idol that she didn't end up _needing_ to play. This exposed she had it all long, she didn't tell anyone and was potentially a bigger threat. (I personally think it was obviously the right move since it was the last day to use the idol anyway but that's besides the point.) It didn't matter because she won the game, but if the next week that was the excuse the others used to vote her out, you'd say that exact same move was a flaw.


Your argument makes no sense. She shouldn't have used the idol on the last day to use it?


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

Jeeters said:


> What I think he was trying to say, but was having a hard time with, was that because he played back-to-back, he never had any chance to see and reflect on what he did right or wrong in the first game and to alter his gameplay the second time around. He just played the second game the exact same way as he played the first game. He had no time for "lessons learned".


Exactly.

So does it mean that he will change his strategy when he plays next time? If so, then he lied during reunion show. He didn't admit his mistake, which he knew was a mistake.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

wendiness1 said:


> Russell isn't in the final three because he's a great player but because the others keep him around because they believe he doesn't stand a chance.


So how does that theory explain the fact that, almost without fail, whoever Russell set his target on was instantly gone?

Look, I understand getting annoyed with some people around here who give Russell way to much credit and don't acknowledge a problem in his game play (I see the problem, but I was just hoping these players would see past it and focus on the parts of his play that were spectacular). But there you sit on the opposite end of the spectrum, denying all the credit that he rightly deserves.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

LordKronos said:


> So how does that theory explain the fact that, almost without fail, whoever Russell set his target on was instantly gone?
> 
> Look, I understand getting annoyed with some people around here who give Russell way to much credit and don't acknowledge a problem in his game play (I see the problem, but I was just hoping these players would see past it and focus on the parts of his play that were spectacular). But there you sit on the opposite end of the spectrum, denying all the credit that he rightly deserves.


Early on multiple players believe they have an alliance with Russell because he lies. So he has more control over who gets voted out. Is that the only reason....? No, but it adds a lot to his control. Later everyone wants him on jury because no one would ever vote for him. Does virtually having immunity each week give you more control? I say yes.

I'm not saying Russell doesn't have game, but if you play with no regards to winning (or clueless to what it takes to win) then you become very powerful. The reason Survivor added the jury is because the creators didn't want a Russell strategy to win. It's half a game.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

acegolfer said:


> I read that. But as I explained, she said that at final TC only to win heroes' votes.
> 
> When Sandra had the chance to get rid of Russell, she didn't pursue it. I guess people didn't see that.


What? No, she didn't JUST say that. We SAW her spend half the game trying to get rid of Russell, but she could never pull it together. And Sandra didn't have a chance to pursue that? We saw Rupert after the merge saying "well Sandra brought us this info, and we'd really like to get rid of Russell, but she hasn't really followed up with us, so I guess we'll vote for Jerri or Sandra since Russell and Paravati might play an idol." All she had to do was say the word and her million dollar meal ticket was gone, but she didn't say the word simply because she was afraid to rock the boat in case things didn't work out that way.

So she lacked the insight to see what a bad plan it was for her, but lucky for her she also lacked the guts and daring to see the plan through.


----------



## LlamaLarry (Apr 30, 2003)

Roadblock said:


> Jerri changed her mind when Parvati told her that Russell had voted her out because he was 100% sure Jerri would still vote for him


I am surprised that Russell gave out his final tribal strategies to the other finalists both times. 

Why give them a chance to think up counterpoints in advance rather than force them to whip them up on the fly? I don't think it is an accident that the other finalists come off so polished when he tips his hand out of certainty that he will win.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

I haven't finished watching the reunion yet, but when Russell wanted to tell what the flaw was in the game, I thought for sure he was going to nail it but he didn't. I was so hoping he was going to say the flaw is that the final vote is by a bunch of losers.

Why should we expect losers to get the vote right?


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

Roadblock said:


> I disagree. Jerri changed her mind when Parvati told her that Russell had voted her out because he was 100% sure Jerri would still vote for him.


Sorry, I just rewatched Jerri's question and I must have mixed her up with someone else, because I was thinking the didn't even give Russell any consideration. My mistake.



> Also disagree here. Sandra wanted to rattle Russell and make him go to final TC without his hat.


If that was her idea, she revealed nothing of the sort. Not to Parvati, and not to the camera in her confessionals. Every indication she gave was just that she was pissed at him and that was her way of getting back at him. There was no strategy in it at the time she did it. She was just as mean spirited as Russell was...even more so, because at least Russell though he had some strategic advantage to gain by being mean.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

Russell is the most entertaining player this game has seen (from the viewers perspective).

He of course isn't the best player as he isn't equipped to win or doesn't seem to care. But is he crazy like a fox? I'm thinking that of all the players he is the one that could really cash in making paid appearances.

I keep hearing that he really isn't rich and that he lives in a trailer - then I read that that's BS and the trailer is for his business and that is typical of the type of oil business his family runs. Not sure what to believe but he sure could do pretty well cashing in on his Survivor notoriety.

Now on to Big Brother!


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

LlamaLarry said:


> I am surprised that Russell gave out his final tribal strategies to the other finalists both times.
> 
> Why give them a chance to think up counterpoints in advance rather than force them to whip them up on the fly? I don't think it is an accident that the other finalists come off so polished when he tips his hand out of certainty that he will win.


I agree. Last season, I think he really did himself in. I don't know if he would have won, but I think he had a reasonable chance. The girl who won (I can't even remember her name now), in my opinion, didn't really have much strategy throughout the entire game. It seemed to me, it was only when Russell got her thinking about how to explain herself on the jury that she started to weave a story backward in time to paint the picture of some amazing strategic that was never actually there. This time, I don't think it was such a major mistake. It may have cost him Jerri's vote, but that's about it.

I do think that, for all his brilliance in the "everything but the final vote" game play, he utterly failed to explain himself at the end. He needed to paint a much better picture about his game play. I was thinking (before Parvati even spoke up) that he should have told Jerri "It was a calculated risk, but I thought I'd be able to get your jury vote (and I hope I'm right), but I didn't think I'd get Parvati's vote, and I was right about that because she even told me as much earlier today".

And when Rupert gave him the "you didn't need to tell all the lies you did", Russell should have said "Yes I did, because how many times in this game do you see people scramble and then pull off a longshot play? Even when I had the numbers, I had to lie to you to keep you comfortable so that you wouldn't scramble. I had to convince you that you'd already made your scramble play".


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

LordKronos said:


> If that was her idea, [Sandra] revealed nothing of the sort. Not to Parvati, and not to the camera in her confessionals. Every indication she gave was just that she was pissed at him and that was her way of getting back at him. There was no strategy in it at the time she did it. She was just as mean spirited as Russell was...even more so, because at least Russell though he had some strategic advantage to gain by being mean.


I can't remember the exact quote but she did say "he can take his bald-head to tribal." It may have been mean spirited, but I think it was more of a confidence builder for herself.

There was one point in the game where I started to respect her play a bit more. I can't remember the person it involved, but Sandra went to Russell saying that person didn't trust Russell (basically untrue). Which made Russell all paranoid and he actually switched and started gunning for that person. I wish I could remember it more clearly. But Sandra has been able to play Russell like that, knowing exactly which buttons to push.

And aside.... did anyone else's DTV go out for about 9 minutes during the show last night? It basically started when Colby was weakly trying to convince Russell that Russell should choose him instead of one of the others.

Totally didn't see that tribal, only the aftermath.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

JETarpon said:


> While I think Russell was robbed last time (Natalie would not have been there without Russell, but Russell could have been there with anybody), this time I think Parvati should have won. *I also thought when they got rid of Courtney, they should have gotten rid of Sandra instead.*


All the Sandra-hate is really crazy.

I bolded this statement above because I think it perfectly states WHY Sandra is a great player. If she is such a boring coat-rider, then why was she more dangerous than Courtney? Because she's cagey. Because she's not just your puppet. Because she'll flip on you. Because she'll push your buttons. And that was Russell's mistake, not Parv's. She wanted to keep Courtney.

As for Sandra, everyone forgets the subtle role she played in getting rid of Coach, but pushing Russell's buttons. If not for that move, maybe she and Courtney go out before him.

In fact, thinking back (about LUCK in the game), if Coach isn't voted out at that moment, then JT doesn't assume a women's alliance, and doesn't give Russell the idol. Big moment for Russell.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> I can't remember the exact quote but she did say "he can take his bald-head to tribal." It may have been mean spirited, but I think it was more of a confidence builder for herself.
> 
> There was one point in the game where I started to respect her play a bit more. I can't remember the person it involved, but Sandra went to Russell saying that person didn't trust Russell (basically untrue). *Which made Russell all paranoid and he actually switched and started gunning for that person. I wish I could remember it more clearly*. But Sandra has been able to play Russell like that, knowing exactly which buttons to push.
> 
> ...


It was Coach.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm surprised Survivor doesn't have a rule against intentional destruction of another contestant's personal property.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> There was one point in the game where I started to respect her play a bit more. I can't remember the person it involved, but Sandra went to Russell saying that person didn't trust Russell (basically untrue). Which made Russell all paranoid and he actually switched and started gunning for that person. I wish I could remember it more clearly. But Sandra has been able to play Russell like that, knowing exactly which buttons to push.


I think you're remembering Sandra planting the seed in Russell that Coach was out to get him. It was a total lie and she used that to get Coach out at the next vote and save herself....or so it appeared in the editing. Because when you really think about it, Russell also wanted to keep the idea of a woman's alliance happening on his side to the Heroes. So it made perfect sense to vote off Coach to prolong that strategy that Russell tapped into. Creative editing? Sandra's great play? A little of both? Probably the latter.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

janry said:


> I'm surprised Survivor doesn't have a rule against intentional destruction of another contestant's personal property.


What would be their motivation to put such a rule in place?


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Roadblock said:


> We also wouldn't be talking about Russell if Tyson weren't a moron.


Another great moment of LUCK for Russell.

I liked him a lot in the first season, and still find him entertaining, but as you watched the season, there was no way in hell he was winning. The only lesson he learned was to change his FTC speech, but that's not enough. You gotta live it during the 39 days.

Parv would have been a deserving winner as well, but I was happy with Sandra. I didn't find her boring at all (hello snarky!), and I appreciated her ability to keep herself aligned with the Villains, while still playing up her flipability to the Heroes. Good gameplay.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Idearat said:


> So his plan was bad because he beat only 33 people? At least sixteen others played "the jury game" and were out.
> 
> Feel free to think Parvati or Sandra's plan was better, but going to final both times put him farther ahead that all the losers rolling their eyes from the benches.
> 
> Griping about Russell's game would like calling up a Silver and Bronze Olympic medalist in the marathon to tell him he was a loser.


Well, "second place is the first loser" as any coach can tell you.

It's not "griping" to point out the huge flaw in his game.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

inaka said:


> I think you're remembering Sandra planting the seed in Russell that Coach was out to get him. It was a total lie and she used that to get Coach out at the next vote and save herself....or so it appeared in the editing. Because when you really think about it, Russell also wanted to keep the idea of a woman's alliance happening on his side to the Heroes. So it made perfect sense to vote off Coach to prolong that strategy that Russell tapped into. Creative editing? Sandra's great play? A little of both? Probably the latter.


I think the same argument could be made for Tyson's colossoal blunder. Russell would surely claim that was his great play that made that happen. But was it really just creative editing?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

inaka said:


> I think you're remembering Sandra planting the seed in Russell that Coach was out to get him. It was a total lie and she used that to get Coach out at the next vote and save herself....or so it appeared in the editing. Because when you really think about it, Russell also wanted to keep the idea of a woman's alliance happening on his side to the Heroes. So it made perfect sense to vote off Coach to prolong that strategy that Russell tapped into. Creative editing? Sandra's great play? A little of both? Probably the latter.


Yeah, that was it, thanks.

Maybe good editing, but you can't edit what you don't have. I'm giving it to Sandra. It sure seemed like a button was pushed in Russell, and not a strategic move. Two very distinct and different Russell personalities that surface at different times.

EDIT: And of course she couldn't mention this at tribal for fear of losing Coach's vote.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

heySkippy said:


> I can't begrudge Sandra her win. She played the game almost perfectly with what she has. Personally, I think Pavarti should have won, but the jury gets the final word.


Her burning the hat....well maybe it was a bit mean, and even if you think Russell's burning socks was strategic, it sure was mean too. Looking back, the hat burning may have been more strategic then we think because Russell surely was not on his A game at the tribal and in front of the jury. And how many times have we seen this. The top player gets to tribal and then can't really speak to the jury - why? because they have pissed a lot of the jury off at them.

I think what was good about Sandra's game was that she was flexible and she rolled with the punches. She saw her alliance being voted off one by one and then tried to help the heroes. And that didn't work so she flipped back to voting how Russell wanted, all the while telling him she was "against him". I think she was great at the final tribal when answering the questions.



Roadblock said:


> We also wouldn't be talking about Russell if Tyson weren't a moron.


Or J.T. I loved last night when he tried to grab the letter from Russell and burn it. Personally I wouldn't have voted J.T.'s move as the dumbest ever in Survivor history. I think it was just fresh in everyone's minds.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Roadblock said:


> We also wouldn't be talking about Russell if Tyson weren't a moron.





billypritchard said:


> Another great moment of LUCK for Russell.


Luck? He was the very one who manipulated Tyson right before the vote. Russell's the one that convinced Tyson that Parv was going home and that all their vote splitting didn't matter. He was the very reason Tyson even entertained the idea of that vote.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

LordKronos said:


> Exactly, and that's what I've said several times this season. No matter how good you might be, there is a lot of luck at the end, because it is so hard to predict how people are going to vote and whether they'll reward or punish aggressive/dirty gameplay. I think the ultimate demonstration of just how much Ponderosa affects the outcome of this game is to look at Jerri. In her speech after being voted out she said she's leaning towards Russell. Then not even 24 hours later, suddenly it doesn't sound like Russell is even in the running for her vote.


JT was even more striking. He knew he had been beaten and shook russell hand at tribal council but 12-15 days later after hanging out at the ponderosa, he hates his guts.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

inaka said:


> Luck? He was the very one who manipulated Tyson right before the vote. Russell's the one that convinced Tyson that Parv was going home and that all their vote splitting didn't matter. He was the very reason Tyson even entertained the idea of that vote.


See my above note about creative editing. Are you going to call Sandra's move an invention and not Russell's? We have about the same amount of info about each, just what the editors gave us.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I had fun last night watching the final episode and the reunion at a friends house. She had seen other Survivor seasons, but not this one. Not even the last one. Anyway, I explained a few minutes of back history and then she watched it and right away was saying "he won't win, he's too arrogant and you can tell the jury is pissed at him." Then watching the reunion and with Jeff asking Russell about his game and the jury, she said "he just doesn't get it does he? he isn't listening."

I love the idea of a Boston Rob vs Russell game.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

heySkippy said:


> What would be their motivation to put such a rule in place?


potential legal problems. Big Brother has a rule against it.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

I wish a that either Russell or Parvati would have won, but I can't fault Sandra's game (at least this time the other finalist was deserving of being there.) She won so she made the best moves. Her best move was trying and failing to get rid of Russell on more than one occasion. Maybe she meant to do this just to make herself look good to the heroes, maybe not, but either way it really helped her along to victory. Yes this is results oriented thinking and that works for Survivor since unlike poker there are too many variables to try to logically analyze every situation without seeing how they are playing and thinking 24/7 for 39 days. The votes/challenges aren't the only things that count. It's a very social game.

Russel's strategy for getting to the end with no regard for the jury could possibly work on another season, but I doubt it. The only player that I can think of with a similar game was Boston Rob during All-Stars, and his story ended the same way. He tried to change it up this time and didn't make it to the end.

Parvati played a better game, but she didn't show anyone. She never socialized enough with the heroes for them to see that she wasn't playing the same game as Russell. The villains were much closer to the situation and saw what decisions were made by each one. She got 3/4 villains votes and 0/5 heroes.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

innocentfreak said:


> I guess that is the difference between you, the jury, and I. I would have no issues about separating my feelings from a game and voting on who played the best and not who played the game the way I think they should.


The odd thing is that due to the ponderosa it works backwards. Most people are sad and hurt but heal with time. Here they have it in perspective at the moment as you can often see in their in camera farewell then get more twisted and bitter later.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

SnakeEyes said:


> potential legal problems. Big Brother has a rule against it.


Is there a law against burning someone else's hat in Samoa?


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

janry said:


> I'm surprised Survivor doesn't have a rule against intentional destruction of another contestant's personal property.


If they did, Russell would have been disqualified his first night of his first game...


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

betts4 said:


> Personally I wouldn't have voted J.T.'s move as the dumbest ever in Survivor history. I think it was just fresh in everyone's minds.


I agree. I think Erik's move of giving up immunity to prove his loyalty was the dumbest move of the choices listed. However, the REAL dumbest move was a person not even in the choices. I don't remember who it was, or what season (3 or 4 maybe), but there was the guy who, when it got down to to the final 3, he stepped down from the immunity challenge because he had made a promise to do so, and he promptly got voted out. Giving up immunity when there were 6 or so people as Erik did was one thing. Giving up your shot to make it to the final tribal council was even dumber.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

LordKronos said:


> I agree. I think Erik's move of giving up immunity to prove his loyalty was the dumbest move of the choices listed. However, the REAL dumbest move was a person not even in the choices. I don't remember who it was, or what season (3 or 4 maybe), but there was the guy who, when it got down to to the final 3, he stepped down from the immunity challenge because he had made a promise to do so, and he promptly got voted out. Giving up immunity when there were 6 or so people as Erik did was one thing. Giving up your shot to make it to the final tribal council was even dumber.


Isn't that Tom's season with Ian? There was a bit more to it than that though, and I wouldn't call it a dumb move.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> What would be their motivation to put such a rule in place?


The same reason we have rules here against destrying someone elses personal property. At least, that would be a obvious one. But, more specifically to the game itself, to keep contestants from making life purely miserable throught he act of destruction. I think it is one thing for Russell to take tribe communal property and hide it but completely another thing to destroy one's personal property. Besides, Russell probably could have sold that hat on eBay for a pretty penny. Personally, I'd be POed that something I might want to keep as a remembrance was intetionally destroyed. I think it goes to show just how petty and uncaring Sandra is.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> The odd thing is that due to the ponderosa it works backwards. Most people are sad and hurt but heal with time. Here they have it in perspective at the moment as you can often see in their in camera farewell then get more twisted and bitter later.


But a jury is a jury, not individuals. Juries at trials are allowed to sit in a room around a table and talk to each other. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to talk to each other until the very end, after the final tribal council.....but that's not this game. Jeff said it last night when Russell brought up having America vote. "That's not this game". The players know that the jury is going to sit around and talk to each other. I think that would be part of the social game aspect. Thinking about what your jury would think of you.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

billypritchard said:


> See my above note about creative editing. Are you going to call Sandra's move an invention and not Russell's? We have about the same amount of info about each, just what the editors gave us.


I didn't say that at all. Didn't say Sandra's play was invented with editing. Just saying, that it was presented as a great play that Sandra came up with and it very well may have been. But in producer's interview with Russell (where he's by himself on a mountain talking strategy by himself to "us") he's smiling about how getting Coach out of the game now would further his chances because the heros think he's in an losing "all female alliance", etc. Sandra never mentioned the "all female alliance" when she suggested to Russell to vote out Coach. She just tried to get Russell riled up to not trust him, etc. Who knows, could have been editing there too, but the play to remove Coach at that time made perfect sense from Russell's perspective, based on a strategy that Sandra never introduced. That's what I'm saying.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

acegolfer said:


> I'm glad that you saw what I saw in Sandra's game. Given what she had, she played a flawless game. I have not seen yet a single post pointing a flaw in her game plan.


She has no game plan. Their is a difference between a map and a weathervane.

Both are useful but have different functions.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

latrobe7 said:


> If they did, Russell would have been disqualified his first night of his first game...


How so?


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

fliptheflop said:


> Russell plays the game to win but his problem is he counts on the jury to pick the person who did the best in the game. That just doesn't happen anymore.


Yep, I don't know why that changed the last couple seasons, but betrayal and strategy used to actually be rewarded for most of the 1st 18 seasons...the last couple juries seem to making it all about the social game (which still doesn't explain how Sandra won).

I'm stunned! As soon as Russell picked Parvati to go to the final 3, I said "well, one thing is certain...there is no way Sandra will win". I wish Sandra, or the jury, would have explained how she deserved it more than Parvati. They seemed to be basing it on her "social" game, but that doesn't make sense. She hated almost everyone on the jury, and she was not a nice person on either of her seasons. In fact, when this season started, the 2 people I was rooting against were Tyson and Sandra because they just do not seem like nice people.

There is apparently something about Russell's social game that CBS wasn't showing us to deserve that type of reaction from the jury. 2nd season in a row, America voted him top player...but the jury hated him. If they thought he was that bad, why didn't they not only try to vote him off, but why did they continue to go along with him and vote off others he wanted gone? Anyway, Russell's social game aside...how did Sandra beat Parvati. She had the great strategic game and played a good social game too. As Russell said "Sandra failed at the social game, failed at the strategic, and failed at the challenges".

Since Russell and Parvati's strategic gameplay is no longer valued in this game, maybe they should change the game. Get rid of the challenges, idols, and tribal councils...and just have everyone hang out on the island for 40 days. Then at the end, they can vote for the person they liked to hang out with.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

janry said:


> How so?


He burned the socks of his tribe-mates - pretty petty and uncaring, huh?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

janry said:


> The same reason we have rules here against destrying someone elses personal property. At least, that would be a obvious one.


Like socks?


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> Is there a law against burning someone else's hat in Samoa?


In Samoan law? Perhaps...I wouldn't know. But I think it's been stated before that they need to behave in compliance with both local and US laws.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

Saying that Russell is a great player.... Sandra had him underrate her the entire game (despite being a former winner) and knew how to take advantage of that by manipulating Russell without him even realizing it. Her brillance is so subtle most viewers don't see it.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

latrobe7 said:


> He burned the socks of his tribe-mates - pretty petty and uncaring, huh?





betts4 said:


> Like socks?


I didn't/dont' remember that. Not arguing, just don't remember it. I remember him pouring out the water and hiding the machete.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

LordKronos said:


> In Samoan law? Perhaps...I wouldn't know. But I think it's been stated before that they need to behave in compliance with both local and US laws.


I've never heard that stated and can't imagine why it would be true.

Anyway, if it were up to me I wouldn't put any such rule in place. Gimme drama.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Dnamertz said:


> Yep, I don't know why that changed the last couple seasons, but betrayal and strategy used to actually be rewarded for most of the 1st 18 seasons...the last couple juries seem to making it all about the social game (which still doesn't explain how Sandra won).
> 
> I'm stunned! As soon as Russell picked Parvati to go to the final 3, I said "well, one thing is certain...there is no way Sandra will win". I wish Sandra, or the jury, would have explained how she deserved it more than Parvati. They seemed to be basing it on her "social" game, but that doesn't make sense. She hated almost everyone on the jury, and she was not a nice person on either of her seasons. In fact, when this season started, the 2 people I was rooting against were Tyson and Sandra because they just do not seem like nice people.
> 
> ...


You're mistaken if you think the jury just started voting this way recently. Many votes have hinged on bad feelings, and many strategic players (or challenge monsters) have not won against another player. It's part of the game. Amber over Rob. Tina over Colby. Heck, Hatch only won because he picked the right number!


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> I've never heard that stated and can't imagine why it would be true.


It's never been stated in the game, but years ago I seem to recall Jeff Probst saying so. I'm pretty sure it was before his blog came about, so it was probably in an interview somewhere. Also, the wiki page (along with countless other websites) list it as one of the Rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_(TV_series)#Game_rules


> Contestants must abide by U.S. law as well as local law. Breaking any of these laws will result in immediate removal from the game.


Though there is no citation for where that info comes from.

Edit: Now that I think about it, the time Probst mentioned it in an interview was probably right after Australia, when there was all the fuss about somebody taking coral from the Great Barrier Reef


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Dnamertz said:


> There is apparently something about Russell's social game that CBS wasn't showing us to deserve that type of reaction from the jury. 2nd season in a row, America voted him top player...but the jury hated him. If they thought he was that bad, why didn't they not only try to vote him off, but why did they continue to go along with him and vote off others he wanted gone? Anyway, Russell's social game aside...how did Sandra beat Parvati. She had the great strategic game and played a good social game too. As Russell said "Sandra failed at the social game, failed at the strategic, and failed at the challenges".


I think they touched on this point at the beginning of the reunion, when Russell was going on and on about Sandra, then the 'flaw' in the game. Probst says something like, "yes, this is how it was for 39 days".


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

janry said:


> I didn't/dont' remember that. Not arguing, just don't remember it. I remember him pouring out the water and hiding the machete.


He definitely burned others' socks on one of the first episodes he was on, if not the first episode.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

acegolfer said:


> I'm sorry you felt that way. I'm not a Sandra fan. I didn't even know her before this season. But I never thought she was boring. It was interesting for me to analyze her decisions from early on. She made several subtle but critical moves that earn her the million.


This how I look at it. I picked her just about the time she saved herself after Boston Rob got axed. I kept saying, watch out for her many times here in the thread. She plays a subtle game, she was smart enough to befriend the Heroes (and Rupert said it best, that they were too dumb to listen to what Sandra was saying). She was able to plant some seeds in people's minds that Russel / Parv were running things, and that Russell was the real mastermind. Yeah, she doesn't win challenges, but that's only 1/3 of the game. She clearly won the other two, especially the social game.

I know there's all this love for Russell, but Russell may be the worst Social game player ever. Just look at some of his comments during the jury grilling. He talked about not changing his game. He was outed that he put Jerri on the jury because he thought he had her vote (especially after telling her he would take her to the final three). He told Sandra that he was taking her because he felt she couldn't win. He ASSUMES that people will love his game and just vote for him. He claims to be a student of Survivor but he REALLY doesn't understand how to play the game. Jeff even called him out on it during the reunion. So to me, he might be the best strategist, but he certainly isn't the best player.

Jeff even talked about that the jury is the most important aspect of the game. It's always been played this way, so you HAVE to assume that they are talking to each other. That's part of the game and you have to account for it. Russell can't get it in his head to do this. It's not always about winning challenges or getting people voted off. It's understanding how the jury works. Sandra failed to convince the heroes that Russell was the mastermind, but by going to them, she made friends, and when they realized she was right, they realized she was really playing the game. It was a great strategic move on her part. Subtle, but it worked.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

inaka said:


> stalemate said:
> 
> 
> > I'm happy with the winner. I think Sandra is a great player and I am glad to see her win. I would have been ok with Parvati too.
> ...


I will agree that the current format is not set up for a player like Russell to really win the game. I don't, however, think the game is the one that needs to change.

You said it yourself, it happens time and time again. Russell apparently knows everything about the game so he could have recognized this but he didn't. He flat out said he doesn't care about the jury. Why should the game be changed to fit a player that ignores a huge aspect of the game?

I think the flaw in the game is that the million is not awarded to the guy that watches the most episodes from my house each season. That doesn't mean I'm right.


----------



## SleepyBob (Sep 28, 2000)

brianric said:


> I doubt that. I am a Russel fan, but he still doesn't believe he has to play a social game.





Philosofy said:


> Exactly. Russell's flaw is that he plans on how to make it to the final, then tries to think of a way to get those idiots to give him a million dollars. He thinks his problem is that he hasn't found the right words to make those idiots give him the million. His actual flaw is that he thinks of the jury as idiots, and he can't hide that fact.





Idearat said:


> So his plan was bad because he beat only 33 people? At least sixteen others played "the jury game" and were out.
> ...
> Griping about Russell's game would like calling up a Silver and Bronze Olympic medalist in the marathon to tell him he was a loser.





wendiness1 said:


> Russell, Russell, Russell . . . he just doesn't get it. I don't know how Jeff could have made it more clear that there is a social element. And yet Russell simply didn't hear him.
> 
> Rob put it well: "Russell plays to get into the final three instead of to win."


Russell plays knowing that if you don't make it to the final 3, you don't win. Period. He also knows that playing anything short of what he does, increases the chance of not being in the final 3, and he won't take that risk. But, as a result, he puts himself into an unwinnable situation.

In general, others either don't have the ability to take control of the game, or they recognize that doing so will hurt their chances with the jury. So they are relegated to either looking for the person who *will* control the game and allying with them, or hoping that they get swept up by the one controlling the game as a non-threat. If that works, they make it to the final and win. But there are 5 other contestants hoping for the exact same thing, and it ends up being due to luck as much as anything as to whether you are the one out of the 5 who ends up getting swept to the finish.

Those who ensure they will be in the final, don't win. Those who win, could have just as easily been swapped out for someone else, and didn't control their fate.

Strategy A: 90% chance of $100K, 10% chance of $1M.
Strategy B: 80% chance of $0, 20% chance of $1M (1/5 chance of being in final)

This _is_ a weakness of the game, even if that is how the game is played.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

SleepyBob said:


> Strategy A: 90% chance of $100K, 10% chance of $1M.
> Strategy B: 80% chance of $0, 20% chance of $1M (1/5 chance of being in final)


Do you get $100k for 3rd place?


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

I haven't read this whole thread (too many pages) but just thought I'd add what I found funny...

I don't think Russell ever figured out that he made it so far because everyone was wanting to take him to end so that they'd get more votes. The guy was being played for the ultimate pawn and his gigantic ego couldn't allow him to see it.

And the funny part is that his giant ego will never allow him to see it. He will always insist that he played the game right, but the game works wrong. What a dumbass.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

wendiness1 said:


> Russell isn't in the final three because he's a great player but because the others keep him around becaue they believe he doesn't stand a chance.


You must have watched a different show than the rest of us.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> You must have watched a different show than the rest of us.


Yeah, I think while watching it that is what *I* would be thinking, but I don't think they gave us any evidence of that. Even up until the Final Five, Jerri was acting all scared of Russell. I don't believe there was ever a confessional where anyone said they wanted Russell in the final as an easy win.

Now, is that creative editing or truth?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I have all the respect in the world for Russell's aggressive strategy for getting to the final 3. It's unfortunate that he expected them to choose the winner on that basis. He could have made a few adjustments to his game and still gotten as far as he did without having so many people so mad at him. Even Jerri right after she was voted out at TC was still considering voting for him.

And as much I respect Russell's game, I have to say the same about Sandra's strategy as well. It wasn't as entertaining, but it got the job done. She may not have actively "done" things to avoid getting voted off, but she still avoided it. She was better at playing the part of the game that mattered more. In retrospect though, I wonder if she realizes that the thing she failed to do when she actually was playing aggressively (trying to get rid of Russell) probably helped her tremendously.

I still find it interesting that they don't actively acknowledge the consolation prize(s). They didn't edit out Sandra talking about the $100K, but they never talked about those prizes at the Reunion or anything.

I was really glad Russell won the $100K fan prize, especially over Rupert. I know he does some good things in "real life" but I really don't understand the appeal of him as a player on the show.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

billypritchard said:


> Yeah, I think while watching it that is what *I* would be thinking, but I don't think they gave us any evidence of that. Even up until the Final Five, Jerri was acting all scared of Russell. I don't believe there was ever a confessional where anyone said they wanted Russell in the final as an easy win.
> 
> Now, is that creative editing or truth?


Right, no one ever talked about wanting to take Russell for that reason, and Sandra was trying hard to get rid of him.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> Right, no one ever talked about wanting to take Russell for that reason, and Sandra was trying hard to get rid of him.


Which suggests to me that it's very possible that Russell wasn't the only one thinking the Jury might be able to look past their hurt feelings and reward him for his strategic play.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

jeff125va said:


> In retrospect though, I wonder if she realizes that the thing she failed to do when she actually was playing aggressively (trying to get rid of Russell) probably helped her tremendously.


I'm pretty sure she does realize it. During one of Russell's shouting episodes during the reunion show he was saying what a failure Sandra was that she couldn't get rid of him. She tried to cut him off and was saying "at some point there became no point in getting rid of you." It could be revisionist history on her part but she does seem to realize that having him in the final was good for her.


----------



## SleepyBob (Sep 28, 2000)

stalemate said:


> Do you get $100k for 3rd place?


I don't know what it is for sure. I think when they had two-person finals that 2nd place was $100K, so that is what I was using in my example.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

acegolfer said:


> I'm glad that you saw what I saw in Sandra's game. Given what she had, she played a flawless game. I have not seen yet a single post pointing a flaw in her game plan.


You're reading what you want to read and seeing what you want to see.

Her game was bland. She was just being herself. And luckily for her, her personality works great in this game. Save yourself, shut up when you have to, scheme a bit but don't push it too far, don't put all your eggs in one basket.

I don't call that strategy at all -- it's just her personality. She did very little strategizing in my opinion. And like she alluded to last night, that's her strategy.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

betts4 said:


> But a jury is a jury, not individuals. Juries at trials are allowed to sit in a room around a table and talk to each other. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to talk to each other until the very end, after the final tribal council.....but that's not this game. Jeff said it last night when Russell brought up having America vote. "That's not this game". The players know that the jury is going to sit around and talk to each other. I think that would be part of the social game aspect. Thinking about what your jury would think of you.


Juries at trails are not allowed to discuss the trail until it is presented to them.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Family said:


> A few points:
> 
> Sandra - Her skill seems to mostly be overlooked by posters because she is too great a player for many here to appreciate it. Sorry....... She lost her entire alliance and still survived.


Wait, that's Colby's strategy. If he had won would you be saying he was a great strategic player?

We all (including Colby) think Colby was a lousy player this season. I don't see a ton of difference between Sandra and Colby outside of their huge personality differences.

As Colby's alliance was picked apart, Colby was simply the last one left. Tom goes, Candice goes, Rupert goes...

Same with Sandra. Rob goes, Courtney goes, etc.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

brianric said:


> Juries at trails are not allowed to discuss the trail until it is presented to them.


And then they are allowed to discuss it after all the evidence is present.

Survivor is the exact opposite. They can discuss all they want until the "trial" and then (as far as I know) they have absolutely no opportunity to discuss before casting their votes.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

acegolfer said:


> I read that. But as I explained, she said that at final TC only to win heroes' votes.
> 
> When Sandra had the chance to get rid of Russell, she didn't pursue it. I guess people didn't see that.


This. The constant "let's get rid of Russell" could have been game play only with no real intention of doing so. If that was her strategy it was pure genius and she's smart enough not to reveal it even now in the event she gets a third shot at Survivor. Sandra is a very quiet player and knows how to keep a secret.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

betts4 said:


> .....but that's not this game. Jeff said it last night when Russell brought up having America vote. "That's not this game.


True but it's also why I'm loosing interst in Survivor. I believe there is a flaw in "this game", though I don't care for a viewer vote either. I like the way it works until the jury vote. I don't know how to fix it but having a bunch of losers choose the winner doesn't seem right.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

betts4 said:


> But a jury is a jury, not individuals. Juries at trials are allowed to sit in a room around a table and talk to each other. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to talk to each other until the very end, after the final tribal council.....but that's not this game.


If they are going to let the players mingle and discuss their final votes at Ponderosa, they should at least let the viewers listen in. I would love to see a dedicated segment where they all gather together and discuss the gameplay of the finalists. This is what they do on _Big Brother_, and it really helps the audience to understand the rationale behind the final votes.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Jeeters said:


> What I think he was trying to say, but was having a hard time with, was that because he played back-to-back, he never had any chance to see and reflect on what he did right or wrong in the first game and to alter his gameplay the second time around. He just played the second game the exact same way as he played the first game. He had no time for "lessons learned".


Russell would have played the same game even if there was tie off between seasons. He basically said so at the Reunion.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

I really didn't like Sandra's attitude during the reunion show. Sure, she won, but drop the attitude - you're better than that, and you're better than Russell.

One thing Tom said was very true and should ring loud and clear for everyone for seasons to come. Survivor is a game of thirds. Outwit, Outplay, Outlast. Also Strategy, Social, and Luck.

While I am okay with Sandra winning, I think that Parvati demonstrated greater skills as an all-around player. Russell, once again, doesn't get it - Danielle hit the nail on the head. He may be great and strategizing in the game, but his jury management was abyssmal at best and more likely could/should be described as non-existant.

I've no doubt that, if given another opportunity, Boston Rob would in fact kick his ass all the way up and down the island.

Sad that America voted for Russell as the player of the season - that should have gone to either Parvati or Boston Rob.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

janry said:


> True but it's also why I'm loosing interst in Survivor. I belive there is a flaw in "this game", though I don't care for a viewer vote either. I like the way it works until the jury vote. I don't know how to fix it but having a bunch of losers choose the winner doesn't seem right.


I don't think there's a flaw in the game. The ultimate goal of the game is to convince the jury that you deserve the million. If you don't think so, then you are watching a different game. It's been that way for 20 seasons. Maybe the players have gotten smarter and realize that's the way to win. You want a different game where you get points for winning challenges or for backstabbing your alliance or whatever. But that's not Survivor, and it's never been Survivor.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

LordKronos said:


> And then they are allowed to discuss it after all the evidence is present.
> 
> Survivor is the exact opposite. They can discuss all they want until the "trial" and then (as far as I know) they have absolutely no opportunity to discuss before casting their votes.


And vote there emotions versus looking at the facts. Parv should have won.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I don't think there's a flaw in the game. The ultimate goal of the game is to convince the jury that you deserve the million. If you don't think so, then you are watching a different game. It's been that way for 20 seasons. Maybe the players have gotten smarter and realize that's the way to win. You want a different game where you get points for winning challenges or for backstabbing your alliance or whatever. But that's not Survivor, and it's never been Survivor.


I realize that's the game. What I'm saying is "the game" is getting old. It needs a big make-over. By now we realize "the game" is decided by the losers. It's time for new rules.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

janry said:


> True but it's also why I'm loosing interst in Survivor. I believe there is a flaw in "this game", though I don't care for a viewer vote either. I like the way it works until the jury vote. I don't know how to fix it but having a bunch of losers choose the winner doesn't seem right.


Actually you might be almost on to something...

I wouldn't mind seeing something where the current Jury becomes witnesses that have to present the case to the players that are sent out of the game the earliest. In other words, have the jury be composed of people that never got a chance to see all of the stuff that makes the current jury members hate on the players that are left. Let the people that made the final 9 present the questions and let the final 3 give their arguments for why they deserve to win and then have the earliest rejects from the tribes vote based on the arguments that are presented. Much more drama and fireworks that way as the players that lasted almost until the end will get to slam the final 3 but when they slam them they'll also have to convince relatively impartial players that the persons they are targetting (for winning or losing) should or shouldn't win. It keeps some of the emotion that exists now, keeps players that were in the game involved throughout but also distances the vote from the popularity contest it now is.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

billypritchard said:


> All the Sandra-hate is really crazy.
> 
> I bolded this statement above because I think it perfectly states WHY Sandra is a great player. If she is such a boring coat-rider, then why was she more dangerous than Courtney? Because she's cagey. Because she's not just your puppet. Because she'll flip on you. Because she'll push your buttons. And that was Russell's mistake, not Parv's. She wanted to keep Courtney.
> 
> ...


Great analysis! Spot on!


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Family said:


> Saying that Russell is a great player.... Sandra had him underrate her the entire game (despite being a former winner) and knew how to take advantage of that by manipulating Russell without him even realizing it. Her brillance is so subtle most viewers don't see it.


Ockham's razor would say we don't see it because it's not there.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

terpfan1980 said:


> Actually you might be almost on to something...
> 
> I wouldn't mind seeing something where the current Jury becomes witnesses that have to present the case to the players that are sent out of the game the earliest. In other words, have the jury be composed of people that never got a chance to see all of the stuff that makes the current jury members hate on the players that are left. Let the people that made the final 9 present the questions and let the final 3 give their arguments for why they deserve to win and then have the earliest rejects from the tribes vote based on the arguments that are presented. Much more drama and fireworks that way as the players that lasted almost until the end will get to slam the final 3 but when they slam them they'll also have to convince relatively impartial players that the persons they are targetting (for winning or losing) should or shouldn't win. It keeps some of the emotion that exists now, keeps players that were in the game involved throughout but also distances the vote from the popularity contest it now is.


The winner would still be chosen by losers. But how about doing what you suggest except have the final vote by a panel of former winners?


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I think the best way to shake up Survivor would be to try to minimize the formation and impact of early alliances. Tribe switch-ups, incentives to flip, etc.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

latenight said:


> Russell assumed that people who had played before would respect gameplay more than the social aspect and tonights result showed it is the complete opposite. Social trumps all which is a shame.


Survivor has NEVER been about the purely physical aspect of strategy - it has 100% every single time since Richard Hatch wrote the book been about stabbing people in the back and still making them like you for having done so.

To say otherwise is to project something that simply just isn't there.

Sure, you need a very strong strategy to move forward in the game, but that strategy MUST include a strong social game.

Name me a winner who didn't have a social game - name a winner that won solely based on strategy.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Survivor has NEVER been about the purely physical aspect of strategy - it has 100% every single time since Richard Hatch wrote the book been about *stabbing people in the back and still making them like you for having done so*.


And Russell gets the first part but not the second part.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

SleepyBob said:


> I don't know what it is for sure. I think when they had two-person finals that 2nd place was $100K, so that is what I was using in my example.


Whomever updated Wikipedia thinks that 2nd place was upped to $250k for All-Stars, and they in a regular season with 3 at final tribal the other two got $100k each
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_(TV_series)#Prizes

We may not end up knowing exactly how much they get as a non-winner, but it's safe to assume that making it to final does get you a decent paycheck for six weeks work.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

janry said:


> I realize that's the game. What I'm saying is "the game" is getting old. It needs a big make-over. By now we realize "the game" is decided by the losers. It's time for new rules.


I'm kinda with you.

Unfortunately, a change might make things worse.


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

Too many times the more 'boring' player has won because the jury is mad at the more aggressive player that got them voted out. So they choose anyone else but who they are mad at to win, and the way to win Survivor appears to be by being nonthreatening in challenges and by not ruffling anyone's feelings. Riding along on the best players' coattails shouldn't get anyone a win in my opinion.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

Family said:


> Saying that Russell is a great player.... Sandra had him underrate her the entire game (despite being a former winner) and knew how to take advantage of that by manipulating Russell without him even realizing it. Her brillance is so subtle most viewers don't see it.


Well said! Many viewers still don't see her game plan and argues Sandra didn't deserve to win.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

brianric said:


> Russell would have played the same game even if there was tie off between seasons. He basically said so at the Reunion.


Possibly, possibly not. There is another aspect to look at besides "learning from his mistakes". Had there been a break, the other contestants would have got to see him play previously, and that would have changed a LOT. Perhaps for the better, perhaps for the worse.

When I watched Russell last season, I didn't care much for his attitude and his style. The he found an idol without a clue and I was like "that was impressive, you a-hole". Then he played it well and I was like "nicely done". Then he found another idol without a clue and wielded that one equally impressively. Then everyone was following him around trying to prevent him from finding the idol, and when he found it had managed to ditch the guy tailing him, double back, and claim it. I was really impressed. All the while, he was in a little bit of trouble and had to work extra hard to get to the final, and I really liked his gameplay. It was throughout this process that I really came to appreciate Russell's style. Of course, once he got back in control, his arrogance came out again and it was annoying, but I could now appreciate his style and his strategy.

So perhaps, if others could have seen him play, they might better be able to judge his style and maybe they (like me) would have appreciated certain aspects of his style better.

Of course, if they had seen it, this would have been an entirely different season. No idol from JT, he probably would have been targetted much earlier, etc. There's no point in speculating what would have happened in THIS game if they had seen it, because it would have been a totally different game. But I think perhaps that was part of what Russell meant when he said he only played one game, though (much like at the final jury both times) he just did a really crappy job of explaining his thinking.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

TomK said:


> Too many times the more 'boring' player has won because the jury is mad at the more aggressive player that got them voted out. So they choose anyone else but who they are mad at to win, and the way to win Survivor appears to be by being nonthreatening in challenges and by not ruffling anyone's feelings. Riding along on the best players' coattails shouldn't get anyone a win in my opinion.


Natalie rode along with Russell last season. You can not say that Sandra did the same this season. At best she was tenuously aligned with the remaining villains, and many times opposed to them. And those 'best' players, they needed Sandra's vote to stay in the game themselves. Duos don't get to the Finals, they need alliances. But better make sure you go the finals with people you can beat!


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

billypritchard said:


> Natalie rode along with Russell last season.


And IMO Sandra was a much better player than Natalie.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

uncdrew said:


> Wait, that's Colby's strategy. If he had won would you be saying he was a great strategic player?
> 
> We all (including Colby) think Colby was a lousy player this season. I don't see a ton of difference between Sandra and Colby outside of their huge personality differences.
> 
> ...


At least Sandra was scrambling to do _something _in the game. Her one move was to try to get Russell out, and she failed at it, but at least she was trying. Colby was a dead-fish the whole game. Even when he did try to make a strategic move it was weak. Too little, too late. But, Colby's claim-to-fame was his dominance in the challenges, which he sucked at this season, and that is why he got so much attention for being lousy.

Sandra's anti-Russell campaign turned out to be the best strategy she could have played. Sure, she lucked into that; but she is smart enough to realize what is working and stick with it. She knew, as did Parvati, that Russell did not have a chance with the jury. Sandra correctly figured that the best thing for her to do was distance herself from Russell. As the only person to have actively campaigned against him and survived, that was something she could say that Parvati could not.

I think Sandra should get some credit for that. Russell is a master manipulator, and has a crazy ego. If he thinks you are after him in any way - and he's totally paranoid - he will work to get you out, and he is usually successful. The fact that she managed to not be targeted by Russell, while he went after people who hadn't yet gone after him, says something for her game.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Btw, what was with the big dramatic pause of Colby when he was talking about making his last-ditch pitch to Russell. That may have been the longest we've ever seen someone sit there not saying anything. Pretty lame IMO.

But that was a great ending to the immunity challenge when they were blindfolded.

Oh, and I liked Danielle's dress she wore at the final TC. She looked very nice.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> Oh, and I liked Danielle's dress she wore at the final TC. She looked very nice.


hubba hubba


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

uncdrew said:


> You're reading what you want to read and seeing what you want to see.
> 
> Her game was bland. She was just being herself. And luckily for her, her personality works great in this game. Save yourself, shut up when you have to, scheme a bit but don't push it too far, don't put all your eggs in one basket.
> 
> I don't call that strategy at all -- it's just her personality. She did very little strategizing in my opinion. And like she alluded to last night, that's her strategy.


Some viewers can see her strategy but most people don't. She did more than what you claimed she did.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

What some of you guys fail to understand is the layer of complexity that is added to the game by the jury. It would be all too easy to just turn it into a back-stabbing cutthroat kind of game if the jury didn't exist. 

Everyone is just seeing what changes would happen that they want to see. What you're missing is all the social and psychological networking that would be lost. And that stuff is what I think really makes the game interesting.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

Byteofram said:


> Part of her game plan was to get rid of Russell...didn't happen. That's pretty big, because had that happened who knows who the final 3 would have been. I'm having a hard time going back now and thinking about what even happened during the season...I'm sure there are more, but that's the biggie that sticks out.


Yup - and she needed to change that game plan. She adapted to the situation time and time again. She was going to be taken out and instead, deflected all the attention onto Coach and then became a good little puppy to Russell all the while trying to get the Heroes to quit having brain farts and voting him out - which he never discovered.

That alone right there makes her victory justified. She was against Russell, yet Russell never got rid of her.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> I'm kinda with you.
> 
> Unfortunately, a change might make things worse.


I can't see them ever changing something that is such a fundamental aspect of the game. It would be like admitting that they did it wrong for the first 20-plus seasons. Personally, I get frustrated that the jury can base their decision on any arbitrary criteria that they want to. Most of them seem to vote against people who got them voted off, instead of respecting the fact that the person, by definition, outplayed them. But, they all go into the game knowing the rules and what the ultimate goal is. If they don't play with that in mind, and limit their strategy to what will get them to the final 3, then that's as far as they deserve to get.

I think that a season like this, actually both seasons with Russell, will really have an impact on how future players approach the game. It should be clear now that most jurors aren't going to base their votes on how aggressively you strategized in order to get in front of the jury.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

latrobe7 said:


> At least Sandra was scrambling to do _something _in the game. Her one move was to try to get Russell out, and she failed at it, but at least she was trying. Colby was a dead-fish the whole game. Even when he did try to make a strategic move it was weak. Too little, too late. But, Colby's claim-to-fame was his dominance in the challenges, which he sucked at this season, and that is why he got so much attention for being lousy.


I agree.

Colby was a disappointment. But I liked the insight he gave us at the reunion, and it helped explain it. He liked fishing, diving, exploring.

Dump him on the camp and not let him explore and he loses his mojo. It makes him a lousy Survivor player for sure. But it helped explain part of the reason he was so craptacular this season.

You gotta be somewhat of a whack job to do well in this game. Or rather, to want to be on the show. Hey, go sit around in the rain for 30 days with no food and a bunch of strangers who want you to fail. Uh, I'll pass, thanks.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

LordKronos said:


> (I see the problem, but I was just hoping these players would see past it and focus on the parts of his play that were spectacular). But there you sit on the opposite end of the spectrum, denying all the credit that he rightly deserves.


Let's say you're an olympic diver. You can do all the tucks, twists, flips and moves flawlessly yet when you hit the water, you make a HUGE splash.

Should that person get the Gold medal because everything else but the landing was incredibly spectacular? The judges (jury) needs to evaluate the entire game.

I forget which one of the jury members said it, but I remember hearing something along the lines of "you told lies that you didn't need to and that served no purpose".

Russell was incredible - his ability to sniff out plots is undeniable - his ability to decide who goes home is seemingly unrivaled. But his unwillingness - STUBBORN unwillingness to even bother with a known given fact that there's a social requirement to the game as well speaks volumes to other players.

Sure, Russell thought that he'd win based on his superior strategic play - he felt that the jury would have no choice but to reward him for being so outstanding in that aspect of the game. What the jury decided though was to not reward Russell because he completely and totally disregarded, ignored, and shrugged off a very important aspect of the game. I think that the jury was appalled at Russell's abject disdain and disrespect for a very important side of the game.


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

All I know is that Survivor is my favorite show for all the reasons that have been discussed in this one thread.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

I have been praising Sandra's strategy for 3 weeks. 

But I think Parv deserves to win. Unfortunately, Parv basically blew her chance at the final TC. She disappointed me. Very very bad speech and answers at the final TC. 

Can anyone explain why Natalie won last year but Parv failed to win this season? They both used similar strategies.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

Wouldn't it be fun to see Russell play once again - this time with a keen understanding of the social aspect of the game? Imagine watching him try to adapt his game play. Won't happen, but it would sure be interesting.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

acegolfer said:


> Some viewers can see her strategy but most people don't. She did more than what you claimed she did.


It's all opinions. If most people don't see it, perhaps it's because there's nothing to see. You are no smarter than the rest of us, and you're no more right in your opinion than I am.

I think she was just being herself, and her personality worked great for this game. She did nothing most of the time -- let others (Boston Rob or Russell) be her leader and keep her safe. That's fine -- boring, but fine. It's a proven strategy that works a lot.

Then, at the merge, she tried to convice the heroes about Russell and Parv. Anyone in her shoes would have done the same. That's my main argument to the "Sandra is a great strategizer". She didn't plot, and plan, and think 3 steps ahead of people. She just did what she had to do to cover her ass and not go home. I think she even said something like that. And that's great and it can win -- but it's not really a strategy. It's more just "save your ass" thinking.

I will give her credit for deflecting attention and keeping her mouth shut when she needed to. But nothing she did came anywhere close to the in-game moves Russell, Parvati and others pulled off. She was the right person in the right place at the right time.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

I'll bet they cast another "Russell type" in the next season.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

Russell got 0 votes because she made Danielle cry at TC. All the jury saw that. Had he not done so, he would have gotten at least 1 vote from Coach.


----------



## LlamaLarry (Apr 30, 2003)

uncdrew said:


> Colby was a disappointment. But I liked the insight he gave us at the reunion, and it helped explain it. He liked fishing, diving, exploring.


Does anyone know why they were not allowed to do those things this season? I've always been a little baffled why they don't forage for food further than what seems like a few hundred feet from the camp, but never really thought that they were restricted (within reason) of where they could go and what they could do during the "off time".


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

acegolfer said:


> Can anyone explain why Natalie won last year but Parv failed to win this season? They both used similar strategies.


The final three (Russell, Natalie, and Mick) were all originally Foa Foa tribe members and the jury was overwhelmingly original Galu members so they hated Russell, and probably hated Mick too. Natalie didn't ruffle anyone.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Russell was incredible - his ability to sniff out plots is undeniable - his ability to decide who goes home is seemingly unrivaled. But his unwillingness - STUBBORN unwillingness to even bother with a known given fact that there's a social requirement to the game as well speaks volumes to other players.


And he called Rupert a dumbass to his face. Why? That was absurd. Nothing to gain from that.

I do think Russell will be back on Survivor some day. Seems clear that America wants that, and if America wants that, the producers of Survivor will want that.

...and I'm betting that Russell will change his play next time. He'll still lie, he'll still be arrogant. But I do think he will soon realize he needs to think of the end-game and jury a lot more. He was pissy and stubborn last night, but I think he'll change.

It's fine to Outwit and deceive. Just be cool about it.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> I will give her credit for deflecting attention and keeping her mouth shut when she needed to. But nothing she did came anywhere close to the in-game moves Russell, Parvati and others pulled off. *She was the right person in the right place at the right time.*


AKA "The Winner"


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

acegolfer said:


> I have been praising Sandra's strategy for 3 weeks.
> 
> But I think Parv deserves to win. Unfortunately, Parv basically blew her chance at the final TC. She disappointed me. Very very bad speech and answers at the final TC.
> 
> Can anyone explain why Natalie won last year but Parv failed to win this season? They both used similar strategies.


Parv's dragon thing to start was awesome. Very well said. But yeah, other than that she didn't really do too well.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

wendiness1 said:


> Wouldn't it be fun to see Russell play once again - this time with a keen understanding of the social aspect of the game? Imagine watching him try to adapt his game play. Won't happen, but it would sure be interesting.


I was going to say it wouldn't happen because he will never have a keen understanding of the social aspect. He still didn't get it last night.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

retrodog said:


> What you're missing is all the social and psychological networking that would be lost. And that stuff is what I think really makes the game interesting.


That might be an important aspect of the game, but without the strategy aspect the game would be wholly uninteresting. Witness the first season of Big Brother. Aggressive strategic play, such as sharing information, forming coalitions, etc. was specifically forbidden by the rules and the show was a complete snooze. It wasn't until the second season when the producers introduced rule changes that encouraged strategy that the show became interesting.



jeff125va said:


> I think that a season like this, actually both seasons with Russell, will really have an impact on how future players approach the game. It should be clear now that most jurors aren't going to base their votes on how aggressively you strategized in order to get in front of the jury.


+1. And that doesn't leave me much hope for this show. If the main strategy is to play nice so the jury won't vote you out then the show won't be worth watching.

As for Russell's idea for getting America to help vote, that isn't going to work either. I'm pretty sure America will vote on emotion too. (Another lesson from the first season of Big Brother. America voted off the troublemakers, the interesting people, first, leaving behind the bland contestants, who then proceeded to turn the second half of the season into a boring love-fest.)


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> And he called Rupert a dumbass to his face. Why? That was absurd. Nothing to gain from that.
> 
> I do think Russell will be back on Survivor some day. Seems clear that America wants that, and if America wants that, the producers of Survivor will want that.
> 
> ...


I think the editors showed us more of 'Camp' Russell this time than they did last time. I would bet there were moments like the Rupert fight that happened last season, we just didn't see it because they needed us to be surprised when Natalie won. This season, different story to tell so they let us see him being a real jerk many times to many people. His loss last season makes more sense in retrospect.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

LlamaLarry said:


> Does anyone know why they were not allowed to do those things this season? I've always been a little baffled why they don't forage for food further than what seems like a few hundred feet from the camp, but never really thought that they were restricted (within reason) of where they could go and what they could do during the "off time".


No idea. It completely caught me off-guard.

I liked the seasons where people went fishing and chased boars and such. It gave us more to watch and created the "we can't vote off the guy who gets us breakfast" element.


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

The first season of Big Brother they let the morons watching the show vote for the winner. One contestant was this guy who was missing a leg and was a total a-hole. The whole house hated him, but I guess the audience felt sorry for him. After about the third episode I knew that a-hole would win and stopped watching. They learned their lesson and the second season the players were given the vote.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

billypritchard said:


> AKA "The Winner"


Agreed.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

appleye1 said:


> As for Russell's idea for getting America to help vote, that isn't going to work either. I'm pretty sure America will vote on emotion too. (Another lesson from the first season of Big Brother. America voted off the troublemakers, the interesting people, first, leaving behind the bland contestants, who then proceeded to turn the second half of the season into a boring love-fest.)


The problem with the viewers voting, is that we can be swayed too easily with editing.

tk


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

wendiness1 said:


> Wouldn't it be fun to see Russell play once again - this time with a keen understanding of the social aspect of the game? Imagine watching him try to adapt his game play. Won't happen, but it would sure be interesting.


Yes, I think that would be awesome! I really think he is capable of playing the social game. He can be charming, and if he just kept his ego and paranoia to himself, he could win. Then at the reunion special he could tell everyone how great he is without dispute, kind of like Sandra did.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

billypritchard said:


> I think the editors showed us more of 'Camp' Russell this time than they did last time. I would bet there were moments like the Rupert fight that happened last season, we just didn't see it because they needed us to be surprised when Natalie won. This season, different story to tell so they let us see him being a real jerk many times to many people. His loss last season makes more sense in retrospect.


...and of course there's so much we don't see. The reunion show had that one part where the cast commented on how Russell was yapping non-stop and super annoying.

I imagine being on the show with him would suck horribly.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

LlamaLarry said:


> Does anyone know why they were not allowed to do those things this season? I've always been a little baffled why they don't forage for food further than what seems like a few hundred feet from the camp, but never really thought that they were restricted (within reason) of where they could go and what they could do during the "off time".





uncdrew said:


> No idea. It completely caught me off-guard.
> 
> I liked the seasons where people went fishing and chased boars and such. It gave us more to watch and created the "we can't vote off the guy who gets us breakfast" element.


My wife and I commented how they seemed "less hungry" this season. My guess is that in order to get people to go through this more than once they had to go easy on the starvation aspect. Once people have done it once they know how terrible it is. So the show provided more food and didn't require or allow the hunting stuff.

Just a guess.

tk


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> I think that a season like this, actually both seasons with Russell, will really have an impact on how future players approach the game. It should be clear now that most jurors aren't going to base their votes on how aggressively you strategized in order to get in front of the jury.


I would still argue that an aggressive backstabber can win the game. You just have to do it with a lot more finesse than someone like Russel is capable of. For proof, look no further than the evil Dr. Will from _Big Brother_. He lied to virtually everybody, and yet they still voted for him in the end. I realize it's a different game, but the reason Will won was because he essentially remained likable.

Russel made a bunch of very smart moves this season, but he completely failed in the execution. For example, there is a big difference between simply breaking an alliance with someone and how Russel handled the whole Danielle thing. He yelled at her, belittled her and tormented her, and he certainly didn't earn any brownie points in the process. Also, you have to be pretty clueless to swear on the life of your kids and then go back on it. Of course there are going to be repercussions. The fact of the matter is that many people view something like that as so distasteful that they would never give you a vote no matter how well you played the game. I'm not saying I agree with that, but it is what it is. Many people are deeply religious and find such an act as morally reprehensible.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

heySkippy said:


> I think the best way to shake up Survivor would be to try to minimize the formation and impact of early alliances. Tribe switch-ups, incentives to flip, etc.


I'd like to see this. It'd be difficult to implement because you don't want to have too many flips. You want "groups" or "packs" forming because then the drama comes from one in the "pack" feeling insecure at their position and creating a need/desire (brought on by paranoia) to "get someone before they get got themselves".

It would be nice to see a tribe change up again. It's been far too long.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

It's interesting. Last season, I was pretty disappointed that Natalie beat Russell. He was the Godfather and she truly was a coat-tail rider. Her main thing going for her was 'I'm not Russell', and she was rewarded by what was a very bitter jury.

But this season, I'm totally on board with a Sandra win? That's weird, but I think it points to the fact that Sandra did not play Natalie's game. She did not fly under the wing of a powerful player. She was out by herself much of the time. She had to save herself here and there. She got in Russell's face several times. She tried some moves, but wisely didn't go through with them when it was apparent the Heroes were dumber than boxes of rocks. Plus, she was sassy. She had funny confessionals. She survived being a Villain, so I give her props.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

Necromancer2006 said:


> The judges (jury) needs to evaluate the entire game.


Nonsense. The judges need do no such thing. They can vote based on anything they want. Game play, friendship, or "guess a number". I was hoping that a plurality of them would choose the criteria I was most interested in, but that's not how it turned out.



> I forget which one of the jury members said it, but I remember hearing something along the lines of "you told lies that you didn't need to and that served no purpose".


That was Rupert, and I disagreed with that statement. I would like to know which lies he thinks were not necessary. Danielle vs Parvati? I think he had a legitimate concern that warranted breaking them up. Teaming up with Rupert and Colby? I don't think he lied as much as was angry with Jerri at the moment, but if it was a lie I think it could be justified as keeping them from trying to scramble to get Russell out. Lying to Candice about the final 3? Sandra was ready to defect and if he hadn't lied to Candice he very well might have been voted out that time.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

So - who wants to know if next season's tribe names will be this: 


Spoiler



Sandinistas and the Contras



(yes, it's a joke.)


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

fliptheflop said:


> Russell plays the game to win but his problem is he counts on the jury to pick the person who did the best in the game. That just doesn't happen anymore.


When did it?



janry said:


> I haven't finished watching the reunion yet, but when Russell wanted to tell what the flaw was in the game, I thought for sure he was going to nail it but he didn't. I was so hoping he was going to say the flaw is that the final vote is by a bunch of losers.
> 
> Why should we expect losers to get the vote right?


It's not a flaw in the game if it's the essence of the game. I can understand why some people don't like it, but it is what this game is all about.



LordKronos said:


> I agree. I think Erik's move of giving up immunity to prove his loyalty was the dumbest move of the choices listed. However, the REAL dumbest move was a person not even in the choices. I don't remember who it was, or what season (3 or 4 maybe), but there was the guy who, when it got down to to the final 3, he stepped down from the immunity challenge because he had made a promise to do so, and he promptly got voted out. Giving up immunity when there were 6 or so people as Erik did was one thing. Giving up your shot to make it to the final tribal council was even dumber.


Ian, I believe. In the season Tom won, Palau. (Season 10?)



wendiness1 said:


> I'll bet they cast another "Russell type" in the next season.


They cast them in _every _season.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

inaka said:


> Luck? He was the very one who manipulated Tyson right before the vote. Russell's the one that convinced Tyson that Parv was going home and that all their vote splitting didn't matter. He was the very reason Tyson even entertained the idea of that vote.


Russell was skilled to come up with the idea to work Tyson, but lucky in that he was working an idiot that would listen to him.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> And he called Rupert a dumbass to his face. Why? That was absurd. Nothing to gain from that.
> 
> I do think Russell will be back on Survivor some day. Seems clear that America wants that, and if America wants that, the producers of Survivor will want that.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I think he'll eventually get that if he wants to win, he's going to have to avoid alienating the jury. It seems to me that he's been clinging to some idealistic hope that other players would see his game for what it is and vote for him on that basis, instead of taking things personally. Part of the problem though, is that he MADE things personal. Like calling Rupert a dumbass, the way he acted toward Danielle, etc. If he truly understood the game, at least the end-game aspect of it, he'd have to realize that the jurors can vote any way they damn well please.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

LlamaLarry said:


> Does anyone know why they were not allowed to do those things this season? I've always been a little baffled why they don't forage for food further than what seems like a few hundred feet from the camp, but never really thought that they were restricted (within reason) of where they could go and what they could do during the "off time".


Perhaps there were "others" on the island?


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

LordKronos said:


> Possibly, possibly not.


There is no possibly. Are you watching a different reunion show that I watched? He even said to Harry Smith on the Early Show that he wouldn't change the way he played. Russell is a legend in his own mine.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

TomK said:


> All I know is that Survivor is my favorite show for all the reasons that have been discussed in this one thread.


Same here, saw every episode.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

I don't have time to read the whole thread right now but I wanted to check in! Here are my thoughts. 

1. The entire game (for the most part) was decided at last nights Tribal Council. Russell and Parvati blew it by saying too much, and Sandra was brilliant by saying "just enough". 

2. Sandra had the perfect speech, "If only you Hero's had listened to ME you might not be sitting on the jury". How could they NOT vote for her? 

3. This will probably change the game of Survivor somewhat until it has time to adapt. This last season sent a very clear message... We will likely not see another Villain quite as nuts as Russell, and you can bet people will be a lot more wary of Floaters in the future as there will likely be more of them... Once they start kicking off the floaters earlier, I feel the series will "self correct". At least I hope so...
I AM glad Russell won America's Choice. He deserved it the most and I agree with the people that said this was the best Season of Survivor EVER!

4. Russell WILL play differently next time, and when he does, I bet Boston Rob is there too. Along with all of us.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

janry said:


> I realize that's the game. What I'm saying is "the game" is getting old. It needs a big make-over. By now we realize "the game" is decided by the losers. It's time for new rules.


Maybe for your tastes, but I like it just as it is. I thought this season was far from boring. In fact, I love the idea that the bully doesn't win. You need the bully around to make it to the finals to keep it interesting, but I don't want him/her to win. Neither does the jury. I kept saying to my wife, that it's great Russell keeps making these moves because the longer he stays on, the more interesting the game is. But we were absolutely rooting against him (and to a lesser extent Parv). It's great when the bully gets his. And it's great that Russell just doesn't GET it!!

All these jury shows are the same. Big Brother works the same way, the REAL bullies rarely win, unless two of them somehow survive to the end, then it's the lesser of two evils. And you can play a devious game and have people like you at the same time. Remember Dan from a few seasons ago? He played a devious, and some would say a dirty game, but in the end, the jury both liked him and respected his game play, and he won. THAT'S how you win Survivor or you will GET a winner like Sandra, who played better than most people think, but may have won more because she was the lesser of three evils.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

acegolfer said:


> Great analysis! Spot on!


THAT was the move that Sandra made that I couldn't remember, getting them to ax coach, which saved her hide.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

hefe said:


> It's not a flaw in the game if it's the essence of the game. I can understand why some people don't like it, but it is what this game is all about.


Yep and it goes along with Jeff's comment about that. Nothing like going down the road with blinders on. Stick to your guns, Jeff. I didn't like Russell's suggestion but I'd keep my eyes open to make changes to hopefully improve the show.

If indeed the essence of the show is to have a bunch of losers that have had their feelings hurt decide the outcome, then, maybe this isn't the show for me. I guess I'm beginning to realize that. Nothing like vesting several hours in a show just to have it come down to a bunch of sniveling losers exacting revenge on those that outwitted, outplayed and outlasted them.

However, I don't believe the producers are really so stuck to doing things the same way. They've innovated the show in the past. I'm hopeful they will innovate some more. Maybe it won't be to change the final vote. But something pretty big needs to happen to keep this thing fresh.


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

acegolfer said:


> I have been praising Sandra's strategy for 3 weeks.
> 
> But I think Parv deserves to win. Unfortunately, Parv basically blew her chance at the final TC. She disappointed me. Very very bad speech and answers at the final TC.
> 
> Can anyone explain why Natalie won last year but Parv failed to win this season? They both used similar strategies.


I think the big difference this season is the 3rd player involved - Sandra. She made friends with the Heroes, and that was the difference in the voting.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

LordKronos said:


> Possibly, possibly not. There is another aspect to look at besides "learning from his mistakes". Had there been a break, the other contestants would have got to see him play previously, and that would have changed a LOT. Perhaps for the better, perhaps for the worse.
> 
> When I watched Russell last season, I didn't care much for his attitude and his style. The he found an idol without a clue and I was like "that was impressive, you a-hole". Then he played it well and I was like "nicely done". Then he found another idol without a clue and wielded that one equally impressively. Then everyone was following him around trying to prevent him from finding the idol, and when he found it had managed to ditch the guy tailing him, double back, and claim it. I was really impressed. All the while, he was in a little bit of trouble and had to work extra hard to get to the final, and I really liked his gameplay. It was throughout this process that I really came to appreciate Russell's style. Of course, once he got back in control, his arrogance came out again and it was annoying, but I could now appreciate his style and his strategy.
> 
> ...


I don't think OTHERS having seen Russel's game play would have helped him, it probably would have HURT him. But, Russel not seeing the outcome of LAST season might have hurt him a LOT more. He essentially played the same arrogant game, and the results were the same. Maybe if he had realized he had lost last time, he might have played "friendlier". And maybe not. He might not have it IN him. And what a sore loser. The GAME is flawed, not him!!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Yup - and she needed to change that game plan. She adapted to the situation time and time again. She was going to be taken out and instead, deflected all the attention onto Coach and then became a good little puppy to Russell all the while trying to get the Heroes to quit having brain farts and voting him out - which he never discovered.
> 
> That alone right there makes her victory justified. She was against Russell, yet Russell never got rid of her.


Russell never got rid of her because he kept thinking he could WIN the way he was playing and that Sandra couldn't. That's his fatal flaw in the game.


----------



## rkallerud (Feb 24, 2003)

I think an interesting twist to the game in upcoming seasons would be simply to keep the tribe structure as is, with immunity challenges, tribal councils, etc. BUT instead of having the two tribes live at separate camps, have them live at the same camp. They could socialize, make alliances across tribes early in the game, see the dynamics of the other tribe, try to influence members of the opposite tribe, vie to find the same immunity idol, etc.

It would also put the players into a situation where they have the opportunity to play a social game with all of the players in the game and not just the members of their own tribe.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Russell never got rid of her because he kept thinking he could WIN the way he was playing and that Sandra couldn't. That's his fatal flaw in the game.


I agree 100%. Because of his shortsightedness, Russel never even considered for a moment that Sandra would get any votes at the end. The guy was in his own world.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

rkallerud said:


> I think an interesting twist to the game in upcoming seasons would be simply to keep the tribe structure as is, with immunity challenges, tribal councils, etc. BUT instead of having the two tribes live at separate camps, have them live at the same camp. They could socialize, make alliances across tribes early in the game, see the dynamics of the other tribe, try to influence members of the opposite tribe, vie to find the same immunity idol, etc.
> 
> It would also put the players into a situation where they have the opportunity to play a social game with all of the players in the game and not just the members of their own tribe.


I like this. It would be very different, but really entertaining.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

appleye1 said:


> *That might be an important aspect of the game, but without the strategy aspect the game would be wholly uninteresting. Witness the first season of Big Brother. Aggressive strategic play, such as sharing information, forming coalitions, etc. was specifically forbidden by the rules and the show was a complete snooze. It wasn't until the second season when the producers introduced rule changes that encouraged strategy that the show became interesting.*
> 
> +1. And that doesn't leave me much hope for this show. If the main strategy is to play nice so the jury won't vote you out then the show won't be worth watching.
> 
> As for Russell's idea for getting America to help vote, that isn't going to work either. I'm pretty sure America will vote on emotion too. (Another lesson from the first season of Big Brother. America voted off the troublemakers, the interesting people, first, leaving behind the bland contestants, who then proceeded to turn the second half of the season into a boring love-fest.)


But I think the last few years (and maybe because of Russell) the editing of Survivor shows less and less of the social aspect of the game. I remember they used to show a lot of people fishing together and talking about things in their lives. All they show is the backstabbing and strategic play. What that does is minimize to the viewers the importance of the social aspect.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

rkallerud said:


> I think an interesting twist to the game in upcoming seasons would be simply to keep the tribe structure as is, with immunity challenges, tribal councils, etc. BUT instead of having the two tribes live at separate camps, have them live at the same camp.


They kind of did this briefly in Thailand. Remember the fake merge? I loved that twist.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> All they show is the backstabbing and strategic play. What that does is minimize to the viewers the importance of the social aspect.


You make a valid point. I think the editors went out of their way to get the viewers to side with Russel. The cost was that we didn't get to see some of the other aspects of the game as fully; aspects that were clearly very important to the people playing.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

brianric said:


> There is no possibly. Are you watching a different reunion show that I watched?


But Russell puts on a show, too. That was all saving face. He can't admit he did something wrong. If he could go back I bet he would do something different. He just won't admit it now that he's already made the mistake.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

LordKronos said:


> But Russell puts on a show, too. That was all saving face. He can't admit he did something wrong. If he could go back I bet he would do something different. He just won't admit it now that he's already made the mistake.


I agree. Russell needed a bigger break between seasons to really let it absorb into his thick head what he was doing wrong. *He said it himself at the Reunion. He played ONE long game of Survivor.** I think that was his way of admitting that he probably needs to rethink his current strategy just a bit.* He WANTS to win, he just couldn't see past his own self admiration.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

3 weeks ago, I predicted Sandra would win in a landslide by getting 7 final votes (5 heroes, Coach and Courtney).

http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7915972#post7915972

I was dead wrong about Coach's vote. I really don't know how this game is played.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

LordKronos said:


> But Russell puts on a show, too. That was all saving face. He can't admit he did something wrong. If he could go back I bet he would do something different. He just won't admit it now that he's already made the mistake.


Completely agree. I think that's why he kept saying he played this game only once. That is to me an admission that he knows his strategy won't work.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

acegolfer said:


> 3 weeks ago, I predicted Sandra would win in a landslide by getting 7 final votes (5 heroes, Coach and Courtney).
> 
> http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7915972#post7915972
> 
> I was dead wrong about Coach's vote. I really don't know how this game is played.


I'll admit, I was one who thought Sandra wouldn't win. That all changed the moment I heard her speech at the Final Tribal. I told my Wife on the spot that Sandra just stole the game. Parvati and Russell absolutely BLEW IT at the Final Tribal. It's like they WANTED Sandra to win. Man, I bet they are kicking themselves right now...


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

rkallerud said:


> I think an interesting twist to the game in upcoming seasons would be simply to keep the tribe structure as is, with immunity challenges, tribal councils, etc. BUT instead of having the two tribes live at separate camps, have them live at the same camp. They could socialize, make alliances across tribes early in the game, see the dynamics of the other tribe, try to influence members of the opposite tribe, vie to find the same immunity idol, etc.
> 
> It would also put the players into a situation where they have the opportunity to play a social game with all of the players in the game and not just the members of their own tribe.


Interesting concept. A twist on it would be, rather than having 2 tribes living together, have it be one big tribe, but randomly split them into 2 teams each week. Depending on small alliances of 4 or 5 won't be nearly as effective because, on average, you could only expect 1 or 2 of your alliance members to be on your weekly team. You'd either need to build a huge alliance (which is hard to hide, more difficult to establish without the natural 2-team comradery to foster it, and still at the risk 1 or 2 people randomly thrown in with all the non-alliance members), or you'd have to build a diverse collection of smaller, more fluid relationships.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

I was thinking of this during final TC.

Amanda to Sandra: What was your best strategic move?

Sandra: Voting you (Amanda) off instead of Parvati. Because it puts me in the final 3 with Russell and Parvati.

This answer was probably what Sandra and Amanda had in their minds. But of course Sandra didn't say this. Instead, she admitted her best move was a failure to convince heroes to vote off Russell. Sandra couldn't have come up with any better answer. I bet she expected this question from the jury and prepared the answer before the final TC.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

rkallerud said:


> I think an interesting twist to the game in upcoming seasons would be simply to keep the tribe structure as is, with immunity challenges, tribal councils, etc. BUT instead of having the two tribes live at separate camps, have them live at the same camp. They could socialize, make alliances across tribes early in the game, see the dynamics of the other tribe, try to influence members of the opposite tribe, vie to find the same immunity idol, etc.
> 
> It would also put the players into a situation where they have the opportunity to play a social game with all of the players in the game and not just the members of their own tribe.


I like it. :up:


----------



## vman (Feb 9, 2001)

I'm curious - a large group of people seem to think Parvati should have won, but there is virtually no discussion of her. What exact moves did she make, other than the one week she kept secret her HII and played hers and Russell's both? I'll grant that was awesome, but otherwise I'm not sure what she did other than win a lot of challenges. 

Furthermore, in what way did she actively try to separate herself from Russell publicly? If you are on the jury, what exactly would give you the sense that she was not just riding Russell's coattails?


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

bareyb said:


> I'll admit, I was one who thought Sandra wouldn't win. That all changed the moment I heard her speech at the Final Tribal. I told my Wife on the spot that Sandra just stole the game. Parvati and Russell absolutely BLEW IT at the Final Tribal. It's like they WANTED Sandra to win. Man, I bet they are kicking themselves right now...


I was the same.

Sandra (with a big helpful shove from Rupert and big face-plants from Russell and Parvati) won it at the final tribal council.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

vman said:


> I'm curious - a large group of people seem to think Parvati should have won, but there is virtually no discussion of her. What exact moves did she make, other than the one week she kept secret her HII and played hers and Russell's both? I'll grant that was awesome, but otherwise I'm not sure what she did other than win a lot of challenges.
> 
> Furthermore, in what way did she actively try to separate herself from Russell publicly? If you are on the jury, what exactly would give you the sense that she was not just riding Russell's coattails?


I think you said it.

Strategic moves & winning challenges. 2/3rds of the game (if you think in thirds).

Sandra did 1/3rd of the game well.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

vman said:


> Furthermore, in what way did she actively try to separate herself from Russell publicly? If you are on the jury, what exactly would give you the sense that she was not just riding Russell's coattails?


The bottom line is that much of Parvati's strategic game was only visible to the Villians and the viewers at home. This really hurt her. I'm not sure what she could have done differently, though. The only thing I can think of would have been to back door Russel at some point. Of course, she didn't want to do this, because he was a lock to go up against in the finals. I guess it was sort of a double-edged sword.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

vman said:


> I'm curious - a large group of people seem to think Parvati should have won, but there is virtually no discussion of her. What exact moves did she make, other than the one week she kept secret her HII and played hers and Russell's both? I'll grant that was awesome, but otherwise I'm not sure what she did other than win a lot of challenges.
> 
> Furthermore, in what way did she actively try to separate herself from Russell publicly? If you are on the jury, what exactly would give you the sense that she was not just riding Russell's coattails?


As I said 4 nights ago, if Parvati had distanced herself from Russell at the final TC, she would have won. Otherwise, Sandra would have won.

Parvati made every right decision and played great on challenges. But she failed miserably at the final TC. On the other hand, Sandra was brilliant at the TC, which was an easier task than Parvati.

I really thought Parvati had the people's skill to "work" the jury at TC. Unfortunately for her, she failed. Big mistake at a critical time.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

vman said:


> I'm curious - a large group of people seem to think Parvati should have won, but there is virtually no discussion of her. What exact moves did she make, other than the one week she kept secret her HII and played hers and Russell's both? I'll grant that was awesome, but otherwise I'm not sure what she did other than win a lot of challenges.
> 
> Furthermore, in what way did she actively try to separate herself from Russell publicly? If you are on the jury, what exactly would give you the sense that she was not just riding Russell's coattails?


She did awesome at challenges. She built a good alliance with Danielle and Russell. She let Russell run things but kept her hands in it enough. She was smart enough to see through Russell from the beginning. When Russell pulled the "Danielle turned on you" bit, she didn't fall for it. She never let Russell's intimidation get to her. She managed to hold out on Russell about her idol, saw through Amanda's BS, and then crafted a way to play both idols to break the 5-5 tie (even if she did get the basic idea from Russell earlier).


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

gweempose said:


> The bottom line is that much of Parvati's strategic game was only visible to the Villians and the viewers at home. This really hurt her. I'm not sure what she could have done differently, though. The only thing I can think of would have been to back door Russel at some point.


She had a perfect opportunity but blew it.

Remember Russell broke Danielle down? Parvati should have used that incident to distance herself from Russell at final TC. It could have pictured as Parvati being another victim of Russell. It could have won some sympathy votes from the heroes.

Instead, Parvati was so cocky. She said she used Russell as a pet. Bad bad idea.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

acegolfer said:


> As I said 4 nights ago, if Parvati had distanced herself from Russell at the final TC, she would have won. Otherwise, Sandra would have won.
> 
> Parvati made every right decision and played great on challenges. But she failed miserably at the final TC. On the other hand, Sandra was brilliant at the TC, which was an easier task than Parvati.
> 
> I really thought Parvati had the people's skill to "work" the jury at TC. Unfortunately for her, she failed. Big mistake at a critical time.


Well, in her previous win, Parvati only needed enough people skills to look better than Amanda, not a tough task!


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

I think Russell enjoys PLAYING the game a lot more than anything. His whole strategy seems to be based on making "big moves." He is a brilliant strategist, there's no doubt about that. But I think he enjoys getting himself in the middle of crazy situations and seeing if he can dig his way out more than doing what it takes to actually win the game. To not be socially adept is one thing, but to make a point to say some of the things that he said to people he KNEW would be on the jury is going one step beyond, IMHO. It's almost as if he wanted to, again, dig himself a hole with the jury just to see if he could dig himself out.

As for whether the game is flawed... Jeff said it best. This is the game you're playing. If you don't like how it works, go play another game. The whole design of the game is to throw together a bunch of people and see what decision they will make based on what they learn about each other, and what they choose to reveal to each other. To bring America in on the vote would seriously poison the whole dynamics of the game. And seriously, does anyone here think America wouldn't "play favorites" just the same as the Survivors do?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

jking said:


> I think Russell enjoys PLAYING the game a lot more than anything. His whole strategy seems to be based on making "big moves."


He always wants a strikeout, when sometimes a simple fly ball will do. So by the 7th inning, there's nothing left in the tank.

Baseball...a metaphor for anything.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

acegolfer said:


> I called it 3 weeks ago[/I]





acegolfer said:


> Here's what I said 2 nights ago





acegolfer said:


> I'm glad that you saw what I saw in Sandra's game.





acegolfer said:


> I even analyzed that Sandra had a great chance of winning, 17 days ago.





acegolfer said:


> As I said 3 nights ago





acegolfer said:


> Had she not won, my analysis 3 weeks ago would be meaningless. Have you read it?





acegolfer said:


> I have been praising Sandra's strategy for 3 weeks





acegolfer said:


> 3 weeks ago, I predicted Sandra would win





acegolfer said:


> As I said 4 nights ago


Are you attempting to apply for the job of Forum Clairvoyant or something?


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

LordKronos said:


> Are you attempting to apply for the job of Forum Clairvoyant or something?


I saw that coming.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

LordKronos said:


> Are you attempting to apply for the job of Forum Clairvoyant or something?


Finally, someone acknowledged. Sorry for being so obnoxious. Too much Russell influence.

Now I will move on.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

janry said:


> I saw that coming.


I knew you'd say that.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

for all those who think the brilliant Parvati had it in the bag but blew the final TC...what could she have done at TC to win?

what was the winning argument to get the Heroes to vote for her?


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

I was hopping for a 4-4-1 vote just so I could see what they would do to break the tie. I wasn't counting on it but thought that just maybe it could happen.


----------



## Doggie Bear (Jan 16, 2008)

Anubys said:


> for all those who think the brilliant Parvati had it in the bag but blew the final TC...what could she have done at TC to win?
> 
> what was the winning argument to get the Heroes to vote for her?


I still think Parvati should have won, but maybe she should have emphasized more (1) that she didn't lie unnecessarily the way that Russell did; (2) that the difference between her strategy and Sandra's was that Sandra was just simply avoiding being the target, which Parvati couldn't do given how she was targeted from the beginning, so she (Parvati) took more control and direction; and (3) that the members of the jury that she had a hand in voting out, it wasn't personal, it was just self-defense. Add to that her generally strong performance in challenges. And she could have noted how in the key tribal council, where the Heroes and Villains were tied at 5 each, with each tribe trying to gain an upper hand on the other, is when she doled out two immunity idols for Sandra and Jerri, and she had let Danielle win the challenge idol, thus protecting everyone on the Villains side who was likely to be voted out.

The trick on the last point is to do it without being obnoxious and arrogant, so it's not something Russell could have pulled off -- but Parv could have. She could say, "Each tribe was trying to get an advantage on the other. I had two immunity idols and I worked out the plan to take advantage of them. If I had just sat back and played one to protect myself, the way Amanda had been urging me to do, all three of us here might be on the jury, and three of you would be here. I was lucky to have the two idols, but I figured out the best way to help my alliance move on."


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

janry said:


> I saw that coming.


So did I, but I couldn't come up with something clever enough to post. I was going to ask if he was Sandra's hubby or something lame like that.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Doggie Bear said:


> I still think Parvati should have won, but maybe she should have emphasized more (1) that she didn't lie unnecessarily the way that Russell did; (2) that the difference between her strategy and Sandra's was that Sandra was just simply avoiding being the target, which Parvati couldn't do given how she was targeted from the beginning, so she (Parvati) took more control and direction; and (3) that the members of the jury that she had a hand in voting out, it wasn't personal, it was just self-defense. Add to that her generally strong performance in challenges. And she could have noted how in the key tribal council, where the Heroes and Villains were tied at 5 each, with each tribe trying to gain an upper hand on the other, is when she doled out two immunity idols for Sandra and Jerri, and she had let Danielle win the challenge idol, thus protecting everyone on the Villains side who was likely to be voted out.
> 
> The trick on the last point is to do it without being obnoxious and arrogant, so it's not something Russell could have pulled off -- but Parv could have. She could say, "Each tribe was trying to get an advantage on the other. I had two immunity idols and I worked out the plan to take advantage of them. If I had just sat back and played one to protect myself, the way Amanda had been urging me to do, all three of us here might be on the jury, and three of you would be here. I was lucky to have the two idols, but I figured out the best way to help my alliance move on."


You summed it up well.

Parv needed to show she was at least equal with Russell in strategy but not a ****** about it. Then she needed to make Sandra's game seem less impressive, which of course I would think wouldn't be too difficult.


----------



## johnh123 (Dec 7, 2000)

It seems to me, the thing you have to keep in mind about Russell is that he really can't play the game much differently. If he plays nice, with rare exception the funny talking old bald guy doesn't last long. (the old guy from Gabon lasted, but his is a totally different personality than Russell's) Further, while I doubt he is so odious in the real world, at the same time, it probably isn't in his personality to play the social game much better even if he tried. 

How he played it is really the only way he could make it to the end, which he did twice, and won the fan prize both times, including beating Rupert, the man it was invented for. I'd say he is the best ever, but it is kinda hard to say that Sandra isn't, so i'll give him 2nd.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

This is two years in a row that I think the person that won was the least deserving of the three finalists.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

gweempose said:


> I agree 100%. Because of his shortsightedness, Russel never even considered for a moment that Sandra would get any votes at the end. The guy was in his own world.


I liked when she said at Tribal Council that she knows she can't win, because Russell had been telling her that all the time. I guess she showed him!



vman said:


> I'm curious - a large group of people seem to think Parvati should have won, but there is virtually no discussion of her. What exact moves did she make, other than the one week she kept secret her HII and played hers and Russell's both? I'll grant that was awesome, but otherwise I'm not sure what she did other than win a lot of challenges.
> 
> Furthermore, in what way did she actively try to separate herself from Russell publicly? If you are on the jury, what exactly would give you the sense that she was not just riding Russell's coattails?


She definitely plays the social game better than most. She's a charmer that pulled the wool over Russell's eyes. He seemed enamored with her from day one and yet she had him all figured out. She used that against him.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

johnh123 said:


> ... with rare exception the funny talking old bald guy doesn't last long.


Wow, I never really felt old until just now. I'm 37, and I believe Russel and I are the exact same age. 



johnh123 said:


> ... he played it is really the only way he could make it to the end, which he did twice, and won the fan prize both times, including beating Rupert, the man it was invented for.


IIRC, America awarded Rupert a whopping million dollars. There has never been a consolation prize that high since, right?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Sandra? Really?!? I really thought Parvati nailed it with her speach and with calling Russell out for voting out Jerri because he had her vote 100&#37;.

I can't believe Russell gave his other 2 contestants information AGAIN on what to say at TC...C'mon brotha....keep that mouth shut!

I don't agree with people here saying that anybody "took Russell" with them to the end...that man brought himself...are you watching a different game than I did?

It does seam like Ponderosa is really having an impact on this game, but nothing you can do about that.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

gweempose said:


> IIRC, America awarded Rupert a whopping million dollars. There has never been a consolation prize that high since, right?


Nope. While I was happy with Rupert's winning back then, I do have an appreciation for the sentiment on TVWoP:

http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/survivor/americas_tribal_council_aka_mo.php?page=12


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Wow, 50 posts in a couple hours. Hard to keep up. Luckily only my work is suffering.

Several have commented how the game may change for the worse after the past two seasons. That only under-the-radar nice guys with a sweet social game will win.

I disagree. There have been, and always will be, dominate players who win this game. I would guess dominates win 2/3 of the times, and the passives (Vecepia, Sandra, etc) maybe a 1/3. Part of it depends on that particular game--as has been alluded to, Survivor is a game of "the right place at the right time". So it's hard to predict a winner in advance.

But being dominate doesn't mean you will be destroyed at FTC by a passive. If you've played a smart game, without making people feel too foolish, they will respect you, and vote for you, even if you were responsible for their demise. It's called diplomacy.

Russell with some social polish would be a strong player. But he's not, so no use crying about it. I love to watch him play, but realized several weeks ago he was not just getting rid of potential threats, he was kicking them after they were dead. Not the best way to get votes.

This game is what it is. They throw a few twists at us--mixing up tribes, having four smaller tribes, having no tribes--but Survivor has always been about getting the jury to pick you as the Sole Survivor. Luck plays a huge role, as does strategy and skill. Win a challenge at the right time, you can find yourself in the finals. Had Jerri reached that pole *one second earlier*, she would be in the finals, and I think she had a decent chance at winning.

I'm not sure Sandra had this incredibly complex, well-thought out strategy in advance. But she was smart enough to grab it at the right time, with a jury that had more Heroes than Villains. Parv won the Villains vote. Why her over Sandra, another Villain? Was it because they saw her play and realized how strong it really was? Or was Sandra smart enough to play to the jury's dominate party? She certainly was when it counted.

I love this show, but I also realize that we are at the mercy of editing. We will never know what they don't want us to know.

BTW, Colby mentioned "quarantine" when he talked about missing the water. Maybe there was something wrong with the water where they played?

Food was not an issue. I suppose they knew this season would be strategy oriented, not as much survival games, and kept them fed.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

wendiness1 said:


> This. The constant "let's get rid of Russell" could have been game play only with no real intention of doing so. If that was her strategy it was pure genius and she's smart enough not to reveal it even now in the event she gets a third shot at Survivor. Sandra is a very quiet player and knows how to keep a secret.


Wendy, you're not seeing the whole picture. The take him to the jury part only starts at the end. Before that no one would keep a fierce competitor like Russell longer than they have to. Last season he engineered a comeback fro ridiculous odds be sheer tenacity. He focuses, perhaps too much, on one fact. If you don't get to the final you can't win. Sandra wasn't smart she was lucky. As was parvati. At one point Russell took both of them forward. Without him, neither would be at the final three.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

jeff125va said:


> Oh, and I liked Danielle's dress she wore at the final TC. She looked very nice.


First thing in this threads that I completely agree with. She looked better ther than at the live reunion.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

acegolfer said:


> Can anyone explain why Natalie won last year but Parv failed to win this season? They both used similar strategies.


really? you are going to compare natalie to parvati?

anyways: here are some of my key points

1. sandra certainly played a solid game. while natalie played the coattail strategy, sandra was more of a below the radar strategy... sure, she finessed some things, but she usually acted when she was forced to make a move... and while effective, not near the gameplay displayed by russell and parvati. add in her complete ineffectiveness in challenges... (when she said her lameness in challenges was part of her strategy... laughable... she just can't do the challenges and used that to play up her nonthreateningness)

but she is hardly deserving of the title of sole survivor regardless of what anyone says... however

2. parvati, i thought, did play a good game strategically. when she got crap for aligning with russell, she was correct in stating that she had no choice. but she did a poor job of articulating that. as others have stated, she didn't play up her key plays.. she should have emphasized that while she was with russell, she was merely keeping an alliance that she was forced into.. and anyone on the jury would've done the same.

for that matter, this is the same point that:

3. russell should've made. i think his gameplay definitely got him to the final. he made HUGE moves, finessed people to align the way he wanted (tyson and JT), got rid of the game's biggest threat in boston rob (should've name dropped) by exposing himself by giving away the idol. should've said parvati stole his idea/strategy. but mainly, his TC speech should've been this:

"Listen, I know i've burnt some serious bridges getting to this spot in the final. I've had to make promises and break promises in order to get here. and i did so without abandon, and i'd do it again, because that is the strategy that works for me. Now I know some of you may hate my guts, (coughrupertcough), but I am counting on one thing and one thing only. I am sitting in front of a jury of All-Stars, people who have won this game, people who have played this game more than once.. and in order to get far in this game, you have to stick with your alliances, make other people think they are comfortable so I don't get voted out, and make big moves. And anyone one of you, if presented the opportunity, has in the past, and would in the future, tell a nontruth, flip sides if it got you further in the game, break an alliance... if it guaranteed you a chance in the final tribal council. And if you can't admit that to yourself, you're not being honest. And if you can't see that I've strategically played the best game, getting tyson to vote with me, getting JT to give me his HII, giving idols away, finding idols... then I can't do anything else... whatever happens from here on out, happens. I did my absolute best, way better than the 2 sitting on either side of me."

that is all i have.... enjoyed the season, hated the ending


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

bruinfan said:


> ...
> 
> "Listen, I know i've burnt some serious bridges getting to this spot in the final. I've had to make promises and break promises in order to get here. and i did so without abandon, and i'd do it again, because that is the strategy that works for me. Now I know some of you may hate my guts, (coughrupertcough), but I am counting on one thing and one thing only. I am sitting in front of a jury of All-Stars, people who have won this game, people who have played this game more than once.. and in order to get far in this game, you have to stick with your alliances, make other people think they are comfortable so I don't get voted out, and make big moves. And anyone one of you, if presented the opportunity, has in the past, and would in the future, tell a nontruth, flip sides if it got you further in the game, break an alliance... if it guaranteed you a chance in the final tribal council. And if you can't admit that to yourself, you're not being honest. And if you can't see that I've strategically played the best game, getting tyson to vote with me, getting JT to give me his HII, giving idols away, finding idols... then I can't do anything else... whatever happens from here on out, happens. I did my absolute best, way better than the 2 sitting on either side of me."
> 
> that is all i have.... enjoyed the season, hated the ending


good speech, and I hope we just didn't get to see any of what really happened there and that he would say something like this.

For years, I've been severely dissappointed at all of the final speeches. You would think these people would have something eloquent memorized and ready to go.....I know I would.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> First thing in this threads that I completely agree with. She looked better ther than at the live reunion.


Wasn't it Parvati who said Danielle was hot (looking)?


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Does anyone know the vote count between Ruppert and Russell?


----------



## Roadblock (Apr 5, 2006)

LordKronos said:


> If that was her idea, she revealed nothing of the sort. Not to Parvati, and not to the camera in her confessionals. Every indication she gave was just that she was pissed at him and that was her way of getting back at him. There was no strategy in it at the time she did it. She was just as mean spirited as Russell was...even more so, because at least Russell though he had some strategic advantage to gain by being mean.


Um, yes she did mention it. She talked about his bald spot and said he can go bring his bald head to tribal council.



inaka said:


> Luck? He was the very one who manipulated Tyson right before the vote. Russell's the one that convinced Tyson that Parv was going home and that all their vote splitting didn't matter. He was the very reason Tyson even entertained the idea of that vote.


And yet he's still lucky that Tyson's a moron.



Dnamertz said:


> As Russell said "Sandra failed at the social game, failed at the strategic, and failed at the challenges".


Oh please. Sandra failed at the social game? Really? Russell doesn't get it and neither do you.



markz said:


> I liked when she said at Tribal Council that she knows she can't win, because Russell had been telling her that all the time. I guess she showed him!


Another underrated moment. She was basically calling him out to the jury, making herself more sympathetic to them.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

acegolfer said:


> Finally, someone acknowledged. Sorry for being so obnoxious. Too much Russell influence.
> 
> Now I will move on.


You do deserve some props though... You TRIED to tell us and we wouldn't listen. You are officially the "Sandra" of our tribe here on TCF.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

Roadblock said:


> Um, yes she did mention it. She talked about his bald spot and said he can go bring his bald head to tribal council.


I thought it was very clear that was nothing more than trash talking him. She was insulting him. "He can bring his bald head" was nothing more than a "he can bring his sorry ***" type of comment. It had nothing to do with strategy. She even said to the camera it was her way of getting back at him for the crap he put her through.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

c'mon....people can't seriously think Sandra burned his hat out of strategy....she was just p*ssed (not that I would blame her). But to think it was some calculated move to better her position in the game or anything more, is hilarious!


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

pendragn said:


> The problem with the viewers voting, is that we can be swayed too easily with editing.
> 
> tk


Which is different than the jury discussions at the Ponderosa?


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Which is different than the jury discussions at the Ponderosa?


I think so, don't you?

We don't have any first hand knowledge outside of what the producers feed us. The other players have their own firsthand experience, as well as a two way discussion with other people with personal experience. Certainly you agree those are different.

tk


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

gweempose said:


> You make a valid point. I think the editors went out of their way to get the viewers to side with Russel. The cost was that we didn't get to see some of the other aspects of the game as fully; aspects that were clearly very important to the people playing.


The easiest way would be to draw the teams each week then they live as that tribe till the next challenge.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I *LOVE* the idea of 2 tribes living at one camp but then how would you handle the rewards that you win such as cooking gear/fishing gear/etc?


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

pmyers said:


> I *LOVE* the idea of 2 tribes living at one camp but then how would you handle the rewards that you win such as cooking gear/fishing gear/etc?


See post above.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

btw...I bet Sandra would have taken the offer Russell made to Natalie about giving her the $100k if he could be given the title of "sole survivor"....she doesn't care about any title..just the hustle! lol


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

pendragn said:


> I think so, don't you?
> 
> We don't have any first hand knowledge outside of what the producers feed us. The other players have their own firsthand experience, as well as a two way discussion with other people with personal experience. Certainly you agree those are different.
> 
> tk


Methphorically the same. The players have no insight into the ponderosa discussions and neither do we. Everyone is acting on part of the story.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> See post above.


Doesn't answer nor address the question I asked so I don't understand you post.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

pmyers said:


> Doesn't answer nor address the question I asked so I don't understand you post.


Whichever team wins each reward get the benefit alone. Just like no pooling prize money for the game.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I wonder what if...

What if Russell had been voted off as the first member of the jury. I think he would have kept playing and tried (and possibly succeeded) in driving the direction of the vote for the rest of the jury to come.


----------



## GadgetFreak (Jun 3, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> I wonder what if...
> 
> What if Russell had been voted off as the first member of the jury. I think he would have kept playing and tried (and possibly succeeded) in driving the direction of the vote for the rest of the jury to come.


I was wondering something similar. If Russell is in a future jury, will he vote for the dirtiest sneakiest player or will he try to exact revenge? I think that if goes into a merge on the short end and gets voted out he would vote the way he wants people to vote -- look at gameplay. But I think if there was someone who harmed his ego and experienced friction with -- like Boston Rob -- screwed him over he would not vote for them at the end.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Whichever team wins each reward get the benefit alone. Just like no pooling prize money for the game.


I'm not sure how you would do that with a tarp, a pot, etc. The point would be for them to live together, not have 2 seperate camps located next to each other...


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Which is different than the jury discussions at the Ponderosa?


Are you seriously asking that?

Then yes, huge yes, because the other players are there and we aren't, They were with him and how the jury plays is part of the game.
The jury does not care who made the most entertaining television.
Thankfully!! THis is why the viewers voting would be wrong. The show on our end maybe about entertainment and CBS edits it to favor our like or hate of it, but the players would be pissed if the viewers voted for what essentially amounts to a fan favorite.

Some even suggest the only solution to that is to keep all of the jury members secluded from each other at the Ponderosa somehow.
No, that changes the game. Look, change the game to suit Russell or the like so then they win, but then it is a different game. Not liking the outcome and then claiming the game is flawed and needs to change is sour grapes.

Remember we are seeing about an hour or so of each person in total over weeks of the entire season, when the players are with each other for 24 hours for days into weeks depending on survival. They know way better than we ever will.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

GadgetFreak said:


> I was wondering something similar. If Russell is in a future jury, will he vote for the dirtiest sneakiest player or will he try to exact revenge? I think that if goes into a merge on the short end and gets voted out he would vote the way he wants people to vote -- look at gameplay. But I think if there was someone who harmed his ego and experienced friction with -- like Boston Rob -- screwed him over he would not vote for them at the end.


well let's say Parvati won the last immunity and cut Russell....I'd bet he'd still vote for her (he even said so)....so I'd say he'd vote for gameplay even if it was somebody who screwed him or who he hated.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

hughmcjr said:


> Are you seriously asking that?
> 
> Then yes, huge yes, because the other players are there and we aren't, They were with him and how the jury plays is part of the game.
> The jury does not care who made the most entertaining television.
> ...


I generally mean what I say.

Yes. The point is that just as we see only as fraction of what happens, the players see nothing of what happens to the jury once they are out of the game. I think their interaction at the ponderosa, being recent, ends up having a bigger part in their vote than they're time in the game and the longer they are there, the more profound the affect.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

It took me most of the day to get caught up on this thread. Sorry if this is long:


IJustLikeTivo said:


> I've come to one conclusion after all these years of watching. The reason the jury seldom votes as we expect is that they spend 1/2 the game hanging out at the ponderosa and that changes their feelings. I think they should all be isolated till the vote and see nothing but tribal. The questions they ask clearly reflect that they've been influenced by the other survivors once they leave the game.


I'd love to see this changed, but I don't see how. But one thing they could do is make Ponderosa something that's incorporated into the show rather than relegated to webisodes on CBS.com. I'd love to see a weekly segment with the jury members discussing what they just heard at Tribal Council.



latenight said:


> I know many will say Russell is arrogant this and that but did anyone listen to Sandra after the win? all of these players have ego's and thats not a bad thing.


Having an ego is not a bad thing. Rubbing it in people's faces is. That's the difference there. Sandra was able to keep her ego in check when they were around other people, while Russell wasn't.


wendiness1 said:


> Well, not really. Bronze and Silver medalists are second and third because their skill got them there. Russell isn't in the final three because he's a great player but because the others believe he doesn't stand a chance.


As many others have stated, I disagree with the idea that Russell only got to the final three because the others wanted to be sitting next to him. He played his way there, plain and simple.


Roadblock said:


> This final tribal council seemed much weaker than in most seasons. Hardly any questions and no closing arguments.


They haven't had closing arguments for several seasons. I think they realized that it's kind of pointless after they've already given an opening statement and answered all the various questions posed to them. It just becomes redundant at that point, and takes away time from other parts of the show.


jeff125va said:


> I was really glad Russell won the $100K fan prize, especially over Rupert. I know he does some good things in "real life" but I really don't understand the appeal of him as a player on the show.


Agreed. I loved Rupert in his first season, but he's turned into a completely self-righteous blowhard, and he really got a big head over the fact that he was placed in the "Heroes" tribe. It's just a name, Rupert. You've done nothing "heroic."


jeff125va said:


> Btw, what was with the big dramatic pause of Colby when he was talking about making his last-ditch pitch to Russell. That may have been the longest we've ever seen someone sit there not saying anything. Pretty lame IMO.


It wasn't a dramatic pause. He was trying to fight back tears, and when he finally did start talking again, he was barely able to keep it together.


heySkippy said:


> I think the best way to shake up Survivor would be to try to minimize the formation and impact of early alliances. Tribe switch-ups, incentives to flip, etc.





rkallerud said:


> I think an interesting twist to the game in upcoming seasons would be simply to keep the tribe structure as is, with immunity challenges, tribal councils, etc. BUT instead of having the two tribes live at separate camps, have them live at the same camp. They could socialize, make alliances across tribes early in the game, see the dynamics of the other tribe, try to influence members of the opposite tribe, vie to find the same immunity idol, etc.
> 
> It would also put the players into a situation where they have the opportunity to play a social game with all of the players in the game and not just the members of their own tribe.





LordKronos said:


> Interesting concept. A twist on it would be, rather than having 2 tribes living together, have it be one big tribe, but randomly split them into 2 teams each week. Depending on small alliances of 4 or 5 won't be nearly as effective because, on average, you could only expect 1 or 2 of your alliance members to be on your weekly team. You'd either need to build a huge alliance (which is hard to hide, more difficult to establish without the natural 2-team comradery to foster it, and still at the risk 1 or 2 people randomly thrown in with all the non-alliance members), or you'd have to build a diverse collection of smaller, more fluid relationships.


I think these ideas are exactly what needs to happen to freshen up the game. As we saw this season, part of why the Final Tribal Council is so unsatisfying is because many of those players are simply voting on tribal lines, and in this case when all three finalists are from the same tribe, the jury is voting based on who was least "villainous," or last season, based on who was least "Foa Foa." But what if those kinds of sharp tribal lines and arbitrary animosity never get formed? What if these people are living together as one tribe from the start, and only get split into tribes for challenge purposes only, and each time the tribes are divided differently, so there's no way the players can strategize about it. Only that portion of the tribe that lost the challenge would go to tribal council, so your alliances would have to be fluid because you'd never know what teammates would be going to tribal council with you beforehand. Finally, it would be cool to see what happens if the losing tribe went directly from losing the challenge to TC without any chance to scramble, and they'd have to make their case openly in front of everyone at TC.

Edit: Oooh, I just had an even better idea. How about if the whole tribe goes to TC, but the losing team sits in the loser seats and gets to vote, while the winning team sits in the jury seats and just gets to observe. That way, everything is known to everyone, and it would make the social dynamics much more intense.


pmyers said:


> I *LOVE* the idea of 2 tribes living at one camp but then how would you handle the rewards that you win such as cooking gear/fishing gear/etc?


That's a simple thing to fix. You just change what the rewards are. They don't get equipment or comfort or fire anymore. All the rewards are trips/food based. Those that were part of the winning team go immediately on the reward while the rest of the tribe goes back to camp.

I was bummed Sandra won, but I have to begrudgingly agree that she played well. I don't like her or her passive strategy, but I have to admit that it's effective and give her props.


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

In terms of attitude, Sandra is a female version of Russell. She talks trash as much as Russell does, and usually does it behind someone's back.


----------



## Roadblock (Apr 5, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> They haven't had closing arguments for several seasons. I think they realized that it's kind of pointless after they've already given an opening statement and answered all the various questions posed to them. It just becomes redundant at that point, and takes away time from other parts of the show.


Well with this tribal council, several of the jury members didn't ask any questions at all, just preached. I think they should have a chance to respond with a closing argument. Russell sure needed one. As for time from other parts of the show, they could trim the always-lame "fallen comrades" torch burning segment.



TomK said:


> In terms of attitude, Sandra is a female version of Russell. She talks trash as much as Russell does, and usually does it behind someone's back.


Nah, Russell's a bully and threatens people they're next if they don't do what he wants.


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

Someone in the reunion show said that Russell plays to make it to the finals, but doesn't play to win. There is some truth to that, but the exact same statement is true of Sandra's game. Her coat-tail ridding, don't win challenges, and don't make any strategic moves will make you a person others will want to take to the finals...but only because they know you usually won't get any votes. But in this case Sandra did get votes...I guess that is the 1/3 luck part Tom was talking about.

And I like Rupert, but he needs to drop the "Russell is a horrible person" charade. Is this the same Rupert who stole in his first season? We all loved him for stealing, in the context of the game...same goes for Russell's gameplay.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Dnamertz said:


> Someone in the reunion show said that Russell plays to make it to the finals, but doesn't play to win. There is some truth to that, but the exact same statement is true of Sandra's game. Her coat-tail ridding, don't win challenges, and don't make any strategic moves will make you a person others will want to take to the finals..*.but only because they know you usually won't get any votes.* But in this case Sandra did get votes...I guess that is the 1/3 luck part Tom was talking about.


I'm not so sure about that any more... There's a growing list of passive winners...


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> It's all opinions. If most people don't see it, perhaps it's because there's nothing to see. You are no smarter than the rest of us, and you're no more right in your opinion than I am.
> 
> I think she was just being herself, and her personality worked great for this game. She did nothing most of the time -- let others (Boston Rob or Russell) be her leader and keep her safe. That's fine -- boring, but fine. It's a proven strategy that works a lot.
> 
> ...


She won two straight times. And this season was against the best of the best. So if (mulltiple) others are seeing a strategy that you don't perhaps you might consider that it's you who is missing it.

One overlooked strategy was that it didn't seem she really wanted Russell gone when she went to Rupert. As evident on the Reunion show and tribal she can be loud and strongly make a point when she wants. I believe she easily could have sold all Heroes to vote him off if that was her intention. Her conversation with Candice (which was often her strategic attitude) was "I'll just go along with whatever you want." Is that the Sandra we saw on live TV last nite?

Sandra's strategy was to use the hate for Russell to win. I don't believe this idea luckily appeared before tribal. It was born many episodes before. She consistently portrayed herself as against Russell to all the heroes. She did it in a way that neither Russell or Parvarti (two of the best players ever) saw it coming so they brought her instead of easy to beat Jerri to finals. She was able to pull this off because Russell was convinced that she was less a threat than Courtney, Coach etc despite having been a previous winner. Another point Sandra was mostly known as an honest player, but she knew the correct person to lie to (Russell) and the correct time to lie (get Coach voted off) and the correct buttom to push (Russell's insecurity about backstabbers) so he never considered she wasn't telling the truth. She only used her bullets when she needed them. Even after winning two straight viewers like yourself don't see how under the radar manipulative she is. If that isn't great play then what is?


----------



## Summer (Aug 21, 2005)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Wendy, you're not seeing the whole picture. The take him to the jury part only starts at the end. Before that no one would keep a fierce competitor like Russell longer than they have to. Last season he engineered a comeback fro ridiculous odds be sheer tenacity. He focuses, perhaps too much, on one fact. If you don't get to the final you can't win. Sandra wasn't smart she was lucky. As was parvati. *At one point Russell took both of them forward. Without him, neither would be at the final three.*


But without Parvati reading Amanda and playing both of those idols correctly, Russell would also not have been in the final three. He was lucky in that Parv played that situation so perfectly. If she had not, one of the Villains goes home that night and Russell is exposed as a liar to JT and co. We will never know for sure, but I would argue that Russell wouldn't even have sniffed final three without that move..a move that he had no prior knowledge of. That was all Parv's doing. However, at FTC when Colby practically begged him to say that luck played a part in his being up there, he refused to do so. For Russell it was his ego that did him in more so than his lack of social graces imo. I don't think he is great as a social player either mind you, but that is due to his unwillingness to put aside his ego for the betterment of his game.

Oh and hello all  I've read this forum for years and this is my first post outside the help section a few years back. As an avid Survivor fan, I could not stay silent any longer.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

LordKronos said:


> I thought it was very clear that was nothing more than trash talking him. She was insulting him. "He can bring his bald head" was nothing more than a "he can bring his sorry ***" type of comment. It had nothing to do with strategy. She even said to the camera it was her way of getting back at him for the crap he put her through.





pmyers said:


> c'mon....people can't seriously think Sandra burned his hat out of strategy....she was just p*ssed (not that I would blame her). But to think it was some calculated move to better her position in the game or anything more, is hilarious!


Agreed. If people think that was strategy and not just Sandra's sassy bad-nature, they don't know her at all and everything they think she did is now highly suspect.

She burned his hat to be a jerk, and that's it. I don't blame her and I'd be tempted to do the same. But it wasn't strategic.


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

Roadblock said:


> Oh please. Sandra failed at the social game? Really? Russell doesn't get it and neither do you.


No, it's you who doesn't get it!!! Parvarti played a much better social game than Sandra. Sandra comes off as rude and abrasive...not nearly as abrasive as Russell, but still not the nicest of the bunch.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

Family said:


> She won two straight times. And this season was against the best of the best. So if (mulltiple) others are seeing a strategy that you don't perhaps you might consider that it's you who is missing it.
> 
> One overlooked strategy was that it didn't seem she really wanted Russell gone when she went to Rupert. As evident on the Reunion show and tribal she can be loud and strongly make a point when she wants. I believe she easily could have sold all Heroes to vote him off if that was her intention. Her conversation with Candice (which was often her strategic attitude) was "I'll just go along with whatever you want." Is that the Sandra we saw on live TV last nite?
> 
> Sandra's strategy was to use the hate for Russell to win. I don't believe this idea luckily appeared before tribal. It was born many episodes before. She consistently portrayed herself as against Russell to all the heroes. She did it in a way that neither Russell or Parvarti (two of the best players ever) saw it coming so they brought her instead of easy to beat Jerri to finals. She was able to pull this off because Russell was convinced that she was less a threat than Courtney, Coach etc despite having been a previous winner. Another point Sandra was mostly known as an honest player, but she knew the correct person to lie to (Russell) and the correct time to lie (get Coach voted off) and the correct buttom to push (Russell's insecurity about backstabbers) so he never considered she wasn't telling the truth. She only used her bullets when she needed them. Even after winning two straight viewers like yourself don't see how under the radar manipulative she is. If that isn't great play then what is?


Well said.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Family said:


> She won two straight times. And this season was against the best of the best. So if (mulltiple) others are seeing a strategy that you don't perhaps you might consider that it's you who is missing it.
> 
> One overlooked strategy was that it didn't seem she really wanted Russell gone when she went to Rupert. As evident on the Reunion show and tribal she can be loud and strongly make a point when she wants. I believe she easily could have sold all Heroes to vote him off if that was her intention. Her conversation with Candice (which was often her strategic attitude) was "I'll just go along with whatever you want." Is that the Sandra we saw on live TV last nite?
> 
> Sandra's strategy was to use the hate for Russell to win. I don't believe this idea luckily appeared before tribal. It was born many episodes before. She consistently portrayed herself as against Russell to all the heroes. She did it in a way that neither Russell or Parvarti (two of the best players ever) saw it coming so they brought her instead of easy to beat Jerri to finals. She was able to pull this off because Russell was convinced that she was less a threat than Courtney, Coach etc despite having been a previous winner. Another point Sandra was mostly known as an honest player, but she knew the correct person to lie to (Russell) and the correct time to lie (get Coach voted off) and the correct buttom to push (Russell's insecurity about backstabbers) so he never considered she wasn't telling the truth. She only used her bullets when she needed them. Even after winning two straight viewers like yourself don't see how under the radar manipulative she is. If that isn't great play then what is?


Now you're just making stuff up.

Clever, I like it. :up:


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Summer said:


> But without Parvati reading Amanda and playing both of those idols correctly, Russell would also not have been in the final three. He was lucky in that Parv played that situation so perfectly. If she had not, one of the Villains goes home that night and Russell is exposed as a liar to JT and co. We will never know for sure, but I would argue that Russell wouldn't even have sniffed final three without that move..a move that he had no prior knowledge of. That was all Parv's doing. However, at FTC when Colby practically begged him to say that luck played a part in his being up there, he refused to do so. For Russell it was his ego that did him in more so than his lack of social graces imo. I don't think he is great as a social player either mind you, but that is due to his unwillingness to put aside his ego for the betterment of his game.
> 
> Oh and hello all  I've read this forum for years and this is my first post outside the help section a few years back. As an avid Survivor fan, I could not stay silent any longer.


Welcome! And I totally agree. This was also evident when Parvati was talking about how she worked with Russell, and he interrupted and said that he did all the strategic planning, and she stuck by what she said originally, that they worked together. He couldn't even admit, in front of everyone who knew the truth, that he and Parvati actually worked together on strategy. I think it's because he honestly believes that when he and Parv (or anyone else) talks strategy, he's throwing out all the good ideas, and they're just agreeing with him.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

GadgetFreak said:


> I was wondering something similar. If Russell is in a future jury, will he vote for the dirtiest sneakiest player or will he try to exact revenge? I think that if goes into a merge on the short end and gets voted out he would vote the way he wants people to vote -- look at gameplay. *But I think if there was someone who harmed his ego and experienced friction with -- like Boston Rob -- screwed him over he would not vote for them at the end.*


Well, last reunion show, (yes for LAST season) Russell was there explaining why he felt he deserved it more than Natalie. He even went on to say during that season's finale that he respected the game play of players like Boston Rob and he would vote for them as the winner even though he didn't like him. I remember this specifically because at the time I was thinking, "How does he even know Boston Rob?" and then at the very end of the reunion they announced the Heroes/Villains season.

I also remember this line because I thought at the time that he inadvertently ruined the outcome of the Heroes/Villains season, because by that one comment I assumed Boston Rob made it to the end.


----------



## Summer (Aug 21, 2005)

Family said:


> She won two straight times. And this season was against the best of the best. So if (mulltiple) others are seeing a strategy that you don't perhaps you might consider that it's you who is missing it.
> 
> One overlooked strategy was that it didn't seem she really wanted Russell gone when she went to Rupert. As evident on the Reunion show and tribal she can be loud and strongly make a point when she wants. *I believe she easily could have sold all Heroes to vote him off if that was her intention.* Her conversation with Candice (which was often her strategic attitude) was "I'll just go along with whatever you want." Is that the Sandra we saw on live TV last nite?
> 
> Sandra's strategy was to use the hate for Russell to win. I don't believe this idea luckily appeared before tribal. It was born many episodes before. She consistently portrayed herself as against Russell to all the heroes. She did it in a way that neither Russell or Parvarti (two of the best players ever) saw it coming so they brought her instead of easy to beat Jerri to finals. She was able to pull this off because Russell was convinced that she was less a threat than Courtney, Coach etc despite having been a previous winner. Another point Sandra was mostly known as an honest player, but she knew the correct person to lie to (Russell) and the correct time to lie (get Coach voted off) and the correct buttom to push (Russell's insecurity about backstabbers) so he never considered she wasn't telling the truth. She only used her bullets when she needed them. Even after winning two straight viewers like yourself don't see how under the radar manipulative she is. If that isn't great play then what is?


While I think Sandra is a much better player than most give her credit for, I don't believe that she could sell the heroes on getting Russell out if she wanted to. I think she DID want to get him out, but was smart in how she played it. It just simply never came together. First with JT being so adamant in his trust in Russell that he couldn't fathom what Rupert was telling him and second, with Candice flipping her vote over to Russell when it simply was not to her advantage to do so. Those were the two main times we saw Sandra really lobby to get Russell out and both times backfired because the Heroes would not get on board with her. She would've went along both times and gladly voted him out, but she wisely saw that the plan wasn't coming together and backed off. What's interesting to me is that Russell even knew she was gunning for him at times, heck she even told him that she was against him to his face, and yet he never once really tried to take her out. Another flaw in his game imo, is not respecting the players you are playing with even when they have already proved they know how to actually win this game. Sandra played the only game she could after Boston Rob went out and while many may not appreciate her "anybody but me" strategy, it is a two-time winning strategy.

For my money, Parv should've won last night, but I can't be mad at Sandra winning. Parv is the only one of the final three that was targeted from day one and lived to tell the tale..that was simply too impressive for this viewer.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

Summer said:


> While I think Sandra is a much better player than most give her credit for, I don't believe that she could sell the heroes on getting Russell out if she wanted to. I think she DID want to get him out, but was smart in how she played it. It just simply never came together. First with JT being so adamant in his trust in Russell that he couldn't fathom what Rupert was telling him and second, with Candice flipping her vote over to Russell when it simply was not to her advantage to do so. Those were the two main times we saw Sandra really lobby to get Russell out and both times backfired because the Heroes would not get on board with her. She would've went along both times and gladly voted him out, but she wisely saw that the plan wasn't coming together and backed off. What's interesting to me is that Russell even knew she was gunning for him at times, heck she even told him that she was against him to his face, and yet he never once really tried to take her out. Another flaw in his game imo, is not respecting the players you are playing with even when they have already proved they know how to actually win this game. Sandra played the only game she could after Boston Rob went out and while many may not appreciate her "anybody but me" strategy, it is a two-time winning strategy.
> 
> For my money, Parv should've won last night, but I can't be mad at Sandra winning. Parv is the only one of the final three that was targeted from day one and lived to tell the tale..that was simply too impressive for this viewer.


I agree with you 100% except for one minor fact check.

When 9 (4 heroes and 5 villains) were left, Russell won the challenge. Sandra could not get rid of Russell out at that moment. The vote was between Amanda and Parvati. And you are right. Candice jumped the ship and voted Amanda.

Edited: I was wrong. It was Jerri who won the challenge. But Russell found the HII and showed it to Candice. That's why heroes including Sandra couldn't go after Russell.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

lol - you people are so mean to each other. A bunch of Russells.


----------



## Summer (Aug 21, 2005)

acegolfer said:


> I agree with you 100% except for one minor fact check.
> 
> When 9 (4 heroes and 5 villains) were left, Russell won the challenge. Sandra could not get rid of Russell out at that moment. The vote was between Amanda and Parvati. And you are right. Candice jumped the ship and voted Amanda.


Ah yes, you are correct. My mistake...she was lobbying for Parv not Russell, but the overall result would've been the same I suppose. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

oh - ..and I think it's a bit silly to say that Russell is a jerk to call Rupert a dumbass, when he was shown saying it in response to Rupert calling him "A despicable human being" or some such.

I noticed all the women looked reaaaaaally hot at the reunion. Usually, I get so used to seeing them during the show, that they look odd to me at the reunion. Not this time.

I personally would like something done about the jury. Make them actually ask questions. Give the final 3, closing arguments. Give the jury time to deliberate (an hour or 2?) before voting, etc...

I enjoy Russell's gameplay the most, but I don't really care who won this time. I learned my lesson last season. It was fun to watch, though.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

Summer said:


> Ah yes, you are correct. My mistake...she was lobbying for Parv not Russell, but the overall result would've been the same I suppose. Thanks for the correction.


No I was wrong. Russell didn't win the challenge. He found the HII and showed it to Candice. That's why heroes couldn't go after Russell and targeted Parvati.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

My first thought after seeing the winner was "Mother-eff-er...I think I'm done with reality tv since the one(s) I want to win never do." Yes, I loved Russel. 

But the more I read this thread, I realized I am okay with her winning...because her "strategy" would be the closest to my own. I am not athletic enough to win challenges, so I'd try to stay under the radar and make good alliances, trying to hustle and save my ass when necessary.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Like many of you, I thought Russel got absolutely robbed in the previous season, and I was hoping that he could vindicate himself by winning against an all-star cast. I rooted for him unflinchingly the entire season up until the point where he turned on Danielle. It's not that I disagreed with his choice to take her out, but it was at that point where it clicked for me and I suddenly realized that he no longer had a prayer of winning the game. From then on, I made a conscious effort to root for Parvati and Sandra. I'm glad I did, otherwise I would have been just as pissed as I was at the end of last season.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Doggie Bear said:


> I still think Parvati should have won, but maybe she should have emphasized more (1) that she didn't lie unnecessarily the way that Russell did; (2) that the difference between her strategy and Sandra's was that Sandra was just simply avoiding being the target, which Parvati couldn't do given how she was targeted from the beginning, so she (Parvati) took more control and direction; and (3) that the members of the jury that she had a hand in voting out, it wasn't personal, it was just self-defense. Add to that her generally strong performance in challenges. And she could have noted how in the key tribal council, where the Heroes and Villains were tied at 5 each, with each tribe trying to gain an upper hand on the other, is when she doled out two immunity idols for Sandra and Jerri, and she had let Danielle win the challenge idol, thus protecting everyone on the Villains side who was likely to be voted out.
> 
> The trick on the last point is to do it without being obnoxious and arrogant, so it's not something Russell could have pulled off -- but Parv could have. She could say, "Each tribe was trying to get an advantage on the other. I had two immunity idols and I worked out the plan to take advantage of them. If I had just sat back and played one to protect myself, the way Amanda had been urging me to do, all three of us here might be on the jury, and three of you would be here. I was lucky to have the two idols, but I figured out the best way to help my alliance move on."


1. *didn't lie without reason:* they knew that. That's why she got 3 votes
2. *strategy different from Sandra:* she said that about 5 or 6 times, actually (I was a target from day one...)
3. *it wasn't personal:* that's where she failed...not because she didn't say it, but because she did not establish ANY relationship with the Heroes...her social game SUCKED...that is why she lost and why Sandra won...Sandra made friends with everyone on the jury and got their votes...

it was a trick question...Parv didn't lose because there was something to be done at tribal...she lost because she ignored the Heroes and didn't deserve to win...

ok...I've made my point about 3 or 4 times now...I'll shut up about it...


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

This may be a smeek, but it is harder to search from my Blackberry so my apologies if this is a repeat.

I was listening to the 5/17 episode of the "Reality TV Podcast #254: Survivor Finale" from http://www.rffradio.com.  They had an interview with Colby (and Jerri) that really exemplifies how much the edits by the producers effect what we see on TV.  The interview focused on the whole Colby/Danielle/Amanda movie/hidden clue reward "incident".  I will do my best to transcribe the comments that Colby provided.  Given what was said, Colby clearly was not as much a buffoon (with that incident) that he was portrayed to be.  And the incident itself had a totally different vibe and series of events than what was portrayed. 

(Transcribed as best as possible and slightly abridged) 



> Host:
> 
> Why didn't you get more involved?
> 
> ...


 

This is the part that I found most interesting&#8230;.. 



> Colby:
> 
> (what was shown on TV)When Amanda reached down to get the clue, it was sitting on the floor and she reached down and picked it up and that's when Danielle reacted.  Well, one, that wasn't even Amanda's hand.  It was Danielle's hand.  And that was her reaching down to pick it up off the floor&#8230;.much earlier in the night&#8230;.to stick it underneath her and behind her.  And Danielle was in full possession of that clue the entire night. And I saw that.  And knew it.  And was aware of her having it the entire night.  And so when Amanda came around the bed, and took it away from her, she had reached underneath Danielle and grabbed it and started fighting with her to pull it away from her.  Well Danielle threw a fit and then threatened production that she was going to sue CBS and Survivor and everybody else because of assault and I mean, it got really ugly really bad.  So I told Amanda, "look, as much as I would like to have that clue and as much as I would like Danielle to read it to us, she doesn't have to.  It's her clue.  She found it.  And it's in her possession." It wasn't on the floor like they showed it to be on TV.  Probst went back and watched it and actually had a reaction to the editors and producers and said "Why didn't we show this?"  And they said "We didn't have the right coverage.  We couldn't get the right angles because it happened so fast and the camera guys are flyin' all around the room&#8230;we couldn't show it right and we didn't think it would have an effect  on the edit."  Well it didn't other than me cuz I looked like the buffoon who's siding with Danielle.


 

I wonder if part of the reason for the edit shown was that Danielle had threatened a lawsuit (I assume on the spot on location).  If they felt she was serious about that, they would want to keep the "evidence" as private as possible until it would need to be "discovered".  Clearly, IMHO, Colby was not as disinterested in the events of that night as the edit made it out to be. Clearly, Amanda was way more aggressive and "wrong" with her actions than was showed.  If in fact Danielle basically had possession all night and had the idol behind her and Amanda came over to try and grab it away from her while she had it in possession&#8230;.then Amanda looks like the fool.  Her game sucked this time around and something like this makes that even clearer. 

I hope Rob and Trevor at http://www.rffradio.com don't mind too much that I transcribed this part of their podcast for our benefit here in this forum.  Thanks guys!


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

jlb said:


> This may be a smeek, but it is harder to search from my Blackberry so my apologies if this is a repeat.
> 
> I was listening to the 5/17 episode of the "Reality TV Podcast #254: Survivor Finale" from http://www.rffradio.com. They had an interview with Colby (and Jerri) that really exemplifies how much the edits by the producers effect what we see on TV. The interview focused on the whole Colby/Danielle/Amanda movie/hidden clue reward "incident". I will do my best to transcribe the comments that Colby provided. Given what was said, Colby clearly was not as much a buffoon (with that incident) that he was portrayed to be. And the incident itself had a totally different vibe and series of events than what was portrayed.
> 
> ...


Thank you for that!


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

The frustrating thing about this game is there is no one "right" way to win. It all depends on which strategy that one specific jury is going to prefer. However, I think what bothers me so much about Sandra winning, is that her strategy is the easy strategy.

It takes effort to win the challenges...it takes no effort to throw the challenges. It takes skill to try to persuade people to vote the way you want them to (and Sandra failed at that)...it's easy to just vote the way others want you to vote. Someone in the final tribal council told Russell that telling the truth in Survivor is hard, and lying is easy. That is wrong...lying (successfully) in Survivor is hard. Being a threat, and still making it to the finals, is hard...not being a threat is easy. However, everyone on the jury lied (even the "honorable" Coach) so I don't know why they are so holier-than-thou.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Dnamertz said:


> The frustrating thing about this game is there is no one "right" way to win. It all depends on which strategy that one specific jury is going to prefer. However, I think what bothers me so much about Sandra winning, is that her strategy is the easy strategy.
> 
> It takes effort to win the challenges...it takes no effort to throw the challenges. It takes skill to try to persuade people to vote the way you want them to (and Sandra failed at that)...it's easy to just vote the way others want you to vote. Someone in the final tribal council told Russell that telling the truth in Survivor is hard, and lying is easy. That is wrong...lying (successfully) in Survivor is hard. Being a threat, and still making it to the finals, is hard...not being a threat is easy. However, everyone on the jury lied (even the "honorable" Coach) so I don't know why they are so holier-than-thou.


The problem is, we only see, what, maybe 5% of what actually goes on in camp? So for us, the challenges are SO important, because that's about 25% of what we see. And even TC, we see only a small amount of the actual TC. We don't know what Sandra did off camera to befriend the Heroes or what she told them, we don't know all of the discussions that were there around how to best play Russell. We can only rely on what we see on camera. Russell is such a compelling player, that we see a lot of him on camera, so we are privy to a lot of his scheming.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

jlb said:


> This may be a smeek, but it is harder to search from my Blackberry so my apologies if this is a repeat.


Thanks. Now THAT is the stuff I want to know. This would be a great season to have more footage of, or behind-the-scenes, or more tribal, etc.

Why can't Survivor be two hours, and Celebrity Apprentice be one hour?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

sushikitten said:


> Thanks. Now THAT is the stuff I want to know. This would be a great season to have more footage of, or behind-the-scenes, or more tribal, etc.
> 
> Why can't Survivor be two hours, and Celebrity Apprentice be one hour?


what we really need is a 24-hour channel (or internet access) so we can see every second...just give us access to all the cameras 24/7


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

jkeegan said:


> Thank you for that!


Yeah, thanks.

And wow.

Makes perfect sense, and really makes you wonder about the entire show. I'd like to think most of the show is "real" but those clever editors...


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

Anubys said:


> what we really need is a 24-hour channel (or internet access) so we can see every second...just give us access to all the cameras 24/7


Then they'd have to change the storyline because I'm convinced many of the incidents are not as they appear. For example it seems obvious to me that choice of challenges are often designed to keep certain players in the game. What if dialogue began amongst the contestants like, "we must be doing a swimming challenge next because player X is in danger."

Just an example, but who knows what really goes on.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Family said:


> Then they'd have to change the storyline because I'm convinced many of the incidents are not as they appear. For example it seems obvious to me that choice of challenges are often designed to keep certain players in the game. What if dialogue began amongst the contestants like, "we must be doing a swimming challenge next because player X is in danger."
> 
> Just an example, but who knows what really goes on.


I suspect these conversations occur regularly between the producers, not the contestants...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I just checked...Jeff has posted his finale blog


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Anubys said:


> what we really need is a 24-hour channel (or internet access) so we can see every second...just give us access to all the cameras 24/7


Big Brother does this with their webcast. I haven't watched it, but folks here on the forum do reveal quite a bit of stuff that has effects on the game that the TV viewers don't always see. Might be harder to accomplish in a less confined space though.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

Anubys said:


> I suspect these conversations occur regularly between the producers, not the contestants...


You think the contestants wouldn't discuss the producers agenda to anticipate what might happen next? I know I'd bring it up to an alliance member if I thought it effected the game.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

It still bugs me that people really think JT's move was the "dumbest". It ended up being a bad move but it could have been a great move. It was thought out and calculated (not to mention he had the support of his entire tribe)....I'd rather go out that way than go out with 2 immunity idols in my pocket or by doing something that in know way helps me in the game......I think it was just fresh on the audiances mine and they are just looking at the result.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

sushikitten said:


> Why can't Survivor be two hours, and Celebrity Apprentice be one hour?


Cause CBS has good programming while NBC has a giant bag of suck.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

pmyers said:


> It still bugs me that people really think JT's move was the "dumbest". It ended up being a bad move but it could have been a great move. It was thought out and calculated (not to mention he had the support of his entire tribe)....I'd rather go out that way than go out with 2 immunity idols in my pocket or by doing something that in know way helps me in the game......I think it was just fresh on the audiances mine and they are just looking at the result.


Yeah, I think the vote was definitely biased toward the most recent event. That wouldn't even have been in my top 2. Probably Erik, but maybe James, I'd have to refresh my memory on how many more opportunities he would have had to use those 2 idols - wasn't it only 3 more TC's?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

pmyers said:


> It still bugs me that people really think JT's move was the "dumbest". It ended up being a bad move but it could have been a great move. It was thought out and calculated (not to mention he had the support of his entire tribe)....I'd rather go out that way than go out with 2 immunity idols in my pocket or by doing something that in know way helps me in the game......I think it was just fresh on the audiances mine and they are just looking at the result.


I voted for Erik...you give up the necklace and they vote your butt out at the same Tribal?

congratulations, you are dumb...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

jeff125va said:


> Yeah, I think the vote was definitely biased toward the most recent event. That wouldn't even have been in my top 2. Probably Erik, but maybe James, I'd have to refresh my memory on how many more opportunities he would have had to use those 2 idols - wasn't it only 3 more TC's?


that's how I remember it...he needed to win 1 out of the next 3 immunities and he would make it to the final...it was very dumb...but as we saw, playing the II when you don't have to also can have consequences (but at that point, who cares?)...

second dumbest to Erik and maybe the guy who jumped off the pole for the final immunity (I forget his name)...


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

pmyers said:


> It still bugs me that people really think JT's move was the "dumbest". It ended up being a bad move but it could have been a great move. It was thought out and calculated (not to mention he had the support of his entire tribe)....I'd rather go out that way than go out with 2 immunity idols in my pocket or by doing something that in know way helps me in the game......I think it was just fresh on the audiances mine and they are just looking at the result.


Agreed.

I think Eric (the ice cream scooper) was the dumbest.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Anubys said:


> I just checked...Jeff has posted his finale blog


Thanks.

Jeff agrees with what a lot of us thought: Russell really does play to win, but was just being defensive and stubborn on the show. If he plays again, he'll do it differently, knowing he has to think more about the jury.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

pmyers said:


> It still bugs me that people really think JT's move was the "dumbest".....


I agree with everything you say, plus a lot of people who think it was a dumb move know the kind of person Russell is. J.T. had no way of knowing just how underhanded Russell plays.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

brianric said:


> Does anyone know the vote count between Ruppert and Russell?


In the Probst blog linked to above (here) he said:

"Less than 2,000 votes separated the two."


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

Anubys said:


> second dumbest to Erik and maybe the guy who jumped off the pole for the final immunity (I forget his name)...


Yeah, that's the guy I mentioned yesterday (though I thought it was THE dumbest). Someone mentioned it was Ian jumping off in Season 10, when Tom won the game. I looked it up to refresh my memory of exactly how it happened, and it was even more absurd than I remember. I was thinking he stepped out of the challenge as a show of good faith to the girl he had betrayed, but he actually stepped out and ASKED to be voted out so she could go to the end.

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/recaps/1014/recaps.php


> Shortly before the twelfth hour, Ian shocked Tom by offering him a strange deal. In a suicidal move, Ian claimed that he would step down if Tom promised to take Katie to the Final Two. Ian wanted to regain Tom and Katie's respect and was willing to forfeit his chance at one million dollars to do so. When Tom agreed, Ian stepped down, giving up his chance at one million dollars to regain the friendship and respect of his remaining tribemates. Ian became the sixteenth castaway out of Survivor: Palau and will serve on the Jury that ultimately decides who will hold the honor of Sole Survivor. Katie and Tom became Survivor: Palau's Final Two.


I guess that one wasn't a contender because, although the logic was dumb (giving up a shot at $1M to redeem yourself for doing nothing more than playing the game), he actually got exactly what he asked for (though I suspect it was a ploy to make himself look good while hoping Tom would take him anyway, and it backfired).


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

How about the guy that gave up the $30k truck?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

uncdrew said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Jeff agrees with what a lot of us thought: Russell really does play to win, but was just being defensive and stubborn on the show. If he plays again, he'll do it differently, knowing he has to think more about the jury.


yeah, well, I disagree with Jeff about Parvati


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

How the heck did Rupert get so many Fan Favorite votes? He was so disappointing this season, like Colby.


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Big Brother does this with their webcast. I haven't watched it, but folks here on the forum do reveal quite a bit of stuff that has effects on the game that the TV viewers don't always see. Might be harder to accomplish in a less confined space though.


Also unlike Big Brother, Survivor is taped months in advance of airing and its 39 day time period is spread out over several months of weekly broadcasts.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jlb said:


> This may be a smeek, but it is harder to search from my Blackberry so my apologies if this is a repeat.
> 
> I hope Rob and Trevor at http://www.rffradio.com dont mind too much that I transcribed this part of their podcast for our benefit here in this forum.* Thanks guys!


Thanks for posting that. I listen to them regularly (haven't gotten to that one yet), but that explanation syncs up with what Danielle said when they interviewed her. She said that the clue was only on the floor for a second before she picked it up and put it behind her back. Then, when Amanda came over to her side of the bed, she was pushing Danielle and asking her to move over, because she knew the clue was underneath Danielle. The way it was shown on TV, with Danielle dropping it on the floor and Amanda picking it up off the floor was totally fake.

But of course, Danielle's interview didn't mention that she threatened to sue.


pmyers said:


> It still bugs me that people really think JT's move was the "dumbest". It ended up being a bad move but it could have been a great move. It was thought out and calculated (not to mention he had the support of his entire tribe)....I'd rather go out that way than go out with 2 immunity idols in my pocket or by doing something that in know way helps me in the game......I think it was just fresh on the audiances mine and they are just looking at the result.


Agreed, 100%. I either voted for Erik or Tyson (can't remember which). Tyson's move had zero strategic value, and Erik's was just totally boneheaded.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I'm curious to know which show you guys would go on if you were given the chance. I'd have to pick Big Brother simply because I don't think I could handle the physical abuse that often comes with Survivor. The worst that happens on Big Brother is that you are put on slop. That hardly compares to sleeping in a cold, wet shelter, being attacked by bugs, etc... I do, however, think that Survivor would be a lot more fun than Big Brother if the weather was decent and you weren't too run down from lack of food. Plus, the prize is double, so that's a big factor as well.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I've never watched Big Brother and have no interest in it. For me, the choice would be between Survivor and The Amazing Race. I'd love to compete on both of them.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

gweempose said:


> I'm curious to know which show you guys would go on if you were given the chance. I'd have to pick Big Brother simply because I don't think I could handle the physical abuse that often comes with Survivor. The worst that happens on Big Brother is that you are put on slop. That hardly compares to sleeping in a cold, wet shelter, being attacked by bugs, etc... I do, however, think that Survivor would be a lot more fun than Big Brother if the weather was decent and you weren't too run down from lack of food. Plus, the prize is double, so that's a big factor as well.


I would do Survivor, I think I could put up with all that Survivor could throw at me, but to be with the same people in a house with VERY little to do for THREE months would drive me up a wall. It would seem to me to be VERY boring most of the time.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I think I could put up with all that Survivor could throw at me, but to be with the same people in a house with VERY little to do for THREE months would drive me up a wall. It would seem to me to be VERY boring most of the time.


I agree that Big Brother does seem like it would be ridiculously boring. That's an awful long time to be cooped up in that place. It must get even worse as time goes by. Not only are you there longer, but there are less people to hang out with. The last couple weeks must be pure torture.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I've never watched Big Brother and have no interest in it. For me, the choice would be between Survivor and The Amazing Race. I'd love to compete on both of them.


to abuse a totally old term: my brother from another mother!

totally agree with this...

I would add that I would prefer Survivor since it would be like John Candy joining the Army in Stripes to lose weight


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Thanks for posting that. I listen to them regularly (haven't gotten to that one yet), but that explanation syncs up with what Danielle said when they interviewed her. She said that the clue was only on the floor for a second before she picked it up and put it behind her back. Then, when Amanda came over to her side of the bed, she was pushing Danielle and asking her to move over, because she knew the clue was underneath Danielle. The way it was shown on TV, with Danielle dropping it on the floor and Amanda picking it up off the floor was totally fake.
> 
> But of course, Danielle's interview didn't mention that she threatened to sue.
> 
> Agreed, 100%. I either voted for Erik or Tyson (can't remember which). Tyson's move had zero strategic value, and Erik's was just totally boneheaded.


Erik's was double dumb because the girl who batted her eyelashes and made him melt was totally ugly...


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

janry said:


> I agree with everything you say, plus a lot of people who think it was a dumb move know the kind of person Russell is. J.T. had no way of knowing just how underhanded Russell plays.


...and if America voted that as the dumbest move, what does that say about voting for Russell for the $100k.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I've only seen a couple episodes of Big Brother, so hard to compare, but I would LOVE to be on Survivor.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Anubys said:


> yeah, well, I disagree with Jeff about Parvati


You don't think she's hawt?


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

I'd like to see conversations at Poderosa about the final vote, but that would probably ruin all suspense about who is going to win. And if America gets a vote, like Russell suggests, it would leave the decision in the hands of the editors. Not a good idea.

The whole fascination (at least for me) about Survivor is that you have to get rid of people, but yet make them want to give you a million dollars. In my mind, the best to do that were Yul and Brian. However many people are on the jury is how many reasons there are for getting the million. Each person values something differently. Russell played as if the jury would value the same things he does. Obviously, they don't. The great players are strategic in getting people voted out who can beat them in the final vote, yet play the social game and know those people well enough to present themselves in a favorable light to the jury.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

uncdrew said:


> ...and if America voted that as the dumbest move, what does that say about voting for Russell for the $100k.


Clearly, the average person who votes doesn't invest nearly as much time analyzing the show as people who hang out in forums like this do. We have a complete different perspective because of the discussions we are a part of as well as the blogs we follow. For example, I doubt there are very many people on this forum that don't also read both Jeff's and Dalton's blogs.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

gweempose said:


> I'm curious to know which show you guys would go on if you were given the chance. I'd have to pick Big Brother simply because I don't think I could handle the physical abuse that often comes with Survivor. The worst that happens on Big Brother is that you are put on slop. That hardly compares to sleeping in a cold, wet shelter, being attacked by bugs, etc... I do, however, think that Survivor would be a lot more fun than Big Brother if the weather was decent and you weren't too run down from lack of food. Plus, the prize is double, so that's a big factor as well.


Neither.

They'd make me look like an ass. Or rather they'd just show I'm an ass.  I get too easily frustrated by stupidity and one of these shows might really test my patience. I'd probably make for a really entertaining contestant, but no way I'd ever do it.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I've never watched Big Brother and have no interest in it. For me, the choice would be between Survivor and The Amazing Race. I'd love to compete on both of them.


Have you signed up?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Anubys said:


> Erik's was double dumb because the girl who batted her eyelashes and made him melt was totally ugly...


I remember thinking that Erik was pretty dumb just in general very early on that season.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> I remember thinking that Erik was pretty dumb just in general very early on that season.


Young, dumb, inexperienced with the ladies...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

uncdrew said:


> Young, dumb, inexperienced with the ladies...


I think he was even a virgin...the poor guy had zero chance against those girls...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

uncdrew said:


> Have you signed up?


No, never have. While I'd love to do it, I don't know that I could work out the logistics, so I've never invested any time in trying. Another reason, is that my wife and I often talk about what it would be like to do TAR together, but in reality, if I were to apply, I have a friend I'd want to compete with. I don't know how well my wife would take that.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

who could take 4-6 weeks off of work to do any of these shows......out of work or wannabe actors.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

pmyers said:


> who could take 4-6 weeks off of work to do any of these shows......out of work or wannabe actors.


yep...I can only play if I'm retired...and by then, the young bastards will vote me out first because I'll be an old wreck...


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

gweempose said:


> I'm curious to know which show you guys would go on if you were given the chance. I'd have to pick Big Brother simply because I don't think I could handle the physical abuse that often comes with Survivor. The worst that happens on Big Brother is that you are put on slop. That hardly compares to sleeping in a cold, wet shelter, being attacked by bugs, etc... I do, however, think that Survivor would be a lot more fun than Big Brother if the weather was decent and you weren't too run down from lack of food. Plus, the prize is double, so that's a big factor as well.


I could definitely do Big Brother. I'd absolutely LOVE to do The Amazing Race. I would have loved to have gone on Survivor when I was in my 20s. Not so much now.



uncdrew said:


> Young, dumb, inexperienced with the ladies...


Is that how that saying goes?


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> No, never have. While I'd love to do it, I don't know that I could work out the logistics, so I've never invested any time in trying. Another reason, is that my wife and I often talk about what it would be like to do TAR together, but in reality, if I were to apply, I have a friend I'd want to compete with. I don't know how well my wife would take that.


My wife and I could definitely compete on TAR without bickering. We never bicker now. However, she is afraid of heights and is picky about what she eats. However, if she put her mind to it, she could accomplish everything they throw at her! She'd be the one I'd want to compete with!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

markz said:


> My wife and I could definitely compete on TAR without bickering. We never bicker now. However, she is afraid of heights and is picky about what she eats. However, if she put her mind to it, she could accomplish everything they throw at her! She'd be the one I'd want to compete with!


I would also go with my wife...we would do very well and the producers would love us since we would bicker all the time


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

pmyers said:


> It still bugs me that people really think JT's move was the "dumbest". It ended up being a bad move but it could have been a great move. It was thought out and calculated (not to mention he had the support of his entire tribe)....I'd rather go out that way than go out with 2 immunity idols in my pocket or by doing something that in know way helps me in the game......I think it was just fresh on the audiances mine and they are just looking at the result.


I agree. I think I said a couple pages back that it was mainly because JT's was fresh in the audience's mind. Erik would have been my vote. Or maybe James with the 2 idols.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

pmyers said:


> who could take 4-6 weeks off of work to do any of these shows......out of work or wannabe actors.


I think my employer would let me do it.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

DevdogAZ said:


> Agreed, 100%. I either voted for Erik or Tyson (can't remember which). Tyson's move had zero strategic value, and Erik's was just totally boneheaded.


Had Tyson not switched his vote, and Russell voted for Parvati like he said he was going to once he saw the writing on the wall, he could have looked at Russell and said I didn't vote for you back then. Still a dumb move yes, but it did have a strategic purpose (had it worked).

The same could be said for Erik - had his "move" worked, it would have had all kinds of strategic value.

The reason that J.T. "wins" for stupidest move ever is because he had absolutely NO clue what was really happening. Sure, he was looking at it and thought that there was an all-female alliance, but that was 100% pure speculation. Russell did play it up and did a great acting job, but there was so little strategic value in his move if any at all.

The Heroes had an HII. The Villains didn't know that - and couldn't know that because every single Hero could vouch for Tom playing it. All it would have taken would have been for Amanda to jump over to her buddy buddy Parvati and ask to be in on the female alliance. Amanda then finds out who the Villains want gone, and that Hero is the one that plays the idol.

Instead, J.T. gave away the most powerful item in the game. Dumbest.Move.Ever.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

uncdrew said:


> ...and if America voted that as the dumbest move, what does that say about voting for Russell for the $100k.


It doesn't mean anything to me. The Sprint Player of the Game is simply put "Vote for the Survivor who deserves $100,000....".

What is meant by "deserves"? Could be based on hardship/need, who worked hardest, or most likely based upon popularity.

I guess we could differ by what is meant by "dumbest" but it is more clearly understood to me than "deserves".

I'll add that I bet a lot of people watching the latest season of Survivor might not have even been watching when Erik got conned.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

pmyers said:


> It still bugs me that people really think JT's move was the "dumbest". It ended up being a bad move but it could have been a great move. It was thought out and calculated (not to mention he had the support of his entire tribe)....I'd rather go out that way than go out with 2 immunity idols in my pocket or by doing something that in know way helps me in the game......I think it was just fresh on the audiances mine and they are just looking at the result.


JT's move was the dumbest because:
1) Trusting Russell was so obviously stupid. He trusted Russell based on a handshake and a nod in passing. He'd NEVER spoken to Russell. Never seen Russell play the game. KNEW that Russell was considered by the producers to be one of the five greatest villains in Survivor history. Based on a handshake, he gave Russell an immunity idol.
2) The schoolgirlishness of the whole sequence of events. The "secret note" that was to be read privately and burned immediately suggested a middle school crush, rather than a strategic masterstroke.
3) Giving the idol away was completely one-sided. Russell surrendered nothing, and in exchange got an immunity idol. Since when has any Survivor contestant acted as if they "owed" someone else for an unrequested favor? The only time anything like that ever pays off, even tangentially, is in the final vote. And they were WAY too far from final tribal council for JT to be cultivating Russell's final vote.
4) Perhaps worst of all, JT conned HIMSELF. It was't like with Erik or James, whose decisions were at least partially made by false information provided by someone else. They made errors in judgment, but at least they were based on some kind of "facts." JT's blunder was born fully-formed from his own head. He bears sole-responsibility for it.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Had Tyson not switched his vote, and Russell voted for Parvati like he said he was going to once he saw the writing on the wall, he could have looked at Russell and said I didn't vote for you back then. Still a dumb move yes, but it did have a strategic purpose (had it worked).
> 
> The same could be said for Erik - had his "move" worked, it would have had all kinds of strategic value.


Regardless of which move you think is the dumbest ever, it isn't really fair to exclude some of the really really dumb ones from the running just because they wouldn't have been dumb _if they had worked_.

None of the moves would have been dumb if they would have worked.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

stalemate said:


> Regardless of which move you think is the dumbest ever, it isn't really fair to exclude some of the really really dumb ones from the running just because they wouldn't have been dumb _if they had worked_.
> 
> None of the moves would have been dumb if they would have worked.


Good point. I don't remember all the exact details, but I believe Richard Hatch did essentially the same thing that Ian did in the immunity challenge when they were down to the final 3.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

jeff125va said:


> Good point. I don't remember all the exact details, but I believe Richard Hatch did essentially the same thing that Ian did in the immunity challenge when they were down to the final 3.


Hatch knew he wasn't winning that challenge though, and he never asked to be voted out.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Had Tyson not switched his vote, and Russell voted for Parvati like he said he was going to once he saw the writing on the wall, he could have looked at Russell and said I didn't vote for you back then. Still a dumb move yes, but it did have a strategic purpose (had it worked).
> 
> The same could be said for Erik - had his "move" worked, it would have had all kinds of strategic value.
> 
> ...


you're missing some details...there was 1 more TC before the merge and JT felt that Russell needed to stay alive...once that was accomplished, the 5-5 merge would happen and Russell -- fresh from beating the girls, would join them for a 6-4 Heroes majority...

also, once a HII is played, it goes back into circulation...everyone knew that...

that was the theory anyway...


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

At least he had a theory...a strategy, however wrong he was. What was Erik's reasoning?


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

hefe said:


> What was Erik's reasoning?


Erik was letting a body part other than his brain do his thinking.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

janry said:


> Erik was letting a body part other than his brain do his thinking.


Exactly...hence, dumber.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

DancnDude said:


> How the heck did Rupert get so many Fan Favorite votes? He was so disappointing this season, like Colby.


This. I liked Rupert his first season but he was uber annoying this season.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Had Tyson not switched his vote, and Russell voted for Parvati like he said he was going to once he saw the writing on the wall, he could have looked at Russell and said I didn't vote for you back then. Still a dumb move yes, but it did have a strategic purpose (had it worked).


No, there was no strategic value to Tyson switching his vote. Had he voted the way it was planned, either Russell or Parvati would have gone home, depending on whether the HII was played. That alliance didn't care which one went, as long as it was one of the two. Tyson had absolutely nothing to gain by switching his vote. The result was going to be the same either way (either Parvati goes home, or she plays the HII and Russell goes home). However, by him switching his vote, he took the power away from his own alliance and voted himself out. It was a move with ZERO upside, but ALL downside. That's why it was the stupidest move ever. At least some of the other moves had some potential upside (Erik getting respect for saving someone and not getting voted out, J.T. being correct on his assumptions about the all-girl alliance and strengthening his own tribe, James getting farther in the game by saving the HIIs for later, etc.).


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

hefe said:


> At least he had a theory...a strategy, however wrong he was. What was Erik's reasoning?


exactly...there was a strategy with J.T and it was thought out. Not so much with the other examples.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> No, there was no strategic value to Tyson switching his vote. Had he voted the way it was planned, either Russell or Parvati would have gone home, depending on whether the HII was played. That alliance didn't care which one went, as long as it was one of the two. Tyson had absolutely nothing to gain by switching his vote. The result was going to be the same either way (either Parvati goes home, or she plays the HII and Russell goes home). However, by him switching his vote, he took the power away from his own alliance and voted himself out. It was a move with ZERO upside, but ALL downside. That's why it was the stupidest move ever. At least some of the other moves had some potential upside (Erik getting respect for saving someone and not getting voted out, J.T. being correct on his assumptions about the all-girl alliance and strengthening his own tribe, James getting farther in the game by saving the HIIs for later, etc.).


Actually Tyson did have some excuse for why he did it but it was pretty dumb reasoning as I recall. But there was some type of convoluted logic there too.

I still think the guy who gave away the immunity necklace is tied for dumbest move with James who had TWO immunity idols and chose to hold them both, even through there was not enough time left in the game to use them both. He should have played it simply because if he didn't one of them would have gone to waste. There was no advantage to hanging onto them both. THAT was pretty dumb.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

bareyb said:


> Actually Tyson did have some excuse for why he did it but it was pretty dumb reasoning as I recall. But there was some type of convoluted logic there too.


I don't really remember there being any reasoning other than "I hate Parvati and since Russell is going to vote there I can just pile on to show how much I hate her." That was my take on Tyson's whole deal there.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

bareyb said:


> Actually Tyson did have some excuse for why he did it but it was pretty dumb reasoning as I recall. But there was some type of convoluted logic there too.
> 
> I still think the guy who gave away the immunity necklace is tied for dumbest move with James who had TWO immunity idols and chose to hold them both, *even through there was not enough time left in the game to use them both*. He should have played it simply because if he didn't one of them would have gone to waste. There was no advantage to hanging onto them both. THAT was pretty dumb.


the bolded is not true. there were 3 TCs left. he was trying to hold on to both in hopes of playing them one after another at the next 2 TCs. he got greedy by not playing at least one that night.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

stalemate said:


> I don't really remember there being any reasoning other than "I hate Parvati and since Russell is going to vote there I can just pile on to show how much I hate her." That was my take on Tyson's whole deal there.


I wish I could remember but I "think" there was a little more to it than just that, but as I said, it really didn't make much sense. I remember scratching my head over that one a lot. Definitely one of the more self destructive moves I've ever seen on the show. Definitely in the top 3 for sure.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

stalemate said:


> I don't really remember there being any reasoning other than "I hate Parvati and since Russell is going to vote there I can just pile on to show how much I hate her." That was my take on Tyson's whole deal there.


Tyson mentioned it briefly. It had something to do with the appearance of actually helping vote her out. Can't remember what he thought he would gain by doing so though.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

bryhamm said:


> the bolded is not true. there were 3 TCs left. he was trying to hold on to both in hopes of playing them one after another at the next 2 TCs. he got greedy by not playing at least one that night.


Are you sure? I remember us all talking about it at the time, and I could have sworn he would have lost _nothing_ by playing one of them. Thus making it even _more_ dumb. I could be wrong though. I often am.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

bryhamm said:


> Tyson mentioned it briefly. It had something to do with the appearance of actually helping vote her out. Can't remember what he thought he would gain by doing so though.


Did he say that as it was happening or later on?


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

bareyb said:


> Are you sure? I remember us all talking about it at the time, and I could have sworn he would have lost _nothing_ by playing one of them. Thus making it even _more_ dumb. I could be wrong though. I often am.


pretty sure. i remember thinking that i could understand why he didn't play one, but that i didn't agree taking the risk by not playing one.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

bareyb said:


> Are you sure? I remember us all talking about it at the time, and I could have sworn he would have lost _nothing_ by playing one of them. Thus making it even _more_ dumb. I could be wrong though. I often am.


James finished in 7th place in a 3 finalist season. There were 3 TCs left after James was voted out, although I don't recall if the idol was eligible for all 3 of them.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

bryhamm said:


> pretty sure. i remember thinking that i could understand why he didn't play one, but that i didn't agree taking the risk by not playing one.





hefe said:


> James finished in 7th place in a 3 finalist season. There were 3 TCs left after James was voted out, although I don't recall if the idol was eligible for all 3 of them.


I did a little Goggling and it seems you gentlemen are correct. I switch my vote to Eric. Here's an excerpt:



> On Survivor China we met James, the personable gravedigger who seemed funny, folksy and was a physical specimen the likes we've rarely seen on the Survivor stage. James had also had a good share of luck, finding one immunity idol thanks to directions, and being given a second one. *With four tribal councils remaining and only three councils left where the idols could be used, James seemed ideally positioned to make it to the final three. However, despite having an inkling that he might be in trouble, James kept the idols in his bag&#8230; *while his torch was snuffed and he started that long walk into the night.
> Why We Chose This Moment
> 
> *Until Survivor Fans vs Favorites, James was the dumbest Survivor player ever, by his own admission (and we'll get to the person that dethroned him later in this countdown). James could have easily won one of the remaining immunity challenges and together with his second hidden idol insured himself a one-in-four chance at a million dollars. James was, at the time, one of the most personable Survivors ever (with the possible exception of Rupert) and that very fact is what led his fellow tribe members to move against him, despite the fact that many of those voting against him had given him said idols.*


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

Found this on another message board. Not sure the truth of it, but I believe others here put similar info in spoilers before. I won't bother hiding it since the season is over. No idea if it is true or not.

_WHAT'S BEEN ON THE GRAPEVINE
Back in August, there was a huge Survivor Reunion in Florida, just before the finalists were to fly out. Billy Garcia posted that Jeff Probst and Lynne Spillman were having a big fight because Spillman wanted her protogees on H vs V. Parvati being Lynne's main gal.

Many people questioned why Parvati ever got a slot on Micronesia. She was like the Danielle or Candice cast member that season, never accomplished anything of note in her season. Her casting connections are why.

Spillman has been big on recruits on the show. Jeff has wanted more "real" people and applicants.

There were supposedly a number of people who were told they were on or almost certainly on S20, who didn't get go. Ozzy is one of them. Gossip is that he was cut with his bags packed because he was thought to have it in for Parvati. He never made up with her after Micronesia, but James did. Danielle and Parvati are IRL friends, but in a UTR way such that no one discussed them as a dangerous pair.

Many people think Candice was put on Heroes -- mutineer Hero, right, she did her best to destroy Aitu by jumping -- to avoid the appearance that there was a big Parvati alliance on the initial tribe. Amanda, Cirie, Candice, James -- all allies if Parv just made it to merge.

Did any other castaway have casting on their side trying to give him/her a smooth ride with pre-prepared alliances and no major enemies? No.

It gets worse. Parvati flew out to Samoa while S19 was filming. She vacationed there with Erika Shay. There she was supposedly clued in to Russell's mode of play, which would include that he likes to find a female ally and take her to the end, acting as the perfect goat all the way. All Parvati had to do was become Natalie v. 2.

As for Russell, the only season he supposedly saw before filming was Micronesia. Coincidence or did someone in casting tell him which one to watch. He knew he wanted to ally with Parvati on S20. Also, he and casting knew before S19 was halfway filmed that he would be on S20.

Only problem for Parvati is that Russell got a tad psycho after all those days in the game, and she miscalculated and lost his trust, so that it wasn't a smooth sail.

There is other gossip that's been around a long time, and I repeat it only because people who hang out around the LA group repeat it pretty frequently. Take it for no more than gossip. That parv is Bi, like Natalie Bolton (who they tried to cast, who was an alternate for Courtney). And that so is Lynne or Erika, and there has been some casting couch behavior on Parvati's part from way back when, just not the traditional kind. This is one reason people call her skanky, not for being bi, but for allegedly sleeping with someone who works in casting, and getting Micronesia ... just allegations and not something I can say is true or false. What is true is there have been allegations along those lines since Micronesia.

Lastly, Amanda is giving interviews that a mysterious something about this season changed the way she felt about the game and she will never play it again.
Candice and Danielle were asked by RTVW what was up, and they said that they weren't going to be the ones to comment.

So it is not all internet gossamer. It's serious enough to where CBS ordered radio silence on it. And like I said, all the players at the Cocoa Beach party last season were talking about the Parv favoritism and the Probst-Spillman rift before anyone flew out to Samoa. It took someone like Billy who will never get asked to play again to spill it on the net. The others are afraid of getting cut from the guest lists.

Lastly, this season they had the cast staying in Samoa and interacting for days before filming started. They didn't separate them into Heroes and Villains, but they were free to start solidifying pre-game alliances.

Like Stephanie said pointedly at the reunion, there were "like three of us who don't hang out with these people." Steph, Tom, Colby were the three I imagine, the ones who don't go to all the Survivor parties. It's a big social club now.

Even if Russell had learned how to play nice, I don't think he could have won this season, because he wasn't in the club. Parv was supposed to win. _


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I believe I gave five votes to Eric and two votes to Tyson. They were both spectacularly stupid moves. IMHO, none of the other blunders were even in the same league.


----------



## TampaThunder (Apr 8, 2003)

hefe said:


> Hatch knew he wasn't winning that challenge though, and he never asked to be voted out.


Not only did Hatch know he wasn't going to win the challenge, he knew he didn't have to to go to the finals. He had a deal with Rudy so if Rudy won he'd take Richard and he knew that Kelly would be stupid to take Rudy as she had no chance of beating him in a vote.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

bryhamm said:


> Found this on another message board. Not sure the truth of it, but I believe others here put similar info in spoilers before. I won't bother hiding it since the season is over. No idea if it is true or not.
> 
> _WHAT'S BEEN ON THE GRAPEVINE
> Back in August, there was a huge Survivor Reunion in Florida, just before the finalists were to fly out. Billy Garcia posted that Jeff Probst and Lynne Spillman were having a big fight because Spillman wanted her protogees on H vs V. Parvati being Lynne's main gal.
> ...


Juicy... Probably what Amanda has been referring to lately...


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

Anubys said:


> 3. *it wasn't personal:* that's where she failed...not because she didn't say it, but because she did not establish ANY relationship with the Heroes...her social game SUCKED...that is why she lost and why Sandra won...Sandra made friends with everyone on the jury and got their votes...
> 
> it was a trick question...Parv didn't lose because there was something to be done at tribal...she lost because she ignored the Heroes and didn't deserve to win...


i don't get how people say sandra played a good social game cuz she made friends with the heroes. she did what anyone in her position should do when they are #5 in a 5 person alliance (actually, she was the outsider in a 4 person alliance)... she tried to make friends with the other side. parvati didn't have to do that.. and quite frankly, it's tough in that situation to chum it up with people not in your alliance... especially as the lines are clearly drawn... and one team has an upper hand... parvati didn't make friends with the heroes cuz a: she didn't have to, and b: it wasn't feasible.



uncdrew said:


> You don't think she's hawt?


anubys has long been on the record for despising parvati.

i think she is survivor hawt... and real life cute.

and the dumbest move: *the answer is eric*. you don't give up the immunity necklace... ever... no matter what... it's done before people vote, so if you do, it immediately puts the target on you... says you are cocky, don't need it... add the fact that he stood to gain nothing, makes it even dumber.

JT wasn't dumb, just miscalculated. it was a big move.

james was cocky/greedy dumb. he's not the first or the last to go home with the HII.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

TampaThunder said:


> Not only did Hatch know he wasn't going to win the challenge, he knew he didn't have to to go to the finals. He had a deal with Rudy so if Rudy won he'd take Richard and he knew that Kelly would be stupid to take Rudy as she had no chance of beating him in a vote.


But Hatch would not have beaten Rudy, and he knew it. So, if he won and took Kelly, then he likely lost Rudy's vote. He knew that if he dropped out he was likely going to the finals no matter who won, but there was a good chance that Kelly beats him and gets rid of Rudy "for" him. I think it was a brilliant move when he did it.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I think it's safe to say that it is no secret that all of the reality "stars" hang out together and do the same tours and know each other so I don't think it gives anybody an unfair advantage when it comes to an all-star edition of Survivor or Big Brother or any other show.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

If it's true that Parvati was only on the show due to her connections, then that would explain why some of the Heroes chose not to vote for her, despite what appeared to be better gameplay by Parvati. However, having won Fans vs. Favorites, I'm not sure how anyone could claim that Parvati only got cast on this season due to connections. Maybe her being cast on FvF was a scandal, but that's years in the past. None of that should have had any bearing on this season, since she was a legitimate Survivor star going into this season.


----------



## GadgetFreak (Jun 3, 2002)

inaka said:


> Well, last reunion show, (yes for LAST season) Russell was there explaining why he felt he deserved it more than Natalie. He even went on to say during that season's finale that he respected the game play of players like Boston Rob and he would vote for them as the winner even though he didn't like him. I remember this specifically because at the time I was thinking, "How does he even know Boston Rob?" and then at the very end of the reunion they announced the Heroes/Villains season.
> 
> I also remember this line because I thought at the time that he inadvertently ruined the outcome of the Heroes/Villains season, because by that one comment I assumed Boston Rob made it to the end.


I do recall him saying that. But I guess I have trouble believing him. He can say that he "would" vote for someone if they theoretically had made it, but knowing that he ousted them. I would really like to see how Russell would behave and vote if he were part of the jury. With his temper and ego I don't know how he would vote.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> If it's true that Parvati was only on the show due to her connections, then that would explain why some of the Heroes chose not to vote for her, despite what appeared to be better gameplay by Parvati. However, having won Fans vs. Favorites, I'm not sure how anyone could claim that Parvati only got cast on this season due to connections. Maybe her being cast on FvF was a scandal, but that's years in the past. None of that should have had any bearing on this season, since she was a legitimate Survivor star going into this season.


I totally agree....it's just sour grapes.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

bryhamm said:


> But Hatch would not have beaten Rudy, and he knew it. So, if he won and took Kelly, then he likely lost Rudy's vote. He knew that if he dropped out he was likely going to the finals no matter who won, but there was a good chance that Kelly beats him and gets rid of Rudy "for" him. I think it was a brilliant move when he did it.


It was absolutely brilliant. No doubt about it. Too bad Richard turned out to be such a tool.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

AJRitz said:


> JT's move was the dumbest because:
> 1) Trusting Russell was so obviously stupid. He trusted Russell based on a handshake and a nod in passing. He'd NEVER spoken to Russell. Never seen Russell play the game. KNEW that Russell was considered by the producers to be one of the five greatest villains in Survivor history. Based on a handshake, he gave Russell an immunity idol.
> 2) The schoolgirlishness of the whole sequence of events. The "secret note" that was to be read privately and burned immediately suggested a middle school crush, rather than a strategic masterstroke.
> 3) Giving the idol away was completely one-sided. Russell surrendered nothing, and in exchange got an immunity idol. Since when has any Survivor contestant acted as if they "owed" someone else for an unrequested favor? The only time anything like that ever pays off, even tangentially, is in the final vote. And they were WAY too far from final tribal council for JT to be cultivating Russell's final vote.
> 4) Perhaps worst of all, JT conned HIMSELF. It was't like with Erik or James, whose decisions were at least partially made by false information provided by someone else. They made errors in judgment, but at least they were based on some kind of "facts." JT's blunder was born fully-formed from his own head. He bears sole-responsibility for it.


You're forgetting that Candice and Amanda didn't trust JT at all at their own camp. When he had the idol alone, he was a target and I think it was Candice who said to Amanda, "Good thing you were there when he found it." meaning that if Amanda wasn't around, that snake JT (in their eyes) would never have told the others that he had the idol. The heroes were growing more and more distrustful of JT each day, so I actually think his play was good, it just didn't work.

From his perspective he takes a gamble that there is in fact an all female alliance on the villains side of things, and if he's right he gets a win/win/win:

Win #1: the other heroes know he doesn't have the idol anymore so he deflects the "flush out the idol" votes toward him

Win #2: if there is an all female alliance on the villains side of things, he know has a more personal alliance with Russell since he was the one who "saved him".

Win #3: If it doesn't work, he still may not be the next one to go home if he wins immunity or the voting situation doesn't pan out that way. He can, however, play it up with his own tribe that he's risking his own neck for this and possibly build greater trust with the heroes again.

Again, it didn't work at all, but the thought process behind the play wasn't dumb at all in my book.

Sort of like a huge poker bluff. If it works, generally people think it's genius. If it doesn't, is it dumb? Not at all. Just tip your hat to the other player for the better play.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

GadgetFreak said:


> I do recall him saying that. But I guess I have trouble believing him. He can say that he "would" vote for someone if they theoretically had made it, but knowing that he ousted them. I would really like to see how Russell would behave and vote if he were part of the jury. With his temper and ego I don't know how he would vote.


True, we'll never know.
But the odd thing about Russell is that once the final tribal council happens, he stops lying (or maybe he stops lying well.) He's the best liar the game has ever seen, and yet, when the final tribal council happens, he should continue where he left off.

_*He*_ should have lied at the final tribal and said that Parv wanted Jeri there because "Jeri was too stupid to vote for Russell". He should have just totally made up stuff, told people what they wanted to hear, etc. But the weird thing is that maybe it's ego, but it sure seems like he's telling the truth at the final tribals/reunion shows. Why? I have no idea. The game is still on, bro! Lie on your children's life, whip up fake tears by pulling a nose hair out right before you go on, say "Sandra admitted to me that her mom never passed away and she took you all for a fool like Johnny Fairplay" Say horrible stuff to win if you're going to have that game plan from the start. Why stop now? In my eyes, his game play is fine, he just puts the brakes on too soon.

Turn into the skid and hit the gas, you're a villain!


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

pmyers said:


> I think it's safe to say that it is no secret that all of the reality "stars" hang out together and do the same tours and know each other so I don't think it gives anybody an unfair advantage when it comes to an all-star edition of Survivor or Big Brother or any other show.


What exactly do you mean?

Don't they live in different cities? Where do they hang? Who on Earth actually cares about them once the show is over?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

pmyers said:


> I think it's safe to say that it is no secret that all of the reality "stars" hang out together and do the same tours and know each other so I don't think it gives anybody an unfair advantage when it comes to an all-star edition of Survivor or Big Brother or any other show.


How could it not if there is a subset of them that are tighter than others and bring that into the game?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

bruinfan said:


> i don't get how people say sandra played a good social game cuz she made friends with the heroes. she did what anyone in her position should do when they are #5 in a 5 person alliance (actually, she was the outsider in a 4 person alliance)... she tried to make friends with the other side. parvati didn't have to do that.. and quite frankly, it's tough in that situation to chum it up with people not in your alliance... especially as the lines are clearly drawn... and one team has an upper hand... parvati didn't make friends with the heroes cuz a: she didn't have to, and b: it wasn't feasible.


well, this is what I'm talking about...if Russell does it, it's evil, if Parv does it, it's brilliant...if Sandra does it, she had no choice...

it's all excuses...Parv didn't need to make friends with the Heroes? come again? aren't they all going to be on the Jury? how in the world is she brilliant and deserves to win if she forgot something as basic as needing to make friends with the jury?

the whole idea is to vote people off while keeping them from getting mad at you...Sandra did that (her circumstances were different, yes, but she did it)...Parv did not...she lost because she had no business winning...

just like Russell, it's not enough to get to the end...you have to do it in a way that gets you the votes at the end! There is zero difference between Parv and Russell...yet Parv gets a pass for some reason (I'll grant you, her permanent camel toe can blind people sometimes)...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

uncdrew said:


> What exactly do you mean?
> 
> Don't they live in different cities? Where do they hang? Who on Earth actually cares about them once the show is over?


I think there is a sub-culture of Survivor parties and appearances that people like you and me are oblivious to...


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

bareyb said:


> Juicy... Probably what Amanda has been referring to lately...


If any of that is provable, CBS will be in a bad way.

Not for the pre show casting stuff, that's just how things work. But, if they have any candidate ex-parte knowledge of the others, that's just plain unfair.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> If any of that is provable, CBS will be in a bad way.
> 
> Not for the pre show casting stuff, that's just how things work. But, if they have any candidate ex-parte knowledge of the others, that's just plain unfair.


BTW, just a side note. Many of the people who played survivor went to try and develop a post game career in TV. A few have had very limited success, but has anyone but Elizabeth Hasselbeck, really succeeded? Oddly, that wasn't her goal when she went.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

bryhamm said:


> It took someone like Billy who will never get asked to play again to spill it on the net. The others are afraid of getting cut from the guest lists.


who is Billy?

thank you so much for posting this...I love a good conspiracy! please post more if you find it or at least link us to similar things...

didn't we all scratch our heads when we saw Danielle and Candice in the cast? most of us didn't even recognize them (and I've never missed a show)...much of this may not be true, but I think there is plenty of smoke here to make me want to look for a fire...


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Anubys said:


> ...Parv didn't need to make friends with the Heroes? come again? aren't they all going to be on the Jury? how in the world is she brilliant and deserves to win if she forgot something as basic as needing to make friends with the jury? ... There is zero difference between Parv and Russell...yet Parv gets a pass for some reason ...


The difference is that while both failed to make friends with the jury, Russell's actions actually made the jury members bitter enemies towards him. While Parv didn't make any friends, she didn't do anything to make any real enemies, either.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Parv gets a pass for some reason (I'll grant you, her permanent camel toe can blind people sometimes)...


I kept looking for that camel toe all season. Unfortunately, it was never really there.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Jeeters said:


> I kept looking for that camel toe all season. Unfortunately, it was never really there.


oh...it's real, and it's spectacular


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Sounds like Pavarti had enemies on the jury before the game even started. That might explain some of the early "get rid of her" activities.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Anubys said:


> oh...it's real, and it's spectacular


TTIUWOP!


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

markz said:


> TTIUWOP!


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

> Also, he and casting knew before S19 was halfway filmed that he would be on S20.


That is just wrong. And it sort of explains how cocky he was. They gave him an allusion that he was the winner. Now I feel sorry for him.



hefe said:


> How could it not if there is a subset of them that are tighter than others and bring that into the game?


It's just like high school. Cliques. Alliances.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

DevdogAZ said:


> No, there was no strategic value to Tyson switching his vote. Had he voted the way it was planned, either Russell or Parvati would have gone home, depending on whether the HII was played. That alliance didn't care which one went, as long as it was one of the two. Tyson had absolutely nothing to gain by switching his vote. The result was going to be the same either way (either Parvati goes home, or she plays the HII and Russell goes home). However, by him switching his vote, he took the power away from his own alliance and voted himself out. It was a move with ZERO upside, but ALL downside. That's why it was the stupidest move ever. At least some of the other moves had some potential upside (Erik getting respect for saving someone and not getting voted out, J.T. being correct on his assumptions about the all-girl alliance and strengthening his own tribe, James getting farther in the game by saving the HIIs for later, etc.).


You're wrong. (but that's okay!)
In Tyson's post-exit interviews, he was convinced that Russell had seen the way the cards were going to fall and didn't want to stay on the outs so went to Tyson and said he would be voting with the tribe to get Parvati out. Tyson hadn't yet completely committed to any faction of the tribe and figured he could straddle that decision for one more trip to TC. Tyson wanted to be able to look at the next tribal and see which faction was stronger and be able to go to Russell and say I didn't vote for you, I'm with you. He never thought for a second that Russell was just playing him. The strategy behind changing his vote allows him to remain on Russell's "good side".


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

astrohip said:


> BTW, Colby mentioned "quarantine" when he talked about missing the water. Maybe there was something wrong with the water where they played?


He also said they weren't allowed to explore in the jungle. Then I remembered on the Pondorasa that Coach said he hadn't had any fish even though they were on a beach. Something was going on.

They could go 'hunting' or foraging and they couldn't go fishing. So anyone have any insight?


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

bryhamm said:


> Found this on another message board. Not sure the truth of it, but I believe others here put similar info in spoilers before. I won't bother hiding it since the season is over. No idea if it is true or not.
> 
> _WHAT'S BEEN ON THE GRAPEVINE
> Back in August, there was a huge Survivor Reunion in Florida, just before the finalists were to fly out. Billy Garcia posted that Jeff Probst and Lynne Spillman were having a big fight because Spillman wanted her protogees on H vs V. Parvati being Lynne's main gal.
> ...


Wow.

I mean we all know there's behind the scenes stuff, but wow.

So is Survivor big enough now that someone in the know can make a lot by writing a book? Or selling their info to a tabloid?

I kinda want to know more.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

bruinfan said:


> i don't get how people say sandra played a good social game cuz she made friends with the heroes. she did what anyone in her position should do when they are #5 in a 5 person alliance (actually, she was the outsider in a 4 person alliance)... she tried to make friends with the other side. parvati didn't have to do that.. and quite frankly, it's tough in that situation to chum it up with people not in your alliance... especially as the lines are clearly drawn... and one team has an upper hand... parvati didn't make friends with the heroes cuz a: she didn't have to, and b: it wasn't feasible.
> 
> anubys has long been on the record for despising parvati.
> 
> ...


You and I seem to agree on all of this.

Totally unrelated, but I like you. :up:


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> BTW, just a side note. Many of the people who played survivor went to try and develop a post game career in TV. A few have had very limited success, but has anyone but Elizabeth Hasselbeck, really succeeded? Oddly, that wasn't her goal when she went.


Having a pro-QB hubby didn't hurt either.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Anubys said:


> who is Billy?
> 
> thank you so much for posting this...I love a good conspiracy! please post more if you find it or at least link us to similar things...
> 
> didn't we all scratch our heads when we saw Danielle and Candice in the cast? most of us didn't even recognize them (and I've never missed a show)...much of this may not be true, but I think there is plenty of smoke here to make me want to look for a fire...


I couldn't think of anyone named Billy either, but looked on Wikipedia - voted out 2nd on Cook Islands:


> At Tribal Council, Billy gushed about finding love with Rarotonga's Candice, which was later found to be his taking her comments to him wildly out of context. Candice said "We love you" to him as he said that he may be the next to go, but he was mislead and claimed that she said "I Love you" to him. Either way, Billy became the second castaway to be voted out 41.


After reading it, I still only vaguely recall that happening. I barely remembered Candice, and I definitely remembered Danielle but couldn't remember her well enough to figure out why she was a villain.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

not only did we not remember (or barely remember) Danielle and Candice, it certainly now makes a ton of sense why Candice insisted on going with the Villains despite the fact that the Heroes were in total control with Sandra's defection to them...she was always on team Parv...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

jeff125va said:


> I couldn't think of anyone named Billy either, but looked on Wikipedia - voted out 2nd on Cook Islands:
> After reading it, I still only vaguely recall that happening. I barely remembered Candice, and I definitely remembered Danielle but couldn't remember her well enough to figure out why she was a villain.


thanks for that...I remember this as well...not the person, but the instance...


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

hefe said:


> How could it not if there is a subset of them that are tighter than others and bring that into the game?


because they all have access to it, whether or not they choose to is another story. But you can't cry about somebody having a pre-existing relationship if you choose not to associate with past cast members.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Anubys said:


> not only did we not remember (or barely remember) Danielle and Candice, it certainly now makes a ton of sense why Candice insisted on going with the Villains despite the fact that the Heroes were in total control with Sandra's defection to them...she was always on team Parv...





Anubys said:


> thanks for that...I remember this as well...not the person, but the instance...


Yeah, while looking that up, I saw (but didn't remember) that Parvati and Candice were in the same tribe in the Cook Islands. I think I stopped watching at some point that season, or at least not paying complete attention. I remember feeling like the recruited cast just wasn't as interesting as other seasons. I remember watching the first few episodes of the following season (Fiji) but definitely stopped watching altogether after a few episodes. Because of players who have returned for other seasons, I wish now that I'd kept watching. But other than those two seasons I'm pretty sure I haven't missed an episode.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

jeff125va said:


> I think I stopped watching at some point that season, or at least not paying complete attention. I remember feeling like the recruited cast just wasn't as interesting as other seasons. I remember watching the first few episodes of the following season (Fiji) but definitely stopped watching altogether after a few episodes. Because of players who have returned for other seasons, I wish now that I'd kept watching. But other than those two seasons I'm pretty sure I haven't missed an episode.


That's weird, I did the exact same thing. I stopped watching a couple episodes into that season and had no interest in that one or the next one. Honestly I thought I was done with Survivor forever. But outside of those 2 seasons I haven't missed a single episode.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

stalemate said:


> That's weird, I did the exact same thing. I stopped watching a couple episodes into that season and had no interest in that one or the next one. Honestly I thought I was done with Survivor forever. But outside of those 2 seasons I haven't missed a single episode.


Funny. Yeah I wasn't sure if I would go back to watching again either, but I'm glad I did. Part of the reason was we were at a point where we were just getting so far behind on shows, it was taking us the entire summer to catch up to the May season finales, and even though I virtually never stop watching a series once I start it, I was losing interest and Survivor was the kind of show I could stop watching, since it wasn't an ongoing story.

But I remember other people sharing the opinion that the recruited cast was part of the problem, and when they were ditching that, I figured it was worth another try, although I did watch at least the first few episodes every season anyway so I probably would have regardless.

I remember someone telling me in a thread here a long time that Fiji turned out to be one of the best seasons ever, and I planned on getting the DVD's some time and watching. I still might. In fact my son kept watching that season too and told me it was really good. He really liked Yau-Man IIRC.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

Magister said:


> He also said they weren't allowed to explore in the jungle. Then I remembered on the Pondorasa that Coach said he hadn't had any fish even though they were on a beach. Something was going on.
> 
> They could go 'hunting' or foraging and they couldn't go fishing. So anyone have any insight?


Well, to do these shows in the places they do, they have to work out arrangements with the local government. Perhaps they really liked that particular location but had to make certain concessions to the locals (concerned about harming the environment or something) which included limitations on hunting and trampling through random areas.

The only other explanation I can think of is they were arbitrary rules designed to keep them cooped up and cranky for increased dramatic effect.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Anubys said:


> not only did we not remember (or barely remember) Danielle and Candice, it certainly now makes a ton of sense why Candice insisted on going with the Villains despite the fact that the Heroes were in total control with Sandra's defection to them...she was always on team Parv...


Ugh. :down:

But did Candice vote for Parv? No, right? So what happened?


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> sushikitten said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't Survivor be two hours, and Celebrity Apprentice be one hour?
> ...


And humorously, less than 24 hours after you post that, CBS cancels seven shows. Looks like Survivor will be permanently on Wednesday (new schedule in this article), though still only 1 hour.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

betts4 said:


> That is just wrong. And it sort of explains how cocky he was. They gave him an allusion that he was the winner. Now I feel sorry for him.


Wait, what?  I think you misunderstood something. They're saying that Russell had made himself into such a compelling character by midway through the taping of S19, that the producers told him they wanted him back on S20, which began taping just a few weeks after S19 ended. They didn't give him the impression that he won, because the game was still being played at that point.


Necromancer2006 said:


> You're wrong. (but that's okay!)
> In Tyson's post-exit interviews, he was convinced that Russell had seen the way the cards were going to fall and didn't want to stay on the outs so went to Tyson and said he would be voting with the tribe to get Parvati out. Tyson hadn't yet completely committed to any faction of the tribe and figured he could straddle that decision for one more trip to TC. Tyson wanted to be able to look at the next tribal and see which faction was stronger and be able to go to Russell and say I didn't vote for you, I'm with you. He never thought for a second that Russell was just playing him. The strategy behind changing his vote allows him to remain on Russell's "good side".


Very convenient for Tyson to come up with that explanation after the fact, but it just doesn't make sense. He knew that Russell had the HII. He knew that the Boston Rob alliance (six people) was splitting their vote between Russell and Parv to ensure that one of them went home, regardless of whether the HII was played. He knew that Russell only had three votes on his side. So even if Russell was being genuine and was voting for Parvati, Tyson would be switching from an alliance of six people to an alliance of three that was about to lose a member. Had his plans worked out, he'd have been straddling the fence for no reason, because Russell and Danielle would have been the only ones on the other side of the fence and would have been easy to pick off.


Magister said:


> He also said they weren't allowed to explore in the jungle. Then I remembered on the Pondorasa that Coach said he hadn't had any fish even though they were on a beach. Something was going on.
> 
> They could go 'hunting' or foraging and they couldn't go fishing. So anyone have any insight?





LordKronos said:


> Well, to do these shows in the places they do, they have to work out arrangements with the local government. Perhaps they really liked that particular location but had to make certain concessions to the locals (concerned about harming the environment or something) which included limitations on hunting and trampling through random areas.


But if you remember S19, they gave the teams fishing gear (remember Shambo lost some piece of the fishing equipment), so there wasn't a restriction on them fishing in that location when they first arrived.

My in-laws know the man whose land was used for these two seasons, so I'll see if they can find out what the deal was.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

LordKronos said:


> And humorously, less than 24 hours after you post that, CBS cancels seven shows. Looks like Survivor will be permanently on Wednesday (new schedule in this article), though still only 1 hour.


this is good...Thursday night was very crowded...

off topic but wow...Chuck Lorre will have THREE shows on network TV at the same time!


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Magister said:


> He also said they weren't allowed to explore in the jungle. Then I remembered on the Pondorasa that Coach said he hadn't had any fish even though they were on a beach. Something was going on.
> 
> They could go 'hunting' or foraging and they couldn't go fishing. So anyone have any insight?


I remember reading in the past how they were limited limited in various ways during some season(s) because the location was part of some nature reserve. Therefore, they weren't allowed to cut fauna and/or hunt and/or fish . I have no idea where exactly they were at this season, though. Perhaps some sort of similar restrictions were in place for a similar reason.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I watched Survivor religiously for the first 14 seasons. I don't think I missed a single episode. Then, like others have indicated, I started to get overwhelmed by all the shows I wanted to watch. As the amount of dual-tuner TiVos I owned grew, so did the backlog of shows. Ultimately, I just had to cut Survivor loose. To be honest, I never stopped enjoying it, but my wife had kind of lost interest, and we do most of our TV watching together.

Fortunately, I decided to pick the show back up again at season 19. I actually didn't watch any of it when it first aired, but I had recorded the entire thing. I had heard that it was a great season because of Russel, and I wanted to see what all the buzz was about. Believe it or not, I had no idea who won, even though the finale had already aired. I didn't even know that Russel had made it that far, so it was as if I was watching the show live.

In my eyes, I couldn't have picked a better time to start watching the show again. These last two seasons were incredible. I do have to admit that when HvV first started, I felt a little out of the loop because I had never seen a lot of the more recent players in their seasons. People such as James, Amanda, JT, Courtney, etc ... they were completely foreign to me. Fortunately, I was familiar with Parvati from her first season, as well as all of the other veterans.

What a show! Can't wait for next season!


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

bareyb said:


> Juicy... Probably what Amanda has been referring to lately...


What are you referring to? What has Amanda been saying?


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> What are you referring to? What has Amanda been saying?


From the posted article:



> "Lastly, Amanda is giving interviews that a mysterious something about this season changed the way she felt about the game and she will never play it again.
> Candice and Danielle were asked by RTVW what was up, and they said that they weren't going to be the ones to comment."


I've not seen/read any of these interviews (admittedly, I've not yet tried to seek out any of these supposed interviews).


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Jeeters said:


> I remember reading in the past how they were limited limited in various ways during some season(s) because the location was part of some nature reserve. Therefore, they weren't allowed to cut fauna and/or hunt and/or fish . I have no idea where exactly they were at this season, though. Perhaps some sort of similar restrictions were in place for a similar reason.


That makes sense.

The only hunting allowed was the chickens that were planted in their camp.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> But if you remember S19, they gave the teams fishing gear (remember Shambo lost some piece of the fishing equipment), so there wasn't a restriction on them fishing in that location when they first arrived.


I didn't realize it was on the exact same island as S19 (I thought it was just the same general region). Well, then maybe the locals got upset that Shambo was littering the waters


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> What are you referring to? What has Amanda been saying?


http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7930634#post7930634


LordKronos said:


> I didn't realize it was on the exact same island as S19 (I thought it was just the same general region). Well, then maybe the locals got upset that Shambo was littering the waters


Yes, it was in the same location. I suppose the camps may have been a few hundred yards up/down the beach from last season, but the overall area was the same. The production camp stayed in the same place the whole time, and I assume the clearings they used for challenges were the same as well.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I'm sure the ocean was probably either a safety issue or an environmental issue. Perhaps it was shark season or sting ray season when this season was being filmed and it wasn't during the last season.


----------



## Summer (Aug 21, 2005)

Anubys said:


> well, this is what I'm talking about...if Russell does it, it's evil, if Parv does it, it's brilliant...if Sandra does it, she had no choice...
> 
> it's all excuses...Parv didn't need to make friends with the Heroes? come again? aren't they all going to be on the Jury? how in the world is she brilliant and deserves to win if she forgot something as basic as needing to make friends with the jury?
> 
> ...


Well, there is one difference between Parv and Russell. Parv has actually won Survivor before. 

I don't think Parv played as bad of a social game as you seem to think she did. Not one time did that come up during FTC that they simply didn't like Parv, more so it was that she was too closely aligned with Russell. The post interviews that I could find seem to think she played an excellent social game. I really think she just couldn't get the stink of Russell off her to pick up those extra votes needed to win.

I'm not sure about posting links here, but there are some really good interviews at realitynewsonline.com


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Summer said:


> ...I'm not sure about posting links here, but there are some really good interviews at realitynewsonline.com


feel free to post away...we are all lazy


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I'd like to weigh in on Probst's side of the argument with the producer/Parv's girlfriend ...having regular contestants is much better than those recruited...I think the one recruit that I recall is Earl...he was TERRIBLE...

I mean, he was a good player and deserved to win...but talk about zero entertainment value...


----------



## GadgetFreak (Jun 3, 2002)

Magister said:


> He also said they weren't allowed to explore in the jungle. Then I remembered on the Pondorasa that Coach said he hadn't had any fish even though they were on a beach. Something was going on.
> 
> They could go 'hunting' or foraging and they couldn't go fishing. So anyone have any insight?


Colby said the surf was dangerous so they were not allowed more than 20-30 feet out, and the area that they were allowed in was coral reef and very shallow. Talks about it in this interview:

http://www.buddytv.com/articles/survivor/survivor-heroes-vs-villains-ex-36652.aspx


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

I just lost a few hours on the Reality News Online site, and found this, which I thought was interesting - it at least explains a little more how Russell was looking at things:



> RNO: Early last night, you said your dream final three was you, Sandra, and Jerri - but then you voted out Jerri. I know you explained that you thought you would have Jerri's vote locked up in the jury, but did you really think she wouldn't be mad for betraying her?
> 
> Russell: Jerri's weak, she's a weak person. The social game comes from people like Jerri. They invented that word. There's three criteria to the vote - out, outwit, outlast. People like Jerri invented the social game. I looked at her like I was John Gotti and said "Danielle" and she did what I told her to do. Is that not the social game when you have somebody eating out the palm of your hands? And she doesn't vote for you at the end of the day?! She's weak and they all are.
> 
> This is the ultimate test, if you can get stabbed in the back and vote for the person who did the three things on the sign. If you vote like you're supposed to be voting and somebody out of nowhere threw in the social game. No, there's no social game on the sign. If you make it to the end, you obviously had a good social game because you made it to end. They aren't going to take a butthole to the end! It's just bitter people who say, "He didn't have a good social game." It just don't make sense to me.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

sushikitten said:


> I just lost a few hours on the Reality News Online site, and found this, which I thought was interesting - it at least explains a little more how Russell was looking at things:


Wow. Sounds like so far, he hasn't learned a thing. I still think he's just being stubborn. I'm sure we'll see him again, and I bet when we do, he changes his tactics. He'd be a fool to try and do the same exact game plan for a third time.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Yeah it sounds like he's clinging to his idealized vision of how the game should be played. I tend to agree with him, but obviously none of that matters. The jurors can use any arbitrary criteria they want, and he'll never have a chance until he realizes that, unless they get a bunch of other players who happen to look at the game the way he does.

Interestingly, a couple of the people he betrayed the most did seem to have _some_ degree of respect for how he played. J.T. didn't seem bitter about how Russell outplayed him, and Jerri right after TC said that she was planning on voting for him despite what he had just done. So there's some hope.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

> If you vote like you're supposed to be voting


lol. That is the root of his problem right there.

He does not get it. At all.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Honest question... Do we know if Russell had actually watched the game before he played it? I mean, I get the impression he regards himself as some kind of scholar of the game. But, I have to think anyone who had watched a season or two would already know that the jury votes however the hell the jury wants and there is no "vote like you&#8217;re supposed to be voting" about it.

The guy has a fundamental misunderstanding of how the winner is decided.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

According to some reports, he'd never seen the show before playing Samoa, and then watched Micronesia (Fans vs. Favorites) between the two seasons. I don't know if that's true.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> According to some reports, he'd never seen the show before playing Samoa, and then watched Micronesia (Fans vs. Favorites) between the two seasons. I don't know if that's true.


Any idea how he ended up on the show? Was he recruited or did he just apply randomly to be on some Reality Show that he'd never seen? Seems very strange to me. I guess he probably had a pretty good idea of what goes on, but I find it hard to believe anyone wouldn't be curious enough to at least watch _one_ episode of _a show they are going to be on_. People are weird...


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

GadgetFreak said:


> Colby said the surf was dangerous so they were not allowed more than 20-30 feet out, and the area that they were allowed in was coral reef and very shallow. Talks about it in this interview:
> 
> http://www.buddytv.com/articles/survivor/survivor-heroes-vs-villains-ex-36652.aspx


That was a very interesting read. Not just about coral reef, but some other aspects of the this season's game, too.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

GadgetFreak said:


> Colby said the surf was dangerous so they were not allowed more than 20-30 feet out, and the area that they were allowed in was coral reef and very shallow. Talks about it in this interview:
> 
> http://www.buddytv.com/articles/survivor/survivor-heroes-vs-villains-ex-36652.aspx


The Jerri Manthey article at the end is more interesting. Lots of interesting info.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> According to some reports, he'd never seen the show before playing Samoa, and then watched Micronesia (Fans vs. Favorites) between the two seasons. I don't know if that's true.


I had thought he mentioned during his first go around that he had watched all the seasons and was a fan of the show. Could be wrong....


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> According to some reports, he'd never seen the show before playing Samoa, and then watched Micronesia (Fans vs. Favorites) between the two seasons. I don't know if that's true.


I saw Sandra, Russell, and Parvati on Jimmy Fallon. Sandra said something along the lines that just because he watched Parvati's season on DVD, he thinks he knows everything there is to know about the game.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I had thought he mentioned during his first go around that he had watched all the seasons and was a fan of the show. Could be wrong....


I seem to recall something along these lines...this guy knew the game...there is no way he'd never seen the show...

if he said otherwise, he was lying...


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Anubys said:


> I seem to recall something along these lines...this guy knew the game...there is no way he'd never seen the show...
> 
> if he said otherwise, he was lying...


I think I read it in this thread, or something that was linked to in this thread. Too lazy to look it up now, maybe later.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Jeeters said:


> That was a very interesting read. Not just about coral reef, but some other aspects of the this season's game, too.


I found this intersting:


> Why do you think they decided to get rid of Tom and Stephenie?
> 
> This is a discussion I had with Probst after the game. The biggest way the game has changed since I played it is that there's no longer merit given to contributing around camp, providing fish for the tribe, contributing in the challenges or getting along with everybody. None of that matters.


I do agree with him that since they have started giving them their food and it isn't a big deal anymore....that the players don't care about strong people or providers in the tribe anymore.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> I found this intersting:
> 
> I do agree with him that since they have started giving them their food and it isn't a big deal anymore....that the players don't care about strong people or providers in the tribe anymore.


Or they've realized that providers are also threats. Players in this game no longer look at strong males as providers and people to latch onto. They look at them as obstacles in the way of getting to the end. It certainly makes the show less interesting when strong players are voted out in favor of coat tail riders.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Or they've realized that providers are also threats. Players in this game no longer look at strong males as providers and people to latch onto. They look at them as obstacles in the way of getting to the end. It certainly makes the show less interesting when strong players are voted out in favor of coat tail riders.


but the problem with this logic is that your tribe can be decimated before the merge...I still think the best strategy is to target the weak first then target the strong after the merge...the heroes were very lucky to go into the merge at 5-5, and that's only because the other tribe was just as stupid and targeted their strongest player (Rob)...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Anubys said:


> but the problem with this logic is that your tribe can be decimated before the merge...I still think the best strategy is to target the weak first then target the strong after the merge...the heroes were very lucky to go into the merge at 5-5, and that's only because the other tribe was just as stupid and targeted their strongest player (Rob)...


I totally agree. I'm not saying that the way the show has evolved is smart. I'm just saying that it's a fact. Otherwise, Tom and Stephenie wouldn't have been voted out so early in this season, when Rupert had a broken toe and there were others like Candice and Amanda there.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> The Jerri Manthey article at the end is more interesting. Lots of interesting info.


The photo she posted of herself at her site is wild. It's funny what some people think the look like.

Unless, of course, that's what she looks like.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I totally agree. I'm not saying that the way the show has evolved is smart. I'm just saying that it's a fact. Otherwise, Tom and Stephenie wouldn't have been voted out so early in this season, when Rupert had a broken toe and there were others like Candice and Amanda there.


They should have a season of just Courtneys. Skinny, *****y and weak. That would be fun.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

Anubys said:


> but the problem with this logic is that your tribe can be decimated before the merge...I still think the best strategy is to target the weak first then target the strong after the merge...the heroes were very lucky to go into the merge at 5-5, and that's only because the other tribe was just as stupid and targeted their strongest player (Rob)...


unless, of course, you are one of the weak.... then targeting the strong looks like a great strategy.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

uncdrew said:


> The photo she posted of herself at her site is wild. It's funny what some people think the look like.
> 
> Unless, of course, that's what she looks like.


There are a lot of photos on her site... can you be more specific?


----------



## Bernie (May 22, 2002)

Clarkey said:


> Brutal! As much as I dislike the guy (Russell) you *have* to give him credit for how he played the game, in BOTH seasons. No votes!? This show has turned into a popularity contest, which is why its days are numbered.


I respectfully disagree. Russell was a bully. A true survivor outwits, outplays, outlasts. All he did was threaten people.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Bernie said:


> I respectfully disagree. Russell was a bully. A true survivor outwits, outplays, outlasts. All he did was threaten people.


And for that he only got 2 out of 18 possible votes in the 2 Final Tribal Councils!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

laria said:


> There are a lot of photos on her site... can you be more specific?


I'm sure he's talking about the one photo on the front page.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> The photo she posted of herself at her site is wild. It's funny what some people think the look like.
> 
> Unless, of course, that's what she looks like.


I wonder what's on the front page? It gets blocked from my office.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Pretty good statement from Jerry:



> Do you believe that the main reason you got voted out was because Russell wanted to have your vote on the jury? Or was there more to it?
> 
> We all know he's dellusional and cocky. He thought he had my vote in the bag. Oddly enough, as I said when I got voted off, it was my intention to vote for Russell. He voted me off, which happens in Survivor. I really did not have any reason to hold a grudge whatsoever. But he blew it at the final Tribal Council by insulting all of us, and basically saying that his gameplay was so good that he didn't need any luck, or anyone else, and he was in control of everybody at all times. It was like slapping everybody in the face. His arrogance lost him a million dollars. Regardless of what a lot of people might want to believe, to me, that [performance] right ther e should have won The Dumbest Move in Survivor History [award.]


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> Pretty good statement from Jerry:


I agree with her that Russell should have been more humble at FTC, but I disagree that he cost himself $1 million. I don't think there's anything he could have said at FTC that would have garnered him at least 4 votes. He might have picked up a couple, but not enough to win.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I agree with her that Russell should have been more humble at FTC, but I disagree that he cost himself $1 million. I don't think there's anything he could have said at FTC that would have garnered him at least 4 votes. He might have picked up a couple, but not enough to win.


As a viewer going in, I was thinking he definitely could have gotten:

Colby, Jerri, JT, Coach

Who knows though if the Ponderosa and time for the jury to chit chat may have doomed him before the FTC even started.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

I thought this comment from Jerri was really interesting too:



> Not even Danielle?
> 
> No, not even Danielle. Once the merge occurred I became very aware of how other people would be perceiving me, and where I stood in the hierarchy of the Russell alliance. *When Rupert got voted off I basically planted a seed in his head. I said, "Tell Danielle that the only reason I voted for her was because Russell threatened me." There was partial truth in that, but that's not why I made that decision.*


Just the fact that she thought to plant that seed with the jury is great.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

pmyers said:


> Pretty good statement from Jerry:





> Do you believe that the main reason you got voted out was because Russell wanted to have your vote on the jury? Or was there more to it?
> 
> We all know he's dellusional and cocky. He thought he had my vote in the bag. Oddly enough, as I said when I got voted off, it was my intention to vote for Russell. He voted me off, which happens in Survivor. I really did not have any reason to hold a grudge whatsoever. But he blew it at the final Tribal Council by insulting all of us, and basically saying that his gameplay was so good that he didn't need any luck, or anyone else, and he was in control of everybody at all times. It was like slapping everybody in the face. His arrogance lost him a million dollars. Regardless of what a lot of people might want to believe, to me, that [performance] right there should have won The Dumbest Move in Survivor History [award.]


Jerri summed it up pretty well I think. I DO think Russell could possibly have pulled out a win at Tribal if he'd had the best speech in Survivor History. It's possible. I could see him getting Jerry, Coach, JT and Colby if he'd praised them more and given them some credit for his place at the finals. Instead, he gave the exact same speech that lost him the money on his prior season. THAT was dumb. I agree.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

laria said:


> There are a lot of photos on her site... can you be more specific?


Sorry, should have been more specific and said "home page":

http://www.jerrimanthey.com/


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Here:










Have you noticed that in every picture she covers the bottoms of her upper teeth with her lips? I've never seen teeth as perfectly straight across the bottom as hers... I actually went looking for a photo to illustrate what I mean, and I couldn't find a single one that showed her upper teeth in full. I swear she has an upper denture or some really odd Veneers or something... Her teeth appear to have been filed perfectly straight along the bottoms. I've never seen anything quite like it. Anyone else notice? I Googled and I'm not the only one...


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

bareyb said:


> Here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I noticed it during the show..


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

You can _kind_ of see it here, but it's not as pronounced as on the show.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

bareyb said:


> I swear she has an upper denture or some really odd Veneers or something... Her teeth appear to have been filed perfectly straight along the bottoms. I've never seen anything quite like it. Anyone else notice? I Googled and I'm not the only one...


Oh, I definitely noticed that during the show. It's like she had them all filed down or something!


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

laria said:


> Oh, I definitely noticed that during the show. It's like she had them all filed down or something!


Why would somebody do this? It looks so unnatural! Maybe she's a reformed Vampire...


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

bareyb said:


> Why would somebody do this? It looks so unnatural! Maybe she's a reformed Vampire...


I don't know if she really did... but it looks weird.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

bareyb said:


> I DO think Russell could possibly have pulled out a win at Tribal if he'd had the best speech in Survivor History ... Instead, he gave the exact same speech that lost him the money on his prior season.


I actually didn't think his speech was that bad his first season. At least he made an effort to articulate some of the things he did to get there. Conversely, his performance at FTC this season was simply pathetic. It's almost as if he went out of his way to further alienate the jurors. The only way he had even an outside chance of winning would have been to lie and tell everybody that being an a**hole was part of his strategy. He had to make it seem like all of his antagonistic behavior was done solely for the purpose of getting others to want to take him to the end. That approach, along with a little humility, may have possibly garnered him some votes.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

pmyers said:


> I found this intersting:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think they decided to get rid of Tom and Stephenie?
> ...


Well, this season was also one of the more difficult to "judge" because every single person out there knew the others, and knew how they played the game. The only wildcard was Russell. Several of the cast mentioned how on their first season (and even their second) there was time to get to know people - to have conversations for the first couple of days before needing to worry about solidifying an alliance. For Heroes Vs. Villains, it was all 100% game play and get an alliance the second they got to camp. Lines were drawn much much sooner than they'd ever been drawn before. Because everyone knew everyone and how they played the game.

It goes back to even Rupert talking about keeping the strongest players around and then NOT voting out the weak broken hobbled player simply because he was part of his alliance.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)




----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Thanks for the vid link. I loved #3!


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Boston Robs was the best.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Oh I'm so glad this thead stopped bumping up to the top, so I can be done wit...

DOH!


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Looks like Russell and Natalie will be in town Memorial Day to do a Meet and Greet at the Hard Rock Casino. I may just have to stop by for that.


----------

