# Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains 3/11/10



## StanSimmons (Jun 10, 2000)

Dumb. Really Dumb.

James can hardly hobble around and they vote off Tom?


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Yeah. Agreed.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

It's official, the Heroes tribe SUCKS! I hope they lose every challenge from here on out. I want to see them picked off one by one. They kept a damaged James over Tom?!? Un-f'ing-believable.

From the previews:



Spoiler



We've got a Rob/Russel smackdown coming. Go Rob!


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I guess they've gotten too used to going to Tribal Council.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I was rather appalled (but still entertained) by JT crunching Coach and Rupert crunching Jerri and they still lost. 

Russell finds the HII ... again ... and gets to hang on to it. Good golly.

And the Heros lose yet another puzzle challenge. My wife commented the Tom looked really lost in that challenge and James didn't suck at calling directions, so maybe they made the right choice. I like Tom, but someone's gotta go.


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

Only thing I can figure is JT was worried about Candice. She could have flipped back on him in a second after this vote. I guess he felt the James/Amanda/Candice/Rupert alliance was stronger than Tom/Colby/Candice would have been. And unfortunately, he's probably right. Candice and Amanda can string Rupert along to do whatever they want. And it seems Amanda can do the same thing with James. It's probably not going to matter though cause they probably won't ever win another team challenge.


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

heySkippy said:


> And the Heros lose yet another puzzle challenge. My wife commented the Tom looked really lost in that challenge and James didn't suck at calling directions, so maybe they made the right choice. I like Tom, but someone's gotta go.


Only thing is James won't have the luxury of sitting down at challenges every time.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

jking said:


> Only thing is James won't have the luxury of sitting down at challenges every time.


But now he's got 3 days to get better.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

Major bummer of an episode. 

I lost what little respect I had left for Rupert. What was up with that Jerri toss?

Last week was oil. Week before was mud. I was bummed they didn't wrestle in the chocolate this time. 

Good for Russell. :up: I have a feeling it won't amount to much, but I'm happy he's kept his HII streak alive.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

The Heroes tribe is stupid. That is all.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Man, I would love nothing more than to see Rob take Russell down.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Man, I would love nothing more than to see Rob take Russell down.


It'd take at least 2 episodes, because I expect Russell will play the HII the next time they got to TC.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

TriBruin said:


> From the previews:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Clash of the Titans! I can't wait! (Oh, and Go Russel!) )


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Dragon Chi


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I think it was a smart move for some but a really stupid move for the team.



heySkippy said:


> But now he's got 3 days to get better.


Then it will only take one hit or slip and he will be out again.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

StanSimmons said:


> Dumb. Really Dumb.
> 
> James can hardly hobble around and they vote off Tom?


I would have done the same. Keep James.

Thing is, they lose immunity challenges. All of them, pretty much. With James and Tom. Doesn't matter which you keep, odds are you lose again. By keeping James I'd be keeping one more person that deserves to go before me. We lose the next challenge and I simply tell my hero-mates "Uh, we should have voted off James last time, his knee isn't healing at all. Let's do it this time."


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> I was rather appalled (but still entertained) by JT crunching Coach and Rupert crunching Jerri and they still lost.


Dare I say this show is getting too violent?

I thought people were going to start throwing punches tonight.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> I was rather appalled (but still entertained) by JT crunching Coach and Rupert crunching Jerri and they still lost.


Difference was JT was fine with what he did, but Rupert immediately regretted it and tried to apoligize! And Jerri was having none of it. Too funny!

FWIW it was out-of-character for Rupert. Maybe the severity of it was an accident? I'll have to rewatch to see if I can tell.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

What a bunch of idiots.

I also think it's getting too violent. I am starting to feel like they are designing these challenges with carnage in mind and basically encouraging attacks. :down:


----------



## buckeye1010 (Dec 11, 2002)

Did they not show Rupert's voting at the end of the show?


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

I loved the part where Russell asked Coach to Prom and then Coach got down on one knee and proposed. At least I think that's what was happening. I had the volume turned down.

And Amanda looked as hot as ever!


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

I saw the Rupert/Jerri thing as a total accident. Rupert was 'detaining' Jerri, who of course, was in motion and as they were spinning Jeff called the point (from Tyson?). I thought Rupert was just kind of 'letting go' at that point and the momentum just wound up with Jerri's noodle slamming the post. I really don't think there was anything intentional about it.

Though I did love JT's intentional slam of Coach.  I have a feeling that after this season will be the last we see of that challenge. Not because of James' injury which had nothing really to do with the challenge, but things on the field do get a bit tense.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Ruth said:


> What a bunch of idiots.
> 
> I also think it's getting too violent. I am starting to feel like they are designing these challenges with carnage in mind and basically encouraging attacks. :down:


Well, it's not like these are newly designed challenges that are extra physical, since they are all retreads of previously used challenges. But I do think the show is certainly encouraging more physical play, and I bet the producers love crap like James' injury.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Pretty amazing that JT manages to go against his alliance, get rid of Cerie, then flip back and get rid of Tom, and seems still fine.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Jeff Probst's blog:

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/03/12/jeff-probst-blogs-survivor-heroes-vs-villains-epidode-5/

He says:



Spoiler



They will never have this challenge again


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I, too, think the Rupert/Jerri thing was a total accident and he seemed really sorry about it...

wow...Amanda...wow...she is totally hot...

I was annoyed when I saw an immunity challenge with a puzzle at the end...totally negated the fact that the villains had to play useless players like Courtney and Parv in it...so the villains got to sit weak players for the challenge that required brawn and then play them in the challenge that didn't...


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

Anubys said:


> I was annoyed when I saw an immunity challenge with a puzzle at the end...totally negated the fact that the villains had to play useless players like Courtney and Parv in it...so the villains got to sit weak players for the challenge that required brawn and then play them in the challenge that didn't...


Sounds like good planning!


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

I used to think Amanda was hot in previous seasons but I guess I'm over her now. And she always looks like she is about to cry and that gets old.


I never thought I would say it but I think I'm rooting for Boston Rob to win it all. I never really liked him until this season.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Jebberwocky! said:


> Sounds like good planning!


only if they knew what the next challenge would entail...and they did not


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Anubys said:


> only if they knew what the next challenge would entail...and they did not


Well, it's not carved in stone, but reward challenges are typically physical and immunity challenges are typically puzzles, so it was a good bet.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

uncdrew said:


> I would have done the same. Keep James.
> 
> Thing is, they lose immunity challenges. All of them, pretty much. With James and Tom. Doesn't matter which you keep, odds are you lose again. By keeping James I'd be keeping one more person that deserves to go before me. We lose the next challenge and I simply tell my hero-mates "Uh, we should have voted off James last time, his knee isn't healing at all. Let's do it this time."


The thing that's odd, is on Tom's season, I recall him leading his tribe through a bunch of winning challenges. I recall the rope one for sure. Now, all of a sudden he's inept at them. Still made no sense keeping James over him though. This tribe is definitely being run by the girls. And I used to like Rupert, but maybe he just isn't into being on a third time (or maybe I just care to see him on again). He just seems so passive, going with the flow. Maybe it's a strategy of his, since being more of a leader didn't work the last times around.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

btw: I now know how to get any woman to sleep with me...offer her chocolate!

I've seen less lust in pornos


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I was actually a bit surprised that once James got hurt, they didn't let Colby take his place in the challenge. It seemed unfair to me.

Mmmmmm...chocolate. Amazing those samples didn't melt in the sun. And perhaps the lack of sugar rush from not eating the chocolate cost heroes the challenge? nah, I didn't think so


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Anubys said:


> *btw: I now know how to get any woman to sleep with me...offer her chocolate!*
> I've seen less lust in pornos


Chocolate IS an aphrodesiac


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I was actually a bit surprised that once James got hurt, they didn't let Colby take his place in the challenge. It seemed unfair to me.


YES!

thanks for reminding me of that...I thought for sure Colby would go in...never mind the fact that I was shocked they took him out in the first place (saving him for the next challenge?)...


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> The thing that's odd, is on Tom's season, I recall him leading his tribe through a bunch of winning challenges. I recall the rope one for sure. Now, all of a sudden he's inept at them. Still made no sense keeping James over him though. This tribe is definitely being run by the girls. And I used to like Rupert, but maybe he just isn't into being on a third time (or maybe I just care to see him on again). He just seems so passive, going with the flow. Maybe it's a strategy of his, since being more of a leader didn't work the last times around.


Tom's not getting any younger.

As for Rupert, I'm not sure he's ever been the most brilliant strategist. His gut reaction seems to be to vote based on emotion. Last night he first wanted to vote for Tom, I suspect simply because he wanted to "get back at him" for the blindside at the last tribal council. Then when Candice mentioned that voting James out might be a better move, he was ready to vote her out (seemingly out of spite) until Amanda was able to calm him down. There can be no doubt he wears his emotions on his sleeve. The secret to Rupert's game is to be in an alliance where he has someone to tell him what to do next.


----------



## toddvj (Apr 22, 2004)

DancnDude said:


> Dragon Chi


Was it Dragon Chi or Dragon-*Slayer* Chi? Funny either way, but Dragon-Slayer Chi is even funnier. I liked his instructions, too. "Move your arms like this"



stalemate said:


> I used to think Amanda was hot in previous seasons but I guess I'm over her now.


Ummm...Gay  NTTARWT


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

toddvj said:


> Ummm...Gay  NTTARWT


I like Candace more now. I don't think I watched whatever season she was on first.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I was actually a bit surprised that once James got hurt, they didn't let Colby take his place in the challenge. It seemed unfair to me.


I thought it was fair. I think it would have been bad to let Colby in. That would have made it 7 vs 6. 6 vs 6 is how the game started, if one player can't complete it, then you go forward. But allowing Colby in, would be like bringing in a fresh player. Not fair to the other team that is worn out.


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

toddvj said:


> Was it Dragon Chi or Dragon-*Slayer* Chi? Funny either way, but Dragon-Slayer Chi is even funnier. I liked his instructions, too. "Move your arms like this"


Even better, I think Russell referred to it as "Coa-Chi"


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Magister said:


> I thought it was fair. I think it would have been bad to let Colby in. That would have made it 7 vs 6. 6 vs 6 is how the game started, if one player can't complete it, then you go forward. But allowing Colby in, would be like bringing in a fresh player. Not fair to the other team that is worn out.


Agreed. Your team was set. The people sitting out aren't alternates, they're simply not part of the current competition.

I would have been fine either way, actually. But what they did made sense to me.

Guess I'm the only one that thinks keeping James was the right move. I think it's wise to keep someone weaker/more deserving than you, so there's an obvious vote of who to dump next. Especially when the person you do vote out (Tom) hasn't done a thing to help yet.

So for Rupert, Amanda, JT and Candice, they now are in position where Colby or James gets voted off next, then the other one. They are now pretty safe for the next two tribal coucils. That's how I see it.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

Anubys said:


> wow...Amanda...wow...she is totally hot...


+this


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Magister said:


> I thought it was fair. I think it would have been bad to let Colby in. That would have made it 7 vs 6. 6 vs 6 is how the game started, if one player can't complete it, then you go forward. But allowing Colby in, would be like bringing in a fresh player. Not fair to the other team that is worn out.


Here's how I look at it.

If the doctor told him that he had to sit out, I think it would be ok to put in a replacement, as long as the rules were the same for both teams.

If he chose to sit out on his own, doctors advice or not, then I agree, there should be no substitue (as people could fake injuries to get in a fresher player).

To me, it's similar to most team sports. A guy gets hurt, you can substitute a player to replace them. Happens in football, baseball, whatever... Nobody ever says that it's not fair.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Here's how I look at it.
> 
> If the doctor told him that he had to sit out, I think it would be ok to put in a replacement, as long as the rules were the same for both teams.
> 
> ...


I see it more like hockey, you name your scratches before the game. If someone gets hurt you can't activate one of your scratches you just continue with what you have.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> To me, it's similar to most team sports. A guy gets hurt, you can substitute a player to replace them. Happens in football, baseball, whatever... Nobody ever says that it's not fair.


So if the Villains wanted to substitute someone to replaced a player who was fatigued, would that be okay too?

IMO if subs are to be allowed it needs to be very clearly specified before play starts and both teams should have the same number of subs available.


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> To me, it's similar to most team sports. A guy gets hurt, you can substitute a player to replace them. Happens in football, baseball, whatever... Nobody ever says that it's not fair.


Only difference is in other team sports subs are allowed regularly anyway, regardless of injuries. It's a regular part of the game. That's not something that's ever been a regular part of the game of Survivor, so it would have seemed out of place here. I don't remember exactly if both teams had a sub available, but if the Villains didn't have a bench player, it certainly wouldn't have been fair to have let Colby in for James, then say for instance Jerry got taken out by Rupert and the Villains didn't have an extra player to take her place.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

JFriday said:


> I see it more like hockey, you name your scratches before the game. If someone gets hurt you can't activate one of your scratches you just continue with what you have.


yeah, but you can still have equal number of players on the ice at one time. But I see your point.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> So if the Villains wanted to substitute someone to replaced a player who was fatigued, would that be okay too?
> 
> IMO if subs are to be allowed it needs to be very clearly specified before play starts and both teams should have the same number of subs available.


No, I actually said I wouldn't agree to that. I said, if the DOCTOR says that the player has to sit out because of injury, then it's ok to substitute. If the player chooses to sit out on his own, then, no, no sub would be allowed there.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jking said:


> Only difference is in other team sports subs are allowed regularly anyway, regardless of injuries. It's a regular part of the game. That's not something that's ever been a regular part of the game of Survivor, so it would have seemed out of place here. I don't remember exactly if both teams had a sub available, but if the Villains didn't have a bench player, it certainly wouldn't have been fair to have let Colby in for James, then say for instance Jerry got taken out by Rupert and the Villains didn't have an extra player to take her place.


The villains had to sit out players (I think 3). Remember the villains had more players to start with. So that's not an issue here.

Has there ever been another challenge where someone has gotten hurt and a team had to play shorthanded?


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

Speaking of Colby and the challenge, I thought it was kind of funny that he was showing such "focus" by not showing any interest in the chocolate samples and just wanted to get to the competition... then when they had to sit someone out he said "I'll sit out".

I know more went into it than that, but the way that whole sequence was shown was kind of comical.

Was also kind of cool how Probst put him in his place: "We'll start the challenge when I say so."


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

jking said:


> Speaking of Colby and the challenge, I thought it was kind of funny that he was showing such "focus" by not showing any interest in the chocolate samples and just wanted to get to the competition... then when they had to sit someone out he said "I'll sit out".
> 
> I know more went into it than that, but the way that whole sequence was shown was kind of comical.


I laughed at that too.

Colby, focused (on the sidelines).


----------



## LlamaLarry (Apr 30, 2003)

Hmm, I did not put those together while watching the show, but that is seriously funny.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> No, I actually said I wouldn't agree to that. I said, if the DOCTOR says that the player has to sit out because of injury, then it's ok to substitute. If the player chooses to sit out on his own, then, no, no sub would be allowed there.


That doesn't change my opinion much. It would still need to be spelled out clearly prior to the game and both teams would need to say who their eligible subs were and both teams would have the same number available.

Otherwise it's just making it up as they go along and that's never okay.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Has there ever been another challenge where someone has gotten hurt and a team had to play shorthanded?


There should have been last season but they just ended the challenge completely when Russell went down. Not sure why the rules were different this time.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

goblue97 said:


> There should have been last season but they just ended the challenge completely when Russell went down. Not sure why the rules were different this time.


because he almost died and it took a long time to revive him...the rest of the people were in shock...Jeff made the call...


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

goblue97 said:


> There should have been last season but they just ended the challenge completely when Russell went down. Not sure why the rules were different this time.


Didn't Jeff eject a player from this very same challenge last season and make the team play shorthanded?


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

heySkippy said:


> Didn't Jeff eject a player from this very same challenge last season and make the team play shorthanded?


Ben was ejected from the same challenge last year. I don't remember if they played shorthanded but they must have.


----------



## Jayjoans (Jan 23, 2003)

Anybody else notice during the blindfolded puzzle piece finding mission when Coach was approaching an upright piece with his hand out that he then put his hand right on top of the piece as if he could see it? His hand was vertical in a "stop" position, and then just as he came up on it he moved his hand horizontal and placed it just on top of the piece. 

Looked strange enough that we rewatched it a few times, no doubt he could see it.

Funny to watch Rob too, one hand out and one hand over his jewels in case he walked into something.


----------



## nmiller855 (Sep 26, 2000)

I wish we had the choice of whether to watch Survivor or the sports that will be on in their place.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

Jayjoans said:


> Funny to watch Rob too, one hand out and one hand over his jewels in case he walked into something.


I noticed that but my wife didn't. I thought it was pretty funny.

I did laugh when Colby was playing Mr Hardass about being ready for the challenge then 'I will sit out'.

Ha.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

uncdrew said:


> Agreed. Your team was set. The people sitting out aren't alternates, they're simply not part of the current competition.
> 
> I would have been fine either way, actually. But what they did made sense to me.
> 
> ...


Yes this helps you in the short term (ie the next 2 TCs in your example), but it hurts you in the long term because you now have a bigger risk to continue to lose challenges even after those 2 TCs. If you go into the merge numbers down, it doesn't matter how good you sit within your smaller group because you are likely gonna get picked off one by one after the merge and there is almost nothing you can do about it.

You keep the strong while separate, then get rid of the strong once merged.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> The Heroes tribe is stupid. That is all.


Amen.

When James said "if you think I can't beat Tom like this vote me out", why didn't someone say, " you were healthy for 3 of the 4 challenges we lost, what was your excuse then?"

I am now officially going to stop calling them the Heroes and start calling them the Zeroes. I honestly think there aren't two neurons to rub together in the whole tribe.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Jayjoans said:


> Anybody else notice during the blindfolded puzzle piece finding mission when Coach was approaching an upright piece with his hand out that he then put his hand right on top of the piece as if he could see it? His hand was vertical in a "stop" position, and then just as he came up on it he moved his hand horizontal and placed it just on top of the piece.
> 
> Looked strange enough that we rewatched it a few times, no doubt he could see it.
> 
> Funny to watch Rob too, one hand out and one hand over his jewels in case he walked into something.


I thought the same thing when I saw that. My guess is that he could see under the lower edge.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

billypritchard said:


> Pretty amazing that JT manages to go against his alliance, get rid of Cerie, then flip back and get rid of Tom, and seems still fine.





IJustLikeTivo said:


> Amen.
> 
> When James said "if you think I can't beat Tom like this vote me out", why didn't someone say, " you were healthy for 3 of the 4 challenges we lost, what was your excuse then?"
> 
> I am now officially going to stop calling them the Heroes and start calling them the Zeroes. I honestly think there aren't two neurons to rub together in the whole tribe.


IJLT's comments (in response to my "The Heroes are stupid" statement) pretty much follow-up the comment that billypritchard has made here about JT. JT *had* the chance to take more control of the Heroes tribe and in effect the game. If he stood by his guns and helped dump James than it's JT + Candice (who seems to go in just about any direction as long as there's someone else there to cling to) in a pair with Tom and Colby in a pair and Rupert and Amanda (I am getting that right, no?) each sort of trying to figure out who to pair up with. Pairs all around and no one group having too much power.

As is now James is still there, along with Amanda, along with Rupert. That's 3 that are just as likely to dump JT after dumping Colby, then Candice, etc.

JT may be thinking he gets to stay for a little longer by maintaining his loyalty to James, Rupert, Amanda, etc., but only for a little while and certainly in a very weak state. If he'd gone with Colby and Tom he could have helped pick off the other players and been left even with both of them until it was too late for anyone else to bump him.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

No one has loyalty to JT anymore. He burned both groups. He will end up going before the groups chew on themselves. Heck, he might be gone before the merge, since they saw him switching his votes so often.


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

We also have to consider (and so should JT and the rest of the Survivors) that you can never get too comfortable in this game. You never know when something like a tribe shuffle might happen, messing up everyone's alliances. If that were to happen, it may well destroy JT, cause everyone in his tribe knows the game he's playing now. Any one of them will be willing to burn him to the ground if they find themselves in that situation.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I have not been very impressed with Colby this season. 

I wonder if you could set up a hoop at the camp and practice shooting coconuts. It seems some of these guys really need some practice.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

I think tribal lines in this season will be blurred once they merge. There will be some on the "outs" and team with with players they've played with in other seasons. I don't think it will be nearly as clear-cut as other seasons. Right now they just need to get to the merge and it'll be a different game.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

bryhamm said:


> Yes this helps you in the short term (ie the next 2 TCs in your example), but it hurts you in the long term because you now have a bigger risk to continue to lose challenges even after those 2 TCs. If you go into the merge numbers down, it doesn't matter how good you sit within your smaller group because you are likely gonna get picked off one by one after the merge and there is almost nothing you can do about it.
> 
> You keep the strong while separate, then get rid of the strong once merged.


They've proven that they're going to lose challenges though. They can't win with any combo of players, apparently. I think the "strong while seperate, then get rid of strong once merged" is too black and white. It's good in general though.

And if you're safe for the next 2 challenges, that's almost all you need to get to merge, right?

I think the #1 goal is to make sure you don't get voted off, not keeping the team of a certain make-up. I think keeping James in the game was the smart move. I think we all can safely assume the Heroes will be smaller than the Villains come merge time -- I think it's time to give on that goal.


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

DancnDude said:


> I think tribal lines in this season will be blurred once they merge. There will be some on the "outs" and team with with players they've played with in other seasons. I don't think it will be nearly as clear-cut as other seasons. Right now they just need to get to the merge and it'll be a different game.


I agree. However I do think the longer the Villains are allowed to keep winning, the more likely they will be to be willing to "finish off" the remaining Heroes tribe once the merge does happen before turning on each other. I mean heck, last night a couple of the Villains got married, so obviously they're becoming a pretty close-knit group.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

jking said:


> I agree. However I do think the longer the Villains are allowed to keep winning, the more likely they will be to be willing to "finish off" the remaining Heroes tribe once the merge does happen before turning on each other. I mean heck, last night a couple of the Villains got married, so obviously they're becoming a pretty close-knit group.


Unless...

Let's say Rob and Russell both make it to the merge. If they're still head-to-head against each other, both will trip over themselves trying to get the heroes to join their cause.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

in a game like this it doesn't matter which tribe has the numbers at the merge...heck, just as others have pointed out, it might be better to go in with less people and then have the tribe with the numbers destroy themselves...

just like Russell did last year, actually...


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

uncdrew said:


> Guess I'm the only one that thinks keeping James was the right move. I think it's wise to keep someone weaker/more deserving than you, so there's an obvious vote of who to dump next. Especially when the person you do vote out (Tom) hasn't done a thing to help yet.
> 
> So for Rupert, Amanda, JT and Candice, they now are in position where Colby or James gets voted off next, then the other one. They are now pretty safe for the next two tribal coucils. That's how I see it.


I think it was right to keep James, too. They can always get rid of him later if he doesn't get better when they go to tribal next. I liked Tom in the previous season that he won, but this time I was happy to see him go and James stay. James seems to have calmed down the attitude a bit and I thought he did a really good job directing the blindfolded players. At least Stephanie will have some better company to pass the time with.



Anubys said:


> in a game like this it doesn't matter which tribe has the numbers at the merge...heck, just as others have pointed out, it might be better to go in with less people and then have the tribe with the numbers destroy themselves...
> 
> just like Russell did last year, actually...


I agree. I think when the merge happens it's definitely gonna be a whole new game with very little tribal loyality.

I'm loving that they are back to 2 challenges per ep. But just like last season, I don't understand why they aren't doing swimming challenges.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Man, I would love nothing more than to see Rob take Russell down.


I'm hoping for the opposite result.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

brianric said:


> I'm hoping for the opposite result.


I'm hoping they both survive for a while longer.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> I'm hoping they both survive for a while longer.


Me too, they are entertaining.


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

Jayjoans said:


> Funny to watch Rob too, one hand out and one hand over his jewels in case he walked into something.


I guess you missed the part before he started doing that when he actually hurt himself.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

What I predict will happen is the Heroes will actually win the next immunity challenge, but James will hurt his leg again and have to go home, with the net result them losing someone when they didn't need to. 

James should definitely have gone home. It seems like TPTB are being much more lenient with keeping injured people in the game...unless, I guess, we just haven't seen these types of injuries. I just can't imagine in the earlier seasons, letting someone stay in the game with a brace...?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Note to CBS...you are making these webclips almost unwatchable! Stop putting a 30 second commercial in front of a 1:15 clip!!!

The only decent clip is where Russell is talking about BRob and how Brob is controlling everything at camp (which we aren't really seeing on the show) including what they can and cannot eat. I'm starting to understand more why Russell wants BRob gone so bad.


----------



## Jayjoans (Jan 23, 2003)

KyleLC said:


> I guess you missed the part before he started doing that when he actually hurt himself.


I don't see how my comment implies I missed anything...


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

Jayjoans said:


> I don't see how my comment implies I missed anything...


The fact that you didn't mention that he had already hurt himself implied it to me. I would have at least expected the word "again" at the end of your sentence.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

pmyers said:


> Note to CBS...you are making these webclips almost unwatchable! Stop putting a 30 second commercial in front of a 1:15 clip!!!
> 
> The only decent clip is where Russell is talking about BRob and how Brob is controlling everything at camp (which we aren't really seeing on the show) including what they can and cannot eat. I'm starting to understand more why Russell wants BRob gone so bad.


That accusation from the man who stole and buried the machete? I think it is a ruse of Russell's to turn the tribe against Boston Rob.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

betts4 said:


> That accusation from the man who stole and buried the machete? I think it is a ruse of Russell's to turn the tribe against Boston Rob.


wasn't a accusation...it was the truth. Rob says he's going to go out fishing and get some food for the tribe so Russell gets the fire all ready....Rob comes back with no food and there is a suggestion that they eat one of the chickens. Rob says no chickens will be eaten today, and no chicken was ate.

Other than Coach, who is in love with Brob, it seems like people are wearing pretty thin on Brob....only problem is they know they need him to keep winning challenges.

I'm still hoping these guys get together and run this game, but it isn't looking too good!


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

pmyers said:


> wasn't a accusation...it was the truth. Rob says he's going to go out fishing and get some food for the tribe so Russell gets the fire all ready....Rob comes back with no food and there is a suggestion that they eat one of the chickens. Rob says no chickens will be eaten today, and no chicken was ate.


Okay, I must have totally missed that. Sorry. However, it still seems like Rob is trying to be a leader, and Russell doesn't like that.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Wow, Tyson's clip about being Rob's new Amber was hilarious.

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/surviv...FA7WfOsDje3bV18QG9PY_O8v&vs=Default&play=true


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

betts4 said:


> Okay, I must have totally missed that. Sorry. However, it still seems like Rob is trying to be a leader, and Russell doesn't like that.


oh, your absolutely right that Russell doesn't like it...but other people are starting to get a little frustrated with Brob as well....but they know they need him and he knows they know! lol


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

heySkippy said:


> Wow, Tyson's clip about being Rob's new Amber was hilarious.
> 
> http://www.cbs.com/primetime/surviv...FA7WfOsDje3bV18QG9PY_O8v&vs=Default&play=true


yeah...that is classic Tyson!


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

pmyers said:


> Note to CBS...you are making these webclips almost unwatchable! Stop putting a 30 second commercial in front of a 1:15 clip!!!
> 
> The only decent clip is where Russell is talking about BRob and how Brob is controlling everything at camp (which we aren't really seeing on the show) including what they can and cannot eat. I'm starting to understand more why Russell wants BRob gone so bad.


I think you can watch them on youtube sans commercials. I too am sick of them and I know this is how they get in our heads and pay for their crap with advertising, but I learned 20 years ago in college marketing about subliminal advertising. I don't even look at the screen and mute it while I count the seconds. I refuse to give into the bastards.

I remember the early days of the net and 14.4 baud speed on modems in the early 90's. It was mainly text pages on the net with little or no graphics and NO ADVERTISING!! Even at 14.4 and just text pages loaded faster than then they do now with high speed connections. Ridiculous. Is some ways I miss the no graphics and no advert days of the net.

I just clicked on the above link with Tyson and it gave me an option to skip the ad?  Can it be or is it just that video clip?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I see no skip option


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

I don't mind ads, but 30 seconds for a short clip is too much. They should show an ad every three or four clips.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Kablemodem said:


> I don't mind ads, but 30 seconds for a short clip is too much. They should show an ad every three or four clips.


totally agree....and don't make me have to hit the back button and scroll through pages to watch the next clip. Give me an easy way to just cycle through all of the clips! C'mon...this is 2010 for Pete's sake!


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

pmyers said:


> totally agree....and don't make me have to hit the back button and scroll through pages to watch the next clip. Give me an easy way to just cycle through all of the clips! C'mon...this is 2010 for Pete's sake!


I don't think CBS actually wants people to watch things on their website, between this stuff and how some of their shows are not even available in their entirety online, and other shows that are only having the last two episodes available online.

I've been dealing with a dead TiVo the past 1.5 weeks, and of course it's the one where I record all my CBS shows, and some of them I have no way to get the episodes legitimately. Others, the only way to get them is to buy on iTunes because they aren't available on CBS/Hulu/Xbox Live/Comcast's Fancast thing/Amazon/etc.

CBS :down::down::down:


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

JT and Candice were simply dumb voting out Tom. They're the next two in line as James, crybaby Amanda and Rupert are tight. At least with Tom and Colby, they had a 2-2 split and could have gotten Rupert or Amanda to swing vote with them.

Go Russell.

Frank


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

DancnDude said:


> Dragon Chi





jking said:


> Even better, I think Russell referred to it as "Coa-Chi"


I loved Russell calling it Coa-Chi. Russell also has a huge target on his back by having the idol, but do the Villains have the number to flush out the idol and still control who goes home?


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Also warning no Survivor next week and the following week Survivor will be on Wed the 24th then for April 1st we will be back at our regular Thur time slot.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Einselen said:


> I loved Russell calling it Coa-Chi. Russell also has a huge target on his back by having the idol, but do the Villains have the number to flush out the idol and still control who goes home?


Doesn't matter how big the target on his back is, playing the idol guarantees he stays. Then it is re-hidden for him to find yet again!


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

tiams said:


> Doesn't matter how big the target on his back is, playing the idol guarantees he stays. Then it is re-hidden for him to find yet again!


True, but usually in this game you don't want to be drawing attention to yourself as a name they should write down. Knowing Russell's history though it wouldn't surprise me if at the next three TC he has and plays a HII each time earning him more time in the game.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Einselen said:


> Also warning no Survivor next week and the following week Survivor will be on Wed the 24th then for April 1st we will be back at our regular Thur time slot.


Do we know yet if the Wed the 24th show is a regular episode or just a clip/'unaired scenes' show?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

JLucPicard said:


> Do we know yet if the Wed the 24th show is a regular episode or just a clip/'unaired scenes' show?


I don't know, but I fully expect it to be a clips show...


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

According to TV Guide listings the show on the 24th is new. It says



Spoiler



There will be a double elimination


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

The clips show usually comes after the merge, doesn't it?


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

uncdrew said:


> Guess I'm the only one that thinks keeping James was the right move. I think it's wise to keep someone weaker/more deserving than you, so there's an obvious vote of who to dump next. Especially when the person you do vote out (Tom) hasn't done a thing to help yet.
> 
> So for Rupert, Amanda, JT and Candice, they now are in position where Colby or James gets voted off next, then the other one. They are now pretty safe for the next two tribal coucils. That's how I see it.


That works out great, but if you think that Amanda and Rupert are going to vote out James next week when they lose and go to Tribal, you're kidding yourself. Those three have been voting their alliance since the first Tribal that meant something when Stephanie was sent packing. The next person going from the Heroes tribe will be Colby followed by either Candice or, more likely, J.T. (since he's a previous winner).

For whatever reason, J.T. felt he was in a better position with the Alliance of 3 (Amanda, Rupert, and James) than he would be in an Alliance of 4 with himself & Candice coupled with Tom and Colby.

J.T. sealed his fate - there's no way that he goes anywhere because he's on the bottom of the Amanda/James/Rupert alliance. He and Candice are 4 and 5 with that alliance. There haven't been this many boneheaded moves by one tribe in years. The Villians are going to eat them up come merge.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

Anubys said:


> in a game like this it doesn't matter which tribe has the numbers at the merge...heck, just as others have pointed out, it might be better to go in with less people and then have the tribe with the numbers destroy themselves...
> 
> just like Russell did last year, actually...


See, that happens with people who aren't savy about playing the game. Here, we've got a bunch of really smart and savy people who've seen tribe after tribe go in with numbers, get excited about having the opportunity to get rid of one of their own only to see their number advantage vanish. Barring immunity, I see the remaining Heroes being eliminated before the Villians eliminate one of their own (post-merge).


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Necromancer2006 said:


> ...For whatever reason, J.T. felt he was in a better position with the Alliance of 3 (Amanda, Rupert, and James) than he would be in an Alliance of 4 with himself & Candice coupled with Tom and Colby...


From what I've seen on the CBS webclips.....JT has quite the thing for Amanda. Don't know if they played in to his decision or not...poor fool


----------



## hapdrastic (Mar 31, 2006)

pmyers said:


> From what I've seen on the CBS webclips.....JT has quite the thing for Amanda. Don't know if they played in to his decision or not...poor fool


Him and everyone else. Seriously, who doesn't have a thing for Amanda?


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

hapdrastic said:


> Him and everyone else. Seriously, who doesn't have a thing for Amanda?


Me.

Seriously, she doesn't really do anything special for me and really isn't something that I'd toss a chance at a million $$ away for.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

hapdrastic said:


> Him and everyone else. Seriously, who doesn't have a thing for Amanda?


Not me either. She's not ugly by any means, but she doesn't make me weak in the head.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Not me either. She's not ugly by any means, but she doesn't make me weak in the head.


+1


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Anubys said:


> wow...Amanda...wow...she is totally hot...


There's a reason she was Miss Montana.


stalemate said:


> I used to think Amanda was hot in previous seasons but I guess I'm over her now. And *she always looks like she is about to cry* and that gets old.


You're looking in the wrong place.


Jayjoans said:


> Anybody else notice during the blindfolded puzzle piece finding mission when Coach was approaching an upright piece with his hand out that he then put his hand right on top of the piece as if he could see it? His hand was vertical in a "stop" position, and then just as he came up on it he moved his hand horizontal and placed it just on top of the piece.
> 
> Looked strange enough that we rewatched it a few times, no doubt he could see it.


Yeah, I noticed that too. I figured he could see a little out the bottom and wasn't about to turn himself in if it might give him a bit of an advantage.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> ...Yeah, I noticed that too. I figured he could see a little out the bottom and wasn't about to turn himself in if it might give him a bit of an advantage.


but.....that wouldn't be very honorable!!! lol


----------



## crowtoo (Dec 7, 2005)

JLucPicard said:


> Do we know yet if the Wed the 24th show is a regular episode or just a clip/'unaired scenes' show?


The person who works in post production for the show and posts on another message board I read confirmed it will be a new episode, no clip show.

Chris
[email protected]


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Not me either. She's not ugly by any means, but she doesn't make me weak in the head.


As I said in a previous thread, too "vanilla" for me.

Frank


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

fmowry said:


> As I said in a previous thread, too "vanilla" for me.
> 
> Frank


Add a little chocolate syrup and some whipped cream and I'll take her!


----------

