SURVIVOR 19: SAMOA - Megathread (Spoilers Within)- Page 6

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/20/09 at 10:42pm

Agreed, however he did deserve to win based on his gameplay.

But I am SOOO PISSED that Natalie won. Her "prayer warrior" bat-**** crazyness got on my last frickin' nerves.

Between those three, if I had it my way, Mick would have won.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 12/20/09 at 10:45pm

Going into it, I would have thought Mick had a good shot at winning.
But, he really blew it during Q&A by not standing up for himself, and letting Russell take over the statements.

I don't think that Russell deserved to win based on his gameplay. Part of the game is who you take with you to the finals, and he made some bad decisions with his strategy and his answers. As Jeff said, it's not just getting to the finals, it's getting the votes - and he didn't play to get the votes.

[StockardFan]

Posted: 12/20/09 at 10:46pm

I agree addy.

But I also agree that the "prayer warrior" stuff was annoying.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/20/09 at 10:48pm

No, he did play for the votes and he stated that repeatedly during the more recent episodes. His only admitted mistake was not taking Jaison and Shambo. He went into the jury thinking he had exactly 5 votes. But during the Q&A he discovered that 1 of his 5 was probably not going to vote for him.


On a different topic -- I thought the Live Finale was always broadcast from the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York where David Letterman tapes. Why are they in Hollywood this season?

[StockardFan]

Posted: 12/20/09 at 10:53pm

I think it's been in LA for the last few years? I could be wrong though.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/20/09 at 10:59pm

Oh LAWD, they're doing Heroes versus Villains?? Does this mean we're going to have Russell in back-to-back seasons???

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/20/09 at 11:01pm

The only year they did it in NY was when Rosie and Bryant Gumbel hosted the reunion. Otherwise, the reunions have always been in L.A.

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 12:13am

I think they've already shot the Heroes/Villains season, so I expect it will not include Russell.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 6:48am

They've had people do back-to-back seasons before, though. I know Bobby John and Stephanie both played the game twice in a row, before their first season aired. Also, Rupert did the same thing when he went directly from Marquesas to All-Stars.

They had to realize Russell would be a candidate for the "Villain" team. I'd be shocked if he weren't on there, frankly.

I'm not sold on the Heroes vs. Villains concept, because it means we'll probably see the likes of people like "Coach" again. Fortunately, Probst banned Johnny Fairplay from all Survivor related events, so I don't think we'll be seeing him.

[StockardFan]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 7:02am

That God for that.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 8:16am

Johnny Fairplay was banned? Why? Why is faking your grandmother's death any worse than falsely claiming you are a Katrina survivor?

They showed Johnny Fairplay in the promo, so he is either in or they were just using him as an example of a villain.

I remember Rupert doing back-to-back seasons but I had forgotten about the other two.

If Russell is on the Heroes versus Villains season, I bet you he got voted out early because of how upset he was last night. I don't think he would have been as upset if he had done well on the 20th season, assuming he is in it.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 8:39am

I'm not keen on seeing any of the villains come back, but I would love to see Stephenie or Cirie again, even though they have played two seasons each already.

Ok, watching a member of Russell's "dumb-ass girl alliance" beat him for the title when he carried her to the finals was the highlight of the season for me. That was HILARIOUS!! I was rooting for Mick at first, but it was pretty clear he had no real drive or backbone. Natalie handled the Q&A perfectly. And no, I don't think Russell was the best strategist ever or any of that other crap. He found the hidden idols without clues and he ousted a couple of the people he targeted very early in the game. Other than that, I was not that impressed. He made a TON of mistakes and constantly underestimated everyone. Russell was extremely lucky in the final immunity challenge. How many times did he say Brett couldn't possibly win any challenges? Why did he take Natalie to the end? I believe he said something about her being useless and wouldn't get any votes. Instead, he gets rid of SHAMBO, who pissed off every single person on the jury and was the biggest traitor of the purple people eaters.

Though I don't care for him, the best strategist is still Richard Hatch. With no previous knowledge of the game, he set the precedent in Survivor strategy that has been a major component of the game for every subsequent season. Not to mention the fact that he actually WON.

I think the Johnny Fairplay ban was lifted because he returned for the Fans vs. Favorites season, but left the competition early voluntarily. But I do remember him being banned for a period of time, not just for the grandmother comment, but also for his behavior at live events, if I'm not mistaken.

Updated On: 12/21/09 at 08:39 AM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 8:41am

They also showed Rudy in the promo and I'd be SHOCKED, given his declining health, if he participated again. The story with Fairplay is that Probst banned him because he showed up to several Survivor related events drunk and has made fun of the show on numerous occasions. Probst takes Survivor quite seriously and doesn't like anyone tarnishing its name. It had nothing to do with his lies about his grandmother.

I wonder if this season we will see contestants who will have appeared in three seasons. It's possible if anyone who was on the first All-Stars season or Fans vs. Favorites is on this upcoming season.

[jasonf]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 11:23am

I can't believe that there are people defending Natalie's win. She did NOTHING to win except attach herself to a strategist who carried her through to the end. Then, she LIED at the end saying they worked together - BS - everything we saw was RUSSELL running the show.

In no way did ANYONE outplay or outwit Russell. The jury, as we've all said all season, was full of bitter and not very intelligent members who voted for who they liked rather than the person who CLEARLY was the best player of the season (maybe not of all time, but in the top ten certainly).

Perhaps an argument can be made Russell was a jerk - but what does that have to do with game play? Fact is, as he said, EVERYONE he wanted out went out. He controlled the game from day one and THAT deserves the win without question.

I COMPLETELY chalk this up to a dumb jury - there is simply no way to argue that Natalie played it better than Russell.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 11:26am

I agree 100%, jasonf.

I think the Johnny Fairplay ban was lifted because he returned for the Fans vs. Favorites season, but left the competition early voluntarily. But I do remember him being banned for a period of time, not just for the grandmother comment, but also for his behavior at live events, if I'm not mistaken.

The ban was after Fans vs. Favorites, and was put in place primarily because of his behavior at that season's reunion ceremony.
Updated On: 12/21/09 at 11:26 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 11:34am

Fact is, as he said, EVERYONE he wanted out went out. He controlled the game from day one and THAT deserves the win without question.

Clearly, if you make it to the final, then most likely, everyone you wanted went out. And I don't remember Mick being part of his final three master plan. Russell did not mastermind every expulsion and he clearly made compromises when votes were not going his way, especially when it came to Shambo, which was one of his biggest mistakes in the game.

Perhaps an argument can be made Russell was a jerk - but what does that have to do with game play?

A major part of game play in a setting where members vote each other out of the game is social interaction, which is where Russell failed and Natalie prevailed. It's a HUGE part of the Survivor game and always has been.

everything we saw was RUSSELL running the show.

"Everything we saw" is the operative phrase. The editing focused so much on Russell, we saw very little of what anyone else was doing. Shambo and John were two players that made two of the biggest moves of the season, turning the tables for Foa Foa, for which Russell took credit. Natalie outplayed Russell socially and ultimately outwitted him because he was always underestimating his competition and she rocked the Q&A, which was crucial for jury votes.

Updated On: 12/21/09 at 11:34 AM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 12:05pm

Russell did not mastermind every expulsion and he clearly made compromises when votes were not going his way, especially when it came to Shambo, which was one of his biggest mistakes in the game.

At the time he made that deal with Shambo, he had no choice. He needed her vote and Shambo was a loose cannon. He had to keep her in his pocket, which he successfully did.

And I don't remember Mick being part of his final three master plan.

No, but Brett winning the Immunity Challenge changed that plan. He had little control over that (other than to win the challenge himself). He clearly couldn't bring Brett to the F3 with him, so he had to take Mick instead.

Shambo and John were two players that made two of the biggest moves of the season, turning the tables for Foa Foa, for which Russell took credit.

Shambo's switch was a no-brainer. Her tribe hated her, and the only chance she had of staying in the game was aligning with Russell. That was hardly a genius move. And John should have followed through with his plan to eliminate Russell when he had the chance to blindside him.

[jasonf]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 12:26pm

adamgreer is right. Not everything goes according to plan all the time, but the good player will adapt. Russell was not bullheaded enough to say that what he wanted went straight through no matter what - when he needed to, he changed the plan. How many times did we see Russell say "So and so is next to go" -- and their torches were snuffed that night.

As I said before, Russell WAS an arrogant jerk and yes, that probably rubbed some jury members the wrong way. Given that, another group of more intelligent people looking at the game as played would have looked past it and awarded him the money. It's happened before - Richard Hatch and Brian Hedick are both examples of not very liked players, but players whose GAME PLAY won the game for them. Regardless, Natalie didn't DO anything to win the game but ride coattails. Had she not attached herself to Russell, there's NO WAY she would have won.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 12:33pm

Shambo's switch was a no-brainer. Her tribe hated her, and the only chance she had of staying in the game was aligning with Russell. That was hardly a genius move.

For someone in her position, it was a genius move because it kept her in the game longer than almost all the tribe that hated her and far longer than she would have been otherwise. But even after she aligned with Russell, she still remained a loose cannon and voted how she wanted, despite Russell's plans. And she deserves the credit for John's aligning with them which led to the destruction of the Galu tribe. Shambo was the one who made it happen. And from what it looked like, voting out Shambo was Jaison's idea which Russell went along with, rather shortsightedly.

No, but Brett winning the Immunity Challenge changed that plan. He had little control over that (other than to win the challenge himself). He clearly couldn't bring Brett to the F3 with him, so he had to take Mick instead.

Those last few immunity challenges were when Russell made his biggest mistakes. He underestimated Brett as a threat until after it was far too late and got rid the two people he was most likely to beat, Jaison and Shambo. But if Russell was such a master strategist, why didn't he get rid of Mick while Brett had immunity instead of following through with his original plans? That's what I don't get about Russell, is how he acts like everything went exactly the way he wanted from beginning to end and blah blah blah when there were many times circumstances did not go according to plan and were out of his control. The guy simply refuses to admit that he was not smart enough to win because he simply did not have the social skills to read personalities and win votes, which is the biggest factor in the final tribal council (and one of the biggest when the jury comes into play). CBS did a great job in feeding one of the biggest egos in Survivor history, though.

[Tom1071]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 12:44pm

I don't care how well you strategize. If you're a dick and you alienate, betray and piss people off you can't expect them to vote for you for the win.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 1:03pm

Natalie basically played the same game as Amber in "All Stars." She knew that backstabbing and lying wouldn't give her the $1 million. She let Russell do all of the dirty work like VBoston Rob so she would look like the good guy.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 1:18pm

Richard Hatch and Brian Hedick are both examples of not very liked players, but players whose GAME PLAY won the game for them.

Richard won by one vote and it had a lot to do with how he played the jury to recognize Kelli's faults and dodge the bullets. The jury generally felt he was the lesser of two evils. He was brilliant with strategy, but Kelli won five immunity challenges in a row, which propelled her into the finals. Both were hated by the jury and both had compelling reasons to win.

Brian also won by only one vote, but he chose his partner for the finale wisely. But even Probst called it his least favorite season and the most unlikeable final four, so it's not really a fair comparison.

Regardless, Natalie didn't DO anything to win the game but ride coattails. Had she not attached herself to Russell, there's NO WAY she would have won.

She did do something apparently, because she won. She attached herself to someone who was playing rough and let him take the bullets while she remained in the game to the very end without making people hate her. She obviously had Russell wrapped around her finger because even when she was bonding with Brett and the fact that pretty much everyone liked her, he still took her to the end. Natalie won by a vote of 7-2 over Russell (Mick garnered no votes from the jury). It wasn't even close and that was from the people who saw a lot more of the game than the editors and producers allowed us to see.

If you're a dick and you alienate, betray and piss people off you can't expect them to vote for you for the win.

Which is precisely why Russell needed Shambo and either Jaison or Mick by his side at the end.

While Natalie isn't my favorite winner by a long shot, I prefer her to Vecepia, Earl or Sandra any day.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 1:22pm

If you're a dick and you alienate, betray and piss people off you can't expect them to vote for you for the win.

But see, that's a faulty premise. The entire game is built around lying, manipulation, and deception. People are bound to be pissed off, especially a jury who all thinks they deserve to be in the finals. It truly amazes me how some people think Survivor is akin to a game of tag on the playground.

The ONE thing I truly enjoy about seasons that feature past contestants is that they understand how the game is played- they realize people lie, people deceive, people manipulate. They thrive on it. It makes the game much more interesting when you have smart people, who are all playing the game, rather than people who vote for someone to win because they were "nice."

[midnghtdolphin]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 1:47pm

i have to say out of the final three, i liked mick the best. too bad he didn't get any votes

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/21/09 at 1:51pm

The entire game is built around lying, manipulation, and deception. People are bound to be pissed off, especially a jury who all thinks they deserve to be in the finals.

Of course, but that's where social skills come into play. How do you get a group you had a hand in losing the game to award you a million dollars? You have to be thinking about it the entire game when you're relating to the other contestants and ramp it up from the merge to the end. History has shown in the case of Survivor (which has a totally different personality from Big Brother) that the "villains" who forget how to wisely relate to others, despite their physical prowess or powers of manipulation, do NOT win. And if you can plead a case that you were the head of a TEAM of manipulators, equally unlikeable, (Parvati, for example), rather than a single mastermind superior to everyone else in the game, then you've got a better shot.

Updated On: 12/21/09 at 01:51 PM