Survivor

[wuapinmon]

They're definitely setting up something with Russell and Brandon because otherwise they would've asked Brandon WTF about the lingerie girl.

[DrumNFeather]

And you just knew they were setting up a Hantz on Hantz season...

Perhaps, but I wouldn't see Brandon's dad now get a slot on Survivor as well.

[FN Phat]

The Hantz Family has brilliantly guided Brandon along the way. The kid is in his 15 minutes of fame and seems to have extended the Hantz Family name...at least for another season. There is no way that the good vs. evil Hantz Family drama was not set up by the show or the family...or both.

[Eddie]

It is interesting to see how people are perceived, and when the recognize that someone else sees them differently than what they thought. It seemed like this occurred for both Albert and Sophie.

It was refreshing to see Coach come clean as far as not always being able to play with honor and integrity. I felt like he could've offered a better explanation rather than just an apology, but maybe he was reading from the jury that less was more.

I'm always ALWAYS astounded at what a lousy job the majority of the folks in the final making a convincing argument to get votes for themselves.

People - you've watched the game enough and are interested enough that you went to the trouble to apply and interview to get into the game. You must have seen how it goes. And if you went intending to win, then you must have thought that you had the potential to be one of the final three that would be presenting to the jury at some point.

Now - granted - you have to play the game and get to know the people to finalize your final argument. But how do you do all of the preparing to get there, and then spend more than a month actually there, and then spend the night knowing you are going to be presenting your argument the next day - and still come up with NOTHING compelling to say in the end? Did you not think this through at all?

Dumb.

[wuapinmon]

It is interesting to see how people are perceived, and when the recognize that someone else sees them differently than what they thought. It seemed like this occurred for both Albert and Sophie.

It was refreshing to see Coach come clean as far as not always being able to play with honor and integrity. I felt like he could've offered a better explanation rather than just an apology, but maybe he was reading from the jury that less was more.

I'm always ALWAYS astounded at what a lousy job the majority of the folks in the final making a convincing argument to get votes for themselves.

People - you've watched the game enough and are interested enough that you went to the trouble to apply and interview to get into the game. You must have seen how it goes. And if you went intending to win, then you must have thought that you had the potential to be one of the final three that would be presenting to the jury at some point.

Now - granted - you have to play the game and get to know the people to finalize your final argument. But how do you do all of the preparing to get there, and then spend more than a month actually there, and then spend the night knowing you are going to be presenting your argument the next day - and still come up with NOTHING compelling to say in the end? Did you not think this through at all?

Dumb.

If you're in a carb deficit, famished, the brain actually doesn't work in a normal way; thinking is clouded and it becomes increasingly difficult to articulate a lengthy thought process when you're full of adrenaline. Sure, they had a big breakfast that morning, but with the calorie restriction they had been on, it probably did little to help their mental function. I think that this has a lot to do with the oddities of the final plea. But, a lot of those people just aren't very smart. Russell Hantz was, and I loved both of his defenses, but he was too crass.

[DrumNFeather]

It is interesting to see how people are perceived, and when the recognize that someone else sees them differently than what they thought. It seemed like this occurred for both Albert and Sophie.

It was refreshing to see Coach come clean as far as not always being able to play with honor and integrity. I felt like he could've offered a better explanation rather than just an apology, but maybe he was reading from the jury that less was more.

I'm always ALWAYS astounded at what a lousy job the majority of the folks in the final making a convincing argument to get votes for themselves.

People - you've watched the game enough and are interested enough that you went to the trouble to apply and interview to get into the game. You must have seen how it goes. And if you went intending to win, then you must have thought that you had the potential to be one of the final three that would be presenting to the jury at some point.

Now - granted - you have to play the game and get to know the people to finalize your final argument. But how do you do all of the preparing to get there, and then spend more than a month actually there, and then spend the night knowing you are going to be presenting your argument the next day - and still come up with NOTHING compelling to say in the end? Did you not think this through at all?

Dumb.

I'm also amazed that most of the time the questions asked are awful...or, someone uses it as their platform to tell off the final three...I never really got that. I also want someone in the final three to just say what is really going on "so you guys are bitter because you're not up here, and you're in a tough spot because you have to give one of us a million bucks."

[Green Monstah]

They're definitely setting up something with Russell and Brandon because otherwise they would've asked Brandon WTF about the lingerie girl.

Speaking of which, was she there for the finale? A few people weren't specifically pointed out (e.g. Papa Bear, who totally didn't reaffirm stereotypes with his constant waiving and jumping up and down) or mentioned, but I thought for sure Mikayla would get some attention.

[DrumNFeather]

Speaking of which, was she there for the finale? A few people weren't specifically pointed out (e.g. Papa Bear, who totally didn't reaffirm stereotypes with his constant waiving and jumping up and down) or mentioned, but I thought for sure Mikayla would get some attention.

You're right. Typically they do some kind of apology.

[Eddie]

I'm also amazed that most of the time the questions asked are awful...or, someone uses it as their platform to tell off the final three...I never really got that. I also want someone in the final three to just say what is really going on "so you guys are bitter because you're not up here, and you're in a tough spot because you have to give one of us a million bucks."

That could be a great opening, depending on where you go with it.

It just seems like it is pretty rare for someone to make a logical presentation as to what they did, why they did it, and why it means they should be the winner.

For instance:

Last night I would've loved for Coach to basically say - I came in and was told day one that I was temporary and would soon be gone. In spite of that I managed to form an alliance of 5 that I was able to use to get me here. Leading up to the merge and post merge I did my best to say that I was not a leader and that there wasn't one, because I know leaders are targeted and I didn't want to have a target on me. But we all know the truth. Our tribe was struggling, and I saw an opportunity to use my faith in God to bring us together and provide some unity that gave us strength and optimism and took us into the merge on equal grounds with the other tribe. I managed to not only get Cochran to switch, but to keep my alliance of 5 strong until we were all that was left.

My intent was to play with honor and integrity, and I did my best. That said, while there could only be 3 at the final - you won't get to the final with only three in your alliance. And that means that to a degree you have to disappoint some people.

If he wants to say something about everyone being deserving, and about there always being some element of luck, and about how much he appreciates the relationships made and the struggle it was to vote off anyone, etc., etc, etc, then fine. But ultimately you have to acknowledge that only three can get to the final. And NO ONE is going to make it there with an alliance of three. Tell them you understand that they are frustrated at not being there too - but help them recognize that you played the game to make sure that you were there in the end. And sometimes that meant compromising with allies and voting out people you would've rather kept in order to keep the alliance together.

It just seems like there are some arguments that will consistently win favor in the end. And that these folks that say they have seem all the shows and love it so much that they want to be on would have some idea of what resonates and what doesn't - and could have most of their final argument already thought out before even leaving their home.

[DrumNFeather]

That could be a great opening, depending on where you go with it.

It just seems like it is pretty rare for someone to make a logical presentation as to what they did, why they did it, and why it means they should be the winner.

For instance:

Last night I would've loved for Coach to basically say - I came in and was told day one that I was temporary and would soon be gone. In spite of that I managed to form an alliance of 5 that I was able to use to get me here. Leading up to the merge and post merge I did my best to say that I was not a leader and that there wasn't one, because I know leaders are targeted and I didn't want to have a target on me. But we all know the truth. Our tribe was struggling, and I saw an opportunity to use my faith in God to bring us together and provide some unity that gave us strength and optimism and took us into the merge on equal grounds with the other tribe. I managed to not only get Cochran to switch, but to keep my alliance of 5 strong until we were all that was left.

My intent was to play with honor and integrity, and I did my best. That said, while there could only be 3 at the final - you won't get to the final with only three in your alliance. And that means that to a degree you have to disappoint some people.

If he wants to say something about everyone being deserving, and about there always being some element of luck, and about how much he appreciates the relationships made and the struggle it was to vote off anyone, etc., etc, etc, then fine. But ultimately you have to acknowledge that only three can get to the final. And NO ONE is going to make it there with an alliance of three. Tell them you understand that they are frustrated at not being there too - but help them recognize that you played the game to make sure that you were there in the end. And sometimes that meant compromising with allies and voting out people you would've rather kept in order to keep the alliance together.

It just seems like there are some arguments that will consistently win favor in the end. And that these folks that say they have seem all the shows and love it so much that they want to be on would have some idea of what resonates and what doesn't - and could have most of their final argument already thought out before even leaving their home.

Though I didn't like Jim, I thought his point was well taken that some people are playing to stay in the game and others are playing to win. Frankly though, even if Cochran hadn't flipped the Savai would've been trounced because they just collectively weren't as good as Upolo.

[Eddie]

Though I didn't like Jim, I thought his point was well taken that some people are playing to stay in the game and others are playing to win. Frankly though, even if Cochran hadn't flipped the Savai would've been trounced because they just collectively weren't as good as Upolo.

It would've been interesting to see. Collectively you don't have to be great once the tribes unite. You do have to be united.

Once your tribe has the upper hand, then having collectively strong players doesn't matter. Ozzy is as likely to win any individual immunity contests as anyone, leaving most of the other tribe vulnerable to be voted out one at a time.

I actually think Savai would've been less likely to remain together as 6. Once they got a couple of Upolo folks out, I could've seen 2-3 splitting off and joining up with whats left of Upolo to try and make their own final 4. It would've been fun to watch that dynamic - Upolo just wasn't going to be divided. Savai might have been.

[Maximus]

The last immunity needs to be a best 3 move on instead of a tribal council.

[Eddie]

The last immunity needs to be a best 3 move on instead of a tribal council.

For this season, that would've been cool with me. I would've preferred that Ozzy win it all. But that takes away some of the drama and strategy.

Typically they are trying to decide who has votes on the jury, who is safe to take along with them, who they can trust to not vote them out, etc. I think that just advancing the three that do the best in the last challenge would take away a lot.

That said - I would be OK with changing some things up earlier in the game now and then, just to keep them on edge.

What if once in a while they held tribal council immediately following the challenge, giving folks very little time to talk over who they were going to vote for?

What if once they gave each person two votes and then added things up?

What if now and then immediately following the tribal immunity challenge they held an individual challenge for the losing team and made one tribe member safe?

What if for one tribal council the tribe had to elect a 3 person panel - who then decided who was getting booted?

I think they could really mix things up and keep people on edge more. The show is pretty interesting anyway, but I think they could throw some additional stuff in now and then.

[Maximus]

For this season, that would've been cool with me. I would've preferred that Ozzy win it all. But that takes away some of the drama and strategy.

Typically they are trying to decide who has votes on the jury, who is safe to take along with them, who they can trust to not vote them out, etc. I think that just advancing the three that do the best in the last challenge would take away a lot.

That said - I would be OK with changing some things up earlier in the game now and then, just to keep them on edge.

What if once in a while they held tribal council immediately following the challenge, giving folks very little time to talk over who they were going to vote for?

What if once they gave each person two votes and then added things up?

What if now and then immediately following the tribal immunity challenge they held an individual challenge for the losing team and made one tribe member safe?

What if for one tribal council the tribe had to elect a 3 person panel - who then decided who was getting booted?

I think they could really mix things up and keep people on edge more. The show is pretty interesting anyway, but I think they could throw some additional stuff in now and then.

how would 2 votes per person help? but the rest is true. They need to change some things.

[Eddie]

how would 2 votes per person help? but the rest is true. They need to change some things.

I think 2 votes per person - especially early on - could make things interesting. Particularly if you didn't tell them they were voting twice until the vote.

My thought was that while everyone knows who their first vote is for going in, they would have to consider who their second vote is for without warning. And the person who is ultimately voted out might not have been any group or alliance's primary target - but may actually be a person who gets enough people's second vote to get them tossed.

Obviously people would not be allowed to use both of their votes on the same person.

Does that make more sense?