Survivor

[Fiyero]

I need to make one change to my earlier spoiler of who votes for who in the finale:

Spoiler for Update:

J.T. votes for Sandra. The final count is Sandra 6, Parvati 3, Russell 0.

[MarkGrace]

Even up through the end of this season, Russell show a lack of understanding about how to play the game. It was interesting to hear Tom (a winner) describe the game compared to Russell. Tom said the game was 1/3 physical, 1/3 strategic and social, and 1/3 luck. Russell said it was 1/3 physical, 1/3 strategic and 1/3 social. What Tom recognized, and Russell failed to, is that the strategic and social are connected. If not excatly one and the same, they are definitely intertwined to the extent that if the social consideration is not part of your strategy, you flat out don't have a good strategy.

And luck is certainly a factor, despite Russell's assertion to the contrary (which really seemed to tick Colby off). JT handing over the idol to Russell was nothing but luck. It was an attempt at strategy on JT's behalf, but as far as Russell is concerned it was just dumb luck based on JT's misreading of the situation.

Russell is entertaining as hell, but he can't be in the discussion of the best Survivors ever because he still hasn't figured out how to play the game.

[MarkGrace]

Also, all things considered, I thought Parv played the best game. But the jury had so much hate for Russell they couldn't overcome Parv's affiliation with him.

[FN Phat]

Also, all things considered, I thought Parv played the best game. But the jury had so much hate for Russell they couldn't overcome Parv's affiliation with him.

I thought it was funny as hell when Parv mentioned that everyone was trying to slay the dragon (Russell) and she had made the dragon her pet!

[UtahDan]

Yeah, Russell just doesn't get the social aspect of it. And I don't think knowing the results of his first season would have made a difference. If there is any flaw in the game it is not that it fails to include a fan vote, but rather that it is set up to punish the most interesting players. It ought to be obvious by now that even for a seasoned group who have all played at least once, that the vote is not decided almost ever based upon admiration for having been the most conniving and there are several examples of people who have won more or less by default because that sort of strategy is punished.

These two seasons were two of my favorites because of Russell. It is villains rather than heros that make any season interesting. Certainly several villains have won, but almost never the worst villain.

I have to say though, Sandra acting like she had any strategy besides sitting back, letting other people do the thinking and crossing her fingers is every bit as obnoxious as Russell refusing to "get it."

Last, there were a lot of attractive women on this season (some more than others). Watching them all together only Sugar benefits from make up. Parvati is pretty with or without. All of the rest of them, Jerri, Candice, Danielle, Amanda and Stephanie (though she is a close call) all look better without. To me, Jerri, Candice and Amanda are actually only attractive without.

[DrumNFeather]

Yeah, Russell just doesn't get the social aspect of it. And I don't think knowing the results of his first season would have made a difference. If there is any flaw in the game it is not that it fails to include a fan vote, but rather that it is set up to punish the most interesting players. It ought to be obvious by now that even for a seasoned group who have all played at least once, that the vote is not decided almost ever based upon admiration for having been the most conniving and there are several examples of people who have won more or less by default because that sort of strategy is punished.

These two seasons were two of my favorites because of Russell. It is villains rather than heros that make any season interesting. Certainly several villains have won, but almost never the worst villain.

I have to say though, Sandra acting like she had any strategy besides sitting back, letting other people do the thinking and crossing her fingers is every bit as obnoxious as Russell refusing to "get it."

Last, there were a lot of attractive women on this season (some more than others). Watching them all together only Sugar benefits from make up. Parvati is pretty with or without. All of the rest of them, Jerri, Candice, Danielle, Amanda and Stephanie (though she is a close call) all look better without. To me, Jerri, Candice and Amanda are actually only attractive without.

The other annoying thing about the finale for me is that most of the jury members made theire "questions" if you can call them that about themselves rather than addressing anything that might actually help them cast a vote, which just goes to show that that part of it is, mostly a show. Most of those guys go in with their minds made up the minute they see who the final three are and that is pretty obvious, even when they say "I have no idea who I'm voting for." So that was kind of obnoxious.

I agree about Sandra, she had no strategy and just kind of held on. Greatest player ever? Hardley. But the truth is, the show has rarely ever ended a season with a great player winning and this season was no different.

Overall, it was very entertaining. I thought the Boston Rob observation that Russell doesn't play to win was dead on as well as Candice's observation that Russell essentially told a bunch of lies he needed to.

Not quite the lashing that it was claimed he'd get, but you could tell it bothered him...although much less so than last time.

[UtahDan]

Overall, it was very entertaining. I thought the Boston Rob observation that Russell doesn't play to win was dead on as well as Candice's observation that Russell essentially told a bunch of lies he needed to.

The thing that I find irritating about this is that nearly every one of them tells lies and if Candice had been clever enough to figure out the right lies to tell she would have done just as Russell did. In fact, just about all of them would have done what he did if they could have figured out how to do it. By the time they get to the jury they are stung from being out and start consoling themselves by thinking that they only lost because they weren't willing to be as morally defective as someone else. That is pure self deception on their parts and very, very hypocritical.

Rupert sort of amused me this season. He is child like is some ways. He really liked the idea that he was a hero and really internalized the idea that he was. And that he was a really good guy. Rupert who in Panama when they came ashore stole the other tribes shoes and sold them to get himself more stuff. The reason we all liked him so well the first two seasons was that he was a great competitor, not because he was a moral paragon.

[DrumNFeather]

The thing that I find irritating about this is that nearly every one of them tells lies and if Candice had been clever enough to figure out the right lies to tell she would have done just as Russell did. In fact, just about all of them would have done what he did if they could have figured out how to do it. By the time they get to the jury they are stung from being out and start consoling themselves by thinking that they only lost because they weren't willing to be as morally defective as someone else. That is pure self deception on their parts and very, very hypocritical.

Rupert sort of amused me this season. He is child like is some ways. He really liked the idea that he was a hero and really internalized the idea that he was. And that he was a really good guy. Rupert who in Panama when they came ashore stole the other tribes shoes and sold them to get himself more stuff. The reason we all liked him so well the first two seasons was that he was a great competitor, not because he was a moral paragon.

That's a good point, he wanted to be a pirate and said as much a bunch of times. For him to treat Russell as though he was evil was a little silly and as you said, hypocritical.

It is funny that people actually think they played an honest game. Outside of like the first person voted off, none of them can completely claim that.

[DrumNFeather]

...and another thing. I've never seen them show that many votes prior to the reading before. 6 votes were revealed to show a 3-3 Parv/Sandra tie. That was weird and made the finale a little anticlimatic because you could deduce who would vote for who of the remaining 3 jurrors.

[scottie]

RE: Rob's comment that Russell's style doesn't win, I somewhat agree. But, when CBS goes into the final vote with a final two format, he is playing to win $100K. I wonder when they tell them that it's going to be a final three instead of a final two. The America voting thing saved him from the final three format this time. I think we'll see more of Russell.

Colby was once my all-time fave Survivor, but his pause then cry to the camera before they voted him off was the final nail for me -- I hope he's never back for an AS.

[Fiyero]

I wonder when they tell them that it's going to be a final three instead of a final two. The America voting thing saved him from the final three format this time.

The format was designed for 16 players over 39 days. They later expended to 18 players so when people quit or get medically evacuated, there can still be a tribal council. Then they experimented with a final three with the prospect of expanding to 20 players for the fans vs favorites season, because they wanted an equal number of men and women on each tribe; but in that scenario, if nobody leaves the game, they are left with four players too many in the 39-day show. Blah blah blah.

Meanwhile, I hear that there was a lot of Sandra love at the final tribal council that wasn't aired. You may have noticed that some jurors addressed the other two and then appeared to sit down; CBS edited out their statements that Sandra got their votes, apparently to leave some bit of suspense. They do the same all season long when showing an even number of votes during the voting sequence.

Meanwhile, Russell's assertion that America should decide the winner would completely change the dynamics of the game. If a person had free reign to be as terrible and demeaning to the other players without fear of consequence, knowing he would win over all of the viewers who are thrilled by shock value, would quickly turn the game into reality Jerry Springer.

[wuapinmon]

My wife commented last night how odd it was that suddenly at voting time the jury is all worried about ethics, when they would've done the same stuff if they were still in the game.

I'd love to see Russell come back as an "advisor" to a team or a person who gets put on Exile Island/wins immunity....something like that. Russell could be like Richard on Lost.

I can't believe that Sandra won, just like I couldn't believe that she won the last time.

And, the dumbest move in Survivor history has to go to either James or Erik, and I vote Erik. He didn't no play an immunity idol, he gave up won immunity and got voted out.

[UtahDan]

Meanwhile, Russell's assertion that America should decide the winner would completely change the dynamics of the game. If a person had free reign to be as terrible and demeaning to the other players without fear of consequence, knowing he would win over all of the viewers who are thrilled by shock value, would quickly turn the game into reality Jerry Springer.

Yes. That is why that will never happen. But I don't like the final three format. I'd like to see them go back to just two. Had that happened here, however, I still think Russell would have miscalculated and taken Sandra with him. For as incredible as he is at the strategic aspect of the game, he is as bad at reading jurors as any player I have ever seen. Putting Jerri on the jury was a tactic error, though again, not one that would have changed the outcome for him.

[wuapinmon]

Yes. That is why that will never happen. But I don't like the final three format. I'd like to see them go back to just two. Had that happened here, however, I still think Russell would have miscalculated and taken Sandra with him. For as incredible as he is at the strategic aspect of the game, he is as bad at reading jurors as any player I have ever seen. Putting Jerri on the jury was a tactic error, though again, not one that would have changed the outcome for him.

It was his arrogance in the grand jury that cost him.

If he had responded, "look, I played the game by being coldly-calculating and devious all the time. I hope you can respect that. There was some luck involved in my game play, but I was Machiavellian in my control of people's fates. You're on that jury because I put you there. If you respect how one person can alter the game the way I have, then I ask for your vote. If not, give it to Parvati because she's my partner and has proven herself in the challenges. Don't give Sandra a sympathy vote; she's done nothing other than ride other people's coattails in both her seasons," I think that he could've won.

[UtahDan]

It was his arrogance in the grand jury that cost him.

If he had responded, "look, I played the game by being coldly-calculating and devious all the time. I hope you can respect that. There was some luck involved in my game play, but I was Machiavellian in my control of people's fates. You're on that jury because I put you there. If you respect how one person can alter the game the way I have, then I ask for your vote. If not, give it to Parvati because she's my partner and has proven herself in the challenges. Don't give Sandra a sympathy vote; she's done nothing other than ride other people's coattails in both her seasons," I think that he could've won.

That is a fair point. I think he was a very poor advocate for himself. Still, I stand by my statement that many of them are on their moral high horses of hypocrisy by then and it wouldn't make much difference to those. I think Russell could have gotten Jerri and Coach's vote last night had he done that but I'm not sure who else.