Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains

[yaz96]

I'd rather see a military family win $1 million than an arrogant, abusive prick. Parvarti would have been a good choice too.

That happened AFTER the game, is ALLEGED, not proven, and has NOTHING to do with the game of Survivor......and it's not the "military family" that played the game.....of course Sandra didn't play either.....and she still won.

Maybe we should just give the million dollars to some random schmoe off the street, that didn't even come close to the island???? That's basically what you are saying. !sadroll

Why play the game? What you are suggesting is a different show, giving people money based on their background. This is Survivor - Outwit, Outplay, Outlast. Not Benevolent TV Network.

 

[KyDave]

Interesting paragraph from Probst's first blog of the season. Count me as one that loved Russell for the entertainment value he brought the last few seasons, but also feel he is CLUELESS as to the social aspect of GETTING votes at the end.

Anyway, here it is:

.....
There are very few rules in Survivor, the contestants are responsible for determining which qualities to reward and that is where the perspective of having played once before will have a big impact. For instance, if Russell plays the same game he did in Samoa during this season, he has a much better chance of winning because this group of players has a different set of criteria for what it takes to win the game. That is only one of the reasons I believe this season is going to deliver.
.......

Didn't work out so well for him in that aspect (once again).

 

[Derwin0]

She already stole $1M from CBS from Survivor Panama
...
But alas, the "social game" has taken the primary role, and thus we get idiot winners like Sandra or Natalie. Parv at least was a player. I could see her winning.

The social game has always taken a primary role. Colby lost because of it.

The jury has been there since Season 1, all players are away of the social factor.
Sandra played within the rules and won both times.

Richard Hatch has even admitted that it's a big part when he stepped out of the final challenge so that Kelly would take him and he wouldn't have to go against Rudy in the final and lose.

If Sandra's game is so bad, then why did she win both times with a good majority?
And once was in a 2-man final, so they current 3-man final can't be blamed.

 

[Derwin0]

I actually kind of like Russell's suggestion to give some votes to TV viewers.

Bad idea, it would lead to constestants playing even more for the camera.

Rupert came in 2nd in the Sprint vote, even though he has sucked this season.

 

[geonaz]

I actually kind of like Russell's suggestion to give some votes to TV viewers.
I don't think this would've helped him win this time around, but perhaps it would've helped Parv...

People that cannot win by following the rules are likely to try to change the rules.

 

[Ilya]

At a very least, go back to the final two! I think selecting one out of three is less dramatic and is more likely to result in a "dark horse" winning the race.

 

[geonaz]

At a very least, go back to the final two! I think selecting one out of three is less dramatic and is more likely to result in a "dark horse" winning the race.

Final two would be okay. I really did not care for any of the final three but I wonder how many of Russell's boosters would have voted for him had they been duped by him? A vote by the viewers would be more of a social popularity contest than the jury system now used. A good analogy would be the election system we use. We all know how great we are at electing good (ha) politicians.

 

[dfergie]

Posting Blind... watched up to Sandra throwing Russells Hat into the fire, hopefully catch up tonight... (should have kept Courtney) haven't gotten spoiled yet

 

[dfergie]

I despise Sandra, and have despised her since Panama. She is annoying and completely undeserving; she rode in under the radar; and is in the same class as Vicepia - the all-time least impressive survivor winner. Completely undeserving.

I understand fully that RUssell does not know how to win jury votes; and am fine this season with him not winning, but I think the juries have gotten too petty with getting voted off; they got outplayed by him, yet are not willing to admit it. Way too much ego.

Russell is right in that he did not play two seasons; he played for 78 days straight; and I think if he had time to decompress the Samoa experience, knowing what worked and what did not work, he would have made some different choices.

I wish Russell brought Jerri along; she would have won, or Parv would have won, and that would be have totally fine.

Exactly, as soon as the Jury started talking I thought to myself that they were going to be petty, and not give Russell votes, but come on Sandra winning? no way no how did she deserve it... Russell or Parvarti did, they played while Sandra hid in the bushes & rode coat tails.

 

[Skyhi]

That happened AFTER the game, is ALLEGED, not proven, and has NOTHING to do with the game of Survivor......and it's not the "military family" that played the game.....of course Sandra didn't play either.....and she still won.

Maybe we should just give the million dollars to some random schmoe off the street, that didn't even come close to the island???? That's basically what you are saying. !sadroll

Why play the game? What you are suggesting is a different show, giving people money based on their background. This is Survivor - Outwit, Outplay, Outlast. Not Benevolent TV Network.

I'm not suggesting who *I* would have voted for had I been a player in that closed universe......nobody knows. I'm speaking as a fan of the show.

Personally, I like to see good things happen to deserving people. In my opinion, a military wife with all of the stresses and worries that go along with that role is more deserving of a million bucks than somebody like Russell - - a seemingly bitter bully who (allegedly) gets into physical altercations with women.

When you say I'm suggesting a different show, you're wrong. I'm not suggesting that the jury base their vote on extraneous factors. All I'm saying is that I like to see good things happen to "good" people.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I'm not suggesting who *I* would have voted for had I been a player in that closed universe......nobody knows. I'm speaking as a fan of the show.

Personally, I like to see good things happen to deserving people. In my opinion, a military wife with all of the stresses and worries that go along with that role is more deserving of a million bucks than somebody like Russell - - a seemingly bitter bully who (allegedly) gets into physical altercations with women.

When you say I'm suggesting a different show, you're wrong. I'm not suggesting that the jury base their vote on extraneous factors. All I'm saying is that I like to see good things happen to "good" people.

Here is the flaw. I don't think she is "good" people. The woman is annoying, arrogant, obnoxious. And that is entirely from watching her on tv. And she rides coat-tails. Russell may be annoying, arrogant, and obnoxious too but man he played the game.

 

[Need]

I love watching Russell plays. He made the game for the last 2 seasons. After said that, I think he deserved not to win. I think Boston Rob was dead on when he said Russell didn't play to win. He got into the final 3 both times with skills, but he completely ignored the last part of the game to get the jury votes. It is easy to get ahead of the game (or in life) when you are not afraid to burn bridges. But sooner or later, karma is going to get you. If life you may not see it in 20 or 30 years, but with Survivors you see it at the final vote.

I really don't like Sandra, but she was in the right place at the right time. She could be voted out so many times, but somehow she avoided it. And by going to the heroes to try to get Russell out, she actually ended up getting their votes. She didn't do it strategically, because if they would have taken the deal, she would have been gone soon after and one of the heroes would have won. She sucks at challenges; she wasn't good at the social game; but she has the luck.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

She definitely has luck, that is for sure.

 

[Derwin0]

At a very least, go back to the final two! I think selecting one out of three is less dramatic and is more likely to result in a "dark horse" winning the race.

Vecepi and Sandra both won in a final 2.
Having a final 2 instead of 3 doesn't seem to reduce the chances of a dark horse winning.

The only difference in a final 2 is that it allows the final immunity winner to choose their opponent in the final tribal, and increases the chances of their being at least 2 good candidates in the final, instead of a guaranteed winner and a goat, which in turn makes their final tribal answers and statements that much more important.

 

[yaz96]

Didn't they originally do an opening statement, then questions, and then a final statement at tribal? If so, anyone know when they changed the format? I noticed it in the past 3 seasons.

I could be wrong.

 

[Bulldog]

She already stole $1M from CBS from Survivor Panama; enough is enough; and I don't buy that argument anyway. It is not relevant that her husband is in the military.

Again, not relevant to the game. In the end I stick with the argument that Russell outwitted (look at Tyson), outlasted (78 days consecutively), and outplayed (pretty much everybody). This "social game" b.s. is just that. He should have been the sole survivor. I don't care if he was arrogant; it is what made him fun. And anything he has or has not done outside of the game is equally irrelevant to the game.

But alas, the "social game" has taken the primary role, and thus we get idiot winners like Sandra or Natalie. Parv at least was a player. I could see her winning.

I agree with you Rock, which is similar that what I stated in post #171:

“Outwit – Outplay – Outlast” has turned into “Personality – Hatred – Favorite”.

“The judges seem to use their personal reasons rather than using the original concept in their decisions.”

If Russell used this logic when pleading his original case toward the judges, it would have provided the jury the reasons for his actions, and reinforce how the jury is suppose to vote by taking these “Outwit – Outplay – Outlast” concepts of the game.

Russell’s statements in the final show that he will continue to play the game the way he always has - reflects this concept.

 

[Derwin0]

Didn't they originally do an opening statement, then questions, and then a final statement at tribal? If so, anyone know when they changed the format? I noticed it in the past 3 seasons.

Edited for time

 

[JAG72]

“Outwit – Outplay – Outlast” has turned into “Personality – Hatred – Favorite”.

“The judges seem to use their personal reasons rather than using the original concept in their decisions.”

The game has been this way since day one. There was nothing different in this vote than in any of the other seasons. Heck, even Jeff stated that the social part was always part of the game.

 

[dfergie]

The only difference in a final 2 is that it allows the final immunity winner to choose their opponent in the final tribal, and increases the chances of their being at least 2 good candidates in the final, instead of a guaranteed winner and a goat, which in turn makes their final tribal answers and statements that much more important.

This... bad thing is Russell would have mistakenly taken Sandra & the bitter whine bags would have voted for her anyway... The Jury wasn't a true jury, they had decided the winner at Ponderosa and didn't ask any real questions... Example: Courtney professing her love for Sandra

 

[rockymtnhigh]

This... bad thing is Russell would have mistakenly taken Sandra & the bitter whine bags would have voted for her anyway... The Jury wasn't a true jury, they had decided the winner at Ponderosa and didn't ask any real questions... Example: Courtney professing her love for Sandra

That is what is most infuriating; there was no real jury, no meaningful questions; you are right. The decision had been made at the Ponderosa. And Russell could not win regardless. If he brought Jerri, she would have won. Parvarti made her bed with RUssell, and thus the two of them were doomed.

Oh well, I would have thought better for "all-stars." Guess not. In some seasons the jury has really voted for who they thought played the best game, regardless of being voted out. Not this jury. And not the morons from last season either.

And screw Courtney and her love for Sandra. I have no idea why she was ever invited to play in the first place. In some ways I'd say the same about Danielle and Candice. None of the three of them were memorable players. Ok, Danielle is memorable, but for different reasons.