14 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

Figured you’d have something to say about it. And you’re right, this is a crap finish.

ReplyReply
mygif
malakim2099 said on December 21st, 2009 at 4:33 am

Yeah, that’s rather craptastic, but not too surprising.

ReplyReply
mygif
Willips Brighton said on December 21st, 2009 at 6:07 am

Yeah. Blundering into an alliance with one of the best players ever, then burying your head in the sand the rest of the season. Quite a strategy, Natalie. Total crap.

ReplyReply
mygif

Whatever. The result just seems to fit the season well for some reason. If Russell were a true fan, he would’ve known the risks of karma and back-riding. I’m still convinced Amber won because of Rob, and Rob won because he took on the stupidest people ever assembled . . . especially Jenna, Rupert and Tom.

Any thoughts on “Heroes Vs. Villains”?

ReplyReply
mygif

Apparently the Survivor motto of Outwit, Outlast, Outplay only applies if all your buddies are sitting on the jury. Otherwise it becomes ‘did you play the game morally?’

It’s the only time I’ve seen a Survivor contestant penalized for doing exactly what the game asks you to do.

Buncha sour grapes from the jury.

ReplyReply
mygif

Have you guys watched the show before? As a general rule, if people are pissed at you when they are voted off, you’re not getting their vote to win the game. It’s not like this is a closely guarded secret in a vault under one of the Alps.
So a guy whose strategy is to be aggressive, in a way that pisses people off, is not a “great player” if his goal is to win the final title.
You could have predicted this result (not the actual winner, but Russell not winning) from the first episode. Richard Hatch did not win because he “outwitted” other players, but because he made the jury dislike other people more than him.

ReplyReply
mygif
Candlejack said on December 21st, 2009 at 2:14 pm

Jim’s got a point. If the ability to stay on the good side of the people you’ve gotten rid of wasn’t an important part of the game, then there wouldn’t be a jury, would there?

That said, I would’ve been happier with just about anybody other than “prayer-warrior” Natalie. People who think God will help them in competitions–who basically pray for God to cheat on their behalf–should never be rewarded.

ReplyReply
mygif

Seriously, I don’t know why anyone’s surprised. Pettiness and jealously always have their place in these things.

ReplyReply
mygif

Oh, shit. Was there a Survivor this year?

ReplyReply
mygif
ps238principal said on December 21st, 2009 at 4:06 pm

First off, I despise “Reality TV,” but “Survivor” disappointed me more than most. When the premise of “surviving” on a island in competition with others was first voiced, I was at the very least hoping for some kind of paintball or mock-war version of “Lord of the Flies.”

Starving people, making them participate in activities that would be embarrassed to call themselves “icebreakers” at corporate retreats, and then having them moan about each other is not my idea of entertainment.

Hide some paintball guns on a desert island and make ’em fight for caches of food, and we’ll talk.

ReplyReply
mygif

Wait, Chris, didn’t you predict this on the one post you wrote about this? (Or the one post I remember at least.) And it makes perfect sense to me: guy who out-manoeuvres everybody and gets them voted off… gets voted off when his former opponents get the chance to do so. But then, knowing this maybe doesn’t assuage the disappointment. Usually games don’t allow the defeated to have ultimate power at the critical crowning moment in the end… but this one does.

(For the record, I haven’t even watched a single episode of Survivor. I’m not judging, just saying.)

ReplyReply
mygif

The jury is and always has been the stupidest part of Survivor. And I hope there is lot of backlash from Russell losing so they might actually considering scrapping it in favour or a viewer poll or a final challenge instead

I HATE the stupid little speeches the jury people do. And it’s always comes down to one of three things they will say.
1. “Why should I vote for you instead of this person.”
2. “I don’t care who wins and I will pick a random person in the vote. Meanwhile I will spew out some random thing to ask in attempt to be funny or different but it still won’t quite hide the fact that I have major sour grapes.”
3. “Despite the hypocritical fact that I probably backstabbed and acted ‘immorally’ during the game to everyone single other person while trying to win, I am voting for you no matter what because you did the same and got me voted out. Holier than tho speech commencing in 3 .. 2 …1 ..”

ReplyReply
mygif
sgt pepper said on December 22nd, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Hubris, bitches.

ReplyReply
mygif

Aw. Poor little Russell.

Nah. Fuck him. Natalie’s strategy is actually just as valid as his, and it was good to see it recognised for once. His boasting of how he did it all by himself? He couldn’t have done it without people voting with him, including Natalie, and having her win at the end proved that he didn’t really know how the game was won.

It’s rare, but you *can* win by saying you played better than the others – but you can’t do it by spending the last week of the game actively telling everyone else how you’re going to win. As always happens, the over-confident doesn’t win it, and he forgot that. As the over-confident do.

As for Natalie – coat-tail riding is a strategy that rarely gets you any respect, but knowing how to position yourself behind the bad guy while still benefiting from his actions is equally valid. And she was perfectly correct – strong women were getting voted out early, so to make herself appear weaker was the best strategic move.
Russell systematically decided to try and remove anyone he saw as a threat, especially the stronger women. Notice he never had the vituperative words for the men he had than for the women he was gunning for. Him crying at the finale proved that he didn’t really understand just how important it is to not be cocky; hell, watching the last three seasons alone should have taught him that, as it’s entirely why the eventual winner made it through.

Also, he was a good player – but not nearly as good as he thought he was. Every time he broke from his plan, he said it was a strategic decision after the fact, because he didn’t want to admit to making mistakes. He took credit for every decision, even if he wasn’t necessarily the driving force behind it. Natalie knew well enough to let his ego go unchecked, because if she were to counter his opinion of his own greatness then he’d turn on her, too.

I’d rather Rob have won All-Stars too. But if there’s one thing to take from having all previous seasons of Survivor, it’s that letting someone else do the dirty work is a valid strategy that can win you the million. And *there’s* your Outwit.

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments