Polerius posted a fairly major piece of information about the rest of the season without using a spoiler box – Marley came along and added the spoiler box later, but didn’t post any reminders about the use of spoilers. A few posts later Ruffian asked a question about the final three, and I was concerned that someone would respond to that question, based on the information at the spoiler site, without using spoiler boxes. I therefore posted a request that people remember the guidelines about their usage.
I wasn’t at all referring to the previews, which CBS airs at the end of the show, though I do understand that some people prefer not to watch them.
When Coach got voted out, Probst said he was the first member of the jury. There are 11 people left in the game, plus Coach, that means a 3-person final (since they always have 9 people on the jury).
(I really want to know what they would do if the jury split their votes evenly, in a 3-3-3 or 4-4-1 tie. Kinda amazed it hasn’t happened yet, unless you’re cynical and think the producers rig the votes).
I’m sorry, Natalie was not forgettable. Smart & tough lady, did well in challenges, and the prettiest gal I’ve ever seen sans makeup (although a little scary with makeup on the Reunion). That said, I think Russell deserved the prize that season on gameplay, but obviously not on politics.
But the prize is not awarded based on how well someone played ONE aspect of the game. The social game (politics, as you say) is just as much a part of the game as strategy. Russell forgot that, and that’s why he lost, and deserved to lose.
Sorry, I know this is dredged up from last season, but it irks me when people say that Russell should have won because he had great strategy. He failed to play the entirety of the game of Survivor well, and so he justifiably lost. I mean, say you’re watching the Biathlon. One competitor just totally blows away the rest of the field at skiing, finishing each skiing round tens of seconds ahead of anyone else. But he totally sucks at shooting, missing every target every time. And so he doesn’t win the competition. Are you going to say, “Jeez, he’s the best skier to ever compete in the Biathlon, he deserved to win”? No, there are two parts to that competition, and being the greatest at one doesn’t mean the other should be ignored.
totally agree with roadfood’s assessment. Russell lost last season because he wasn’t playing the game in all aspects. He was an arrogant prick, so full of himself and his “strategic” play that he didn’t play the relationship game as not to alienate the jury. His smugness and “I deserve to win” attitude lost him the game, he was not tactful with his approach, you sway a jury to vote for you or you lose them with shitty answers, being an asshole or much more.
I can see Russell losing again in the finals if he acts the same way with an All-Star jury too. They’ll not take kindly to being told that he’s the greatest of them all when in fact he hasn’t even won one period. Parv, Amanda, JT, and even Courtney have a sense of relationships over pure strategic play. They talk with others, hang out and chill, work when needed and generally are a part of the group. But when we hear things like Russell is the troll in the woods doing what he does from Courtney, that shows us a shit ton of what Russell’s game is. It’s a solo game, he’ll use you and be done with it, he get his own food and not care about the others, he’ll find HII when the group has a bounty on the guy who finds it. He alienates himself by being “smart” and strategic, he’s doing things for HIS benefit and people can see that, moreso if he at least shared the lead and resources.
My dream finals would be Russell at the end again, losing to a stupid girl that pulled a Natalie on him again. And for Russell to cry that he lost, and beg to buy the title Sole Survivor. Just watching him beg and be all sad and pissed that he lost would be great TV. And when he loses again, it’ll be because he couldn’t change his game and play differently. His way of playing is good but doesn’t meet the criteria of being the end winner.
I wouldn’t call anyone who earns a $200,000 payday a “loser”. Maybe someone who doesn’t make the jury is a loser. But by that metric, Boston Rob is a loser and Coach is not.
As for the end winner and title of Sole Survivor, that’s turned out to be so arbitrary that half the time, you can’t say the winner “earned” anything.
Isn’t that pretty much what I’d said, albeit economically, in the post of mine that you quoted? To recap: Russell had great strategic moves, but didn’t play politics well, so he lost. Clear?
Agreed with the consensus that Russell screwed himself out of the million. However, I think it’s also correct to say he should have won it, which is the phrase that reignited the debate. Yes he should have won, but he didn’t because he himself screwed it up. Much like the analogy presented, the world class skiier who couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn absolutely should have won the biathalon; if only s/he’d spent a couple hours learning how to shoot. Or even more to the point, the hare should have beaten the tortoise but – much like Russell – he didn’t because of his own hubris. Make sense?
EDIT: Or to sum up: “Russell should have won” is not necessarily synonymous with “they should have given Russell the million.” The former is true, the latter is false.