I totally agree with everything you’ve said. If Russell could have dialed back on the arrogance and the bullying attitude, he would have won easily. But he couldn’t help himself. The jury didn’t vote FOR Natalie so much as they voted AGAINST Russell.
What a crock. How is Russell supposed to know how much sugar the Jury wants with its bittercakes? He isn’t interacting with them at Ponderosa. Too much sugar and the Jury feels patronized as evidenced when Yul the Mastermind lost in Cook Islands by sugar-coating too much.
I can understand how Natalie is a Pharmaceutical Sales Rep… those are jobs for hot girls who sway male doctors by smiling at them. Let’s see what she did in Samoa: she smiled at people, she killed a rat, and she claimed credit for ousting Erik. She also admittedly flew under the radar as much as possible. If she was not fortunate enough to be allied with Russell, she had zero chance to win.
Let’s see what Russell did: won the critical last Immunity challenge to oust Brett, found three Hidden Idols mostly without clues (only the 3rd idol in the stone wall was found with the photo clue, but he never played it), engineered enough blindsides to power his certain-to-be-Pagonged tribe intact through 7 votes, and undertook critical actions even though doing so would paint a huge target on his back. He also survived six Foa Foa tribal councils and didn’t fly under the radar the entire game.
It’s easy to say it’s a social game and Natalie “deserved” it, but from a degree of difficulty point of view, Russell should have been a unanimous victor. It’s so much easier to smile, bat your pretty eyes and do the social game if you’re flying under the radar. Russell did not have that luxury, because if he did that, his tribe would’ve been voted out soon after the merge.
Probst’s snap jury polls are flawed and prove nothing. Russell does not have the advantage of 20-20 hindsight about the final immunity challenge when he is deciding whether to keep Shambo and Jaison.
Russell reminded the jury of the “Outwit, Outlast” motto. Erik and the other blindsided Galus ignored it. Some might say had Russell not been playing with such dumbasses, he might not have been able to overcome an 8 to 4 deficit. I guess we’ll see in Season 20, when Russell plays with veterans and people with functioning mental abilities.
:dubious: Yul won in Cook Islands.
And after all that, the jury STILL voted against him. That tells the story right there. Russell completely ignored an important aspect of the game, and he paid the price. In past seasons, the jury members have sometimes overcome their personal conflicts with a finalist and voted for them to win. It IS possible to be a strategic, conniving, even deceitful player without being a complete jerk to the people who have to decide whether or not to give you a million dollars. In Fans vs Favorites, Parvati played a good strategic game and was rewarded for it even though she was up against the Survivor Sweetheart Amanda. Parvati did piss some people off, but they didn’t completely hate her.
Often, though, the jury makes an emotional decision. Boston Rob was the mastermind in All Stars, but the jury picked Amber. Now, I give Amber more credit than a lot of viewers–she took an active part in strategizing with Rob–but he clearly did the heavy lifting. The jury majority that season reluctantly picked Amber simply because she wasn’t Rob. Villains rarely win Survivor. For every Richard Hatch, there are several Tinas, Ethans, and Sandras. To not recognize this is to be ignorant of the game.
Russell could have easily won if he had just shown a tiny bit of respect for his fellow contestants. But his whole attitude and demeanor indicated that he held pretty much everyone else in contempt, for the ENTIRE game–not just at the Final Tribal Council. By then, the damage was already done.
Look, I started out hating Russell and gradually came to admire how well he was playing people against each other and engineering the ouster of his biggest threats. But his overall gameplan was severely flawed because the social game is an important aspect of Survivor, and he never recognized that–not even after he lost. He still seems to be blind to the idea that not everyone is going to think (and vote) exactly the same way that he would. If he was truly the mastermind that he thinks he is, he would have cultivated at least some mutual respect with the people he was putting on the jury.
I’m not saying that I want Survivor to turn into a contest about who can be the nicest person. A strong player like Russell makes any season more entertaining and I appreciate that. But I’m not at all surprised or upset that he lost.
I can’t remember–when did they stop giving away a car in one of the final reward challenges? It was always fun to see if the ‘car curse’ would hold up.
All I have to say is that Russell got screwed in the end by the person who he kept under his wing, just like Colby did with Tina.
BOOOO!! :mad::mad::mad::mad:
Wha?
I just don’t get all this honour and integrity stuff. What do they even mean by that? As Jeff pointed out, Natalie voted out every single one of those people, while being nicey-nice to their faces. How is that more honest than Russell being upfront about being a strategist? I genuinely don’t know what the juries always mean by honour and integrity in this game.
It’s kind of amusing to read the comments on how “stupid” the jury was because they didn’t vote for Russell. Gosh, it all sounds kind of…bitter. As Jeff suggested, it’s impossible to have the “best player” lose because, by definition, the power lies with the jury. If a finalist cannot win over the jury, they lose. End of story.
Russell clearly understood that he needed jury votes, yet seemed intent on alienating them. For instance, instead of playing the HII during the last tribal council that it was good, he said, “Nah, I’ll keep it for a souvenir.” I wonder how many votes that cocky little manuever costed him.
At the end of the day, his own tribemates could have ousted Russell at any time except the last tribal council. They didn’t because they WANTED him sitting next to them when it came to jury voting. And that is very, very telling.
To be honest, I liked Russell after the merger. He showed some chutzpah. But his likeability went way down in the pre-final stage. He was almost counting his million bucks. And his behavior at the reunion show was just embarrassing.
Natalie played a great game. She managed to be likeable and conniving. Erick would have never been voted off had she not swayed the women of the other tribe to vote for him. And she was right: that was the turning point of the game. Clearly, no one had any sympathy for Mick or Jaison, who also could be accused of riding Russ’s coattails. I think Erick said it best when he said (paraphrasing) that Natalie’s humility won her the game.
Anyone wondering what Brett’s question to Mick at the final tribal council was all about? I think he was making a point that Mick didn’t get to know Brett at all, but I thought it was an odd question. I also though Mick’s answer was lame.
I was amazed that Shambo was bitter towards Mick and Natalie, but not towards Russell who was just as responsible for her ouster as they were.
I thought it was odd that just about everyone looked better scrawny and dirty than they did all dolled up.
Shambo was one of the finalist in the $100k popularity contest. I think that shows that people did like her. Go figure. Her little “c” word comment was funny.
Betsy flirting with Jeff was cute.
I think that Brett had the least exposure for any top 4 player in the history of Survivor. Does that make him the most boring player ever? Or is he tied with Mick, who received plenty of camera time, but didn’t earn one stinking vote.
Could they have played any more commercials during the reunion? That was just awful.
Agree with those who say Russell lost the game by being arrogant in the endplay. As several people have said, this has always been a social game, and one element of a social game is not making it clear that you have contempt for the people who will be voting on whether or not you deserve to win.
Tangent said it better than I can:
This is kinda the point. Survivor history shows that you can’t be an asshole and still win - so why are people claiming it’s the best strategy? Clearly it’s not. Clearly, spending 40 days pissing off the jury has an adverse affect.
What was the final vote count?
I almost don’t need to post because you have summed up my thoughts on this season exactly.
I’ll add that Jeff himself said something to the jury to the effect that “The great thing about Survivor is that now you get to decide what the rules are.”
Meaning that we can’t sit here and claim that the jury made the wrong choice because they were was bitter or stupid or anything else, because there is no wrong choice. The jury can vote any damn way they please for any damn reason they please.
Russell thought he had them all figured out, and he was wrong, and that’s why he didn’t win.
I don’t think they ever said what it was.
Well, they always read the votes for maximum suspense, as in, all votes for the non-winners get shown, but only enough of the winners votes to win.
So I’d lay a lot of money that the final vote went:
Mick - 0
Russell - 2 (I wonder who he got besides Shambo?)
Natalie - 7
Oh, please…
Seriously, if I were on that jury they would have had to bleep me out of every Ponderosa video because the minute these whiney-babies started going on about “honor” and “integrity” I would have been shouting “Bull-fucking-shit! It’s freakin’ Survivor!”
Erik, especially. That clothesline must have cut off oxygen to his brain for a few minutes…that was possibly the most brain-damaged jury speech I’ve heard in a while. “Vote for the person who didn’t do anything but suck up to the jury and hide behind Russell’s scheming while privately approving of it.”
Exactly. Survivor isn’t life. It’s a game. The only unethical thing to do in a game is break the rules. These jurors strike me as the kind of people who would bitch that bluffing in poker, or claiming to be town when you’re not in Mafia, is unfair.
The jury may have been bittercakes, but bittercakes gave Natalie $1M.
We are seeing what the editors and producers want us to see. Say what you want about Natalie, but Russell only got 2 votes. I truly think his arrogance is what did him in. Natalie did have a point about Russell taking out all the outspoken and strong women, she played to keep her self in the game. I can totally see how being the nice girl and actually forging relationships with people helped her in the game.
I knew Brett and Jaison would vote for her. Brett and Natalie appeared to be friends. Jaison was bitter about being voted out. I don’t think he and Mick were all that close, so that left his vote to Natalie. Erik’s little speech might have turned the tide for Natalie. Shambo is an idiot, her vote was idiotic. Russell was the one who wanted her gone, he orchestrated all the ousters, yet she has this undying affection for him? I just don’t see it.
Unless you can get that final vote for a million you’re not the best player in the game. The rules of Survivor allow the jurors to vote for or against someone for any reason they choose as long as people aren’t agreeing to split the final monetary prize.
There was someone who didn’t understand the game this season. But it wasn’t me.
OK, so now I can kinda understand why Russell lost. But I don’t see why Natalie won. Did she do anything Mick didn’t do? Her “strategy” was to follow Russell blindly, do nothing on her own, yet not *be *Russell.
And the strategy won her a million bucks. That’s not to say it would have won her a million bucks with another group of people, because in seasons’ past (notably Africa, where the jury turned on the nice woman who’d survived breast cancer), riding on someone’s coattails was seen as a detriment. So, if anything, I think it once again manifests how universally loathed Russell really was.
As far as Mick goes, I think Brett’s question, and comment, hinted to the fact that Mick didn’t take the time to get to know people. Natalie did. And that tipped the votes in her favor.