I put “strategy” in quotes because I’m not convinced that the absence of a strategy is a strategy, although I have t agree it works.
And once again, one of the Final 3 gets shutout. I don’t think, in any of the seasons with Final 3, the 3rd place contestant has ever received a vote. They’re a waste of space in the final TC.
Having a final three creates the possibility of a tie - how will that be resolved?
A couple years ago. I think honestly, people just weren’t voting for the person who got a car(to win, I mean).
I mean, they could sell the car if they wanted and get a sizable payday out of that.
Good question. I suppose they either re-vote, forcing the jury to choose one of the two that are tied, or they do some kind of challenge for the win…which would be very tense.
No Probst blog, but a good write-up by Dalton Ross, whoever he is.
if natalie really did come up with the Erik ouster, than by all means you cannot say she didn’t play the strategic game. She did so right there. The rest of the way she was in on the discussions with Russell. She did the bidding of her teammate is what people perceive from the editing. For all we know she was saying stuff to Russell that made him want to get rid of a certain person. Like how she was confronted by Russell about someone spilling the beans on his occupation and income, she diverted it right to “it wasn’t me”. Russell had that close a relationship and trust with her to believe it to be true and find out the real culprit which was Jaison. Which Russell later confirmed and rectified with Jaison himself.
We’re all seeing the master strategy of Russell in the edits, comparing his bold moves to someone who did things much more in the shadows is what Natalie did. People need to stop saying “i can’t understand why Nat won” she won because she forged bonds with people and not acting like an ass AND she did strategic maneuvering, albeit not so out in the open like Russell.
I’m fine with the result but I would have liked it with Russell winning too. Just as long as Shambo didn’t win, this season is a thumbs up from me.
Yes! I always think that about the women. Every time. Natalie last night. Sugar, Amanda, Amber, etc. from prior seasons. I don’t know if that’s because I generally prefer the earthy/crunchy type than the made up type, or because I got to know them while they were a mess and that’s who they were to me. Maybe a bit of both.
Question – I’m pretty sure I saw all episodes this season, and I don’t remember a word from home / visit from loved ones episode. Was this the first season they didn’t have that?
I agree in general, but Laura cleaned up well.
Yeah. I was just about to bring that up.
I thought Natalie looked a helluva lot better cleaned up. Her ears are not her best feature, and having hair over them helps.
In many of Russell’s confessionals, he has nothing but contempt for his fellow castmates. Natalie, Ashley = Dumb-ass blonde, Monica = stupid, stupid little girl. Brett = Punk etc. Yes we don’t “see” him acting that way in front of the other, but does that mean it didn’t happen?
We might have a little of the real Russell around camp, when Monica was scrambling to stay in the game. He became beligerrant and indignant.
Who says riding coat-tails is not a valid strategy? Natalie said in the FTC, that strong women get voted out, and that wasn’t going to be her strategy.
Natalie used Russell, just like Russell used Shambo. Only one was in your face and the other wasn’t.
My favorite survivor to watch this season = Russell
Who I would have voted for = Natalie
Natalie made the biggest move of the game in cinvincing the Galu women to vote out Eric. Russell would never have been able to do that, and if they didn’t get Eric out as soon as they merged the Foa Foa four would have been easily picked off one by one.
That was a huge move; bigger than any one move Russell made. One big move is all you have ever needed to prove yourself worthy of winning in the final jury vote. Those in this thread who complain that Natalie rode coattails and didn’t do anything couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
I didn’t find it odd at all; they almost always do. This is why tv actresses in particular strive to be underweight.
I agree with all those who pointed out that Russell did not think enough about the endgame. You can’t just treat everybody like shit and toss them aside. The way to win is treat everybody like shit and toss them aside while simultaneously ensuring that they will still vote for you!
Anyway, speaking of bittercakes, Russell got the biggest serving of all. Did you see his red carpet bitchfest of an interview? CBS Shows - Popular Primetime, Daytime, Late Night & Classics
The final vote is about who deserves a million dollars, which isn’t necessarily who played the game the best and also is not necessarily who is the most socially likeable.
To crystalize this point, let’s plot each player on two axes, “Likeable” and “Gameplay”. Russell is clearly in the “Not likeable” category, but has a stratospheric score in the “Gameplay” department.
Natalie has a respectable score in the “Likeable” category, but I think people are grossly overstating her “Gameplay” rating. To me, Gameplay is establishing enough control so you are not voted out. There were many situations where Natalie had no control over being ousted other than the luck factor. In contrast, Russell faced elimination extremely often, but his ridiculously high “Gameplay” allowed him to find a way to sidestep all of these varied threats, whether he had to build relationships with spies and secret traitors, mastermind a manipulation, gain an advantage through finding the hidden immunity, or when push comes to shove, by winning individual immunity.
I think a better comparison is Russell vs. Mick. (Taking Natalie out of the equation for a moment) Mick was an even bigger under-the-radar coattail rider than Natalie who also lucked into his spot in the finals. So he has as low a “Gameplay” stat as could be possible. Regardless of his gameplay, Mick’s “Likeable” score is still higher than Russell even though he did little to bond with the jury.
The question is, who deserves the million dollars? If you say Mick, then your define of “deserve” is solely based on your judgement of “good” people. CEOs are greedy bastards who step on the little guy and game the system to get ahead. Unless they donate to charity, then they’re “good” again.
On the other hand, a lot of people would say “deserve” should be tied more to gameplay. Maybe it’s because of the show motto or maybe it’s belief in a free enterprise system that rewards self-reliance and competence, but some people don’t begrudge the people on top and don’t reserve votes only to people who didn’t outplay us.
Ultimately, each juror has a sliding scale that adjusts the weighting of “Likeable” and “Gameplay”. In seasons with a clear winner, that person usually has high scores in both categories. This season is interesting because Russell was not high enough in “Likeable” that it came down to the jury’s definition of “deserves a million” and now the hindsight self-justifications of why their choice was correct. It is clear that Russell thought he was the Magnificent Bastard. But was he really only a Smug Snake?
p.s. Thank you to the poster who pointed out that Yul won Cook Islands. For some reason, I thought he lost a vote to someone who didn’t like how he explained things. But thinking back, I think Yul did manage to wisely shut up when he needed to. This bumped his “Likeable” rating just enough to go with his “Gameplay” to win.
Russell lost it because he was too smug and alienating, and the jury couldn’t/wouldn’t stomach voting for him. I just wish there was another, more deserving, person in the final 3 for the jury to give their vote to than Natalie (that is, if you didn’t want to vote for Russell, neither of your two choices of Natalie and Mick were good ones). I’m OK with Russell not winning because he made the mistake of pissing off too many people, I just wish someone more deserving would have won.
For those who say that, by definition, whoever gets the most jury votes is the best player, I call bullshit. If Brett had stayed in the final 3 and got all the Galu votes, that wouldn’t have been because he was the best player in any way shape or form, it would just be tribal loyalty.
Not true. Winning four consecutive individual immunity challenges would indeed be indicative of excellent gameplay.
And again, Natalie was an excellent game player. Without her getting Eric out, Russell, Mick and Jaison wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the finals. That was all her, so to dismiss her as a coattail rider who didn’t deserve to win is flat-out wrong.
In the interest of full disclosure, I would have voted for Russell over Natalie (and Mick, of course) a hundred times out of a hundred. But that in no way means that Natalie was undeserving.
At least the finale gave us one more Clueless Shambo moment…I had a feeling that once she announced that Russell had her vote and she hoped her jury mates agreed Russell was doomed.
So, had Russell backstabbed Nat instead of Jaison, and the final 3 was Russell, Jaison, and Mick do you suppose Russell wins in that case?
And if Fairplay gets yet another shot at the Survivor apple for Heros v. Villians, I’ll be pissed (though I’ll still watch). I’ve got a feeling that his extra douchey performance during All-Stars may keep him off the list.
But, no. Not really.
The final vote is about whatever the jurors decide to make it about. They can vote for whom they think played the best strategy, or for whom they think played the best social game. Or they can vote based on tribal loyalty, or prior alliances, or friendship, or whomever has the nicest boobs, or they can flip a coin.
There are no correct or incorrect votes. The players are not given instructions, guidelines, tips, or rules regarding how to vote.
The only rule is that whomever gets the most votes at the Final TC wins a million dollars. “Deserve” don’t enter into it; it’s like saying McCain “deserved” the Presidency even though Obama got more votes. Doesn’t mean a thing.
I found it interesting that Probst didn’t say where the next show would be taped, other than a reference to “an island in the south seas.” It airs in February, which means that it’s already been filmed. All of the rumors were that it was also cast in Samoa, and it happened not long after this season finished, which makes sense from the perspective of keeping the crews around with all their equipment.
The Survivor people did make a point of saying that no Survivor people were on the island when the tsunami hit, which was on September 29th. I suppose they could have been lying.
Anyway, it seems that the rumors were true, they got the theme right, the timing right, and probably the location right. It’ll be interesting to see the cast.
I agree, but if it is totally based on the whimsy of the jury, with no correlation to how the game was played, it ceases to be enjoyable for the viewers.
As an aside, I recently bought the game Apples to Apples (where, like the Survivor jury, the “judge” has total leeway as to what to base his/her decision on) and played it with friends a couple of times. Whenever the judging was somewhat related to the fitness of the answers, the overall game was enjoyable. On some nights when the judging was totally capricious and erratic, people became tired of playing the game pretty darn quickly.
Survivor also suffers from this problem in some seasons. After the season when Vecepia (sp?) won, which was another undeserving win, a lot of people became disenchanted and stopped watching.
But Natalie’s win wasn’t undeserving at all.