Yup. One of the things you pick up from spoilers is a stronger impression of how the players are perceived. Sugar was pretty much loathed by everyone by the end of that season. And, from what’s come out so far, Russell is 1000x worse. It’s so far beyond “he played a good game but I respect that” it’s not even funny. Closer to “wouldn’t piss in his mouth if his throat was on fire”. You might get a vote from the former, but never the latter.
And I agree that the editors should be a bit more up-front with the viewers about that. I think they did that a bit in each of Russell’s seasons, but only at the end. It was pretty out in the open by the finale this time that he was reviled (the Rupert and Sandra interactions being the strongest examples).
I still maintain that Russell and Parvati missed an opportunity at the final tribal council… if Sandra was so hell-bent on getting rid of Russell, why didn’t she make a move when she had the HII?
I think that’s a fair question - but at that point it was too late, and they needed to get rid of the heroes. Remember what she said when she cast her vote for Rupert, “I know you’re writing my name down - but you’re going to write it down again to give me $1,000,000.”
I think by that time, Sandra realized that she was almost guaranteed to the final 3. And she knew she had a good chance at the Million $$$ against Russell because everyone hated him.
Yeah, Sandra’s argument that she tried to get rid of Russell doesn’t really amount to much since it didn’t happen. On the other hand, it all worked out to her benefit in the end to have Russell in the final 3.
Maybe you only need to excel in 2/3 of the game to win sometimes?
I don’t think you can discount the physical factor. It can play a big part in the beginning of the game. It always factors into the tribes’ discussions when going to tribal council: Do we vote out the weakest to keep the tribe strong, or do we pick off strong players now so they won’t be a threat later?
Later in the game, being a good physical player has pros and cons. You are definitely a target, but you also have an edge in winning immunity. Just a few of the players who benefitted from having a strong physical game: Colby, Tom (who made the comment), Parvati, Ozzie, Stephanie, and J.T. These players won or were runners-up in no small part due to their physical play.
The main point is that those aren’t the three equal parts of winning survivor. Consider that Sandra is every bit as bad at the physical part of the game as Russell is at the social part of the game. Clearly the social part is more important than the physical one.
I think the point we’re at now is that the physical part of the game used to be very important, but now the social and strategic parts have surpassed it by a decent margin.
I disagree with this, and additionally I think most of your long post is wrong.
That’s cherry-picking. And besides, I don’t consider Richard to be a particularly good player. Richard was only good against total noobs. Look at his all-stars season as confirmation that his strategic play is lacking.
This is either revisionist or delusional. Sandra was clearly and unshakeably a part of Boston Rob’s alliance. Her, Courtney, Rob and Tyson were an single unified block from the get-go. I’m stunned that you think she never committed to any single alliance in the early game, because that’s exactly what she did. She just happened to pick a losing one, though much of that was masked by the Heroes being unable to solve a puzzle.
Which she was. So we’re agreed that she did the exact opposite of this great move you’re crediting her with?
This is some hardcore revisionism, or more delusion. She repeatedly said her strategy was “to get rid of Russell” in her confessionals to us. This retcon of yours holds no water, and is frankly baffling. It’s fine to think Sandra should have won, but making stuff up in a crazy retcon or crediting her with things she did the exact opposite of sound kind of desperate.
I don’t either. I think it was an issue of voting against Russell and anyone closely associated with him, plain and simple.
Wow. Just, wow. That’s seriously over the top praise for what boils down to an ineffectual player saved from a sinking ship by the merge who in actuality was almost as pathetic in strategic maneuvering as she was in challenges. (Great moving ousting Coach.)
Also, Russell’s game can’t be characterized as “meandering wandering” from allegiance to allegiance. He stuck with Parv through the whole game, pretty much from day 1. And he never did anything as passive as join an alliance, which Sandra did. Russell created his alliances. (Well, he and Parv jointly created their original alliance, as it were, but still he never joined one like Sandra did.)
No, you find yourself #3 in the 3 person alliance and you win the million dollars, which is exactly what Sandra did. Russell’s move to oust Danielle was a terrible move any way you slice it.
I’d say it was Russell who made the social part of this season weigh so heavily. The meaner and nastier he played, the bigger the social aspect got, and the more it mattered that others could easily outshine him in that arena. And that’s also why Russell eventually became the one to take to the F3, because the combination of his excessive meanness and lack of social awareness made him very easy to beat. It’s just too bad for Russell that he was incapable of realizing how the social aspect gets factored into the game.
What 3 person Alliance was Sandra a part of? Calling the final 3 an “alliance” is stretching the definition quite a bit.
Keeping in mind that Russell didn’t realize how much he’d soured the Jury and everyone else apparently did… if Parvati and Danielle had thought Russell was as much of a threat as Russell thought he was, they would’ve dropped him as soon as it was convenient. Russell’s move pre-empted that.
Like JT’s “dumb move” it was decent move if the assumptions that drove it turned out to be true.
Granted, but that’s not particularly relevant. The #3 player in a 3-person alliance is a fine place to be; Russell had no need to torpedo it.
But then you went and compared it to JT’s move, so I’m forced to acknowledge that even though it looks dumb in hindsight doesn’t by definition make it a dumb move. If I squint I can see a reasonable justification, though unlike JT’s move I think Russell’s was motivated purely by ego.
They all have the strengths and drawbacks. Being a physically dominating force can get you all the way to the final TC, but it can’t win it for you (as well knew since seeing Colby lose in season 2). On the other hand, lacking physical ability is the easiest way to get voted out in the first few weeks. Sandra lucked out here because she was on Boston Rob’s team, who dominated all the challenges early on; after he left, she was lucky in that they merged before she was voted out (and that they voted out Courtney instead of her).
In fairness, Tom won by being a physically dominating force in challenges in his first season.
We don’t disagree, I think, that generally speaking a combination of physical, social and strategic is the optimal path to the million. I am content with the idea that Russell’s very presence weighted the judging of the past two seasons to heavily favor the social game.
Then again, didn’t Mick basically occupy the Sandra role last season, except that since he started on the other tribe he was really closer to Colby? How did Mick not win the million, but instead it went to Russell’s lapdog? Based on my conclusions from this season, Natalie shouldn’t have stood a chance. So I’m a little confused as to what lesson makes the most sense to draw.
She outlasted 5 other villains in her alliance before the merge. You are giving her way too little credit for that.
It wasn’t luck that got her to the merge. Sandra’s talent is in making big moves without looking like a threat. She even took out Coach while everyone continued to think she was harmless. The way she took out Coach - and got herself to the merge - essentially kept her off Russell’s radar for the rest of the game.
She made her deals with the Heroes the same way. She managed to keep herself off Russell’s radar but reached out to all the Heroes at the same time.
You think she won because of luck, but every move she made was calculated to not get on anyone’s radar. That’s how Sandra plays the game - by not making herself a target. That means that she would rather not make big plays, but it also means that when she has to make a play, she does it in a way that won’t make herself a target.
I think playing the game to avoid being a target is the best possible way to play it. People ignore you at tribal councils (thinking you’re not a threat) and no one is mad at you come time for final council. The draw back is that there will come a time when you’ll have to make a move to stay in the game. Yet this drawback didn’t hinder Sandra because she managed to make her moves without becoming a threat.
I mean, do you read the things you write after you write them? Why, in the name of heaven, would I be desperate about anything to do with a television show in which I do not appear? Why do you get so worked up about this?
Look, it is apparent to me that Sandra had a long-term strategy of setting herself up in opposition to Russell, such that - whether he was voted out or not - the jury would see her as a compelling not-Russell candidate, one that was visibly opposed to him throughout the game. It was very clear to me from her answers at FTC, and from her confessionals throughout, that this was a coherent strategy hat she pursued deliberately because she understood the motivations of the Heroes and how to make herself the beneficiary of same.
You do not think this.
I’m happy with my opinion. You’re happy with yours. Sandra, who presumably couldn’t care less what either of us think, has her million dollars. Jeff Probst has his cozy job and Randy has no hair. The world keeps turning, hallelujah. It would be fun to discuss these things, to make an effort to see other sides.
But you make it so personal, with all the ranting about delusions and “frankly baffling” and “sounding desperate,” and honestly, it’s a thread about a TV show and the degree to which you ramp up the hostility makes it decidedly not fun.
Fair enough, my bad. I should have sat on that reply a bit and toned it way down. Apologies.
But it does seem really strange to me that you think Sandra was a free agent in the early part of the season. Will you at least acknowledge that wasn’t the case?
Also the fact that Sandra explicitly stated in her confessionals that she wanted Russell gone directly contradicts your theory that she only gave the appearance of trying to oust him but in reality wanted to keep him.
I tend toward the asshole side of things, but with you in particular I don’t think I’ll ever be able to separate you from this thread. The sheer wrongness of your position was staggering.