I agree that Rupert is a terrible strategy player, but that’s exactly why I think he’s just putting on a show with Russell. Rupert has always seen himself as a paragon of virtue. For him, it’s all about a code, acting on principle, valuing ethics, etc. There’s nothing that would offend his self-righteousness more than trusting and allying himself with someone so odious as Russell. So Rupert, IMHO, will be putting on an act not out of strategy but out of his natural sense of superiority. That’s what would make him convincing.
In fact, it would make sense strategically to bring Russell to the finals as a surefire way to earn more votes from the jury, but Rupert would be the most likely to boot him purely for emotional reasons.
I’d disagree with the virtue of Rupert. He’ll do whatever to stay in the game, short of actually thinking of a plan of his own and working it like Russell does. He’s the leech/parasite type player and will hang on to whatever is best for him strategically, because he can’t think of his own stuff to further his game. I don’t think there is ever a show with Rupert, he can’t fake or lie with skill, whatever you see is whatever Rupert is thinking and feeling. Just like the way the other Survivor’s hate his self-centered actions of chopping wood at night, getting into the shelter loudly and thinking no one notices, or his incessant need to criticize the way things are done. He can’t keep his emotions and his feelings bottled up or hidden. At least that’s the way I see him. I could be totally wrong and the editors are stringing me along.
The whole code and ethics thing is more in the neighbourhood of Coach, not Rupert.
Well, we’ll agree to disagree. I think Rupert is harshly judgmental because nobody can possibly live up to his (unrealistic) standard of behavior. That’s why I’ve never seen him as a Hero, though he (and America–shudder) clearly does. In the past seasons, he’s never been much of a parasite–he was always fiercely loyal, to a fault, with his alliance and would bitch and moan whenever other players did things that were designed to win. Being a leech/parasite means you float with the wind, but Rupert has never behaved that way. He’s like a clueless Horton–the faithful elephant 100%. So his “virtue” is all self-appointed and highly conditional, but he still sees himself that way, and like Russell (who also has an over-inflated sense of his abilities), he acts out of motivations separate from actually winning.
I agree Rupert is a bad actor, which is why, while I think he’s faking it with Russell in the clip we saw, he probably wouldn’t be able to hide his glee at the anticipation of stabbing him in the back. The thing is, Russell is exactly the type of person who overestimates his own abilities that he can’t see the writing on the wall. Plus, also, Rupert never gets a hard-on about anything except being proven right and having people validate him. To sincerely ally himself with Russell, he would have to concede that he misjudged him, and Rupert is too proud for that. He likes to sulk and play the wounded martyr, so latching onto Russell as a coattailer would be completely out of character for him. He’s never done it before mid-season. Once he latches on (within the first episode or two), it’s a death grip, and pity the ally who tries to think outside of Rupert’s grasp, because Rupert will bring the hammer down on them in the most petty and self-serving way possible.
I like your character analysis of Rupert, seems to be right on. Perhaps it’s my need to put Rupert down since he’s a so-called hero that I can’t see him using Russell. Honestly, I think he’s trying to change his game from the past. I don’t think he was particularly loyal, it was more are you worthy of staying in the game or are you just a waste of space to him. If you’re not pulling your own weight he’d drop you in a heartbeat. But this time around he played the loyal to his alliance way, where he kept the weak James along, got rid of Stephenie asap and the other baffling moves of the heroes early on.
This is the best thing about H vs V, survivor being played at a whole other level. I don’t know how they’re gonna outdo themselves after this season is done.
Believe me, your impulse to put down Rupert is a sound and prudent one. I think his loyalty to his past alliances were part of his egoism; anyone who were willing to join him and his “cause” was automatically ennobled by association. Hence, even though he might not ordinarily agree with their tactics or behavior, by virtue of them being allied with him, it was OK. Similarly, him jumping on the Candice-hate bandwagon was half spite (because she “betrayed” him) and half self-preservation, and I’m sure that while he took no joy out of being on the same side as Russell, he did take joy out of skewering her for acting in her interests rather than his. :rolleyes:
At this point, though, he really doesn’t have an alliance anymore. Colby’s a lump and Sandra, while the “villain” he probably trusts the most, is still playing her own game, not Rupert’s. For the first time, he actually has to look out for himself, which is why a short-term collaboration with Russell may be in the cards, but his long-term hate for him will still probably rule out in the end.
and that blog part is what makes me sick of Colby’s honour… That voting confessional statement he said, “I’ll be happy when I out of this game will you be” to Candice. Both the remaining heroes have no clue how to play the actual game of Survivor. They have this meta-game they play that is supposedly moral. Although I don’t like the moves Russell plays, the dirty “I swear on my kids’ lives” or outright lying, that’s the game of Survivor. He may be a prick off the show, or he’s putting on a show for the cameras, who cares, he’s not deluding himself into thinking this is a moral test, like how the Heroes believe it to be.
What exactly was his other option in that scenario? Rupert knew that he was going to the one voted out unless something changed, Russell had immunity so Rupert couldn’t try to get the others to vote him out, so of course if Russell says they want to vote Danielle, Rupert would be thrilled and go along with that. Rupert stays another day and someone from the other alliance goes home. Was he supposed to say, “No, I’m not aligning with you to vote Danielle, I’d rather you all vote *me *out”?
the hypocrisy is in the fact that Rupert easily lambasted Candice for making a move with Russell yet has no second thought as to keep his ass off the line when voting with Russell when he has a plan to get rid of Danielle. Rupert walks around with the air of superiority when in fact he’s just as willing to make deals with the devil so long as it isn’t him going home.
But Candice wasn’t in any danger of going home when she switched sides. There’s no hypocrisy there. She just decided to switch, it wasn’t like she had no other options. And it’s not like Rupert betrayed anyone, Danielle wasn’t part of his alliance. He voted the only way he possibly could to stay in the game.
it’s not the situation that’s different. It’s the use of moral high ground that’s the root of the hypocrisy. If you can’t stand a guy like Russell in one instance, why can you all of a sudden now join sides with him when you are disgusted by him. The reason how you can change your tune so easily? To stay in the game longer. Rupert reeks of the moral high ground hypocrisy, he’ll be all in your face for being a turncoat, but he’ll be willing to use the same person if it’s to his advantage.
Rupert likes to claim the moral high ground. If he wanted to maintain that without hypocrisy, then yes, he should rather go home than ally with Russell for anything.
I just have to chime in agreement here. I said it last season and I’ll say it again: Russell did not deserve to win last time, and does not deserve to win this time. There are TWO aspects to winning the game of Survivor. Russell is good at one but totally sucks at the other. He pissed off Coach, he pissed off JT, he pissed off Danielle, he pissed off Rupert . . . and then he somehow expects them to vote him the million dollars? Because he’s the best at lying and betraying? Because he so skillfully betrayed and backstabbed the very people who will be deciding who gets the million?
Russell is a fool. He lets his ego get in the way of winning. He said it himself this episode:He absolutely HAD to get back in control. That’s been the most important thing to Russell in both seasons, feeling like he’s in control of the game. He just doesn’t understand that being in control is not what gets you the win. The puppets don’t like the puppetmaster.
Richard kind of sucked in his second season. I’d put Boston Rob, Amanda, Parvati, and Russell all ahead of Richard by virtue of multiple good showings in the game. Being good in the inaugural season and never being good again could be criticized as only effective against total noobs.
No doubt. But I don’t like her. I don’t fault her gameplay at all, I just am sick of her. She strikes me as completely fake and a total mean girl and I have a very negative reaction to that. Again, irrational, and no doubt silly. I own that.
And I object to the “Dumbest Move Ever” contest, because it doesn’t include the whole Ian-in-Palau-final-three business. That was the dumbest move ever, IMO.
I think his loyalty to his past alliances were part of his egoism; anyone who were willing to join him and his “cause” was automatically ennobled by association. Hence, even though he might not ordinarily agree with their tactics or behavior, by virtue of them being allied with him, it was OK. Similarly, him jumping on the Candice-hate bandwagon was half spite (because she “betrayed” him) and half self-preservation, and I’m sure that while he took no joy out of being on the same side as Russell, he did take joy out of skewering her for acting in her interests rather than his. :rolleyes: