|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|2010-05-18 10:38 PM|
But, as Probst pointed out, THIS is the game - everyone knows the rules and how the votes are cast at the end. If some people are going to take insults from a Russell personally, a good player figures this out and will strive not to offend.
Russell didn't play that game well at all (in fact, he essentially played no defense - he was all on the offense). And as we all know, offence might put butts in the seats, but defence wins championships (or the $1M prize).
|2010-05-18 12:42 PM|
Ya, but in hockey, you have to earn your goals and you can always argue you were not the better team since the other team had a hot goalie and a good defense is better than a good offense. You also don't have judges like figure skating giving you scores.
Voting for the person you like the most (as the women obviously did with the "you go girl" verbage) is a waste of a vote.
Who shaped and controlled the game the most? Only 2 people did this and "America" rewarded Russell because of it.
I'm surprised that Rupbert finished 2nd in that vote but he's a well liked person.
|2010-05-18 10:54 AM|
|Larry||Agree completely - the fact is that the Jury has to decide who they "want" to get a million dollars. Do they want to hand someone who has treated them like dirt that much money? I wouldn't. The final 3 (or 2) got there by outplaying, outwitting and obviously out lasting. The question then is simply - who does the jury want to walk away with $1M ?|
|2010-05-18 10:25 AM|
|PFD||Russell's "flaw in the game" theory wears thin. That's the game. Deal with it. It's like a hockey team that outshoots their opponents 20-2 but loses 2-0 complaining that there's a flaw in the game and they should have won cause they were the better team.|
|2010-05-18 08:49 AM|
|becks||^I don't follow the off the show stuff too closely but didn't they mention before that Russell already has millions from oil or something?|
|2010-05-18 03:21 AM|
Originally Posted by becks View Post
|2010-05-17 07:07 PM|
While I don't appreciate the way Sandra played to win more than I do the way Russell played to get to the end, I still wouldn't say Sandra doesn't deserve to win. Russell cannot blame anybody or the rules of the game but himself for sealing his own fate, both times around. There has been examples of past winners in Survivor and Big Brother who lied and deceived in the game but eventually convinced the juries to put those aside and vote for them as the best players. Russell failed in that department and that's why he didn't win either time.
That said, I do agree that the nature of the game has shifted. I would think that the original idea of Survivor was to put contestants in the most desperate situations such that they had to do anything in order to "survive". However, as we see in recent seasons, contestants don't seem to suffer any bit having thrown into a deserted corner in the world and many of them learn that the least they do the least they can do wrong.
|2010-05-17 03:54 PM|
Boston Rob made a great point about how Russell didn't play to win, but how he played to make it to the end
I was thinking about the final vote here and it occurred to me...
Survivor is about power and influence. You can make it to the final on power (obvious, from what Russell and Parvati have done), but you can't win on power alone because one is only in a position of influence for the final.
I was actually a bit surprised that Sandra won; I thought Poverty would have won as I thought that she played a dynamite game, physically, socially and strategically. As an audience though I we got more insight on her disagreements with Russell than anybody playing the game would (witness all the little spats they had nearer the end), and I think this hurt her in the final vote. Perhaps this helped Sandra too as she was quite open in her disdain for Russell.
One more note: Russell can't spell, or intentionally misspells, the names of others. Is it just me or is this a pretty fundamental mistake to make?
|2010-05-17 12:53 PM|
I agree... players like Russell, who take the game seriously, make it fun to watch. Players that sit back, do nothing but hope they will sneak through are just plain boring. That being said, Russell could still use a few hints in the social aspect. There were many times where Russell came on strong for no benefit. Example - when Sandra played the hidden idol, Russell came down hard on her for doing so. What was the point? Who cares? Outcome the same. But by acting like every decision has to go through him and making others feel like his pawns, he simply alienates them towards him.
What I find so amusing,is how indignant the "losers" are towards players like Russell. Each one was very happy to shake his hand and collude with him if it would help them advance (even Rupert was, at one point, very happy to make an alliance with Russell and Colby).
|2010-05-17 11:50 AM|
|becks||I still love Russell and if he wasn't playing the last couple of seasons I wouldn't of watched it. I was really surprised how these All-Stars still acted like babies and complained how Russell hurt their feelings and lied...REALLY? Survivor has been on for 20 seasons now and most of them have played 2-3 seasons and they still think it's personal? WOW! I honestly think Survivor is now a dud if people like Sandra keep winning. The best part of last night was how Russell still didn't care and didn't play nice...LOL....and when he said he was the fan favorite and all the contestants were shaking their heads and Sandra said he was delusional and then Jeff read out the winner of the fan favorite award...Priceless! I actually think Russell was happier winning the fan fav award by playing the way he did instead of playing a game like Sandra and winning|
|2010-05-17 10:30 AM|
I noticed that too. The only thing I can think of, is that he realized he lost after that season's tribal council. Russell went to the All Stars 21 days after the first season; the reunion was held "months" afterwards...so something is odd there.
The other interesting tidbit last night was when Colby said that the tribes were "quarantined" and werent' allowed to venture out much at all. Wonder why that was.
|2010-05-17 09:59 AM|
|Larry||In the final episode, in one of Russell's private moments with the camera, he said that he knew he didn't win the last season. How is that possible? Did they take him out of the game to attend the final tribal council? I had thought that they filmed the two seasons back to back and didn't have the final tribal council until after the end of the second one.|
|2010-05-17 09:51 AM|
Originally Posted by dm_4u View Post
IF they do as Russell implied and have "America" vote, or having a "judge", then the game becomes JUST about who wins challenges. As Jeff implied last night, that's not what Survivor is all about. That's the beauty thing about Survivor that some of you are missing. There's a nice little twist to this game. You have to lie and deceive to get to the end, but you also have to be aware that the people you lie and deceive are the ones who will determine whether to give you a million dollars or not.
I agree that Russell was the best Strategy player. The best thinker. But as I've already said, he didn't realize that the game is not just about that.
|2010-05-17 08:49 AM|
Too bad for Russell as he seems to be almost the best player ever...except he's missing the social element...because he is so focused and wound up during the game.
Coach nailed it...had he been a penatent man...he may have swayed some votes...but to get none...and have them reward failure...makes me question the game.
Parvati played another great game...what an absolute doll...
Rupert was a hoot when he blew a gasket on Russell...but he really shouldn't talk...in fact I was surprised he was classified as a hero in the first place.
Along with Russell...I would like to see the rules changed up a bit...with clear direction (like from a Judge in court) that the jury must vote for who they think played the game the best...instead of voting against someone.
|2010-05-17 08:30 AM|
Im starting to wonder if the only reason Russel makes it to the end every time is because he is willing to be the hated one and everyone wants to be beside the hated one at the end. He does all the damage and takes all the blame himself.
He was the best survivor to never get a single winning vote. Who is more of a failure...Sandra or Russel?
In the way the game is played winning challenges is meaningless if people are willing to take you to the end...proven by Sandra..twice.
When Russel was telling Sandra that she only had one vote on the jury I realized how clueless he was. Had he seen the outcome of his first season he would have known.
Hence why Russel was so emotional at the first final. He knew he had no chance on the second and played the game to get to the end...but never win.
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|