|
Post by Allison Reynolds on Dec 20, 2010 8:33:05 GMT -5
Currently watching the show, especially that FTC Jury session. Thoughts: {Spoiler}Overall ALL 3 Were Very Solid, with their jury performances. All three were extremely Hungry for that victory, more so than anybody in the past two seasons, including Russell Hantz.
Usually in the past several seasons since China, there was always someone who bombed, or performed poorly, allowing one of the others to take it. Really the Final Tribal is most important, because not all the players see what we as an audience see's so one could sway the jury their way, with some good talking (BS).
China: Amanda's game to lose, which she did. She bombed the performance so badly, being so timid, that it made the other two look better by default, and make her seem like a coat tail rider. Todd owned it afterward, with his excellent jury performance.
FvF: Amanda once again. She allowed Parvati to win.
Gabon: All three bombed spectacularly, especially Sugar. Bob won by default as the "Onion Alliance" he was a part of, made up the majority of the jury.
Tocantins: Stephen, didn't do so well in front of the jury. J.T's act was great at taking advantage of it.
Samoa: All three weren't very good, but Mick was particularly, feckless.
HvV: Russell was awful, Sandra did fine. Parvati did the best job.
Nicaragua: All three were Hungry, and Fought for it! Sash was the weakest of the three, but still did very well.
CHASE
OMG. What happened? Was he just playing simpleton this whole time, cause all of a sudden at the last minute, once he secured his spot in the Final 3, he switched to SNARKY GAME-BOT.
It's like Jean-Robert of China jumped into the game, by the way Chase was thinking and acting. He had planned and thought about it their whole final day. Maybe it was an act to play in front of the Jury, be confident and aggressive, make them think you know what you were doing.
He probably thought about how he played the whole time, and thought of ways to flip his "wishy washy" tendencies which he admitted to on the reunion, and make it seem like he knew what he was doing. It totally, totally worked, and some of the possible Judson voters jumped ship when they bought into it.
Where did all this snarkiness and aggressive attitude come from? It exuded confidence from him. It's like Clay Jordan from Thailand's personality popped into the game and answered for Chase. Chase figured, if he wasn't gonna get someone's vote anyway, like Clay, he would just blow them off, as Clay did with Helen. Or even like Sugar acted toward Corrine. The answer back to Marty was like the middle finger Sugar did to Corrine. "f*** you, and your loaded question."
His answers were superb. He probably thought about it the whole, day, how he'd handle the jury, thinking of things to say. Evident by his effective metaphors. He knew exactly what the jury wanted to hear for them, the ones that were still up in the air. (ie. Not Marty) Example, when he said the people he trusted he sided with, who happened to be on the jury (Brenda).
Okay, maybe his Final Tribal Performance was an act, but it was a darn effective act.
Yes he did bomb parts with specific jury members, but those were jury members he wasn't gonna get votes from anyway.
====
JUDSON
He did pretty well himself there. Really well in fact, as what I predicted he would. He was confident smart and aggressive, which worked. He could manipulate the jury pretty well, even if not purposely like Chase. Judson wasn't afraid to talk back to the unexpectedly aggressive Chase either.
Judson unlike Chase did attempt to get all of the Jury to like him though.
The reason I don't have as much to say, is because Judson I expected to do well, while Chase completely surprised me, that it shocked me, and even scared me.
===
SASH
Sash, wasn't so bad himself. Although he was the weakest of the three in the jury performances. He answered pretty well and was aggressive toward his opponents. Although at times he did come off too apologetic.
He was pretty strong with the jury, but he was also unfortunate enough to end up with two also very strong jury performers.
===
Judson, I really like. He's one of my favorite contestants of all time. Probably near the top. I don't put too much focus on if someone played an extremely strategic game or not. Judson (Fabio - The name is warming up to me, if only there wasn't some weird looking muscle man who also had that name) is a favorite, because he was a great character and I liked him on the show. He made it a great season to watch and felt happy when he won. Someone you just want to cheer on. One of my favorite winners for sure (again not based entirely on strategy). ==== What do you guys think of possible All Stars from this season? Premerge had a bunch, but it's unlikely, so all of these are post merge: Judson Jane Holly Marty All seem like very likely candidates. I left out Na Onka, cause she quit, and they don't allow quitters back.
|
|
Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,024
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Dec 20, 2010 11:58:47 GMT -5
Actually kinda relieved the Rob V. Russell thing isn't happening, only because neither one would have any chance of winning in that scenario . . .okay maybe Rob.
But it got me thinking, if Jeff ever decides to leave, does anyone else think the first call they make is to Boston Rob?
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Dec 20, 2010 12:08:00 GMT -5
But it got me thinking, if Jeff ever decides to leave, does anyone else think the first call they make is to Boston Rob? I know there were Andrew Savage rumors years ago, but that was a long time back. I'd personally give Penner a call. He could be an awesome host.
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Posts: 38,560
|
Post by fw91 on Dec 20, 2010 12:37:25 GMT -5
Theres only one man i think could make a good host if probst leave. His name is Rob Cesterino.
|
|
|
Post by Porky's Butthole on Dec 20, 2010 12:50:23 GMT -5
Theres only one man i think could make a good host if probst leave. His name is Rob Cesterino. No, no, no! There is only one man who could host Survivor if Jeff decides to leave. -One man...who can stir the shit like no others. -One man...who can control the egos. -One man...who can control all the issues. -One man...who has the charisma to handle the best reality show out there. That man? You guessed it....
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 20, 2010 14:42:44 GMT -5
Dumb question: What if the final envelope had said Sash? Does the person who picked Sash essentially choose between Chase and Fabio, or does everyone revote? Would they do that live?
|
|
|
Post by Threadkiller [Classic] on Dec 20, 2010 14:51:47 GMT -5
That's one of several reasons I've always disliked the idea of a final three. That, and the fact that, barring one season, every season with a final three always had someone who got absolutely no votes. This essentially renders the third party unnecessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2010 18:42:38 GMT -5
Here is how I rank the entire list of winners in Survivor history. Not really based on strategy or gameplay, but just based on whatever factors I subconsciously use. Some people are ranked lower because of who they beat in the finals (Amber, Tina).
1. Chris 2. Judson 3. Brian 4. Danni 5. Ethan 6. Bob 7. Sandra x2 8. Jenna 9. Earl 10. Richard 11. Tom 12. Parvati 13. Natalie 14. J.T. 15. Yul 16. Amber 17. Vecepia 18. Tina 19. Todd 20. Aras
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Posts: 38,560
|
Post by fw91 on Dec 20, 2010 20:39:10 GMT -5
i think the one adavantage of the final 3 in the producers minds, is that is rids of the potential deals at the end of the final immunity challenge that end up screwing someone over. it sort of ensures that someone who is the most deserving doesnt get screwed, like kathy and terri
|
|
Toates Madhackrviper
King Koopa
Is owed an Admin life-debt.
This avatar is so far out of date I might as well stick with it forever now.
Posts: 10,717
|
Post by Toates Madhackrviper on Dec 21, 2010 6:31:18 GMT -5
Good. I'm glad they're changing that rule. Scanning this thread after finals and I wanted to comment on this. I for one am NOT and let me explain. This show is called Survivor. What people seem to be forgetting is that this show is not just about surviving your fellow players and the challenges. It's also about surviving the elements. The thing is that the elements can't vote you out. But they can get so overwhelming that you quit. If you last to the jury stage and then decide you can't take it anymore then you still get to be on the jury because quitting is just as technically legitimate as being voted out. I have NO respect for quitters at all please dont misunderstand me. They're making this rule to discourage people from quitting at that stage of the game which I understand. But I don't agree with it for reason that stem down to what this show is about. Anyway congrats Jud. I turned on you a little bit on the last non-finale episode but you totally won me back over in this finale. Especially in that one scene with you f***ing with Sash's mind. I'm going to miss this cast. Really cool group of genuine, interesting, dynamic people in my opinion. And I'm not really looking forward to next season.
|
|
Toates Madhackrviper
King Koopa
Is owed an Admin life-debt.
This avatar is so far out of date I might as well stick with it forever now.
Posts: 10,717
|
Post by Toates Madhackrviper on Dec 21, 2010 6:33:36 GMT -5
Eeeeeh... You'd think the fact that people s*** all over that twist seven years ago would have been indication enough not to do it. Producers laugh at people who shit on the outcast twist because it single handed saved that season from being turned into a boring Pagoning and made it one of the most strategically interesting merges in the show's history.
|
|
Toates Madhackrviper
King Koopa
Is owed an Admin life-debt.
This avatar is so far out of date I might as well stick with it forever now.
Posts: 10,717
|
Post by Toates Madhackrviper on Dec 21, 2010 7:00:03 GMT -5
redemption island sounds awesome. but what about the rob vs russell rumor? I was actually surprised this wasn't it. Maybe they caught all the feedback on it and backed out, or it'll be Season 24. They didn't announce the Steph and Bobby Jon returning at the reunion either. So maybe they're just choosing to not promote it as Rob v Russell? Just for the sake of the discussion, what are your final thoughts on the season and where is Judson ranking on your all's lists of all time winners? Personally I'm really tired of winners like Jud. Everyone from Bob through Jud has been the "inoffensive" winner which is something about the game that has really bothered me lately. Juries used to be able to put aside their egos and crown the better player. Honestly with the exception of Amber I think everyone from Borneo through Micronesia the better actual player won in the finals unless I'm forgetting someone. Now the problem is that the person who "ran the game" has been so awful at jury management lately. Or if not jury management then finals performance in Stephen's case. So maybe it's not really a change in the way juries act and more a lack of quality players lately. If you look as Sash and Russell, players who arguably ran the game strategically but failed to win in the end and then compare them to similar players who managed to win... Todd and Chris respectively. What Todd and Chris had that Sash and Russell didn't was jury management and finals performance. I dislike Todd immensely, but that's one thing he did really really well. I'm not sure whether I blame the juries or the players for this, but I really hope that next season we get a truly strategically dominant player as a winner. The fact that this stretch of inoffensive winners has made me long for the days of Todd is really disturbing to me. My first four seasons of this show was the Yul, Earl, Todd, Parvati stretch of winners and they are all in the category of the kind of player I like to see win. Just for the sake of the discussion, what are your final thoughts on the season and where is Judson ranking on your all's lists of all time winners? I don't think Judson played a top-ten game, since his winning was so contingent upon his challenge run at the end. The optimum player would have made it to the end regardless (see Yul Kwon, the greatest player of all-time, in my opinion). I'm a Yul supporter too but you can't call Jud's immunity steak a fault and call Yul the greatest ever when if it wasn't for his idol Yul would have been the merge boot.
|
|
|
Post by Shy Guy on Dec 21, 2010 12:25:34 GMT -5
i really hated how sash played this game. didn't find him as "strategic" as much as i found him to be "scrambling and talking my way into 29474720 different alliances".
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Dec 21, 2010 13:24:11 GMT -5
I just want to get this off my chest. It's not directed at anyone in particular here, just a sentiment I've noticed a lot in general and I've finally reached a breaking point:
A having an in your face strategy does not necessarily equal having a good one. Nor does having a larger than life personality equal being a better strategist or more deserving.
Just because someone is throwing immunity idols around like candy or every time they attempt a move they make a big to-do about it doesn't mean they know what they're doing. Nor does it mean that it's automatically the best move out there.
Strategy is very cerebral and very cerebral people don't tend to be the most exciting as they're always in their own head.
Observation is, by the nature of the act, very quiet and low key because to observe things in their true state, you need to be undetected. That's not exactly a thrilling thing to watch someone do, nor is it something that's easily shown over a period of time because not only does that not make for good tv, but it's hard to always catch someone in the middle of observing.
In the same vein, ability to read people and act accordingly without seeming out of character is something inwardly personal and hard to show. The best way you know someone is doing so on this show is in them mentioning it in confessionals, but that doesn't necessarily equate "good tv."
Also, Survivor isn't about one big move, it's about a bunch of small ones. You don't make one large move and get straight to the end. You need to move the pieces around and work your way there, maybe making one huge, turning point move along the way.
The thing is though, these are all important things to winning the game. It's almost like a catch 22 for the show - they need to make the program interesting but the actual best representation of a winner for it, their strategy is hard to detect in large, booming moves.
I love Yul but one of the reasons people he think he's so boring is because he's cerebral. He was always thinking, thinking, thinking and that's why his moves worked. I saw the idol used up-thread about him (admittedly in a slightly different argument as this one but it got me thinking) and the thing about Yul's use of the idol was that he only had the one. He had one chance to use it well and he sat on it and thought about it and when the time came, he did it. (Multiple idols are a different discussion for a different day lol.) It was his big move amongst all his little ones.
I also love Earl and hate when people talk about him being undeserving; that it should have been (I presume) Yau Man. Yau definitely strategized...along with Earl. It wasn't just one man doing the thinking in that pair and when Dreamz handed that turning point moment over to Earl, he took it because it was the big move he knew he had to make after making a bunch of small ones to get to that point. Just because Yau was the sweet, surprisingly strong older man in the pair doesn't mean he was the only one with a brain. Earl was just the more understated character.
Brian Heidik. Not the most thrilling to watch because he was cold and calculating (I actually find that interesting, but in terms of the general populous for a tv show, I realize it isn't) but I'd argue he is in the upper echelon of winners of Survivor. He focused in, thought it through and won the war.
I'm sure this next one will get someone all in a tiff but I don't care.
Sandra in Heroes vs. Villains (and Pearl Islands, but especially HvV) is the quintessential example of what I'm talking about. I'll argue to the death about Sandra playing the best game out there and being the most deserving. Sandra is adept at the observation part of the game. She is also very aware of her physical limitations and adjusts accordingly (I'll also argue that the challenges mean way less than people think they do, but again - different discussion, different day.) The main ingredient to Sandra's game was observation - it helped her to 1) recognize when she may be in trouble 2) formulate what she saw as the best course of action, even if that meant laying back and waiting 3) realize that the people whose support her strategy hinged on were not going to go along with her (ex: Candice) which then leads to 5) her changing her course of action to make sure she was safe and 6) recognizing that after a certain point, keeping Russell around was a better idea than getting rid of him at that point because of how badly he burned people.
The main cog in my Sandra argument though, is how the voting broke down: All the heroes voted for her. Their solid voting block showed their recognition of her strategy and her honesty with them. They messed it up due to their LACK of observation and realized that when they went home, falling like dominoes. In the end, it wasn't about Russell busting out an idol every five seconds or Parvati smiling her enormous smile while she buddied up with Russell, rubbing her moves in their faces by doing so. It was about Sandra sitting back, looking around and moving herself forward without gloating or making a spectacle of herself at the others expense. Parvati's biggest blunder (and always Russell's) was Sandra's most important move and it's nothing bombastic - her moves didn't leave the bodies in her wake bitter at how they were treated. Nothing flashy about it but insanely important and she's the only one that did it.
Even now, with Jud, he's not going to get his due because at its core, his strategy is very similar to Sandra's. Listening to him at the reunion talking about how aware he is of the vibe he gives off and in turn, how people generally respond to him - the kid has incredibly keen observation skills and a great ability to read others. And like Sandra, he knew when to sit on his hands and when to make a move. He didn't need to have all the power all the way through because it would have made him a target (likable AND coming on strong?) and because he got it when it was most important. Sash, for all his thinking and scheming, didn't think about the bodies in his wake either. Jud did. Now, if Chase would have won over either of them, then we'd have an argument on our hands about the least deserving person winning (as it is, I think it's BS he got 4 votes and Sash got none because they both pissed people off but at least Sash used his brain to do so.) So to me, with Jud, it's not about picking the "least offensive" person. It's about picking the person who took the best course of action for what the game dictates.
I just think it's a shame that lately more than ever, people are writing off certain winners as being undeserving just because they're not in your face with every single move they make. It's not about how much they entertained you (though I tend to find these people more entertaining than others, I've come to find) it's about actual game play, when it comes to "being deserving" and I'm kind of sick of it.
I didn't mean for this to be some epic monologue but I had to get that out.
|
|
|
Post by Triple H buried SnS on Dec 21, 2010 13:36:24 GMT -5
i really hated how sash played this game. didn't find him as "strategic" as much as i found him to be "scrambling and talking my way into 29474720 different alliances". Agreed. He never had control once brenda left. I believe he made it to the end cause people felt he would be easy to go up against in the finals. And to add to the discussion, there are several different strategies to not only get to the end, but also win the million dollars. - Heavy planning, alliance making and backstabbing - But hurts the social game as you essentially turn on everyone in the game. Hurts your chances of getting final votes, but that can also help you get to the final 2/3. (ie - Russell) - Play under the radar - You don't cause any waves that would make you a target. You basically sit back and watch everyone else gun for each other as you ride to the final 3. But being so uninvolved with the game usually tends to lose you final votes. - Social game - Basically try to make everyone like you and be everyone's friend. Can get you by early on. But as the game gets to the end, the people left in the game will try to get rid of you cause they know people are likely to vote for you if you make it to the finals. - Challenge game - Try to be strong in the challenges. Early on, teams want to keep their tribe strong, so they eliminate the people that are bad at challenges. Tho, later in the game, they will be targeted as an 'immunity run' threat. - Large alliance game - Get a group of people that will stick together no matter what. Problem is, this group has to eventually break apart and/or turn on each other... either before or during the final tribal council. Can help you get to the end, but difficult to separate yourself from the other finalists if they were also part of that group.
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Dec 21, 2010 15:12:09 GMT -5
I just want to get this off my chest. It's not directed at anyone in particular here, just a sentiment I've noticed a lot in general and I've finally reached a breaking point: A having an in your face strategy does not necessarily equal having a good one. Nor does having a larger than life personality equal being a better strategist or more deserving. Just because someone is throwing immunity idols around like candy or every time they attempt a move they make a big to-do about it doesn't mean they know what they're doing. Nor does it mean that it's automatically the best move out there. Strategy is very cerebral and very cerebral people don't tend to be the most exciting as they're always in their own head. Observation is, by the nature of the act, very quiet and low key because to observe things in their true state, you need to be undetected. That's not exactly a thrilling thing to watch someone do, nor is it something that's easily shown over a period of time because not only does that not make for good tv, but it's hard to always catch someone in the middle of observing. In the same vein, ability to read people and act accordingly without seeming out of character is something inwardly personal and hard to show. The best way you know someone is doing so on this show is in them mentioning it in confessionals, but that doesn't necessarily equate "good tv." Also, Survivor isn't about one big move, it's about a bunch of small ones. You don't make one large move and get straight to the end. You need to move the pieces around and work your way there, maybe making one huge, turning point move along the way. The thing is though, these are all important things to winning the game. It's almost like a catch 22 for the show - they need to make the program interesting but the actual best representation of a winner for it, their strategy is hard to detect in large, booming moves. I love Yul but one of the reasons people he think he's so boring is because he's cerebral. He was always thinking, thinking, thinking and that's why his moves worked. I saw the idol used up-thread about him (admittedly in a slightly different argument as this one but it got me thinking) and the thing about Yul's use of the idol was that he only had the one. He had one chance to use it well and he sat on it and thought about it and when the time came, he did it. (Multiple idols are a different discussion for a different day lol.) It was his big move amongst all his little ones. I also love Earl and hate when people talk about him being undeserving; that it should have been (I presume) Yau Man. Yau definitely strategized...along with Earl. It wasn't just one man doing the thinking in that pair and when Dreamz handed that turning point moment over to Earl, he took it because it was the big move he knew he had to make after making a bunch of small ones to get to that point. Just because Yau was the sweet, surprisingly strong older man in the pair doesn't mean he was the only one with a brain. Earl was just the more understated character. Brian Heidik. Not the most thrilling to watch because he was cold and calculating (I actually find that interesting, but in terms of the general populous for a tv show, I realize it isn't) but I'd argue he is in the upper echelon of winners of Survivor. He focused in, thought it through and won the war. I'm sure this next one will get someone all in a tiff but I don't care. Sandra in Heroes vs. Villains (and Pearl Islands, but especially HvV) is the quintessential example of what I'm talking about. I'll argue to the death about Sandra playing the best game out there and being the most deserving. Sandra is adept at the observation part of the game. She is also very aware of her physical limitations and adjusts accordingly (I'll also argue that the challenges mean way less than people think they do, but again - different discussion, different day.) The main ingredient to Sandra's game was observation - it helped her to 1) recognize when she may be in trouble 2) formulate what she saw as the best course of action, even if that meant laying back and waiting 3) realize that the people whose support her strategy hinged on were not going to go along with her (ex: Candice) which then leads to 5) her changing her course of action to make sure she was safe and 6) recognizing that after a certain point, keeping Russell around was a better idea than getting rid of him at that point because of how badly he burned people. The main cog in my Sandra argument though, is how the voting broke down: All the heroes voted for her. Their solid voting block showed their recognition of her strategy and her honesty with them. They messed it up due to their LACK of observation and realized that when they went home, falling like dominoes. In the end, it wasn't about Russell busting out an idol every five seconds or Parvati smiling her enormous smile while she buddied up with Russell, rubbing her moves in their faces by doing so. It was about Sandra sitting back, looking around and moving herself forward without gloating or making a spectacle of herself at the others expense. Parvati's biggest blunder (and always Russell's) was Sandra's most important move and it's nothing bombastic - her moves didn't leave the bodies in her wake bitter at how they were treated. Nothing flashy about it but insanely important and she's the only one that did it. Even now, with Jud, he's not going to get his due because at its core, his strategy is very similar to Sandra's. Listening to him at the reunion talking about how aware he is of the vibe he gives off and in turn, how people generally respond to him - the kid has incredibly keen observation skills and a great ability to read others. And like Sandra, he knew when to sit on his hands and when to make a move. He didn't need to have all the power all the way through because it would have made him a target (likable AND coming on strong?) and because he got it when it was most important. Sash, for all his thinking and scheming, didn't think about the bodies in his wake either. Jud did. Now, if Chase would have won over either of them, then we'd have an argument on our hands about the least deserving person winning (as it is, I think it's BS he got 4 votes and Sash got none because they both pissed people off but at least Sash used his brain to do so.) So to me, with Jud, it's not about picking the "least offensive" person. It's about picking the person who took the best course of action for what the game dictates. I just think it's a shame that lately more than ever, people are writing off certain winners as being undeserving just because they're not in your face with every single move they make. It's not about how much they entertained you (though I tend to find these people more entertaining than others, I've come to find) it's about actual game play, when it comes to "being deserving" and I'm kind of sick of it. I didn't mean for this to be some epic monologue but I had to get that out. Oh, the many many ways I love this post. I should preface this, just to be safe, by saying I don't begrudge anyone their right to watch Survivor the way they want and to enjoy whatever parts of the game they so choose. While it isn't really my cup of tea, I can understand why certain fans look at a Rachel from Big Brother or a Russell from Heroes vs. Villains and find them to be awesome television. I'm not naive enough to think everyone who watches Survivor watches it to see the strong silent types march to the end over the course of 15 episodes. So I understand where the love for the Russell Hantzs and Coach Wades of the world comes from. I'm not the jerk who judges people and bases how I personally feel towards them based on differences of opinion. Different strokes, different folks, it's a healthy viewpoint. Now all that being said, there most definitely is a growing pattern that can be seen where some segments of people confuse great television with great players. There are clear overlaps, obviously. Your Richard Hatch types who were awesome characters and made for even better TV. Those players exist, it's just sad that they tend to be so infrequent as we go along. Now I think we're finding ourselves surrounded by a lot of players who excel in one area of the game, maybe even a second, but completely flame out in a third. Then they actually seem surprised when they lose. Russell is absolutely the greatest recent example of that. As a strategist he's very solid. He can manipulate the numbers game which is very important. As far as surviving in the elements he seems to relish in them. He's able to stay composed while others become quivering masses in the face of a rain storm. His biggest problem is his social game being complete garbage, and that brings us back to Roxie's original point. The people who are such massive fans of the big, bold, in your face players also seem to be some of the first ones to dismiss the social game and quickly label anyone who chooses to look at it as important as a bitter juror. I defy anyone to name me one player who won this game that didn't fall under one of two criteria at the final tribal: A) Won the game with a great social strategy, along with whatever moves they made along the way. B) Sat beside someone who played a terrible social game and rubbed people the wrong way. I like Rob Cesternino enough to listen to all his Survivor podcasts, but something he said immediately after the finale confused me. He was saying that he believed the game of Survivor had shifted and evolved past the strategists being rewarded and it was now turning in to strictly a social game where you just try to get to the end without pissing someone off. Where I disagree with him is that this wave of winners is something new. It's always been this way. Richard Hatch - Maybe not THE single most amazing social player ever, but the person he sat beside at final tribal had rubbed enough people the wrong way to where she couldn't muster enough votes to beat him. Tina - Obviously Colby was the guy behind the scenes making the final calls on who to vote out, but Tina played a great enough social game to where she stayed very visible in the game but never did something to truly anger anyone. Ethan - Phenomenal social player. V - Leans more towards my criteria B. Neleh through her own obliviousness to her surroundings cost herself a chance to win in Marquesas. Things like offering a group of starving people a half eaten mint isn't great social play, to say the least. Brian - Clay's social game may have been bad enough at times to rival Hantz's. Meanwhile Brian was deceptively charming enough to win people over. Jenna - Matthew had scared the s*** out of people and had allowed himself to be seen as a weird outcast in the eyes of his fellow players. He couldn't win. I'll stop there but I could roll straight through Nicaragua. The only anomaly I can think of is when you end up with an Aras/Double D or Boston Rob/Amber situation where neither are particularly likable or had any real social game to speak of. Otherwise, at least in my eyes the best social player has nearly always won out over the better strategist, if they weren't one in the same for that particular season. So I can't entirely see where Rob is coming from with that. Rob was actually a good person to bring up because I think he represents exactly what Roxie was talking about and I believe as well. When you listen to him dissect and talk about who he feels are truly great players in Survivor history, he always seems to lean more towards characters. He loves the over the top types. He's also one who after Heroes vs. Villains was not thrilled with Sandra's win and didn't understand it. Which I'll add surprised me in a major way, since I had always looked at Rob as the thinking man's player and a master strategist. Roxie, you brought up Sandra and this split reputation she has with people. They either really think she's an all time great player, or feel she's one of the most undeserving winners ever, and that just baffles me. I wish I knew what thread it was, but I remember making a post a long time ago on this forum where someone asked what she had done in either of her two games to be considered a great player. I mapped out, step by step, the moves she made to get herself to the finish line and win in Pearl Islands. I'm 99% sure it got ignored at the end of the day, but it goes a long way towards proving what you said. You don't have to be in someone's face to play a great game. It might make for more interesting clips to watch on youtube a few years down the line, but it doesn't necessarily equate to success. I was comparing Jud to Sandra after he won and at the time I didn't even mean in it the sense that they were similar players, but I guess looking at it they really were. Jud was way too excited after the finale when he was babbling about taking down the government or whatever to get any real game play answers out of him. When he started doing interviews after the fact he was able to shed some light on moves some of us were calling as they went down. How he was always reading people for one. I don't even believe he had much left to prove after his performance following the final immunity challenge, but it was nice to hear it straight from the man's mouth. Point being, you're right. Jud was only as out there and involved as he needed to be. That's strategy. It isn't burying a machete, but it IS strategy, and a legitimate one at that. Good grief, I've gone off rambling about this now. I guess to sum up what I'm saying, I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that there are misconceptions between great player and great character. Also just to repeat, I'm not meaning for this to be some lecture or attack piece directed at anyone. Not even any forum or comment section in particular. Just something that seems to be a growing sentiment out there for whatever reason. It is an opinion I feel strongly about though, and if anyone wants to actually debate it I'd enjoy that. Anyhoo, just thought this was a great post and spot on.
|
|
Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,024
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Dec 21, 2010 16:03:53 GMT -5
I just want to get this off my chest. It's not directed at anyone in particular here, just a sentiment I've noticed a lot in general and I've finally reached a breaking point: A having an in your face strategy does not necessarily equal having a good one. Nor does having a larger than life personality equal being a better strategist or more deserving. Just because someone is throwing immunity idols around like candy or every time they attempt a move they make a big to-do about it doesn't mean they know what they're doing. Nor does it mean that it's automatically the best move out there. Strategy is very cerebral and very cerebral people don't tend to be the most exciting as they're always in their own head. Observation is, by the nature of the act, very quiet and low key because to observe things in their true state, you need to be undetected. That's not exactly a thrilling thing to watch someone do, nor is it something that's easily shown over a period of time because not only does that not make for good tv, but it's hard to always catch someone in the middle of observing. In the same vein, ability to read people and act accordingly without seeming out of character is something inwardly personal and hard to show. The best way you know someone is doing so on this show is in them mentioning it in confessionals, but that doesn't necessarily equate "good tv." Also, Survivor isn't about one big move, it's about a bunch of small ones. You don't make one large move and get straight to the end. You need to move the pieces around and work your way there, maybe making one huge, turning point move along the way. The thing is though, these are all important things to winning the game. It's almost like a catch 22 for the show - they need to make the program interesting but the actual best representation of a winner for it, their strategy is hard to detect in large, booming moves. I love Yul but one of the reasons people he think he's so boring is because he's cerebral. He was always thinking, thinking, thinking and that's why his moves worked. I saw the idol used up-thread about him (admittedly in a slightly different argument as this one but it got me thinking) and the thing about Yul's use of the idol was that he only had the one. He had one chance to use it well and he sat on it and thought about it and when the time came, he did it. (Multiple idols are a different discussion for a different day lol.) It was his big move amongst all his little ones. I also love Earl and hate when people talk about him being undeserving; that it should have been (I presume) Yau Man. Yau definitely strategized...along with Earl. It wasn't just one man doing the thinking in that pair and when Dreamz handed that turning point moment over to Earl, he took it because it was the big move he knew he had to make after making a bunch of small ones to get to that point. Just because Yau was the sweet, surprisingly strong older man in the pair doesn't mean he was the only one with a brain. Earl was just the more understated character. Brian Heidik. Not the most thrilling to watch because he was cold and calculating (I actually find that interesting, but in terms of the general populous for a tv show, I realize it isn't) but I'd argue he is in the upper echelon of winners of Survivor. He focused in, thought it through and won the war. I'm sure this next one will get someone all in a tiff but I don't care. Sandra in Heroes vs. Villains (and Pearl Islands, but especially HvV) is the quintessential example of what I'm talking about. I'll argue to the death about Sandra playing the best game out there and being the most deserving. Sandra is adept at the observation part of the game. She is also very aware of her physical limitations and adjusts accordingly (I'll also argue that the challenges mean way less than people think they do, but again - different discussion, different day.) The main ingredient to Sandra's game was observation - it helped her to 1) recognize when she may be in trouble 2) formulate what she saw as the best course of action, even if that meant laying back and waiting 3) realize that the people whose support her strategy hinged on were not going to go along with her (ex: Candice) which then leads to 5) her changing her course of action to make sure she was safe and 6) recognizing that after a certain point, keeping Russell around was a better idea than getting rid of him at that point because of how badly he burned people. The main cog in my Sandra argument though, is how the voting broke down: All the heroes voted for her. Their solid voting block showed their recognition of her strategy and her honesty with them. They messed it up due to their LACK of observation and realized that when they went home, falling like dominoes. In the end, it wasn't about Russell busting out an idol every five seconds or Parvati smiling her enormous smile while she buddied up with Russell, rubbing her moves in their faces by doing so. It was about Sandra sitting back, looking around and moving herself forward without gloating or making a spectacle of herself at the others expense. Parvati's biggest blunder (and always Russell's) was Sandra's most important move and it's nothing bombastic - her moves didn't leave the bodies in her wake bitter at how they were treated. Nothing flashy about it but insanely important and she's the only one that did it. Even now, with Jud, he's not going to get his due because at its core, his strategy is very similar to Sandra's. Listening to him at the reunion talking about how aware he is of the vibe he gives off and in turn, how people generally respond to him - the kid has incredibly keen observation skills and a great ability to read others. And like Sandra, he knew when to sit on his hands and when to make a move. He didn't need to have all the power all the way through because it would have made him a target (likable AND coming on strong?) and because he got it when it was most important. Sash, for all his thinking and scheming, didn't think about the bodies in his wake either. Jud did. Now, if Chase would have won over either of them, then we'd have an argument on our hands about the least deserving person winning (as it is, I think it's BS he got 4 votes and Sash got none because they both pissed people off but at least Sash used his brain to do so.) So to me, with Jud, it's not about picking the "least offensive" person. It's about picking the person who took the best course of action for what the game dictates. I just think it's a shame that lately more than ever, people are writing off certain winners as being undeserving just because they're not in your face with every single move they make. It's not about how much they entertained you (though I tend to find these people more entertaining than others, I've come to find) it's about actual game play, when it comes to "being deserving" and I'm kind of sick of it. I didn't mean for this to be some epic monologue but I had to get that out. A fine post, but I will never believe Sandra deserved to win, as far as I'm concerned, Parvati got screwed.
|
|
Toates Madhackrviper
King Koopa
Is owed an Admin life-debt.
This avatar is so far out of date I might as well stick with it forever now.
Posts: 10,717
|
Post by Toates Madhackrviper on Dec 21, 2010 16:05:57 GMT -5
Roxie, I only got to skim your epic wall of text (I will have to set it aside to read in detail later because it's very good from what I did see) and what I want to say is that I agree with you. I know you said it wasn't directed at anyone in particular but I do feel I at least inspired it.
Youre totally right that brash in your face strategy is not the only type of good gameplay. Jud, Sandra, all of them had strategies and they won them the game and that's inarguable.
My point was more that I'm just tired of how many "pissed off the least people" winners we've had in a row now and I'd like to see a super in your face strategic cerebral dominant winner again since it's been awhile.
|
|
|
Post by Threadkiller [Classic] on Dec 21, 2010 18:15:12 GMT -5
I'm a Yul supporter too but you can't call Jud's immunity steak a fault and call Yul the greatest ever when if it wasn't for his idol Yul would have been the merge boot. The difference is that Judson used his immunity wins to get himself to the end, while Yul used his idol to change the entire game for his whole alliance. It was brilliant how he used the thing, actually. While trying to find a recap of the episode where Yul used the idol, I came across the wonderful description of why Yul's move was brilliant, summing it up much better than I ever could. From a realitynewsonline.com article: Again, I'm not saying Jud didn't play a great game, and he's certainly one of my all-time favorite winners. But I think Yul is in a different league altogether in terms of how he played the game.
|
|
Toates Madhackrviper
King Koopa
Is owed an Admin life-debt.
This avatar is so far out of date I might as well stick with it forever now.
Posts: 10,717
|
Post by Toates Madhackrviper on Dec 21, 2010 18:43:05 GMT -5
I agree, I'm just saying that if he didn't have that all powerful idol [much more powerful than the one they have on the show today] he would have been the merge boot of Cook Islands! Luck played a role in every winner's win though. Some more than others.
But Yul for sure did some crazy genius stuff with the tools he was given.
Anyone else, not sure if this was mentioned, get really mad that they snubbed Yve, Jill, Benry, KPurp, and most of all TYRONE and loaded up on Boston Rob talking about his baby and Terry Bradshaw? Hell you don't even have to trash those segments completely shave both of them in half and you have time to get a quick update from these people who came all that way to be at the reunion. Those segments were like the guest host crap on RAW to me to make a wrestling comparison.
Edit: Na Onka's mom...Chase's song...
|
|