Survivor 5-16 SPOILERS (Page 3)

I called that Sandra would win weeks ago!

I think that playing under the radar is a strategy! Is a good one? Well, it was this season. I think the Heroes voted for her because they knew she tried to "partner" with them and they would not believe her, and she was right with everything she told them. SO her strategy of getting Russell off failed, but she was able to adapt and stay in the game.

I have no problem with her winning. We see only what CBS wants us to see and not the entire 39 days. That is why a portion of the vote can't be decided by America, that was the stupidest thing Russell said all night.

Russell is a jerk and it showed at the reunion show. He never had a shot at winning and Parv ruined her chances by being so close to Russell.

^^This!!

I wish JT would have been able to toss that paper into the fire, that would have been great!

I am a big fan of Russell and I feel that he outplayed, outwitted and outlasted everybody. However, as others have said, he has no end game.  Getting to the end, dispite not being liked, and others gunning for you is an impressive feat in this game (especially with all-stars) He thinks that other players should respect that skill and reward him. However, Survivor never works that way and thinking about that jury through out the race and not totally torching bridges is always the way to win. As Chris said, that IS a element of the game that is part of winning. Sandra has figured that out. Russell has not, or as Boston Rob said, maybe he doesn't care about that part.

you're totally right and actually, it seems with each passing season, the jury is deciding who "deserves" the million bucks and NOT who is the "Sole Survivor"

the past two seasons, Russell has definitely schemed, deceived, won challenges, found hidden immunity idols, made and broken alliances, etc. all with the objective of being voted "the best player" and Sole Survivor...

it really does seem clear that that's all he really wants and I think that's what pisses him off so much...

I am a big fan of his game but unfortunately if his goal was to have everybody determine he was deserving of a million bucks, he ain't ever gettin' it!!

I don't know. Perhaps there's just something I find intuitively wrong about a game in which the winner is rewarded for being as mediocre, inconspicuous and inoffensive as possible. But that's probably just a sign of the times anyway.


ETA: That's not an endorsement of Russell, who I think did blow the game by being soooooo manipulative, petty and dishonest. I think Parvati probably should have won. But in truth, Russell's strategy has worked before... look at Richard Hatch.



Edited by scoobysdad 2010-05-17 12:55 PM

While there are strength, endurance and intelligence parts to the game, i.e., the challanges, Survivor is above-all-else a SOCAIL game. There have been many ways that people have taken to the million dollars, but always was and is a game of mastering the social interactions. How do you get to the end AND give the jury a good reason to vote for you?BTW: I think it would have been great to have Russell in the same game as the professor from Maine that won. The Prof would have made phony immunity idols and Russell would have been blindsided! I would have paid to see the look on his face if that would ahve come to pass!

Edited by DougRob 2010-05-17 2:00 PM

It worked for Hatch because members of the jury stood up and applauded his game.  Nobody on the jury applauded Russell's game.  Again, it's the meanness he showed.  The burning, stealing and hiding.  None of those are necessary and scores have won without doing that.

I do feel a tad bit sorry for Parvati.  but when she did not take out Russell, her game was over.  That would have been a masterstroke that could have won it for her.  Fair or not, she was percieved as riding on coat tails too.

Of course one issue was that everyone wanted Russell in the final three with them.  That was an end game no brainer.  And of all the people in the final 5ish, Sandra was the only one that might get a win for P or R.


Edited by Indiana_Geoff 2010-05-17 3:47 PM

I said it b4 I'll say it again:  Russell's the most entertaining Survivor ever.  And I will agree that the mistakes he made in the social game were inexcusable.  Speaking to the jury he spoke in absolutes.  Stupid move.  Something to the effect of, "There's no luck."  Let's face it, he's as subtle as a sledgehammer, and he's not a great wordsmith.  That stuff matters.  His error of telling Parv and San. he got Jerri out because he knew she'd vote for him was plain dumb.  IF he told them he got Jerri out because she's so nice, she'd do well with the jury, etc., he would have gotten her vote.  The guy is straight-forward and I respect that.

That said, for folks here to say he didn't dominate this game, you've got to be kidding.  Russell was easily the most dominant player the game's ever seen.  I loved watching Boston Rob try to talk smack...to the guy who single-handedly got his butt removed from the island.  Boston Rob's got his sugar-momma Amber's million.  He's nothing on Survivor.   

Consider this fact though, if I've got my chronology correct, Russell didn't have the opportunity to see his 1st episode's finale before doing Heroes-Villains...sooo, he used the same hard-nosed and relentless game play he used in the previous game straight through not knowing it wouldn't impress the jury.   

ChrisM, no way did Parvati look better at the reunion show compared to on the island.  On the island she reminded me of Shannon Elisabeth.  Off the island, not as nice.  Just my opinion.  Maybe I'm I'm definitely affected by her rockin' bikini bod!

Meh, parvati's face never did much for me.  It was one that IMHO could use a little straightening up, she's no natural beauty.  The body, on the other hand.......

I always thought her last name was ironic

All I know is that I watched the first couple of seasons of Survivor then got bored, until Russell came along. That guy (love him or hate him) made the show interesting.

If you look at the show week in, week out - removing the emotion - you will find that this guy controlled the game.

As we are a few days behind you guys I watched with interest, and a little knowledge, what was going to happen.

Russell nearly always got his way and was good enough to be able to manipulate the situation to control his own agenda. He did this consistantly enough that it wasn't luck, it was pure skill. He has the ability to influence people.

I read with interest some of the comments about Russell having no end-game, and that may be true. Did Sandra deserve to win? In my mind - NO. But the game is structured that way so she got the votes, she got the cash and she got Bragging Rights.

I agree with Sccobysdad about it being a reflection on societal trends (sorry if I'm paraphrasing). I find it frustrating that the competitor (loose term in Sandra's case) can coast along with no real discernable talent and scoop the pool. This game is not set up to reward those who dare to win, who dare to try and who are courageous enough to 'make sh*t happen'. Given the premise of the game - being stuck in a remote location - you cannot survive, at least alone, by

I believe that the game should be a war of attrition, much like it is now, getting down to a final three, then a final challenge. One that incorpates wit, cunning and physical skill.

And no vote?  That changes the whole social aspect of the game.

Perhaps, after 20 "seasons", it's just a tired format.

Yup, that's where it's at.  Every so often I tune in for a season, but the magic is gone for the most part.  It's become too "gamey".

Edited by Indiana_Geoff 2010-05-18 7:58 AM

My wife and I were discussing the show last night and noticed there is a lot less "surviving" now. I mean they deal with the elements (sort of) and they have less food than normal, but they do not build much in the way of shelters, they do not have to dig a toilet, they do not forage for food much. They do not even have to ration their food (rice, beans, etc.) They lie around, snipe at each other, do the challanges, get rewards and go to tribal. Boston Rob's building skills are moot now, and that guy a few seans ago (We called him monkey boy) had mad climbing and foraging skills (moot as well).

Of the Heros and Villians I think Tom played the best season ever when he won the million. He even out-thought the designers of the challanges by using his hands as a snorkel and convinced another player to give up in the final challange (he also won a LOT of challanges).

There were a lot of other players int he 20 seasons that were better than a lot of the heros and viilains this season. Finally, am I the only one that was not impressed by Pavarti or Amanda being in the game for X days total? I mean, only 300 people have palyed the game in ten years! And, only a handful have been asked to play three times!

They do forage for food some, hence the coconuts & bananas/plantains.  Sometimes they do have to ration food too, the season when JT won I remember his camp being really low on rice for awhile.  They built their shelters most years as well, I can only think of one season off-hand(last year?) when the shelters were pre-built.

I agree that they have it easier than the first season or two, but they're not getting handed food AFAIK.

I agree.  I think it's her teeth.  Don't get me started on Danielle.  rockin' except for that gummy smile.  No e-standards here I would still smash them with extreme force.

I know I am coming in late to this thread...Russell said it very clearly why he will never win. He doesn't care what the jury thinks. That is NOT how to win this game.

I would like to see them go back to a final 2. That would end the coat-tail riding to the win.

Yea, I go back and forth on the 2 vs 3 thing too.  2 makes the final challenge too powerful.  3 has a funky, least offensive person dynamic.

Maybe have the final challenge when there are four and have the last two eliminated for losing instead of a vote.  But that would kill the physically weaker players (not that it's a bad thing).

I do wish they would focus on locations where you have to explore and forage for something other than an immunity idol.


Edited by Indiana_Geoff 2010-05-20 10:17 AM

I was bummed Sandra won. I hate when they vote for someone based on personality vs who played the best game.

At the end of the day Survivor is a snapshot of how it goes, in America at least. In business it's not always the hardest worker who gets the promotion. Instead it is sometimes the so-so worker whom everyone likes. It's not what ya know, but who you know. Survivor shows this fact of life to be true.