Survivor 20:Hero's vs Villians, live comentary
- Thread starter Nowhere Man
- Start date
Nowhere Man
Commodore
That is his flaw, he plays a good game, but never knows when to shut up.
Russell is scum.
I'm so glad that he didn't win.
I'm so glad that he didn't win.
When we do a commentary thread for the new season of Survivor, can the original poster put in bold upper case letters "SPOILERS FOR EPISODES PAST AIRED" or something to that effect. I really hated the fact that I saw this thread and got spoiled on the final two episodes of one of the greatest seasons in history because some one here decided this thread was game for any and all spoilers. We play it that way, you might as well tell us all before the first episode who is in the final 3 and who wins.
Anyway, with that out of the way, I'm currently watching the reunion show, and Russell is a sore loser. I think he should have won last season, but not this season. So far, it's a feisty reunion show.
Anyway, with that out of the way, I'm currently watching the reunion show, and Russell is a sore loser. I think he should have won last season, but not this season. So far, it's a feisty reunion show.
You know, the thread didn't really need the spoiler disclaimer. I think what that guy did was blatantly against the rules. I doubt he would've cared if there was something extra in the subject line. Some people just like ruining things for people. If he didn't and it was an honest mistake he would've apologized.
As for the finale, it's pretty disgusting that Sandra won, but what can you do. Bitter juries are the rule, not the exception it seems. Parvati probably deserved this win the most in the end, even if she is kind of a bitch, but it's a joke that Russell wen't 0/2. It's amazing how personal the jury takes the game with Russell.
As for the finale, it's pretty disgusting that Sandra won, but what can you do. Bitter juries are the rule, not the exception it seems. Parvati probably deserved this win the most in the end, even if she is kind of a bitch, but it's a joke that Russell wen't 0/2. It's amazing how personal the jury takes the game with Russell.
...or at least edited his post after being called on it...
I think Sandra played a good game. I still probably would have given Parvati my vote, but Sandra is anything but undeserving.
Yeah Russell sounds like a dick but I still like him because everything he says is true. He says the things I'm thinking but would never say out loud because I'd be too afraid of offending someone. He IS right that if someone like Sandra can win twice, the game is flawed. I've felt that way for a while now. It's just like if Colby had gone to the end he would have won even though he was completely useless. Juries care so much about voting for who they like the most, who is a "good person," and not who actually played the game well. I can't even remember the last time a jury voted based on respect for gameplay. I don't know why it has seemed to become so much more personal in the last few seasons but it is unfortunate. I actually agreed with Russell and voiced this a long time ago, that America should get a portion of the vote. Because we get to see things that the other people on the island can't. Of course America has its own popularity contests when it comes to voting, but if their votes for the best player each season are any indication, they do seem to reward people who actually DO something, actually get involved in the game.
Anyway, I felt that Sandra didn't really deserve it the first time she won and she doesn't really deserve it this time. This was a great season, it's too bad the way it ended. I hate Parvati's guts but at least she worked hard in the game, I could respect that more than Sandra winning.
Oh Russell, he's so funny and honest. Yeah he lied like crazy in the game but once it's over, and in his confessionals, he definitely tells it like it is! I'm glad he doesn't just sit there graciously, congratulating everyone and telling Sandra how much she deserved it. That would be phony and irritating. I much prefer the truth!
Anyway, I felt that Sandra didn't really deserve it the first time she won and she doesn't really deserve it this time. This was a great season, it's too bad the way it ended. I hate Parvati's guts but at least she worked hard in the game, I could respect that more than Sandra winning.
Oh Russell, he's so funny and honest. Yeah he lied like crazy in the game but once it's over, and in his confessionals, he definitely tells it like it is! I'm glad he doesn't just sit there graciously, congratulating everyone and telling Sandra how much she deserved it. That would be phony and irritating. I much prefer the truth!
Sandra won for the exact opposite reason Russell lost -- the social game. She did nothing to anyone so no one hated her. She bad mouthed the one person everyone took a dislike too, so everyone thought she was one of them.
A very smart strategy but boring to watch.
Russell can't even fathom that the social game is important. That is a major flaw and killed him in both seasons. He did have a point that he played one long season. He never had the opportunity to watch himself prior to this season and learn from his mistakes. Though I'm not sure he would have adjusted anyway.
In any case, I think Pavarti should have won.
A very smart strategy but boring to watch.
Russell can't even fathom that the social game is important. That is a major flaw and killed him in both seasons. He did have a point that he played one long season. He never had the opportunity to watch himself prior to this season and learn from his mistakes. Though I'm not sure he would have adjusted anyway.
In any case, I think Pavarti should have won.
Sandra's endgame is flawless. Her wit is not something you want to go up against. She has a great answer for everything and she says it without hesitation.
Why someone would want to bring someone like that to the final tribal council is beyond me.
At least bring Jerry who may choke up and stumble over her own words. Maybe put a foot in her own mouth.
But damn, don't bring Sandra who CAN win people over pretty easily.
That just shows how ignorant Russell is about the most important aspect of the game.
Winning over the jury.
Why someone would want to bring someone like that to the final tribal council is beyond me.
At least bring Jerry who may choke up and stumble over her own words. Maybe put a foot in her own mouth.
But damn, don't bring Sandra who CAN win people over pretty easily.
That just shows how ignorant Russell is about the most important aspect of the game.
Winning over the jury.
That's a very interesting observation. In that respect, he was at a bit of a disadvantage over the other players.
I saw where a poster or two made comments about the "bitter jury" and while I agree with that comment last season, I find it interesting that this jury was composted entirely of Survivor veterans. One would have thought that they might have been less inclined to be bitter since they've been through it, and many of them have done stuff nearly as bad as Russell. Guess it goes to show you just how much they must have really disliked Russell.
And when Russell was annouced as the winner of the $100,000 fan voted prize, I was amused at Rupert's inability to hide his disgust. I suppose it was poor sportsmanship on Rupert's part, but I had to
a little anyway.
Not a single vote for Russell, hilarious. The look on his face at the last tribal council when the jurors were questioning him was the classic "I may have made a HUGE mistake" face.
I don't understand why everyone thinks Russell is such a great gamer. I'll grant that he is intelligent, can win challenges and can play and mold certain people to his liking, but at the end of the day most of his talents lie in being able to bully and threaten people - hardly groundbreaking stuff there, any cunt can do that. He thinks he is automatically due respect, when in reality it should be earned.
Sandra probably wasn't as deserving as Parvarti to win, but I'm not totally shocked at the decision. Being a two time winner is no small feat, but she'll never be able to play again seeing as no one would want to see a 3 time winner. She does make a good point in that she was able to survive despite never winning an immunity challenge.
All in all a fantastic season and I'm stoked for Nicauragua in the fall. It probably won't be as great as this season has been, but I still am happy I'm back on this show after taking a 8 year hiatus.
I don't understand why everyone thinks Russell is such a great gamer. I'll grant that he is intelligent, can win challenges and can play and mold certain people to his liking, but at the end of the day most of his talents lie in being able to bully and threaten people - hardly groundbreaking stuff there, any cunt can do that. He thinks he is automatically due respect, when in reality it should be earned.
Sandra probably wasn't as deserving as Parvarti to win, but I'm not totally shocked at the decision. Being a two time winner is no small feat, but she'll never be able to play again seeing as no one would want to see a 3 time winner. She does make a good point in that she was able to survive despite never winning an immunity challenge.
All in all a fantastic season and I'm stoked for Nicauragua in the fall. It probably won't be as great as this season has been, but I still am happy I'm back on this show after taking a 8 year hiatus.
Gaaaahhh, the stupid spoiler list was right!
As soon as Jerri got the boot I knew the spoiler post was right- took away some of the enjoyment.
I think Pavarti deserved to win. She was physically strong and played a good strategic game. I can see why the tribal council members would vote for Sandra over Russell, but I can't see them actually thinking Sandra deserved to win more than Pavarti. It strikes me as being a case of sour grapes.
Russell is good at making it to the end, but he just doesn't understand that there's a social aspect to the game. The idea is to make it to the end and still be able to convince the people you got rid of to give you the million dollars. He had a good case for winning in Samoa, but he wasn't able to express that to the voters. This time he didn't have as strong of a case so I wasn't too surprised he didn't receive any votes.
I always assumed that none of the players knew the outcome until the live finale, but since Russell knew during the taping of this season (which occured before the finale of last season) that he lost the previous season, I guess that's not the case. I guess the spoiler post also shows that's not the case.
I have no sympathy for Russell here. He burned people's socks (on day one of their ordeal!), dumped people's water out out of their canteens, buried the machete, etc.
Looks like karma to me!
Ditto.
And, of course, he wins the Sprint call-in vote thing because sooooo many people have no concept of a moral compass.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
There is no moral compass in Survivor, you have to lie to people about who your voting for. There's no getting around it. That was established in season one. Yes, you don't have to be an asshole, but you have to give up some morals to win.It's unrealistic to think otherwise.That is Russels argument and that's why the jury shouldn't take it so personally. They would do the same thing if they made it to final three. All of them have lied, nobody is innocent in the game.
^ Exactly. My girlfriend got me watching the show last season and couldn't understand why I didn't want Russell to win then. I explained to her that I don't have a place in my life for loudmouth braggarts. She came around to my thinking this season. Don't get me wrong, he played the game well, but as someone said last night, he didn't play to win. He played to get to the end of the game.
No, Russell won because he made for entertaining viewing. Survivor is an entertainment show and Russell was good viewing.
I think Sandra winning her season was the first time I was disappointed with the show Survivor. This is definately a second time and it's even worse because her game play was exactly the same. She did little to get to where she got. Most of the season we heard her saying, "Let's get rid of Russell. I want to get rid of Russell. We have enough votes to get rid of Russell" and we all know what happened, Russell was not gotten rid of. She was ineffectual. Sure she had a good (not great) social game, but anything is better than Russell's. It's come down to a popularity contest and a silent player is more likely to win. That's playing the game, sure, but it lessens the game, in my mind.
Although I was rooting for Russell, I knew he had no chance. How many times have we heard, "you need to play big, to win and be ready to make bold moves"? Doesn't seem true, anymore. Last season, I was disappointed that Russell didn't win for a few days, but I understood finally it was his social game that causes him to lose. Still, giving the win to someone that did little (I'm not going to say "nothing" because that would be lying) makes me like this game less.
Russell's idea of making America have a say in the votes would never work. The show is edited too much, and the producers already cast players in the light they want to. It's not like American Idol where the player's performance is short and all seen and not edited.
Although I was rooting for Russell, I knew he had no chance. How many times have we heard, "you need to play big, to win and be ready to make bold moves"? Doesn't seem true, anymore. Last season, I was disappointed that Russell didn't win for a few days, but I understood finally it was his social game that causes him to lose. Still, giving the win to someone that did little (I'm not going to say "nothing" because that would be lying) makes me like this game less.
Russell's idea of making America have a say in the votes would never work. The show is edited too much, and the producers already cast players in the light they want to. It's not like American Idol where the player's performance is short and all seen and not edited.
