• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Survivor: Samoa

The arguments for Natalie as a upstanding citizen of morality are complete and utter bullshit.

They all knew the game Russell was playing. They knew what Russell was doing, they knew most of the tactics he was employing and they decided to go along with him. Yet somehow they're "better" because they didn't do it?

Is someone who hires a hitman to kill someone more moral then someone who murders a person themselves?

Natalie deserves about $0.10 from the way she played the game. Somehow because she stayed in the shadows that was a tactic? How is it a tactic when you realize you have NO CHANCE to win YOU HAVE NO SHOT to maneuver and shape the game to your advantage and so what you do is align yourself with someone else who does all the work?

All the 'dirty' work... And then claim you yourself are some kind of a better person because you didn't do it.

Natalie and Mick would have both been sitting on the jury if it wasn't for Ruselll and hell Natalie probably wouldn't have even made it to the merger if it wasn't for her alliance with Russell...

I'm sick and tired of people standing on some kind of moral high horse regarding Survivor. THIS IS SURVIVOR! It's a game for $1million with very little in the way of rules on how you play the game to get it. Natalie realized it was a game she was incapable of playing and let Russell play it for her and her ultimate argument for winning was not what she did during he course of the game, but what she did not do.

That she did not use the same tactics Russell did. That argument is extremely flawed for one major reason. Number one it says she would be capable of those tactics, was that skilled a manipulator, but ultimately did not do it because of her morality. Ignoring whether or not she really could have done all the moves Russell did, she is a moral person? She is moral when she knew what Russell was doing? That he was lying and cheating and manipulating everyone and still deciding to 'use him' to her advantage? That makes her moral?

It was a completely bullshit argument for the million which the simpletons on the jury bought because they didn't like losing to Russell. They all recognized he was the reason they didn't have a chance for $1million because he outmaneuvered them all. So they voted for Natalie.
 
You know, I have to admit that I have no respect for people who support Russell.

There are only two words that I can think of to describe him: despicable, and repugnant.

Russell was a jackass. But, you know what? He played the fucking game and part of the game is to, yes, be an asshole. Look at Richard Hatch in season 1. Hatch owned those people, and he was a gigantic asshole.

Outwit, Outplay, Outlast.

Russell did all of these. The plan using the HII where he got the other tribe's member to vote him off while those in his alliance voted off who he wanted off was fucking brilliant and was the most awesome movie ever done on the show. He completely outwitted every person there, he worked hard to discover the HII without clues, he fucking owned everyone there and Natalie would NOT have been around had Russell gotten voted off during the core game she was only in the Final Three because of Russell.

Yeah, the guy was a jerk. But know what? He fucking played this game like no one has before him. He ruled the roost, Natalie didn't do jack-shit.
 
Natalie has a million dollars, but whenever the majority of people who watched this season of Survivor remember about it in the future will be Russell and when Natalie is mentioned it'll be "oh yea that girl who got $1mil she didn't deserve after being dragged through the game by Russell."

BTW your monopoly cheating argument is stupid. Russell did nothing against the rules of Survivor. If you use loaded dice, or you keep extra money hidden in your pocket, or you have a get out of jail free card in your sleeve. Those are all cheating.

Russell played Survivor by the rules of Survivor and he outsmarted the producers themselves by looking for the Immunity Idols without a clue. There was nothing in the rules that said you can't look for one until you get a clue for it. Hell he could have been wasting his time and they could have hidden the idols in some 'exile island' like they did in some previous seasons.

There was no cheating by Russell in the game. If he cheated at Survivor he would have been thrown off the show. He played Survivor. He played the game. Natalie just hung around for 30/40 days and did absolutely nothing to play the game.
 

I love how the video is broken up in to < 2 minute segments. :rolleyes:

I never understood why that site does that. But it is an interesting interview.

Very interesting interview and a poster above put it nicely, when people look back at this season they'll think of Russell as the "winner" of this season and Natalie as a leech who just happened to win because some bitter people had their fee-wings hurt.

Russell played the fucking game, like no other. And that's it, it's just a game. This game isn't about who needs the money the most, or who was the nicest, it's about doing what you have to to get to the end. Russell did that. Natalie hitched her rope to Russell's wagon and she was just drug along for the ride.
 
Now that I've had a chance to calm down, I think the jury did the right thing.

Did Russell play hard? Yes
Did Russell make most of the decisions? Yes
Did Russell find all those immunity idols? Yes
Did Russell successfully turn Shambo from Foa Foa? Yes
Did Russell do more than Natalie? Yes

Did Russell realize that the jury consisted of morons that would vote emotionally? No

The rules of Survivor says that the jury picks the winner, he didn't do what needed to be done to get them to vote for him. Now, I don't agree with them, but it's not up to me. I'm not happy, though.

Oh, the two votes that Russell got were Shambo's and John's.
 
Now that I've had a chance to calm down, I think the jury did the right thing.

Did Russell play hard? Yes
Did Russell make most of the decisions? Yes
Did Russell find all those immunity idols? Yes
Did Russell successfully turn Shambo from Foa Foa? Yes
Did Russell do more than Natalie? Yes

Did Russell realize that the jury consisted of morons that would vote emotionally? No

The rules of Survivor says that the jury picks the winner, he didn't do what needed to be done to get them to vote for him. Now, I don't agree with them, but it's not up to me. I'm not happy, though.

Oh, the two votes that Russell got were Shambo's and John's.

John -the literal rocket sceintist- did it right. Russell pulled the fastest one anyone has ever pulled on him, and John still voted for Russell. As John realized that Russell played the game the best.

The jury didn't "do the right thing" they were pretty much "niceness nullified" by their own bruised feelings. Russell not realizing the bulk of the jury were morons means those morons made the right decision. Again, Hatch worked over the first season jury members and they still voted for him in bulk because Hatch played the game the best. This year's jury were filled with bitter Susan Hawks.
 
He was robbed!

RussellHantz.jpg
 
Just finished watching and yes Russell was robbed. Jaison though came off really looking like a prick though. I wonder what little thing goes on in his mind because he is a nut. I hope Russell is in Heros v. Villians, even though I really hope that season is not in Pearl Islands, like All-Stars and the regular season was. I heard south pacific and that was my first thought.
 
Just finished watching and yes Russell was robbed. Jaison though came off really looking like a prick though. I wonder what little thing goes on in his mind because he is a nut. I hope Russell is in Heros v. Villians, even though I really hope that season is not in Pearl Islands, like All-Stars and the regular season was. I heard south pacific and that was my first thought.

HvV is supposed to have been filmed in Samoa.
 
Just finished watching and yes Russell was robbed. Jaison though came off really looking like a prick though. I wonder what little thing goes on in his mind because he is a nut. I hope Russell is in Heros v. Villians, even though I really hope that season is not in Pearl Islands, like All-Stars and the regular season was. I heard south pacific and that was my first thought.

HvV is supposed to have been filmed in Samoa.

Even though they just had a natural disaster? Which was another surprising thing about the finale. They didn't mention it and I thought they would have been.
 
Just finished watching and yes Russell was robbed. Jaison though came off really looking like a prick though. I wonder what little thing goes on in his mind because he is a nut. I hope Russell is in Heros v. Villians, even though I really hope that season is not in Pearl Islands, like All-Stars and the regular season was. I heard south pacific and that was my first thought.

HvV is supposed to have been filmed in Samoa.

Even though they just had a natural disaster? Which was another surprising thing about the finale. They didn't mention it and I thought they would have been.

It was filmed 2 months after the ending of Samoa. The earthquake happened during filming of HvV, but caused no problems with filming...
 
BTW your monopoly cheating argument is stupid. Russell did nothing against the rules of Survivor. If you use loaded dice, or you keep extra money hidden in your pocket, or you have a get out of jail free card in your sleeve. Those are all cheating.

Well, you know, that's the thing about rules.

I'm pretty sure there's no rule in the "How to play Monopoly" booklet that says that palming money is wrong, or deliberately miscounting the number of pips on the dice to avoid landing on someone's hotel is not allowed. But you know what? People DO that. And it's WRONG.

Is it right to do that, since the rules don't say you can't?

Y'all are defending a "ends justify the means" attitude, and defending some reprehensible actions if the outcome is "important enough."

Frankly, I'm disgusted.
 
You know what? If you're doing it, it *IS* like you. It DEFINES you. He says he believes in honor and loyalty. Really? What are his criteria for that? Cause they don't seem to matter when a million bucks are at stake. Would he lie or cheat to get a HALF a million? Maybe to work out a good (or better) business deal? Perhaps because that blonde over there is really hot, it might be worth a BIT of a lie and a LITTLE cheating?

Who did Russell betray in the game?

He was loyal and honourable to a fault, and until the very end. He got all four Foa Foas to the final 5, if Brett hadn't won the immunity it would have been all-Foa Foa final 4 and he stacked the finale with Foa Foas.

He did no cheating. Cheating is doing something against the rules. Russell did not break the rules a single time.

I'm pretty sure there's no rule in the "How to play Monopoly" booklet that says that palming money is wrong, or deliberately miscounting the number of pips on the dice to avoid landing on someone's hotel is not allowed. But you know what? People DO that. And it's WRONG.

Of course that's against the rules. You have no idea what you are talking about.

And in Survivor lying is not only within the rules of the game, but it is the game. Have you even seen the show before?

Frankly, I'm disgusted.

Yeah, me too.
 
I'm sick and tired of people standing on some kind of moral high horse regarding Survivor. THIS IS SURVIVOR! It's a game for $1million with very little in the way of rules on how you play the game to get it. Natalie realized it was a game she was incapable of playing and let Russell play it for her and her ultimate argument for winning was not what she did during he course of the game, but what she did not do.

I agree 100% with everything you said, only one comment. I think Natalie herself sort of agrees too. Of course she's very careful in her comments, but I think she knows she has no moral high ground in comparison to Russell in regards to anything that happened in the game. She's defending her victory, but her argument mostly is she deliberately stayed in Russell's shadow, let him do the dirty work while she bonded with the enemy; she's not saying she played "better" than Russell on some kind of good-evil scale. It's mostly the idiots from the jury who say that stuff.
 
So is this "outragious" outcome going to hurt or help the Survivor franchise as the series moves on?

I think it's going to hurt. This outcome seems to have upset a large number of people (not just here, read the survivor dedicated boards). If the HvV isn't a huge hit (and I'm not convinced it will be) then I think we may be seeing the beginning of the downward spiral. The vote could be the moment it all went bad.
 
I don't know, it's happened before, but I think it's a dangerous precedent to let the jury apparently form an alliance on who to vote for instead of approaching the final tribal council with an open mind. And if it happens repeatedly that they vote for a person who most viewers feel doesn't deserve the million I think it could easily be the end of Survivor.
 
I'm pretty sure there's no rule in the "How to play Monopoly" booklet that says that palming money is wrong, or deliberately miscounting the number of pips on the dice to avoid landing on someone's hotel is not allowed. But you know what? People DO that. And it's WRONG.

No, there's no rule in the Monoply rules that says that you can't palm money, or "miscount" the dice. But, at the same time, those things are obvious, universal, methos of cheating.

Russell did nothing to break the rules of Survivor, written or un-written.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top