Golden wrote:@Scotty - yes I do, but what makes someone 'bitter'... is it being blindsided, or is about how they are blindsided? If Cagayan had been Tony vs Kass, they would have respected one players blindsides and not the others. They still would have been upset about both.
Most games are still won by the person who played the best game despite the fact the jury is bitter towards them.
What makes someone bitter is their blatant disregard for how they played they game as a whole and instead how they played that player.
If tony and Cass were there, Cass would still have lost. Her attitude was a bit pompous and even though the jury felt slighted by Tony, they would give it to him because he wasn't as arrogant about his blindsides. That's my opinion anyway. I don't remember who else he was up against in the finals but if I recall that was a goat season.
I think this is going to be a bit controversial but I don't think Natalie deserved the win over Russell.
Now this isn't to say that I don't think Russ was purely evil in his dedication, but he undermined and manipulated every player on that jury. That season better defined what the social game was, to me: placating the jury.
Let's look at this from the perspective of what the game is made up of: Outwitting, Outplaying, and Outlasting.
Outlasting is self-explanatory.
Outplaying can have dual meanings: primarily, it has a competitive challenge connotation. If that payer consistently wins challenges, they're outplaying. But also, this could be interpreted as outmaneuvering in a positional sense.
Outwitting is the technical social aspect of the game. But it's not just social play. There's an aspect of fooling, of deceiving. This is the strategy aspect of the game.
Now let's look at Natalie and Russell. Who played the better game based on the criterion in the title?
Natalie clung to Russell from early on as one of his puppets. She of course probably didn't see herself as a puppet, but she was. She may have figured out that no one liked Russell and outplayed her competition by happily having him as her own Goat. I don't remember if she ever won an individual challenge. Either way, she didn't need to, because far more strategic players had targets on their back and got out before them. I can't tell you what kind of outwitting she did. She was just a piece of cherry pie that didn't rock the boat or do anything to anyone else. The opposite of an outwitter. She amasses maybe 1.5 of the outwit, outplay, outlast motto.
Russell lied to most of his alliances, and was an all around traitor that would probably make me hate his guts in the game if I were an ally.
BUT
He won a few individual challenges. He helped his team get to the merge. He positioned himself with a shit ton of potential allies. And when those allies were becoming disloyal, he cut the cord. He outplayed them.
And he outwitted his competition by doing so. His schemes were foolhardy and ruthless at best, and in current seasons, would be a red flag for anyone playin with him that he should be voted out.
But he wasn't. And that's the tribe'a fault.
And I think that's a testament to how tight he was in controlling the game as the puppet master. He did play all 3 of the outplay/last/wit pie chart. Unfortunately the jury didn't see him as the honorable person deserving the win, however. Because they were pissed that he unceremoniously ruined their chances of winning. Though...isn't that the game? Only one survivor?
The players define who wins, and not necessarily the original factors of the show. A lay person can applaud him for getting to the end, but in the game, the jury always gets to decide who "deserves" it. There's surely a huge amount we don't see that influences the winners of each season, and that's fair. But inherently, Russell wasn't a terrible player in totality. Because he did play the game, but he didn't play to his butt-hurt jury. And maybe if he was a little more polite about the whole backstabbing could he have looked a little better. Or maybe not. I dunno. I'm a couch critic.
But that Amy perspective on him. Disagree with me if you want, but I love and hate Russ because of his play. I can't necessarily say that I would have voted for him to win if I were in the jury's shoes, but I can definitely say a bitter jury is responsible for his loss.
insertnamehere wrote:Scotty wrote:Golden wrote:insertnamehere wrote:The only one in your top 5 that I don't completely get is Amazon. Yes, Rob C is great, but he also has some cringey moments and the whole battle of the sexes thing was done much better in Vanuatu. (Season 9) Also, I'm not a fan of how the editors portrayed the winner. In a lot of ways, Jenna is the OG Michelle from Kaoh Rong. Let me be clear, I think that Jenna is an interesting person who deserved her win, but I think that the editors made the decision to not show us that, and it hurts the season greatly.
Agree about Amazon. I've never really gotten the love.
The season I love that other people don't is Cook Islands. Also Caramoan to some extent.
Amazon was epic because of that giant trek through the jungle to their camp. Literally wading through poisonous snakes and crocs and any other dangerous animals in the jungle for miles. It fucking drained everyone before the game even really started. If I were on that season I would be like , "are you fucking kidding me, you want me to do what?" But at the same time, it's a hefty testament to the title of survivor.
Cook Islands I need to rewatch but I seem to remember some great strategy played in that one.
the season with the big trek at the beginning was Guatemala, not Amazon
Oh nuts! Really? Dammit it's been too long. Strike through my statement. I don't even remember Amazon
)
)
i feel like it would be an AMAZING season if galu + natalie obviously was more visible and russell was less present/more shown to be how he really was (as he was in HvV)
