Survivor 19: Samoa - Official Discussion Thread

[quote name='Shrapnellistic']

John was Russell's 2nd vote.
[/QUOTE]

I figured he was the second vote since he was the only other rational player in the game voting on who played the game the best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I for one am not at all surprised by how it ended. Extremely disappointed, yes, but not surprised. Sadly, Shambo and John are the only ones that could look at the game and see that Russell deserved to win. Everyone else was a pissy little bitch that didn't want to see a person that manipulated them win. I guess that is part of the game, but damn is it pathetic. I hope for Survivor 21 the whole cast just decides "Well, it works for every other winner, I am just going to try and fly under the radar and hope to win."
 
the strategy also involves finding the 'fall guy.'

Russel knew he lost it, and where he had screwed up, after Erik's closing comments. Russel was most deserving, and played the game the best, but his over-confidence led him to choose the wrong running-mates [Natalie].

the game of Survivor is incredibly complex to predict; if at all possible. I look forward to Heroes vs Villains.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With juries like this it makes the entire game pointless, since half the time floaters get picked off and half the time they get carried, like in this case, and there's nothing they can do about it either way. It depends entirely on the rest of the tribe- in this case there were bigger fish to fry the entire time, but it certainly wasn't due to Natalie's effort at all.

It kind of renders gameplay useless.
 
[quote name='Rocko']
It kind of renders gameplay useless.[/QUOTE]

It renders a [predetermined] gameplay style useless. the game is not fully predictable because so many elements come into play. an event, such as a medical evac, has major consequences; not just on the person being removed, but on those that get left behind as well.

Survivor is an incredible challenge because of the dynamics: timing, luck, strategy, and the human endurance.

edit: I hope they bring Russel back as a Villain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm pretty sure Russell is going to be a Villain for Survivor 20.

Russell acknowledged his big mistake during the reunion hour when he said one of his basic assumptions was that everyone playing the game of Survivor would take it seriously. Clearly this was not the case. If "being a floater" was a viable strategy (within the confines of Survivor 19 - I don't dispute the strategy generally) then Mick would have gotten at least 1 vote. He was just as big of a floater as Natalie but not quite as cute. In fact, other than their genders (and the fact that this jury obviously thinks it's OK to float if you are a girl because girls are weak and it's not OK for a guy to float because men are strong) they played the exact same game. The jury voted like little whiny bitches who just couldn't stand the fact that Russell out smarted, out played and out lasted them all.

I also really hate how every jury member thinks of their own eviction as some sort of ultimate betrayal when the entire premise of the game is based on the concept of "better you than me". Of course each jury member will think getting rid of them was the "wrong" move but that's part of the game. I never thought I'd say this but Shambo was probably the sanest member of the jury.
 
[quote name='hufferstl']I agree with most people in that I wanted Russell to win, but what makes the show and its rules unique, is the fact that the people who decide who "deserves/wins" are the same people you played the game with. There are no rules or criteria for how to pick the winner, and while that can suck, it definitely can make it interesting. Natalie owes Erik $500,000 - that speech won it for her.[/QUOTE]



That erik speech was absolutely pathetic, he was one of the weirdest people in the history of that show. I too really wanted russel to win although ironically i had natalie in my survivor pool at work, so i am now 100.00 richer, :) but i still STRONGLY feel that she did NOT deserve it at all, she is worthless.
 
[quote name='hufferstl']I agree with most people in that I wanted Russell to win, but what makes the show and its rules unique, is the fact that the people who decide who "deserves/wins" are the same people you played the game with. There are no rules or criteria for how to pick the winner, and while that can suck, it definitely can make it interesting. Natalie owes Erik $500,000 - that speech won it for her.[/QUOTE]

Well said. It seemed that Erik's speech did play a role but who knows. If so, that's probably the BIGGEST juror speech in history.

I honestly don't get my panties in a bunch over who wins/loses. It's a game. I choose not to major in minor things(like a tv show).
What I do enjoy about Survivor is the unpredictability. Usually I could see things coming and what was going to happen. This season
had some crazy curve balls and suspense and that's what I enjoyed about it. In the end, things happen as they should.
 
[quote name='Ronzilla']
What I do enjoy about Survivor is the unpredictability. Usually I could see things coming and what was going to happen. [/QUOTE]

Unpredictability, yes, and very enjoyable. But the catch is these episodes are highly condensed, and producers and editors only show the home audience what they want to show and affect how you feel.

If you went back and re-watched episodes where members got voted out, the technique of foreshadowing is often used. It's very subtle the first time you see it, but very obvious once you know the result and know what to key in on.

Juxtaposition is often used. You'll see a shot of a snake, then the next jump shot is the person that's been behaving or will be behaving that way. A wild animal will roar, then the next shot is the pumped up player.

Producers and editors are also fond of making contestants eat their words. They'll edit in a daily diary moment, then show them either failing miserably or with a completely shocking reaction. Priceless.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I never thought I'd say this but Shambo was probably the sanest member of the jury.[/QUOTE]

To a certain extent, each contestant player experience is different. They shared a common bonded experience, but how they reacted to each situation defines them. Some people are delusional though [e.g. Coach - Season 18].

Season 21: Nut-cases vs Tree loggers with chainsaws. [or Cockoo's Nest vs Delta Squad]

ps: sometimes I wished they removed the no-violence clause from their agreements; and wanted to see a few folks slug it out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Mospeada_21']Unpredictability, yes, and very enjoyable. But the catch is these episodes are highly condensed, and producers and editors only show the home audience what they want to show and affect how you feel.

If you went back and re-watched episodes where members got voted out, the technique of foreshadowing is often used. It's very subtle the first time you see it, but very obvious once you know the result and know what to key in on.

Juxtaposition is often used. You'll see a shot of a snake, then the next jump shot is the person that's been behaving or will be behaving that way. A wild animal will roar, then the next shot is the pumped up player.

Producers and editors are also fond of making contestants eat their words. They'll edit in a daily diary moment, then show them either failing miserably or with a completely shocking reaction. Priceless.[/QUOTE]

I definitely see your point. The producers/editors are gonna create a "story" based on what creates a good show(to them).
While they can't control the outcomes of voting, who wins challenges, etc..., they can control to a large extent how
contestants are perceived.

That's why it's crucial to NEVER allow the audience to decide who wins. I think they allow the audience to vote so that
it makes them feel better if the person they want to win doesn't, and at least gets some money. The contestants are
the ones who are seeing most everything day in day out and it's their peers who should decide.

My take on this season is that they had one hell of a cast and the producers just did an exceptionally good job of
telling this seasons story. It was the most "entertaining" season to watch for me to date. :applause:
 
[quote name='Jesus_S_Preston']I'm too tired to explain why that doesn't make any sense. Later.[/QUOTE]
"You're wrong, but I can't explain why."

Sick response, bro.
 
[quote name='Jesus_S_Preston']I'm too tired to explain why that doesn't make any sense. Later.[/QUOTE]

I have to say that did make me LOL :lol:. Stop playing video games and get some fuck'n sleep. :p
 
...Did she seriously just try to say that she deserved the money more than Russell, and that it was editing's fault that she doesn't appear deserving?

Ahahahaha. If I was Russell, I'd be livid too, he worked the game perfectly and got screwed by a bunch of sore losers.
 
Did they reveal who voted for who in the final jury? I assume Natalie got every vote except 2, and all I know is Shambo voted the right way.
 
[quote name='The Truth 34']Did they reveal who voted for who in the final jury? I assume Natalie got every vote except 2, and all I know is Shambo voted the right way.[/QUOTE]

Shambo and John were the only two who voted Russell because they have brains.
 
[quote name='shrike4242']From the CBS Early Show, where Russell doesn't act like the sore loser:[/QUOTE]

Ahhh man. Russell definitely deserves the "Sorest Loser of All Time" award. I thought Russell's Immunity Idol finds, his clutch win
at the last immunity challenge, and his manipulation and outing of key players were stellar but be gracious in defeat for goodness sake.
You lost son, get over it! :roll:
 
[quote name='Ronzilla']Ahhh man. Russell definitely deserves the "Sorest Loser of All Time" award. I thought Russell's Immunity Idol finds, his clutch win
at the last immunity challenge, and his manipulation and outing of key players were stellar but be gracious in defeat for goodness sake.
You lost son, get over it! :roll:[/QUOTE]
Nope, that award goes to the jury of Survivor 19, minus Shambo and John.

When you play like Russell played and some nobody wins $1 million, that reaction is entirely justified (and everything he said was spot on).
 
[quote name='Rocko']Nope, that award goes to the jury of Survivor 19, minus Shambo and John.

When you play like Russell played and some nobody wins $1 million, that reaction is entirely justified (and everything he said was spot on).[/QUOTE]

Sore losing is NEVER justified IMO. He lost and that's that. Maybe that will change his approach for Survivor 20(who knows?).
I actually liked how he played cause it was very fun to watch but whenever I hear someone bitch & moan about losing, it reminds
me of how little kids act when they don't get their way. Pathetic. But bottom line is you & I probably aren't gonna agree on this so
go find an immunity idol or I'm gonna vote you out! ;)

BTW, has anyone started a Survivor 20: Heroes vs Villains thread yet?
 
So if you have such a thing against these sore losers, and Russell was wronged by a whole group of them, he's still a sore loser too?

Sounds like this would create a chain reaction of sore losers in your life.
 
[quote name='Rocko']So if you have such a thing against these sore losers, and Russell was wronged by a whole group of them, he's still a sore loser too?

Sounds like this would create a chain reaction of sore losers in your life.[/QUOTE]

Nope. Actually the exact opposite. But back to Survivor, it sounds like you are a Russell fanboy and that's fine.
But if you can't see Russell acting like a sore loser, then nothings gonna change your mind including my posts or anyone else's.
/Done \\:D/
 
[quote name='Ronzilla']Sore losing is NEVER justified IMO. He lost and that's that. Maybe that will change his approach for Survivor 20(who knows?).
[/QUOTE]

Survivor 20's already been filmed, so he didn't' know the outcome while he was playing, so I would assume he would play the same way, knowing that got him to the F2 previously.

I believe there was a 3 week or so break between the end of season 19 and the begin of season 20. Can you imagine having to play the game back to back (like Rupert did) from June til September?
 
I believe Russel's 'sore loser' attitude is justified. He is a 'villain' after all, and you'd expect him to play it to the end. He basically got robbed by the 'sorriest jury panel ever.'

My Hero picks:
1) Rupert (pirate)
2) James (grave digger)
3) Ozzy (fish boy / aquaman)
 
Although I guess Russell is a villain, I just don't see him as one. I see people like Cirie and Fairplay as villains- assholes who I can't stand.
 
[quote name='Rocko']Although I guess Russell is a villain, I just don't see him as one. I see people like Cirie and Fairplay as villains- assholes who I can't stand.[/QUOTE]

well said, bad guys never see themselves as the 'bad guys' either. it's rationalizing it to make it justifiable.
 
[quote name='Rocko']Although I guess Russell is a villain, I just don't see him as one. I see people like Cirie and Fairplay as villains- assholes who I can't stand.[/QUOTE]

Ehhh Russ fits that description to me. :)

ANYWAY...

[quote name='Shrapnellistic']I'm thinking it would be smart for the producers to let the audience vote for half the money in the final 3 so they do not alienate them from watching the next season as that could explain the decline in ratings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_%28US_TV_series%29#U.S._television_ratings[/QUOTE]

First, I highly doubt the decline in ratings is because people's favorites aren't winning. When a show's had 18+ seasons the ratings are bound to not be what they were in the heyday of genre-defining popularity. I can't imagine that a huge amount of viewers are lame enough to react, "WHAT THE fuck MY GUY DIDN'T WIN? fuck THIS SHOW FOREVER AND EVER."

Second, I'm not sure what you're implying. That half of the million should be by a fan vote? That sounds horrible. That's placing half the outcome of the show on editing. That's allowing the producers to essentially give half of the prize to whoever they want, because the editing DOES decide who the fans vote for. If they had edited Russ as an asshole instead of the best player ever, do you think he would have won the fan vote? And then the moment someone nice and personable won the fan-half-million over a master strategist russel-type, the fandom would be up and arms and butthurt.

And dude I was fucking exhausted, haha.
 
I don't think we should have a vote. Yes, it sucks when someone who you think should have won didn't (Under The Radars usually fit this role) but they played a game...outwitted, outplayed, and outlasted the other 19 or so. As someone brought up earlier, the shows are HEAVILY edited and played months before we ever see the show, so everything's already went down and we would just be getting what they wanted us to see. I think this might lead to the editor's picking the winner.

Shows like Big Brother (who gave America a vote this year) is atleast live, and with all of the feeds you can pretty much watch the entire game play out, even though most just watch the shows you have the option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top