Survivor - Heroes vs. Villians (season 20) official discussion thread (1 Viewer)

[Hanson]

I always thought that Swallow was a less embarrassing name than Shallow, only because at least Swallow is also a bird, but Shallow really has one meaning, and that is, lacking depth.


But yeah, that was a Freudian slip, I guess


According to Russell, his confessional where he talks about how he lost Samoa was based on the fact that he could sense how the jury was not going to vote for him. But if that's true, then he's pretty obtuse for thinking it was an issue concerning the people he brought to the finals and not his piss poor social game. BTW, with 2 only votes in two FTCs, Russell has edged out Amanda's 4 for worst performance with multiple FTCs. To put this into perspective, Russell got as many votes in two FTCs than Courtney did in one. You can go on about a "bitter jury" all you want, but they weren't just bitter, they were vindictive. Is it still the jury's fault or is it Russell's?

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Originally Posted by mattCR

Chris-


No, I think she had the perfect strategy. Rather then be seen as riding coattails, she took every chance she could to seem as though she was willing to "befriend" anyone, especially the heroes. Her whole game was to be seen as not a threat, and someone everyone thought was a "good guy". She was the villain who played the game pretending to be a hero . It was actually pretty creative, I thought.

What strategy did she have? It seems she won because she wasn't Russell. If there was no Russell in the mix to alienate others, how would she have won?


She announced that Russell was gone, yet she never got rid of him, did she?


She found an idol, but didn't need to play it, so no great strategy there.


Sandra is like a passenger on an airliner who takes credit when the plane makes a smooth landing, even though she had nothing to do with it. If the plane crashed and she survived, she'd be first in line to sue.


She's not very nice, either, so it's not like she won for being Miss Congeniality.


I wouldn't have had a problem with Parvati winning, because she at least played the game and put in some effort beyond just sitting around saying how great she was.


I'm stunned Russell can't get at least one vote from someone who notices all the bold moves he made. It's like this show has gone PC and we get an OJ jury each time. This is 2 seasons in a row with completely undeserving winners. It makes me wonder how Richard Hatch won his season.


There have been other seasons where someone screwed people over, yet the victim still voted for that person because they played a great game. Now the juries seem to be filled with whiners who complain about lies or broken alliances, as if that is somehow not part of Survivor.


I'm also curious why they didn't bother showing us exactly who voted for whom to win- like they do for every other vote. I don't even know how many votes Sandra got.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Parvati got 3 votes, Sandra got the rest of them (6).

 

[Hanson]

That was some clever editing, showing all of Parv's 3 votes and only 2 of Sandra's. Of course, Sandra swept the rest. Parv got Coach, Danielle, and Jerri.


There is a big difference between blindsiding someone and being a dick. It's like the difference between killing a chicken for dinner and taunting the chicken before snapping its neck. Russell's gameplay was completely disrespectful to the other players, and for him or anyone to think he deserved any votes after that probably rooted for Palpatine to crush the rebellion.


If you don't see the strategy in Sandra's game, then you're only paying attention to one facet of the game.


BTW, Richard Hatch was the first beneficiary of the bitter jury. Sue Hawk was the first bitter juror.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Chris Lockwood ).

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein


He (Russell) is the one person that has really made the game more entertaining.

I disagree with you on that point, Ron. I found his self-centered bloated ego to be a major turn-off. I actually think he could have improved his social game by leaps and bounds by still lying and scheming the way he did...but not constantly telling the other players that he was the best and was going to the finals and would be winning the game because he was the best...blah blah blah. While I can't deny his superior game play in terms of strategies (HIIs, etc.) his inflated sense of self was a huge negative for me (and, apparently, some of the cast) and I wish Probst would have cut him off even earlier during the Reunion Show.

What a "little man" to be clutching JTs note as justification of his own greatness (rather than JT's gullibility). Sad.

His expressions were priceless as they showed him at the beginning of the Reunion Show realizing that each of the girls had three votes and that he was unlikely to get any...

 

[Steve_Tk]

You may also notice early in the season Sandra's strategy of UTR. Someone would ask her who she wanted to vote for, and she would say "I don't know, who do you want?". Never putting herself out there as a mover and a shaker. Never putting the target on her back as someone who thinks up the schemes. She is excellent at the social game, and she doesn't just sit there with her head in the sand. She is abrasive, she does talk back, and she has sometimes yelled. Somehow she never gets voted off.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Hanson Yoo /forum/thread/296146/survivor-heroe...0-official-discussion-thread/420#post_3691867

 

[Hanson]

I guess I lost count In any case, I didn't think they'd show all of Parv's votes, so I assumed she would get one or perhaps two more than that. But she didn't. Then again, I thought she was a lock to win IF she got into the final 3, so maybe I was predisposed to thinking that way. BTW, here's a quote from Jerri that lays out exactly why Russell didn't get a single vote:

But sitting in the final Tribal Council and listening to him basically belittle and slap every single one of us in the face by saying things like denying that there was any luck involved in his game… We all know Survivor is 90% luck. And denying that anyone else helped him… I personally saved his butt one time specifically by choosing him over Rob. Not showing any gratitude, not being apologetic, not being respectful of all the people he had to oust. His arrogance just made me sick and there was no possible way I could give him my vote. RNO: It was discussed at last night’s reunion, but who do you think is the best Survivor player ever? Jerri: Oh wow. I have to say, I gotta give props to Parvati. I really do. That’s why I voted for her. She is probably one of the best social players, even though her flirtations are so blatant and out in the open and so sickening. I was so amazed at how it worked. I want to be friends with her for a long time because I want to learn her mojo. She played such a great strategic, physical, and mental game. Underneath it all, though, I am super happy that Sandra won if only because Russell absolutely hates her. It was poetic justice.

Again, it wasn't so much that Russell's social game was bad as much as it was that he went out of his way to alienate people and make them despise him. Any way you slice it, that's not good gameplay.

 

[Charlie Campisi]

The editing of the show and the input from non-survivor players was strikingly evident to me last night, beginning with the Russell confessional where he indicated he knew he lost last season. What really brought it home was the final tribal council. Man, that sucked. There were few questions and I don't think anyone asked the same question of all three players. It was all "look at me" stuff. Not entertaining in the least, and gave us absolutely zippy in terms of insight into how the final three would explain themselves when faced with hard questions about the way they played.


I also felt that Russell's speech at the TC was so horrible (and again on the Reunion) that it looked like he'd never spoken before. He is far more comfortable in confessional and around camp. I wouldn't say he was smart, but at least passably articulate. At TC and on the reunion, he couldn't put simple words together when the subject matter was to talk about himself and his strategy, a subject matter he should know and be comfortable with. I'm wondering how many takes they do in the confessionals and whether they prompt him and get him to restate sentences. Why didn't he talk about all of the tough competitors that he took out of the game? That was his strength, why not talk about it? Defeating Rob and Tyson; duping JT; taking out the Heroes; finding the HII when he was told not to; breaking up the strength of the Villains to make sure they didn't take him out, but leaving them strong enough to wipe out the heroes after the merge; handpicking the finalists (even if it didn't work out for him) etc. He had a lot of material to work with and left it on the table, instead only being bitter.


I agree with those that think Parv would have been a more deserving winner than Sandra. Nothing new to add on that point.


The other thing that struck me about editing was that I always thought Russell's antics were not so obnoxious that they would cost him so many votes. It was apparent from Jeff's line at the reunion when Russell wouldn't shut up about the flaw in the game "This is like how it was every day, all day, at camp" and the resultant zero votes that he really caused people to hate him. I could have assumed he was doing this, but I didn't see enough during the season to know how badly he was burning bridges. The truly evil stuff like hiding the machete or pouring out the canteens was unknown to the tribe, so he must have dropped a whole lot of napalm while everyone was awake as well.


Especially in light of the above, the "America's vote" does not work to crown a winner of Survivor. The audience sees so little of what drives the decision that the producers could essentially pick a winner by showing what they chose. That's not the game.


Fantastic season even though I thought the final TC and reunion were underwhelming. Oh yeah, the final immunity challenge was terrific drama at the time, even though if Parv had won, she still goes to TC (obviously) and apparently so does Russell since he was the perfect person to take. Maybe Sandra doesn't go which would have a huge effect on the crown obviously, but I don't think would have been otherwise more interesting.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Charlie Campisi


Just serendipity, though. It could have been a real snooze, however, just as easily...

 

[Patrick Sun]

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon



I disagree with you on that point, Ron. I found his self-centered bloated ego to be a major turn-off. I actually think he could have improved his social game by leaps and bounds by still lying and scheming the way he did...but not constantly telling the other players that he was the best and was going to the finals and would be winning the game because he was the best...blah blah blah. While I can't deny his superior game play in terms of strategies (HIIs, etc.) his inflated sense of self was a huge negative for me (and, apparently, some of the cast) and I wish Probst would have cut him off even earlier during the Reunion Show.

Going back to Ron's enjoyment of watching Russell wreak havoc and 'control' the game, I think some of that goes to Ron only seeing 3 seasons of Survivor, and 2 of them were so Russell-centric. Having watched all 20 seasons (not that I remember much from all of those seasons), I can appreciate the evolution that the game has become, but in the early seasons, the strategy portion wasn't always the main driving plotlines for each episode, but rather, we got to know a little bit more of the contestants, and their interactions between the other contestants, and the bonds of friendship that came about their time in the game, plus some of the stuff that Colby thought was lacking in this season vs. his other seasons, where playing Survivor was more of an adventure with strangers who will become your friends/enemies for a lifetime. Hell, the tension amongst the first batch of All-Stars (season 8, I think) was amazing due to the feelings of betrayals by some of the "friends" in the group of contestants coming into the game was dizzying in the intensity of hurt feelings.


Of course, it may seem staid to the long-time viewers to keep the focus on the personal stuff, so they felt that needed to introduce the scavenger-aspect of the HII, and its use to stir up the paranoia at each camp. It might make good "drama" for the weekly episodes at times, but when the production crew mis-calculates the tenacity of a Russell to find the HIIs without clues, then the game turns into something too one-sided, and for some viewers, like me, it got tiresome to the point where I mainly tuned in to finally see Russell get his comeuppance. So, from that standpoint, the season was a success for this viewer, but I also feel like we missed out on some of the spirited fun and adventure of playing this game with this unique group of contestants.


I hope HII's will be nowhere near the camps in future seasons, and if they bring back the exile island/territory concept, it had better take some effort to find the HII's. Just Russell-proof the HIIs so that the contestants have to put some thought into who they send away after the challenges.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Good post, Patrick.


I was intrigued by Boston Rob's thoughtfulness on trying to translate for Jeff what Russell was trying to say. Then, of course, Russell had to get back in his face and I loved Rob's retort which led to the early stage development of Survivor: Rob vs. Russell!


I agree with what you say about the perspective of 20 seasons of Survivor. There's an awful lot about those 20 seasons I would never remember.

I remember telling Ron to latch onto the DVDs of Season 1 so he can see just how very far the show has come. Season 1 is a real eye-opener. It is amazing to see just how raw the show is--in terms of both game play and production techniques. And the evolution has been gradual but steady to where we are now.

And, I agree that HIIs should be given a nice, long sabbatical from the show (just like the Exile Island concept). They've become way too woven into the fabric of the game.

 

[Greg.K]

I like the HIIs quite a bit, but I don't care for the Exile Island concept.

 

[Steve_Tk]

Did anyone catch Colby saying he couldn't go in the woods or the water? Obviously we observed them in knee deep water, but was he refering to deeper water? Anyone know?

 

[Hanson]

I think there's always a few posts at the end of season where the season are ranked in order. Anyone want to take a shot at ranking the top ten survivors?

 

[AnthonyC]

I'll try and get in a more full post later, but for right now...


I just don't understand how Russell--or anybody playing this game--can be so completely ignorant about how it works. Yes, you usually do have to make big moves to win this game. But you don't make big, risky moves for the sake of making big, risky moves, especially when they result in everyone being pissed off at you. Look, I realize that it has to be a very trying and emotional experience playing this game, especially if you get to the end and you're thinking for months before the finale that you have a shot at winning (although unlike in Samoa, I think the HvV jury made it pretty clear to him that he had no chance). So I can totally understand and sympathize with somebody being upset and maybe even a little frustrated that they didn't emerge victorious. Parvati was definitely fighting back tears last night.


But it's incredibly telling that Russell's reaction to losing is not merely getting misty-eyed (which he does, and I don't mind mocking him for since it shows how much he can dish it out but not take it) or asking what he did wrong. No, he lost because there is a flaw in the game. That is the only logical explanation he can think of. If Russell Hantz loses at something, it's not because he did something wrong. It's the game that's wrong. To his credit, it actually shows a surprising amount of (unintentional) self-awareness: he knows he can never win Survivor without it being adapted to his standards. Most people would take this as a sign that they need to change the way they play--even Coach, deluded as he may be at times, realized this--but as usual, Russell takes the easy way out and blames his failures on someone or something else, no matter how much of a stretch it is. He's way more bitter than all the so-called bitter jurors that refuse to vote for him (which accounts for 16 of the 18 jurors he's faced in two seasons).


The saddest thing about this? People actually agree with him. Fans who have watched this show for ten years are now saying that the format that had worked for 18 seasons is no longer valid, all because some complete idiot with no social skills has twice lost what is, at its core, a social game. It's not about who has the best survival skills. It's not about who can win the most challenges. It's not even about who plays it the hardest. It's about getting to the end and having a majority of the jury like and/or respect you enough to give you their votes. But oops, that means Russell is eternally SOL.


So now we should let America decide the winner. Yeah, that makes sense. Let's have the viewers that have watched a highly edited, highly leading depiction of the game decide who wins, because clearly we're a better authority on the season than the people who actually interacted with the finalists for upwards of 38 days. Sure, we don't have the grudges or emotional attachment the jurors do--but that's the whole point! You have to manage the jury. That's what separates losers like Russell from winners like Todd Herzog and Brian Heidik, who played just as slimy (albeit far more subtle) than Russell but still managed to come out on top.


What's really depressing is that people have this mentality and call for change because of Russell Hantz, the most disgusting, unlikable, pathetic, rude jackass that we've ever had the misfortune of seeing on this show. Wasn't he just arrested for assaulting a woman a few weeks ago? Even many of his fans admit that he's not the type of person they'd want to associate with in real life. So why should he be rewarded for being such a terrible human being just because it's in the context of "the game"? Kudos to the jury for not allowing him to get away with it in both seasons.


I can't take credit for this, but someone on Survivor Sucks wrote something very accurate--Russell's greatest legacy is not finding idols without a clue, or making it to the final TC twice, or whatever. No, what he has contributed to the Survivor franchise is being the ultimate benchmark between people who understand the game and people who clearly don't. Anybody who thinks that Russell was robbed in either season just doesn't get it.


That's probably the most unfortunate part of the Russell Hantz experience over these past two seasons--and believe me, there were a ton of unfortunate parts. I'm just glad it's finally over, although unfortunately I have no doubt that we're only getting a temporary reprieve.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Steve_Tk

Did anyone catch Colby saying he couldn't go in the woods or the water? Obviously we observed them in knee deep water, but was he refering to deeper water? Anyone know?

I don't know for sure, Steve...but IIRC there was some word that Samoa was being pretty particular about what CBS could/couldn't do during their time there. I'm sure most places are pretty concerned about the treatment of such environmentally-sensitive lands so I thought it was peculiar that we were hearing specifically that Samoa was laying down the law about what sorts of behavior would be tolerated and what would be forbidden.

 

it's the same thing in my opinion considering the end result, u vote someone off in a 'friendly' way or u blindside them i mean what's the difference? as i said before if anybody can find someone who puts the friendship or feelings of one of the other players in the game above a million $ tell me

 

[Patrick Sun]

Colby.

 

[Hugh Jackes]

Maybe the Samoans were recalling Colby swiping bits of coral from Australia's Great Barrier Reef.