Survivor - Samoa (1 Viewer)

[mattCR]

The thing is, what other strategy could Russel have really used at any point to get to the final three? The tribe he started out with was terrible on their own, repeatedly losing challenges. The fact that he merged in with a minimal tribe and still managed to get to the end.. there was simply no way to do that without going after the other tribe and getting everyone voted out. And, frankly, there is no way to do that without being seen as ruthless at times.

The Jury can boo-hoo over his strategy, but without it.. he would have been gone. And that isn't ha-ha obvious, it's painfully obvious. Three times they tried to vote him out until he managed to shift the numbers in his favor. Everyone on the jury put a big red X on his back right off the bat, and what other strategy was available?
Meanwhile, he protected and was pretty loyal to his tribe all the damn way to the end. I agree with the above, Jaison's comments were sheer idiocy. He wanted Russell to double cross Mick. No matter what happened, someone was going to get tossed. To boo-hoo about it now is like saying "it's your fault"... wait, it's his fault that he carried you all the way as far as he could go?

 

[Patrick Sun]

Russell could have actually expressed humility throughout the tribal councils and within the camp at the merge. Russell came across far too egotistical and unlikable. Russell proves that you can play this game too hard. When Russell didn't use his last HII, he was thumbing his nose at the jury. He never really realized how he came across to the jury because he was far too focused with how great his gameplay was, but that's only part of the journey.

Each contestant that gets to the final tribal council took a different journey, and each one is as valid as any other manner to get to the finals. Russell should have realized that even if he and the other Foa Foa pulled off the upset of putting ever single Galu on the jury, only one was going to win in the finals, and the winner typically goes to whoever did the best in forging social bonds, and not necessarily to the most "strategic" player in ousting contestants.

Russell never realized that he was the Clay of the Samoan season in terms of likability. Kudos to Natalie for realizing how to handle Russell from the start, she even said (interview with Dalton Ross) that as long as you coddled Russell's ego, you were go-to-go with him as an ally. She was able to quell any suspicions he might have had of her duplicity when she was playing her own quiet, social game. She basically rope-a-doped Russell and strung him along and definitely rode his coattailes, but also made subtle moves that paid off big after the merge (getting Galu to boot out Erik was a huge turn, that's what you call getting into the minds and tapping into the paranoia of Galu).

Survivor is the kind of game where you don't necessarily have to be the most dominant in either physicality or strategery, but rather, you need to form a solid alliance with a core group, but you also have to be able to employ game theory to convince the group that someone else is better to be booted off than you, and if that means laying low, looking weak, but loyal, and willing to use your vote to be used to get rid of others, so be it, it means another 3 days in the game for each tribal council that you survive and move on from. Survivor is rarely about who 'dominates' the game outwardly. Winning immunity challenges just takes your name out of the running for ouster, but it does not win you points with the jury. To win the jury's votes, you must find a way to connect with them, and convince them that you are simply more deserving of their vote, by whatever criteria you think they will use to make that decision, and that means reading people, and understanding what they need to see and hear from you. This is the subtle game that Russell totally missed out on because he was too busy surviving from tribal council to tribal council, instead of really employing a Russell seed and getting inside their heads in a positive manner.

Does anyone think Parvati should have beaten Amanda in fans/faves? Parvati totally played a good enough social game to wrap the remaining girls on the jury around her finger, and it paid off for her, but Amanda was a nice enough counterpart, with physical skills to win immunity challenges towards the end, but Parvati won the important one when the tribes merged in the middle of the game, and then receded as a threat on anyone's radar for the remainder of the game, otherwise, she was going home if she didn't win that particular immunity challenge. Amanda burned Cerie's vote by sending her to the jury when it down to 3, which put Parvati on top, but that's what makes Survivor tough to win if you are reliant on immunity to advance yourself if you haven't curried enough favor amongst the jury to remain sympathetic towards your journey to the finals.

That is why the social undercurrent of this game remains a maddening barometer of human nature and emotional tumult if jury members feel betrayed and wronged by those who made it to the finals. It's a careful tightrope you have to walk when creating your own survivor persona to make you a more attractive choice to be worthy of jury members' votes for making it to the finals without stepping on too many toes or alienating them by showing them up from your recounting of your "superior" gameplay.

In a nutshell, Russell was far too worried about getting voted out, and not enough about being voted for the $1 million.

 

[ChristopherG]

All well and good...yes, people are people ,which can also be read as "stupid and emotion-driven." When it boils down to "outwit-outlast-outplay"...Russell.

 

[AnthonyC]

A lot to catch up on. [/url]

In a nutshell, Russell was far too worried about getting voted out, and not enough about being voted for the $1 million.
Yep. But I'd say his biggest worry was making sure he got enough camera time. I was actually kind of surprised that he was so shocked he lost, since clearly the real goal he was playing for was a ton of airtime and a spot on All-Stars, both of which the producers gave him.

 

[MikeM]

I just don't buy it that Russell should have been more humble and that that would have made any difference. Remember when Russell found the idol and played it the first time? There was a shot of Laura well before any cockiness took place from Russell, and she looked FURIOUS right after he played it and her friend went home. She said words to the effect of "Oh he just opened a shit storm by doing that." (Again, words to that effect) LOL

Well, to me, it was pretty clear that these people in Laura's group (who made up most of the jury) almost felt entitled to win or make it to the finals. There was also talk from Eric that it was pointless for Russell (and his group without the numbers) to even play hard because they needed to just go away. Again, the sense of entitlement was off-the-charts with the jury members when they were still eligible to win, and this was before Russell even had any numbers or showed much hubris to the other side. So I just don't buy it that Russell could have done anything with a smile or humility, and that that would have changed anything. The jury was made up of people doing Yoga and a group of largely young people that didn't even realize that by shunning Shambo, they may need her for numbers later on. With the exception of maybe John & Shambo (who flipped) I really don't think any of the jury members were playing the game. Ironically, those were the two that voted for Russell. The others were reacting to things that Russell already put in motion, and that's why he was so dominant. I mean think about it, Russell, Dave, Laura and someone else (I forgot) all get a visual clue of where the immunity Idol was. Laura and Dave were afraid that Russell would get it, so instead of looking for it themselves from the get go, they have a plan to follow Russell. I think only after Russell gave them the slip did Dave actually start looking for it.

This especially applies to Natalie. I mean, remember toward the end when Russell told Natalie that the guys will likely have to vote her off if Brett wins immunity? What did she do? Make a play? Try to form a new alliance? Work a deal with Brett and maybe Mick? Nope. She said, "Oh well, it's in God's hands" and "If I make it to 3rd place I'll be happy." Those weren't comments to the jury, they were comments to Russell, and not the type like she's duping him. She even made similar comments in the 1 on 1 segments when there was no one around, talking to the producers. That's not playing the game, that's conceding the loss. So during her final speech to the jury when she said she had this plan all along, I call shenanigans to that. She didn't even have a plan to team up with Russell...Russell did.

Lastly, let's not forget that editing plays a HUGE role in Survivor. With countless hours of footage, the producers can craft story lines out of virtually nothing. So to say that Russell's was simply "making sure he got enough camera time" or that his goal was "playing for was a ton of airtime and a spot on All-Stars" just seems like purely made up stuff. For all we know Dave looked like someone who had been trash talking constantly during those private producer segments, it's just that maybe his story wasn't very interesting. When they did show him, he was usually trash talking. Same could hold true for tons of other players. I honestly think Russell's goal wasn't airtime or fame, and it wasn't even the money. It was to win and be the sole Survivor.

All that said, to me I love the show and it's the journey not the outcome. This was one of the best, if not THE best season ever, all because of Russell. In a few years no one will ever remember Natalie's name. In the future, Russell might be remembered more than Richard Hatch...especially if he too goes to prison. haha

 

[Stephen_L]

Russell played Survivor beautifully to survive to the jury, not win a million. Others correctly commented that it is hard enough to convince folks you've bested to vote for you, but if you arrogantly rub their noses in it then it becomes impossible. Still Russell made several fundamental errors, the biggest being ditching Shambo. Shambo was completely loyal to Russell and was despised by Galou. If you're going to be obnoxious to the finals, you better bring someone more obnoxious to the party.

In defense of Natalie, we as viewers mistake good strategy for good television. As viewers we like compelling narratives with outsized heroes and villains. Watching a slipstreaming constestant pull out the win doesn't make the best story or a compelling ending to the story. But just imagine you aren't a viewer but a player in the game. There are lots of ways to play; many will be dictated by your tribemates or circumstances. If I were playing with a character like Russell, an over-the-top deal-maker who was willing to hog the limelight, take me along, and take the bullets, I'd latch onto him and let him take the heat as long as I can. If he wasn't there, then I'd take a more active role but suffer the consequences of more active deals/betrayals. Not very good story, but its a good way to win.

 

[MikeM]

I don't think he makes the finals if he does that move. He'd have to break up his alliance with Nat, Mick and Jaison and vote one of them out to do so, (hindsight says vote off Nat) and if he did, then the next day you'd definitely see Mick looking to flip and cut a side deal with Shambo, Jaison or Brett. Guaranteed. He was so paranoid that he'd be right for once and realize he's a pawn in Russell's plan at that point. That move would almost force the others left to actually start thinking and making their own moves...something they never did really.

Originally Posted by Stephen_L

Still Russell made several fundamental errors, the biggest being ditching Shambo

 

[Charlie Campisi]

I'm still waiting to find out what Natalie did so well besides getting Erik out. Yes, it was a good move. But was it any more important than Russell playing the HII, anticipating the deadlock and getting John to break the tie, flipping Shambo or beating Brett in the final immunity challenge? Give Natalie her due on one move, but it was only one move. I count 4 moves by Russell after the merge.

The jury failed. Yes, they can fail.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Easy: Natalie never got herself in the line of fire with Russell, and she didn't piss off the jury to the extent that Russell did.

Why can't people understand that to win this game, you have to win the hearts of the jury, you have to find out what would make it palatable for them to vote for you over someone else? You can't rub their noses in your "great" strategic moves and expect them to fawn over your Survivor "greatness".

This game is not simply physical, and tactical, it's also most definitely social, and Russell failed in the social game. Russell, for some (I was not in that demographic), made for good TV, which is the main reason he got drafted for season 20, but in the end, he could not convince 5 people on the jury to vote for him in the final tribal council. It doesn't matter if he thinks those jury members were stupid and bitter because those were the same jury members that was on a tribe who were kicking Foa Foa's ass in the first phase of the game that decimated FF's ranks and resulted in a hostile group of jury members, and if you're going to turn the tables on them, you'd better find a way to do it with tact and sincerity and not beat on your chest about dominating them and making them feel like crap, you do that after they've casted the vote, which was his crucial mistake on day 39. .

 

[Charlie Campisi]

I understand that there is a social part of the game. I'm just trying to figure out what Natalie did to win it. Maybe she didn't lose it, which is just as important. I didn't see much from Russell that should have made the jury more pissed off at him than they were at Natalie. All of the cockiness was back at camp in front of Nat and Mick, who obviously weren't voting. In front of the jury, he was pretty respectful, with the exception of not playing the HII at the last opportunity. The only two jury members that might have had a legit gripe with Russell for breaking his word to them were John and Shambo and they voted for him. I could see my way to Jaison not voting for him. But the Galus had really no reason that I saw to choose Nat over Russell.

 

[Patrick Sun]

You do realize the jury do talk to one another at their Ponderosa digs, and some ousted contestants (Jaison) can burn those up for the vote? This is why Survivor remains such a tightrope to be walked carefully and with finesse all season long. Also, remember, this is a heavily edited show, and the producers decided to ride the Russell wave all season long, to the detriment of crafting a show that would spend time with other contestants. I'm not sure how many syllables Kelly was shown to have uttered before she got the boot, but it might have been only a handful. Who knew Brett's name until it got down to 6-7 players in the game?

 

[Steve_Tk]

By the way, this was the first season I can remember in a LONG time that family members did not visit the tribe in some capacity, whether video messages, letters, or in person? (or did I miss an episode?)

And they did not mix up the tribes at any point in this season either.

 

[AnthonyC]

Yeah, there was no family visit which was surprising but welcome IMO--the last two seasons they went soft and everybody got a visit.

I don't really see anyone changing their mind on whether Russell deserved to win or if the jury was bitter--but I think the key point is that sometimes it's not necessarily a matter of fighting for the win but surrounding yourself with a person(s) who is essentially fighting to lose.

I think it's really the show's fault for only presenting things from Russell's point of view. Literally more than a quarter of the "confessionals" this season came from Russell, despite there being 19 other contestants. Samoa had the lowest total number of confessionals yet Russell still beat the record for most by an individual in a single season. Clearly production was upset that their golden TV boy didn't win and they weren't going to change the storyline they wanted until the very last minute when the votes were read and they weren't able to control it anymore.

What I don't understand at all is that Jeff and many fans adore Russell yet despise Brian Heidik, who won Thailand playing a very similarly malicious game. Brian had the sense to go to the end with someone even less likable, and even then he only won by one vote.

ETA: Here's an excerpt from Stephen Fishbach's blog (emphasis mine). You may remember Stephen as the guy who lost 7-0 to JT in Tocantins and didn't subsequently spend the entire reunion on the brink of tears begging for JT to give him the title.

Jeff Probst — you’re completely wrong. Dalton Ross, you too. Russell Hantz wasn’t robbed. Complaining about a bitter jury is like complaining that somebody won a challenge because they’re too strong. Survivor has physical, social and strategic elements. What if Russell had been out-muscled by Brett rather than out-charmed by Natalie? Would there be the same uproar?

Bitter juries don’t start out bitter — somebody makes them that way. Natalie knew at the very beginning that she could beat Russell in a jury vote. On day nine she said, “I know I could beat Russell in the very end. A lot of other people in the tribe have been rubbed the wrong way by him. So I’m just trying to … build good relationships.” That was before they had met the Galu tribe, before there even was a jury. Natalie knew that Russell’s bullying, aggressive game play would alienate the jurors; if she rode his coattails to the end, she knew she could beat him there.

[...]

The fact that Natalie, Mick and Jaison all were counting on sitting next to Russell at the finals speaks pretty loudly: Russell was seriously alienating people in a way that doesn’t come across on television.

 

[Matt^Brown]

I have listened to all the arguments but the one I would like someone to answer is how did Nat beat Mick. We can all agree that Russ was over the top but these two seem very similar to me. If you are in the camp that Nat did the right thing by laying low then how did she pull off such a large win over Mick. What did Mick do so bad that Nat did right to deserve him getting beat 5 votes to 0.

 

[Hanson]

Mick didn't do anything wrong. As a matter of fact, Mick didn't do anything. And that's why no one bothered to vote for him.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Originally Posted by Hanson Yoo

Mick didn't do anything wrong. As a matter of fact, Mick didn't do anything. And that's why no one bothered to vote for him.

He did just as much nothing as Natalie did, so he deserved to win as much as her, going by this season's criteria of "doing nothing = winning".

 

[Hanson]

Natalie was instrumental in the ouster of Eric (perhaps the pivotal post-merge moment) and she was Russell's right hand man, steering people unawares into confabs in the middle of nowhere. She bonded with Brett, who put in a good word for her with Laura, Kelly, Monica, and Dave. Mick seriously did jack. He kept to himself and rode Russell's coattails without lifting a finger. Mick was like Becky from Cook Islands.