Survivor: Generic Thread (No Spoilers)

[QUOTE=Lamb Chop!!!;154407]I enjoyed this special aside from all of the stuff on Russell and Rupert. Russell is not the greatest player ever or he would have won (which I loved Hatch calling him out on that) and I'm sick of hearing him say he is.[/QUOTE] Mmmmmm, I dunno about that. The greatest player doesn't always win their season. Not saying that Russell is the greatest player ever, but the "if he was the greatest player ever he would have won" argument doesn't work.

[QUOTE=salt&vinegar;154413] If you don't win you have no right to call yourself the greatest player ever...[/QUOTE] Not true. I think that in some cases, the best player of that season got screwed by a bitter jury (*cough cough* Boston Rob *cough cough*) Does that make them the best player ever? No. But just because a player didn't win doesn't mean they weren't the best player.

Surviving Survivor brought in 8.3 million viewers last night.

[QUOTE=asamber1;154498] But i just want to use an example for the Question can the greatest be the person to not win debate? 2007 Football Season the Patriots had a perfect game the entire season, but come the Superbowl in 2008 they lost to the Giants. The Giants became Superbowl Champions even having a turbulent early season. The Giants became the "greatest" team for that season. And as one broadcaster put it "The Patriots were not Perfect when it mattered". And i feel thats the same if you play this "great" game all season and cannot pull out a win, your not great. How can you really be great if you cannot get the jury to vote for you. And you can't blame "oh the jury was bitter" because thats the fault of the person they are bitter against. That was their game error.[/QUOTE] I don't think that example works. In Survivor, you play the game up to a certain point. After that, the power shifts to someone else who decides your fate. That did not happen to the Patriots. They played all the way through and decided their fate on their own. Now I'm sure you can say "well technically they decided their own fate, because the things they did in the game determines who votes for them in the final". I don't necessarily agree with that statement either. When a person is voted out of the game, there are a couple of avenues they can take in reaction to their ouster. They can either a) decide that they got outplayed, and that someone made the move on them first; or b) be bitter about it, and turn it into a personal vendetta. For example: Ozzy's blindside in Micronesia. Parvati knew that Ozzy was a challenge powerhouse. She knew that he had the idol. Not voting for him when she had the chance gave him another opportunity to go on a challenge run, which, given his athleticism, was a complete possibility. If Ozzy had gotten to the final 2 on that season, he absolutely, hands down, would have won that game. She knew she had to blindside him, and she knew she had to do it once he didn't win immunity. [I]She had to do it sooner or later if she wanted to win a million dollars.[/I] Yet he personally took it as "time he could've spent with Amanda", when, if he really thought about it, should have realized that he was the biggest threat and that there was no room for Parvati in his final 2 plans. What was she supposed to do? Play along and then hope that she wins immunity at the final 3? That would've been stupid. So she did what she needed to do to get ahead in the game...just like everyone else was trying to do. And it absolutely worked. I do not know of a single winner (or finalist, for that matter) of Survivor who has not lied or deceived at least once playing the game. They made moves when they needed to...moves that, had people been given the chance, probably would have made in the same situation. I feel as though too often, people see good game moves as personal attacks. Moves that, if not done, will eventually determine their own fate in the game. Keep in mind - [I]every single person is playing for $1 million dollars[/I]. They aren't playing for second. There can only be one winner. Someone has to get screwed. And I think people forget about that. Getting to the final tribal council is one thing. Convincing a majority of them to vote for you is another. And when a good game move is taken personally, it complicates things. So I do absolutely believe that the best player of the season can still lose based on jury members holding grudges. That doesn't make them a worse player. It's all about how the jury member interprets the actions. And that has nothing to do with the people in the final.

[QUOTE=asamber1;154524]Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Parvati win? Parvati played well and was able to make moves and avoid a bitter jury. That is why she won. Thats is my point. WOW Parvati faced one person who was bitter. Mind you Parvati was sitting next to Ozzy's make out buddy. Parvati would not have had Ozzy's vote even if she didn't backstab him. And also take into account Amanda's other two votes were from people she was friendly with anyway (James and Erik). Ozzy/James/Erik would have voted Amanda no matter what their bitter ways really didn't change anything. That was a terrible example. Every Loser in this game has lost of a reason. They made a tactical error. A Error that cost them the game. How can you ever be called the greatest when you made such errors that the person who won didn't make? The only people who i feel lost for no reason in their control is Ethan, Tina, Rich on All Stars who were all targets just because they won before. They made no mistake, their only mistake was winning their previous season. Survivor is also a social game you have to be able to read people. I really don't think someone in the finals has ever been shocked by the reactions of jury member. The only possible exception is Kelly on Season 1 (but in the Reunion Rich said Kelly knew it was coming). So if you don't know someone is going to be bitter, your were foolish and maybe that was their mistake. After playing with someone for 21 Days you should be able to determine if they will be a respectful jury member or a bitter one. If you can't your not a good player clearly.[/QUOTE] Yes, because Parvati was the best player of that season. That wasn't the point of my example. The point of using Ozzy was that tactical moves can be taken personally, as Ozzy's was. He wouldn't have voted for Parvati no matter what. I was using it for the reason [B]why someone wouldn't vote for a finalist because they took it personally[/B]...as I said right before the example. So it wasn't really a terrible example at all. I think it was actually a really good one. People weren't surprised because they prepared themselves for the worst. I don't know if you didn't understand the point that I was making, or if you just disagree.

[QUOTE=ssseeeaaann;154537]People have already started playing the game for season 22, 24, 26, 28, etc. When asked who she would have alligned with if she was on HvV, Jenna Morasca said she didn't want to tip her hand in case she comes back in the future. And all of the Russell/Richard rivalry that is being played up is speculated by a few to be their joint effort to get themselves cast for the next season. [B]I think the Survivor clique is going to become much more like the RW/RR clique now that they know they have an annual All Stars to look forward to.[/B] They will build their friendships around trying to gain allies.[/QUOTE] Ugh. That's really all I can say to that. I don't think Survivor will be the same.

[QUOTE=asamber1;154601] I dont think anyone can ever get away with saying a person who has not won was the best player. They LOST, they made a MISTAKE, something the Winner didn't do. The Winner played the PERFECT game, the greatest for that season! Isn't Survivor already like the RW/RR Challenge? So who cares. Survivor needs a season where they cast 0 people from California and then maybe this show will get better again. [/QUOTE] I think that if the winner played the perfect game, then every single vote could be unanimous every single season. And it's not. People don't vote for a finalist because they think the other finalist played a better game (among other reasons). People who have won the game have made mistakes. I don't think that every winner has played a perfect game...in fact, I think that it could be hard to argue that the majority of them have. I can argue that point til the cows come home :D Then again, everyone has a different outlook on what constitutes a perfect game. For example, I think Colby played a dominating physical game...but Tina played a nearly flawless strategic and social game. Same with Ozzy and Yul. So what's more important? Physical prowess? Strategy? Or a mixture of both? I don't think Survivor is anything like the RW/RR challenge. Survivor is much better. It's more strategic. It's not as much of a trainwreck to watch. With the exception of the all-star seasons, we're always seeing different people. Not to mention that Survivor is a million times more difficult than the RW/RR challenge. I find it humorous looking at some of the videos for the online casting call that Survivor is doing. These people desperately want to be on the show, and quite a few of them are doing nothing but say "stop putting these pretty actors and wannabes on television!"...to the people that casted those pretty actors and wannabes in the first place. I feel sorry for the casting directors.

I think a Second Chance season is stupid. Why bring back weak players (like Paloma)? They blew their first chance. Most of them were voted out early for a reason. Either they had a bad attitude (Michelle from Gabon), had ****** personalities (Sekou from CI, Carolina from Tocantins, to name a couple), didn't do anything at camp, or sucked at challenges (which is why most older people go early). Skupin should definitely have a second chance. I wouldn't mind them bringing back Brook from Vanuatu (since his boot was kind of crap) or Mary from Micronesia (since they only booted her to get at Mikey B).