Survivor: Generic Thread (No Spoilers)

6778 posts / 0 new
Last post
I still cannot believe that the finale of the first Survivor had 52 [B]million[/B] viewers.
I know this has been discussed, but I still have no idea why Cirie is a hero. I guess they needed to even out the teams or something.... Her entire strategy through two seasons was lying and backstabbing!
[QUOTE=Bacchus;154376]I know this has been discussed, but I still have no idea why Cirie is a hero. I guess they needed to even out the teams or something....[/QUOTE] I have no idea why either. I am hoping that she is an early out!
Ten years and three hundred people available to showcase, and the best we get is a Rupert/Russell/Coach variety hour. I wasn't too impressed with this special.
[QUOTE=ssseeeaaann;154378]Ten years and three hundred people available to showcase, and the best we get is a Rupert/Russell/Coach variety hour. I wasn't too impressed with this special.[/QUOTE] I didn't even make it to the end. When Elizabeth came on, I had to turn the channel and didn't come back. I just have that kind of reaction to her...
That aside, I am still really looking forward to next week!
[QUOTE=molds13;154374]I still cannot believe that the finale of the first Survivor had 52 [B]million[/B] viewers.[/QUOTE] It was a pretty big deal lol. Compare that to the finale's these days its pathetic! Mind you the finale was also in the middle of summer when people do watch less tv.
[QUOTE=asamber1;154381]It was a pretty big deal lol. Compare that to the finale's these days its pathetic! [B]Mind you the finale was also in the middle of summer when people do watch less tv.[/B][/QUOTE] Which makes it all the more impressive... Comparing it to one of the biggest stages worldwide...the Super Bowl in January 2001 only yielded 84 million.
will the specia, be on CBs.com?
[QUOTE=salt&vinegar;154399]will the specia, be on CBs.com?[/QUOTE]Either there or youtube, yea.
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=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.
True, but I honestly don't feel like what he did stood out compared to any of the other greatest players out there. I could list at least five people who played a better game than him.
Russel is not the greatest player ever. If you don't win you have no right to call yourself the greatest player ever...
[QUOTE=salt&vinegar;154413]Russel is not the greatest player ever. If you don't win you have no right to call yourself the greatest player ever...[/QUOTE] I think he is the greatest Survivor ever that people love to hate or love to love to bring out the hate! Count me in the latter category... Last season would have been a sleeper around here without Russell. :devil2:
[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.
[QUOTE=molds13;154423]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.[/QUOTE] Boston Rob is a terrible example. For example Boston Rob made a terrible decision to make a promise to Alicia. Boston Rob got paranoid and made a rash decision. Had he never made this alliance with Alicia, he would have never broken his word, and possibly Alicia could have voted for him. There is no doubt in my mind alliance or not Alicia would have stuck it out with the tribe. Bottom line is Amber won because she only made alliances with the people she stuck with. She won votes because she never had to betray anyone. Rob made alliance with every and had to keep betraying people. Amber didn't do that = Amber won the game. Also maybe instead of isolating Shii-Ann he should have talked with her and even learned some chinese (or whatever Shii-Ann is) symbols like Amber did. Amber gave Shi-Ann the time of day during Shii-Ann last days and look who got her vote. The vote that became the swing vote as well. Boston Rob was a very dominant player in All Stars but he made a lot of mistakes. those mistakes cause him to loose. Just because your the dominant player portrayed on the show, I dont think that makes you the greatest player.
I think the only time the "greatest" didn't win their season was Steph. And thats IF AND ONLY IF like Steph alluded to in the reunion that people didn't vote for her because it was her second time. If this was the case then there was really nothing Steph could have done to change what she did. He only mistake was just agreeing to do the show then. But for some reason i dont think that is the reason Steph lost. Steph made some Boston Rob esque blunders that season IMO.
[QUOTE=Bacchus;154379]I didn't even make it to the end. When Elizabeth came on, I had to turn the channel and didn't come back. I just have that kind of reaction to her...[/QUOTE] She is such a great and smart person. :)
All Stars, Guatemala and Samoa were edited to be the story as to why Rob, Stephenie and Russell lost. Not why Amber, Danni or Natalie won. Because the story was so one-dimensional in those seasons, I'd be more apt to at least consider that there was more to the wins of those ladies than what we were shown. Stephenie really didn't play too smart in Guatamala though. She backstabbed needlessly, in a way that did not advance her game. She was basically destined for the final 2 no matter how you slice it. She could have kept Judd on board and killed him in the final vote.
[QUOTE=ssseeeaaann;154471]All Stars, Guatemala and Samoa were edited to be the story as to why Rob, Stephenie and Russell lost. Not why Amber, Danni or Natalie won. Because the story was so one-dimensional in those seasons, I'd be more apt to at least consider that there was more to the wins of those ladies than what we were shown. Stephenie really didn't play too smart in Guatamala though. She backstabbed needlessly, in a way that did not advance her game. She was basically destined for the final 2 no matter how you slice it. She could have kept Judd on board and killed him in the final vote.[/QUOTE] IDK if Steph made terrible moves because i feel Rafe was making all the decisions and Steph just kept getting the blame for them. And i agree on her "backstabbing needlessly" i fell Rob did the same thing. It really made them walk into bitter juries to me both set themselves up to loose. Yea i forget if i said Russell was against a bitter jury. I think i just had him in mind from reading previous posts. Russell didn't face a bitter jury IMO, they just didnt like him. He failed socially, and he still does not understand that, which makes him more of a moron. 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=asamber1;154498]IDK if Steph made terrible moves because i feel Rafe was making all the decisions and Steph just kept getting the blame for them. [/QUOTE]Rafe did that purposely. He wanted to go to the final 2 with her and have the jury hate her. She should have saw through it and not followed his lead.
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.
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.

Pages