Author |
Message |
Merrysea
Moderator
08-13-2004
| Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 11:43 am
While Russell wants to take credit for getting Eric out, without all that bonding that Natalie did, it never would have happened. There's no way anyone would have listened to him. Also, if Eric had not been voted out, Russell would not have found his second immunity idol, because Eric already had it. Jaison would be gone, Eric would be in charge, and Russell would have been the next person evicted. Looks to me like Natalie was responsible for keeping Foa Foa in the game. Well played.
|
Gidget
Member
07-28-2002
| Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 12:15 pm
I'm with Whoami. I'd love a friend like Shambo. I think she would be honest with you even if it hurt. And at the same time supportive. I got a distinct vibe from Shambo that she was as she was because she grew up in a large family. Kids in large families seem to develop very independent personalities. Probably from necessity. I love Shambo. She is one of my all time favorite players. Not because of what she did or didn't do in the game. Simply because of how I perceived her. I like the fact that she makes no apologies for who she is and she doesn't seem to need to be one of the crowd. That is pretty rare these days.
|
Csnog
Member
07-18-2002
| Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 2:15 pm
I don't exactly know when the dislike of Shambo began with Laura but Laura was behind sending Shambo to Fao Fao two times. When Shambo sent Laura to Fao, Laura nearly went balistic. Monica called Shambo trailer trash and a few other not so nice things. One other thing about Russell and Natalie. Russell instructed his followers to infiltrate the Galu. He TOLD Natalie to befriend Laura when she was sent to their camp and Russell befriended Shambo before that. Russell just didn't follow through in the somewhat social aspect of the game, depending on his accomplishments with the jury. Shambo was also bitter about Erik's ouster and Laura, Kelly and Monica were bitter about the men making Shambo the new leader even though they were using Shambo against the other women. I would say that Laura didn't like Shambo from day one, because she saw to it that Shambo didn't bond with Galu by sending her to Fao and Shambo knew it.
|
Catfat
Member
02-27-2002
| Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 3:50 pm
I would say Laura didn't like Shambo from day one because Laura perceived herself as better looking and therefore superior to Shambo, so Shambo was shunned and relegated to the outer circle. Laura's two BFFs, Monica and Kelly behaved the same way.
|
Biscottiii
Member
05-29-2004
| Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 11:38 pm
AHAH! Excellent points I had not considered! Merrysea, December 26, 2009 - 11:43 am "Also, if Eric had not been voted out, Russell would not have found his second immunity idol, because Eric already had it. Jaison would be gone, Eric would be in charge, and Russell would have been the next person evicted." I would so have loved to be a bug on the wall as Russell Swan watched the show from home. Nice guy as he was, many of the moves he made came back to bite Galu in the @ss and ultimately dismantled their team. The 2nd time of sending Shambo to FF (with a helpful push from Laura), saying it was for losing the chicken, and denying her the chance to eat steak, was after Shambo just finished guzzling some particularly nasty guts concoction that gave them a Win. Others sitting on the bench got to go on the reward. Cemented Shambo's bond with FF.
|
Catfat
Member
02-27-2002
| Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 8:26 am
Part of what Shambo had to eat was sea slug, and if I am not mistaken, that is a Japanese or Chinese delicacy. Maybe it just looked likke nasty guts. Well, it did.
|
Bonbonlover
Member
07-13-2000
| Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 8:59 am
It's been stated by some that Russell was doomed at the merged because he had no choice to fight for the Foa Foa four, and that was going to make him unpopular with the Galus, no matter what. I'd say that's most definitely true. But I also say that this reveals just another flaw in Russell's strategy... the concept of demoralizing his tribe from the start. Russell stated that the smartest move he made was dumping canteens and torching socks. While a weak tribe is far easier to manipulate, they certainly aren't going to go into a merge with an upper hand. I think Russell's undermining ensured this. So there's the conundrum: he willingly wore down the Foa Foa's morale, then claims that he was doomed at the merge because he entered with the weaker group. Well, duh.
|
Merrysea
Moderator
08-13-2004
| Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 10:56 am
Stephen's Survivor Strategy Blog Here's an interesting blog by Stephen Fishbach, who lost to JT.
|
Bigbrotherrocs
Member
09-17-2005
| Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 11:39 am
Very Good Blog. I wanted Russell to win but knew he had made it almost impossible for himself..
|
Happymom
Member
01-20-2003
| Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 11:48 am
Thanks Merry, that was very interesting. I think this Survivor is the most talked about post season that we've ever had. I am finding it all so interesting. Especially since I found the beginning few eps. this season to be kind of boring. I still enjoyed them, any Survivor is better than no Survivor, but I thought this would be one of the more boring seasons. It turned out to be one of the best! I'm so surprised by that, and delighted too. I mean, this was Survivor 19!!!!
|
Gemma120in2002
Member
07-05-2003
| Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 12:27 pm
Thank you Merrysea. That's a perfect summary to the finale. The jury was bitter because Russell made them bitter. Everyone wanted to sit next to Russell at the end because he was intensely disliked. Anyone other than Shambo and Jaison could have won against him because of their social game. Stephen also pointed out that the jury vote is part of the game. It's not a surprise twist, it's something that is known from the very beginning. In Survivor and Big Brother, if you don't play the social game, strategic mastery doesn't amount to a thing. In any competition where your victory hinges on winning over your competition, the need to be gracious and humble is key. Your opponents need to feel you deserve the win. Russell did play survivor like nobody else before him. He did go far, and his game was fun to watch. He reinvented this game in many ways. Unfortunately he forgot that outwitting the competition also meant that he needed to win them over.
|
Adven
Member
02-06-2001
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 5:18 am
The question isn't whether Russell had a good "social game", he didn't. It's easy, though, to award the million to the best player when he/she is likable, the dilemma comes when the person who kicked your arse from here to Sunday is obnoxious. As I've said before, you can either give the devil his due or suddenly elevate being pleasant to the status of critical strategy in order to feel justified in giving it to someone else.
|
Biscottiii
Member
05-29-2004
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 5:53 am
Confess that I still keep searching for Youtubes of when the final 3 folks went to Ponderosa. Stumbled onto this one (for better or for worse). Seems like Russell has a serious difficulty perceiving the difference between the concepts of "Controlling" vs. "Social Game" Interview with Russell Hantz from Survivor Samoa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GyUQY9hJ-I
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-25-2003
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 6:55 am

|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 1:24 pm
I finally watched the last show and then the finale night 3 hours and I have to say... best.finale.ever. Loved watching Russell getting second place to "nice girl" Natalie's coming in first. Loved that Natalie refused to give Russell the title of sole survivor. I'm not so sure I'll watch the next season. I'm not a huge fan of some of the villains. I think Jeff's constant pushing of Russell as "best player ever" has ruined this somewhat for me. It's like he's rewarding bad behavior, and I'm sorry, I just don't think it's enjoyable to watch.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 2:12 pm
In contrast, this past season was the first season of Survivor that we have watched in some time and we thoroughly enjoyed it. I don't tend to personalize the game so I don't have to like a Survivor contestant or feel that I would want him or her as a friend to enjoy watching them playing the game. After all we are seeing them playing a game. We don't know these people on a personal level. I think it will be great fun to see if the "Heroes" act like heroes (LOL – whatever that means) and the "Villains" embrace their villainy and then to see who comes out on top.
|
Tntitanfan
Member
08-03-2001
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 2:21 pm
I enjoy the GAME! Do I think it is okay for poker players to bluff? YES! Do I think it is okay to sack the opposing football team's quarterback? OKAY! Is Natalie actually "nice?" Only people who know her outside the game could answer that. She played as if she were "nice," and Russell played like gangbusters. It is a game - oh wait, I said something similar up above! CRS syndrome strikes again! To digress for a moment, there are lots of people who win on cooking shows that I wouldn't let over my front doorstep to visit with me, but would welcome over the back doorstep to cook for me! There too, it is the process, not the personality, that matters to me.
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 3:45 pm
To each his or her own. I don't find it enjoyable to watch someone who calls women the names Russell did or acts the way he did. I watch TV to watch something enjoyable. I don't watch horror movies or Freddy Kruger either.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 5:14 pm
I didn't enjoy watching Russell call women names. However, I did enjoy his intense play and the way he embraced the game and the elements when many of the other contestants were whining about what they perceived as a miserable situation. So there were aspects of his game that I disliked and aspects that I enjoyed. As you said it all comes down to finding enjoyment in what you watch and if you don't find it then I totally agree with not watching.
|
Kitt
Member
09-06-2000
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 5:26 pm
That was Russell's problem all along, despite being very good at many elements of the game, there were certain elements of his game that meant that neither most of the jury nor much of the audience thought he deserved the win.
|
Tntitanfan
Member
08-03-2001
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 6:02 pm
Precisely! Russell would be a backdoor person to "do his thing" superlatively well, but not a frontdoor person to visit with me! I am totally able to give props to someone I dislike if I feel they deserve them - even chauvinistic PIGS!
|
Konamouse
Member
07-16-2001
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 6:31 pm
Todd won for PLAYING the game but he also knew about the social aspect and how to stroke the egos of the jury. Russell PLAYED the game but ignored the social aspect and belittled the jury. Not how to influence the people who are essentially writing the check.

|
Babyruth
Member
07-19-2001
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 7:42 pm
Russell was convinced that everyone else saw him the way he saw himself and would surely admire and reward him. I'm sure the producers and Jeff fanned the flames of this delusion by constantly touting him as the best player in Survivor history, and by filming him in frequent camera confessionals while virtually ignoring most of the other players.
|
Nerovh
Member
06-11-2005
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 7:57 pm
I'm curious about something. There are people who don't like the way Natalie played or don't think she should have won. I'd like to know what they think Natalie should have or could have done differently that would have made her more "deserving"? Even though she didn't win a lot, she gave her all in every challenge, even after she had become so thin that her bathing suit was falling off. She knew what Russell was, she never really trusted him, but used him very effectively as a "meat shield". She did her share of work, she got herself in good with the other team. I just don't know what moves she could have made differently that would have gotten her to the end of the game. I don't see how her path was any less "deserving" than Russell's was. Just because she wasn't loud and obnoxious along tha way doesn't make her win any less legitimate than his would have been.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Monday, December 28, 2009 - 8:28 pm
Obviously it is hard to argue with success and it is clear that Natalie's game was successful and won her a million dollars. I think what may have troubled some people was the main reason that she gave the jury for voting for her – namely that her strategy was to stay quiet while the more forceful female players were voted out. I think that "quiet" may rightly or wrongly be equated as passive and weak and people may feel uncomfortable for that to be the strategy employed by winning female players. They would like to see a stronger woman or man win.
|