TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . DONATE . CONTACT . CHAT  
                  Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Archive through December 24, 2009

Reality TVClubHouse Discussions: Survivor ARCHIVES: Survivor XIX - Samoa ~ 2: Survivor XIX - Samoa: Finale Show, Dec. 20th: ARCHIVES: Archive through December 24, 2009 users admin

Author Message
Roxip
Member

01-29-2004

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 12:40 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Roxip a private message Print Post    
But I never saw Brian disrespecting his competitors to the extent that Russell did...either overtly or on camera. Now, it's been a while so I might have forgotten some of the more sordid parts of the season, but I remember totally hating that little wormie guy who ended up second (does anybody remember his name? I think he was a restaurant guy from Louisiana...was it Clay?) but liked Brian all the way through.

Brenda1966
Member

07-03-2002

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 12:58 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Brenda1966 a private message Print Post    
I seem to recall Brian giving some scathing diary video, but you're correct that I don't recall him being so overly arrogant to people's faces.

Nerovh
Member

06-11-2005

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 1:22 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Nerovh a private message Print Post    
And that is where Brian was a better player than Russell. You cannot openly crow about your superiority and how much more you deserve to win than anyone else and still expect to get poeple to vote for you. I really think Russell had a good shot at winning before he acted the way he did with his final HII and in front of the jury. He went in there and acted like the jury had no choice but to vote for him, that they were stupid if they voted for anyone else. The jury already didn't like him, but some of them might have held onto a little respect for his gameplay if not for his blatant arrogance and disrespect toward other players toward the end. At least Brian was able to hide his contempt for the others from them until it was over.

By the way I actually despise Brian waaay more than Russell. At least Russell never shot his neighbor's puppy with a bow and arrow because it was barking too much. (at least not that I've heard of).

Hermione69
Member

07-24-2002

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 1:25 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Hermione69 a private message Print Post    
Brian skeeved me. He was so slimy. ROFL. Another one who lacked a sense of humor. That is what kept me cheering on Boston Rob and Johnny Fairplay. In the midst of their gameplay, you never got the sense they were taking themselves too seriously! They made me laugh.

I did root for Russell at several points throughout the season, but when it came right down to it, I was just like, bleah!

Articulate, huh?

I admit it totally, I have a hard time rooting for people I don't much like.

ETA: Loved Yul!

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 1:27 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
I recall Brian appearing to be one of the most arrogant contestants to ever play Survivor. I would put Richard Hatch, Brian and Russell on the same level for arrogant play. The difference is that Russell finished the game against another contestant that was likeable and that was Russell's downfall.

Kookliebird
Member

08-04-2005

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 1:27 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kookliebird a private message Print Post    
I don't even remember Yul and I watched every single season.

Mamabatsy
Member

08-05-2005

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 1:28 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Mamabatsy a private message Print Post    
Brian's strategy was to play the jury. He made each of them feel as if they were his best pal, and he was heartbroken that he had get rid of them, but it was a game and he had to play for himself. At times he pretended to tear up. They all loved him and his strategy was far better than Russell's hidden idols and all.

We knew he was a snake, but they didn't find that out until they saw the show and by then it was too late. Russell saw one season, China. He figured all he had to do was out manipulate Todd. If he had watched other seasons, he might have found that if Amanda hadn't blown the final TC, she might have won. She was Todd's Natalie and was popular. The problem was that she came across as an idiot in the final TC and Todd took credit for all his manipulations. Russell was outplayed by the game itself. He didn't have enough information to really understand how to play the jury.

Hermione69
Member

07-24-2002

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 1:32 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Hermione69 a private message Print Post    
I still think Russell might have won with a different jury approach. Or may be a different jury!

Dipo
Member

04-23-2002

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 2:42 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Dipo a private message Print Post    
I agree, this jury was amazingly bitter and didn't like the fact that the little man from the team that couldn't get their act together, beat them.

It really seemed to me that they were being spiteful, although I agree Russell wasn't smart about being "nice" to them. I just hate when the jury is so caught up in themselves that they can't see good gameplay. Russel raised the level of the game, he wasn't just sitting around being quiet hoping to make it to merge (which is what a lot of them have as a strategy).

Teachmichigan
Member

07-22-2001

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 4:01 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Teachmichigan a private message Print Post    
Wasn't Yul up against Ozzie? Talk about a tough choice! That was one season where I didn't care who won - I loved them both.

Jarreau
Member

03-02-2008

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 4:33 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jarreau a private message Print Post    
Out play, out wit and out last - that's the name of the game and Russell did all three. IMHO Russell should have won and I actually don't blame him for being a little more than upset at being denied the title of Sole Survivor by a group of bitter ninnies. No one, and I repeat no one, has ever played the game as hard and well as Russell. Name one player that searched (and according to what was televised) long and hard to find immunity idols and actually found them.

While Russell may be rough around the edges and more competitive & arrogant than most, he must have some redeeming social values. The jury just failed to recognize them..........

Can't wait to see him in S20! He definitely made this season.........

Jezzedout
Member

09-07-2006

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 4:48 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jezzedout a private message Print Post    
Jarreau, while you're entitled to your opinion, I would respectfully point out that playing the game loudly and boldly doesn't mean the same thing as playing the game well. Agree this jury was bitter, but that's part of the game and Russell's strategy didn't take that into account.

Tishala
Member

08-01-2000

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 5:01 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Tishala a private message Print Post    
Out play, out wit and out last - that's the name of the game and Russell did all three.

I must have a different definition of outlasting, because to me, when you are runner up, by definition you don't outlast someone. A couple years ago, the Patriots had a perfect season--well, if you disregard that last 2 minutes of the Super Bowl. And therein lies the rub: they were runners up.

Jezzedout
Member

09-07-2006

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 5:26 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jezzedout a private message Print Post    
Here's David Bloomberg's article, "Why Russell Lost" from Reality News Online. You can find the original article here -- http://www.realitynewsonline.com/cgi-bin/ae.pl?mode=4&article=article10945.art&page=1



Survivor: Samoa – Why Russell Lost
by David Bloomberg -- 12/23/2009


Russell played the best strategic game. He directed the action and stole the show throughout the season. And yet, when it came down to it, he didn’t win the million dollars. What the heck happened? How could it go so far awry? What did RNO readers have to say about it all? Why did Russell Lose?

I usually save the “winning” column for last, but this season I did Why Natalie Won first because, frankly, it was easier to explain. This might seem odd – if Natalie won and Russell lost, then shouldn’t they be somewhat flip sides of each other? Well not really. In this case, it may well be that Russell lost a lot more than Natalie won – that is, the jurors were more voting against him than for her. But I’m getting ahead of myself here. After all, that is the question: Why did Russell lose?

We will answer that question through our usual means, by going through What Samoan Survivors Should Have Learned to see where Russell went wrong and compare it to what he did right. In addition, I have received massive amounts of reader mail on this topic (I’m sorry, I just can’t respond to all of it!) and I will be incorporating some of those thoughts here (I’m also sorry that I can’t adequately give credit – there is simply too much and too many people with overlapping ideas to keep track of every individual e-mailer). So let’s get to it!

We all know where we begin – with the first rule, about the importance of plotting and scheming. Obviously, Russell knew this too, because he made it not only the focus of his game plan, but almost his entire game plan. I don’t feel I really need to go into much detail here because everybody knows Russell was the best strategist on his season – heck, even Jeff Probst blogged about it!

Here is where the “however” hits, though. Note the part near the end of this rule where it says, “it should be noted that the best schemer does not always win. While this is the most important rule, it is not the only one.” And this is where our journey really begins.

I’m surprised I didn’t hear from a lot of viewers who thought Russell had totally violated the second rule, against scheming and plotting too much. But really, that should not have shocked me, because RealityNewsOnline has the most astute readers on the web! The fact is that Russell did not scheme and plot too much. He played the game hard – harder than anybody else this season and maybe harder than anybody ever. But he didn’t overdo it because what he did worked.

For example, he made multiple Day 1 alliances. Yet even as he knocked out supposed ally after supposed ally, the ones he kept continued to believe he was loyal to them. Heck, Mick told me that even after the whole show was over.

This reminds me of an epic con that I’ve heard about. I don’t know if it was ever done or just talked about, but here is how it works: You find a bunch of people who bet horseracing. You give each of them a different prediction for the trifecta (or whatever the biggest bet is called, based on the order of finish of a number of horses). After the race, you ignore the ones to whom you gave wrong predictions. For the ones to whom you gave correct ones, you give them each another set of predictions. You keep doing this until you’ve whittled down the numbers to just a few. By this point, you’ve got those few believing that you have the awesome ability to predict the outcome of horse races! Then you bring in the monetary aspect for yourself and get them to give you money – that’s where the con part comes in, of course.

What you’ve actually been doing is just culling out all the people who wouldn’t believe you anymore and stringing along those who would until you can fleece them. That’s precisely what Russell did. Marisa, Betsy, Ben, and Ashley couldn’t complain to their tribemates about how Russell betrayed them because they weren’t there anymore. When they were no longer of any use to Russell, he dropped them. But Jaison, Mick, and Natalie (and later Shambo) continued to believe they were the chosen ones because they were in the group he was stringing along until he didn’t need them anymore – as Shambo and Jaison eventually found out.

The whole point of this rather long discussion is that Russell generally did not scheme and plot too much because he did a good enough job with it that he was never caught by those who were still in the game. Even amongst those on the jury, only Jaison really held a grudge because of this situation.

That does lead to one of two points where Russell could have improved here. Even though he didn’t fail, he should have actually broken this rule and told Jaison that he was being voted off. I know the rule says it’s better to risk not telling them, but after such a long time of being together, in this case he should have given Jaison a heads-up just before Tribal Council.

The other place where Russell went wrong here was in the section of the rule that notes, “if any alliances do get out into the open, do not let it be known that you are the decision-maker.” Russell wanted credit for all of his blindsides and strategic eliminations. So even when all of the finalists had voted out all of the jurors, those jurors still blamed Russell more because of his braggadocio over being the big chief strategist. It’s a difficult line to walk, but it seems pretty clear that he went over it.

In terms of the third rule, we can look back a few paragraphs to the discussion about the way he kept all of those multiple potential allies around and see how it gave Russell a large amount of flexibility, in accordance with the third rule. Even after the merge, he continued to keep his options open, such as when he made a fake alliance with John and then a false promise to Brett near the very end.

Indeed, even within his Foa Foa four, he knew only three of them (or maybe even two) could make it to the very end. He didn’t apparently decide on his final three partners until he got down to that point – again, keeping his options open while convincing each of the other three that they were definitely going to the end with him.

Moving to the fourth rule, we know Russell didn’t have a problem with his emotions controlling him – at least not in the usual way. He didn’t care who you were or what you thought you meant to him – if he thought it was in his best strategic interests for you to leave the game, he targeted you to leave the game. End of story.

However, we do have to ask what is considered to be an emotion. Is ego an emotion? My very brief research indicates that generally no, it is not considered to be an emotion. If we expand our definition a bit, then we could certainly criticize Russell in that regard. But there will be plenty to talk about in our next rule anyway.

That’s because the fifth rule discusses the social game – pretending to be nice. This is the main place where Russell’s game went wrong and the topic about which I received the majority of my e-mails. I should start, however, but acknowledging where it went right. Early in the game, we saw Russell trying to get the others to create emotional bonds with him, such as through his story about being in the hurricane and losing his dog. He wanted them to connect to him, even if he wasn’t terribly interested in connecting to them. This was a smart idea and showed he did know how to play socially.

Also, we should address his repeated statements (for example, in the reunion and again in my interview with him) that he played a good social game because he had Natalie, Mick, Jaison, and Shambo following him all the way. First, let me quote one reader who noted that of the four he mentioned, “only two of them were on the jury.” Another echoed the same sentiment, saying, “He talks about his social game in terms of the Foa Foa and clearly misses the fact that most of them were NOT on the jury!”

Both of these were well-said. But I think it goes beyond that to the point emphasized by another reader I’ll quote because I can’t really say it any better: “Russell’s concept of the "social game" was totally, completely wrong. What he described, making alliances with everyone, was not social. It was strategic. And in fact it was anti-social (or perhaps more accurately, a-social) in that it could likely have social ramifications that he was simply unaware of.” Russell did indeed confuse his strategic play with social skills. Did he convince Natalie, Mick, Jaison, and Shambo that he was trustworthy enough for them to follow him? Yes. But as another reader asks, “Did we ever see him – even once – being nice? Talking to someone about life in general, laughing with the group? Nope.” Maybe that was all in the editing – you don’t want to show your villain’s human side, after all. But the key is the others followed him out of strategy, not out of loyalty to some great guy they had met.

Even if Russell had just failed in pretending to be nice, I think he might have been okay. His big problem was that he went in the opposite direction and was over-the-top arrogant and dismissive of those he opposed and voted off. Let’s look at some post-finale quotes from my contestant interviews.

Jaison said:

I think Russell played to get to the finals and not necessarily to win. The way he was playing was good but there was another part of him that was like, when I move forward I’m also going to rub your face in it. It was that part of it that really pissed people off and was bad strategy to get votes to win.

Mick said:

People do respect a strong game player but they want some social graces and niceties – he didn’t have that, he had the exact opposite. Everything else was so strong with him but that part was almost nonexistent. That was a huge error on his part. As his ego just got bigger and bigger, it just got worse and worse. The way he treated people, it was pure idiocy to put those people on the jury and turn them into votes against him the second he opened his mouth. They just despised him.

And Natalie said:

Honestly you can’t go around twisting people’s arms in a threatening way and expect them to vote for you. And when they’re voted out, you taunt them. … the social part is a huge aspect. … You can’t neglect the social aspect which in my opinion is the most important - there were many times he [behaved] in a condescending way, laughing and not just laughing – basically this is the way I think the jury felt, they were taunted as they exited, like they didn’t do enough. Just in talking to people. And I think also he wasn’t humble at all. You noticed Brett saying when you get too comfortable and cocky and arrogant, that’s when it can get you in trouble. He was basically directing that towards Russell. He didn’t play the social part really at all.


The three people who spent the most time with Russell throughout the game all said very similar things. We saw his ego and the way he sometimes rubbed his play into the faces of others, but I think there was even more to it than what we saw! He didn’t just blindside people or strategically eliminate them – as one reader said, “Russell (according to interviews I read) was openly snide and dismissive of them.” And this comment applies as well: “Russell's mistake was in underestimating how much his personality had rubbed people the wrong way.”

But there is one more person we should hear from on this point – Russell himself. He told me:

I embarrassed them so much they had to put Natalie’s name down.

Indeed. Maybe he should have thought of that before treating them in such a way as to put them in that position!

Yes, I believe jurors should respect a superior strategist. But Russell made that very difficult by first making them hate him! Jurors are human and players cannot ignore that human element.

Having gone into great detail there, we’re going to skip right past the sixth rule, which says not to be too much of a threat, because it has nothing to do with the very final phase of the game in the jury votes. The same is true of the seventh rule.

Instead, we’ll hit Appendix B for our discussion of the jury phase of the game. Let’s start with the positive. I thought Russell did an excellent job of laying out his main points in his opening statement. Indeed, he did far, far better than either of his competitors. Unfortunately for him, those points were not what this jury was looking for, but he did the right thing by putting them out there and not trying to dance around them or hide.

I’ll also give him credit for trying to plant a little Russell seed in at least one juror’s mind, as he was smart enough to kiss up to Brett before voting him off, knowing he had just lied to him about taking him to the final three. Alas, one conversation after you’ve just lied to a guy is not going to make up for either that lie or the fact that your opponent, Natalie, has been forming real personal bonds with him for weeks now!

Russell did have plenty of jury problems, though. We can start with two of the people he put into the jury. On the one hand, he was probably thinking that Shambo was a guaranteed vote in his favor from the jury, which is something you always want. On the other hand, though, he should have known there was no way she could ever beat him in front of the jury because she had been the Galu traitor.

Similarly, Jaison had encountered problems with several of the jurors previously, including those who thought he had checked out of the game and would never have voted for him to win it. Yet Jaison was the lone Foa Foan that Russell chose to put on the jury. We know from the reunion that, in hindsight, Russell likely would have won if he had faced Shambo and Jaison. But Russell should have been able to grasp that to some extent at the time.

But even with those two in the jury, Russell really failed by not understanding what this jury was looking for – as one reader said, “he didn’t know what made the jury members tick.” A number of other readers made similar points. Some examples:

* “He is so egotistical that he is completely unable to grasp why the jury would choose Natalie over him.”
* “He failed to recognize how his ego, behaviour and attitude affected the people who would ultimately being voting for a winner.”
* “As much as I would hope for a jury more able to appreciate strategy and "game," you have to know who you are up against and gear your game in order to win them over.”
* “Even if the juries are not always emotional, often more of the members than not are emotional.”

Another reader put it succinctly when he noted, “Russell lost sight of who had the final power in this game.” He expected them to act in a certain way because that’s what he thought he would do and what he wanted them to do. But they are each their own individual people with individual minds, and whether he (or I, or anybody else) liked it or not, they got to decide on what they would base their votes. As I mentioned in Why Natalie Won, this jury did not value the same game play that Russell did. Russell said on the reunion that he took the game very seriously and he thought he won the game for sure because he thought everybody took it seriously, “but obviously not.” Natalie understood people while Russell understood strategy. For this particular jury, that people understanding of Natalie’s was more important when it came down to it.

When it comes right down to it, Russell was indeed the superior strategist, schemer, and plotter. He planned out the path for himself and his allies to get to the end. He gleefully executed those strategies and had supreme confidence in his abilities – confidence that turned out to be 100% correct -- right up until the outcome was no longer in his own hands.

Survivor is a game of outwitting, outplaying, and outlasting. But more importantly, it’s a game of getting to the jury and having more of those jurors vote for you instead of anybody else. Russell had it down pat – all except for the human aspect of the jurors. Damn them for not being robots who simply tallied up strategic points in his favor!

It wasn’t Russell’s strategy that failed, it was his personality. He failed to take into account that not everybody played Survivor the way he played Survivor. He used people as pawns in his game, which was fine, but he also treated them as pawns in his game, without feelings of their own – and that was not fine.

Indeed, in the end, that is why Russell lost.

Jezzedout
Member

09-07-2006

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 5:27 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jezzedout a private message Print Post    
I disagree with Bloomberg's assertion that Russell didn't scheme and plot too much, but otherwise it's a great analysis from him, as usual.

Texasdeb
Member

05-23-2003

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 5:43 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Texasdeb a private message Print Post    
I did not like Russel the 1st few eps and wanted his team to wise up & get him off of my TV. When he found that 1st II in the tree while his team was right there not paying attention, I started thinking that this guy is going to make MY survivor watching experience great!

Well, the team "let" him control and knock them off 1 by 1 until they only had 4 going into the merge.

Rus quickly picked up on Shambo's discontent with her own team when she was sent to his tribe twice by her own team. He easily turned her into one of his own & used her for info. (she still "respected" his game in the end).

I continued to look forward to Survivor mostly to see what Russel would do/say and I must say that I was very entertained!

Then------the last 2 shows--------I lost some Russel Love. He only entertained me by winning that final I-challenge

When he started "tooting his own horn" to Mich & Natalie, I was not liking him. I, however was hoping he wouldn't show that side of his personality in the final questioning w/the jury. It didn't happen! He just couldn't control himself and HE cost himself that so wanted "Sole Survivor" title.

I do not believe that Nat "earned" the win but I'm ok with her getting it because she kept her cool for 39 days listening to a self absorbed, my way or the highway, better player. "Good game", Nat - you chose your path early & it paid off.

Lexie_girl
Member

07-30-2004

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 6:25 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Lexie_girl a private message Print Post    
<<---- Still agrees with everything y'all are saying!!!


Costacat
Member

07-15-2000

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 7:14 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Costacat a private message Print Post    

quote:

Out play, out wit and out last - that's the name of the game and Russell did all three.



Out play: Um, nope, I would say Natalie did since she won the $1M

Out wit: Um, nope, again, did he win the $1M?

Out last: I'm not sure that coming in second place is outlasting anyone.

Sorry. My opinion is Russell was outplayed.

Juju2bigdog
Member

10-27-2000

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 7:18 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Juju2bigdog a private message Print Post    
Ditto, Texasdeb.

Puzzled
Member

08-27-2001

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 7:35 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Puzzled a private message Print Post    
In past Survivors, almost everything the winner has done has been forgiven. If you lasted, you deserved to win, no matter how you played the game.

I can't help wondering if the current recession and people's anger over the arrogant bankers and CEO's who were largely responsible for the mess, wasn't a factor. Russell was a lot like those kind of people and perhaps his approach tapped into the general frustration of people on the jury.

Texasdeb
Member

05-23-2003

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 7:55 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Texasdeb a private message Print Post    
thanks, Juju! I had to say it.

Jarreau
Member

03-02-2008

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 8:23 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jarreau a private message Print Post    
Well, even though I may be in the minority in my thinking that Russell should have won, he made the show interesting this season!

And Juju would disagree with me simply because I beat her in the TAR game.

WhoDats Rule - Saints are 13/1!!!!

Bonbonlover
Member

07-13-2000

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 9:02 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Bonbonlover a private message Print Post    
Many have said that with a different jury Russell probably would have won. Well the jury was made up of his fellow competitors... so different jury means different competitors... and if those "dumb a$$ girls" and "stupid players" and "idiots" had been replaced with others with whom Russell found to be worthy competitors they would have booted him early in the game. There lies the rub Russell ... those "idiots" on the jury are the reason you lasted till final 3. Quit complaining!

Colordeagua
Member

10-25-2003

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 9:16 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Colordeagua a private message Print Post    
Good thinking, Bonbon.

Spear
Member

08-06-2001

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 12:02 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Spear a private message Print Post    
It's interesting how the great players are viewed today:

Richard Hatch squeaked by with a 4-3 vote with one vote supposedly due to a random number choice.

Brian also won a close 4-3 vote that may have been tainted because his opponent was (wrongly?) accused of making a racial slur.

Boston Rob built his reputation in a non-standard season where all the "best" players were well-known at the start and subsequently voted off early. In a normal season, he didn't even make it to the jury.

Years from now, people will forget that Russell had the dumb strategy of weakening his own team, helping them on a horrible losing streak that it took an unprecedented merge at 12 to save them. People will forget that it was Shambo who decided three votes and that on the most crucial vote, Russell was so out-of-the-loop that he wasted an Immunity Idol.

The fact is there is so much luck in Survivor that making it to the end is not a sure sign of greatness. Just one unlucky break in competition, or a swap or merge at the wrong time, and you're just one of the forgotten losers.