Author |
Message |
Adven
Member
02-06-2001
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 4:39 am
Everyone talks about the "social game" like its some brilliant unheard of strategy that Natalie played like a virtuoso. Smiling and not rubbing people the wrong way while you stab them in the back is what just about everyone does. The idea that you must not ruffle my feathers or make me feel foolish while you do this is absurd. Russell and other brilliant players before him - Boston Rob and Richard Hatch - recognize the inherent phoniness of doing a social two step while playing a game this cut throat. They're much more honest than the social and moral players they go up against. Assuming the editing reflected what actually happened, he was really the only one out there. There was Russell and 17 or 18 vanilla faceless blobs he simply dominated. They saw it coming, they meekly took it and then ganged up at the vote to do what they didn't have the balls or brains to do during the game: take him out. Predictably, those who dislike him, turn Natalie into a brilliant strategist in order to explain the vote. We all saw the show. That's not what happened. Personally, I hoped for Natalie, but to try and construct some rationale after the fact for why she deserved it is silly. She didn't. Russell was the Harlem Globetrotters and everyone else the Washington Generals.
|
Bonbonlover
Member
07-13-2000
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 6:42 am
Funny that JP is complaining about the jury vote when earlier in the year he was interviewed and said: JH: Would you say it’s more of a brain game than a brawn game or a little of both. JP: I think it is neither. I think “Survivor” is first and foremost a social game. Typically, the people who do well, not always the winner but do well, typically are the same people who do well at parties and other places where they’re good at reading people, pop into a conversation and pop out. That’s the essence of the game and then layered on top of that is the physicality required to last a long time, be good at challenges so you can win your way to the end and also the brain power to be able to constantly assess and reassess the different miracle combinations that are on-going at any given time. If I do this with her, and she does that with him that leaves me in this situation but if this happens, and you’re constantly running these schemes so I don’t mean to imply that it’s enough to be a person who’s great at cocktail parties. I’m just saying the foundation is if you can’t get along people, it’s very hard to win this game because the structure of “Survivor” requires that seven people come back and decide who wins and those are seven people that you helped vote out so you have to be incredibly diplomatic in how you get rid of people in addition to it being a difficult game. Flashback: Jeff Probst on how to win SURVIVOR
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 6:57 am
I have to say that this season, Jeff Probst was not my favorite host. I was really irked how he kept drooling all over Russell (who I thought acted like an ignorant jerk). I even quit reading Jeff's blog because of that. So I think Russell's pity party is now a party of three. Dude. You lost. Really. You lost. The "<77> blonde" who you so dissed on the first episodes kicked YOUR <77> fair and square. So man up and admit while you had your moments, you were outplayed. Period.
|
Bonbonlover
Member
07-13-2000
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 7:04 am
Costacat... I agree about Jeff fawning over Russell. I felt as if Jeff was trying to shove him down our throats.
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 7:53 am
I totally felt like Jeff was shoving him down our throats. And it totally irritated the heck out of me. Jeff needs to learn to be a bit more impartial... yeah it's OK to be gleeful when someone does something cool (like find HII without a clue). But week after week after week? Although I read somewhere that most of this season's cast were, well, boring. Which is why that person got so much cam time. He really milked it. Then again, I think the producers could have TRIED to get a story out of some of the others. We hardly knew the members of the Galu tribe. Yeah, OK, they won everything, and then the merge and they lost everything. Still...
|
Terolyn
Member
05-06-2004
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 7:56 am
I think after hosting this show since the beginning of time he was overjoyed to find someone who really played the game.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 7:59 am
Yes .... someone who instead of whining about the experience, embraced the experience. I started to enjoy watching Russell for the first time when they showed all the other people complaining about the cold and the rain juxtaposed with Russell talking about what a great experience Survivor can be for people who get on the show and want to play the game.
|
Kitt
Member
09-06-2000
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 8:32 am
We shouldn't really be so surprised at the editing this season, the production always try to control the script. We moan about it so much on Big Brother yet it has to have been equally as bad this year on Survivor. It spoilt the season to me, and it seems like they did lose a lot of viewers' interest by trying to make this season the Russell and Shambo show. Hopefully they've learnt something for next season. I kind of doubt it, but hopefully.
|
Panda
Member
07-15-2005
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 8:48 am
I also think maybe the other players were a little boring and had no strategy talk? No tribal councils for Galu in the beginning so they probably did not have any strategy talk or anything tv worth except for what Shambo and Yazmin were spouting off about. And didn't Eric go and find the idol and not tell Shambo?
|
Merrysea
Moderator
08-13-2004
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 8:49 am
In reality, Russell probably wasn't the only one out there who was strategizing. We only see 42 minutes out of every 72 hours, and then only what the producers choose to show us. They liked Russell and Shambo, so that's who we saw. Mick, Jaison and Natalie have all said that Russell is taking credit for moves that were made by group consensus, and that they all decided to stick with him because he had such a huge target on his back. I don't remember now if it was on the show or in an interview where Natalie said about Russell, "Who else would you want to sit next to in the final two?"
|
Adven
Member
02-06-2001
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 9:07 am
Agree Jimmer. During that horrific rainy period where everyone was absolutely cold and wet and miserable, Russell was out in it with his shirt off, grinning like a maniac and talking about his love of the game. He was simply operating on an entirely different level than anyone else.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-03-2002
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 9:10 am
What were the ratings like for Survivor this season? Myself, I found it to be one of the more memorable seasons. I can't recall who even played in the last few season (except coach) but I will surely remember Russel. I don't really mind Jeff getting excited about a player. I like that he cares enough about the show that he's also a fan. I didn't mind it when he adored Coach (who I couldn't stand) and I appreciate that he's not impartial, that he's willing to give his opinion on who played and who was a total bore.
|
Kitt
Member
09-06-2000
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 9:16 am
In the exit interview with quite a few early-mid season evictees they talked about various plots we were never shown. I remember during the "who's Brett?" phase several evictees mentioned his strategies, and that always seemed odd, given how little we saw of him. A few times we also saw, on screen, Russell being persuaded out of his emotional vote into one more suited to the group. Ok he was wise enough to go with the group, but that doesn't make it his strategy. It seems more like it was the rest of the group's strategy to make him think it was.
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 9:24 am
I'm thinking of all the people out there, Russell was the only one with enough padding to be able to survive the cold. Just sayin'...
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 9:26 am
Smart move on Russell's part then. I've never understood why people don't try to at least fill out a little before going on a show where starvation can become a factor. Or maybe they do and they just can't gain weight.
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-25-2003
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 9:33 am
A few times we also saw, on screen, Russell being persuaded out of his emotional vote [and strategy] into one more suited to the group. Ok he was wise enough to go with the group, but that doesn't make it his strategy. It seems more like it was the rest of the group's strategy to make him think it was. I noticed that. And then the next episode he'd claim it was his strategy and he made it happen.
|
Askme_who_ur
Member
08-19-2006
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 9:38 am
Just my thought here but if Brett had strategies, they weren't ones that were being adopted. Russell dominated this season like it or not. There were just a few instances, Ben for one ,that he saw he was not going to be able to persuade people to vote any other way. Just as right now, no one is really focused on Natalie on winning. Everyone is focused on Russell. In years to come, you will not remember all the players on this season but you will remember Russell. Russell changed this game. People may use him to study his strategic moves while adding their own social game. They may not come off abrasive as he did but they definitely will use some of his moves, whether it is searching for HII without clues, Whether it is pulling out HII necklaces at Tribal, future contestants will take some of HIS ideas and try to make them their own. Russell with all his faults did bring a lot to the game and THAT is what I think the producers and Jeff saw in him and appreciated.
|
Rvon
Member
12-11-2003
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 9:42 am
Even though, according to Russell, he played a masterful game and is the greatest player ever, and he did play a great game, you can't treat people like that and really expect to win. His lack of humility and over-inflated ego was a real turn-off to me. I was very happy he did not win.
|
Rvon
Member
12-11-2003
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 9:50 am
Askme, I completely agree that Russell will be more memorable than most players. He is right up there with Coach, Johnny Fairplay, Tyson, and Richard Hatch -- just to name a few. Russell did make this one of the most memorable seasons and no one can ever take that away from him. I'm still very glad he did not win.
|
Nerovh
Member
06-11-2005
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 10:28 am
Russell could have still made the show entertaining and implemented the strategies that actually worked for him without being such a completely unbearable, arrogant jerk. He threw that bad atitude in as a bonus, and it is what cost him the game. Russell did not have to be the so-called worst villain ever to have gotten that far in the game. If he had dialed it down, he could have been disliked but not hated to the point that nobody could bear to vote for him. The win was not stolen from Russell, he threw it away himself with both hands and his big crowing mouth.
|
Lilfair
Member
07-09-2003
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 11:06 am
I'll chime in about Probst too. He did sink in my respect or liking of him. He was completely up the Russel hole and enjoyed being there. I lost much respect for Probst when he on a weekly basis dismissed the misogynistic drivel that came out of Russell's mouth as OH WELL, you still have to respect Russel's game play. Really Probst???? Yup I have lost most all respect I had for him especially thinking he was a good host, nope obviously not so much. My first thought of Russ will never be that he found HII without a clue my first thoughts will always be....he's they guy that called females derogitory names and how poor of a sport he is. Thise things outweigh everything else. Funny how Probst hated JohnnyFairPlay but loves Russell....it doesn't make sense.
|
Michaelwinicki
Member
09-04-2006
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 11:18 am
I'm not sure how much of Russell's "strategy" will be used by future players. I remember after the 1st Survivor, many were talking about how Hatch won the game and how great his strategy was. But, it seems each season of Survivor is very much different from the previous with the winner projecting different qualities or traits in order to win the game. Tina in S2 was incredibly different in her game play than was Hatch in S1. It's not just the person that wins or has a big impact on the game, but the entire group you have to look at. Like someone noted above, this group seemed to be the perfect group for Russell to work his "magic" on. Week after week I expected many to wise-up and vote him off, but week after week they let him slide. It wasn't a strong overall group. And yeah, I do agree that many of the folks did seem to gain some courage while being together on the jury... courage to put Russell in his place that they did not show previously. Funny how that worked! LOL! Russell played a great game, but not a perfect one. The winner is the one that cashes the $1,000,000 check. They're the one that played the best game overall. 
|
Adven
Member
02-06-2001
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 11:21 am
Actually, on the reunion show it was Probst who alluded to Russell's misogyny and then commented on a woman kicking his ass. As for his assessment of Russell, as the host, he is there year after year and has seen all contestants every step of the way, up close and personal. If he's gushing over Russell's performance, there's likely a good reason for it.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-31-2000
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 11:41 am
I have no problem with the host of a show really getting into the show. Probst loves Survivor, and he's really good at those tribal councils, asking just the right probing questions. Much like Phil of TAR - he's seen a lot of folks do this thing, and he knows a few things about it. I think much of the difference is how you view the game. Yes, it is about jury votes. But everyone has an idea about *how* the jury should vote - should they vote for who they like, who had the best game, who needs the money the most. I think Jeff has his own bias, that the vote should be about game play - not about like or money or anything else. I also think there were a lot of bitter jury members. There are always a few, but I've never seen quite as many as this time.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 11:51 am
I think that the jury was more bitter this time because it was a particularly humiliating defeat after dominating early on and having a huge lead going into the merge. Of course, Russell didn't do a lot to ease their feelings about it either. I think that Jeff Probst is a good host and I love how he gets into the game. Remember how they had someone else do the reunion show for the early Survivors? The best thing they did was having Probst handle the reunion show himself. He knows the game inside out.
|