Survivor: San Juan del Sur

[Slurktan]

I don't know if the Jeremy thing was a good or bad move, and I only care insofar as I REALLY want Jonclyn to win so, of course, I hope it works out well for them. I just care that it completely changes the show and the game, it removes the biggest winner contender, and it shows us that those high-visibility male gamebots aren't as safe as they seem after seasons 26-28, which is great to see.

It wasn't a "good or bad" move it was a terrible move. Besides the numbers thing they just lost the votes of two of their alliance members in the end. In a game where 2 (Wes and Keith) already despised them losing two more means Jon or Jaclyn will not be winning survivor. Survivor *always* has bitter juries so you need to play accordingly; but they just gave the bitter ones ammo

Having good strategic players is a large part of what makes a season enjoyable for me. Isn't a group of big personalities not playing a strategic game called Big Brother?

.Funny thing is the last few seasons of Big Brother have far more sound strategic plays then Survivor. It's just surrounded by trashier people and moronic "twists".

[Gertrude]

Listening to Jeremy's Ponderosa video, he would vote for Jon if he owned up to the move, so I don't believe he lost votes this way. It's just riskier than it needed to be. Also, Steven from RHAP is liking this move and compared it with Tony flipping back and forth to take out threats like LJ. I see his point, but still disagree that it was the right timing for this move.Jon does not seem like he has as good a bond with his alliance mates that he can reassure them (specifically Natalie) that it's all ok. I don't know Natalie well enough to know how she's going to react. It could still be in her self interest to ally with those 4 and act as the swing vote to get to the final 3.

Possibly Jon's banking on Reed being desperate to save himself, or Nat being brought back into the fold - whatever it is, it doesn't seem like he has as firm a grasp on the game and people to make that a reality. If he survives the next vote with his alliance intact and remaining in a power position I will be surprised. Not shocked, but surprised. My knee-jerk reaction was WTF that was horrible, now I've moved onto, wow, that was risky. I think the best I can say about this move if it works is 'he got pretty lucky with that.'

[Scrambled Aegon]

Jeremy's reaction that the good guy lost , summed it up . Good episode though .

What makes him more of a good guy than others? I think they're all good guys and gals.

(...well except maybe Alec)

Having good strategic players is a large part of what makes a season enjoyable for me. Isn't a group of big personalities not playing a strategic game called Big Brother?

(I don't know why it has the wrong username)

Okay. That's for you. I am not you. From my perspective, someone's strategy doesn't necessarily tell me anything about them. I care about whether they are interesting/likable/entertaining.

And Big Brother has nothing to do with this, that show is obnoxious. I'm not interested in the try-hard over-the-top caricatures and blatant rigging on that show, and BB has nothing to do with what I was saying.

It wasn't a "good or bad" move it was a terrible move. Besides the numbers thing they just lost the votes of two of their alliance members in the end. In a game where 2 (Wes and Keith) already despised them losing two more means Jon or Jaclyn will not be winning survivor. Survivor *always* has bitter juries so you need to play accordingly; but they just gave the bitter ones ammo

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that. The entire point of the post you were responding to was to say that I do not care. I just like that it makes the season more interesting, and I hope it benefits the people who did it, because they're the ones I'm rooting for.

Also, I hereby dedicate my 200th post to Jon and Jaclyn. <3

[Kyoshi]

I guess I'm down to Natalie and Keith as well. I think I could even stomach it if Alec won. The best players we had this season are both gone. Yeah, it wouldn't shock me if Alec won. It would even please me at this point.

Also, I don't like how people can just go through other people's bags.

[Scrambled Aegon]

It's nothing new, though. They did it in episode two of season two. The idea is that if the people on the island decide it's unfair, then it becomes unfair and they get voted out for it. That's what happened in Fiji -- Alex and Mookie dug through Yau's bag to try and blackmail him about his Idol, and Yau managed to spin it like he was an innocent victim, and Alex/Mookie were pushed even further into the minority than they already were.

The way I see it, at this point, if you're leaving something that incriminating at camp surrounded by other people who want to win a million dollars, that's idiotic and it's your fault... especially when someone else just had their bag rifled through a few days earlier. Keith mentioned earlier that he was smart enough to put his Idol in his boot; I don't know why he decided it wasn't an equally good idea to hide the equally incriminating rules.

[Gertrude]

Yeah, the bag thing is what it is. Lying and betrayal are fair game, but looking through personal property isn't? And I guess to me it's not a huge deal because how many truly personal things can you have in your bag on the island anyway? It's not like there is any expectation of privacy on the island at any time so I guess I don't see why this is a line for so many people. Obviously it's not something you want people doing in real life, but this is in-game and really not much different from having a private conversation overheard. If you have something to hide - be it an idol, a stash of food or a secret alliance - then it's on you to make sure you safeguard it.

[Ken Stone]

Man they did Jeremy so dirty.First he offers to do the first reward challenge, only to find out that he has to compete against his wife. Then Rocker makes a deal to protect his wife then votes her off first chance he gets. Then he gives up a reward and they send him to exile to search for an idol they knew wasn't there. Then the people he gave the reward to vote his ass off. If Jon and Jaclyn are not the biggest villains in the history of Survivor after that it's only because people are blinded by their attractiveness.

That being said, has there ever been a time where giving up a reward has been beneficial to the person who gave it up? It always seems like people just say "Oh you gave up your reward to help yourself in the game, so it doesn't count". Meaning not only do you not get the reward, but you end up looking bad too. It's always a terrible move.

[Scrambled Aegon]

Jon and Jaclyn are nowhere near the biggest villains in Survivor history since the editing isn't making us root against them. And the move itself was voting out someone who was actively targeting them.

I don't think it made much of a difference either way for Monica. It made Holly look better. I don't think it made a difference for Brenda.

[Slurktan]

So Keith flapping his gums at tribal got his son booted, I have no idea why he wouldn't keep his mouth shut there. Fairly perceptive by Natalie. Of course the smart play would have been to vote off one of the others that you know didn't have an idol like say Jaclyn instead of going right at John

[Scrambled Aegon]

This season continues to be fuckin' great to me. It genuinely might surpass Nicaragua as a top 8 one for me at this point, which I never thought anything would. That TC was a mess -- and the outcome kept around Jon, who is my favorite. Tons of chaotic strategy, but also great character stuff to where I really know everyone there. Temptation challenges are great. There wasn't a dull moment in that episode.

Jon/Jaclyn's votes were the only ones that counted and Keith just Idol'd out his son... jeez. This is the stuff of fanfiction, I tell ya.

[Cyvasse Khal]

That was a really great episode, it's just such a shame we got that "this season on Survivor..." preview at the start of the season and Keith's quote really telegraphed that something like this was going to happen and it became pretty apparent with all the idol talk that this was going to be the episode.

I loved that Keith threw Reed under the bus and he didn't even realise it. Reed deserved it though. I find him really smug when he talks about his own strategy like he thinks he's being very subtly manipulative, but to me he comes off as very blatantly two-faced. I think Josh had much more nuance to his game and his control of the game was based on very open communication, whereas Reed is trying to gain control through very back door methods.

I thought Natalie was great this episode. Finding the idol was great, and she picked the perfect person to share it with. Baylor will latch on to whatever Natalie thinks is the best way to go providing it doesn't directly oppose her mum. So with that said, for Natalie, a final 3 with Baylor & Missy would be very very good for her. Also, the way Natalie guided Jon into playing the idol was also really really good. Not only did it work out for Jon, which means she looks good in Jon's eyes, but she ends up with the only one with an idol. Good for her.

[Scrambled Aegon]

Right, I kind of thought it was going in that direction, but by the time of TC I still was up in the air and feared pretty strongly for Jon with how the edit went. And even though I had a strong notion of what would happen, watching it play out was just great.

I agree, Reed totally comes off as smug and full of himself.. but he is making chaotic stuff happen so I'm good with him overall. Not rooting for or against him, really, I'm just happy he's there because I dig his impact on the season even if I don't dig him himself.

Insanely cool play by Natalie and I would not at all be surprised to see her go to the end with Missy/Baylor and beat them in the jury vote. Based on the edit I'd say we've got a 70% chance she wins, 25% Jon. Jon seems to be screwed next week, but it could be classic post-merge doubt; if he survives Natalie next week, then he likely wins, but right now he just looks like another too-big-to-stand Josh and Jeremy in a season with what looks to be an unconventional endgame comprised of females rather than alpha males.

I still fucking adore Jon/Jaclyn and am rooting for them hardcore, but if Natalie roped Jon in just to cut his throat a weak later... that would be so bitchin'. It would be like the second coming of Vecepia.

[Cyvasse Khal]

Jon is one of the hardest to pick edits. We get the confessionals about his father having cancer and then last night about Jaclyn not being able to have kids but his love for her is too strong for that to matter. We see his idol find given more time than any other. We get those 3 weeks in a row where he (and Jaclyn) are seen as the power couple that ultimately leads to Jon recruiting Missy into making the biggest move of the season in voting out Jeremy. All that lends itself to a winners' edit as we would feel satisfied with a Jon win.

But then, we've also been shown all the times he's been incapable of making a decision and handing over the reigns to Jaclyn, Natalie had to tell him to play his idol or he'd be gone, before the tribe swap he was basically the goofball, Jeff doesn't really go to him much at TC (that is aired).

Tough to pick, i'll guess 5th

[Scrambled Aegon]

I don't know that I'd say he's shown as "handing the reigns to Jaclyn"; they make decisions as a pair, which is pretty healthy in a relationship. I also don't think the goofball thing is bad since complexity went along with it and he was distanced from Drew. The fact that Natalie is specifically plotting against him is most damning for me.

[Gertrude]

Well, when they do make decisions, it usually goes Jaclyn's way. When we've seen them talking about their strategy, we've been given a lot of Jaclyn saying things like 'they are mean to me, let's switch' and Jon eventually agreeing. Perhaps there is an actual strategic and smart conversation happening behind the scenes, but we are not shown that at all. Jaclyn gets upset, Jon molds his game around her.

I don't mind them as a couple, Jon is sweet. As winners, I kinda hate it.

Natalie is who I am rooting for as she is really playing a great heads up, low key, keep your eye on everyone game.I'm just afraid we haven't seen enough of her to make her an important part of the season.

Keith - oh man. Gotta love him, but he just really isn't good at this game. Reid could have perhaps handled Keith better by making it clear before tribal that he was going to say some untrue things (ACTING!) so don't freak out. Dunno, hard to say. Reid did very well with what he had to work with, but unfortunately he had to use Keith.

That immunity challenge looked a bit brutal and have to give it to Natalie for sticking it out for so long. Much respect for people that forgo food for actually playing to win. Sure, she went for pizza at the end, but only because she had fought and knew she was done. John didn't even try.

[Scrambled Aegon]

I would say that not going far with people who don't respect you is a pretty solid strategic choice. If they're not trying to make inroads with you now, then they wouldn't later at the endgame. And in any case, that's still not being "incapable of making a decision" and "handing the reigns" to her; that's seeing his partner being disrespected and acting accordingly out of respect for her. I don't get the problem with that.

They feel too perfect to succeed and I don't think Jon will make it past next week, but if they somehow do, I would absolutely adore it since it'd be super impressive and I just love them so much.

I'd say we've seen a lot of Natalie. She had a bit of a dry spell but she's been a pretty visible character most of the time. I fell for her in episode three with the John thing and never looked back. <3

Yeah, Reed could have handled it better but still.. Jesus Christ @ Keith suddenly pulling a Stacy Kimball. Bless him. Keith is so unaware of the hyper-strategy that exists in modern Survivor but I love it. We need more Keiths who just implode plans by being erratic. And he's a fun character, too. He is a delightfully inept Basset hound and I've enjoyed every second of it. He also takes things in the game super personally, so he feels like someone who should have been cast on season two, not season twenty-nine, and it's just awesome to see them casting him again. A strategically inept man who takes the game personally, isn't conventionally attractive, and is in his 50s. It's a delightfully unorthodox casting choice in modern Survivor and I'm really happy to see it.

I absolutely adore those temptation challenges. I'd like to think I wouldn't step down, but of course when you're starving it's another story entirely, and this one looked especially brutal. Still, I love to see where everyone voluntarily steps down. It's just fascinating to me, because it's like... one of you is going home. If everyone steps down for something, that means somebody did have misplaced trust and (ostensibly) had a million-dollar meal. It's just so interesting to me. It's like when the men gave up Immunity in One World, but in that case you had seven people actively manipulating Bill to do it. Here, it is every single person individually deciding they don't need Immunity when they all know that, by design, one of them does. I get it, it sucks and they're starving, but it's just fascinating to watch. And even besides that you just get so many fun character moments in those challenges.

I should go back and look at past temptation challenges and see what people stepped down for, if anything. (Or past endurance challenges in general.) The one that I always remember is the Australia merge challenge, where Jeff was the only contestant on his tribe who had past votes but he stepped down anyway for peanut butter and fucked over his entire tribe, lol. I think Coby stepped down for donuts in Palau. (I always loved how Stephenie "I Have So Much Heart And Willpower And Never Ever Give Up Ever" LaGrossa stepped down without hesitation for pizza. Would have been hilarious if she had gone home there.) Clarence went out at the Africa merge because he lost rock-paper-scissors.

[Gertrude]

I would say that not going far with people who don't respect you is a pretty solid strategic choice. If they're not trying to make inroads with you now, then they wouldn't later at the endgame. And in any case, that's still not being "incapable of making a decision" and "handing the reigns" to her; that's seeing his partner being disrespected and acting accordingly out of respect for her. I don't get the problem with that.

I actually agree. Jaclyn was right to notice that the bros didn't respect or talk to her, they weren't 'with' her, just Jon. However, that's not the conversation we had, not he explanation given for the flip. What we saw was just what I said - Jaclyn's feelings were hurt and Jon said ok. If we were given a different bit of dialogue to watch, then I'd agree it was a strategic move, but the editors decided it was more important to show us the emotional angle.

I try (don't always succeed) to look at what the editors are showing us rather than what I think is going on in the background. As an example, apparently Jefra was just as important as Trish in getting Kass to flip on her tribe. We weren't shown Jefra's involvement, just Trish. Why? Because Jefra didn't go far enough, or have strong enough ties to the big players to make a difference. Trish was close to Tony, and we were supposed to feel that she was important enough to Tony's game that he was weaker with her out of it. It was to make us feel apprehension for Tony. Now in reality, Tony totally wanted her gone, but the editors didn't show us that either. That would have made Tony less likable.

The point being that the switch to Jeremy and Natalie was shown as an emotional decision rather than strategic. Could be that there was no strategy, or it could be that the colder, more logical parts of the argument were hidden from us. I don't know exactly what that means long-term for J/J, but it's not a good sign. I think it reflects most poorly on Jaclyn, but they didn't take the time to show us Jon as a strategical player there either. If he does win (I don't think Jac has a shot) then he is being sold to us as a good guy rather than a master player. He's the good boyfriend who listens to and takes care of his girl, he loves her and will adopt because they have so much love to give. If that's what they want to sell us, that's fine and good. I am interested to see who the final 3? are because if he had to go up against Nat or Reid in the finals I think (hope) we'd be getting more 'player' vibes from him. If it's just a likability contest, then yeah, he's got it and that's all they need to show of him.

[SpaceChampion]

Wait, 2-hour episode tomorrow -- season finale already?

ETA: Nope, 2 hour finale is on Dec 17th. So why is my dvr going to record 2 hours next episode?

[Howdyphillip]

Wait, 2-hour episode tomorrow -- season finale already?

ETA: Nope, 2 hour finale is on Dec 17th. So why is my dvr going to record 2 hours next episode?

I am assuming two things. One, the producers didn't want to put a finale on Christmas Eve, and that the next two votes will be fairly straightforward... ie Reed, and Alex.

[Gertrude]

Reed and Alex indeed. Me and my mom (and probably 75% of the viewers) decided that before the eps aired tonight.

Natalie is playing impressively. I am not sure that the Alex vote was great, but so much else was right. She completely neutralized the coconut chop. Instead of playing into drama of it, she negotiates a group decision. Seriously a smart move. I love her confessional of weasling into John's good graces so that her revenge will be all the sweeter.

My prediction - no one is pulled from the game. My reason? There is a direct quote saying 'pull her from the game'.