Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 This has been argued a thousand times already, so let me just sum up by saying that actually winning the game takes more than lying and deceiving your way till the end. If you made it to the end by being an egotistical prick that nobody likes, then it's your fault that nobody voted for you. Russell can make it to the end easily enough, but he's just too much of an unlikeable jerk for anybody to justify themselves in voting for him. So Natalie was more deserving cause she did what now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demonblade Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 She won because she was the least repulsive of the choices that the jury had. Russell lost, not because Natalie deserved it better, but because nobody liked Russell enough to vote for him. If he wasn't such an unrepentantly repulsive human being, he might have won the first time around. It's less about sour grapes, and more about not respecting how Russell got to the final tribal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Not buying it. If there was one player sitting next to Russell who was even remotely deserving of a vote, I'd agree with you. There wasn't. Poor sportsmanship on the part of that jury cost him that game. Yes, Russell was an unrepentant asshole, but he ruled that season from start to finish. He outplayed everyone and it wasn't even close. Sour Grapes, straight up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Russell played one of the most dominating games of Survivor in its history. Then he went and did it again with a bunch of players on their second, third time playing. And he was such a horrible person doing it he got a total of two whole votes for him out of 18 jury members. Did sour grapes play a part in it? Absolutely. Did Russell being a wholly unlikable little troll create and then ferment those sour grapes? Absolutely. He dug his own grave and has no one to blame but himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Imp's Advocate Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 All I'll say is that preventing poor sportsmanship and sour grapes on the part of the the jury is part of the game. We might not rank it as highly, because it has very little impact on what we see every week. The viewer rarely gives a shit about the feelings of people voted off, and then they show up at the end and decide the game. This strikes us as unfair, because the jury sometimes has a different point of view than the audience.Regardless, making sure you don't come off as a giant dickbag is just as important as making alliances and winning challenges. Russell failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 All I'll say is that preventing poor sportsmanship and sour grapes on the part of the the jury is part of the game. We might not rank it as highly, because it has very little impact on what we see every week. The viewer rarely gives a shit about the feelings of people voted off, and then they show up at the end and decide the game. This strikes us as unfair, because the jury sometimes has a different point of view than the audience.Regardless, making sure you don't come off as a giant dickbag is just as important as making alliances and winning challenges. Russell failed. I agree with everything you said. Regardless of all that, how anyone on that jury could vote Natalie over Russell with a clear conscience is beyond me. Natalie did nothing that entire season. NOTHING. Win a challenge? Nope. Find a hidden idol? Nuh-uh. Hatch a plot? Nein. Convince someone to switch a vote? Nyet. Smile and provide window dressing. ??? Profit. She's a fucking Underpants Gnome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demonblade Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I agree with everything you said. Regardless of all that, how anyone on that jury could vote Natalie over Russell with a clear conscience is beyond me.Well if you agreed with what he said, then the second part explains itself. The jury voted for Natalie over Russell because he was such a giant dickbag, and made no apologies about being a giant dickbag. In other words, you can make it to the end by being the biggest asshole, but making it to the end is not how you actually win. You have to also convince people to vote for you, and if there is nothing that the jury finds redeeming in Russell's character and/or game play enough to vote for him, that's on Russell, not the jury. The whole 'actions could come back to haunt you at Final Tribal' axiom was continuously repeated throughout the first season, and each season after. Being surprised that people factor how the finalist interacted with them into their decisions is not paying attention to the nature of the game, imo. Actions have consequences, and Russell obviously did not think of any consequences for his actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 But you have to be able to justify your choice. "The other guy was a massive douche" doesn't cut it in my book when the person you voted for did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to win the game. I understand your point. The social game carries weight, but it should never count for everything and in that season it did. Extremely poor and unfair decision by that jury. They should be ashamed of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Smile and provide window dressing. ??? Profit. She's a fucking Underpants Gnome.She did seem to be the one who pushed the Erik blindside that Russell scoffed at. Russell never would have made it to the finals without this move. The other tribe knew he had the idol and were planning to vote for Jason before Natalie convinced the women that Erik was more dangerous. Russell could have found and played the idol a few more times, but it wouldn't have mattered. He'd have been the 4th, 5th, or 6th player left standing but that's it. So she effectively made one important move, but yes, otherwise she was kind of worthless. She's one of many, though. Out of 22 seasons, I'd say 9 of the seasons' winners were more because the jury didn't want to give the money to the other person more than they felt that person deserved it.1) Tina - Colby was the clear-cut winner here, but sour grapes2) Vecepia - a bad final two, but Neleh was more deserving3) Sandra - everyone hated Lil4) Amber - most everyone hated Rob5) Danni - most everyone hated Stephenie6) Bob - everyone hated Sugar7) Natalie - everyone hated Russell8) Fabio - everyone hated the other two guys in the finals9) Sandra - everyone hated Russell and most everyone hated ParvatiPretty much every one of those nine losers had a hand in controlling or just outright controlled the game, but were so arrogant or repugnant or socially oblivious (or a combination of the three) that they end up losing the game. Often badly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 1) Tina - Colby was the clear-cut winner here, but sour grapes2) Vecepia - a bad final two, but Neleh was more deserving3) Sandra - everyone hated Lil4) Amber - most everyone hated Rob5) Danni - most everyone hated Stephenie6) Bob - everyone hated Sugar7) Natalie - everyone hated Russell8) Fabio - everyone hated the other two guys in the finals9) Sandra - everyone hated Russell and most everyone hated Parvati Of all those, the only one I remember clearly was 1. Didn't Colby kind of bring that on himself by taking Tina to the final? If memory serves his other option would've made him a clear winner. Once again, I agree that the social game carries weight. It should. That being said, Natalie was the worst Survivor winner alltime. No contest. In her win, the only factor you can point to is the social game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat5150 Posted October 30, 2011 Author Share Posted October 30, 2011 Colby was never arrogant. He was just the most dominant player in that season and became the Survivor posterboy and the weaker players hated him for that. Tina was okay, but she never did anything that warranted her winning the prize...Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat5150 Posted October 30, 2011 Author Share Posted October 30, 2011 Yep, Natalie is the most undeserving Survivor winner in the history of the show. Her and Sandra...Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teng Ai Hui Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Yeah ... uh ... so, how about that Ozzy? I think he will win that next R.I. challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Stone Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 The way you "deserve" to win in Survivor is to have more people on the jury vote for you then the other guy (s). The more people that vote for you the more you deserved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat5150 Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 What about if they're not voting "for" you? They're simply not voting for the other guy (s)?Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Imp's Advocate Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 That's a perfectly good strategy. It's inherent in a common-sense idea that many of us on this board adhere to: Make sure the jury won't vote for the person standing next to you. That's why, for example, Rob took Phillip to the finals. I think we're getting hung up on the fact that Natalie didn't "take" Russell to the finals, but she attached herself to a savvy and unlikeable player. That strategy got her the win. End of story.Juries are fickle things. Sometimes, no, OFTEN, they vote for someone because they dislike the other finalist. It depends on what the jury values and what it hates. Some value gamesmanship, some hate dishonesty, some value congeniality.. And part of convincing the jury what to value is the final Tribal Council speeches. Russell just didn't play down his negatives well enough in the finals, and failed to tailor his play beforehand to the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 The way you "deserve" to win in Survivor is to have more people on the jury vote for you then the other guy (s). The more people that vote for you the more you deserved it. You're right about that, deserve was a poor choice of words. The rules are very clear. The jury picks the winner by vote. That being said, that doesn't mean the jury didn't do a poor job. In this case the jury was butthurt, delusional and utterly incapable of objectivity. And Patrick's point is right on. They weren't voting for Natalie as a winner. They were voting against Russell. Worst jury since the O.J. trial. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 That's a perfectly good strategy. It's inherent in a common-sense idea that many of us on this board adhere to: Make sure the jury won't vote for the person standing next to you. That's why, for example, Rob took Phillip to the finals. I think we're getting hung up on the fact that Natalie didn't "take" Russell to the finals, but she attached herself to a savvy and unlikeable player. That strategy got her the win. End of story. Coat-tailing is a viable strategy, but you should have to do something on your own merit to be considered the winner. At least have a plan to get rid of the person you're coat-tailing. Win an immunity at a critical time. Something. She was wholly undeserving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Imp's Advocate Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 To the viewer. But the jury and the viewer won't have the same opinions. I suppose the show is RUINED FOREVER because of this flaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 To the viewer. But the jury and the viewer won't have the same opinions. I suppose the show is RUINED FOREVER because of this flaw. I never said that. I still love the show. I was just agreeing with Probst. Love him or hate him, Russell was robbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.