S40.E14: It All Boils Down to This

[luvbadtv]

2 hours ago, SuburbanHangSuite said:

 

It's nice to know that we all saw through her BS with the gender equality card she tried to pull.  Don't get me wrong--I know gender bias is real and happens everyday.  But I don't think it occurs within this game as much as folks like to allege

 

RHAP was talking about female vs. male wins.  During the first 15 seasons, the wins were split 50/50.  The last 15 season, only 3 winners were female.  Coincidentally the last 3 were Michelle, Sara, and Natalie.  There is definitely a bias in this game. 

[amazingracefan]

1 hour ago, threebluestars said:

Has the third person ever got any votes before? It never seems like it splits three ways at all. I prefer a final two.

A final two feels like there's more to play for.  Ben and Denise, just like Michele, would probably have got no votes in the final 3 situation.  Having another shot before the final 3 may have given them more hope if taking out another perceived big player. 

[skybolt]

Not that it would've made a difference in the final vote, but Natalie actively cheering for Sarah to beat Tony at the fire making challenge likely made her job a lot harder at final tribal to beat Tony. Not only did Tony get the emotional plea from Sarah to win, but he came off as the underdog with Natalie and to some extent, Michelle cheering against him.  It just made it seem like Natalie was scared to face Tony at final tribal. I completely agree with her thought process, but the jury didn't need to see that.

[skybolt]

9 minutes ago, amazingracefan said:

A final two feels like there's more to play for.  Ben and Denise, just like Michele, would probably have got no votes in the final 3 situation.  Having another shot before the final 3 may have given them more hope if taking out another perceived big player. 

Tony would've been pissed if that happened again after Cagayan with Woo. 🙂

[bankerchick]

Glad to see I'm not in the minority in not particularly liking Tony, but thinking nobody else deserved to win.

Such high hopes, only to find the season a disappointment almost from the beginning, and no doubt about who was going to win since about halfway through the season.

My take on the 'what this season meant to me' talking heads was that this was a final goodbye for this crew.  In other words, we won't be bringing any of them back again and therefore, farewell.  (from my lips to God's ears)

And 'yes' 1000x to the comments about old, fat, bitter, bullying Rob Mariano

[MissEwa]

A tepid end to a tepid season. I wasn't a big Michele fan after her first season but of the final three she was the only one I could stomach winning - I can't stand Tony and as much as I like Natalie I don't think an EoE returnee should win. 

I can't remember the exact wording, but early on in his introduction, Jeff said something about how they wanted to take twenty of the best players ever and just let them play Survivor and I rolled my eyes so hard I think I broke my skull. I would have LOVED to see them 'just play' but instead we got this mess with EoE and fire tokens and so many advantages that it just became ridiculous. When a player can't even remember all of the advantages they've personally been involved in playing, you have too many. Just stop. Look in the mirror and take one thing off. Or six. 

5 hours ago, RedbirdNelly said:

As for Sara--I've never disliked her and I was fine when she won her season. I felt she played very passive this season with respect to Tony. If the goal is to win, she needed to think about how to beat him. Why did she lure Natalie over to the spy nest? no spying was needed. Sara was there to hear every word. Why let Tony in on all of it? A smarter play was to realize (a) the fact that Tony wants to hear it indicates he doesn't fully trust you and (b) information is power. Why not have a separate conversation with Natalie? and tell Tony you tried but she just wouldn't go over there for water. . . and then you control what information Tony gets? The spynest did not help their alliance--it only helped Tony and boxed Sara in. If she keeps the info to herself she decides what to share. She was giving Tony all of the power when she facilitated the nest. In certain situations (earlier in the game), it made sense to build trust. At the end, when you know 2 people cannot win the game, it does not.

So much this. If Sarah had half the smarts she kept telling us she has, she would have taken that conversation elsewhere, knowing Tony was listening. She handed all of her power over without even a word. 

4 hours ago, neece26 said:

I gave a huge eyeroll at Sarah's little speech about how women are perceived.  Please.  The only reason she thought of that was because Natalie told her that the consensus of the jury members who had played with both of them felt like Tony was running things, which he was.  

I was yelling at the television most of the way through. It was like she'd come to this groundbreaking realisation that nobody else had ever had - GENDER BIAS!?!? on SURVIVOR?!?! You THINK?!?! 

I don't know, I've held a grudge against her ever she managed to make herself the hero of the whole awful Varner mess with an equally no-shit-sherlock speech about how Trans People Are People Too. Maybe I should give her credit for managing to centre herself so effectively all the time, but it sits all kinds of wrong with me. 

Also I don't remember her getting anywhere near the kind of hate for her win that many female winners have had to deal with. She beat Brad Culpepper and Troyzan, FFS. She's no Natalie White, or even Michele. 

3 hours ago, SuburbanHangSuite said:

It's nice to know that we all saw through her BS with the gender equality card she tried to pull.  Don't get me wrong--I know gender bias is real and happens everyday.  But I don't think it occurs within this game as much as folks like to allege.   All of her tears and righteous emotion?  That's in direct response to how she's perceived by the viewers, not her fellow contestants.  If viewers find her arrogant, unlikeable and insufferable, don't use that as a reason to guilt jurors into a vote. If she really was going to be so powerful and own her game (what game?!) then she shouldn't let people run her off of Twitter.   

I think it's really hard to say gender bias doesn't happen in the game when we're up to six straight male winners. A streak that - co-incidentally?? - started right when they introduced fire-making to "give the stronger players a better chance to make it to the end". 

43 minutes ago, luvbadtv said:

RHAP was talking about female vs. male wins.  During the first 15 seasons, the wins were split 50/50.  The last 15 season, only 3 winners were female.  Coincidentally the last 3 were Michelle, Sara, and Natalie.  There is definitely a bias in this game. 

Yep. 

I was reminded again watching this that I HATE the fire-making challenge. I absolutely can't stand it. Even when it's meant players I like have made it into the F3 when they wouldn't have otherwise, even if I think of all the people who've gone out at 4 that I would have like to win that WOULD have won if they had had fire-making, I hate it. It makes the social game so much less of a factor, and takes so much power away from the F4 IC winner. It completely deflated the end of every season it's been used on for me. Most "twists" I come around on eventually, but this one, and EoE, I just... nope. 

I want to have hope that this enforced break before Season 41 gives them time to re-tool and re-think, and they'll come back with a better show. But let's be real, it seems doubtful. 

[Barton88]

Was Dani (I think it was Dani) not allowed to eat anything at EofE? That girl looked like a walking skeleton at that final challenge, bones sticking out everywhere. She didn’t look much better even later. I hope she regained at least some weight.

[SuburbanHangSuite]

36 minutes ago, MissEwa said:

I think it's really hard to say gender bias doesn't happen in the game when we're up to six straight male winners. A streak that - co-incidentally?? - started right when they introduced fire-making to "give the stronger players a better chance to make it to the end". 

I just don't understand why fire-making should automatically equal an advantage for men.  You can best believe if I ever competed in Survivor, I would be proficient in fire-making before I set foot on the beach.   Season after season It seems like we see people content to allow one or two people (men) to tend the fire.  Don't happily fall into a predefined gender role for 39 days and then complain when it doesn't suit you.  I think it was Princelina upthread who pointed out that Sarah was more than happy to allow Tony to idol hunt in the pitch dark.  

[blackwing]

1 hour ago, MissEwa said:

I think it's really hard to say gender bias doesn't happen in the game when we're up to six straight male winners. A streak that - co-incidentally?? - started right when they introduced fire-making to "give the stronger players a better chance to make it to the end". 

I don't disagree that there could be gender bias on the show, in terms of how viewers respond to the players.  But your suggestion that six men in a row have won indicates that you are suggesting there is gender bias in the game itself.  Are there really any incidents of clear gender bias on the show itself, amongst the players?  I'm looking for examples of where a player has actually said on the show or in post-game that they didn't like her because she was an aggressive beyotch, or they didn't vote for her because they wanted a man to win.  I mean, we've definitely seen the reverse, where the players outright say they want a woman to win.  Or even this season, when Kim got voted out, and split her three tokens amongst the three remaining women, including Sarah, who had a hand in voting her out.

I don't see why fire making is biased towards men.  From what we saw on the show, Michelle seemed to have no issues getting a fire started.  I think she could have beaten Tony at it.

I really don't think that Sarah lost because of gender bias.  For her to claim she was the victim of gender bias is ridiculous, I don't think any of her fellow contestants had gender bias against her.  And I've already discussed the fact that I think people at home might dislike her not necessarily because she's a woman, but simply because she's not a very nice person.

In looking back at the past six seasons, I am hard pressed to think of many women that I think would have been a worthy winner but simply got dealt a bad hand, or got voted out because of gender bias.  I do think Chrissy Hofbeck had a decent chance.  She was widely disliked by viewers but I thought she was respected by the players.  She lost because of the memo that Ben the Heroic Marine Must Win the Game because Thank You for Your Service, leading to the many immunity idols he found and of course the fire making challenge.  His run to the final and his constant saving of himself was too hard to overcome I suppose.

In the Ghost Island season, wow, I can't even remember most of these people.  Except for Kellyn, who way overplayed her hand and made a nasty pair with Bradley, and Laurel, who pretty much was the classic coattail rider.  David vs. Goliath, we had angry Natalie Cole who alienated her tribe by picking up their clothes and being bossy (men and women were annoyed by her, not just the men), odd bird Lyrsa, weepy Gabby, Barbie girl Kara, and of course, the infamously useless and delusional Angelina Keeley.  I do think Alison the doctor was a strong contender but she got taken out because people were afraid of her.

Edge of Extinction, I think Aubry got screwed.  She would have been a good winner.  But the last women standing - mysterious Aurora, beanie wearing Victoria, Bachelor Hug Lauren and the thoroughly useless Julie Rosenberg... I can't say there was any gender bias as to why they lost the game.

Island of the Idols, yet another do-nothing woman manages to make it to the end.  I thought Noura was crazy and the only reason why she made it to the end was because she was the perfect goat.  I'm still pissed about Dan and Kellee Kim, because I do think Kellee was playing well and it wasn't fair to her that things were made so tough for her because of Dan and the fact that nasty Missy and Elizabeth actually used her concerns about Dan as a strategy.

To me, the clearest example of gender bias as to why a particular woman didn't win is Aubry's first season, when Scotttt and Kyle Jason clearly hated her.  But even then, she lost to another woman.

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by blackwing

[nlkm9]

8 hours ago, Fallacy said:

Tony deserved to win. In my mind, I don’t see how that’s even a question. Survivor has never been about pure physical dominance, and that is all Natalie brought to the game. 

Also, if I’m not mistaken, almost every player said they hated the edge twisted before playing this game, so I was fairly confident the returning player wasn’t going to win. 

I’m shocked it wasn’t a unanimous vote for Tony, and I hope the four that voted for Natalie did so to ensure she got the second place money because they respected her more than Michelle, not because they actually thought Natalie deserved to win over Tony. 

Tony played a near perfect game, and he played it with a ton of heart this season. I realized as I watched the finale that I was celebrating a little each time Tony got another step closer. 

that is an excellent point--Natalie is a physical beast, but I saw nothing else. 

[peachmangosteen]

7 hours ago, thesupremediva1 said:

Tony is just my kind of guy and, starting about a month ago, I couldn't have rooted for him any harder. I didn't watch his original season so, pardon me, but I'm puzzled by any dislike of him. 

Tony in his original season and in HvV was like what he was from merge on this time if it was dialed up to like 11 million lol. If you liked him in this season though you'd probably like him in those seasons.

6 hours ago, blackwing said:

And screw Rob Mariano... so bitter.

I felt comforted by the fact that he acted exactly how I expected him to as a jury member.

5 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

"Hey buddy, so they told me you might have gotten into a fight with your girlfriend so I gotta arrest you. Maybe you did it, maybe you didn't, I don't know, I'm kind of second-guessing whether I should be making this arrest, but my buddies sent me out here so you know, yeah, gotta do this. But if you're innocent? I feel real bad. But if you're guilty? Then I don't feel so bad. It's possible that you're being set up, and my mind;s racing with that possibility, but you know, my buddy Lacina wouldn't let me down ..."

Wow, you fucking nailed it.

5 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I don't understand why they had to sit in the pouring rain for tribal council. Surely they could have postponed it until the rain let up, but I suppose they thought the visual would be compelling. It's a wonder none of them came down with pneumonia. 

Maybe they did it for the fans that complain that they don't have to actually survive on the show anymore or whatever.

4 hours ago, sara416 said:

I think the difference with Natalie coming back from EoE and winning rather than whe Chris did it a few seasons ago is that EoE was actually an active part of the game this season

But she only was a part of the game because that's how EoE was structured this season. It's not Chris' fault the first time they did EoE they just let them sit on a beach and bond for 39 days. Maybe if it was like it was this season then Chris would've dominated it the way Natalie did. Honestly, I think that's very likely. As I said elsewhere, if it had been Kim, or maybe Parvati, or definitely Sophie, who was voted out first then they likely would've been the Natalie of this season.

4 hours ago, threebluestars said:

Has the third person ever got any votes before? It never seems like it splits three ways at all. I prefer a final two.

It's rare. F3 sucks so hard imo and the introduction of it is what really started this slow descent into irrelevance that Survivor is on.

3 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

They didn't want to make anyone look truly awful with the editing. 

Tell that to Adam! Or Nick, in his own mind lol.

[TAG42481]

1. Inexcusable that after Ben got voted off, they didn't show the Tony-Sarah interaction back at the camp.  While Sarah had Ben's "permission" to vote him off, Tony was completely in the dark.  How could they not show us that discussion?

2. They said they weren't having a reunion because "they didn't have time."  We all know the real reason is they didn't want to deal with the technical difficulties of having 20 contestants and Jeff interacting via video, but I thought that for a 3 hour finale instead of a 2 hour finale, it did an excellent job flowing.  Except ...

3. It was CRIMINAL that they had 30 seconds to talk to Tony at the end.  You have 3 f@*$ing hours, and you can't figure out how to block another 2 minutes out to talk to the winner?  Seriously, someone should be fired for that decision.

The right person won.  I though Natalie and Michelle would each pick up 1 or 2 additional votes, but I figured this would be a majority win, not a plurality win.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, peachmangosteen said:

8 hours ago, thesupremediva1 said:

Tony is just my kind of guy and, starting about a month ago, I couldn't have rooted for him any harder. I didn't watch his original season so, pardon me, but I'm puzzled by any dislike of him. 

Tony in his original season and in HvV was like what he was from merge on this time if it was dialed up to like 11 million lol. If you liked him in this season though you'd probably like him in those seasons.

Tony wasn't on HvV (which was before his original season), but he was on Game Changers

Spoiler

(for about a minute)

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by tracyscott76

[Tippi]

I would have liked to have seen how the rumored Hyenas take out the Lions would have played out.  It seems that usually the women can't team up as the game is winding down and take out the powerful men, but the men have no problem teaming up and taking out the women and whoever they think are the weak players, leaving one in the game to be the goat.  It was obvious to me that Jeremy and Tony were the biggest threats to win, after it developed that the strategy was to take out the old school players.  Why bother taking out Adam, or Denise, or Tyson when you might have been able to take out Jeremy or Tony?

I had often read that Kim was masterful on her season, dominating completely.  What the heck happened here?  She was a complete also-ran.

I seem to be the exception, in that I don't mind if the EofE player wins (if I like them, lol.)  I also didn't like how this EofE was set up.  I think I'd have rather seen them living it up luxury style at the Ponderosa and having competitions from time to time to get back in the game.  I definitely did not need to see Ethan suffering in the conditions (although I understand his determination to see it through, and I admire that courage.)

 

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Tippi

[nlkm9]

So i just watched the first hour, so Tyson said  being a dad is a better fit for him and he’s saying bye to survivor . I still want to understand how survivor has been “ his job “ for 10 years. And will he really stay away ?
mans yeah Natalie so obviously would have lost the challenge , i did not see that last nite , ( i got home late ) the advantages were ridiculous , and if she had to dig, she would have lost . So I’m glad she didn’t win. 

13 minutes ago, Tippi said:

I would have liked to have seen how the rumored Hyenas take out the Lions would have played out.  It seems that usually the women can't team up as the game is winding down and take out the powerful men, but the men have no problem teaming up and taking out the women and whoever they think are the weak players, leaving one in the game to be the goat.  It was obvious to me that Jeremy and Tony were the biggest threats to win, after it developed that the strategy was to take out the old school players.  Why bother taking out Adam, or Denise, or Tyson when you might have been able to take out Jeremy or Tony?

I had often read that Kim was masterful on her season, dominating completely.  What the heck happened here?  She was a complete also-ran.

I seem to be the exception, in that I don't mind if the EofE player wins (if I like them, lol.)  I also didn't like how this EofE was set up.  I think I'd have rather seen them living it up luxury style at the Ponderosa and having competitions from time to time to get back in the game.  I definitely did not need to see Ethan suffering in the conditions (although I understand his determination to see it through, and I admire that courage.)

 

 

Yes it was very disturbing to see Ethan suffer like that and i hope it had no effects in his long term health 😞

Edited May 15, 2020 by nlkm9
Erroe

[Ms Blue Jay]

1 hour ago, TAG42481 said:

3. It was CRIMINAL that they had 30 seconds to talk to Tony at the end.  You have 3 f@*$ing hours, and you can't figure out how to block another 2 minutes out to talk to the winner?  Seriously, someone should be fired for that decision.

This show infamously doesn't give time or respect to the winner at the reunion.  They give them the cheque and talk to anyone else BUT the winner.  Some D-list celebrities in the crowd, some children, some random fans, Sia, someone else that has a show on CBS, but god forbid, NEVER the winner. 

[mythoughtis]

7 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

This show infamously doesn't give time or respect to the winner at the reunion.  They give them the cheque and talk to anyone else BUT the winner.  Some D-list celebrities in the crowd, some children, some random fans, Sia, someone else that has a show on CBS, but god forbid, NEVER the winner. 

They don’t give any time to  most of the other contestants  either.  Every year the 2 hour finale bleeds later and later into the reunion hour. They should figure out by now how to edit the show to stop that.  Put a extra week In.  Last week we got 15 minutes of nothing.  This week we get a 2hour 59 minute finale.  

When Gumbel hosted the reunion every single contestant would get asked at least 1 question.  Jeff ignores most of them.  He just overachieved last night and ignored all of them. 

[watchingtvaddict]

I wanted Natalie to win as a big FU to the concept of EoE. I think she is a beast and clearly in great shape, but she had so many advantages to help her win that challenge and then she got two idols . . .

If it's true she wasn't very friendly on the EoE it makes sense the jury didn't vote for her. She really did have a big hand in manipulating the game from EoE though and that doesn't sit well with me especially because no one knew about this game play. It was all a secret. It's a completely different style of Survivor and I'm not here for it.

Tony should have won... but I have to say "Wow! His house looks incredible! Does he really need 2 million? is he still a cop?" 

 

[TVbitch]

Sorry Probst, your emphatic 10 minute speech at the beginning of the finale did not convince me that this was the most amazing, stupdendous, exciting, surprising, emotional season ever. (Um, that would be the recently completed Australian Survivor All Stars.) But anyway, EOE sucks, Fire Token were a bust, all the whispering at tribal bullshit was annoying, and Tony was a shoo-in! I can't even think of any episodes that stood out except maybe Denise getting Sandra out. 

[CletusMusashi]

On 5/13/2020 at 11:19 PM, LadyChatts said:

This is what I'm wondering, are they going to maybe film here in the US?  On a sound stage or in some near by location?  Also, would they really let a teenager walk off with a million dollars?  I have to think that if they allow this, there's going to be some serious re-tooling to the show for the season.  No way a bunch of teenagers will jet set off to Fiji.  

It will be filmed on the grounds of a chocolate factory, which has long been closed to the public. And whenever they do something stupid, they will be bludgeoned with ridiculously on-the-nose poetic justice by Gene Wilder and his delightful singing mutants.

Either that, or it'll be "Survivor: Epstein Island."

As for the show itself, I thought it was a surprisingly good finale for a a pretty damned crappy season. Without our live-posting thread, I probably would not have finished it. I completely lost track of how many times I was surprised that Kim was still in the game. Or Nick. Or, sometimes, early on, Sarah. Or, after they were voted out, Danni and Jeremy. 

I thought the show and the viewers had an understanding. We will try to keep track of all these people, and the show will try to help us keep track of all these people, but once these early people get voted out, we are allowed to forget about them and continue trying to keep all the active players straight. But you have to break a few eggs, god damn it!

People bitch and moan about participation trophies as if kids themselves don't still want to kick the other team's ass, yet this season was far, far worse. Not only does nobody, no matter how early they're voted out, actually just get sent to Loser's Lodge, but the jury are actually allowed to screw with the game itself. Not only does every single loser get to have a vote as to who should be winner, but they get to shuffle the cards in favor of whoever they want to, as well. Of course it was the least bitter jury ever. They were allowed to play god.

Hey, Jeff? Wouldn't it be fun if, every once in a while, CBS flips a coin to see if you should still be the host? I mean, who cares what people want to see? Changing it up is always better. Right?

Yadda, yadda, yadda. hated this fucking season. Yet, actually wound up caring about how the finale turned out. Not enough to be mad that Tony won or whatever, but at least I watched three hours without being bored. I'll take it.

However, after three hours of a "Survivor" finale and thirty minutes of "What We Do in the Shadows," when I woke up hungover today after an extremely heavy night of TV-drinking, I had at least half a dozen "wow!" thoughts in my head. And the only one that was about "Survivor" was "What the fuck was that moron Ben thinking?"

Edited May 15, 2020 by CletusMusashi

[deirdra]

How exactly did old, fat, bitter, bullying Rob Mariano expect Natalie to get rid of Tony?  Fire-building always has an element of luck to it.

[CletusMusashi]

23 hours ago, TVFan1 said:

I would like to see Amber play again without Rob to see how she would do.

Jeff: "Amber is losing! In last place! Because none of the other players trying to do this puzzle are as far back in last as Amber, who is in last!"

Amber: "So I take it you don't want to come to Rob's barbecue this year?"

Jeff: "Pssst... keep the mostly red sides in front... it spells "Outwit, Outlast, Outplay, and... now you want the mostly green sides... Out-Idol-Find, and... now the blue side... Out Deus Ex Schenaniga...."

[blackwing]

50 minutes ago, deirdra said:

How exactly did old, fat, bitter, bullying Rob Mariano expect Natalie to get rid of Tony?  Fire-building always has an element of luck to it.

It was just the excuse for him to rally his troops against Natalie.  It was pretty much his way of saying that she took his spot and therefore didn't deserve to win.  I thought he was going to go into "Survivor Idol" mode and impart his life lesson onto Natalie in his slow pedantic manner.

"Natalie, congradulashuns on getting back into the game.  You wuh tough out dair.  But you shoulda chosen to make fiyah against Tony.  It's what I woulda dun.  Sometimes in Survivah, it's not enough to just do what you're doing.  You need to always think about doing mawr.  You shoulda made fiyah.  I wouldn't have voted for you anyway but at least now I can pretend to have a good reason why."
 

[Grrarrggh]

The REAL survivors, like Michelle and others who don't work from the top or within a strong alliance, never win even though they are truly surviving. 

And yet again a woman doesn't get a single vote. 4th time running?

[blackwing]

3 hours ago, nlkm9 said:

So i just watched the first hour, so Tyson said  being a dad is a better fit for him and he’s saying bye to survivor . I still want to understand how survivor has been “ his job “ for 10 years. And will he really stay away ?

This is the second time that Tyson referred to Survivor as his "job".  When they had the family visit, he told his daughter that "this is where Daddy goes to work".  Some people here said that he was joking.  I think the fact that he called it his job again indicates that he really does think of himself as a full time Survivor, between playing the game and making his appearances at fan events and whatnot.  And that he runs his bike shop as a side gig while in between Survivor competitions and events.  Really strange.

[blackwing]

3 minutes ago, Grrarrggh said:

The REAL survivors, like Michelle and others who don't work from the top or within a strong alliance, never win even though they are truly surviving. 

And yet again a woman doesn't get a single vote. 4th time running?

Actually, 5.  You forgot Laurel in the season that Wendell won.  I think Laurel actually did stuff in her season but she was clearly the third wheel in that alliance.

Considering that the next three zero vote finalists were Angelina Keeley, Julie Rosenberg and Noura... I don't think it says anything that a woman finalist got a bagel.  Those three were truly useless and were brought along as clear goats.

Michelle however, didn't deserve a zero.  Her game was so much better than these three losers.

[BK1978]

17 hours ago, cherrypj said:

Sure, Queen of Extinction, she stayed there the longest.

 

You take that back!  There is only one true Queen of Extinction and that's Reem!

 

11 hours ago, amazingracefan said:

She was on The Amazing Race, but the 'twinnies' really annoyed me and I thought that season was terrible as well for various other reasons.

They were so annoying and thieves as well.

11 hours ago, tracyscott76 said:

 Sort of a New and Improved Walk of Fallen Survivors, Now With Non-Fallen Survivors.

I know a lot of people hated the Fallen Survivor segment, but I used to love it and I truly wish they would bring it back.  Now that there is usually a final six I can understand why they no longer do it, but I always loved hearing the early eliminated players reflect on what they did wrong.

10 hours ago, SuburbanHangSuite said:

 

It's nice to know that we all saw through her BS with the gender equality card she tried to pull.  Don't get me wrong--I know gender bias is real and happens everyday.  But I don't think it occurs within this game as much as folks like to allege.   All of her tears and righteous emotion?  That's in direct response to how she's perceived by the viewers, not her fellow contestants.  If viewers find her arrogant, unlikeable and insufferable, don't use that as a reason to guilt jurors into a vote. If she really was going to be so powerful and own her game (what game?!) then she shouldn't let people run her off of Twitter.   

 

Oh I rolled my eyes during that as well.  Maybe not as hard as I rolled my eyes during the Jamal doo rag speech last season, but I did roll them pretty hard.

9 hours ago, blackwing said:

This brings me back to her soliloquy from a few weeks ago that "Some people look at me and they think I'm funny.  That I'm smart.  That I'm pretty.  I'm so much more than that.  I am Lacina hear me roar."  Some here thought she was clearly joking.  I think that last night proved to me that she wasn't.  She truly is delusional and has a very high opinion of herself and if people don't share that same opinion, well then, they are just gender biased.

No.  Maybe she is just unlikeable.  And she has a hard time accepting it.  Her being unlikeable has nothing to do with being a woman.  There are plenty of arrogant and aggressive men on this show that I have found just as unlikeable, and it has nothing to do with them being a man.  Wendell and Dominick Abbate, to start.  Scottt Pollard and Kyle Jason.  Sarah said that a man could be arrogant and aggressive and viewed as powerful and dominant but a woman would be called a bitch.  I would submit these four as examples to prove her wrong.

Her speechifying last night also reminded me of the extremely unlikeable and delusional Angelina Keeley, and it made me realize they are very similar people.  I hated both of them because of their delusions and overconfidence and trying to claim more credit than they deserved.  And both ended up complaining about how people don't like them because they are a woman.

I hope to never see Sarah again.  But I have a feeling Jeffy will invite her back for the next returnee season, because he eats that kind of crap up.  He loved her "journey" and wants it to continue with another chance and another win.

 

I think it is that she's unlikable, it was one of the reasons why Kass flipped on her during the first season.  Because Sarah thought she was running the show and she was going to dictate how everything went, so Kass flipped and they took her out.

8 hours ago, luvbadtv said:

RHAP was talking about female vs. male wins.  During the first 15 seasons, the wins were split 50/50.  The last 15 season, only 3 winners were female.  Coincidentally the last 3 were Michelle, Sara, and Natalie.  There is definitely a bias in this game. 

I brought this up in the Australian Survivor thread but I do find it interesting.  Because over on Aussie Survivor it is the exact opposite.  More often than not it is the women who control and dominate the game.  I am not sure if it is a cultural thing, or a casting thing or a combination of both.  Maybe American Survivor casts women who are not as assertive, the younger women on our Survivor tend to be young women who look good in bikinis, sure one of them might become to dominate player but that is not really their "role" in the game.

Whereas in Australian Survivor there seems to be an older woman always in the mix and she is either running the show or a very important part of the game.  I honestly don't know if I am wrong in looking at it this way but I do think the fault lies in the casting department.

6 hours ago, MissEwa said:

A tepid end to a tepid season. I wasn't a big Michele fan after her first season but of the final three she was the only one I could stomach winning - I can't stand Tony and as much as I like Natalie I don't think an EoE returnee should win. 

Also I don't remember her getting anywhere near the kind of hate for her win that many female winners have had to deal with. She beat Brad Culpepper and Troyzan, FFS. She's no Natalie White, or even Michele. 

I warmed to Michele this season as well.  The thing is the hate for Michele's win was not because she was a female winner it was because most of us felt that Aubrey should have won.  I still think that.  I feel like the two people who were robbed the most was Aubrey in that season and Cirie in Fans vs. Favorites.  I honestly thought Cirie played the best game that season and had it been a final three like it normally was, I honestly think she wold have pulled off the win.

1 hour ago, TVbitch said:

Sorry Probst, your emphatic 10 minute speech at the beginning of the finale did not convince me that this was the most amazing, stupdendous, exciting, surprising, emotional season ever. (Um, that would be the recently completed Australian Survivor All Stars.) But anyway, EOE sucks, Fire Token were a bust, all the whispering at tribal bullshit was annoying, and Tony was a shoo-in! I can't even think of any episodes that stood out except maybe Denise getting Sandra out. 

David ftw!

9 minutes ago, blackwing said:

This is the second time that Tyson referred to Survivor as his "job".  When they had the family visit, he told his daughter that "this is where Daddy goes to work".  Some people here said that he was joking.  I think the fact that he called it his job again indicates that he really does think of himself as a full time Survivor, between playing the game and making his appearances at fan events and whatnot.  And that he runs his bike shop as a side gig while in between Survivor competitions and events.  Really strange.

I was like, "What the hell, your on Survivor not the Challenge.  You can't do this as a career."

[himela]

By the way, Kim did NOT vote for a woman. That says a lot about her and her whole women power motto she used to win her season.

[srhall79]

On 5/13/2020 at 9:54 PM, Stee said:

I’m neither here or there on a returning EOE player coming back and winning but I found it annoying when Rob said that Natalie had to play “the perfect game” and take out Tony with the fire making challenge in order to earn the win.
 

I was annoyed too. She won the final immunity challenge, she shouldn't then have to prove her worth by throwing that away and making fire. But thinking about it some more, I think it may have been she didn't necessarily have to beat him at fire-making, but she did have to get him out because he'd played such a strong game. Of course, he had an idol, then won immunity, so the ability to do that was limited. Rob definitely seemed the most bitter at FTC (I'm also annoyed with Amber "I'm here for one reason, to support him." Great, why didn't anyone else get to bring an SO as their luxury item?)

Sure looked like Wendell was getting back in, but I was pretty sure that wasn't happening from the way he'd been invisible for weeks.

Michelle just smoking that puzzle. Her Wendell-oriented edit had me disliking her early on, but the scrappy, hold-on won me over.

Sarah's speech was good and true... though not true about her. Well, maybe if she felt she couldn't be doing more lying and backstabbing because she was a woman. But it looked like her game was largely backing Tony's play. And she can't claim "I did everything he did, backwards and in heels" because, well, Sophie wasn't sitting there, and Sophie may have suggested voting out Tony, but she also had to go because she was tight with Sarah.

*SIGH* Oh Natalie, you were so good about snowing Sarah about your idol, then you let her see the other.

Final immunity challenge, I saw the fatigue just hit Tony.

Fire building, I think Sarah practiced getting it going, but didn't think about what to do next. I'd found myself hoping for an all-women FTC, but alas.

FTC, I wished they'd postponed until the rain stopped. Everyone looked miserable except Jeff. Other than Rob, it seemed a friendly, non-bitter council. The final three seemed like competitors, but not enemies. It did seem like Tony was losing the jury like in his first season; the usefulness of the spy nest was less gathering information and right here, letting Tony come off as a goofy, exuberant guy. 

Coming into FTC, I thought I'd ended up fine with anyone winning. As the votes were read, I realized, no, I'd still hoped Tony would lose. But, he did play a great game, even if he was helped by several people who didn't seem that interested in winning themselves and were fine helping Tony get to the end (I didn't like the end of Ghost Island, where the last several episodes were two dominant players and everyone else either locked out or just accepting their fate).

I'm glad this season happened, and also glad that it won't happen again (at least, not until season 80 or something). At no point did I feel like just turning off or skipping episodes in disgust (unlike a certain past season). I would have liked to have seen some more from Parvati and Yul, and I wish Sophie had played her idol (watching her first season now, just past the merge and I'm interested in seeing her game). I can make myself feel better by telling myself Tony won for explaining how tribal council works that one time (to Adam?)

[Guest]

I hesitate to say this, but I'm going to anyway.

I get that people don't like Rob, are tired of him, think he's a bully, that he's bitter against Natalie (maybe he just...didn't think she deserved to win, or at least that Tony did more? I can relate) but it's kind of too bad that some of the anti-Rob statements have to repeatedly say that he's old and fat. Similar to how some of the anti-Sarah comments throughout the season took shots at her appearance (I mean, I don't really care for her either, but c'mon).

Anyway. Carry on.

Edited May 15, 2020 by tracyscott76

[nutty1]

10 hours ago, watchingtvaddict said:

Tony should have won... but I have to say "Wow! His house looks incredible! Does he really need 2 million? is he still a cop?" 

 

He said they don't really go out a lot or go on vacations. Perhaps he invested his initial winnings wisely and bought a really nice home. When he spoke of mortgages (plural), it made me think he also owns some rentals. He may be really smart with his money.

[Sweet-tea]

Quote

I can't believe Michele didn't at least get a couple of votes, even though it wouldn't have mattered ! She played hard near the end of the game and she won a couple of immunity challenges-- and she never got voted out ! To get no votes seems like a deliberate snub. Maybe it was suppose to be ?

I was surprised too. It made me feel a little sorry for her, because I know she felt dismissed throughout much of the season. Besides this one, I’ve only watched a few seasons and it was many years ago. Do all of the top 3 get money? 

Quote

Speaking of Sarah, I was shocked that Ben just quit the show for her and Tony was crying buckets about her leaving. Sarah was maybe my least favorite all season -- she shadowed Tony and seemed snotty and entitled. There must have been something appealing about her that we didn't see.

 

I didn’t like her all season. I thought her speech was unnecessary and went on too long. It sounded like she was auditioning for something. Whatever Tony and Ben responded to her was a mystery to me. 

Quote

I am no fan of EOI and I do not think anyone from there should have a chance at winning.

Agree. I thought the show was better without the EOE. I think once they’re voted off, they should be done. As much as I liked Natalie, I’m glad Tony won. He played an excellent game. He had to get people to vote for him that he had voted against, and that’s a harder hill to climb. I also found his tree spying comical and entertaining. 

Was it just me or did Jeff Probst look skinnier in the garage scenes? It seems like it would be the opposite as most of them are heavier at the live finale. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Sweet-tea

[skybolt]

People keep saying that Natalie didn't have to prove anything by taking on Tony in the fire making challenge. The whole point is not to show off your fire making skills in front of the jury, but to rid yourself of the one person whom everyone on the jury is impressed with. In yesterday's interview, Sarah stated how bad Tony was at making fire and that they sat for hours trying to practice and encouraging each other. You can't tell me that a beast like Natalie couldn't have practiced and destroyed Tony in making fire. This was not Ben or Boston Rob who can make fire in their sleep. Even if she didn't want to risk losing the challenge, she should've known that the jury did not respect Michelle's game, so don't give a strong player like Sarah a chance to showcase herself to the jury if she wins the challenge. It was a bad move altogether. Maybe she would've known that no one is voting for Michelle if she didn't shut everyone off at EoE the last week.

She also basically played for herself and didn't take a chance by giving her immunity idol to Michelle at final 5, even when she showed it to Sarah. If Ben didn't make a dumb move, Michelle would've been gone. Her whole talk about breaking up the alliance was overstated. Denise was a number to those 3, just like Jeremy and Nick. Ben fell on his sword for whatever reason, and Natalie strengthened Sarah and Tony in front of the jury by pitting them up against each other. I just feel like in an all winners season they're looking for more than just finding an idol and winning a challenge. When Sarah and Ben hugged each other after she supposedly blindsided him, the jury likely knew that this was pre-planned. It would've been way more impressive if the trio stuck together and Natalie played her idol for Michelle.

[Eolivet]

22 hours ago, blackwing said:

And it kind of sucks that if this is true, that those 4 were voting AGAINST Natalie and not for who they really thought played the best game.  Kind of sad, you would think former winners would have been above the pettiness.  "Oh Natalie made it back in, she doesn't deserve to win because she was on the Edge.  But if I had been the one to make it back in, of course I would deserve the win!  I clawed my way back in and never gave up!"  Those four are such hypocrites.  Just seems like sour grapes.

I have to say, with all the talk of gender bias, about how few women have won in the last few years ... if these "woke" millennials, Adam, Nick and Wendell, (and Danni, a Gen X-er) seriously considered it to be a huge breach of justice if a woman, and a woman of color, would happen to win, and this would be so unacceptable in their eyes, they couldn't vote for their BFF Michele to make sure this injustice didn't happen ... that says a lot about them.

I really hope this is spin from Michele and not a thing that happened. Tony was absolutely a deserving winner, but if these votes cast for the winner of an all-winners season were actually anti-votes to ensure a woman (even an Edge of Extinction returnee) didn't win ...

Yikes.

[skybolt]

Listening to the post show interviews, I can't help but be impressed with the way Sophie speaks. I truly believe she has it in her to make it far in a future season and maybe win. Her thought process is really impressive. It's also interesting that both Kim and Sophie didn't harbor any ill will about getting voted out by Tony. They saw it as a good strategic move.

I also had no problem with Rob asking Natalie tough questions that a lot of us were thinking at home. I also had no problem with Parvati coming to Natalie's defense. I actually wanted to see more critical questions being asked, but I just feel like in an all winner's season, people didn't want to create enemies or tarnish their reputations.

[Bouffe]

Commenting without having read anything... Will catch up after.

It was fun to start the show with the EoE comp to get back in the game! I couldn't believe how many advantages Nathalie bought. Good for her. I was shocked that it took her so long to get started, even with all those advantages! I for sure thought she was not going to win the comp. But she did. If Rob was not going to come back in, I was glad to see Nathalie do. She worked her butt off on EoE, and I will give her kuddos for that. It was mighty impressive. 

I know many on this forums are not huge fans of Boston Rob. But I am. I was so disappointed for him when he didn't return to the game. And that he and Amber got so emotional after the comp was done, argh, it got to me. 

And forgive me for skipping to the end of the game... Nathalie being in the Final 3 and coming so close to winning. As the episode got closer and closer to the end, and Nathalie continued to kick ass and take names, I started really not wanting her to win the 2 millions in the end. There is no question she worked hard to get to the end... But an EoE winner, again? As the episode went on, I felt more and more like this was not something I wanted to see happen for this particular season. Now if it had been Rob coming back into the game... Would I have felt differently? Most likely... And no, it's not a question of gender. Perhaps it's because Rob is my all time favourite and Nathalie isn't. Perhaps it's because Rob came to the Edge after having played quite a bit of the game on the main island (and Nathalie really did not, as she was the first vote out). I'm not diminishing what EoE is - it looks bloody demoralizing and hard as hell - but it's not really the game now, is it? I was listening to Nathalie list all the things she did on the Edge, and all I could think was, this was a side game... Not the same game that Tony and Sarah and Ben and Michelle played. I don't know. Food for thoughts, I guess.

I was so mad that Sarah and Ben completely dismissed Tony about Nathalie having an idol. I don't understand how they completely refused to even consider she had one. It almost derailed Tony's game. It's amazing to me he did not receive one vote at all during the game, and yet he was painted as the one to beat for a good while...  It felt surprisingly good that Tony won this time around. I appreciated that he toned down the high energy stuff and the shenanigans, upped his social game but still played HARD as hell. 

Michelle played a good game and I appreciated the way she pleaded her case at the final TC. I tend to not favour that type of play, but I was finding myself agreeing with a lot of what she said at final TC.

I know many here are no fans of Ben. I like him. He's not the smartest player, but he plays hard and to the best of his abilities. It was very touching to me how he "sacrificed" himself for Sarah. I think this game really has brought a lot of good things for Ben.

The fire challenge between Tony and Sarah was intense! I was sure Sarah had it in the bag.

The jury? THAT's how it always should be. No bitterness! I was expecting as much coming from a bunch of winners who can appreciate all kinds of different ways of playing.

I thought once all the "old school" players were gone to EoE that I would not enjoy the rest of the season... But I ended up enjoying it a lot. And I'm happy Tony won.

Now please... NO MORE EDGE OF EXTINCTION!!! 

[skybolt]

13 minutes ago, Eolivet said:

I have to say, with all the talk of gender bias, about how few women have won in the last few years ... if these "woke" millennials, Adam, Nick and Wendell, (and Danni, a Gen X-er) seriously considered it to be a huge breach of justice if a woman, and a woman of color, would happen to win, and this would be so unacceptable in their eyes, they couldn't vote for their BFF Michele to make sure this injustice didn't happen ... that says a lot about them.

I really hope this is spin from Michele and not a thing that happened. Tony was absolutely a deserving winner, but if these votes cast for the winner of an all-winners season were actually anti-votes to ensure a woman (even an Edge of Extinction returnee) didn't win ...

Yikes.

On his parchment Wendell put down "Tony", "Spy Nest", "GOAT". So basically even though Wendell thought that Tony was the greatest survivor of all time, he actually wanted to vote for Michelle who received zero votes. Plus, what does not wanting an EoE player winning an all winners season have to do with gender or color? In his post interview, Adam acknowledged that as a Survivor purist, he was not a fan of a player voted off ultimately winning. Not sure how that makes him anti women or racist.

[Eolivet]

7 minutes ago, skybolt said:

On his parchment Wendell put down "Tony", "Spy Nest", "GOAT". So basically even though Wendell thought that Tony was the greatest survivor of all time, he actually wanted to vote for Michelle who received zero votes.

Thanks, had forgotten about that. Spin from Michele then. I also find it hard to believe Adam, who was losing his mind over the Spy Nest too, secretly wanted to vote for his friend, but he had to "make sure Natalie didn't win." Or I really hope not.

Michele should know better. Like it or not, Natalie is a woman of color, and that's a bad look to say your friends did everything in their power to make sure she didn't win. Edge of Extinction returnee or not, race/ethnicity and gender still exists.

[Ms Blue Jay]

10 hours ago, blackwing said:

This is the second time that Tyson referred to Survivor as his "job".  When they had the family visit, he told his daughter that "this is where Daddy goes to work".  Some people here said that he was joking.  I think the fact that he called it his job again indicates that he really does think of himself as a full time Survivor, between playing the game and making his appearances at fan events and whatnot.  And that he runs his bike shop as a side gig while in between Survivor competitions and events.  Really strange.

Personally I don't find it strange as he's made more money doing his "job" than many of us have our whole lives.

[skybolt]

1 minute ago, Eolivet said:

Thanks, had forgotten about that. Spin from Michele then. I also find it hard to believe Adam, who was losing his mind over the Spy Nest too, secretly wanted to vote for his friend, but he had to "make sure Natalie didn't win." Or I really hope not.

Michele should know better. Like it or not, Natalie is a woman of color, and that's a bad look to say your friends did everything in their power to make sure she didn't win. Edge of Extinction returnee or not, race/ethnicity and gender still exists.

I get Michelle's frustration. She definitely deserved a couple of votes in my eyes and maybe some people were on the fence between her and Tony. I'm sure she didn't mean to stir up a controversy.

[skybolt]

6 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Personally I don't find it strange as he's made more money doing his "job" than many of us have our whole lives.

Even if he's purely a stay at home dad now, there's nothing wrong with that.

[Jeanne222]

Tony won $2 million.  How much did the others make?  TIA

[Jeanne222]

6 minutes ago, skybolt said:

I get Michelle's frustration. She definitely deserved a couple of votes in my eyes and maybe some people were on the fence between her and Tony. I'm sure she didn't mean to stir up a controversy.

But hasn't that always been an issue with Michelle that she 's never been recognized for the way she plays the game!

She won once and was final three among champions!  I'd say she's a dam good player!

[skybolt]

I have a question for everyone. If you were on a 4 hour flight, which of the 20 survivors would you most enjoy sitting next to and talking to. It's funny that some of the people I cheer for in the game (Rob, Tony, etc,) are not ones I'd put on top of my list. If I had to pick 5 I would choose Sophie (super smart and engaging), Adam (seems like a good fun guy), Yul (I love math too), Tyson (he'd crack me up with his sarcasm) and Parvati (she'd be great at pretending that she's enjoying the conversation 😞 ). Ethan just missed my list.

Edited May 15, 2020 by skybolt

[Eolivet]

8 minutes ago, skybolt said:

I'm sure she didn't mean to stir up a controversy.

If Michele really didn't want to make herself look bad, and her friends by extension, she could leave Natalie out of it. "My friends told me if Tony hadn't been there, they'd have voted for me, but he played the best game and they couldn't vote on a personal level in an all-winners season." Natalie's name didn't need to come up. Why did it?

This is why I feel like Michele has always had problems with other women. Why did she frame it as ensuring a Natalie loss versus rewarding Tony for playing the best game?

It's not controversy, it's just mean and petty, and she makes her friends look mean and petty, too. Like they all ganged up to make sure Natalie didn't win? Why was that necessary to share?

[skybolt]

So at least Ben finally shed some light on his situation with Jeremy. Apparently on Day 1, he went up to Jeremy and pitched a cops, fire fighter, soldier alliance. Jeremy initially agreed, but as soon as Ben walked away, Jeremy made a gesture to the camera like who is this joker. I guess Ben saw that and confronted Jeremy. Since then he said he pretended to work with Jeremy, but didn't like what he did. I get Ben's point, but think he's being overly sensitive as well.

[skybolt]

7 minutes ago, Eolivet said:

If Michele really didn't want to make herself look bad, and her friends by extension, she could leave Natalie out of it. "My friends told me if Tony hadn't been there, they'd have voted for me, but he played the best game and they couldn't vote on a personal level in an all-winners season." Natalie's name didn't need to come up. Why did it?

This is why I feel like Michele has always had problems with other women. Why did she frame it as ensuring a Natalie loss versus rewarding Tony for playing the best game?

It's not controversy, it's just mean and petty, and she makes her friends look mean and petty, too. Like they all ganged up to make sure Natalie didn't win? Why was that necessary to share?

I like Michelle and want her to do well. However, I just feel like she hasn't matured as much as someone like Sophie since they last played. I do think if she comes back again for Survivor 50 without the Wendell drama and trying to prove something, we could see a very strong player.

[Lady Calypso]

1 minute ago, Eolivet said:

If Michele really didn't want to make herself look bad, and her friends by extension, she could leave Natalie out of it. "My friends told me if Tony hadn't been there, they'd have voted for me, but he played the best game and they couldn't vote on a personal level in an all-winners season." Natalie's name didn't need to come up. Why did it?

This is why I feel like Michele has always had problems with other women. Why did she frame it as ensuring a Natalie loss versus rewarding Tony for playing the best game?

It's not controversy, it's just mean and petty, and she makes her friends look mean and petty, too. Like they all ganged up to make sure Natalie didn't win? Why was that necessary to share?

Well, it's more because Natalie was already voted out while Michele and Tony were still in the game. And a lot of people, including myself, do hold the opinion that once you're voted out, you shouldn't win the game. 

Here's the biggest issue I've found with Edge of Extinction (with this being my first EOE season). It's not really the game of Survivor. I find that it is its own different game entirely separate from the game that the players are playing. I think what this show has gotten the players to believe is that playing EOE is playing the game of Survivor. Adding harsh conditions and challenges make it tough, sure. Yes, part of it is also pandering to the jury and you get that chance on EOE better....but at the end of the day, I don't consider Edge as a true part of the game.

It's not Natalie's fault at all for what she did on Edge and how she expected it to give her the win. That's on the show for giving the Edge players a somewhat unrealistic expectation that just winning yourself back into the game while putting in effort at Edge is guaranteed a win (plus, I guess that Chris Underwood win doesn't help either? I honestly don't know anything about that season though). 

But, once Natalie won her way back....she needed to do a lot more to add to her Survivor game resume. She wasn't in the game 95% of the time. For me, I don't think it matters if she was on Edge. She got herself voted out. Tony and Michele remained in the game. 

I don't think Natalie had no chance of winning. I would have been fine if she won based on Rob's criteria, believe it or not (and I'm not a Rob fan). She needed to get Tony out. I personally think Natalie played it a bit too safe once she won her way back. I think she did some great things, such as try to throw a target on Tony, but I think she needed to do more. Because...think about it this way. What if Michele wasn't isolated? What if Nick was in the game instead of Ben, for example? Or if Denise was working closely with Michele? Natalie wouldn't have had anyone to truly work with like she did with Michele. The idols would have been the thing to save her, yes.

I don't think Rob was completely wrong in wanting Natalie to have faced Tony in the fire making challenge. Yes, it's monumentally stupid...but, at the same time, Natalie needed something on her resume for what she did in the game of Survivor. And, clearly for some people on the jury, what she did on Edge wasn't enough. She needed to get Tony out. Unfortunately for Natalie, she did try and she did fail and it cost her. 

And I say this as someone who likes Natalie. She was a complete beast on Edge and being on Edge was clearly quite tough. But Edge is just a twist at the end of it. A shitty twist, mind you, but one that is still separate from Survivor, in my opinion. 

But going back to Michele, I don't think she was lying about what she was told. It could be that the four just told her that to make her feel better...or there WAS something going on at Edge that led the four to believe that Natalie was gaining votes to win. I think I heard it was Tyson gathering votes for Natalie? And they wanted to originally give Michele votes because of her hard work...but Tony played harder and they didn't want an EOE returnee to win for a second time (because it kind of says something about the game if you can do something wrong, get voted out, and then come back near the end of the game and win, despite being out of it nearly the entire time). 

So, no, I don't see it as a gender thing, in this case, or a petty thing. Something led Nick, Wendell, Adam and Danni to believe that Tony was losing votes and Natalie was gaining them and they decided to give Tony votes to ensure his win because he played the best game. Which still sucks because Michele should have gotten a couple of votes because she did play a good game, not because people would have pitied her. Michele played an excellent game and deserved credit for it. Natalie played a hard Edge game and she tried to play a good Survivor game, but she's definitely third place for me in terms of the Survivor game. 

[Porkchop]

An interesting thing about the Australian Survivor show, is that except for the first few voted off, everyone brags about how far they got. You hear contestants say "I made it to the final 10!" The person who gets voted out by a blindside often says "Good playing" as they leave. It's always seems to stay "just a game."

 

[blackwing]

1 hour ago, skybolt said:

People keep saying that Natalie didn't have to prove anything by taking on Tony in the fire making challenge. The whole point is not to show off your fire making skills in front of the jury, but to rid yourself of the one person whom everyone on the jury is impressed with. In yesterday's interview, Sarah stated how bad Tony was at making fire and that they sat for hours trying to practice and encouraging each other. You can't tell me that a beast like Natalie couldn't have practiced and destroyed Tony in making fire. This was not Ben or Boston Rob who can make fire in their sleep. Even if she didn't want to risk losing the challenge, she should've known that the jury did not respect Michelle's game, so don't give a strong player like Sarah a chance to showcase herself to the jury if she wins the challenge. It was a bad move altogether. Maybe she would've known that no one is voting for Michelle if she didn't shut everyone off at EoE the last week.

 

I don't think it's fair for Rob to hold it against her that she didn't choose to make fire just because Chris Underwood did.  Natalie was in a very different position from Chris because of the fire tokens and the hard work she did to put herself back in the game.  Would she have been in a better position if she had chosen to take on Tony in fire and eliminated him?  Perhaps.  But then she's up against Sarah in the finals.  I saw an interview with Natalie where she says she is convinced she would have beaten Sarah in a final vote.  But I'm not so sure.  Sarah would have played herself off as an equal co-leader with Tony, and sobbed about how it's not fair that she isn't getting credit for the moves the two of them made just because she's a woman.  It would have been something like "when Natalie said that all of you on the jury thought Tony was running the show, that really woke me up as to how I am perceived.  It's not fair that I am not getting credit just because I'm a woman."  Basically what she sobbed about earlier.  And Tony would have rallied everyone to vote for her.

If what Michelle says is true about the four people who changed their vote from voting for Michelle to voting for Tony just to ensure that Natalie didn't win, it seems that Natalie wouldn't have won even against Sarah.  Even if she had demonstrated worthiness after taking out Tony in fire.  They seem either 1) biased against the idea of an Edge player winning or 2) biased against her.  Either way, she loses.

37 minutes ago, Bouffe said:

And forgive me for skipping to the end of the game... Nathalie being in the Final 3 and coming so close to winning. As the episode got closer and closer to the end, and Nathalie continued to kick ass and take names, I started really not wanting her to win the 2 millions in the end. There is no question she worked hard to get to the end... But an EoE winner, again? As the episode went on, I felt more and more like this was not something I wanted to see happen for this particular season. Now if it had been Rob coming back into the game... Would I have felt differently? Most likely... And no, it's not a question of gender. Perhaps it's because Rob is my all time favourite and Nathalie isn't.

Michelle played a good game and I appreciated the way she pleaded her case at the final TC. I tend to not favour that type of play, but I was finding myself agreeing with a lot of what she said at final TC.

Well, that's the same kind of interesting approach that some of the Edge players have seemingly displayed.  "I hate the idea of an Edge player winning the game!!! Oh but if it were me (or my favorite Rob) then OF COURSE it's OK because it's not the same!"

3 minutes ago, Jeanne222 said:

But hasn't that always been an issue with Michelle that she 's never been recognized for the way she plays the game!

She won once and was final three among champions!  I'd say she's a dam good player!

I think she's had two good results, for sure.  I wouldn't say she's a good player, though. She came out of nowhere to win her season... she never made any big moves, she made it to the end by virtue of being less offensive than others.  And she won over a seemingly more strategic, more deserving player in Aubry mostly because of two odious men on the jury who were butthurt that Aubry got them out of the game.

This season, she was on the wrong side of the vote an incredible number of times.  She never got into a good lasting alliance, I thought she was with Nick but she flipflopped so many times.  She was never really targeted because she was completely nonthreatening, ineffective in challenges, and fairly useless.  When there were lots of people in the game, she was just an expendable number.  That said, she did make a good run for herself towards the end and she acquitted herself nicely.  I did appreciate that she made an argument for herself and had something to support it.

So many of the #3 people in the final tribal have such delusional ideas about how much they were in control of the game and what they did.  Hannah Shapiro truly thought she was running the game.  Noura Salman.  Angelina Keeley.  Julie Rosenberg, who astonishingly said that "I got emotional" with her meltdowns and crying was actually her strategy.  So I did appreciate that Michelle actually made a good case for herself.  She was the quintessential underdog.  

6 minutes ago, Jeanne222 said:

Tony won $2 million.  How much did the others make?  TIA

I don't think they've said, other than the fact that typically the first boot gets $2,500.  Here they said that everyone was guaranteed at least $25,000.  Not sure how it graduates from $25,000 to runner-up.  I think in other seasons, the runner-up has gotten $100,000.  I would imagine it's at least twice that here.