On an Island of One: Unpopular Opinions of Survivor

[EVS]

My unpopular opinion is that I don't find Ken as attractive as many people seem to. I think he has a good body and is nice looking but not that great looking. Also, even before last night, his personality rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe that is influencing my opinion on his looks, but it is what it is. 

[waving feather]

5 minutes ago, EVS said:

My unpopular opinion is that I don't find Ken as attractive as many people seem to. I think he has a good body and is nice looking but not that great looking. Also, even before last night, his personality rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe that is influencing my opinion on his looks, but it is what it is. 

He has a rocking bod but his face is just average to me. Nothing to write home about.

[ozziemom]

19 hours ago, KimberStormer said:

I'm with you!  I didn't hate it but I sure didn't love it.  I'm also forever confused by the idea of Tony as a great player.  If ever someone fell ass-backwards into their win, it was Tony.  He and LJ both burning their idols in ludicrous theatrical fashion for absolutely no reason (even if they had needed to use them, they were thrown away on the wrong targets -- obviously wrong targets) while Trish quietly got the actual job done flipping Kass (and never got, probably never will get, the credit she deserves for it amongst the larger Survivor world) should really put paid to any notion that Tony is any good.  We don't even need to mention that he coasted on the godforsaken Tyler Perry idol and another idol which he got by pure chance in the second-worst Survivor Auction ever.  But no it's always TONY THE MANIC MASTERMIND, ALWAYS TEN STEPS AHEAD!  I like Tony as a human being, I do not like him as a player or a winner or a TV show character.

A million likes for this! I just rewatched a few episodes of Cagayan and Tony was all over the place. Trisha was constantly calming him down as well as the other people in their alliance that Tony went crazy on. Totally overrated winner and Trish was definitely underestimated as a player.

[kikaha]

My unpopular opinion: 'personal attacks' on Survivor are fine.  On a game of lying, cheating, backstabbing, misleading and double-crossing, they are just another tool to (maybe) advance you.  If the other contestants don't like it, you will pay the price. 

[waving feather]

The people on the Millennials tribe this season are so much more enjoyable and entertaining than the people on the Gen X tribe. I have felt that way since the beginning. I dreaded whenever they show the Gen X camp because most of them look like they would be miserable to be around. Even after post merge, the Millennials are still interesting and gaming hard. The only person who is worth anything in this game from Gen X is David (I kinda like Bret too). But I enjoy watching quite a few from the Millennials - Jay, Zeke, Adam, Hannah, Will, Michaela and Michelle. So I totally get why Probst appreciated them; they make good TV. 

[NutMeg]

On 11/30/2016 at 2:13 PM, KimberStormer said:

This season has made it sort of click for me that I just don't like Survivor Nerds.  Since I'm pretty undeniably a Survivor Nerd myself, perhaps I was in denial of this fact.  It started to dawn on me in the first episode, when Mari was organizing against the so-called "popular kids", and I thought "ugh not this shit again."  Now that it's apparently ZEKE VS DAVID FOR NERD SUPREMACY, I feel like I probably made the right choice to turn off the season following the 1-2-3 punch of Figgy, Michaela, and Michelle going, and it's made me realize that, yeah, Survivor Nerds are not for me.  I mean of course I love nerding out about the show with y'all here; but I mean I don't like the Survivor Nerd as a player.  Spencer, Fishbach, Kenny, Aubry, David, Zeke, going all the way back to Yul; I just never like that kind of player.

It's not like I hate them.  They're all basically nice people, often with a lot of charm.  They play, in general, the way I like to see: proactive and long-sighted, making moves to get themselves to the end and the win.  But I can never love them the way a lot of other people seem to.  I feel like they see the other players in the game as pieces, not people, they think abstractly, symbolically, x's and o's, there's something subtly wrong about it to me, that creeps me out.  I can't think of any way to put it that doesn't sound more negative than I mean it -- I think all the people I listed are good people that I would enjoy having a conversation with -- but places an unbridgeable distance between us.

Contrast them with the sort of player I do love: the social gamer.  People whose game, while it may include plenty of SURVIVOR MOVES and aggressive play and "rational" decision-making, is fundamentally based on human connections with people in the game.  People like Kim or JT; even people like Parvati, whose connections may not have been "real" in the sense of lasting outside the game, and could perhaps be considered more heartless than the people who are more obvious about not actually caring about you in the game.  Those people, who are often "cool kid" types, outgoing and attractive and athletic and "popular", are very different from me, but I like them so much better.  And I would say, in some ways, at least online (and especially in more masculine, intensely nerdy Survivor spaces than this forum), they are consistently underrated in my opinion, which I find frustrating to no end.  The outcry about Michele VS Aubry last season, of course, brought this dichotomy to the fore; I would have voted for Aubry myself, but the fact that it was such a scandal is an example of what I mean.  Why did it get people so mad that the social game won over the strategic?  Why is Kim consistently thought of as having had no challenges, playing on easy mode, as though getting an entire season's worth of people to love her unconditionally while she rules them with an iron fist not difficult and challenging?  Why do people (well, they did until Cambodia, anyway) say that JT needed Stephen instead of the other way around?

I don't even mean to say these are wrong, just that I don't share those opinions.  I don't think that liking social players is super controversial or unpopular, but I do think disliking Survivor Nerds, in general, kind of is.  There's always kind of a prejudice in favor of the Misfit Toys Alliance, which sort of irrationally influences me to root for the Popular People Alliance (though I much prefer a Strange Bedfellows Alliance, your Casaya tribe type of thing, with no easily identifiable common thread between alliance members.)  Anyway, this season brought it out to me.  And funnily enough, it also has Hannah, who is a total nerd, but doesn't seem like a Survivor Nerd to me, and perhaps that's why I like her.

I get what you're saying, but I think you infer that nerd type = strategic game and social player = social game. While that is often the case, it's not a steadfast rule. For example, Kim,  for all her social skills, used them to map a very precise range of end game possibilities where in each case she was coming on top, whereas Parvati had only one fast rule (no men at the end because they'll get the vote) but otherwise played it pretty loose and remained opened to sizing opportunities rather than exactly mapping them. Or, on the other side of the social spectrum, you have Cochran 1.0 who totally played an emotional, irrational game, while Yul played a cool, rational, mathematical game for the most part. (It feels so weird to put Yul in Cochran in the same category, but I'm just going with your examples here.)

That being said, I was never a fan of Spencer, I liked Fishbach 1.0 and Kenny, mostly because they were paired with very different players, I really enjoyed seeing Aubry play and so far I like David a lot. So I'd say, for me, in these case, it's less about the player in the absolute than about that player in a specific environment that includes, inter alia, other players - for instance, Fishbach 2.0 didn't work for me, because the environment was not conducive to him showing what he's good at, which I'd say is being a supporting cast member rather than the main character. This season, David is very interesting, because, despite the Nerd image the show is pushing on us, he plays more like a social player, cultivating relationship, being attuned to the mood, reacting instinctively, etc. That's not all he's doing, because he's also mapping a path to he end game, but he does relies on social bonds and I'd say his game is as social as it is intellectual.  

I think, for me, a good season is one where we have a diversity of types of - interesting - players AND of strategies used. Which is why I'm liking this season a lot. My unpopular opinion? I don't care if I don't have a favourite. Give me a season where there are many people I'd be happy to see win and I'm a happy watcher. I'm also happy to watch a season where there's a clear winner from early on, but I keep hoping that player can survive each TC, and that is more stressful and much less fun that just being ok with multiple possible outcomes and just enjoying the ride. 

On 12/1/2016 at 2:35 PM, KimberStormer said:

I'm with you!  I didn't hate it but I sure didn't love it.  I'm also forever confused by the idea of Tony as a great player.  If ever someone fell ass-backwards into their win, it was Tony.  He and LJ both burning their idols in ludicrous theatrical fashion for absolutely no reason (even if they had needed to use them, they were thrown away on the wrong targets -- obviously wrong targets) while Trish quietly got the actual job done flipping Kass (and never got, probably never will get, the credit she deserves for it amongst the larger Survivor world) should really put paid to any notion that Tony is any good.  We don't even need to mention that he coasted on the godforsaken Tyler Perry idol and another idol which he got by pure chance in the second-worst Survivor Auction ever.  But no it's always TONY THE MANIC MASTERMIND, ALWAYS TEN STEPS AHEAD!  I like Tony as a human being, I do not like him as a player or a winner or a TV show character.

Yes! Thank you for the shout out to Trish, who was one the the most underrated players that season. Trish/Tony is a lot like Natalie/Russel. 

[CraftyHazel]

My unpopular opinions...

I thought Tom Westman bullied Ian into giving up, thus I have hated Tom's win ever since.  I get it that he was working Ian to get the F2 partner he knew he could beat in Katie, but I thought the way he went about it was scuzzy, and I've never been convinced otherwise.

I still love both Malcolm and Joe, and would like to see them play again. Yes, I am shallow.

Brian Heidik is my favorite winner.

Aubrey was robbed.

I hate with a burning passion all the secret idols, secret advantages, etc.  HATE!  Hide one single HII post-merge, give no clues to its whereabouts, notify the castaways that it's out there somewhere when you give them the merge meal, and let the chips fall where they may.  Stop putting clues into their laps, dammit!  Make them work for it!!  (That said, I love crazy idol plays, and this season has had some good ones...but there's just too much of it.)

And this probably isn't all that unpopular, but my goodness, I hate the themes!  Blood vs. Water, Heroes vs. Villians, Millennials vs. Gen-X, Brain vs. Brawn vs. Beauty, Blue Collar vs. White Collar vs. No Collar...BLEAH!!  I prefer the mix of contestants that happens post-merge, when different types have to work together to survive.  It's boring watching a full tribe of surfer dudes and barristas, or a full tribe of attorneys, doctors, and professors.  At least, it is to me.

And finally, San Juan del Sur was the absolute worst season ever, and that would include a season full of Tonys, Hantz family members, Dan Foley, and showmances.  I hated Baylor and her simpering mother Missy so much that nothing could wash the stink off that season for me.

[simplyme]

1 minute ago, Marmiarmo said:

And this probably isn't all that unpopular, but my goodness, I hate the themes! 

The themes are stupid. That said, for a lot of seasons once a bit of time has passed I can't remember the exact setting or name (some island somewhere) and instead think of them as "The season where X happened" or "The season with these players." The seasons named after themes (like this one) I tend to remember the name.

[Rachel RSL]

17 minutes ago, Marmiarmo said:

 

My unpopular opinions...

I thought Tom Westman bullied Ian into giving up, thus I have hated Tom's win ever since.

 

I don't think that's such an unpopular opinion. A LOT of people felt the same way when it happened and still do. Tom was an ass.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Rachel RSL

[waving feather]

I don't mind the themes because after a short while, there is usually a tribe swap anyway, so the themes don't last that long. If it makes Probst happy to attach a silly theme name to the season, I say let him, as long as they cast good contestants.

I enjoyed Blood vs. Water, except for the part about voted off contestants having the chance to come back again.

[CraftyHazel]

1 hour ago, Rachel RSL said:

I don't think that's such an unpopular opinion. A LOT of people felt the same way when it happened and still do. Tom was an ass.

Glad to hear it.  I belong to one Survivor group that practically worships at Westman's feet, and I just don't get it.

[violet and green]

I really do not enjoy the fact that David is still there. He is not my champion. He is not my mascot. I do not want him to win.

[truthaboutluv]

Wait, David is supposed to be someone's champion? Is this the whole, "he represents the awkward people" kind of thing? YMMV but why can't these people just be individuals in a specific season of Survivor and not "represent" for anything? I'm a millennial and I don't think any of the millennials represented me. They were all just whoever they are. 

[jsm1125]

I like(d) Kass far more than I ever liked Tasha, who I think is essentially the female version of Terry Dietz.

I think Adam is probably the second most attractive male this season.

Though I like Spencer, I think he basically made it to his swaps on both seasons because of a metaphorical coin toss.

I didn't find Cochran all that much more impressive in Caramoan than I did in South Pacific, though he did have some noticeable improvements to his game, if that makes sense. I just think his pre-game connections helped him tremendously.

I actually liked Morgan's gameplay in Cagayan and thought she did a nice job playing from the bottom.

Edited December 4, 2016 by jsm1125

[EVS]

Regarding the themes, I wouldn't mind them so much if Jeff didn't bring the theme up constantly and keep trying to use it to perpetuate stereotypes. I get that that is basically the point of the themes, but it gets old quickly especially, imo, after there is a tribal swap. 

One thing I did find interesting: I was watching the season 1 reunion recently and Bryant Gumbel questioned someone (maybe Joel?) about a comment he made comparing gen-x to the older players. He asked Joel if it was a generational difference and Joel said he thought it was an age thing. He referred to the older players as more "corporate". I can't remember his exact comments about the gen-xers but it was basically the same as Jeff's description of the millennials this season-more "go with the flow" etc. That is why I found this season's theme annoying. It's really an "older vs younger" theme, imo, as opposed to a specific generational thing but that doesn't sound as interesting so it became millennials vs gen-x. 

Edited December 4, 2016 by EVS

[violet and green]

6 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

Wait, David is supposed to be someone's champion? Is this the whole, "he represents the awkward people" kind of thing? YMMV but why can't these people just be individuals in a specific season of Survivor and not "represent" for anything? I'm a millennial and I don't think any of the millennials represented me. They were all just whoever they are. 

No, it's the "he seems to be this season's favorite" kind of thing, and he's not mine. I do think a tremendous amount of projection occurs, while watching Survivor, and some players attract more than others, though.

[truthaboutluv]

4 hours ago, jsm1125 said:

I actually liked Morgan's gameplay in Cagayan and thought she did a nice job playing from the bottom.

Morgan was actually one of the players I was curious about if Kass hadn't flipped and her side had had the numbers. I thought she showed some potential early in the season.

57 minutes ago, violet and green said:

No, it's the "he seems to be this season's favorite" kind of thing, and he's not mine.

YMMV but I wouldn't say David is the season favorite, at least based on the comments here. I think many think he is getting a possible winner's edit. 

[KimberStormer]

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 1:49 AM, Trick Question said:

Survivor is literally nothing but a popularity contest, which the producers have tried to obscure for 33 seasons by trying to make it all about persevering over the elements, personal discovery, making "big moves," etc.  It's far easier to promote a show based around big blindsides and vote flips than it is to promote a show based around treating other people decently for 38 days.  The only way to win Survivor is to get to the end next to a person less liked or respected by the jurors than you...note that this doesn't even mean you have to be liked or respected yourself (i.e. Brian Heidik), as long as you're next to a less-appealing option to the majority of the jury.

I basically agree; but, well, how are you going to get to the end next to the person of your choosing without moves and blindsides and all that?  That's the whole thing I like about it, the balance/tension between the two parts of get to the end.  You can't play alone, but you can't win together; you can't "nice" your way to the end, but you can't "mean" your way to the win.  If everyone voted based on popularity alone, I don't think it would be an interesting game or TV show.  I'm like any average Survivor fan: I sure wouldn't watch if there weren't blindsides and big moves.  (South Pacific...ugh.)  There are Russells who get to the end and lose because they don't understand the popularity part, but there's also plenty of beloved people who everyone agrees would unanimously win who end up eating peanut butter and cookies at Ponderosa because they don't understand the gameplay part.  I just think the gameplay part is, ideally for me, not based on challenge prowess or min/maxing Rational Actor analyses, but on human relationships.  The "moves" may even be the same, but the approach is different.

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 8:52 AM, NutMeg said:

I get what you're saying, but I think you infer that nerd type = strategic game and social player = social game. While that is often the case, it's not a steadfast rule. For example, Kim,  for all her social skills, used them to map a very precise range of end game possibilities where in each case she was coming on top, whereas Parvati had only one fast rule (no men at the end because they'll get the vote) but otherwise played it pretty loose and remained opened to sizing opportunities rather than exactly mapping them. Or, on the other side of the social spectrum, you have Cochran 1.0 who totally played an emotional, irrational game, while Yul played a cool, rational, mathematical game for the most part. (It feels so weird to put Yul in Cochran in the same category, but I'm just going with your examples here.)

Well, I didn't put Cochran on my list.  I don't really mean "nerds on Survivor" but "Survivor Nerds".  Cochran IRL is a Survivor Nerd, of course, writing his thesis on it or whatever, and his unsavory past as "The Gumby" on Sucks (so I hear, I've never seen the posts myself--ew, Sucks, no thonx), but he never really played like a Survivor Nerd.  Jim Rice did, on South Pacific, with his WE'RE GONNA MAKE A SURVIVOR MOOOOOOVE! thing in voting out Ozzy's island girlfriend, and insisting on the rationality of playing the rock-draw odds and how if you didn't you were an idiot.  (Cue Coach, of all people, playing perfect social game, buttering Cochran up, promising to protect him, welcoming him to the family.)  Cochran didn't play like Survivor Nerd, he played like a twerp.  Flipped from bottom to bottom and as far as I remember, hardly even tried to turn it around with his fellow bottom-dwellers and get out Coach, Sophie, or Albert.  On Caramoan, he was relaxed, playing with a bunch of his IRL friends, Dawn did all the distasteful heavy lifting, and he was the pleasant social gamer who got along with everyone and didn't do much but hitch his wagon to a classic Ox, taking him to the win.  I don't much like Cochran either, but I wouldn't call him a Survivor Nerd.

There's a secret scene with Zeke talking about Jay after the Mari vote, which sort of captures the Survivor Nerd and something that I don't like about them.

In that scene Zeke whines, "I thought I'd be good at it."  I'm pretty sure there was a Spencer confessional saying the same kind of thing after his first tribal council in Cagayan.  I think this is part of what I dislike about Survivor Nerds -- they think they know the gameplay part completely, because they've read strategy threads on reddit and took a game theory class for their MBA, played a bitter game of online Diplomacy or two.  All they have to do is make the Rational Case, and lie in this particular fashion, and (like Spencer in Cambodia) add a dash of Personal Connection for +1 Trust Points.  Maybe I've never said a word to you until an hour before tribal, and I ooze distaste for your skill with makeup or love of Jesus, but of course you'll do what I say, because I've got a 125 IQ and I've listened to The Evolution of Strategy, I'm Good At Survivor!  Like I say, these people usually make good moves and have good ideas in an abstract sense, but except for Yul (who was too mature and realistic to totally buy into this kind of thing) they are not actually Good At Survivor.

He also makes a good case for the social game embodied in Jay, who, as he says, has lied to him, has lied to everyone, but not only does everyone else trust him, Zeke himself trusts him!  That's Good At Survivor, even if he made a bad mistake IMO in voting out Michaela.  And more than Good At Survivor, I just find it more easy to admire, more human, more fun to watch (though I also agree with you, that the whole cast matters, and a wide range is good to have.  I wouldn't want a season of all social gamers.  I agree with @Marmiarmo that a big part of the problem with theme seasons is the fact that there's whole tribes of similar players at first, which is sure to bring out the worst in all of them.  I would probably like our trio of Survivor Nerds David, Adam, and Zeke better, on a different season when they weren't almost the only game in town.)

Edited December 5, 2016 by KimberStormer

[Fretful]

On 12/3/2016 at 11:33 AM, Marmiarmo said:

Glad to hear it.  I belong to one Survivor group that practically worships at Westman's feet, and I just don't get it.

I can't stand him (and I'm a middle-aged woman, so I should be his demographic).  There are so many examples of him being a bully (The fishing expedition, the shark's head that brought rats to the camp, the water reward where EVERYONE else wanted to take a shower but he outvoted them).  What a jerk.  How he ended up on Heroes on the HvV season remains a mystery to me.

[waving feather]

Just now, Fretful said:

I can't stand him (and I'm a middle-aged woman, so I should be his demographic).  There are so many examples of him being a bully (The fishing expedition, the shark's head that brought rats to the camp, the water reward where EVERYONE else wanted to take a shower but he outvoted them).  What a jerk.  How he ended up on Heroes on the HvV season remains a mystery to me.

HvH is funny because I thought most of the people on Villains are the fan favorites (or at least my favorites), while the Heroes are the self-righteous blowhards. I'm not sure if that's an unpopular opinion or not.

[SlackerInc]

My unpopular opinion is that I don't think Survivor necessarily has to be played like it's the Hunger Games. That is, to play to win the million dollars at all costs, as though you'll be killed if you do otherwise. I don't think it's unreasonable to place friendship and solidarity higher than improving your chances of winning the "million" (which is, what, about $700K after taxes?) from, say, ten percent to thirteen percent. When you figure that kind of thing in EV terms, it's only worth about $20K. What price friendship? For that matter, in more mercenary terms, what about the PR hit you take by stabbing someone in the back? We have to remember that most casual fans watch this show in a different way than the pure Survivor strategist does. (Heck, even many players do--hence the common phenomenon of "bitter juries".) If you are brutally cold and calculating in the way you play, you may end up with millions of people thinking you're a heel. This could affect your personal and professional life, and it could make it harder for you to exploit your fifteen minutes of fame financially. Unless, that is, you go over the top and are seen as an epic villain--but that too could make it harder to get the jury to make you sole Survivor.

Relatedly, since people are talking about Cochran: I always thought it made perfect sense for him to flip in his first season.  Just as I think it's okay to do nice things for friends you make in the game even if they are "threats" and being nice reduces your chance to win, I also think it's perfectly fine to punish people you personally dislike, even if it reduces your chance to win.  Which, BTW, I don't necessarily think it did in Cochran's case.  As @KimberStormer said, he flipped "from bottom to bottom".  If you are sitting there and your chances of winning look slim (especially since back then, people didn't do "temporary voting blocs" nearly as much), why not take your opportunity to influence who gets to go to the finals and who gets sent packing to Ponderosa?
 

On 11/30/2016 at 9:32 AM, peachmangosteen said:

That's not a fact though. There were actually several people here who predicted Michelle would win early on and who felt they were shown enough to justify her winning. 

Yes indeed!  <raising hand>  You and I announced our appreciation for her early in the season, and then when there were still around seven or eight players left, I called her "one of the best players of all time" (and I've watched all episodes of every season but China).

And BTW, @loki567, that was not based on my perceiving a "winner's edit".  I detest the idea of watching Survivor that way, and I don't even like reading posts that analyze the show in this fashion.  (Which is apparently not an unpopular opinion, as Rob said on RHAP that podcast listeners don't like it when they do this sort of meta-analysis.) 

On 11/30/2016 at 4:35 PM, MissEwa said:

My unpopular opinions would be that I loved Kim and I thought her win was masterful from the beginning.

I'm sorry, but this does not IMO count as an unpopular opinion.  It's almost reminiscent of a humblebrag or something, LOL.  I am a big Kim critic (even if you go look at that Michelle thread that I linked to above, I used Kim as an example of someone being bad at the things Michelle was good at), and I've been vocal about it.  Every time I've done that, I don't recall much of anyone agreeing with me, while I got a lot of pushback.

[MissEwa]

13 minutes ago, SlackerInc said:

I'm sorry, but this does not IMO count as an unpopular opinion.  It's almost reminiscent of a humblebrag or something, LOL.  I am a big Kim critic (even if you go look at that Michelle thread that I linked to above, I used Kim as an example of someone being bad at the things Michelle was good at), and I've been vocal about it.  Every time I've done that, I don't recall much of anyone agreeing with me, while I got a lot of pushback.

Fair enough. I think this might be one where opinion is actually fairly evenly divided but passionate on both sides and so everyone feels like their opinion is the UO? I remember a lot of talk about how she only won because Colton quit and how she was boring and a robot and was playing against idiots etc, which made it feel unpopular to like her. Obviously your mileage may (and does) vary.

[KimberStormer]

20 minutes ago, SlackerInc said:

What price friendship?

Eh, these are all people they met a month ago.  I like Kim's approach: "I like you guys, but people back home are more important to me, that's just how it is."  Very hard to argue with that.  (Yes we will never agree about Kim!)

I just realized my ranty posts should be here instead of the Speculation thread, since not being a fan of this season is an Unpopular Opinion and nothing to do with speculating.  I wonder if the mods could move them and responses to them?

[SlackerInc]

I'm sure you're right that we will never agree about Kim.  :)

But I'm wondering: if you look back on strong friendships you have made, especially those forged through a mutual and intense experience, was the friendship not already pretty solid a month in?

[Special K]

Remember those friendships you made at camp?   Or on your freshman hall in the first weeks of college?  Those can be pretty immediately intense (and sometimes lasting).

Edited December 9, 2016 by Special K

[peachmangosteen]

9 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

But we all see different things, too.  

Yep! Even the edit is so subjective. Like how some of us saw a winner's edit in Michele, while others certainly didn't. Or how someone here  sees the winner's edit in Ken, while to me Ken is the person I see as the least likely winner. 

[SlackerInc]

I didn't see a "winner's edit" with Michele (as I say, I don't look for those, ever).  I just saw a really good player.

[peachmangosteen]

I saw a winner's edit simply because at the beginning we were getting a lot of unnecessary scenes from a player like her. Her tribe was doing well, winning everything, she was in the majority alliance within her tribe, and she's a young/pretty/not particularly interesting (to the editors) woman so for me it really stuck out that we were getting confessionals from her. Then she really was practically invisible for a lot of episodes from middle to end, so I did start to wonder. But I thought it was abundantly clear she was the winner all throughout the finale.

[thehepburn]

I didnt see a good player in Michele; I just saw an obvious winner's edit.

Ken's edit has tanked since the merge. I dont know of too many who thinks he is going to win now.

[peachmangosteen]

5 hours ago, thehepburn said:

Ken's edit has tanked since the merge. I dont know of too many who thinks he is going to win now.

Someone here does, I can't remember who though. @enlightenedbum maybe. I would love to hear their thoughts on Ken's edit. I'm fascinated by the edits and how people can see them so completely differently.

[enlightenedbum]

They've made a point to showcase him developing individual relationships with the majority of players.  Screams social game winner to me, personally.  As I said, reminds me of Natalie White.

[Rachel RSL]

I don't know how good his social game has been. Last episode, when Jay & Will were talking about David being a bigger threat than Ken, Will said that if Ken got to the final TC, it would be no contest. And the context was clearly that Ken had no chance in Hell of winning. I think maybe he's developed a few great relationships but obviously not with everybody.

[Lamima]

15 minutes ago, Rachel RSL said:

I don't know how good his social game has been. Last episode, when Jay & Will were talking about David being a bigger threat than Ken, Will said that if Ken got to the final TC, it would be no contest. And the context was clearly that Ken had no chance in Hell of winning. I think maybe he's developed a few great relationships but obviously not with everybody.

And Will, during the convo with Ken that went south, was saying in his talking head that he couldn't stand to talk with Ken or some such.

[Guest]

Didn't he say something like working with Ken was like having your finger and toenails ripped out?  

[SlackerInc]

9 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I'm fascinated by the edits and how people can see them so completely differently.

I think it's mostly a lot of dubious tea leaf reading.  But if it really is possible to analyze the game that way (and it might be--assuming they don't start editing until they know the winner, and the editors know all that info), that's even worse.  I would love it if they were required to edit the show as they go, with no "backsies", or if that's logistically problematic, if the editors were only given three days of footage at a time to work with.  I would prefer, in other words, that they edited solely based on how the game had been developing up to that point, and what seemed interesting in that three day span.

Imagine if football was "tape delayed" and edited so there was a tight focus on the players who were going to make big plays (or fumble) on any given down.  Ugh, yuck.

[SVNBob]

1 hour ago, SlackerInc said:

 I would love it if they were required to edit the show as they go, with no "backsies", or if that's logistically problematic, if the editors were only given three days of footage at a time to work with.  I would prefer, in other words, that they edited solely based on how the game had been developing up to that point, and what seemed interesting in that three day span.

That sounds a lot like the Korean method of editing reality shows.  I've watched some where the participants watch the show as it airs while filming another episode several days (up to a month) later, and make reference to the episode they just watched during the filming.

[peachmangosteen]

17 hours ago, enlightenedbum said:

They've made a point to showcase him developing individual relationships with the majority of players.  Screams social game winner to me, personally.  As I said, reminds me of Natalie White.

I do see that. Now you got me wondering if I was wrong to take Ken off my possible winners list!

[Hanahope]

On 12/4/2016 at 0:50 PM, EVS said:

One thing I did find interesting: I was watching the season 1 reunion recently and Bryant Gumbel questioned someone (maybe Joel?) about a comment he made comparing gen-x to the older players. He asked Joel if it was a generational difference and Joel said he thought it was an age thing. He referred to the older players as more "corporate". I can't remember his exact comments about the gen-xers but it was basically the same as Jeff's description of the millennials this season-more "go with the flow" etc. That is why I found this season's theme annoying. It's really an "older vs younger" theme, imo, as opposed to a specific generational thing but that doesn't sound as interesting so it became millennials vs gen-x. 

The thing is, this is always the way it goes with generations.  10 years ago, you could have done the same theme of Gen X v. Boomer (especially if you selected younger Gen-Xers).  there's less a difference of "generations" than it is by age and life experience.

Its probably too late now, but what might have been a fun theme would have been like younger hipsters v. older hippies.

[LanceM]

13 hours ago, Hanahope said:

The thing is, this is always the way it goes with generations.  10 years ago, you could have done the same theme of Gen X v. Boomer (especially if you selected younger Gen-Xers).  there's less a difference of "generations" than it is by age and life experience.

Its probably too late now, but what might have been a fun theme would have been like younger hipsters v. older hippies.

 

Yep. Case in point Season 3 Africa filmed in 2001 I believe.  Here is a confessional from Baby Boomer Dr. Carl talking about Gen X'er Silas:

"He wants to learn wisdom, he's not learning it that way. You can't create a work ethic when they've never had a work ethic. This is Generation X. This is definitely Generation X. I'm glad I'm 46 years old and I'm glad I'm not part of it."

Edited December 13, 2016 by LanceM

[Trick Question]

On 2016-12-05 at 1:32 AM, KimberStormer said:

I basically agree; but, well, how are you going to get to the end next to the person of your choosing without moves and blindsides and all that?  That's the whole thing I like about it, the balance/tension between the two parts of get to the end.  You can't play alone, but you can't win together; you can't "nice" your way to the end, but you can't "mean" your way to the win.  If everyone voted based on popularity alone, I don't think it would be an interesting game or TV show.  I'm like any average Survivor fan: I sure wouldn't watch if there weren't blindsides and big moves.  (South Pacific...ugh.)  There are Russells who get to the end and lose because they don't understand the popularity part, but there's also plenty of beloved people who everyone agrees would unanimously win who end up eating peanut butter and cookies at Ponderosa because they don't understand the gameplay part.  I just think the gameplay part is, ideally for me, not based on challenge prowess or min/maxing Rational Actor analyses, but on human relationships.  The "moves" may even be the same, but the approach is different.

Oh, it's obviously a very difficult path to actually get to the 'popularity contest' portion of the game, a.k.a. the final tribal council.  We saw that this very season, with seemingly everyone angling to get next to Hannah and Ken since they apparently had no chance.  My point is that "nice/mean" are very arbitrary designations (which you agree with, KimberStormer, given your use of the quotation marks).  If a player is blindsided by someone they like and respect, more often than not the reaction seems to be "aha, you got me, well played" rather than jury bitterness.  (Or, if the blindsider is clever enough, they're at the FTC with someone nobody respects, so the eliminated jury member has no choice.)  If a person you don't like or respect blindsides you, that's when you get the angry reaction.

As Sandra put it, this is why she can vote Rupert out and he'll still pick her to win the million dollars.  The truly well-liked players have carte blanche to pull "mean" moves since they're rarely given crap over it.

[MissEwa]

27 minutes ago, Trick Question said:

The truly well-liked players have carte blanche to pull "mean" moves since they're rarely given crap over it.

I think it depends on what kind of 'well-liked'. If you're well-liked as a person, generally, yes. But if you're well-liked as a confidant or a support person or - worst of all - a mother figure, then it's not so simple. 

[KimberStormer]

Some days I think all my Survivor opinions belong in this thread :)

[cooksdelight]

Glad this thread was revived, I forgot it was here. :)

I read back a few pages where someone said Cirie and Sandra were so overrated. Yet, here they are again.

Being personal friends with a contestant gives me a little more insight into the game, and how things are done, and things that go on that we don't see.... yet at the same time I still have a zillion questions that she cannot answer. Their contracts are scary.

[simplyme]

I started this as a response to a comment in the Ep.04 Dirty Deed thread, then decided it was too off-topic and didn't know where to put it, so I'm sticking it here under the theory that "Michaela's attitude is not really a generational thang" may be unpopular. Also, no idea where else to put it. :P

It does seem like she has that attitude problem that a lot of young people have these days. You know, that "you didn't not just disrespect me" type of attitude.

I don't think young people are any more prone to this than any other age group. Both from personal experience and from what I've observed, that attitude can be situational and depend on how people are being treated and who is involved. Not always, but often. (I say this as a former public librarian. I'm excluding people with obvious mental issues from this analysis.) There are some people in ALL age ranges who cop it a lot more than others. Others react to criticism (actual or interpreted) in other ways.

For example, at the library where I used to work we sometimes had to politely remind patrons to speak a bit more quietly. Most people handled it fine. The female librarians were more likely to get the attitude you mentioned than the male librarians, and sometimes age gaps between patron and librarian appeared to come into play. As a short, younger-looking, female librarian, I most often got it from men over 50 with a certain swagger. (A close relative of those guys were the men who thanked me and then immediately tried to hug me or pat me on the head in a way that sort of reestablished their dominance in the relationship.)

If you see it more in one group than in others, it may simply be that you aren't in situations that would normally trigger other groups.

SimplyMom, a former teacher nicknamed "the Generalissimo" by her principal for her iron control, agrees with me. Sure, you get the occasional real stinker or someone having a bad day, but most people in any age range are fine.

[pamplemousse]

I just think each generation likes to operate under the belief (because it keeps them warm at night!) that each successive generation is lazier, more advantaged, more attitudinally-challenged, more entitled, etc. than they are. I doubt it. You have lazy people with shitty attitudes in every generation -- I see it just as much from older people as I do from younger ones.

[MissEwa]

This came up a lot last season - especially early on when there was a lot of 'Millenials are so lazy and entitled while GenX work so hard,' which is the antithesis of the GenX stereotype as I grew up with it. I think it's less about specific generations and more about age. I feel like the younger players (especially young women) always get that same criticism aimed at them - lazy, don't want to work at camp, just there for screentime, using their looks to get ahead etc. 

I don't know how popular/unpopular it is. I've admitted elsewhere it tends to be a bias I have coming into a new season, but one that is regularly challenged. 

As for the quote from the episode thread, there are too many negatives in "you didn't not just disrespect me" for me to actually figure out what it means (I'm in my late-30s so maybe I'm too old/young) but I don't see anything generational there. Michaela has never been shy about standing up for herself, sometimes to her detriment. Debbie isn't shy about standing up for herself and she's 51. Sandra is 41. It's just a personality type (and I hate lumping Debbie in with Sandra and Michaela because hers is a whole 'nother level). 

[Sugar]

My unpopular opinion about this season is that I like Brad Culpepper.

I keep seeing all these posts bashing him, and talking about what an ass he is, but all I'm seeing is a dorky dad-type who hasn't really done anything offensive, other than try like hell to fit in and redeem his edit. People refer to him as a racist and misogynist, but I really don't see any evidence of that (or even in his first season). I think because of his edit and reactions in BvW, he's maybe trying a bit too hard to be sensitive and considerate, but as a viewer I see that as awkward and amusing - not malicious in any way. And he's obviously Probst's wet dream, but that's not really his fault, just like Malcolm, Joe, Colby, Savage, et. al didn't ask for Jeff to salivate over them either.
I think it's tough when you come into this game as a natural leader (he was an NFL player), but you get labeled a control freak for trying to reign people in. If you're in that position AND you happen to be male, then you're often slapped with labels despite your intentions (sexist, misogynist, alpha male, condescending, etc.), just like women in that position will be called bitchy, bossy, controlling, etc. So where Brad is playing hard and making moves to benefit HIS game, people are unforgiving and relentless in calling him out, but appreciate when players like Hali, Sarah, Circie, etc. are doing the same. I get it - he's not exactly an underdog, and people love rooting for the underdog. He's not the "smart" player or the "dorky fan" or the "unathletic person" that we all love rooting for - he's a rich guy with a pretty great life. So I do think that may weigh into people's perceptions of him.
I mean, fair enough if you don't like him, root for him, or care about him in any way. But I think it's a bit unfair to call the guy names, if you can't point out interviews, clips, or scenes where he's actually doing the things you're accusing him of. Especially this season, he's been shown to be patient, encouraging, and supportive (if not a little weepy and indulgent, but that's hardly a crime!)

ALSO, probably the most U/O on this entire forum: I feel sorry for Sierra's eyebrows, and I don't hate them. As someone who lost 90% of her eyebrows due to health issues, I can appreciate the struggle to groom/draw them on every day, and the temptation to get tattooing/permanent makeup done.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Sugar

[ByaNose]

I have the same unpopular opionion. I had read or heard that the Culpepper we are seeing is the same one from Blood/Water. Apparently, it was more the reactions of Candice & Marissia to Brad that most people remember which makes him like he was the bad guy. I can't even recall what he did that was so bad. He did vote out John who was in his alliance but that was game stuff. I can't really recall him being a jerk in general. Now, everyone from this season seems to love him and his edit is great, too.

[Nashville]

3 hours ago, ByaNose said:

I have the same unpopular opionion. I had read or heard that the Culpepper we are seeing is the same one from Blood/Water. Apparently, it was more the reactions of Candice & Marissia to Brad that most people remember which makes him like he was the bad guy. I can't even recall what he did that was so bad. He did vote out John who was in his alliance but that was game stuff. I can't really recall him being a jerk in general. Now, everyone from this season seems to love him and his edit is great, too.

I'd hazard a guess that EVERYBODY on a returnee season is at least slightly more attuned to what does/doesn't edit well in Survivor - and those who had previously received bad edits would be making some degree of extra effort to avoid a redux.  

Assuming, of course, their last name was not Hantz or Fairplay.  :>

[ByaNose]

2 hours ago, Nashville said:

I'd hazard a guess that EVERYBODY on a returnee season is at least slightly more attuned to what does/doesn't edit well in Survivor - and those who had previously received bad edits would be making some degree of extra effort to avoid a redux.  

Assuming, of course, their last name was not Hantz or Fairplay.  :>

Well, there is an exception to every rule. LOL!! Hantz or Fairplay need not apply. LOL!!