On an Island of One: Unpopular Opinions of Survivor

[Rachel RSL]

13 hours ago, Sugar said:

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 honestly haven't seen any posts like that about him here this season. If anything, almost everyone has commented on how good he's coming across this time. The one blip was when he called someone (Hali?) "Blue eyes" instead of her name but nobody really got too upset over that.

[Sugar]

1 hour ago, Rachel RSL said:

I honestly haven't seen any posts like that about him here this season. If anything, almost everyone has commented on how good he's coming across this time. The one blip was when he called someone (Hali?) "Blue eyes" instead of her name but nobody really got too upset over that.

Fair enough, but I've encountered plenty on various threads. Not entire posts, mind you, but digs here and there about how he's sexist, and how everything he does is a product of his inherent sexism (case in point, calling Hali "blue eyes" - I watched that scene and saw it as an affectionate nickname one might give a friend or colleague, not as a way to condescend or show superiority). Anyway, I felt like he was being unfairly vilified, so just wanted to speak up for those of us who aren't offended by his presence :)
 

[Nalan]

I don't mind Brad this season, either.  He's come across so much better than he did in Blood vs. Water.  I think he's actually taken some notes about what he did wrong and has done his best to correct it with the viewers.  I actually like him this time after not liking him much the last time.

[MrYunis]

I absolutely loved Samoa and was rooting for Russell all the way. Biggest travesty in Survivor to this day that he never won that one (or Heroes Vs. Villains).

If I were to do a Mount Rushmore of Survivor, both Russell and Boston Rob would definitely be on it.

I wouldn't have minded if Woo won his season. And I was rooting for Ken to win his season.

[simplyme]

18 hours ago, MrYunis said:

I absolutely loved Samoa and was rooting for Russell all the way. Biggest travesty in Survivor to this day that he never won that one (or Heroes Vs. Villains).

If I were to do a Mount Rushmore of Survivor, both Russell and Boston Rob would definitely be on it.

I wouldn't have minded if Woo won his season. And I was rooting for Ken to win his season.

For me, I sort of try to think about cast aways two different ways. There are the ones I enjoy watching (which include Courtney, Boston Rob, Malcolm, and a slew of others). Then there are those that regardless of how entertaining they are to watch, I can clearly see why they won. (Sophie, Natalie W., etc.)

Some people who entertain the hell out of me (Courtney, obviously, sometimes Tai) will never win Survivor. I'd put Russell in this category because while he plays a great game to watch, and a great game to get himself to the F2/F3, along the way he invariably treats jury members so poorly that they refuse to vote for him. It's an epic fail of social strategy. Based on his HvV Reunion comments, his conclusion is that the game itself is flawed and should involve the public voting. But that's not what Survivor is. It is already defined. HE needed to adjust HIS play to win. On a show with fans voting, Rupert and Russell would slay. But... that's not Survivor.

So I try to separate my "people I like" thoughts from my analyses of "This is how and why this person won." Sometimes I fail miserably. (It's easier for me to see the flaws in JT's game than it is to see in some other people's games because I so heartily dislike JT, and I know this.) But sometimes I think I do an okay job. Like with Aubry and Michele. I preferred Aubry, but I think I get why Michele won and can give her credit for that. 

[peachmangosteen]

I'm tired of the notion that one must drive the strategy/be the mastermind in order to be a deserving winner.

[MrYunis]

19 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

I'm tired of the notion that one must drive the strategy/be the mastermind in order to be a deserving winner.

That's not necessarily the truth. But I think if the person that wins his or her respectable season sits next to one who clearly played the better game (Samoa f.x), then the winner looks like the undeserving one.

Granted, you could argue that every single winner deserves the title to some degree. I'll even give Natalie from Samoa credit that she was the mastermind behind the Eric vote-out. However, if your strategy the entire game is to hide behind someone who makes 90% of the moves and gets blood on his hands, while you just nod and go along with it. For me, that's not a deserving winner. Natalie won because of a bitter jury, simple as that.

[peachmangosteen]

Another unpopular opinion, I don't believe in the idea of 'bitter juries' as it's used. If the jury's bitter at you, then it's because you played a poor game.

[MrYunis]

32 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

Another unpopular opinion, I don't believe in the idea of 'bitter juries' as it's used. If the jury's bitter at you, then it's because you played a poor game.

Or maybe because the jury is bitter that you out-played them and refuse to give you the million.

[simplyme]

54 minutes ago, MrYunis said:

Or maybe because the jury is bitter that you out-played them and refuse to give you the million.

Personally, I think Russell could have gotten away with outplaying the jury if he'd played a better social game. I mean, Cirie votes out people who would vote for her all the time. But I think he's too antagonistic and makes it too personal during the game, which is a social game failure.

Eh. It's probably one of those "agree to disagree" things.

[LadyChatts]

Returning player seasons are tricky when it comes to the juries and who gets votes in the end.  Pre game alliances are a thing, and personal relationships can definitely factor into voting.  As some people already said, Sandra was going to likely have 3 votes on that jury no matter what (Amanda, Rupert, and Courtney).  Where Russell goes wrong is that he does not know how to handle personal relationships or social game.  He could have made a good argument regarding the Heroes giving him the idol and how he played/used that to his advantage.  Ultimately the Heroes were idiots and that was their mistake, but no doubt Russell's further antics lost any respect votes he would have gotten from the Heroes (or Villians) for that. Russell can get a decent resume, he just needs to know how to have a better social game and how to manage the relationships around him.  His biggest thing, like we saw during HvsV, was seeing people around him trying to take control.

I think the problem, too, is he thought he had won Samoa, and played exactly the same because he assumed it had been successful for him before.  It's probably doubtful he'll play again, because he'll likely be the first one voted off.

[MrYunis]

I get both your points. I think he played better his 1st time around. If I remember correctly, he didn't flat out insult people in front of them like he did in Heroes Vs. Villains (e.g Rupert/Russell confrontation) where Russell called Rupert a dumbass).

I think he was robbed the first time, the second time could be argued both ways. I honestly just think that since he took the game so serious, the people around him would do the same. But I can agree however that Russell's social game is non-existent and that pretty much cost him the chance to ever be called the sole Survivor, let alone a 2-time winner.

[simplyme]

2 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

I think the problem, too, is he thought he had won Samoa, and played exactly the same because he assumed it had been successful for him before. 

I always thought this too, right up until a few days ago when I rewatched the finale of HvV. During that, there's one TH where he says that the last time, he took people he thought he could beat and it didn't turn out too well for him. This time he wants to make sure he takes (I think it was something like) people who have done absolutely nothing in the game.

So apparently he did know he'd lost Samoa, I assume from the way FTC went and maybe things people said or the way they acted afterwards.

Anyways, I was like, "Wait, what?" when he said that. I'm glad I'm not the only one who'd had that impression.

[Oholibamah]

5 hours ago, MrYunis said:

That's not necessarily the truth. But I think if the person that wins his or her respectable season sits next to one who clearly played the better game (Samoa f.x), then the winner looks like the undeserving one.

Granted, you could argue that every single winner deserves the title to some degree. I'll even give Natalie from Samoa credit that she was the mastermind behind the Eric vote-out. However, if your strategy the entire game is to hide behind someone who makes 90% of the moves and gets blood on his hands, while you just nod and go along with it. For me, that's not a deserving winner. Natalie won because of a bitter jury, simple as that.

It's that Russell "clearly played the better game" that I take issue with, because MMV, and I believe it did for this jury. 

Erik gets credited with "winning the game for her", but it was Natalie's argument that she saw people defying Russell and getting booted Tribal after Tribal and had to adapt that was most compelling. I think Erik just made people feel ok about rewarding a game that wasn't as in-your-face.

She is also accused of stagnating while Russell "did all the strategizing", but other players have said that her good cop was instrumental to getting people to work with Russell, and that the Foas strategized as a group.

I also believe that the Foas were Russell's only path to the end, but that Natalie had other options: she could have gone with the Foa women, or planned to dump Russell before Final Tribal if she was so worried about his "superior game". But she voiced early on that she could beat him, and she did. 

I play a lot of board games and am good at the strategy part. Where I suck is that I overplay my hand and nobody trusts me, and I often lose because nobody will work with me, and I am the easy target. That isn't a flaw with the game, it's that I'm not playing the game in a way that will win. Natalie did everything she needed to do to win, because that was the situation she was presented with. 

I love discussing the Russell/Natalie dynamic because I think it's a microcosm for a lot of things about the show. I welcome other opinions of course, but I think Natalie's game is a lot more than just a Russell-parasite. 

Edited June 14, 2017 by Oholibamah

[cherrypj]

1 hour ago, simplyme said:

So apparently he did know he'd lost Samoa, I assume from the way FTC went and maybe things people said or the way they acted afterwards.

Yes! I saw that too! Made me throw my hands in the air: maybe he wasn't so dumb after all. 

Nah. 

[peachmangosteen]

You explained my feelings on Russell vs. Natalie and just Natalie's game in general so much better that I ever could, @Oholibamah. And now I kind wanna rewatch Somoa just to watch Natalie again!

14 hours ago, MrYunis said:

Or maybe because the jury is bitter that you out-played them and refuse to give you the million.

But again for me, if the jury is so bitter towards you that they won't vote for you to win then you have made a colossal mistake in your gameplay and that's your fault.

[Nashville]

20 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I'm tired of the notion that one must drive the strategy/be the mastermind in order to be a deserving winner.

To me, that's only an issue if the people sitting in the FTC seats next to the mastermind in question were unquestionably his/her strategic minions - i.e., followed the mastermind's strategic lead without deviation.  IMHO any demonstration of independent strategic thought nullifies the mastermind claim.

 

12 hours ago, cherrypj said:

Yes! I saw that too! Made me throw my hands in the air: maybe he wasn't so dumb after all. 

Nah. 

I would say, consider Russell Hantz dumb at your own peril.  RH is an extremely intelligent person - who just also happens to be an asshole to the nth degree.

 

19 hours ago, MrYunis said:

Or maybe because the jury is bitter that you out-played them and refuse to give you the million.

But that's true of everybody in the F2/F3 chairs, isn't it?  And they have to give the money to someone....

in my mind, bitter Jury almost always equates to toxic social game.  About the only exception I can visualize (and this is largely theoretical) is a "beauty pageant" finale scenario: a jury full of Beautiful People who absolutely will not vote for an Ugly Betty to win, regardless of how stellar a game Betty may have played on all fronts.

[ProfCrash]

I don't believe in bitter juries. Jury management is an important part of the game and everyone knows it. Russell was a bully. You saw it in how he acted, spoke to people, and treated people. According to people who played with him, we didn't see the worst of Russell's behavior. So if what we saw was that bad, I don't even want to know how awful he really was. You cannot bully people and treat them like crap and expect to win.

I hate the Russell's of the show. I don't like the Debbie's, Philip's and Coaches. The people who are out there to play a character and are less focused on winning then getting as much screen time as possible drive me crazy. I don't think they are fun to watch. THey ruin the show for me. I would rather watch a season of people playing a good strategic game, like Kim or Earl or Yul, then assholes like Russell.

[LadyChatts]

Quote

 

I always thought this too, right up until a few days ago when I rewatched the finale of HvV. During that, there's one TH where he says that the last time, he took people he thought he could beat and it didn't turn out too well for him. This time he wants to make sure he takes (I think it was something like) people who have done absolutely nothing in the game.

So apparently he did know he'd lost Samoa, I assume from the way FTC went and maybe things people said or the way they acted afterwards.

Anyways, I was like, "Wait, what?" when he said that. I'm glad I'm not the only one who'd had that impression.

 

I'm in the middle of watching HvsV, so I'll look out for that.  I obviously forgot about that.  Maybe I'm confusing it with no one had seen his season, so he thought his strategy might be better respected by veterans vs newbies?  Whatever the case, he was still a sore loser, and seems to still have it out for Sandra, judging by what Caleb said.  I'm sure if Natalie White ever popped back up on the Survivor grid and returned he'd be out for her, too.
 

Quote

 

I don't believe in bitter juries. Jury management is an important part of the game and everyone knows it. Russell was a bully. You saw it in how he acted, spoke to people, and treated people. According to people who played with him, we didn't see the worst of Russell's behavior. So if what we saw was that bad, I don't even want to know how awful he really was. You cannot bully people and treat them like crap and expect to win.

I hate the Russell's of the show. I don't like the Debbie's, Philip's and Coaches. The people who are out there to play a character and are less focused on winning then getting as much screen time as possible drive me crazy. I don't think they are fun to watch. THey ruin the show for me. I would rather watch a season of people playing a good strategic game, like Kim or Earl or Yul, then assholes like Russell.

 

I believe juries can be bitter, but I find that more with returning player seasons (see AS) or getting the Corinne's of the game on a jury.  I do agree with your statement on Russell, and for everything he might have done right, he missed the most crucial part of winning the game.  He could have still played a villain, but got respect for his moves if he hadn't let his ego do the talking.  Agree with the rest of your post as well.  I miss the days when it wasn't about characters, moments, airtime, and resume building.  I've been saying it for awhile, I think some contestants are more concerned with getting asked back or being remembered than they are about anything else.

[peachmangosteen]

1 hour ago, LadyChatts said:

I believe juries can be bitter...

 

I do, too. I just don't agree with the notion that it's anyone but the player they're bitter about's fault or that it makes the player a bad/wrong juror if they're bitter.

[simplyme]

So, speaking of unpopular opinions... I liked Kass the first time she played. (I haven't seen her second appearance.) I certainly didn't think she was evil. She played for herself. She sometimes saw things primarily from her perspective. But she also sometimes played logically, and she was one of the absolute best I've ever seen at puzzles. And some of the things she said were amusing as heck to me.

[peachmangosteen]

Yea, I liked Kass in BBB, too. I can't even recall her playing again though so that tells you how I felt about that performance!

[Star Aristille]

3 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

Yea, I liked Kass in BBB, too. I can't even recall her playing again though so that tells you how I felt about that performance!

The editors were shoving Spencer down our throats almost the entire season (and Jeremy, to a lesser extent), so that's certainly understandable.;)

[LadyChatts]

Kass was very UTR during SC, but I know she said that was primarily her strategy.  She's lucky she wound up on Bayon, because when she finally did have to go to TC, there were other targets.  I missed Chaos Kass from Cagayan, though.  That was why she got some of my votes, but that's usually how it goes in returning player seasons-sometimes they aren't as good as you remember from the last time.

[snoopythecat]

20 hours ago, simplyme said:

I always thought this too, right up until a few days ago when I rewatched the finale of HvV. During that, there's one TH where he says that the last time, he took people he thought he could beat and it didn't turn out too well for him. This time he wants to make sure he takes (I think it was something like) people who have done absolutely nothing in the game.

So apparently he did know he'd lost Samoa, I assume from the way FTC went and maybe things people said or the way they acted afterwards.

Anyways, I was like, "Wait, what?" when he said that. I'm glad I'm not the only one who'd had that impression.

I'm mostly a lurker in these parts, but I follow and thoroughly enjoy the comments here every single season.

My take on that TH has always been that Russell did believe he had won his first season, and that two different versions of that TH were recorded. Here's my reasoning.

Even though we know that the F3 usually know the outcome based on the jury's comments at FTC, they are not supposed to officially know who won. As such, I can envision the unseen cameraman saying, "Since we don't know the outcome of last season yet, we're going to to two takes on this one. The first time, I want you to answer with the assumption that you won. The second time, I want you to answer with the assumption that you lost." Then, when the show was edited, the take that corresponded to the actual outcome was used, and somewhere in the Land of Discarded Survivor Footage is a clip of Russell beating his chest and crowing about his victory.

I can't recall seeing this possibility mentioned here before, so I apologize if this theory has already been discussed and dismissed and I missed it.

Edited June 15, 2017 by snoopythecat

[Daisy]

i am catching up. 
I don't believe in bitter juries in how they are applied either. like can they be mean yes. can they have questions of "My question is YOU SUCK!" of course, but I do think if people are flat out legitimately angry with you or how you played the game then I don't think you played the game relatively well. Now. Can that cost you the game?

Yes/no. 
Kelly lost to Rich by a 4/5 vote. but Colleen flat out stated the reason why she was changing her vote was because of Sue's "Rats + Snakes" speech.  She was going to vote for Hatch but went Kelly instead. so Sue is bitter, but is that why Kelly lost? No. 

Neleh lost the same way and people went the Rotu 4 was bitter? yah. but they also saw how Neleh played, and when you constantly say "I started playing day 21" to a lot of people who played a lot earlier than that... it comes across of you're not working. 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Daisy

[Guest]

On 5/1/2017 at 11:55 PM, Sugar said:

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

.... 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.

... 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.

I don't mind Sierra's eyebrows, but her first season they were kind of interesting, being so gold.  They distracted me less than Lisa Whelchel's weird double set by day 30.  I'm getting mine tattooed in a few weeks.  

I get tired of the allegations of misogyny around here.  I think it's thrown around way more than is warranted.  But I can't get past Brad committing insurance fraud, though that crime really annoys me.  I suppose we don't know if he lost the suit since it wasn't a criminal action but it sure as hell sounds like fraud to me.  http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/89-percent-disability-rating-nfl-star-shines-survivor/story?id=28557340

But I can also see being tired of reading the nearly groupthink levels of dislike all season, too.  I got tired of it with Caleb.  Granted, I don't watch any Big Brother live feed stuff so maybe I'd feel the same if I did.   But I think for it to be sexual harrassment, a woman has got to at some point tell the guy in no uncertain terms she wants the attention to stop.  I think if Amber ever did that and Caleb ignored it, CBS would've intervened.  Bachelor in Paradise had the plug pulled this summer due to allegations of sexual misconduct.  BB didn't fool around when Willie Hantz shoved another dude in the house.  They just removed him, immediately and unceremoniously.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Guest

[simplyme]

1 hour ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I get tired of the allegations of misogyny around here.  I think it's thrown around way more than is warranted. 

I think what I would term actual misogyny is pretty rare. To me, gender bias is not the same thing as misogyny or misandry. I tend to use misogyny/misandry for the people with very deep prejudice or dislike. Otherwise I think we'd all be considered misogynists and misandrists, because I don't believe it's possible to live in a culture without at least subconsciously picking up cultural expectations and biases. So, to me, misogyny is pretty rare. Bias (of all sorts: age, gender, race, build, athletic, etc.) is common, just like outside of Survivor. IMO Survivor, as a social game, involves trying to find a way to deal with whatever hand you are dealt in that manner. It's definitely not an even playing field. That said, I find it interesting to see what biases I note and ponder how they impact the game, as well as look for overall trends.

But I'm not sure what definitions of misogyny other people are working with. Typing "define misogyny" into Google gives the definition of "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." So if someone is using that as their definition, the term will get brought up a lot more. We all bring our own connotations to a word in addition to its strict definition, and that may be what we're running into.

1 hour ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

But I can't get past Brad committing insurance fraud, though that crime really annoys me.  I suppose we don't know if he lost the suit since it wasn't a criminal action but it sure as hell sounds like fraud to me.  http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/89-percent-disability-rating-nfl-star-shines-survivor/story?id=28557340

The alleged insurance fraud was an issue for me, too. It's a little hard for me to comprehend someone going on Survivor after saying they're physically disabled to the point where bathing is a problem. If that was true, he had no business going on Survivor. If it wasn't, it was insurance fraud.

2 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

But I think for it to be sexual harrassment, a woman has got to at some point tell the guy in no uncertain terms she wants the attention to stop.

Sexual harassment is really haaaaaaard! *whine* No, seriously, it's pretty complex IMO because what actually counts as "harassment" depends on the relationship between the people involved. If the people have different understandings of their relationship or how an overture is being received, things can go to hell pretty quickly without there being any intent, just social awkwardness or stupidity. That said, there are times when people claim that and they know darn well that they're over the line.

I mean, when I was a librarian I was once groped by a patron as I walked past him after showing him where to find a book. We'd never met before. I think that was pretty clearly over the line and thus there was no need for me to have previously stated "Don't grope me." But between people with a pre-existing relationship of any kind, sometimes misunderstandings occur. People need to be clear about what they don't like. That said, when someone is told that, they need to shut up and take it, not punish the person who drew the line. Unfortunately too many people don't feel they can speak up without being punished (often correctly), and situations often escalate. So... it's complicated. It's essentially a social problem that we try to address with rules and laws, and that seldom works particularly well.

I knew nothing about Caleb from BB, btw. So that was theory-only not related to whatever I missed with him. I wouldn't necessarily count on producers to do anything, though. I mean,  in S8, Rich rubbed himself against Sue without her consent and nothing happened to him. His actions were clearly illegal. I think producers have an easier time dealing with obvious acts of violence than they do figuring out how to react to other violations.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, simplyme said:

Rich rubbed himself against Sue without her consent

That's not really what I saw.  I saw him playing nude, as was his wont, which Sue of all people knew this being their second season together, and Richard passing her on a balance beam in a challenge.  I thought Sue was manufacturing drama.  Watch around 4:30 in this clip below.  Richard's arms were in the air the entire time, and he was about to step off the beam when Sue stepped on.  (I didn't listen to the interview.)  If she was so afraid of his nudity, why didn't she wait one more second, for him to be off the beam?  

Ah, a fellow librarian!  I knew I liked you.  Someone groping you is a lot different from flirting, though, I think.  I think groping in that context would be clearly illegal.  

I see your point about misogyny, and totally agree we all have inherent biases, but to me the meaning of misogyny is like its latin translation:  hatred of women.  Like one wouldn't use the closely related word philanthropy to mean liking one particular man, or kind of liking men as a whole.  But you're right, who knows what others use the word to mean.  I just hate to see it get watered down by it being used here to apply to every instance of a man who dislikes a woman.  Or a man who thinks he's stronger than women, or any other of a host of lesser offenses.  

I do think Amber in BB, Caleb's object of affection, did fear consequences but I think they were entirely game related.  I'm not sure that's a defense for never telling the guy to back off.  Strategy, for sure.  

[azshadowwalker]

There's nothing confusing about sexual harassment, and women shouldn't have to tell men to knock it the fuck off. Men know better. They know it's not allowed, but do it anyway because they know people will always blame the victim instead of holding them accountable for their bullshit. 

[Bryce Lynch]

Here are 2:

I kind of like Brandon Hantz, especially his first time, until he totally flipped out.

 

I was totally on Will's side in his conflict with Shirin.  

[Bryce Lynch]

On 7/2/2017 at 1:35 AM, Winston9-DT3 said:

That's not really what I saw.  I saw him playing nude, as was his wont, which Sue of all people knew this being their second season together, and Richard passing her on a balance beam in a challenge.  I thought Sue was manufacturing drama.  Watch around 4:30 in this clip below.  Richard's arms were in the air the entire time, and he was about to step off the beam when Sue stepped on.  (I didn't listen to the interview.)  If she was so afraid of his nudity, why didn't she wait one more second, for him to be off the beam?  

Ah, a fellow librarian!  I knew I liked you.  Someone groping you is a lot different from flirting, though, I think.  I think groping in that context would be clearly illegal.  

I see your point about misogyny, and totally agree we all have inherent biases, but to me the meaning of misogyny is like its latin translation:  hatred of women.  Like one wouldn't use the closely related word philanthropy to mean liking one particular man, or kind of liking men as a whole.  But you're right, who knows what others use the word to mean.  I just hate to see it get watered down by it being used here to apply to every instance of a man who dislikes a woman.  Or a man who thinks he's stronger than women, or any other of a host of lesser offenses.  

I do think Amber in BB, Caleb's object of affection, did fear consequences but I think they were entirely game related.  I'm not sure that's a defense for never telling the guy to back off.  Strategy, for sure.  

Hard to say if he rubbed against her intentionally.  But, the simple solution would be not to play naked, especially during challenges that might involve physical contact.  It could be argued that was sexual harassment in and of itself.  

[Nashville]

On 7/2/2017 at 10:20 PM, azshadowwalker said:

There's nothing confusing about sexual harassment, and women shouldn't have to tell men to knock it the fuck off. Men know better. They know it's not allowed, but do it anyway because they know people will always blame the victim instead of holding them accountable for their bullshit. 

Kind of a sweeping generalization there.  Not all men do.

[LadyChatts]

11 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Here are 2:

I kind of like Brandon Hantz, especially his first time, until he totally flipped out.

 

I was totally on Will's side in his conflict with Shirin.  

I agree on Brandon.  I know some people didn't like him over the Mikayla situation (I don't even remember her), but I know it was something about her making him uncomfortable and he wanted her gone as a result.  But I need to go back and watch, because I have no recollection.  But I felt sorry for the guy when he had his meltdown.  I can't even say I hated him for it.  He's got issues, and if I hate or blame anyone, it's the show for exploiting him because his last name was Hantz. 

After seeing Shirin on SC, and listening to her afterwards, I don't 100% side with Will, but I think she totally milked the victim complex when she saw how everyone rallied to her side, and totally trashed Dan, Will, and Rodney that season.  She's another one that I believe has issues and. while not all Survivor seasons are like the WA environment, I don't know if mentally going on a show like that was right for her at any point.  Actually, I don't even consider WA such an ugly season anymore, just a really boring one in hindsight.  Had the boot order been somewhat swapped, it might have made for a more interesting season.  With or without the ugliness, I think a lot of the contestants who faded into the background that season still would have.

Quote

Hard to say if he rubbed against her intentionally.  But, the simple solution would be not to play naked, especially during challenges that might involve physical contact.  It could be argued that was sexual harassment in and of itself.  

Rich getting naked was stupid on many levels.  I think he intentionally did rub against Sue, although I don't believe he might anything about it other than to be an outrageous jerk.  They had history, and part of his Survivor infamy was walking around the island naked.  I think he was just playing that up, and likely didn't anticipate Sue reacting the way she did.  Not saying he was right in any sense, just that I don't think there was any real ill will in doing it.  Sue seemed kind of checked out before that incident even happened.

Edited July 22, 2017 by LadyChatts

[simplyme]

6 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Here are 2:

I kind of like Brandon Hantz, especially his first time, until he totally flipped out.

 

I don't dislike Brandon. I think he has some serious issues, but it's also clear that he wants to be a good person. After the family visit, I had the impression that his father was very manipulative. Some of the stuff that Brandon said was naive. Some appeared to be misplaced (like thinking Mikayla was a temptress of some sort). But some of what he said was right on the money.

I quit watching Survivor for several years when they announced the cast for Caramoan and I saw they were bringing Brandon back. It wasn't because I hate Brandon, but because I don't think there is any way he could have passed a proper psych evaluation to play the first time, much less a second time. I was disgusted with TPTB for exploiting someone I saw as vulnerable.

I started watching again on and off during season 32, and I've since gone back and watched Caramoan and some of the other seasons I missed. I think I'm glad I didn't watch Caramoan at the time. I'm still very angry about that casting. It wasn't good TV. It was just horrible and painful to watch. 

Overall, I mostly feel a bit sad for Brandon.

[KimberStormer]

Possibly because I'm just weirdly not in the mood for Survivor right now ("Survivor is just always happening", my sister said when I mentioned a new season had already started) but the episode thread has made me remember my true Unpopular Survivor Opinion, which is that I don't like people solely based on their being "misfits" and I don't hate people solely based on their being "cool kids".  I have liked and disliked people who fit into both of these stupid categories.  I think I totally lost patience with this Survivor take back in MvsGX, and wow am I tired of it now.  Especially when we have no way of knowing what the "cool kids" are even like since they got five seconds of combined screen time this episode.

[Bryce Lynch]

On 2/22/2019 at 2:29 PM, KimberStormer said:

Possibly because I'm just weirdly not in the mood for Survivor right now ("Survivor is just always happening", my sister said when I mentioned a new season had already started) but the episode thread has made me remember my true Unpopular Survivor Opinion, which is that I don't like people solely based on their being "misfits" and I don't hate people solely based on their being "cool kids".  I have liked and disliked people who fit into both of these stupid categories.  I think I totally lost patience with this Survivor take back in MvsGX, and wow am I tired of it now.  Especially when we have no way of knowing what the "cool kids" are even like since they got five seconds of combined screen time this episode.

I agree with this.  Sometimes the "cool kids" can be nice people and good players and sometimes the "misfits" can be jerks or players who never should have been there.  I tend to root for misfits, but there have been some I either couldn't stand or didn't care much about.  

[Steph Sometimes]

I didn't think San Juan whatever was that bad a season and Natalie A, with her general badassery and revenge-playing, is one of my favorite winners.

I'm new posting here, but I probably have a million more of these.

[Bryce Lynch]

10 hours ago, Steph Sometimes said:

I didn't think San Juan whatever was that bad a season and Natalie A, with her general badassery and revenge-playing, is one of my favorite winners.

I'm new posting here, but I probably have a million more of these.

I hated Natalie and Nadiya on TAR, but I grew to like Natalie a lot on Survivor and was glad she won.

[cherrypj]

16 hours ago, Steph Sometimes said:

I didn't think San Juan whatever was that bad a season and Natalie A, with her general badassery and revenge-playing, is one of my favorite winners.

I'm re-watching season 29 right now, and she's a badass. Calling out Rocker, Drew, etc. Jeremy hasn't been eliminated yet, so Natalie's full-on Mel Gibson in Payback/Braveheart/whatever persona hasn't yet surfaced, but it's coming. Oh, yes.

[violet and green]

I have always really liked Dawn Meehan.

*ducks and runs*

[NutMeg]

On 2/27/2019 at 3:11 PM, Bryce Lynch said:

I hated Natalie and Nadiya on TAR, but I grew to like Natalie a lot on Survivor and was glad she won.

I found them delightful in their twinset on TAR, I hope the outcome on Survivor didn't alter their twin dynamics.

[Bryce Lynch]

On 12/1/2016 at 4:49 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.

For the majority of viewers, the "here's what I would do if I were on Survivor" fantasy consists of pulling blindsides and swinging big vote after big vote.  It doesn't involve something as simple as getting along with everyone for five weeks.

I disagree.  Popularity is often a big factor.  But, I think more often it comes down to jurors deciding, "Who do I feel best about giving $1 million to?"

It can be because you like that person, or because you think they played a great game, or they were less objectionable than the other choices, or because that person didn't personally betray you, or because they got the best of you, so they MUST be the best, or because their winning somehow vindicates your game, in your mind, or a hundred other reasons.   

[Bryce Lynch]

How about Dreamz was no more of a bad guy in the Truckgate than Yao-man?

I loved Yao-man, but he "gave" Dreamz the truck to get a promise that he would give him immunity at F4 if he won it.  He didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart.  He was essentially trying to trade maybe $50,000 for $1 million.

Probst made it clear the the promise Dreamz made was no more enforceable than any other deal (for Final 4 or not writing the other's name down, etc.) that players might make.

Also, when they got to F4, they were told that there would be 3 at FTC, not 2 as they expected, so the value of that immunity skyrocketed.

Now, I was hoping Dreamz would keep the bargain, but for his own sake, not for Yao-Man's.  Dreamz was never going to win with the jury, especially after going back on his word, so he had nothing to gain by reneging and doing so was terrible for his reputation and perhaps for his personal character growth.   

I'd say Earl stabbed Yao-Man in the back as badly as Dreamz did (and I don't blame him a bit for it).  Those 2 had worked together for a long time and IIRC Yao-Man had helped Earl get the idol.   Earl said he voted him out because he knew he couldn't beat him.  It was cold blooded, but the 100% correct Survivor move.  Dreamz was really not much different, except he had no chance of winning.  

[MisterBluxom]

'"?@^|/\[]{}<>   `~!#$%&*()-_=+;:,.

I remember way back when at Season One when every episode seemed important to me. I was very invested in who would stay and who would go. I know many other people felt the same way.

But how do you feel today? Is it still important to you?  It is no longer of the slightest importance to me. In fact, the show has now become like one big long "Click Bait" ordeal where you have to click and click and click week after week to see who the next one voted off will be. It's just not worth the effort any more.

I didn't even watch the first two episodes until yesterday. In previous seasons I was waiting on baited breath for the premier to start. This season I couldn't care less and I missed the premier.

Isn't it time for this show to be cancelled now? It sure does feel like it's run its course. Survivor? Bleh!

[cherrypj]

9 hours ago, MisterBluxom said:

Isn't it time for this show to be cancelled now? It sure does feel like it's run its course. Survivor? Bleh!

I'm not ready for Survivor to be cancelled (egads!), but I definitely am spoiled by being able to watch every past season episode on demand. This waiting for a whole &$^#*@! week is for the birds and significantly reduces my enjoyment of the current season.

[MisterBluxom]

1 hour ago, cherrypj said:

I'm not ready for Survivor to be cancelled (egads!), but I definitely am spoiled by being able to watch every past season episode on demand. This waiting for a whole &$^#*@! week is for the birds and significantly reduces my enjoyment of the current season.

Excellent point!

In the 1950s, people got used to TV shows broadcast once per week in the same time slot. But things are very different today. There really is no good reason for presenting a show like Survivor broken up into weekly chunks just because,

"That is the way it has always been done."

That has to be the worst reason for doing something I've ever heard. Some people may argue that presenting a season of Survivor in that way adds to the excitement somehow. But when you think about it, there is absolutely no good reason for showing one episode every seven days - just because of the way things were structured when TV was first introduced into our homes in the 1950s.  I think things are similar - in a way - when it comes to explaining why a TV show like Survivor should be structured in the way that it is. I'm not talking about showing one episode per week. I'm referring to the way the entire show is organized - everything about that - like having two tribes and voting off one person each week. I think that when you reflect on the value of organizing this show in that way, it becomes kind of obvious that is done only because it is the way it has always been done and once you accept that, the whole premise of the show just kind of falls flat. Once you accept there are almost an infinite number of different ways to present this show, the possibilities grow in endless varieties. You may ask,  "Well, OK. How would you do it?" and there are thousands of different ways to answer that. Surely the exact way it is currently being done is not necessarily the best way to do it. There are many exciting possibilities that could make this show (and many other shows) far more entertaining and fresher and more exciting, etc.

Of course, all of this is only my opinion and I must admit there are many other good opinions.  But, I thank you all for listening to me.  The possibilities are endless and the only thing of which I am certain is that the worst way to do things may well be the way things are currently being done.

Edited March 5, 2019 by MisterBluxom

[LadyChatts]

5 hours ago, cherrypj said:

I'm not ready for Survivor to be cancelled (egads!), but I definitely am spoiled by being able to watch every past season episode on demand. This waiting for a whole &$^#*@! week is for the birds and significantly reduces my enjoyment of the current season.

I don't want Survivor to end, either.  I get nostalgic watching the earlier seasons, and realizing how many years ago they were, and where we are now.  Watching Guatemala, it's surreal to think we hadn't yet met Cirie, Ozzy, Malcolm, Russell, Andrea, Parvati, or Coach.  I will say that I've been feeling in a slump the past few seasons, as they've all just blended together, had uninspiring casts, and were boring and predictable.  I hate the F4 fire making twist, and don't think it serves the purpose Probst claims it does (if he ever believed that to begin with).  I don't care for an over abundance of idols and advantages in a season.  But, last season breathed some new life into the show.  It reminded me of an old school season mixed with new school elements, and I loved the cast.  I think it is one of the stronger seasons this show has had.  But good, bad, or meh, I'll take Survivor in any form.  I never would have imagined it would make it 40 seasons and 20 years when it first started.  

Next season will be the first Lynn Spielmann cast-less season.  I'm curious how it might differ, because she definitely seemed set on certain types and trying to create showmances.

[Eolivet]

I never, ever, ever want to see an all-winners season. Like ... ever.

[Eolivet]

AHAHAHAHAHAHA, I crack myself up.

Anyway, at the risk of willing this into existence, as I apparently willed Survivor 40 into existence ... I don't want to see a single person from season 39 back on another season. Not Janet, not Elaine, not Jamal, not Kellee, not anybody else. They are all fruit of the poisonous tree that is this tainted season and I have no desire to see any of them ever again.