S33: Adam Klein

[Maverick]

 I'm glad he got to see his mom but this is really uncomfortable to watch.  

[Ms Blue Jay]

So glad

17 minutes ago, gator12 said:

I'm happy he won

Me too.

[enlightenedbum]

8 minutes ago, Miss Chevious said:

Adam played the sympathy card and it worked for him. It's unfortunate that winning the most immunity challenges doesn't matter much anymore in the final tribal council. Outplaying and outlasting have been trumped by outwitting.

Well, talking about outwitting.  He consistently did stupid shit because he was a cocky asshole.

This was basically China 2, in terms of FTC.  Ken's Amanda, the challenge monster who was not very good at answering the questions and looked ineffectual to the jury.  Hannah's Courtney, who probably never should have been in the game, but did really well to stay in the game and became more appealing as the show went on.  And Adam is Todd.  Who sucked, made a bunch of stupid moves, had other people bail him out, but was able to talk about strategy way better than he could enact it.

[waving feather]

I like Adam enough but so meh on his winning. Still wish it's Jay or David at the end but I knew as soon as he was in FTC with Ken and Hannah he would win. Happy for him because he's a big survivor fan but not estactic to watch as a viewer.

[Sarahsmile416]

10 minutes ago, waving feather said:

I like Adam enough but so meh on his winning. Still wish it's Jay or David at the end but I knew as soon as he was in FTC with Ken and Hannah he would win. Happy for him because he's a big survivor fan but not estactic to watch as a viewer.

To be honest, until he mentioned his mother, I thought it could go either way because honestly he did not do that well in FTC, in my opinion 

[Lamima]

Why is the episode thread not open... and why is the date listed as 12/12?

[bml1980]

40 minutes ago, Miss Chevious said:

Adam played the sympathy card and it worked for him. It's unfortunate that winning the most immunity challenges doesn't matter much anymore in the final tribal council. Outplaying and outlasting have been trumped by outwitting.

That's never really mattered though.  Both season 1 and 2 had immunity challenge beasts in the F2 and both lost.

Outwit does comes first in the tagline.

Edited December 15, 2016 by bml1980

[LadyChatts]

I don't even know if I consider this outwitting.  But looking at the big picture, maybe he just assumed Ken and Hannah were bigger goats than David (because I really don't think he had to worry about anyone beating him, including David).  So perhaps that's the real reason he tried to say he was such a threat and needed to go.  So if that was really Adam's big master plan, kudos to him.

[thehepburn]

Called it that the People article was misleading and that the mother held on until Adam arrived. 

Not a fan of this season and not a fan of Adam as a winner but a fitting ending, I guess.

[Rachel RSL]

25 minutes ago, LadyChatts said:

I don't even know if I consider this outwitting.  But looking at the big picture, maybe he just assumed Ken and Hannah were bigger goats than David (because I really don't think he had to worry about anyone beating him, including David).  So perhaps that's the real reason he tried to say he was such a threat and needed to go.  So if that was really Adam's big master plan, kudos to him.

I agree and disagree. I absolutely think David would have beat him. But I do think he definitely saw Hannah and Ken as goats. He seemed a bit taken aback at how hard she fought at that final TC.

[violet and green]

Outwit, outlast, outsob. :)

[KimberStormer]

I'm glad I didn't watch.  I think this is the first time ever that my day-one least favorite player won?  I really disliked Mike, but of course Worlds Apart had much much worse in store.  Since everyone on this season was a decent human being, Adam wasn't a terrible guy or anything, I just never liked him at all; it's kind of like if Terry won Panama, or something.  Oh well.  I'm still glad he got to see his mom and tell her he won.

[SlackerInc]

I can't believe I'm the only one here or in the episode thread to comment on the uncanny Dave Foley resemblance.  Not in the game, really, but the Foley was so strong with this one at the reunion.

[Trick Question]

If you win 10-0, I'm assuming it's more than a sympathy vote.  But thanks to this season's wonky editing, I don't know if it was more a case of Adam winning it or Hannah/Ken losing it --- we weren't shown much either way to indicate why Adam would win a blowout or why H/K would lose a blowout.

2 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

I can't believe I'm the only one here or in the episode thread to comment on the uncanny Dave Foley resemblance.  Not in the game, really, but the Foley was so strong with this one at the reunion.

For me it's less Dave Foley and more the Miz, for all you wrestling fans out there.

[truthaboutluv]

12 hours ago, Trick Question said:

If you win 10-0, I'm assuming it's more than a sympathy vote.  But thanks to this season's wonky editing, I don't know if it was more a case of Adam winning it or Hannah/Ken losing it --- we weren't shown much either way to indicate why Adam would win a blowout or why H/K would lose a blowout.

I definitely think Adam had some votes sewn up before the FTC, once the final three was set - Bret, Jay and Chris were all going to vote for Adam, that was clear in my opinion. So I don't think his win was solely a sympathy vote. I think it's the blowout win that makes some think it was sympathy. I think basically some of the jury were up in the air, maybe because they weren't particularly impressed by or swayed by either player and Adam's story coupled with his attempts to play the game and their thinking for whatever reason he was the one who convinced Ken to vote out David, swung them to his side. YMMV of course.

Btw, regarding the comment about Adam attempting to control the game and thinking he convinced Ken to get rid of David, this is courtesy the Jury videos pre-FTC, posted online. Based on these videos, it really seems like Chris was not the only one who thought Adam is the one who got to Ken about voting out David and I'm really curious to know why they all thought that. They all also seemed to agree that Adam's game was a bit spastic and he made blunders but did so because he was at least trying to play the game as opposed to Ken who just chose the old school method of loyalty and being a provider. And they mostly thought Hannah was a follower. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by truthaboutluv

[simplyme]

2 hours ago, Trick Question said:

If you win 10-0, I'm assuming it's more than a sympathy vote.  But thanks to this season's wonky editing, I don't know if it was more a case of Adam winning it or Hannah/Ken losing it --- we weren't shown much either way to indicate why Adam would win a blowout or why H/K would lose a blowout.

Hannah's a female with panic attacks that people only credited with strategy when they saw it as "bad" (not what they would have done). IMO, Adam got credit for things because he was less female, less neurotic, and kissed the right ass a bit more. Had Hannah made different decisions like voting out David, people would not have credited her with them. She then would have been a "coat-tail rider." So she made the decisions to guarantee herself F3 and put up a good fight, but based on her nervous personality and looks she had a huge uphill battle to win this.

Ken was seen as having done nothing strategic at all. If he hadn't flipped on David (and David had, say, lost a fire-making challenge to Adam), I think he would have had David and Jessica's votes. I think flipping plus Adam's story lost those votes for him.

[ljenkins782]

12 hours ago, Maverick said:

 I'm glad he got to see his mom but this is really uncomfortable to watch.  

The camera panning to his dad and brother sobbing in the audience was very uncomfortable. The way his dad kept glancing to the side makes me think that there was a camera shoved directly in his face, which is kinda gross. It's such a recent loss, the cameras really did not need to capture the grief from inches away.

Quote

I agree and disagree. I absolutely think David would have beat him. But I do think he definitely saw Hannah and Ken as goats. He seemed a bit taken aback at how hard she fought at that final TC.

There was a brief period in the middle of the FTC where I thought Adam and Hannah were going to snipe their way into 2nd and 3rd places, leaving Ken to win by default. 

As for David beating him, I don't know. The reveal of his mom's cancer seemed to hit several of them very hard and might have swung the votes his way no matter what. Though if it's Jay up there, he might still beat Adam based on jury friendships and the fact that his own mother is ill. 

[gator12]

I don't think the cancer reveal at the FTC is the reason why he won. Watching the jury speak videos before the votes were cast, he won before the finale three made their case. 

[ljenkins782]

3 minutes ago, gator12 said:

I don't think the cancer reveal at the FTC is the reason why he won. Watching the jury speak videos before the votes were cast, he won before the finale three made their case. 

I can't find any extras or clips past Zeke's ponderosa on the cbs site. Can you point me in the direction of these videos? 

[gator12]

7 minutes ago, ljenkins782 said:

I can't find any extras or clips past Zeke's ponderosa on the cbs site. Can you point me in the direction of these videos? 

Here is Jessica's

I watch Jay, Zeke and David, base on those Adam had at least four votes going into FTC. I need to watch the others

You can find the others through that CBS Youtube channel (the link)

[Dawn16]

1 hour ago, truthaboutluv said:

I definitely think Adam had some votes sewn up before the FTC, once the final three was set - Bret, Jay and Chris were all going to vote for Adam, that was clear in my opinion. So I don't think his win was solely a sympathy vote. I think it's the blowout win that makes some think it was sympathy. I think basically some of the judges were up in the air, maybe because they weren't particularly impressed by or swayed by either player and Adam's story coupled with his attempts to play the game and their thinking for whatever reason he was the one who convinced Ken to vote out David, swung them to his side. YMMV of course.

Btw, regarding the comment about Adam attempting to control the game and thinking he convinced Ken to get rid of David, this is courtesy the Jury videos pre-FTC, posted online. Based on these videos, it really seems like Chris was not the only one who thought Adam is the one who got to Ken about voting out David and I'm really curious to know why they all thought that. They all also seemed to agree that Adam's game was a bit spastic and he made blunders but did so because he was at least trying to play the game as opposed to Ken who just chose the old school method of loyalty and being a provider. And they mostly thought Hannah was a follower. 

I don't think it's surprising that the jurors thought Adam was responsible for convincing Ken, when Adam was the one who otherwise would be voted out or forced to build a fire, and Adam was the one desperate to vote out David.    It would be natural to assume that he was responsible, even if Hannah wasn't viewed as a follower.   And once Ken took the credit for his own decision, it was too late for Hannah to convincingly explain that it was her. 

I thought it was obvious Adam would win before the final tribal, because most if not all of these jurors would view him as having played hard, in a way THEY respected.  It was only Hannah's surprisingly confident performance at the final tribal counsel and Ken's better than expected performance that made me question at all whether Adam would win.   Adam's story may have made people like Sunday more sympathetic toward him and his sometimes annoying personality and game play, but I don't think it swayed more than a couple up-in-the-air votes. 

I don't know if Adam will ever regret his decision to play the game, but as a mom who watches Survivor with a teen son, I would have wanted him to play.   Knowing he was out there living a shared dream would make me happier than watching him crying at my bedside while I tried to make him feel better.   Planning for him to go next year, after she died, was likely more painful for the entire family than choosing something joyful in that moment.   I'm just glad he did have a chance to say good-bye.     

[Superpole2000]

On 12/15/2016 at 10:57 AM, gator12 said:

I don't think the cancer reveal at the FTC is the reason why he won. Watching the jury speak videos before the votes were cast, he won before the finale three made their case. 

You might be right. Nevertheless, he waited 39 days to tell more than one person this news. The timing was questionable. I thought the $100K donation at the Reward Show was sweet, even if I think some cancer charities could use a kick in the ass instead of more money.

On 12/15/2016 at 10:08 AM, simplyme said:

Hannah's a female with panic attacks that people only credited with strategy when they saw it as "bad" (not what they would have done). IMO, Adam got credit for things because he was less female, less neurotic, and kissed the right ass a bit more. Had Hannah made different decisions like voting out David, people would not have credited her with them. She then would have been a "coat-tail rider." So she made the decisions to guarantee herself F3 and put up a good fight, but based on her nervous personality and looks she had a huge uphill battle to win this.

Ken was seen as having done nothing strategic at all. If he hadn't flipped on David (and David had, say, lost a fire-making challenge to Adam), I think he would have had David and Jessica's votes. I think flipping plus Adam's story lost those votes for him.

I think you are onto something about accreditation and confirmation bias. To me, it just felt as if the jury liked Adam more, and so they were willing to see things he did in a favourable light while downplaying any positives from Ken/Hannah. I didn't really like Adam (various reasons), so I was more than happy to give Hannah (and Ken somewhat) more credit for getting to the end.

[Eolivet]

This is fascinating. Long as heck, and I think more than a few folks would find Adam unbelievably obnoxious after this (I like Adam, but he tried my patience here). His main message is "My edit sucked because they made me look weaker, when I had the game on lock, and was friends with everyone." Complains -- as a winner -- to have been edited badly throughout the season, but especially in the final episode, and especially final tribal council. He seriously complains more about his edit than any winner I've ever seen, and blames the show for wanting to keep the audience in suspense.

But once he mostly stopped talking about how the show didn't accurately portray how awesome he was, he had some really interesting strategy. As a Survivor fan (but not a Survivor nerd), I have no idea if these are in the Big Book of Survivor Gamebots, but they were novel to me:

--He had what he called a "cross-alliance" with Bret. Namely, that they weren't actually aligned, but had an agreement that if the other's name was to come up within the group, they would try to "protect" that person/move the target to someone else within the alliance.

--He talked about how the way to build trust isn't to tell a person you trust them, but to figure out who they trust, and say to them "I really want to work with [your ally] -- what do you think?" He apparently did this with both Jay and Michelle, and there was a six person millennials alliance of Adam, Jay, Michelle, Hannah, Michaela and Will, in addition to the Jay/Michelle/Taylor/Figgy foursome (as we saw, though Adam claims to have been friends with FigTayls, too).

--The people he had the worst relationships with were Zeke and Ken. He seemed to basically say the "nerd alliance" was constructed whole-cloth out of editing. Said the only relationship the show got right was the one he had with Jay.

--He had an interesting statistic that I have no idea is true -- namely that "90%" of Survivor winners are on the right side of the vote at the merge. That if you're not on the right side of the vote, you are essentially relying on people to bring you along with them ahead of others with whom they've formed trust. That's why he apparently lost his mind during that first post-merge episode, because he would've rather gone home than have been on the wrong side of the vote.

--One thing he did not say at all -- which was his constant messaging on the show -- is "I did this for my mom, to give her something to look forward to." In fact, he'd been applying for the show since 2013, and when he was accepted for Blood vs Water, he had to ask his family for a volunteer to play with him. And contrary to Jeff's story that they'd have a spot for him on a future season, Adam kept applying every year after that, and only heard back this year. So, this whole "I'm playing for mom" thing is a nice story (and he certainly loved his mom, obviously), but I think the show decided that was his reason, not him. I think his actual reason was that he was a huge fan of Survivor, and while the emotions were real, he went along with the story the show wanted to tell for him.

Bottom line: Adam was clearly a Survivor nerd, who turned likability into a gamebot strategy -- like, his #1 strategy was to 'make friends' (he says "If you say 'I'm not here to make friends,' you're here to lose."). But unlike other Survivor nerds (ahem, Spencer), he had a good read on people, and he had the personality to pull it off.

And he said he'd play again tomorrow, so...stay tuned?

[waving feather]

I haven't watch it yet and not sure if I would bother, so thanks for the summary. It sure is interesting. I'm not surprised though because I have seen him say in post game interviews that he had a plan for everything he did during his time on the island and not that he kind of lucked out in certain situations. I mean, a high percentage of doing well in Survivor is also luck, so there's nothing wrong that. I will agree with him that being on the right side of the vote after the merge is important.

With regards to the edit, why would TPTB purposely make his edit suck if he is a huge Survivor nerd/ fan who won? They usually like those kind of people, right? Adam also had a lot of talking heads about his strategy and plans and his sympathetic story about his mom.

Edited January 1, 2017 by waving feather

[Eolivet]

54 minutes ago, waving feather said:

With regards to the edit, why would TPTB purposely make his edit suck if he is a huge Survivor nerd/ fan who won? They usually like those kind of people, right? 

"Suck" is maybe the wrong word -- "inaccurate" is probably a better one (though he was clearly not happy about it). I think he felt the reasons he won were different in real life than what the show portrayed. I thought his confessionals made him come off as a super strategic player, a pretty decent guy with a nice backstory. But to hear him tell it (again, taking reporting bias into account), he had a Earl-from-Fiji/Parvati-like social game, that he supplemented with Survivor knowledge to win. Which I certainly did not get from his edit.

[LadyChatts]

Thanks for the summary!  I may try to watch it.  I'd like to hear Adam talk about his edit (and maybe I'll skip the rest).  I can see why he wouldn't necessarily be happy with how he was portrayed.

[KimberStormer]

I'm sort of excited to have a Survivor winner I entirely despise.  So many Survivor fans hate at least one winner, now I get to too!  I can't watch Adam for more than a second or two and this is 2 hours of Adam, but skipping around my impression has only deepened that he is, in two words, THE WORST.

[peachmangosteen]

I started to play it without sound and in the first second he's pointing at the camera like an idiot and I just couldn't do it. And I liked him on the show! 

[Hera]

The only other person I can remember complaining about their positive edit was Malcolm Freberg. And in Malcolm's case it wasn't so much a complaint as it was surprise that he hadn't been edited as a villain in Philippines, and disappointment that a lot of the snark in his confessionals was left on the cutting room floor. In Adam's case, I wonder if the real problem is that his edit was more accurate than he wants to believe.

[peachmangosteen]

25 minutes ago, Hera said:

In Adam's case, I wonder if the real problem is that his edit was more accurate than he wants to believe.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

[waving feather]

Finally got around to watch the first 30 minutes of it. Adam is very articulate but OMG he is unbelievably long-winded. He uses too many words to express a simple thing. Adam's issue with the edit was that they did not show the relationships he had with many people but then, he should know that the editors only have a limited amount of time to spend on everyone. They still have a show to make and can't be an Adam show all the time. 

The person we saw on the show does seem like the Adam in real life because he expresses everything the same way - in a loud and somehow obnoxious game-show host manner. I've said it before that Adam won fair and square over Hannah because he had a better read on the jury and formed better relationships with them, but I did not enjoy the two Podcasters repeatedly asking Adam to explain Hannah's "faulty" game.

I just realized that though I really enjoy Survivor and it's my favorite reality TV program, I can never ever understand self-proclaimed "Survivor-nerds" like Adam and these Podcasters. It just doesn't need to be as complicated (with the strategy and social) as how they are always talking about it. All very game-bot and takes away the spirit of the show. But different strokes for different folks I guess.

[ljenkins782]

23 hours ago, Eolivet said:

"Suck" is maybe the wrong word -- "inaccurate" is probably a better one (though he was clearly not happy about it). I think he felt the reasons he won were different in real life than what the show portrayed. I thought his confessionals made him come off as a super strategic player, a pretty decent guy with a nice backstory. But to hear him tell it (again, taking reporting bias into account), he had a Earl-from-Fiji/Parvati-like social game, that he supplemented with Survivor knowledge to win. Which I certainly did not get from his edit.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with @Hera that this is more likely a case of Adam not liking the reality of how he came across and trying to spin it as a bad edit. It's telling that the only part of his edit that he thinks is "right" is the stuff with Jay, which was also the most positive (eventually).

He doesn't have the personality/social skill to play the kind of game he thinks he played. He's actually quite lucky that he wound up with such a nice group of people who gave him enough of a chance to break through with some of the group.

Also telling is that he was deemed somewhat safe to take to the end, unlike David or Jay. That means that the people who played alongside him didn't see this allegedly masterful social game either.

Part of me wonders if he's so adamant that he played a better game than was shown is that he doesn't want it to seem like the reveal about his mom won him the game.

[Eolivet]

13 minutes ago, ljenkins782 said:

Part of me wonders if he's so adamant that he played a better game than was shown is that he doesn't want it to seem like the reveal about his mom won him the game.

THIS. I think technically, he's right -- outside statements from the jury back that up, and even the whole report that the jury already knew about his mom from Jay. But it feels like he's fighting against the perception that there's some kind of asterisk next to his win, because he's a "super-duper" fan and he doesn't want to be seen as winning by a sympathy vote.

I still do like the guy, but in a way, he did bring this on himself. He decided to go on Survivor when his mom was sick, he consented to have his mom basically used as a storyline (he says as much that he told his family their private family struggles were about to become public). The show would be just stupid, from a production standpoint, not to milk the heck out of that story. And he also can't really complain when he pretty much leaned into it, especially at the end.

If he wanted to be seen as a great Survivor player first and foremost, he needed to play in a season after his mom had passed away. But then he risks the show not wanting him anymore, so that was a choice he made. As @waving feather pointed out, the show has to create stories for everyone.

So come on, dude -- just take the check, accept the sympathy and be happy that the show gave you such a nice edit, even if it wasn't to your super-duper fan standards.

[LadyChatts]

Adam's argument is similar to Michele's last season in post season interviews.  Different circumstances as to why they won (or why fans claim they won-in Adam's case, sympathy.  Michele's case, popularity and a super bitter jury).  Michele said she wanted to play the game and wasn't going to play so UTR next time.  In her interviews, it seemed she wanted to play more to prove why she won the first time, than to just have another experience.  She had similar arguments about her game not being shown.  

During the FTC, Adam came across as someone trying to prove he played a masterfully strategic game, even if he looked like kind of an idiot trying to make his arguments.  I agree with the posters above-he's the one that went on the show and allowed his mom's illness to be his story line.  He's also the one who brought it up during the FTC (which I still believe was extremely strategic in how he brought it up-so I call BS on him not liking the edit on that).

Edited January 3, 2017 by LadyChatts

[thehepburn]

I watched this a few days ago in a half-ass way. I listen to a lot of podcasts and WillnPhil comes across as Dom&Colin wannabes and the amount of brown-nosing (on both sides) was gross to me. Supposedly, Adam will do the retrospective round for any inky-dink podcaster who asks so I will wait for Dom&Colin's version to really pay attn. 

I hope Cesternino cancels Adam's appearance on his podcast but he probably wont. I do know that Survivors who talk to every other podcaster before they finally come to him is one of his pet peeves so this should be interesting.

[waving feather]

I watched a bit more of it and the funniest part came when Adam jokingly(?) told the podcast dudes not to let it blow up how awesome his game is or how his amazing strategy worked in case he gets to play again because he wants people to not see him as a threat.

Adam made a comment on SM that "casual fans" of the show seem to dislike him. Part of me thinks Adam is wondering why he isn't as popular with the casual viewers as David or Jay who didn't do as well as him.

I don't think his sob story won him the game but he isn't some master strategist like he is making himself out to me. I appreciated his win until he started talking about it, lol.

[KimberStormer]

Just like with Jeremy last time, I'm sure Adam's "sob story" had nothing to do with his win.  And I get why the perception that it did would annoy him.  But I do think it means we will probably never hear any real criticism of him from people like Rob, even if, like me, they find him obnoxious.  After the finale I watched some of his red-carpet post interview with Rob and Kim, basically because I love seeing Kim in any context, and I got quite enough of his lecturey, self-satisfied tone during that to last me a lifetime, but also quite enough of Rob and Kim gushing over how great he was, making sure to say he played a great game blah blah and they don't want the tragedy to overshadow it blah blah.  Adam did a lot of "Everything I did was completely intentional!  Now, was x a mistake?  YES.  But..." very much like how he handled his "damage control" with Taylor.  I wonder if he did that one much on this podcast?

But if he was as annoying to Rob and Kim as he was to me, they'd never show it.  Rob is too professional, and Kim, I think, approaches every Survivor interaction like "I'm never going to play again.  I know that.  I absolutely know that.  There's no way.  I have kids, I have a life.  But just in case, let me play this guy."  (As far as I saw he barely paid any attention to her, which kind of makes me question his superfan status.)  Nobody wants to be a jerk to the guy who just lost his mom. 

To be clear, I don't even think they do find him irritating; but I just mean, I don't think anyone will ever admit it if they do.  Only people like me, with iron spikes where their hearts should be.  Of course, I was myself orphaned long before I was Adam's age, so perhaps I'm overly hardened to this particular sympathy.

[waving feather]

41 minutes ago, KimberStormer said:

After the finale I watched some of his red-carpet post interview with Rob and Kim, basically because I love seeing Kim in any context, and I got quite enough of his lecturey, self-satisfied tone during that to last me a lifetime, but also quite enough of Rob and Kim gushing over how great he was, making sure to say he played a great game blah blah and they don't want the tragedy to overshadow it blah blah.  Adam did a lot of "Everything I did was completely intentional!  Now, was x a mistake?  YES.  But..." very much like how he handled his "damage control" with Taylor.  I wonder if he did that one much on this podcast?

Adam is 10x worse in this Podcast than the interview with Rob and Kim. I actually thought he was still likable in that interview. So you can imagine, lol. He's self-satisfied and defensive at times in this Podcast. For instance, he was upset by how Zeke (of all people!!!) got a confessional about him rubbing it in Jay's face that he was at the bottom. Suffice to say, Zeke is his least favorite person there.

And yes he did mention the Taylor incident, but OF COURSE, he knew what he was doing and was fully prepared that Taylor will tell on him. So in retrospect, none of his mistakes are actual mistakes and are all planned. He also referred to some episodes as HIS episodes, where he got his time to shine. ROTFL.

After watching this Podcast, I unfollowed Adam from all social media and hope to never see him play again.

[LadyChatts]

Adam is why I absolutely hate "super fans".  They already have it mapped out in their minds how the game is going to go, and they don't often detour from that.  They don't want to and they don't know how.  They have their mind set as being a strategic master manipulator that is constantly running the shots, and either end up whining in the corner when things don't go their way, or try and warp whatever went wrong as something they meant to happen (like Adam with Taylor).  Adam was calculating, but not for his game play.  It was obvious during the FTC when he kept interrupting and trying to shut Hannah down that he wanted to go out with some bang as a master strategist, someone who continued evolving the game.  Again, it was all a strategic set up as to what he was going to do.  He couldn't even make his arguments or the big reveal of his mom's cancer seem genuine.  Take away the mom story, and Adam would likely have still played the same way, gotten the same edit, and would still be making the same arguments as to why he's so great.

I also hope he never returns, but I have a feeling he will.  His tag line will be "last time I played for my mom, this time I'm playing for me."  The only upside is he's likely going to get creamed in a field of veterans.  He'll probably be a Spencer Bledsoe 2.0 (except not finish as high, but if he did make it to the final 3 a second time, I don't think he'd get respect from a jury).  

Edited January 3, 2017 by LadyChatts

[waving feather]

David is also a super fan but he is not as obnoxious about it as Adam. I think it's just immaturity. Zeke is also similar to Adam in a way. Zeke mentioned in his exit interviews that he and Adam often butt heads in the game because both of them have very different ideas of strategy and disagree with each other over strategic decisions. Both of them need to chill, IMO.

Edited to add quote from Zeke's interview:

Quote

Wigler: So your trust issues with Adam go back a long way? It’s not something that developed at the merge, it goes back to the start of the game?

Zeke: Right. I think Adam and I both walked into Survivor thinking we had the smart, strategic superfan archetype down. When we ran into each other, we were sort of like, “No, listen to me. This is what I’m doing.” We were kind of competitive with one another. Adam and I… I was the one who would go home if the Millennials went to Tribal in episodes three or four. We sort of tried to see if there was wiggle room — sorry…

Wigler: Yes!

Zeke: …on the Figgy vote, but it was clear Will and Michaela weren’t going to flip from Michelle and Jay. So my only option was to come after Adam, and he knew about that. We left things on the Millennial beach with me trying to vote Adam out. Not because I didn’t like him, but because it was my only move.

Edited January 3, 2017 by waving feather

[Guest]

I'd be a little surprised if he played again, especially given his unpopularity here.  At the time of his win, he reminded me a bit of Todd, like as in, "Ok, I guess he was there and did stuff and was probably better than those others sitting with him at the end."  

I don't think they'll ever do a winner's season since they couldn't even scare up close to 6 winners this time, so why bother mining that pool if the player himself is kind of 'meh' with the viewers.  

[ljenkins782]

Quote

David is also a super fan but he is not as obnoxious about it as Adam. I think it's just immaturity.

One of David's biggest weapons and one of the reasons he was such a threat to sit next to at the end was his humility. Put him up there next to Adam's grandstanding and rewriting of history so all of his "mistakes" were planned and Adam gets blown out of the water easily. David positioned himself as the underdog that people want to root for and his speaking skills would have torpedoed Adam's defensive awkwardness.

Quote

Just like with Jeremy last time, I'm sure Adam's "sob story" had nothing to do with his win.  And I get why the perception that it did would annoy him.

I think saying it had nothing at all to do with it is a bit strong. I do think he had the edge coming in, didn't fuck up his FTC performance enough to lose that edge, and then the reveal about his mom probably tipped the scales once and for all. 

And I get why it would annoy him, I would probably feel the same in his shoes, but going overboard to try to "correct" people's opinions or perceptions is never going to work out for him. It's a very murky situation because I can imagine wanting to avoid that perception out of some measure of guilt, you wouldn't want to feel like you used it to your advantage, especially since his mom passed away so shortly after he returned. But the only way to have avoided that would have been to never bring it up at all. 

If he truly felt he played such a masterful strategic and social game and didn't want his mom's illness to play any role, he would have gone through the whole FTC without saying a word about it. But some part of him must have thought he needed to, so these after-the-fact protests are a bit hollow. 

Quote

 But I do think it means we will probably never hear any real criticism of him from people like Rob, even if, like me, they find him obnoxious. 

Right, I don't think anyone's ever going to come out and say to him "hey, if you don't think it had anything to do with your win, why'd you even tell them?" 

Not that I'm even suggesting that anyone should do that, it's obviously a very new and raw grief. On the other hand, I think Adam should probably shut his yap on the subject before this kind of stuff becomes all anyone remembers of him.  

[thehepburn]

I dont know if anyone mentioned it but 2 days after the finale, Adam posted on reddit with a link to a reddit post that explained his game very well in his opinion. This one:

 

https://nb.reddit.com/r/survivor/comments/5ilmtl/dissecting_the_winners_game/

[Rachel RSL]

It's funny, I didn't dislike Adam at all during the season. He wasn't my favourite or anything but I didn't actively dislike him. But almost all his post-victory interviews have left me rolling my eyes. Ok, you didn't like the way you were edited, we get it. But it's not like he got a bad edit, he just seems annoyed that the edit didn't portray him as the strategic mastermind that he thinks he is. 

[LadyChatts]

8 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I'd be a little surprised if he played again, especially given his unpopularity here.  At the time of his win, he reminded me a bit of Todd, like as in, "Ok, I guess he was there and did stuff and was probably better than those others sitting with him at the end."  

I don't think they'll ever do a winner's season since they couldn't even scare up close to 6 winners this time, so why bother mining that pool if the player himself is kind of 'meh' with the viewers.  

I think there will be a winner's season.  If I had to bet, my guess is it'll be the milestone 40th season (if we make it, but I think we will).  I believe more winners might be interested in doing a season like that than a regular AS season, where they might be targeted.  Though we seem to have come a long way from the first AS and Jenna Lewis's mentality of getting rid of people solely because they won.  I don't know which winners were simply cut from this upcoming season's roster vs those who had other commitments they couldn't get away from.  In another time, that might be different.  I saw it awhile back, that Jeff had said a winner's season would happen, but they didn't have enough strong female winners to choose from at that point, so he wanted a few more seasons to happen so they'd have a better pool.  Of course Probst would blame it on female winners, but I do think it'll happen. 

Edited January 3, 2017 by LadyChatts

[peachmangosteen]

2 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

I saw it awhile back, that Jeff had said a winner's season would happen, but they didn't have enough strong female winners to choose from at that point, so he wanted a few more seasons to happen so they'd have a better pool.  Of course Probst would blame it on female winners, but I do think it'll happen. 

Fuckin' Probst! I'm sure he still thinks there aren't enough 'strong female winners' because he's an asshat.

If they ever do an all winners season I'd bet a million dollars Adam would do it. I'm fairly sure he definitely wants to play again, especially since he's so butthurt over people not seeing him as a strategic mastermind. I'm pretty confident he would do terribly if he played again though, which might be fun to watch.

Edited January 3, 2017 by peachmangosteen

[LadyChatts]

5 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

Fuckin' Probst! I'm sure he still thinks there aren't enough 'strong female winners' because he's an asshat.

If they ever do an all winners season I'd bet a million dollars Adam would do it. I'm fairly sure he definitely wants to play again, especially since he's so butthurt over people not seeing him as a strategic mastermind. I'm pretty confident he would do terribly if he played again though, which might be fun to watch.

His argument, too, was he didn't know if a lot of the early season winners would be compelling enough to bring back.  In reality, more men have won this show than woman, so if you factor in some of the female winners who might not want to return, I can sort of see the argument (I'd be surprised if Kim or Denise said yes).  Not to say there haven't been deserving female winners that totally owned it, but if they wanted to do a 10 person tribe, they might come up short if certain women decline.  And that could also be because they don't want to bring back early season winners.  Which to me, defeats the purpose of having an all winners season to begin with.  I've watched this show since the beginning, and one of the best parts of Second Chances was getting to see some of the old school players.  Whether they flopped or not, it was still better than seeing contestants from the last 3 seasons, plus contestants who played 3+ times.  I don't care how much these newbies have "evolved" the game (which I don't think they really have) or know how to make characters of themselves for screen time, props need to be giving to the castaways who actually played in those early days and laid some of the ground work we see today. 

[Jextella]

In support of Adam, I don't doubt the editing claims at all.  I thought it was interesting that we didn't hear much at all about Jay's mom or Keith's daughter (how he didn't know he had one!) and nothing at all about Sunny's cancer.  They really honed in on Adam's story.

As to the editing where strategy is concerned, the editors have to weave in some drama so I'm sure few people think they get as good an edit as they think they deserve.  

Glad to know the relationship between him and Jay was real.  

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Jextella said:

In support of Adam, I don't doubt the editing claims at all.  I thought it was interesting that we didn't hear much at all about Jay's mom or Keith's daughter (how he didn't know he had one!) and nothing at all about Sunny's cancer.  They really honed in on Adam's story.

As to the editing where strategy is concerned, the editors have to weave in some drama so I'm sure few people think they get as good an edit as they think they deserve.  

Glad to know the relationship between him and Jay was real.  

I think if Jay, Sunday or Ken (haha at "Keith") had won, we'd have heard those stories.  Though none of them would've been as compelling to the editors as Adam's, given the end result, too.  

3 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

I think there will be a winner's season.  If I had to bet, my guess is it'll be the milestone 40th season (if we make it, but I think we will).  

You think out of 38 winners they'll be able to scare up 18-20 willing to play at the same time?   That'd be a 50% turnout when they got less than 10% this year (3 out of 31 winners).  I think they'd be hard pressed to get 18 winners to play if they went 100 seasons.  Maybe if they put them in the bachelor mansion and made it a 2-week season or something.  Actually, I'd watch that.  

[LadyChatts]

2 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I think if Jay, Sunday or Ken (haha at "Keith") had won, we'd have heard those stories.  Though none of them would've been as compelling to the editors as Adam's, given the end result, too.  

You think out of 38 winners they'll be able to scare up 18-20 willing to play at the same time?   That'd be a 50% turnout when they got less than 10% this year (3 out of 31 winners).  I think they'd be hard pressed to get 18 winners to play if they went 100 seasons.  Maybe if they put them in the bachelor mansion and made it a 2-week season or something.  Actually, I'd watch that.  

I do.  There've been plenty of winners who said they wanted to come back.  Obviously real life can get in the way, as it seemed to do with some of the winners selected this season.  It could have also been TPTB decided that they weren't getting the pre-jurors or jurors that they wanted, either, which could have also contributed to them picking a different theme.  While there's definitely going to be winners who will always say 'no thanks', I believe they can get enough when the time comes.  And I still believe that an all winners season might make some who would ordinarily say no finally say yes.  We shall see!  Since we are getting an all returning cast next season as it is, I'm fine with having all newbie players for awhile anyway.