S33: Paul Wachter

[Michel]

Hi.  My biggest inspiration is the front man of Van Halen.

He wants to play like Ozzy, but I think he's too old to pull off his challenge game.  Though then again, Bob from Gabon and Jane from Nicaragua showed that challenge monsters can be any age, so who knows?

[LanceM]

Pre-game interview with Josh Wigler:

http://parade.com/499876/joshwigler/survivor-millennials-vs-gen-x-paul-wachter/

Pre-game interview with Gordon Holmes:

http://my.xfinity.com/blogs/tv/2016/08/24/survivor-gen-xer-paul/

Edited August 24, 2016 by LanceM

[LadyChatts]

I agree with him about the 'everybody gets a trophy' mentality nowadays.  Other than that, I get a Foley 2.0 vibe.  He says he'll either be the first boot or he'll win.  In no way do I think this guy has a chance of winning, but I don't know if he screams first boot, either.  Though he admits getting him to shut up is the hard part, so maybe.  

Not a fan.  Hoping he's an early boot.  Also Kelley Wentworth wasn't a fan of this comment:

Quote

Holmes: If you could align with any past “Survivor” player, who would it be?
Wachter: It would be Andrew Savage. He’s the guy that I think can win the game. That’s a perfect example for a guy like me. They voted him out over stupid (expletive deleted). Just kids doing dumb stuff. You have to let a guy like that slide a little longer. He got smoked and it never should’ve happened. That’s the guy I’d align with. And, he’s an (expletive deleted) lawyer.

[Hera]

I don't see him winning either. That quote from @LadyChatts shows someone who doesn't seem to have a strong grasp of the game. He would choose to align with someone who "can win the game" (bad idea—those are the people who prevent you from winning the game), and then identifies Andrew Savage as that kind of player, despite the fact that Savage came nowhere near winning on both of his outings. I look forward to watching him make baffling decisions and suspect that he will give the editors a lot of comedy (intentional or unintentional) to work with.

[kakiphony]

Ugh. The strong man no empathy or patience mentality. Because that clearly works so well in group dynamics...

[LadyChatts]

Paul's little blunder in telling the ladies they were going to go reminds me of what Nina did during WA that got Vince booted, and led to her own downfall.  You may think it's an innocent remark, you may think the people you're dealing with are dumber than you and beneath you, and will need you-but then they prove that they aren't and don't.  Loved the blindside. Glad it was him and not Bret or Chris, as those two will be beneficial in challenges, but also desperate. 

[JudyObscure]

On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 7:25 AM, Hera said:

I look forward to watching him make baffling decisions and suspect that he will give the editors a lot of comedy (intentional or unintentional) to work with.

Good call!

[Nashville]

7 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

Paul's little blunder in telling the ladies they were going to go reminds me of what Nina did during WA that got Vince booted, and led to her own downfall.  You may think it's an innocent remark, you may think the people you're dealing with are dumber than you and beneath you, and will need you-but then they prove that they aren't and don't. 

Here's the thing - I don't think that's what Paul was doing.  I more than halfway suspect Paul was trying to tell Jess and Lucy there was no way he would back a let's-chuck-the-females vote against them, but - in what will almost certainly go down in Survivor history as one of the worst-chosen words ever - his "Ladies, you're on your own" comment was misconstrued. 

Judging from his casual just-throwing-this-out-there manner, I think Paul meant the "Ladies" as a drill instructor-esque reference to Bret and Chris - but Jess and Lucy, quite understandably, took it as a literal gender reference aimed at them. 

And if that's the case - if a careless comment got Paul bounced for absolutely no reason whatsoever - then I'm going to laugh and laugh and laugh....  :>