S33.E13: I'm Going For A Million Bucks / S33.E14: Reunion

[waving feather]

11 minutes ago, gator12 said:

Reading the exist interview that David, Jay and Bret did together. We could have had a sole survivor Sunday. The way they talk about anyone could have sat in Adams seat next to Ken and Hannah and would have won.

They didn't say that. They just said David and Jay would have beaten Ken and Hannah, which would be correct.

And then Bret said this and I think he was just being hyperbolic.

Quote

Holmes: What was the mood of the jury before that final Tribal started?
LaBelle: I think we were all in a good mood. I think we all knew how we were going to vote. Jay, what do you think?
Starrett: I think you were drunk.
LaBelle: (Laughs)
Starrett: No, I think we were ready to vote and get out of there.
Holmes: Had everyone already reached a consensus that Adam was going to win?
LaBelle: I think he had it. Anyone who sat in that seat would have had it.
Holmes: So anyone who faced Ken and Hannah?
LaBelle: They’re not saying it, but I’m saying it.

[Bryce Lynch]

22 hours ago, laurakaye said:

I liked when Ken said at the reunion that people look at him and expect him to have a certain type of life.  I feel like Ken's social anxiety was kind of swept under the rug by some of the players - possibly because of what he looks like - while David and Hannah's anxiety issues took more of a front seat role and were subsequently praised by the other players as them having a strong redemptive story arc.  It doesn't seem quite fair to me.

During FTC, I remember Bret heavily rolling his eyes during one of Ken's answers.  Not sure what the animosity was there, but I don't understand the basis for it.  It made Bret come off like a jerk.  I too am very surprised that Ken didn't get any votes.  Adam said something to the effect that Ken's style of play might have won him the game in the early seasons of the show, but Survivor has "evolved" since then.  I don't really get how loyalty, providing, and winning crucial immunity challenges doesn't add up to a couple of votes.

I thought Bret came off as a jerk for almost the entire season.   He was really a jerk talking about the "crazies".  No, Bret, they were not the "crazies", they were the relevant players in the game who actually had the power to make decisions.  You were nothing more than a potential goat, who was the last one in your alliance to survive, because and only because, nobody saw you as a threat.  

[thehepburn]

Isn't "not reading the room" Hannah's edit? That's what the Zeke/Adam/Hannah after TC scene in E3 was all about, right?

Reports are coming out after the finale that Ken is very moody from the reporters and that he even missed some interviews. It sounds like he got a really favorable edit on the show.

Fucking Bret reminds me of that Dean Wormer line - "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son." I guess it's too late for Bret.

Edited December 16, 2016 by thehepburn

[Guest]

I think Bret meant it, that anyone could've beat Hannah and Ken.  He said many times he thought he had a shot.  I do think he had a shot.  He was no less a non-player than Michelle last season.  And if he'd won, who knows what would've been in the edit?  (Unlike Michelle, I guess.)

I figure they saw the whole season play out live (minus confessionals) and we saw a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of what happened out there.  How could we know those jurors better than they do?  

[NutMeg]

12 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I think Bret meant it, that anyone could've beat Hannah and Ken.  He said many times he thought he had a shot.  I do think he had a shot.  He was no less a non-player than Michelle last season.  And if he'd won, who knows what would've been in the edit?  (Unlike Michelle, I guess.)

I figure they saw the whole season play out live (minus confessionals) and we saw a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of what happened out there.  How could we know those jurors better than they do?  

Well, we also saw things they didn't get to see until they aired...

[waving feather]

27 minutes ago, thehepburn said:

Reports are coming out after the finale that Ken is very moody from the reporters and that he even missed some interviews. It sounds like he got a really favorable edit on the show.

Maybe he is just not in the mood or a people's person. He did look quite down at the reunion and he really thought he would get some votes at least. :-(

Quote

 

SK: Going into that final Tribal Council, were there any jury members you were expecting to vote for you?

KM: Jess. I was expecting a vote from Dave. I was expecting a vote from Jay, possibly, with the connections he and I had. Sunday I was expecting a vote from. Chris, I honestly thought I would as well. I honestly thought I had at least five to six votes there. I felt really solid about Sunday, Chris, Jay and Jess. I knew I had at least four on lock with another few possibilities.

 

[mishap]

Good grief.  I think this season had a lot of positive reactions about it being an all new, fresh cast.  Probst gushed about how it was his favorite.  I know, he says that a lot, but having a new cast, was one of the best things about this season. So yeah, the fans really like having new people, so lets bring out reruns and re-reruns, for  the next.  Slap my freakin' head! 

I never really care who wins.  Rarely have anyone I root for.  I have the players I can't stand and can't wait for them to go, but for the most part, I just like watching the physical and social aspect of the game.  And while I'm not upset that Adam won, as opposed to anyone else, I agree telling everyone about his mom, whether then already knew it or now, during the final tribal council, smelled of 'strategery,' to me.   But I am very sorry for his loss, and am glad he is trying to do some good with his influence and his winnings. 

I also thought he was a jerk at the final tribal.  He got credit for getting Ken to vote out David, and I didn't think that was the case, and neither did Ken.  That really annoyed me, that Chris acted like he knows what is going on in Ken's head more than Ken.  I also thought Adam was very dismissive of Hannah's game.  He kept saying how her moves were blunders, but it got her to the final 3.  Maybe they were blunders to his game, or his plan of how he wanted the game to go, but it worked out for him, didn't it? 

Oh well -- another season in the books.  And a good one. But I will forget most of these players by the time the next survivor starts.  I have nothing against any of the former players, but I am sick of all of them Ozzie, Cirie, Sandra?  Haven't they all played twice already? 

[thehepburn]

I finally got around to reading Ken's Parade interview. I havent seen so much humble-bragging since Andrew Savage was on the show. I think the ppl who said Ken was pompous are right.

http://parade.com/532308/joshwigler/survivor-ken-mcnickle/

[Rachel RSL]

10 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

It's giving someone preferential treatment based on irrelevant factors, which is what the supposedly sexist and racist players are accused of.

No, it isn't.  It's *discriminating* against someone based on their sex. Big difference.

[Sarahsmile416]

13 minutes ago, waving feather said:

Maybe he is just not in the mood or a people's person. He did look quite down at the reunion and he really thought he would get some votes at least. :-(

My goodness, right!? By his own reports he is extremely introverted and doesn't feel comfortable with social interactions. Quite honestly, for someone like that, I would think countless interviews would be hell. 

If I had heard one survivor off the show saying something nasty about Ken, then I could believe he got a favorable edit...but all I've heard are good things. 

[thehepburn]

21 minutes ago, Sarahsmile416 said:

My goodness, right!? By his own reports he is extremely introverted and doesn't feel comfortable with social interactions. Quite honestly, for someone like that, I would think countless interviews would be hell. 

If I had heard one survivor off the show saying something nasty about Ken, then I could believe he got a favorable edit...but all I've heard are good things. 

 

Noone is saying that Ken is a serial killer but if you think stuff said about Ken was all positive, you're being selective. Figgy called him "bossy" and Chris called him a "coconut". And Ken thought that he would get Chris's vote? Another called him aloof and I forgot what Will said about him.

[Sarahsmile416]

Just now, thehepburn said:

 

Noone is saying that Ken is a serial killer but if you think stuff said about Ken was all positive, you're being selective. Figgy called him "bossy" and Chris called him a "coconut". And Ken thought that he would get Chris's vote? Another called him aloof and I forgot what Will said about him.

Figgy is also 24 years old and Ken is an old soul...but if bossy is the worst thing she can manage, I'm still doubting the favorable edit claim.

As for Chris and "coconut" - there are no words there. 

[gator12]

We were shown 15 minutes of the FTC which went on for 3 hours, my guess is if we were shown the whole three hours than we would have seen that Adam had won before the David question. Hannah herself said she figure out that she lost early during the FTC and Ken said he felt invisible 

Hannah part start at 11:30 and Ken at 25:25

[peachmangosteen]

Quote

He was no less a non-player than Michelle last season.

@SlackerInc care to field this one? :)

11 hours ago, Rachel RSL said:

I admit that I give him a free pass for some things, like that vest he wore on the reunion show.

LMAO!

11 hours ago, Dawn16 said:

The majority of the players that we got to know this season were fascinating, decent people, who were also actually playing the game.   I'm a sucker for the awkward, neurotic person learns to thrive storyline, which we had in spades this season.  (But not Zeke.  That was a stretch.)   Even Jay turned out to be interesting and likable, and I was sure I would hate him.   I know it's a sob story, but I'm still glad Adam won, even though I'm still waiting for a nerdy girl winner after last year.   Can TPTB please see that nasty and/or crazy people are not necessary to have an entertaining season?  And neither are "all stars"?

+1

33 minutes ago, thehepburn said:

I finally got around to reading Ken's Parade interview. I havent seen so much humble-bragging since Andrew Savage was on the show.

Ken was always such a humble-bragger. It's why I would always crack up at all the "Ken's so humble" comments from the other players at the beginning. I think Ken is definitely not some kind of angel or saint, but he's also not an odious asshole. He is very nice to look at and I found him to be UCG all season, which was quite enjoyable.

I kinda wish Bret or Sunday had made it to F3 with Hannah and Ken so we could see if this jury would have seriously given them the win. If they did that would've been so fucking hilarious!

[laurakaye]

50 minutes ago, waving feather said:

Maybe he is just not in the mood or a people's person. He did look quite down at the reunion and he really thought he would get some votes at least. :-(

I definitely saw him look down when Probst was waxing poetic on Ken's and Hannah's supposed romance...when Probst called Ken "ridiculously handsome" or something like that, Ken pointedly looked down and shook his head.  He seems almost stuck between the boy he was (stuttering, tics, anxiety) and the smart, handsome man he grew up to be who, because of the things he went through as a kid, comes across as perhaps a little off-putting when he speaks.

I'm convinced that Bret, Paul and Chris ostracized Ken from the start because of his looks - that and the fact that he formed a quick bond with David.

Edited December 16, 2016 by laurakaye

[Eolivet]

8 hours ago, KimberStormer said:

If you "can't get the numbers" you are ipso facto bad at Survivor.  Getting the numbers is the entire game.  Ideas are nice, but an idea you can't actually perform is literally worthless.  Nobody will vote with you?  Boo hoo.  Play better.

I actually disagree with the context of this statement. I think you can have all the failed ideas in the world and still be very good at Survivor. To me, being ipso facto bad at Survivor is getting voted out of the game. Adam never was in that situation (nor was Hannah). Not saving Mari was no mark against Adam or Zeke, in my mind, because It doesn't matter if you can't execute schemes to save others, as long as you save yourself. See: Diaz-Twine, Sandra.

Which is why I was sort of baffled by Michelle's question/observation about how Hannah was only on the wrong side of the vote once, as if that was some kind of accomplishment. Unless Hannah is running all the votes (and in some cases, she was), that only proves she was in a large alliance. To me, being on the wrong side of the vote and still remaining in the game is more impressive than "participating in a large alliance making decisions about who goes home."

There's a fine line between "wrong side of the vote" and "goat," but goats -- as far as I can recall -- are usually on the right side of the vote, because they're being protected by someone. If you're consistently voting against the large alliance multiple times, and they still don't vote you out -- to me, that's more impressive. "I knew what was going on" is more of an argument for being a follower (unless it's "I knew what was going on because I controlled the game") than "I was on the wrong side of the vote and I'm still here." I guess it means you have no loyalty, but that's not really a valued part of the game anymore.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Eolivet

[Rachel RSL]

2 minutes ago, laurakaye said:

I definitely saw him look down when Probst was waxing poetic on Ken's and Hannah's supposed romance...when Probst called Ken "ridiculously handsome" or something like that, Ken pointedly looked down and shook his head.  He seems almost stuck between the boy he was (stuttering, tics, anxiety) and the smart, handsome man he grew up to be who, because of the things he went through as a kid, comes across as perhaps a little off-putting when he speaks.

 

I noticed that too.  He instinctively looked down and started shaking his head while, hilariously, Hannah was sitting next to him nodding vigorously.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Rachel RSL said:

No, it isn't.  It's *discriminating* against someone based on their sex. Big difference.

You don't see the similarity?  Giving hot guys a pass because they're hot guys vs. judging women overly harshly because they're women (or black or whatever -ism we're accusing players and viewers of that day)? 

[Rachel RSL]

I'm not going to get into a big debate with you about what sexism is, this isn't the forum. But, no, what you're talking about is not sexism at all. Maybe it could be called favouritism, it's a fact that attractive people do get treated better because of their looks, but no, it is absolutely not the same thing as sexism. Not at all.

[NutMeg]

2 minutes ago, Eolivet said:

I actually disagree with the context of this statement. I think you can have all the failed ideas in the world and still be very good at Survivor. To me, being ipso facto bad at Survivor is getting voted out of the game. Adam never was in that situation (nor was Hannah). Not saving Mari was no mark against Adam or Zeke, in my mind, because It doesn't matter if you can't execute schemes to save others, as long as you save yourself. See: Diaz-Twine, Sandra.

Which is why I was sort of baffled by Michelle's question/observation about how Hannah was only on the wrong side of the vote once, as if that was some kind of accomplishment. Unless Hannah is running all the votes (and in some cases, she was), that only proves she was in a large alliance. To me, being on the wrong side of the vote and still remaining in the game is more impressive than "participating in a large alliance making decisions about who goes home."

There's a fine line between "wrong side of the vote" and "goat," but goats -- as far as I can recall -- are usually on the right side of the vote, because they're being protected by someone. If you're consistently voting against the large alliance multiple times, and they still don't vote you out -- to me, that's more impressive. "I knew what was going on" is more of an argument for being a follower (unless it's "I knew what was going on because I controlled the game") than "I was on the wrong side of the vote and I'm still here." I guess it means you have no loyalty, but that's not really a valued part of the game anymore.

The part I bolded is true for Hannah, who controlled the game a few times, which cannot be said for Adam, who was just following Hannah's clue. So Adam is a goat that won because he was perceived as a fox while the fox moves were made by Hannah, who was really an ox pretending to be a bunny but making fox moves and ultimately perceived as a goat by the jury nonetheless. Have I got this right? 

[peachmangosteen]

3 minutes ago, NutMeg said:

So Adam is a goat that won because he was perceived as a fox while the fox moves were made by Hannah, who was really an ox pretending to be a bunny but making fox moves and ultimately perceived as a goat by the jury nonetheless. Have I got this right? 

And this is why Survivor is the most interesting yet mind-numbingly frustrating game to watch!

Edited December 16, 2016 by peachmangosteen

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, thehepburn said:

I finally got around to reading Ken's Parade interview. I havent seen so much humble-bragging since Andrew Savage was on the show. I think the ppl who said Ken was pompous are right.

http://parade.com/532308/joshwigler/survivor-ken-mcnickle/

Good lord, what a douche.  My favorite part is where he says his daughter can just show a picture of her dad Ken to boys and they'll understand that he's threatening them.   Yeah, they'll think he's going to out-pretty them, I guess.  

6 minutes ago, Rachel RSL said:

I'm not going to get into a big debate with you about what sexism is, this isn't the forum. But, no, what you're talking about is not sexism at all. Maybe it could be called favouritism, it's a fact that attractive people do get treated better because of their looks, but no, it is absolutely not the same thing as sexism. Not at all.

I didn't say it was the same thing.  I said it was ironic that some people think the one is perfectly ok while at the same time blaming players/viewers of the other.  You're using a straw man argument.  

[gator12]

46 minutes ago, NutMeg said:

The part I bolded is true for Hannah, who controlled the game a few times, which cannot be said for Adam, who was just following Hannah's clue. So Adam is a goat that won because he was perceived as a fox while the fox moves were made by Hannah, who was really an ox pretending to be a bunny but making fox moves and ultimately perceived as a goat by the jury nonetheless. Have I got this right? 

The few time she control the game was the Bret and Sunday and those were dumb move that would never have gain respect with the jurors with so little people left and huge threats in the game. If jury doesn't respect your moves it doesn't matter if you were leading the charges.  She knew people perceive that David was in control of that alliance, that Jay was popular and a challenge beast and people told her that Adam was a huge threat, but no Sunday and Bret was a much bigger game move than picking those three off right after the other.

Adam didn't always follow Hannah move, if he did Jay would have stayed in the game and had won.

At the end of the day survivor is a social game first and foremost. If one cannot play that with perceive strategic blunders (Sunday and Bret) with no Immunity wins and no idol found than you don't deserve to win.

One can be an immunity challenge beast but still lose if their social game suck and or they cannot read the jury. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by gator12

[Alapaki]

Quote

 

I think Bret meant it, that anyone could've beat Hannah and Ken.  He said many times he thought he had a shot.  I do think he had a shot.  He was no less a non-player than Michelle last season.  And if he'd won, who knows what would've been in the edit?  (Unlike Michelle, I guess.)

I figure they saw the whole season play out live (minus confessionals) and we saw a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of what happened out there.  How could we know those jurors better than they do?

 

Post-hoc interview questions about hypothetical FTC match-ups are beyond meaningless.  The jurors have a ton more information than they had at the time they would've had to make that hypothetical decision in real time.  They also have their reputations to think about.  

I don't think any juror wants to be seen as having made their decision because of Adam's mother's situation.  So it's not unreasonable to assume that they'll be doing whatever they can to justify their vote.  [note: I'm not saying a vote for Adam was otherwise unjustified.  Rather, that's one of many factors that might come into play when a juror answers these hypothetical questions.]

As far as Ken and his interview, though?  Wow.  That guy's delusional.  I guess he completely misconstrued people being nice or pleasant to his face (presumably because they saw him as no threat whatsoever).

Quote

So Adam is a goat that won because he was perceived as a fox while the fox moves were made by Hannah, who was really an ox pretending to be a bunny but making fox moves and ultimately perceived as a goat by the jury nonetheless. Have I got this right? 

Save your breath and just call them Todd and Amanda.

[peachmangosteen]

This is from a Jay interview:

Quote

Jay: The process was I love him and he beat me, so I’ll give him the money. It was going to be Adam all day, and I knew it, too. Had David made it? That would have mixed things up. I love the game so much and respect the game so much that maybe I wouldn’t vote on emotion. It might be that David played a great game. But Adam played a great game, too. And to get Ken to flip? That’s amazing. The most loyal dude who doesn’t talk to anyone? I’ve tried to talk to this dude so many times, and he’s like, “No!”

So basically it sounds like the jury went in there with the (basically unfounded) perception that Adam singlehandedly convinced Ken to boot David and that's what got him the win. LOL! I mean imo it's more likely that Adam won because of his story, but people think they'll look bad if they admit that's their reason so they've completely made up a game reason for their decision. I'm rolling!

ETA: Or what @Alapaki just said. Like minds!

Edited December 16, 2016 by peachmangosteen

[gator12]

The jurors could just tell everyone that think they voted for Adam b/c of his mother to go watch their jury speak videos before they even went to the FTC. They had already made up their mind and Adam was going to win regardless.

And the only person who knew about Adam mother in the jury was Jay.

Adam had a great social game with them that Ken and Hannah didn't. He won a challenge, which Hannah didn't.  He found idols which neither Ken and Hannah found. And Hannah made stupid game move with the Bret and Sunday vote.

Edited December 16, 2016 by gator12

[Alapaki]

2 minutes ago, gator12 said:

The jurors could just tell everyone that think they voted for Adam b/c of his mother to go watch their jury speak videos before they even went to the FTC. They had already made up their mind and Adam was going to win regardless 

But we now know that Adam was lot more loose-lipped about his mother's situation than just the single hammock conversation with Jay.  So we can't rule out the possibility/likelihood that this information colored the way they viewed Adam and his gameplay prior to the FTC.  

Jurors cast the vote that makes them feel the best about themselves.  Voting for an Adam win would make them feel good about themselves by bringing about a storybook ending to an otherwise tragic tale.  It's very easy for that to influence how they interpret the information they had.  And they wouldn't even have to necessarily be conscious of that internal dynamic going on.

[gator12]

5 minutes ago, Alapaki said:

But we now know that Adam was lot more loose-lipped about his mother's situation than just the single hammock conversation with Jay.  So we can't rule out the possibility/likelihood that this information colored the way they viewed Adam and his gameplay prior to the FTC.  

Jurors cast the vote that makes them feel the best about themselves.  Voting for an Adam win would make them feel good about themselves by bringing about a storybook ending to an otherwise tragic tale.  It's very easy for that to influence how they interpret the information they had.  And they wouldn't even have to necessarily be conscious of that internal dynamic going on.

Adam only told two people about it, one was Jay and the other Ken was sitting right next to him in the finale. 

Going by the jury speaks video, not interviews after the jurors watch the show, his mom illness had nothing to do with the votes

It would be like me saying Jeremy only won against Tasha and Spencer because he drop that baby news. With both Adam and Jeremy the jurors made up their mind back at ponderosa.

Adam was smart enough to play to the jury at the Tribal Council leading up to David being voted out. Talking him up as a big threat, the best player. Which Ken and Hannah didn't do, which hurt them along with their weak social game.

Edited December 16, 2016 by gator12

[NutMeg]

39 minutes ago, gator12 said:

The few time she control the game was the Bret and Sunday and those were dumb move that would never have gain respect with the jurors with so little people left and huge threats in the game. If jury doesn't respect your moves it doesn't matter if you were leading the charges.  She knew people perceive that David was in control of that alliance, that Jay was popular and a challenge beast and people told her that Adam was a huge threat, but no Sunday and Bret was a much bigger game move than picking those three off right after the other.

Adam didn't always follow Hannah move, if he did Jay would have stayed in the game and had won.

At the end of the day survivor is a social game first and foremost. If one cannot play that with perceive strategic blunders (Sunday and Bret) with no Immunity wins and no idol found than you don't deserve to win.

One can be an immunity challenge beast but still lose if their social game suck and or they cannot read the jury. 

She had never worked with Brett and Sunday so had no reason to believe they would have kept her. On the other hand, she had every reason to believe that David, Ken and Adam were playing with her. Also: the jury should be on their knees thanking her for having eliminated Bret and Sunday. Yeah, these two in the final three would have ended this season is a very crappy way. I LOVED that for once the people playing a passive/goat game didn't make it to the end. 

33 minutes ago, Alapaki said:

Post-hoc interview questions about hypothetical FTC match-ups are beyond meaningless.  The jurors have a ton more information than they had at the time they would've had to make that hypothetical decision in real time.  They also have their reputations to think about.  

I don't think any juror wants to be seen as having made their decision because of Adam's mother's situation.  So it's not unreasonable to assume that they'll be doing whatever they can to justify their vote.  [note: I'm not saying a vote for Adam was otherwise unjustified.  Rather, that's one of many factors that might come into play when a juror answers these hypothetical questions.]

As far as Ken and his interview, though?  Wow.  That guy's delusional.  I guess he completely misconstrued people being nice or pleasant to his face (presumably because they saw him as no threat whatsoever).

Save your breath and just call them Todd and Amanda.

yeah, I did in a post upthread :)

31 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

This is from a Jay interview:

So basically it sounds like the jury went in there with the (basically unfounded) perception that Adam singlehandedly convinced Ken to boot David and that's what got him the win. LOL! I mean imo it's more likely that Adam won because of his story, but people think they'll look bad if they admit that their reason so they've completely made up a game reason for their decision. I'm rolling!

ETA: Or what @Alapaki just said. Like minds!

If Adam in any way convinced Ken of anything, you can bet Jeff's firstborn that we would have seen it, but we saw nothing of the sort (interestingly, we also saw nothing of the Hannah/Ken convo that she was confident was going to convince him, which is also weird). So Peachmangosteen, you hit an interesting fact regarding both this unfounded perception and the need for people to justify their votes.

I'm just surprised that after watching the season there are not at least some of them who start wondering if they got it wrong after all. I get that if they do they might feel saying so is disloyal to the winner, but then again it would be fair to the other finalists. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by NutMeg
typos, my weakness - I may have left some too

[Alapaki]

4 minutes ago, NutMeg said:

yeah, I did in a post upthread :)

Oops.  Missed it!  My bad.  I guess Amanda is so boring even her name's become invisible to me now.

[NutMeg]

gah, sorry, double post...

Edited December 16, 2016 by NutMeg

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, NutMeg said:

If Adam in any way convinced Ken of anything, you can bet Jeff's firstborn that we would have seen it, but we saw nothing of the sort

I think Adam said in some interviews that all his talk across the season of how David was such a big threat was his way of convincing Ken that he had to get David out (and others, I assume).  I don't recall who all did it but it does seem to me that there was an awful lot of 'David's a huge threat' talk, from everyone, including Jeff, Bret, Adam and David himself.  

[NutMeg]

5 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I think Adam said in some interviews that all his talk across the season of how David was such a big threat was his way of convincing Ken that he had to get David out (and others, I assume).  I don't recall who all did it but it does seem to me that there was an awful lot of 'David's a huge threat' talk, from everyone, including Jeff, Bret, Adam and David himself.  

Yes, everyone was saying it indeed, so why does Adam get the credit for this amazing insight that all the other players had? 

[Alapaki]

I found the "David is a huge threat" talk a bit incongruent with how he played.  It just always seemed to me to be a storyline that TPTB were working hard to make happen.  Of course that's my perception which is distanced in space and time from the folks actually out there playing with/against David.  However, it's possible that that sort of thing becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Enough producers ask enough players in confessionals enough times "what they think about David emerging as such a threat", and eventually their paranoia convinces them it's true and the producer-contrived perception becomes reality.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, NutMeg said:

Yes, everyone was saying it indeed, so why does Adam get the credit for this amazing insight that all the other players had? 

Because he said it more often in front of jurors than Hannah or Ken himself, I guess.  

For all I know Adam spearheaded the 'David is threat #1' campaign.  I too never saw it but mainly because I didn't think he was a challenge threat and they all had their own sob/growth stories.  And I didn't see people adoring Dave like they did Jay.  

[gator12]

51 minutes ago, NutMeg said:

an interesting fact regarding both this unfounded perception and the need for people to justify their votes.

But how was it justifying their vote that they didn't vote that way because of Adams story when the jury perceive that it was Adam that flip Ken before Adam share his story base on Chris talk and other nodding/agreeing with Chris at the FTC?

Adam made a lot of talk at like 3 tribunal about getting rid of David, while Ken and Hannah didn't. They should have realize that its the people in the jury that decide who wins survivor and play to the jury or made their case before FTC. Making your case at FTC, its already too late.

The jurors doesn't need to justify their vote, people are going to believe what they want to believe. I know the story wasn't the reason why he won b/c I watch the jury speaks video before they went to the FTC.

Also he could have mention his mom illness seating next to David and/or Jay and he wouldn't have won b/c David was perceive has the best player and he played a great social game. And Jay was a social butterfly and won IC. Adam would have won against anyone that not Jay and David imo b/c he was seen as the 3rd biggest threat outside of David and Jay, and he made it to the FTC

Edited December 16, 2016 by gator12

[survivinmt]

What a great season! So much GAME-play.  And the maturity level was above and beyond anything I've seen on this show. They all seemed to be much more aware that they were PLAYing a game and not about to be executed (well, maybe not Jess). And the ability to tell someone - 'I have to get you out. Or you will win.'  I guess no one ever said that, but for sure Adam intimated it to Jay while in the hammock. Jay is saying, "Keep me in - I will take you to final three with me." And Adam would just look at him like, "Yeah, not really a situation in my best interest, dude."

Sure there were a few times when people regressed - mostly Bret, Ken and way back - Michaela. But such respect for each other! Hannah telling Jay, "Sorry about your mom." at that moment when tensions were high and there was undoubtedly hard feelings, is one of the most caring, mature things I've seen.

Hannah played for a non-win. You really can't purposefully vote off goat-ier goats than yourself and then expect THAT to be your big move. You have to somehow keep them with you - which is hard because usually goats don't win IC or find idols or convince people of anything. Which is what makes them goats. I am impressed with her ability to explain her game at FTC but like someone else said, Too little, too late.

For as "old soul" as Ken is - and I think he really is - he was the least mature gamer of the final three. And by that I mean that he had his feelings hurt that people weren't on his side. Adam and Hannah, while fighting to convince the jury why they should win, were emotional too but Ken seemed more personally offended by the thought of others winning over him.

Loved the season, liked the winner. Eh, about next season.

[Guest]

Has Ken said if he's watched much Survivor?  He seemed genuinely shocked that being the camp fisherman and cook didn't translate to jury votes.  I don't think that's ever really worked.  Maybe to get to the F3, but not for winning.  

[laurakaye]

Well, now that this season is over, who do I need to speak with to get Ken/David and Jay/Adam on The Amazing Race?

[gator12]

1 minute ago, laurakaye said:

Well, now that this season is over, who do I need to speak with to get Ken/David and Jay/Adam on The Amazing Race?

I would that, even if they had no chance of winning.

[waving feather]

4 minutes ago, laurakaye said:

Well, now that this season is over, who do I need to speak with to get Ken/David and Jay/Adam on The Amazing Race?

Ken/David might actually function (brain and brawn), but Jay/Adam would be such an entertaining train-wreck (which I would love to watch). Imagine the bickering and the I-hate-yous and the I-love-yous!

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, laurakaye said:

Well, now that this season is over, who do I need to speak with to get Ken/David and Jay/Adam on The Amazing Race?

I don't think TAR has ever had anyone that's not a romantic couple from Survivor, have they?  Or any CBS reality show?  Has anyone from Survivor besides Romber been on TAR?  I know Brenchel and Jeff/Jordan from BB got on TAR.  All romantic couples.  

[ElleryAnne]

Quote

Has anyone from Survivor besides Romber been on TAR

Ethan and Jenna.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, ElleryAnne said:

Ethan and Jenna.

Oh, right.  Whitney and Keith, too.  TAR no like the bromances.  

[gator12]

Someone on Reddit compare Adam wins to Jenna Morasca wins, in terms of edit and the players that were in the finale 4. I didn't watch Jenna season but that makes me wants to.

[iMonrey]

Quote

But, no, what you're talking about is not sexism at all. Maybe it could be called favoritism, it's a fact that attractive people do get treated better because of their looks, but no, it is absolutely not the same thing as sexism. Not at all.

It's called "bias." If Ken were unattractive a lot of people would have thought he was some weirdo loner dude. But because he's handsome, he's perceived as "shy" and "misunderstood" and "socially awkward." And - he probably is all those things. The fact remains, a person with those same qualities who isn't good looking? Would be called a weirdo. People wouldn't be lining up to defend him and call him misunderstood. Well, not as many people, anyway.

Quote

Someone on Reddit compare Adam wins to Jenna Morasca wins, in terms of edit and the players that were in the finale 4. I didn't watch Jenna season but that makes me wants to.

I made the same comparison myself because, like Matt, the jury thought Ken was some weirdo who didn't even know there was a game going on. The difference is the show gave Ken a very favorable edit, whereas they were more than happy to portray Matt as crazy.

Edited December 16, 2016 by iMonrey

[KimberStormer]

3 hours ago, Eolivet said:

I actually disagree with the context of this statement. I think you can have all the failed ideas in the world and still be very good at Survivor.

Very millenial!

(I keed, I keed.  I agree that the social game is the most important and if people like you and you somehow get to the end anyway it's OK.  I cannot agree that it's more impressive to have your fate entirely in others' hands most of the time and just get lucky that they're not targeting you.  Sandra, whatever else is true, always voted with her alliance, and always knew what was happening, and would have hustled if she needed to; she never did any silly off-the-reservation BIG MOVE attempts without having the numbers.  That would be inimical to the whole Sandra deal.)

Edited December 16, 2016 by KimberStormer

[gator12]

9 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

It's called "bias." If Ken were unattractive a lot of people would have thought he was some weirdo loner dude. But because he's handsome, he's perceived as "shy" and "misunderstood" and "socially awkward." And - he probably is all those things. The fact remains, a person with those same qualities who isn't good looking? Would be called a weirdo. People wouldn't be lining up to defend him and call him misunderstood. Well, not as many people, anyway.

I made the same comparison myself because, like Matt, the jury thought Ken was some weirdo who didn't even know there was a game going on. The difference is the show gave Ken a very favorable edit, whereas they were more than happy to portray Matt as crazy.

How does Hannah compare to Heidi?

From another season I didn't watch. Did Sandra try to get rid of people, came up with ideas but no one was listening to her but ended winning anyway?

And when did Jeff say this?

Quote

Yes! And he read the season's trope well. Jeff said it. If you're the one in control of the game, you'll get voted out. He was aware of that and he stayed low when someone tries to take over.

[KimberStormer]

4 minutes ago, gator12 said:

From another season I didn't watch. Did Sandra try to get rid of people, came up with ideas but no one was listening to her but ended winning anyway?

Sort of; she hated Russell and wanted to vote him out, but people wouldn't go for it.  (Which is good for her, because she would have lost -- 100% would have lost -- if he'd been voted out.)  When she saw it wasn't going to work she was back to voting with the group.

[gator12]

3 minutes ago, KimberStormer said:

Sort of; she hated Russell and wanted to vote him out, but people wouldn't go for it.  (Which is good for her, because she would have lost -- 100% would have lost -- if he'd been voted out.)  When she saw it wasn't going to work she was back to voting with the group.

It just goes to show you that sometime people not going with the logical ideas that one come up with can wins you the game. Losing the battle can win you the war in survivor, just let the others take the heat