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

[gator12]

Hannah should have gotten rid of Adam in a way that didn't alienated him. He would have been her advocate in the jury. She had no one to advocate for her with the other jurors. Ken also had no one, not even David. Adam on the other hand had a few people making cases for him in Ponderosa.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

Survivor Still Has Some Surprises Left In The Finale

Despite cramming three challenges, three votes, and the jury questions into one episode, there are still twists and turns before the winner is crowned.

[MissEwa]

It's possibly getting a little off-topic, but wasn't a huge part of Sandra's Heroes vs Villains FTC argument that she tried to get Russell out and the rest of them didn't help her and that's why they all lost? I think mostly you don't get points for trying but in that case Sandra definitely did. 

The thing that confuses me is that if Adam did go to Ken and he is actually the person responsible for flipping him, like the jury thinks and Adam claims, why didn't we see any evidence of it? I know we only see a bit of what happens but why did we specifically get shown Hannah telling Adam to leave it to her, and Hannah talking to Ken, and setting it up so that it definitely looks like Hannah was responsible, and then having Chris credit Adam for it at FTC? It's weird, and if that's not how it actually went down, it seems to be very deliberate. I can't help thinking it's either 1) they wanted to humiliate Hannah, showing her as this delusional ditz who thinks she's running the game but really isn't - since she never gets voted out, this is her 'I've got all the power!' downfall episode, or 2) when Adam talked to Ken, he told him about his mother (which he's said he did in interviews, so this is likely), and not in a bonding-moment way like he did with Jay, but in a gameplay way that the audience would find gross, and they didn't show it to preserve his edit. 

[gator12]

I think they did that b/c Adam talk to Ken before the IC and Hannah did that after the IC game while Adam and David listen to Ken and left him alone.

I don't think they left it out to preserve his edit b/c the editors showed him to be a very flawed player who cries to much. And we know society doesn't like it when men cry 

What funny to me is that people on forums like this though Hannah deserves some votes but social media press like Afterbuzz TV though Ken deserves some votes instead of Adam winning by a landslide 

[laurakaye]

1 hour ago, waving feather said:

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!

Oh, I'd definitely rather have Jay/Adam.  I'd tune in just to watch them fight, hug, punch each other, argue, and hug again.

[gator12]

9 minutes ago, laurakaye said:

Oh, I'd definitely rather have Jay/Adam.  I'd tune in just to watch them fight, hug, punch each other, argue, and hug again.

Maybe we will see them do this on the Amazing Race. https://vid.me/xfZm If only CBS makes it happen

[How Bout That]

Quote

(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.)

Yes, Sandra was just there ("who you wan me vote").

It sickens me that Ms. FUTR is coming back yet again. Hope she is first out.

[Rachel RSL]

1 hour ago, laurakaye said:

Oh, I'd definitely rather have Jay/Adam.  I'd tune in just to watch them fight, hug, punch each other, argue, and hug again.

I never thought I would say this at the beginning (or even the middle) of the season but I think I would watch literally anything Jay is in. I'm having serious buyer's remorse about wanting him to get voted out before the final TC. Now I wish he'd won. Damn hindsight!

[askepticoptimist]

Quote

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 don't buy this either.  I can't count the number of times excellent strategic players didn't make it far just because they landed on the wrong end of the numbers in a merge with a strongly loyal tribe (such as in the Coach uber-religious season).  Or say the season when Boston Rob was running his mafia game of not letting people speak in secret and everyone just went along with it.

Getting the numbers is part of the game.  It's not the whole game.  If people aren't willing to work with you, it's not always your fault.

[peachmangosteen]

5 hours ago, NutMeg said:

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.

They probably do wonder it, but no one's gonna ever say it out loud because their egos won't let them.

2 hours ago, MissEwa said:

It's weird, and if that's not how it actually went down, it seems to be very deliberate. I can't help thinking it's either ... when Adam talked to Ken, he told him about his mother (which he's said he did in interviews, so this is likely), and not in a bonding-moment way like he did with Jay, but in a gameplay way that the audience would find gross, and they didn't show it to preserve his edit. 

I think that is a strong possibility. They certainly tried to frame Adam's mentions of his mother as everything but game play and Adam himself said that he told Ken for strategy.

I feel like all my posts make it seem like I hate Adam and think he's a bad winner, which is honestly not true. I actually like Adam and he's far from my least favorite winner. It's just that I'm annoyed by how much shit Hannah got in relation to how little Adam got and I'm put off by how much Adam used his mom as stratgey.

[MissEwa]

This is exactly me @peachmangosteen - I like Adam a lot. Before the finale he was just behind Hannah as my hope to win, and I thought I'd be really thrilled with his win. I was actually surprised at how annoyed I was. 

[gator12]

Who gave Hannah any shit? The juror? This Forum? 

The jurors who ask her questions ask her the same questions they ask Ken and Adam. 

The rest just ask Adam questions (that we were shown).

If anyone got shit from the juror it was Ken who claim that jurors didn't even acknowledge him

Edited December 16, 2016 by gator12

[J.D.]

So glad Adam won.  Of the final 3, he played the best game.  

[Rachel RSL]

1 hour ago, MissEwa said:

I thought I'd be really thrilled with his win. I was actually surprised at how annoyed I was. 

This is EXACTLY how I feel too. I don't dislike him at all but, during the bowl challenge, I found myself really rooting for his tower to fall. (His reaction to that was hilarious, by the way. He almost cries. He just saw it happen to Ken but he can't believe it happened to him. Heh.)  I'm not shocked he won over Ken and Hannah, maybe I'm just annoyed because it was unanimous. His game wasn't that good. Hannah deserved at least a couple votes to get 2nd place. (Ken was never getting any votes.)

[Sarahsmile416]

1 hour ago, Rachel RSL said:

This is EXACTLY how I feel too. I don't dislike him at all but, during the bowl challenge, I found myself really rooting for his tower to fall. (His reaction to that was hilarious, by the way. He almost cries. He just saw it happen to Ken but he can't believe it happened to him. Heh.)  I'm not shocked he won over Ken and Hannah, maybe I'm just annoyed because it was unanimous. His game wasn't that good. Hannah deserved at least a couple votes to get 2nd place. (Ken was never getting any votes.)

See it's funny - I would have said the opposite. Having listened to Jessica's jury video it really sounded like she would have voted for Ken...I pretty much assumed Adam would win, Ken might get a couple votes and Hannah would get shut out - not because she deserved it but because the jury really didn't seem to like or respect her game.

[gator12]

3 minutes ago, Sarahsmile416 said:

See it's funny - I would have said the opposite. Having listened to Jessica's jury video it really sounded like she would have voted for Ken...I pretty much assumed Adam would win, Ken might get a couple votes and Hannah would get shut out - not because she deserved it but because the jury really didn't seem to like or respect her game.

Yeah Ken might have gotten two votes base on the jury speak videos. They had no respect for Hannah's game at all.

They left a lot out, like Jessica recounting the Zeke vs David battle at TC. They went in to vote for Zeke but right as they are walking in there she told Jessica to vote for someone else (I think Will). And she did that often Jessica claims.

Edited December 17, 2016 by gator12

[gator12]

One thing I like about this season is that the way it was edited. They show everybody flaws and blunders. All three of the people who were most likely to win (Jay, David, and Adam) were shown as flawed players. 

I wish Jay, David and Adam were in the finale three. Jay could have talk about his mom illness, Adam could have talk about his mom illness yet I think David would have still won in that scenario.

Edited December 17, 2016 by gator12

[gator12]

Did the survivor subforum disappear for anyone else? 

[Eolivet]

I just rewatched the show with my oldest, who got into it this year, and a few things struck me differently this time around.

Others have said this (I think in regards to the Ponderosa videos) but it was really clear from the show that the jury thought David was the biggest threat and should've been taken out earlier. Adam was the only one who seized upon this and essentially told the jury what they wanted to hear -- that they screwed up by keeping David in. I think he won (game-wise) with his final 4 tribal council performance -- his annoyance at the Bret vote, and his insistence about what a huge threat David was. It made him seem like he was the only one who recognized David as a threat.

Hannah had a really good defense for why she didn't vote out David, but she didn't realize that the jury had pretty much uninamously decided there was no shades of gray about this: David was a threat, and thus not voting him out was A Stupid Move. Her pleas that it helped her game fell on deaf ears, because the jury had chosen to accept that as fact, not opinion.

With regards to Adam, I don't get the Todd comparison at all, honestly (I still remember that smug jerk sitting at final tribal council, all "I got myself Amanda, I got myself Courtney" like they were his...platonic harem). Chris may have imbued Adam with the power of convincing Ken to vote out David, but that was clearly all based on Adam's final 4 tribal council speech. I didn't see him taking credit for Hannah's moves so much as pretty much owning his weaker and flawed game. He did blame Hannah a couple times, but she seemed more than happy to own those moves. I think she projected confidence that may have crossed over into arrogance for some of the jury. Her arguments, while true, were "I knew exactly what I was doing the whole time" and Adam's arguments were "I screwed up a lot, but I tried to make up for it." Michelle may have inadvertently given him his argument about his "blunders" because he kept repeating that.

In a different season, Hannah might've won, but the jury simply didn't believe her. I don't believe they thought it was all Adam, not her (except Chris), but Adam showed a lot of humility and admission of weakness. This was a nice jury who really loved the game, and I think they were secretly critiquing (in a nice way) how everyone else was playing and keeping score. They saw a lot of flaws, and they wanted to hear about those flaws, not about how someone had played a virtually flawless game.

And David's final question -- while nobody was ever coming close to "My mom is dying from lung cancer," Hannah and Ken's answers were basically Spencer's I Became a Real Live Boy arc. I firmly believe nobody wants to hear how Survivor made you a better person. Nobody cares. That does nothing for anybody else, and people vote out of self-interest. I've heard past contestants say how much they learned from the game, the friendships they made, blah blah -- more inclusive answers that make the jury a part of the story. Not just "me! me! me!" And Adam, like it or not, made it not about himself. After seeing the jury's faces, I agree that they all knew his story beforehand. But I think seeing how much it affected Adam gave him the unanimous win. The information may have been "strategy," but I don't think the emotions were.

There have been a lot of personal stories shared on Survivor -- Adam isn't the first and he won't be the last. And I do think the (genuine) sobbing about his mom gave him a unanimous win. But there have been plenty of juries that have cheerfully denied money to those who really needed it or who had a really good story. This jury had to have liked Adam enough to begin with for them to want to vote for him. Again, I believe you don't give a million dollars to a goat, even with a sad story.

TL; DR. I liked Adam -- he wasn't my favorite, and he certainly didn't play one of the top 10 or even 20 games out there. But I thought the last two tribal councils won it for him, even without his mother's illness. His jury management was spot-on. As such, I still find him a deserving winner.

[J.D.]

This^^^^^.

[Rachel RSL]

1 hour ago, Sarahsmile416 said:

Adam would win, Ken might get a couple votes and Hannah would get shut out -

Also very possible. But one of them deserved some votes IMO. 

[SlackerInc]

On 12/15/2016 at 9:42 PM, Wandering Snark said:

And Hatch caught a freakin' shark! Albeit a small one, but comparative to the amount of food they had back then that was like the Flintstones ordering those ribs that tip over their car. 'Worked hard and got fish' was THE biggest 'resume point' to have back then. And sometimes failing at that got you voted out; hi Keith!!

I wouldn't want them to return to the rat eating getting naked for peanut butter days, but the feasts they have so often now really imho take the edge off the game. It might as well be tents set up in your local gymnasium with provided catering at this point.

That might be going too far the other way.  The proof is in the Ponderosa pudding: they do still lose significant amounts of weight.

21 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Equating people's dislike (dislike? I wouldn't even go that far. Some people think he's pompous) with some people's (irrational IMO) fear of Michaela is also not something I'll cosign.  I think they're both judged by some by their looks - but in polar opposite ways.

As a Michaela critic, I feel this is stacking the deck against me and others like me in at least a couple ways.  First of all, I'm not afraid of Michaela, I just don't like her.  And I think Michaela's beautiful to look at.  It is the way she acts that I don't like.  I'm not even going to use the arguably sexist "b word", so I'll use a different word that might come across awkwardly: she's a jerk.  She acts rudely, dismissively, and hostilely toward people who show no signs of having deserved that treatment.  

15 hours ago, NutMeg said:

I once read or heard something that goes like this: if you're not sure of the outcome you want, toss a coin; before it falls down, you'll know. 

Well, that was me after David was voted out. With both he and Jay gone, I realised I seriously wanted Hannah to win. And if not her, well, Ken could do, I guessed. I thought I would have been happy with any winner, but in that second I knew I would only be happy with Hannah, ok but meh with Ken, and displeased with Adam. And there it went...

I was so proud of Hannah articulating and owing her game at FTC and NOT willing to let Adam take credit for alliances / switching of alliances, convincing people, etc., that, as I saw in the game, were hers and not his (and really, TBTB were not going to show her in a better light than the winner on purpose, were they?). She's the one who kept Adam on track when he was freaking out, the one who read people, the one who worked things out in the best way for both of them. She was not a goat. Her game play and image on the jury bitterly reminded me of Amanda/Todd/China. I never saw misogyny in the cast until FTC. Maybe it wasn't that, but the way they seemed to all come with preconceived notions (hello, Chris, I hope you felt differently and humbled while watching the season, because that conviction of yours came out of nowhere, buddy) left me with a sour taste. Which is too bad, because I really, really enjoyed this season, up to the winner reveal. 

It's not that I don't like Adam as such, it's that he did way less to win than the jury thought and than he took credit for. So yeah, very reminiscent of China's Todd for me.

I'm also uncomfortable with sob stories on reality shows. I understand where Adam was coming for and I don't judge him or fault him for his choices in that regard. But I do side eye TPTB. Because I don't watch Survivor for personal stories other than growth IN THE GAME. I've had my lot of sob stories over the years, and have witnessed others around me, and that's tough enough, thank you. When I watch Survivor, I'm watching a game. If I was watching a tennis tournament, I'd take Wawrinka winning over Murray in a well-won game, not because he told the judges beforehand of some personal story that got them weepy so that their vision was less sharp and they missed a couple of faults. I don't even think it was intentional. But for me the result is still unsatisfying because of it.

I cosign all of this strongly.  But I wanted to particularly express appreciation for the Wawrinka-Murray mention!  It would definitely be that awesome one-handed backhand that would win the day.  :)

13 hours 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.)

Hoo boy.  And I was backing you in the debate over Ken's looks, too.  I can understand if someone does not see Michele (one L) as "one of the best players ever to play this game", which is what I said when there were seven or eight players left (Peachmangosteen was also a fan at that time).  I can even understand thinking Aubrey was more deserving of the win.  But to call her a "non-player" akin to Bret?  No.  A thousand times, no.  If you want to discuss it further, we can take it to her thread--just tag me.

13 hours ago, Rachel RSL said:

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

So the way Trump rates women by their appearance isn't sexist?  Many, many people would disagree with you.

12 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

@SlackerInc care to field this one? :)

LMAO!

+1

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.

Thanks for punting that to me, LOL.  BTW, what is "UCG"?

12 hours 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.

The sexism comes in when people will reliably object in droves if others are giving a bad female player a pass because they like to ogle her; but if a bad male player is given the same treatment, no hue and cry is seen.

45 minutes ago, Rachel RSL said:

Also very possible. But one of them deserved some votes IMO. 

I understand this impulse, but (leaving aside the fact that I don't believe Adam should have gotten the majority of the votes), in general terms the logic doesn't hold in a case where you have a single vote and one candidate seems to everyone to be better than the others, even if only slightly.  Let's imagine there's a poll of ten rock critics: "Who's better, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?"  You go down the line, and every single one fills out their secret ballot, and in the end it's 10-0, Beatles.  Now, some of those critics really like the Stones quite a bit, very close to how much they like the Fab Four; and they express chagrin that the result was such a blowout.  They wish it had been 7-3 or 8-2.  Yet they voted Beatles because they were honest (and they didn't know for sure what everyone else would do).  If you used cumulative voting, you could have multiple votes to allocate as you wish: dump them all on the Beatles if you have no use for the Stones, or give a few to the Stones if you want to make sure they aren't shut out.

But getting back to Survivor and its current form of voting: the players are forbidden from plotting their votes with other jurors.  So let's say they follow that rule.  If so, they've got one vote to play.  They may suspect one player is going to win in a blowout, and they only want him to win more narrowly because he didn't play a "blowout game", but how do they know their vote isn't needed?  What if several other players dish out a "sympathy" or "consolation" vote and that player accidentally wins as a result?

This is also the problem BTW with Rotten Tomatoes scores for movies and TV shows.  A 100% rating may mean that every critic thought "okay, sure, it's not bad exactly" and gave it a very marginal thumbs up.  But it is generally treated as an expression of intensity of support, which it is not.

Edited December 17, 2016 by SlackerInc
Added a link

[anthonyd46]

I do feel Ken should have gotten some votes he closed the game pretty well and I thought that would get him a couple. Adam just wasn't edited as a 10-0-0 winner I mean look at the other unanimous winners.

Earl, JT, Cochran, Jeremy 

These 4 were so obvious that no one else was even considered that they had won. I would be fine with Adam's edit if he had won 6-4 or something. I can justify his edit squeaking out a win, but to win unanimous and get that much negativity thats the shocking part. So its not to me shocking that Adam won its shocking that the editing team would give a unanimous winner THAT kind of edit. 

Also comparing to Jenna isn't right either she won, because she shocked everyone and won those last two immunities plus Matt was borderline serial killer. People were afraid of him.

[peachmangosteen]

11 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

BTW, what is "UCG"?

Unintentional comedy gold.

@Eolivet's post made me realize I'm definitely not giving Adam enough credit for his game. I think now it's super clear that he was a pretty big strategist and he was pretty ruthlessly using his mom's illness in that strategy at times (which I'm still not entirely comfortable with). I think, and @anthonyd46 just touched on this, his edit didn't particularly show how much of a player he was though. Potentially because they didn't wanna show him using his mom as strategy. And I still think Hannah played just as good a game as him while getting zero respect for it, but as someone pointed out, I do see a legit reason why he beat her in that he just bullshitted the jury and went along with the stories they told themselves while Hannah tried to change their narrative, which annoyed them (as it usually does).

[gator12]

Telling Ken about his mom on day 38 was him being ruthless? The edit this season had nothing to do with his mom illness since outside of confessional, which the show showed a lot of, he didn't talk about it with his competitors outside of Jay, who was also talking about his mom illness where he doesn't know if she's going to die and Ken which we only know about  because of exit interviews.

Hannah didn't play a good game, strategy mean shit if you don't have a good social games, which Jay said Hannah wouldn't talk to him after the Michaela vote and the strategy that people do not credit David and Zeke for were dumb ones like Bret and Sunday and you proudly defend those decision completely misreading the room. She didn't deserve a vote, FTC performance means shit and we only got 15 minutes of an FTC that lasted more than 3 hours.

Ken talk about doing this for his daughter all the time, Jay talks about his mom. There were probably more sobs stories talk about, we just didn't see it b/c that not the story the editors wanted to tell.

[simplyme]

I think Hannah's biggest problem is that she doesn't come across as calm and collected and thoughtful even when she is making a strategic decision.

All the talk about Hannah's poor jury management is based on the idea that she would have made F3 if she had made different decisions. It finally really clicked with me yesterday why she made those choices, and I certainly think they were solid and very defensible if done correctly and calmly at TC. I have no idea how Hannah came across at the TC since we saw a heavily edited version of it. :P

The Sunday vote: Hannah has noticed Adam's increasing closeness with Bret and Sunday, who are a voting bloc of two. She knows Adam does not want Jay or David in F3 with him, but she realizes that Adam may have a choice of her and Ken as his F3 partners or Bret and Sunday. By removing Sunday from the game, pretty much every single person except Bret will want to take Hannah to F3. If she removes her (tiny) meatshield David instead of Sunday, she leaves intact the Bret-Sunday bloc, which has worked with Jay in the past (in case he wins IC and can't be voted out) and which may sway Adam to their side. That leaves her and Ken vulnerable and next to be picked off. So Sunday should go. 

The Bret vote: We saw Hannah herself say that Bret didn't want her in F3 and if she'd voted/let David get idoled out instead, Ken would have held it against her. That would mean that unless she won the last IC (something that had never happened), she would quite possibly be facing at least two votes against her out of four and either going home or having to make fire to stay in it. If Bret goes home, everyone left wants her in F3 and Adam has wasted both idols. (Personally, I wouldn't mention the last sentence at FTC. That moves from strategic to manipulative.) Hannah is also fairly certain that she can get Ken to flip (or he will flip) at the end because he can't win vs David. So her choices are vote Bret out and pretty much ensure she makes F3, but risk David making it too if and only if he wins the IC, or vote David out at F5 and not make F3 unless she wins the IC or firemaking challenge.

I would vote Bret out too. It's wouldn't be a consolation to me that "I took out David!" if that move removed me from the game the next vote. :P

The way to explain it to the jury is that, "I was very, very aware of Teflon Jay and David the little engine that could. They absolutely had to go. But I was also very aware of all our interpersonal dynamics and relationships. Ultimately, you have to play Survivor for yourself and make the best decisions to advance your game. Most of you are on the jury for people being threatened by you advancing your own game. So I know I made some decisions that if you aren't me, well, they look crazy without explanation. But if you ARE me, they're the way you get to the end and hopefully win. I'm certainly not saying I played a perfect game. Um, hi, panic attack, and the Michaela blindside, and losing Jessica to rocks. But I think if you give me a chance to explain the strategy behind what I think people see as my "stupidest" votes, you'll see that they were strategic and the right moves for me. Maybe not for anyone else in the game, but admittedly I was actually trying to avoid handing a million dollars to someone else."

TL;DR version: Hannah's Sunday and Bret votes were strategic and defensible to the jury.

[gator12]

If we go on by Jessica exit interview in Parade, flippers  were never going to win, that why she didn't flip when and went to the jury by drawing the wrong rock. The reason why people were voting for Zeke and Hannah at the TC was b/c the flip and flippers get no respect this season. Well any season really since Spencer got zero votes and Kass was hated. Hannah needed to adapt and be shown as cutthroat and play for the win, if she lost oh well at least she played for the win instead of playing for runner-up. If she wasn't going to  cutthroat by getting rid of Jay, David and Adam... she should have insure she drag Will there with her to the FTC with Ken.  Who knows who wins in that one, not Will since the reason they voted him off was b/c he was a flippers that couldn't be trusted. Maybe Ken wins, but he had no social game and look as a goat.  All she had to do was bring two people with her that the jury respect or like less than her. 

[peachmangosteen]

5 hours ago, simplyme said:

I think Hannah's biggest problem is that she doesn't come across as calm and collected and thoughtful even when she is making a strategic decision.

Neither does Adam!

4 hours ago, gator12 said:

If we go on by Jessica exit interview in Parade, flippers were never going to win ...

But Adam won!

[violet and green]

3 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

Neither does Adam!

 

I certainly saw him run around like a headless chook a few times - but I never saw him act like a 90's Valley Girl/tween in a tribal council, fanning his face over and over, gasping. and fake hyperventilating to 'express' shock at a result!

I think her lack of gravitas in certain situations played against her getting votes, and also the shrill strident tone she took in her answers at final tribal.

[peachmangosteen]

6 hours ago, gator12 said:

Telling Ken about his mom on day 38 was him being ruthless? 

Yea, for me using your mom's sickness as strategy is pretty ruthless. 

Quote

The edit this season had nothing to do with his mom illness ...

I mean Adam had at least three long confessionals about it. It was definitely a huge part of his edit.

3 minutes ago, violet and green said:

I certainly saw him run around like a headless chook a few times - but I never saw him act like a 90's Valley Girl/tween in a tribal council, fanning his face over and over, gasping. and fake hyperventilating to 'express' shock at a result!

I think her lack of gravitas in certain situations played against her getting votes, and also the shrill strident tone she took in her answers at final tribal.

I would take a reply to this to the gender thread but I feel like I've made my point on the inherent/subconscious sexism in how Hannah was viewed by the jury vs. how Adam was viewed enough already. I'm tired of seeing my own posts on the matter!

Edited December 17, 2016 by peachmangosteen

[gator12]

So one is only ruthless is they talk about an illness and wins. Three people talk about illnesses, either their mom or themselves went through but only one is getting the ruthless, tacky, selfish accusation. 

[peachmangosteen]

15 minutes ago, gator12 said:

So one is only ruthless is they talk about an illness and wins. Three people talk about illnesses, either their mom or themselves went through but only one is getting the ruthless, tacky, selfish accusation. 

I'm pretty sure I'm the only person who said Adam using his mom's illness was ruthless, so I don't really think he's getting labeled that way at all. As for the others, Jay wasn't shown discussing his mom's illness (outside of him responding to Adam's declaration) so I can't make a judgement on how or if he used that strategically. Ditto Sunday. If they talked about how they used those things strategically in interviews I'd like to see it. And if they did I think that was ruthless as well. Also, to be clear, I don't think ruthlessness in this game is inherently a bad thing. I'm not entirely comfortable with that kinda thing being used as strategy, but I'm not completely against it either.

And honestly, personally if I was playing this season and voting for a winner I would've voted for Adam. As I've said, neither he nor Hannah played a better game than the other imo, so gameplay wouldn't really factor into my decision. I would've voted for Adam because of his story. And I don't think it's wrong to vote that way. 

Edited December 18, 2016 by peachmangosteen

[gator12]

Than I would call you a bad jury member and a bad survivor contestant if you voted for someone because a sob story. You should be like other survivor juror who gleefully not voted or voted against someone with a sob story.

No one cares about a sob story if one didn't play a good game hence why Ken sob story receive no vote.

Adam would not have receive any vote sitting next to Jay or David.

Hannah base on some interviews had a crap social game (though according to Hannah, she was great with the social aspect) and no one saw her allege Kingpin game. If no one saw what you did and you wait to tell and not show at the FTC? You played a bad game 

[J.D.]

25 minutes ago, gator12 said:

So one is only ruthless is they talk about an illness and wins. Three people talk about illnesses, either their mom or themselves went through but only one is getting the ruthless, tacky, selfish accusation. 

I missed 2 episodes this season, so perhaps I missed 'Evil Adam.'   I do remember Adam having a heartfelt conversation in the hammock with Jay -- who was going through a similar situation -- as well as Adam revealing his mom's illness while being questioned by the jury.  Other than those 2 instances, I don't recall Adam discussing his mom's illness with anyone outside of his private confessionals.  I don't understand how some people (here and other sites) come to the conclusion that Adam used his mom's illness as a strategy.    If that were true, he would have mentioned it early on where it could have helped to buy him time. He had no way of knowing he'd be one of the final 3.

[gator12]

1 minute ago, J.D. said:

I missed 2 episodes this season, so perhaps I missed 'Evil Adam.'   I do remember Adam having a heartfelt conversation in the hammock with Jay -- who was going through a similar situation -- as well as Adam revealing his mom's illness while being questioned by the jury.  Other than those 2 instances, I don't recall Adam discussing his mom's illness with anyone outside of his private confessionals.  I don't understand how some people (here and other sites) come to the conclusion that Adam used his mom's illness as a strategy.    If that were true, he would have mentioned it early on where it could have helped to buy him time. He had no way of knowing he'd be one of the final 3.

He told Ken according to an interview at the finale 4, Ken played for his daughter and he was playing with his mom. I don't see what so evil about that but its in bad taste. 

Beside, its not a good strategy, it cause people to vote you out if one knows.

[LadyChatts]

32 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

I'm pretty sure I'm the only person who said Adam using his mom's illness was ruthless, so I don't really think he's getting labeled that way at all. As for the others, Jay wasn't shown discussing his mom's illness (outside of him responding to Adam's declaration) so I can't make a judgement on how or if he used that strategically. Ditto Sunday. If they talked about how they used those things strategically in interviews I'd like to see it. And if they did I think that was ruthless as well. Also, to be clear, I don't think ruthlessness in this game is inherently a bad thing. I'm not entirely comfortable with that kinda thing being used as strategy, but I'm not completely against it either.

And honestly, personally if I was playing this season and voting for a winner I would've voted for Adam. As I've said, neither he nor Hannah played a better game than the other imo, so gameplay wouldn't really factor into my decision. I would've voted for Adam because of his story. And I don't think it's wrong to vote that way. 

It wasn't just Adam's story, but it seemed (as some other posters put it) calculated how he brought it up at the FTC.  He seemed composed until Jay got up, then he broke down and said 'you know why I'm doing this.'  And that isn't going to get the juries attention?  Then he saves it for last.  For the record, I don't believe his tears or emotions were fake.  But it was if he knew just when he was going to bring it up.  In fact, when he kept interrupting Hannah and Ken and saying 'we'll get to that later' (as if he's the boss of TC and can tell everyone when they can talk about stuff), I thought that was what he was alluding to.  To me, I just don't think any juror was going to vote against Adam after that declaration of his mom.  Whether they were planning to vote for Hannah or Ken anyway and then changed their minds, I don't know (which I doubt anyone would admit to anyway). 

I just don't think Adam's game play was all that great.  Chris gave him credit for something he didn't even do.  He wasn't any less neurotic than Hannah, and I don't think he had a good poker face.  He went with the crowd most of the time.  His big move to me was saving Hannah, but that was it.  I believe he won more on popularity and sympathy vs game play.  But popularity is the norm on Survivor, so I'm not surprised. 

Edited December 18, 2016 by LadyChatts

[J.D.]

4 minutes ago, gator12 said:

He told Ken according to an interview at the finale 4, Ken played for his daughter and he was playing with his mom.

That, I didn't know.   I liken this to the sharing moment he had with Jay.  Revealing his mom's illness to Ken certainly couldn't be seen as a strategic way to get Ken's vote.  I think Adam was a man who needed to talk about something weighing heavily on his mind, and so he chose to confide in whoever he felt a similarity.

[gator12]

I can say he won without the story because I watch the jury speak videos where the jury and that was before they went to the FTC.

One doesn't have to play a great game, jut a better one than the other finalist.

One is having a better social game which was he had compare to Hannah and Ken. One who ignore one potential juror in Jay who could rallied two other juror against her. Didn't handle things correctly with Zeke and Sunday when voting them out. That five voted against her right there and add Bret there six voted against her. Lost the game before the finale three was set. And Ken was someone who rant and ramble about humility, honesty and got on people nerves. Put them to test when they wanted to talk strategy with them. 

He didn't need a poker face since he was blunt with people "yeah I'm voting you out"

He was smart to read the room and adapted his game to take the target off his back after he went out too strong 

Used his advantage smartly, positive toward jury management.

Played to the jury expectation during Tribal Council

Voted out Figgy, "saved" Hannah, insisted that Will go, that a positive for him since the Jury hate flippers according to Jessica. Insisted that Jay goes when Hannah and David was going to take Jay bait and vote Bret out instead of him.

Made sure he let them know that Sunday and Bret wasn't his idea, played his idol at the time when Ken and Hannah was stupid enough to vote out Bret instead of David, positive for him and insure that no one would vote for Ken and Hannah if they made it to the finale 3.

We have to remember that we are seeing only 45 minutes 13  edited episodes when these people were there for 39. Jurors were talking about the big move that Adam made, some of them fail and some of them succeed, in their jury speak videos. Which again was taped before the FTC.

Edited December 18, 2016 by gator12

[kikaha]

The jury members saw a helluva lot more of Hannah than we the audience did, and they voted unanimously against her.  So if she really was the strategic mastermind, as she tried to portray herself, she screwed up major league in setting up the jury: worse, even, than Russell Hantz did his first season. 

[EvilApplesauce]

The way I imagine that the jury looked at things in the case of Hannah:

Michelle: "never was on the wrong side of the vote except for Michaela, but I told Hannah to vote against her alliance member, and she actually listened. She showed her flip-floppy-wish-washy colors from the beginning"

Taylor: "had no relationship whatsoever with this chick during the game. Meh"

Chris: "Same. Also, smart woman like Jessica. Me no likey"

Will: "Jay and I didn't tell Hannah about the Michaela vote, because she was too much of a s***. Adam wasted his idol on her, when I had already given her side the numbers. I have my guesses as to who was the cause of that communication glitch."

Bret: "voted me out = crazy".

Zeke: "I'll never forget when Hannah couldn't even muster up the fallopial fortitude to lie about flipping to David's side. Eff her"

Jessica: "I drew the wrong rock over Hannah. Effing HANNAH."

Jay: "I liked her well enough, but we weren't much of a team ... much of anything, really. Good luck, though, Hannah! I just choose to cast my vote for somebody else who actually worked WITH me"

David: "She and Zeke were the reasons why we had to go to rocks. I listened to her bad last-minute-tribal-council intel, and it cost me an idol. Meanwhile Hannah gained immunity in that vote, while I could've potentially gone home.  I'd like to vote for somebody that didn't force me to scramble / rely on God's grace to stay in the game."

Sunday: "she voted me out."

Now trying to imagine what the jury may have thought about Ken:

Michelle: "He was nice enough, but we didn't interact for very long. Impressive that he won a few immunity challenges. I'm just not sure if he was David's goat, or an actual mover and shaker of the game."

Taylor: "We were on opposite sides of our tribe, but I was willing to work with him and Jessica after Figgy was voted out. Jessica seemed more open to the idea, though. Uh ... yeah, I got nothing."

Chris: "Couldn't stand this guy from day 1, talking about some damned purple lavender. I wouldn't give Ken the credit for his own decision to vote out David, because in my mind he's a space cadet. And of course I wouldn't credit a girl with that move. I like my women like Sunday, not all opinionated and thoughtful-like. Hi Adam!"

Will: "Eff Ken. EFF KEN."

Bret: "Ken's not a guys guy like the rest of us guys, right guys? That's why, guys, in 2016, I thought I was rocking the foundation of the earth by outing my sexual orientation on national TV. Because I'm such a guy, that even Jeff Probst is shocked when he sees the footage! Even though Zeke was mostly like 'you're gay, awesome! Okay, now let's talk about the game'. I've been rolling my eyes at Ken ever since he said some non-guys-guy stuff about vinyl records at tribal council. We're not voting for Ken, are we, guys?" **swills beer from Chris's bottle** "Nope!"

Zeke: "You were aligned with David, who I looked down my condescending button nose at, and taunted when I felt that my back was against the wall. Otherwise, I didn't know anything about you, so I'm going to ask some producer-shill question about revolutionizing Survivor..." **possible spoiler**

Jessica: "I was rooting for you until you voted David out. You could've forced a tie. I didn't like it, but I went to rocks because I believed in our team. But you took the coward's way out, and it burns me that the legacy advantage I EARNED propelled you into the final 3 without fanfare. I wish I would've been more grateful to David - the one who actually used his idol on me."

Jay: "I liked you, but I liked everybody on the island. We never really strategized together, did we? There was the time when you came to ask me if your name was up to be voted out, which put my alliance in an uncomfortable position of having to confront Will ... and then soothe his ego at tribal council. Will set us back in the numbers anyway, and that's in a nutshell why you're up there and I'm sitting back here."

Zeke: "Oh that's right, Jay! I went home on that vote! Yeah, sorry, Ken. You're not getting my vote."

David: "Not only did you betray our final 3 promise and you didn't give me the chance to plead to the jury, but I did the dirty work to put you in that seat, and you reaped most of the benefits. First, I found and spent an idol on Jessica, and you knew I had an idol - but you revealed that you had a legacy advantage which you never told me about. Then I found and spent another idol to save you, leaving myself vulnerable in a rock draw that cost us Jessica. That wasn't enough for you, so you pissed off Will when he was trying to align with us. That cost our alliance our last idol, another waste! Which idols did you find, Ken? When did you ever put yourself on the line to save me? The one time that you could've demonstrated how serious you were about your ideals of loyalty ... you voted me out."

Sunday: "he voted me out".

.....

TL; DR: my humble opinion is that Adam won this game regardless of his mother's illness. Hannah was confident and articulate at FTC, but I think she underestimated how many people she burned (starting with Adam and Zeke). I don't think Ken lost because of his social anxiety. His passive game moves alienated his allies, and he didn't seem at all retrospective (e.g. Jessica's question). Nobody wants to hear "I'm doing it for my daughter" - having children is not uncommon. "I learned a lot about myself and evolved during the game" doesn't seem evident by the choices to take out Sunday and Brett before David (though I agree that those moves were best for Hannah's game, there's no way she was going to make the jury see or care about her reasons).

[gator12]

I wonder how confident and articulate Hannah really was at the FTC, we only saw 15 minutes of a 3+ hours FTC. Thinking about it, that Michelle questions wasn't really a compliment to her game, since Ken was also at the right side of the votes but one and Adam was at the right side of votes except those 2 time. And one of that time was when he didn't vote out Bret. You knew the jury loves that. 

[peachmangosteen]

14 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

I believe he won more on popularity and sympathy vs game play.  But popularity is the norm on Survivor, so I'm not surprised. 

Right! I mean the game pretty much always devolves into a popularity contest at the end. I don't understand why people are still surprised/angered by it.

Quote

It wasn't just Adam's story, but it seemed (as some other posters put it) calculated how he brought it up at the FTC. 

I'm still not sure how I feel about the calculation of Adam's various tellings of his mom's story. Obviously when he told Ken that was a calculated move. He point blank said it was. I think the Jay thing was really just him not being able to hold it in anymore. As for FTC, I don't think that was premeditated, but I do think it was ultimately a calculated move on his part. Which I still find part gross and part great gameplay.

ETA: Oh, I forgot to mention this: I decided to rewatch FTC because I wanted to see just how much Hannah interrupted Adam vs. how much he interrupted her. I only counted the times where they were clearly interrupting each other and not when there was a distinct pause from one of them before the other started speaking. They each interrupted the other twice. On rewatch they really didn't interrupt as much as it felt like they did when I first watched. I also perceived Adam as interrupting Hannah so much more (and many here felt the opposite) but they were even with their interruptions.

Also upon rewatch Zeke came of even more insufferable than he did the first time. And I noticed he wasn't wearing shoes. Tool.  

Honestly on rewatch it's so much easier to tell that a) Adam was gonna win no matter what because the jury already crafted a story about how great he was compared to the others and b) he played FTC well while Ken and Hannah missed the mark on how the jury was perceiving them. Adam would've won anyway, it was too late for Ken/Hannah to change the jury' perception, but still. 

I also watched some other random scenes again and I was reminded of how much I liked how Adam played it when David told him that it'd make more sense for him and Hannah to just vote each other out. Now there he was very calm and collected and not acting spazzy like he normally did. He also came of super arrogant, but David was being just as arrogant so it was a wash.

Edited December 18, 2016 by peachmangosteen

[peachmangosteen]

14 hours ago, gator12 said:

Than I would call you a bad jury member and a bad survivor contestant if you voted for someone because a sob story.

How do you suggest someone vote when they feel two people played the exact same game with neither playing it better than the other? You can't vote for two people!

[gator12]

53 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

How do you suggest someone vote when they feel two people played the exact same game with neither playing it better than the other? You can't vote for two people!

Well they didn't play the exact same game. He played a much better social game than Hannah which is part of Survivor. I believe it is the Outwit part of the Outwit, Outplay and Outlast saying. He also won an immunity challenge and found idols, while Hannah had none of those two so he Outplay her there

Hannah mess up with Zeke, didn't talk with Jay after the Michaela vote (Jay's interview). Made the dumb mistake of calling Sunday the goat to her face. Did she even talk to Taylor?

And Adam Outwit her b/c he showed the jury his hands while Hannah claim she was the Kingpin behind the scene. Also she keep David in the game while Adam was trying to get rid of Jay and David since finale 7, the jury knew that. Being a Kingpin behind the scene (not to mention I though it was completely ridiculous for Hannah to say she was) where no one saw what you did don't get you the win, if that was the case Fishback would have won.

There are enough difference between Adam and Hannah to claim the played the same game. They didn't.

No one ever plays the exact same game and if a juror think two finalist did that they don't deserve to be on jury.

Edited December 18, 2016 by gator12

[gator12]

I agree with Stephen Fischback and others that said that Ken was the Tasha, Hannah was the Spencer who thought she played the best game out of everyone while completely misreading the jury and Adam was the less finesses version of Jeremy. Jeremy was smooth, while Adam was messy. 

ETA:  Is Outwit the strategic part of the game. Outplay is the physical part of the game the game while Outlast is just getting to the end?

Edited December 18, 2016 by gator12

[waving feather]

At FTC, it's always been a popularity contest. The juries will always reward someone they like most or hate the least and honestly I can't blame them for it. I would do the same if I were in their position. Why would I give a million dollars to someone I dislike (or like less)?

If two people are liked equally but one is more strategic, the more strategic one will be rewarded. But in other cases, it's always been a popularity contest.

I thought Hannah played a better strategic game than Adam but at the end of the game, she was less liked by the jury compared to Adam. So in that sense, Adam had a better social game than Hannah. I don't even count pretty Ken in the picture because I don't think he's good socially or strategically (sorry). I mean Jay straight up admitted he knew was going to vote for Adam before FTC because he loves him period.

That's what Survivor is at the end of the day. They can talk up blindsides and strategy and challenge prowess in their promos but if you can't be the most liked one at the end, you will not win.

[J.D.]

37 minutes ago, gator12 said:

Well they didn't play the exact same game. He played a much better social game than Hannah which is part of Survivor. I believe it is the Outwit part of the Outwit, Outplay and Outlast saying. He also won an immunity challenge and found idols, while Hannah had none of those two so he Outplay her there

Hannah mess up with Zeke, didn't talk with Jay after the Michaela vote (Jay's interview). Made the dump mistake of calling Sunday the goat to her face. Did she even talk to Taylor?

And Adam Outwit her b/c he showed the jury his hands while Hannah claim she was the Kingpin behind the scene. Also she keep David in the game while Adam was trying to get rid of Jay and David since finale 7, the jury knew that. Being a Kingpin behind the scene (not to mention I though it was completely ridiculous for Hannah to say she was) where no one saw what you did don't get you the win, if that was the case Fishback would have won.

There are enough difference between Adam and Hannah to claim the played the same game. They didn't.

No one ever plays the exact same game and if a juror think two finalist did that they don't deserve to be on jury.

This.  ^^^^^ Again.  So well put I have nothing more to add.  Right.  Now.

[mojoween]

I am personally glad that I no longer have to look at Hannah's horrible purple shorts.

I know what we are all referring to when talking about goats, and it's been part of the Survivor lexicon forever, and I also know what a goat is in the context of the game, but I am curious why they are called goats in the first place.  I mean, how did we land on that particular word?

Sigh.  I just did a deep dive into Ken's Twitter and I think he's a Patriots fan.  So much for that, but it was fun while it lasted.

Edited December 18, 2016 by mojoween

[Stinamaia]

19 minutes ago, mojoween said:

I am personally glad that I no longer have to look at Hannah's horrible purple shorts.

I know what we are all referring to when talking about goats, and it's been part of the Survivor lexicon forever, and I also know what a goat is in the context of the game, but I am curious why they are called goats in the first place.  I mean, how did we land on that particular word?

A detailed history of how goat came to be part of survivor vocabulary http://insidesurvivor.com/survivor-history-origin-of-the-goat-685

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Stinamaia said:

A detailed history of how goat came to be part of survivor vocabulary http://insidesurvivor.com/survivor-history-origin-of-the-goat-685

I don't really agree with that writer.  To me, a Survivor goat is distinct from a sports 'goat', which is basically just a scapegoat.   It's more like the chattel definition as described by the reddit writer in that article.  Phillip is the perfect Survivor goat example.  He was so disrespected he wouldn't get many votes.  He wasn't a scapegoat of anything.  Though Russell was, I guess, in that he had a ton of blood on his hands.  But is that a goat in Survivor or just someone with a very poor social game?  I would say the latter.  

I feel like in this context goat is just a metaphor for a non-contender.  It's a stupid, breathing thing you lead around by a rope that you'll always look smarter than.