S35.E06: This is Why You Play Survivor

[Kelda Feegle]

[amazingracefan]

On 11/5/2017 at 8:59 PM, himela said:

If you want to play a Russell Hantz game you gotta take the responsibility for it as well. Russell never considered the social aspect of the game important and that was his downfall. Chrissy is under the impression she is likeable and that Ryan gave her the idol cause he loved her. In her mind she has a great social game.

Ironically though, I would argue, since Russell it's become even more about making big moves and looking for idols.  He probably helped make it more like that but suffered somewhat at the time with juries.  Would a Natalie win these days?  I doubt it.

[peachmangosteen]

1 hour ago, amazingracefan said:

Would a Natalie win these days?

Against a Russell? Yea, I think so. The winner is still primarily determined by who is the most likable imo.

Edited November 7, 2017 by peachmangosteen

[amazingracefan]

2 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

Against a Russell? Yea, I think so. The winner is still primarily determined by who is the most likable imo.

There's so much talk now about having to be seem to make a big move though.

[peachmangosteen]

I agree, but I still don't think an asshole like Russell is going to win no matter how many big moves they make. Unless they're up against 2 much bigger assholes.

[fishcakes]

A lot of the talk about big moves seems to be just talk. And "big move" seems to be just another way to say, "flipping." Really, I don't think people are playing differently or are being rewarded for more active gameplay than they ever have. There have always been varying ways to play and win, and a lot of it depends on who they're playing with and, to a large extent, luck. Some people win by flipping a lot or maybe just once on a key alliance, some people run the show from beginning to end, some people are just under the radar the whole time and are the least disliked at F2 or F3. Looking at the most recent winners, I would say Sarah and Tony played big games, flipping right and left, Natalie played under the radar then flipped at the right time and in a gloriously showy way, Michelle played under the radar to the end, Jeremy played a control game, and Mike and Adam played defensive games. I'm not sure when the players became so self-conscious about having "a story" or "a resume," but I blame Penner and his conversation with Lisa Whelchel for making it so explicit. Now a lot of them talk about it, and except for two or three people each season, they talk about it all the way to Ponderosa.

[KimberStormer]

There's also the Juror Advocate factor, which maybe actually started earlier (it seems to have happened in Samoa, for example) but I think really became a Thing with that lawyer loser in Redemption Island (who later awkwardly proposed to the girl with big boobs from Tocantins...what a world, this Survivor world.)  People like him, or Spencer, etc, who get up there and say "Jury you must vote this way or you suck!"  Which has, hopefully, been somewhat neutralized by the new jury format where jurors can argue amongst themselves.  (And which I think Michele escaped by using her jury nullifying advantage on Neal, much to my delight.)  I think that has had an impact, though, on the game -- people want to have something that a speech could be made about, and "I'm nice unlike this guy" is not really speech-worthy.

[Nashville]

11 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I agree, but I still don't think an asshole like Russell is going to win no matter how many big moves they make. Unless they're up against 2 much bigger assholes.

Now, let’s keep it real here.  You’re not getting a bigger asshole than Russell Hantz on the Finale stage unless Godzilla accidentally stumbles onto the set.

[amazingracefan]

I think Russell fully owned what he did he just didn't soften it for those he easily outwitted who went on the jury.  If an asshole he was a very popular one.  A problem in general with juries is that you can get some very weak players on them.

[peachmangosteen]

4 hours ago, amazingracefan said:

If an asshole he was a very popular one. 

With the fans, sure. But the fans don't pick the winner.

[Guest]

I think the winner has always needed a resume, whether we've seen players discuss it or not.  It's just inherent in the game and human nature with a jury.  No one wants to give $1M to a goat or coattail rider or someone who just got a little more lucky in the game than they did.  

[Nashville]

3 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I think the winner has always needed a resume, whether we've seen players discuss it or not.  It's just inherent in the game and human nature with a jury.  No one wants to give $1M to a goat or coattail rider or someone who just got a little more lucky in the game than they did.  

I agree to a large extent.  In truth, any reality show jury context isn’t radically dissimilar from a jury in a civil suit - and as a (pretty successful) lawyer acquaintance of mine once put it:

“By and large, civil jury cases are different from criminal cases in that they’re not decided by rule of law, but by jury preference; the jury looks at the two parties, decide which they like better, and that’s who they want to win.  The jury just needs a decent justification why they should award to the side they like over the other, and that’s my job - get them to like my guys more than the other side, and give them a good rationalization to justify the award.”

Sounds like Survivor to me.  ;)

[Bouffe]

While I am no huge fan of Ryan and Chrissy, I don't get why all the hate? They are not the most likeable people I've ever seen on the show, but they certainly are not the worse. They seem to both know their strengths an weaknesses and are working with that. 

I was sorry to see Ali go - I liked her. And on the other hand, I was glad JP stayed. He is a bit bland, but I think there is more to him than the calm, cool collected JP he is showing right now.

Dr Mike is getting more and more likeable. I also really, really like Ben and Desi. Hope they stick around.

I wonder if Cole fainted from dehydration, or just because of lack of food? He seems to have 0% body fat, so I am not surprised he was the one to faint as opposed to a bigger guy like Ben, while not fat, has a higher fat % than Cole.

[Nashville]

1 hour ago, Bouffe said:

I wonder if Cole fainted from dehydration, or just because of lack of food?

Depends upon the specific real-time timelines involved, depiction of which we can’t depend upon making it through the edit process accurately.  If Cole bounced back in a very short timeframe as the edit appeared - to me, anyway - to indicate (2-3 minutes, certainly not more than 5), then the issue was almost certainly dehydration.  Barring total depletion of a body’s salt reserves, water absorption can be almost immediate - whereas food consumption would take at least 15-20 minutes before digestion would progress to a point of even beginning to evidence a change.

 

1 hour ago, Bouffe said:

He seems to have 0% body fat, so I am not surprised he was the one to faint as opposed to a bigger guy like Ben, while not fat, has a higher fat % than Cole.

Physiologically speaking, 0% body fat is stupid; by definition it means 0% reserve energy, so any degree of exertion almost immediately puts a body in an operational state where it has zero choice except to cannibalize the protein in those precious muscles to keep vital systems functioning.  Such a cannibalization is still not ideal, though, in that it operates in a dearth of carbohydrates - and the human body needs some degree of carbohydrate intake, if for no other reason than to preserve normal brain function.  

Which may explain why Cole is such a pretty-looking fucking idiot.

[dustoffmom]

Did not believe when it happened, and still don't, that he "fainted" at all.  Just a ploy for attention.

[Bouffe]

12 minutes ago, Nashville said:

Physiologically speaking, 0% body fat is stupid; 

Which may explain why Cole is such a pretty-looking fucking idiot.

I was getting a little annoyed with you saying it was stupid to say 0% body fat (I admittedly should have written "very low body fat %" or something to that effect) but then I read the last sentence about Cole being a pretty-looking fucking idiot and I bursted out laughing. Completely agree with you! :)

[Nashville]

58 minutes ago, Bouffe said:

I was getting a little annoyed with you saying it was stupid to say 0% body fat (I admittedly should have written "very low body fat %" or something to that effect) but then I read the last sentence about Cole being a pretty-looking fucking idiot and I bursted out laughing. Completely agree with you! :)

It would probably have been more specifically accurate to say, “Physiologically speaking, attempting to achieve and maintain 0% body fat is unhealthy” - but not near as much fun.  ;)

[green]

18 hours ago, dustoffmom said:

Did not believe when it happened, and still don't, that he "fainted" at all.  Just a ploy for attention.

It's been confirmed in interviews with Probst and Cole that he indeed did faint.  Also that the Survivor medical team checked him out later as well.  But since their appearance wasn't relevant to the storyline that was never shown.

[amazingracefan]

On 11/8/2017 at 5:38 AM, KimberStormer said:

There's also the Juror Advocate factor, which maybe actually started earlier (it seems to have happened in Samoa, for example) but I think really became a Thing with that lawyer loser in Redemption Island (who later awkwardly proposed to the girl with big boobs from Tocantins...what a world, this Survivor world.)  People like him, or Spencer, etc, who get up there and say "Jury you must vote this way or you suck!"  Which has, hopefully, been somewhat neutralized by the new jury format where jurors can argue amongst themselves.  (And which I think Michele escaped by using her jury nullifying advantage on Neal, much to my delight.)  I think that has had an impact, though, on the game -- people want to have something that a speech could be made about, and "I'm nice unlike this guy" is not really speech-worthy.

It isn't enough for a speech but really it's about the audience more than anything as they keep the show going.  Survivor has continued as it has adapted, the producers want to see moves as they figured that's what the audience wants.  With Natalie they really struggled as all they could really go on about was that she killed a rat.

[peachmangosteen]

1 hour ago, amazingracefan said:

With Natalie they really struggled as all they could really go on about was that she killed a rat.

The editors always struggle to show how players like Natalie, or really almost any woman, play the game. That's always been the case and I don't think it will ever change unfortunately. It's more about the editors than the players. Or, more accurately, it's more about what the editors think the audience wants to see/can understand.

[Guest]

I do think it's harder to really show a good social game.  It happens in the little moments.  Challenge beasts and big moves are easy to show.