S37: Angelina Keeley

[Netta Leven]

Hi.  I'm a Stanford graduate who wants to play like Parvati Shallow and Natalie Anderson.

It's good that she wants to emulate two past female winners, but her description of herself as being "scrappy" worries me.  No one who's ever described himself or herself that way has fared very well in the game.

[Eolivet]

I know she's friends with Adam Klein, which will endear her to many, I'm sure. Had a fawning post that he basically inspired her to love the game, and that his journey inspired her:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnVbD4rhZOZ/?taken-by=angelina_keeley

[LadyChatts]

2 hours ago, Eolivet said:

I know she's friends with Adam Klein, which will endear her to many, I'm sure. Had a fawning post that he basically inspired her to love the game, and that his journey inspired her:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnVbD4rhZOZ/?taken-by=angelina_keeley

Is it wrong that I'm rooting against her by association?

[KimberStormer]

6 hours ago, Eolivet said:

I know she's friends with Adam Klein,

I hate her already!

[LanceM]

Angelina talks about how "in spirit" she is voting out Natalie but on paper she is voting out Lyrsa in order to some way get Natalie to give her the jacket.  lol

 

[guilfoyleatpp]

I really dislike her. Like reflexively. I hate her stupid leggings. I hate her weird giant overbite. I hate that one of her eyes is bigger than the other.

It started when she grabbed her chest in an "awww, sad sweet loser" movement when Christian came up over the side of the boat on the first episode. 

[LadyChatts]

I don't like her, either.  I haven't since her opening lines during the first episode.  I can't even say she's an enjoyable villain, if that's the angle they are pushing.

I love that she was left jacket-less.

Edited October 26, 2018 by LadyChatts

[cleo]

Can't wait to see her get booted, pls survivor gods. I couldn't believe she would steal someone else's jacket. She didn't give a shit how Natalie got it. Natalie's style is just to be in your face, so she asked outright. 

[ByaNose]

I am surprised by her “storyline”. I guess a slight hint would have been in the premiere with her opening line about the David’s. I guess she’s the villain. It would and was originally Natalia but she’s gone now. I guess the editors had to create a new one since there really isn’t a true villain/villiainess this season from what I can tell. I don’t count Natalie since she was a just bossy annoying character.  I’m looking to see how this plays out for Angelina. That said, I hope she isn’t too cold out there. Maybe, she’ll win a jacket in a reward challenge. LOL!!!!

[Kenzie]

On 10/25/2018 at 10:24 PM, LadyChatts said:

I don't like her, either.  I haven't since her opening lines during the first episode.  I can't even say she's an enjoyable villain, if that's the angle they are pushing.

I love that she was left jacket-less.

Me too. I love that her selfish conniving, blatantly phony hug and pathetic pleas didn't work. 

[Bryce Lynch]

10 hours ago, ByaNose said:

I am surprised by her “storyline”. I guess a slight hint would have been in the premiere with her opening line about the David’s. I guess she’s the villain. It would and was originally Natalia but she’s gone now. I guess the editors had to create a new one since there really isn’t a true villain/villiainess this season from what I can tell. I don’t count Natalie since she was a just bossy annoying character.  I’m looking to see how this plays out for Angelina. That said, I hope she isn’t too cold out there. Maybe, she’ll win a jacket in a reward challenge. LOL!!!!

Have they ever had clothing as a challenge reward?  It seems like a pretty good idea, based upon all the jacket talk in the episode, and the talk on Survivor Know-it-alls about how castaways covet and share jackets, socks, etc.   

[ByaNose]

29 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Have they ever had clothing as a challenge reward?  It seems like a pretty good idea, based upon all the jacket talk in the episode, and the talk on Survivor Know-it-alls about how castaways covet and share jackets, socks, etc.   

I don't think so. They have won comfort in the form of tarps, chairs & pillows.

[Special K]

Please, gods, let her be voted out before the jury.  She'd be an insufferable juror.

[ByaNose]

I don't think I heard her say much until jacket gate. I don't have a strong feeling about her one way or the other. She doesn't bother me as much as she does to others here. On the Survivor scale of annoying she isn't that high to me.

[Kenzie]

6 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Have they ever had clothing as a challenge reward?  It seems like a pretty good idea, based upon all the jacket talk in the episode, and the talk on Survivor Know-it-alls about how castaways covet and share jackets, socks, etc.   

The closest I can think of was in Pearl Islands. The reward was a stack of various fabrics and a pedal sewing machine. Rupert made himself a skirt.

[LanceM]

The thing about Angelina's "villainy" is that it seems to be confined to certain segments of the Survivor viewing audience but not to the people she is actually playing with on the island where she seems to be well liked.  Which is of course quite different than someone like Natalie.

[RescueMom]

4 hours ago, Kenzie said:

The closest I can think of was in Pearl Islands. The reward was a stack of various fabrics and a pedal sewing machine. Rupert made himself a skirt.

They won a sewing kit with fabric in Palau as well!

[ProfCrash]

Angelina doesn’t come off as a villian to me but she does not come off as authentic. She is trying to present herself as something but I am not certain what that something is. So far we know that she was upset that Jeremy made a joke that she was in a showmance with John, Jeremy related the events and Natalie confirmed that she used Jeremmy’s joke to help get Angelina and her friends to vote for Jeremy. She tried to portray herself as Natalie’s friend at tribal council after being willing to let Natalie take a multitude of hits due to the jackets. There was the sort of self-depricating “thank you” to Natalia when Natalia said that Angelina could have solved the pyramid puzzle that Natalie failed at.

Angelina is so guarded that she is coming off as cold or indifferent. She is not offensive or invisible but somthing else and whatever you describe that something else as it feels off. 

I don’t care about her yoga pants, I caer how she is playing the game and so far I am not impressed. I am not offended but I am not impressed and I feel like she has had enough air time that I feel like I should be more then indifferent.

Honestly, I lean towards believing Jeremy, that Angelina wanted to develop a showmance with John and it didn’t work out and Angelina freaked out when she realized how she could be portrayed at the begining of the series. She then moved into this guarded mode which is doing nothing for her game play or who she is being portrayed. 

[MissEwa]

I may be misremembering, but wasn't Angelina the one who in one of the very first talking heads was really obnoxious about how the Goliaths were all attractive and strong-looking and the Davids were a gang of gross misfits? Not verbatim, obviously, but whether she's actually a villain or not, she is definitely getting a mean girl edit.  

[Special K]

As a pear-shaped but not overweight woman, I feel for her in her yoga pants.  I just feel like the color is unfortunate given all the filth out there.  I actually think she is quite attractive. 

But she does strike me as a snob and pretty full of herself.  She lost me with her condescending "bless their hearts" reaction to the Davids arriving in the first episode.

[Nashville]

5 hours ago, MissEwa said:

I may be misremembering, but wasn't Angelina the one who in one of the very first talking heads was really obnoxious about how the Goliaths were all attractive and strong-looking and the Davids were a gang of gross misfits? Not verbatim, obviously, but whether she's actually a villain or not, she is definitely getting a mean girl edit.  

That was Alison, the doctor - the one who wouldn’t recognize her life privileges if they slapped her across the face like a wet trout.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Nashville
Amplify

[MissEwa]

3 hours ago, Nashville said:

That was Alison, the doctor - the one who wouldn’t recognize her life privileges if they slapped her across the face like a wet trout.

IIRC, Alison was the one who interrupted one of the David's stories to say she'd worked hard all her life *too* just like all the Davids and nevermind that her parents were doctors - so yes, totally privilege-blind. Angelina, I think, before that - maybe even before they announced the actual theme - gave her first impressions of the two tribes and said something about the visual disparity, how you just had to look at the two tribes and her tribe were all fitter and more attractive and *obviously* going to win all the challenges. I can't remember exactly though and it's not online here any more. It was either her or Natalia and I'm pretty sure it was her.  

[MisterBluxom]

Sorry. I deleted the post I wanted to make because I found that it was still violating the spoiler policies and I couldn't see an easy way to avoid that.

I'll try again tomorrow after I get some sleep.

Edited November 3, 2018 by MissBluxom

[LanceM]

On 10/30/2018 at 2:48 PM, MissEwa said:

IIRC, Alison was the one who interrupted one of the David's stories to say she'd worked hard all her life *too* just like all the Davids and nevermind that her parents were doctors - so yes, totally privilege-blind. Angelina, I think, before that - maybe even before they announced the actual theme - gave her first impressions of the two tribes and said something about the visual disparity, how you just had to look at the two tribes and her tribe were all fitter and more attractive and *obviously* going to win all the challenges. I can't remember exactly though and it's not online here any more. It was either her or Natalia and I'm pretty sure it was her.  

She did nothing of the sort.  Jeff asked her her name, her background  and what she did for a living and she answered him.  Then Probst kind of dismissed all of that and aksed Pat if he grew up in a middle upper class background and asked him if medical school was an option for him.

Edited November 3, 2018 by LanceM

[ProfCrash]

I find the distinction between the two groups a bit silly. Allison had parents who raised her to think about college and a career like a physician. She had the benefit of role models in a challenging field that required a lot of preperation and their support. They might have even helped her with college. So yes, she had an advantage. But Alison still had to do thework to become a doctor. She had to study hard in high school to get into a good college. She ahd to work her butt off in college to pass the MCAT and all the interviews you have to go through to be accepted into medical school. She had to pass all of her classes to complete her MD. She had to do well enough to earn a residency. She had to complete the work in a residency. She had to study to pass her boards. 

None of that easy or handed to you. So yes, her background gave her an early advantage but she still had to earn the rest. And it is possible that her parents were able to help her financially so it was a bit easier for her in that area but we don’t know that.

I understand the concept of privalage and why it is important to undstand that there are people in the world who will start off with advantages. But most of those people will have to work to maintain those advantages, some harder then others. I know a good number people who have not come from a privlaged background and worked hard to provide a better life for their kids. It was harder for them, most of the people I know joined the military and used the academic benefits that came from their service, but they did it. 

I can understand why someone who has worked hard to achieve their position would object to being told that everything was given to them. Some people who come from a privlage background fall on hard times and their children don’t know the same privlage. Some people who come from a less privilege background find a way to provide a better life for their kids. 

[MisterBluxom]

16 hours ago, ProfCrash said:

I find the distinction between the two groups a bit silly.  <snip>

I fully agree. But even more than that, I find it completely bizarre that so many of these people fully accept this "made up" distinction. Almost as soon as Jiffy Boy explained "David v Goliath", almost half of them began their confessionals by stating something like, "Well, I'm a Goliath and when you are a Goliath, then you learn real quick that ... "  <bunch of crap>

Same thing goes for the David tribe. Even worse, so many of them refer to "The Davids" or "The Goliaths" as if these were real world distinctions instead of just some made-up bullshit created by Jiffy Boy for some Lord-Knows-What purpose.

I kept hoping that some brave soul would finally stand up and say, "Listen Jeff, just because you say I'm a Goliath/David, that does not make it so. That is just a bunch of hype you created and if it were up to me, you would be referred to as an "Ebenezer" because all you seem to care about is making more and more money from this show and/or increasing the ratings to keep it on the air by any means at all - including the most full-of-shit analogies that you can imagine. You must have a whole room full of monkeys banging away on typewriters trying to come up with all this crazy shit. Please, Jeff. We are all full up of bullshit here. Please go sell yours somewhere else! (from the film "As Good As It Gets").

Jiffy, please just sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up!

Edited November 4, 2018 by MissBluxom

[Eolivet]

On 10/29/2018 at 7:01 PM, LanceM said:

The thing about Angelina's "villainy" is that it seems to be confined to certain segments of the Survivor viewing audience but not to the people she is actually playing with on the island where she seems to be well liked.

I don't think that's true at all. Her second person POV (to borrow/paraphrase an Edgic term) was bad this episode: confessionals from "likable" characters, expressing horror/skepticism about her. Nick's shock at her jacket plan ("Now I know she's a sketch-ball, imagine what she'd do for a million dollars!") Mike confiding that he thinks she'd not trustworthy, or she's out for herself. Lyrsa saying she'd never work with her. Even her narration hasn't been stellar -- Jeff described Natalie's ouster as Angelina's "master plan."

If nobody was saying anything negative about her, I could buy that I just don't like her. But listening to these confessionals? It's not just me.

[ProfCrash]

I suspect that it is easier to see yourself as a David then it is a Goliath. Most of us can point to challenges in our lives that we have to over come. Whilel society might judge some of those challenges more note worthy then others, that doesn’t mean that they are not challenges. 

I do think that the people who identified so quickly as Goliath’s had some idea that they have had some real advantages in life and can own them. Some are more over the top then others. Most of the folks on the Goliath tribe had to work pretty hard to get to where they are. Dan had to work hard to meet the SWAT team qualifications and pass that training. John has had some real success in wrestling which is not an easy thing to do. There are a lot of folks trying to break into wrestling and it is physically demanding. Alison worked hard in her studies to become a doctor. Natalie, for all her annoying behavior, had to work hard to build her career. I have no clue about Alec, Angelina, Natalia, or Kara. 

This is one theme that I am OK with oly because it seemed to allow Production to cast a really unique tribe in the Davids. Far to often the tribes are mainly Goliath types in looks and personality. So a gimic that allows more original casting is fine by me.

[Nashville]

I suspect the reasons Mike and Nick went with retaining Angelina over Lyrsa had little or nothing to do with “likeability” (or lack thereof), but were purely strategic:

1. Two significant factors - (a) the tribal merge is imminent and (b) as a general rule, post-merge Survivor challenges initially start out with a strong emphasis on physical capability and gravitate to an emphasis on logical and endurance capabilities - indicate the Goliaths will have at least an initial performance edge in the post-merge challenges.  Offending Goliaths as a group by making them a one-off minority (an “edge” which could easily flip on the next TC vote, especially after an immediate-post-merge IC) would be contraindicated; contrariwise, a Goliath-supporting vote by Nick goes further towards preserving the Mike/Nick alliance.
2. In the event circumstances indicate the Goliaths choose to eat one of their own on a TC vote - from a Mike/Nick perspective, which do you think would present as a more attractive target?  A Mike who betrayed his initial Goliath tribal alliance by voting out two of his own, or an Angelina whose desperate over-the-top scheming and overall untrustworthiness makes her a lightning rod for controversy?

—————-

So far as the David/Goliath distinction goes: I don’t think it is about the Goliaths having had a cushier ride or not having to work for what they’ve got, but is more about them starting out with a measurable advantage not available to their David counterparts - the true definition of privilege.  It’s the equivalent of saying everybody had to climb the stairs to the top of a 30-story building to attain their current level of success, but the Davids started out in the basement while the Goliaths started climbing at the 10th floor landing.  

And there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with starting out from a position of privilege, but problems erupt when (as Alison did on the initial episode/meeting) you don’t recognize or acknowledge it; it creates a false equivalence in inferring the David’s relative lack of success was simply due to them “not working hard enough”, when the inverse may quite likely be true - i.e., the Davids having to put in significantly more effort to get even a fraction the success of their Goliath counterparts.

[LadyChatts]

15 hours ago, MissBluxom said:

I fully agree. But even more than that, I find it completely bizarre that so many of these people fully accept this "made up" distinction. Almost as soon as Jiffy Boy explained "David v Goliath", almost half of them began their confessionals by stating something like, "Well, I'm a Goliath and when you are a Goliath, then you learn real quick that ... "  <bunch of crap>

Same thing goes for the David tribe. Even worse, so many of them refer to "The Davids" or "The Goliaths" as if these were real world distinctions instead of just some made-up bullshit created by Jiffy Boy for some Lord-Knows-What purpose.

I kept hoping that some brave soul would finally stand up and say, "Listen Jeff, just because you say I'm a Goliath/David, that does not make it so. That is just a bunch of hype you created and if it were up to me, you would be referred to as an "Ebenezer" because all you seem to care about is making more and more money from this show and/or increasing the ratings to keep it on the air by any means at all - including the most full-of-shit analogies that you can imagine. You must have a whole room full of monkeys banging away on typewriters trying to come up with all this crazy shit. Please, Jeff. We are all full up of bullshit here. Please go sell yours somewhere else! (from the film "As Good As It Gets").

Jiffy, please just sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up!

 

I think that if they want airtime, they have to go along with the stupid gimmick, at least until a tribe swap/merge.  Sometimes they get lucky and it's no longer made relevant.  I often think that's why some contestants come on and are so invisible because they aren't playing along with what makes them a hero or Goliath or No Collar or how for 15 years they've been waiting for a second chance.  And Jeff is worse when he has to try and spin these themes and make them sound original, when in reality they are basically recycled themes under a new name.  

Trust me, there's a lot of times I'd love to see the Survivors talk back to Probst: "Wanna know what you're playing for?" "Not really Jeff but we'll pretend to be excited." 

"The Davids are living up to their reputation as being puny weaklings in this challenge." "Up yours Probst."

I'll take anything.

It's why if they got out of Fiji, maybe they could go back to having non themed seasons.  That's a theme in itself!

Edited November 4, 2018 by LadyChatts

[Nashville]

39 minutes ago, LadyChatts said:

I think that if they want airtime, they have to go along with the stupid gimmick, at least until a tribe swap/merge.  Sometimes they get lucky and it's no longer made relevant.  I often think that's why some contestants come on and are so invisible because they aren't playing along with what makes them a hero or Goliath or No Collar or how for 15 years they've been waiting for a second chance.  And Jeff is worse when he has to try and spin these themes and make them sound original, when in reality they are basically recycled themes under a new name.  

100%.

 

39 minutes ago, LadyChatts said:

It's why if they got out of Fiji, maybe they could go back to having non themed seasons.  That's a theme in itself!

We can but wish.

[MisterBluxom]

1 hour ago, LadyChatts said:

I think that if they want airtime, they have to go along with the stupid gimmick, at least until a tribe swap/merge.  Sometimes they get lucky and it's no longer made relevant.  I often think that's why some contestants come on and are so invisible because they aren't playing along with what makes them a hero or Goliath or No Collar or how for 15 years they've been waiting for a second chance.  And Jeff is worse when he has to try and spin these themes and make them sound original, when in reality they are basically recycled themes under a new name.  

Trust me, there's a lot of times I'd love to see the Survivors talk back to Probst: "Wanna know what you're playing for?" "Not really Jeff but we'll pretend to be excited." 

"The Davids are living up to their reputation as being puny weaklings in this challenge." "Up yours Probst."

I'll take anything.

It's why if they got out of Fiji, maybe they could go back to having non themed seasons.  That's a theme in itself!

 I think I love you!!!

[ProfCrash]

Quote

there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with starting out from a position of privilege, but problems erupt when (as Alison did on the initial episode/meeting) you don’t recognize or acknowledge it; it creates a false equivalence in inferring the David’s relative lack of success was simply due to them “not working hard enough”, when the inverse may quite likely be true - i.e., the Davids having to put in significantly more effort to get even a fraction the success of their Goliath counterparts.

I didn’t get the feeling that Allison was blowing off where she started but saying that she still had to work hard toa ccomplish what she has accomplished. I had a problem with how the Goliath’s reacted to the David’s, they were arrogant and cocky. It was annoying. Alison did not stand out to me except for the fact that Jeff put her on the spot. She cannot control that Jeff was going to ask her about her job and her parents. I was more annoyed with Mike and his Big Bang comment regarding Christian, the peopel who were snickering and rolling their eyes (Angelina and Natalia I think), and Natalie’s talking head. 

And I would argue that a good number of the David’s have had success, if success is truely described as having a white collar type job. Christian is Professor, Nick is a lawyer. Pat and Elizabeth don’t have those types of jobs but I don’tt hink either one of them would say that they had failed.

I think one of the huge issues with this season is that there are too many people who could easily be on the oter tribe. Why is Mike a Goliath? Why was Natalie a Goliath? Call it a stereotype but I have difficulty seeing her starting out with an advantage in life. Dan discusses being massivly overweight and his job is not exactly one that screams Goliath. Did Christian come from a poor family and scrap on by with his innate intelligence or is he a David because he is a nerd? Christian doesn’t strike me as someone who struggled that much with academics even if he struggled socially. What about Gabby? Nick is easy enough to understand, same for Pat. 

So Jeff picked out the one person who clearly started from a place of privalage and ran with it.   

[cherrypj]

Angelina is clearly the villain of this season, deserved or not. But her comment in episode 8, about men getting credit for something a woman says first, was SPOT ON. Just for that, I like her a lot more than I did through the first seven episodes. 

[Nashville]

Currently I view Angelina as less villain and more comic relief; I can’t take her seriously any more.

[LadyChatts]

49 minutes ago, Nashville said:

Currently I view Angelina as less villain and more comic relief; I can’t take her seriously any more.

This.  I said in the episode thread she reminded me of Chrissy from S35.  And I'm seeing that more and more.  I continue to think she believes she's better at this game and lying and manipulating and taking charge than she really is.  She had to beg Dan to play the HII for her.  I thought she was flaky during jacket-gate, and she clearly didn't take to them changing the Christian vote to Elizabeth well.  Whether she made a valid point about it being a gender thing or not I find irrelevant, because I really think she was just unhappy about not getting her own way (see how she essentially demanded her tribe vote off Jeremy and didn't care what anyone else's input was).  I can see her at the FTC trying to get a word in or lashing out at the jurors for interrupting her because she can't finish a sentence-or she's going to be that juror that has to do all the talking and pointing out every little fault of someone's game.  Her and Dan are two I suspect could be bitter, though Dan more so.  In Angelina's case I think it'll depend how she goes out (if she goes out) and who the final 3 is. 

[ljenkins782]

2 hours ago, cherrypj said:

Angelina is clearly the villain of this season, deserved or not. But her comment in episode 8, about men getting credit for something a woman says first, was SPOT ON. Just for that, I like her a lot more than I did through the first seven episodes. 

While I agree with the concept in general, that certainly happens often enough in life, I don't think it applied to this situation. Voting Christian out was her plan for the LAST vote, not this one. They had a reason for choosing a different path in the previous vote, it doesn't mean that they had forever shut the door on a Christian vote or that the idea of getting rid of Christian belongs to Angelina in perpetuity simply because she said it first. 

Angelina, from what we've seen of her, does not take kindly to things not going her way and her annoyance on this topic seemed more motivated by that than by any greater concern about women not being heard over men. 

She's clearly got her eye on the end game and if Christian had gone out this week instead of last week, it would have been one fewer item on her "resume" at the end.

[kikaha]

38 minutes ago, ljenkins782 said:

Angelina, from what we've seen of her, does not take kindly to things not going her way and her annoyance on this topic seemed more motivated by that than by any greater concern about women not being heard over men.

Her annoyance impelled her to blab her tribe's plan to Elizabeth, which nearly got Angelina herself kicked out instead.  Even though she survived, she lost whatever trust was left among her tribemates. 

She has some good strategic ideas.  Her execution and social game fail at crucial points though, and she over-plays.  At this point, I doubt anyone would vote for her to win.  If that stays true, it could make her an ideal goat to take to F3. 

[LadyChatts]

This was from before the vote last week, but Angelina would have been fine making Dan cry by voting him off with his idol in his pocket (she says that bit at the end).  Won't she be surprised when she discovers he has another idol.  And hopefully it is kept a surprise, but I'm not sure whether Kara will blab.

Edited November 18, 2018 by LadyChatts

[Eolivet]

Quote

I can see where Angelina is coming from and why she would say what she said. That doesn’t mean that I agree with her. Three days ago, Christian wasn’t a threat to Mike because Christian was an ally. So Angelina’s argument landed on deaf ears because Mike was not going to see Christian in that light. 

She is welcome to be annoyed for whatever reason she wants but I don’t see the inherent sexism in this case.

Bringing this over from the episode thread, because my problem with Angelina's take on this has always been equivocating "five minutes ago in a business meeting" to "three days later in the game of Survivor." It's a false equivalency -- and what's more, she knows it's a false equivalency. But she can't resist the idea of ringing the sexism bell, because it makes her look better.

This is the root of my problem with Angelina -- she brings up issues that should have legitimacy, but in the most self-centered way possible. Have we ever heard her speak up for women other than herself? ("Hey, Allison has good ideas, why aren't they listening? Why isn't Kara getting credit for keeping Dan in line," etc.) When Natalia also sat out of that puzzle challenge, she didn't say that Natalia could've rocked it -- she sat back and waited to be patted on the back that she -- Angelina -- should've done it. When Gabby was in tears at the merge tribal council because the Davids were on the bottom, Angelina couldn't resist adding that, "I, too, am on the bottom ... of my majority alliance with the numbers."

She has the awareness to know that these issues exist, and yet she is so wrapped up in making herself the hero of the story that they only exist for her. That's a bad look on anyone, but especially on a season that pits those who've had advantages against those who haven't had them. There's something especially odious and tone-deaf about a Goliath saying, "society ... am I right?"

Edited November 21, 2018 by Eolivet
Bolded prior quote, couldn't edit out a quote box.

[Mark2]

Quote

I can see where Angelina is coming from and why she would say what she said. That doesn’t mean that I agree with her. Three days ago, Christian wasn’t a threat to Mike because Christian was an ally. So Angelina’s argument landed on deaf ears because Mike was not going to see Christian in that light. 

She is welcome to be annoyed for whatever reason she wants but I don’t see the inherent sexism in this case.

Bringing this over from the episode thread, because my problem with Angelina's take on this has always been equivocating "five minutes ago in a business meeting" to "three days later in the game of Survivor." It's a false equivalency -- and what's more, she knows it's a false equivalency. But she can't resist the idea of ringing the sexism bell, because it makes her look better.

I also thought they were completely different situations, too.  But Angelina referenced other times when a woman's idea was ignored, but "five minutes later" (I believe was the quote) people jumped on board with the same idea from a man.  What did I miss?

Hyperbole and sexism claims aside, for some reason Angelina is starting to grow on me.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Mark2

[ByaNose]

Also, Angelina brought up the plan a vote before. Maybe, it wasn't right then and now it was. It wasn't like she and Mike said it at the same time in the same conversation. That said, I'm sure the man voice is heard more in Survivor. In this case, I don't think the sexism claim holds water. It was two different conversations for two different votes. IMO!

[kikaha]

I thought Angelina was right the week before - i.e. their best move was to boot Christian - but her execution sucked, and that's why her plan fell apart.  Then she dug an even deeper hole with her Elizabeth debacle. 

Overall I feel Angelina tries to run the show too much from the front.  In Survivor's early seasons (some of them) that worked fine.  But in the modern game I believe a more subtle touch usually is required. 

[Jextella]

On 11/26/2018 at 5:58 PM, kikaha said:

I thought Angelina was right the week before - i.e. their best move was to boot Christian - but her execution sucked, and that's why her plan fell apart.  Then she dug an even deeper hole with her Elizabeth debacle. 

Overall I feel Angelina tries to run the show too much from the front.  In Survivor's early seasons (some of them) that worked fine.  But in the modern game I believe a more subtle touch usually is required. 

 

There is an interview of Jeff P floating around after John's elimination but before Dan's.  In it, he basically says the same thing....if he could give her advice, he'd tell her to let the game come to her a little more. 

I think Angelina is one of those people who breezed through life.  She's smart, pretty (see Instagram), pleasant, playful, etc.  I think the game of Survivor is making her work just a little harder than she's accustomed to and it is throwing her off a bit.I actually really like Angelina - a lot.   

I don't think Angelina is a villain nor do I think she's comic relief (well, jacket gate and asking Dan said her name when he played the idol were hysterical).  I think she's playing the game hard and got caught a time or two.  

She lacks a little self-awareness in that I think she thinks she's smarter than everyone else.  Denying the situation with Elizabeth is a good example.

I also think she can't chalk everything up to sexism.  With regards to the decision to target Christian...hearing the idea from Angelina would make me feel as if she's telling me what to do.  Hearing the idea from Mike would make me feel as if I had a say in the decision. Their tone, delivery, etc. were different and that matters.

I think these are learning moments for her and she's smart enough to understand that, I think.

I'm a fan.  I like Angelina a lot and give her a ton of props for not being a shrinking violet as the saying goes.  

[MrsR]

She strikes me as a book smart girl with a pretty face but little self awareness. I wonder if she has some pageant experience in her youth and that's why she has that measured, insincere, unnatural speaking manner.

Her confronting her Goliath team members who voted for her was the only time I liked her. She was real at that moment.  She's like a corporate robot.

[LadyChatts]

I notice she went on a lengthy spiel (rant?) on twitter about her negotiating skills.  I laughed more at this because of the look on her face, but it's nothing new, the official Survivor SM can be mean to the castaways.  For instance, they had a poll up with 3 options saying "I Wish Gabby Would..."  stop crying was in the lead.  As much as I hate agreeing or defending Angelina, she and some others made a point that they aren't calling Carl bossy despite him ordering everyone around on how to vote.  But again, this is nothing new.  

Edited November 29, 2018 by LadyChatts

[LanceM]

I see that Nick defended her on instagram as well today.

 

 

Also there is secret scene of Kara's where she is praising her negotiating skills as well.

[Eolivet]

Someone here once wisely said I never trust what people say off the island, I trust the reactions they have onscreen in the moment. Mike called it annoying, and the editing framed it as such. For whatever reason, the show chose not to air Kara's reaction. For whatever reason, the show is not choosing to air all these close relationships Angelina and others claim she had.

Nick's post brings up a larger issue I have with contestants trying to rewrite their stories during the season, on social media or elsewhere. I get it's a highly edited show, but this whole "no, no, you guys didn't have the whole story" is ridiculous. This isn't Big Brother with live feeds. I know it's impossible, but in some ways, I wish contestants were forbidden from discussing the show on social media (or in interviews with Dalton Ross, sigh).  It ends up being nothing but revisionist history that keeps telling me not to believe my own lying eyes.

I've seen Survivor contestants who barely said two words to each other get married, I've seen showmances break up, I've seen bitter rivals get a place together. To me, none of that negates what we see on the show. Nick's praise of Angelina should be irrelevant. The last time we saw them interact at all, he called her a "sketch-ball" in a confessional -- was he lying then or is he lying now?

In some ways, I wish Angelina would lean in to her negative edit (I found her tweet to her husband about "can I have your jacket" sort of clever). There's no doubt she's extremely well-liked offscreen -- I don't dispute that. But pushing back against an edit is just defensive and weird. Your edit is your edit. Your real life is your real life. Nary the twain should meet.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Eolivet

[ProfCrash]

Angelina needs to learn from Dan Foley. Push back on the edit to hard and Jeff will produce plenty of goods to match the edit. Although I really, strongly disliked Dan so I had fun watching Jeff destroy him on national TV.

Edited November 30, 2018 by ProfCrash

[MisterBluxom]

I just re-watched Episode 10 and focused on Angelina. There was one aspect of her behavior that I thought best defines her personality. Please allow me to first set the stage.

It was during the first TC (where Alec was about to be voted out). Christian had just commented how everything in the game was a "calculated risk". Then Angelina spoke up saying,  "You know what, Jeff? I think the concept of "calculated decisions" is really salient right now. Everything is done with intention. You know, should I get this food and am I feeling in a good place with the people that say they trust me and who I say that I trust and that was something that was part of my calculation as well."

At first, I thought she was just trying to show off by using a big word - salient. But no. That wasn't it. I put the definition of salient in the spoiler box below.

Remember how she had previously complained when she had originally suggested the idea that someone should be voted out but no one paid any attention to the idea when she suggested it. But then, a few days later, one of the men (call him Mr. Z.) suggested the very same idea and everyone immediately agreed to do it and praised Mr. Z. for having come up with such a good idea.  Angelina was really pissed off about this because it was originally her idea and no one paid any attention when she suggested it but a few days later when Mr. Z suggested the very same idea, everyone acted as if that was the very first time they had ever heard that idea.

Well, IMO, everything she said during the TC about "calculated decision" was just a cover for what she really wanted to say. Please allow me to present a paragraph of theater showing what Angelina really wanted to say but felt she couldn't and so she said that nonsense about "calculated decisions" instead.

 

The following is my vision for what Angelina really wanted to say instead of that nonsense about "calculated decisions":

"You know what? I'm still really angry with you people because a few days ago I suggested we should vote out Mr. X and no one paid any attention to me. Then, before the next Tribal was held Mr. Z. made the same suggestion and you all loved it and immediately agreed with him saying it was a great idea. You didn't like it when I first suggested it but then you loved it when Mr. Z. suggested it? It was originally my idea. My idea. MINE. ALL MINE. You know why you didn't pay any attention to it when I suggested it? It's because I'm a girl and you don't believe that girls can have good ideas. You don't listen to a perfectly excellent idea when I suggested it but then - a few days later - when Mr. Z. suggests it, you all go apeshit for it. And you know what the worst part is?

Nobody has ever apologized to me. Senator? This committee owes me an apology. Why won't you apologize? I want an apology. This committee owes me an apology! 

I finally decided there is a word that best describes Angelina. She is a "brat". When she doesn't get her way, she throws a tantrum. No one can recognize this tantrum for what it is because she is smart enough to know that if she complained about what was really bothering her, people would just tell her to "shut up" or "go away". So, she puts on this phony display and that is why Mike then covered his face and Alison said that she no longer buys what Angelina is selling. I think that is also why people here have said they thing she provides good entertainment value. The reason is this kind of behavior is to laugh at. She is a ridiculous brat who didn't get her way but thinks that was wrong and she is owed an apology. Mike, Kara, Alison, can you give me my apology? Please? Mike? Kara? Alison?

By the way I have never heard of any such concept as "calculated decisions". I know Angelina likes to present herself as expert in many different fields - like in battle strategy because her husband was in the Marines or in the scient of negotiation in which she sure did not seem to know very much. But here again, I think she spouts off because her feelings are hurt when the truth is that she has no idea what she is talking about.

I looked up "salient" at dictionary.com and it said: Salient - adjective - prominent or conspicuous

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/salient

Edited November 30, 2018 by MisterBluxom