Past Seasons Talk: The Tribe Has Spoken

[LadyChatts]

I also get enjoyment out of re-watching old seasons.  Knowing the outcome and what happens, I can sit back and relax and take note of things that happened that I missed before.  I also find myself loving (or unloving) different aspects of the season or people that I didn't before.  Watching Palau, for instance, I remember when I watched that season the first time, all my favorites were on Ulong, and I was super annoyed that they didn't do a tribe swap (that season of all seasons).  I wondered what the members of Ulong did to production not to get thrown that life line.  On re-watch?  Watching them self destruct was absolutely hilarious.  Still loved Bobby Jon and Angie, and I found myself liking James more on re-watch.  The rest?  I only wish Stephenie had gotten voted out earlier.  I remember one of the challenges (can't remember if it was the distress signal or building a bathroom), but the remaining members of Ulong sat on the beach, believing they won, and kept saying "they'll be back" (as the sun is going down).  As for Koror, I actually forgot half of that tribe was as visible as they were.  I remembered nothing about Gregg, other than his showmance with Jenn, but I wish he'd been given a second chance at some point.  And Katie's "we can't have an women's alliance because Caryn sucks" is definitely one of my all time favorite Katie moments. 

Just got done with Outback and almost done with HvsV.  Not sure which one to watch next. 

Edited June 8, 2017 by LadyChatts

[simplyme]

3 hours ago, Nashville said:

The "Cirie is such a mastermind" freight train always runs off the rails for me when Erik's eviction is cited as supporting evidence.  To me, this move was - and will always be - less about Cirie's Survivor supergenius, and more about Erik's colossal superstupidity.  It's the Survivor equivalent of building a monstrous Rube Goldberg contraption to step on an ant.  :)

The thing is that if any of the women had screwed up their part, Erik would have kept his necklace. Yes, he was naive. No, it wouldn't have worked with someone like James. But the fact that they even considered this and then pulled it off is amazing. When Cirie first floats the idea, Natalie's response is, "Who would do that? I feel stupider even listening to this idea." But Cirie sells her on trying it, they hash out how to do it, and they set up Amanda and Parvati as the foils at Tribal Council. They emotionally work Erik over, and he caves. That TC is both beautiful and cruel.

To me, Cirie sees the opportunities where others don't and she knows how to work them. For me, it's not about Erik being colossally naive, but Cirie realizing this and convincing people to take advantage of it. That's why I rank her so highly at the social gameplay. 

That's my take, at least. It's completely valid to see Erik as an ant, too. :)

[cherrypj]

I'm watching Nicaragua now. Mostly out of a sense that I should watch them in order. 

[Daisy]

4 hours ago, simplyme said:

The thing is that if any of the women had screwed up their part, Erik would have kept his necklace. Yes, he was naive. No, it wouldn't have worked with someone like James. But the fact that they even considered this and then pulled it off is amazing. When Cirie first floats the idea, Natalie's response is, "Who would do that? I feel stupider even listening to this idea." But Cirie sells her on trying it, they hash out how to do it, and they set up Amanda and Parvati as the foils at Tribal Council. They emotionally work Erik over, and he caves. That TC is both beautiful and cruel.

To me, Cirie sees the opportunities where others don't and she knows how to work them. For me, it's not about Erik being colossally naive, but Cirie realizing this and convincing people to take advantage of it. That's why I rank her so highly at the social gameplay. 

That's my take, at least. It's completely valid to see Erik as an ant, too. :)

That's how I always see it. I was going to say, I know Cirie gets flack - especially because now she had that big mistake not reading the clue properly, but I always think truly, it's very rare to be "perfect" in this game. And I think it's telling that Cirie after all of that, didn't get a vote cast against her. You'd think someone toss one her way (even Sarah).

Cirie from day one is like. "i wonder if I can do/try this." No one would have thought to get rid of the provider on a 4 woman tribe - especially when you have Melinda who was useless and Cirie who was afraid of leaves. but she worked it. She continually convinced Aras to vote out his goats (to the point Aras was prepared to take her to the final - where she would have smoked his butt). She cultivated the first (and I think one of the best usages) of the 3-2-1 vote. we sort of see it more often now with split votes etc, but Cirie was really the first to really pull it off I think. and then a lot of her moves in Micronesia. 

In answer to the rewatch question - I watch all of it - but to be honest. I am so behind on other television i haven't rewatched Survivor in a v. long while. some of the nastier seasons i might take pause. 

[ProfCrash]

My problem with Rob being ranked highly by anyone is that he 1) won on his fourth try and 2) won as the only returning player on a tribe of newbies. I was watching USA VS the World on Ninja Warrior last night. Team Latin America got spanked in the first two rounds (I fell asleep before the third round) and my husband was being snarky. I pointed out that there is no Ninja Warrior in Latin America and none of these guys had run this type of course before. The Americans had just competed on this course earlier in the year. Rob should beat all the newbs. He knows what he is doing, he knows his past mistakes and he is a charming bastard. So his win, to me, is always ranked low. Either he was going out early because the newbs were not stupid and voted out the vet or he was winning it all because he knows the game and they don't.

The only time I will take a returning players win seriously is when they are playing against other returning players, otherwise it is not an even playing field.

I don't do lists because most of the winners I forgot soon after the season ends.

The winners I remember winning and feel positive about are Sandra (both wins are memorable), Richard, Denise, Natalie Anderson, Jeremy, Yul, Earl, Sarah and Kim.

The winners I remember winning and feeling awful about are Fabio, Tom, Tony, Amber, JT, Brian

The winners I do not remember and or care about are Aras, Bob, Adam, Todd, Tyson, Michele, Natalie White, Sophia, Chris (Who?), Sophie, Danni, Parvati (seriously, I don't remember her winning game at all)

The winners I remember but don't care about are Tina, Ethan, Jenna, Vecepia, John (Although I have to remind myself who he is), Mike

If I were to rank order, I would guess

At the top: Sandra, Richard, Kim, Yul, Earl, Sarah

At the bottom: Fabio,

All the rest, I just don't care enough to rank. And how do I rank people who I cannot remember how they won?

But yeah, A vet beating newbies to me is highly underwhelming. I don't care how masterfully Rob controlled his newbies. As soon as they were so in awe of playing with him and decided not to vote him out, he had the game won. I expect that I am going to beat my five year old in a race, I expect Rob to win when he is not voted out right away.

[ljenkins782]

Quote

The winners I remember but don't care about are Tina, Ethan, Jenna, Vecepia, John (Although I have to remind myself who he is), Mike

You'll need to remind me too, there is a Survivor winner named John? I don't remember this at all. 

Quote

 

The thing is that if any of the women had screwed up their part, Erik would have kept his necklace. Yes, he was naive. No, it wouldn't have worked with someone like James. But the fact that they even considered this and then pulled it off is amazing. When Cirie first floats the idea, Natalie's response is, "Who would do that? I feel stupider even listening to this idea." But Cirie sells her on trying it, they hash out how to do it, and they set up Amanda and Parvati as the foils at Tribal Council. They emotionally work Erik over, and he caves. That TC is both beautiful and cruel.

To me, Cirie sees the opportunities where others don't and she knows how to work them. For me, it's not about Erik being colossally naive, but Cirie realizing this and convincing people to take advantage of it. That's why I rank her so highly at the social gameplay. 

That's my take, at least. It's completely valid to see Erik as an ant, too. :)

 

Yeah, this is one of those "seeing a move where there isn't one" moments. Erik was on a major winning streak and they were going to have to eat their own at their own at that tribal, so to come up with a way to get rid of an immune Erik was genius. The fact that she identified exactly the right person to sell it to him and then laid out all of the steps to get him to that point where he'd give up the necklace, it was amazing. 

Quote

I still think it was a bad decision, but viewers backseat-drive all the time that people should play to win, not just advance themselves one more week. I don't see Erik winning at FTC just from running Immunity until the end. He needed a move. This wasn't it, but that's easy for us to see from our couches. 

From my couch, it looked like Erik had a shot, depending on who he would have been sitting next to, but there were clearly some dynamics that didn't translate in the edited version. 

I still don't exactly understand what his giving up immunity was supposed to show anyone. I think they sold it as playing to the jury and proving...something to those left in the game, but I can't figure out how it accomplishes either. Also, it may have been an editing thing, but it appears that the jury reacts with utter disbelief and laughter when he says it, shouldn't that have been a clue that it was a bad move? 

[Daisy]

1 minute ago, ljenkins782 said:

I still don't exactly understand what his giving up immunity was supposed to show anyone. I think they sold it as playing to the jury and proving...something to those left in the game, but I can't figure out how it accomplishes either. Also, it may have been an editing thing, but it appears that the jury reacts with utter disbelief and laughter when he says it, shouldn't that have been a clue that it was a bad move? 

I can't remember everything right now, like if Eric was being a little flippy or what was going on so i think the thread he was pulling like. WE can't trust you, and we'll be on the jury so how can WE vote for you so if you do this we keep you and you'll get our votes. (or something like that). 
 

[cherrypj]

3 hours ago, ljenkins782 said:

You'll need to remind me too, there is a Survivor winner named John? I don't remember this at all. 

Cochran.

[LadyChatts]

23 hours ago, Nalan said:

I can actually rewatch South Pacific.  I just enjoy seeing Sophie win after Coach and Albert essentially make asses out of themselves in the back half of the game.

The main reason I can't stand that season has to do with Cochran.  Otherwise, I don't think it'd be my favorite season, but I would probably tolerate it more.  Sophie winning was about the only highlight. 

[Daisy]

1 hour ago, cherrypj said:

Cochran.

Geeze. LOL i was like who the hell is John?

42 minutes ago, LadyChatts said:

The main reason I can't stand that season has to do with Cochran.  Otherwise, I don't think it'd be my favorite season, but I would probably tolerate it more.  Sophie winning was about the only highlight. 

yah not the biggest fan of him. Religous!Coach bugged me too. (I mean I'm religious, I would pray if i was out there) but it's the way he went around with everything - it just bothered me. 

[peachmangosteen]

I like the categories you used @ProfCrash. I have a hard time ranking the winners because I honestly don't remember the specifics of how some (probably most tbh) won. Also, basically for me, it's hard to not let my personal feelings for the players affect how I rank their games.

Anyway, using those categories my list would be:

The winners I remember winning and feeling positive about:  Sandra, Parvati, Natalie W, Natalie A, Kim, Sophie, Danni, Amber, Michele, Denise, Sarah (I mean I didn't like Sarah or Denise but I was fine with them winning)

The winners I remember winning and feeling awful about: Bob (ugh), Tony, Tina, Tom, Tyson, Rob, Jeremy

The winners I remember but don't care about: Mike, Adam, Cochran, Fabio, Ethan, Jenna, JT, Todd, Earl, Yul, Aras, Brian, Chris, Richard

The winners I do not remember: Vecepia (I'm pretty sure I liked Vecepia but I swear I can't remember a single thing she did lol)

Edited June 10, 2017 by peachmangosteen

[Nalan]

1 hour ago, peachmangosteen said:

I like the categories you used @ProfCrash. I have a hard time ranking the winners because I honestly don't remember the specifics of how some (probably most tbh) won. Also, basically for me, it's hard to not let my personal feelings for the players affect how I rank their games.

Anyway, using those categories my list would be:

The winners I remember winning and feeling positive about:  Sandra, Parvati, Natalie W, Natalie A, Kim, Sophie, Danni, Amber, Denise, Sarah (I mean I didn't like Sarah or Denise but I was fine with them winning)

The winners I remember winning and feeling awful about: Bob (ugh), Tony, Tina, Tom, Tyson, Rob, Jeremy

The winners I remember but don't care about: Mike, Adam, Cochran, Fabio, Ethan, Jenna, JT, Todd, Earl, Yul, Aras, Brian, Chris, Richard

The winners I do not remember: Vecepia (I'm pretty sure I liked Vecepia but I swear I can't remember a single thing she did lol)

You missed Michele, @peachmangosteen.

[Daisy]

7 minutes ago, Nalan said:

You missed Michele, @peachmangosteen.

teeheeee. so obviously "don't remember" is Michele's category hehe

[Nalan]

9 hours ago, ProfCrash said:

The winners I remember winning and feel positive about are Sandra (both wins are memorable), Richard, Denise, Natalie Anderson, Jeremy, Yul, Earl, Sarah and Kim.

The winners I remember winning and feeling awful about are Fabio, Tom, Tony, Amber, JT, Brian

The winners I do not remember and or care about are Aras, Bob, Adam, Todd, Tyson, Michele, Natalie White, Sophia, Chris (Who?), Sophie, Danni, Parvati (seriously, I don't remember her winning game at all)

The winners I remember but don't care about are Tina, Ethan, Jenna, Vecepia, John (Although I have to remind myself who he is), Mike

You left out Rob, @ProfCrash.

[Oholibamah]

21 hours ago, ProfCrash said:

My problem with Rob being ranked highly by anyone is that he 1) won on his fourth try and 2) won as the only returning player on a tribe of newbies. I was watching USA VS the World on Ninja Warrior last night. Team Latin America got spanked in the first two rounds (I fell asleep before the third round) and my husband was being snarky. I pointed out that there is no Ninja Warrior in Latin America and none of these guys had run this type of course before. The Americans had just competed on this course earlier in the year. Rob should beat all the newbs. He knows what he is doing, he knows his past mistakes and he is a charming bastard. So his win, to me, is always ranked low. Either he was going out early because the newbs were not stupid and voted out the vet or he was winning it all because he knows the game and they don't.

The only time I will take a returning players win seriously is when they are playing against other returning players, otherwise it is not an even playing field.

19 hours ago, ljenkins782 said:

 

Yeah, this is one of those "seeing a move where there isn't one" moments. Erik was on a major winning streak and they were going to have to eat their own at their own at that tribal, so to come up with a way to get rid of an immune Erik was genius. The fact that she identified exactly the right person to sell it to him and then laid out all of the steps to get him to that point where he'd give up the necklace, it was amazing. 

From my couch, it looked like Erik had a shot, depending on who he would have been sitting next to, but there were clearly some dynamics that didn't translate in the edited version. 

I still don't exactly understand what his giving up immunity was supposed to show anyone. I think they sold it as playing to the jury and proving...something to those left in the game, but I can't figure out how it accomplishes either. Also, it may have been an editing thing, but it appears that the jury reacts with utter disbelief and laughter when he says it, shouldn't that have been a clue that it was a bad move? 

I'm having trouble splitting these quotes, so I'll respond in order: 

I agree that Rob had a lot of support going into his winning season, and his fourth-try win isn't as impressive as some first timers. But I think people nevertheless rank him so highly because he has a lot of skills that make him a great player, so there isn't the same sense of "broken clock right twice a day". It's more satisfying when a "best to never win" type of player finally wins versus a Tyson who played two of the worst games ever, and then played a mediocre game against mediocre returnees and mediocre first-timers and won.

 

Erik definitely gets James and Ozzy, and probably Jason. His uphill battle would be convincing a bunch of people who kicked ass at strategy that he deserves a million bucks just for winning challenges. Assuming he's against Natalie, I don't see him getting Alexis, Cirie, Parvati or Amanda. Eliza is more of a gamble, but still a tie at best. 

14 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

 

The winners I remember winning and feeling positive about:  Sandra, Parvati, Natalie W, Natalie A, Kim, Sophie, Danni, Amber, Denise, Sarah (I mean I didn't like Sarah or Denise but I was fine with them winning)

This x100.

[peachmangosteen]

13 hours ago, Nalan said:

You missed Michele, @peachmangosteen.

 

13 hours ago, Daisy said:

teeheeee. so obviously "don't remember" is Michele's category hehe

Oh man! I knew I was missing one! I actually love Michele and spent some time here defending her win over Aubry. I definitely remember her and had positive feelings about her win.

[Lantern7]

Funny115: Malcolm and Cochran share a private moment at Tribal Council.

[Lamb18]

On ‎6‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 5:29 PM, peachmangosteen said:

I like the categories you used @ProfCrash. I have a hard time ranking the winners because I honestly don't remember the specifics of how some (probably most tbh) won. Also, basically for me, it's hard to not let my personal feelings for the players affect how I rank their games.

Anyway, using those categories my list would be:

The winners I remember winning and feeling positive about:  Sandra, Parvati, Natalie W, Natalie A, Kim, Sophie, Danni, Amber, Michele, Denise, Sarah (I mean I didn't like Sarah or Denise but I was fine with them winning)

The winners I remember winning and feeling awful about: Bob (ugh), Tony, Tina, Tom, Tyson, Rob, Jeremy

The winners I remember but don't care about: Mike, Adam, Cochran, Fabio, Ethan, Jenna, JT, Todd, Earl, Yul, Aras, Brian, Chris, Richard

The winners I do not remember: Vecepia (I'm pretty sure I liked Vecepia but I swear I can't remember a single thing she did lol)

You know, Peach, I think you have a problem with winners whose name starts with "T" (just kidding!).

[ljenkins782]

On 6/9/2017 at 3:55 PM, cherrypj said:

Cochran.

Ahh, thank you! Well at least I can say I had a reason not to remember that since he isn't typically called John in the Survivor universe. 

Quote

Erik definitely gets James and Ozzy, and probably Jason. His uphill battle would be convincing a bunch of people who kicked ass at strategy that he deserves a million bucks just for winning challenges. Assuming he's against Natalie, I don't see him getting Alexis, Cirie, Parvati or Amanda. Eliza is more of a gamble, but still a tie at best. 

Not if he sat with Amanda at the end. She gets Ozzy and James, BUT I think with Amanda there, Erik might have gotten Alexis and Natalie. Those two never did warm to Amanda (nor she to them), which makes Parvati's ability to hold that group together all the more impressive. 

Quote

The winners I remember winning and feel positive about are Sandra (both wins are memorable), Richard, Denise, Natalie Anderson, Jeremy, Yul, Earl, Sarah and Kim.

Glad to see her in the good group, I feel like Natalie Anderson is a really underrated winner and I'm not sure why that is. She played an impressive game, especially at the end with the Baylor blindside and convincing Jaclyn to take her to the end over Keith, but she doesn't seem to be remembered by the show much. 

[peachmangosteen]

5 hours ago, Lamb18 said:

You know, Peach, I think you have a problem with winners whose name starts with "T" (just kidding!).

I didn't even notice that lol. But I do in fact hate/not care about all the winners whose names start with 'T.' What a coincedence.

[MrYunis]

On 6/8/2017 at 9:20 PM, laurakaye said:

For those of us streaming old seasons, is there any season of Survivor that you refuse to watch a second time?

The only season I haven't watched is One World and I will probably never watch that due to Colton alone. I watched Micronesia with high expectations, didn't finish the season. I'll probably never re-watch that season either.

On 6/10/2017 at 2:42 PM, Oholibamah said:

It's more satisfying when a "best to never win" type of player finally wins versus a Tyson who played two of the worst games ever, and then played a mediocre game against mediocre returnees and mediocre first-timers and won.

I disagree. I think Tyson played a great game in his 3rd try. I was rooting for Gervase but Tyson played way better. Definitely on my top 5 winners list.

[Oholibamah]

4 hours ago, MrYunis said:

 

I disagree. I think Tyson played a great game in his 3rd try. I was rooting for Gervase but Tyson played way better. Definitely on my top 5 winners list.

Agree to disagree, but his game hinged on a 1/3 rock draw.

His winning game was much improved from his first two embarrassing outings, but it was fairly textbook: Sophie played a similar game of spazz-wrangling her allies to the end but was much smoother about it.

[SVNBob]

30 minutes ago, Oholibamah said:

Sophie played a similar game of spazz-wrangling her allies to the end but was much smoother about it.

That's because Tyson often needed a spazz-wrangler himself, as his elimination in HvV showed.  It's hard to be a spazz-wrangler when you need one too.  (See Rupert trying to rein in JT in HvV, without the aid of Sandra.)

[ProfCrash]

Seasons I would not watch: Any season with Russell Hantz, he really is that awful. I did not watch Rob vs Russell until after Russell was voted out. Thailand was pretty awful, but I hated Brian. Any season with Brandon Hantz, he was mentally unstable and should not have been playing. His second go around included Philip, another player I dislike watching making it doubly worth not watching.

[Lantern7]

S20 was fun. Russell wound up burning so many bridges going into the end, and then Sandra burned his hat without him realizing it. I think Brandon is a better person than his uncle, but he probably has to be at least a thousand miles from the nearest Hantz to properly function. And two thousand from Philip Friggin' Shepherd.

ETA: The blindside of Philip in his second season was awesome, because he sucked so damn hard.

ETA2 for @KimberStormer: Didn't two idols get played that night? I think that counts. I will admit that I think a lot of things.

[KimberStormer]

If that's a blindside, I must be psychic

ETA for @Lantern7 well yeah, he didn't know going there, but he sure knew long before the votes were read...

Edited June 14, 2017 by KimberStormer

[MrYunis]

14 hours ago, Oholibamah said:

Agree to disagree, but his game hinged on a 1/3 rock draw.

His winning game was much improved from his first two embarrassing outings, but it was fairly textbook: Sophie played a similar game of spazz-wrangling her allies to the end but was much smoother about it.

True, luck was with him that night. I don't remember how Sophie played, so I cant compare the two.

[kikaha]

Mr. Yunis, Sophie is near the bottom of my 'deserving winners' list.  She drove little of the strategy the entire season, and had a sub-par mediocre social game as well.  She was losing going into finals, and would have lost had Coach honestly answered Brandon and Ozzie.  Coach did not, and snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, handing the win to Sophie. 

I think Tyson played immensely better than Sophie.  He controlled most of the game and its strategy.  When he did rely on luck -- the rock draw -- the odds were 2 to 1 in his favor.  

[MrYunis]

20 minutes ago, kikaha said:

Mr. Yunis, Sophie is near the bottom of my 'deserving winners' list.  She drove little of the strategy the entire season, and had a sub-par mediocre social game as well.  She was losing going into finals, and would have lost had Coach honestly answered Brandon and Ozzie.  Coach did not, and snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, handing the win to Sophie. 

I think Tyson played immensely better than Sophie.  He controlled most of the game and its strategy.  When he did rely on luck -- the rock draw -- the odds were 2 to 1 in his favor.  

So you would say it's pretty much "How Coach lost"? I might have to re-watch this season (don't know if it's worth it though).

Seems like we agree on Tyson. Ciera wasn't changing her mind that Tribal Council and Tyson wasn't going to lose a member of his alliance, so he took a chance and it paid off. However had he drawn the white rock (I think it was white that sends you home that season), he had a safety net in that he could easily win his way back in the game via Redemption Island. Other than that, he played almost flawlessly the entire season. Also with going to rocks, he could then argue that he was willing to sacrifice himself for his alliance, which I think he argued at the final.

[Star Aristille]

2 hours ago, kikaha said:

Mr. Yunis, Sophie is near the bottom of my 'deserving winners' list.  She drove little of the strategy the entire season, and had a sub-par mediocre social game as well.  She was losing going into finals, and would have lost had Coach honestly answered Brandon and Ozzie.  Coach did not, and snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, handing the win to Sophie.

Wow.  Just . . . wow.  This couldn't be more wrong.  Sophie totally drove the strategy that season.  Just because we saw Coach all.the.time didn't mean he was doing it all.  She and Albert both made it clear that Coach was just the figurehead while they were doing things behind the scenes.  As for her social game, yes, she admitted hers was poor.  But she was one of the few winners to actually win on her strategic game alone because she in part owned up to that at the Final Tribal Council.  Coach was deserving, too, in his own right, but he in no way outplayed Sophie.

[simplyme]

Out of curiosity, who that season had a good social game? Dawn? In the end, Sophie didn't have a strong social game, but I don't think she tanked it as badly as a lot of people did.

If anyone says Cochran, slap yourself.

[Lantern7]

But I like goofy beta males, especially when they have a more concrete game plan the second time around.

[jsm1125]

13 hours ago, simplyme said:

Out of curiosity, who that season had a good social game? Dawn? In the end, Sophie didn't have a strong social game, but I don't think she tanked it as badly as a lot of people did.

If anyone says Cochran, slap yourself.

I'd consider Jim. I don't recall anyone disliking him much except for Cochran, and I think Sophie has said post-show that he was one of the bigger Savaii threats.

[kikaha]

15 hours ago, Star Aristille said:

Wow.  Just . . . wow.  This couldn't be more wrong.  Sophie totally drove the strategy that season.  Just because we saw Coach all.the.time didn't mean he was doing it all.  She and Albert both made it clear that Coach was just the figurehead while they were doing things behind the scenes.

Sophie certainly said she was the strategic mastermind.  Hannah said the same thing about herself in season 33.  I don't believe either one. 

The main difference between Hannah and Sophie is that the person leading going into Sophie's final (Coach) screwed up at the last second (almost literally) and gave away two votes in his pocket, while the person leading going into Hannah's final (Adam) did not screw up, and sewed up his win. 

As for Albert, I thought he started the season quite well, but pretty much fell apart shortly after merge.  

Quote

So you would say it's pretty much "How Coach lost"?

Absolutely.  Oz and Brandon both said after the season they were going to vote for Coach, but changed their minds during FTC because he didn't give them an honest answer to their questions.  With those two votes Coach wins. 

[303420]

On 5/17/2017 at 10:20 PM, Lantern7 said:

I didn't hate Bob. I'd like to think he's the guy Ozzy Osborne was singing about . . . "Mr. Crowley." 

Considering who the song is actually about, I find this hilarious.

[ProfCrash]

3 hours ago, kikaha said:

Absolutely.  Oz and Brandon both said after the season they were going to vote for Coach, but changed their minds during FTC because he didn't give them an honest answer to their questions.  With those two votes Coach wins. 

I would not trust a word that Brandon says.

[kikaha]

32 minutes ago, ProfCrash said:

I would not trust a word that Brandon says.

That's my attitude towards Sophie. 

[peachmangosteen]

Adam was leading? We were shown him literally asking Hannah what to do and doing as he was told by her. I don't think Adam was any more of a strategic mastermind than Hannah and to be fair neither of them were really that type of player. They definitely do both think they were though.

Edited June 14, 2017 by peachmangosteen

[Star Aristille]

10 hours ago, kikaha said:

Sophie certainly said she was the strategic mastermind.  Hannah said the same thing about herself in season 33.  I don't believe either one. 

The main difference between Hannah and Sophie is that the person leading going into Sophie's final (Coach) screwed up at the last second (almost literally) and gave away two votes in his pocket, while the person leading going into Hannah's final (Adam) did not screw up, and sewed up his win. 

As for Albert, I thought he started the season quite well, but pretty much fell apart shortly after merge. 

Oh, really?  Well, if Coach was so threatening to win and so obviously a frontrunner, then why did Albert want to vote Sophie out rather than try and blindside him?  Hmm?  I'll tell you.  Because Albert knew that Sophie was the one running the show.  Not Coach.

Again, just because Coach was the one presented as the one running things, it doesn't mean he was.  He was just the big character the editors wanted to shove down our throats, and nothing more.  Hands down.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Star Aristille

[LadyChatts]

42 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

Adam was leading? We were shown him literally asking Hannah what to do and doing as he was told by her. I don't think Adam was any more of a strategic mastermind than Hannah and to be fair neither of them were really that type of player. They definitely do both think they were though.

I'll always be soured on Adam's win mainly because of the story with his mom.  I lost my dad to lung cancer and sympathize, but it just seemed calculated how he finally brought it up when it mattered most.  Would it have made a difference?  Probably not, as I don't think anyone on the jury could fathom losing to Hannah, and Ken...well, Ken was nice to look at.  I do think, of the two, Hannah played a better game.  But that's not a season I find overly strategic in terms of game play, anyway.  I always looked at Adam's as being more social, which I realize is a strategy in itself, but I'm not a fan typically of that game play.

Edited June 14, 2017 by LadyChatts

[peachmangosteen]

20 minutes ago, LadyChatts said:

I always looked at Adam's as being more social, which I realize is a strategy in itself, but I'm not a fan typically of that game play.

 

I'm personally more of a fan of the social game and I mostly did like Adam, but the way he used his mom's illness for game reasons really didn't sit well with me. I think I would've found it easier to swallow if he'd made it clear he was doing that though. I feel like he tried to act like he didn't use it for strategy when he definitely did and that made it even grosser to me.

Edited June 14, 2017 by peachmangosteen

[simplyme]

3 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

I'm personally more of a fan of the social game and I mostly did like Adam, but the way he used his mom's illness for game reasons really didn't sit well with me. I think I would've found it easier to swallow if he'd made it clear he was doing that though. I feel like he tried to act like he didn't use it for strategy when he definitely did and that made it even grosser to me.

Well, here's my opinion:

I'm a huge fan of the social game, but for most of MvGx I thought Adam's social game was weak. He was on the wrong side of the first vote; he ran around like a chicken with his head cut off until Hannah had to tell him to chill or he was going to be voted out; he got caught sharing info with Taylor and it came out he'd known Taylor had taken food so no one trusted him; he said the wrong things to people and just ticked them off. There's one scene where Jay is furious and looking for the word to describe him and Zeke fills in "asshole." And that was when Zeke and Adam were theoretically allies. Yes, his game improved, but some of that was due to him bonding with Jay because of the mom thing and Brett because they both wanted to vote David out at the same time (when Hannah didn't because that would get her sent home).

Ken had no social game. Can most of us agree on that?

I feel like Hannah was screwed the minute she had a panic attack. That plus being the geeky type (especially female) meant no one was going to vote for her in F3, IMO. I don't care if she was a strategic genius and challenge beast combined. She would still have been viewed as weak, and no one wants to lose to a weak player. (Again, the question of "Who do I least mind losing Survivor to?" Very few people answer that with "The ubergeeky girl with panic attacks! Wooohoooo!")

So I have trouble seeing a correlation between Sophie, who held it together the whole time, and Hannah. In fact, I think the fact that Sophie got votes from Ozzy and Brandon, both of whom tend to favor physical games and alpha males, says a lot about her social game. You can say Coach "lost" those votes by not answering honestly, but IMO Coach is full of BS. Sophie could pretty much count on him going in there and spewing more crap about playing with honor and integrity, just like he always had.

If TwoP were still around, I'd try to find my post from the episode or two before the finale where I said, "I'm pretty sure Sophie has this in the bag." I probably explained why much better then since it was fresh. :P

Anyways... *plunks down her two cents* There!

[peachmangosteen]

I completely agree, @simplyme.

9 minutes ago, simplyme said:

If TwoP were still around, I'd try to find my post from the episode or two before the finale where I said, "I'm pretty sure Sophie has this in the bag."

Sophie is actually one of the few winners I called very early on. I thought it was fairly obvious she was the winner, even with the edit Coach got.

[MissEwa]

3 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

Sophie is actually one of the few winners I called very early on. I thought it was fairly obvious she was the winner, even with the edit Coach got.

Sophie was the only winner I've called in the first episode, simply because (from memory, and I'm not willing to re-watch that train wreck) she got a slightly out-of-place confessional early on in that episode where she outlined her strategy and her alliance plans. Her edit was low-key from there but that one scene stuck out. 

[Star Aristille]

1 minute ago, MissEwa said:

Sophie was the only winner I've called in the first episode, simply because (from memory, and I'm not willing to re-watch that train wreck) she got a slightly out-of-place confessional early on in that episode where she outlined her strategy and her alliance plans. Her edit was low-key from there but that one scene stuck out. 

For me, personally, I had a feeling that Sophie would at least figure prominently into the season when she had that scene with Coach in which they spoke to each other in Russian.  Then, she had that confessional saying that her real challenge would be how she dealt with Coach.  Someone on the now-gone RNO said that that specific quote was likely her MDQ*, because it outlined exactly how she would win -- by dealing with Coach effectively.

*MDQ = Million-Dollar Quote, aka the quote said by the soon-to-be winner that usually hints at how he or she will be winning.  (For example: Natalie's quote in episode four of Samoa, when she stressed the importance of social bonds and how she planned to beat Russell by remembering how important they were.)

[MissEwa]

3 minutes ago, Star Aristille said:

For me, personally, I had a feeling that Sophie would at least figure prominently into the season when she had that scene with Coach in which they spoke to each other in Russian.  Then, she had that confessional saying that her real challenge would be how she dealt with Coach.  Someone on the now-gone RNO said that that specific quote was likely her MDQ*, because it outlined exactly how she would win -- by dealing with Coach effectively.

It may well have been that. It was something, in the first episode and it just screamed 'we are including this because WINNER'. 

Simiarly, I picked either Malcolm or Denise winning Phillipines because they showed them forming their alliance in the first episode. Figured it would be Malcolm though because Denise's edit from there was so under-the-radar. And (I've said this before, somewhere) I knew neither Hannah nor Ken were winning MvGX when a scene of them forming an alliance and Hannah's subsequent confessional about her strategy were relegated to online only. 

[enlightenedbum]

Adam is a slightly smarter Todd in that he talks about strategy more than he actually has a strategy.  But he didn't do a bunch of obviously self-destructive things where he had to be bailed out.

Edited June 15, 2017 by enlightenedbum

[azshadowwalker]

Adam is awful. That's pretty much all I have to say about him. I never got over the fit he threw when Hannah didn't go his way at the beginning, while he was perfectly happy to fuck people over. I would have no problem with his gameplay if he hadn't been such a shit after their first vote. Everyone was supposed to play for Adam. 

[kikaha]

15 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

Adam was leading?

By leading I mean most jurors (actually all) favored him going into FTC. He did not screw up finals, and won unanimously.  Coach also was leading going into FTC, but blew it there and lost. 

Season 33 had no strategic masterminds. Adam had lots of good strategic ideas, but usually wasn't able to execute them. Hannah was kind of an 'anti-strategist:' she booted people she could beat in finals, like Sunday and Bret, and kept players she could not, like Adam and David.

15 hours ago, Star Aristille said:

Oh, really?  Well, if Coach was so threatening to win and so obviously a frontrunner, then why did Albert want to vote Sophie out rather than try and blindside him?  Hmm?  I'll tell you.  Because Albert knew that Sophie was the one running the show.  Not Coach.

Again, just because Coach was the one presented as the one running things, it doesn't mean he was.  He was just the big character the editors wanted to shove down our throats, and nothing more.  Hands down.

Albert also thought he was the strategic mastermind that season, who played better than everyone, but got screwed out of the win.  That was his constant theme in post-season interviews.  i.e. he misjudged/was deluded about several things.  On top of which, he was very close with Coach, and was not close with Sophie.   

As it turned out, he could beat neither one.  And it is 100% fact that Ozzie and Brandon both said afterwards they were voting Coach, and changed their minds because of his wobbly answers to them at FTC. 

As for editing, we saw little of Sophie almost the entire season because there was little to see.  Coach was the key to both major strategic moves in South Pacific: he and Albert formed the 5-person alliance that went to the end; and Coach made the critical move of flipping Cochran shortly after merge. 

Sophie stayed in Coach's good graces (he could have booted her any time), rode the alliance and some late IC wins to FTC and then won on an entirely unforced error on Coach's part. 

[Star Aristille]

14 hours ago, kikaha said:

By leading I mean most jurors (actually all) favored him going into FTC. He did not screw up finals, and won unanimously.  Coach also was leading going into FTC, but blew it there and lost. 

Season 33 had no strategic masterminds. Adam had lots of good strategic ideas, but usually wasn't able to execute them. Hannah was kind of an 'anti-strategist:' she booted people she could beat in finals, like Sunday and Bret, and kept players she could not, like Adam and David.

Albert also thought he was the strategic mastermind that season, who played better than everyone, but got screwed out of the win.  That was his constant theme in post-season interviews.  i.e. he misjudged/was deluded about several things.  On top of which, he was very close with Coach, and was not close with Sophie.   

As it turned out, he could beat neither one.  And it is 100% fact that Ozzie and Brandon both said afterwards they were voting Coach, and changed their minds because of his wobbly answers to them at FTC. 

As for editing, we saw little of Sophie almost the entire season because there was little to see.  Coach was the key to both major strategic moves in South Pacific: he and Albert formed the 5-person alliance that went to the end; and Coach made the critical move of flipping Cochran shortly after merge. 

Sophie stayed in Coach's good graces (he could have booted her any time), rode the alliance and some late IC wins to FTC and then won on an entirely unforced error on Coach's part. 

Sophie did way more than was shown.  She was the one who kept several of the Savaiis comfortable and in total belief that she and Albert would flip to their side and take the Upolus out, even though she was going to do the opposite.  By keeping them so comfortable, they didn't try making overtures with any other Upolu.  Also, the main alliance that ruled the game?  That was also Sophie and Albert's baby, not Coach's, as presented.  They chose Brandon and Rick to join them because they knew they were tractable and would stay loyal without a hint of flipping.  And they were right.  They all stayed loyal until it was down to the five of them.

Also, another key vote in the pre-merge that also turned out to serve the Upolus well going into the merge was because of her.  She made sure Edna was spared over Mikayla (even though Albert wanted her kept around), because she knew Edna would be more loyal to them than Mikayla (another thing that proved true, as Edna really only tried to flip sides when it was too late to do so), whereas Mikayla might've done it so much sooner due to her treatment by Brandon.  Yet another key thing that was hidden off-screen to pump up Coach's on-screen game.

So yeah.  I don't believe that Sophie thought she was the mastermind.  I do believe that she was just that.  Once more, just because we saw Coach's game predominantly doesn't mean he was the only one playing or the mastermind of his alliance.  Far from it.

I will give Coach two things, though.  Getting close to Edna and keeping her close in his back pocket was definitely smart, as it kept her loyal to him (and, by proxy, to the other Upolus) and away from the Savaiis until, way too late, she figured out where she really stood.  And he was much better at jury management than Albert was.  Sure, he did send his goats packing when he should've kept them, a real mistake for sure, but at least he knew not to pander way too much to the jury, as compared to Albert, who did it so openly that the entire jury couldn't stand him by the time Final Tribal Council rolled around.  So for that, I do think he was a good player that season and deserved the votes he got.  But nevertheless, I think Sophie, bar none, was still a better player than he and deserved that win.

Oh, and I'd love to see the proof of what Ozzy and Brandon said.  Because every interview I read after the season said that they were primed and ready to vote for Sophie, and that Coach's answers just ensured it, not flipped them.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Star Aristille