^^He said it. In reference to bring weak players last season that were well liked and this time he was bringing stronger competitors that he thought the jury hated.

He never thinks about himself and how the jury looks at him.

5/17/2010 8:33:02 AM

just got around to watching it last night. Bullshit that Parv. got the shaft. No way..um...what's her name should have won...I've already forgotten her name.

This is the trouble with survivor lately, had a few great seasons in a row, then in the end some piece of shit player wins that you will never remember & had no business winning /rant.

5/18/2010 4:12:28 PM

^ you're not the one living with them. I bet Rupert chopping wood all night was way more of a factor than "the game". The time they spend together is A LOT of time. Just an example of how producers can change the feel of the situation. Probably why the audience is often dissapointed with the final result.

5/18/2010 4:27:00 PM

the last two seasons have changed the game entirely. ive watched all 20 seasons, but im not so sure i'll be watching next season unless they really change it up. the fact that the jury no longer truly votes on the best survivor, that they cant not take it personally that they were blindsided or deceived enough to actually vote for the best player - makes the game not interesting to watch. essentially to win the game, you need to ride on coat tales the entire way to the final and not be responsible for voting anyone off, because they'll remember it and hold a grudge against you. if that is becoming a trend, and russell hinted at it during the reunion, i am done with this show. people who do not outwit or outplay, simply outlast - should not be rewarded with a million dollars.

5/19/2010 11:07:17 PM

What about having the jury vote off one of the final 3, and the fans vote for which of the final 2 get the million?

I think its important to keep that social aspect as part of the game, but I think having the fans vote on a million instead of $100,000 will increase ratings and make the game more interesting.

Problem is the producers and editors would have to stay as objective as possible in choosing what to show in order to give everyone a fair chance...or I guess if they know who the final two would be, give them at least a fair chance for the fans to see what they are really like.

5/20/2010 2:08:45 AM

I've been reading a bunch of stuff and thinking a bunch of stuff about it...

There have been seasons in the past where the jury DID vote for the "villain".

There have also been seasons on the past where the jury voted for someone else (vesepia).

Perhaps this is just a short-term mindset of the juries...
It really doesn't surprise me that the cast of this season voted that way. Like Stephanie said in the reunion (i think it was her), almost all the cast knows each other really well and hangs out. That makes their vote more of a popularity thing than an individual vote to win.

The thing that makes Survivor unique is that you have to continuously think about the jury while you are playing the game. People need to be voted out, and you need to make sure you can get their vote.
So while Russell and Parvati made bold moves in the game to get to the end, perhaps it was Sandra who actually "outwitted, outplayed, outlasted" by continuously thinking about what she could do to make the jury vote for her.

5/20/2010 5:38:57 AM

Quote :

"the last two seasons have changed the game entirely. ive watched all 20 seasons, but im not so sure i'll be watching next season unless they really change it up. the fact that the jury no longer truly votes on the best survivor, that they cant not take it personally that they were blindsided or deceived enough to actually vote for the best player - makes the game not interesting to watch. essentially to win the game, you need to ride on coat tales the entire way to the final and not be responsible for voting anyone off, because they'll remember it and hold a grudge against you. if that is becoming a trend, and russell hinted at it during the reunion, i am done with this show. people who do not outwit or outplay, simply outlast - should not be rewarded with a million dollars."

i have a hard time believing you or anyone else with your point of view would be sitting on that jury from either of russell's seasons and vote for him. people take things personally because relationships develop out there whether you like it or not. i don't think russell deserved to win either time because he was too stupid to realize you need to, in a sense, manipulate the jury into WANTING to vote for you. he couldn't do that, and it's such a simple concept to grasp. all he wanted to do was eliminate, eliminate, eliminate and didn't care about how he did it or the ramifications.

whatever you think the game SHOULD be is completely irrelevant.

5/20/2010 1:20:45 PM

how do you go about controlling the entire game and picking who gets voted out and when they get voted out, but also have them want you to win a million dollars? is it possible to do both?

maybe the key is to not be as in control of the game as russell was?

sandra did piss me off with her "this is my hussell, this is how i make money" nonsense. that girl spills all kinds of ignorance when she talks

5/20/2010 2:42:29 PM

I agree with others; Russell's downfall was being too arrogant and not conscience of others feelings. You can get to the top three without being a complete douche (see: lying directly to Danielle and Parvatti's face. Do you honestly believe that Danielle didn't tell every single jury member about that? Telling everyone that you're taking them to the top three doesn't help either.)

[Edited on May 20, 2010 at 3:08 PM. Reason : k]

5/20/2010 3:07:42 PM

Ooops, meant to post in LOST thread

[Edited on May 20, 2010 at 3:15 PM. Reason : wrong thread]

5/20/2010 3:14:51 PM