|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 6, 2020 9:21:25 GMT -5
I'm done with Millennials v. Gen X, and I thought it turned out to be a very good season after a shaky start. I actually thought Ken played a pretty good game, apart from his terrible move at the Zeke vote, though Adam and especially Hannah also had moves that were just as bad. Ken won four individual immunities, including three of the last four, and he got Jessica to will him her legacy advantage. He was also a hard worker around camp and a provider, but I guess he was viewed as too much of a sidekick to David, kind of like Woo in Cagayan or Joe in Kaoh Rong (if he wasn't medically evacuated). I think Ken played a good old-school game of Survivor, but I guess that kind of game doesn't really work out that well in a modern season. Hannah, on the other hand, played an absolutely horrendous game, and I'm surprised that anyone thought she deserved even a single vote (she deservedly got none). To put it in sports terms, if Hannah's was a baseball player, I think she would actually have negative WAR for her performance over the entire season. If I was, say, Zeke, I would have never voted for Hannah under any circumstances after her atrocious decision to flip on Mari and how she kept badgering him incessantly afterward when he just wanted to be left alone (that was among the more frustrating scenes I have ever seen). I get that they were on the wrong side of the numbers anyway, but all that did was alienate Adam and Zeke. And I think the majority didn't respect her fickleness either. Her only "big moves" were convincing her side to vote out Sunday instead of Bret, which was a bad move because Hannah thought Sunday was a goat, and a fellow goat like her needs to sit next to other goats to have any chance to win. Her decision to vote out Bret over David was even worse, as she allowed the biggest threat to stay in the game. The fact that they got David out at the next vote is almost immaterial to me, as it is a terrible move either way. She also flipped from a majority position to set up the rock draw, and she was fortunate not to just go home there if Jessica had just flipped her vote. I need to do some more research on the exit press and whatnot, but from what I can gather initially, Hannah's edit was actually more favorable than the reality. I also thought Hannah had a terrible Final Tribal Council performance, as she was constantly interrupting discussions between the jury and Adam about his game. She also lied about never being on the wrong side of the vote, and Michelle immediately pointed out the Michaela one, so Hannah even managed to undermine one of her few strengths. She also tried to take credit for moves that were really Zeke's or David's or Adam's (i.e. the moves that were actually good), and it was hilarious that she tried to claim that Adam was taking credit for her moves. Adam really buried her (and to a lesser degree, Ken) at FTC, as he correctly distanced himself from her terrible moves by saying that she "went rogue." I would have voted for every single person on the jury over Hannah except maybe Taylor. Her gameplay was just as bad as Angelina's, except it was also not entertaining to watch, whereas Angelina was TV gold. Adam's game wasn't perfect by any means, as trying to work with Taylor was dumb (he made a similar mistake in WaW by trying to get Rob to blindside Parvati, and that one ultimately destroyed his game), but I thought he did enough to win. He won an individual immunity and found two idols. I also thought he did a good job with his "advantage" to steal a reward, which seems like a terrible advantage that is likely to just get you targeted. But Adam actually ended up using it to his advantage by not using it and then giving it to Jay as a gesture of good will. Speaking of Jay, I liked him a lot more after the rest of his alliance was gone, and he and Adam had a great friendly rivalry. Kind of like Aras and Terry where they were often at odds but really respected each other. It was heartbreaking to hear that Adam's mother died an hour after he got home, but at least he was there when she passed, and he told her he won. As for the rest of the cast, I did enjoy David's journey, so even though I would have voted him out first, I'm glad he was spared. He is basically the male version of Cirie in Panama. I also really liked Zeke, who was obviously a very strong threat to win the game if he had made it to the end. He was able to bond with basically everyone, including people I might not have expected such as the former football player in Chris and the cop in Bret. Taylor was one of the dumbest players I have ever seen, and the season improved markedly after he was taken out of the game. Will did pretty well for a high-schooler, but he got cocky when he tried to position himself as the perennial swing vote and got taken out shortly thereafter. I think Michelle was actually a pretty good player who was unfortunately sunk by her alliance. I would have liked to see her play without the anchors of Taylor and Figgy. I actually liked Hannah - and thought she played a good game after an initial shaky start. I am too far removed from remembering the specifics - but I was thinking there was a point where Adam thought she made a horrible strategic move and was upset with her. However, I was thinking it was a bad move for Adam's game - but a sensible move for Hannah's game. Adam won the jury when he broke down talking about his mom. Aside from the strategy - Hannah was pretty funny talking about how good looking some of the guys were while showing her own insecurities. Ken - yes an old school game. I sort of remembering him 'spilling the beans' on a move towards the middle of the game. It was such a stupid move. Agree that the game got better once Taylor and Figgy were out. And that Jay was very likeable once Taylor left. I wanted to like Michelle. I still think Michaela was/is one of the strongest players. But then she got voted out very early after the merge. David, Zeke, and Michaela were my favorite players. I found Will annoying. Yes, he was young, but his big game talk at times and decisions didn't seem all that good to me. Yeah, you're right about Michaela. I neglected to mention her because she went out pretty early, but she was very strong in challenges, and she seemed to be a fairly strong strategic player as well. Unfortunately, she made herself a bit too much of a target, which led to her getting blindsided right before the merge. She also had one of the most memorable reactions to getting blindsided of any player in the history of Survivor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 17:44:51 GMT -5
Michaela got done a bit dirty, being brought back for GC right away. She would've done a lot better imo in like a later second chances season.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 11, 2020 18:20:31 GMT -5
I'm a bit past the merge in Guatemala. I don't think this is a particularly strong season, as much of the cast is bland or unlikable. The most interesting thing to me is actually the absolutely brutal conditions. Between the heat and the wildlife and even the challenges (an 11 mile trek through the jungle that took 24 hours to complete to start the season and left both tribes looking like a MASH unit being the most notable), it has been rough. Poor Jim had one of the worst Survivor experiences ever, as he had to endure that trek, then tore his bicep during the first immunity challenge and was subsequently voted off.
The other thing that is interesting to me is that this is the first season to have an individual immunity idol. The idol was pretty underpowered, as it had to be played before the vote itself. So there's no need to even think about splitting a vote. Just see if the target plays the idol, and if not, vote them out. If so, vote out the secondary target. Survivor really over-corrected with the Terry/Yul super idols in the next two seasons. I will say that when Gary was in real trouble and out looking for the idol, I really liked that the editors left the viewers in the dark until he actually played it. They did something vaguely similar in Micronesia with Amanda's idol, but I thought it was pretty heavily implied that Amanda had the idol, whereas I was dying to know if Gary had it or not.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 15, 2020 9:52:08 GMT -5
I finished Guatemala. I thought most of the cast was pretty boring, and I found Judd, Jaime, and Stephenie to be pretty unlikable. I did like Danni, though she didn't get as much of an edit as a typical winner would (apparently, she actively hid her strategy from production because she realized that Jeff was asking leading questions at tribal council, which is smart from a gameplay standpoint but doesn't make the best television). I also liked Rafe, who seems like one of the nicest people to play Survivor, though maybe he got a positive edit because he would have apparently lost to everyone except Steph. In fact, apparently Lydia would have beaten anyone in the final two, which really surprised me. I think that illustrates the difference between old school and new school Survivor. I think it would be virtually impossible for Lydia to win a modern season of Survivor, as she would have zero-vote finalist written all over her.
I have updated my ongoing rankings as follows. I think I will watch San Juan del Sur next.
Tier 1 1. Winners at War 2. Pearl Islands 3. Cagayan 4. Heroes v. Villains Tier 2 5. David v. Goliath 6. Cambodia 7. China 8. Tocantins Tier 3 9. Philippines 10. Blood v. Water 11. Millennials v. Gen X 12. Panama 13. Vanuatu 14. Amazon 15. Cook Islands 16. Kaoh Rong Tier 4 17. Game Changers 18. Micronesia 19. Guatemala Tier 5 20. Palau 21. Marquesas
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,552
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 15, 2020 10:41:32 GMT -5
I finished Guatemala. I thought most of the cast was pretty boring, and I found Judd, Jaime, and Stephenie to be pretty unlikable. I did like Danni, though she didn't get as much of an edit as a typical winner would (apparently, she actively hid her strategy from production because she realized that Jeff was asking leading questions at tribal council, which is smart from a gameplay standpoint but doesn't make the best television). I also liked Rafe, who seems like one of the nicest people to play Survivor, though maybe he got a positive edit because he would have apparently lost to everyone except Steph. In fact, apparently Lydia would have beaten anyone in the final two, which really surprised me. I think that illustrates the difference between old school and new school Survivor. I think it would be virtually impossible for Lydia to win a modern season of Survivor, as she would have zero-vote finalist written all over her. I have updated my ongoing rankings as follows. I think I will watch San Juan del Sur next. Tier 11. Winners at War 2. Pearl Islands 3. Cagayan 4. Heroes v. Villains Tier 25. David v. Goliath 6. Cambodia 7. China 8. Tocantins Tier 39. Philippines 10. Blood v. Water 11. Millennials v. Gen X 12. Panama 13. Vanuatu 14. Amazon 15. Cook Islands 16. Kaoh Rong Tier 417. Game Changers 18. Micronesia 19. Guatemala Tier 520. Palau 21. Marquesas It has been almost 20 years since it first aired and I haven't watch this season a 2nd time. So, my memory isn't good. Interesting about Danni's gameplay strategy. Something I wouldn't have caught on to when it first aired. Danni lived probably less than 10 miles from me at the time - not that I have ever seen her or know exactly where she lived. As such - I was rooting for her to win. Wasn't she a bit of a surprise winner in that her initial alliance was out numbered and she was just able to survive. What seemed to happen back in those early years of Survivor - Danni gets all 3 of the votes from her tribe at FTC because they were on the outs and she was working with them. She gets 3 of the 4 from Steph's tribe - as Steph eventually had to make a move to get rid of each of them. Only Rafe - who was voted out because of Danni ended up voting for Steph. The context of Stephanie after season 10 was rockstar status for her when playing S11. She claims on S20 when she returned for the final time that she never kept in touch with the Survivor playing community.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 15, 2020 10:59:42 GMT -5
I finished Guatemala. I thought most of the cast was pretty boring, and I found Judd, Jaime, and Stephenie to be pretty unlikable. I did like Danni, though she didn't get as much of an edit as a typical winner would (apparently, she actively hid her strategy from production because she realized that Jeff was asking leading questions at tribal council, which is smart from a gameplay standpoint but doesn't make the best television). I also liked Rafe, who seems like one of the nicest people to play Survivor, though maybe he got a positive edit because he would have apparently lost to everyone except Steph. In fact, apparently Lydia would have beaten anyone in the final two, which really surprised me. I think that illustrates the difference between old school and new school Survivor. I think it would be virtually impossible for Lydia to win a modern season of Survivor, as she would have zero-vote finalist written all over her. I have updated my ongoing rankings as follows. I think I will watch San Juan del Sur next. Tier 11. Winners at War 2. Pearl Islands 3. Cagayan 4. Heroes v. Villains Tier 25. David v. Goliath 6. Cambodia 7. China 8. Tocantins Tier 39. Philippines 10. Blood v. Water 11. Millennials v. Gen X 12. Panama 13. Vanuatu 14. Amazon 15. Cook Islands 16. Kaoh Rong Tier 417. Game Changers 18. Micronesia 19. Guatemala Tier 520. Palau 21. Marquesas It has been almost 20 years since it first aired and I haven't watch this season a 2nd time. So, my memory isn't good. Interesting about Danni's gameplay strategy. Something I wouldn't have caught on to when it first aired. Danni lived probably less than 10 miles from me at the time - not that I have ever seen her or know exactly where she lived. As such - I was rooting for her to win. Wasn't she a bit of a surprise winner in that her initial alliance was out numbered and she was just able to survive. What seemed to happen back in those early years of Survivor - Danni gets all 3 of the votes from her tribe at FTC because they were on the outs and she was working with them. She gets 3 of the 4 from Steph's tribe - as Steph eventually had to make a move to get rid of each of them. Only Rafe - who was voted out because of Danni ended up voting for Steph. The context of Stephanie after season 10 was rockstar status for her when playing S11. She claims on S20 when she returned for the final time that she never kept in touch with the Survivor playing community. Yes, you're right that Danni was an underdog, as her tribe was in the minority after the merge. I meant to mention that she made some pretty good moves to navigate the endgame. First, she bought an advantage for the next immunity challenge at the auction, and she used it to win the challenge, which was important because she was going to be the target at that vote if she hadn't won immunity. She also did a good job of convincing Rafe and Steph to vote out Judd at final 6 (as an aside, Judd had perhaps the most bitter exit ever, as he repeatedly called the other players "scumbags" and said he hoped they got bit by a crocodile). She used her strong relationship with Rafe to keep her safe through the next two votes (Cindy and Lydia) and won final immunity. There are a lot of disadvantages of being in the minority, but one advantage is if you do make it to the end, the jury is less likely to be bitter against you.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 18, 2020 7:39:09 GMT -5
I'm a few episodes into San Juan del Sur, and this season has been a bit of a mess. I thought the cast was pretty strong, with Jeremy, Kelley Wentworth, Natalie and Keith. But the first four people voted out have all played very poorly. Nadiya told Josh she was "counting him as one of the girls," Val told everyone that she had two idols when she really had zero, and John Rocker was himself (actually not as bad as it could have been). But nothing tops the stupidity of Drew unilaterally deciding to throw the challenge and then getting himself voted out of the game immediately. It was hilarious that Drew was so fearful of a non-existent women's alliance (I loved how incredulous Jeff was when he asked how the women were supposed to get rid of the guys when the guys had the numbers) that he actually created one that sent him out with a plurality because the guys couldn't all get on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 19, 2020 17:19:30 GMT -5
I reached the merge in SJDS. I'm not sure how to feel about this season. The Hunahpu tribe was dominant in challenges, but they also ate all their rice in two weeks, which puts a significant asterisk on their performance (I think it's the Survivor equivalent of using steroids). It was funny that they kept having to try to beg and barter with Jeff after they lost their flint, later found it, and ultimately had to be bailed out because they had no food. I also think quite a few people on this season are pretty unlikable and selfish (I do like Keith and Jeremy, though Jeremy is prone to petulance when things don't go his way--this has held true on both Cambodia and Winners at War also). In particular, they all seemed to treat Julie like a number instead of an actual human being and berated her for being "selfish" when she realized that nobody cared about her and decided that she'd be happier leaving (production also had to persuade her to go in the first place). Yes, Julie made the decision that was best for her, but I'm pretty sympathetic when she was so mistreated.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 23, 2020 21:06:39 GMT -5
I finished San Juan del Sur. The last couple episodes were pretty good when Natalie started targeting her own alliance members. I thought Natalie played an extremely strong game in basically all areas. Aside from getting blindsided when Jeremy got voted out, she had a lot of control (that was basically just a speed bump on her way to victory). And despite being the biggest threat, she was barely even mentioned as a potential target. If she had managed to get Reed's vote at Final Tribal Council, I'd put her win in JT territory (I give her a complete pass for not getting Jon's or Baylor's votes, since they were impossible to get when sitting next to their loved ones in the final three). Since she didn't, I have to rank it a bit lower, but it was still very impressive.
Edit: Apparently, Reed voted for Jaclyn to make sure Missy finished third. Hard to fault Natalie for that, though I'd still put her slightly behind JT.
Jaclyn played a pretty good game too, though she was destined to lose to either Natalie or Keith, whichever one didn't get voted out at final four. I didn't think much of Missy's game at all, and I found her to be rather unpleasant. That said, I was still taken aback at just how brutal Reed's FTC speech was. He seemed to have practiced it for weeks and just demolished her. I didn't think he was actually factually wrong about what he said, but it was harsh.
I thought the season overall was a bit of a mixed bag. There were some good moments and some good characters (especially Keith--Jeremy and Kelley weren't as memorable here as they would be in Cambodia), but there were also a lot of boring and/or unlikable characters, and a lot of the middle of the season was a slog. I definitely think it was the lesser of the two Blood vs. Water seasons. I have updated my season rankings as follows:
Tier 1 1. Winners at War 2. Pearl Islands 3. Cagayan 4. Heroes v. Villains Tier 2 5. David v. Goliath 6. Cambodia 7. China 8. Tocantins Tier 3 9. Philippines 10. Blood v. Water 11. Millennials v. Gen X 12. Panama 13. Vanuatu 14. Amazon 15. Cook Islands 16. Kaoh Rong Tier 4 17. Game Changers 18. Micronesia 19. San Juan del Sur 20. Guatemala Tier 5 21. Palau 22. Marquesas
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 22:23:53 GMT -5
The Baylor tribal is my favorite single move in Survivor. I don't think anything tops that move.
Your tier list hurt my soul lol
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 23, 2020 22:42:08 GMT -5
Your tier list hurt my soul lol Care to elaborate? It's totally fine if you disagree. Just curious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 22:47:39 GMT -5
Your tier list hurt my soul lol Care to elaborate? It's totally fine if you disagree. Just curious. Tier 1 1. Winners at War 2. Pearl Islands3. Cagayan 4. Heroes v. VillainsTier 2 5. David v. Goliath 6. Cambodia 7. China8. TocantinsTier 3 9. Philippines10. Blood v. Water11. Millennials v. Gen X12. Panama13. Vanuatu14. Amazon15. Cook Islands 16. Kaoh RongTier 4 17. Game Changers18. Micronesia19. San Juan del Sur20. GuatemalaTier 5 21. Palau 22. Marquesas Red I would move down, Green I would move up. I could make my own ranking but thats a lot of thinking and work than just coloring them lol
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 23, 2020 23:55:55 GMT -5
Care to elaborate? It's totally fine if you disagree. Just curious. Tier 1 1. Winners at War 2. Pearl Islands3. Cagayan 4. Heroes v. VillainsTier 2 5. David v. Goliath 6. Cambodia 7. China8. TocantinsTier 3 9. Philippines10. Blood v. Water11. Millennials v. Gen X12. Panama13. Vanuatu14. Amazon15. Cook Islands 16. Kaoh RongTier 4 17. Game Changers18. Micronesia19. San Juan del Sur20. GuatemalaTier 5 21. Palau 22. Marquesas Red I would move down, Green I would move up. I could make my own ranking but thats a lot of thinking and work than just coloring them lol Thanks for elaborating. The only thing I would clarify is that with the exception of tier 3, the seasons are basically interchangeable within each tier (with tier 3, I would put a divide between Panama and Vanuatu). So I have Heroes v. Villains 4th, but since it's in the top tier, I could just as easily rank it first. I don't feel like going over each difference (my thoughts on each season can be found somewhere in this thread or the TV one), but I feel very strongly about the eight seasons in my top two tiers. The one season I think I may have too low is Kaoh Rong. I have some issues with it, but I do like a lot about it, and it may deserve to be in the top half of Tier 3 instead of the bottom half. It was one of the first seasons I watched, so I may need to revisit it at some point.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 24, 2020 0:29:51 GMT -5
Finished Season 21. Fabio is the type of winner I do not like winning. One of the most important things to me in Survivor 'strategy' - is knowing what the vote is going to be at tribal. This tells me that you either are leading the voting or have a social game that allows you to understand or be aware of how others are going to vote. Fabio voted in the majority 6 of 9 times. Chase and Sash claimed that Fabio would often times come back from Tribal and say 'What just happened'. This to me is a sign of a bad player. By comparison - Chase voted in the majority all 10 times he went to tribal and Sash all 11 times. That said - I also place a lot of value on winning challenges and finding immunities. Fabio did win the last 3 challenges - when it appears he would have been voted out if he had lost any of them. All told - I am not sure who should have won. I think Chase had a very good FTC in owning his strategies, while the editing during the year made him just sound indecisive and wishy/washy. Sash was edited as being very strategic - but then he also came across as being so untrustworthy. Chase wins if not for NaOnka and Purple Kelly being allowed to vote after quitting.So apparently (the source is a Reddit comment, but it's a guy who is a Survivor historian), Fabio was going to win like 7-2, but some people decided to vote for Chase to make sure he finished second instead of third, and enough did so that it nearly flipped the outcome. I'm not 100% on this, but this does raise an interesting question that also came up in Winners at War when at least four jurors had planned to vote for Michele so that she would finish second but ultimately decided to vote for Tony to make sure that he won the season because they feared that Natalie might win if they didn't. And it came up in both Blood vs. Water seasons, as Vytas and Reed voted for Monica and Jaclyn, respectively, to ensure that they finished second. I think it's a small flaw in the game that the jury doesn't also vote for second place. I think the best thing to do would be for them all to have the traditional vote for the winner, but then they also vote separately for second and third place. This second vote probably wouldn't even need to be revealed in most cases (it would only be relevant if there was a tie of first-place votes between the two finalists that didn't win), but I'd like to eliminate situations where jurors are voting for people that they don't actually think played the best game because they're trying to get second-place money to one of the other finalists.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,552
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 24, 2020 7:52:38 GMT -5
Finished Season 21. Fabio is the type of winner I do not like winning. One of the most important things to me in Survivor 'strategy' - is knowing what the vote is going to be at tribal. This tells me that you either are leading the voting or have a social game that allows you to understand or be aware of how others are going to vote. Fabio voted in the majority 6 of 9 times. Chase and Sash claimed that Fabio would often times come back from Tribal and say 'What just happened'. This to me is a sign of a bad player. By comparison - Chase voted in the majority all 10 times he went to tribal and Sash all 11 times. That said - I also place a lot of value on winning challenges and finding immunities. Fabio did win the last 3 challenges - when it appears he would have been voted out if he had lost any of them. All told - I am not sure who should have won. I think Chase had a very good FTC in owning his strategies, while the editing during the year made him just sound indecisive and wishy/washy. Sash was edited as being very strategic - but then he also came across as being so untrustworthy. Chase wins if not for NaOnka and Purple Kelly being allowed to vote after quitting.So apparently (the source is a Reddit comment, but it's a guy who is a Survivor historian), Fabio was going to win like 7-2, but some people decided to vote for Chase to make sure he finished second instead of third, and enough did so that it nearly flipped the outcome. I'm not 100% on this, but this does raise an interesting question that also came up in Winners at War when at least four jurors had planned to vote for Michele so that she would finish second but ultimately decided to vote for Tony to make sure that he won the season because they feared that Natalie might win if they didn't. And it came up in both Blood vs. Water seasons, as Vytas and Reed voted for Monica and Jaclyn, respectively, to ensure that they finished second. I think it's a small flaw in the game that the jury doesn't also vote for second place. I think the best thing to do would be for them all to have the traditional vote for the winner, but then they also vote separately for second and third place. This second vote probably wouldn't even need to be revealed in most cases (it would only be relevant if there was a tie of first-place votes between the two finalists that didn't win), but I'd like to eliminate situations where jurors are voting for people that they don't actually think played the best game because they're trying to get second-place money to one of the other finalists. On one hand - the players that are playing the game can view a more full picture of what happened particularly the social game and more important aren't influenced by the editing of the show. And how the show is edited can have a huge impact on what the viewers think. That said - voting on Survivor tended to be too swayed by personal opinions of the finalist then what I am more interested in (gamesmanship). I believe that for the most part - the players in the later seasons are more willing to view Survivor as a game of strategy and not some sort of social experiment that values honesty and honor. And I tend to not like the voting of the jury for early seasons (including this season). I get the original premise - working to vote off people all game and then trying to get those that you voted off to vote to give you a million dollars. But what happened too often - it was the 2nd or 3rd wheel that did as little as possible to vote off the people on the jury and only made it to the end because most everyone felt they were not a threat to win. And - if several jury members at WoW thought that Michelle was better than Tony - then, oh my...
|
|