Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2020 16:40:08 GMT -5
(P.S. Started watching Survivor with China, first time posting in the thread, hi everyone) welcome to our void.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2020 16:45:08 GMT -5
Im just here to represent the Cydney was robbed crowd and she needs to come back
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 11, 2020 16:58:56 GMT -5
I've always had issues with the notion that there are some "deserving" winners and some "undeserving" winners. Objectively, if you get to the end and you get the most jury votes, you are a "deserving" winner. Subjectively, you can say "well I would have voted for someone else" or "I enjoyed someones game more" but my favorite thing about Survivor is that it truly is a social experiment. We've had 40 different juries, 40 different jury dynamics, and not a single jury voted the same way or valued the exact same elements of the finalists' games. If blindsides, resumés, "strategy," always won out, the overall "social experiment" aspect of the show would get boring to me, even if episode-to-episode the action was more exciting. I think the "Michele only won because of a bitter jury" theory is exaggerated (and Nick, who voted for Aubry, has debunked that myth on at lease one podcast I've listened to). Scot and Jason? Maybe. But Michele still wins. Debbie and Cyd I don't buy, especially because Debbie didn't seem bitter at all towards Cyd when she arrived to Ponderosa (whereas Scot, Jason and Julia did). Cyd votes for Michele because of loyalty, which is different than bitterness towards Aubry. Some of Aubry's flaws I think were highlighted on her later seasons, which maybe didn't appear in the edit in Kaoh Rong. I don't find her particularly likeable (which is important in a game like Survivor), and I think she plays a rather "fickle" (a word used to describe her gameplay once that I thought fit) game (like the whole Julia-crossed-out-Peter vote - bleh). Michele also had a brilliant FTC performance, and regardless of whether or not you think she was truly "playing from the bottom," theatrics and persuasion are a huge part of the FTC. I'm glad you respect Tai's game, but I think he was pretty clearly a goat. And even if he "deserved" it, FTC performances are a huge part of your game (see: Amanda Kimmel). Side note: I think a huge moment from this season that goes undiscussed (and IMO may have had an impact on the voting) was Neal's cringe words to Michele after he got voted off. Agree with the idea that if you won - you deserve the win. And that strategy is relative to when you played (which in theory is 40 unique games). I am speaking to my vision of the game - which could/is very different than anyone else. Specifically, I see this as a game and not a social experiment and don't think much of people that hold grudges and such. Not sure if the show would be as popular if played the way I would like to see it. I haven't read much on this - but I consider Survivor originating as a 'reality' TV show in the lines of Real World or probably more like Road Rules. Except they wanted to add the 'social' element of greed and open up to all ages instead of college age kids. I don't consider Survivor to be a reality TV show, but as a game. The game early on was based on the social interaction between the players and seems to me have involved into more of a game of strategy. Each season, the show has less on air of the social aspects or the 'reality' of surviving and is mostly about game strategy. Now 'strategy' is subjective - being a wallflower to the end and being the less objectionable player left can be a strategy (for me if that was really what they were trying to do). Amanda is interesting - at the time I thought she got robbed because of horrible FTC. Watching those seasons again - I wouldn't have voted for her regardless. She was outplayed in S16 - my perception of how the game should be played and rewarded has changed. Anyway - my opinion on the game is probably unique and may very well be a minority opinion. I don't think your opinion is that unique and I would bargain that your viewpoint is more popular than mine. There was an outrage after Michele won KR (which is also why I'm partially so defensive of her game). Fans like the strategists and the blindsides. That's why the game has changed so much and gotten faster, with more advantages, and "voting blocks" versus alliances. That's one reason I liked Michele - she won her season playing a more "old school" game in a "new school" season (although I think the pace/twists/style changed even more dramatically after her season). I also think in a game where other players decide who wins, spending your time building relationships with those players (or managing not to piss off other players) is a valid strategy. And I like seeing it prevail sometimes versus the Russells and Robs. If Amanda had a better FTC I think she wins Micronesia. One thing to note is that because she played China and FvF back-to-back, she didn't really have much of an opportunity to improve upon her China FTC (which was also bad, but NO ONE was beating Todd's FTC that season). I don't even think she knew she lost until she got to Micronesia and realized there were no winners... That being said, I've also come to accept (as a once die-hard Amanda fan) that FTC is a huge part of the game. She didn't "deserve" either win because of her glaring weakness at FTCs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2020 17:06:55 GMT -5
Agree with the idea that if you won - you deserve the win. And that strategy is relative to when you played (which in theory is 40 unique games). I am speaking to my vision of the game - which could/is very different than anyone else. Specifically, I see this as a game and not a social experiment and don't think much of people that hold grudges and such. Not sure if the show would be as popular if played the way I would like to see it. I haven't read much on this - but I consider Survivor originating as a 'reality' TV show in the lines of Real World or probably more like Road Rules. Except they wanted to add the 'social' element of greed and open up to all ages instead of college age kids. I don't consider Survivor to be a reality TV show, but as a game. The game early on was based on the social interaction between the players and seems to me have involved into more of a game of strategy. Each season, the show has less on air of the social aspects or the 'reality' of surviving and is mostly about game strategy. Now 'strategy' is subjective - being a wallflower to the end and being the less objectionable player left can be a strategy (for me if that was really what they were trying to do). Amanda is interesting - at the time I thought she got robbed because of horrible FTC. Watching those seasons again - I wouldn't have voted for her regardless. She was outplayed in S16 - my perception of how the game should be played and rewarded has changed. Anyway - my opinion on the game is probably unique and may very well be a minority opinion. I don't think your opinion is that unique and I would bargain that your viewpoint is more popular than mine. There was an outrage after Michele won KR (which is also why I'm partially so defensive of her game). Fans like the strategists and the blindsides. That's why the game has changed so much and gotten faster, with more advantages, and "voting blocks" versus alliances. That's one reason I liked Michele - she won her season playing a more "old school" game in a "new school" season (although I think the pace/twists/style changed even more dramatically after her season). I also think in a game where other players decide who wins, spending your time building relationships with those players (or managing not to piss off other players) is a valid strategy. And I like seeing it prevail sometimes versus the Russells and Robs. If Amanda had a better FTC I think she wins Micronesia. One thing to note is that because she played China and FvF back-to-back, she didn't really have much of an opportunity to improve upon her China FTC (which was also bad, but NO ONE was beating Todd's FTC that season). I don't even think she knew she lost until she got to Micronesia and realized there were no winners... That being said, I've also come to accept (as a once die-hard Amanda fan) that FTC is a huge part of the game. She didn't "deserve" either win because of her glaring weakness at FTCs. Survivor reddit was very on the "aubry was robbed" crew pretty much until WaW. Cirie wins Micronesia if there's a final three. She's the most "robbed" player in Survivor
|
|
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: 12,370
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 11, 2020 17:09:29 GMT -5
Agree with the idea that if you won - you deserve the win. And that strategy is relative to when you played (which in theory is 40 unique games). I am speaking to my vision of the game - which could/is very different than anyone else. Specifically, I see this as a game and not a social experiment and don't think much of people that hold grudges and such. Not sure if the show would be as popular if played the way I would like to see it. I haven't read much on this - but I consider Survivor originating as a 'reality' TV show in the lines of Real World or probably more like Road Rules. Except they wanted to add the 'social' element of greed and open up to all ages instead of college age kids. I don't consider Survivor to be a reality TV show, but as a game. The game early on was based on the social interaction between the players and seems to me have involved into more of a game of strategy. Each season, the show has less on air of the social aspects or the 'reality' of surviving and is mostly about game strategy. Now 'strategy' is subjective - being a wallflower to the end and being the less objectionable player left can be a strategy (for me if that was really what they were trying to do). Amanda is interesting - at the time I thought she got robbed because of horrible FTC. Watching those seasons again - I wouldn't have voted for her regardless. She was outplayed in S16 - my perception of how the game should be played and rewarded has changed. Anyway - my opinion on the game is probably unique and may very well be a minority opinion. I don't think your opinion is that unique and I would bargain that your viewpoint is more popular than mine. There was an outrage after Michele won KR (which is also why I'm partially so defensive of her game). Fans like the strategists and the blindsides. That's why the game has changed so much and gotten faster, with more advantages, and "voting blocks" versus alliances. That's one reason I liked Michele - she won her season playing a more "old school" game in a "new school" season (although I think the pace/twists/style changed even more dramatically after her season). I also think in a game where other players decide who wins, spending your time building relationships with those players (or managing not to piss off other players) is a valid strategy. And I like seeing it prevail sometimes versus the Russells and Robs. If Amanda had a better FTC I think she wins Micronesia. One thing to note is that because she played China and FvF back-to-back, she didn't really have much of an opportunity to improve upon her China FTC (which was also bad, but NO ONE was beating Todd's FTC that season). I don't even think she knew she lost until she got to Micronesia and realized there were no winners... That being said, I've also come to accept (as a once die-hard Amanda fan) that FTC is a huge part of the game. She didn't "deserve" either win because of her glaring weakness at FTCs. That was my understanding with Amanda. Earlier in this thread I mentioned 4 people I know that played back to back seasons (odd to even) and most likely didn't know how their 1st season ended when completing their 2nd season. I always figured that had Amanda known from S15 - she would have done better on S16 FTC. Russell (S19 and S20) made the same mistakes - but it is questionable if he would have learned anything if he had a break between shows. Rupert S7 and S8 is another - he became such a fan superstar out of S7, yet none of the players knew anything about him while playing S8. Actually, S20 doesn't go down like that if people had seen Russell in S19. I had sympathy for Michelle in S40 - when she said she took a lot of flack for being an 'undeserving' winner. I agreed with another player saying that is stupid - anyone that wins is deserving. It sounds like Tony had more 'respect' for Michelle in S40 - as I believe he thought she should have finished 2nd instead of Amanda. I was hoping I would find her game better than remembered for Koan - but I really didn't. She wasn't the worst - so I am over the top on that. And she shouldn't have to receive criticism on social media over this...
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 11, 2020 17:28:10 GMT -5
I don't think your opinion is that unique and I would bargain that your viewpoint is more popular than mine. There was an outrage after Michele won KR (which is also why I'm partially so defensive of her game). Fans like the strategists and the blindsides. That's why the game has changed so much and gotten faster, with more advantages, and "voting blocks" versus alliances. That's one reason I liked Michele - she won her season playing a more "old school" game in a "new school" season (although I think the pace/twists/style changed even more dramatically after her season). I also think in a game where other players decide who wins, spending your time building relationships with those players (or managing not to piss off other players) is a valid strategy. And I like seeing it prevail sometimes versus the Russells and Robs. If Amanda had a better FTC I think she wins Micronesia. One thing to note is that because she played China and FvF back-to-back, she didn't really have much of an opportunity to improve upon her China FTC (which was also bad, but NO ONE was beating Todd's FTC that season). I don't even think she knew she lost until she got to Micronesia and realized there were no winners... That being said, I've also come to accept (as a once die-hard Amanda fan) that FTC is a huge part of the game. She didn't "deserve" either win because of her glaring weakness at FTCs. That was my understanding with Amanda. Earlier in this thread I mentioned 4 people I know that played back to back seasons (odd to even) and most likely didn't know how their 1st season ended when completing their 2nd season. I always figured that had Amanda known from S15 - she would have done better on S16 FTC. Russell (S19 and S20) made the same mistakes - but it is questionable if he would have learned anything if he had a break between shows. Rupert S7 and S8 is another - he became such a fan superstar out of S7, yet none of the players knew anything about him while playing S8. Actually, S20 doesn't go down like that if people had seen Russell in S19. I had sympathy for Michelle in S40 - when she said she took a lot of flack for being an 'undeserving' winner. I agreed with another player saying that is stupid - anyone that wins is deserving. It sounds like Tony had more 'respect' for Michelle in S40 - as I believe he thought she should have finished 2nd instead of Amanda. I was hoping I would find her game better than remembered for Koan - but I really didn't. She wasn't the worst - so I am over the top on that. And she shouldn't have to receive criticism on social media over this... According to the internet, there are apparently at least 11 players who have played back-to-back. In addition to the four you mentioned (Amanda, Russell, Rupert, and Malcolm), there was also James Clement, Joe Anglim, Michaela Bradshaw, Shirin Oskooi, Bobby Jon Drinkard, Stephenie LaGrossa, and Zeke Smith. Amanda and Russell are notable because they made it to final tribal council in their debut seasons and presumably did not know if they had won or not (or in Amanda's case, even if she could deduce that she lost, she may not have known that her performance at final tribal council was the reason for the loss), whereas everyone else on the list would have known that they didn't win their first season because they were voted out.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 11, 2020 17:30:08 GMT -5
I don't think your opinion is that unique and I would bargain that your viewpoint is more popular than mine. There was an outrage after Michele won KR (which is also why I'm partially so defensive of her game). Fans like the strategists and the blindsides. That's why the game has changed so much and gotten faster, with more advantages, and "voting blocks" versus alliances. That's one reason I liked Michele - she won her season playing a more "old school" game in a "new school" season (although I think the pace/twists/style changed even more dramatically after her season). I also think in a game where other players decide who wins, spending your time building relationships with those players (or managing not to piss off other players) is a valid strategy. And I like seeing it prevail sometimes versus the Russells and Robs. If Amanda had a better FTC I think she wins Micronesia. One thing to note is that because she played China and FvF back-to-back, she didn't really have much of an opportunity to improve upon her China FTC (which was also bad, but NO ONE was beating Todd's FTC that season). I don't even think she knew she lost until she got to Micronesia and realized there were no winners... That being said, I've also come to accept (as a once die-hard Amanda fan) that FTC is a huge part of the game. She didn't "deserve" either win because of her glaring weakness at FTCs. That was my understanding with Amanda. Earlier in this thread I mentioned 4 people I know that played back to back seasons (odd to even) and most likely didn't know how their 1st season ended when completing their 2nd season. I always figured that had Amanda known from S15 - she would have done better on S16 FTC. Russell (S19 and S20) made the same mistakes - but it is questionable if he would have learned anything if he had a break between shows. Rupert S7 and S8 is another - he became such a fan superstar out of S7, yet none of the players knew anything about him while playing S8. Actually, S20 doesn't go down like that if people had seen Russell in S19. I had sympathy for Michelle in S40 - when she said she took a lot of flack for being an 'undeserving' winner. I agreed with another player saying that is stupid - anyone that wins is deserving. It sounds like Tony had more 'respect' for Michelle in S40 - as I believe he thought she should have finished 2nd instead of Amanda. I was hoping I would find her game better than remembered for Koan - but I really didn't. She wasn't the worst - so I am over the top on that. And she shouldn't have to receive criticism on social media over this... I thought Michele played the best she could with the hand she was dealt in WaW (and like many other social/UTR players, she pulled out clutch immunity wins towards the end when she was being targeted). Not sure if this has been said, but there were 4 players who said they were planning on voting for Michele, but were so against Natalie winning, that they voted for Tony to ensure he won. I have so many thoughts on WaW. I should probably write them all down. I think the gameplay and circumstances are so unique that it's hard to evaluate it like any other season (even other seasons with returnees). I liked it as entertaining TV (mostly because of the cast). I didn't love it as much in terms of Survivor gameplay (if that makes sense).
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 11, 2020 17:48:53 GMT -5
I don't think your opinion is that unique and I would bargain that your viewpoint is more popular than mine. There was an outrage after Michele won KR (which is also why I'm partially so defensive of her game). Fans like the strategists and the blindsides. That's why the game has changed so much and gotten faster, with more advantages, and "voting blocks" versus alliances. That's one reason I liked Michele - she won her season playing a more "old school" game in a "new school" season (although I think the pace/twists/style changed even more dramatically after her season). I also think in a game where other players decide who wins, spending your time building relationships with those players (or managing not to piss off other players) is a valid strategy. And I like seeing it prevail sometimes versus the Russells and Robs. If Amanda had a better FTC I think she wins Micronesia. One thing to note is that because she played China and FvF back-to-back, she didn't really have much of an opportunity to improve upon her China FTC (which was also bad, but NO ONE was beating Todd's FTC that season). I don't even think she knew she lost until she got to Micronesia and realized there were no winners... That being said, I've also come to accept (as a once die-hard Amanda fan) that FTC is a huge part of the game. She didn't "deserve" either win because of her glaring weakness at FTCs. Survivor reddit was very on the "aubry was robbed" crew pretty much until WaW. Cirie wins Micronesia if there's a final three. She's the most "robbed" player in Survivor I LOVE Cirie. And I agree, she was screwed over by multiple questionable twists. However, if Cirie was a more physical player, she might not have found herself consistently falling short of FTC...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2020 18:22:27 GMT -5
Survivor reddit was very on the "aubry was robbed" crew pretty much until WaW. Cirie wins Micronesia if there's a final three. She's the most "robbed" player in Survivor I LOVE Cirie. And I agree, she was screwed over by multiple questionable twists. However, if Cirie was a more physical player, she might not have found herself consistently falling short of FTC... I think if she was a more physical player that hurts her case (increasing her threat even more) In Micronesia they made it a final two, without telling the players (iirc). Which screwed Cirie. In Game Changers, advantagegeddon screws her over.... I'm not sure if she finagles her way to FTC but she's Cirie and I wouldn't bet against her we wont talk about HvV tho. There's not many more things I dislike than the heroes tribe haha
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 11, 2020 18:42:54 GMT -5
I LOVE Cirie. And I agree, she was screwed over by multiple questionable twists. However, if Cirie was a more physical player, she might not have found herself consistently falling short of FTC... I think if she was a more physical player that hurts her case (increasing her threat even more) In Micronesia they made it a final two, without telling the players (iirc). Which screwed Cirie. In Game Changers, advantagegeddon screws her over.... I'm not sure if she finagles her way to FTC but she's Cirie and I wouldn't bet against her we wont talk about HvV tho. There's not many more things I dislike than the heroes tribe haha I'm with you on all of these. My point was that one reason she gets "screwed" so much by production twists, is that she never took control of her own fate by winning immunity challenges or finding idols. I absolutely love Cirie as a player, and I think she's the best player who has never won, but on Reddit a lot of players think she belongs on the Survivor Mount Rushmore (or whatever) which I think is a stretch. She's a great player, but she isn't a physical threat (which is part of the game), and she's never made a FTC in four tries. Micronesia doesn't bother me as much, but the Game Changers sh*t is one of my least favorite Survivor moments ever. And I agree about HvV. Amanda deserved better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2020 19:04:37 GMT -5
I think if she was a more physical player that hurts her case (increasing her threat even more) In Micronesia they made it a final two, without telling the players (iirc). Which screwed Cirie. In Game Changers, advantagegeddon screws her over.... I'm not sure if she finagles her way to FTC but she's Cirie and I wouldn't bet against her we wont talk about HvV tho. There's not many more things I dislike than the heroes tribe haha I'm with you on all of these. My point was that one reason she gets "screwed" so much by production twists, is that she never took control of her own fate by winning immunity challenges or finding idols. I absolutely love Cirie as a player, and I think she's the best player who has never won, but on Reddit a lot of players think she belongs on the Survivor Mount Rushmore (or whatever) which I think is a stretch. She's a great player, but she isn't a physical threat (which is part of the game), and she's never made a FTC in four tries. Micronesia doesn't bother me as much, but the Game Changers sh*t is one of my least favorite Survivor moments ever. And I agree about HvV. Amanda deserved better. Ohhh I get you now. My bad Yea my Survivor Mount Rushmore differs a bit from Reddit. I will die on the hill that Sarah belongs there, not Rob. In game changers, they should've just voided the TC. Just go back and we go again.... Cirie didn't receive any votes against her, theres no cause to eliminate her. Im really salty about that lol That Heroes tribe was such a mess. I will never like JT
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jun 11, 2020 19:50:45 GMT -5
Wait is Survivor still on?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 11, 2020 20:01:48 GMT -5
I think if she was a more physical player that hurts her case (increasing her threat even more) In Micronesia they made it a final two, without telling the players (iirc). Which screwed Cirie. In Game Changers, advantagegeddon screws her over.... I'm not sure if she finagles her way to FTC but she's Cirie and I wouldn't bet against her we wont talk about HvV tho. There's not many more things I dislike than the heroes tribe haha I'm with you on all of these. My point was that one reason she gets "screwed" so much by production twists, is that she never took control of her own fate by winning immunity challenges or finding idols. I absolutely love Cirie as a player, and I think she's the best player who has never won, but on Reddit a lot of players think she belongs on the Survivor Mount Rushmore (or whatever) which I think is a stretch. She's a great player, but she isn't a physical threat (which is part of the game), and she's never made a FTC in four tries. Micronesia doesn't bother me as much, but the Game Changers sh*t is one of my least favorite Survivor moments ever. And I agree about HvV. Amanda deserved better. Immunity challenges are definitely a part of the game, but Sandra has shown that it's not absolutely essential to get on Mount Rushmore. Other dominant winners like Earl in Fiji, Tony in Cagayan, and Todd in China also never won an individual immunity (though Tony won four in Winners at War). The main thing with being a decent challenge threat is that it gives some margin for error that a player like Sandra or Cirie won't have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2020 20:17:15 GMT -5
Wait is Survivor still on? this hurts me.... but yes. Season 41 is up in the air for COVID reasons
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 12, 2020 11:47:19 GMT -5
I'm with you on all of these. My point was that one reason she gets "screwed" so much by production twists, is that she never took control of her own fate by winning immunity challenges or finding idols. I absolutely love Cirie as a player, and I think she's the best player who has never won, but on Reddit a lot of players think she belongs on the Survivor Mount Rushmore (or whatever) which I think is a stretch. She's a great player, but she isn't a physical threat (which is part of the game), and she's never made a FTC in four tries. Micronesia doesn't bother me as much, but the Game Changers sh*t is one of my least favorite Survivor moments ever. And I agree about HvV. Amanda deserved better. Immunity challenges are definitely a part of the game, but Sandra has shown that it's not absolutely essential to get on Mount Rushmore. Other dominant winners like Earl in Fiji, Tony in Cagayan, and Todd in China also never won an individual immunity (though Tony won four in Winners at War). The main thing with being a decent challenge threat is that it gives some margin for error that a player like Sandra or Cirie won't have. I completely agree. But the difference between Cirie and Earl, Tony, Todd, and Sandra? Cirie hasn't won. The Mount Rushmore thing was a bit of a digression (although I would love to hear everyone's Mount Rushmore). In my head, winning objectively makes you a good player. After that, when we're looking at players who haven't won, I think you have to look at their game holistically (because they don't get the automatic checkbox of winning). Cirie is a top notch social player and strategist. However, I just think it often gets overlooked that her physical game, whereas it arguably takes a target off of her back, is a glaring weakness. If she wins one immunity challenge at the end of Panama, FvF or Game Changers (maybe less so), she might have won the $1 million. Instead, she always leaves her fate up to the other players (fire-making, voted out) or the stupid twists (Game Changers). I love and totally understand her game. If Cirie won Panama or FvF, she would easily be on my Mount Rushmore. We're also getting into the weeds here because I do consider her one of the best (if not the best) to never have won, but I do think her game has a clear weakness which sometimes I feel gets overlooked because of the FvF and Game Changers twists.
|
|