
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
supernoob |
|||
|
the game is called survivor. its not called life. there are 3 rules-- outwit outplay outlast. Russel won hands down.
|
|||
Mikester |
|||
supernoob wrote:Actually, Russell lost 7-2. That's almost the opposite of winning "hands down." Technically there's 1 rule, which is win. And Russell didn't. Natalie did. |
|||
SuperJude |
|||
supernoob wrote: Actually, he lost by a decent margin. -SJ™ |
|||
Licorice |
|||
SuperJude wrote:Sorry, my post may have looked like it was addressed to you personally. I didn't mean to imply you were one of the Russtards! |
|||
SuperJude |
|||
|
It's all good, it's more of a general statement about the state of things. Russell is a narcissist so of course he thought he deserved to win and
couldn't fathom how he could have pissed people off to that point because he was too busy playing HIS GAME and having HIS FUN instead of contemplating that
he needed THEIR VOTES to win and wouldn't automatically vote Russell because he told them he played sooo hard.
-SJ™ |
|||
James Bont |
|||
|
I think Natalie was a decent winner for this season, just as I appreciated Vecepia winning S4, and for the same logic Probst always said about her at the time:
she was able to ADAPT. Natalie was able to identify early on exactly what the jury was all about, which was more about socializing and not trying to play too
far in advance. Obviously when the jury goes to vote, they will then want to identify which of the finalists took their own strategy and did it the best.
Sure Russell had big plans to be a mastermind, but when he realized he was the only one out there doing that, an alarm should have gone off in his head, saying "maybe everyone else won't appreciate this strategy". He even said at the reunion that he just automatically assumed that everyone else would appreciate hard gameplay as much as he did. This obviously was not the case, since nobody else really made a strategic move the entire time. Russell's other tragic flaw was telling ANYBODY how much money he had. I think that he had a moment of weakness and just felt the need to brag, and that definitely could have cost him some votes. Definitely happy to see him get beaten by his own flaws that he ignored the entire time. |
|||
pjadedd |
|||
|
I think the adapting point is a very good one. Someone stated either in here or another thread that Russell was playing his game and expected people to vote
him for his gameplay. Russell came in with one plan in mind and that's what he did. He made it to the end, but couldn't close the deal. And for all the
talk on being able to read people, he sure sucked at that when it came to the jury phase.
|
|||
aboutbreakingrules |
|||
|
And here's the real funny thing: suppose Natalie had conducted herself as Russell did? First one out, without a doubt.
|
|||
supernoob |
|||
Mikester wrote: |
|||
veiledpresence |
|||
|
A history perspective for the Russell supporters---
It looks like Natalie played the same game that Ethan did. Many people loved Ethan's win over Lex's (season 3, I think, in Africa). And I'm confused by everyone who is up in arms about Russell losing, when practically NO ONE had sympathy for Amanda when she lost the second time. She played a great strategic game, but fell apart at the final Tribal Council. Her answers sucked and did not earn her votes. The loud chorus of Sucktards proclaimed that she had no right to win because her end game sucked and she deserved to lose lose lose. Russell did the same thing. He blew it at final tribal council. IF Amanda (second run) deserved to lose based on her final Tribal Council answers, THEN Russell deserves to lose based on his final Tribal Council answers. He showed his hand as an egotist, and he failed to keep on his game face and manipulate correctly in the final "challenge" which is "talk me into giving you the vote". |
|||