Survivor as we know it is over in Survivor Sucks Forum

0 Points

Survivor as we know it is over

Started By	Comment
PrettyGoodYear1988		#21	[-]
Posts: 4144 (12/20/10 01:06 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Strangers have the best candy. Don't be tempted Remove this ad It's not that they are bad winners. It's that the editors really aren't trying to give the winners decent stories anymore. Natalie gave some great confessionals in Samoa, and we saw them in the Insider clips, and she was level-headed and knew how to play the game. She only seemed clueless because the editors chose not to show her, thanks to Russell.
survivorgirl22		#22	[-]
Posts: 153 (12/20/10 01:09 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I think the editors try so hard to make the winners look nice that they edit out great moments/personality from them that define their game. For example, I'm sure Sandra was just as fiery in H v V as she was in P.I.,but they didn't really show as much of that and instead showed her talking about her husband in Afghanistan.
Lexxan		#23	[-]
Posts: 6376 (12/20/10 01:14 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I don't think the main problem is the F3 (though that's undoubtably a separate problem on it's own), I think it's just that people have become very wary of strategic players, ever since the last time a "Mastermind" won the game (which is Micronesia). That season absolutely owned from a Strategic PoV, and the players have become exceptionally careful after it. Those that step up strategically either get booted for being "threats" or fail themselves at becoming the next Todd/Earl/Parvati and end up being goats themselves. Nowadays, bad strategy-heavy players end up being goats by default, while good strategy-heavy players get robbed, giving us a streak of MORP, more socially developped, sidekick-ish winners, which had been around ever since Gabon. High-Key Strategic play isn't the way to win Survivor anymore. It's a silent, stealthy game that does it. In all fairness, I do not like the evolution of the current, less "deserving" (by lack of a better word) winners... but it's understandable. People have been DREADING strategic plays and blindsides more than ever, so they either avoid it (so they can't be labelled as threats) or embrace it (and lose). Does this mean these "New School" Winners are shitty ones by default? Not nessecairily so. J.T. and Natalie were extremely savvy strategic players, but they never needed to rely on it because they had a close ally who could take heat if they had to betray someone. Both knowingly put themselves in a back seat position, and let others call the shots, while they bonded. They had a clear strategy, and neither is a shitty winner in my opinion. Sandra? She has a strategic sense and played the cards she had perfectly. Sure, she lucked her way to a win, but isn't luck the like the biggest factor in winning Survivor? Hard to call her out for that, imo. No, Sandra is not a shitty winner. Fabio? Once again, no, not a shitty winner. He didn't do much, but he KNEW exactly what he needed to do to make sure he got to the end and actually did it. His "playing Dumb" routine made sure he wasn't booted before Marty or Benry were, and by that time it was too late for the others to stop him. The main reason Sash/Chase didn't deserve to win Nicaragua is because they failed to stop to identify the REAL biggest threat (or at least, did so way too late) and get rid of them when they could. They let Fabio get to the end... ergo, they didn't deserve to win. Bob's the only really "shitty" winner of the new generation, but even for him, a good care can be argued. Let's not forget, he was the TARGET at the F8, but because Randy turned into the King of Trolls, the Fang Alliance failed to get rid of him... which lost ALL of them the game. Once again, a case of poor planning and insigh, because they didn't identify who real biggest threat was. Just like Chase/Sash/Holly/Jane did this season. Just like Russell did twice in a row. Just like the Warrior Alliance did in Tocantins. What I'm trying to say is... the Game HAS evolved. The Winners aren't strategic anymore, because strategy has become something to dread, as well as the biggest possible distraction to win the game. Usually, the MORP sidekick is the one taking the cake, because they aren't seen as threatening when they should have been seen like that. The games back to the early days, where people like Ethan and Tina won in similar situations, for similar reasons. Only just a tad more radical, I suppose.
Frogfreak8240		#24	[-]
Posts: 102 (12/20/10 01:17 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Spoilers say the reason Sash didn't win was because off cameras he made a deal with Jane that if he won he would use some of the prize money to help her out financially. At the tribal council where Jane went home, they edited out her calling Sash out on that and because conspiring to share money is against the rules, the producers told the jury they weren't allowed to vote for him, that's why Sash didn't receive any votes. I don't think he would have won, but he would have gotten second I'm sure.
Frogfreak8240		#25	[-]
Posts: 103 (12/20/10 01:22 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Natalie was a great strategic player btw. Maybe her game wasn't as exciting as Russel's, but she saw that Russel was in control and anyone that went against him (especially smart girls Betsy, Marissa) got sent home. So her strategy to lay low and stick with him was perfect, because if she would have tried to make any powerful moves, he would have sent her home.
PrettyGoodYear1988		#26	[-]
Posts: 4146 (12/20/10 01:28 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I agree with whoever said that Fans Vs. Favorites kinda ruined strategic games. It was such a strategy-heavy season and it is what's shown to the Survivors -- most of whom, these days, are not fans of the show and don't really have any other reference -- before they begin the game. We know for a fact that Russell, who was really not a fan despite his claims, was strongly influenced by the tapes of FVF he was given by production. It's why he was so careful to target aggressive, strong women, since he was afraid of another Parvati.
Belligerent Ghoul		#27	[-]
Posts: 5691 (12/20/10 01:30 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Lexxan wrote: J.T. and Natalie were extremely savvy strategic players, but they never needed to rely on it because they had a close ally who could take heat if they had to betray someone. Both knowingly put themselves in a back seat position, and let others call the shots, while they bonded. They had a clear strategy, and neither is a shitty winner in my opinion. Sandra? She has a strategic sense and played the cards she had perfectly. O hell nah!! Ratalie's "game" was SHIT compared to JT's. The bitch was Russell's lapdog from beginning to end while JT was an equal partner with Stephen, they were a team. JTeeee dominated challenges, had everyone drooling over him, & won ALL the votes at the end. Ratalie did NOTHING. VERY DIFFERENT games, JT was a doer, not a follower like Rat. Galu voted for her because they hated Russell, none of them actually wanted her to win because she didn't do shit, they said it themselves in their Jury confessionals. Her "game" is comparable to Ambore's, nothing like JT at all.. AT ALL.
Wandering Around		#28	[-]
Posts: 123 (12/20/10 01:43 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Good post, lexxan. Even being a quiet sneak is strategy. How do you think Japan got away with Pearl Harbor?
22flames		#29	[-]
Posts: 90 (12/20/10 01:52 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Belligerent Ghoul wrote: Lexxan wrote: J.T. and Natalie were extremely savvy strategic players, but they never needed to rely on it because they had a close ally who could take heat if they had to betray someone. Both knowingly put themselves in a back seat position, and let others call the shots, while they bonded. They had a clear strategy, and neither is a shitty winner in my opinion. Sandra? She has a strategic sense and played the cards she had perfectly. O hell nah!! Ratalie's "game" was SHIT compared to JT's. The bitch was Russell's lapdog from beginning to end while JT was an equal partner with Stephen, they were a team. JTeeee dominated challenges, had everyone drooling over him, & won ALL the votes at the end. Ratalie did NOTHING. VERY DIFFERENT games, JT was a doer, not a follower like Rat. Galu voted for her because they hated Russell, none of them actually wanted her to win because she didn't do shit, they said it themselves in their Jury confessionals. Her "game" is comparable to Ambore's, nothing like JT at all.. AT ALL. Well how else would you expect Natalie to play? If she stepped up and played more aggressive, you wouldn't be able to compare her to JT or Amber because she wouldn't have won.
soph101		#30	[-]
Posts: 384 (12/20/10 02:14 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Strangers have the best candy. Don't be tempted Remove this ad Belligerent Ghoul wrote: Lexxan wrote: J.T. and Natalie were extremely savvy strategic players, but they never needed to rely on it because they had a close ally who could take heat if they had to betray someone. Both knowingly put themselves in a back seat position, and let others call the shots, while they bonded. They had a clear strategy, and neither is a shitty winner in my opinion. Sandra? She has a strategic sense and played the cards she had perfectly. O hell nah!! Ratalie's "game" was SHIT compared to JT's. The bitch was Russell's lapdog from beginning to end while JT was an equal partner with Stephen, they were a team. JTeeee dominated challenges, had everyone drooling over him, & won ALL the votes at the end. Ratalie did NOTHING. VERY DIFFERENT games, JT was a doer, not a follower like Rat. Galu voted for her because they hated Russell, none of them actually wanted her to win because she didn't do shit, they said it themselves in their Jury confessionals. Her "game" is comparable to Ambore's, nothing like JT at all.. AT ALL. I agree that Natalie and JT had very different games. As you said JT and Stephen needed each other and had a somewhat balanced alliance, whilst Natalie completely played Russell for all he was worth. Their relationship was a lot more lopsided, but Natalie was the big winner, not Russell. But I agree if they want more strategic winners, they should go back to a final two as it allows the person to bring someone shittier with them. It might have benefited Sash if somehow Na' didn't quit and he managed to go to the end with her. Definitely wouldn't have any effect on someone like Russell though, who's fucked no matter what. Last Edited By: soph101 12/20/10 02:18 PM. Edited 1 times.
Bleebb		#31	[-]
Posts: 923 (12/20/10 02:22 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	ThrowMeGabon wrote: They should at least take the "Outwit" and "Outplay" out of the tagline. It's false advertisement at this point. The last few seasons, everyone has been referring to "Outwit", "Outlast" and "Outplay" as if they were the Three Commandments of Survivor. But given they were written before the first episode even ran and also given that no one knew what the key factors were to winning this game then - and may not even know now - it's pretty silly to keep referring to them. It seems to me that the winner is usually the person who is best liked. I know that is who I would vote for if I was ever a contestant. So, I have to agree that they should get rid of those three words off their logo. If they need something, perhaps those words should be replaced by "Out Con". Some of the reasons why people voted the way they did were just bizarre. Alina especially. Seems to me she voted with her hormones. She had a secret crush on Chase and tried to butter him up with her talk of "two men" and "a boy". But, I fear none of this much matters. The way Blabbermouth Probst is taking over the game, it won't be long before there are no more Tribal Councils. At the end of every episode, Blabbermouth will just decide who should go home and then, at the end of the season, he will decide who should win.
agent2424		#32	[-]
Posts: 5815 (12/20/10 02:29 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	PrettyGoodYear1988 wrote: If they'd simply let there be a F2 we would have more of a chance at a strategic winner. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX They need it to be a final 2.... The final 3 idea is just BAD.
BtvsVamp		#33	[-]
Posts: 1052 (12/20/10 02:31 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Outplay I always considered to be the physical aspect whereas Outwit is the mental. Outlast is just getting to the end. Often Outplay wins out because that means said person didn't have to be strategic at all and couldn've just won immunites and been nice to people.
ThrowMeGabon		#34	[-]
Posts: 3044 (12/20/10 02:44 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	To me, Outwit and Outplay are the physical and mental parts of the game, and Outlast is the random "it" factor of not getting voted off (see Amber). Somewhere down the line the majority of players became Amber, so it's no surprise we have a string of winners like Amber. The "Uhh..whatever you say. What? I made it to the end? It was all my plan." strategy only seems to work because 3/4 of the people in the cast end up playing this way and juries always suck.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#35	[-]
Posts: 11934 (12/20/10 03:18 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	JasonSiskaRulz wrote: Anyone thinking either Sandra or Natalie were in the least bit stratigic needs their fuckin' head examined. And you need your fucking head examined for thinking that there's only one flavor to strategy. And of all people...OF ALL PEOPLE to represent your taste for gamebots, you choose Jason Siska?
EarlUltimateWinner		#36	[-]
Posts: 3 (12/20/10 07:07 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I agree with many of the posters am not hating on the last 5 winners or not complaining they were not worthy winners. I just feel the game is heading more in this direction these days when future contestants watch how the last few winners won the game they will simply just say aah i just gotta take it easy not piss of anyone. which for me anyway will become less entertaining to watch. again am not hating on these winners but i personally enjoy when someone trys to path a way to victory and not go along for the ride though not necessarily in an obnoxious way ala Russell. but kind of more Todd/Parvati/Brian/Yul/Earl/Rich god knows when we will see these kind of winners again. I predict quite some time
elinorrigby		#37	[-]
Posts: 472 (12/20/10 07:26 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Frogfreak8240 wrote: Spoilers say the reason Sash didn't win was because off cameras he made a deal with Jane that if he won he would use some of the prize money to help her out financially. At the tribal council where Jane went home, they edited out her calling Sash out on that and because conspiring to share money is against the rules, the producers told the jury they weren't allowed to vote for him, that's why Sash didn't receive any votes. I don't think he would have won, but he would have gotten second I'm sure. I find that hard to believe. Colby told Tina he would buy her a Harley or something and he got votes. Sash didn't get any votes because he was a smarmy, arrogant, self-entitled Russell-esque clone. Everything he did was for show including the heartwarming story he told about how poor he and his mom were when he was growing up. He was playing everyone and didn't have the brains to see that they all saw right through his act. I'd have been surprised had he gotten a single vote but then we'd have had the first FTC tie which would have been more epic than the stupid rules change announcement.
van slyker		#38	[-]
Posts: 2246 (12/20/10 07:43 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Lexxan wrote: I don't think the main problem is the F3 (though that's undoubtably a separate problem on it's own),... X Final 3 sucks, but Yul, Todd, and Earl were clearly the more strategic finalists when they won. Then wasn't Stephen considered more strategic than JT? (i forget that season) And yet that was the most recent final 2.
Chocobo		#39	[-]
Posts: 97 (12/20/10 08:13 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Honestly this is all probably the fault of editing... If they really wanted us to think a certain person was super strategic, I'm sure they could.
Survivor Boy		#40	[-]
Posts: 7953 (12/20/10 09:50 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Strangers have the best candy. Don't be tempted Remove this ad Clearly you are forgetting about: The Jury. Every Jury is different. This one happened to be full of nut-job crazies and butthurt mactors. They saw that Sash outplayed them, they weren't happy about it, so they didn't vote for him to win. This season was one of those crazy seasons full of people who think they are power players. Fabio, fortunately, had the right strategy of sitting back and doing nothing while all of the big strategic threats took out eachother. When it was all said and done everyone was pissed off and Fabio was the person they were least pissed at. It was the right strategy to play THIS SEASON. Fabio HAPPENED to play this strategy.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Survivor as we know it is over