Survivor

dankir96

Active member
1,088
4.90 star(s)
Any Survivor fans out there? For those of you that are and watched the finale last night, I have this to say...

RUSSELL WAS ROBBED!!

He dominated the whole game and they gave the title to Natalie? That's just wrong!
 

Big Daddy

Active member
319
5.00 star(s)
I agree 100% with you. I had a long agrument/conversation with a co-worker about this this morning. I agreed with Russel and the majority of America. My co-worker agreed with the jury. I still don't get it?!?!?!
 

anglinomics

Active member
719
5.00 star(s)
I've seen every episode of Survivor for years. I even gave up part of the Vikings game last night to watch it. As soon as Natilie was announced the winner, I turned it off in protest. Russel was the best contestant ever. I don't know if I'll watch the show again.
 

abncal

New member
139
5.00 star(s)
well let's see... she looked much better than him... unfortunately sex sells and shes a lot more marketable IMO...
 

twins fan

New member
84
5.00 star(s)
Russell was not friends with anybody on the jury and that is why he did not win. Russell cheated, stole, lied and treated everybody like crap and that is why the jury did not vote for him. If he would've been nicer and less back stabbing towards people then he might have won.
 

dankir96

Active member
1,088
4.90 star(s)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the name of game SURVIVOR? You need to outlast & outwit. Russell did exactly that.

The next season starting in February has an awesome theme...

Heroes vs Villains
 

Jeffo65

New member
1,541
5.00 star(s)
Staff member
Russell was not friends with anybody on the jury and that is why he did not win. Russell cheated, stole, lied and treated everybody like crap and that is why the jury did not vote for him. If he would've been nicer and less back stabbing towards people then he might have won.

You are exactly correct.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the name of game SURVIVOR? You need to outlast & outwit. Russell did exactly that.


Since the jury has the final say, the whole idea of survivor is to make it to the final 3 without making to many enemies.



.
 

David K.

Well-known member
10,829
5.00 star(s)
Jury decides the winner! Does not matter if win all of the contests or if you play the game better then everyone else. Happy Holidays, David
 

soxfan445

New member
504
5.00 star(s)
My question is why Natalie got seven votes and Mick got zero. They played the game essentially in the same way. If the jury had entered the final tribal council wanting to vote for anyone besides Russell, why Natalie and not Mick? It's not like Natalie had a great performance in the Q&A session...

Regards,
Mike
 

katester44

Active member
1,256
5.00 star(s)
Staff member
I vowed to never watch Survivor again if Russell DID win! He was one of the most annoying contestants ever. It almost seemed like there were no other personalities in the entire group so CBS made sure that he was the story line every week. I am still doubtful that he found all the immunity idols on his own, sure seemed like it would benefit CBS if he was around for a long time.

He was to cocky for his own good, he never quit running his mouth and it sure seemed like he was scared of anyone who was able to figure him out or anyone he perceived was more intelligent than him. Just my humble opinion.
 

avstars

New member
64
5.00 star(s)
Russell, if anything, saved this season from becoming the worst season ever. Nobody else bothered playing the game, they're all lame. Russ is easily the best player this season and the only reason he didn't win is because the jury hated his gut. And I could understand that because if you live with someone who has been a jerk to you for about a month, you would probably hesitate writing his name down. But still, Russ was robbed.
 

seawolf17

Active member
1,634
5.00 star(s)
Russell doesn't even reach the final three without Natalie and Mick (and Jaison)... and vice versa. Eric -- in the final statement -- said it best; why is Natalie's game play any worse than Russell's? Just because he found three idols, that means he just gets handed the title? Unfortunately, that's not the way the game works.

The jury is the whole game, and that's what makes it the most fascinating show on television. You need to lie and cheat and alienate these people while at the same time trying to impress them enough to give you a million dollars, even though they (probably) had as direct hand in taking you OUT of that million dollar prize.

Natalie did that; Russell didn't. Yes, he played a heck of a game, and is ONE of the best Survivor contestants ever. (You need to include players like Colby from S2, who won five straight immunities to get to the final two; Long Island Rob, who was such a strong competitor that when he got to the first All-Stars, he got voted out right away; Tom Westman, who won a handful of challenges at the end; Stephanie, who survived alone for a while when her tribe was decimated, then was invited back to the following season and still finished second; Ozzy, who won five or six individual challenges but lost the final; Earl, who went to Exile Island four or five times and still won; and bow-tied Bob Crowley, who was maybe the nicest guy in the history of the game and still won.)

So Russell was good, yes; but not good enough.
 

mrmopar

Active member
621
5.00 star(s)
I stopped watching the show years ago for this very reason. The best players do not usually win. Coat tailers end up winning because they coast under the drama and ride on the back of those better and stronger and then are the "best" choice when going head to head against an aggressive player.

How did we get to the point where everyone is so sensitive about game tactics?

Now Amazing race...I actually laughed when the two brothers stole the other teams cab, wondering why that didn't happen more often. Still, I didn't want them to win, but it was a great move on their part!
 

indigo27

New member
762
5.00 star(s)
It was entertaining, but it was painful to watch the Galu tribe fall apart as spectacularly as they did. I don't think they could've been anymore incompetent as they were.

Russell played better than anyone else, but he neglected to remember that the jury never votes objectively. They all had an axe to grind with him, and they couldn't care less that he outplayed them all.
 

Jeffo65

New member
1,541
5.00 star(s)
Staff member
Russell doesn't even reach the final three without Natalie and Mick (and Jaison)... and vice versa. Eric -- in the final statement -- said it best; why is Natalie's game play any worse than Russell's? Just because he found three idols, that means he just gets handed the title? Unfortunately, that's not the way the game works.

The jury is the whole game, and that's what makes it the most fascinating show on television. You need to lie and cheat and alienate these people while at the same time trying to impress them enough to give you a million dollars, even though they (probably) had as direct hand in taking you OUT of that million dollar prize.

Natalie did that; Russell didn't. Yes, he played a heck of a game, and is ONE of the best Survivor contestants ever. (You need to include players like Colby from S2, who won five straight immunities to get to the final two; Long Island Rob, who was such a strong competitor that when he got to the first All-Stars, he got voted out right away; Tom Westman, who won a handful of challenges at the end; Stephanie, who survived alone for a while when her tribe was decimated, then was invited back to the following season and still finished second; Ozzy, who won five or six individual challenges but lost the final; Earl, who went to Exile Island four or five times and still won; and bow-tied Bob Crowley, who was maybe the nicest guy in the history of the game and still won.)

So Russell was good, yes; but not good enough.

This is all true, except it was Boston Rob, not Long Island Rob. I still think Boston Rob was one of the best to play the game.
 

seawolf17

Active member
1,634
5.00 star(s)
Both Robs were excellent; Boston Rob learned from his mistakes the first time and pulled in Amber in the first All-Stars season, which brought him to the final two. (And won him the million anyway, since he married Amber.)

Long Island Rob was a brilliant strategist who Jeff Probst said (at the time) was the smartest guy he'd ever seen on the show. He would have won, except Jenna Morasca smartly got rid of him after she won the final immunity challenge.
 

pfosset

New member
1,379
5.00 star(s)
i was pissed when russell didnt win, he was by far the best player in the game, and if you want to say who is the :sole surivor: its him, the others couldnt last out there on there own, they were always complaining about something, russell loved the envinroment out there, he was in his element--if you put natalie and russell on a deserted island, who do you think would survive--no brainer there

survivor should change there theme--put a bunch out on a deserted place and who actually lasts the longest

rob
 
Top