January 30, 20188 yr IMO The jury was just butthurt about Russell outplaying them. And they very likely were. That being said, because that seems to always play a factor, you simply can't ignore the social aspect of the game, or be a complete jerk. It's part of the game, and ultimately what wins you the big prize.
January 30, 20188 yr The name of the game is Outwit, outplay, outlast. In no part of that does it imply that it’s a popularity contest. Part of Outwitting is getting the others to vote for you in the end when they really shouldn't. Russell played in a way that while at times he outplayed others and at times did outwit them his game was so scattershot that he was never going to win. Russell was so "In your face" that the others were always looking for a reason or way to get rid of him.
January 30, 20188 yr Author And they very likely were. That being said, because that seems to always play a factor, you simply can't ignore the social aspect of the game, or be a complete jerk. It's part of the game, and ultimately what wins you the big prize. That’s the thing though, he played a great social game. At one point or another virtually every single person in the game believed he was on their side and working with them.
January 30, 20188 yr Author Part of Outwitting is getting the others to vote for you in the end when they really shouldn't. Russell played in a way that while at times he outplayed others and at times did outwit them his game was so scattershot that he was never going to win. Russell was so "In your face" that the others were always looking for a reason or way to get rid of him. Yet he still made it to the end and it wasn’t because he was winning challenges but rather he made the right people feel comfortable at the right time to keep him in the game.
January 30, 20188 yr Yet he still made it to the end and it wasn’t because he was winning challenges but rather he made the right people feel comfortable at the right time to keep him in the game. But did he win? :lol2: That is the hole in his game, he never could get over the hump. Had he actually won a season then he could be considered with some others in the GOAT conversation...but Russell is on the outside looking in. The better question may be is Russell the best player to never win? He'd have to be at or near the top of that list.
January 30, 20188 yr Author But did he win? :lol2: That is the hole in his game, he never could get over the hump. Had he actually won a season then he could be considered with some others in the GOAT conversation...but Russell is on the outside looking in. The better question may be is Russell the best player to never win? He'd have to be at or near the top of that list. I will again have to continue to disagree. He should have won twice. Especially Samoa. It’s basically silly to suggest otherwise. There was nothing different Russell could have done to make it to the end. He controlled every vote while constantly having people coming after him. There isn’t even a debate that he’s the best player to never win.
January 31, 20188 yr Goal number 1 = make it to the end. Goal number 2 = gets more votes than the people sitting next to you. If people don't like you, they have the at least respect you, or you don't have a chance. In a game where everybody knows you have to lie at some point to win it doesn't matter if you win every challenge and dictate every vote, Russell has never given people be played with a reason to like him, and very few have respected him. The fact that Natalie won against him head to head shows that he could play every season and never be the last one standing.
January 31, 20188 yr Author Goal number 1 = make it to the end. Goal number 2 = gets more votes than the people sitting next to you. If people don't like you, they have the at least respect you, or you don't have a chance. In a game where everybody knows you have to lie at some point to win it doesn't matter if you win every challenge and dictate every vote, Russell has never given people be played with a reason to like him, and very few have respected him. The fact that Natalie won against him head to head shows that he could play every season and never be the last one standing. The fact that Natalie won just shows that CBS did a horrendous job casting the Samoa season. At least with HvV he was up against two people who weren’t duds which made it easy to vote against him, but Samoa was a joke plain and simple.
January 31, 20188 yr If you don't ever win, you can't be the GOAT. I really, really liked Russell. But, how many people get taken to the final vote because their competition knows that they can't win? It happens every season. Russell never had a chance because of the game that he played. He was very resilient, but no one thought that he would beat them at the end. Sometimes you are pulled to the end because your opposition knows you did nothing and they can beat you. Sometimes you try to choose your opposition but you are the one that can garner no votes. Ben from last season should be a top 10 guy because he had to play idols AND play a great social game.
January 31, 20188 yr When the show first started I remember an interview with Mark Burnett talking about the dynamics of the show and he said then that the show was purposely set up so that people who had seen their million dollar dreams dashed would be the ones who decided the winner. Survivor is not just a strategy game, it's not just a competition game and it's not just a social game, it's a combination of all of the above. Some years some aspects outweigh the others but they are always in play. Russell clearly took people to the final in Samoa with him that he thought were so inept that no one would vote for them regardless of how poorly he treated the other people on the jury. He miscalculated and it cost him. I maintain that had Samoa aired before HvsV was filmed and the people playing that season had seen what kind of player Russell was he would have been gone early in that season, just like he was in his third appearance. We only see a small percentage of the actual interactions the players have over the 39 days of the game. Who knows the full extent of Russell's antics and how much we didn't see? It's really easy to watch Survivor from the comfort of your home and say you would never let your bitterness make you vote for an "unworthy" player. Who knows, maybe I could be like Spencer and make an impassioned jury speech to combat bitter jury. I do know that if I ever played Survivor (no chance by the way) and I did make it to the jury only to have my million dollar hope shattered by a player like Russell it would be very difficult to overcome my bitterness and disappointment to reward them with the big prixe.
February 1, 20188 yr Author When the show first started I remember an interview with Mark Burnett talking about the dynamics of the show and he said then that the show was purposely set up so that people who had seen their million dollar dreams dashed would be the ones who decided the winner. Survivor is not just a strategy game, it's not just a competition game and it's not just a social game, it's a combination of all of the above. Some years some aspects outweigh the others but they are always in play. Russell clearly took people to the final in Samoa with him that he thought were so inept that no one would vote for them regardless of how poorly he treated the other people on the jury. He miscalculated and it cost him. I maintain that had Samoa aired before HvsV was filmed and the people playing that season had seen what kind of player Russell was he would have been gone early in that season, just like he was in his third appearance. We only see a small percentage of the actual interactions the players have over the 39 days of the game. Who knows the full extent of Russell's antics and how much we didn't see? It's really easy to watch Survivor from the comfort of your home and say you would never let your bitterness make you vote for an "unworthy" player. Who knows, maybe I could be like Spencer and make an impassioned jury speech to combat bitter jury. I do know that if I ever played Survivor (no chance by the way) and I did make it to the jury only to have my million dollar hope shattered by a player like Russell it would be very difficult to overcome my bitterness and disappointment to reward them with the big prixe. Why? Because he's there are you're not? Samoa gave us the worst survivor winner of all time. She should have been required to donate that million dollars to charity because it was wrongly awarded to her. So what Russell made promises and lied, dumped out some water, and buried a machete. Rupert stole from another tribe in Pearl Islands and is viewed as one of the favorite survivors ever.
February 1, 20188 yr Why? Because he's there are you're not? To answer your why, he was a major jerk throughout the whole season. There is a big difference between lying and being deceitful because it's your strategy or game play vs. just be a complete jerk, which he was. I think people can look past being lied to our screwed over by someone, but not if they also come across the way Russell continually did, from what I remember. I say all that as someone who thoroughly enjoyed watching him.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.