Amph Survivor 25 - Philippines

No. It was a huge, huge gamble. It all hinged on Tyson being really dumb. Because Tom is right, Rob thought of everything that it was possible for him to control. He has no way ultimately to make people vote the way they've agreed on. How was he to know Tyson would be so stupid? You can't account for someone else's actions. Russell was taking a huge, huge risk and he knew it. They showed him talking about how uncertain he was about it, too.

His character? He has possibly less character than anyone else to play the game. And you know, I really think Russell will be going soon. Either that or he'll get close to the final two, but won't make it in. Because he was practically crying at the other reunion, so obviously he didn't make it. But still wanted to pay someone to call him sole Survivor? Come no. That's just pitiful. The guy has a serious inferiority complex.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

I meant that he's a character, not that he has character...I guess. Also, I thought it was hilarious when he asked for the title. Also, I felt that he deserved it more than her anyways. It's funny though, Richard Hatch even told him that he'd never win.

 

You know, at first I was really pissed he didn't win because I felt he deserved it more. But you know, the social game is a huge, huge part of the game. And honestly, for a woman who's not physically strong and whom no one is likely to listen to, playing a good social game *is* key.

Yeah, Russell is interesting to have there as a character. But honestly he's way more annoying this season. Probably because he's so defensive now that he's among people who are smart and good at this game.

But really, the begging for the title was funny to you? I mean, he was practically crying. I just thought it was really sad. This guy just seems obsessed with being 'the best'. Or moreso, with having people think he is.


-sj loves kevin spacey

 

But you forget...I have no soul.

[image=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/61/198011333_6d86224407.jpg]

 

There becomes a tipping point where people will WANT to take Russell to the finale, because they know the jury will never give him the million. Whether or not Russell can last that long is a gamble (merge may help).

No matter what though, he'll never actully win. because he annoys / backstabs too many fellow competitors along the way.

 

There have been exceptions but too often playing a good social game means latching onto someone who controls the game, and then fading into the background. I can't respect that.

Giving up the idol was the best decision Russell could have made at that point in time. He didn't outthink Rob (although if Rob knew that Tyson was dying to get Parvati out more than some of the others he could have had Tyson vote for Parvati and have someone else vote for Russell) but he certainly came out on top. With great risk comes great rewards. Some of the time, anyways. And personally, I'd much rather see a ballsy player make it far.

I'd love for Rob, Russell, and Coach to be the final 3. Although I normally prefer a final 2.

 

Precisely. Russell knew he had everything to lose or everything to gain. He could've used the idol for himself but that would've only delayed his inevitable elimination, probably pre-merge. But by giving it to Parvati, he just poured cement on that alliance, plus he shows Danielle that she could be regarded in just the same way. Plus he gained Coach's loyalty far more than that little knighting charade from two weeks ago. BTW, guess who told Russell what Rob's exact plan was? And which people were voting which way?

Coach.

He was gonna go with the numbers, but Russell's connecting with him at least prompted him to show Russell where the cracks were.

 

I somewhat agree, but here's the problem. It's totally different for guys than for women. If a smart guy has ideas, people listen to him. If a smart woman has ideas about who to vote out, what strategy to take, etc... well, she's usually labeled a *****.

It's a sad reflection of societal attitudes towards women. I think we've hardly had any smart women go very far in this game. Remember Betsy from last season? The only person who knew exactly what kind of trouble Russell was from the beginning? Yeah.


-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Okay, I've been dealing with this for months. I have to let it out. I absolutely hate this thread, because every time I read "Heroes" in the title, I think it's a discussion of that now-failing show about people with superpowers. And then I find out it's a reality show. Which makes me hate you all. There I said it.

 

I've repressed all memories of that show you speak of.

 

I feel Survivor is more of an extreme game show than a 'reality' show. The kind of reality shows that are completely banal are the ones where we're just following people around for no reason. Some competition shows are actually okay. I normally don't watch reality at all, but Survivor is a brilliant microcosm of society. And I'm not ashamed to love it.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

sj: Much agreed! People always look at me funny when I tell them I watch Survivor, as though that's as nutty as watching Matlock reruns or Jeopardy all the time.

The first season of Heroes was excellent. And then from season 2 on, it's like... what happened?

 

I don't really buy that, for the most part. Off the top of my head I can think of Cirie and Parvati who took control and pulled the strings to get ahead. I don't think anyone called either of them *****es. Russell has ideas and takes charge and people think he's an ass, but he's able to get it done. Didn't Betsy go up to Russell and tell him that she didn't trust him (I could be wrong as I tend to forget a season once it's are over)? To me, that seems more like putting a target on your own back than taking control of the game.

 

No, Russell asked her. He was the one who approached her. She just said she wasn't sure she trusted him.

Cirie is the only woman I can think of who's been a dominant strategic force on the show who hasn't been labeled a ***** or a vixen. Parvarti is clearly seen as a vixen and in a negative light. Cirie probably isn't only because she's not s typically attractive, skinny little white girl.

Pretty young women on the show can't be taken seriously. If they seriously wanted to be a strong mental or physical leader, they'd be laughed at or voted out. Their only tactic is to manipulate and flirt, which then gets them labeled and edited negatively. Hence how Parvarti wound up as a "Villain" in the first place.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

I like Parvati...

And I was happy to see Cirie go--mostly because I felt her, Candice, and JT were messing up the heroes team from the start...

Especially JT, who essentially split the tribe from the get-go with his double-crossing alliances.

And I miss Tom...

 

Okay, but even so, she should have lied. It's pretty stupid to tell the truth in that situation.

Regardless of how Parvati was viewed, she got to the end because she influenced the game to her benefit. Coach got labeled as a Villain and he's the most honourable Survivor ever! But really, if someone cares how they're labeled by the media or viewing public, they shouldn't be out there.

From what I recall Amanda was quite a strategic player, making it to the final twice and losing mainly because she is possibly the worst ever at answering questions. And she's your typically attractive (for some ), skinny little white girl. Also, there have been many, many women on the show who weren't white, skinny, or typical so how does that apply to them? If Cirie can do it, any with the ability have a shot.

 

Amanda is dumb as a brick.

And I don't just mean a label like what team you're put on or how they portray you on TV. Those things are just reflections of how we label strong women in general. Parvarti was strategic, but she couldn't be strategic in the outright way that guys on the show can be. People don't just listen to a woman, she has to coax them into it somehow. This really isn't news to women.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

What do you mean by "outright way?" Are you talking about leadership? If a woman wants to become a leader (like Rob), they'll just kick her to the curb?

I thought Parvati was pretty outright and bold with her previous strategies (when she won sole survivor)--forming the alliance and what-not.

People don't just listen to a woman, she has to coax them into it somehow.

You make this sound so absolute, but is it? What do you mean by "coax?" When Russell uses someone else's weakness in order to exploit them and encourage them to listen to him--is that the type of "coaxing" you're talking about?

So a woman can't just say--"go get the immunity idol?" She has to bat her eyelashes and act like she needs saving so that someone will help her out/do what she tells them to?

It's a curious question--could there be a female version of Rob, essentially--If a woman stepped up and did the same things he did, would it work?

I like that you brought this up.

 

See, that's exactly what I mean. I don't think there could be a female version of Rob. A female with Rob's smarts and personality would not be seen as the instant leader that Rob is. Women have to be manipulative. Men can be, too (as Russell is). But when has there ever been a female leader of the tribe in this show? It's pretty representative of real life, IMHO.

Which is why I don't completely devalue "coat tails" as a method for getting far in the game as a woman. You still have to know who to ally yourself with and how not to get labeled as an annoying, weak idiot.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Actually, I can think of three bonafide female leaders:

1.) Tina, Outback. She was seen as a kind of matriarchal figure.
2.) Ami, Vanuatu. Although she was leader of an admittedly all-women alliance.
3.) Stephanie, Palau. She led the losing-est tribe ever, but she was still the leader.
4.) Stephanie, Guatemala. She basically led and called the shots from the beginning.

I would've included Laura, Samoa, in that list, but castaway interviews have revealed that it was Brett (surprise, surprise!) who led that tribe, something which editing looked over to focus on other things like Russell, Laura, Shambo, etc...

edit: actually, just for the heck of it, let's list successful male leaders, too. The criteria for successful meaning having made it far in the game.

1.) Mike Skupin, Outback. He was the first true alpha-male leader the show has ever had. Kucha basically bowed down to the guy. Too bad he fell in the fire! Come back for an all-stars sometime, Mike! I know Colby was also an alpha-male, but he didn't actually do any real leadership, you know?
2.) Brian Heidik, Thailand. I'm not sure about this one. He was definitely a manipulator, but still looked up to as the leader of his tribe, before and after the merge.
3.) Rupert, Pearl Islands. No explanation necessary.
4.) Robfather, All-Stars. No explanation necessary.
5.) Tom Westman, Palau. No expla- bla bla bla...
6.) Marcus, Gabon. He would've made it even farther than he did had he not made two boneheaded mistakes at the merge: firstly, thrown the idol in the ocean and secondly, told Susie where exactly on the totem pole she was.
7.) J.T., Tocantins. No explanation needed.
8.) Brett, Samoa. But that wasn't shown. Makes you wonder how many other leaders, male and female, haven't been shown because of editing.
9.) Robfather, HvV. Rocking the house right now. But, of course, the game isn't very far in yet...

btw, it's nice that a Survivor thread is getting some sustained discussion mid-season for once, instead of a little warble of life every Thursday and Friday. We can thank Russell (or Tyson?) for that!

edit 2: I just realized the game had its first two-time female leader (Steph) before it had its first two-time male leader (Robfather).

 

I can't stand Amanda but she is clearly not dumb. You're deluding yourself if you think so.

Parvati didn't flirt with her female alliance in order to get them to go along with her.

There's nothing wrong with being manipulative in Survivor. I respect that. What I don't respect is someone who latches onto someone who is calling the shots and rides their coattails. Someone like that is worthless.

You don't have to be 'tribe leader' to influence or control the game.

 

Honestly, I always thought the "heroes & villains" thing was fun, but for anyone to take it too seriously, I think that's a little silly. Riding coat-tails, coaxing/snaking your way through, dominating in the physical challenges, etc.

The point is to win the game any way you can. Some people may do it in a "villainous" or "heroic" way, but at the end of the day, it's about winning.

I don't think Natalie deserved to win Samoa, but I can see why she won (the speech given by Erik, and the fact that she was up against Russell's poor social game).

I've rooted for plenty of female contestants, however, whether they were riding coat-tails or not. It is interesting though, to see whether or not women can win one way or another compared to the men (and how that may reflect society in general). I think the same then probably goes for the men--riding coat-tails may make a guy look weak, and he'll get voted out for being weak, or for just being some form of a "little man"--chooses not to lead or step up and is therefore accused of being useless.

The men and women clearly may not be able to play the game the same way. An insecure woman, for example, probably has a better shot at going far because she might be considered "cute," when an insecure man will just be considered "weak." At the same time, it's always good to bring along a "weak" player or a player who is perhaps too bold (Russell)--when you know they'll lose.

I dunno, but anyways, there have been plenty of awesome women on the show in my opinion--and it's always the people that adapt to the reality of any given situation who seem to win this game (as frustrating as that reality may sometimes be).

But hey, speaking of women who tell people what to do, Bigelow won an academy award. Maybe she should compete on Survivor?

EDIT: She won 2.

 

She won two.

 

New episode tonight!

this show.