Russell is not a sociopath. They should've voted for him because of how genuine he was at FTC. Because it was a lackluster plan to begin with. All it entailed was latching onto Russell as his pet goat, doing everything he told her to, and mooching off of his success. It may have gotten her the win, but she has ABSOLUTE reason to be proud of HOW she achieved it. All she did was reinforce female stereotypes about being subservient and not in any way independent.
I was planning on doing an intro like this (based on other alternate intros I've seen from you), and you actually did what I was trying to accomplish. lol
Where did you get the scenes to make those shots? I know some are from the episodes, but some like jerri and parvati's close ups? I would love to know as i am trying to make my own intro shots of survivors too.
Personality and demeanor are intertwined with each other. 1. Zapatera was filled with older, more paranoid players who wouldn't have accepted any offers of an alliance from him. 2. Pretty much everyone searches for the idol these days; Russell knows how important it is to be in possession of it. 3. How would you know what his work ethic is like if we only see a small fraction of what goes on out there? 4. Had Russell been put on Ometepe, he would've been the leader as well.
Russell understands the game perfectly well. The sole reason why he doesn't win is because of his polarizing personality; you either vote for him or against him. Use a different season as an example, because Troyzan and Kim were the only two players there. Russell's a great player period; RI was so soon after Samoa and HvV that he was still too fresh in everyone's minds. And getting to the finals IS a big achievement. WHEN he returns, he'll make the finals again, and win at last.
I see your point. Female Alliances in survivor can be deadly, especially when they are competing with guys that don't have much going on upstairs (if you know what I mean). The current season is shaping up to be much like Micronesia. The merge occurred when there were 12 players left, 6 men and 6 women. The first merged vote a man got voted off, now mind you there was a tribe switch and there were 7 (3 men and 4 women) on one side and 5 ( 3 men and 2 women on the other).
Did they actually show him planning against the others? Because all I remember was him targeting Ralph because he made a big deal out of the idol clue when he already was in possession of it. Rob wouldn't have been able to adapt if he was put on Zapatera; he himself admitted this. Just because one is perceived as being lazy doesn't mean they are.
Okay, now I know you know you're wrong if you just said that. The whole point of the jury is to choose who they believe was the better player. What I'm saying is the jury should base their votes entirely on HOW one got to the end. Like, if they believe playing UTR has more merit, than they'd vote for Natalie. if they believe that actively playing the game and being willing to put yourself in the line of fire has more merit, than they'd vote for Russell.
Here's the thing, though; Survivor isn't like a typical game. The decisions you make in say, YuGiOh, are completely your own and aren't tangled up with that of 15-19 other people. If you lose, it's because you didn't build a good deck and/or didn't play your cards right, while your opponent did. In Survivor, your decisions are never entirely your own. The only thing you do have control over is how you perceive your competition. If the jury perceives you to be . . .
Actually yes, they think he's the better player. A lot of the videos of the jury members before FTC had them saying Russell played better, but they were voting for Natalie just because she's more likable. And again, you don't have control over the jury votes, only the jury does. If a particular finalist doesn't win, any and all blame falls squarely on the jury. BTW Erik said at the reunion that winning Survivor is arbitrary.
That is why I think Russell doesn't understand the game. It's not about playing as hard as you can. It's about how can you manipulate people and vote them out so that the blame is not only on you. Also, developing a genuine relationship helps a lot (see season 24.) Russell's a great player if nobody knows who he is and if you consider getting to the finals a big achievement. Also, he was the mastermind and the goat at the same time which is pretty ridiculous...
In Survivor, people generally cease working in order to conserve energy for challenges or think about their long term gameplan. Like Russell said at the beginning of Samoa, "I didn't come here to work, I came here to play!"
@lbblur Yeah, who are some of your favorite Survivor players. I have SO many, but my all time favorites have got to be Stepahnie, Sandra, Fabio, and Yau Man.
@DaSquireKing Eh I disagree on that count. Natalie made one big move in the whole game whereas Russel brought his alliance as far as he possibly could. Russel was a great ally to have and played an incredible strategic game. Natalie didn't do anything that could piss the jury off because she didn't do ANYTHING
There are some things that you can't justly blame the finalists for, and Ponderosa is one of them. There is no way to truly adapt to it anyway. And Russell would've won had he voted Natalie out at the final five and brought Jaison to the end instead. Plus, Shambo (at least) DID have nice things to say about him upon being voted out.
You seem to miss my point. Finalists should be judged EXCLUSIVELY on the actions they took to make it to the end; the jury's opinion is whether or not they believe one's actions have more merit than someone else's. Even Shambo's vote was based on stupidity; John was the only one who let emotion go and put actual thought into his decision. If the jury voted for Natalie because they believed her gameplay had more merit to it than Russell's, that'd be fine. But it's quite clear they didn't.
Better boot order for HvV's merge 10th: Parvati - gave idols to Jerri and Sandra not thinking the heroes will vote for her. 9th: Russell - no more idols 8th: Jerri - not likeable 7th: Amanda - tried to form an all girl's alliance but Candice is not onboard 6th: Sandra - lied 5th: Danielle - last of villains 4th: Rupert - too likeable Final 3: 3rd: Candice - 0 votes 2nd: Colby - (Jerri) Winner: JT - everyone except Jerri votes for JT
He meant everything he said about Brett being a great guy. And yes, he treated Galu like shit, but only because they treated Shambo like shit as well. And he was acting cocky because he was playing so dominantly. The most important aspect of the game is making it to the end, because otherwise you can't win. Winning in Survivor is arbitrary, and doing so doesn't in itself prove your a great player. What proves whether a winner is also a great player are the reasons why people voted for them.
That's not the point; the point is that the shark is to be respected more. Russell never bullshitted anyone; he wasn't afraid to tell it like he saw it to anyone's face. Russell is also friends with many jurors. You're problem is that you're equating pleasantness with kindness. There's a difference between the two.
She doesn't seem to hold anything against him, even after watching the show. It's not about popularity. The jury doesn't hold the majority opinion of all the people who COULD'VE been cast in their place. If they had cast more people like John and Shambo, than Russell would've won in a landslide. Like I said, the only way to be accurately deemed the best is for EVERYONE in the world to agree to it.
How was he to know they were bitter crybabies? From what was shown, they didn't make it all too clear that they were. Besides, Russell DID adapt and plead his case at FTC. He answered all given questions honestly and in a convincing manner, and was quick to throw Natalie and Mick under the bus for their gameplay. Also, wasn't the whole thing between the two of them all about Brett trying to persuade Russell to vote out Mick instead?
He only voted for Sandra because Rupert was at Ponderosa lobbying for her. As someone who's seen more of Russell than his edited portrayal on TV, I KNOW that he's a good person at heart. When you're playing Survivor so dominantly, it's hard to not be an ass, regardless if it's in front of the cameras or in front of everyone else. Yes, those traits should be rewarded if they're genuine. I'd rather be hurt by truth than be blinded by bullshit. Also, saying he's egomaniacal is going too far.
I know what you mean. but basically, even most other members are neither hero nor villains. I think only Russel is a complete villain in this season. rob and parvati and cirie are somehow villains. and only tom deserved to be called hero in this season. but most members are really unique in the season.
Tina did not play Colby. She only won by a single vote anyway. There's only one reason Tina managed to play so well strategically, and that is because of Micheal's accident. Had it never occurred, Ogakor would've either been outnumbered 6-4 or Kucha would've gone to TC and voted out Jeff. This was at a time when the game wasn't too developed, and Tina's "big decisions" could've been enacted by anyone from her tribe.
I liked all these more. i like how must of them showed them walking off the choppers. I think they should've had 1 shot of them getting of the chopper and another random shot. I loved the Rob one ALOT better than the original because in the original he has mud all over him so it like ruins his shots.
They kept Parvati separated from Amanda and Cirie, the two of which never had a strong enough connection in the first place. No one with good taste could like the second half of micronesia; after Jonathan Penner left, it all went downhill.
well i guess the question is "better at what?" There are certain things that Russell is better, or even best at, but the winners all have a better social game. Russell is definitely a better physical and strategy player then, say, sandra
They didn't hate Natalie and Philip more, they were just frustrated at how blindly loyal they were to Rob. Yes, people lie in the game, but on the jury (outside of the game) they have all the power for how the game ends; meaning, they have a great responsibility on their hands.
i was being sarcastic....but how can you keep 3 people separated across 2 tribes? that's a pretty silly statement. also, i like micro. probably a top 8 season for me. does tht mean im an idiot?
Let me rephrase what I said; if the jury lets their opinion of you influence their vote, that's their fault, not yours. People's opinions of Russell are FAR from near-universally negative. His double victory in Sprint Player of the Season is proof.
@lbblur Probably Samoa. I loved seeing Foura Foura defy all odds making it to the end against a seemingly strong group of eight. I mean is that even possible!? Russel is a Survivor Genius! And I actually thought Natalie was a deserving winner. I enjoyed Gabon, Cook Islands, and Vanuatu a lot too. What about you?
Tina did not play Colby; he was well aware she'd be harder to beat than Keith. Terry's elimination was the obvious reason why the final three FTC was implemented. Are you really that shallow and ignorant? Rob played FOUR times while Russell played THREE times. Russell DID change his game in RI (game and personality are COMPLETELY separate from each other), but suffered from damaged reputation just like Rob did in HvV. When Russell comes back a fourth time, he'll end up winning.
Yes you can, Russell controlled the entire course of the game and was wholly responsible for Natalie and Mick reaching the end. I suppose you can say there's really two games in Survivor; 1. Outwitting, Outplaying, and Outlasting everyone to reach the end. 2. Play to the jury a.l.a. Apples to Apples. Russell is, undeniably, the best player of the first game, which is the more important of the two and the only one you have control over. Only the jury has a say in who wins, not the finalists.
@lbblur Hmmm...well, I think they both deserved. My point is I think Natalie played the perfect game for the season she was given. Had she done more than merely ride Russel's coatails before the merge, she would have been gone! I'm hoping we can agree she deserved it more than Mick though. Whereas Natalie actually had a strategy to ride coatails, Mick mindlessly rode them. He had no strategy.
Saying they destroyed Natalie at FTC is exaggerating it WAY too much. There IS a right way to vote; votes should be cast based on the merit of ones actions in getting to FTC and not on how likable they are as people.
Maybe because he knew she wouldn't be offended, which she apparently wasn't? Just because you win doesn't mean you're the best; you're only the best in the opinion of everyone who votes for you at FTC. And what's 1-9 votes compared to the MILLIONS of other people's had they been cast instead. The only way to say one's the best is to be voted for by the majority of Earth's human population.
Jury votes are the only way to measure how likable you are in Survivor, NOT how good you are. Actually, it's easy to judge one's SKILL through a T.V. show; skill and likabliity are COMPLETELY separate from each other. If the jury in Samoa was judging based on skill, Russell would've won in a landslide.
My ideal cast with 2 tribes with 24 castaways, including people from $21 to $24 Heroes: Colby, Rupert, Tom, Yau-man, J.T., Ozzy, Stephanie, Amanda, Cirie, Taj, Andrea, Dawn Villains: Richard, Rob.M, Russell, Coach, Phillip, Colton, Jerri, Shi-Ann, Parvati, Courtney, Sandra, Shambo
No they haven't. The jury in RI voted with their brains instead of their hearts; so did the jury in Borneo, Panama, and China. The final 2/3 doesn't do any work, only lobbying through begs, pleads, persuasion, and (in Tom Westman and J.T.'s cases) being genuine. You can't blame the finalists for not getting the vote because they have no control over whether or not they get it. The jury takes all blame for how they vote; think of it as crime without punishment.
Some of those are true, yes, but he only forged alliances with everyone pre-merge so he could keep his position in the game secure. John and Shambo took their eliminations with dignity and grace, and still voted for the best player in the end. Jaison only went because Russell had to make a decision between voting him out because Natalie's easier to beat or voting Natalie out because Jaison's more likely to win the final immunity challenge instead of Brett.
But would he have stood up for her had he known she was responsible for his elimination? The way the jurors talked in their videos made it sound like they believed they would easily vote for whoever played the best game at first, than they came into the game and realized it wasn't so easy. Yes, he failed to win, but one doesn't have control over whether they win, only whether they reach the end. Besides, even though Natalie won, she's widely considered to be the worst winner ever.
No, they hated their blind allegiance to Rob, not them as people. SUE thought Kelly was wishy washy and two faced. Everyone was indifferent between Danielle and Aras (Shane admitted that Danielle played more honorably than Aras). The jury in China hated all three of them, but voted for Todd because he was willing to own up to all the lies he had to tell to reach FTC. Yes, the jury should have control over the vote, but they should also be responsible with it. Tom and J.T. won for being heroes.
You're only describing his gameplay in HvV, which was sloppy because he had just finished Samoa and hadn't fully recovered yet from it. It didn't matter who he brought to the end in Samoa; as he stated in his interview with Rob C, Dave and Laura were trying to split the jury votes at Ponderosa so he would get third place because they were bitter crybabies who couldn't man up and admit defeat. As for HvV, the juries are ALWAYS bitter, so his loss really proves nothing.
She wasn't genuinely nice because there's no such thing in the first place. People like Russell Hantz and Tom Westman are genuine because what they say is never too good to be true and their statements are evenly positive/negative in delivery. What's not commendable are her actions (or lack thereof) in playing the game. Think of it like this: creatures called remoras often attach to sharks. While the shark tears through all opposition, the remora just latches on like a parasite. Continued . . .
@lbblur I think Natalie deserved her win, Russel played in a way that made it almost impossible to garnish jury votes. Nat, on the other had, made big moves, like targeting Erik while letting Russel take the heat. If she hadn't done this Foa Foa would never have taken the lead. Russel is perhaps the most brilliantly strategic, he is far from the overall best. True, Nat did nothing more than ride Russel's coat tails for the first half the game, but that was what she had to do to stay alive.
No, the jury in HvV hated Russell. The jury in Samoa was just bitter that someone so arrogant outplayed all of them. Sandra talked so much about wanting Russell out, yet her actions showed a lack of commitment to achieving that goal. If that's what a goat is, than Natalie is definitely a goat, since Russell wanted her in the end because of her lackluster gameplay and coattail riding. You can tell if someone is genuine by what they say. People like Russell Hantz and Tom Westman are genuine.
Sandra was hypocritical in her talk of wanting Russell out of the game. A goat is someone who just follows the dominant player; Russell has never been a goat in all the times he's played. Natalie WAS INDEED a goat, even if it was her strategy. If Natalie had been voted out at the final five, Russell would've won the game. They didn't hate Russell, they were just bitter that he outplayed them. If they had known Natalie's mindset, they would've realized just how much more genuine Russell was.
Production is entirely to blame; they need to keep jurors separate from each other, plain and simple. He didn't do it because Mick and Natalie were more idyllic choices. Russell just made the mistake of assuming the jury would use their brains when voting, which is kinda funny because one needs to HAVE brains in the first place, which Galu clearly did not have.
It's not as clear as you'd like to think. People equate influence with bullshit, and some people would rather not stoop to that level, like Russell. In fact, that's the primary reason why people love him; he isn't full of shit, unlike Boston Rob.
True, true, but the thing about J.T. and Tom is that they were GENUINELY likable. Natalie and Sandra were so full of bullshit it was too much for me to handle.
![Survivor 20 Heroes vs Villains opening credits [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wHJ2ANCbiIM/mqdefault.jpg)
Imagine spelling Jerri wrong lmao
Nice job, but you spelled Jerri's name wrong. And well, to be honest, I don't know if it's possible to make Rob's original HvV shot any more epic.
Russell is not a sociopath. They should've voted for him because of how genuine he was at FTC. Because it was a lackluster plan to begin with. All it entailed was latching onto Russell as his pet goat, doing everything he told her to, and mooching off of his success. It may have gotten her the win, but she has ABSOLUTE reason to be proud of HOW she achieved it. All she did was reinforce female stereotypes about being subservient and not in any way independent.
Courtney needs no changes, her shot is beautiful
You spelled Jerri's name wrong
I was planning on doing an intro like this (based on other alternate intros I've seen from you), and you actually did what I was trying to accomplish. lol
If James was an animal, he would be a Jaquar just cause of the way he looked in this intro
Jerri and Jt shot are amazing !!! Better than the original. anddddd Sandra walking like a true sassy queen !
i love parvati's intro in this!
Best theme of Survivor!! i REALLY want to be on this show
My only problem is Jerri is spelt Jerry
Where did you get the scenes to make those shots? I know some are from the episodes, but some like jerri and parvati's close ups? I would love to know as i am trying to make my own intro shots of survivors too.
21 and 22 were both in Nicaragua and 23 and 24 were both in Samoa - same locations!
Personality and demeanor are intertwined with each other.
1. Zapatera was filled with older, more paranoid players who wouldn't have accepted any offers of an alliance from him. 2. Pretty much everyone searches for the idol these days; Russell knows how important it is to be in possession of it. 3. How would you know what his work ethic is like if we only see a small fraction of what goes on out there? 4. Had Russell been put on Ometepe, he would've been the leader as well.
How come the men didn't stick together? I'm still try'n to figure that one out. Oye!!!
She was 7 or 8th voted out look on wiki her real name is jessica smith
Russell understands the game perfectly well. The sole reason why he doesn't win is because of his polarizing personality; you either vote for him or against him. Use a different season as an example, because Troyzan and Kim were the only two players there. Russell's a great player period; RI was so soon after Samoa and HvV that he was still too fresh in everyone's minds. And getting to the finals IS a big achievement. WHEN he returns, he'll make the finals again, and win at last.
yes, of course i would. im not saying it was ethically correct or anything but it doesnt take away from the move being fantastic
@DaSquireKing Yeah i guess Ozzy can seem that way but its entertaining to see him dominate challenges
which was your favorite season?
I see your point. Female Alliances in survivor can be deadly, especially when they are competing with guys that don't have much going on upstairs (if you know what I mean). The current season is shaping up to be much like Micronesia. The merge occurred when there were 12 players left, 6 men and 6 women. The first merged vote a man got voted off, now mind you there was a tribe switch and there were 7 (3 men and 4 women) on one side and 5 ( 3 men and 2 women on the other).
Did they actually show him planning against the others? Because all I remember was him targeting Ralph because he made a big deal out of the idol clue when he already was in possession of it. Rob wouldn't have been able to adapt if he was put on Zapatera; he himself admitted this. Just because one is perceived as being lazy doesn't mean they are.
Okay, now I know you know you're wrong if you just said that. The whole point of the jury is to choose who they believe was the better player. What I'm saying is the jury should base their votes entirely on HOW one got to the end. Like, if they believe playing UTR has more merit, than they'd vote for Natalie. if they believe that actively playing the game and being willing to put yourself in the line of fire has more merit, than they'd vote for Russell.
Great opening shots of Rob and J.T.
But for some reason we didn’t see them do this challenge
How was it ill-conceived? I'm not saying your wrong. I just want your opinion, I'm curious.
They spelled Jerris name wrong
Here's the thing, though; Survivor isn't like a typical game. The decisions you make in say, YuGiOh, are completely your own and aren't tangled up with that of 15-19 other people. If you lose, it's because you didn't build a good deck and/or didn't play your cards right, while your opponent did. In Survivor, your decisions are never entirely your own. The only thing you do have control over is how you perceive your competition. If the jury perceives you to be . . .
i love the intro & theme! very inspiring!!
Actually yes, they think he's the better player. A lot of the videos of the jury members before FTC had them saying Russell played better, but they were voting for Natalie just because she's more likable. And again, you don't have control over the jury votes, only the jury does. If a particular finalist doesn't win, any and all blame falls squarely on the jury. BTW Erik said at the reunion that winning Survivor is arbitrary.
That is why I think Russell doesn't understand the game. It's not about playing as hard as you can. It's about how can you manipulate people and vote them out so that the blame is not only on you. Also, developing a genuine relationship helps a lot (see season 24.) Russell's a great player if nobody knows who he is and if you consider getting to the finals a big achievement. Also, he was the mastermind and the goat at the same time which is pretty ridiculous...
In Survivor, people generally cease working in order to conserve energy for challenges or think about their long term gameplan. Like Russell said at the beginning of Samoa, "I didn't come here to work, I came here to play!"
Garnering jury votes isn't part of outwitting. And who's to say Russell won't win when (not if) he plays again?
@lbblur Yeah, who are some of your favorite Survivor players. I have SO many, but my all time favorites have got to be Stepahnie, Sandra, Fabio, and Yau Man.
@DaSquireKing Eh I disagree on that count. Natalie made one big move in the whole game whereas Russel brought his alliance as far as he possibly could. Russel was a great ally to have and played an incredible strategic game. Natalie didn't do anything that could piss the jury off because she didn't do ANYTHING
Their are like 20 21 differences in the video compared to the original.
There are some things that you can't justly blame the finalists for, and Ponderosa is one of them. There is no way to truly adapt to it anyway. And Russell would've won had he voted Natalie out at the final five and brought Jaison to the end instead. Plus, Shambo (at least) DID have nice things to say about him upon being voted out.
You seem to miss my point. Finalists should be judged EXCLUSIVELY on the actions they took to make it to the end; the jury's opinion is whether or not they believe one's actions have more merit than someone else's. Even Shambo's vote was based on stupidity; John was the only one who let emotion go and put actual thought into his decision. If the jury voted for Natalie because they believed her gameplay had more merit to it than Russell's, that'd be fine. But it's quite clear they didn't.
Parvati's is amazing
Better boot order for HvV's merge
10th: Parvati - gave idols to Jerri and Sandra not thinking the heroes will vote for her.
9th: Russell - no more idols
8th: Jerri - not likeable
7th: Amanda - tried to form an all girl's alliance but Candice is not onboard
6th: Sandra - lied
5th: Danielle - last of villains
4th: Rupert - too likeable
Final 3:
3rd: Candice - 0 votes
2nd: Colby - (Jerri)
Winner: JT - everyone except Jerri votes for JT
nd the bullying part is what made is AN AMAZZZZZZING MOVE.
Survivor: One World can produces a lot of Heroes and Villains. Better than average season!
i like it alot!!
the best season in the history of the survivor
No it isn't. And if that's the case, than why did John and Shambo still end up voting for Russell?
He meant everything he said about Brett being a great guy. And yes, he treated Galu like shit, but only because they treated Shambo like shit as well. And he was acting cocky because he was playing so dominantly. The most important aspect of the game is making it to the end, because otherwise you can't win. Winning in Survivor is arbitrary, and doing so doesn't in itself prove your a great player. What proves whether a winner is also a great player are the reasons why people voted for them.
That's not the point; the point is that the shark is to be respected more.
Russell never bullshitted anyone; he wasn't afraid to tell it like he saw it to anyone's face. Russell is also friends with many jurors. You're problem is that you're equating pleasantness with kindness. There's a difference between the two.
She doesn't seem to hold anything against him, even after watching the show. It's not about popularity. The jury doesn't hold the majority opinion of all the people who COULD'VE been cast in their place. If they had cast more people like John and Shambo, than Russell would've won in a landslide. Like I said, the only way to be accurately deemed the best is for EVERYONE in the world to agree to it.
There was nobody named flicka in cook islands.
How was he to know they were bitter crybabies? From what was shown, they didn't make it all too clear that they were. Besides, Russell DID adapt and plead his case at FTC. He answered all given questions honestly and in a convincing manner, and was quick to throw Natalie and Mick under the bus for their gameplay.
Also, wasn't the whole thing between the two of them all about Brett trying to persuade Russell to vote out Mick instead?
He only voted for Sandra because Rupert was at Ponderosa lobbying for her. As someone who's seen more of Russell than his edited portrayal on TV, I KNOW that he's a good person at heart. When you're playing Survivor so dominantly, it's hard to not be an ass, regardless if it's in front of the cameras or in front of everyone else. Yes, those traits should be rewarded if they're genuine. I'd rather be hurt by truth than be blinded by bullshit. Also, saying he's egomaniacal is going too far.
I know what you mean. but basically, even most other members are neither hero nor villains. I think only Russel is a complete villain in this season. rob and parvati and cirie are somehow villains. and only tom deserved to be called hero in this season. but most members are really unique in the season.
Tina did not play Colby. She only won by a single vote anyway. There's only one reason Tina managed to play so well strategically, and that is because of Micheal's accident. Had it never occurred, Ogakor would've either been outnumbered 6-4 or Kucha would've gone to TC and voted out Jeff. This was at a time when the game wasn't too developed, and Tina's "big decisions" could've been enacted by anyone from her tribe.
You spelled Jerri wrong...
Yay thank-you for posting my video response!
Differences.
Heroes
Colby
JT
Rupert
Candice
Villains
Rob
Parvati
Russell
Sandra
Danielle
Jerri
what makes you say that? I certainly think there are certain winners who are way worse than russell
Russel is the biggest survivor legend, everybody knows who he is
did you spell jerris name wrong on purpose?
JT and Parvatis shots are so much better
I actually like your Colby, JT, Rupert, Rob, Parvati, Sandra, and Russell a lot more!
I liked all these more. i like how must of them showed them walking off the choppers. I think they should've had 1 shot of them getting of the chopper and another random shot. I loved the Rob one ALOT better than the original because in the original he has mud all over him so it like ruins his shots.
They kept Parvati separated from Amanda and Cirie, the two of which never had a strong enough connection in the first place. No one with good taste could like the second half of micronesia; after Jonathan Penner left, it all went downhill.
well i guess the question is "better at what?" There are certain things that Russell is better, or even best at, but the winners all have a better social game. Russell is definitely a better physical and strategy player then, say, sandra
parvati, sandra and jerri's shots are good xD
@reignOFmadness yeah..
They didn't hate Natalie and Philip more, they were just frustrated at how blindly loyal they were to Rob.
Yes, people lie in the game, but on the jury (outside of the game) they have all the power for how the game ends; meaning, they have a great responsibility on their hands.
if you look at it this way it would have been another season of all stars
this season and fans vs favorites where the best
i was being sarcastic....but how can you keep 3 people separated across 2 tribes? that's a pretty silly statement. also, i like micro. probably a top 8 season for me. does tht mean im an idiot?
Even better than the original.
Let me rephrase what I said; if the jury lets their opinion of you influence their vote, that's their fault, not yours.
People's opinions of Russell are FAR from near-universally negative. His double victory in Sprint Player of the Season is proof.
@lbblur Probably Samoa. I loved seeing Foura Foura defy all odds making it to the end against a seemingly strong group of eight. I mean is that even possible!? Russel is a Survivor Genius! And I actually thought Natalie was a deserving winner. I enjoyed Gabon, Cook Islands, and Vanuatu a lot too. What about you?
Gabon best season with Sugar Who deserve the win, Ken, Crystal, Corrine, Susie, Matty, Marcus
Tina did not play Colby; he was well aware she'd be harder to beat than Keith. Terry's elimination was the obvious reason why the final three FTC was implemented.
Are you really that shallow and ignorant? Rob played FOUR times while Russell played THREE times. Russell DID change his game in RI (game and personality are COMPLETELY separate from each other), but suffered from damaged reputation just like Rob did in HvV. When Russell comes back a fourth time, he'll end up winning.
@Sliacen Thanks. sorry for that, I would've fixed it but it took me like 8 hours to upload it lol
Yes you can, Russell controlled the entire course of the game and was wholly responsible for Natalie and Mick reaching the end. I suppose you can say there's really two games in Survivor; 1. Outwitting, Outplaying, and Outlasting everyone to reach the end. 2. Play to the jury a.l.a. Apples to Apples. Russell is, undeniably, the best player of the first game, which is the more important of the two and the only one you have control over. Only the jury has a say in who wins, not the finalists.
@lbblur Hmmm...well, I think they both deserved. My point is I think Natalie played the perfect game for the season she was given. Had she done more than merely ride Russel's coatails before the merge, she would have been gone! I'm hoping we can agree she deserved it more than Mick though. Whereas Natalie actually had a strategy to ride coatails, Mick mindlessly rode them. He had no strategy.
Saying they destroyed Natalie at FTC is exaggerating it WAY too much.
There IS a right way to vote; votes should be cast based on the merit of ones actions in getting to FTC and not on how likable they are as people.
And would you be saying the same if a bunch of men bullied the last girl standing into giving up immunity?
Maybe because he knew she wouldn't be offended, which she apparently wasn't?
Just because you win doesn't mean you're the best; you're only the best in the opinion of everyone who votes for you at FTC. And what's 1-9 votes compared to the MILLIONS of other people's had they been cast instead. The only way to say one's the best is to be voted for by the majority of Earth's human population.
Jury votes are the only way to measure how likable you are in Survivor, NOT how good you are. Actually, it's easy to judge one's SKILL through a T.V. show; skill and likabliity are COMPLETELY separate from each other. If the jury in Samoa was judging based on skill, Russell would've won in a landslide.
@DaSquireKing Yeah definitely agree with that. Mick just tried, and failed for the most part, to be a physical threat.
My ideal cast with 2 tribes with 24 castaways, including people from $21 to $24
Heroes: Colby, Rupert, Tom, Yau-man, J.T., Ozzy, Stephanie, Amanda, Cirie, Taj, Andrea, Dawn
Villains: Richard, Rob.M, Russell, Coach, Phillip, Colton, Jerri, Shi-Ann, Parvati, Courtney, Sandra, Shambo
This intro beats the original one!
No they haven't. The jury in RI voted with their brains instead of their hearts; so did the jury in Borneo, Panama, and China. The final 2/3 doesn't do any work, only lobbying through begs, pleads, persuasion, and (in Tom Westman and J.T.'s cases) being genuine. You can't blame the finalists for not getting the vote because they have no control over whether or not they get it. The jury takes all blame for how they vote; think of it as crime without punishment.
Some of those are true, yes, but he only forged alliances with everyone pre-merge so he could keep his position in the game secure. John and Shambo took their eliminations with dignity and grace, and still voted for the best player in the end. Jaison only went because Russell had to make a decision between voting him out because Natalie's easier to beat or voting Natalie out because Jaison's more likely to win the final immunity challenge instead of Brett.
But would he have stood up for her had he known she was responsible for his elimination? The way the jurors talked in their videos made it sound like they believed they would easily vote for whoever played the best game at first, than they came into the game and realized it wasn't so easy. Yes, he failed to win, but one doesn't have control over whether they win, only whether they reach the end. Besides, even though Natalie won, she's widely considered to be the worst winner ever.
No, they hated their blind allegiance to Rob, not them as people. SUE thought Kelly was wishy washy and two faced. Everyone was indifferent between Danielle and Aras (Shane admitted that Danielle played more honorably than Aras). The jury in China hated all three of them, but voted for Todd because he was willing to own up to all the lies he had to tell to reach FTC. Yes, the jury should have control over the vote, but they should also be responsible with it. Tom and J.T. won for being heroes.
She told Jonathan on day one that was her nickname.
You're only describing his gameplay in HvV, which was sloppy because he had just finished Samoa and hadn't fully recovered yet from it. It didn't matter who he brought to the end in Samoa; as he stated in his interview with Rob C, Dave and Laura were trying to split the jury votes at Ponderosa so he would get third place because they were bitter crybabies who couldn't man up and admit defeat. As for HvV, the juries are ALWAYS bitter, so his loss really proves nothing.
She wasn't genuinely nice because there's no such thing in the first place. People like Russell Hantz and Tom Westman are genuine because what they say is never too good to be true and their statements are evenly positive/negative in delivery. What's not commendable are her actions (or lack thereof) in playing the game. Think of it like this: creatures called remoras often attach to sharks. While the shark tears through all opposition, the remora just latches on like a parasite.
Continued . . .
@lbblur I think Natalie deserved her win, Russel played in a way that made it almost impossible to garnish jury votes. Nat, on the other had, made big moves, like targeting Erik while letting Russel take the heat. If she hadn't done this Foa Foa would never have taken the lead. Russel is perhaps the most brilliantly strategic, he is far from the overall best. True, Nat did nothing more than ride Russel's coat tails for the first half the game, but that was what she had to do to stay alive.
Oh I never heard them call her that.
No, the jury in HvV hated Russell. The jury in Samoa was just bitter that someone so arrogant outplayed all of them. Sandra talked so much about wanting Russell out, yet her actions showed a lack of commitment to achieving that goal. If that's what a goat is, than Natalie is definitely a goat, since Russell wanted her in the end because of her lackluster gameplay and coattail riding. You can tell if someone is genuine by what they say. People like Russell Hantz and Tom Westman are genuine.
Russell=Shark
Natalie=Remora
Now tell me, which do you have more respect for?
Sandra was hypocritical in her talk of wanting Russell out of the game. A goat is someone who just follows the dominant player; Russell has never been a goat in all the times he's played. Natalie WAS INDEED a goat, even if it was her strategy. If Natalie had been voted out at the final five, Russell would've won the game. They didn't hate Russell, they were just bitter that he outplayed them. If they had known Natalie's mindset, they would've realized just how much more genuine Russell was.
. . . who didn't win when they were more deserving; i.e. Colby, Rob, and Terry to name a few.
Production is entirely to blame; they need to keep jurors separate from each other, plain and simple. He didn't do it because Mick and Natalie were more idyllic choices. Russell just made the mistake of assuming the jury would use their brains when voting, which is kinda funny because one needs to HAVE brains in the first place, which Galu clearly did not have.
It's not as clear as you'd like to think. People equate influence with bullshit, and some people would rather not stoop to that level, like Russell. In fact, that's the primary reason why people love him; he isn't full of shit, unlike Boston Rob.
True, true, but the thing about J.T. and Tom is that they were GENUINELY likable. Natalie and Sandra were so full of bullshit it was too much for me to handle.
@AlieaxKiba sandra did the only 2 time winner
Danielles, jerri's and Sandra's were awesome.