I disagree with Drew saying that the general audience should vote on the winner. Because of the fact that to Tyson‘s point editing plus you gotta realize some of these players are social influencers. It’s not fair to the regular player. Who’s a fan that doesn’t have 1 million followers. Sorry Drew.
Yeah literally the whole point of survivor is trying to gain votes from the people that you played the game with. Or else the social aspect of it wouldn’t matter cuz you could just piss people off without trying to manage the jury. It’s like…kinda the whole point
Absolutely. That is what makes Survivor appealing, to me at least, and it also touches on one of the main premises about the show and it being a reflection of society in general. Life is not fair and people are not robots. As much as we'd like to pretend that we're all fair and unbiased, that's simply not the case and most of our decisions in real life are guided by emotions. Removing the jury aspect from Survivor would also remove the authenticity factor, which would make the show far less entertaining. Not to mention what Tyson brought up - edit dictating the outcome. Or even worse, outcome being determined by someone's general popularity, contestants lobbying for votes via social media, players being incentivized to play for the general audience (Gabe winking at the camera lol), etc. That would most certainly not result in outcomes being more "fair", if anything the whole game would become a complete shitshow. Plus it would be even more difficult for the players, cause instead of working around a group of like 12 people max, you'd have to pander to all the randos sitting at home and all their biases. In fact we wouldn't even have to play the game anymore, we could just automatically narrow the pool of candidates to somewhat appealing white males on the cast and proceed with the vote. What's funny here is that this opinion comes from a truly very smart guy, who'd also almost never stand a chance at winning under these circumstances. 😅
The winner is determined by the jury, not by who you and Drew found most likable. Y’all just refuse to understand the point of the game or that it’s a social game
@@baileybread Yeah I’ve seen Drew on a couple of podcasts and he seems to have the Russell Hantz mentality about the game and jury. It’s not a good way to look at the game and players like him act like people are gonna play with no emotions
you dont understand the key point of the jury and it is that jury is NEVER wrong. the winner is always correct because the goal is to get the most jury votes. there are no rules or criteria how.
My thoughts on Jeff's comments about 50 is that it was a signal to big-name players who are trying to negotiate for appearance fees in the wake of other shows giving out big deals. I think he's saying "Hey, listen, if you're here it's because you're excited to play, not for an appearance fe." Basically saying "If you don't want it, I'll find someone else who does."
I love the idea of having a couple of recruits here and there. Jeremy Collins said that fans of the show have more predictable moves than people who don’t watch (I am paraphrasing) and the moves are not only entertaining, but super fans playing with someone like that is entertaining. Stick to the plan!
I’m so annoyed with the bitter jury conversation. this is why I will always defend Natalie’s win against Russell. I agree they should be sequestered but thats the whole point of survivor. You can’t play on people’s emotions throughout the game and then expect them to be emotionless when deciding who to win. Also that’s a such a contradiction to say you want people to stop the “HR talking”, to have more personalities (aka be more emotional), but then choose a winner like it’s a job interview. Survivor is best when people are cracked out emotional.
Natalie is the worst winner ever. But her win kind of benefitted the game in the long haul because now more people vote based on gameplay instead of bitterness that they got outplayed
So they said if the game based on edit was to end today and we had a fan vote would kyle get 0 votes and if it is 0 votes why do players modern and players of the past pretend like challenges matter i cant remember the last survivor who was the early challenge threat ever really have a shot to win. I think challenges win should matter more for all players on final jury.
He thinks the winner should be determined by the fans, which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of the game. It actually surprised me how little he thought that through
I started watching from S40 after watching S28 and really liked the new era. Went back to watch from S1->11 (currently here now) and I'm hooked. It's hard to even watch the new era nowadays because everyone is trying to make big moves for the sake of moves. It's fine to have one Tony out here, but you can't have 16 of him. Big moves are the singular purpose for the game: not surviving (39->26 days) or even winning challenges (voting out strongest player early ie Sol almost going home instead of Aysha when he was carrying). From day 1 everyone is already at Final Tribal prepping their speech.
I actually think that Genevieve is indeed trying to get in that position of power, so that she could dictate the game. She just likes being in control and yeah, that's preventing her from making long term plans, but is at least fun TV. Also, she's a couple more "Kyles" in the game away from pulling this type of gameplay off, cause the way she's able to approach people she's barely spent any time with, recognize what their motivations are and sell them on whatever target she's currently pursuing as the most optimal move for them as well is absolutely amazing. So, if you remove even 1 of the more strategic players and replace them with a "Kyle", she has the potential of being unstoppable. And if she's at the end, it's again all about selling jury whatever bs they want to hear, you don't even have to get them all on board, 5 votes is all it takes, so find a way to make 5 people think they're all that, blow smoke up their ass and it's a wrap. And she absolutely does have that skill to recognize what type of bs someone would fall for and deliver it to them wrapped in a nice bow. I'm just not entirely sure if she knows that bsing is absolutely necessary at the final tribal council as well and not just in the game. It could be just editing, but from the way she spoke at this last TC it seemed like she thinks that a new era jury would vote based on your resume, which is simply not the case, nor has it ever been the case. Survivor just got better at editing and crafting winners stories over time to make understanding how and why somebody won more palatable for the general audience, cause people tend to get outraged at the very thought of a TV show being "unfair" and the winner being determined based off of someone's emotions, as if that's not exactly how life in general works lol
Also, I think there should be a new rule: no whispering or talking to each other at tribal. Period. People should feel totally uneasy and extremely uncomfortable at tribal. If you break the rule, you get booted.
Didn’t Drew also vote bitterly in 45. What would have made him think that Austin played a better game then Dee. Maybe his criteria for winning games is who he likes which is asinine
I disagree 100%. I love to see a social player win. Clearly she did something to make the jury like her and that alone is a good enough reason for her to win. Survivor isn’t always going to be “the most strategic and hardcore gameplay player is the one who wins”
Incredibly bad take from Drew about the audience picking the winner and I'll tell you why. I'm Brazilian, and in Big Brother Brasil it is the audience that votes for the winner. The results of this is that while, yes ofc the winner is popular, they are hardly ever the person that actually played the best game. The audience always chooses the slobs or the outcasts to win and it totally defeats the purpose of the game itself, which is to make connections and actively engage with everyone in order to move forward. But here, if you're bad socially and can't make anyone in the house like you then you're rewarded for that because the audience feels bad for you and will vote for you to win. It's horrid, and it's the sole reason as to why I haven't watched the show in over 15 years. I think that if we want to make the audience have a say, let's make it ONE single vote. The audience chooses whoever they like best from the finalists and that will count as one extra vote at the final tribal. In case there's a tie, the audience vote doesn't count anymore and we let the jury decide on their own.
Bitter jury are unfortunately a staple in all these competition programs. It’s human behavior. Should it be like that? No, of course not but it is harsh reality.
I’d argue that it SHOULD be like that. Jury management is one of the main goals of the game. You can’t just turn off your emotions and vote for someone that was awful and manipulative towards you
The point is that there has to be a BALANCE bw bitterness and fairness; aka emotions( both good and nevative feelings) vs logic! When you sits in the seat of jury, you really carry its RESPONSIBILITY and you shouldn’t treat it carelessly or narcissistically! Of course you shall incorporate your feelings (cuz it’s inherited as social part of the game) and bitterness is a legit feeling, but TO A DEGREE please!! (Talking abt S46!)
Am I the only one who has never been fond of Genevieve’ persona? Just never enjoyed her play and any screentime on the show. // Then strategically, first she chose to align with Rome, then later targets Sol… her choices of people to side with says lot abt her traits :(
also agree with drew that the cast is so mild i have not loved anyone like i loved shan and carson. ironic as 45 was one of the most mild casts followed by 43
@ “all he did” 🙄 what a parrot of reddit. he dominated that game socially with an ‘aww shucks’ style game. brilliant. the puzzle memorization didn’t even help him win anything.
@@BK-hk2ps 44 was definitely the most unmemorable and lackluster cast of the era. Not to mention the most predictable. I agree with your take on 45 having a mild cast, but 43 actually had a pretty great and entertaining cast
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Drew bringing it, he's always good on podcasts
I disagree with Drew saying that the general audience should vote on the winner. Because of the fact that to Tyson‘s point editing plus you gotta realize some of these players are social influencers. It’s not fair to the regular player. Who’s a fan that doesn’t have 1 million followers.
Sorry Drew.
Yeah literally the whole point of survivor is trying to gain votes from the people that you played the game with. Or else the social aspect of it wouldn’t matter cuz you could just piss people off without trying to manage the jury. It’s like…kinda the whole point
I love how Ashleigh remembers everything vividly.
Drew is a wizard with analogies😂
Best Pod Has Spoken of Season 47!! Pls bring back Drew any time he wants to return
Bitter jury is 100% fine. There is no real criteria for choosing a winner, the jury can choose anyone for any reason.
Thank you. It’s wild that someone everyone thinks is so brilliant didn’t understand this.
Exactly. If the jury is bitter then it likely means that your social game lacked in certain areas.
Absolutely. That is what makes Survivor appealing, to me at least, and it also touches on one of the main premises about the show and it being a reflection of society in general. Life is not fair and people are not robots. As much as we'd like to pretend that we're all fair and unbiased, that's simply not the case and most of our decisions in real life are guided by emotions. Removing the jury aspect from Survivor would also remove the authenticity factor, which would make the show far less entertaining. Not to mention what Tyson brought up - edit dictating the outcome. Or even worse, outcome being determined by someone's general popularity, contestants lobbying for votes via social media, players being incentivized to play for the general audience (Gabe winking at the camera lol), etc. That would most certainly not result in outcomes being more "fair", if anything the whole game would become a complete shitshow. Plus it would be even more difficult for the players, cause instead of working around a group of like 12 people max, you'd have to pander to all the randos sitting at home and all their biases. In fact we wouldn't even have to play the game anymore, we could just automatically narrow the pool of candidates to somewhat appealing white males on the cast and proceed with the vote. What's funny here is that this opinion comes from a truly very smart guy, who'd also almost never stand a chance at winning under these circumstances. 😅
@@andreat4277 Stop being woke with the white guy stuff
@@ObinnaEjike-ko8my stop living in your mother's basement
Thank you Drew for saying the truth about the jury on 46
I don't have the patience to watch. What did he say?
He said they didn’t vote for the best player, which was Charlie.
The winner is determined by the jury, not by who you and Drew found most likable. Y’all just refuse to understand the point of the game or that it’s a social game
@@baileybread Yeah I’ve seen Drew on a couple of podcasts and he seems to have the Russell Hantz mentality about the game and jury. It’s not a good way to look at the game and players like him act like people are gonna play with no emotions
you dont understand the key point of the jury and it is that jury is NEVER wrong. the winner is always correct because the goal is to get the most jury votes. there are no rules or criteria how.
Not sure I'll ever recover from Reilly leaving us. I thought he cared...Thank God Tyson didn't abandon us.
ANDY has the prettiest hair. He should win!😂😂😂
Survivor hr talk is because they’re all superfans now! Survivor used to recruit personalities for tv, they need to bring that back
Watched this one before RHAP this week because you got Drew
Drew rocks!
My thoughts on Jeff's comments about 50 is that it was a signal to big-name players who are trying to negotiate for appearance fees in the wake of other shows giving out big deals. I think he's saying "Hey, listen, if you're here it's because you're excited to play, not for an appearance fe." Basically saying "If you don't want it, I'll find someone else who does."
Love the shade and hot takes from Drew
Drew was fantastic on this episode
Smallest majority you can ruffle* up. Rustle isn't a word. You should know this Tyson
Love the Diamondbacks hat!!
Wait, no one is going to bring up that Drew said several weeks meant 2???
I love the idea of having a couple of recruits here and there. Jeremy Collins said that fans of the show have more predictable moves than people who don’t watch (I am paraphrasing) and the moves are not only entertaining, but super fans playing with someone like that is entertaining. Stick to the plan!
I’m so annoyed with the bitter jury conversation. this is why I will always defend Natalie’s win against Russell. I agree they should be sequestered but thats the whole point of survivor. You can’t play on people’s emotions throughout the game and then expect them to be emotionless when deciding who to win. Also that’s a such a contradiction to say you want people to stop the “HR talking”, to have more personalities (aka be more emotional), but then choose a winner like it’s a job interview. Survivor is best when people are cracked out emotional.
Natalie is the worst winner ever. But her win kind of benefitted the game in the long haul because now more people vote based on gameplay instead of bitterness that they got outplayed
@@tekgid433 no Natalie’s win showed people you can’t be a psycho freak and then expect people to vote for you to win
@@tekgid433 I mean Chris Underwood and Ben exist, and it’s not the only person who won over a bitter jury, there’s Cochran, Michele, among others
So they said if the game based on edit was to end today and we had a fan vote would kyle get 0 votes and if it is 0 votes why do players modern and players of the past pretend like challenges matter i cant remember the last survivor who was the early challenge threat ever really have a shot to win. I think challenges win should matter more for all players on final jury.
i like Drew,he's so intelligent.
He thinks the winner should be determined by the fans, which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of the game. It actually surprised me how little he thought that through
I started watching from S40 after watching S28 and really liked the new era. Went back to watch from S1->11 (currently here now) and I'm hooked. It's hard to even watch the new era nowadays because everyone is trying to make big moves for the sake of moves. It's fine to have one Tony out here, but you can't have 16 of him. Big moves are the singular purpose for the game: not surviving (39->26 days) or even winning challenges (voting out strongest player early ie Sol almost going home instead of Aysha when he was carrying). From day 1 everyone is already at Final Tribal prepping their speech.
Drew’s great
I actually think that Genevieve is indeed trying to get in that position of power, so that she could dictate the game. She just likes being in control and yeah, that's preventing her from making long term plans, but is at least fun TV. Also, she's a couple more "Kyles" in the game away from pulling this type of gameplay off, cause the way she's able to approach people she's barely spent any time with, recognize what their motivations are and sell them on whatever target she's currently pursuing as the most optimal move for them as well is absolutely amazing. So, if you remove even 1 of the more strategic players and replace them with a "Kyle", she has the potential of being unstoppable.
And if she's at the end, it's again all about selling jury whatever bs they want to hear, you don't even have to get them all on board, 5 votes is all it takes, so find a way to make 5 people think they're all that, blow smoke up their ass and it's a wrap. And she absolutely does have that skill to recognize what type of bs someone would fall for and deliver it to them wrapped in a nice bow. I'm just not entirely sure if she knows that bsing is absolutely necessary at the final tribal council as well and not just in the game. It could be just editing, but from the way she spoke at this last TC it seemed like she thinks that a new era jury would vote based on your resume, which is simply not the case, nor has it ever been the case. Survivor just got better at editing and crafting winners stories over time to make understanding how and why somebody won more palatable for the general audience, cause people tend to get outraged at the very thought of a TV show being "unfair" and the winner being determined based off of someone's emotions, as if that's not exactly how life in general works lol
Drew cooking and much appreciated. Most new era players podcasting are absolutely insufferable.
Also, I think there should be a new rule: no whispering or talking to each other at tribal. Period. People should feel totally uneasy and extremely uncomfortable at tribal. If you break the rule, you get booted.
Nice convo. Drew super smart. Fun season. Love Survivor. PS yes they definitely should have blindsided Sue or Gabe. Bad move for Genevieve I think.
Not Rachel. She betrayed Sol
Didn’t Drew also vote bitterly in 45. What would have made him think that Austin played a better game then Dee. Maybe his criteria for winning games is who he likes which is asinine
SPEAK ON IT (love drew though, just don't appreciate the hypocrisy)
drew was 100percent correct charlie should have won kenzie is one of the worst winners
Totally agree!! Charlie has great insight in the On Fire podcast too! Hope we see him in season 50!!
I disagree 100%. I love to see a social player win. Clearly she did something to make the jury like her and that alone is a good enough reason for her to win. Survivor isn’t always going to be “the most strategic and hardcore gameplay player is the one who wins”
@ she won by one vote lol. 😂 yeah she did so much.
would have been a tie and ben says he votes for charlie 100%
@@BK-hk2ps So did Richard, Tina, Brian, Amber, Yul, Bob, and Fabio, how does that add or rest to anything
Drew v Kass who knew.
Who went home tonight?
Gabe
Rome
Sol
Andy
I think Rachel might be the winner....
@CidiMayaka there was reflection of 🔥 in her glasses during convo with Sam.
Incredibly bad take from Drew about the audience picking the winner and I'll tell you why. I'm Brazilian, and in Big Brother Brasil it is the audience that votes for the winner. The results of this is that while, yes ofc the winner is popular, they are hardly ever the person that actually played the best game. The audience always chooses the slobs or the outcasts to win and it totally defeats the purpose of the game itself, which is to make connections and actively engage with everyone in order to move forward. But here, if you're bad socially and can't make anyone in the house like you then you're rewarded for that because the audience feels bad for you and will vote for you to win. It's horrid, and it's the sole reason as to why I haven't watched the show in over 15 years.
I think that if we want to make the audience have a say, let's make it ONE single vote. The audience chooses whoever they like best from the finalists and that will count as one extra vote at the final tribal. In case there's a tie, the audience vote doesn't count anymore and we let the jury decide on their own.
This cast is a lil unmemorable for sure. Love Drew's takes.
I agree Charlie should have won
Bitter jury are unfortunately a staple in all these competition programs. It’s human behavior. Should it be like that? No, of course not but it is harsh reality.
I’d argue that it SHOULD be like that. Jury management is one of the main goals of the game. You can’t just turn off your emotions and vote for someone that was awful and manipulative towards you
God, I remember now how much I hate Drew.
The point is that there has to be a BALANCE bw bitterness and fairness; aka emotions( both good and nevative feelings) vs logic! When you sits in the seat of jury, you really carry its RESPONSIBILITY and you shouldn’t treat it carelessly or narcissistically! Of course you shall incorporate your feelings (cuz it’s inherited as social part of the game) and bitterness is a legit feeling, but TO A DEGREE please!! (Talking abt S46!)
Am I the only one who has never been fond of Genevieve’ persona? Just never enjoyed her play and any screentime on the show. // Then strategically, first she chose to align with Rome, then later targets Sol… her choices of people to side with says lot abt her traits :(
Agreed!
Drew’s jury was also bad dee shouldn’t have won either
also agree with drew that the cast is so mild i have not loved anyone like i loved shan and carson. ironic as 45 was one of the most mild casts followed by 43
44 was the most mild. They gave us absolutely nothing. No memorable or iconic moments. Carson was mild AF. All he did was memorize puzzles.
@ “all he did” 🙄 what a parrot of reddit. he dominated that game socially with an ‘aww shucks’ style game. brilliant. the puzzle memorization didn’t even help him win anything.
@@BK-hk2ps 44 was definitely the most unmemorable and lackluster cast of the era. Not to mention the most predictable. I agree with your take on 45 having a mild cast, but 43 actually had a pretty great and entertaining cast
Carolyn of 44 was unmemorable and lackluster?!
drew spoiling with draft odds is pretty shitty tyson. could have taken that out