Survivor loser: Let the audience vote
Losing Survivor bad boy Russell reckons the game is flawed and America should be voting for the winner.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
In last night’s Survivor finale, bad boy Russell lost the reality show a second time -despite being it’s most conniving player, probably of all time.
Such is the genius of this social game. You have to play it so well that you don’t jeopardise the votes from the Jury, the people you have eliminated.
On two occasions he has now so offended his teammates so much they have punished him with the million-dollar loss.
In “Heroes v Villains” he landed zero votes. Immunity Idols only get you so far, it seems….
But in the Reunion, Russell had his say, insisting that the game was flawed.
Host Jeff Probst (who is also a producer) didn’t take too kindly to that idea.
Russell said America should vote for the winner. Probst basically told him that’s another show.
If he had his way he probably would have won. Viewers voted him the “Sprint Player of the Season” award and the US$100,000 prize that went with it.
Meanwhile for Nine the reality show’s future is looking a lot rosier. Recent seasons have struggled around Nine’s schedule for some time. Late last year Programmer Michael Healy told TV Tonight he wanted to give the show another shot.
With a series as strong as “Heroes v Villains” and one played mostly hot off the satellite, it has rated well. Last night’s two hour finale averaged just over 1m viewers, which together with Top Gear and GO! programming was enough for the Nine Network to beat Seven and TEN.
Share
- Tagged with Survivor
48 Responses
The point is, the only reason Russell made it to the finals is because everyone knew they would beat him on a jury vote. All the players made mention of how much they hated Russell, and that’s why they kept him around.
Since the first season, the jury has decided the vote, and if you don’t get their votes, then you clearly have not ‘played the game’ very well. You can’t say that he played a good game, since he didn’t get a single vote in the end – a good player would’ve got votes at least for strategy, and skills in finding immunity idols is not a strategy.
The same could be said of Parvati, besides from winning some challenges, and one good use of idols, what strategy did she use to stay in the game, besides from aligning with Russell?
As some people have said, Survivor has lasted because there is no definite strategy that will win, it’s a combination of skills, athleticism, alliances, and social aspects.
Sandra should never have made it to the finals, but yet she did, without pissing a lot of people off, sounds like she played a good game to me!
@Ash – And I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you’re saying either. I think we’ve just had a couple of seasons where the background pawn has come out victorious. But there were an ugly run of seasons where that background pawn got absolutely ripped apart by the jury:
Becky in Cook Islands got no votes. Torn apart for riding Yul’s coattails.
Cassandra in Fiji got no votes. Torn apart for riding Earl’s coattails.
Susie in Gabon got three votes. Did less in a season than Sandra did in an episode.
Katie in Palau got one vote. Ripped by the jury who accused her of riding Tom’s coattails.
I loved Russell in Samoa and thought he played better than Natalie, but he was delusional in HvV and I thought Parvati played best, but I love Sandra and am just as happy she won.
PD, I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you’re saying. I suppose it boils down to reality versus ideals, and you’re talking more reality while I’m hung up on some idealistic view of the game. Basically, the jury are human beings, therefore they’re going to vote based on their personal feelings rather than some objective measure of who played “better”. But in an ideal world, I think they should vote based on who showed the most skill rather than who just got lucky in filling that seat (I’m not talking about any particular season here). That will never happen though, because having their feelings hurt is what they’re always going to be thinking about, therefore their desire to punish the aggressive player will always win out.
I totally get that any player has the capacity to do both (appease the jury at the same time as they’re cutting their throats) and you have some good examples, but in the specific scenario where a dominant player brings a background ‘pawn’ I don’t think its right to reward the background player just for not being the other guy. But again, that’s the game, and the players need to work within it rather than fight it.
I loved this season’s Survivor, couldn’t stand Russell or Parvati but they certainly made you wanting more…….you’d think if Russell had only just finished Survivor Samoa 3 weeks before H v V started filming he would have learnt how to play the game a little differently when it comes to dealing with people who ultimately will end up on the jury.
@Ash – About that ‘more skill, gutsiness’ etc. etc. I’m all for that, but it doesn’t work if you’re going to wrap it in a Russell flavoured package. Think Yul from Cook Islands, or Todd from China. Both guy’s played smart, forward thinking strategy. Both won the million dollars because they were able to be excellent strategists And leave people liking them. If either of those two had played like Russell plays, as in full on aggressive, arrogant and abusive towards his fellow contestants, than they would have lost, probably to those ‘passive players’ they took to the end.
A passive player won’t always beat an aggressive player, but they will if the aggressive player is an unlikeable jerk like Russell and as soon as Russell figures that out he can win Survivor. Survivor isn’t flawed, Russell’s strategy is.
@Ash – Luckily most people who go on Survivor don’t actually watch Survivor then.
I totally get why people are annoyed Sandra won, but I really don’t think she was a ‘passive player’. Although anybody next to Russell is a ‘passive player’ because he’s ridiculous. The guy knows how to get more screentime than everybody else, I’ll give him that.
The producers love Russell and know that love him or hate him we’re still talking about him so there will always be more Russell-types to go on this show.
Let the audience vote…? No! I could see the scenario right here…
22 yo blonde girl enters survivor, spends the entire 39 days nekkid, like some guy did in an earlier season, nobody eliminates her because of the spectacle, and horny 18 year old boys with too much time and money spend their time constantly texting the same message over and over and over and over again…. it would not be a good idea.
Russell is a sociopath. Glad to see the back of him and his huge ego. Scary man.
“@Ash – There’s no such thing as ‘coattail riders’, that’s such overused term. There are 20 people in the game, you have to do something right to make it to the end.”
OK, substitute ‘coattail rider’ for ‘passive player’ then. I think the point stands that playing an active, aggressive game requires a lot more skill, forward thinking, and general gutsiness. It it’s generally safe and easy for anyone to identify one such player and passively attach yourself to them, like Natalie did. It worked well for her, of course.
There’s also the element where this is a television show, and there is, like it or not, an element of entertainment. A season full of Natalies and Jerris would get very old, very fast, but the show is currently saying to potential applicants that if you want to have a chance of winning, you need to play like them.
Survivor is still strong after 20 seasons, how many other shows can say that?
Russell has been a star for two straight seasons, I have a sneaky suspicion that he might show up on Season 21.
Just a hunch, but given that he equals ratings, it is not impossible.
@Ash – There’s no such thing as ‘coattail riders’, that’s such overused term. There are 20 people in the game, you have to do something right to make it to the end.
Last season Natalie won not because she was a ‘coattail rider’ but because she outplayed Russell. While Russell was busy focusing on everybody else in game Natalie only needed to focus on Russell to win. She went along with everything Russell said because she knew if she went against him he’d get rid of her. She convinced Russell to take her to the end while being nice to everybody else out there. That’s not as flashy as being King Russell Lord Of The Hidden Immunity Idols, but it’s more effective.
Russell would hate to admit it because he’s a chauvinistic tool but he got Played by a woman last year, and he got Played by two women this year.
Since when has Survivor been about what’s “fair”? If it was fair it would be predictable and we wouldn’t watch it. I had a great time watching it. Doesn’t matter who wins.
Russell is one of the best strategic players of Survivor. But he has no respect for the social aspect. Unfortunately for him, just like Amanda in China/Micronesia, he made the final in his first season, and without knowing the result, started his second season. He thus didn’t fully understand that his game plan was never going to win him the game. Coupled with his ego and his inability to point out his own flaws of course he was going to suggest the public vote. But Survivor would cease to be Survivor if the public voted on it. That’s for Idol and BB and the other crap out there. Survivor is as good as it is because you have to vote people out and then get them to give you $1 million.
Maybe that is the beauty of survivor – there is no one way to win it. You can play the same people 20 times over and it will work out differently each time. It is a balancing act that requires some semblance of luck, skill, competitiveness and diplomacy. Must say that the jury have to get over how they were shafted – that is part of the game.
My own opinion was that Parviti should have won. That move when she played both idols was ballsy, gutsy and strategic. For that move alone she should have won. Love Russell as the essence of evil, but as I said, it is a balancing act that he sadly has no idea about. I truly believe he is a sociopath, who can’t relate to other people’s emotions. Maybe they should write him into a story line on Dexter!
I didn’t expect Russell to win because he was too brutal in his strategy and forget about the social aspect of Survivor. I think Parvati should have won, she did well in challenges, made strategic moves and her social game was actually quite good. The main problem is that the jury tends to vote for whoever hasn’t outplayed/outsmarted them. E.g. Amanda voted for Sandra cos she was bitter that Parvati outplayed her, when Parvati didn’t follow her advice and played the idol for Sandra and Jerri instead. J.T. was definitely outsmarted when he decided to give an idol to Russell. Rupert was so focused on good vs evil during the game so he just voted for the person who seemed the most unevil. I liked Sandra but she did not deserve to win.
Who gives a damn what that disturbed sociopath thinks? Good riddance to him, I hope never to lay eyes on him again.
Sandra made a huge move by convincing Russell to take out Coach instead of Courtney. If Courtney had been voted off, Sandra would of been next and would of just missed out on the merge. That was her pivotal move this season. After the merge she was able to stick with the villains as they picked of the heroes.
Lets face the facts: Sandra has now won twice (100% success rate), Parvati has won once (33% success rate) and Russell has not won at all (0%). Taking two former winners to the jury and still not winning just highlights how poor Russell’s performance really was.
@ Dave
Russell could not have known that he lost, as PD said it was clever editing
“Get the public to vote? C’mon thats the most stupid idea ever. Probst couldn’t have said it better (and man is it obvious that he can’t stand Russell).”
Check out his blog here: popwatch.ew.com/2010/05/18/jeff-probst-survivor-heroes-villains-finale … I don’t think its true that he can’t stand Russell at all. If anyone, I think its Rupert who drives him a little nutty.
“I feel for Russell. I do not believe he is aware of how out of balance his life is right now. He is still stuck in “the game” and it was uncomfortable for me to watch him squirm so much last night and scream so loudly for respect. He doesn’t need to ask for respect. He has won the Sprint Player of the Game two times. He has also proven to be extremely good at getting to the end by being a great strategist and intimidator. There is no question that Russell is an excellent player of Survivor.”
“If he wants America to vote, try going on Big Brother.”
In America the audience doesn’t vote in Big Brother. The housemates vote each other out.
“Sandra won because she did actually play a game that was clever enough to ensure her making to the final 3 and she didn’t screw anyone over in the process.”
Sandra winning was 90% luck, being the right person in the right place at the right time, and 10% skill. No one was gunning for her most of the time so she never had to dodge anything, break alliances, or offend anyone. She could have been eliminated instead of Courtney shortly after the merge – they were basically interchangeable at that point – and the game wouldn’t have been any different. A non-player like that shouldn’t win, even if it was her ‘strategy’. (Jerri also had that coattail strategy, so maybe she should have won? What about Colby?)
I do think it’s a fundamental flaw in the game when coattail riders consistently win. Inventive, bold play should be rewarded in some way. One idea floated was to give the jury a cooling off period and let them vote later, maybe even after the series has aired, so that they can make a more balanced and less vindictive vote. But practically speaking that probably couldn’t work. Jeff Probst has an interesting take on it at his blog for popwatch.ew.com, by the way.
Russel should have one for sure. He played the best game out of all three. Parvati shouldn’t have even been in the top 3 whilst Sandra went under the radar for alot of the season.
I think Parvati should of won! She was, to me, playing it exactly how Survivor should be played. Sandra just sat back and did nothing.
Sandra only won because she had tried throughout the game to get rid of Russell. Russell had lied to and tricked all of the heroes and had a direct hand in their being voted out, and they hated him for that. Because Sandra hated Russell also, and had tried to get him voted out (which the heroes had ignored and no doubt regretted), they rewarded her with their votes.
Since the merge, the season was so great. The icing on the cake would’ve been if Parvati had taken it out. She really did deserve it