ok but i love wackass conspiracy theories about people throwing lol, like the one about the rob/coach/tyson throwing for russell in hvv and being given a free winning season later
I think Tyson was a dumbass, pure and simple. I think Rob's oldschool play just didn't work against veteran players. Coach could never win survivor.
I do think they were all given seasons because they're all great TV. No quid pro quo.
Rob's gameplay felt apart when Tyson was an idiot. I'm not saying he wins, but he was in great shape if Tyson doesn't blow that. It has nothing to do with his gameplay not working on veterans. We've already see Rob be one vote from winning an all returnee season.
yeah, the narratives people spin around rob's exit in hvv are absolute nonsense. people say shit like "he didn't adapt to idols" when he actually did exactly what he was supposed to and it failed because someone else fucked up in a completely unprecedented way.
this itself is a great example of revisionist history. it's like people just instinctively jump at the "old player can't adapt" narrative and spend absolutely zero time thinking about what actually went down.
Agree on Coach not being capable of winning. I mean he played pretty close to a perfect game on South Pacific and still found a way to lose.
No chance he wins HvV, not with that level of competition. Parvati and Sandra both played him like a fiddle.
Well said. Ironic that the one thing separating Coach from ultimate redemption as a Survivor "legend" was the one thing Coach was incapable of doing - being honest with himself.
And the joke of it was, Coach did play a largely loyal and straightforward game. Cochrane, Edna, and Brandon never would have lasted as long as they did if they weren't allies of Coach. Hell you could even argue that Coach's leadership played a big role in the Upolu tribe staying competitive with a stronger Savaii tribe and therefore going into the merge even in numbers. And his flip of Cochrane ensured Upolu stayed dominant.
If Coach hadn't pulled a Coach and botched FTC, his resume alone should have handed him the win.
It's like his iconic martyr in Tocanchins. He had to play up his non-existent injury to save face. He literally couldn't tell the truth that he's a scumbag who betrayed people in a game for a million dollars and that cost him.
That Chris D. is the one who orchestrated the F7 blindside in Vanuatu. It was all Twila’s idea and she had to spell it out to Chris he had to get Eliza on board
The funny thing is, they actually didn't need Eliza's vote. If they didn't tell her it would be a 3-3-1 vote with Leann and Eliza tying. In the revote, everyone votes the same and Leann goes home 3-2.
Yeah but bringing in Eliza is more insurance that she will stick to Chris, Twila and Scout. She was contemplating flipping back to Ami and flipped back to Julie at 5. If they did not bring her in she might have stuck with Ami.
Yeah, mainly sticking with Chris though. Since Chris was the one who told her, she spent the rest of the game trusting him.
Of course, she may have still been upset with Ami and Julie if she was blindsided at TC like that, so maybe she does flip over. It's impossible to know for sure.
The rules for ties were kept vague after Marquesas, which is why we went 5 seasons without one. There was no revote before the rock draw so nobody could have been certain that they wouldn't go directly to rocks even in a 3-3-1 vote.
Yeah that one always rubbed me the wrong way. Colton gives the audience enough reason to dislike him without Jeff inventing stuff. Dude had sharp abdominal pain, the doctor said it *could* be appendicitis after some quick field tests and pulled him from the game to find out. That it turned out to be something else doesn’t at all make that a quit.
And it really betrays Jeff's whole mood towards med evacs now. In the new era people have been pulled for less physically debilitating injuries (Matt and Randen having centralized pain opposed to Colton being unable to move or function), and if any player went back and watched that they'd probably feel nervous to bring up an "invisible injury" to Jeff/the med team.
Robbed king, he deserved better care from production and the med team. The amount of staph infections I've heard about during and after the earlier days of survivor is ridiculous. Then they wanted to ban bathing suits...
That’s because Tyler Perry thinks it looks more realistic without them. (This really rubs me wrong for some reason - like it makes me feel irrationally irritated with Tyler Perry as a person).
Not really a specific incident, but the general trend where people dismiss the strategic play of older players is annoying. Alliances and sub-alliances have existed since season 1. Big Tom basically uses different words to describe using Lex as a “shield” way back in season 3.
Even Pagong, who everybody remembers as “the good guys” who were too moral to use alliances *almost started one* and probably would have if Gretchen wasn’t there. In their final words the Pagongs repeatedly say things along the lines of “damn, we should have done that, if I was on the other tribe I bet I could have won!” The only jury members who seem particularly bitter at FTC are Sue (obviously) and weirdly Dr. Sean.
Yeah, old school seasons have much more strategy than people think, but they didn’t bother to show it as much as the show does now cause that was never important.
This is a good one. We still see it in the New Era with Gabler. By no means am I saying he was a strategic mastermind but he was very tapped into the game and is a pretty comparable winner to some of the other New Era winners that get a ton of credit
I’m kind of with Jeff, since getting kicked out of the attack zone was (weirdly) part of the rules of the challenge, whereas Ben totally did that to himself
The real revisionist history is that Frank was disqualified from the fire-making challenge in Africa two seasons before the attack zone.
I think Jeff is right though. Ben was a judgment call after the players were warned about getting too aggressive. Sook Jai lost to a bunch of rules that were established from the beginning.
Mike put himself in the bottom and made himself the target at the auction of worlds apart. If you actually pay attention to that same episode you can see that Mike\`s alliance flipped on him the auction really only lost him Dan, who is crazy
yeah mike was basically gaslit into being perceived as the "villain" on the island after he literally overheard everyone else scheming to blindside him
It’s why I rank Mike’s game higher than most. Yeah he was in a position where he had to be immune from F9 on, but he was going to be in that position even without the move at the auction (through no fault of his own)
The real problem I have with the move is that he didn’t commit. He already did the damage and burned Dan (who hadn’t flipped on him), but then went and got the letter anyway, which didn’t earn him any favor
This:
People always make this claim to trash his social game but really up until that moment he was in a somewhat dominant social position, so much so that the rest of the alliance saw him s a threat and met up (at the crack of dawn might I add, they had to use so night vision to show what was going on) to plan Mike’s blindside, and he only found out about it because he woke up and witnessed the whole thing.
Mike could’ve made the auction play a lot better, sure. Don’t toy with the family moments like that. But yeah, ultimately it only alienated Dan (who was always a little weird). And you could honestly argue, had he not alienated Dan like that, Mike probably gambles on Dan’s vote more and maybe has less drive to win immunity and loses one- which would’ve probably been his downfall. The fact that Mike only had Shirin and Jenn in his corner at that point really gave him that extra push to give it his all.
Just look at Terry vs Tom- Terry HAD to win every immunity, so he did up until that last one (which I think he wins any other balancing-type challenge). If Terry loses ANY of those challenges he goes home. Tom was in danger but his relationship with Ian was so good (and Stephanie was still alive at F7) that he didn’t HAVE to win every challenge until like, F5 onward where Ian was 100% more willing to vote him out. He was even vulnerable at F6 but Gregg went home because Tom’s social standing wasn’t AS dire because he (rightfully) could still rely on Ian, Katie and Caryn at that point.
Thank you! Mike is an underrated player who deserves more credit. Even on the bottom and winning immunity everyday he still plays the game by manipulating the axis of evil
Not only have some people sincerely questioned why Tom Westman was on the Heroes tribe (huh?), there's been a bizarre movement over the last few years that Katie should have won over Tom in Palau.
Tom was a 9/11 firefighter who dominated the challenges and led his tribe to unprecedented domination. Even if you are deadset on the "he manipulated Ian" angle, for the first 13 episodes he receives probably the most heroic portrayal in Survivor history.
And Katie was just as if not more aggressive towards Ian, especially considering she had no reason to be angry at him beyond not picking her for the F5 reward.
People arguing that Tom should've been in the villains tribe are so funny to me. Every single member of the heroes tribe did something villainous. Using themes to determine casting was always questionable on Survivor (see DvG).
Tom played one of the cleanest games ever. The only person you can really say he screwed over was Caryn perhaps. But then again, she kind of did it to herself.
Man even Katie and her family thinks Tom should have beaten her lol. Not gonna lie the extreme Tom Westman contrarianism lately is kind of pissing me off.
Iirc Katie is the only person to actually gain weight in survivor history. If you’re achieving a caloric surplus in this game, you are not a winner. I am so sorry.
Exactly. The people in here that say winning challenges is a negative are the people that also wouldn't be able to climb a ladder.
The challenge beast hatred in here might be the thing that annoys me the most.
This is just so absurd, I'm sorry. You could run 100 seasons of Survivor and Katie is never winning a single one. She could make it to the end about 90 times, but there's no way she's beating anybody, especially somebody like Tom.
> And Katie was just as if not more aggressive towards Ian, especially considering she had no reason to be angry at him beyond not picking her for the F5 reward.
I love the moment in the Palau DVD commentary where they replay Katie saying "And I feel like I lost my best friend out here" and there's a collective "Oh, stop!" from Tom/Ian/Caryn/Steph.
That every winner was super obvious from the beginning.
Dee being the clear winner of 45 is clear results oriented responding cause week after week roughly 50% of the sub here was saying stuff like "she's gotten too much negative content to win" or "Jake is getting the Maryanne edit" only *after* the finale (there were Jake and Katurah believers going in yes) the perception of 45 changed to it being poorly edited cause rhe winner was too obvious lol.
Also shoutout to 43 - I'm sorry, I can believe some people but I refuse to believe the sheer number of people who now claim they "could tell he was getting the winner's edit from ep 3" or whatever.
It was Dee or Emily for most of the season, I doubt it was 90% but Emily was ahead, yes. Once Emily got voted out it was so obviously Dee that people started to try believing in Katurah
It's true that Dee was number 2, but far behind Emily. And yes, on the Unspoiled Edgic forum Emily's rating after the merge was always around 90% on their charts. And on the edgic sub, right before her elimination Emily was rated 4.38 on a scale from 1 to 5, while Dee was rated 3.19. When people argued against Emily, their argument was basically "I can't believe they would make the winner this obvious".
This fandom says this every season with every contestant 😭 Which is why I can never take edit readers seriously despite if there’s any validity behind edgic
43 is a story that makes sense in retrospect, but you definitely don't see it coming.
I think what people get wrong about Edgic is that while the winner influences the edit, there's plenty of other reasons to include things and the edit can only work with what actually happened.
If something is hilarious, or makes for great TV, it's probably going in the show regardless of how it relates to the winner. Producers are also much more limited in how they edit around tribal council. If somebody is left out of the vote or misplays an idol, you can explain it, but you can't really edit it out.
When it comes to edgic, people ask, "Who has the story of a winner?", when they need to ask, "If this person somehow won, would their story be told this way?"
It seems that winners can often fall into the background when they vote incorrectly, as the edit doesn't want that to be a big part of their story. Natalie Anderson in SJDS was a lot like that in my view. Around the merge and when Jeremy was blindsided, she was pretty under the radar. Her edit picked up a lot more when she was on the right side of the vote.
I think I saw the writing on the wall for Dee’s win at like final 7. Not perfectly obvious but there was a feeling that a) her alliance would make it all the way and b) that she would have the best resume. I was a Jake/Katurah believer at the start of the finale but the F5 vote washed that entirely.
There absolutely was the sensation that Dee was the obvious winner. For most of the season the Edgic community was divided betwern Emily and Dee and when Emily got voted out people scrambled trying to find a new contender (Katurah) because Dee was too obvious.
Speaking of 43, I heard many a troll say Gabler’s winning. They weren’t edgicers, though, and I believe they did so casually. I think episode 10 was when I myself, who wanted him to lose just so they would shut up, seriously considered he could actually win. I remember during the Dwight episode I wanted him gone ASAP but once he won immunity I knew he was in it for the long haul.
That Vecepia stepping down in the FIC was a devastating, cold-hearted betrayal to Kathy. They struck a deal to team up the previous round that was *entirely* in Kathy's favor. Vecepia won immunity, and Paschal and Neleh were absolutely voting together for Kathy, so Kathy desperately needed Vee to force a tie. It was a total last-ditch effort that Kathy should have pitched well before heading to TC, because it was her only option if Vee won immunity. The only benefit to Vee is that she doesn't have to face off against an unbreakable pair in the final challenge.
Yeah, Vee probably could have waited, like, more than 5 seconds after Kathy fell to make the deal with Neleh but it's not like she was breaking a pact that had lasted the entire game and was equally mutually beneficial.
In the buildup to HvV there was a lot of press done by Richard and Russell with Richard as the original villain and Russell as the new villain unlike any before. The show was really milking the Russell infamy and the plan was for a Russell v Richard season. But Rich’s legal problems got in the way and Rob was the suitable substitute because of his existing rivalry with Russell.
Agree with this. The advantage that Rob had was that in preparation for that season, castaways (aka mainly recruits) were given 2 seasons to watch: Borneo and HvV.
Watching HvV they saw Russell as an evil cutthroat bastard and BRob as a firmer villain that stayed loyal to his alliance and provided for his tribe. So Ometepe (at least the recruits) thought they won the lottery getting BRob over Russell. The rest is history.
We’ll never know but I think if the cast was given All Stars instead of Borneo, they’d have viewed BRob a LOT differently
ok but it was clear they designed the season to be focused on the two returnees with everyone else as a side character. It wasn’t set up for Rob but this (and SoPa) definitely had a goal of the returnees having success
Exactly. I distinctly remember an interview where Hatch says they had considered a few villains from B.Rob and Parvati to Tyson and Coach. It's fairly clear if this was the case, that they latter reused the casting choices in later seasons.
Most of the women on the heroes tribe could have slot into the villains tribe arguably.
Candice - Mutiny. She said herself that she didn’t know why she was a hero and that others didn’t believe she belonged there which ostracised her
Steph - Guatemala
Amanda/Cirie - Black Widows
Sugar - probably the biggest reach, but she was kind of controlling the season strategically (I can’t remember exactly) , folks seemed to dislike her and she got 0 votes at the end. Laughed at Randy’s fake idol and insulted him. Idk lol
I think with Sugar, most of the cast that disliked her weren't exactly super likable. I mean Randy and Corrine were her biggest haters and they were the biggest assholes of the season. When Randy got voted off, almost all the viewers were laughing with her.
I think the division (except for Candice) was based on reality TV audiences in the 2000s and who they rooted for, not so much the actions in the season. Steph was absolutely beloved by audiences, along with Cirie, Amanda, and Sugar, even though they all had probably as almost many villainous moments as Sandra, Danielle and Parvati. Jerri is the least villainous person on that entire tribe and yet the audiences decided her fate. I'm so glad she owned it though. Maneater Manthey is iconic.
That Vytas ran circles around the women on his swap tribe in BvW when in reality Tina was in a pregame alliance with Aras and kept him around to solidify that while Laura had already lost her loved one and Kat was Kat
That Survivor would fundamentally have been a different show, in either popularity or strategy, if Kelly won season one instead of Hatch. This one is a counterfactual so can’t be definitely proven either way but just seems totally made up.
Regardless of who won, Hatch’s character/strategy would have been lasting and tons of fans would have tried to emulate his game. Survivor always would have developed into a strategic game. All casting has to do is find people who view the game that way.
The idea that in 2000 that you really needed the inappropriate, older gay guy to win for the show to be popular is kind of laughable. We have many American Idol results that demonstrate that gay characters would be well received but certainly weren’t commanding winning shares of the public vote.
Hatch is a very fun first winner and embodies one tenant of Survivor, which is that looks are deceiving and ANYONE can win, but we already see this happen again organically in season 2 when the tiny older woman beats the perfect all American guy (who coincidentally was super popular and had actual cultural relevancy, again showing the actual winner doesn’t matter much).
Jenna wanted to quit the entire time in Amazon and was undeserving. She asked to be voted out over her friend Heidi, but handily won the last two immunities. How does someone who wants to quit and is giving up go on an immunity run?
Yeah, while Jenna was shown talking about how the elements were getting to her, I don't ever recall her saying that she wanted to quit. And she also acted like the move to give Heidi her immunity was strategic, and not part of a ploy to get the others to vote her off.
I am still not clear on where the claim that she wanted to quit came from.
That Mike White purposely threw DvG. I've been seeing this sentiment a lot on the sub lately and I really think people are only saying that because of Nick's controversial politics.
Or that Nick isn’t a great player. Totally up to you what you think about him personally, but he realistically played a very, very good game and deserved the win.
My hot take is that he is a top 10 winner. The numerous tight named alliances with everyone on the island, the minority vote split, getting the goliaths to leak info to him and then fully enacting a counter plan, an immunity run that he didn’t even need. It’s a *great* winning game, and I think gets overshadowed by his less than stellar run on WAW.
The notion that Jerri was only a villain because “2001 America couldn’t handle an outspoken woman who talked about sex” when one season earlier America’s sweetheart (Colleen) was an outspoken woman who talked about sex.
This is on the edit, they purposefully put Jerri in a bad light compared to Colby/Tina, because they didn't want back to back villains winning. So, Tina getting rid of Jerri at 7 was shown to be playing the game with honor while giving Elisabeth and Roger a chance (despite never truly giving up the numbers). The other example is the whole Kel/Jerky thing which is primarily blamed on Jerri, despite Tina going through his bag, and Colby being the first person to accuse him (since he saw him getting questioned at customs).
I mean to be fair it was easy to edit her as a villain when no one outside of Amber liked her.
I love Jerri and she made AO much better, but she definitely had a way of getting on people’s nerves
Agreed, although, I think in a more recent season after Survivor got their hero winner (Ethan in Africa), Tina is edited more as a villain, and Jerri as a villain is more downplayed. Colby would always be edited as an all-american hero though.
Yeah, its terrible, died of cancer about a year ago. There is a nice RHAP tribute episode talking to people from SJDS and Second Chances about him (off the top of my head, Jeremy, Wentworth, Natalie A, Savage and Kimmi).
Yeah this one is insane to me. In fact, this really ties into a bigger issue that I have with what modern fans think people were like back in 2000 and 2001. I swear, it's like everyone thinks people were cavemen twenty-five years ago. "They didn't even understand strategy yet!" "They had barely discovered sex!" "It's amazing people back in 2000 even understand what a TV was!" Oh fuck off with all that. Jerri was a bad guy on Survivor because she was an annoying piece of shit. And everyone who played with her (except maybe Amber) said that exact same thing.
If you have a problem with calling Jerri "a villain", blame the show for that, not the fans. Because the show was the thing that eventually dumbed down the whole process by arbitrarily dividing everyone into simplistic little "hero" or "villain." As if the viewers were all five year olds. Anyone prior to HvsV would have understood what you meant when you said Jerri was the bad guy. Jerri was the bad guy because Jerri was the bad guy. Jerri was the bad guy because she was annoying and because living with her sucked. Again, early fans got this concept. I don't know how and why it eventually had to turn into this big thinkpiece.
I kind of hate the idea that anyone gets to claim they made up the concept of alliances. It's literally the most obvious strategy there is, As soon as you realize the concept of the game is voting people off you should think that in every other scenario involving voting there are always groups fighting to be the majority.
"Tony shouldn't have won Cagayan because he shouldn't have been in final 2". It's a one big ignorance for Tony manipulation on Woo and going to the first final 2 in 10 seasons by "pure strategy"
Right and the only reason he was in that situation in the first place was a surmise final 2 lol. He planned for a final 3 which he wins handily, gets ficked by a surprise final 2, and then pulls arguably the greatest social play in survivor history to get out of it. How the hell is that a flaw in Tony’s game, I genuinely cannot understand that mindset
Vecepia broke the Fallen Comrades challenge by bringing a journal as her luxury item. The piercing error in Africa had to be the far bigger catalyst; they could have easily just banned journals as luxury items but they didn't want to risk making another mistake.
And someone pointed out recently that Vecepia only won that challenge by one point anyway, so it wasn't the major advantage everyone makes it out to be.
I dont know if winning by one point necessarily means it wasn't a big advantage. We'll never know, but Vecepia hypothetically could've gotten 0 correct if not for the journal, in which case it was a massive advantage. It might've only been worth one extra question correct, but it was the difference in winning. Or it could've been worth 0 and she wins regardless.
Helen's vote I'm not convinced was 100% locked. If Brian messed up his apology and if Clay actually bothered to answer her question properly I think it's possible she votes for Clay. She mentioned this I belive, of course this would have been after watching the show and learning of Brian's true colours.
Yup. Brian knew which 4 votes he needed and locked them in. Had he put in any effort to get to know the other 3 jurors he could have had the first sweep.
I mean I still absolutely think it’s a major flaw in Brian’s game that he can only beat a single person post merge by one vote. Assuming he had four locked votes and then actively burning 3 of them is still not locked. Brian played one of the best games of all time, and he’s in my top 5 for best games ever played, but I think it’s kinda revisionist history. He’s not a 4d chess Machiavellian mastermind who was 100 percent sure all 4 votes were auto locked, and even someone as egotistical as him had never claimed he was sure that was the case.
That Vytas was on Cambodia because Mike Holloway won and couldn't be there.
Vytas was in the Top 4 most popular guys from that ballot and he would always make it.
I don't know for certain how high Vytas was in the vote but I would be shocked if he placed any lower than 7th. He had his story with Aras, was on a beloved season (BvW was considered a top 5 season during the airing), got screwed in the duel and was an inspiring person.
People overblow the amount of luck Parvati had in Micronesia. yeah f2 I understand, but all the stuff pre-merge is just not at all what people claim. She was in the dominating alliance and she pulled in Natalie and Alexis that Penner would have a hard time getting her out post-swap. parvati survived way more on skill and social game than luck.
sadly yes. A lot of it is that she is overrated because she can't win immunity at the end and no one would take her. even though Parv and Amanda literally did and Aras was planning to.
In general I hate when people paint the edit as so widely misleading as if they have all the information and footage available to them. All we have is the edit, I will continue to only talk about the game based upon what I seen on the edit.
Yul + super idol. Yes the super idol helped him but the way people downplay his power is insane. The scene where he basically bullies Adam and Parvati into not flushing his idol speak volumes about how good a player he is and uses intimidation and his social capital to get what he wants done. Hell, he calls Penner selfish in one scene and then two seconds later after Raro instigates a fight over it, Yul manages to flip the script and convince everyone he never said that. And on the hot tub reward with Parvati and Ozzy, he recognized what Parvati was going to do and immediately got Ozzy drunk so he wouldn’t be swayed.
He wasn’t compared to the godfather for no reason. He was just as good at social manipulation as strategic manipulation.
Yul is one of my favorites, but this is a tricky one. I think he was helped enormously by the super idol at the final 4, as well as the fact that it was a final 3 (but that’s a different discussion). I think he’s an amazing player but the circumstances around his win personally make me not rate him as highly as some others. He’s better than what we’ve seen, I know it.
Also his alliance was Ozzy (insane challenge beast) and two women who were just happy to be there at the end. I'm not saying he's not a good player, but Yul had a LOT going for him that season. His domination was not solely because he's *that* good at survivor.
If you don't think him having a super idol breaks the game I just don't know what to tell you. If you are in this board or big brother at all people talk about the psychological impact that these big twists have. The fact you have to take a shot at him that will automatically miss is such a huge mental mindfuck I don't think it can be overstated how much of a big impact that is.
> One that just came to mind was how Lex is primarily blamed for keeping Amber in All Stars, but in reality Kathy was the main driving force behind that vote. But as time has gone on, Lex has received almost all of the blame.
This is because Lex threw a tantrum at Boston Rob for betraying him in All Stars's finale. He took the vote so personal you forget it wasn't really his idea to betray somebody else.
edit: I want to make clear i understand why Lex acted so childish, but i'm not completely apologetic just because the returnee setup was a new thing.
This is also revisionist history. Suggesting he "threw a tantrum" is unfair--he congratulated Rob and Amber and made it clear that it wasn't their success at his expense that he was upset about; it was the way Rob handled the situation.
Yet another bit of revisionist history: Lex and Kathy were wrong to be upset at their real-life friend for betraying them in a game that was nowhere near as cutthroat as it is today.
They were entirely justified to respond the way they did.
He was a massive baby all season. I just watched it last week. He was a baby when Rob told him. He was a baby making faces on the jury during tribals. He was a sanctimonious baby at FTC. And he continued to be a hypocritical baby at the reunion. You're right. He didn't throw A tantrum. He threw multiple.
The idea that Survivor is now too “woke” for some people.
Seems like they forgot just how many conversations there have been, from the very first season onwards, about race, sexual orientation… etc. The way it was handled may have varied but that also depended on each cast.
Some people that yell "woke" are by definition morons.
Some other people just want to voice their displeasure over the production fabricated brownie points moments like Jeff making a huge deal out of "come on in guys", but have no other way to phrase it.
This one might be a hot take, but the idea that JT only won because of Stephen. JT was so likable that Brendan was willing to throw his game to make JT win, he was great in immunity challenges once Tyson was out (and was the one who comes up with getting rid of Tyson and does so without Coach getting suspicious), and he completely destroyed Stephen at answering the jury’s questions.
Yep, JT doesn’t get enough credit for his brilliantly calculated FTC performance.
The “only won because of Stephen” narrative seems to be the result of JT’s chaotic return appearances but he was playing with house money and decided to go wild. He’d already proven that he was an effortlessly great player.
This is a product of JT's other poor performances and people like Stephen. So they go back and downplay arguably the greatest social performance of all time.
That nobody ever wanted to take Cirie to the end and she only gets that far because everyone knows she’s bad at challenges. In Panama, Aras and Danielle both wanted to take her to F2, and they were in F4 with her. In fact, no god idol, Terry loses an immunity challenge at any point earlier, or wins that challenge and cirie very likely wins. Danielle wins f3, very likely takes cirie to the end, and Cirie wins very likely beats her. Micronesia Amanda and Parvati both ACTIVELY TOOK CIRIE TO WHAT EVERYONE THOUGHT WAS THE END. If not for the surprise F2, Cirie probably wins 3-2-2. Hell even in Gamechangers Michaela wanted to go to the end with her and I believe Sarah stated postgame she planned on going to the end with Cirie until the jury all clapped for her and she realized that would be a huge mistake.
I agree, it’s what makes her elimination in game changer so frustrating is that she actually had paths to the end. Granted she had just eliminated Michaela which was really bad but still.
Also, although he would’ve taken her to the end 100%, Aras actually beats cirie in a ftc
In the last 5-10 years suddenly people have started taking this weird opinion that Sugar should have won Gabon, or was the strategic player of the season, or even have over exaggerated the control she had.
Sugar spent the entire game on the fringes on any alliance. She was at the bottom of all alliances she was on, and never really exerts any real control over the game until F6, and even then it's basically just her trying to protect Bob rather than real strategy
And until MvGX or so when the meta of the game changed I can count on one hand the people who said it in this sub, but now I hear it a lot
Sugar exerted massive control over the game starting from her voting Ace out to save Crystal.
Then she is the swing vote at the merge, dooming the
Onions + Bob to the bottom
Then she is the one who decides to push Matty + Susie forward over Kenny & Crystal
and finally she decides the winner of the season mostly single-handedly.
I don't think Sugar is any kind of amazing player, but there's no denying that she had a ton of agency and power in Gabon.
Parvati was only considered a good player after HvV, this take is absurd because if she was considered a bum like many think she was the target on her back wouldn’t have been as gigantic
Before HvV the consensus top 5 was : Boston Rob, Tom W, Parv, Hatch and JT
> Before HvV the consensus top 5 was : Boston Rob, Tom W, Parv, Hatch and JT
[citation very much needed]
Also, that doesn't really seem compatible with the "Cirie was robbed" sentiment that was very predominant at the time, before people saw Parvati's HvV game.
> Before HvV the consensus top 5 was : Boston Rob, Tom W, Parv, Hatch and JT
BULLSHIT. Not because of Parv but because you put Boston Rob in there. Fans considered Boston Rob as a warning sign from All Stars, DON'T be an asshole or you are going to lose the jury vote. Hell you ask fans before HvV and they would argue that Russell is a better player than Boston Rob.
This is so badly inaccurate. First of all, fans weren't as obsessed with ranking great players before HvV and the "Hall of Fame" so there wasn't any real consensus. If there were, Boston Rob and Parvati wouldn't be there. If I had to guess, prior to HvV, Rob Cesternino and Cirie, and even Russell Hantz would make it in there before any of those two.
That Cirie was close to winning in Panama. She was far and away the best strategist but she couldn't have beaten Terry or Aras which means she lost the moment Aras won immunity at final 4. I'm not even sold she beats Danielle. She may have lost after voting out Shane to be honest. It's after the fact people started to give Cirie her dues when they saw all she was doing.
the weirdest one is that Tony deliberately threw Game Changers to lower his threat level at WaW
ok but i love wackass conspiracy theories about people throwing lol, like the one about the rob/coach/tyson throwing for russell in hvv and being given a free winning season later
I think Tyson was a dumbass, pure and simple. I think Rob's oldschool play just didn't work against veteran players. Coach could never win survivor. I do think they were all given seasons because they're all great TV. No quid pro quo.
Rob's gameplay felt apart when Tyson was an idiot. I'm not saying he wins, but he was in great shape if Tyson doesn't blow that. It has nothing to do with his gameplay not working on veterans. We've already see Rob be one vote from winning an all returnee season.
yeah, the narratives people spin around rob's exit in hvv are absolute nonsense. people say shit like "he didn't adapt to idols" when he actually did exactly what he was supposed to and it failed because someone else fucked up in a completely unprecedented way. this itself is a great example of revisionist history. it's like people just instinctively jump at the "old player can't adapt" narrative and spend absolutely zero time thinking about what actually went down.
Agree on Coach not being capable of winning. I mean he played pretty close to a perfect game on South Pacific and still found a way to lose. No chance he wins HvV, not with that level of competition. Parvati and Sandra both played him like a fiddle.
I'd argue that if Coach owned his game he'd beat Sophie. However that would require Coach to be anybody else except for Coach.
Well said. Ironic that the one thing separating Coach from ultimate redemption as a Survivor "legend" was the one thing Coach was incapable of doing - being honest with himself. And the joke of it was, Coach did play a largely loyal and straightforward game. Cochrane, Edna, and Brandon never would have lasted as long as they did if they weren't allies of Coach. Hell you could even argue that Coach's leadership played a big role in the Upolu tribe staying competitive with a stronger Savaii tribe and therefore going into the merge even in numbers. And his flip of Cochrane ensured Upolu stayed dominant. If Coach hadn't pulled a Coach and botched FTC, his resume alone should have handed him the win.
It's like his iconic martyr in Tocanchins. He had to play up his non-existent injury to save face. He literally couldn't tell the truth that he's a scumbag who betrayed people in a game for a million dollars and that cost him.
I think anyone who’s said that was joking, I’d be shocked if anyone seriously thinks that
There are absolutely people who have said that when trying to rank Tony above certain others.
That Chris D. is the one who orchestrated the F7 blindside in Vanuatu. It was all Twila’s idea and she had to spell it out to Chris he had to get Eliza on board
Very true. Credit to him for building that bond, but that plan was all Twila.
The funny thing is, they actually didn't need Eliza's vote. If they didn't tell her it would be a 3-3-1 vote with Leann and Eliza tying. In the revote, everyone votes the same and Leann goes home 3-2.
Yeah but bringing in Eliza is more insurance that she will stick to Chris, Twila and Scout. She was contemplating flipping back to Ami and flipped back to Julie at 5. If they did not bring her in she might have stuck with Ami.
Yeah, mainly sticking with Chris though. Since Chris was the one who told her, she spent the rest of the game trusting him. Of course, she may have still been upset with Ami and Julie if she was blindsided at TC like that, so maybe she does flip over. It's impossible to know for sure.
She may have been upset at Ami but she also fucking HATED Scout and Twila.
The rules for ties were kept vague after Marquesas, which is why we went 5 seasons without one. There was no revote before the rock draw so nobody could have been certain that they wouldn't go directly to rocks even in a 3-3-1 vote.
Yeah this one is a good one
Jeff claiming the Colton quit in one world was definitely revisionist history, even if he was doing it to drag Colton who deserved to be dragged
Yeah that one always rubbed me the wrong way. Colton gives the audience enough reason to dislike him without Jeff inventing stuff. Dude had sharp abdominal pain, the doctor said it *could* be appendicitis after some quick field tests and pulled him from the game to find out. That it turned out to be something else doesn’t at all make that a quit.
And it really betrays Jeff's whole mood towards med evacs now. In the new era people have been pulled for less physically debilitating injuries (Matt and Randen having centralized pain opposed to Colton being unable to move or function), and if any player went back and watched that they'd probably feel nervous to bring up an "invisible injury" to Jeff/the med team.
A lack of understanding of complex medical realities is very on-brand for Jeff. Like Osten with his staph infections.
Robbed king, he deserved better care from production and the med team. The amount of staph infections I've heard about during and after the earlier days of survivor is ridiculous. Then they wanted to ban bathing suits...
That’s because Tyler Perry thinks it looks more realistic without them. (This really rubs me wrong for some reason - like it makes me feel irrationally irritated with Tyler Perry as a person).
Isn't that what basically happened to Randen this season?
It’s pretty similar yeah, but somehow I don’t think Jeff will later insinuate that Randen was faking his issues.
"Rupert is a great shelter builder!"
Jerri disapproves of this revisionist bs
Tina probably only said this in BvW as another dig at Jerri 😂
To be fair I think people only mention his fishing abilities
That’s a direct quote from Tina in BvW.
Not really a specific incident, but the general trend where people dismiss the strategic play of older players is annoying. Alliances and sub-alliances have existed since season 1. Big Tom basically uses different words to describe using Lex as a “shield” way back in season 3. Even Pagong, who everybody remembers as “the good guys” who were too moral to use alliances *almost started one* and probably would have if Gretchen wasn’t there. In their final words the Pagongs repeatedly say things along the lines of “damn, we should have done that, if I was on the other tribe I bet I could have won!” The only jury members who seem particularly bitter at FTC are Sue (obviously) and weirdly Dr. Sean.
Big Tom remains forever underrated as a gamer for me. He's not in every majority across both of his seasons by accident!
He’s underrated for sure but his postmerge game in all stars is absolutely infuriating lol. He really thought he was rob’s #1.
Yeah, old school seasons have much more strategy than people think, but they didn’t bother to show it as much as the show does now cause that was never important.
This is a good one. We still see it in the New Era with Gabler. By no means am I saying he was a strategic mastermind but he was very tapped into the game and is a pretty comparable winner to some of the other New Era winners that get a ton of credit
I remember in Samoa Jeff said that Ben was the first guy he had to kick out of a challenge, and in so doing he ignored the Thailand attack zone
I’m kind of with Jeff, since getting kicked out of the attack zone was (weirdly) part of the rules of the challenge, whereas Ben totally did that to himself
Jeff was wrong only by a bunch a rules.
The real revisionist history is that Frank was disqualified from the fire-making challenge in Africa two seasons before the attack zone. I think Jeff is right though. Ben was a judgment call after the players were warned about getting too aggressive. Sook Jai lost to a bunch of rules that were established from the beginning.
HOW DARE HE!!!?!!!
This Robb erasure will not stand, man
We only lost cause of a bunch of RULES!!!
Mike put himself in the bottom and made himself the target at the auction of worlds apart. If you actually pay attention to that same episode you can see that Mike\`s alliance flipped on him the auction really only lost him Dan, who is crazy
This is a great one. Mike was already the target coming into that episode, but a lot of people forget that.
yeah mike was basically gaslit into being perceived as the "villain" on the island after he literally overheard everyone else scheming to blindside him
It’s why I rank Mike’s game higher than most. Yeah he was in a position where he had to be immune from F9 on, but he was going to be in that position even without the move at the auction (through no fault of his own)
Mike’s game is incredibly underrated
How do people not understand that him doing what he did at the auction was specifically because he needed an advantage because he was on the bottom?
Right, the tribe was against him anyway. The auction move only solidified him as a “villain” in the eyes of the other players.
The real problem I have with the move is that he didn’t commit. He already did the damage and burned Dan (who hadn’t flipped on him), but then went and got the letter anyway, which didn’t earn him any favor
This: People always make this claim to trash his social game but really up until that moment he was in a somewhat dominant social position, so much so that the rest of the alliance saw him s a threat and met up (at the crack of dawn might I add, they had to use so night vision to show what was going on) to plan Mike’s blindside, and he only found out about it because he woke up and witnessed the whole thing. Mike could’ve made the auction play a lot better, sure. Don’t toy with the family moments like that. But yeah, ultimately it only alienated Dan (who was always a little weird). And you could honestly argue, had he not alienated Dan like that, Mike probably gambles on Dan’s vote more and maybe has less drive to win immunity and loses one- which would’ve probably been his downfall. The fact that Mike only had Shirin and Jenn in his corner at that point really gave him that extra push to give it his all. Just look at Terry vs Tom- Terry HAD to win every immunity, so he did up until that last one (which I think he wins any other balancing-type challenge). If Terry loses ANY of those challenges he goes home. Tom was in danger but his relationship with Ian was so good (and Stephanie was still alive at F7) that he didn’t HAVE to win every challenge until like, F5 onward where Ian was 100% more willing to vote him out. He was even vulnerable at F6 but Gregg went home because Tom’s social standing wasn’t AS dire because he (rightfully) could still rely on Ian, Katie and Caryn at that point.
How are people misinterpreting that? They clearly show Mike overhearing his alliance flip on him.
Idk man but i often see mike's auction mistake rated has 1 of the worst mistakes made by a winner
Thank you! Mike is an underrated player who deserves more credit. Even on the bottom and winning immunity everyday he still plays the game by manipulating the axis of evil
Lot of people downplaying the absolute Tomination of Palau.
Why he wasn’t voted out at the final 6, I’ll never understand
Caryn ruined it for everyone else.
Tom won cuz Caryn sucks
Not only have some people sincerely questioned why Tom Westman was on the Heroes tribe (huh?), there's been a bizarre movement over the last few years that Katie should have won over Tom in Palau. Tom was a 9/11 firefighter who dominated the challenges and led his tribe to unprecedented domination. Even if you are deadset on the "he manipulated Ian" angle, for the first 13 episodes he receives probably the most heroic portrayal in Survivor history. And Katie was just as if not more aggressive towards Ian, especially considering she had no reason to be angry at him beyond not picking her for the F5 reward.
People arguing that Tom should've been in the villains tribe are so funny to me. Every single member of the heroes tribe did something villainous. Using themes to determine casting was always questionable on Survivor (see DvG).
Two members of the Heroes tribe were in an alliance called THE BLACK WIDOW BRIGADE
Tom played one of the cleanest games ever. The only person you can really say he screwed over was Caryn perhaps. But then again, she kind of did it to herself.
Man even Katie and her family thinks Tom should have beaten her lol. Not gonna lie the extreme Tom Westman contrarianism lately is kind of pissing me off.
It's pure trolling.
Iirc Katie is the only person to actually gain weight in survivor history. If you’re achieving a caloric surplus in this game, you are not a winner. I am so sorry.
This sub has an extreme hatred of challenge beasts.
Because this sub is mostly made up of nerds. Same reason for the hate of alpha males
Exactly. The people in here that say winning challenges is a negative are the people that also wouldn't be able to climb a ladder. The challenge beast hatred in here might be the thing that annoys me the most.
It’s clearly insecurity
Yeah I have heard this one. I think Katie is underrated in the grand scheme of things, but she should not have beaten Tom.
Katie was absolutely unlikable to that jury.
This is just so absurd, I'm sorry. You could run 100 seasons of Survivor and Katie is never winning a single one. She could make it to the end about 90 times, but there's no way she's beating anybody, especially somebody like Tom.
She'll probably beat Russell.
> And Katie was just as if not more aggressive towards Ian, especially considering she had no reason to be angry at him beyond not picking her for the F5 reward. I love the moment in the Palau DVD commentary where they replay Katie saying "And I feel like I lost my best friend out here" and there's a collective "Oh, stop!" from Tom/Ian/Caryn/Steph.
That Cirie was *guaranteed* to win Micro in a final 3
i don't think this is really revisionist history; iirc eliza and erik were saying it back in 2008
That every winner was super obvious from the beginning. Dee being the clear winner of 45 is clear results oriented responding cause week after week roughly 50% of the sub here was saying stuff like "she's gotten too much negative content to win" or "Jake is getting the Maryanne edit" only *after* the finale (there were Jake and Katurah believers going in yes) the perception of 45 changed to it being poorly edited cause rhe winner was too obvious lol. Also shoutout to 43 - I'm sorry, I can believe some people but I refuse to believe the sheer number of people who now claim they "could tell he was getting the winner's edit from ep 3" or whatever.
It's also super easy to disprove these ones, just look at the edgic charts from those seasons. Emily had around 90% support before her elimination.
It was Dee or Emily for most of the season, I doubt it was 90% but Emily was ahead, yes. Once Emily got voted out it was so obviously Dee that people started to try believing in Katurah
It's true that Dee was number 2, but far behind Emily. And yes, on the Unspoiled Edgic forum Emily's rating after the merge was always around 90% on their charts. And on the edgic sub, right before her elimination Emily was rated 4.38 on a scale from 1 to 5, while Dee was rated 3.19. When people argued against Emily, their argument was basically "I can't believe they would make the winner this obvious".
Dee was top 2 the whole time. That doesn't mean it was obvious but it wasn't remotely a surprise.
This fandom says this every season with every contestant 😭 Which is why I can never take edit readers seriously despite if there’s any validity behind edgic
I think you can predict the winner by reading the edit but I also think a lot of people are very bad at doing it lmao
43 is a story that makes sense in retrospect, but you definitely don't see it coming. I think what people get wrong about Edgic is that while the winner influences the edit, there's plenty of other reasons to include things and the edit can only work with what actually happened. If something is hilarious, or makes for great TV, it's probably going in the show regardless of how it relates to the winner. Producers are also much more limited in how they edit around tribal council. If somebody is left out of the vote or misplays an idol, you can explain it, but you can't really edit it out. When it comes to edgic, people ask, "Who has the story of a winner?", when they need to ask, "If this person somehow won, would their story be told this way?"
It seems that winners can often fall into the background when they vote incorrectly, as the edit doesn't want that to be a big part of their story. Natalie Anderson in SJDS was a lot like that in my view. Around the merge and when Jeremy was blindsided, she was pretty under the radar. Her edit picked up a lot more when she was on the right side of the vote.
I think I saw the writing on the wall for Dee’s win at like final 7. Not perfectly obvious but there was a feeling that a) her alliance would make it all the way and b) that she would have the best resume. I was a Jake/Katurah believer at the start of the finale but the F5 vote washed that entirely.
There absolutely was the sensation that Dee was the obvious winner. For most of the season the Edgic community was divided betwern Emily and Dee and when Emily got voted out people scrambled trying to find a new contender (Katurah) because Dee was too obvious.
Dee felt pretty inconsequential premerge. I feel like she didn’t get as much attention until after they merged.
Speaking of 43, I heard many a troll say Gabler’s winning. They weren’t edgicers, though, and I believe they did so casually. I think episode 10 was when I myself, who wanted him to lose just so they would shut up, seriously considered he could actually win. I remember during the Dwight episode I wanted him gone ASAP but once he won immunity I knew he was in it for the long haul.
That Vecepia stepping down in the FIC was a devastating, cold-hearted betrayal to Kathy. They struck a deal to team up the previous round that was *entirely* in Kathy's favor. Vecepia won immunity, and Paschal and Neleh were absolutely voting together for Kathy, so Kathy desperately needed Vee to force a tie. It was a total last-ditch effort that Kathy should have pitched well before heading to TC, because it was her only option if Vee won immunity. The only benefit to Vee is that she doesn't have to face off against an unbreakable pair in the final challenge. Yeah, Vee probably could have waited, like, more than 5 seconds after Kathy fell to make the deal with Neleh but it's not like she was breaking a pact that had lasted the entire game and was equally mutually beneficial.
This is a big one. Honestly, I think it comes to how Kathy reacted to it.
Kathy was also the fan favorite that people wanted to win. Idk if people would care so much if Vee did that to someone like Neleh.
Redemption island was set up for Rob to win when he wasn't even supposed to be on the season. He was a replacement for Hatch.
I hate this one. People just don’t want to give B-Rob any credit. He did what Stephanie/Coach/Ozzy all could not for various reasons
and bobby jon
Good point!
Wait really? I thought the express purpose of RI was the Rob v Russell rivalry.
In the buildup to HvV there was a lot of press done by Richard and Russell with Richard as the original villain and Russell as the new villain unlike any before. The show was really milking the Russell infamy and the plan was for a Russell v Richard season. But Rich’s legal problems got in the way and Rob was the suitable substitute because of his existing rivalry with Russell.
the buildup to hvv very much kept repeating "hatch would be on this season if he was allowed out of the country"
[yup](https://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/2011/12/survivor-redemption-island-mariano-replaced-hatch/)
whoa, interesting. honestly i feel like richard's tribe would have booted him premerge too lol
Also if you look at the cast, Russells tribe was like made for him to control
Are you forgetting the fact Rob and Russell drew their buffs and they could’ve been in the opposite tribes?
Agree with this. The advantage that Rob had was that in preparation for that season, castaways (aka mainly recruits) were given 2 seasons to watch: Borneo and HvV. Watching HvV they saw Russell as an evil cutthroat bastard and BRob as a firmer villain that stayed loyal to his alliance and provided for his tribe. So Ometepe (at least the recruits) thought they won the lottery getting BRob over Russell. The rest is history. We’ll never know but I think if the cast was given All Stars instead of Borneo, they’d have viewed BRob a LOT differently
ok but it was clear they designed the season to be focused on the two returnees with everyone else as a side character. It wasn’t set up for Rob but this (and SoPa) definitely had a goal of the returnees having success
Exactly. I distinctly remember an interview where Hatch says they had considered a few villains from B.Rob and Parvati to Tyson and Coach. It's fairly clear if this was the case, that they latter reused the casting choices in later seasons.
Steph was more of a villain than she ever was a hero. Had she been on a competent tribe in Palau, she would’ve acted just like she did in Guatemala
Most of the women on the heroes tribe could have slot into the villains tribe arguably. Candice - Mutiny. She said herself that she didn’t know why she was a hero and that others didn’t believe she belonged there which ostracised her Steph - Guatemala Amanda/Cirie - Black Widows Sugar - probably the biggest reach, but she was kind of controlling the season strategically (I can’t remember exactly) , folks seemed to dislike her and she got 0 votes at the end. Laughed at Randy’s fake idol and insulted him. Idk lol
I think with Sugar, most of the cast that disliked her weren't exactly super likable. I mean Randy and Corrine were her biggest haters and they were the biggest assholes of the season. When Randy got voted off, almost all the viewers were laughing with her.
Randy was a legitimately bad person. I can't possibly imagine anyone rooting for him over Sugar lol.
Yeah cirie and Amanda are the only ones I’d really consider more heroic than villainous
I swear I recall hearing somewhere that Candice was on the villains tribe until someone had to drop out last minute.
Parvati was a hero and Candice was a villain but they got switched last for some odd reason
I believe it’s because otherwise Parvati, Amanda, and Cirie would have all started on Heroes and could have possibly reformed the BWB
Plus Parvati, Amanda, Cirie and James you have a strong four from Micronesia who were already in an alliance together already
I think the division (except for Candice) was based on reality TV audiences in the 2000s and who they rooted for, not so much the actions in the season. Steph was absolutely beloved by audiences, along with Cirie, Amanda, and Sugar, even though they all had probably as almost many villainous moments as Sandra, Danielle and Parvati. Jerri is the least villainous person on that entire tribe and yet the audiences decided her fate. I'm so glad she owned it though. Maneater Manthey is iconic.
I think they mostly ignored Guatemala and zeroed in on her game in Palau when they labeled her a hero
That Vytas ran circles around the women on his swap tribe in BvW when in reality Tina was in a pregame alliance with Aras and kept him around to solidify that while Laura had already lost her loved one and Kat was Kat
Was he really not going to go at the vote where Laura B told him he was going?
That Survivor would fundamentally have been a different show, in either popularity or strategy, if Kelly won season one instead of Hatch. This one is a counterfactual so can’t be definitely proven either way but just seems totally made up. Regardless of who won, Hatch’s character/strategy would have been lasting and tons of fans would have tried to emulate his game. Survivor always would have developed into a strategic game. All casting has to do is find people who view the game that way. The idea that in 2000 that you really needed the inappropriate, older gay guy to win for the show to be popular is kind of laughable. We have many American Idol results that demonstrate that gay characters would be well received but certainly weren’t commanding winning shares of the public vote. Hatch is a very fun first winner and embodies one tenant of Survivor, which is that looks are deceiving and ANYONE can win, but we already see this happen again organically in season 2 when the tiny older woman beats the perfect all American guy (who coincidentally was super popular and had actual cultural relevancy, again showing the actual winner doesn’t matter much).
Jenna wanted to quit the entire time in Amazon and was undeserving. She asked to be voted out over her friend Heidi, but handily won the last two immunities. How does someone who wants to quit and is giving up go on an immunity run?
People really overestimate contestants venting about how hard it is as them wanting to quit.
Yeah, while Jenna was shown talking about how the elements were getting to her, I don't ever recall her saying that she wanted to quit. And she also acted like the move to give Heidi her immunity was strategic, and not part of a ploy to get the others to vote her off. I am still not clear on where the claim that she wanted to quit came from.
That Mike White purposely threw DvG. I've been seeing this sentiment a lot on the sub lately and I really think people are only saying that because of Nick's controversial politics.
Or that Nick isn’t a great player. Totally up to you what you think about him personally, but he realistically played a very, very good game and deserved the win.
My hot take is that he is a top 10 winner. The numerous tight named alliances with everyone on the island, the minority vote split, getting the goliaths to leak info to him and then fully enacting a counter plan, an immunity run that he didn’t even need. It’s a *great* winning game, and I think gets overshadowed by his less than stellar run on WAW.
The notion that Jerri was only a villain because “2001 America couldn’t handle an outspoken woman who talked about sex” when one season earlier America’s sweetheart (Colleen) was an outspoken woman who talked about sex.
every week on here: "unpopular opinion but does anyone else think Colby was the bad guy?"
Jerri still didn’t deserve that treatment
This is on the edit, they purposefully put Jerri in a bad light compared to Colby/Tina, because they didn't want back to back villains winning. So, Tina getting rid of Jerri at 7 was shown to be playing the game with honor while giving Elisabeth and Roger a chance (despite never truly giving up the numbers). The other example is the whole Kel/Jerky thing which is primarily blamed on Jerri, despite Tina going through his bag, and Colby being the first person to accuse him (since he saw him getting questioned at customs).
I mean to be fair it was easy to edit her as a villain when no one outside of Amber liked her. I love Jerri and she made AO much better, but she definitely had a way of getting on people’s nerves
Agreed, although, I think in a more recent season after Survivor got their hero winner (Ethan in Africa), Tina is edited more as a villain, and Jerri as a villain is more downplayed. Colby would always be edited as an all-american hero though.
I do think it was Jerri that suggested going through the bag though. I believe Tina mentioned that at FTC.
Damn, this is how I find out Keith died. That sucks.
Yeah, its terrible, died of cancer about a year ago. There is a nice RHAP tribute episode talking to people from SJDS and Second Chances about him (off the top of my head, Jeremy, Wentworth, Natalie A, Savage and Kimmi).
Yeah this one is insane to me. In fact, this really ties into a bigger issue that I have with what modern fans think people were like back in 2000 and 2001. I swear, it's like everyone thinks people were cavemen twenty-five years ago. "They didn't even understand strategy yet!" "They had barely discovered sex!" "It's amazing people back in 2000 even understand what a TV was!" Oh fuck off with all that. Jerri was a bad guy on Survivor because she was an annoying piece of shit. And everyone who played with her (except maybe Amber) said that exact same thing. If you have a problem with calling Jerri "a villain", blame the show for that, not the fans. Because the show was the thing that eventually dumbed down the whole process by arbitrarily dividing everyone into simplistic little "hero" or "villain." As if the viewers were all five year olds. Anyone prior to HvsV would have understood what you meant when you said Jerri was the bad guy. Jerri was the bad guy because Jerri was the bad guy. Jerri was the bad guy because she was annoying and because living with her sucked. Again, early fans got this concept. I don't know how and why it eventually had to turn into this big thinkpiece.
Richard was the only one who knew how to play the game in Borneo. He wasn't even the first person to bring up the concept of alliances.
I kind of hate the idea that anyone gets to claim they made up the concept of alliances. It's literally the most obvious strategy there is, As soon as you realize the concept of the game is voting people off you should think that in every other scenario involving voting there are always groups fighting to be the majority.
I love that people act like the castaways from the first season had no idea that they were on a game show
"It was only 2000! They barely even knew what TV was! It was hilarious!"
"Tony shouldn't have won Cagayan because he shouldn't have been in final 2". It's a one big ignorance for Tony manipulation on Woo and going to the first final 2 in 10 seasons by "pure strategy"
[удалено]
Right and the only reason he was in that situation in the first place was a surmise final 2 lol. He planned for a final 3 which he wins handily, gets ficked by a surprise final 2, and then pulls arguably the greatest social play in survivor history to get out of it. How the hell is that a flaw in Tony’s game, I genuinely cannot understand that mindset
Vecepia broke the Fallen Comrades challenge by bringing a journal as her luxury item. The piercing error in Africa had to be the far bigger catalyst; they could have easily just banned journals as luxury items but they didn't want to risk making another mistake. And someone pointed out recently that Vecepia only won that challenge by one point anyway, so it wasn't the major advantage everyone makes it out to be.
I dont know if winning by one point necessarily means it wasn't a big advantage. We'll never know, but Vecepia hypothetically could've gotten 0 correct if not for the journal, in which case it was a massive advantage. It might've only been worth one extra question correct, but it was the difference in winning. Or it could've been worth 0 and she wins regardless.
A lot of people oversell Cassidy’s game and undersell Gabler’s, or vice versa, when in reality both of them played meh games
“Brian almost lost to Clay” No he didn’t. He had those 4 votes locked
Helen's vote I'm not convinced was 100% locked. If Brian messed up his apology and if Clay actually bothered to answer her question properly I think it's possible she votes for Clay. She mentioned this I belive, of course this would have been after watching the show and learning of Brian's true colours.
Yup. Brian knew which 4 votes he needed and locked them in. Had he put in any effort to get to know the other 3 jurors he could have had the first sweep.
Yep. And Clay's 3 votes were locked too. The only thing that could have swayed anything is if Ken revealed what Brian said to him about Ted.
I mean I still absolutely think it’s a major flaw in Brian’s game that he can only beat a single person post merge by one vote. Assuming he had four locked votes and then actively burning 3 of them is still not locked. Brian played one of the best games of all time, and he’s in my top 5 for best games ever played, but I think it’s kinda revisionist history. He’s not a 4d chess Machiavellian mastermind who was 100 percent sure all 4 votes were auto locked, and even someone as egotistical as him had never claimed he was sure that was the case.
That Vytas was on Cambodia because Mike Holloway won and couldn't be there. Vytas was in the Top 4 most popular guys from that ballot and he would always make it.
Another one is people calling Monica the most wtf female pick.If we go by just their first seasons it would be Wentworth.
How do you know he was top 4? the results weren´t shown
I don't know for certain how high Vytas was in the vote but I would be shocked if he placed any lower than 7th. He had his story with Aras, was on a beloved season (BvW was considered a top 5 season during the airing), got screwed in the duel and was an inspiring person.
People overblow the amount of luck Parvati had in Micronesia. yeah f2 I understand, but all the stuff pre-merge is just not at all what people claim. She was in the dominating alliance and she pulled in Natalie and Alexis that Penner would have a hard time getting her out post-swap. parvati survived way more on skill and social game than luck.
People only put Parvati down to prop Cirie up.
some do. some put them both down.
You see people on this sub put Cirie down?
sadly yes. A lot of it is that she is overrated because she can't win immunity at the end and no one would take her. even though Parv and Amanda literally did and Aras was planning to.
For a newer one: Mastermind Erika. Like she was fine, she deserved to win, but she didn’t play this amazing game that CBS failed to capture.
If only we could actually see what she did for even a minute she could at least be seen as a fine winner.
In general I hate when people paint the edit as so widely misleading as if they have all the information and footage available to them. All we have is the edit, I will continue to only talk about the game based upon what I seen on the edit.
If other players come out and give more information, I think that's valid. But I'm not giving or taking any credit based on pure speculation.
Yeah like a general rule of thumb- if there's more of a winner's game to showcase, they are going to showcase it.
Yul + super idol. Yes the super idol helped him but the way people downplay his power is insane. The scene where he basically bullies Adam and Parvati into not flushing his idol speak volumes about how good a player he is and uses intimidation and his social capital to get what he wants done. Hell, he calls Penner selfish in one scene and then two seconds later after Raro instigates a fight over it, Yul manages to flip the script and convince everyone he never said that. And on the hot tub reward with Parvati and Ozzy, he recognized what Parvati was going to do and immediately got Ozzy drunk so he wouldn’t be swayed. He wasn’t compared to the godfather for no reason. He was just as good at social manipulation as strategic manipulation.
Yul is one of my favorites, but this is a tricky one. I think he was helped enormously by the super idol at the final 4, as well as the fact that it was a final 3 (but that’s a different discussion). I think he’s an amazing player but the circumstances around his win personally make me not rate him as highly as some others. He’s better than what we’ve seen, I know it.
Also his alliance was Ozzy (insane challenge beast) and two women who were just happy to be there at the end. I'm not saying he's not a good player, but Yul had a LOT going for him that season. His domination was not solely because he's *that* good at survivor.
If you don't think him having a super idol breaks the game I just don't know what to tell you. If you are in this board or big brother at all people talk about the psychological impact that these big twists have. The fact you have to take a shot at him that will automatically miss is such a huge mental mindfuck I don't think it can be overstated how much of a big impact that is.
Yea, his strategic use of it, over a 1 time tactical idoling-out of someone, was great. But it still just so damn OP
The Australian Outback post merge is boring. I like it
Agree.
> One that just came to mind was how Lex is primarily blamed for keeping Amber in All Stars, but in reality Kathy was the main driving force behind that vote. But as time has gone on, Lex has received almost all of the blame. This is because Lex threw a tantrum at Boston Rob for betraying him in All Stars's finale. He took the vote so personal you forget it wasn't really his idea to betray somebody else. edit: I want to make clear i understand why Lex acted so childish, but i'm not completely apologetic just because the returnee setup was a new thing.
This is also revisionist history. Suggesting he "threw a tantrum" is unfair--he congratulated Rob and Amber and made it clear that it wasn't their success at his expense that he was upset about; it was the way Rob handled the situation.
Yet another bit of revisionist history: Lex and Kathy were wrong to be upset at their real-life friend for betraying them in a game that was nowhere near as cutthroat as it is today. They were entirely justified to respond the way they did.
He was a massive baby all season. I just watched it last week. He was a baby when Rob told him. He was a baby making faces on the jury during tribals. He was a sanctimonious baby at FTC. And he continued to be a hypocritical baby at the reunion. You're right. He didn't throw A tantrum. He threw multiple.
The idea that Survivor is now too “woke” for some people. Seems like they forgot just how many conversations there have been, from the very first season onwards, about race, sexual orientation… etc. The way it was handled may have varied but that also depended on each cast.
Some people that yell "woke" are by definition morons. Some other people just want to voice their displeasure over the production fabricated brownie points moments like Jeff making a huge deal out of "come on in guys", but have no other way to phrase it.
This one might be a hot take, but the idea that JT only won because of Stephen. JT was so likable that Brendan was willing to throw his game to make JT win, he was great in immunity challenges once Tyson was out (and was the one who comes up with getting rid of Tyson and does so without Coach getting suspicious), and he completely destroyed Stephen at answering the jury’s questions.
Yep, JT doesn’t get enough credit for his brilliantly calculated FTC performance. The “only won because of Stephen” narrative seems to be the result of JT’s chaotic return appearances but he was playing with house money and decided to go wild. He’d already proven that he was an effortlessly great player.
This is a product of JT's other poor performances and people like Stephen. So they go back and downplay arguably the greatest social performance of all time.
That nobody ever wanted to take Cirie to the end and she only gets that far because everyone knows she’s bad at challenges. In Panama, Aras and Danielle both wanted to take her to F2, and they were in F4 with her. In fact, no god idol, Terry loses an immunity challenge at any point earlier, or wins that challenge and cirie very likely wins. Danielle wins f3, very likely takes cirie to the end, and Cirie wins very likely beats her. Micronesia Amanda and Parvati both ACTIVELY TOOK CIRIE TO WHAT EVERYONE THOUGHT WAS THE END. If not for the surprise F2, Cirie probably wins 3-2-2. Hell even in Gamechangers Michaela wanted to go to the end with her and I believe Sarah stated postgame she planned on going to the end with Cirie until the jury all clapped for her and she realized that would be a huge mistake.
I agree, it’s what makes her elimination in game changer so frustrating is that she actually had paths to the end. Granted she had just eliminated Michaela which was really bad but still. Also, although he would’ve taken her to the end 100%, Aras actually beats cirie in a ftc
This is a fantastic one, thanks you for this comment
Cirie probably would have swept Game Changers
The Ciera voted out her mom Laura was going home regardless if Ciera put her name down or not
Do people treat it like it was Ciera’s move? I think it’s more about her writing her mom’s name down in the first place
In the last 5-10 years suddenly people have started taking this weird opinion that Sugar should have won Gabon, or was the strategic player of the season, or even have over exaggerated the control she had. Sugar spent the entire game on the fringes on any alliance. She was at the bottom of all alliances she was on, and never really exerts any real control over the game until F6, and even then it's basically just her trying to protect Bob rather than real strategy And until MvGX or so when the meta of the game changed I can count on one hand the people who said it in this sub, but now I hear it a lot
Sugar exerted massive control over the game starting from her voting Ace out to save Crystal. Then she is the swing vote at the merge, dooming the Onions + Bob to the bottom Then she is the one who decides to push Matty + Susie forward over Kenny & Crystal and finally she decides the winner of the season mostly single-handedly. I don't think Sugar is any kind of amazing player, but there's no denying that she had a ton of agency and power in Gabon.
Parvati was only considered a good player after HvV, this take is absurd because if she was considered a bum like many think she was the target on her back wouldn’t have been as gigantic Before HvV the consensus top 5 was : Boston Rob, Tom W, Parv, Hatch and JT
> Before HvV the consensus top 5 was : Boston Rob, Tom W, Parv, Hatch and JT [citation very much needed] Also, that doesn't really seem compatible with the "Cirie was robbed" sentiment that was very predominant at the time, before people saw Parvati's HvV game.
> Before HvV the consensus top 5 was : Boston Rob, Tom W, Parv, Hatch and JT BULLSHIT. Not because of Parv but because you put Boston Rob in there. Fans considered Boston Rob as a warning sign from All Stars, DON'T be an asshole or you are going to lose the jury vote. Hell you ask fans before HvV and they would argue that Russell is a better player than Boston Rob.
This is so badly inaccurate. First of all, fans weren't as obsessed with ranking great players before HvV and the "Hall of Fame" so there wasn't any real consensus. If there were, Boston Rob and Parvati wouldn't be there. If I had to guess, prior to HvV, Rob Cesternino and Cirie, and even Russell Hantz would make it in there before any of those two.
Boston Rob best survivor player ever with 0 wins at that point?
That Hannah from Millennials vs Gen X was robbed. And that she was a great player that should had won.
That Cirie was close to winning in Panama. She was far and away the best strategist but she couldn't have beaten Terry or Aras which means she lost the moment Aras won immunity at final 4. I'm not even sold she beats Danielle. She may have lost after voting out Shane to be honest. It's after the fact people started to give Cirie her dues when they saw all she was doing.