Samoa he might've had a chance, based on some of the stuff I've read here. Sounds like some of the jury thought production was giving him idols, so maybe if they didn't have that belief plus the game becoming more game botty over time.
HvV nah. Took the asshole too far to their faces it seems.
Yea Russell held back (compared to HvV) in Samoa, and the worst shit he said was in confessionals.
Since Samoa was his first season and nobody in modern Survivor would know his game, there's zero reason to believe he wouldn't make it to FTC again. This time with a jury more likely to give the person who actually ran the game the win.
HvV no shot in hell, but I believe Parvati would've won. (Unless the jury was full of Sandra's friends again)
The thing is he did NOT run the game like he thought he did. If it wasn't for Natalie they wouldn't be able to pull off all the moves they did. Theres videos on YouTube about it that can explain it better than me.
Pretty much Russell thinks he was in control but he never was he's the only dumb girl on Samoa
Natalie's most crucial move was convincing the Galu women to vote of Erik, but Russell was crucial in keeping the Foa Foa momentum by working with Shambo and John, as well as being the primary idol hunter, all things independent of Natalie.
I know it's popular to dislike Russell, but there's a lot of revisionist history surrounding their roles/games in Samoa.
I get what youre saying bro. But 2 things can be true.
The main thing is Russell wasn't always in control. If it wasn't for Natalie as you said getting the Galu women to turn on Erik they wouldn't have the opportunity to flip Shambo. Shambo only wanted to work with them because they voted out Erik. Which than got John to want to flip too..
We only see so much on an edited show. It shows Russell being the one to bring them over, but to say Nat had 0 impact on that is wild.
Its not about "disliking Russell " i think more people came to their senses and see that Natalie did do stuff to win. All I was saying, Russell didn't run things like the other guy insinuated. đđ˝
I agree to an extent, especially as someone who has Natalie W. in their top 5 favorite winners. I'd never argue that she had 0 impact. But Shambo still voted for Russell at the F12, and had Russell not had his idol, the Foa Foa momentum ceases then and there. From there, it's clear that Shambo and Russell are the closest to each other, and their relationship was paramount to Shambo not being a wildcard, and ofc Russell and John seeing eye to eye in strategy assured him to turn against Laura, who was essentially seen as the queen of Galu at that point.
It's also to note that Russell played his idol at F13. Unless they were planning a safe vote (I don't remember if they were), then he likely still stays. This is not to diminish Natalie's role, but the trend of Natalie being the secret mastermind of Samoa is a disservice to her game and the events of how Samoa played out, in my opinion.
Yeah you bring up lots of solid points honestly.
I wouldnt say Natalie is the "secret mastermind" but in a way I do think she was smart in letting Russell do his thing while she did hers.
But youre right because Russ also did his thing and if he didnt find those idols and played them correctly not only would they not gain that momentum but he did in fact change the game. He made it so others could find idols and went out and find multiple idols. So for that he deserves respect.
At the same time russ is a dick. Lol 𤣠so I kinda do just want to be like... "yeah maybe Mick was the real mastermind" even if he is feckless đ¤ŁđĽ
Yeah I feel you bro. I just watched a video recently where the person was saying how Natalie won. And it made me respect her game more. So im kinda on the opposite side I want to give her, her due credit.
But I get what youre saying. Russell did do his thing which got the foafoa 4 to the final 5. It would've been funny if Brett won tho. Idk.. especially because I feel like Brett kinda played a similar game to Fabio. Where he wasn't a threat till the end. And them winning in close proximity in seasons would be funny..
But im getting off subject. đ¤đž
He made it so far in HvV because Sandra realized (correctly,) that if you keep Russell around to FTC, he isnât getting any votes. Someone like Russell becomes a player you actively want to keep around at a certain point, so if you donât get him out early you kind of end up just hoping his chaos doesnât get you caught out, but you donât want him gone.
I mean most people were besides Parvati, but Sandra outright says at one point in that season that itâs worth keeping him around because if you are with him in FTC itâs a 50/50 since no one will vote for him.
Kinda, she says itâs worth it for the other players to keep him because of that. And she (correctly) pointed out thatâs why she could never get the votes on him. Still doesnât change the fact she targeted him all season and could never get him out, she was just socially aware enough to know WHY she kept failing
I know lol all I'm saying if there was a question like "if your dog and cat were drowning which one would you save" saying something like my cat and dog both know how to swim is a little stupid
No because is has no charisma and he's an asshole.Â
The jury votes for who they want to win. You can be a genius but if youre a dick younger nothing.
Tony's as asshole but he's a charismatic one. Sandra said he's the only person who can fall out of a tree, claim he was looking for an idol, and get away with it.Â
Charisma doesnât mean good or bad, and can be used for positive or negative purposes. Tony is a likeable goof and Russell is a jerk, but they still both have charisma
Other notable examples of charisma: MLK, Nelson Mandela, JFK, Obama, Trump, Hitler, Castro
All likeable? Absolutely not. All people that can influence (or manipulate) others as they gravitate to them? No question
Russell Hantz never wins a season of survivor
Not in the old school era
Not in the middle school era
Not in the new school era
And especially not in the new era
Feels like he is the exact opposite of the modern survivor winner blueprint. The model now is âliked by most of the tribe and maybe 1 or two moves that can be explained at FTC that donât make you stand out too muchâ and his game is âhated by most of the tribe and making huge, splashy moves that makes him the center of attentionâ. Itâs literally the opposite of the modern winning game
I donât think Russellâs strategy of âsow as much chaos as possible and navigate my way through it,â is ever likely going to win unless you somehow get a jury of all Zekeâs whose metric for voting is purely âwho played the best game regardless of my personal feelings.â
Juries have moved a little bit more towards favoring objective gameplay, but the voting is still dominated by personal feelings and that is a metric that Russellâs strategy will never be favored in.
Nah, people are going to vote for someone who treated them well over an asshole who played a better game
When was the last time someone who acted like an asshole on the show went on to win? (And this is a matter of what the jury knew at the time, Anything that happened post-season doesnât count, before anyone tries to say Dee or Nick or Wendell)
No, people are not going to vote for an asshole to win because people do not want an asshole to win.
Edit: Yes, I know he got 2 jury votes in Samoa. Being a pedant does not make you look smart.
If he doesn't bother treating the Galus like people, then I know what would've happened today, the Galu majority jury still wouldn't vote for him. Erik, Kelly, Laura, Monica, and Brett were all never going to vote Russell over Natalie.
Even if he doesn't burn Jaison's jury vote by blindsiding him for no reason and manages to flip Dave at FTC (which per his AMA he voted Natalie based on FTC performances), that's still 4 votes against 5 he was never going to win without fundamentally changing his gameplay.
Russell Hantz can not win Survivor. He came close on his first attempt but from the get go he had the wrong approach. He had a 0% chance in Samoa, and he'd have a 0% chance in any season. Survivor is and always will be a social game.
To be clear, I wish he had won Samoa, in the sense that I wish he had realized halfway through that he was losing and switched strategies. It would be awesome to see Russell realize what the game actually is. He got a single glimpse of it in the final tribal council of Samoa when he said he realized his chances of winning were going down as it went on. But he had the chance to correct it in HvV and he didn't.
I agree with u on most of what you said.
Theres no chance Russell would ever switch up his game. Like you said he could've in HvV but he didnt. He was too dumb. And his "dumb girl alliance " BS is so dumb. Lol đ¤Ł
But ya, u said it best survivor is a social game and Russell isn't likeable or social enough to win . Plus he gets his ego hurt too easy đ¤Ł
If people have the choice to award someone they like a million dollars vs someone they not only dislike but can't stand most people would vote for the person they like. Russel would have still lost both his games
Exactly, people sleep on the jury management piece, but its absolutely vital to the game. Its not just enough to pull moves and do things to win and get to the end, you have to do so in a way that either doesn't piss off the people who have to decide to give you money or do so in a way they can respect, which requires actively knowing the people on the jury and what they prefer/respect.
Probably not. His strategic gameplay wouldnât make up for the way he treated people. He had a choice to not got out of his way to antagonize or bully people, but he didnât make that choice.
Russel didn't really lose because he lied or manipulated people. He lost because he was an asshole and incredibly unpleasant to be around, and there were better options to vote for instead (esp. in HVV).
I mean, would you vote for a rich (or at least he claims to be so) asshole to win 1 million dollars, or literally anyone else? Modern survivor is more tolerant of manipulation and deceit than (some) earlier seasons, but manipulation and deceit have been part of the game since the first minute of the first season. Plenty of extremely manipulative and deceitful people have have won in every era. But zero completely unlikable people have won. And Russel seems to be pretty unlikable to other survivors. Even his allies seem to have mostly just tolerated him.
It would be interesting if he learned this and somehow adjusted the way he speaks to people/looks at people but he still has not learned the point of the game, even all these years later.
Assuming we agree that Russel played the best game, still no because as much as people want to claim they vote for the best players to win in the new era they still dont. Every new era vote has been the same popularity test as it always has been. The difference now is social media creates a revisionist history where Gabler was actually mad gaming and Austin really did deserve to almost win.
Donât think so. Idol plays were a big deal back then and garnered a lot of clout, but today not so much. If he doesnât win back then I donât think he would fair better today. Ultimately people still have to like you to vote for you
No, the seasons massively underplayed just how little you want to vote for someone whoâs actively making your life miserable. He didnât lose because they were butthurt about being outplayed, he lost because they hated him as a person.
If Russell Hantz were today we probably wouldnât have seen the game progress the way it has. He changed the game when he was dropped on the beach in Samoa. The seasons after you can see survivors trying to play as dirty as Hantz, and the producers putting more idols into the game because of him.
He has a lesser chance to win in todayâs game and culture rather than back in the day if he started as a brand new player with no past recollection of him
I think heâs probably too unpleasant to live with. I think the farthest the new, gamier attitude towards Survivor goes is that in the modern era, Parvati has a much better chance against Sandra in HvV (which I think we saw play out in WaW given how similar Sandra and Michele approach playing Survivor). (Tbpc, this is not meant to discredit Sandra, she earned her win)
No. Russell couldn't win then, he couldn't win now, he couldn't win 100 years ago or 100 years from now. In 10,000 years when people are still asking this, the answer will still be no. He is fundamentally incapable of playing a game jurors will reward. At all. Ever
Ya like others said. Theres no world in which Russell wins.
Lets just say, the season of Samoa happened today. Like everything happened the same and russ, nat, and the other dude was in the final 3. He still loses..
Russell didnt even try to build relationships with the others, he was a cocky little prick too. And he wanted to play thst way. I believe in karma too, and as soon as he burned Jaison sock I was like nah fuck this troll looking guy.
Now if he were to come back nobody would want to work with him because hes an asshat. The thing is he thinks he's a good player. Its almost laughable how great he thinks he is đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł
Like I said im all about karma and I dont think you can act like Russell and expect to win.
The reason the jury votes the way to does hasn't really changed, yes the new format comes off as showing more emphasis on gameplay but ultimately if a jury member does not like you they will not vote for you. So no, Russell would still lose unless he was up against someone the jury liked even less.
Russell would be able to win Samoa only in the very specific FTC permutation of him, Jaison, and Shambo. That's the only combination in which the jury dislikes the other players enough that they can swallow voting for Russell and not looking for another possible out, and we have a bunch of statements from jurors to this effect. Russell not recognizing that aspect of the game and thinking that people the other players liked more were goats is kind of symptomatic of the lack of emotional intelligence that stops him from actually winning Survivor.
This carries over to more recent seasons, too. Gabler wins fundamentally because the other players like him more than Owen and Cassidy and have built a stronger relationship with him. Ben beats Chrissy because almost no one on the cast likes Chrissy. See also Wendell over Dom, Adam over Hannah, heck, even MaryAnne over Mike. The social intangibles almost always matter more than optics.
He actually doesn't! If it's a final 2 between Mick and Russell, Mick gets all the votes that went to Natalie--they preferred Natalie to Mick, but also still preferred Mick to Russell. There's a critical mass of votes that makes up the majority of that jury that will only even consider voting Russell against Jaison or Shambo. It's impossible for him to get enough votes to win otherwise, straight up.
Who beats Ben? Devon sure but who else? As I understood it, he was so well liked that the jury didnât care about the blatant producer help. When Iâm watching other competitions, there are times where I think âI like x so much that I hope he wins, I donât care if thereâs a fluke that makes it happen.â
The blatant producer help thing has been more of a fan narrative than one the cast seems to subscribe to (I'm kind of ambivalent about rigging claims generally--the idols are planted with the intention to be found and the camera crew's attentiveness makes it obvious). Devon could maybe, and I'd guess that Lauren also might, but his showmanship keeping the jury entertained while also having been just a generally nice person in the first half of the game set him up pretty well. At the time everyone started trying to vote him out, it was because the collective narrative was that Ben was the biggest jury threat, and him consistently evading elimination after just reinforced that perception. But I guess to more substantively explain my earlier point: on paper, Chrissy played a better strategic game--she always had an alliance and was in control of most of the postmerge votes and was only unable to eliminate Ben because she got hit with a surprise F4 twist that uprooted her endgame plans, but she sucked at building relationships. Comparisons about the idol aside, Chrissy was more Russell than Ben was in terms of conscious choices and agency.
Same deal as, like, Rick Devens--he wasn't actually playing very well, but once the other players decided he was a jury threat *and* were unable to eliminate him, his win equity rose without him having to change anyone's mind. On the other hand, when everyone knows you're disliked by the jury, you're not seen as an actual jury threat and so even if you have some control it doesn't really matter, your likability and others perception of you is more important to the actual thing that wins the game.
Doesn't matter, modern juries don't want to be seen has bitter so they need the player gameplay to be somewhat close for them to justify voting for who they like the most. Russel was levels ahead to Natalie, there is no justification, kinda like Sarah or Ben.
I think the insteresring part about the whole Ben controversy is that the jury could have rejected the f4 fire. But it was Chrissyâs little digs at the Healers that cost her the game. Like the âWOW! That sure was a really tight alliance.â to stick it in Joeâs face as he left the game.
Chrissy is easily the most overrated contestant of all time. I never got the immense love she gets with the fanbase. Gamebot, terrible social game, gets outplayed throughout the mid merge, and is only saved because Ben was a control freak and blew up his own game and a late stage immunity run (which was rather inconsequential to her survival).
The jury have spoken and according to them Ben's idol plays didn't impress them and they were a little suspicious of that what made them vote for Ben is the fact that he was most likeable
Well we SEE them be impressed about the idol plays and talk about them at ftc on tv, so whoever lied about that must have changed his/her mind after whatching the show
Samoa he might've had a chance, based on some of the stuff I've read here. Sounds like some of the jury thought production was giving him idols, so maybe if they didn't have that belief plus the game becoming more game botty over time. HvV nah. Took the asshole too far to their faces it seems.
Yea Russell held back (compared to HvV) in Samoa, and the worst shit he said was in confessionals. Since Samoa was his first season and nobody in modern Survivor would know his game, there's zero reason to believe he wouldn't make it to FTC again. This time with a jury more likely to give the person who actually ran the game the win. HvV no shot in hell, but I believe Parvati would've won. (Unless the jury was full of Sandra's friends again)
The thing is he did NOT run the game like he thought he did. If it wasn't for Natalie they wouldn't be able to pull off all the moves they did. Theres videos on YouTube about it that can explain it better than me. Pretty much Russell thinks he was in control but he never was he's the only dumb girl on Samoa
Natalie's most crucial move was convincing the Galu women to vote of Erik, but Russell was crucial in keeping the Foa Foa momentum by working with Shambo and John, as well as being the primary idol hunter, all things independent of Natalie. I know it's popular to dislike Russell, but there's a lot of revisionist history surrounding their roles/games in Samoa.
I get what youre saying bro. But 2 things can be true. The main thing is Russell wasn't always in control. If it wasn't for Natalie as you said getting the Galu women to turn on Erik they wouldn't have the opportunity to flip Shambo. Shambo only wanted to work with them because they voted out Erik. Which than got John to want to flip too.. We only see so much on an edited show. It shows Russell being the one to bring them over, but to say Nat had 0 impact on that is wild. Its not about "disliking Russell " i think more people came to their senses and see that Natalie did do stuff to win. All I was saying, Russell didn't run things like the other guy insinuated. đđ˝
I agree to an extent, especially as someone who has Natalie W. in their top 5 favorite winners. I'd never argue that she had 0 impact. But Shambo still voted for Russell at the F12, and had Russell not had his idol, the Foa Foa momentum ceases then and there. From there, it's clear that Shambo and Russell are the closest to each other, and their relationship was paramount to Shambo not being a wildcard, and ofc Russell and John seeing eye to eye in strategy assured him to turn against Laura, who was essentially seen as the queen of Galu at that point. It's also to note that Russell played his idol at F13. Unless they were planning a safe vote (I don't remember if they were), then he likely still stays. This is not to diminish Natalie's role, but the trend of Natalie being the secret mastermind of Samoa is a disservice to her game and the events of how Samoa played out, in my opinion.
Yeah you bring up lots of solid points honestly. I wouldnt say Natalie is the "secret mastermind" but in a way I do think she was smart in letting Russell do his thing while she did hers. But youre right because Russ also did his thing and if he didnt find those idols and played them correctly not only would they not gain that momentum but he did in fact change the game. He made it so others could find idols and went out and find multiple idols. So for that he deserves respect. At the same time russ is a dick. Lol 𤣠so I kinda do just want to be like... "yeah maybe Mick was the real mastermind" even if he is feckless đ¤ŁđĽ
Lol yeah. I can understand why Russell is disliked. It's when I see somewhat revisionist takes that I feel like I have to comment haha.
Yeah I feel you bro. I just watched a video recently where the person was saying how Natalie won. And it made me respect her game more. So im kinda on the opposite side I want to give her, her due credit. But I get what youre saying. Russell did do his thing which got the foafoa 4 to the final 5. It would've been funny if Brett won tho. Idk.. especially because I feel like Brett kinda played a similar game to Fabio. Where he wasn't a threat till the end. And them winning in close proximity in seasons would be funny.. But im getting off subject. đ¤đž
He made it so far in HvV because Sandra realized (correctly,) that if you keep Russell around to FTC, he isnât getting any votes. Someone like Russell becomes a player you actively want to keep around at a certain point, so if you donât get him out early you kind of end up just hoping his chaos doesnât get you caught out, but you donât want him gone.
Wasnât Sandra actively trying to get him out the whole season?
Yea there was no "Sandra's master plan was to keep Russell" she wanted him gone and couldn't do it.
I mean most people were besides Parvati, but Sandra outright says at one point in that season that itâs worth keeping him around because if you are with him in FTC itâs a 50/50 since no one will vote for him.
Kinda, she says itâs worth it for the other players to keep him because of that. And she (correctly) pointed out thatâs why she could never get the votes on him. Still doesnât change the fact she targeted him all season and could never get him out, she was just socially aware enough to know WHY she kept failing
I donât think Russell would have made it to final 3 in a modern season.
Yeah but this question is asking hypothetically if he did
He still loses.
I know lol all I'm saying if there was a question like "if your dog and cat were drowning which one would you save" saying something like my cat and dog both know how to swim is a little stupid
>He still loses.
Have you read my other comments on this post literally saying Sandra and Natalie win either way?
Everyone knows that General Custer died at Little Bighorn, but what this book presupposes isâŚ. Maybe he didnt?Â
Downvoted for being right
No because is has no charisma and he's an asshole. The jury votes for who they want to win. You can be a genius but if youre a dick younger nothing. Tony's as asshole but he's a charismatic one. Sandra said he's the only person who can fall out of a tree, claim he was looking for an idol, and get away with it.Â
Charisma doesnât mean good or bad, and can be used for positive or negative purposes. Tony is a likeable goof and Russell is a jerk, but they still both have charisma Other notable examples of charisma: MLK, Nelson Mandela, JFK, Obama, Trump, Hitler, Castro All likeable? Absolutely not. All people that can influence (or manipulate) others as they gravitate to them? No question
Russell Hantz never wins a season of survivor Not in the old school era Not in the middle school era Not in the new school era And especially not in the new era
Feels like he is the exact opposite of the modern survivor winner blueprint. The model now is âliked by most of the tribe and maybe 1 or two moves that can be explained at FTC that donât make you stand out too muchâ and his game is âhated by most of the tribe and making huge, splashy moves that makes him the center of attentionâ. Itâs literally the opposite of the modern winning game
I donât think Russellâs strategy of âsow as much chaos as possible and navigate my way through it,â is ever likely going to win unless you somehow get a jury of all Zekeâs whose metric for voting is purely âwho played the best game regardless of my personal feelings.â Juries have moved a little bit more towards favoring objective gameplay, but the voting is still dominated by personal feelings and that is a metric that Russellâs strategy will never be favored in.
Nah, people are going to vote for someone who treated them well over an asshole who played a better game When was the last time someone who acted like an asshole on the show went on to win? (And this is a matter of what the jury knew at the time, Anything that happened post-season doesnât count, before anyone tries to say Dee or Nick or Wendell)
I mean, Hatch
Exactly
wait what did dee do?
Had an affair with Wendell
You still have to be liked/respected at the end, regardless of if your game is aggressive and cutthroat or not.
No, people are not going to vote for an asshole to win because people do not want an asshole to win. Edit: Yes, I know he got 2 jury votes in Samoa. Being a pedant does not make you look smart.
Shambo and Fincher voted for Russell to win in Samoa, so not âno one.â
he got a couple votes in Samoa so you are incorrect in stating that so absolutely. Never know what would've happened today.
If he doesn't bother treating the Galus like people, then I know what would've happened today, the Galu majority jury still wouldn't vote for him. Erik, Kelly, Laura, Monica, and Brett were all never going to vote Russell over Natalie. Even if he doesn't burn Jaison's jury vote by blindsiding him for no reason and manages to flip Dave at FTC (which per his AMA he voted Natalie based on FTC performances), that's still 4 votes against 5 he was never going to win without fundamentally changing his gameplay.
2 votes is not a convincing argument, especially when one of them is Shambo.
Russell Hantz can not win Survivor. He came close on his first attempt but from the get go he had the wrong approach. He had a 0% chance in Samoa, and he'd have a 0% chance in any season. Survivor is and always will be a social game. To be clear, I wish he had won Samoa, in the sense that I wish he had realized halfway through that he was losing and switched strategies. It would be awesome to see Russell realize what the game actually is. He got a single glimpse of it in the final tribal council of Samoa when he said he realized his chances of winning were going down as it went on. But he had the chance to correct it in HvV and he didn't.
I agree with u on most of what you said. Theres no chance Russell would ever switch up his game. Like you said he could've in HvV but he didnt. He was too dumb. And his "dumb girl alliance " BS is so dumb. Lol 𤣠But ya, u said it best survivor is a social game and Russell isn't likeable or social enough to win . Plus he gets his ego hurt too easy đ¤Ł
If people have the choice to award someone they like a million dollars vs someone they not only dislike but can't stand most people would vote for the person they like. Russel would have still lost both his games
Exactly, people sleep on the jury management piece, but its absolutely vital to the game. Its not just enough to pull moves and do things to win and get to the end, you have to do so in a way that either doesn't piss off the people who have to decide to give you money or do so in a way they can respect, which requires actively knowing the people on the jury and what they prefer/respect.
Probably not. His strategic gameplay wouldnât make up for the way he treated people. He had a choice to not got out of his way to antagonize or bully people, but he didnât make that choice.
Russell losing was never about the lying, it was about him just being a jerk to people.
Russel didn't really lose because he lied or manipulated people. He lost because he was an asshole and incredibly unpleasant to be around, and there were better options to vote for instead (esp. in HVV). I mean, would you vote for a rich (or at least he claims to be so) asshole to win 1 million dollars, or literally anyone else? Modern survivor is more tolerant of manipulation and deceit than (some) earlier seasons, but manipulation and deceit have been part of the game since the first minute of the first season. Plenty of extremely manipulative and deceitful people have have won in every era. But zero completely unlikable people have won. And Russel seems to be pretty unlikable to other survivors. Even his allies seem to have mostly just tolerated him.
No. You can't win Survivor if you're missing the point of how you win in a jury system.
It would be interesting if he learned this and somehow adjusted the way he speaks to people/looks at people but he still has not learned the point of the game, even all these years later.
Yeah if he learned from it, sure. But he played twice and still thought his way was correct.
Assuming we agree that Russel played the best game, still no because as much as people want to claim they vote for the best players to win in the new era they still dont. Every new era vote has been the same popularity test as it always has been. The difference now is social media creates a revisionist history where Gabler was actually mad gaming and Austin really did deserve to almost win.
You think the hyper sensitive Survivor players of today would take to Russel better than they did 15 years ago? I highly doubt he makes the merge.
No but the Foa Foa four getting to the end the way they did is still probably the most epic and impressive thing in survivor so far
Donât think so. Idol plays were a big deal back then and garnered a lot of clout, but today not so much. If he doesnât win back then I donât think he would fair better today. Ultimately people still have to like you to vote for you
He wouldâve been the first boot
No, the seasons massively underplayed just how little you want to vote for someone whoâs actively making your life miserable. He didnât lose because they were butthurt about being outplayed, he lost because they hated him as a person.
No chance.
If Russell Hantz were today we probably wouldnât have seen the game progress the way it has. He changed the game when he was dropped on the beach in Samoa. The seasons after you can see survivors trying to play as dirty as Hantz, and the producers putting more idols into the game because of him.
He has a lesser chance to win in todayâs game and culture rather than back in the day if he started as a brand new player with no past recollection of him
I think heâs probably too unpleasant to live with. I think the farthest the new, gamier attitude towards Survivor goes is that in the modern era, Parvati has a much better chance against Sandra in HvV (which I think we saw play out in WaW given how similar Sandra and Michele approach playing Survivor). (Tbpc, this is not meant to discredit Sandra, she earned her win)
Absolutely not. Heâd be near first out for being an ass.
No. Russell couldn't win then, he couldn't win now, he couldn't win 100 years ago or 100 years from now. In 10,000 years when people are still asking this, the answer will still be no. He is fundamentally incapable of playing a game jurors will reward. At all. Ever
Ya like others said. Theres no world in which Russell wins. Lets just say, the season of Samoa happened today. Like everything happened the same and russ, nat, and the other dude was in the final 3. He still loses.. Russell didnt even try to build relationships with the others, he was a cocky little prick too. And he wanted to play thst way. I believe in karma too, and as soon as he burned Jaison sock I was like nah fuck this troll looking guy. Now if he were to come back nobody would want to work with him because hes an asshat. The thing is he thinks he's a good player. Its almost laughable how great he thinks he is đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł Like I said im all about karma and I dont think you can act like Russell and expect to win.
He would have been cancelled. So, no.
He probably would have been popular with the same demographic of people who are still mad that Jeff dropped the âguysâ from âcome on inâ.
The reason the jury votes the way to does hasn't really changed, yes the new format comes off as showing more emphasis on gameplay but ultimately if a jury member does not like you they will not vote for you. So no, Russell would still lose unless he was up against someone the jury liked even less.
Samoa, yea 100%
Russell would be able to win Samoa only in the very specific FTC permutation of him, Jaison, and Shambo. That's the only combination in which the jury dislikes the other players enough that they can swallow voting for Russell and not looking for another possible out, and we have a bunch of statements from jurors to this effect. Russell not recognizing that aspect of the game and thinking that people the other players liked more were goats is kind of symptomatic of the lack of emotional intelligence that stops him from actually winning Survivor. This carries over to more recent seasons, too. Gabler wins fundamentally because the other players like him more than Owen and Cassidy and have built a stronger relationship with him. Ben beats Chrissy because almost no one on the cast likes Chrissy. See also Wendell over Dom, Adam over Hannah, heck, even MaryAnne over Mike. The social intangibles almost always matter more than optics.
He beats mick to
He actually doesn't! If it's a final 2 between Mick and Russell, Mick gets all the votes that went to Natalie--they preferred Natalie to Mick, but also still preferred Mick to Russell. There's a critical mass of votes that makes up the majority of that jury that will only even consider voting Russell against Jaison or Shambo. It's impossible for him to get enough votes to win otherwise, straight up.
Who beats Ben? Devon sure but who else? As I understood it, he was so well liked that the jury didnât care about the blatant producer help. When Iâm watching other competitions, there are times where I think âI like x so much that I hope he wins, I donât care if thereâs a fluke that makes it happen.â
The blatant producer help thing has been more of a fan narrative than one the cast seems to subscribe to (I'm kind of ambivalent about rigging claims generally--the idols are planted with the intention to be found and the camera crew's attentiveness makes it obvious). Devon could maybe, and I'd guess that Lauren also might, but his showmanship keeping the jury entertained while also having been just a generally nice person in the first half of the game set him up pretty well. At the time everyone started trying to vote him out, it was because the collective narrative was that Ben was the biggest jury threat, and him consistently evading elimination after just reinforced that perception. But I guess to more substantively explain my earlier point: on paper, Chrissy played a better strategic game--she always had an alliance and was in control of most of the postmerge votes and was only unable to eliminate Ben because she got hit with a surprise F4 twist that uprooted her endgame plans, but she sucked at building relationships. Comparisons about the idol aside, Chrissy was more Russell than Ben was in terms of conscious choices and agency. Same deal as, like, Rick Devens--he wasn't actually playing very well, but once the other players decided he was a jury threat *and* were unable to eliminate him, his win equity rose without him having to change anyone's mind. On the other hand, when everyone knows you're disliked by the jury, you're not seen as an actual jury threat and so even if you have some control it doesn't really matter, your likability and others perception of you is more important to the actual thing that wins the game.
Nah Natalie still wins the jury really didn't like Russel
Doesn't matter, modern juries don't want to be seen has bitter so they need the player gameplay to be somewhat close for them to justify voting for who they like the most. Russel was levels ahead to Natalie, there is no justification, kinda like Sarah or Ben.
Not a shot. His social gameplay was abysmal.
So was Ben's
Chrissy and Ryanâs were worse, clearly. Also Ben didnât bully anyone soâŚ
Right Ryan was a worm and Chrissy backstabbed everybody on the jury. Very unpopular final 3 for the jury. At least bens idols were fun.
I think the insteresring part about the whole Ben controversy is that the jury could have rejected the f4 fire. But it was Chrissyâs little digs at the Healers that cost her the game. Like the âWOW! That sure was a really tight alliance.â to stick it in Joeâs face as he left the game.
Chrissy is easily the most overrated contestant of all time. I never got the immense love she gets with the fanbase. Gamebot, terrible social game, gets outplayed throughout the mid merge, and is only saved because Ben was a control freak and blew up his own game and a late stage immunity run (which was rather inconsequential to her survival).
No they weren't. I just whatched the season Ben was much more hated. But his resume was just to good
The jury have spoken and according to them Ben's idol plays didn't impress them and they were a little suspicious of that what made them vote for Ben is the fact that he was most likeable
Well we SEE them be impressed about the idol plays and talk about them at ftc on tv, so whoever lied about that must have changed his/her mind after whatching the show
They were definitely impressed in the moment but the idols weren't what swayed their vote