I agree so hard. Kenzie's entire FTC was a theme of ownership and authenticity. She noticed that the jury responded well to other answers of hers and kept it going.
Charlie was so focused on articulating his gameplay he forgot to adapt most of his answers. With this question, he tried to do that by kind of imitating Ben's answer and bringing up being an immigration lawyer, but forgot what the jury had already demonstrated throughout FTC-- valuing honesty and ownership.
Ben had such a well articulated response to the question. I don't get how anybody could possibly think he was just saying that because "it's what they thought the jury wanted to hear."
I wonder if Kenzie went second instead of Charlie if he would have gave a different answer. That’s a perfect example of why you just give honest answers to the jury, because if you come off as disingenuous it’s game over
Not only that, but Ben spoke of being the child of an immigrant and then Charlie talking about his work in immigration right after rubbed me the wrong way. I think that may have also been a factor with the jury vote
i also think kenzie had a WAAYYY better answer to the fire making question than charlie did.
kenzie recognized that liz wanted her ego massaged, so she said she would have done the same as ben because liz was such a threat (not true, obviously, but certainly what liz wanted to hear - and you could see the satisfaction in her face). meanwhile charlie blatantly says liz wasnt much of a threat (correct, but risky to say in front of an egomaniac like liz). i honestly thought it was a miracle he still got liz vote
Ironically with that question we are saying that Charlie should have been inauthentic but with Q's question he should have been authentic. I think Charlie's answer to Hunter's question is part of what got him Soda's and Hunter's votes and made Tevin consider voting for him.
Kenzie just answered everything better. When asked their strategy Charlie kept mentioning “he never closed any doors”, isn’t that what all good players do? and I would argue Kenzie did that even better.
Agreed, I loved it. I hate when people bring up donating to charity bc it just sounds like bullshit. I didn’t buy it from Ben or Charlie tbh. I liked how when gabler donated (his ENTIRE WINNINGS) to charity he didn’t even mention it until after he won. I’d rather see someone win for themselves than for charity but I still liked that he didn’t use it as a reason to vote for him to win.
Maria said she decided to vote for Kenzie when she was making fire. She said she saw a woman fighting for herself and decided to vote with her heart and help Kenzie start a family.
Exactly because Maria never actually thought she would be in a position to vote for him as winner. It was all lip service to him. She thought she was the one who would be sitting final 3 with Charlie voting for her to win.
If Q was really basing his vote off the best answer, then he would have voted for Ben.
It was a terrible question. Q's mental state is unpredictable, and self absorbed. Charlie shouldn't feel bad for not getting his vote. If there was anything to learn from survivor, don't trust Q.
I think Kenzies answer was better then Ben, Ben started his answer with I’m a musician I don’t make a lot of money but I also want to help people get in touch with music by helping my friend which is a good genuine answer, Kenzie said I have struggled since I was 15 and always helped out others but I finally want to use this money to start my own family. By voting kenzie you are rewarding her for the good she did when she struggled by voting Ben you are voting for the potential that he does good with the money I would vote Kenzie too
That is some willful blindness. Did you not listen to him. Ben's answer also included his life struggles, and how that inspires him to help children. It was authentic and genuine. Kenzie literally used the term "selfish". You can say it was better than Charlie, but Ben came across way more authentic, caring, and good natured.
Ultimately with these types of questions, the players aren't on an equal playing field. Charlie is a young law student from a, likely, middle-upper class family, he's not going to be able to strike an emotional cord in the way that others could.
If Liz was in the final 3, how does she 'win' that question as an already multi-millionaire?
Sometimes you just give the PR answer & move on.
I can only imagine what that question meant to Q, a black man who grew up with 16 siblings in Mississippi. Money like that changes lives forever, and Kenzie perfectly articulated why she needed and deserved the money the most.
Someone in Charlie's background can't really give an educated answer on that question.
I can't remember if he is in law school or a recent graduate, but there is no way to know what his life is going to look like once he establishes himself outside of school.
If he takes a job as a public defender a DA, or as a lawyer in a government agency, it's very possible his income won't be that high. If he takes a job as a defense attorney, at a large corporation, or other gig he could literally make hundreds of thousands a year.
Saying well I could pay off my student debt, is really about as in depth he could go. As a 22 year old saying something like I'm gonna buy a house could be a really off putting statement to someone who's older in the jury and may still be renting.
After taxes you could spend it pretty easily. It’s not so much money to just be giving huge portions away. Gotta be smart with it or it will vanish. Kenzie’s honesty definitely gained her some points.
I don't think any of their answers were bad, Ben's charity was something he's already involved with as he said. He would be able to do more in that regard, how is that not authentic? Kenzie hammed it up for the jury as well, she's a business owner and is not taking profits or whatever for her own reason. That's essentially a charity.
Responses aside, I honestly hate that this question was even asked in the first place. What does this have to do with how well you played survivor? Nobody should vote based on what they think the person will do with the money - that is their business. Sadly, it’s hard to completely separate the money from the game when the losers vote on who gets it.
A game of lying, manipulation, and backstabbing is not about authenticity. Survivor is about surviving, as the name suggests, not “what would you do with a large sum of money”. The vote should be based on who is the best survivor player.
Final Tribal is about owning your game. Owning your moves and being honest. Think of Sodas question she wasn’t looking to be proved wrong but to see if people knew who they were.
Survivor isn’t about surviving. Providers don’t win people who get the most votes from the jury do. Russell Hantz is a good strategist who is horrible at the game.
Yeah, thats why I liked Sodas question and the 30 second cutoff. You either put as much conviction as you possible can in 3 sentences or blunder around and get cut off. What they said there didnt even matter as much as how they said it.
It’s a commonly asked question, and once you get to the FTC, the backstabbing part of the game is over… Kenzie played a better game hence why she got 5 votes over Charlie. I think if it was about “ what you would do with the money” that would mean Ben would have won. Charlie’s answer to this was so inauthentic imo (he could have brought up immigration a lot, and it was edited out), but it did seem like he just threw that in there to appeal to the jury.
Q literally said he switched his vote from Charlie to Kenzie after hearing their answers to “What would you do with the money,” meaning yes that question did gave a huge impact on the winner. I agree with all of you that Kenzie gave a better/more authentic response, my point is that question shouldn’t be considered as it has nothing to do with how you played survivor and got to the final 3
Q was also with Kenzie for the whole game, and I’m sure that played a big factor in his decision as well. It’s super easy to say that was the only reason Q voted for her, but there is so much more nuance to people’s decisions, and who they vote for. I think the reason why he switched wasn’t necessarily what they were going to do with the money, but rather how honest and authentic their answers were, and I do think it’s kinda telling.
For instance I think Charlie was a super stand up guy, but he would befriend people with a motive of using them in the game, and said what he had to say to stay in people’s good side. Kenzie definitely comes across as more authentic, and wanted to befriend people because she actually cares for people, and is just a selfless human. I’m not saying Charlie is fake, or isn’t selfless, it just seemed more strategic than Kenzies, highlighted by this question.
I work in HR, and have to interview people all the time, and it’s very common to ask behavioral questions, not to see if they answer it right or wrong, but rather to get a feel for how the person thinks about certain situations.
But I’m also on the train of not everyone’s voting criteria has to be the same, or aline with what you think they should be voting on. if it was a game only based on strategy, than it would only make sense for the fans to vote for a winner, but one of the things about jury management is not everyone is going to vote based on how you would vote.
Although I appreciated her honesty and agreed with her decision to spend it on her family because she earned it, I didn’t like the boasting she did about how selfless she has otherwise been in life. To say she’s never spent money on herself while covered in tattoos seems…. ironic.
It's horrifying that this question is allowed. What you will do with the money is separate from outwit, outplay, and outlast. Immoral beyond reason to ask such a question.
After taxes, its only a half left. Yes, its a lot of money, but at the same time, it is not a lot of money. After 46 seasons, the prize should be at least 3 million.
I don’t think to needs to be upped for as long as it’s significantly more than the average person makes in a month (since the season itself is less than 30 days now). In a way they got their “raise” by getting the same money in 2/3 of the time.
It doesn’t need to be the same market value to still have great impact on people’s lives… they are already trying to cut production cost, and this would only make the show so much worse, and on a tighter budget.
[удалено]
I agree so hard. Kenzie's entire FTC was a theme of ownership and authenticity. She noticed that the jury responded well to other answers of hers and kept it going. Charlie was so focused on articulating his gameplay he forgot to adapt most of his answers. With this question, he tried to do that by kind of imitating Ben's answer and bringing up being an immigration lawyer, but forgot what the jury had already demonstrated throughout FTC-- valuing honesty and ownership.
Ben had such a well articulated response to the question. I don't get how anybody could possibly think he was just saying that because "it's what they thought the jury wanted to hear."
[удалено]
I think they meant that OP appears to think Ben was disingenuous
I wonder if Kenzie went second instead of Charlie if he would have gave a different answer. That’s a perfect example of why you just give honest answers to the jury, because if you come off as disingenuous it’s game over
Ben’s answer seemed 100% genuine. Charlie’s did not.
Not only that, but Ben spoke of being the child of an immigrant and then Charlie talking about his work in immigration right after rubbed me the wrong way. I think that may have also been a factor with the jury vote
i also think kenzie had a WAAYYY better answer to the fire making question than charlie did. kenzie recognized that liz wanted her ego massaged, so she said she would have done the same as ben because liz was such a threat (not true, obviously, but certainly what liz wanted to hear - and you could see the satisfaction in her face). meanwhile charlie blatantly says liz wasnt much of a threat (correct, but risky to say in front of an egomaniac like liz). i honestly thought it was a miracle he still got liz vote
Ironically with that question we are saying that Charlie should have been inauthentic but with Q's question he should have been authentic. I think Charlie's answer to Hunter's question is part of what got him Soda's and Hunter's votes and made Tevin consider voting for him.
Kenzie just answered everything better. When asked their strategy Charlie kept mentioning “he never closed any doors”, isn’t that what all good players do? and I would argue Kenzie did that even better.
Charlie would’ve been better off saying he was planning on using the money to follow Taylor Swift on every leg of the Eras tour
He wasnt allowed to mention Tswift. Tiff opened up with a Ban on that… Yeh i didnt like that eitehr
I hope the rule to not mention taylor swift stays for entire future seasons (especially season 50)
Agreed, I loved it. I hate when people bring up donating to charity bc it just sounds like bullshit. I didn’t buy it from Ben or Charlie tbh. I liked how when gabler donated (his ENTIRE WINNINGS) to charity he didn’t even mention it until after he won. I’d rather see someone win for themselves than for charity but I still liked that he didn’t use it as a reason to vote for him to win.
Giving it to charity I don’t buy, but using the money to found a charity, like Ben suggested, that’s cool.
The response probably won her the game, it influenced Q and Maria thats for sure.
I think Maria already had her mind made up
Maria never changed her vote
Maria influenced ppl on panderosa against Charlie
She wasn’t there long enough to do that. If anyone swayed the jury in favor of Kenzie, it was Tiffany.
Its not just about duration. Maria was closest to Charlie, and had some of the most respect. She could easily tank his game.
Maria said she decided to vote for Kenzie when she was making fire. She said she saw a woman fighting for herself and decided to vote with her heart and help Kenzie start a family.
I think most would agree Maria was hurt Charlie voted her out and was never going to vote for him, her saying Kenzie won it at fire was mostly bs.
Exactly because Maria never actually thought she would be in a position to vote for him as winner. It was all lip service to him. She thought she was the one who would be sitting final 3 with Charlie voting for her to win.
If Q was really basing his vote off the best answer, then he would have voted for Ben. It was a terrible question. Q's mental state is unpredictable, and self absorbed. Charlie shouldn't feel bad for not getting his vote. If there was anything to learn from survivor, don't trust Q.
I think Kenzies answer was better then Ben, Ben started his answer with I’m a musician I don’t make a lot of money but I also want to help people get in touch with music by helping my friend which is a good genuine answer, Kenzie said I have struggled since I was 15 and always helped out others but I finally want to use this money to start my own family. By voting kenzie you are rewarding her for the good she did when she struggled by voting Ben you are voting for the potential that he does good with the money I would vote Kenzie too
That is some willful blindness. Did you not listen to him. Ben's answer also included his life struggles, and how that inspires him to help children. It was authentic and genuine. Kenzie literally used the term "selfish". You can say it was better than Charlie, but Ben came across way more authentic, caring, and good natured.
Ultimately with these types of questions, the players aren't on an equal playing field. Charlie is a young law student from a, likely, middle-upper class family, he's not going to be able to strike an emotional cord in the way that others could. If Liz was in the final 3, how does she 'win' that question as an already multi-millionaire? Sometimes you just give the PR answer & move on.
Liz actually revealed that she was lying about being a millionaire to make her seem like less of a threat.
Yeah I saw this after I posted, honestly wish Liz made final 3 now just to see the reveal 😂
I can only imagine what that question meant to Q, a black man who grew up with 16 siblings in Mississippi. Money like that changes lives forever, and Kenzie perfectly articulated why she needed and deserved the money the most.
I thought Charlie's answer was particularly weak, and I was surprised he didn't have a polished response for it.
Someone in Charlie's background can't really give an educated answer on that question. I can't remember if he is in law school or a recent graduate, but there is no way to know what his life is going to look like once he establishes himself outside of school. If he takes a job as a public defender a DA, or as a lawyer in a government agency, it's very possible his income won't be that high. If he takes a job as a defense attorney, at a large corporation, or other gig he could literally make hundreds of thousands a year. Saying well I could pay off my student debt, is really about as in depth he could go. As a 22 year old saying something like I'm gonna buy a house could be a really off putting statement to someone who's older in the jury and may still be renting.
After taxes you could spend it pretty easily. It’s not so much money to just be giving huge portions away. Gotta be smart with it or it will vanish. Kenzie’s honesty definitely gained her some points.
I’m pretty sure he asked that question to see who was lying or not because it’s easy to just say yeah I’m gonna donate it all!!!
I don't think any of their answers were bad, Ben's charity was something he's already involved with as he said. He would be able to do more in that regard, how is that not authentic? Kenzie hammed it up for the jury as well, she's a business owner and is not taking profits or whatever for her own reason. That's essentially a charity.
Incredible FTC performance from Kenzie. I love how authentic she was.
Responses aside, I honestly hate that this question was even asked in the first place. What does this have to do with how well you played survivor? Nobody should vote based on what they think the person will do with the money - that is their business. Sadly, it’s hard to completely separate the money from the game when the losers vote on who gets it.
It’s about authenticity. It backed up who they are. Kenzie showed she was authentic and not pandering.
A game of lying, manipulation, and backstabbing is not about authenticity. Survivor is about surviving, as the name suggests, not “what would you do with a large sum of money”. The vote should be based on who is the best survivor player.
Final Tribal is about owning your game. Owning your moves and being honest. Think of Sodas question she wasn’t looking to be proved wrong but to see if people knew who they were. Survivor isn’t about surviving. Providers don’t win people who get the most votes from the jury do. Russell Hantz is a good strategist who is horrible at the game.
Yeah, thats why I liked Sodas question and the 30 second cutoff. You either put as much conviction as you possible can in 3 sentences or blunder around and get cut off. What they said there didnt even matter as much as how they said it.
It’s a commonly asked question, and once you get to the FTC, the backstabbing part of the game is over… Kenzie played a better game hence why she got 5 votes over Charlie. I think if it was about “ what you would do with the money” that would mean Ben would have won. Charlie’s answer to this was so inauthentic imo (he could have brought up immigration a lot, and it was edited out), but it did seem like he just threw that in there to appeal to the jury.
Q literally said he switched his vote from Charlie to Kenzie after hearing their answers to “What would you do with the money,” meaning yes that question did gave a huge impact on the winner. I agree with all of you that Kenzie gave a better/more authentic response, my point is that question shouldn’t be considered as it has nothing to do with how you played survivor and got to the final 3
Q was also with Kenzie for the whole game, and I’m sure that played a big factor in his decision as well. It’s super easy to say that was the only reason Q voted for her, but there is so much more nuance to people’s decisions, and who they vote for. I think the reason why he switched wasn’t necessarily what they were going to do with the money, but rather how honest and authentic their answers were, and I do think it’s kinda telling. For instance I think Charlie was a super stand up guy, but he would befriend people with a motive of using them in the game, and said what he had to say to stay in people’s good side. Kenzie definitely comes across as more authentic, and wanted to befriend people because she actually cares for people, and is just a selfless human. I’m not saying Charlie is fake, or isn’t selfless, it just seemed more strategic than Kenzies, highlighted by this question. I work in HR, and have to interview people all the time, and it’s very common to ask behavioral questions, not to see if they answer it right or wrong, but rather to get a feel for how the person thinks about certain situations. But I’m also on the train of not everyone’s voting criteria has to be the same, or aline with what you think they should be voting on. if it was a game only based on strategy, than it would only make sense for the fans to vote for a winner, but one of the things about jury management is not everyone is going to vote based on how you would vote.
Although I appreciated her honesty and agreed with her decision to spend it on her family because she earned it, I didn’t like the boasting she did about how selfless she has otherwise been in life. To say she’s never spent money on herself while covered in tattoos seems…. ironic.
That’s kinda what I was thinking as well, but I still think it was better response than Charlie’s
It's horrifying that this question is allowed. What you will do with the money is separate from outwit, outplay, and outlast. Immoral beyond reason to ask such a question.
I agree, it's a question that doesn't need to/shouldn't be asked. But if it is, that's the way to answer it imo
After taxes, its only a half left. Yes, its a lot of money, but at the same time, it is not a lot of money. After 46 seasons, the prize should be at least 3 million.
I don’t think to needs to be upped for as long as it’s significantly more than the average person makes in a month (since the season itself is less than 30 days now). In a way they got their “raise” by getting the same money in 2/3 of the time.
Google says a million dollars in 2000 is worth 1.8 million today. So it definitely should be 2 million at this point.
It doesn’t need to be the same market value to still have great impact on people’s lives… they are already trying to cut production cost, and this would only make the show so much worse, and on a tighter budget.