Mine are: (trust me, I have alot)
Colby
Amber
Tina
Jerri
Ethan
Lex
Big Tom
Boston Rob
Rob C.
Sandra
Tom W.
Stephenie
Bobby Jon
Gregg
Jenn
Ian
Parvati
Russell
J.T.
Mine are: (trust me, I have alot)
Colby
Amber
Tina
Jerri
Ethan
Lex
Big Tom
Boston Rob
Rob C.
Sandra
Tom W.
Stephenie
Bobby Jon
Gregg
Jenn
Ian
Parvati
Russell
J.T.
“All Out War” promo for the first episode of Survivor Heroes vs. Villains, showcasing the first challenge between the two tribes. 20 seconds version Survivor Heroes vs. Villains premieres February 11, 2010.
Promo preview for Episode 11 of S20: Survivor Heroes vs. Villains featuring Sandra and Russell each setting their sights on the other one, as all players re-evaluate their loyalties and alliances.
Besides the obvious of blaming the game when you lose, Mark Burnett talks about what Survivor is, a reality tv show depicting social dynamics, a social game.
Russell says he has a social game, referring to controlling tribemates like Jerri when it comes time to vote. However, Russell fails to see winning over the jury is part of controlling, part of the social game, and he has failed in that aspect, a very important aspect. All of the BS aside, I think he’s just coming up with excuses to every poignant question, in order to save face or not appear publicly embarrassed, when deep down he knows he has screwed up, but he won’t admit that, publicly at least. It’s understandable that he doesn’t admit that publicly. But my question is why won’t his fans admit that? That’s just disturbing, in a stalkerish way, when people, who don’t know Russell in person or aren’t part of his life in person, are defending Russell like they’re him.
(Russell is like that energy sucker, sucking all of their energy in the tribe)
Russell blames the jury for being too vindictive, but Russell fails to see that is part of the game, dealing with consequences (in other words, your actions within a group can come back to affect you). It’s not like this has only happened when Russell started playing Survivor. Influencing the jury is a main focus of the game Survivor. That’s part of the social aspects that Mark Burnett talked about: to win your peers or to influence your peers to vote for you for the million dollar prize. If it’s the physical surviving that won over Russell’s audience, then maybe the appropriate show for them is Eco Challenge, not Survivor.
Russell talked about winning the Player Of The Season. If that’s any indication of being the best player in Survivor, then what does it mean when Rupert came in close second with only around 2000 votes less than Russell’s (out of millions of votes)? Besides that number being a relatively small percentage, Rupert’s 2nd place shows that the voting for Player Of The Season is an indication of anything but the best player, since Rupert obviously did not play as well as some of the others. One indication for this kind of voting (America’s vote) may be popularity. Another may be a compliment to the editors for convincing America to jump on the Russell wagon. Parvati said it best that (the editors through the use of) Russell brainwashed America to vote for Russell Hantz, even though it was meant as a joke.
"All Russell said was I’m Russell Hantz." lol
Russell fans, do you see the light now? Do you admit that Russell’s game play was ultimately flawed? Why or why not?
you cared to answer, Eric. pot kettle black.
I posted this question partially to want to know what goes on in the heads of his fans and partially to share those interesting youtube videos of Mark Burnett. Cheers!
"how is it possible to be in control and voting people off and have the jury on there side?"
Make people think it’s the other guy who backstabbed and voted your target off. Be able to not make too many dirty moves to lose people’s respect at the end, yet not too little dirty moves either that you get voted off. That’s where the skill lies. That’s the social game. It bothers me to see some people not getting this, not understanding this. If there are no consequences waiting for you at the end, i.e. the jury, then it would be an easier game: everyone would be playing hard to eliminate each other like Russell did. Because the jury has the final vote, people try not to appear playing hard and not to do what Russell did. For 18 seasons, the jury and this game have always been like this, but now that Russell has been on it for the last 2 seasons, all of a sudden the audience sides with Russell because he makes the loudest noise? He may be entertaining but that’s no reason to grant him a win
Mail this post