|
Post by Nate on Jul 31, 2014 18:53:45 GMT -5
Topic #1 - Should it have been Russell who had won Survivor: Samoa, or was it just, having Natalie win? Or if you didn't watch the season/are stupid, did Mick deserve to win?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 19:54:45 GMT -5
Russell should have won and he would have if it was a different jury. Natalie did not have any gameplay and it's crazy that people actually believe what she claimed her strategy was.
|
|
|
Post by Brooke on Jul 31, 2014 20:17:55 GMT -5
My personal opinion is that anyone who makes it to the end, deserves it. And I know just skating by to the end people consider a strategy, but she knew she was aligning with strong players.
Part of the game is social gameplay and Russell highly lacked that. Natalie really lacked the strategic gameplay. And Natalie took a few wins immunity wise and so did Russell.
HOWEVER, the game would be completely different had Russell not found an idol and used it for his alliance. His entire tribe would have ended and never made it near the final.
I'm conflicted, but I think Natalie definitely deserves the title, whoever won would have.
|
|
|
Post by Nate on Jul 31, 2014 20:32:05 GMT -5
My thoughts are similar to Brooke's.
This is also the reason why I will never call Russell the greatest of all time. He lacks in arguably the most important part of Survivor which is the social game, and in the end, your social game is usually 50-100% why a juror votes for you or against you. I don't necessarily think Natalie was as aware of what she was doing as some people claim, but I don't think Russell deserved to win just because he found a sh*t ton of idols and didn't think he needed to have good relationships with people.
|
|
|
Post by Jhonmarco on Jul 31, 2014 21:06:42 GMT -5
IMO if your social game is strong enough, you can more than be worthy to win. Russell absolutely deserved to lose because he didn't take time to form relationships and was rude to people and made promises he didn't have to. Survivor has always been a social game and he didn't have one. I think Natalie had a more than smart strategy since she saw what had happened to women who tried to play aggressively in that season. I remember people comparing Tony to Russell, but Kass is a much better comparison. Make big moves, pisses people off, terribke social game, and expect the jury to vote their way because they made big movez!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 21:36:39 GMT -5
See what I mean^ people actually believe her crap haha the girl had no idea of what to do.
|
|
|
Post by Nate on Jul 31, 2014 21:37:12 GMT -5
See what I mean^ people actually believe her crap haha the girl had no idea of what to do. Russell still did not deserve to win.
|
|
|
Post by Brooke on Jul 31, 2014 22:15:38 GMT -5
See what I mean^ people actually believe her crap haha the girl had no idea of what to do. Russell still did not deserve to win. Sorry this made me laugh a little. I still think he deserved to win just as much as Natalie, but the hate for him (social gameplay fail), cost him the win. He was so overly cocky and the jury hated it. I wouldn't have voted for him either the way he rubbed everything in the jury's faces.
|
|
|
Post by Jhonmarco on Jul 31, 2014 22:25:32 GMT -5
See what I mean^ people actually believe her crap haha the girl had no idea of what to do. Apparently she did because she won. And lets not begin with the "the jury was bitter!!!!!!" garbage. If a jury doesn't wanna vote for you, that is on you 100%.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 22:28:07 GMT -5
No she didn't people are just sensitive and since Russell told them straight up what he did they voted for her. Also that one guy that gave the speech as to why Natalie should win swayed the jury.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 22:32:04 GMT -5
Erik did the closing speech.
I believe Russell should have won with the reasons Kenny already said. People should respect when one keeps it real, not kissing a** and just saying what the jury wants to hear at the end.
|
|
|
Post by Nate on Jul 31, 2014 22:33:34 GMT -5
Erik did the closing speech. I believe Russell should have won with the reasons Kenny already said. People should respect when one keeps it real, not kissing a** and just saying what the jury wants to hear at the end. I don't think he would have won even if he kissed their asses.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 22:34:58 GMT -5
Obviously, but I'm referring to Natalie. Mick was obviously not going to get a vote.
You missed my point on the whole "respect about keeping it real with them".
|
|
|
Post by Jhonmarco on Jul 31, 2014 22:36:42 GMT -5
No she didn't people are just sensitive and since Russell told them straight up what he did they voted for her. Also that one guy that gave the speech as to why Natalie should win swayed the jury. Actually Natalie apparently gave Laura M a great answer and it showed how well she got to know everyone on a personal level. Lol or maybe Russell shouldn't have been a douche to people who were going to decide who wins. It's easy to watch as a viewer and say, leave your emotions out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Brooke on Jul 31, 2014 22:42:08 GMT -5
This debate is almost as laughable as the Parv/Sandra/Russell ending on Heroes vs. Villains.
Sandra and Natalie played very similar games to me.
|
|
|
Post by Nate on Jul 31, 2014 22:45:07 GMT -5
This debate is almost as laughable as the Parv/Sandra/Russell ending on Heroes vs. Villains. Sandra and Natalie played very similar games to me. Parvati deserved to win. Unlike Russell on Samoa, she wasn't an a**hole to anyone and she played the best game.
|
|
|
Post by Brooke on Jul 31, 2014 22:47:12 GMT -5
This debate is almost as laughable as the Parv/Sandra/Russell ending on Heroes vs. Villains. Sandra and Natalie played very similar games to me. Parvati deserved to win. Unlike Russell on Samoa, she wasn't an a**hole to anyone and she played the best game. I think they all deserved it. A winner who makes it to the end 2 times....come on. Sandra just didn't get lumped with Russell, so she won. I'm bitter about it, but she didn't deserve it any less than Parvati. They knew she'd (Sandra) play the same exact way - by losing everything.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 22:48:14 GMT -5
Russell should have won both seasons but heroes vs villains is debatable in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Jhonmarco on Jul 31, 2014 22:49:29 GMT -5
I love her, but after hearing about how Parv was laughing at JT's letter for a good amount of time after he was voted out at camp IN FRONT of the heroes, I can see why they didn't wanna vote for her. That and alienating the heroes and letting Russ take Danielle out kind of lost her the game.
|
|
|
Post by Nate on Jul 31, 2014 22:50:51 GMT -5
Parvati deserved to win. Unlike Russell on Samoa, she wasn't an a**hole to anyone and she played the best game. I think they all deserved it. A winner who makes it to the end 2 times....come on. Sandra just didn't get lumped with Russell, so she won. I'm bitter about it, but she didn't deserve it any less than Parvati. They knew she'd (Sandra) play the same exact way - by losing everything. I don't think Sandra didn't deserve to win. She definitely did. But if I would have chosen a winner, it definitely would have been Parvati. She kicked a**.
|
|