Survivor 20: Heroes Vs. Villains [Official Thread]

[Callum]

Jerri. She had more friends than Parvati in the jury, and I feel that double idol move left the Heroes with bad taste toward Parv.

 

[Spiff]

Sandra won because she offered the olive branch to the heroes, without being snaked out by any of the Villians. When it comes to playing both sides of the fence, Sandra is one of the best. Unlike Russell, who makes it so obvious. Parvati never tried, so with half the jury being heroes, it's no surprise she didn't win. But still, she got 3 more votes than Russell's zero.

 

[Ares]

If Parvati had of been more friendly, she may have won...but still, the double idol move was brilliant.

The Heroes (and half of the original Villians for that matter) avoided Parvati like the plague. She really didn't have a chance to make friends.

If it were Russell, Parv, and Jerri in the finals, I think Parvati might have won.

Jerri would have:
Coach
JT
Amanda
Candice

Parvati would have:
Courtney
Sandra
Rupert
Danielle
Colby

I would say Colby would be the swing vote though. He never seemed very fond of Jerri, but he might give it to her for old times sake.

 

[slipintothefog]

Colby 100% would have voted for Jerri if she made the finals. They're on friendly terms in real life now and they're the only people in Survivor history besides Amanda/James who have played the game together THREE times. If Colby and Parvati said more than three words to each other in or out of the game, I'd be surprised.

Parvati was hurt by her association with Russell. If Jerri and Sandra switched places, Jerri probably would get Coach's vote AND all of the Heroes votes like Sandra did, which would be enough to give her the win. Parv would still get Danielle and she could have picked up Sandra and Courtney as well. Russell would still get zero. So really, Jerri was only one hand grab away from a million dollars in that last immunity challenge.

As a huge Jerri fan it frustrates me (if she won, her redemption edit would have been so much more than the "America kind of likes me now" thing we got) but as an even bigger Sandra fan, I can't complain too much.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

What it boils down to is simple. 9 times out of 10 its a game about caring. There's a reason he lasted so long in the last endurance challenge and its directly related to the reason he dropped out of the others immediately. Somehow he sensed he didn't need to win and didn't care enough to actually try. If you look at individual immunity most the time (not all) but most the people who need it are the people who make it to the end.

I agree. Of course, that has nothing to do with the "explanation" he gave.

 

[falconfan]

Parvati was hurt by her association with Russell. If Jerri and Sandra switched places, Jerri probably would get Coach's vote AND all of the Heroes votes like Sandra did, which would be enough to give her the win. Parv would still get Danielle and she could have picked up Sandra and Courtney as well. Russell would still get zero. So really, Jerri was only one hand grab away from a million dollars in that last immunity challenge.

Parv lost the week Danielle when home and she was well aware of it. That why she looked so incredibly PISSED. She set herself up with a perfect final 3 that would've guaranteed her the win and the entire time she had been sitting pretty with what looked like a great ride to the end with those two goats.

Then Russel rebeled for no forseeable reason and sank her ship because how could she anticipate him not caring at all about his own chances or rather (to be more accurate) being so INCREDIBLY unaware of the jury system. She knew she lost. She said as much in the jungle when she repeated several times that Sandra would win.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Falconfan is totally right.

Unlike Russell, Parvati actually IS self-aware and incredibly perceptive. She told him straight up that Sandra and Jerri would win if he took either of them to the finals, and she underlined it later by stating that she herself would have voted for Sandra i.e. "If I'd vote for her you dumb troll, just think how the rest of those votes will go."

Or to put it more bluntly: Parvati vs Russell and Danielle in the F3, and Parvati gets practically every single vote.

 

[slipintothefog]

Yeah, if Parvati got to the end with Russhole and Horsielle, I can't see any situation in which Parv doesn't win 9-0-0 unless Amanda and Parvati were really on incredibly bad terms before starting the season.

She'd still get Coach and Jerri like she did against Sandra. She'd also get Courtney and Sandra by default because they both hate Russell and Sandra hated Danielle even though they didn't show it. Faced with three equally villainous Villains, the Heroes would probably still hate Russell and reward Parvati over Danielle, who rode coattails and had a pretty bad social game herself.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Has anyone considered what would have happened had the show stuck to its original (and better) F2 format? I think it's reasonable to assume Sandra would not have won the final immunity challenge so it'd be either Russell or Parvati. And that's where it gets interesting.

Had Russell won it, he'd assume Parvati was his only threat and he'd take Sandra to the finals, and Sandra would beat him in a unanimous vote.

Had Parvati won it, she'd perceive correctly that Sandra was her only threat, and she'd take Russell to the finals, and she'd beat him in a unanimous vote.

As much as the F3 set-up has given me a few winners I liked (Yul and Earl for example), in general I HATE this format. It doesn't allow for the kind of forced choice between two unattractive options that games of social strategies are based on, and F3 has always left room for a tie (which I'm STILL puzzled as to how they would resolve that, and I'm terrified that they'd let America's Vote decide it). And so, at the risk of Ozzy and Cassandra being winners, I'd still rather have the purer F2 game.

Also I'm convinced that in a F2 scenario, Amanda would almost certainly win the final immunity challenge on China, she'd take Courtney with her (since they all assumed Todd was a mastermind), and Courtney would have won the whole fucking thing, giving me my favorite winner of all time. So yeah, more reason to hate this F3 shit.

And with the past two seasons, I wouldn't be sacrificing any pleasure, because even with a F2, Russell would STILL lose both seasons.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Yeah, if Parvati got to the end with Russhole and Horsielle, I can't see any situation in which Parv doesn't win 9-0-0 unless Amanda and Parvati were really on incredibly bad terms before starting the season.

She'd still get Coach and Jerri like she did against Sandra. She'd also get Courtney and Sandra by default because they both hate Russell and Sandra hated Danielle even though they didn't show it. Faced with three equally villainous Villains, the Heroes would probably still hate Russell and reward Parvati over Danielle, who rode coattails and had a pretty bad social game herself.

Right. Also Danielle has a grating personality that most people don't like (and at the very least, they won't vote for it. Not with charming Parvati sitting right there). Remember in her season, Danielle won the final immunity and kept vacillating between Aras and Terry before finally choosing to take Aras to the F2 (and he won)? You could see she was running the numbers in her head back and forth, desperately trying to find a combination in her favor, but there was none. She was going to lose no matter what, and a lot of that has to do with Danielle just not being someone a lot of people want to vote for. Not when they have even a slightly better choice anyway.

I think Linda Holmes nailed it in that NPR article I posted earlier; all things being equal, most people pretty much vote for who they like more, or who they dislike less. And that goes for Big Brother too. Oh sure, contestants dress their explanations up in "he/she played better" costumes, but generally speaking, likability is the necessary motivating factor. And in a game of social strategy, that's completely legitimate. It annoys me when people are like, "The jury only voted on popularity." Um...yeah, that's how voting works.

Pretty much the only person Danielle could have won against was Russell.

 

[slipintothefog]

F3 has always left room for a tie (which I'm STILL puzzled as to how they would resolve that, and I'm terrified that they'd let America's Vote decide it).

I remember reading somewhere that Ami (as the last pre-jury boot in Micronesia) had voted in case of a tie for Micronesia. Granted, Micronesia was a F2 after a last minute switch, but I think that could be how they'd handle ties. So maybe Boston Rob would have cast the tiebreaker vote if necessary? I really don't know what they'd do in the case of a 3-3-3 tie with the final three, which is why I dislike F3 with a 9-person jury the most. They'd almost HAVE to resort to an America's vote kind of thing unless they had the last pre-jury person cast the tiebreaker.

And yes, I do love that Russell would lose no matter what. The funniest thing is that, in both Samoa and HvV, he would have stood a decent chance to win a F3 immunity challenge. He'd lose unanimously against Mick OR Natalie and Parvati OR Sandra, but he'd almost certainly bring the person he perceived as the biggest goat to the F2, and then he'd lose unanimously both times against the woman he underestimated the most: Natalie and Sandra. The women who won anyway in a F3 setting. HAHA!

 

[denverbear42]

Well First Off Most Of You All Are Clueless. The Creed Of The Game Is Outwit Outlast Outplay, The Only One Who Did All That Was Russell. He Played The Game The Best And Should Have One. Second Sandra Didnt Do A Damn Thing To Win She Never Won A Challenge, And She Sucked The Whole Game. Third They Were All Jealous That Russell Was Better Thats Why They Hate Him. Get A Clue People

 

[slipintothefog]

I think Linda Holmes nailed it in that NPR article I posted earlier; all things being equal, most people pretty much vote for who they like more, or who they dislike less. And that goes for Big Brother too.

See, that's why I think Jordan winning was a little.... suspicious. Jessie had no reason to suddenly turn against Natalie because she was so far up his ass as his #1 ally for the entire season. Lydia and Natalie hated each other but Lydia was so pathetic and shamelessly pining after Jessie that she would have always voted for whomever he did. So the conspiracy theorist in me says that Grodner intervention prevented a Natalie win. And if that's true, I'm really not complaining because I hated Natalie and Jordan was at least adorable even though she had no game.

 

[slipintothefog]

Second Sandra Didnt Do A Damn Thing To Win ... And She Sucked The Whole Game.

She was the main reason Russell turned on Coach, which let Sandra survive and make it all the way to the finals. So much for not doing a damn thing. But I'll humor you and say that IF Sandra didn't make it to the end, and the supposedly bitter jury didn't have the option to vote for Sandra, Russell STILL would have lost against Parvati anyway.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

I remember reading somewhere that Ami (as the last pre-jury boot in Micronesia) had voted in case of a tie for Micronesia. Granted, Micronesia was a F2 after a last minute switch, but I think that could be how they'd handle ties. So maybe Boston Rob would have cast the tiebreaker vote if necessary?

But that's still not a perfect solution. For example, say Person A gets 4 votes, Person B gets 4 votes, and Person C gets 1 vote. If the extra "tie-breaker" juror voted for Person C, then you'd still have a tie. The extra juror would pretty much have to cast a vote AFTER the votes were read live so they'd be able to only vote between the two with the most votes, in which case the tie-breaking vote would be cast way after the show had already aired and therefore outside the confines of the social game. Which is just as bad as letting America vote.

No. The only way to ensure against a tie is to have two people and an odd number of jurors. It's basic Math.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

See, that's why I think Jordan winning was a little.... suspicious. Jessie had no reason to suddenly turn against Natalie because she was so far up his ass as his #1 ally for the entire season. Lydia and Natalie hated each other but Lydia was so pathetic and shamelessly pining after Jessie that she would have always voted for whomever he did. So the conspiracy theorist in me says that Grodner intervention prevented a Natalie win. And if that's true, I'm really not complaining because I hated Natalie and Jordan was at least adorable even though she had no game.

But don't you see? Jordan having no game proves the thesis that Linda Holmes advanced. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Most people don't really vote on things like "game play", they vote for who they like. And that's absolutely legitimate in a game of social strategy.

Also, were you following what was happening at the jury house? All those people HATED Natalie once they got to the jury, including Jessie. He was pissed when he found out she had lied to him and all about her fiance etc. Danielle from BB3 totally called it weeks before the finale that Natalie did not have Jessie's vote because you could see in all the jury house clips that he was quick to badmouth her. I remember Danielle said this on some podcast and some rabid Natalie fan (a family member, I assume) said she was nuts, that Jessie was a sure vote. But I picked up on the fact that his feelings towards her had changed too and come finale night, Danielle was proven right.

BB definitely has its subtle production manipulation, but I do believe all these shows are on the up and up when it comes to competitions (no, they're not feeding their favorites the answers in advance) and voting. If only because of the Game Show laws that affect Reality TV as well, and that are pretty strict about this kind of thing (and really, no show has anything to gain by engineering a result solely for the last 5 minutes of its finale episode).

Jordan was more likable than Natalie to a larger number of people. Somehow that...doesn't seem counter-intuitive to me.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

But I'll humor you

Why bother? It's probably just Russell for all you know.

 

[slipintothefog]

But that's still not a perfect solution. For example, say Person A gets 4 votes, Person B gets 4 votes, and Person C gets 1 vote.

I think the most logical resolution in that scenario would be to make the person who voted for Person C revote on the spot. But, again, who knows if that's what the producers would do? Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you on the stupidity of the Final 3. Survivor is just lucky that it's never come to point where it's mattered, because: Becky, Sugar, Mick and HvV Russell got zero votes in their respective finales; Earl won unanimously; and Todd would have only lost in a final two scenario if Amanda won the final immunity challenge and went to the end with Courtney, who would have won China if Amanda's FTC played out the same way. (Todd has said he would have voted for Courtney if Amanda betrayed him, and Frosti would have voted for his showmance over Bambi, I'm sure.) Damn, I wish that last one happened.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

and Todd would have only lost in a final two scenario if Amanda won the final immunity challenge and went to the end with Courtney, who would have won China if Amanda's FTC played out the same way. (Todd has said he would have voted for Courtney if Amanda betrayed him, and Frosti would have voted for his showmance over Bambi, I'm sure.) Damn, I wish that last one happened.

Heh. Great minds. I went back and included that likely outcome in my last post. Courtney would have easily been my FAVORITE winner of all time.

Although I am glad that poor Amanda is no longer the person every one should drag with them to the finals for an easy win. That distinction now goes to Russell. In fact, Amanda could actually win Survivor if she took Russell to the finals.

 

[falconfan]

Well First Off Most Of You All Are Clueless. The Creed Of The Game Is Outwit Outlast Outplay, The Only One Who Did All That Was Russell. He Played The Game The Best And Should Have One. Second Sandra Didnt Do A Damn Thing To Win She Never Won A Challenge, And She Sucked The Whole Game. Third They Were All Jealous That Russell Was Better Thats Why They Hate Him. Get A Clue People

Like it matters what the marketing campaign for CBS came up with as a tagline. The rules are the rules and they're very clear. It asks players to do an extremely difficult thing, gain the favor of a group of people who were once your enemies. Russel clearly can not do that. It's like saying I'm the best at baseball I just can't hit the ball... well you need to in order to win the game so it doesn't matter at all how good you are at one thing if you suck balls at the most crucial element.