Discussion in 'TV Shows, Movies, and Music' started by RMichael21, Aug 22, 2016.
A couple of former players were tweeting tonight that the tone would be a lot different on Ken if he wasn't good looking. Instead he'd just be some crazy goon who preached about something that's not really valued in Survivor anymore. A lot of his honor and integrity speeches reminded me of Coach.
Agree to disagree. As we usually do.
As per usual you tend to value old-school gameplay, and I value modern gameplay. That's so millennial of me.
And it probably helps that I don't have a thing for Ken.
And so Gen-X of me.
What can I say? I have a type.
Wow... this season really turned itself around. The first third was such a bore... but damn... David and Hannah put on a show in how they ran those last few votes, it's some of the best strategy and idol play in a long long time.
But Adam during the end? What a ******... talking down to Hannah like that... and interrupting everyone, etc.
I don't like they don't give the finalists their speeches anymore. And Ken at the finals... told you he couldn't put together a convincing point.
Ahh - didn't know about Justin. I thought he was losing it. (Yeah I know I quoted the wrong message it's 5:40am)
Ken said something at the end about millennials knowing how to shut up and enjoy a sunrise.
I read that too.
Everyone except Taylor who probably can't make up his mind and remember who he picked.
I've been trying to convince my friends that Survivor was real for years.
If anyone needs any proof of it being real, just look at Russell's complete physical change
I lost a lot of weight 10 years ago and somebody asked me if I had been on Survivor.
Also I'd like to correct a comment I made earlier about this being the 2nd clean sweep at a final TC. It's for sure at least the third. JT swept Stephen Fishbach in Tocantins, too. This is the second time a final 3 has been a clean sweep, next to Jeremy.
Still think Hannah had a better case for winning than Adam. Adam probably just had a better social game than her.
Its like when Russel lost... he had by far the better game.. but the jury is rarely objective.
The more ruminate on this, the more I think Ken legitimately should have won. Sadly, Survivor is no longer about working hard, providing food, competing well in challenges to further your tribe, winning individual immunity, and being able to shut your mouth and enjoy a sunrise.
With the exception of that one brain f**t, where we all went, "Shut up Ken!", I think he played a flawless game. He wasn't flashy. He wasn't confrontational, he wasn't lazy. He deserved to win. He just didn't have a compelling enough sob story to spring on the jury in the final moments.
The thing that impressed me with Adam was his ability to get out of the hole he was in early after the merge. He was taking a lot of heat. After those couple of episodes where everyone was just drilling him, I wrote him off. I said he didn't have a strong enough social game to get the votes at the end. But he curved his way back to the top and built some good connections with people. Every season I'm realizing more and more that Survivor is about the social game more than the strategic game. That's why people like Spencer and Aubry lost. While Adam was strategic, he also had the best social game out of the final three.
Hannah also chose the wrong people to get out. Bret is not a guy who is going to vote for you if you're spearheading his boot. And she can claim the Sunday vote, but what good did that do her? It got one person out, but strategically it was a poor decision. She needed Sunday in the final three in order to have a shot at winning.
I'm not saying Hannah was a goat by any means, because I don't think she was. I just think her strategy was flawed.
If this was in the first 15 seasons of Survivor, Ken would have won. Adam would have been labeled the weasel, and Hannah would just be the quirky character. However with the evolution of strategy, it's more and more about being in control than it is about staying loyal. With that said, I don't think you can win without being a provider in the camp. It's not shown like it used to be in the old school seasons, but if you're lazy and do nothing at camp the jury isn't going to reward you. It's just the role of main-provider isn't valued so highly like it was in Pearl Islands with Rupert.
And with all that said, even without Adam's sob story, he still would have won. While Adam was a little confrontational with Hannah and Ken at the final TC, he then sat back and let them dig their own grave. You have to work the jury, and neither Hannah nor Ken did that. Whether that's right or wrong, it's a big part of Survivor.
Dalton Ross' recap. It's a long one, he keeps spelling "honour" wrong, and he thinks the right guy won. Enjoy anyway.
What adam the d0uche was trying to call her out on was she didn't play HIS strategy... and instead of realizing there is more than one way to skin a cat.. kept talking down to her. And I'm not sure who was the bigger dbag.. Chris or Adam after he basically tried to tell Ken what he did.. without a clue or being party to ANY of it.
Adam thought Hannah needed to remove David.. where Hannah was playing the game of ensuring she got to final three by having the people she could trust around her vs exposing herself but maybe having lesser people around her. It's a different strategy.. and for Hannah IT WORKED - the other detail that dismissive Adam kept missing.
Beyond Jay, when I said Adam had a better social game.. I was really referring to the idea that he was really just 'on more people's teams' where Hannah was always in her David circle of people. So more people were competing against Hannah longer.. where more people were playing WITH Adam more. I don't think people necessarily liked him more.. its just as I said.. most jury people are bitter and not objective at all. Which is a shame... because down the final stretch in this game.. some people REALLY got out played.. with really big moves and swings. Yet, we all went for the emotional vote at the end.
The biggest threats in final three are the people that are everyone's friends, but managed to stay in the correct alignment as the game shifts. Sucks, but reality.
The final jury tribal is getting a bit wacked.. I really wish they would rework that. Give people the opportunity to make their pitch.. give people the chance to ask questions and respond.. but cut out people like Adam taking over other people's replies. Opening statement, jury Questions, closing statement. Cut the jury down to 7.
Agreed, smaller jury; and by golly, how about a 2-person finale once in a while.
Too many people going to Ponderosa (ergo Jury Members) is the ultimate participation trophy!
I'm a little undecided on what I think about so many people going so far into the game.. with them going from 9 to 3 in so little time.
The game has certainly changed in recent seasons.. it's less about surviving the environment and food.. and more about the competitions. I did like most of the immunity challenges this time... especially down the stretch.
Too many extra 'awards' this time.. legacy advantage? pfft..
I think calling Adam the d-word is a little out of line. I agree he was confrontational, but it worked.
And while Hannah made the final 3 and her strategy did work in that sense, I think she had to be more aware of the perception of her in the game. This is where Will was spot on, he just was too aggressive in trying to fix the perception of him. With the perception of Hannah, she needed the goat, Sunday, to be in the final 3 with her. She was never going to beat Adam. She didn't read the jury correctly.
Everyone is the hero of their own story, but you have to be able to read the room and see where you actually stand among your peers.
Separate names with a comma.