Survivor 44 Discussion Thread

[PUSH]

I've ranked the players and season!

I ranked Survivor 44 in 21st place, behind Marquesas (20) and Vanuatu (22). I had a really hard time ranking this season for the reasons I mentioned above. While the characters were great, there just weren't any standout moments. When I compare it to the best seasons, there wasn't the combination of great cast and great strategy. Sure, it was entertaining, but in the end I don't feel like it had that X factor that can push it much past a middle-of-the-pack season.

As far as the new era seasons go, here is where I have them placed.

Survivor 42 (12th place)
Survivor 44 (21st place)
Survivor 41 (28th place)
Survivor 43 (31st place)

I feel like season 42 has the best combination of characters and strategy.

I ranked Yam Yam as the 13th best winner. I have him around players like Wendell and Earl. I feel like that's a good comparison for him. He's a really good social player, and solid at strategy.

Yam Yam was my highest ranked overall player from this season, at #29. I ranked Carson at #49. Carolyn is at #60. I put Matthew at #147. I know that's a little bit of projection, but I feel like he had the potential to be a fantastic player. Heidi is ranked at #148. No other player made the top 200.

 

[artvandelay]

Carolyn won the $100,000 Sia prize.

Carson and Lauren each got $15,000 from Sia too.

 

[Jedijax719]

I feel like it is difficult to truly place Yam Yam's win and really see the moments that defined his win. I think I would compare his win the most to Nick's win in season 37. Good game, but no truly defining moments and no true "hero's journey". I would have him below Earl for sure (Earl pretty much controlled his season) but above Wendell (really relied upon Dom to do most of the heavy lifting).

 

[PUSH]

I feel like it is difficult to truly place Yam Yam's win and really see the moments that defined his win. I think I would compare his win the most to Nick's win in season 37. Good game, but no truly defining moments and no true "hero's journey". I would have him below Earl for sure (Earl pretty much controlled his season) but above Wendell (really relied upon Dom to do most of the heavy lifting).

As I've gotten older and watched more and more Survivor throughout the years, I've really shifted my view on what makes a good Survivor player. Yes, strategy and control is big, but overall it's the social game and your story that wins more often than not. Especially in the new era.

Yam Yam was consistently at the top of the social ladder. Everyone loved him. One way you can tell who the jury really loves is by watching who makes them laugh. Yam was that person this season. He's so charming, and he can diffuse any situation with humor. He has charisma.

Gabler isn't the the same extent as Yam Yam, but he's the guy who made the jury laugh last season.

I liked Dom's game better, but overall I can totally understand why Wendell won. He was an equal in the partnership, but ultimately had the better relationships with the jury. Dom was more of a game bot, while Wendell was a social player, as well as a gamer.

It's looking more and more like the era of "big moves" and consistent control of the game is over. Now we're into more of a social era, where you didn't have to control the game the whole season. Rather, you break out at the right moment, or you're able to articulate your role in the season and your story. That's why Erika beat Xander. That's why Maryanne beat Mike. That's why Gabler beat Cassidy. And that's why Yam Yam won.

But like I said... ultimately the jury will vote for the person they want to win, and then they'll make up reasons to support their vote.

 

[PUSH]

I forgot to list the players I'd like to see return, so here they are in order of which they were voted out (asterisk next to them if I really want to see them play again):

Claire
Matthew*
Frannie
Lauren
Carson
Carolyn*
Yam Yam

 

[Jedijax719]

I have a feeling Carolyn may already have been approached. I was watching a piece of Rob Has a Podcast with Carolyn and Rob asked her if she'd think about returning. She stumbled upon the answer and didn't give one but said she was so happy to have played and how it changed her life and loved it. But she was stumbling over her words. Not sure what the plan for seasons past 45, but if 46 is a return player season, I'd say there is almost 100% chance she'll be back. Quite possibly Carson also. Here's my list of players from seasons 41-44 that I would like to see return in a second chance season:

Shan
Ricard
Evvie
Mike
Omer
Drea
Tori
Ellie
Jesse
Cody
Noelle
Carolyn
Carson

From earlier seasons
Missy (39)
Dom (36)
Chrissy (35)
Christian (37)
Davey (37)
Cydney (32)
Jenn (30)

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

As I've gotten older and watched more and more Survivor throughout the years, I've really shifted my view on what makes a good Survivor player. Yes, strategy and control is big, but overall it's the social game and your story that wins more often than not. Especially in the new era.

Yam Yam was consistently at the top of the social ladder. Everyone loved him. One way you can tell who the jury really loves is by watching who makes them laugh. Yam was that person this season. He's so charming, and he can diffuse any situation with humor. He has charisma.

Gabler isn't the the same extent as Yam Yam, but he's the guy who made the jury laugh last season.

I liked Dom's game better, but overall I can totally understand why Wendell won. He was an equal in the partnership, but ultimately had the better relationships with the jury. Dom was more of a game bot, while Wendell was a social player, as well as a gamer.

It's looking more and more like the era of "big moves" and consistent control of the game is over. Now we're into more of a social era, where you didn't have to control the game the whole season. Rather, you break out at the right moment, or you're able to articulate your role in the season and your story. That's why Erika beat Xander. That's why Maryanne beat Mike. That's why Gabler beat Cassidy. And that's why Yam Yam won.

But like I said... ultimately the jury will vote for the person they want to win, and then they'll make up reasons to support their vote.

It's interesting because there's never one way to win. The current trend seems to be, make one big move and you go home. The "big" moves that win are the ones that aren't revealed until final tribal. Maryanne and her Idol. Yam-Yam revealing his ability to read people.

I wonder how much things have really changed though? Russell was a strategic mastermind who lost on the social game. Has strategy ever been the be all and end all of winning Survivor? Granted, he was an extreme, but there are players like Todd who won because they delivered a fake apology at the end to sway a vote.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I have a feeling Carolyn may already have been approached. I was watching a piece of Rob Has a Podcast with Carolyn and Rob asked her if she'd think about returning. She stumbled upon the answer and didn't give one but said she was so happy to have played and how it changed her life and loved it. But she was stumbling over her words. Not sure what the plan for seasons past 45, but if 46 is a return player season, I'd say there is almost 100% chance she'll be back. Quite possibly Carson also. Here's my list of players from seasons 41-44 that I would like to see return in a second chance season:

Carolyn stumbling and not being super coherent is just her natural state though

However, we're overdue for a returnee season and the 90 minute episodes would be a great opportunity to showcase players we know make for great TV.

 

[PUSH]

It's interesting because there's never one way to win. The current trend seems to be, make one big move and you go home. The "big" moves that win are the ones that aren't revealed until final tribal. Maryanne and her Idol. Yam-Yam revealing his ability to read people.

I wonder how much things have really changed though? Russell was a strategic mastermind who lost on the social game. Has strategy ever been the be all and end all of winning Survivor? Granted, he was an extreme, but there are players like Todd who won because they delivered a fake apology at the end to sway a vote.

There's no right and wrong way to win the game. If the jury votes for you, you deserve to win. That's what that group of players wanted.

The major component to winning has always been the social game. There are very few times where someone who wasn't likable won. And the only one I can think of is Brian in Thailand, but he went up against someone who was equally despised.

Once you get past the social game, I think the focus has shifted a little bit. In the early seasons loyalty was huge. In the late 20s and into the 30s, it was big, flashy moves. In the new era it seems to be the person who was quietly making a move, or who was most self aware.

But ultimately you have to be likable. Survivor is littered with superior strategists who the jury didn't like as well as the winner: Boston Rob, Stephenie, Stephen, Russell, Parvati, Russell 2.0, Sash, Coach, Aubry, Chrissy, Dom, and Cassidy. Maybe even Twila, Susie, Dawn, and Carolyn. The majority of those players are considered to be better strategists than the winners, but ultimately did not win.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

There's no right and wrong way to win the game. If the jury votes for you, you deserve to win. That's what that group of players wanted.

The major component to winning has always been the social game. There are very few times where someone who wasn't likable won. And the only one I can think of is Brian in Thailand, but he went up against someone who was equally despised.

Once you get past the social game, I think the focus has shifted a little bit. In the early seasons loyalty was huge. In the late 20s and into the 30s, it was big, flashy moves. In the new era it seems to be the person who was quietly making a move, or who was most self aware.

But ultimately you have to be likable. Survivor is littered with superior strategists who the jury didn't like as well as the winner: Boston Rob, Stephenie, Stephen, Russell, Parvati, Russell 2.0, Sash, Coach, Aubry, Chrissy, Dom, and Cassidy. Maybe even Twila, Susie, Dawn, and Carolyn. The majority of those players are considered to be better strategists than the winners, but ultimately did not win.

Yeah, and I would also emphasize that being social IS an element of strategy. Yam-Yam showed this beautifully, that his social play was a source of information as well.

It's that balance of figuring out what the jury wants, playing to those wants, and walking that fine line of getting the majority of votes when some jury members might value totally different things.

In a different world there are four jury members like Danny who put value on the fire making move, and Yam-Yam loses if he can't appeal to them.

As ever, that's the core element that makes this show so intriguing. There's no single way to win and it has to be a huge challenge to figure out and meet the win conditions for a given season.

 

[PUSH]

This is not Survivor 44 specific, but I just wanted to mention that I have begun my 3rd watch through of the Survivor seasons. I'm 5 episodes into Borneo. We'll see how many I get through before Survivor 45.

My biggest takeaways is that you forget how interesting camp life can be. The Borneo cast rocks it. Also, the challenge are so short compared to current seasons. Tribal Councils, too. And Jeff is so awkward. The first time he says, "The tribe is spoken", you can tell he is almost embarrassed to say it. Also, people remember Rich creating alliances. And while he's the first to mention them in an episode, Sue and Kelly actually are the two who create them for the first time, along with Rich. Rich even mentions that he didn't have to do the dirty work because the others already had.

 

[PUSH]

We also were seconds away from Pagong getting the majority at the merge. They would have been up 6-4, and likely would have picked off the Tagi tribe. Then it's likely that someone like Gretchen, Greg, or Colleen would have won. If that's the case, the show would look much different today, if it was on at all.

 

[flynnibus]

I think the final format needs reworking. They've gone with this 'let them run with it..' thing in all the tribals and it just gets too far out of line. At the finals people don't even get really equal opportunity... setting it up for someone to just interupt and bully their words over others. Carolyn never even got going in the final and the votes showed it. The same can happy from the jury side, where dominate voices take over.

They really need to go back to at the minimum.. giving each player a monologue where they can talk without interruption (on a time limit) to outline THEIR case... then let the jury ask questions.

 

[JPPT1974]

Well they have in the going from 39 days to 24-28 days really has changed up things. And that for now, no returning castaways will be on the agenda. Like the new change if you can call it that.

 

[PUSH]

I finished my Borneo rewatch. It was prolonged because I was at Disney for the past couple weeks. But overall, this season really holds up. The knock is always that it's a much slower pace. While that's true, it also has so much to offer. The interpersonal relationships are interesting, and seeing Richard basically invent the entire game is fascinating. The way Richard speaks about the game is basically what we talk about today. Without Rich, this show would not still be on.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I finished my Borneo rewatch. It was prolonged because I was at Disney for the past couple weeks. But overall, this season really holds up. The knock is always that it's a much slower pace. While that's true, it also has so much to offer. The interpersonal relationships are interesting, and seeing Richard basically invent the entire game is fascinating. The way Richard speaks about the game is basically what we talk about today. Without Rich, this show would not still be on.

I'm not a hardcore re-watcher but I have slowly been watching seasons a second time up to season 17 at this point.

It's interesting to see the evolution of the show/game and how it morphed from its' original intent.

In that first season Jeff is still pushing the narrative that players have to adapt and contribute as the criteria for moving forward in the game. Richard realized that's not how you win the show, or at least isn't the only way to win, and got painted as a villain in part because he acted contrary to the vision of the show the producers had.

The show itself quickly adjusted their thinking to have that strategy focus as well.

 

[PUSH]

I'm not a hardcore re-watcher but I have slowly been watching seasons a second time up to season 17 at this point.

It's interesting to see the evolution of the show/game and how it morphed from its' original intent.

In that first season Jeff is still pushing the narrative that players have to adapt and contribute as the criteria for moving forward in the game. Richard realized that's not how you win the show, or at least isn't the only way to win, and got painted as a villain in part because he acted contrary to the vision of the show the producers had.

The show itself quickly adjusted their thinking to have that strategy focus as well.

Rich was really the first one to realize that the best survivalist or the most popular person is the biggest threat. So he voted off Gretchen and Greg. He was the first to think ahead. He was even thinking about his strategy before the game started.

I think Sue had the same ideas, but they weren't as in depth or thought out as Rich's.

 

[PUSH]

I finished my rewatch of Survivor: The Australian Outback last night. Overall, it was better than I thought it was. I will say, the finale was a big drag. Nothing happened. Also, after Jerri left, it was pretty dull. Everyone loved each other, and everyone was fine with how the game was going to shake out. But before Jerri was voted out, it was a pretty good season.

I wish we would have seen more of Tina. Her entire final Tribal Council performance was about the game being strategy, but we really didn't see any strategy. I guess back then, picking someone who might win challenges is advanced strategy. But Borneo even had deeper strategic reasonings.

The natural events with the flooded camp and the wildfires were interesting to watch.

I'm on to Africa now!

 

[PUSH]

I've finished Africa! Overall, it was also better than I remembered. There were a lot of interesting characters, and also more drama than I remembered. The location was absolutely breathtaking. It's probably the best location they've ever been to. It's so cool to watch them walking around with elephants in the background. It also made the dangers that more real. Seeing and hearing the lions literally right outside their camp at night was crazy.

Onto Marquesas!

 

[PUSH]

I'm done with Marquesas! I feel like it's an average season. Maybe below average. While the strategy takes a major step forward this season, the cast just isn't that interesting. The majority of the Rotu alliance is pretty bland outside of John. Neleh is alright, too. Tammy's okay. But most of them are just boring or unlikable. The star of the season is obviously Kathy, and I wouldn't want to watch the season without her. Then there's Sean and Boston Rob who are fun.

It's a shame that Vecepia was so under-edited. I feel like she's a really strong player based on tiny tidbits, but we just didn't see anything from her. They did a disservice to her.

I also have to mention the reunion... Rosie O'Donnell... yikes. That was bad.

Overall, I feel like the strategy was much better than The Australian Outback, but the cast isn't nearly as good. Easily the worst of the first four casts. I'd probably place Marquesas over The Australian Outback, but it's really close. It depends on what you're looking for. Right now the first four seasons go...

1. Borneo
2. Africa
3. Marquesas
4. The Australian Outback

And now it's onto Thailand... my lowest ranked season from my last rewatch. I'm not super thrilled, but I'll power through.