There's a difference between strategic gameplay and being unpleasant to be around. Nobody is going to award someone who made life miserable for everyone else. Calling every young girl a dumb blonde is not a good way to expect jury votes in the end. He often went beyond criticizing gameplay and attacked their appearances or their personalities. Don't get me wrong, I totally thought Russell deserved to win Samoa, especially when I first saw it, but as I've watched and analyzed more and more of the show, I 100% understand why people would not award him the money. I think it would be very hard for any human to award the money to someone who personally insulted you day after day - not insulted your game, but you as a person.
I generally agree with you on this, as I think most Survivor fans do. But I think Russell's case is different. He went out of his way to be mean and bully others - he still does it to this day on Twitter. His actions had nothing to do with the game; it was personal. If he treats others like that on a personal level, I think it's totally fair for the jury to treat him like that on a personal level when they get to the final Tribal Council. Jeff has always said Tribal Council is where players account for their actions. And if this had only happened in Samoa, that's one thing. But it happened twice, in back to back seasons, when the HvV cast hadn't even seen his first season. They came up with their own opinions on him. I think that shows a lot, and I can't argue with the HvV jury, because those same people voting have shown in the past to not vote based on personal feelings.
I agree with this. Survivor has gotten far too gimmicky. I rarely think the best player wins anymore. Not that it always happened in the past, but even less so now. I think Survivor is really leaning towards favoring men who can find idols. It's getting harder and harder for women to win. And it's getting harder and harder for solid social and strategic gameplay to win. As we've seen with Chris and Ben, it's all about who gets lucky and finds advantages.
I would like them to bring back reward challenges that shake up the social dynamics. Like when they had to answer questions about people.
I would bet that, too, but I thought a woman was going to win last season, too, and you see how that worked out. But I still feel like advantages tend to be found by men, and the fire making challenge favors men, too. It's already hard enough for women to play the same way a man does and get respect, and now there are more barriers. Moms have it even harder, see Carolyn and Chrissy for that. Strong games, but not as much respect as the men who got there, too.
there are way too many gimmicks in the game now. Look at the last tribal: Jeremy holds a safety without power advantage, Sophie has an idol, Kim has an idol, and Michelle has a 50/50 safety chance. A coin flip is now in the game. A coin flip!! And the biggest gimmick of the all, the Edge of Extinction.
I loved when there were one or two in play at a time. That made them surprising and much more powerful than they are now. A smart player could do a lot with them. They once were used as social capital. You could use them to leverage trust, or gain a vote. And often that plan would backfire, creating a legitimate blindside. Now they are rarely used creatively because there are so many. They don't hold as much weight when using them as leverage simply because there are so many out there. Advantages are ruining players' creativity.
The general idea is that Survivor contestants tend to take on stereotypical gender roles of our society. Men make the fire at the start of the game, and tend to be the ones who start it all game long. This gives them a lot more practice with fire than women get, lending them to being more likely to succeed at fire. We've seen three cases of men vs women in the fire making challenge since they started making it a permanent fixture of the final 4. We had Wendell vs Angela, Mike vs Kara, and Dean vs Lauren. Men won all three times.
