Survivor: San Juan Del Sur- Blood vs. Water II

[PUSH]

I don't think Jon can take anymore credit for getting out the players you mentioned above than his being part of that alliance. He found a strength in numbers not to his making. Missy could take all the credit because she leads her group with a insidious energy that could have the group gladly giving her the money. If she doesn't leave like the preview of next week suggests.
Ask yourself, who has a final three and who will the jury have a difficult time berating about their gameplay?
Missy is pretty much friendly with everyone on the jury.
Jon thinks he is a good player, he thinks he orchestrates who gets voted out, and I think the power of suggestion works especially on some viewers. I stated in a prior post here about his sense of entitlement and I laughed when Natalie called him the exact same thing in the second hour.
I have watched Survivor since the beginning and this season has had some of the worst gameplay I have seen. I don't see Jon as a strong player when I compare him to the ones of past seasons. Never would two duos have been allowed to get this far. Ever.
Missy reminds me of Tina Wesson and to a lesser degree Kim Spraedlin. Both are past winners of Survivor.

You can't compare these players to other players. None of these players are up to par with the likes of other greats like Boston Rob, etc. None of these players will ever be that. But the matter of fact is someone has to win, and if it's not Natalie, I think Jon is the best candidate. I think the edits make him seem dumber than he is, or maybe they just make him look like a dumb couple with Jaclyn, but I think his decisions are well thought out, and he knows how this game is played.

The debate of Missy has been friendly to everyone can't really be considered. Last season Tony lied and backstabbed his was through the game and he won easily. Why? Because he did something to control his fate, unlike Woo. Jon has done things to control his fate.

Also as a side note, I don't think Tina was truly a deserving winner, but that far back in the game the strategy was just not up to par with recent seasons, so it was more of a likability contest. I like her, but I didn't think she had a strong strategical game, which is the main part of what I look for in a winner.

Overall this season has been a letdown, but the past few weeks have provided some good TV, rather than gameplay.

 

[DinoInstitute]

Just sharing my opinion while the topic is on it, but I have to say...I don't really think Missy has come off in the best light this season at all. I find her very unlikable.

 

[PUSH]

Just sharing my opinion while the topic is on it, but I have to say...I don't really think Missy has come off in the best light this season at all. I find her very unlikable.

Agreed. In terms of likability, there aren't any player in the game that I'd say are overly likable.

Missy - No
Baylor - Not a chance
Jaclyn - Comes off as lazy
Jon - Seems like a fun-loving guy, but can be full of himself at times
Keith - He's had his moments of infamy (and spits)
Natalie - Probably the most liked, even if she is rather blunt to people sometimes

 

[DinoInstitute]

Agreed. In terms of likability, there aren't any player in the game that I'd say are overly likable.

Missy - No
Baylor - Not a chance
Jaclyn - Comes off as lazy
Jon - Seems like a fun-loving guy, but can be full of himself at times
Keith - He's had his moments of infamy (and spits)
Natalie - Probably the most liked, even if she is rather blunt to people sometimes

I agree with this. Natalie has been blessed with a great edit too. She isn't as big as an annoying "villain" as she and her sister were on TAR. And she hasn't been really the same person from TAR, which leads me to believe she has a lot of game to play...

 

[PUSH]

I agree with this. Natalie has been blessed with a great edit too. She isn't as big as an annoying "villain" as she and her sister were on TAR. And she hasn't been really the same person from TAR, which leads me to believe she has a lot of game to play...

She kind of seemed to be getting a villain edit at the beginning of the season, but I think Rocker took most of that off her.

 

[DinoInstitute]

She kind of seemed to be getting a villain edit at the beginning of the season, but I think Rocker took most of that off her.

Well, we didn't get too much of her, but what we did get was her AGAINST Johnny, so I think in the overall she didn't seem too bad.

 

[PUSH]

Well, we didn't get too much of her, but what we did get was her AGAINST Johnny, so I think in the overall she didn't seem too bad.

I just viewed when she started going off on John as a bad-sportmanship thing. Might just have been me. She really didn't have a reason to hate him other than new stories. And she probably thought he was the one behind voting off her sister.

 

[GenerationX]

The favorite to win (like immunity before an immunity challenge) "is back up for grabs". Nobody has played a solid, in control game. Jon and Jaclyn have lucked into being in the middle. An easy place to be. Natalie has gone against her own best interest any number of times, with the most glaring example being when she urged Jon to use his idol. Missy and Baylor have lasted this long largely because they're lousy in challenges and everyone thinks they can beat them in a final three. Keith is clueless.

The schemers (Reed, Jeremy) are on the jury.

Natalie has made for some good TV (and thank goodness we have not had to endure her saying "twinnie" in months), and Jaclyn is nice to look at. This season has been so-so. The producers got their ultimate goal in the first Blood vs. Water when the daughter voted out her own mother. I don't think this season will top that.

 

[NYwdwfan]

Finally caught up - here's my 2 cents:

Missy is a jackwagon. If she had any brain for the game she would have taken Jacklyn (or Jon) and Natalie on the reward and had Baylor go to EI to search for the idol. She made the worst possible strategic choices.

Baylor is another one. Alec fake flirts with her and she gets all flustered. So stupid.

I'm really just watching to see who wins and don't really have an opinion on it. Best part of this season will be the previews for NEXT season during the finale in a few weeks.

 

[seahawk7]

I've seen several older seasons, but Jon has at least tried to do something. Yes, he's had his dumb moments. I get that you hate him, but he has tried to play the game, whereas the other just seem to be sitting back and see what happens. If there's one person that doesn't deserve to win the game, it's Keith. He unknowingly voted his son out.

I don't hate Jon. I dislike the weak gameplay. Survivor has always been highly competitive, no apology gameplay or super sneaky social game. Both approaches have won the game. I don't get personal about the game. If Jon came out and won multiple immunity challenges from here on out the I would be say he plays a good game.
But as of now, I think the argument can be made that Missy is letting him think he is pulling the strings. Missy is playing a very good social game, heck Jeff said that no one in the history of the game had ever been given a reward challenge like that.
Oh and I agree with you about Keith. But I do think it's smart of Natalie to keep him around to win challenges for her to benefit from.

 

[seahawk7]

You can't compare these players to other players. None of these players are up to par with the likes of other greats like Boston Rob, etc. None of these players will ever be that. But the matter of fact is someone has to win, and if it's not Natalie, I think Jon is the best candidate. I think the edits make him seem dumber than he is, or maybe they just make him look like a dumb couple with Jaclyn, but I think his decisions are well thought out, and he knows how this game is played.

The debate of Missy has been friendly to everyone can't really be considered. Last season Tony lied and backstabbed his was through the game and he won easily. Why? Because he did something to control his fate, unlike Woo. Jon has done things to control his fate.

Also as a side note, I don't think Tina was truly a deserving winner, but that far back in the game the strategy was just not up to par with recent seasons, so it was more of a likability contest. I like her, but I didn't think she had a strong strategical game, which is the main part of what I look for in a winner.

Overall this season has been a letdown, but the past few weeks have provided some good TV, rather than gameplay.

I too like when a more assertive approach wins Survivor, but a win is a win I guess. Tina got some guy to take her to the end and that is pretty good manipulation if you can get someone to do that. I think the case for Missy will be made when we see how the jury responds to her.
Parvati was the best of both worlds. I respected her win. But we will see how it unfolds.
If Missy doesn't go home like the preview suggests, I wonder what she will think of her daughter and Natalie trying to get Jon out. Missy seems like a control freak to me and it will be interesting if she disagrees with the girls.

 

[seahawk7]

Just sharing my opinion while the topic is on it, but I have to say...I don't really think Missy has come off in the best light this season at all. I find her very unlikable.

Me too. I can't stand her, but I think she is the most dangerous player.

 

[seahawk7]

Agreed. In terms of likability, there aren't any player in the game that I'd say are overly likable.

Missy - No
Baylor - Not a chance
Jaclyn - Comes off as lazy
Jon - Seems like a fun-loving guy, but can be full of himself at times
Keith - He's had his moments of infamy (and spits)
Natalie - Probably the most liked, even if she is rather blunt to people sometimes

It doesn't matter if we like them. It matters what the jury thinks of them. Unless Missy has gotten a really good edit and we don't see that she has alienated the jurors as they are voted out, I think most are cool with her.

 

[seahawk7]

I agree with this. Natalie has been blessed with a great edit too. She isn't as big as an annoying "villain" as she and her sister were on TAR. And she hasn't been really the same person from TAR, which leads me to believe she has a lot of game to play...

I'm hoping she does.

 

[NYwdwfan]

It doesn't matter if we like them. It matters what the jury thinks of them. Unless Missy has gotten a really good edit and we don't see that she has alienated the jurors as they are voted out, I think most are cool with her.

I think of the 6 left, no matter who makes it to the end based on gameplay to this point, Jacklyn and Baylor wouldn't get any votes. So that leaves Jon, Missy, Natalie and Keith. Of the jury, I think Jeremy would vote Natalie to win and Reed, Josh, Alec and Wes would all vote Keith. Natalie can use Keith all she wants, but if he wins those final immunities he wins the game. If Keith goes, I'm not sure who those votes would go to - probably Natalie. Reed hates Missy/Baylor and by now Josh probably does too. I dint think Alec or Wes or Keith would vote for them either. I'd be surprised if anyone other than Jon, Keith or Natalie won. But again, we see what the producers want us to.

 

[PUSH]

I don't hate Jon. I dislike the weak gameplay. Survivor has always been highly competitive, no apology gameplay or super sneaky social game. Both approaches have won the game. I don't get personal about the game. If Jon came out and won multiple immunity challenges from here on out the I would be say he plays a good game.
But as of now, I think the argument can be made that Missy is letting him think he is pulling the strings. Missy is playing a very good social game, heck Jeff said that no one in the history of the game had ever been given a reward challenge like that.
Oh and I agree with you about Keith. But I do think it's smart of Natalie to keep him around to win challenges for her to benefit from.

I don't think you can single Jon out for weak gameplay. Everyone this season has had weak gameplay, except for Reed and Jeremy and maybe Josh. But even they didn't have anything special - Reed almost did. Jon taking out Jeremy was probably the biggest move of the season so far.

 

[PUSH]

I think of the 6 left, no matter who makes it to the end based on gameplay to this point, Jacklyn and Baylor wouldn't get any votes. So that leaves Jon, Missy, Natalie and Keith. Of the jury, I think Jeremy would vote Natalie to win and Reed, Josh, Alec and Wes would all vote Keith. Natalie can use Keith all she wants, but if he wins those final immunities he wins the game. If Keith goes, I'm not sure who those votes would go to - probably Natalie. Reed hates Missy/Baylor and by now Josh probably does too. I dint think Alec or Wes or Keith would vote for them either. I'd be surprised if anyone other than Jon, Keith or Natalie won. But again, we see what the producers want us to.

It's always interesting to see how the jury votes. Do they vote strictly off gameplay, or do they let their feelings factor in too? I think Spencer's speech at last season's final Tribal was great. He summed up exactly how I think the jury should vote - based on gameplay and not feelings.

 

[seahawk7]

I don't think you can single Jon out for weak gameplay. Everyone this season has had weak gameplay, except for Reed and Jeremy and maybe Josh. But even they didn't have anything special - Reed almost did. Jon taking out Jeremy was probably the biggest move of the season so far.

You can't sat Reed, Josh, and Jeremy had strong gameplay because they are no longer playing. I think we all rooted for them but, at the end of the day, if they are are the jury, they did something wrong. You can disagree with me as I know you will, but I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just going by what has worked in prior seasons.
Now with the logic I'm using, yes you right, that I can't single out Jon for bad gameplay if he is still in the game. That is correct. However, the reason I mention his gameplay is because HE thinks he is a good player.

 

[seahawk7]

It's always interesting to see how the jury votes. Do they vote strictly off gameplay, or do they let their feelings factor in too? I think Spencer's speech at last season's final Tribal was great. He summed up exactly how I think the jury should vote - based on gameplay and not feelings.

Jeff Probst himself has said that whomever wins played the best game that season. A strong social game, no matter how we feel about it, is a legitimate way to win. If you can get to the end of the game and be voted the winner because the jury hates the other players more than you than you did something right. That is the outlast part of Survivor.

 

[PUSH]

You can't sat Reed, Josh, and Jeremy had strong gameplay because they are no longer playing. I think we all rooted for them but, at the end of the day, if they are are the jury, they did something wrong. You can disagree with me as I know you will, but I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just going by what has worked in prior seasons.
Now with the logic I'm using, yes you right, that I can't single out Jon for bad gameplay if he is still in the game. That is correct. However, the reason I mention his gameplay is because HE thinks he is a good player.

I just think we have different opinions on what good gameplay is.