Sunday, May 16, 2010

Survivor Russell's Hat Is On Fire

And why is his hat blazing other than the fact that Sandra threw it in the fire? Well, he's peeved...and he should be.

While watching tonight's Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains finale I sketched this image of the infamous Russell, who in my opinion is one of the more entertaining for tv contestants they've put on the show. Every Survivor finale tribal council sore losers are in full force, taking their moment on the stand often to berate those who outsmarted them with lots of overly dramatic and patronizing statements (ex. Sue "dying of thirst" monologue, Marcus's "winning at life, that is" laugher, Corinne's "crying over dead pops" speech, etc.) I like to think that the producers purposely direct them to be more confrontational then they might normally be to make for good tv, but Russell had some great moments this season that genuinely must've eaten away at the ego of beaten contestants.

Is Sandra the "best ever" as she proclaimed? Not by a long shot. Going two for two certainly seems like a statistical argument, but let's be real here there's so many styles of play and unpredictable factors in Survivor it is impossible to call one out as the best. It's like saying one guy is the BEST ever at blackjack.

Russell is justified in being peeved by the format of the show...but the show is also designed so weasels like Russell don't win, and that's a good thing too. This is just another instance where a coattail rider rode to the end and then was voted winner basically for being the one who didn't outsmart the jury and make them look like fools on national television. CBS knowing that Sandra was the winner would've edited more Sandra footage to justify her being a winning player, but the fact that they didn't include much must indicate that they didn't have any to work with to begin with. I guess the whole laying low thing is considered a "strategy" too technically, but that's a pretty loose term in this case and an insult to players like Parvati, Boston Rob, JT, and Russell who take the term "strategy" to different levels. If anyone of these final three, Parv was the most deserving to win.

It was a slightly anti-climactic ending to otherwise probably the most entertaining season of Survivor ever!

9 comments:

  1. GREAT drawing!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry; have to disagree with you! I think Sandra worked very hard to not get voted off. She made a strong case to the jury by making sure they remembered how often she tried to get folks to join her in voting off Russell. She was on the block several times and was able to divert attention each time. What still amazes me after all these years is why groups of women will select a guy as 'leader'. There were enough women to vote Russell out -- why didn't they? Russell played a great game but never took the jury into consideration. And Parvati is just as bad.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree, i am getting tired of Suvrivors winners. It should be renamed to CoatTailers as it seems those are often the winners. I do agree with Russell, there is something fundamentally wrong with the game when someone like Sandra Wins

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was somewhat fine with sandra winning because I figured hey, the whole laying low thing is a strategy too I guess, but after she won and sat there and gloated that she was the best ever, I lost all interest in rooting for her and her no class attitude. She acted like she was a mastermind to be able to win but it's true her one big plan to oust Russell NEVER HAPPENED...so how's that for masterminding? Russell was made out to be the bad guy at the reunion but I bet he was saying what most of them were thinking already anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  5. um NOT! You're an idiot and Russell is a LOSER.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's not a Popularity Contest . .

    The creators of Survivor want ratings, and that's just what players like Russel give them. In fact, if it had not been for Russell, I would never have started watching the show. I just happend to catch him amidst his mechinations one evening, and I began following the show.

    Isn't the theme Out wit Out last Out play? I'm not saying that anyone has to like Russell. However, I will agree that the jury were too caught up in their emotions and their self-rightous attitudes to vote objectively.

    Sandra did nothing, and if anyone disserved to win for their skills, it was Paverti. While I find Russell annoying and off-putting, I did admire his ability to read people and pit them against one another. I've read several blogs in which people say "anyone can play like that." No... they can't. Some people are just good at it, and aside from my Mother-in-law, Russell is the best I've ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The biggest flaw in this show is the name, Survivor! They need to call it like it is, backstabber, liar, jerk or some other appropriate name. But these people wouldn't survive 30 minutes in a real jungle where survival skills are essential, let alone 30 days. Especially the latest winner. She recieved a million dollars for being a loser.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Everyone on survivor knows the rules. It is up to each individual to play within those rules the way they see fit to get them to the end and hopefully be awarded $1million for their efforts. Russell ignored the last part; like a marathon runner running 25 miles in less than an hour and can't finish the last 1.2 miles and still demands that he "won the race".

    Just wished Sandra had told the jury she tossed Russell's hat in the fire at the last council. She probably would have received all the votes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yep, I agree with the Russell's statement: there are flaws in the game. Let's check some of the counterarguments [C] against him, and my counter-counterarguments [CC]:

    [C] The game rule says 'Juries decide the winner', and it went as the rule. Stop complaining, Russell, and admit that you lost.
    [CC] Yes, it went as the rule and it picked a loser (or a merely surviving person) as the winner.

    [C] Russell failed twice. It proves that Russell's strategy has problems.
    [CC] Yes, it is almost proved that his strategy can't win the game. It is also almost proved that very fortunate noncompetitive person wins. That's why Russell claims the game has flaws.

    [C] The program survived for more than 10 years. That means the game system is pretty good.
    [CC] The game system is pretty good, and yet it has flaws.

    [C] Russell did too much.
    [CC] Yes, I agree with that. He was angry with people too much and too often. He needs to improve with his anger management. But, seriously, Sandra is the winner because she didn't do many things and fortunate enough to survive? She could have easily voted out by Russell or Pavarty or some other strong players. Her survival was decided by others. On the other hand, Russell or Pavarty did pretty much for their own survival.

    ReplyDelete