brainee

Yes, I remember that (and not being happy). That was Michelle, and she was a cutie.

Another "twist" I hope never to see again is the Purple Rock tie-breaker. It's a little unclear whether Survivor would still do this rule, but I've heard it discussed by contestants as a threat to break a tie. A one-on-one fire making duel is so much better - in both drama and fairness.

I miss the "pecking order" challenges. The ones where contestants have to intentionally eliminate each other and the last one left wins. Those are great for shaking things up where there seems to be a solid alliance ... only to have some people start figuring out they're not as strong in their alliance as they thought. This season could've used that. Another good challenge for shaking up the group, that's been done before, is a tribemate quiz. Where everyone is polled in private, giving a tribe member who answers a question best, and the challenge is to pick the most popular response. There were always some insulting questions (like who is trusted the least, or who least deserves to be there), and it's another way of stirring things up.

Goat3001

Agreed to an extent. Yes the fire building is much more fair but what I like about the purple rock is that contestants know that it will happen in case of a tie and you'll see players do anything to break it. So instead of a 4 on 4 you'll have someone flip in fear of the tie. Makes that part more interesting.

chowderhead

this started with Survivor Africa where Silas got screwed by getting swapped over to the other tribe since his young faction had the advantage vs. the old faction. That was season 3! Silas probably could have won without the "twist."

Fandango

Are there any spoilers regarding the two returning players for next season?

creekdipper

I still hate that Rudy moved his hand.

astrochimp

astrochimp

Parvati and Sandra.

Joseph L

I believe Jeff confirmed in a blog last season (or the season before) that the rock tiebreaker is still in play, but only when there are more than 4 people left in the game.

mwbmis

I hated that b/c Michelle was one of the three people on that season that I actually liked (her, Earl, Yau...and they were aligned).

At least Michelle gave us one of the greatest challenge moments in Survivor history when she fell off the scaffolding when she was calling for blindfolded teammates.

Double_Oh_7

They both have won, so I doubt they are seeking redemption. One of them has to be Erik, I swear I saw him in the preview they showed.

Josh-da-man

I wouldn't be surprised if Matt came back, he sort of got dicked around by his team and made a strong run on redemption island, so he seems like someone they might want to bring back.

Another one I could see is that one-legged girl from last season.

Or maybe they're going to team up Coach and "Phile."

Arthur Dent

Sigh. Every player shown in the preview is a previous contestant. They haven't filmed South Pacific yet.

dolphinboy

That's mean. If Matt returns, he'll spend all his time on Redemption Island again. Clearly, that what God wants.

brainee

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/i92HPEQkhxI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Big Boy Laroux

I know this has probably already been said, but just had to comment anyway.

I HATE HATE HATE HATE when the jury gets all holier than thou about playing the game, as if they didn't wish they had played the same way to be in the final 3.

Julie was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of line. Questioning someone's abilities as a father based on how they played a GAME? i so wanted to hit her with the ugly stick she already knows too well...

David was great in his address to to the jury. Wish he had called them out for being whiny babies, too.

Goat3001

I thought what she said to Natalie was much worse. To say that she'd be disappointed if she was her mother was way out of line. And her reasoning was basically "because you played close to Rob instead of playing my way". Natalie should have responded by saying that her mother would be proud that her daughter made it to the final 3 and will bringing a fat check home.

Big Boy Laroux

Yes, sorry, i meant to add what she said to natalie, too. I was meaning to group it all together in my statement.

creekdipper

Speaking of Natalie (and this has probably been discussed), didn't she have the biggest impact on the big with her final vote?

If Nat bucks Rob & sides with Ashley (2 votes Ash, 2 votes Phillip), wouldn't there have been a tiebreaker between Ash & Phil? Depending upon the type of challenge, Ashley very well might have ended up in the Final 3.

If Ash is there, she has a very good chance of winning due to the following arguments:

Pro-Ashley arguments:

(1) She won several immunities when she had to (including the tiebreaker);
(2) She played a good social game instead of alienating the Zaps;
(3) She stuck with the tribe's plan to eliminate the Zaps while staying under the radar to outlast Andrea & Grant until she needed to step up in the challenges.
(4) She formed a separate alliance with Natalie that saved her when it counted.

Anti-Rob arguments:

(1) Rob had 5 times more experience (counting Amazing Race) as anyone except Russell...and he had twice Russell's experience in competition. Ash could have emphasized this point & asked the jury if they think they could have done better with Rob's unmatched experience;
(2) Rob had married a previous $1 mill. winner & had racked up a lot of other cash from his other appearances (not even counting endorsements, appearance fees, etc.), so he doesn't need the money;
(3) Rob has spent almost 1/3 of his life (age 24 to 33) competing on reality shows;
(4) The 16 newbies were just window dressing for the featured duel between Rob & Russell (which never materialized). After Russell & Matt got booted, the only story left was Rob. Denying the money to Rob would be a poke in the eye of the Survivor producers (including Jeff) who obviously wanted Rob to win.
(5) Grant did the heavy lifting in some of the challenges; without his physical prowess, Rob's plan would have gone for naught.

Given those arguments & the bitterness of some of the jury, Ashley might have had a good chance of getting both some Zap votes & perhaps those of Grant, Matt, & Andrea.

creekdipper

Again, regarding Nat: Why did she betray Ashley? I read an interview in which she said that she was pinning all her hopes on "a bitter jury", but did she really think they would give her $1 million just to spite Rob? I know it happened to Russell, but he was a special case.

Several questions Jeff should have asked:

(1) Did Nat regret her decision given that she now knows that the jury had no respect for her coattail "game"? Would she make the same decision given the same circumstances? Obviously, Ashley was tougher competition than Phillip, but that only counts if you think you have a realistic shot at winning.

(2) Was Nat operating under the principle that anything can happen (however unlikely) & that she needed to give herself the best chance of winning, no matter how small?

(3) If Nat really didn't think there was any way she could win, did she consider giving Ashley a shot at the $1 million (or at least a chance at a tiebreaker)? <This is the point where Jeff plays the clip of Nat saying she'd rather lose the game than a good friend>

If Ash wins the tiebreaker, Nat can say that she made a big move to break from Rob & be loyal to her friend. If Ash loses, Nat can make the same argument, keep her friendship intact, gain a small amount of respect from the jury, and end up no worse in the final standings (and take home the same amount of cash). Would at least get Ashley's vote.

(4) Does Nat think Ashley would have done the same to her? For that matter, Jeff should have asked Ashley what she would have done if the roles were reversed.

(5) Given that Ashley voted for Rob over Natalie, is their friendship still intact?

I'd a lot rather that Jeff had spent more time showing clips (Rob's contemptuous remarks about his teammates, etc.) and asked for reactions than to waste time exploring Phil's 'credentials' or seeing David's painful proposal.

dolphinboy

I'm not going over all that you wrote; this season is over and I'm exhausted from discussing it.

However, it's ridiculous that you'd suggest that Rob's experience on the Amazing Race would somehow benefit him on Survivor. Do you think Rob and Amber's televised wedding helped him too?

If someone wanted to try and use Rob's SURVIVOR experience as a way to knock him down by implying that he had an unfair advantage, certainly that would be a fair argument to make.

I still think it would come across as whiny and made the jury have to then admit they too were at a disadvantage from day 1 to Russell and Rob. It may be true, but I don't think anyone would have wanted to admit it, even indirectly.

Still, my main point is that the Amazing Race has nothing to do with Survivor.

creekdipper

You are kidding, aren't you?

Amazing Race involves lots of physical challenges, stamina, becoming acclimated to unfamiliar surroundings, pacing oneself & learning to rest whenever possible, making quick decisions, etc. They are two different games, but there's some overlap...like volleyball & basketball.

Even if it were just the experience of learning from competition away from home, it would be valuable. Contestants like Natalie & Ralph say they've don't have much if any experience being away from home. You don't think that sort of experience would be valuable??

As far as being "whiny", when someone's trying to find any viable jury argument, why not bring up the fact that the guy sitting beside you has been given chance after chance. You don't think some of the jury aren't sitting there thinking, "Wow...wish I could have four chances. There's a lot I would do differently." The point would be to show that maybe Rob was not so 'deserving' as a first-timer; in fact, one could argue that he SHOULD be in the finals.

It might get the other contestants thinking, "Yeah, you're right...he had a HUGE advantage." That would be preferable to thinking, "Rob is smart and I'm an idiot for trusting him." You have to think what appeals to the jury's ego in addition to reality (that's one thing Rob does so well...why not adopt his strategy). It would also help to isolate Rob and make the jury identify more with the newbie.

You think the playing the underdog role doesn't win fans in real life? In this case, it obviously was relevant since so many Ometepes never saw the blindside coming. Matt (twice), Andrea, Grant, and Ashley (even when it was down to four) all thought they were safe. Rob, on the other hand, knew that keeping tabs on everyone was crucial to make sure nothing was going on. You really don't think those players wouldn't have their eyes more open a second (or third, or fourth) time? You don't think that the Zaps might reconsider throwing the challenge if they had a redo?

That, to me, is ridiculous. ANY experience in competition...especially those that require adapting to unfamiliar settings...is an advantage. To say otherwise is to deny reality.

As far as thinking that the extra tries "may be" an advantage, why not listen to Rob (who repeatedly said how much he had learned from previous tries and how the physical part got EASIER each time...contrast that with the newbies who commented about how much the food deprivation, lack of sleep, etc. took on them) or Russell's comment that it was totally unfair to pit veterans such as he and Rob against newbies. I'd think that if anyone's opinion should count, theirs should.

And, yes, (since you asked) I'd say that Rob's televised wedding didn't hurt. I'd say any experience in front of tv cameras would help, although I wouldn't bring that up at Tribal.

Hey, it's a lot better argument to make than saying, as Natalie did, "I'd be the youngest female to win."

creekdipper

And I'd still like to know whether Nat betrayed Ashley because of Rob's powers of persuasion, a delusional belief that she had a chance, or the reality that the level of friendship wasn't as great as implied.

Whatever the case, it robbed the audience of a chance to see a real Final between two viable contestants. Might have been the same results, but would have made Rob sweat a little instead of smirking & enjoying the beatdown.

Edit: I just read a good conference call interview featuring Ashley & Andrea. Ashley said that several jury members told her they wanted to vote against Rob (Andrea confirmed that she would have considered Ashley), but with Phillip & Nat, it was a no-brainer. She said she voted for Rob for the same reason...he was the best player of the three. Ashley also said that she'd actually rather sit beside Rob in the finals than Grant, and she said she still doesn't understand why Natalie didn't stick with her since she felt that Natalie should have realized that she had absolutely no chance of winning. She also said that she could have handled losing a tiebreaker to Phillip a lot more than the way it went down.

She also said that a lot of the voting decisions (such as getting rid of Julie) were the girls' suggestions rather than Rob's, and that there was a lot more group decision-making than the show made it out to be. However, she acknowledged that they all felt their mistake was not talking to each other (I think of it as Rob's Cone of Silence) and that Rob engineered their demise that way (which is one of my points above...they wouldn't make that mistake if they played again). She also indicated that, if she had won the last immunity challenge, she still might have stuck with taking Rob & Natalie & voting out Phillip because it had been so ingrained in their thinking. (Rob ought to get heaps of credit for that alone).

Anyway, that answers some of my questions. Ashley didn't say that she was sure she'd have won against Rob, but she thought her chances would have been pretty good.

Howie2000

Bitterness to some degree with a million dollars on the line is only human nature. Only a awful player though would bank on the jury being only angry at the other 2 finalists and it being the basis of there entire vote. For the most part I would go far as to say Natalie along with Phillip are 2 of the worst finalists in Survivor history.

Riding coatails in itself is not necessarily a bad thing if thats the best hand you have as a player but Natalie not only rode coatails she rode them in a creepy stalkeresque/battered wife way. Add to that she was lazy around camp and did not befriend anyone on the Zapatera tribe who would compose the majority of the jury and you have someone who had nowhere to go come f3 time. Not to mention since she had the most options from F5 onward to dictate who she wants in f3 the riding coatails was the best strategy for me arguement doesn't hold water either .

Phillips I was acting like a crazy man cause all these kids were up Rob's a** I needed to make myself a goat arguement is actually not a bad route to go but if thats the arguement he was gonna make the second FTC started he would have no longer had to continue the act because he was in the F3. The second he got defensive and start arguing with all the jurors it threw his entire rationale and reason to win right out the window.

creekdipper

^ ^ ^

Totally agree with Howie that if 'bitter jury' is your only hope, you're in trouble (unless you're sitting beside Russell ).

I know that Rob was working hard to keep Nat in line...maybe I missed it & he just did a masterful job of convincing Nat that she had a chance to win. That was his original strategy...convince his tribe that no jury would vote to give him another $1 million (on top of Amber's)...but it seems that along the way his tribe figured out that wasn't the case & knew he would be formidable in the final.

I still think that Ashley could have successfully played upon the jury's sympathy if she didn't overdo it. The whole "Rob wiped his butt with us & then threw us away" line seemed to resonate with some. Ashley had established some challenge credibility & she knew that the Zaps hated Rob & that Grant & Andrea were pretty mad at him. Getting them to identify with her (especially by showing that Rob treated her the same as them with his final vote) wouldn't have hurt. On the other hand, I agree with dolphinboy that you don't want to overdo it lest you make yourself seem less deserving.

Not campaigning for Ashley especially...a blogger pointed out that she said that she "loved blindsides". Well, she got what she loved in that case. Still, I'd like to have seen a little suspense & unpredictability in the final even if Rob was eventually coronated. I'd like to think that the jury would have been harder on Rob if there was another viable option.

My wife thinks Phillip ought to get another shot, but I don't think the guy has the social skills to ever have a prayer of winning. Evidently we saw the real Phillip...and it wasn't pretty (even if some of us came to pity him as it became apparent that he seems to have some real issues).

creekdipper

Has Survivor always paid each contestant according to order of finish? I know that they always paid the top 2 going back to Season One when there were only two finalists.

Is it widely known about the pay scale? I asked some fans of Survivor and only one was aware of the scale. Nobody I asked was aware that the producers did some 'outside casting'.

Some of these things never seem to come up...whether they're edited out or the contestants are instructed not to talk about them, it seems that some of these arrangements are things the producers would rather keep quiet.