|
That episode was awful with all the missy drama. Sad that I can only root for Keith because he's an idiot and a horrible player. Also I was a huge fan of Baylor, "my moms a fighter! She never quits!" *is divorced three times* Bigass Moth fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Dec 12, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Mercaptopropyl posted:How did I completely forget about how absurdly jealous and/or threatened Jaclyn seems to be by Missy when it comes to Jon. I can't imagine what Jaclyn must be like outside the game when women are around Jon. Didn't she say something earlier in the season about her not getting along with Jon's mom in real life and Jon's surrogate mother relationship with Missy was similar in that regard?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
I am glad that Jon is gone. Not that I disliked him much but I was tired of basically every episode being "Jon and Jaclyn are the swing vote because the two main alliances hate each other too much to work together." I am rooting for Natalie, though I think she will have a rough go of it because as far as the jury can tell she hasn't really been doing anything. Even when she plays her idol it probably won't be part of some impressive power play, just a "might as well play it now." I would also accept a Keith win because he is the most unexpected "challenge monster" I can remember and I love how terrible he is at the rest of the game. Missy is annoying but I'll give her props for continuing the challenge on a busted ankle and staying in the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Welp, another awful episode in an awful season. The sole redeeming quality was the preview reminding us the next episode is the last. I'm ready to call it: worse than Nicaragua. The only way it could possibly eek out being merely tied with Nicaragua for worst season would be a particularly wacky Keith win. Maybe. At least Nicaragua had Chess Grand Master Marty, Dan in the comically oversized chair and Fabio peeing in the pool. As awful as that season was, I'll rewatch it before I ever consider rewatching this season.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
I would come around on this season if Keith wins after revealing he has been masterminding the entire game complete with a montage of confessions from over the season confirming that he really was secretly behind every single move. Is anyone seriously surprised that a season with couples would come up with an agreement on strategically voting out partners so an alliance could dominate from much earlier in the game? I assumed it would happen and it appears that the editors chose to keep it from the viewers. I was confused what the couples had in mind as their actions (Missy upset about voting Jon, Jon/Jaclyn being so sure of their position) didn't match the situation even considering that they're idiots. I mean, a normal alliance of 5 understands that at some point two people have to go. These people were playing like the game ended at 5 people. The Natalie/Jon/Missy final agreement makes previous actions make more sense. This editing really underlines what is annoying about this season: they are grasping for stories at the expense of letting us know the basics of what's going on. It makes the players seem even stupider than they are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
EchoBase posted:I would come around on this season if Keith wins after revealing he has been masterminding the entire game complete with a montage of confessions from over the season confirming that he really was secretly behind every single move. yeah if it turns out that Keith has been playing 3-dimensional chess the whole time and every dumbass thing he did was actually a premeditated part of a grand masterplan I will lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
EchoBase posted:Is anyone seriously surprised that a season with couples would come up with an agreement on strategically voting out partners so an alliance could dominate from much earlier in the game? I assumed it would happen and it appears that the editors chose to keep it from the viewers. I was confused what the couples had in mind as their actions (Missy upset about voting Jon, Jon/Jaclyn being so sure of their position) didn't match the situation even considering that they're idiots. I mean, a normal alliance of 5 understands that at some point two people have to go. These people were playing like the game ended at 5 people. The Natalie/Jon/Missy final agreement makes previous actions make more sense. Honestly? Yes, I'm surprised that deal was made. Because it doesn't make sense. I'm not surprised the deal was made but I'm surprised some people bought into it instead of finding it heavily suspicious. Baylor clearly didn't like the idea of sacrificing herself for Jon and Natalie. And while we haven't heard Jaclyn speak on it I'm betting she didn't much like the idea of sacrificing herself for Missy and Natalie and she at least considered the idea that Natalie was making a move. The only two people who were happy with it seem to be Missy and Jon, you know, the ones who win out. And even then it's kind of bizarre that they'd be ok voting out their loved ones. Missy seems like she might have done it because of her weird thing with Jon but I'm guessing Jon would have snaked Natalie to save Jaclyn just like he's snaked half the island. I don't know, I think the show did Jon and Jaclyn a solid by not telling us that they actually believed that Baylor would sacrifice herself and that Jaclyn had agreed to instead of Baylor, Natalie, and Missy making a move. The only interesting thing missing is what exactly Missy was thinking in all of this because right now she really does look like the three time divorced woman with serious problems saying no to men who was willing to throw her and her daughter's games away until her daughter begged her not to and took a stand. I would have liked to see more of the Missy/Jon relationship since it seems to have played a very big role in the game and nearly tanked Baylor and Natalie's games. A lot of things like Natalie hesitating to make a move on Jaclyn/Jon earlier or Missy betraying Jeremy make more sense now knowing about that relationship. But it's plainly obvious Baylor and Natalie were never serious about that deal so if they had shown it being made and Jon and Jaclyn believing in it they would have just come off like even bigger idiots. To me they look better as arrogant fools who didn't imagine anyone would lie to them after they lied to everyone. Or at least Jon. To Jaclyn's credit she did once again seem to have better instincts than Jon but as always backed down when he rejected them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Missy seems like she might have done it because of her weird thing with Jon but I'm guessing Jon would have snaked Natalie to save Jaclyn just like he's snaked half the island. I think they should have shown that deal because it explains a major part of Jon and Missy's thinking. It seems the editors or producers did not like that story or the idea of people deliberately going to the jury, so they covered it up. If they really don't like it from a television perspective, they're lucky it didn't play out that way... but I wonder if they'll do a BvW again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Fast Luck posted:This would be a bad move. He would lose Jaclyn's jury vote, and Natalie would vote for one of his opponents. That's true, that he'd be losing Jaclyn's vote but the flip side is that he and Jaclyn would be giving themselves a 2 out 3 chance of winning instead of the 1 out of 3 chance he'd have and Jon would build a strong argument that he took the game into his own hands instead of just teaming up with four other people, two of whom voluntarily fell on their own swords. I much rather vote for that guy than any of the five Getalong Gang who failed to play proactively. I just don't see Jon as the kind of guy who would have been willing to take his fiancé out of the game for Natalie. Time and time again he went back on a deal and betrayed someone and he always had some rationalization for why he had to. I have no doubt that when the time came he would have found the one for taking out Natalie. Hell, he was already working it out with that whole "she messed up the vote so people are mad at her and she might be easy to get out if Keith wins immunity" thing he said at the start of the episode. We didn't know about the deal at that time so we didn't realize that he was snaking another deal by saying that and really Baylor or Jaclyn had already agreed to be the first to go. But there it is. Jon was already plotting his move to betray Natalie, he just got beat to it by Natalie. quote:I think they should have shown that deal because it explains a major part of Jon and Missy's thinking. It seems the editors or producers did not like that story or the idea of people deliberately going to the jury, so they covered it up. If they really don't like it from a television perspective, they're lucky it didn't play out that way... but I wonder if they'll do a BvW again. Then again we're also basing this all on Jon's say so. My guess is that this wasn't the solid deal Jon thought it was but it was more a passing conversation that Natalie, Baylor, and Jaclyn would all laugh off if asked. It just doesn't seem to fit them at all. On the other hand Jon's proven himself gullible and overconfident so I could see him just buying it Day 28 or whatever and never mentioning it again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:That's true, that he'd be losing Jaclyn's vote but the flip side is that he and Jaclyn would be giving themselves a 2 out 3 chance of winning instead of the 1 out of 3 chance he'd have STAC Goat posted:and Jon would build a strong argument that he took the game into his own hands instead of just teaming up with four other people, two of whom voluntarily fell on their own swords. I much rather vote for that guy than any of the five Getalong Gang who failed to play proactively. STAC Goat posted:I just don't see Jon as the kind of guy who would have been willing to take his fiancé out of the game for Natalie. Time and time again he went back on a deal and betrayed someone and he always had some rationalization for why he had to. I have no doubt that when the time came he would have found the one for taking out Natalie. STAC Goat posted:Hell, he was already working it out with that whole "she messed up the vote so people are mad at her and she might be easy to get out if Keith wins immunity" thing he said at the start of the episode.  STAC Goat posted:We didn't know about the deal at that time so we didn't realize that he was snaking another deal by saying that and really Baylor or Jaclyn had already agreed to be the first to go. But there it is. Jon was already plotting his move to betray Natalie, he just got beat to it by Natalie. STAC Goat posted:Then again we're also basing this all on Jon's say so. My guess is that this wasn't the solid deal Jon thought it was but it was more a passing conversation that Natalie, Baylor, and Jaclyn would all laugh off if asked. It just doesn't seem to fit them at all. On the other hand Jon's proven himself gullible and overconfident so I could see him just buying it Day 28 or whatever and never mentioning it again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Fast Luck posted:Er, I really don't think that's how the odds would work. They would have 2 out of 3 players in the final three, that is not a 2 out of 3 chance, nor does it even necessarily increase their odds at all. Whose votes exactly are Jaclyn picking up that Jon wouldn't have been able to get? Because anything else is just splitting his votes. I don't think Jon was especially worried about splitting votes with Jaclyn. He seemed to be going out of his way to position himself as "the man" in that deal and make sure she didn't make a move seperate from him. I think his argument would have been "I brought my fiancé to the end" not "we got here together". That just seemed to be how he rolled. I mean, I get what you're saying. Jon may not have NEEDED to get Jaclyn to the end and it might have even hurt his jury count. I'm just saying that it seems to ignore the Blood vs Water aspect of the game. Why would Jon let his fiancé get voted out even if he thought he was 100% guaranteed to win? It's his fiancé. Why would he boot her for Natalie? Unless he really thought he NEEDED her jury vote I feel like he would have fought to get her to the end. And even if he did feel he needed her vote that's a really cold "I have to vote out my mom" type moment. quote:I thought he said she messed up the vote and he was going to tell the jury about it, and she'd sure look bad in front of the jury. But again, maybe I'm thinking of something Jaclyn said since she generally seemed to be the savvier of the two and it would make even more sense for her not to like this silly deal where she jumps on her sword. quote:I agree that Jon and probably Missy were taking it more seriously than were Baylor and Natalie. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Good episode, I came out of that one liking everyone a little more than I did before which was nice. We look to be heading towards a Natalie-Missy-Baylor F3 which Natalie should sweep, but Keith may shake that up with an immunity win at F4 (assuming a Jaclyn meltdown leads to her out next).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to that meltdown. I want to see how that went with Jaclyn bitching that they betrayed Jon and Natalie shooting back at how Jon and her betrayed Jeremy first. One other kind of interesting thing that Jon said in the exit interview is that he had no idea Natalie took Jeremy's blindside as bad as she did. He didn't at all realize how close they were or how Natalie might want revenge. So I'm guessing Jaclyn didn't either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Worrying about bringing your loved one to the Final 3 out of fear of splitting votes is very silly. Not only has this never happened in Survivor history, but with an 8 person jury it's almost mathematically impossible. If the Final 3 were Jon, Jaclyn, and Natalie, for a split vote to affect the outcome the vote would have to be 3-3-2 (say 3 Jon, 3 Nat, 2 Jaclyn) or 4-2-2 (4 Nat, 2 Jon, 2 Jaclyn). In the former case, presumably they would revote with Jaclyn ineligible and Jon wins 5-3. The latter case is obviously more troubling, but with a vote that close it's not even clear that taking Missy over Jaclyn would help Jon. Also, historically most Final Tribals are won by very large margins, especially in recent years where the jury talks at Ponderosa and unofficially agrees to vote as a block. So the benefit of an extra vote on the jury by voting out your loved one doesn't worth it. Instead, since juries are so hard to read, I'd much prefer bringing my loved one to the Final 3 and blocking a potential winner from the finals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Well the argument would be in some hypothetical where Jon goes to the end with Jaclyn and X and loses something like 3-1-4 where maybe if he had gone with X and Y he would have won 5-4 with Jaclyn's vote and that one person who voted for her. But that's a kind of tricky scenario you'd have to work out exactly. And I don't think it applies here. Jaclyn hasn't played much of a game and doesn't have any strong votes or bonds she could "steal" from Jon. And in this case why wouldn't you rather risk Jaclyn stealing a vote than Natalie sitting there serving as a genuine threat? The only way I see dumping my significant other in the jury is if I have two goats. And I'd be too terrified that the jury would hate me for being a scumbag for that move. Or my significant other would hate me. It's just too beep boop game bot to make sense to me. Especially when dealing with Blood vs Water.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
There's a way collusion could work. The third person has to be a goat who won't get votes or your opponent's partner who does not want votes. You don't protect against an unheard of 3 way split. You collude for a 2 vote swing in your favor. In a vacuum, a Jon/Baylor/Missy final should be better for Jon than going in with Jaclyn. Jon going in with Missy and Natalie was plainly stupid and the worst collusion option. Jaclyn's vote is erased by Baylor's and Natalie wins anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
heeey they finally did it! pretty impressed by natalie. i couldn't stand the twinnies on TAR but she's playing a good game here. keith would be a funny, fabio-esque victory and i'm kinda pulling for that, but i'd be satisfied if natalie won. either would somewhat redeem the season, though it's still been pretty rough overall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
Is the finale Sunday or next Wednesday?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Bigass Moth posted:Is the finale Sunday or next Wednesday? Two episodes on Wednesday for the finale, at least according to the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Or my significant other would hate me. It's just too beep boop game bot to make sense to me. Especially when dealing with Blood vs Water. Yeah, there's a huge difference between voting out your fiance and an actual blood relative. I would have no problem voting out my family if it made sense for me (or us) but there's no way I'd risk my fiancee's wrath by voting her out under any circumstance. There's no way someone like Jaclyn would take sacrificing herself well at all, regardless of what she says.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Keith is super, super endearing, but its just so hard to root for him to win after that move he made. I mean, I'd take a Keith victory over one from Missy or Jaclyn, but that's mostly a testament to how utterly irritating and clueless those two have been in their own right. Natalie and (surprisingly) Baylor are the two most deserving winners as it stands right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Bigass Moth posted:Is the finale Sunday or next Wednesday? It's Wednesday finale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Vernacular posted:Keith is super, super endearing, but its just so hard to root for him to win after that move he made. They were discussing the possibility of a Keith win on RHAP and came to the conclusion that best case scenario he's a bottom five winner. He'd absolutely be in the running for worst player to win Survivor. The only fitting end to this season possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Why would Keith winning be bad? I think it would be satisfying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Met posted:Why would Keith winning be bad? I think it would be satisfying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Yeah, he's played a terrible game and done absolutely nothing right to get him where he is. He's just the one person who always makes the Final Five because they just slip through the cracks as people take out actual threats and players. He seems like a great guy and all so I don't wish any ill on him but he's played a terrible game and would be a terrible winner. And I don't think this cast is near unlikable enough to warrant rooting for a Fabio win just to stick it to them. If keith wins there will be no satisfaction for me. Missy, Baylor, and Jaclyn would be bad winners too but at least they've done some stuff in this game right. I wouldn't have even called Missy that bad a player until she had to be talked into not throwing away her and Baylor's games for Jon. Now I just can't bring myself to defend her. Same with Jaclyn and the petty behavior the last couple of episodes. Baylor's move into my #2 slot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Keith was kept around for his immunity challenge prowess and deserves some credit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Keith was kept around for his immunity challenge prowess and deserves some credit. Personally, I want Kaptain Spit to go on an II beast run because I'd rather he or Nat win versus the rest of the Getalong Gang that's left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
the best thing that Baylor has done is (mostly) go under the radar and roll with it, and that to me is more than you can say for just about anyone else's entire game
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Why does not being strategic make someone a terrible winner? I want the entertaining likable people to win a million dollars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
Met posted:Why does not being strategic make someone a terrible winner? I want the entertaining likable people to win a million dollars. Different people watch Survivor for different reasons. Some people want great strategic gameplay, some people want unpredictable and crazy boot orders, some people want great characters to root for, some people want entertainment and drama, and some people just want eye candy. I'm sure I'm missing some.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
Met posted:Why does not being strategic make someone a terrible winner? I want the entertaining likable people to win a million dollars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
I watch for Adventure Jeff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
Robnoxious posted:Out of this mix of 5, who do you see as entertaining and likable? Keith and Natalie, clearly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:I watch for Adventure Jeff.  Met posted:Keith and Natalie, clearly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:I watch for Adventure Jeff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0Rp1MPoO58 We bring up Adventure Jeff year after year and we are usually let down. Come on Probst, give us long watching stalwarts some fan service and bring back Adventure Jeff!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
Met posted:Why does not being strategic make someone a terrible winner? I want the entertaining likable people to win a million dollars. I usually think it's stupid to complain about a bitter jury, but in this particular instance Keith has been so actively bad at the game that I cannot fathom the grounds on which the jury would justify voting for him other than "Missy/Baylor/Jaclyn were annoying," which would kind of leave a sour note on the season
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
Kieth has been bad strategically at this game but he's obviously been pretty rock solid socially to still be in the game. He's a challenge threat and has the firefighter story to back him up. He wouldn't be a bad winner at all in a season where actual strategy has mostly not been existent anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Baylor's move into my #2 slot. I guess I agree, and that really just illustrates what a horrible, horrible season this has been. Baylor has been full of poo poo from the get-go, and her single redeeming quality is being Natalie's able and willing tool of a girlbuddy. I've never liked Missy. She was invisible to begin, and then it was made clear that she was the Rice Bandit, as well as a bully. Jax has disappointed me. She started to show a hint of prowess in the early game, but playing with Jon killed her spirit in a sad way. Kieth (where the hell did that come from? I missed something.) was my absolute favorite coming out of the gate, and his gameplay idiocy has been unfortunate but he is at least good television. I want Natalie to win because she is the only person at this point who remotely deserves it, but I almost don't want her to because it would give this season a single decent redeeming quality, like One World or South Pacific. I think that's why I'd love a Keith win: we finally get something even worse than Gabon and Mr. Crawley. I guess that's also to say gently caress this Blood vs. Water concept. Having their loved ones around really killed Baylor and Jax especially, and Natalie without Nadya is refreshing. I thought part of the point of Survivor was dealing with the hardship of being without loved ones and the sense of any one person you could actually trust.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Propaganda Machine posted:
Someone spelled his name wrong at a TC, I'll let you guess who that is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:37
|
|
