|
Honestly, I think Sarah is playing a fine game. She appears to actually be Tony’s number one and is involved in most of the moves Tony is making barring the Sophie vote. I think Sarah has a right to believe she has a lot of control in how the game is playing out. Unfortunately for her, being the backseat strategic partner rarely gets very much jury respect. The only time I can think of the less outwardly strategic player in a pair winning is JT over Stephen and Stephen both gave Jt equal strategic credit at Final Tribal and was way more likable. I assume she believes that Ben loses against anyone and is otherwise banking on the jury being a little bit bitter. If it’s Tony, her, and Ben the jury dislikes Tony and won’t vote for Ben, she wins. If it’s Ben, her, and anyone else she becomes the target of the bitterness and therefore loses against the other non-Ben. It’s also possible she’s been playing a decent jury management/social game that we’re not privy to. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable way to read the situation, but from what we are being shown I don’t think it’s accurate.
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
Sarah doesn't think Tony has much of a social game and even said as much. Of course that's pretty blatantly incorrect to us and that's probably going to be the returnee's pitch to try and get her to flip.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
I think all things considered Sarah's playing fine. Tony hosed her over and took away her other big ally in Sophie and caused her to burn others. So like, what she's planning for her end game at F6 is probably totally different than what she was planning at F9. She had to go in with Tony because he made it that way. Michelle was right to try and play the "you can't beat him" angle (and probably right about the premise) but I don't think it really would have made sense for Sarah to try and make a move there. There's no clear sign they would have had the votes, there was no real trust with Michelle so she could have just been setting her up, Tony has an idol and a bunch of people who snitch to him, and even if they had got Tony out there Sarah could then have been at the mercy of "the hyenas". Sarah's gotta find a time to cut Tony but she really doesn't have the position to do that now, thanks to Tony. If she doesn't recognize how Tony will get credit for that and his other moves she's making a crucial and arrogant mistake, but its possible she's just sitting on it and waiting for her chance. Or that she knows she has to do it but doesn't see a way to do pull it off. And of course with Tony having an idol and the fire making challenge she's only got 1 chance to do it and she'd be back in the same lovely situation of having no real allies. So if you're Sarah do you risk it all to try and take out Tony right now even though it could all blow up in your face and have you finish 6th or 5th? Or do you ride it out with Tony, hope he loses at F4, or you can beat him in front of the jury? I don't think there's a clear answer there. Sometimes you just get beat with a better hand and up in a lovely situation. That's kind of where Sarah's at. She really hasn't made any kind of crucial mistake. Tony just made a big move to try and cut off her options and it worked so now she's here. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 23:44 on May 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I think all things considered Sarah's playing fine. Tony hosed her over and took away her other big ally in Sophie and caused her to burn others. So like, what she's planning for her end game at F6 is probably totally different than what she was planning at F9. She had to go in with Tony because he made it that way. Michelle was right to try and play the "you can't beat him" angle (and probably right about the premise) but I don't think it really would have made sense for Sarah to try and make a move there. There's no clear sign they would have had the votes, there was no real trust with Michelle so she could have just been setting her up, Tony has an idol and a bunch of people who snitch to him, and even if they had got Tony out there Sarah could then have been at the mercy of "the hyenas". I think she may be waiting to see who comes back in the game before deciding how to make that move, but I largely agree with you, she's played a good game this season all things considered.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
yeah, Tony outplayed Sarah but it isn't like she missed a huge recovery move afterwards She's been forced to stick with him absolutely, and she's doing her best to manage it. Will she want Tony out eventually??? Maybe! Maybe she wants to duel him in fire at 4. Who knows?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
Yeah, if she gets back someone she can trust like Sophie then suddenly it might make sense to try and make that move against Tony. On the other hand if someone like Jeremy comes back in who has a natural ally with one of the other players she might still need Tony more than ever. Its tough. Its easy to say Sarah can't beat Tony and needs to take him out. Its probably true. But its hard to really see how she pulls that off and gets to the end. It looks bad because Michelle came to her with "you can't beat him" and she went "Michelle is a troublemaker, lets vote her out." But you know, that's the edit. We don't know if Sarah sincerely believes she can beat Tony, was covering her rear end, is waiting for a chance, or is rationalizing her lack of options. But outside of predicting that Tony would blindside Sophie and somehow stopping it I'm not sure what Sarah should or could have done differently to this point. Its interesting with this crew because I don't think too many of them have made crucial mistakes that messed up their games. Nick probably screwed up taking out Jeremy. Denise might have screwed up not getting on board with Jeremy/Kim but I think that's debatable. But like... I don't think Jeremy, Michelle, Sarah, or even Ben really did anything especially wrong. Ben's been kind of a dummy all season but he's actually mostly gotten what he wanted done. And the other three have just kind of been thrown back on their heels by the circumstances of the votes and tribe dynamics. Kim, Sophie. I think they were just victims of the game. I think there's generally been a really quality level of gameplay this season, which shouldn't be a surprise. But that means some people don't do anything wrong, they just get outplayed.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Yeah, if she gets back someone she can trust like Sophie then suddenly it might make sense to try and make that move against Tony. On the other hand if someone like Jeremy comes back in who has a natural ally with one of the other players she might still need Tony more than ever. I would argue Nick and Jeremy both seemed to fundamentally misunderstand their position in the game. Jeremy has a little more leeway on that than Nick because when you’re the primary target every vote you survive can be a victory, but Jeremy seemed to always be trying to work with Tony which was a non-starter as a long term strategy.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
curiousCat posted:yeah, Tony outplayed Sarah but it isn't like she missed a huge recovery move afterwards She did! Tony was about to play his idol on her on the Kim vote and she said "nah bro". Flushing out the idol there would have been huge for her.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 00:53
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:She did! Tony was about to play his idol on her on the Kim vote and she said "nah bro". Flushing out the idol there would have been huge for her. Saying no there belies total confidence in her position, and makes it clear that she's making the final decision on the use of that idol And with Tony on such an immunity run, there's no reason for her to think that he won't use it on her when he's immune yet again
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
garthoneeye posted:I would argue Nick and Jeremy both seemed to fundamentally misunderstand their position in the game. Jeremy has a little more leeway on that than Nick because when you’re the primary target every vote you survive can be a victory, but Jeremy seemed to always be trying to work with Tony which was a non-starter as a long term strategy. Nick thought he was in a power duo with Tony since they've been the only two on the right side of the vote starting at Sophie. He was wrong but understandable if looking from his perspective. Jeremy knew he was always in trouble and had to work with Tony since he was the only person keeping him in the game. His other allies kept betraying him every tribal. Tbh Tony probably would have been fine going further with Jeremy but he's at the point where he has to toss a bone to Ben to keep him happy and thinking he's contributing.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
garthoneeye posted:I would argue Nick and Jeremy both seemed to fundamentally misunderstand their position in the game. Jeremy has a little more leeway on that than Nick because when you’re the primary target every vote you survive can be a victory, but Jeremy seemed to always be trying to work with Tony which was a non-starter as a long term strategy. I agree about Nick. Off the top of my head the players I think I can point to messing up their games themselves are probably Nick, Adam, and maybe Sandra. And I think that last one's a tough call since yeah, she made a big move and it backfired but also she was probably always on borrowed time. Jeremy seemed to kind of early on want to use Tony as a shield, which makes sense especially when he was laying low, but then was just kind of stuck working with him when he really didn't seem to want to. Like there were 2 or 3 episodes in a row there where Tony was gaming Jeremy and Jeremy just kind of looked like he wanted to slap him. But he had no other options so what was there to do? And Tony was still looking to keep him around until Nick won immunity and Michelle had the coin. So that could have worked out better for him. The last time Jeremy's really had any agency in a decision was when he used his advantage to peace out of that vote instead of gambling that that Tyson/Kim/Denise/Michelle crew would hold firm and risk a tie. And as it turned out he had a right read on that one since he probably would have gone home if he had stayed, especially with Sarah's steal a vote. The one big mistake Jeremy made was pushing so hard to keep Wendell and get out Nick to isolate him. That's probably when his position shifted. He wanted Wendell around to give him more leverage in the tribe but making that too obvious and losing him basically put him on his heels, I think. If he had just targeted Adam or someone that round and worked Nick into his plans with Wendell and Michelle he might have had more control over things. But in the grand scheme I think that's a pretty small mistake and speaks to how thin the margin for error is this season. Pinterest Mom posted:She did! Tony was about to play his idol on her on the Kim vote and she said "nah bro". Flushing out the idol there would have been huge for her. To be honest, I don't buy that Tony was ever gonna use that idol on Sarah. I think that was a test. If she said yes Tony would have been like "aww, you don't need it." Then he would have gone back and said "See, we're all good, we can use it later, trust me" and meanwhile say now he knows he can't trust Sarah and look to cut her off. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 01:05 on May 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
Jeff's questioning during the first tribal council was very telling and very calculated. He focused on outside the game questions instead of in-game to keep them from whispering. Notice how there was none (that was shown anyway.)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
Stokes posted:Jeff's questioning during the first tribal council was very telling and very calculated. He focused on outside the game questions instead of in-game to keep them from whispering. Notice how there was none (that was shown anyway.) I felt that it was more that the votes were decided and there wasn't much for them to show from the tribal. Just not any room for anything exciting to happen, after the previous tribal everyone likely already had it set it was Nick or Michelle.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 01:33
|
|
|
I only want Tony to win. Or, if I can’t have that, him coming in a distant second to EoE returnee.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 01:39
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:Yeah, her most recent appearance wasn't anything to champion. Didn't see her interviews so not sure what yall mean there. went back to check my post from that thread: Lone Goat posted:I got halfway through the Aubry pod because she came across like such a fuckin baby about it. Everything she said was dripping with entitlement, like she deserved to win but had the rug pulled out from under her. When she started going in about how Edge was such a great experience because we're all Too Plugged In, I checked out. click through and you'll see some other people chime in as well
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:Lmao why are so many people butthurt about Rob? i'd only seen his 4th season and it was boring as poo poo because they stacked the deck with like 15 incompetent goofs (including Russell). i'm not impressed at all with a performance that was hand crafted for him.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 01:49
|
|
|
The "Survivor makes you lose your mind" conversation at tribal immediately made me think of Aubry. The woman played the sixth-most days of anyone ever and did it in a three-year window; she did not seem to come out of that in the best place
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
Honestly, the edit could have painted anyone in the F5 other than Ben favourably up to this point. Sarah clearly has a bit of a social game going on and has an ally willing to play an idol for her. Denise has one of the biggest moves in history under her belt. Michele has been on the bottom numbers-wise ever since the swap and scrapped through with a clutch immunity win and also had enough social capital to receive more fire tokens from the Edge than anyone. Even Nick was doing a decent job positioning himself as a key swing vote for multiple votes and being looped in on the plans of several alliances. And while Tony seems like the odds-on favourite to win the whole shebang, it's also worth thinking that none of his moves have actually been that flashy other than the Sophie vote, which was still a stealth assassination. ApplesandOranges fucked around with this message at 02:36 on May 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
That was a cool moment
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
CODChimera posted:That was a cool moment Somebody winning (or losing) a crucial immunity is one of the strongest emotional beats Survivor can hit and I’m always super pleased when they do it well
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 03:42
|
|
|
I think I want either Tony or Nat to win. Preferably Nat, she is an absolute machine and drat I love her
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 03:48
|
|
|
I would also adore a Denise win but I doubt it at this point
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 03:50
|
|
|
Why would you want someone to win who hasn't even played the game? Edit: Natalie hasn't played Survivor since day 3.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
OFFICER LIGER posted:thinking about probst's comments that this is "the best season ever" and knowing exactly what type of seasons/players he tends to push/get excited for, i really hope we're not looking at an edge returnee going on a run and winning because they were a challenge beast or THEY PUSHED THEMSELVES TO THEIR ABSOLUTE LIMIT I think it's likely an EoE returnee ends up on the final 3 but doesn't win. Every player is aware that people-at-large really hated the Extinction win and this is almost certainly the last Survivor appearance they're going to make. Their votes are probably going to be consciously or subconsciously influenced by concerns from outside the game, public perception, what kind of way do they want to represent themselves. There are a lot of potential EoE returning players and I think even the most loved of them will still bring much grumbling and cast a possibly-annoying shadow over how people react and respond to them after. I do think Natalie is the most likely and most-satisfying returnee for that second-place trophy because of her story shown so far. Tyson didn't even get many shots in that final throne thing that I remember. Robs had a lot of stuff this season but that's because he's a jeff fav, his story is lacking some winner beats. The Bloop posted:Lmao why are so many people butthurt about Rob? When I was a kid watching Survivor as it aired, I remember disliking him a ton. Thought he was smug and creepy and I hated the Amber romance. As a kid I didn't even believe their relationship and was actually surprised they were still together when I came around to watching all of Survivor again. I found them more adorable on a re-watch and I don't hate Rob anymore. I straight up decided to stop watching a season back then he kept not getting voted out and I was so annoyed. Our family in general sometimes abandoned seasons if everyone we liked got voted out. Stokes posted:Why would you want someone to win who hasn't even played the game? There's actually a precedent for exactly that sort of victory and sometimes the game of Survivor involves playing Extinction island. Heck, extinction as a concept has it's roots as far back as to the season where there was an exile hut built for Sugar to live in.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 04:14
|
|
|
Stokes posted:Why would you want someone to win who hasn't even played the game? She’s done a great job of playing the hand she was dealt, and there’s a lot to respect there. Is it a weird balance issue that she didn’t play 33 days “in the game”? Sure. Is EoE a lovely idea? Absolutely. But truly, is anyone doing a better job of Playing Survivor than the person who started jury management on day 6??? I’d love for Nat to win because: 1) not Ben 2) it’ll put an even bigger spotlight on how stupid EoE is 3) Nat owns Also even among a season of winners, it’s gotta be real tough to not vote for someone who you’ve spent a literal month alongside completely non-adversarially, mostly working together to survive. I’m really interested to see how the finale goes. I thought Tony had it in the bag after last nights episode but the more I think about the returnee is actually going to have a massive leg up, if only because they’ve planned their 3 days of return gameplay and FTC talking points for weeks. They’ll have to absolutely blow the doors off like Chris did last time, but it’s possible and if someone who got voted off wins the season, I want it to be someone great like Nat or Yul or Ethan As a fan, yeah, I want Tony to win, I think he’s certainly playing the best game. And I don’t think anyone beats him, and if it is an EoE returnee that beats him in FTC I think the fanbase flips their poo poo. But like... Ben/Michele/Yul final 3 or something? Congrats to ALS researchers everywhere. (Michele could and should win that, but... who knows!) e: also I am absolutely living for the scene where the jury arrives at ponderosa where they’re greeted by Sandra who’s had full run of the bar and restaurant alone for 3 weeks Spokes fucked around with this message at 04:29 on May 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 04:22
|
|
|
Lone Goat posted:went back to check my post from that thread: OK I see what y'all mean now. Also in that thread I found my own reaction to Michelle's winning season that cracks me up now: Khanstant posted:Season 32 home stretch: This challenge where they have to stack tiles on machetes to bring them to pouzzle area is cracking me up because it literally necessitates players running around with a goddamn machete. I mean I doubt they are very sharp but something in me still screams against this notion of running with a blade. I was very very wrong and honestly "person-whose-name-I-didn't-learn-until-the-final-episode" has been a winner many, many seasons when I went through them all.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
Stokes posted:Why would you want someone to win who hasn't even played the game? EoE is part of the game, this season. Maybe I have a bit of a different perspective, having never actually watched Survivor prior to this season, but I think Nat's a charismatic person who's shown incredible feats of endurance & has a compelling narrative It's not that deep, fam
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 05:10
|
|
|
Not ultra-specific to this season (though I think it applies to Chris' season), but one good case for having EoE / crowning an EoE winner is that having an EoE returnee punishes players who bring the weakest potential Final 3 members with them to the end. Goats aren't great TV. If help to you create a situation where the EoE returnee can go on an immunity run by voting out threats, that's on you.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 07:00
|
|
|
Chic Trombone posted:EoE is part of the game, this season. Maybe I have a bit of a different perspective, having never actually watched Survivor prior to this season, but I think Nat's a charismatic person who's shown incredible feats of endurance & has a compelling narrative As someone who watches a bunch of Survivor, I also think a Nat win would be pretty satisfying. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 07:43
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:And people have already talked about the Auction which seems like a natural fit. wait why wasn't there an auction lol
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 07:49
|
|
|
I loved that they included the bit in the highlights reel where Tony got super excited about the extortion advantage before realising it was targeting him. And the debate over days of the week with Jeremy?? He's so funny.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 07:50
|
|
|
Stokes posted:Why would you want someone to win who hasn't even played the game? I like when people whose personalities I like succeed on the television game show I watch
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 10:07
|
|
|
Natalie didn't make the rules for the season. And she'd be a more satisfying winner than Ben, who's been a remora being pulled along wherever Tony goes.King Burgundy posted:As someone who watches a bunch of Survivor, I also think a Nat win would be pretty satisfying. She's already the Queen of Extinction. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 10:30
|
|
|
xbilkis posted:I like when people whose personalities I like succeed on the television game show I watch She didn't succeed though. She's a first boot. Chic Trombone posted:EoE is part of the game, this season. Maybe I have a bit of a different perspective, having never actually watched Survivor prior to this season, but I think Nat's a charismatic person who's shown incredible feats of endurance & has a compelling narrative You'll never convince me that EoE is a part of the game. Every single person on EoE deep down inside knows the drill: They are playing for third place. I mean I'm not going to tell you to stop rooting for her. What am I going to do, change your mind? But it truly, truly is a shame that a season of winners is getting stuck with this atrocious anti-Survivor gimmick, and I'm sorry this is your first season of Survivor.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 12:27
|
|
|
Stokes posted:
Lol whut I mean, it literally is.. It's right there on the show. You can hate it, you can think it's the worst twist ever, you can think it ruined everything that made survivor good... But it can only do that because it's part of the game It sucks because it's nearly impossible to plan for, for all the reasons said in the thread. You don't want to go there because you probably won't be there returner, but whoever the returner is they have a gigantic advantage that feels especially unearned
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 13:33
|
|
|
I honestly think if it hadn't been Chris that returned and won, and maybe Reem or someone who's story was better than "I just wish I had played a perfect game" and then stupidly getting booted 3rd, people may have been more sympathetic to EoE. He's just completely bland as a character. Personally, I'm in the camp of "if you're voted out, you're done" but have generally been OK with how they've brought people back in the past. Redemption is OK from an entertainment and story perspective since the people there are actively competing to stay in the game, instead of just surviving on a separate island. Even the ghost tribe returnees in Pearl Island was fine since that happened early enough. Natalie has stuck it out and the fact that she is still outpacing people in physical challenges on EoE who have had extra days of more nutrition than she has is astonishing, and her story of having extracted 6 fire tokens from Tony, who is still in the game, could actually play in to FTC if she gets there.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 14:10
|
|
|
Unison posted:Not ultra-specific to this season (though I think it applies to Chris' season), but one good case for having EoE / crowning an EoE winner is that having an EoE returnee punishes players who bring the weakest potential Final 3 members with them to the end. Goats aren't great TV. How do you create a situation where you DON'T lose to that person, it you can't vote them out? Is your brilliant strategy to... not vote them out?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
Survivor 41: War of Whispers.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
Chic Trombone posted:EoE is part of the game, this season. Maybe I have a bit of a different perspective, having never actually watched Survivor prior to this season, but I think Nat's a charismatic person who's shown incredible feats of endurance & has a compelling narrative I like Nat and have no problem with people pulling for her to win, but I do think saying "it's part of the game," while obviously true, avoids how completely ridiculous it is as a concept.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 17:47
|
|
