You make it sound like she was just chilling at Club Med till her return. EoE conditions are more extreme than the regular survivor tribe sites and Nat was there for like 37 or so days.
Survivor: Winners at War
- Thread starter cmjh10
- Start date
You make it sound like she was just chilling at Club Med till her return. EoE conditions are more extreme than the regular survivor tribe sites and Nat was there for like 37 or so days.
Put me in the camp of no more EOE. The conditions might have been more extreme, but they were working together and forming bonds. There was no strategy to be discussed, no tensions other than winning the challenges.
So
What. I don’t care you are not playing the game. You have none of the mental anxiety and strategy that everyone else is having.
I like the EoE dynamic but agree they should move up re-entry and not do it at 6. Natalie had an idol and then only had to do 2 things to get to the end. Not fair to all of the other players who have been grinding for the last month.
You hit a lot of the points I thought of too
1. If you are going to have EoE have that person come back earlier in the game like at the merge and that is it. I hated how Natalie essentially got handed the final 3 after being voted out first - yeah she had to earn all those fire tokens for the advantages but I think it's also a huge disadvantage to the players not voted out of the game to have someone come back into the game that late with a possible idol and all the knowledge of who has done what or who still has and idol or advantage to play. Had Natalie done what Chris did a few seasons ago and gave up immunity to take on Tony in a fire challenge and beat him I think it would have been a really damn close vote between her and Sarah. Still, I hope if they do EoE again they make the last time you can re-enter the game be the merge because you aren't having to navigate through multiple tribal council votes while out on the edge and that is a big part of building a resume to win is staying in the game until the end.
2. It made for some good moments, the jury is still out on them being a part of the game long term though. I think they try it again with some new twists possibly.
3. Yes! I was hoping for some old school challenges this season like an eating contest, auction, some of the real physical 1 on 1 or team challenges, or knowledge challenge. That was probably the 1 big failure the producers missed out on was bringing back some of the older challenges as this season was celebrating 40 seasons of the show and I thought they really missed the mark integrating aspects from the earlier seasons in the series.
4. Same here, Tony was very deserving. I was not a big fan of him coming into this season but he wasn't the same paranoid and obnoxious player he was in the past so he grew on me by the end of the season.
5. I think the season for the most part at least lived up to the hype if not exceeded my expectations. Was some really awesome moments and some great game play I thought. The only let downs were from my reasons in #3
6. Me too, I don't know why they couldn't even just record one virtually and air it for an hour or 90 minutes next week. Not like some of these people are going anywhere at the moment, just find a time all of them could sit down 1 evening and record a Zoom video conference then made some edits. Would have loved to hear some of the thinking behind some of the moves and where the jury stood if Sarah had beat Tony in the fire challenge.
7. Me too, I think a season of all runner ups like 2nd or 3rd place finishers that never won the game for say season 50 would be cool. I like the seasons with all new players too because everyone is on equal playing level to start as I think players that play for the 2nd or 3rd time usually have both an advantage and disadvantage when it comes to knowing how to play but also knowing they have a target on their back too.
BTW Tyson got so much hate on twitter last night from his response on twitter "Why did you vote for Natalie". His response was "Because she is a badass and a friend". People were going off on him.
Basically he didn't vote for the winner or respect the game. He voted for a friend. Which sucks. I knew Rob and some of the others would respect the game more than outside friendships.
Basically he didn't vote for the winner or respect the game. He voted for a friend. Which sucks. I knew Rob and some of the others would respect the game more than outside friendships.
In this season. However, I don't respect just voting for a friend that you came on the show with.
WHo are some of the best non winners?
Russell
Ozzy
Coby Donaldson
I still think a "first person voted out" season would be funny. Lot's of bad play and probably a few people that would be pretty good but just didn't have time to start doing work.
Something I thought of last night, whenever Probst retires, and if Survivor continues, I would put a good chunk of change down that Boston Rob would be the new host.
I could see that. I could also See Colby Donaldson who has hosting experience on Top Shot.
When Probst steps down as host though I bet he tries to find a women to do it. Just feel like he has been trying to make a statement the last 5 years about strong women. Not being political but you can tell at Tribal he is always trying to steer the convo toward political type stuff now.
A few others that might be good.
Rob Cesternino
Adam Klein- Eh but I could see that
John Hennigan-Lot's of TV experience and thinking on his feet and likeable
and not a chance but would be funny TV
Tony Vlachos
John Rocker
It's possible, I could see Parvarti as a possibility too as she is very popular in the Survivor circles and already done some after show stuff in the past and web content.
I would love all 3 of those but I doubt Russell and Colby would.
Not all of these were 2nd place finishers but a lot were that were good players and would make for a good season I think. It's a little female heavy but if you go back and look over past runner ups there were a lot of females that made the final 3 that never won which Sarah brought up a good point last night about that stigma that a lot of the times the jury has a bias about guys who dominate vs females that do.
Stephen Fishbach
Stephenie LaGrossa
Amanda Kimmel
"Sugar" Kiper
As much as I can't stand him "Coach" is another one
Brad and Monica Culpepper
Woo Hwang
Spencer Bledsoe
Domenick Abbate
Angelina Keeley
Gavin Whitson
Troyzan Roberston
Carolyn Rivera
Laurel Johnson
Dawn Meehan
and Mr man panties and CIA agent Phillip Sheppard
I thought the same thing but maybe not limit it to first people voted off as sometimes that person is someone who the tribe saw as strong and wanted out early. I would love to see a season where people like J'tia and Billy Garcia return. Two tribes of absolute trainwrecks, but maybe they survived a few days in their first run.
People will watch for the same reason people liked watching the auditions on the early seasons of American Idol. Call it 'Survivor, Someone Has To Win'. Some of them will for sure still be unbearable, but it would be interesting to see if anyone learned anything.
I hadn't watched Survivor in a long time until this not being able to go anywhere stuff started. I watched a few of the past seasons on Hulu. Followed what was happenning in Winners at War for the past month, but still didnt watch on tv. I would however watch a season with known awful past contestants
Those are good. I would not mind seeing Coach again. Just for the good TV aspect.
15 of the seasons have been won by women. I think it might just be because men are typically more sketchy and women have more emotion. Not all just in general.
Also it's not as lopsided on men and women winning as you might think. Last I
I was very satisfied with last nights finale. I thought the final 3 were all deserving to be there. Michele did after the way she played from the first final 6 onward (clutch immunities, made the right alliance, etc). Thought she deserved at least one vote.
I'll never blame players for taking advantage of the twist of the season. I think Natalie did what she had to, and she played great once she got back from EoE. However, that twist needs to die. Heard a little birdie say that Jeff found out the winners all hated EoE on the first few days of filming and he was NOT happy. I do think EoE was created for the specific purpose of keeping the winners around the whole season though. Not sure we'll see it again.
Tony was the obvious choice here. Played one of the better games in the history of the show against some of the best competition ever.
I'll never blame players for taking advantage of the twist of the season. I think Natalie did what she had to, and she played great once she got back from EoE. However, that twist needs to die. Heard a little birdie say that Jeff found out the winners all hated EoE on the first few days of filming and he was NOT happy. I do think EoE was created for the specific purpose of keeping the winners around the whole season though. Not sure we'll see it again.
Tony was the obvious choice here. Played one of the better games in the history of the show against some of the best competition ever.
25 to 15 including 6 straight is pretty lopsided. Sarah made some pretty good points last night regarding how lying/cheating/stealing are perceived differently between men and women.
Great season and Tony deserved to win. Thought all of them deserved votes because they all played good games just all different. I think if Tony didn't make it to the end Natalie would have won and she just killed it given the hand she was dealt.
One thing I kind of find interesting is that so Sarah was going to make the argument she was the one in control of how things were going and not Tony which would seem to indicate she didn't think Tony played the best game? I know she voted for him because they were so close but I am interested in her true thoughts on whether it was her that did the majority of the work and moves? if that is case then did Tony really deserve to win and was it just perception because Tony is the more outspoken one which skewed people's perception?
One thing I kind of find interesting is that so Sarah was going to make the argument she was the one in control of how things were going and not Tony which would seem to indicate she didn't think Tony played the best game? I know she voted for him because they were so close but I am interested in her true thoughts on whether it was her that did the majority of the work and moves? if that is case then did Tony really deserve to win and was it just perception because Tony is the more outspoken one which skewed people's perception?
Men are just more aggressive players. Just look at the hidden immunity idols and men finding them a ton compared to women. They are up for grabs for everyone. Yet, women tend to not go look for them on average even close to the men.