Survivor: Samoa - Brett's Quirky Personality January 2, 2010 12:00:45 by Ryan Haidet
One of the least-featured contestants on Survivor: Samoa, T-shirt designer Brett Clouser bounced to center stage in the last few episodes when he dominated at the challenges. The last Galu member standing, Brett was able to make it to the final four, but lost the last Immunity Challenge to Russell, which sealed his fate as the final member of the jury. After the live reunion show, Brett talked with RealityTVMagazine's Ryan Haidet about his strategy, the bizarre question he asked Mick at the final Tribal Council, his reasons for voting for Natalie to win and discussed what it's like dealing with fans. And yes ladies, this 23-year-old is single.
Read on to see an exclusive video from the red carpet with Brett.
Check out Ryan Haidet's interview with Brett on the red carpet:
RealityTVMagazine - Ryan Haidet: Talk about what it has been like dealing with fans.
Brett Clouser: It's interesting. I think it's to some capacity comical in the sense that people are like, "Oh you're Brett from Survivor." I played the character of myself so the person that I was in the show was myself. After the fact I'm like, "OK, well that's still me." But it's just the fact that it's me being viewed by millions of people. So it's an interesting dynamic. I don't necessarily buy into that, nor do I drive any value or worth in people on a large scale knowing me.
RTVMag: How are the ladies treating you now?
Brett: There are options I guess. . At this point in time with the show and my business and everything, things are pretty busy. So I don't know if I'm necessarily in a position to seize a romantic relationship.
RTVMag: Now getting into the game, everybody from Galu was a huge fan of yours. How does that make you feel knowing if you would have won that last Immunity Challenge you would have won the game?
Brett: Bringing me back to that moment. Yeah, it's bittersweet. I remember watching it tonight, and in my mind I replay that over and over again - that last challenge essentially for me for $1 million. And I knew going into it, the way I played the game I created strong social ties with most of the people on my tribe, I think minus probably one or two. So I knew I was in a great position there. So at a certain point in the game I'm like, "I'm doing this for you guys." Unfortunately it didn't work out in my favor, but so is life and you gotta kind of roll with the punches.
RTVMag: During your confessionals in which you were talking about Russell taking you to the end of the game, people in the live audience were laughing. Did you really think he was going to stick to his word?
Brett: No. If you looked at my mannerisms, it's a face of disbelief, or lack of belief. Anything Russell said in terms of gameplay I knew he was BSing. I have a pretty good head on my shoulders and I knew what he would say to me and what his motive for saying that was. It was nothing I ever would've actually thought he would've taken part in.
RTVMag: Let's talk about why you voted for Natalie to win the game.
Brett: I think the TV viewers are like, "Oh why didn't people vote for Russell, the greatest strategic player ever?" I don't know what they say, but that's the way I think it was somewhat presented. He played an aggressive game and the strategy is easily identified to the television audience. Natalie's strategy - similar to my own - not as easily identified to the television audience.
As you saw, you probably wouldn't have expected my gameplay to have interacted with these other people. We played a very socially strategic game. Russell played a strategic game in other areas. Those areas of which were communicated to a mass audience, whereas Natalie and myself it's a little bit harder to communicate those points. We all played the strategy that we thought would take us to the end, and ultimately that led to Natalie in the end. She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a human level and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she actually did it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to vote for her.
RTVMag: How did you get selected to be a contestant?
Brett: I quit my job to pursue a clothing company I'm working on. The shirt I'm wearing right now is one of those. I went to Las Vegas for a trade show and a few casting associates came across my path and they brought the idea upon. Then I ended up going through the whole interview process and applying, and all that stuff.
RTVMag: Were you a fan of the show before you got to play?
Brett: Yeah. I had been a huge fan earlier on. You know, Richard Hatch - commend the guy, good heart. Old school though, I think my favorite Survivor is Rudy. Just a good man and I loved the way he played the game.
RTVMag: We didn't get to see much of your personality. What is something quirky about you that fans didn't get to know?
Brett: I like to make people feel socially awkward.
RTVMag: Hence the question you asked Mick at the final Tribal. What was that all about?
Brett: Essentially I think that was an example of actually my personality coming to life as they showed it. Basically, it's a very silly question. If you forgot, he asked Mick what they would do together on a bro-date. On a surface level it's like, "Why did he say that? Was it for comedic purposes? Was it for strategic purpose?" It was a combination. Strategically, I wanted to say, "This is the way I played the game. These are the things I deem important - being able to be relational." He chose to play a game where he was claiming to have integrity and to be kind of relational, so I wanted to validate that. . I wanted to see what registered within himself about me, because that's really the only litmus test I had. I couldn't really ask him about other people, it was just my own context. So I was like, "On a bro-date what would you do?" It was silly, but I wanted to see to what level at which he engaged me as a human being, because I felt like his strategy coincided with similarly to the way Natalie played - and myself.
RTVMag: So have you had your bro-date yet?
Brett: Sadly no. But we're fine. Actually I've seen him. Good guy. We've got to have that bro-mance go on. You know.
RTVMag: What's next in line for you?
Brett: I'm going to get some food. No I'm kidding. Sorry. Total failure. Next up for me, is I have a clothing company, which isn't really next up. It was what I had been doing. The shirt I wore in the game was one of my own. . The name of our company is "The Monument Of Our Hearts." The Web site is TMOOH.com. The gist of the company is a convergence between apparel and advocacy. Essentially using clothing as a means to promote healthy body image and self-esteem. What we want to do is kind of contest what people read in magazines, what people see on the runways. . I think our society has kind of created a very skewed perception of beauty, and unfortunately people have bought into that and tried to live through that.
You'll see this shirt, from an external vantage point it's an upside-down heart. But as you look down, it's in proper perspective, and it's right-side up. What that's supposed to be is a reminder to not worry or define yourself by how people are going to perceive you. But rather define yourself internally, and to be the person that defines you rather than allowing things around you to define you.
> (page contains links to interviews with Natalie, Russell and Mick which I > haven't watched or read yet).
> Survivor: Samoa - Brett's Quirky Personality > January 2, 2010 12:00:45 by Ryan Haidet
> One of the least-featured contestants on Survivor: Samoa, T-shirt designer > Brett Clouser bounced to center stage in the last few episodes when he > dominated at the challenges. The last Galu member standing, Brett was able > to make it to the final four, but lost the last Immunity Challenge to > Russell, which sealed his fate as the final member of the jury. After the > live reunion show, Brett talked with RealityTVMagazine's Ryan Haidet about > his strategy, the bizarre question he asked Mick at the final Tribal > Council, his reasons for voting for Natalie to win and discussed what it's > like dealing with fans. And yes ladies, this 23-year-old is single.
> Read on to see an exclusive video from the red carpet with Brett.
> Check out Ryan Haidet's interview with Brett on the red carpet:
> RealityTVMagazine - Ryan Haidet: Talk about what it has been like dealing > with fans.
> Brett Clouser: It's interesting. I think it's to some capacity comical in > the sense that people are like, "Oh you're Brett from Survivor." I played > the character of myself so the person that I was in the show was myself. > After the fact I'm like, "OK, well that's still me." But it's just the fact > that it's me being viewed by millions of people. So it's an interesting > dynamic. I don't necessarily buy into that, nor do I drive any value or > worth in people on a large scale knowing me.
> RTVMag: How are the ladies treating you now?
> Brett: There are options I guess. . At this point in time with the show > and my business and everything, things are pretty busy. So I don't know if > I'm necessarily in a position to seize a romantic relationship.
> RTVMag: Now getting into the game, everybody from Galu was a huge fan of > yours. How does that make you feel knowing if you would have won that last > Immunity Challenge you would have won the game?
> Brett: Bringing me back to that moment. Yeah, it's bittersweet. I > remember watching it tonight, and in my mind I replay that over and over > again - that last challenge essentially for me for $1 million. And I knew > going into it, the way I played the game I created strong social ties with > most of the people on my tribe, I think minus probably one or two. So I > knew I was in a great position there. So at a certain point in the game I'm > like, "I'm doing this for you guys." Unfortunately it didn't work out in my > favor, but so is life and you gotta kind of roll with the punches.
> RTVMag: During your confessionals in which you were talking about Russell > taking you to the end of the game, people in the live audience were > laughing. Did you really think he was going to stick to his word?
> Brett: No. If you looked at my mannerisms, it's a face of disbelief, or > lack of belief. Anything Russell said in terms of gameplay I knew he was > BSing. I have a pretty good head on my shoulders and I knew what he would > say to me and what his motive for saying that was. It was nothing I ever > would've actually thought he would've taken part in.
> RTVMag: Let's talk about why you voted for Natalie to win the game.
> Brett: I think the TV viewers are like, "Oh why didn't people vote for > Russell, the greatest strategic player ever?" I don't know what they say, > but that's the way I think it was somewhat presented. He played an > aggressive game and the strategy is easily identified to the television > audience. Natalie's strategy - similar to my own - not as easily identified > to the television audience.
> As you saw, you probably wouldn't have expected my gameplay to have > interacted with these other people. We played a very socially strategic > game. Russell played a strategic game in other areas. Those areas of which > were communicated to a mass audience, whereas Natalie and myself it's a > little bit harder to communicate those points. We all played the strategy > that we thought would take us to the end, and ultimately that led to Natalie > in the end. She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a > human level and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she > actually did it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to vote > for her.
> RTVMag: How did you get selected to be a contestant?
> Brett: I quit my job to pursue a clothing company I'm working on. The > shirt I'm wearing right now is one of those. I went to Las Vegas for a > trade show and a few casting associates came across my path and they brought > the idea upon. Then I ended up going through the whole interview process > and applying, and all that stuff.
> RTVMag: Were you a fan of the show before you got to play?
> Brett: Yeah. I had been a huge fan earlier on. You know, Richard Hatch - > commend the guy, good heart. Old school though, I think my favorite > Survivor is Rudy. Just a good man and I loved the way he played the game.
> RTVMag: We didn't get to see much of your personality. What is something > quirky about you that fans didn't get to know?
> Brett: I like to make people feel socially awkward.
> RTVMag: Hence the question you asked Mick at the final Tribal. What was > that all about?
> Brett: Essentially I think that was an example of actually my personality > coming to life as they showed it. Basically, it's a very silly question. > If you forgot, he asked Mick what they would do together on a bro-date. On a > surface level it's like, "Why did he say that? Was it for comedic purposes? > Was it for strategic purpose?" It was a combination. Strategically, I > wanted to say, "This is the way I played the game. These are the things I > deem important - being able to be relational." He chose to play a game > where he was claiming to have integrity and to be kind of relational, so I > wanted to validate that. . I wanted to see what registered within himself > about me, because that's really the only litmus test I had. I couldn't > really ask him about other people, it was just my own context. So I was > like, "On a bro-date what would you do?" It was silly, but I wanted to see > to what level at which he engaged me as a human being, because I felt like > his strategy coincided with similarly to the way Natalie played - and > myself.
> RTVMag: So have you had your bro-date yet?
> Brett: Sadly no. But we're fine. Actually I've seen him. Good guy. We've > got to have that bro-mance go on. You know.
> RTVMag: What's next in line for you?
> Brett: I'm going to get some food. No I'm kidding. Sorry. Total failure. > Next up for me, is I have a clothing company, which isn't really next up. > It was what I had been doing. The shirt I wore in the game was one of my > own. . The name of our company is "The Monument Of Our Hearts." The Web > site is TMOOH.com. The gist of the company is a convergence between apparel > and advocacy. Essentially using clothing as a means to promote healthy body > image and self-esteem. What we want to do is kind of contest what people > read in magazines, what people see on the runways. . I think our society > has kind of created a very skewed perception of beauty, and unfortunately > people have bought into that and tried to live through that.
> You'll see this shirt, from an external vantage point it's an upside-down > heart. But as you look down, it's in proper perspective, and it's > right-side up. What that's supposed to be is a reminder to not worry or > define yourself by how people are going to perceive you. But rather define > yourself internally, and to be the person that defines you rather than > allowing things around you to define you.
> Brian
Thanks Brian. I'm surprise that so many people think that the social game is just an after thought. Russell it seem to me was on playing one move ahead when he should have being thinking at least three moves ahead.
-- Be good and if you can't be good then be good at it
> In article <_si0n.15899$0U1.12...@newsfe16.iad>, > "Brian Smith" <dcg_br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Brett says he voted for Natalie because she engaged with people on a >> human >> level. Nothing to do with her game play.
> You still don't get it? That engaging with people on a human level IS > gameplay in the game of Survivor?
> It's a perfectly good strategy.
> And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. Bad > gameplay.
Let's look at what Brett said.
"She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a human level and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she actually did it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to vote for her."
Notice the part about "in the context of the game that's not necessary"? So Brett doesn't seem to be agreeing with you that the social game is a necessary part of the Survivor game. Yet he based his vote solely on that criteria by the sounds of it. Why? Did he have something against Russell. What you don't get and refuse to admit is that Natalie did not win because of her game play. She didn't win because she socialized with the others. She won because Russell made sure she made it to the end and the jury hated Russell. At F5 do you think it was Natalie's social game that saved her from being voted out? Of course it wasn't! It was Russell using his social game and thinking ahead three moves (there's your example Nightspirit) to convince Mick and Jaison that it was better to keep Natalie and get rid of Brett. Natalie did nothing to save herself and she was resigned to being voted out by the guys. So much for her social game saving her butt and thus winning the game.
> > You still don't get it? That engaging with people on a human level > > IS gameplay in the game of Survivor? It's a perfectly good strategy.
> What you don't get and refuse to admit is that Natalie did not win > because of her game play. She won because Russell made sure > she made it to the end and the jury hated Russell.
Indeed, all the social skills in the world ain't going to do you any good in Loser Lodge, which is where Natalie most likely would have ended up without Russell's technical skills getting her to the F3.
It was Russell's game to lose and he guaranteed that he would lose by being an asshole to the Jurors.
That being said, I have no problem with the Jury giving the money to Natalie. The social game _is_ a part of Survivor, even if you win because of the other player's complete lack of a social game.
>>> Brett says he voted for Natalie because she engaged with people on a >>> human >>> level. Nothing to do with her game play.
>> You still don't get it? That engaging with people on a human level IS >> gameplay in the game of Survivor?
>> It's a perfectly good strategy.
>> And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. >> Bad gameplay.
> Let's look at what Brett said.
> "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a human > level and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she > actually did it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to > vote for her."
> Notice the part about "in the context of the game that's not necessary"? > So Brett doesn't seem to be agreeing with you that the social game is a > necessary part of the Survivor game. Yet he based his vote solely on > that criteria by the sounds of it. Why? Did he have something against > Russell.
He seems to be trying it to have it both ways and that is probaly what his handler told him to do. He like other may believe that the Social game is less important but when are with a group of people 24/7 for 31 days you have to learn something from their behavior.
There are certian things you have to while you wait for the challenges. Find food and making sure your shelter is in decent shape. Going by what Russell said he did little of that as possible, somehow I think that was just bluster. I can't see someone that has worked all their lives just setting round and watch others work.
In the end the Jury decides on what voting critieral they will use. We don't get see how that is formulated.
The bottom line is that people that played just as hard as Russell have won because they were able to not make it personal the way Russell did. They stayed friendly with the people thay were targeting. Remember what the Don told his son Mike, Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
-- Be good and if you can't be good then be good at it
>>>Brett says he voted for Natalie because she engaged with people on a >>>human >>>level. Nothing to do with her game play.
>>You still don't get it? That engaging with people on a human level IS >>gameplay in the game of Survivor?
>>It's a perfectly good strategy.
>>And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. Bad >>gameplay.
> Let's look at what Brett said.
> "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a human level > and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she actually did > it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to vote for her."
> Notice the part about "in the context of the game that's not necessary"? So > Brett doesn't seem to be agreeing with you that the social game is a > necessary part of the Survivor game. Yet he based his vote solely on that > criteria by the sounds of it. Why? Did he have something against Russell. > What you don't get and refuse to admit is that Natalie did not win because > of her game play. She didn't win because she socialized with the others. She > won because Russell made sure she made it to the end and the jury hated > Russell. At F5 do you think it was Natalie's social game that saved her from > being voted out? Of course it wasn't! It was Russell using his social game > and thinking ahead three moves (there's your example Nightspirit) to > convince Mick and Jaison that it was better to keep Natalie and get rid of > Brett. Natalie did nothing to save herself and she was resigned to being > voted out by the guys. So much for her social game saving her butt and thus > winning the game.
What Brett said fails the logic test: She was sociable, which isn't necessary, but is the sole reason I voted for her. (which means it was necessary)
>>>>Brett says he voted for Natalie because she engaged with people on a >>>>human >>>>level. Nothing to do with her game play.
>>>You still don't get it? That engaging with people on a human level IS >>>gameplay in the game of Survivor?
>>>It's a perfectly good strategy.
>>>And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. Bad >>>gameplay.
>> Let's look at what Brett said.
>> "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a human level >> and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she actually did >> it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to vote for her."
>> Notice the part about "in the context of the game that's not necessary"? So >> Brett doesn't seem to be agreeing with you that the social game is a >> necessary part of the Survivor game. Yet he based his vote solely on that >> criteria by the sounds of it. Why? Did he have something against Russell. >> What you don't get and refuse to admit is that Natalie did not win because >> of her game play. She didn't win because she socialized with the others. She >> won because Russell made sure she made it to the end and the jury hated >> Russell. At F5 do you think it was Natalie's social game that saved her from >> being voted out? Of course it wasn't! It was Russell using his social game >> and thinking ahead three moves (there's your example Nightspirit) to >> convince Mick and Jaison that it was better to keep Natalie and get rid of >> Brett. Natalie did nothing to save herself and she was resigned to being >> voted out by the guys. So much for her social game saving her butt and thus >> winning the game.
>What Brett said fails the logic test: >She was sociable, which isn't necessary, but is the sole reason I voted >for her. (which means it was necessary)
Much like his question. ;)
I had little doubt Brett was going to vote for her when they spent some time showing the two of them bonding over being prayer warriors. That was also why I assumed Laura was going to vote for her. It gave them a bond that had nothing to do with the game, but would be another reason to vote for her.
>>>>Brett says he voted for Natalie because she engaged with people on a >>>>human >>>>level. Nothing to do with her game play.
>>>You still don't get it? That engaging with people on a human level IS >>>gameplay in the game of Survivor?
>>>It's a perfectly good strategy.
>>>And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. Bad >>>gameplay.
>> Let's look at what Brett said.
>> "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a human >> level and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she >> actually did it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to >> vote for her."
>> Notice the part about "in the context of the game that's not necessary"? >> So Brett doesn't seem to be agreeing with you that the social game is a >> necessary part of the Survivor game. Yet he based his vote solely on that >> criteria by the sounds of it. Why? Did he have something against Russell. >> What you don't get and refuse to admit is that Natalie did not win >> because of her game play. She didn't win because she socialized with the >> others. She won because Russell made sure she made it to the end and the >> jury hated Russell. At F5 do you think it was Natalie's social game that >> saved her from being voted out? Of course it wasn't! It was Russell using >> his social game and thinking ahead three moves (there's your example >> Nightspirit) to convince Mick and Jaison that it was better to keep >> Natalie and get rid of Brett. Natalie did nothing to save herself and she >> was resigned to being voted out by the guys. So much for her social game >> saving her butt and thus winning the game.
> What Brett said fails the logic test: > She was sociable, which isn't necessary, but is the sole reason I voted > for her. (which means it was necessary)
I think if we keep digging we'll find most of the jury's reasons for voting for Natalie fail the logic test. No one should win survivor based on just being nice and I doubt that was the case this time. If Brett, etc. had other reasons why they voted for Natalie they should mention them because it makes them look better as well as Natalie. If they had said I voted for Natalie because she did x, y, z, etc. and she did so while maintaining good bonds with most people that would make less fans/viewers question their logic of I voted for Natalie because "she actually engaged with people on a human level," etc.
>>>>>Brett says he voted for Natalie because she engaged with people on a >>>>>human >>>>>level. Nothing to do with her game play.
>>>>You still don't get it? That engaging with people on a human level IS >>>>gameplay in the game of Survivor?
>>>>It's a perfectly good strategy.
>>>>And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. Bad >>>>gameplay.
>>> Let's look at what Brett said.
>>> "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a human >>> level and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she >>> actually did it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to >>> vote for her."
>>> Notice the part about "in the context of the game that's not necessary"? >>> So Brett doesn't seem to be agreeing with you that the social game is a >>> necessary part of the Survivor game. Yet he based his vote solely on that >>> criteria by the sounds of it. Why? Did he have something against Russell. >>> What you don't get and refuse to admit is that Natalie did not win >>> because of her game play. She didn't win because she socialized with the >>> others. She won because Russell made sure she made it to the end and the >>> jury hated Russell. At F5 do you think it was Natalie's social game that >>> saved her from being voted out? Of course it wasn't! It was Russell using >>> his social game and thinking ahead three moves (there's your example >>> Nightspirit) to convince Mick and Jaison that it was better to keep >>> Natalie and get rid of Brett. Natalie did nothing to save herself and she >>> was resigned to being voted out by the guys. So much for her social game >>> saving her butt and thus winning the game.
>> What Brett said fails the logic test: >> She was sociable, which isn't necessary, but is the sole reason I voted >> for her. (which means it was necessary)
> I think if we keep digging we'll find most of the jury's reasons for voting > for Natalie fail the logic test. No one should win survivor based on just > being nice and I doubt that was the case this time. If Brett, etc. had other > reasons why they voted for Natalie they should mention them because it makes > them look better as well as Natalie. If they had said I voted for Natalie > because she did x, y, z, etc. and she did so while maintaining good bonds > with most people that would make less fans/viewers question their logic of I > voted for Natalie because "she actually engaged with people on a human > level," etc.
> Brian
Mark Bennet actually did us a diservice by showing us mostly Russell and not the other players. We don't know enought to even make a logical guess.
-- Be good and if you can't be good then be good at it
>Survivor: Samoa - Brett's Quirky Personality >January 2, 2010 12:00:45 by Ryan Haidet
>One of the least-featured contestants on Survivor: Samoa, T-shirt designer >Brett Clouser bounced to center stage in the last few episodes when he >dominated at the challenges. The last Galu member standing, Brett was able >to make it to the final four, but lost the last Immunity Challenge to >Russell, which sealed his fate as the final member of the jury. After the >live reunion show, Brett talked with RealityTVMagazine's Ryan Haidet about >his strategy, the bizarre question he asked Mick at the final Tribal >Council, his reasons for voting for Natalie to win and discussed what it's >like dealing with fans. And yes ladies, this 23-year-old is single.
>Read on to see an exclusive video from the red carpet with Brett.
>Check out Ryan Haidet's interview with Brett on the red carpet:
>RealityTVMagazine - Ryan Haidet: Talk about what it has been like dealing >with fans.
>Brett Clouser: It's interesting. I think it's to some capacity comical in >the sense that people are like, "Oh you're Brett from Survivor." I played >the character of myself so the person that I was in the show was myself. >After the fact I'm like, "OK, well that's still me." But it's just the fact >that it's me being viewed by millions of people. So it's an interesting >dynamic. I don't necessarily buy into that, nor do I drive any value or >worth in people on a large scale knowing me.
>RTVMag: How are the ladies treating you now?
>Brett: There are options I guess. . At this point in time with the show >and my business and everything, things are pretty busy. So I don't know if >I'm necessarily in a position to seize a romantic relationship.
>RTVMag: Now getting into the game, everybody from Galu was a huge fan of >yours. How does that make you feel knowing if you would have won that last >Immunity Challenge you would have won the game?
>Brett: Bringing me back to that moment. Yeah, it's bittersweet. I >remember watching it tonight, and in my mind I replay that over and over >again - that last challenge essentially for me for $1 million. And I knew >going into it, the way I played the game I created strong social ties with >most of the people on my tribe, I think minus probably one or two. So I >knew I was in a great position there. So at a certain point in the game I'm >like, "I'm doing this for you guys." Unfortunately it didn't work out in my >favor, but so is life and you gotta kind of roll with the punches.
>RTVMag: During your confessionals in which you were talking about Russell >taking you to the end of the game, people in the live audience were >laughing. Did you really think he was going to stick to his word?
>Brett: No. If you looked at my mannerisms, it's a face of disbelief, or >lack of belief. Anything Russell said in terms of gameplay I knew he was >BSing. I have a pretty good head on my shoulders and I knew what he would >say to me and what his motive for saying that was. It was nothing I ever >would've actually thought he would've taken part in.
>RTVMag: Let's talk about why you voted for Natalie to win the game.
>Brett: I think the TV viewers are like, "Oh why didn't people vote for >Russell, the greatest strategic player ever?" I don't know what they say, >but that's the way I think it was somewhat presented. He played an >aggressive game and the strategy is easily identified to the television >audience. Natalie's strategy - similar to my own - not as easily identified >to the television audience.
>As you saw, you probably wouldn't have expected my gameplay to have >interacted with these other people. We played a very socially strategic >game. Russell played a strategic game in other areas. Those areas of which >were communicated to a mass audience, whereas Natalie and myself it's a >little bit harder to communicate those points. We all played the strategy >that we thought would take us to the end, and ultimately that led to Natalie >in the end. She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a >human level and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she >actually did it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to vote >for her.
>RTVMag: How did you get selected to be a contestant?
>Brett: I quit my job to pursue a clothing company I'm working on. The >shirt I'm wearing right now is one of those. I went to Las Vegas for a >trade show and a few casting associates came across my path and they brought >the idea upon. Then I ended up going through the whole interview process >and applying, and all that stuff.
>RTVMag: Were you a fan of the show before you got to play?
>Brett: Yeah. I had been a huge fan earlier on. You know, Richard Hatch - >commend the guy, good heart. Old school though, I think my favorite >Survivor is Rudy. Just a good man and I loved the way he played the game.
>RTVMag: We didn't get to see much of your personality. What is something >quirky about you that fans didn't get to know?
>Brett: I like to make people feel socially awkward.
>RTVMag: Hence the question you asked Mick at the final Tribal. What was >that all about?
>Brett: Essentially I think that was an example of actually my personality >coming to life as they showed it. Basically, it's a very silly question. >If you forgot, he asked Mick what they would do together on a bro-date. On a >surface level it's like, "Why did he say that? Was it for comedic purposes? >Was it for strategic purpose?" It was a combination. Strategically, I >wanted to say, "This is the way I played the game. These are the things I >deem important - being able to be relational." He chose to play a game >where he was claiming to have integrity and to be kind of relational, so I >wanted to validate that. . I wanted to see what registered within himself >about me, because that's really the only litmus test I had. I couldn't >really ask him about other people, it was just my own context. So I was >like, "On a bro-date what would you do?" It was silly, but I wanted to see >to what level at which he engaged me as a human being, because I felt like >his strategy coincided with similarly to the way Natalie played - and >myself.
>RTVMag: So have you had your bro-date yet?
>Brett: Sadly no. But we're fine. Actually I've seen him. Good guy. We've >got to have that bro-mance go on. You know.
>RTVMag: What's next in line for you?
>Brett: I'm going to get some food. No I'm kidding. Sorry. Total failure. >Next up for me, is I have a clothing company, which isn't really next up. >It was what I had been doing. The shirt I wore in the game was one of my >own. . The name of our company is "The Monument Of Our Hearts." The Web >site is TMOOH.com. The gist of the company is a convergence between apparel >and advocacy. Essentially using clothing as a means to promote healthy body >image and self-esteem. What we want to do is kind of contest what people >read in magazines, what people see on the runways. . I think our society >has kind of created a very skewed perception of beauty, and unfortunately >people have bought into that and tried to live through that.
>You'll see this shirt, from an external vantage point it's an upside-down >heart. But as you look down, it's in proper perspective, and it's >right-side up. What that's supposed to be is a reminder to not worry or >define yourself by how people are going to perceive you. But rather define >yourself internally, and to be the person that defines you rather than >allowing things around you to define you.
>Brian
How much weed does Brett typically smoke in a day?
> In article <hhtu0v$2a...@news.albasani.net>, > Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Let's look at what Brett said.
>> > "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a human >> > level >> > and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she actually >> > did >> > it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to vote for >> > her."
>> > Notice the part about "in the context of the game that's not >> > necessary"? So >> > Brett doesn't seem to be agreeing with you that the social game is a >> > necessary part of the Survivor game. Yet he based his vote solely on >> > that >> > criteria by the sounds of it. Why? Did he have something against >> > Russell. >> > What you don't get and refuse to admit is that Natalie did not win >> > because >> > of her game play. She didn't win because she socialized with the >> > others. >> > She >> > won because Russell made sure she made it to the end and the jury hated >> > Russell. At F5 do you think it was Natalie's social game that saved her >> > from >> > being voted out? Of course it wasn't! It was Russell using his social >> > game >> > and thinking ahead three moves (there's your example Nightspirit) to >> > convince Mick and Jaison that it was better to keep Natalie and get rid >> > of >> > Brett. Natalie did nothing to save herself and she was resigned to >> > being >> > voted out by the guys. So much for her social game saving her butt and >> > thus >> > winning the game.
>> What Brett said fails the logic test:
> yup. Using Brett's "logic" to "prove" an argument is, ummm....crazy. > Not to mention illogical.
That doesn't even make sense. Just admit we were given no valid reasons why Natalie should have won the game.
>>>>>>Brett says he voted for Natalie because she engaged with people on a >>>>>>human >>>>>>level. Nothing to do with her game play.
>>>>>You still don't get it? That engaging with people on a human level IS >>>>>gameplay in the game of Survivor?
>>>>>It's a perfectly good strategy.
>>>>>And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. > Bad >>>>>gameplay.
>>>> Let's look at what Brett said.
>>>> "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a human >>>> level and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she >>>> actually did it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to >>>> vote for her."
>>>> Notice the part about "in the context of the game that's not > necessary"? >>>> So Brett doesn't seem to be agreeing with you that the social game is a >>>> necessary part of the Survivor game. Yet he based his vote solely on > that >>>> criteria by the sounds of it. Why? Did he have something against > Russell. >>>> What you don't get and refuse to admit is that Natalie did not win >>>> because of her game play. She didn't win because she socialized with > the >>>> others. She won because Russell made sure she made it to the end and > the >>>> jury hated Russell. At F5 do you think it was Natalie's social game > that >>>> saved her from being voted out? Of course it wasn't! It was Russell > using >>>> his social game and thinking ahead three moves (there's your example >>>> Nightspirit) to convince Mick and Jaison that it was better to keep >>>> Natalie and get rid of Brett. Natalie did nothing to save herself and > she >>>> was resigned to being voted out by the guys. So much for her social > game >>>> saving her butt and thus winning the game.
>>> What Brett said fails the logic test: >>> She was sociable, which isn't necessary, but is the sole reason I voted >>> for her. (which means it was necessary)
>> I think if we keep digging we'll find most of the jury's reasons for > voting >> for Natalie fail the logic test. No one should win survivor based on just >> being nice and I doubt that was the case this time. If Brett, etc. had > other >> reasons why they voted for Natalie they should mention them because it > makes >> them look better as well as Natalie. If they had said I voted for Natalie >> because she did x, y, z, etc. and she did so while maintaining good bonds >> with most people that would make less fans/viewers question their logic > of I >> voted for Natalie because "she actually engaged with people on a human >> level," etc.
>> Brian
> Mark Bennet actually did us a diservice by showing us mostly Russell and > not the other players. We don't know enought to even make a logical > guess.
True, unless the others did very little. Brett's admitted he was very under the radar for most of the game so it explains why we didn't see him. If Natalie hadn't been with Russell the entire game I doubt we would have seen much of her either. When people made moves or did something stupid we were shown it so it wasn't entirely the Russell show. But the guy did find three HIIs without any clues when finding one this way had never been done so it makes sense he would get a lot of airtime. Throw in his actions at a few TCs, his constant deal making, screwing with his own tribe at first, etc. and it's not hard to see why MB gave him the most airtime.
What would have helped would have been showing us a lot more of the final TC and what the jury actually said as they voted. They could have skipped showing the walk the F3 make to the last challenge even if it is "tradition."
> In article <Dws0n.1154$ap2...@newsfe18.iad>, > "Brian Smith" <dcg_br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. >> > Bad >> > gameplay.
>> Let's look at what Brett said.
>> "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a human >> level >> and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she actually did >> it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to vote for her."
>> Notice the part about "in the context of the game that's not necessary"?
> yeah--right before the part about "for that reason alone, I had to vote > for her".
> Brett is a little loopy here.
Maybe seven members of the jury were a little loopy when the voted. You're starting to get it Elmo!
>>>> And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. >>>> Bad >>>> gameplay.
>>> Let's look at what Brett said.
>>> "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a >>> human level >>> and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she >>> actually did it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I >>> had to vote for her." Notice the part about "in the context of the game >>> that's not >>> necessary"?
>> yeah--right before the part about "for that reason alone, I had to >> vote for her".
>> Brett is a little loopy here.
> Maybe seven members of the jury were a little loopy when the voted. > You're starting to get it Elmo!
And who built that jury, and made sure that people who might have respected good strategy, like Liz and Betsy, were not on it?
-- madamS "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Sir Winston Churchill
> Brian Smith wrote: >> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message >> news:elmop-8FA3BD.19580804012010@nothing.attdns.com... >>> In article <Dws0n.1154$ap2...@newsfe18.iad>, >>> "Brian Smith" <dcg_br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. >>>>> Bad >>>>> gameplay.
>>>> Let's look at what Brett said.
>>>> "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a >>>> human level >>>> and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she >>>> actually did it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I >>>> had to vote for her." Notice the part about "in the context of the game >>>> that's not >>>> necessary"?
>>> yeah--right before the part about "for that reason alone, I had to >>> vote for her".
>>> Brett is a little loopy here.
>> Maybe seven members of the jury were a little loopy when the voted. >> You're starting to get it Elmo!
> And who built that jury, and made sure that people who might have > respected good strategy, like Liz and Betsy, were not on it?
We didn't see enough of Liz and Betsy to know whether or not they would have respected good strategy. Yes, Russell built the jury but so did Natalie and Mick. I don't recall any of the three being concerned about the makeup of the jury other than they all knew it was pro-Brett. Maybe Russell figured with the F3 being all Fao Fao and the jury all Galu except for Jaison that the jury would equally dislike him, Mick and Natalie and that they would vote based on game play. It might have been good for him to point out that Natalie and Mick had a hand in putting them all on the jury. That might have helped the jury to focus on game play but who knows with that group.
> >>>>Brett says he voted for Natalie because she engaged with people on a > >>>>human > >>>>level. Nothing to do with her game play.
> >>>You still don't get it? That engaging with people on a human level IS > >>>gameplay in the game of Survivor?
> >>>It's a perfectly good strategy.
> >>>And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. Bad > >>>gameplay.
> >> Let's look at what Brett said.
> >> "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a human level > >> and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she actually did > >> it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to vote for her."
> >> Notice the part about "in the context of the game that's not necessary"? So > >> Brett doesn't seem to be agreeing with you that the social game is a > >> necessary part of the Survivor game. Yet he based his vote solely on that > >> criteria by the sounds of it. Why? Did he have something against Russell. > >> What you don't get and refuse to admit is that Natalie did not win because > >> of her game play. She didn't win because she socialized with the others. She > >> won because Russell made sure she made it to the end and the jury hated > >> Russell. At F5 do you think it was Natalie's social game that saved her from > >> being voted out? Of course it wasn't! It was Russell using his social game > >> and thinking ahead three moves (there's your example Nightspirit) to > >> convince Mick and Jaison that it was better to keep Natalie and get rid of > >> Brett. Natalie did nothing to save herself and she was resigned to being > >> voted out by the guys. So much for her social game saving her butt and thus > >> winning the game.
> >What Brett said fails the logic test: > >She was sociable, which isn't necessary, but is the sole reason I voted > >for her. (which means it was necessary)
> Much like his question. ;)
> I had little doubt Brett was going to vote for her when they spent > some time showing the two of them bonding over being prayer warriors. > That was also why I assumed Laura was going to vote for her. It gave > them a bond that had nothing to do with the game, but would be another > reason to vote for her.
-- That and Brett in his interview said that she had basically the same "strategy" he did. How can you vote against someone using the same methodology you are using? -- ----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
>Brian Smith wrote: >> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message >> news:elmop-8FA3BD.19580804012010@nothing.attdns.com... >>> In article <Dws0n.1154$ap2...@newsfe18.iad>, >>> "Brian Smith" <dcg_br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. >>>>> Bad >>>>> gameplay.
>>>> Let's look at what Brett said.
>>>> "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a >>>> human level >>>> and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she >>>> actually did it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I >>>> had to vote for her." Notice the part about "in the context of the game >>>> that's not >>>> necessary"?
>>> yeah--right before the part about "for that reason alone, I had to >>> vote for her".
>>> Brett is a little loopy here.
>> Maybe seven members of the jury were a little loopy when the voted. >> You're starting to get it Elmo!
>And who built that jury, and made sure that people who might have respected >good strategy, like Liz and Betsy, were not on it?
Besides, it's not like there was a lot of choice in the matter. We all know why Russell thought Betsy and even Liz had to go. I can't say that I blame him. He faced a situation where they were likely to try and get rid of him so he got rid of them first. That's good game play.
shawn wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 00:07:03 -0600, "madamS" <mad...@somewhere.net> > wrote: >snip >>> Maybe seven members of the jury were a little loopy when the voted. >>> You're starting to get it Elmo!
>> And who built that jury, and made sure that people who might have >> respected good strategy, like Liz and Betsy, were not on it?
> Besides, it's not like there was a lot of choice in the matter. We all > know why Russell thought Betsy and even Liz had to go. I can't say > that I blame him. He faced a situation where they were likely to try > and get rid of him so he got rid of them first. That's good game play.
We know that the choice or lack thereof was not in Russell's mind, and that is not such great gameplay.The biggest dilemma of Survivor, as Elmo has said, is putting people on the jury in such a way that they will vote for you. I will agree that Russell's gameplay did what it was supposed to do-it got him in front of the jury. Natalie's gameplay did what it was supposed to do,too. It got her in front of a jury that would vote for her. I think it is interesting that in another post in this thread, you say that Natalie helped choose the jury members, too. Keep that in mind before you say that Natalie had no gameplay , and didn't make any moves to build the jury that would ultimately vote for her.
-- madamS "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Sir Winston Churchill
> >>> Brett says he voted for Natalie because she engaged with people on a > >>> human > >>> level. Nothing to do with her game play.
> >> You still don't get it? That engaging with people on a human level IS > >> gameplay in the game of Survivor?
> >> It's a perfectly good strategy.
> >> And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. > >> Bad gameplay.
> > Let's look at what Brett said.
> > "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a human > > level and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she > > actually did it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to > > vote for her."
> > Notice the part about "in the context of the game that's not necessary"? > > So Brett doesn't seem to be agreeing with you that the social game is a > > necessary part of the Survivor game. Yet he based his vote solely on > > that criteria by the sounds of it. Why? Did he have something against > > Russell.
> He seems to be trying it to have it both ways and that is probaly what his > handler told him to do. He like other may believe that the Social game is > less important but when are with a group of people 24/7 for 31 days you > have to learn something from their behavior.
--- What do you mean by "handler"?
> There are certian things you have to while you wait for the challenges. > Find food and making sure your shelter is in decent shape. Going by what > Russell said he did little of that as possible, somehow I think that was > just bluster. I can't see someone that has worked all their lives just > setting round and watch others work.
> In the end the Jury decides on what voting critieral they will use. We > don't get see how that is formulated.
--- We can compare what they did individually in the game and what they said in the Jury questioning. Many of the same accusations they leveled at Russell, especially Erik's speech could be said of themselves.
> The bottom line is that people that played just as hard as Russell have > won because they were able to not make it personal the way Russell did. > They stayed friendly with the people thay were targeting. Remember what > the Don told his son Mike, Keep your friends close and your enemies > closer.
---- True Russell could had played a better social game if only not be so cocky in TCs but don't for a moment think more than a little hypocrisy and jealousy is in the mix. -- ----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
>> >>> Brett says he voted for Natalie because she engaged with people on a >> >>> human >> >>> level. Nothing to do with her game play.
>> >> You still don't get it? That engaging with people on a human level IS >> >> gameplay in the game of Survivor?
>> >> It's a perfectly good strategy.
>> >> And clearly, Russell did *not* engage with people on a human level. >> >> Bad gameplay.
>> > Let's look at what Brett said.
>> > "She was very relational, she actually engaged with people on a human >> > level and in the context of the game that's not necessary, but she >> > actually did it. For that reason alone, beyond other reasons, I had to >> > vote for her."
>> > Notice the part about "in the context of the game that's not >> > necessary"? >> > So Brett doesn't seem to be agreeing with you that the social game is a >> > necessary part of the Survivor game. Yet he based his vote solely on >> > that criteria by the sounds of it. Why? Did he have something against >> > Russell.
>> He seems to be trying it to have it both ways and that is probaly what >> his >> handler told him to do. He like other may believe that the Social game is >> less important but when are with a group of people 24/7 for 31 days you >> have to learn something from their behavior. > --- > What do you mean by "handler"?
A handler is the person assigned to them by the show to take them around to interviews, take care of them before the show/game starts, etc. If you watch the interview clips you'll often see people walking in the background with other contestants--these are usually the handlers. Having said that I find it hard to believe that a handler would have told Russell to try and have it both ways.
In article <c0037ed6-4280-4c35-aba9- 16bdacd26...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, estas...@att.net says...
> > Brian Smith > > > Elmo P. Shagnasty
> > > You still don't get it? That engaging with people on a human level > > > IS gameplay in the game of Survivor? It's a perfectly good strategy.
> > What you don't get and refuse to admit is that Natalie did not win > > because of her game play. She won because Russell made sure > > she made it to the end and the jury hated Russell.
> Indeed, all the social skills in the world ain't going to do you > any good in Loser Lodge, which is where Natalie most likely > would have ended up without Russell's technical skills getting > her to the F3.
-- True, but to be fair, it was Russell's mistake to do so. He thought that the jury would see that she was an obvious floater and discard her in much the same way they did do to Mick. He had the foresight to see the obvious victory of Brett but not of Natalie who Brett correctly states played the same strategy he did. She just didn't finish with a flourish by winning three immunity idols in a row like Brett did. That was Russell's greatest miscalculation.
> It was Russell's game to lose and he guaranteed that he would > lose by being an asshole to the Jurors.
--- But only perhaps in the TC and yes in the F3 but not on a day to day basis.
> That being said, I have no problem with the Jury giving the money > to Natalie. The social game _is_ a part of Survivor, even if you > win because of the other player's complete lack of a social game.
--- True, but you have to concede there was a LOT of hypocrisy, especially with Erik. Most were trying to do the same things Russell did but just didn't get away with it, Erik being the most obvious since he was cocky and arrogant but he did it around camp against mostly Foa-Foa and he paid for it. Then in his eloquent and self serving speech made it soul like Russell played an unethical game when in truth Erik was doing exactly the same thing and to a lesser extent the rest of the jury with the exception of Brett. That is why we or at least I say it was a bitter jury that used Natalie as a cover to make Russell like a nasty player, when they especially Erik were doing or trying to do the same thing, so if Russell was "unethical" Erik Laura and Dave were also. That and the fact that Foa-Foa totally dismantled them with the help of every Galu member on the jury embarrassed them.
Yes Russell made some social miscalculations, but I think that was a cover justification to mask Galu's own hypocrisy as a whole and embarrassment. -- ----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
> In article <hhvp50$jc...@speranza.aioe.org>, > "madamS" <mad...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> I will agree that Russell's gameplay did what it was supposed to do-it >> got him in front of the jury. Natalie's gameplay did what it was supposed >> to >> do,too. It got her in front of a jury that would vote for her.
> Exactly.
> Which means that Natalie played a better game.
> Yes, Hunter, we know that watching Russell do his thing was more fun > than watching Natalie do her thing. That doesn't take away that what > Natalie did was play a better game.
Honestly, were guys watching the same show as the rest of us? Natalie always voted as Russell told her to so how is that game play? I'll give her a ton of credit for not getting on Russell's bad side like many of the others did and for being a good ally of his, but that was the extent of her strategy. Her being nice and friendly to everyone was not a strategy; that was Natalie being herself. Just admit she lucked out with the jury and would have been out of the game early on if it wasn't for Russell dragging her along.
