Interview with Brett--Says Why he Voted for Natalie
Brian Smith
level. Nothing to do with her game play.
Video link to interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfMKMy9wJxQ&feature=player_embedded
(8:53--good game related stuff starts around 3:00)
Text link to interview:
http://realitytvmagazine.sheknows.com/blog/2010/01/02/survivor-samoa-bretts-quirky-personality/
(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
Nightspirit1701
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
Nightspirit
Brian Smith
news:elmop-079E8A....@nothing.attdns.com...
> In article <_si0n.15899$0U1....@newsfe16.iad>,
> "Brian Smith" <dcg_...@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.
>
> 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.
Brian
rick++
including appearance money.
That will give him some options.
Ed Stasiak
> > 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.
>
> 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.
Nightspirit1701
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-079E8A....@nothing.attdns.com...
>> In article <_si0n.15899$0U1....@newsfe16.iad>,
>> "Brian Smith" <dcg_...@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.
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.
Vandar
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)
shawn
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.
Brian Smith
news:hhtu0v$2ah$1...@news.albasani.net...
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
TvShowsandSportsonDVD
> In article <_si0n.15899$0U1.12...@newsfe16.iad>,
> "Brian Smith" <dcg_br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Brett says he voted for Natalie because she engaged with people on a human
> > level. Nothing to do with her game play.
>
> gameplay in the game of Survivor?
>
> It's a perfectly good strategy.
>
> gameplay.
Nightspirit1701
> "Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Mark Bennet actually did us a diservice by showing us mostly Russell and
not the other players. We don't know enought to even make a logical guess.
God's Debris
How much weed does Brett typically smoke in a day?
Brian Smith
> In article <5Rv0n.705$Mv3...@newsfe05.iad>,
> "Brian Smith" <dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No one should win survivor based on just
>> being nice
>
> restricted in their considerations to what YOU think the game is.
Are you capable of presenting arguments without cutting off the rest of what
people said and throwing random bits of nonsense?
Brian
Brian Smith
> In article <hhtu0v$2ah$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Not to mention illogical.
That doesn't even make sense. Just admit we were given no valid reasons why
Natalie should have won the game.
Brian
Brian Smith
news:hhtdvo...@news.evilcabal.org...
True, unless the others did very little. Brett's admitted he was very under
the radar for most of the game so it explains why we didn't see him. If
Natalie hadn't been with Russell the entire game I doubt we would have seen
much of her either. When people made moves or did something stupid we were
shown it so it wasn't entirely the Russell show. But the guy did find three
HIIs without any clues when finding one this way had never been done so it
makes sense he would get a lot of airtime. Throw in his actions at a few
TCs, his constant deal making, screwing with his own tribe at first, etc.
and it's not hard to see why MB gave him the most airtime.
What would have helped would have been showing us a lot more of the final TC
and what the jury actually said as they voted. They could have skipped
showing the walk the F3 make to the last challenge even if it is
"tradition."
Brian
Brian Smith
> In article <Dws0n.1154$ap2...@newsfe18.iad>,
> "Brian Smith" <dcg_...@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"?
>
> 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!
Brian
madamS
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
news:hhuku8$vmt$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
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.
Brian
Hunter
nanof...@gmail.com says...
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
shawn
wrote:
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.
madamS
>>> 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.
Hunter
says...
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.
Brian Smith
news:MPG.25ac8c4da...@news.optonline.net...
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.
Brian
Hunter
16bdac...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, esta...@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.
Brian Smith
> In article <hhvp50$jcf$1...@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.
>
>
> 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.
Brian
Brian Smith
> In article <MPG.25ac83e1...@news.optonline.net>,
> Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
> Russell, and then turn a complete 180 on him in a couple of hours time
> based only on his final TC performance. (Sure, YOU liked him based on
> what MB showed you--but remember, MB showed you less than 1% of what
> went on, and specifically edited the show for a certain effect.)
>
> No, they went in to final TC either not liking him at all, or else on
> the fence of not liking him--with a bad attitude toward him. Russell's
> final TC performance, which was CLASSIC Russell, either pushed them over
> the edge or else nailed the coffin shut for good, depending on the
> attitude the juror went in with.
>
> They were already predisposed not to like or vote for Russell based on
> his gameplay. His only chance at final TC was to turn things around 180
> degrees himself--something he's just not capable of, and frankly, few
> people would be capable of doing that in the same situation.
>
> Consider: if you spend the whole time not worrying about whether the
> others like you or not, then go into the final TC without a bulletproof
> plan to make them like you within the hour or two of final TC, you have
> planned to fail.
>
> The odds of Russell making amends in a couple of hours, undoing what he
> spent 39 days make happen--their bad attitude toward him--are slim to
> none, and slim just left the building.
Amazing! You criticize Hunter for basing his arguments on only seeing 1% of
the footage and then turn around and do the same thing. How do you know if
the jury liked or disliked Russell? We were shown people like Eric cheering
Russell's moves every time he got rid of another Galu member because he was
pissed at his own tribe for blindsiding him. That's why the vast majority of
viewers and probably Russell thought he would win.
Brian
shawn
I don't understand the thinking, Brian. At this point it's sounding
like they could have voted for a rock that was on the island and it
would have been justified since the rock didn't make any bad moves
during the game. We can all recognize that Natalie is nicer than
Russell. We can all recognize that Russell played a better strategic
game than Natalie. I believe we can all see that Russell was the
better physical player between the two. Russell was also the better
player at knowing the game and doing what was necessary to survive in
the game (finding three HIIs being a perfect example.) So it's hard
for me to see how being nice over-rules all of the other advantages
Russell had over Natalie.
I don't ever expect us to reach agreement on it. It's obvious some
people value that social aspect much more than others. For me it's an
important aspect but not by any means the critical aspect.
Nightspirit1701
I was talking about Brett not Russell.
madamS
>producers didn't hide the idols worth a crap, and he would have been out of
>the game if it wasn't for that. You WON"T admit that for the same reason we
>won't *admit* to what you believe...we all know that the game is a
>combination of luck and the choices a player makes. And making the choice
>to be oneself IS a strategy.
Hunter
el...@nastydesigns.com says...
> > 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.
>
>
> 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.
Yes if making coffee conversation around the fire about self help
books is good game-that was her thing-while following Russell's
instructions and making no moves she did very well. As I said it
worked for her, but it can work for anyone who don't make any moves.
Nice safe way to play you won't offend anybody, but don't for a
minute think there was a lot of hypocrisy and bruised egos on the
jury. The fact is most of them tried to do what Russell did,
especially hypocrite Erik-who "died" with a HII in his pocket after
being so cocky in Foa-Foa's face (he pissed off Jaison who then
blindsided him)-just not nearly as well and they got their revenge.
That is what gets me. If they had played an "ethical game" it would
be one thing but to turn around and chastise Russell when they tried
to do much the same thing is what irks me.
As I also said, anyone who says Natalie or Brett or Mick played a
good game then don't complain about floaters in "Heroes Vs. Villains"
or other seasons the future-or in the past like Amber (All-Stars) and
Bob (Gabon) or near floaters like Aras (Panama, although at least he
won some immunity challenges like Brett and he did try to get Bruce
voted off {although for personal reasons not strategic ones IIRC much
like Shambo}, in other words he did something).
God I hope from "Survivor 21" on (the first Survivor contestants who
would had seen "Survivor: Samoa") this doesn't become a trend.
Hopefully future aggressive players will develop a bit more
diplomatic skills and/or get rid of the likeable people before the
Final Five LOL!
madamS
It is, if the jury that you have built decides it is. I'm just saying that
if the jury was indeed the most petty and vindictive jury ever, then maybe
Russell should have
put others on it. Oh, you say he couldn't figure out how to stay in the game
without getting rid of people who might have voted for him? That's probably
true. In the thread where we all stated who we would have voted for if we
were on the jury, most of us said Russell. The funny thing is that none of
us would have been on the jury, because we would have questioned him on why
he was doing this or that, and zap, we would have been back home on the
couch. Natalie, however did figure out how to stay in the game and have
people vote for her. I don't see how you can discount that.
Ed Stasiak
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > 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.
>
> that the jury would see that she was an obvious floater and
> discard her in much the same way they did do to Mick.
I think they would have seen her that way (at least enough for
Russell to squeak by with a win) had he played a better social
game.
Natalie was clearly a coat-tail-rider from Day #1 and the Jury
knew that, they just hated Russell so much that it didn't matter
to them.
> > 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.
I dunno about that. For a guy who played an excellent technical
game to get blown out of the water with a 7-2 final vote, he really
had to have pissed off the Jury beyond just being a dick at TC.
I think Russell knew the game of Survivor very well and his plan
was a good one but he was seduced by the Dark Side of Face
Time.
The more outrageous he was, the more face time he'd get and
he ended up playing for the face time instead of for the money.
> > 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,
But with Russell's assholish, in-your-face gameplay, there wasn't
much pressure on the Jury to do any "soul searching", his over
the top actions absolved them of any sin.
Eric and the others may have done/wanted to do the same things
as Russell but they weren't dicks about it, and that was enough
for them to give the $1 million to Natalie.
Hunter
> >>>
> >>>>In article <_si0n.15899$0U1....@newsfe16.iad>,
> >>>>"Brian Smith" <dcg_...@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.
> the
> the
> 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)
> >
> 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
> > with most people that would make less fans/viewers question their logic
> of I
> >
> > 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.
All you have to do is watch the segment in Episode 7 when Laura
visited Foa-Foa and she and Natalie were around the camp fire. Mick
and Liz were trying to keep going to see a representative example of
her gameplay. It was the socialize and shoot the breeze. Her and
Brett being "Prayer Warriors" is another example. You need not see
more. She just talked being friendly, very effective, but that was
it.
Brian Smith
Sorry about that. But my comments still apply to him as well.
Brian
Brian Smith
Natalie did figure out how to stay in the game but we have no evidence she
knew they would vote for her. What we were shown made it seem like she would
be happy just getting to the end. Same with Mick and they both relied on
Russell to take them to the end. What I find very strange about this jury is
how they were so happy when Russell engineered the demise of their former
tribemates who had stabbed them in the back yet turned against him at the
end. Did Jaison play a big role in how they viewed Russell? I think it's
very possible when you consider that he was expecting Mick and Russell to
keep him and toss Natalie, and it might also explain why Mick received no
votes.
Brian
Brian Smith
Why do you think I wouldn't admit that? I'm not sure I agree about the
hiding of the idols as Russell said it took him hours to find them. You have
to give him credit for looking without clues as no one has done that in the
past. Without finding the idols he would have been gone or should have if
the other people had any brains.
Being oneself can definitely be part of an overall strategy. Natalie was
obviously most comfortable just being herself and that did help her to get
to the end in that Russell trusted her. I just don't buy that the jury voted
for her to win the game solely based on her being herself or that was even a
major consideration.
Brian
shawn
wrote:
Well, we know he was outrageous in the confessionals but it's not
clear if he was that way when he was with the other players. He might
have been but we don't know since MB didn't show us that.
>> > 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,
>
>But with Russell's assholish, in-your-face gameplay, there wasn't
>much pressure on the Jury to do any "soul searching", his over
>the top actions absolved them of any sin.
>
>Eric and the others may have done/wanted to do the same things
>as Russell but they weren't dicks about it, and that was enough
>for them to give the $1 million to Natalie.
Actually Erik was more of a dick than Russell. At least that's my
guess since his people (Galu) really didn't want him to stay around
which is why they were happy to get rid of him. It was also clear that
Laura and Kelly didn't have any time for him when they joined him at
the Ponderosa.
madamS
> "madamS" <mad...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> news:hi0i0d$ud$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> shawn wrote:
>> It is, if the jury that you have built decides it is. I'm just
>> saying that if the jury was indeed the most petty and vindictive
>> jury ever, then maybe Russell should have
>> put others on it. Oh, you say he couldn't figure out how to stay in
>> the game without getting rid of people who might have voted for him?
>> That's probably true. In the thread where we all stated who we would
>> have voted for if we were on the jury, most of us said Russell. The
>> funny thing is that none of us would have been on the jury, because
>> we would have questioned him on why he was doing this or that, and
>> zap, we would have been back home on the couch. Natalie, however did
>> figure out how to stay in the game and have people vote for her. I
>> don't see how you can discount that.
>
> Natalie did figure out how to stay in the game but we have no
> evidence she knew they would vote for her. What we were shown made it
> seem like she would be happy just getting to the end. Same with Mick
> and they both relied on Russell to take them to the end. What I find
> very strange about this jury is how they were so happy when Russell
> engineered the demise of their former tribemates who had stabbed them
> in the back yet turned against him at the end. Did Jaison play a big
> role in how they viewed Russell? I think it's very possible when you
> consider that he was expecting Mick and Russell to keep him and toss
> Natalie, and it might also explain why Mick received no votes.
>
I tend to believe that Jaison was one of the big factors in Russell getting
hosed. His vote alone would have made it 6/3, which is still a loss, but I
think that he probably DID have an effect on the others as well. Russell
should have handled him much differently. I never saw the point of his lying
to Jaison. Russell could have told him at the last moment, and he certainly
should have recognized Jaison's need for ego stroking at the final TC.
madamS
vote *against* Russell rather than a vote *for* Natalie. More often than
not, that IS the case. You have said that if this becomes the standard of
voting, it will change the way people play the game, and they will be too
scared of backlash to play the game. As *I* see it, it has always been the
standard, and the fear certainly affected Amanda, for one, and it is the
whole reason for the concept of the "perfect final partner" being one who is
more disliked than you are.
Brian Smith
You must be misreading what I've been saying. I'm not at all surprised that
this was a vote against Russell and not for Natalie. Elmo is the one who
seems to think they voted for Natalie because of her game play.
I will agree that *some* people play the game afraid of creating backlash
but not all. Sometimes a hard core strategy is appreciated by the jury and
the person employing such a strategy wins. This season the jury was so
against so-called "immoral" play that it would change the way people play
the game if it became a new standard for casting votes. To me the "perfect
final partner" is one who did nothing the entire game and was dragged into
the final. Russell must have thought both Natalie and Mick (more so Mick)
were the perfect final partners. If either of them had done some things that
the jury had noticed then I would agree that Russell would be in trouble as
he was disliked more than they were.
If you get a chance watch the video clips of the jury discussing the F3
right before they go to the final TC. I had only watched a few before but
tonight I watched the rest. Very interesting. Dave Ball was clearly
brainwashed by Brett and Jaison (you'll see what I mean when you hear his
choice of terminology in places), and both Laura and Kelly say that Natalie
did nothing (Laura is even harsher toward Mick) and they both say Russell
did a lot. Then they get tied up with morals which surprises me given that
the game involves deceit. lying, etc. If I recall correctly, Laura praises
Russell for being honest in admitting all of the things he did but then
counters that by saying she didn't like how he played. Kelly was similar and
was expecting integrity, etc. Both Laura and Kelly should apply for BB as
they would fit right in with most of the contestants on that show who
equally don't understand that backstabbing, etc. are part of the game. They
need to remember that lying in the game to advance oneself is perfectly
legit. If Russell had done something truly mean spirited that was not
game-related then he didn't deserve to win and probably should have been
voted out long before F3. My guess is he didn't because neither Natalie,
Mick or Jaison who are all supposed to be so moral wouldn't join up with
Galu to get rid of him. Either that or those three were just as
opportunistic as Russell.
Brian
Brian Smith
In hindsight Russell probably wishes he had taken Jaison to F3 and sent Mick
packing. Mick apparently didn't say much the entire game and probably
wouldn't have been too different at Ponderosa. At the final TC Russell and
Natalie easily could have taken care of Jaison by telling the jury how lazy
he was and the number of times he wanted to quit. Hard to say if this would
have changed the outcome of the game but I think Mick would have voted for
Russell out of loyalty and Dave Ball would have as well since there was less
chance of him being swayed. That would have made it 5-4 for Natalie. The
mystery is how much were Laura and Kelly influenced by Jaison? I'll assume
Brett was a lock for Natalie no matter what happened.
Brian
Nightspirit1701
> Brett says he voted for Natalie because she engaged with people on a human
> level. Nothing to do with her game play.
>
> Video link to interview:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfMKMy9wJxQ&feature=player_embedded
> (8:53--good game related stuff starts around 3:00)
>
> Text link to interview:
> http://realitytvmagazine.sheknows.com/blog/2010/01/02/survivor-samoa-
bretts-quirky-personality/
> (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
>
>
>
It is the Jury that decides what rules they will use. Players like Russell
need to remember that.
Hunter
nanof...@gmail.com says...
Let me be clear, to me the social aspect *is* an important thing in
"Survivor"; what I think many pro Natalie people are overlooking that
the jury had an alternative motive beyond Natalie's game play. Yes
Russell had a tin ear to most of the social game but a huge
motivation is that he did outplay them so well and they couldn't do
what he could do, particularly Erik. I think those who think Natalie
played an "awesome" social game over look that. It is like thinking
Amber had an awesome social game when in fact the vote in All-Stars
was mostly Anti-Boston Rob. No reflection on Natalie-or Amber-but
bitterness over his performance beyond any cockiness was a huge
component in the verdict.
Hunter
says...
I'm sure from Russell's POV Jaison was the greater threat in front of
the jury because he did make some game moves in addition to winning a
couple of immunity challenges while Natalie and to a lesser extent
Mick floated. So get rid of Jaison. He just didn't count on Natalie
being inoffensive to anyone and thinking people would not reward a
floater in the game and appreciate a man of skill; and yes perhaps
Russell was too blinded by his brilliance to see that but again jury
hypocrisy and jealousy is a big factor as well.
The jury certainly were not respectful of Mick. I am sure Jaison told
the Galus what Mick didn't do as leader of his tribe after all Erik
must have been told something for him to condemn his role and Shambo
to call him "Feckless". He definitely give his own opinion of
Russell, especially after he turned against Jaison and voted him out.
He will be a lawyer soon so he should have pretty persuasive skills
and of course put his own take on Russell's actions and of course
including his mention of Russell's wealth. Yes he did say that
shouldn't play a factor in the jury's decision in front of the jury.
Can you say reverse psychology?
I think Jaison, being the only Foa-Foa on the jury, had a big
influence on the jury telling them what Russell did because Galu
wouldn't have known much about Russell first hand pre merge unless
Shambo told them a few things, but she voted for Russell so I suspect
she talked him up to the jury. Anyway, judging if only by his outgo
statements from the episode he was voted off Jaison had it in for
Russell big! Conversely I am sure he talked up Natalie. In interviews
he already gives her credit for getting out Erik even when it was
clearly his idea as shown in the episode footage, so I am sure he
sang her praises to the jury, on top of what they already knew of
her.
This is all speculation on my part but Jaison wasn't too happy a
camper after he was voted out and I base this on his own attitude
then.
madamS
> "madamS" <mad...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> news:hi1ap4$1bt$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Brian Smith wrote:
>>> "madamS" <mad...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hi0h74$viv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> Brian Smith wrote:
>burning the socks and pouring out the water were both truly mean-spirited
>and even though he claimed that they were part of his strategy, i.e.:
>weakening his team, it was the part of his strategy that I felt was stupid.
>Weakening his own team is, I think, one of the mistakes he made that helped
>build a vindictive jury. I know that it was not something they were aware
>of when they voted, but the effects were that by decimating his own team,
>he built a jury of people who did not see him in the early days when he was
>evidently not showing his arrogance as much, and saw only the post-merge
>Russell. You have said that he had to get rid of Betsy and Liz because they
>were going after him. Another way to have kept them for the jury would have
>been to avoid TC at all in the early days. Every time I saw him say that
>the Foas were weak and stupid, I yelled, you helped make them that way!
Brian Smith
____
>>The arguments have been a little hard to follow at times. I feel that
>>burning the socks and pouring out the water were both truly mean-spirited
>>and even though he claimed that they were part of his strategy, i.e.:
>>weakening his team, it was the part of his strategy that I felt was
>>stupid. Weakening his own team is, I think, one of the mistakes he made
>>that helped build a vindictive jury. I know that it was not something they
>>were aware of when they voted, but the effects were that by decimating his
>>own team, he built a jury of people who did not see him in the early days
>>when he was evidently not showing his arrogance as much, and saw only the
>>post-merge Russell. You have said that he had to get rid of Betsy and Liz
>>because they were going after him. Another way to have kept them for the
>>jury would have been to avoid TC at all in the early days. Every time I
>>saw him say that the Foas were weak and stupid, I yelled, you helped make
>>them that way!
I agree with you that Russell's early game play made no sense. One thing
that has never been explained to us is why he felt so confident that going
into the merge badly outnumbered would be a good thing. Was he that
confident? Or was he afraid that his own tribe would turn on him if they
thought he was too good of a player and thought having a "fresh" start with
a merged tribe would be better for him? Or was most of his tribe as stupid
as he claimed? I can't recall anyone who has decided to play a "solo" game
as quickly as he did and that might have been a mistake on his part.
Brian
Hunter
says...
It wasn't mean-spirited but it was psychological warfare so he could
get the mental upper hand. However, we both agree that it should be
illegal to destroy or hide personal property, but as it is it is part
of the game and I see why he did it, just like Rupert in "S:Pearl
Island" taking and selling his tribemates shoes to gain an advantage
(In "S:Pearl Islands" Sandra dumping the fish was truly mean spirited
because she did it because the tribe voted Rupert off). In any case
they didn't know about his dumping the water or burning Jaison's
socks at the time so that didn't factor in their deliberations.
>
> I know that it was not something they were aware
> of when they voted, but the effects were that by decimating his own team,
Then it wasn't a mistake in building a vindictive jury what they
didn't know didn't hurt them.
>
> he built a jury of people who did not see him in the early days when he was
> evidently not showing his arrogance as much, and saw only the post-merge
> Russell.
Post merge Russell wasn't that arrogant either except when it was
time to use the HII in TC but around camp he was low key, at least no
more arrogant than I-won't-help-make-fire-until-you-ask-me-nicely-
Dave or Erik were. And remember at the very next TC after he was
voted off Erik was ROOTING for Russell to use his HII and was GIDDY
when he did enjoying how Galu was made to squirm and Kelly being
voted out!
>
> You have said that he had to get rid of Betsy and Liz because they
> were going after him. Another way to have kept them for the jury would have
> been to avoid TC at all in the early days.
You don't keep threats like that for the jury! You get rid of them as
quick as possible because they are gunning for you! No as soon as
they were on to you get rid of them at the first opportunity. What he
should had done was keep either Jaison or Shambo and got rid of
Natalie.
> Every time I saw him say that the Foas were weak and stupid, I yelled, you helped make them that way!
There is some truth in that I agree. He gained the mental upper hand
in side his tribe but he doing what he did also put the tribe on the
wrong foot even if they did win the first Award Challenge but he felt
he had to gain control of his tribe no matter what whether they won
or lost the Tribal Immunity Challenges. It sure gave him
opportunities to get rid of the aforementioned threats of Marisa,
Betsey, Ashley, and Liz. But that wasn't the fatal flaw in front of
the jury. with 20/20 hind sight it was getting rid of Jaison and
keeping Natalie. Jaison helped poison the jury I suspect and he had
much more dirt on him than the squeaky clean Natalie.
Brian Smith
And since this can lead to outcomes that make little sense don't be
surprised if MB starts to really emphasize the outwit, outlast, out play
aspects of the game to the jury.
Brian
madamS
> "Nightspirit1701" <nightsp...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hi12vk...@news.evilcabal.org...
>>
>> It is the Jury that decides what rules they will use. Players like
>> Russell need to remember that.
>
> And since this can lead to outcomes that make little sense don't be
> surprised if MB starts to really emphasize the outwit, outlast, out
> play aspects of the game to the jury.
>
>I would be surprised because I don't think the outcome making little sense
>bothers MB one bit. Certainly not as much as it does you. ;)
madamS
>
>I consider it a major mistake.
Hunter
says...
I think the key is what you mentioned; he was playing a solo game
through and through, form the very beginning. There was no team only
he. The teams meant nothing to him Foa-Foa was as far as he was
concerned was no different than the post merged tribes. Each defeat
by Foa-Foa was an opportunity to get rid of an adversary, just like
post merge would be. In that there was no difference in his game pre
or post merge. He was an individual who made allies on an individual
bases regardless of the stage of the game or what the team it
supposed to be. The names of the teams were mere formalities. In a
real way he played the game more like BB than "Survivor" simply make
alliances with one or two people to make it all the way through and
he did that with Natalie and Jaison and Mick. I don't think he made a
serious effort to align with anyone else pre or post merge with the
possible exception of Laura, but even then I think that was a rues to
lower her guard.
So yes Russell went against accepted "Survivor" gameplay in playing a
solo game-and it almost worked in terms of winning it all.
do...@webtv.net
As usual...I agree with E-mo, 'The Madam' and the others who feel that
Russell didn't think too much about the jury or the social game.
But...forgetting that arguement...and who played a smarter game...the
bottom line is:
can you just agree that even if Natalie played NO game...and Russell
played a GREAT game...and Russ STILL lost by a 7-2 margin...that the
jury didn't like him?
(Duh)
And for that to happen...there must have been SOME reason.
Jealousy? Maybe.
Sour Grapes? Maybe...BUT...
from about the halfway point in the game...Russell's confessionals have
him saying...I already won this game...the million is mine.
It just defies logic that some of that attitude would not be conveyed to
the other players.
Since so little (less than 1%) of the 39 days was shown...can't you
agree that Russ MUST have been rubbing the tribe the wrong way all
through the game?
PLUS...
After the winner was declared at the reunion show...JP posed some
hypotheticals for F3.
He asked the jury for a show of hands...about how they would vote if he
had different F3 partners.
Shambo, Jaison, Brett...etc.
The 'show of hands' vote had Russell losing to Brett...but Shambo,
Jaison, and someone else (I forget)...as F3 partners along with
Mick..would have won for Russ, which led JP to say...that Russ obviously
picked the wrong F3 partners.
This cost him.
JP said it. (I have no link...but it's so.)
Kathy
I don't value the social aspect any more than the physical, but I do
realize that it's a large part of the competition and you can't just
ignore that aspect. Russell did and he lost. You can say that it was a
bitter jury, but that's how the game is set up. If you piss off enough
people, they're not going to vote for you. It's as simple as that.
Kathy
shawn
<dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"madamS" <mad...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>news:hi2d2m$pk8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Brian Smith wrote:
>>> "madamS" <mad...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hi1ap4$1bt$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> Brian Smith wrote:
>>>>> "madamS" <mad...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hi0h74$viv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>> Brian Smith wrote:
>> snip
>I agree with you that Russell's early game play made no sense. One thing
>that has never been explained to us is why he felt so confident that going
>into the merge badly outnumbered would be a good thing. Was he that
>confident? Or was he afraid that his own tribe would turn on him if they
>thought he was too good of a player and thought having a "fresh" start with
>a merged tribe would be better for him? Or was most of his tribe as stupid
>as he claimed? I can't recall anyone who has decided to play a "solo" game
>as quickly as he did and that might have been a mistake on his part.
I really think that Russell wasn't thinking that much about the game
at the very beginning. The things he did were more for face time than
as part of any real strategy. As the game went along I don't think he
wanted to go to TC as I never saw him throwing any of the challenges.
It's just that when they went to a TC he had strong ideas on who
should be booted and worked hard to see that they went.