2011 TV Thread

[Soxbadger]

Thats why I said Tom from season 10,Palua (2004) and not Heroes-Villians (2010). 2010 he was already 45, Russell is only 37.

 

And what do you mean people voting like b****es? People didnt vote for Russell because he was a dick for being a dicks sake. Yeah he is great at getting far in the game, but that strategy is a burn bridges strategy that almost never wins. Getting far in the game isnt always because your the best player, some times a better player is letting you do the dirty work, while trying to keep appearances up (Parvarti).

 

In fact Parvarti was way more likely to win than Russell, because she doesnt just overtly create drama.

 

Russell got 0 Votes in Villains and 2 Votes in Samoa.

 

Tom won 6-1 in his season.

 

Russell is a great beginning and mid-game player, but how many other "great" survivor players have been to multiple finals and only received 2 votes total?

 

If I was creating a Survivor team, Id definitely want him on it, maybe he is even the top choice. But if I had to pick 1 person to win a season, I couldnt see myself picking Russell.

 

And "deserving winner"?

 

The rules of the game are clear, the winner is chosen by the very people who are voted out. The "deserving winner" is the person who can most successfully keep themselves in the game, while at the same time not burning as many bridges as possible.

 

If the game was set up for people like Russell to win, there would be no jury. In a survivor without a jury, Russell may be 2-0 and he would probably be the best survivor of all time.

 

But that is a different game, getting people to vote for you is what makes you deserving. Russell has been one of the worst players at that part of the game. Hence why he is not the "best" Survivor (imo of course).

Edited January 13, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Steve9347]

Thats why I said Tom from season 10,Palua (2004) and not Heroes-Villians (2010). 2010 he was already 45, Russell is only 37.

 

And what do you mean people voting like b****es? People didnt vote for Russell because he was a dick for being a dicks sake. Yeah he is great at getting far in the game, but that strategy is a burn bridges strategy that almost never wins. Getting far in the game isnt always because your the best player, some times a better player is letting you do the dirty work, while trying to keep appearances up (Parvarti).

 

In fact Parvarti was way more likely to win than Russell, because she doesnt just overtly create drama.

 

Russell got 0 Votes in Villains and 2 Votes in Samoa.

 

Tom won 6-1 in his season.

 

Russell is a great beginning and mid-game player, but how many other "great" survivor players have been to multiple finals and only received 2 votes total?

 

If I was creating a Survivor team, Id definitely want him on it, maybe he is even the top choice. But if I had to pick 1 person to win a season, I couldnt see myself picking Russell.

 

And "deserving winner"?

 

The rules of the game are clear, the winner is chosen by the very people who are voted out. The "deserving winner" is the person who can most successfully keep themselves in the game, while at the same time not burning as many bridges as possible.

 

If the game was set up for people like Russell to win, there would be no jury. In a survivor without a jury, Russell may be 2-0 and he would probably be the best survivor of all time.

 

But that is a different game, getting people to vote for you is what makes you deserving. Russell has been one of the worst players at that part of the game. Hence why he is not the "best" Survivor (imo of course).

Outwit - Outplay - Outlast

 

Russell did all of those to perfection. In both seasons. He and Parvati completely owned HvV. Sadly, in the past 5 seasons the cast has decided to add Outasskiss to the rules, despite that not being added to the tagline.

 

You just said Russell would be your 1st pick if building a team (wow, we really should do a fantasy league together or something). That says it all. He's great at getting to the finale, but he's so great (and abrassive) that his tribemates cannot vote for him. This doesn't make him any less a Survivor, it just speaks to the one flaw in the game (one that may be addressed in the future, as Fabio deserved more votes than he got in Nicaragua... how does Chase get 4 votes!?).

 

Russell has been the best Survivor on two seasons. When everyone knew he was going to f*** them, he convinced them he wouldn't, and then he went and f***ed them. It was brilliant. He did as much as he possibly could before the vote, and instead of the voters awarding the deserving player (at least in Samoa... that was a PURE SPITE VOTE as Natalie did nothing all season) he got screwed. In Heroes vs. Villains it should have been between Russell and Parvati, but neither won.

 

If you think Sandra was deserving, well, there's really no more conversation to be had here.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Steve9347

[Soxbadger]

I guess it just depends if you feel that the voting is a flaw in the game. Personally I think Probst feels that voting is the what makes the game. That if there was no voting you could simply lie, cheat, steal your way to victory and not even worry. Who cares what you say or do, as long as you get further in the game.

 

The voting element is what tries to make people think twice about playing the way Russel has. You may get to the end (and second place gets a prize so its not the worst) but you are unlikely to win, so you have to try and balance how you play the game. Or just be charming enough that you can stab some one in the back and then still convince them to vote for you.

 

That is where Russell is weak.

 

Sandra is interesting. She has won Survivor twice, which makes her arguably the best at the game. The reason why she won Heroes-Villains had little to do with her, and more to do with the mistakes of Russel. For whatever reason Russel never fully grasped the threat of having Sandra in the final 3 with Parvarti and him. Had he thought it through he would have realized that he could not bring some one who had been openly antagonistic to him to the final 3. He had to pick 3 people who had allied with him and screwed people, hoping that the jury would select him because he had earned it. His second problem was Parvarti. Parvarti had been a target from day 1, and the longer she stayed in the game, the more respect she earned. Not only that, but because she had been targeted by everyone she didnt have the same "backstabbing" stigma that Russel had, because people felt she was just playing to stay alive.

 

I mean if Russel brings Jeri, I think Russel has a 50/50 shot of winning. Parvarti was more likable but she already has won, Jeri is one of the least liked so she probably gets very few votes.

 

Russel had full control on his decision of who to take and he just dropped the ball. If you remember Parvarti told Russel this, but Russel refused to listen to her. Picking who you are going against in the jury is one of the biggest strategical decisions, if not the biggest.

[Brian]

He definitely should have won the first season. He got to the end being way down in numbers at the merge and controlled the entire game. In heroes vs villains I thought Parvarti deserved to win. Sandra was ridiculous winner that season. The show sometimes bothers me because the deserving winner usually doesn't win.

 

This. Sandra winning was a shame. Parvati playing both idols that one tribal and not telling Russell was awesome. She looks good in a bikini as well.

[The Gooch]

I guess it just depends if you feel that the voting is a flaw in the game. Personally I think Probst feels that voting is the what makes the game. That if there was no voting you could simply lie, cheat, steal your way to victory and not even worry. Who cares what you say or do, as long as you get further in the game.

 

The voting element is what tries to make people think twice about playing the way Russel has. You may get to the end (and second place gets a prize so its not the worst) but you are unlikely to win, so you have to try and balance how you play the game. Or just be charming enough that you can stab some one in the back and then still convince them to vote for you.

 

That is where Russell is weak.

 

Sandra is interesting. She has won Survivor twice, which makes her arguably the best at the game. The reason why she won Heroes-Villains had little to do with her, and more to do with the mistakes of Russel. For whatever reason Russel never fully grasped the threat of having Sandra in the final 3 with Parvarti and him. Had he thought it through he would have realized that he could not bring some one who had been openly antagonistic to him to the final 3. He had to pick 3 people who had allied with him and screwed people, hoping that the jury would select him because he had earned it. His second problem was Parvarti. Parvarti had been a target from day 1, and the longer she stayed in the game, the more respect she earned. Not only that, but because she had been targeted by everyone she didnt have the same "backstabbing" stigma that Russel had, because people felt she was just playing to stay alive.

 

I mean if Russel brings Jeri, I think Russel has a 50/50 shot of winning. Parvarti was more likable but she already has won, Jeri is one of the least liked so she probably gets very few votes.

 

Russel had full control on his decision of who to take and he just dropped the ball. If you remember Parvarti told Russel this, but Russel refused to listen to her. Picking who you are going against in the jury is one of the biggest strategical decisions, if not the biggest.

 

Russell seems to think of it constantly in terms of a game and thinks everyone has the same views he does. He tried to bring players that did nothing (Sandra and Natalie) because he thought that the jury would vote for the better player. That is his biggest flaw, thinking of it as just a game and he forgets about the real life social aspects.

[Soxbadger]

But Sandra winning was Russel's fault, Parvarti clearly told him not to bring her and to bring Jeri. Russel told Sandra he was bringing her because shed at most get 1 vote, it just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the jury is going to vote.

 

If you are in an alliance and your alliance is winning, most of the time it means that the jury is full of the other alliance. So the first rule in picking who to go to the jury with should always be: Never go to the jury with some one from the losing alliance, especially when there are 2 from the winning alliance.

 

I had Parvarti in my office survivor pool for Heroes and Villains so I really wanted her to win. Although I think Amanda is better looking.

[Brian]

But Sandra winning was Russel's fault, Parvarti clearly told him not to bring her and to bring Jeri. Russel told Sandra he was bringing her because shed at most get 1 vote, it just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the jury is going to vote.

 

If you are in an alliance and your alliance is winning, most of the time it means that the jury is full of the other alliance. So the first rule in picking who to go to the jury with should always be: Never go to the jury with some one from the losing alliance, especially when there are 2 from the winning alliance.

 

I had Parvarti in my office survivor pool for Heroes and Villains so I really wanted her to win. Although I think Amanda is better looking.

 

I don't think someone shoudl win because they were brought along. Sandra didn't deserve to win that season, Parvati did. We really could go back and forth on this all day. Ha

 

The idea of Redemption Island is interesting. They needed something similiar to Exile to freshen it up a bit.

[SoxFan562004]

Season premier of Ricky Gervais show on HBO tonight, it's a great show!

[Brian]

Off The Map was Ok enough for me to keep watching. Can't help but wait for Hurley and Ben to show up though.

[maggsmaggs]

Modern Family has been awesome the past two weeks. Simply terrific TV. It was kind of struggling a few episodes back, but the last two were pure comic genius.

[Brian]

Finally got around to the Shameless pilot and thought it was entertaining.

[Cali]

I remember watching the first few seasons of survivor then I got bored with it, I just read an article that they're on season 22 now! Good God!

[Steve9347]

I finally got around to watching the first episode of "Lights Out".

 

Once again, FX horribly mis-marketed it, and I'm already hooked.

[Brian]

I finally got around to watching the first episode of "Lights Out".

 

Once again, FX horribly mis-marketed it, and I'm already hooked.

 

I love that Lights is a jag and not all that likable as the main character.

[Steve9347]

I love that Lights is a jag and not all that likable as the main character.

I like / don't like him, it's weird. His brother's character is a bit overplayed, but it's entertaining. I'll be interested to see in which ways they have him make money (and will he go through with the comeback).

Edited January 15, 2011 by Steve9347

[Brian]

HIMYM spoiler

 

John Lithgow will play Barney's biological dad later in the season. I like.

[Rowand44]

Once again, FX horribly mis-marketed it, and I'm already hooked.

The only reason I know about it is because I always watch "It's always Sunny" and "The League" on demand and "Lights Out" is very well marketed there.

 

[Heads22]

Just watched the first two Shameless.

 

 

I like.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Any thoughts on Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes?

[Steve9347]

Any thoughts on Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes?

He won't be invited back, but it was hilarious!

[HuskyCaucasian]

He won't be invited back, but it was hilarious!

agreed. A couple of my friends were outraged at what he said. I was like "dude, it's Ricky Gervais! They knew what they were getting"

 

@piersmorgan - Complaining that Ricky Gervais was too rude is like inviting a shark to your paddling pool and moaning when it bites all the children.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

January Jones at the Golden Globes... all I can say is those are some golden globes. WOWZA!

[Soxbadger]

Id like to thank god for making me an atheist.

 

That was the only line of his I saw and from that I knew he wasnt going to be invited back.

[BigSqwert]

January Jones at the Golden Globes... all I can say is those are some golden globes. WOWZA!

 

I actually only like to see her when she's done up as her character. She looks so blah to me in modern haircuts and attire.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Id like to thank god for making me an atheist.

 

That was the only line of his I saw and from that I knew he wasnt going to be invited back.

I thought that was a bit of an odd comment. why did he say it?