We're moving Forums to the Community pages. Click here for more information and updates.

Survivor Forums

Wednesday 8:00 PM on CBSIn Season

And the winner of Survivor Samoa is..... (Major spoilers obviously)

  • Avatar of chaotic_midget

    chaotic_midget

    [1]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 12/29/04
    • level: 8
    • rank: Super-Friend
    • posts: 654

    Natalie.

    I hate to say it but one of the most undeserving winners in Survivor history. This pisses me off so much. I dislike this vote even more than Parvati and I really hated Parvati as the winner.

    Thoughts?

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of maritimer00

    maritimer00

    [2]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 06/07/05
    • level: 71
    • rank: Bad News Bear
    • posts: 1,995
    Worse than Aras....or the winner of Pearl Islands? Hard to say but the fact Russell was rich HAD to play a role.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of chaotic_midget

    chaotic_midget

    [3]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 12/29/04
    • level: 8
    • rank: Super-Friend
    • posts: 654
    I should clarify. I've only really watched Survivor since Cook Islands and actually saw the ending of Africa but this is by far the worst outcome I've seen.
    Edited on 12/20/2009 7:25pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of jeancomp10

    jeancomp10

    [4]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 10/13/08
    • level: 1
    • rank: Weatherman
    • posts: 1
    This is so repulsive that the true winner did not win. Russell, it does not matter to me how they voted, you SHOULD have won. It is just a shame that the players were so threatened by your skill that they had to vote against you. No more survivor watching for me. It is definitely rigged!
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of D-DawgMan1

    D-DawgMan1

    [5]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 01/25/06
    • level: 49
    • rank: Snufflupugus
    • posts: 8,939
    BOO TO SORE LOSERS!

    God, this is the third time in my opinion the wrong winner won. I don't think Jenna should have won Survivor: Amazon because she only won because she made a lot of friends.

    Amber did nothing and rode coattails with Boston Rob.

    AND NOW THIS! Russell, we feel for you man. You should have won. Screw those jury members. They will go down in history as the worst people ever. One of the worst seasons EVER in my opinion.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Brodoin15

    Brodoin15

    [6]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 05/21/07
    • level: 20
    • rank: Cow Bell
    • posts: 2,478

    Russell deserved to win much more than Natalie did. Heck, Mick deserved to win more than Natalie.

    What is wrong with the jury? Naailie wouldn't even be this far if it wasn't for Russell.

    Granted, Russell could've been nicer, but still, he played the best game. He DESERVED to win, even if he didn't need the money. He was robbed.

    What did Natalie even do? Got Erik out and sided with Russell and did alright on a few challenges. Russell was behind getting everyone on the jury out, almost all blindsided.

    I'm upset Russell didn't win.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of drig44

    drig44

    [7]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 06/11/08
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 98
    D-DawgMan1 wrote:
    BOO TO SORE LOSERS!

    God, this is the third time in my opinion the wrong winner won. I don't think Jenna should have won Survivor: Amazon because she only won because she made a lot of friends.

    Amber did nothing and rode coattails with Boston Rob.

    AND NOW THIS! Russell, we feel for you man. You should have won. Screw those jury members. They will go down in history as the worst people ever. One of the worst seasons EVER in my opinion.


    I think it was one or the best, besides Natalie winning. Natalie is going to get a lot of hate for this I think. More then she would have atleast
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Sequel_Addict

    Sequel_Addict

    [8]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 10/10/07
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 510
    D-DawgMan1 wrote:

    God, this is the third time in my opinion the wrong winner won. I don't think Jenna should have won Survivor: Amazon because she only won because she made a lot of friends.


    Sorry, she won 6-1. She played the game well socially, and she was good in challenges, she did won quite a few Individual Immunity. Jenna is one of the deserving winners of Survivor>>>



    As for Natalie, well she really is not the deserving winner but damn, I like her winning.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of maritimer00

    maritimer00

    [9]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 06/07/05
    • level: 71
    • rank: Bad News Bear
    • posts: 1,995
    I could even say "Natalie won this with her final TC peformance..." but criminy, she barely said anything of substance there.

    Any bets that Russell goes up to the jury members at the wrap party and demands to know who they voted for...?...he looked like he wanted to storm off the reunion set.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of swtt

    swtt

    [10]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 12/10/05
    • level: 18
    • rank: Land Shark
    • posts: 3,388
    I understand where you guys are coming from. I do believe that Russel beat everyone in the game. He was more strategic, strong, wise, etc, but he also did a lot of bad things which made people upset. He lied, cheated, pit people against each other, stole, caused striff in the camp, say mean things etc... If I had to choose him for who played the best I'd say he did, but the fact that Natalie is nice, sweet, didn't lie, or backstab etc...she deserved it for the heart of who should have the money. Russel already has the money and may deserve the title as survivor, but surely not the money. I would choose on who is most deserving in the heart- they have kindness, goodspirit, but I don't always base my vote on this it just turned out to be like this for this one. A thing that surprised me was he was going to pay Nat for the title, which tells you he clearly doesn't need the money, but he needs power and some people do, which isn't a bad thing. I did enjoy that Shambou did get nominated for 100,000. I would've of voted for her for being so unique in how she played.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of chaotic_midget

    chaotic_midget

    [11]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 12/29/04
    • level: 8
    • rank: Super-Friend
    • posts: 654
    There is almost no conceivable scenario in which Natalie should have won this game. I have been a long time hater of pure strategists but Natalie was neither. She didn't do a damn thing in challenges and her highlight of the season was killing the rat. Her strategy was to not do anything that pissed anyone else off and hide behind Russell until the end. It's Survivor. It is so upsetting seeing someone who didn't even play the game win out over someone who played the game to its maximum potential outside of winning every immunity challenge.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Brodoin15

    Brodoin15

    [12]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 05/21/07
    • level: 20
    • rank: Cow Bell
    • posts: 2,478

    I think if anyone but Russell had to win, it should've been Mick. He deserved it more than Natalie, in my opinion.

    I understand Russell ticked people off, but that's part of the game. He could've been nicer, yes, but he played the game. He probably is the best player in Survivor history. He found all the hidden immunity idols without clues. He could - in fact, he should - have been nicer to people, it is important, but gameplay is much, much more important.

    If Russell wasn't such a hard player, he most likely would not have been in the final 3. Heck, Mick and Natalie probably wouldn't have either if it wasn't for Russell.

    Nice or not, he deserved it the most.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of drig44

    drig44

    [13]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 06/11/08
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 98
    Brodoin15 wrote:

    I think if anyone but Russell had to win, it should've been Mick. He deserved it more than Natalie, in my opinion.

    I understand Russell ticked people off, but that's part of the game. He could've been nicer, yes, but he played the game. He probably is the best player in Survivor history. He found all the hidden immunity idols without clues. He could - in fact, he should - have been nicer to people, it is important, but gameplay is much, much more important.

    If Russell wasn't such a hard player, he most likely would not have been in the final 3. Heck, Mick and Natalie probably wouldn't have either if it wasn't for Russell.

    Nice or not, he deserved it the most.



    Most, of the idols, he used a clue for one. I agree. Galu was just a bunch of sore losers and babies who voted for who they liked more personally then who played the game better. They were mad Russel beat them, so they didn't want him to win. Worst of all, was Kelly right when she got voted out "A sneaky little rat like Russel would get rid of a genuine player" IT'S A GAME YOU DUMB **** nobody is genuine. You aligned with Laura, that is your fault, not his.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of silvioStrippers

    silvioStrippers

    [14]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 11/20/05
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 257

    No doubt Eric was scary, but I believe Jaisson poisoned the jury. He was so mad that Russ voted him off without telling him first that he wanted revenge. Remember the only question he had when he came up was "tell the jury your occupations" so everyone knew Russ didnt need the money. I believe Jaisson told the jury they'd be crazy to vote for Russ, and they all bought into it. See how petty Jaisson was when his burnt socks was brought up? Think about it...........

    I really stand by this theory. It makes sense. Galu didnt really know Russ that well, Jaisson filled them in with bitterness over being voted out instead of Mick.

    It was a great season with a horrible, horrible outcome!

    Had Russ taken Jaisson the the end instead of Mick, Russ would have won easily. Thoughts?

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of dragonfly_pat

    dragonfly_pat

    [15]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 10/02/06
    • level: 19
    • rank: Fall Guy
    • posts: 409
    I am thrilled that Russell lost!!! I didn't care who beat him, as long as he lost. Neither Mick nor Natalie was more worthy. I have to laugh at Russell losing to Natalie. He gave his word to everyone individually and in private that he would take each along with him to the end. Russell had no real allegiance to anyone but himself. He was not honorable, and honor and trustworthiness are a part of the game, as is the sneakiness/strategy that Russell displayed throughout. When Russell was showing his arrogance the last day to Natalie and Mick, he was showing the real Russell. The jury is the ultimate decider which was the most important when it came to honor, worth, strategy-playing, and ability. Some past Survivor juries have place a lot of importance in being honest. In that Russell failed miserably from the beginning.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of drig44

    drig44

    [16]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 06/11/08
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 98
    dragonfly_pat wrote:
    I am thrilled that Russell lost!!! I didn't care who beat him, as long as he lost. Neither Mick nor Natalie was more worthy. I have to laugh at Russell losing to Natalie. He gave his word to everyone individually and in private that he would take each along with him to the end. Russell had no real allegiance to anyone but himself. He was not honorable, and honor and trustworthiness are a part of the game, as is the sneakiness/strategy that Russell displayed throughout. When Russell was showing his arrogance the last day to Natalie and Mick, he was showing the real Russell. The jury is the ultimate decider which was the most important when it came to honor, worth, strategy-playing, and ability. Some past Survivor juries have place a lot of importance in being honest. In that Russell failed miserably from the beginning.


    What Russel was doing the last day seemed to be more mind games to me. it seemed like it helped too, neither Mick nor Natalie were confident at all in themselves winning. I would have loved to see ANYONE out of the final 6 win besides Natalie, I'm not mad that Russel lost, but that Natalie won. She is the least deserving. Brett may have glided along too, but he did it by himself, he wasn't hiding behind Russel, and had the skills to actually win. the last challenge was a matter of luck more then anything at the end.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of ImNotDarioUAre

    ImNotDarioUAre

    [17]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 06/14/09
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 474

    Natalie did not deserve the money but ... im glad she won. Countless other coatail riders have made it to the Final Three and Final Two and their all generally looked down upon and get no votes.

    But a good point was brought up by Erik. How come the person who chooses to lie and cheat the most as a strategy more deserving than the person who decided to keep their morality but also ride the coat tail of another player. You may say that the coat tail person didnt do as much work so they dont deserve the money but does that mean the snake does? Natalie picked out a strategy and it worked for her just like Russell did and it took her to the Final Three just like Russell's straegy took him to the Final Three. Russell's strategy was more hands on and complicated but not neccesarily smarter since it took him to the same point as Natalie's took her.

    Its been the precedent since Survivor Amazon that the person who lies and cheats is playing the game the most (The Final Two both admitted Rob deserved to be in their place.) and therefore deserves to win it. But why? How come that person deserves to win it more than the person who kept their integrity and made it just as far as the liar and the snake?

    . . . I think thats the gist of Erik's point

    But the counter is the game is Outwit Outplay and Outlast and you cant Outwit and Outplay without being sneaky and by the time you get the Final Three the person with the best track record of Outwitting and Outplaying should be the winner and that was obviously Russell.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of silvioStrippers

    silvioStrippers

    [18]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 11/20/05
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 257

    dragonfly_pat wrote:
    I am thrilled that Russell lost!!! I didn't care who beat him, as long as he lost. Neither Mick nor Natalie was more worthy. I have to laugh at Russell losing to Natalie. He gave his word to everyone individually and in private that he would take each along with him to the end. Russell had no real allegiance to anyone but himself. He was not honorable, and honor and trustworthiness are a part of the game, as is the sneakiness/strategy that Russell displayed throughout. When Russell was showing his arrogance the last day to Natalie and Mick, he was showing the real Russell. The jury is the ultimate decider which was the most important when it came to honor, worth, strategy-playing, and ability. Some past Survivor juries have place a lot of importance in being honest. In that Russell failed miserably from the beginning.

    Hey Maude, honor and trustworthyness are NOT part of the game! Outwit and Outplay and yada, yada, yada....... Russell did just that.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of ImNotDarioUAre

    ImNotDarioUAre

    [19]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 06/14/09
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 474
    silvioStrippers wrote:

    dragonfly_pat wrote:
    I am thrilled that Russell lost!!! I didn't care who beat him, as long as he lost. Neither Mick nor Natalie was more worthy. I have to laugh at Russell losing to Natalie. He gave his word to everyone individually and in private that he would take each along with him to the end. Russell had no real allegiance to anyone but himself. He was not honorable, and honor and trustworthiness are a part of the game, as is the sneakiness/strategy that Russell displayed throughout. When Russell was showing his arrogance the last day to Natalie and Mick, he was showing the real Russell. The jury is the ultimate decider which was the most important when it came to honor, worth, strategy-playing, and ability. Some past Survivor juries have place a lot of importance in being honest. In that Russell failed miserably from the beginning.

    Hey Maude, honor and trustworthyness are NOT part of the game! Outwit and Outplay and yada, yada, yada....... Russell did just that.

    Survivor is not a one sided coin. Outwit Outplay and Outlast wil get you to the finals but from the time the Jury takes over, Honor and Integrity play a crucial role... as long as you were also able to Outwit and Outplay.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Chippy7

    Chippy7

    [20]Dec 20, 2009
    • member since: 07/26/06
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 66
    dragonfly_pat wrote:
    I am thrilled that Russell lost!!! I didn't care who beat him, as long as he lost. Neither Mick nor Natalie was more worthy. I have to laugh at Russell losing to Natalie. He gave his word to everyone individually and in private that he would take each along with him to the end. Russell had no real allegiance to anyone but himself. He was not honorable, and honor and trustworthiness are a part of the game, as is the sneakiness/strategy that Russell displayed throughout. When Russell was showing his arrogance the last day to Natalie and Mick, he was showing the real Russell. The jury is the ultimate decider which was the most important when it came to honor, worth, strategy-playing, and ability. Some past Survivor juries have place a lot of importance in being honest. In that Russell failed miserably from the beginning.


    The key thing Russell did not strategize is that the final outcome is not in his hands. He was so determined to get into the final 3 that he completely left reality behind. And for that, he got what he deserved. Plus his ego was also bound to stab him in the back.

    Out of Mick and Natalie, Natalie deserves to win more cuz she evolved a lot during the game, and in my opinion, that's what Survivor is supposed to be. If Mick showed more leadership, I would have picked him, but seems like he's not the leader type guy.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.