Survivor - Post-finale thoughts

Alright so the polarizing Survivor finale was last night. As to not spoil anybody who may not have watched the episode yet (what are you waiting for?), get my thoughts on the winner, overall finale, and the reunion by clicking the "Read More" link.

Well, Natalie won. Or, more accurately, Russell lost. Whether you believe Natalie won or not, simply based on the way the final Tribal Council went down, it's hard to deny that a vast number of people were more voting against Russell than for Natalie? Need proof? Simply consider the questions that were asked. More specifically, pay attention to who the questions were directed to. Nine times out of ten, it seemed like the jury had issues with how Russell played the game.

And as regular readers may have noticed from past finale reviews, I absolutely detest bitter juries. It drives me mad when people are all pissy about being blind sided and betrayed, when in almost every case they were planning on betraying one of their own allies. And in most cases, those on the jury were simply outplayed (Hi, Laura!) Actually, Laura and Erik were two of the most bitter -- meanwhile, Laura had voted off her ally Erik, and Erik was planning on voting out his tribemate Monica. Quite frankly, if anybody from Galu had half a brain, somebody from their tribe would have won. It's absolutely remarkable that they got picked off one by one, with an 8 to 4 advantage (yes, you read that correctly). They have nobody to blame but themselves, and their bitterness and contempt infuriates me.

I also find these accusations of cheating and stealing laughable and mind boggling. There are no written rules, so how did they cheat? And there are no belongings, so what did anybody steal?

I have to say this though, despite being on Team Russell, I have to admit that he was pretty obnoxious throughout the finale. I mean, it was in pretty bad taste openly talking about how he had the game won after he nabbed the immunity necklace. Hell, he even asked his allies -- who he's competing against -- what they thought his chances were of winning. It got worse when it dwindled to the final three, and he told Mick and Natalie that they were basically competing for second, and that the jury would simply accuse them of riding his coattails (a word that begins with "C"). In later interviews Russell confessed that he was playing mind games with them. But it really just hurt him -- and as a lot of people have pointed out, it was the social aspect of the game that killed Russell.

Now, having said that, I think viewers have been a bit rough on Natalie. Do I think she deserved to win over Russell? No. But that doesn't necessarily mean she's an undeserving winner. And I think her gameplay has been severely underestimated. Remember Russell's "Dumb Girl Alliance?" Well, Russell systematically eliminated each and every one of them for various reasons -- yet by the end of the game, he was campaigning to keep Natalie around. Oh, and that reason why Russell picked those dumb girls off one by one? Most of the time it was because they dared to doubt or defy him. Suddenly Natalie's meek behavior isn't so much a character flaw. Like Jeff said, it's a legitimate strategy.

I will also say, flat out, that I don't think Foa Foa's decimation of Galu would have worked without Natalie. Following the merge, Russell almost immediately rubbed everybody the wrong way. It was actually Natalie who bridged the gap between the two tribes, and eased the way for the eventual mutiny. If not for Natalie's ability to interact with the opposing side, Foa Foa would have been dead in the water. And I have absolutely no doubt about that.

In his emotional and unfortunately influential tirade, Erik did manage to make a good point: Essentially, the most aggressive strategy is not necessarily the best one.

But lets be honest -- Russell shoulda won.








Also: Please take a moment to fill out this WWE Year-End Survey - http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2LXGLNW