Survivor

sadistikk wrote:

j_jammer wrote: Bob didn't do any deciding. He blamed everyone for the votes and didn't take responsibility for what he had done....especially not owning up to his promise to Kenny. He should have said yes he lied and yes he didn't follow through.Pride he had more so than Sugar.

... what's your point, exactly? Bob won, so he didn't have to do anything he didn't do. He could've done BETTER in front of the jury, yes, but he won in the end. Regardless, I don't understand what this has to do with comparing the final two and final three.

He lied stating he was an honorable person. Three is better....but Sugar is now in the should have won category...along with many others. This is the first time the entire jury was vindictive and immature.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 12/15/2008 01:18:23

j_jammer wrote: He lied stating he was an honorable person. Three is better....but Sugar is now in the should have won category...along with many others. This is the first time the entire jury was vindictive and immature.

You're wrong. If Sugar "should have won," she would have won. She lost, therefore she wasn't worthy of winning. Period.I've already gone over this in other threads, but essentially she turned around and handed Bob or Matty the win on a silver platter the moment she voted out Crystal. She couldn't beat either of them. She knew she couldn't beat them, and said so herself. And yet she aligned herself with them and took them further into the game, while booting people who she should've taken to the jury with her.If she'd deserved to win, she would've put her emotions aside and taken out Bob and Matty a long time ago, taking Crystal and Susie to the finals. The ex-Kota's would hate all three - Crystal and Susie, though, were the ones who turned on them and destroyed their alliance, while aside from Corinne they really didn't have a huge problem with Sugar. Even Randy admitted Sugar played the game well, and said he might've voted for her before tribal council.Which brings me to her downright awful tribal council performance, perhaps one of the worst in Survivor history (maybe second to Amanda's pitiful attempts in China). Charlie asked her why he should vote for her - her answer? "Well, I don't necessarily think you should... but it would be nice!" Great answer. Great argument.And on top of that, she snubbed Randy, and followed it up by looking like a total sap when she started crying about voting out Ken. She completely aced the guy out, made the "mastermind" look like a strategic nitwit, and her reaction was to CRY about it!? She should be claiming to be the greatest Survivor strategist of all time, and instead she's CRYING about making a move that took her further into the game? Give me a break.At least Bob showed backbone. He stood up to any questions and answered them straight. Was he completely honest throughout the game? Nope. But he owned up to his gameplay, admitted his mistakes, and said straight up that he deserved to win the million. I respect that more than Sugar's crying and making excuses.

He was a jerk and he likes to be honest so he should appreciate her honesty. She wasn't going to kiss his butt like Bob. Bob showed ZERO backbone. He couldn't own up to any mistake. Everything he did he couldn't say sorry for. At least Sugar said sorry for her mistakes.And Charlie is a poor example. He couldn't vote different from his friends if you offered him a Million dollars. And you can't see past your dislike for her. hahaha.

j_jammer wrote: He was a jerk and he likes to be honest so he should appreciate her honesty. She wasn't going to kiss his butt like Bob. Bob showed ZERO backbone. He couldn't own up to any mistake. Everything he did he couldn't say sorry for. At least Sugar said sorry for her mistakes.And Charlie is a poor example. He couldn't vote different from his friends if you offered him a Million dollars. And you can't see past your dislike for her. hahaha.

What are you talking about? Honestly, I liked Sugar and would've liked to have seen her win, just like I enjoyed watching Parvati win last season. She was a good strategic player, and seems like a really nice person - but she blew the game in the home stretch.I disagree that Bob didn't show backbone. He should've apologized to Ken for not letting him victimize him!? I guess it would go something like this:"Kenny, I'm so sorry for keeping my immunity idol from you. What I should've done is given it to you, along with a sharpened knife, and turned my back so you could stab me mercilessly. I should've gone along blindly like the rest of the sheep, and let you blindside and embarrass me just like Erik last season."Give me a break. Bob is in the game to win for himself, not to help Ken get farther.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 12/15/2008 02:00:11

He showed no backbone.He IS THE ONE that screwed Randy over. He did it. It was his idea to do that unnecessary thing and then he got mad at Sugar? He can't take responsibility for his own actions. His actions. He should have said yeah I lied to you kenny. You lied to me. We are even. He has to blame someone else. The only reason he won is because they didn't want to give it to Sugar. He didn't win because he deserved it. This is the first time someone's won to spite someone else. Did you see Corinne Jump for the money Bob won? This jury is the most spiteful of all juries.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 12/15/2008 02:14:40

j_jammer wrote: He showed no backbone.He IS THE ONE that screwed Randy over. He did it. It was his idea to do that unnecessary thing and then he got mad at Sugar? He can't take responsibility for his own actions. His actions. He should have said yeah I lied to you kenny. You lied to me. We are even. He has to blame someone else. The only reason he won is because they didn't want to give it to Sugar. He didn't win because he deserved it. This is the first time someone's won to spite someone else. Did you see Corinne Jump for the money Bob won? This jury is the most spiteful of all juries.

On the contrary, I think he showed plenty of backbone in the way he handled the jury, but I've already gone over this.How was giving Randy the fake idol Bob's idea? As I remember it, he showed it to Sugar. Sugar told him that if he gave it to Randy and told him it was real, she would align with him and do what she could to get him further in the game. Since Bob was already in the minority, he had nothing to lose by doing it - from what we saw, he was just looking for a way to get further in the game.And at the final tribal council, how did he not own up to giving Randy the idol? He said, "Yeah, I gave it to you - that wasn't my original plan for the idol, but I had to give it to you to get further in the game. I gave it to you for strategic reasons." Then he amended it by saying "But I didn't think it was appropriate the way you were laughed at over it, and I'm sorry for doing it."In other words, he owned up to making the decision to do it, and admits he's sorry for it. How is that "not taking responsibility"? By definition, he took responsibility by admitting that he did it and apologizing. He wasn't the one laughing hysterically at Randy, so he DOES still have a right to feel bad for the guy, doesn't he?And yes, "I lied to you, you lied to me, get over it" was essentially what Bob said to Ken when asked about the immunity deal. He admitted he made the deal with Ken. He admitted that when he found out Ken was about to backstab him, he broke his word. He ADMITTED that. He admitted he broke the deal. What more do you want, a written confession and letter of apology? He owned up to that betrayal, and readily admitted that he didn't fulfill the deal and had no intention of doing so. That's backbone, in my opinion. What more do you want from the guy? Who else are you implying he blamed for it? He flat-out admitted that he broke the deal.And as for Sugar, if she'd truly deserved the win, SOMEONE would've voted for her - maybe not the Kota 4, but she should've gotten more votes than Susie. She obviously blew everyone off at the final tribal council, and barely attempted to answer their questions. How does that deserve a win?

i didnt read all everybodys rants, but i found 3 less entertaining especially since i hated 2 out of the 3(sugar, susie) im even more pissed that susie got 3 votes really chapped my ass

Exactly.Bob didn't come up with a single plan at all and could not take responsibility for his own voting. Every time Sugar voted that person was gone. Her name was not written down once. She had a hand in getting every single jury member off the game except for Marcus. She outsmarted every Jury member.She outlasted every single one.She outwitted every single one.Bob just outlasted. he didn't do anything more.The jury voted for him out of spite. Humble is how Sugar answered. She didn't realize how much power she had the entire game. She only realized it towards the end. Bob was cocky where he was. He lacked the even handedness he swore he had a handle on and he was greedy. The reason he was there was Sugar. Had he not had her he wouldn't have gotten there.And he should have told Corinne to go to hell or I'm not answering that.....but he didn't. Zero backbone.

I think one of the best shows was survivor outback, and it was nice to wait to the last minute to see who the winner was. Three is to many, and on top of everything CBS.com did not show the final two hour show. I think that CBS is losing their touch, very few shows are shown anymore. If it was not for the CSI's I would not even watch CBS.

zvelf wrote: Final 3 is better than a final 2 most of the time (but it depends on the season) for all the reasons jtrentvv gave. Sometimes Survivor chooses a final 3 even when the winner is a foregone conclusion because the audience would approve of the winner – Earl, but most of the time, it prevents the Yul-Ozzy-Becky scenario. There’s no way any one can argue F3 was worse there. Whether Yul or Ozzy won the final immunity in a F2, each would have taken Becky for an anticlimactic win whereas Yul vs. Ozzy head-to-head in the finals was one of the best finals ever. Even though you knew Becky wasn’t going to get a vote, a Yul vs. Ozzy final was not possible without her being there in a F3. For the people who keep saying the third person doesn’t matter, well, they matter because they put the two who do matter there. Otherwise the F2 would far more likely be the person who doesn’t matter anyway against only one who does matter instead of two.You aren't taking into consideration the fact that if there was a final two they would know. Becky knew her odds so she would backstab if she had to. If they knew there would be a final two Becky could have taken the idol from Yul and got her and Sundra to vote out Yul and try to win the final immunity and take Ozzy out. Iy can happen. Also don't mention Micro they were stupid to think there was a final three. If they keep up with the days then they should know the last challenge is ALWAYS on day 38 so really that wasn't a twist so much as a play on their stupidity. I also was rooting for Cirie after Natalie was eliminated.

rcjr68 wrote: i hate it its so much no fun to watch. should be as was before the best 2 to make it to the end n jury votes on. when theres 3 no one voting cares about the third.... same with watching it

My Husband and I were just discussing last night how much we hate a final 3. The last challenge should be an indurance challenge.

first what happened to the endurance challenged? That card hting was so stupid. I rather it be endurance see matty and bob the last two fighting for immunity. That would have been a better showdown than having them do the fire maker to see who stays

I don't enjoy watching a final three as much as I enjoy watching the final two. . . I really couldn't give one main reason for this, just what I perfer. I like how much more focused it is when it's just a final 2. Besides what's really the point of a final three if nobody votes for the 3rd person, they seem like dead wieght/taking up space. I guess to me it's just more intersting to watch a final2 than a final3.

Sadistikk wrote:

Which brings me to her downright awful tribal council performance, perhaps one of the worst in Survivor history (maybe second to Amanda's pitiful attempts in China). Charlie asked her why he should vote for her - her answer? "Well, I don't necessarily think you should... but it would be nice!" Great answer. Great argument.

I agree with you that Sugar's final TC performance was awful from the perspective of winning the money, but you write the above like this was her goal. It wasn't, which she had admitted in a few different episodes. From the perspective of entertainment though, I thought her final TC performance was highly enjoyable, especially her remarks to Randy and her gesture to Corrine.

rcjr68 wrote: i hate it its so much no fun to watch. should be as was before the best 2 to make it to the end n jury votes on. when theres 3 no one voting cares about the third.... same with watching it

I don't like the final 3, but I also don't like the jury. I don't know if there is a better way, but the jury sux. Bob was very deserving, but no way does Susie get more votes than sugar.

Survivor

Survivor Community Forum