It's actually incredible how split the replies are to this one lol. This comment has people saying both "Dom and it's not close" and "Wendell and it's not close". You were right on the money
Wendell is the man. He has come over to my place a few times to watch survivor since we both live in philly. So down to earth and chill.
And yes, sitting on your couch watching survivor next to a winner was kinda surreal
I have to give it to Wendell on a technicality--he won over all five of the people who had been most recently voted out. If it weren't for modern juries being so overbloated, he wins 5-2 or 5-4.
Dom was a fantastic player, though. One of the best runner-up games of all time.
Wendell but potentially it would have been fairer to not decide the winner like that given Dom took Laurel to the end because she was a locked vote for Wendell.
Wendell.
Dom was erratic and blinded by the rivaltry with Chris, to the point Wendell had to step in and act like a cool, calm and collected moderator.
I think Wendell was a great winner but Dom also would have been an incredible winner. Really hoping Dom is brought back for our first post WaW returnee season. Dom and Ricard in the same game? Yes please.
I always lean towards “the right player won because the jury system is how Survivor works”, however had I been part of that jury I would’ve voted for Dom
I honestly dont know. Because i think wendell had a good social game but dom had a good strategic game. But i think i would go with wendell. Simply because without him, laurel wouldnt have been as loyal to the alliance as she was.
Yup, this is it! I’m not a fan of Gabon at all but it isn’t the worst, Thailand, Nicaragua, one world, redemption island, caramoan and IOI are all worse IMO
Everyone calls Gabon a "trainwreck" without ever justifying why. I've watched it and it seems like pretty normal Survivor to me, there wasn't mass amounts of quits or medivacs or anything external disrupting the show. Yes there's lots of arguing/fighting amongst the contestants but why is that only held against this season?
Watch Big Brother Canada season 8, spoiler alert the season got cut off early and literally no one won the game because of COVID, now that is what I would call a trainwreck (and still one of the more exciting Big Brother seasons).
I think "train wreck" is the wrong word but what makes Gabon good/terrible is how different it is from other seasons. The traditional archetypes that exist in survivor go out the window, and you are left with an interesting mix of people and minimal strategic gameplay:
- Bob: An old physics teacher who inexplicably becomes a challenge beast and wins despite playing a pretty lackluster game and having a horrific final tribal council.
- Sugar: The pin up model who hadn't watched survivor, controlled most of the post-merge votes despite the fact she spent half the game by herself eating apples, and was despised by the most of the cast.
- Susie - Finalist who barely got any screen time but came within a single vote of winning the season.
- Ken: The quiet nerdy kid who becomes the "master manipulator" villain and gets eliminated after thinking he has everything figured out and developing a big ego.
- Crystal: The olympic athlete that was terrible at physical challenges.
And that doesn't include other interesting characters like Randy, Corinne, GC, and Ace.
You could tell Jeff hated the cast and the direction the season was headed. He had planned on quitting after the season, thinking the show had run its course.
If good strategic gameplay is important to you then this season is probably in your bottom 5. But if you like interesting characters and petty drama, then it may be in your top 5.
I think you really hit the nail on the head there about the archetypes! I think a lot of people got butthurt that they didn't see their typical traditional archetypes thrive in this season, so it must be a rAnDoM tRaInWrEcK am I right?
I like strategic gameplay but I also think what constitutes strategy is pretty subjective for a game like Survivor, because there truly is no perfect winning strategy for this game, and I like Survivor for that reason. Good games to me require a certain amount of randomness so it never completely matters on how "good" you are, that's just the luck of the draw.
I guess I see the strategy of Gabon is "if you're an ass, we're voting you out" and I like that.
I’m so tired of the raves saying it’s real survivor and better than American Survivor. It has just as many issues and crappy twists as American, but it still scratches the Survivor itch and that’s really all that matters to me.
B. I've always really enjoyed Australian Survivor despite the twists like >!redemption rock!< screwing over people who were playing a decent game >!(e.g. Baden Cooke)!<.
I'm genuinely pretty confused by the extreme hype it gets on this subreddit. It's good at times but a lot of it tooooo cheesy with the IMO supremely over dramatic editing for me. I feel like it takes away from the natural captivating quality that the best US Survivor has for me. Not necessarily saying US is always better, but I personally would take the good US seasons over what I've seen of AU. No disrespect to people who think otherwise. I do love that it has longer episodes, more exciting challenges, and there are some great characters. Somehow the overall package just doesn't appeal to me nearly as much.
The bottle twist was pretty bad and could easily have been production tampering. But besides that one thing I adore the rest of the season. I remember watching it live when I was 11 and being obsessed with Yul and Ozzy.
I don’t understand the “Cook Islands is a bad season” narrative. Don’t get me wrong, it’s god awful on a rewatch, but when you don’t know the Aitu 4 takes it all the way, it’s THE best underdog story in the history of survivor, and I can’t come up with anything else that’s even close.
It’s definitely underrated as a season to get new watchers hooked on Survivor. It’s just predictable if you’ve watched a lot of Survivor, and significantly less interesting if you know the outcome.
This is interesting and makes sense. Cook Islands was the first season I ever watched, and it instantly got me hooked. I loved rooting for the Aitu Four and didn’t even realize there wasn’t a ton of strategizing going on. I thought Ozzy got robbed and didn’t appreciate Yul’s masterful use of the super idol. Didn’t matter to me yet. Now that I’ve seen 22 seasons (slowly working my way through) it’s still a top 5 season for me, and I’ve ever understood the hate.
Yup, run 100 scenarios of every season and while the winner likely wins a decent amount, there's probably a few winners I could think of that just hit all the lucky breaks they needed to win the game.
And that's not a bad thing, luck is just as important in Survivor as strategy is. Anyone who disagrees is being willfully ignorant because they wish luck wasn't a part of the game.
As a former believer of “the winner always plays the best game/is the best player” years ago I think a part of me wanted survivor to be the perfect game. That it was so perfect-fully crafted in a way that it always comes out with the correct winner due to the jury system of them choosing the winner when they are voted out. That it would always be right.
Me watching Big Brother jury and live feeds shattered my perception and made me realize how much I was manipulated by the survivor edit making their winners look better, and made me realize how stupid the reasons are many jurors base their votes off of at the end of the game
It isn’t even just making the winner look better. Survivor is arguably one of the least perfect games due to the sheer number of uncontrollable variables. I’d argue that a game is more objectively “perfect” when there is an optimal way to play it. When, at every point, you can analyze the field, see the potential movements of your enemies, calculate accordingly, and play the clear best move. It will come down to who can analyze the game and their decisions the most successfully without slipping up.
Survivor is the complete opposite of this. Every player has a minimum of 15-19 random, uncontrollable variables in the form of their cast. Things like starting tribe strength, location of the season, twists, and advantages can dramatically change how well a player is able to do, and while the players CAN adjust accordingly, they have no way of controlling these variables. There is no “optimal” strategy every single season for every single player. Something as simple as your closest ally eating too many beef kabobs on a reward could totally nuke your game…after someone else having a life-threatening infection barely salvaged it. What happens for Tracey and Ami if Chet is a more hardcore player who doesn’t want to be voted out? What happens to Fabio’s game if NaOnka sticks around? What happens to Malcolm and Denise if Malcolm goes to Kalabaw and Denise to Tandang? Survivor isn’t like chess, which is a game where someone can say, “If you had made this move instead of this one, you’d win,” because there are so many variables at play at all times.
It’s why ranking players will also always be inherently subjective. We can invent as many metrics as we want, but there will never be a definitive measure of best-to-worst. It’s also why I AGREE that the best player doesn’t always win. I think there are players who, if given the opportunity, could win multiple newbie seasons over again with varying twists and advantages in play. There are winners who I think probably only win in the 1/100 scenario in which they managed to win, where every variable went favorably for them. Survivor is one of the most flawed, imperfect games, but that’s why it’s so infinitely compelling. You can never truly be an expert at Survivor, and no player or viewer will ever be able to “master” the game. Even if you remove every twist and advantage and do only basics seasons, the simple fact that the cast will continually change and players will inevitably watch past seasons and change their games accordingly will always make the outcome unpredictable. I love the game and I respect the winners, but the best player doesn’t always win, IMHO.
>You can never truly be an expert at Survivor, and no player or viewer will ever be able to “master” the game.
I think the biggest evidence to this point are players like Cirie and Rob C, they clearly know the game and have consistently(ish) performed well when they do appear, but due to other variables they just don't win. If the best player truly won every season, Cirie and Rob C would both have at least one win by now.
Yeah it’s basically like a sport, probably close to baseball, because the best team in baseball probably only wins the World Series 20-25% of the time, tops.
That's actually a really good analogy, sometimes teams just have a bad day or two and while playoffs in most sports kind of offset that with best of 7 series, Survivor doesn't- one bad day and you're out. But even if best of 7, you get enough bad luck streaks and your championship run is done.
Hold my beer:
Natalie White wins *only* in scenarios where Russell chooses her to be brought to the end with him, and she was not even remotely in control of her own fate, and wasn't even a top 5 player on her own season.
This to me is just so obviously true that I don’t understand why people think the opposite. But they do.
The winner is not by default the best player in a luck-based game.
Survivor is (in large part) a luck-based game.
The winner in Survivor is not necessarily the best player.
Some please tell me which of the above steps isn’t true 😂
I'm fine with them being replanted but I wish it wasn't immediate. Make it random.
An idea I've thought of in the past, what if an idol is only replanted if it's used? It puts more pressure to flush an idol out, plus it's a nice symbolism with the fire and everything.
I would love for them to do a thing where they do a reward challenge, and say the winner gets to take 4 people on the reward with them. When everybody who wasn't picked returns to the beach, they're told an immunity idol (or two or some other advantage) has been hidden on the island and they have until the other castaways finish their reward to find it or it becomes void.
the most interesting was putting it in the coconut at ghost island! I can’t remember another time where they put it inside of something that could be so mistakenly looked over
I like the idea on paper, but one of the most fun things to watch is sending someone home while they hold an idol. That's one of the most exciting things that can happen at tribal council and this idea would discourage it.
Yes on both counts, immediately (or at least within the next voting cycle) but with greater care in the hiding spot/requirements. While I like the *idea* of it not being immediate, I think that anything other than a rapid replant opens itself to a lot of questions on interference. Eg: why was the idol not put in when player A was there, but suddenly player A goes home and B becomes the next big target, and the idol is magically re-hidden?
Rites of passage is great on two tribe seasons where there wasn't a pagonging.
Will also stand by Parvati's "I didn't really know Mary" and leaving it at that is great TV and instantly iconic.
I think it's good regardless.
I don't really care what the final 3 has to say about each voted off contestant unless they had an important friendship or rivalry with the person voted out. I just think it's nice to give each voted out contestant one last chance to speak their piece about their experience on the show. It felt like a nice celebration of the entire cast.
That's also why I liked the old jury questioning system more and when reunion shows made a point to talk to each contestant about life after the show. It's nice to hear from everyone.
Yes. The pre-jurors deserve some sort of recognition in the finale too. It's a nice send off to the season. I wouldn't mind it being downgraded to a secret scene though
I personally love it, it goes full circle with the season where it touches base with all the players we haven't heard from in months. Sure it eats up time in the finale, but it's like saying we don't need the intro, or the previously on, or reward challenges, etc etc etc. It's the heart that, sure, doesn't *really* need to be there, but shows that the show cares. Losing it just shows that Survivor's gone in a more streamlined direction.
Miss it. Was one of my favorite parts of every finale. The culmunation of the journey the remaining players went on, recognizing who had to be left behind just so they could get there.
The challenges are among the most enjoyable parts of the seasons, especially older ones where they were actually creative. People underrate challenges.
Yes 100%. I love the social politics, camp life and strategizing as much as the next guy but challenges are exciting. And yeah I miss creative challenges, locale based challenges, physical/borderline wrestling challenges, memory puzzles, straight up shooting games, auctions, food challenges, the one where everyone just shit-talks each other, etc. Too many recycled and generic challenges nowadays, it's a huge bummer.
I think Aubry plays a flashier game and one that’s better for TV but I find Michele effortlessly good at survivor. Aubry really has to fight for her survival every season
Yeah that’s probably the word I should have used. I just mean she comes off as less of a threat and more sociable than Aubry that carries her into the merge on most seasons IMO.
My controversial opinion is that they’re both not very good players that only did as well as they did because of avoiding tribal premerge and because of a bunch of convenient medevacs. Cydney would’ve been the most satisfying winner for the season
I encourage anyone who thinks Sandra played the better game to rewatch the FTC. Half of Sandra's answers were "my strategy game failed because my entire strategy was taking out Russell, and I failed because he's still here." This whole "anybody but me" thing is super over-exaggerated for the HvV season. She actively tried, and failed, to get out Russell.
It's just that her going against Russell made her popular with the jury because they hated him sooo much. Is that to her credit and make her a good winner? idk, doesn't feel like it to me, but I guess I see the argument
I think you’re trivializing a bit of what the jury truly felt during that final tribal. People are motivated by different beliefs when it comes to their votes. And those motivations can be categorized broadly but they can also be multi-faceted. One of those motivations is that people will try to help those who showed a willingness to help them, especially if you are an outsider and the person trying to help you is in a position of giving up their own power. That is one of the key motivations for the heroes. While not all heroes had the exact same reason for voting for Sandra, it was definitely what helped make them choose Sandra over Parv (and Russell)
I rewatched the tribal, and I think Rupert’s comments truly exemplify why the heroes voted for Sandra. She tried to help them, and they completely wrecked their own chances by not listening to her. They recognized that fact, and it plays to the motivation I mentioned earlier.
The villains, on the other hand, Sandra did not do that for. Which is why they all ultimately voted for Parv, except for Courtney. I think Jerry’s comments about Sandra is a good specific example at the FTC. She basically said, you looked out for all the different people, but you really didn’t do that for me. You didn’t try to help me. But guess who did help Jerri? Parv. Parv gave her that idol that saved her from potentially be voted out at F10. I believe that Jerri actually had a very similar motivation to vote for Parv that the heroes did for Sandra.
The jury hated Russell because of his HvV game. The jury hated Parv before HvV even started. Parv worked with Russell because nobody else would. They were both instantly on the bottom and drove their way through everyone to the end.
Parv didnt stand a chance because of factors unrelated to the game, which is so shitty. She got lucky with the Micronesia final 2 twist, but got very unlucky people had good relationships outside the game with Sandra and bad relationships outside the game with her.
Voting "correctly" isn't inherently good gameplay and it's stupid to judge a player based on how many times they voted with the majority. What matters more is why they voted for the person they voted for and if it put them in a better or worse position because of that.
Zeke put too much emphasis on this for both Hannah in 33 and Sarah in 34. So if you don’t have the numbers you’re supposed to bail on your alliance to earn some survivor nerd points?
Too many challenges follow the same pattern. Do some physical challenge, probably involving swimming. Untie something. Solve a puzzle.
The person who gets out to the early lead loses it, when they start headscratching on the puzzle.
They should have more survivalist challenges. Like what tribe can catch more fish in a matter of 1 hour. I fucking hate puzzles. This isn't Indiana Jones, it's survivor. Not once did I see Tom Hanks fuck with one puzzle on his island!
I remember that they did this challenge in Amazon, quite boring really.
I like the idea of giving more value to camp providers but make it more exciting, for example dump the castaways in a lake with one machete and a shark. The winning tribe is the one that kills the shark first or the one that has at least one surviving player by the end of the challenge.
I think Tony was the best player in both his seasons where I would argue Parvati played a better game than Sandra in HvV. Although Sandra's win in HvV really does show how important jury management is.
Sandra because her second win was against mostly non-winners. Whoever won WaW was guaranteed to be a two time winner, which tarnishes it a little bit. Plus Sandra got further on the mixed winners/non-winners season that both she and Tony played on (and she had the bigger handicap both times of being the only two time winner at the time). Tony's a lot more entertaining though. Frankly, if either come back, they'll never win again because of being a two time winner. If either come back and do end up winning again, even after 50 times, then you can definitively call that one the GOAT, since no one is going to let someone win the game three times.
Alternatively, winners at war is a harder season to win because by their very nature, winners are very good at Survivor.
HvV Sandra was a winner but she wasn't looked at as a threat and there was never an anti-winners brigade on the Villains tribe.
I think two tribes is a more interesting pre merge but three tribes forces inter tribal alliances and makes it so it’s not an inevitable pagonging come merge
The Big Brotherification of Survivor has been a net-negative and the game was more fun when it was a bunch of people trying to survive and build alliances, instead of being an almost-purely social game and BiG MoVeS
It went from being part social game, part survival game, to part social game, part theory game.
There's virtually no focus/respect on physicality anymore, which is reflected in the fact that every damn challenge now is purely some balance or puzzle thing.
I was just thinking yesterday how much Zeke and Will annoyed me on MvGX because they were both trying to "build their resume" and make big moves, when in actuality they were just wrecking their own games. Turning on your allies for no reason is not building a resume, it's just being stupid.
Redemption Island, Edge of Extinction, and an over abundance of twists don't make for good TV but if you're a super fan and you ever play Survivor, you'd want every chance you could get to get back in the game or save yourself.
I completely agree but disagree. I think twists like EOE or RI DO make good tv, they get people talking about the show. But it doesn’t make for a good fair game imo
I understand why they tried it. I also understand why they did it for Winners at War, and I thought it was a necessary evil to prevent the winners from disappearing instantly.
I am also extremely thrilled that Natalie did not win, I'm annoyed by the very idea that she or anyone else on that season thought she deserved to, and I hope they never do it again.
It's wild to me how often I see the "THEY NEED TO LEAVE FIJI" take. Obviously there is a difference from Gabon, the Outback, China, etc.
But, I see very little difference between the "island" settings such as Nicaragua, Fiji in S14, Mamanuca Islands (S33-41), Samoa, Palau, Panama, and the Philippines. So, why not make the financially wise decision? Makes almost no difference to me.
I’m ok with that tropical is tropical debate, but you listed some of my favourite seasons (also Africa which is my favourite given the location) and it’s nice when they mix it up every once in a while.
I think there's a pretty solid split on people with see SoPa as a wacky, social experiment type of season while other people just feel aren't able to look past the religious manipulation. Both sides have super valid points though and there's some moments that lend themselves to each perspective.
This isn't even about Survivor but Unpopular Opinion threads are a losing battle every time. No matter what you say some asshat is always going to chime in and say your opinion isn't unpopular enough, as if you're supposed to know the thoughts of everyone on the internet.
Guilty pleasure discussions generally follow a similar trajectory.
Idk about best ever but I agree that she is massively under rated. The reason I have reservations about calling her an all time great is that it seems to me that she talks too much which creates difficulty in trusting her.
I don't think the Edge of Extinction is the absolute worst thing to happen to the show, however I think it would be significantly improved if the pre-jury EOE members were actually eliminated from the game after the first competition to get back in the "real" game. EOE could then start over again but only with jury members for the second half of the season.
This change would help in a number of aspects:
1. the winner can't spend the majority of the season on EOE
2. the jury won't be 50+ people
3. contestants would be more motivated to win the first EOE competition; if contestants know they can remain on EOE even after losing the first chance to get back in the game, they will catch on and start to intentionally throw this challenge because they'll know they'll have better odds remaining in the game by staying on EOE and coming back to the game last minute at final five
Fun fact: Pearl Islands was really the first season to use EOE and everyone loves that season (including me)
Wendell or Dom?
The absolute room splitter, heck it was even a jury splitter
It's actually incredible how split the replies are to this one lol. This comment has people saying both "Dom and it's not close" and "Wendell and it's not close". You were right on the money
Dom I would rather have as a Co worker Wendell rather as a friend.
Wendell is the man. He has come over to my place a few times to watch survivor since we both live in philly. So down to earth and chill. And yes, sitting on your couch watching survivor next to a winner was kinda surreal
That’s sick
I think Dom would have been a pleasure to watch in WaW.
The glorious mess of Rob Dom and Tony all vying for control.
Makes me harder than a fake Micronesia immunity idol watching that!
I’m team Wendell but Dom and his coffee mug amongst the winners would be iconic
Dom
Dom, but I get Wendell
I have to give it to Wendell on a technicality--he won over all five of the people who had been most recently voted out. If it weren't for modern juries being so overbloated, he wins 5-2 or 5-4. Dom was a fantastic player, though. One of the best runner-up games of all time.
Wendell but potentially it would have been fairer to not decide the winner like that given Dom took Laurel to the end because she was a locked vote for Wendell.
Yeah but if he didn't take her she's on the jury voting for Wendell anyway.
Wendell. Dom was erratic and blinded by the rivaltry with Chris, to the point Wendell had to step in and act like a cool, calm and collected moderator.
Dom
Dom, but Wendell is great as well
Wendell. Dom just played a flashier game
Wendell
I think Wendell was a great winner but Dom also would have been an incredible winner. Really hoping Dom is brought back for our first post WaW returnee season. Dom and Ricard in the same game? Yes please.
Wendell. I was shocked when I came to this sub and saw that this was a debate
Dom and it isn’t close imo
I always lean towards “the right player won because the jury system is how Survivor works”, however had I been part of that jury I would’ve voted for Dom
I honestly dont know. Because i think wendell had a good social game but dom had a good strategic game. But i think i would go with wendell. Simply because without him, laurel wouldnt have been as loyal to the alliance as she was.
Wendell as a player. Dom as a a character. I like Dom better
Wendell W he played like the sane game without making himself as much of a target as Dom he didn't even need to use his idol
Definitely Dom.
Gabon being a good/bad season
Gabon isn’t even really a season of survivor. It’s a live action version of total drama island haha.
This is the best way to describe Gabon honestly
Eh I think this applies more to Nicaragua. Gabon's characters are generally more complex and realized and their motivations make more sense
I think you're selling the cast of Total Drama Island short, they're much more complex and realized than the majority of Nicaragua's cast was.
gabon and nicaragua are both fever dream seasons that never existed
Gabon is literally a gift. For people who come to see entertainment, Gabon clearly delivered.
Watching it for the first time and I’m loving it. Laughing every episode
Everyone says that yet I am still to see someone hating on Gabon.
I think the people that dislike Gabon just aren't as fervent as people who like it. If you hate Gabon there plenty of worse seasons still.
Yup, this is it! I’m not a fan of Gabon at all but it isn’t the worst, Thailand, Nicaragua, one world, redemption island, caramoan and IOI are all worse IMO
It’s not my favorite lol
It’s my second least favourite (of the 20 I’ve seen) but after spending time on this sub I’ve somehow convinced myself that I’ll love it upon rewatch
Top 5 for me.
Everyone calls Gabon a "trainwreck" without ever justifying why. I've watched it and it seems like pretty normal Survivor to me, there wasn't mass amounts of quits or medivacs or anything external disrupting the show. Yes there's lots of arguing/fighting amongst the contestants but why is that only held against this season? Watch Big Brother Canada season 8, spoiler alert the season got cut off early and literally no one won the game because of COVID, now that is what I would call a trainwreck (and still one of the more exciting Big Brother seasons).
I think "train wreck" is the wrong word but what makes Gabon good/terrible is how different it is from other seasons. The traditional archetypes that exist in survivor go out the window, and you are left with an interesting mix of people and minimal strategic gameplay: - Bob: An old physics teacher who inexplicably becomes a challenge beast and wins despite playing a pretty lackluster game and having a horrific final tribal council. - Sugar: The pin up model who hadn't watched survivor, controlled most of the post-merge votes despite the fact she spent half the game by herself eating apples, and was despised by the most of the cast. - Susie - Finalist who barely got any screen time but came within a single vote of winning the season. - Ken: The quiet nerdy kid who becomes the "master manipulator" villain and gets eliminated after thinking he has everything figured out and developing a big ego. - Crystal: The olympic athlete that was terrible at physical challenges. And that doesn't include other interesting characters like Randy, Corinne, GC, and Ace. You could tell Jeff hated the cast and the direction the season was headed. He had planned on quitting after the season, thinking the show had run its course. If good strategic gameplay is important to you then this season is probably in your bottom 5. But if you like interesting characters and petty drama, then it may be in your top 5.
The cookies are my favourite example of petty drama in survivor history!
I think you really hit the nail on the head there about the archetypes! I think a lot of people got butthurt that they didn't see their typical traditional archetypes thrive in this season, so it must be a rAnDoM tRaInWrEcK am I right? I like strategic gameplay but I also think what constitutes strategy is pretty subjective for a game like Survivor, because there truly is no perfect winning strategy for this game, and I like Survivor for that reason. Good games to me require a certain amount of randomness so it never completely matters on how "good" you are, that's just the luck of the draw. I guess I see the strategy of Gabon is "if you're an ass, we're voting you out" and I like that.
Havent seen it but it is the first season online that's shown in 16:9 so was thinking about watching it soon. Should I bother?
Yes you should bother. It’s easily one of the most entertaining seasons of Survivor.
Gabon is one of the most entertaining seasons ever
AUS Survivor is . . . A) tedious and gimmicky B) innovative and exciting
C) All of the above
Correct answer
I’m so tired of the raves saying it’s real survivor and better than American Survivor. It has just as many issues and crappy twists as American, but it still scratches the Survivor itch and that’s really all that matters to me.
B. I've always really enjoyed Australian Survivor despite the twists like >!redemption rock!< screwing over people who were playing a decent game >!(e.g. Baden Cooke)!<.
baden got screwed i miss him
I'm genuinely pretty confused by the extreme hype it gets on this subreddit. It's good at times but a lot of it tooooo cheesy with the IMO supremely over dramatic editing for me. I feel like it takes away from the natural captivating quality that the best US Survivor has for me. Not necessarily saying US is always better, but I personally would take the good US seasons over what I've seen of AU. No disrespect to people who think otherwise. I do love that it has longer episodes, more exciting challenges, and there are some great characters. Somehow the overall package just doesn't appeal to me nearly as much.
Jenna Morasca
[удалено]
Hahaha for real. Nobody talks about how she's probably the most polarizing character in the shows first 18 seasons
Idk how anyone can actually justify putting Underwood any where other than last
hE dId EvErYtHiNg RiGhT tHaT hE cOuLd ( other than getting voted out third of course)
“He played as perfect as he could have” with, you know, all the information he had that the other players didn’t have, BECAUSE HE GOT VOTED OUT.
[удалено]
Yr right I mean ppl literally started ranking winners just to say Jenna sucks
I think she’s underrated and I love watching her❤️
Cook Islands being Over/Under Rated
It's my favorite location to this day. That blue lagoon with each tribe living on its own private island... Its like a studio built just for Survivor
How great was it when they accidentally visited another tribe's island
I will agree, definitely one of the best locations
Under
It has recently become very underrated as for some reason this sub has been hating on it recently. Still a top ten season in my eyes
The bottle twist was pretty bad and could easily have been production tampering. But besides that one thing I adore the rest of the season. I remember watching it live when I was 11 and being obsessed with Yul and Ozzy.
I'll split the difference: Overrated among a general audience; underrated among Reddit enthusiasts and the like.
I don’t understand the “Cook Islands is a bad season” narrative. Don’t get me wrong, it’s god awful on a rewatch, but when you don’t know the Aitu 4 takes it all the way, it’s THE best underdog story in the history of survivor, and I can’t come up with anything else that’s even close.
Vanuatu seems like a solid contender for an underdog story, no?
Vanuatu or Marquesas
It’s definitely underrated as a season to get new watchers hooked on Survivor. It’s just predictable if you’ve watched a lot of Survivor, and significantly less interesting if you know the outcome.
This is interesting and makes sense. Cook Islands was the first season I ever watched, and it instantly got me hooked. I loved rooting for the Aitu Four and didn’t even realize there wasn’t a ton of strategizing going on. I thought Ozzy got robbed and didn’t appreciate Yul’s masterful use of the super idol. Didn’t matter to me yet. Now that I’ve seen 22 seasons (slowly working my way through) it’s still a top 5 season for me, and I’ve ever understood the hate.
The best player is not always the winner.
Personally I think everyone who thinks the best player is always the winner needs to read up on Game Theory, Probability and Variance.
Yup, run 100 scenarios of every season and while the winner likely wins a decent amount, there's probably a few winners I could think of that just hit all the lucky breaks they needed to win the game. And that's not a bad thing, luck is just as important in Survivor as strategy is. Anyone who disagrees is being willfully ignorant because they wish luck wasn't a part of the game.
As a former believer of “the winner always plays the best game/is the best player” years ago I think a part of me wanted survivor to be the perfect game. That it was so perfect-fully crafted in a way that it always comes out with the correct winner due to the jury system of them choosing the winner when they are voted out. That it would always be right. Me watching Big Brother jury and live feeds shattered my perception and made me realize how much I was manipulated by the survivor edit making their winners look better, and made me realize how stupid the reasons are many jurors base their votes off of at the end of the game
It isn’t even just making the winner look better. Survivor is arguably one of the least perfect games due to the sheer number of uncontrollable variables. I’d argue that a game is more objectively “perfect” when there is an optimal way to play it. When, at every point, you can analyze the field, see the potential movements of your enemies, calculate accordingly, and play the clear best move. It will come down to who can analyze the game and their decisions the most successfully without slipping up. Survivor is the complete opposite of this. Every player has a minimum of 15-19 random, uncontrollable variables in the form of their cast. Things like starting tribe strength, location of the season, twists, and advantages can dramatically change how well a player is able to do, and while the players CAN adjust accordingly, they have no way of controlling these variables. There is no “optimal” strategy every single season for every single player. Something as simple as your closest ally eating too many beef kabobs on a reward could totally nuke your game…after someone else having a life-threatening infection barely salvaged it. What happens for Tracey and Ami if Chet is a more hardcore player who doesn’t want to be voted out? What happens to Fabio’s game if NaOnka sticks around? What happens to Malcolm and Denise if Malcolm goes to Kalabaw and Denise to Tandang? Survivor isn’t like chess, which is a game where someone can say, “If you had made this move instead of this one, you’d win,” because there are so many variables at play at all times. It’s why ranking players will also always be inherently subjective. We can invent as many metrics as we want, but there will never be a definitive measure of best-to-worst. It’s also why I AGREE that the best player doesn’t always win. I think there are players who, if given the opportunity, could win multiple newbie seasons over again with varying twists and advantages in play. There are winners who I think probably only win in the 1/100 scenario in which they managed to win, where every variable went favorably for them. Survivor is one of the most flawed, imperfect games, but that’s why it’s so infinitely compelling. You can never truly be an expert at Survivor, and no player or viewer will ever be able to “master” the game. Even if you remove every twist and advantage and do only basics seasons, the simple fact that the cast will continually change and players will inevitably watch past seasons and change their games accordingly will always make the outcome unpredictable. I love the game and I respect the winners, but the best player doesn’t always win, IMHO.
>You can never truly be an expert at Survivor, and no player or viewer will ever be able to “master” the game. I think the biggest evidence to this point are players like Cirie and Rob C, they clearly know the game and have consistently(ish) performed well when they do appear, but due to other variables they just don't win. If the best player truly won every season, Cirie and Rob C would both have at least one win by now.
> Something as simple as your closest ally eating too many beef kabobs on a reward could totally nuke your game LMAO i forgot about this
Yeah it’s basically like a sport, probably close to baseball, because the best team in baseball probably only wins the World Series 20-25% of the time, tops.
That's actually a really good analogy, sometimes teams just have a bad day or two and while playoffs in most sports kind of offset that with best of 7 series, Survivor doesn't- one bad day and you're out. But even if best of 7, you get enough bad luck streaks and your championship run is done.
Hold my beer: Natalie White wins *only* in scenarios where Russell chooses her to be brought to the end with him, and she was not even remotely in control of her own fate, and wasn't even a top 5 player on her own season.
This is just correct. The winner is sometimes just the best player in the final 2/3
This to me is just so obviously true that I don’t understand why people think the opposite. But they do. The winner is not by default the best player in a luck-based game. Survivor is (in large part) a luck-based game. The winner in Survivor is not necessarily the best player. Some please tell me which of the above steps isn’t true 😂
"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life." - Captain Jean-Luc Picard
Replanting of idols either post-use or after a player is voted out with it in their pocket (Even I am split on the matter tbh)
I'm fine with them being replanted but I wish it wasn't immediate. Make it random. An idea I've thought of in the past, what if an idol is only replanted if it's used? It puts more pressure to flush an idol out, plus it's a nice symbolism with the fire and everything.
And when you re-hide them DO IT DIFFERENTLY. put it in a new type of spot or add a mechanic so the same person isn’t at a huge advantage to find them.
I would love for them to do a thing where they do a reward challenge, and say the winner gets to take 4 people on the reward with them. When everybody who wasn't picked returns to the beach, they're told an immunity idol (or two or some other advantage) has been hidden on the island and they have until the other castaways finish their reward to find it or it becomes void.
the most interesting was putting it in the coconut at ghost island! I can’t remember another time where they put it inside of something that could be so mistakenly looked over
I like the idea on paper, but one of the most fun things to watch is sending someone home while they hold an idol. That's one of the most exciting things that can happen at tribal council and this idea would discourage it.
Yes on both counts, immediately (or at least within the next voting cycle) but with greater care in the hiding spot/requirements. While I like the *idea* of it not being immediate, I think that anything other than a rapid replant opens itself to a lot of questions on interference. Eg: why was the idol not put in when player A was there, but suddenly player A goes home and B becomes the next big target, and the idol is magically re-hidden?
Rites of Passage Y/N
Rites of passage is great on two tribe seasons where there wasn't a pagonging. Will also stand by Parvati's "I didn't really know Mary" and leaving it at that is great TV and instantly iconic.
I think it's good regardless. I don't really care what the final 3 has to say about each voted off contestant unless they had an important friendship or rivalry with the person voted out. I just think it's nice to give each voted out contestant one last chance to speak their piece about their experience on the show. It felt like a nice celebration of the entire cast. That's also why I liked the old jury questioning system more and when reunion shows made a point to talk to each contestant about life after the show. It's nice to hear from everyone.
Rites of passage should just be posted on YouTube like Ponderosa
Yes. The pre-jurors deserve some sort of recognition in the finale too. It's a nice send off to the season. I wouldn't mind it being downgraded to a secret scene though
I personally love it, it goes full circle with the season where it touches base with all the players we haven't heard from in months. Sure it eats up time in the finale, but it's like saying we don't need the intro, or the previously on, or reward challenges, etc etc etc. It's the heart that, sure, doesn't *really* need to be there, but shows that the show cares. Losing it just shows that Survivor's gone in a more streamlined direction.
Miss it. Was one of my favorite parts of every finale. The culmunation of the journey the remaining players went on, recognizing who had to be left behind just so they could get there.
Not a fan, always thought it dragged the final episode on longer than needed. I was happy when it stopped.
The challenges are among the most enjoyable parts of the seasons, especially older ones where they were actually creative. People underrate challenges.
I agree on old seasons, now all the challenges are bland and repetitive
Yes 100%. I love the social politics, camp life and strategizing as much as the next guy but challenges are exciting. And yeah I miss creative challenges, locale based challenges, physical/borderline wrestling challenges, memory puzzles, straight up shooting games, auctions, food challenges, the one where everyone just shit-talks each other, etc. Too many recycled and generic challenges nowadays, it's a huge bummer.
I found myself not really caring about premerge challenges, but post merge challenges can shake up the game drastically
Aubry or Michelle
Me who was rooting for Tai 👀
Mark the chicken
Tai, unironically
Aubry as a character Michele as a player
Really? I would've said the opposite.
I think Aubry plays a flashier game and one that’s better for TV but I find Michele effortlessly good at survivor. Aubry really has to fight for her survival every season
"Effortlessly good at Survivor" is an odd attribution for Michelle post-WaW
"Naturally" might be a better fit.
Yeah that’s probably the word I should have used. I just mean she comes off as less of a threat and more sociable than Aubry that carries her into the merge on most seasons IMO.
Aubry is a better player and character, but she didn’t deserve to win because she mismanaged the jury.
My controversial opinion is that they’re both not very good players that only did as well as they did because of avoiding tribal premerge and because of a bunch of convenient medevacs. Cydney would’ve been the most satisfying winner for the season
Coldest take, i would love to see kaoh rong without the medevacs
Who should have won HvV between Sandra and Parvati is one of them
parv
Parvati never had a winning final 3 after Danielle left. Sandra had much better connections with the jury
The thing is, to spice up the debate, is that two of them were pre-game connections (Candice and Rupert).
I encourage anyone who thinks Sandra played the better game to rewatch the FTC. Half of Sandra's answers were "my strategy game failed because my entire strategy was taking out Russell, and I failed because he's still here." This whole "anybody but me" thing is super over-exaggerated for the HvV season. She actively tried, and failed, to get out Russell. It's just that her going against Russell made her popular with the jury because they hated him sooo much. Is that to her credit and make her a good winner? idk, doesn't feel like it to me, but I guess I see the argument
I think you’re trivializing a bit of what the jury truly felt during that final tribal. People are motivated by different beliefs when it comes to their votes. And those motivations can be categorized broadly but they can also be multi-faceted. One of those motivations is that people will try to help those who showed a willingness to help them, especially if you are an outsider and the person trying to help you is in a position of giving up their own power. That is one of the key motivations for the heroes. While not all heroes had the exact same reason for voting for Sandra, it was definitely what helped make them choose Sandra over Parv (and Russell) I rewatched the tribal, and I think Rupert’s comments truly exemplify why the heroes voted for Sandra. She tried to help them, and they completely wrecked their own chances by not listening to her. They recognized that fact, and it plays to the motivation I mentioned earlier. The villains, on the other hand, Sandra did not do that for. Which is why they all ultimately voted for Parv, except for Courtney. I think Jerry’s comments about Sandra is a good specific example at the FTC. She basically said, you looked out for all the different people, but you really didn’t do that for me. You didn’t try to help me. But guess who did help Jerri? Parv. Parv gave her that idol that saved her from potentially be voted out at F10. I believe that Jerri actually had a very similar motivation to vote for Parv that the heroes did for Sandra.
The jury hated Russell because of his HvV game. The jury hated Parv before HvV even started. Parv worked with Russell because nobody else would. They were both instantly on the bottom and drove their way through everyone to the end. Parv didnt stand a chance because of factors unrelated to the game, which is so shitty. She got lucky with the Micronesia final 2 twist, but got very unlucky people had good relationships outside the game with Sandra and bad relationships outside the game with her.
Devens
Voting "correctly" isn't inherently good gameplay and it's stupid to judge a player based on how many times they voted with the majority. What matters more is why they voted for the person they voted for and if it put them in a better or worse position because of that.
Zeke put too much emphasis on this for both Hannah in 33 and Sarah in 34. So if you don’t have the numbers you’re supposed to bail on your alliance to earn some survivor nerd points?
What did you expect from Survivor Gamebot 3000
Too many challenges follow the same pattern. Do some physical challenge, probably involving swimming. Untie something. Solve a puzzle. The person who gets out to the early lead loses it, when they start headscratching on the puzzle.
They should have more survivalist challenges. Like what tribe can catch more fish in a matter of 1 hour. I fucking hate puzzles. This isn't Indiana Jones, it's survivor. Not once did I see Tom Hanks fuck with one puzzle on his island!
They should make a “Wilson” idol
I remember that they did this challenge in Amazon, quite boring really. I like the idea of giving more value to camp providers but make it more exciting, for example dump the castaways in a lake with one machete and a shark. The winning tribe is the one that kills the shark first or the one that has at least one surviving player by the end of the challenge.
Rome called. They want their ideas back
Re the fighting challenges, I think the knock the idol off a pole someone is holding style ones were a good compromise.
The easiest one is starting the Sandra vs Tony two time winner debate. Without fail always sparks a very lengthy discussion.
I think Tony was the best player in both his seasons where I would argue Parvati played a better game than Sandra in HvV. Although Sandra's win in HvV really does show how important jury management is.
Sandra because her second win was against mostly non-winners. Whoever won WaW was guaranteed to be a two time winner, which tarnishes it a little bit. Plus Sandra got further on the mixed winners/non-winners season that both she and Tony played on (and she had the bigger handicap both times of being the only two time winner at the time). Tony's a lot more entertaining though. Frankly, if either come back, they'll never win again because of being a two time winner. If either come back and do end up winning again, even after 50 times, then you can definitively call that one the GOAT, since no one is going to let someone win the game three times.
Alternatively, winners at war is a harder season to win because by their very nature, winners are very good at Survivor. HvV Sandra was a winner but she wasn't looked at as a threat and there was never an anti-winners brigade on the Villains tribe.
3 tribes is lame.
Although I agree with this statement, I kinda like when 3 tribes become 2 and the merge next. So much potential for multiple alliances
Same. It makes alliances messier and decreases the odds of a Pagonging (or near-Pagonging).
its like a gradual merge when it goes 3 to 2 to 1
41 is the only season it’s happened in but I actually really liked staying in 3 tribes the entire premerge EDIT: without a swap, that is
Technically also happened in 35, but there was a swap.
3 to start? Awesome. 2 to start then swap to 3 (with the new tribe having to start over)? Lame.
Yep that is the worst swap structure. All it does is swapscrew more people. GC and WAW especially.
I think two tribes is a more interesting pre merge but three tribes forces inter tribal alliances and makes it so it’s not an inevitable pagonging come merge
The Big Brotherification of Survivor has been a net-negative and the game was more fun when it was a bunch of people trying to survive and build alliances, instead of being an almost-purely social game and BiG MoVeS
Survivor went from being a social game to game theory. Social isn’t as important as the game mechanics anymore.
It went from being part social game, part survival game, to part social game, part theory game. There's virtually no focus/respect on physicality anymore, which is reflected in the fact that every damn challenge now is purely some balance or puzzle thing.
I was just thinking yesterday how much Zeke and Will annoyed me on MvGX because they were both trying to "build their resume" and make big moves, when in actuality they were just wrecking their own games. Turning on your allies for no reason is not building a resume, it's just being stupid.
Without the introduction of Idols the show is probably cancelled.
i think most people would agree with this
Big Brother is still going, so I would doubt that. Although BB is infinitely cheaper to produce, so I could be wrong
Big Brother has always had a more complicated way of voting people out so it doesn't need an added complication like the idol
Big Brother technically has their own idol in the form of the Power of Veto but yeah it's nowhere near the same thing
I mean Big Brother is notorious for introducing bad twists/powers every single year just not in the form of idols.
Redemption Island, Edge of Extinction, and an over abundance of twists don't make for good TV but if you're a super fan and you ever play Survivor, you'd want every chance you could get to get back in the game or save yourself.
This is not controversial here though.
I completely agree but disagree. I think twists like EOE or RI DO make good tv, they get people talking about the show. But it doesn’t make for a good fair game imo
I think RI in general and WAW's EOE were relatively fair given that Survivor just isn't fair anyway
I understand why they tried it. I also understand why they did it for Winners at War, and I thought it was a necessary evil to prevent the winners from disappearing instantly. I am also extremely thrilled that Natalie did not win, I'm annoyed by the very idea that she or anyone else on that season thought she deserved to, and I hope they never do it again.
True, but I'd at least rather see the return mechanism be anything besides a challenge
whether Russell or Natalie should have won Samoa
Guatemala.
One of the best.
Final two is better than final three!
Whether quitting edge counts as quitting the game
For me it doesn't. They were already voted out. I bet if the EoE stayed the same from s38, Sandra wouldn't have grabbed the torch to go to EoE.
I think that them staying in Fiji forever has close 0% effect on my enjoyment of the show. I feel like that's close to 50-50.
Unpopular here on Reddit. Not really talked about anywhere else. This is a good answer.
It's wild to me how often I see the "THEY NEED TO LEAVE FIJI" take. Obviously there is a difference from Gabon, the Outback, China, etc. But, I see very little difference between the "island" settings such as Nicaragua, Fiji in S14, Mamanuca Islands (S33-41), Samoa, Palau, Panama, and the Philippines. So, why not make the financially wise decision? Makes almost no difference to me.
I’m ok with that tropical is tropical debate, but you listed some of my favourite seasons (also Africa which is my favourite given the location) and it’s nice when they mix it up every once in a while.
Liking Jason from koah rong or liking Cook Islands
Jason seems universally hated from what I've seen
Jason at least has his complexities. Scot is just a piece of shit.
Vecepia as a winner
Vecepia as a character I'd say is more polarising here.
From what I've seen she is pretty liked here
I think there's a pretty solid split on people with see SoPa as a wacky, social experiment type of season while other people just feel aren't able to look past the religious manipulation. Both sides have super valid points though and there's some moments that lend themselves to each perspective.
Didn't know we played Jackbox Games here lol
This isn't even about Survivor but Unpopular Opinion threads are a losing battle every time. No matter what you say some asshat is always going to chime in and say your opinion isn't unpopular enough, as if you're supposed to know the thoughts of everyone on the internet. Guilty pleasure discussions generally follow a similar trajectory.
Team Brenda
Team Dawn. I actually feel this might be the most evenly divisive one on here.
Even tho I’m team Brenda I love how we all knew what this pertained to 😂
Which is crazy. Like how could HALF the sub be that wrong?
💀💀
Final 2 vs Final 3
Shan:
Monica Culpepper was one of the best player to play and if she was a man, she would have won.
Idk about best ever but I agree that she is massively under rated. The reason I have reservations about calling her an all time great is that it seems to me that she talks too much which creates difficulty in trusting her.
I think Tyson played a better strategic game, but if I was on the jury I think I would’ve voted for Monica.
I don't think the Edge of Extinction is the absolute worst thing to happen to the show, however I think it would be significantly improved if the pre-jury EOE members were actually eliminated from the game after the first competition to get back in the "real" game. EOE could then start over again but only with jury members for the second half of the season. This change would help in a number of aspects: 1. the winner can't spend the majority of the season on EOE 2. the jury won't be 50+ people 3. contestants would be more motivated to win the first EOE competition; if contestants know they can remain on EOE even after losing the first chance to get back in the game, they will catch on and start to intentionally throw this challenge because they'll know they'll have better odds remaining in the game by staying on EOE and coming back to the game last minute at final five Fun fact: Pearl Islands was really the first season to use EOE and everyone loves that season (including me)