Survivor: Samoa

[SuperT]

Uuh, the Ratalie vote was from Erik. He was referencing the instance when she killed that rat and brought it back to camp for everyone to eat.

The hints of Natalie's strong social game was there all along. Remember when Laura came over to Foa Foa during the tribal stage of the game? Who was the one person talking to her and building a relationship with her on a social level? Natalie, whereas Russell was trying to pull his BS strategic move that Laura saw threw from the get go.

Next one, when Mick, Brett, and Natalie lost the reward challenge, who was it that was being chummy with Brett, again, on a personal level instead of trying to talk game? Natalie.

What the edit showed us and what actually happened out there are two completely different things. Just because the editors chose to shove Russell down our throats every episodes doesn't mean Natalie wasn't playing a strong social game. The hints and clues are there, especially if you watched the Insider clips.

 

[NY1981]

Definitely agree with Russell about all Natalie talks about is her social game. Social game is overrated and yeah it counts for something but in this case it was given way more weight than it should've. Russell did so many things better but Natalie was nicer and played the "social" game better so she thinks she deserved it.....please.

Russell in that interview is acting like a jerk sometimes but its somewhat justified in that most of his arguments are valid while Natalie plays the "social" card and keeps throwing it in Russell's face. Natalie really should just stop doing interviews and finally admit she wasn't the best player so all this bickering can end. Shes got the money anyways and most people realize she isn't deserving so she might as well stop trying to justify her win cause most aren't buying into it. Russell hits it on the head perfectly when he says that its not called the social game, its called Survivor. I mean honestly who really wants to watch a bunch of nice people all chat and be friendly and then nicely vote each other off who wasn't as nice. Just remember that some of the best stories have some of the greatest antagonists which most people actually prefer to the so called heroes.

 

[Marx]

Acting like a jerk and a sore loser is not justified. He lost...and he needs to get over himself.

 

[POWdER-man]

Well Natalie's responses are those of a sore winner, so I don't blame him one bit. The social card is way over rated, and her throwing it in his face just b/c she did didly squat and didn't piss anyone off isn't a valid reason why she should be a winner. Russell should have toned it down but there is a difference between not being the most deserving winner and losing because the jury members can't separate their personal feelings from their decision. She is just sore that most people feel she is an undeserving winner so she is going to hammer the fact she was so social. As Adam Sandler would say, "Woopidoo!"

Russell was not THE best survivor ever, that would be Richard Hatch, but he was 100% better than Natalie. I didn't mind her much during the game (probably because she didn't do much), but now I can't stand her.

 

[NY1981]

Acting like a jerk and a sore loser is not justified. He lost...and he needs to get over himself.

Very true, I don't mind him doing a couple interviews afterwards and expressing his thoughts but if this is gonna continue for weeks it could backfire. He should realize that most people think he was the best and he really doesn't need to keep going on about it, we already know. And if Natalie were smart (but we all know she really isn't) she should either thank Russell and acknowledge him being the best and end this debate or just take her money and disappear. Just like her answers for the jury at final tribal, she just makes herself seem unworthy the more she tries to defend the jury's choice.

 

[SuperT]

Just because he thinks he played better (which is not true) doesn't mean that gives him the right to belittle her and talk smack about her game. Everything Natalie has said about her game and Russell, she is 100% right about.

There is no right, wrong, better or worst, way to win Survivor. The object is to get all the way to the end by any means necessary, than convince the jury that you deserve to win. Natalie did that, Russell did not.

If the jury was so bitter, than why didn't they give their votes to Mick? Mick got to the final three like Natalie, Mick was just as nice as Natalie. The reason he didn't get any of their votes was because he failed, as did Russell, to make any sort of personal connection with any of them.

Natalie put it perfectly about the game and the final Tribal Council and a sales call - you get all the way to the end of the call and than you have to make the close and the sale. Anybody can make it through the call but if you don't make that final sell at the end you lose it. Russell played a very good game, but only a game that got you to the end. Natalie played a game that not only got her to the end, but it gave her the win.

This ending is really opening up dialogue about what it truly takes to win Survivor. The social game that people keep discounting is just as important as the strategic game.

 

[NY1981]

The reason Mick didn't get any votes was because he was pretty much worthless and at least Natalie did have a good social game while Mick didn't really do squat. Natalie was better than Mick and I do believe the bitter and brain dead jury at least saw that. I understand you think Natalie was the best but honestly you gotta realize you are in the minority and even Natalie at final tribal didn't seem to be all that confident about her winning cause even she realized she wasn't the best. Even Probst (who I would think is pretty unbiased) more or less said Russell should've won and was victim to a bitter jury, usually that's not the case though.

Natalie put it perfectly about the game and the final Tribal Council and a sales call - you get all the way to the end of the call and than you have to make the close and the sale. Anybody can make it through the call but if you don't make that final sell at the end you lose it.

Lucky she had Eric to sell her at the final tribal because she obviously couldn't do it herself. Her opening statement was mediocre at best and the answers she gave were lackluster...."I had to live out in the wild" and "I killed a rat" were laughable. She played a decent game, I'll give her that, but someone like Brett even was more deserving than her and he was a ghost for most of the game.

 

[SuperT]

Edit: Nvm

I give up.

 

[AndThePickles]

I think that Natalie owes a LOT to Eric. I think his little speech swayed a LOT of people's votes, because she certainly wasn't presenting a strong case for herself.

 

[LEX]

Agreed. I was facepalming throughout her answers.

 

[Marx]

I think that Natalie owes a LOT to Eric. I think his little speech swayed a LOT of people's votes, because she certainly wasn't presenting a strong case for herself.

Eric gave a very good speech.

 

[SuperT]

Erik's speech was just perfect. Perception is not reality, reality is reality. Why was Russell's way of getting to the final three any better than the way Natalie got there?!?

Absolutely excellent point. It further proved the fact that the jury could use any criteria they wanted to vote for the winner.