With Heroes vs. Villains upon us, a lot has been said about the potential for Russell to be the greatest survivor in the history of the game. Russell, of course, is pushing that opinion. Jeff Probst seems to be siding with him, but is Russell the greatest?
Outwit! Outplay! Outlast!
From the start, "Survivor" has had the motto: "Outwit, Outplay, Outlast." How do you measure those items? Outlast is the easiest. Who is still standing by game's end? Outwit and Outplay become a bit murkier.
Can you be the best in the game and win few challenges? Maybe. Does Outplay mean scheming alone, or does it mean winning challenges?
Outwit definitely refers to strategy. One person's strategy may be someone else's idea of floating. The fact remains, it's a strategy.
Social Game
More than anything though, "Survivor" is a social game. How well are you liked by the juror members? How deserving will they feel you are to win the prize at the end of the game?
The bottom line is the fact juries (on pretty much any show) are notoriously bitter. Most jurors are not going to vote for the person who played the best game necessarily but rather the one they like the most. Some survivors "get" that, and cater to that philosophy. They might be the biggest back stabbers and orchestrate huge blindsides, but if they are friendly and nice, they will likely win the game.
Russell vs. Richard
So we have Russell, runner-up for season 19. Is he the greatest survivor of all time? By what criteria is he the greatest survivor of all time? There are certainly other great survivors in the history of the game.
Season one had Richard Hatch who cast himself in the role of the villain early on. Richard won only a single challenge, for immunity but he played an outstanding social game. His nudity kept his teammates at bay without making him seem anti-social. Oftentimes, he would plop down next to someone, more or less daring them to stay.
Richard made a few alliances in his day and basically initiated the entire concept. During the last challenge of the games, Richard outwitted his teammates, and managed to outplay them in a single move. Standing on small pedestals with one hand on an idol, Richard made a quick decision to step down. Kelly and Rudy stood amazed by the turn of events.
As the challenge progressed, Richard laid out his philosophy for stepping down basically telling Rudy and Kelly that they would be crazy not to take him to the final two. In the meantime, he enjoyed the temptations that Jeff brought for the other two. Richard's scheme was so well planned. He may have been able to hang in there and win, but this way he did not have to choose between Kelly or Rudy. He had an alliance with both and knew the loyal Rudy would stick to it. He also knew that Kelly's only chance of winning was to bring him instead of Rudy.
Did Rudy feel betrayed? I'm sure he did. I can still remember the look on Rudy's face when he stepped down but Rudy was loyal!
Kelly, for her part, won more challenges than anyone. In fact, she won the last five immunity challenges. Would Richard be remembered as a great survivor if Kelly had won? Probably not.
Still, his gameplay set the standard for villains in future seasons. Interestingly enough, not many "villains" have won since then.
The game has changed immensely since that first season in Borneo.
So does winning automatically launch someone into the stratosphere of greatest survivors. Again, not necessarily, runners-up are often times better players than the winners. Season two saw Tina Wesson win over Colby Donaldson who dominated the challenges. Without a doubt, he is one of the strongest survivors in the history of the game winning seven of 13 challenges, seven of the last nine.
The vote was a close 4-3, but Tina edged Colby because of a slightly better social game or maybe because Colby was regarded as a winner already because he took home a vehicle. Whatever the reason, Tina won the million dollar prize and title of "sole survivor."
Why Russell is not the greatest survivor
More seasons than not, the social game has played an important role in determining the winner. So back to the original question, is Russell the greatest survivor in the history of the game?
Short answer: no. Russell did a lot of things that were not necessary to the game. He dumped the water canteens and weakened his own team. He burned socks and let the chickens go. He initiated alliances with most of the women of the team and cut them off quickly.
Russell did find immunity idols well, but he used one idol in a panic when there was no jeaopardy. Natalie turned the tables on Eric, and provided a game changing move in the meantime. Can't forget Shambo's part in Russell's ability to outlast. More than once she provided the necessary vote to put out one of her former teammates.
Challenges were not his forte but he definitely got high marks for scheming.
Russell went into the question and answer session expecting people to fall at his feet and crown his king of survivor. Maybe his ego cost him the show. He basically told everyone how to vote and no one appreciates that. Better to appear humble than self-serving.
Was the jury bitter? Sure, it was but I would not expect anything else. Russell made them that way through his needless acts of treachery. If I had won the final immunity challenge, I certainly would have taken Russell with me to the end!
So, no, Russell is not the greatest survivor. He's good and may be great after this season. Time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment