IIRC it was 4-2 Michelle when Probst called it. Was probably 5-2. The remaining vote must've been Michelle or Probst probably would have tied it at 3-3 before reading the deciding vote. I think Deb and Joe went Aubry. None for Tai.
Mjolnirs said:It would have been perfect if she has simply replied "yet, here I sit, and there you go." I think in that situation he shouldn't be allowed to speak.
Neal had been on the Jury longer and was most likely talking about her for a while. Not having him with them when they all sit around Ponderosa and talk about their votes was a great move.
Did we ever get a final vote count? It must have been a landslide, otherwise Jeff would have mentioned Neal's vote making a difference.
BJS?You always have to be aware of BJS - and really that's the only reason to vote for her. Her strong social game really was because she never dictated who went home. She never once controlled the vote. Hell, the one time that her head was on the chopping block, it was Cyd and not her that swayed Aubrey.
Hopefully Michelle & Tai were watching the jury during the fire challenge as they have no shot of winning if they are sitting next to Aubry
Nope.. i like it.. you almost DON'T want to win as the winner will NOT look good voting out a juror as it will make them look weak. .
But would've killed the argument of Michelle getting stronger at the end.if Aubrey wins that last challenge, she votes off Julia. But that would have made the jury vote 4-3, in favor of Michelle (all other things being equal)
I was thinking about this as well. Tai was fairly strong throughout the game strategically, socially and in challenges.Definitely some butt hurt going on to not give Tai one vote.
I think Aubry played a better overall game from start to finish and I would have no problem if she won. But she (a brain) got beat by Michelle (a beauty) in back to back puzzle challenges in the last episode. Michelle also crushed the animal/number memory puzzle. I'd say that's a pretty good case of her not just being a beauty using her social game to advance. She was known for her loyalty, and that means a lot to jurors as well.But would've killed the argument of Michelle getting stronger at the end.
What did Michelle do really?
She won a couple things right at the end...which really made a difference but honestly not much to hang your hat on.
A beauty used the social game to advance...big stretch there. No one would've figured that.
I don't like Aubrey and think she looks like an oompa loompa mated with a troll doll but she really stretched herself. Played socially, intelligently and was definitely behind the inner workings of the game all season long. And did it losing her two closest allies to dumb stuff.
Little ******* probably works for Monsanto.Tai was the one who said in the finale he was all about peace and love and how to play without backstabbing anyone, and he backstabbed more people than anyone else.
Most people have said that Aubry was the most deserving winner, I'm not sure why you are so worked up. It is not even comparable to the Russell/Natalie situation. Russell was a far better player than Aubry, and Michele was a far better player than Natalie. Michele won 3 individual reward or immunity challenges and played a great social game. Michele is not even in the bottom 5 of winners off the top of my head (Natalie, Vecepia, Amber, Danni, and the bow tie old guy who was on Sugar's season).That's BS. We see all the votes and the votes are by far the most important thing. This is like saying the jury actually thought Natalie played better than Russell and weren't all just bitter that he controlled the damn game.
He's talking about voting Julia off the jury.Jayrok said:Julia? She wasn't in the final challenge. If Aubry wins the last challenge, she, Cyd and Tai vote off Michelle and Michelle would have been out of the picture most likely enabling Aubry to win the season. She had a huge lead in the challenge and Michelle came from behind and dominated the puzzle and won immunity. So they chose to vote off Cyd.
oops.. Sorry oso diablo!He's talking about voting Julia off the jury.
No, the BS part is claiming that somehow the jury has so much more information than we do. They have different information. They're party to some, not all, of the relevant discussions. They don't see any of the confessionals. There's no reason to defer to the jury's determination as to who played the better game. We see plenty and they don't see all.Most people have said that Aubry was the most deserving winner, I'm not sure why you are so worked up. It is not even comparable to the Russell/Natalie situation. Russell was a far better player than Aubry, and Michele was a far better player than Natalie. Michele won 3 individual reward or immunity challenges and played a great social game. Michele is not even in the bottom 5 of winners off the top of my head (Natalie, Vecepia, Amber, Danni, and the bow tie old guy who was on Sugar's season).
Todd might have been the last player to really lock things up with the jury during questioning. I wanted Aubrey to tell Scot to vote for her because she kicked his ###.Think Cydney's question to Aubry showed why Aubry wasn't ahead of Michele.
'You were the person with me at every decision along the game, you were there for the Nick vote, Debbi vote, Scott vote, switching the vote from Michele to Jason, that was all your idea. So I had to vote you out at that point because I knew that is what you would do'
She basically campaigned against herself and really put doubt whether moves that maybe seemed like her was really her. She showcased why she wasn't a dominant player with that answer. Boils down to, we did this, this, and that, you did this, I did this because of your thinking on strategy.
I don't think Michele was a great player but neither was Aubry despite the edit she got.
This "Aubry is hot" shtick ranks right up there with Eminence's act as some of the worst in the FFA.Mario Kart said:What a joke. What a freaking joke. And you guys laughed but Aubry was looking good tonight. Laugh it up fuzz ball, it's true.
Sia shouldn't be on this show. She ruined it although the ####### vote ruined it too.
What a joke.
Totally agree. Michelle's strength was her social game. But that doesn't really make for good TV so it gets edited out.
I think the players that competed with and against her have a better idea of how deserving she was that we viewers do.
That's BS. We see all the votes and the votes are by far the most important thing. This is like saying the jury actually thought Natalie played better than Russell and weren't all just bitter that he controlled the damn game.
Corporation said:Most people have said that Aubry was the most deserving winner, I'm not sure why you are so worked up. It is not even comparable to the Russell/Natalie situation. Russell was a far better player than Aubry, and Michele was a far better player than Natalie. Michele won 3 individual reward or immunity challenges and played a great social game. Michele is not even in the bottom 5 of winners off the top of my head (Natalie, Vecepia, Amber, Danni, and the bow tie old guy who was on Sugar's season).
Let me first say I despise the new quoting systemdparker713 said:No, the BS part is claiming that somehow the jury has so much more information than we do. They have different information. They're party to some, not all, of the relevant discussions. They don't see any of the confessionals. There's no reason to defer to the jury's determination as to who played the better game. We see plenty and they don't see all.
Sometimes the juries may have better information, and sometimes the viewers may. But I don't think we should ever defer to them as I don't believe we can know when that is true and regardless I don't think it's a massive difference in any case.After reading this, I nearly deleted it Neither the home viewer or the contestants have a full picture, and bitter juries do happen, but in general I think they have better information than we do.
Tina Wesson and Natalie White come to mind. Natalie won with a bitter jury when Russell dominated game play in every category except the social game. Tina was handed the check by Colby when he inexplicably took her to the finals instead of the chef guy who everyone on the jury hated.In this case, Michelle's entire game seemed to be not pissing people off and winning a couple of challenges. It's hard to think of a player that's done less to win.
So true. Her game was totally forgettable.Um, the two time winner Sandra didn't do much to win either time.
Aubry's hot.
Jocks and prom king's and queens teamed up to shove the nerd into the locker. Aubry deserved to win.
Tina was highly annoying. She thought her poop didn't smell.Tina Wesson and Natalie White come to mind. Natalie won with a bitter jury when Russell dominated game play in every category except the social game. Tina was handed the check by Colby when he inexplicably took her to the finals instead of the chef guy who everyone on the jury hated.
How does that make Tina undeserving? The knock on Colby is that he was dumb enough to take someone who could win to the finals instead of someone who would have been easy to beat. That may make him a fool, but only because he took someone who deserved to win.Tina Wesson and Natalie White come to mind. Natalie won with a bitter jury when Russell dominated game play in every category except the social game. Tina was handed the check by Colby when he inexplicably took her to the finals instead of the chef guy who everyone on the jury hated.
"Jason" (love a guy with two first names who decides to use his last name)
I didn't use the word "undeserving", and yes, Colby was dumb enough to take a likable person to the end with him... a mistake. I was replying to the post that said "It's hard to think of a player that's done less to win."How does that make Tina undeserving? The knock on Colby is that he was dumb enough to take someone who could win to the finals instead of someone who would have been easy to beat. That may make him a fool, but only because he took someone who deserved to win.
Pearl Harbored all his alliances with sneak attacks.Definitely some butt hurt going on to not give Tai one vote.
Going to disagree here. Sandra's game is (was) more vocal and active. There's a general "anyone but me" strategy that they both employed, but Sandra's game is (was) more active while Michele's game was more passive.but for now I'll say that Michele played Sandra's game, and actually did it about as well.
As to the latter, the post-show interviews, really only skimming them, leave that unmistakable impression. Many AV Club and Previously TV posters who have seen the Ponderosa vids (I have not as I detested nearly the entire jury) claim those back that up as well.Going to disagree here. Sandra's game is (was) more vocal and active. There's a general "anyone but me" strategy that they both employed, but Sandra's game is (was) more active while Michele's game was more passive.
Like you, I'm also starting to get the impression that Aubry's show edit doesn't seem to reflect how her fellow cast mates viewed her.
He and Hatch are the best first time players ever imo, but Boston Rob's win was probably the best full game anyone has ever played.This show is trash, America should have a say in who wins. Too many people are butthurt by the end of the show and it clouds their judgement. The fact that Russel Hantz wasn't able to at least pull out one win, despite being the best player in the history of the game, speaks volumes.
I agree with you and Corp. I think Michelle played the game well and finished far stronger. Heck, Aubry needed Tai yet again just to make the final 3. Sorry, but to put Aubry in the same place as Hantz is just silly. She almost cracked day one. She made plenty of not so good moves and sure as heck wasn't nearly good enough at the final tribal. She actually conceded that Cydney made many of the moves when she was responding to Cydney. I thought Michelle played the last couple tribals perfectly and her choice of Neal was perfect (he was a ##### on the way out).Aerial Assault said:I seriously can't believe this narrative is taking hold. Pollard and Bounty Hunter were, of course, complete tools. But Michele got the vote of every one of the three women on the jury, none of whom I would describe as a "prom queen." If anything, the most superficial member of the jury apart from the two d-bags was probably the preening Nick, who voted for Aubry.
I have more to write about the finale, which I finally watched yesterday, but for now I'll say that Michele played Sandra's game, and actually did it about as well. Her intelligence and social game were extremely impressive. I didn't overly dislike Aubry, but post-show interviews make clear that she alienated quite a few people with abrasiveness - which is not difficult to believe - while Michele was unfailingly polite and pleasant, even when the chips were down, which they were for her for most of the game. In addition, Aubry made several boneheaded moves, most notably orchestrating the inexplicable boot of "Jason" (love a guy with two first names who decides to use his last name) instead of Michele with six left. Aubry probably wishes she had that one back.
Only one juror said Michelle needed to show her intelligence to the jury. No other jury member mentioned it, and just because one said she needed to show it to the jury, does not mean that he was speaking for the whole jury.Mario Kart said:From the questioning, looking back I think it was pretty evident that the jury followed through on their personalities much more than game play. Follow me here:
- it started off with the jury only wanting Michelle to show them her intelligence. In the same breath, they wanted to know about Aubry's game play.
- Aubry didn't do a great job letting them know about her moves however all Michelle had to do was show them she is intelligent.
- Aubry = brain, Michelle = beauty
All they wanted from them was for Michelle to show them that she had a brain. They wanted Aubry to show them she was the master mind of the whole thing. The pissy jury fit their stereotypes and were jealous that a brain got the best of them.