Survivor Season 42: Starts Wednesday March 9, 2022 (3 Viewers)

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

Natalie Interview

I think I like Natalie less after reading that. 

She had some interesting things to say at least. 

When Boston Rob said she wasn't really that social with people on Edge of Extinction, I figured there was something wrong with her.  I see her explanation in the interview and maybe that makes sense to her but feel like it just says more about her personality in general.  

She seems to be a very head strong person.  Trying to picture working with her in an office environment, I think she would be pretty abrasive.  No thanks.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

At least they've gotten rid of the Torch Parade where they show a clip of every eliminated contestant. That was total fast-forward-fodder.

Glad they did.   If they would only get rid of the family visits next.  

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

It's 2020 yet I feel like this thread has outed so many dinosaurs.

Are you kidding?  If you didn't know this place was Jurassic Park, you haven't been paying close attention.

 

[Instinctive]

I am so glad Tony won. For weeks now I've just been thinking "how the hell is Michelle there" and "i hate the stupid edge twist." 

I still don't think Michelle "should" have won her season and she definitely didn't deserve to win this one, but I see her as a much stronger/better player now than I did before. Like she really did manage to save herself every time it mattered and as obnoxious as I find her, clearly the other contestants seem to enjoy her company. She's never been voted out. 2nd most days ever without being voted out, I think? 

 

[Nick Vermeil]

Yeah, shame on me for not feeling bad for  the woman who won $1 million on a game show because she didn't win $2 million the next time she was on a game show. 

Her life has been sooooo hard. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to count your winnings while a handful of morons say mean stuff on Twitter. 

Edit: correction.....3 times. She's been given THREE opportunities to play a TV game show for a 7 figure payday.  But a few trolls sent her some mean DM's about how she "didn't deserve to win" so we're supposed to treat her like Susan B Anthony. Got it.

One thing I’ve learned in life GB is not to judge someone’s opinion of things based on their life experience. So many things that seem trivial to me are hugely important to other people. Understanding that helps me understand them, and how little my opinion should matter to them. 

 

[TLEF316]

One thing I’ve learned in life GB is not to judge someone’s opinion of things based on their life experience. So many things that seem trivial to me are hugely important to other people. Understanding that helps me understand them, and how little my opinion should matter to them. 

I get that. I just think her opinion was completely nonsensical in this particular scenario.

First off, she and the 9 other women there had already won the show. Do men win MORE? Yes. Is that the result of gender bias?  I don't know. If so, women are just as much to blame, as I imagine the juries on survivor are pretty close to 50/50.

And the whole point she was arguing was that when women play aggressively and lie and decieve that they are considered "#####es" and that men who do so are considered "studs".  By whom and where is this happening?  If she's talking about Twitter trolls or lunatics on survivor message boards, ok. I don't read those places. That sort of criticism certainly doesn't happen on the show (at least we don't see it) or in any sort of mainstream media.  Sure, people are criticising her a bit here, but not for her aggressive play style.

In my opinion, she thought she was matching Tony this season(she wasn't) and didn't like it when Natalie came back and confirmed that the jury didn't agree. So she got defensive about it and decided to throw a little "look at me!! I do stuff too!!" display, which morphed into a claim of gender bias.

She's a woman in a field dominated by aggressive alpha male types. So it's certainly understandable that she's sensitive about this. I just don't like it when people try and use a larger social issue to gain sympathy points (the whole speech felt like a jury ploy to me) in a situation like this. IMO, it detracts from real gender bias issues, which obviously do exist on other aspects of life.

Compare this to when Zeke was outed as trans a few seasons back. That guy was legitimately wronged in a major way. He didn't want it to become a thing, but once it was out in the open, he didn't have much of a choice. But he didn't use it for sympathy points. It was addressed (in a pretty productive way that generated some really good discussion) and then he moved on to try and finish the game.

 

[krista4]

I get that. I just think her opinion was completely nonsensical in this particular scenario.

First off, she and the 9 other women there had already won the show. Do men win MORE? Yes. Is that the result of gender bias?  I don't know. If so, women are just as much to blame, as I imagine the juries on survivor are pretty close to 50/50.

And the whole point she was arguing was that when women play aggressively and lie and decieve that they are considered "#####es" and that men who do so are considered "studs".  By whom and where is this happening?  If she's talking about Twitter trolls or lunatics on survivor message boards, ok. I don't read those places. That sort of criticism certainly doesn't happen on the show (at least we don't see it) or in any sort of mainstream media.  Sure, people are criticising her a bit here, but not for her aggressive play style.

In my opinion, she thought she was matching Tony this season(she wasn't) and didn't like it when Natalie came back and confirmed that the jury didn't agree. So she got defensive about it and decided to throw a little "look at me!! I do stuff too!!" display, which morphed into a claim of gender bias.

She's a woman in a field dominated by aggressive alpha male types. So it's certainly understandable that she's sensitive about this. I just don't like it when people try and use a larger social issue to gain sympathy points (the whole speech felt like a jury ploy to me) in a situation like this. IMO, it detracts from real gender bias issues, which obviously do exist on other aspects of life.

Compare this to when Zeke was listed as trans a few seasons back. That guy was legitimately wronged in a major way. He didn't want it to become a thing, but once it was out in the open, he didn't have much of a choice. But he didn't use it for sympathy points. It was addressed (in a pretty productive way that generated some really good discussion) and then he moved on to try and finish the game.

I agree with most all of this and think it’s a terrific post.  At the same time, I also appreciated EYLive’s post and did notice a few people showing some colors I found distasteful (I doubt it was you but didn’t mentally note who said what).  Thank you both for giving the issues reasonable and rational analysis.

 

[NewlyRetired]

And the whole point she was arguing was that when women play aggressively and lie and decieve that they are considered "#####es" and that men who do so are considered "studs".  By whom and where is this happening?

It immediately made me think of Russell Hantz.  I am not sure there was ever a more hated player by the fans, male or female.

There is a reason Tony is liked.  He played the game hard but he never appeared to be viscious or spiteful (I thought Jeremy came off the worst of anyone in the finale for this reason). Tony was arguably the second most gentlemanly winner behind Yul.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Does anyone know if Natalie scooped up $200k for second or was it the normal $100k second place prize?

 

[Corporation]

Does anyone know if Natalie scooped up $200k for second or was it the normal $100k second place prize?

I’m not sure. I was waiting for Sia to come in on a wrecking ball to pick her player of the season. 

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

I wouldn't criticize Natalie for not going to fire against Tony.

There is some argument she could have sent Michelle but in thinking about this, she made a safe decision to guarantee second.  If Sarah wins over Tony, she might even get first place.  Not entirely sure about that but think it would have been close.  I wouldn't really say it was bad to lock up some guaranteed money there.  She was coming from the Edge, odds were stacked against her so why not take the guarantee.

 

[nysfl2]

Things that I didn't understand from the end of the season:

1. Why did Denise keep working with Tony, Sarah, Ben for the whole season when she clearly was at the bottom of that group? Why didn't anyone ever approach her to flip instead of Tony or Sarah? It had to have been clear that Ben was never going to flip, and Tony and Sarah were inseparable. And she was never going to beat them at the end.

2. What did Sarah hope to gain from the Ben vote? If they guessed wrong on who was protected between Michelle/Natalie, whoever the girls voted for was going home - Sarah's vote wouldn't have mattered. There's no way that pointlessly flipping on an ally who had zero chance to win would have been seen as a "big move" and helped her chances of getting jury votes. Clearly, if Ben had won final immunity, he would have taken her to the end. How did that help her in any way? Was it simply to get him on the jury to vote for her? Also, Ben should never be invited back to the game after that weak move.

 

[Payne]

Don't understand the dislike for Nat. I'm surprised she didn't get more votes. Though I do think Tony deserved to win.

Bummed no reunion show of any kind. Easily could have been done.

Lastly, wow did Michelle look smoking during the finale.  

 

[Gally]

I wouldn't criticize Natalie for not going to fire against Tony.

There is some argument she could have sent Michelle but in thinking about this, she made a safe decision to guarantee second.  If Sarah wins over Tony, she might even get first place.  Not entirely sure about that but think it would have been close.  I wouldn't really say it was bad to lock up some guaranteed money there.  She was coming from the Edge, odds were stacked against her so why not take the guarantee.

With the competitive nature of these people ensuring you get more money isn't even in the consideration.  That was not the time to play it safe.  It's winning and the best chance she had to win was to do the fire challenge.  Coming in second or third is irrelevant after staying on EoE for 35 days and clawing your way back into the game wasn't to ensure you get more money by finishing 2nd.  It was to win the thing. 

 

[TLEF316]

I dont think anyone dislikes Natalie. She just (IMO) didn't deserve to win because she didn't play the game.

Obviously not her fault. She played the hand she was dealt. But the essence of survivor is that you have to outlast people and vote them out and then still be in a position where they're willing to vote FOR you to win at the end. She really didn't have to do that. Not saying Extinction was easy or fun, but for the most part, she got to sit around and bond with the jury. 

 

[NewlyRetired]

Natalie did however play the game exactly how the rules were laid out.

I feel like some of the shade being tossed her way online should be more directed at Survivor's producers.  She simply played with in the rules of the game that others defined.

 

[Gally]

Natalie did however play the game exactly how the rules were laid out.

I feel like some of the shade being tossed her way online should be more directed at Survivor's producers.  She simply played with in the rules of the game that others defined.

Yes she did but that doesn't mean she deserved to win.  

 

[nirad3]

Lastly, wow did Michelle look smoking during the finale.  

Yeah, mentioned the same upthread.  She looked fantastic.

 

[nysfl2]

Natalie did however play the game exactly how the rules were laid out.

I feel like some of the shade being tossed her way online should be more directed at Survivor's producers.  She simply played with in the rules of the game that others defined.

Well, she didn't have to get voted out D1.

I think there may have been a lot more support for her if she had made it to the merger, got voted out on some sort of immunity idol shenanigans, and then won her way back in.

 

[Corporation]

Natalie did however play the game exactly how the rules were laid out.

I feel like some of the shade being tossed her way online should be more directed at Survivor's producers.  She simply played with in the rules of the game that others defined.

Well, she didn't have to get voted out D1.

I think there may have been a lot more support for her if she had made it to the merger, got voted out on some sort of immunity idol shenanigans, and then won her way back in.

I don't like EoE at all, but my biggest problem is they insert people back too late in the game.  I think if they come back during the merge, people wouldn't have as big a problem with it (some/many still would).  

 

[nysfl2]

I don't like EoE at all, but my biggest problem is they insert people back too late in the game.  I think if they come back during the merge, people wouldn't have as big a problem with it (some/many still would).  

Agreed. And don't send them back with an idol.

Or if there are periodic eliminations on EOE, so if you get voted off D1, you really have to kick ### at challenges to get back in. Not just win one of two opportunities to return, in which you have big advantages because you've been on EOE for so long.

 

[Gally]

I don't like EoE at all, but my biggest problem is they insert people back too late in the game.  I think if they come back during the merge, people wouldn't have as big a problem with it (some/many still would).  

I would like it better if everytime someone gets voted off and heads to EoE they have a challenge between those two players the next day.  Loser is kicked off EoE and the winner stays until the next player gets voted out at TC.   Then it happens again.  That way there is only one person on EoE at a time and you have to keep winning to survive.  Then at the merge that person has to complete a challenge against someone nominated from the current players to get back in.   They lose  they are out.  If the returning player loses they go home.  If the none EoE player wins they get immunity from the next tribal.

 

[bryhamm]

I would like it better if everytime someone gets voted off and heads to EoE they have a challenge between those two players the next day.  Loser is kicked off EoE and the winner stays until the next player gets voted out at TC.   Then it happens again.  That way there is only one person on EoE at a time and you have to keep winning to survive.  Then at the merge that person has to complete a challenge against someone nominated from the current players to get back in.   They lose  they are out.  If the returning player loses they go home.  If the none EoE player wins they get immunity from the next tribal.

That's the Redemption Island concept they did a few years back

 

[Gally]

That's the Redemption Island concept they did a few years back

I thought that was a bit different but with similar concepts.

 

[bryhamm]

I thought that was a bit different but with similar concepts.

I don't think so.  How were you remembering it?

 

[Mr. Mojo]

C'mon Ambuh.

Let's look for another reality show.

 

[Gally]

I don't think so.  How were you remembering it?

I looked it up and I guess it was basically what I described.  I added the needing to beat a main player to get back in the game.  Not just the voted out player at designated intervals. 

 

[Plaid Boxer]

I haven’t liked Natalie since Amazing Race. She’s as annoying to me as the Rob hate over the last 2 pages. 

 

[stbugs]

Things that I didn't understand from the end of the season:

1. Why did Denise keep working with Tony, Sarah, Ben for the whole season when she clearly was at the bottom of that group? Why didn't anyone ever approach her to flip instead of Tony or Sarah? It had to have been clear that Ben was never going to flip, and Tony and Sarah were inseparable. And she was never going to beat them at the end.

2. What did Sarah hope to gain from the Ben vote? If they guessed wrong on who was protected between Michelle/Natalie, whoever the girls voted for was going home - Sarah's vote wouldn't have mattered. There's no way that pointlessly flipping on an ally who had zero chance to win would have been seen as a "big move" and helped her chances of getting jury votes. Clearly, if Ben had won final immunity, he would have taken her to the end. How did that help her in any way? Was it simply to get him on the jury to vote for her? Also, Ben should never be invited back to the game after that weak move.

Denise was not a good player. She got gifted a way to dump Sandra. The Ben move was moronic all the way around. That move actually cost both of them a chance at the final 3. If Ben beats Tony, he could then say vote for Sarah and give up. His oh so generous love actually booted Sarah out early. It’s kind of hysterical and kind of karma. You pull that move thinking you’re helping her win and you knock her out. 

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

 Not saying Extinction was easy or fun, but for the most part, she got to sit around and bond with the jury. 

Except it seems like she didn't exactly pull that off.

She seems like a contestant people respect but may not like that much.  I mean she got voted off first day, that should probably say something.

 

[leftcoastguy7]

No reunion show so no need for a 3 hour ending.

We're in quarantine here, people!! Give us three 1 hr shows please.

 

[DropKick]

I get that. I just think her opinion was completely nonsensical in this particular scenario.

First off, she and the 9 other women there had already won the show. Do men win MORE? Yes. Is that the result of gender bias?  I don't know. If so, women are just as much to blame, as I imagine the juries on survivor are pretty close to 50/50.

And the whole point she was arguing was that when women play aggressively and lie and decieve that they are considered "#####es" and that men who do so are considered "studs".  By whom and where is this happening?  If she's talking about Twitter trolls or lunatics on survivor message boards, ok. I don't read those places. That sort of criticism certainly doesn't happen on the show (at least we don't see it) or in any sort of mainstream media.  Sure, people are criticising her a bit here, but not for her aggressive play style.

In my opinion, she thought she was matching Tony this season(she wasn't) and didn't like it when Natalie came back and confirmed that the jury didn't agree. So she got defensive about it and decided to throw a little "look at me!! I do stuff too!!" display, which morphed into a claim of gender bias.

She's a woman in a field dominated by aggressive alpha male types. So it's certainly understandable that she's sensitive about this. I just don't like it when people try and use a larger social issue to gain sympathy points (the whole speech felt like a jury ploy to me) in a situation like this. IMO, it detracts from real gender bias issues, which obviously do exist on other aspects of life.

Compare this to when Zeke was outed as trans a few seasons back. That guy was legitimately wronged in a major way. He didn't want it to become a thing, but once it was out in the open, he didn't have much of a choice. But he didn't use it for sympathy points. It was addressed (in a pretty productive way that generated some really good discussion) and then he moved on to try and finish the game.

Agreed.

It is so nonsensical (and out of her character) that I didn't believe it from the moment it came out of her mouth.  I think it was simply game play.

I think she even pulled the wool over the eyes of people here reveling in the joy that such topics are raised.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Natalie Interview

I think I like Natalie less after reading that. 

And then the second thing is they just didn't depict how hard the Edge was. We would fall asleep every night and rats would be biting us. We'd wake up to rats biting our fingers and our toes. And how much we ate. It was literally stabbing, sleeping in the dirt, rats biting us every night. 

 

[PinkydaPimp]

And then the second thing is they just didn't depict how hard the Edge was. We would fall asleep every night and rats would be biting us. We'd wake up to rats biting our fingers and our toes. And how much we ate. It was literally stabbing, sleeping in the dirt, rats biting us every night. 

I feel like she has a point though.  CBS should have really played up EOE as like this horrible debilitating place.  At least then it makes it more shocking when someone comes back from it and actually has success.  Of course she could be exaggerating. 

 

[stbugs]

I feel like she has a point though.  CBS should have really played up EOE as like this horrible debilitating place.  At least then it makes it more shocking when someone comes back from it and actually has success.  Of course she could be exaggerating. 

It’s likely the latter. I liken it to that reporter who tweeted that he had been chased down by open businesses protestors. When I watched the video there was one person walking towards him that he asked to stop. The video was 3 seconds long. From the tweet I was expecting a mob running after him not a single guy walking towards a reporter to scare him a little.

If there were rats biting them every night, wouldn’t you think there would be one conversation about it? The stories never match the actual occurrence.

 

[jhib]

Natalie Interview

I think I like Natalie less after reading that. 

And then the second thing is they just didn't depict how hard the Edge was. We would fall asleep every night and rats would be biting us. We'd wake up to rats biting our fingers and our toes. And how much we ate. It was literally stabbing, sleeping in the dirt, rats biting us every night. 

We just started watching the first season with the kids to see how things have changed over the years.

We're on the third episode, and the contestants are setting traps for rats, cleaning them, and grilling them for food.  As tough as Natalie undoubtedly is, she comes off as soft here in comparison.

 

[The Noid]

The Ringer dedicated a whole week to Survivor articles last week and this one was pretty interesting, where some former players dished on behind-the-scenes things. The interaction, and relationships, the contestants have with the crew/cameramen is something you really forget about. It's not just 20 people on the island. It's 20 people and 40 more people constantly within 5 feet of each of them.

 

[jhib]

Nick voted out.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Here is what should happen next season:

- All Hidden Immunity Idols are gone. They don't exist anymore.

- Fire tokens are in play with rewards that can be bought. There is a finite number of them... like Bitcoins. You buy advantages, leave tribal, steal vote. No purchased idols until after the merge.

- Tokens can be used for barter in case fear of being voted out exists. Merge game is huge.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

The fire token thing just fell flat. I was expecting something big to happen at the end, but, nope... peanut butter and advantages for EoE people, snoozefest for the main game.

I'm not a fan of the fire token thing at all....but I'm not sure this is true.....there wasn't some massive fire token event at the end, but they did play a pretty big role throughout the game....in game players had to use them for the things that were sold to them by the players on EoE....many of those were key pieces in how the game played out on the regular island....they definitely had an impact.....Nat was able to purchase several things with them, idols and advantages.....she accumulated so many she had a huge advantage in the get back in the game challenge.....even tho she kind of wasted it.....but probably would not have won without it......

my main complaint is that I don't like them getting to buy peanut butter and whatever else....and the camp started looking like a resort with all the swings and benches and pillows and painting materials....etc....it actually seemed like the show was intentionally not trying to show some of the benches and swings and hammocks.....those things used to be stuff you won at the reward challenges....now, nobody has to go fishing or anything....which used to be huge.....I remember one season that one crazy young lady took it upon herself to bargain with Jeff that they would trade in a bunch of comforts for more rice.....stuff like that never happens anymore....the game has gotten too soft with all these extra things they have added....and its has gotten away from the social core of the game.....now its just blindsides and who gets advantages and steal a votes, and leave tribal, and 50/50 etc.....I really feel a season of "old school" survivor is in desperate need.....we give you some rice and hide a few idols and thats it.....go back to there being some benefit of catching fish, working around camp, building shelters, etc...

soft city....

eta: this takes nothing away from Tony.....I am sooooo glad he won.....he played one of the best all around games I have seen.....top to bottom.....never had his name written down and was dictating everything.....totally on point around every turn/corner....his anticipation and intuition and ability to take the temperature of the room was top shelf stuff......made Sara look like an idiot.... 

 

[Cjw_55106]

Here is what should happen next season:

- All Hidden Immunity Idols are gone. They don't exist anymore.

- Fire tokens are in play with rewards that can be bought. There is a finite number of them... like Bitcoins. You buy advantages, leave tribal, steal vote. No purchased idols until after the merge.

- Tokens can be used for barter in case fear of being voted out exists. Merge game is huge.

No thanks. This makes the game what it is. How boring is a game with no way of protecting yourself? Blindsides would be non existent. 

 

[Challenge Everything]

No thanks. This makes the game what it is. How boring is a game with no way of protecting yourself? Blindsides would be non existent. 

Contestants can buy Idols with enough fire tokens. Allies trade fire tokens so a person can buy an idol. A person could lie about how many fire tokens they have to try to manipulate the game. So much more strategy to the currency aspect than finding an idol.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Contestants can buy Idols with enough fire tokens. Allies trade fire tokens so a person can buy an idol. A person could lie about how many fire tokens they have to try to manipulate the game. So much more strategy to the currency aspect than finding an idol.

If someone needs people to help them buy immunity, it takes away secrecy. One person can keep a secret, but any more and it just doesnt seem to work. How and how often are fire tokens available? 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Contestants can buy Idols with enough fire tokens. Allies trade fire tokens so a person can buy an idol. A person could lie about how many fire tokens they have to try to manipulate the game. So much more strategy to the currency aspect than finding an idol.

currency in any form moves the game further and further away from the core of the game......

 

[stbugs]

No thanks. This makes the game what it is. How boring is a game with no way of protecting yourself? Blindsides would be non existent. 

I wouldn’t want no hidden idols, but damn can they make them harder to find or make them search with multiple clues? The idols are found immediately and they find them the day after they are played. There’s pretty much always an idol in play. Just makes it somewhat silly after the merge when you have 6 people and 4 people are protected.

 

[NREC34]

I got behind again and just got to watch an episode. Like I said in an earlier post, Tony is an awesome player, maybe the goat. Bye bye Kim. 

 

[Pip's Invitation]

For this being the "Best season ever" talk..............I still think it was a crappy decision by CBS to axe ANY possible Reunion show after the vote reveal. 
For what it's worth, CBS should have taken the 3 hours of game play split it into:
WED 5/13:   2 hour show
WED 5/20:   1 hour gameplay + 1 hour of Reunion via Zoom call

The Survivor Reunion show is sometimes more entertaining, or more revealing to watch than the actual final episode (but it does usually have some unnecessary fluff too)

Would have liked to have Probst ask Ben more questions about the sacrifical lamb scene
Would have like to have Probst ask Natalie questions about not choosing Fire making vs Tony  

I was perfectly fine with how they did this. Recent reunion shows have been mostly terrible (remember much of Ghost Island's being taken up by promos for a dumb Kevin Hart game show?), and there's really not much of a need for them anymore because there are plenty of online exit interviews and podcast appearances that reveal what the castaways thought about their experience and what they're up to now. 

 

[Pip's Invitation]

Or if there are periodic eliminations on EOE, so if you get voted off D1, you really have to kick ### at challenges to get back in. 

They already did that, it was called Redemption Island. It sucked too. 

 

[Pip's Invitation]

The fire token thing just fell flat. I was expecting something big to happen at the end, but, nope... peanut butter and advantages for EoE people, snoozefest for the main game.

They didn't get the idols thing right either at first. First time (S11) it was too underpowered. The following two seasons it was overpowered. Starting with S14 they found the right balance. Maybe the same thing will happen with fire tokens. 

 

[NREC34]

I’m far from a survivor superfan but in my mind Tony might be the best player I’ve ever seen. It’s amazing the stuff he does. Hiding in the brush to hear what others are saying to make moves. and he gets others to vote with him and blindside. He’s also good at finding idols and decent on challenges. 

Just finished watching. What a post, dude. Spot on. 

Idk though, hiding in the tree and then having people come right where he is to strategize seems like it could be staged.