This site uses cookies. If you continue to browse the site, we shall assume that you accept the use of cookies.
Big Brother and online Hunger games.

I Think It's Hilarious...

May 15, 2014 by Chee5e55ave5
How Russell Hantz is so anti-Tony. Seriously, his Twitter feed is constantly filled with anti-Tony comments and how he's rooting for Spencer. I think my favorite tweet of his was on Jefra's boot episode, he praised Spencer for planting a seed of paranoia in Tony's head to save himself. I seriously wanted to make a Twitter account just to say 'Yeah. That move was amazing. Kind of like how Sandra did that to you in Heroes vs Villains, huh?'

So why does Russell hate Tony for playing essentially the same game he played? Is it a simple case of pride in that Tony is being a copy-cat? Given that we know how arrogant Russell is, it's perfectly possible. But I think it goes a little deeper than that.

A few weeks ago, another Tengager posted that if Tony wins, this will prove that Russell's strategy works and that Russell is therefore a great player. This claim is only partially correct. Yes, Tony's winning this season will prove that the specific strategy Russell implemented can be successful. But you know what else it will prove? That Russell sucks.

Seriously, think about it. What Russell is successful at is playing a very hard, aggressive game to get to the end and one that is heavily reliant on idols. You can see the argument made that this strategy cannot work, that this strategy risks pissing off a lot of people and creating a great deal of resentment on the jury. This of course has been said millions of times at this point but it's basically why Russell can't win; because he's too aggressive and obnoxious as a person. And I think it's a fair argument that a lot of Russell supporters can blame this on his strategy and not on him; that his strategy is a great one to get to the end but no one can win using Russell's strategy, no one can do it better than Russell and if Russell can't win with the strategy, then no one can. This could be used as an excuse for Russell's loss and it still makes Russell look like a great player.

But what happens if Tony somehow wins? Outside of a few confrontations, Tony has never been anywhere near as awful to people as Russell has and he's never gone out of his way to specifically boast about how great he is and how superior he is to everybody else. So a Tony win isn't entirely out of the question. So if Tony winds up winning, people can no longer blame Russell's losses on his strategy because if Tony wins, he proves that the strategy can work if executed properly. In terms of winning, Russell can't execute it properly. Can you see where I'm going with this?

The bottom line is that a Tony win will mean that Russell will no longer have ANY excuses as to why he lost and that he just sucks at Survivor when it comes to actually winning. All pro-Russell arguments will officially be invalid. And I think Russell knows this too, which is why his anti-Tony tirade gets so intense. Can you imagine how big of a blow to his massive ego it will be for someone to take Russell's exact game and actually make it work?  The myth of an unjustifiably bitter jury will be dead. The argument that Russell's strategy is not a winning strategy will be dead. A Tony win will prove once and for all that Russell's strategy works; Russell himself is just retarded. And the uproar this would cause for Russell fans would be a thing of beauty.

That being said, I'd be perfectly happy with any of these four winning (or really any of the final seven winning. Seriously, the merge boot order was as perfect as it gets) yet out of the four, I feel Tony's arc would work best if he lost. But if Tony does wind up winning, I can still look at the bright side I just mentioned and accept Tony as a winner (even though the super idol sucks).
#Survivor

Comments

Chee5e55ave5 well said.
Sent by Avalon,May 15, 2014
I think you're right but I just can't see a Tony win. I just feel like he's been set up for a big downfall all year and I'll be surprised if he actually pulls this out.
Sent by yankeeman311,May 15, 2014
yankeeman311 Yeah Tony's arc feels like it will end best with a downfall. Then again, that's what we were hoping for in Redemption Island...
Sent by Chee5e55ave5,May 15, 2014
Russell's game was so different than tony's. It wasnt as good, but it was a lot more entertaining. Still, he was the first ever to control a season like that and i give russell kudos. We all know he was a great player. But i think tony evolved russell's game and there is only a little sliver of what russell did in it. They are a lot different
Sent by tiafrsn4,May 16, 2014
wait but wouldn't that just meen that the jury russell had was bitter and the one that tony had was not?
Sent by Sackeshi,May 16, 2014
Sackeshi Honestly, if Russell had only been slaughtered by Samoa's jury, you may have had a point.  After all, if there was only one jury performance to base Russell's jury abilities off of, then it is difficult to judge how well Russell did in that area. Really, watching back the Samoa final Tribal Council, even though Russell had been horrible and obnoxious to the jury throughout the game, he actually didn't do an awful job answering the jury's questions (still not great though) and it could be argued the Samoa jury didn't give him a chance. And with only one jury, the cases can vary because a jury's preferences on how the members choose to vote can be purely subjective based on who the members are. After all, Boston Rob lost with one jury and won with another (although the difference there was in All-Stars, personal relationships outside the game got burned) and I'd be willing to suggest Stephen could have won with a jury that wasn't ridiculously enamored with JT. With only one performance that pissed off a jury, fine, maybe Russell could've won with another jury.

HOWEVER, Russell was NOT slaughtered by only one jury. He got slaughtered by two, the second of which was more experienced and actually knew why his mistakes were mistakes and why Russell was awful and a retard, not just from a subjective level. And Russell was even worse to them. At that point, it's completely Russell's fault he lost. He made the same mistakes as last time, only making them 10x worse. Seriously, if you only make one jury absolutely pissed at you, fine, you can have a little wiggle room for the belief that the jury was bitter. But if you manage to piss off two juries with different levels of experience (and based on the fact that almost no one from either of the two shows really wants anything to do with him, two ENTIRE casts) doing the same thing you did before, then you really have no one to blame but yourself. Juries generally do reward good players even if they were betrayed, bitter or if they dislike them subjectively (See Brian, Chris, Todd, RI Rob, Kim, Cochran, Tyson); the fact that Russell failed miserably with two different juries speaks for itself and if the jury does decide to award Tony the win, that seals the deal.
Sent by Chee5e55ave5,May 16, 2014
Chee5e55ave5 so the victory of tony would be the fall of russell
Sent by Sackeshi,May 16, 2014
Sackeshi Technically the fall of Russell already happened when he got defeated, humiliated and heartbroken three times (within four seasons too so the poor guy never even caught a break. I actually start to feel bad for him by the third time). A Tony win would just add insult to injury, being able to do what Russell couldn't and taking away excuses as to why Russell couldn't. We'll just have to wait and see what happens on Wednesday. It's a win-win for me either way whether Tony or someone else wins.
Sent by Chee5e55ave5,May 16, 2014

Leave a comment