One week after "Survivor" crowned a two-million dollar winner in its landmark 40th season, our expert, two-man panel is here to break everything down. Join the Brothers Christensen as they navigate through 20 hard-hitting questions about "Survivor: Winners at War."
THE SEASON
1. What was your overall opinion of the season and the outcome?
Austin: I thought that it was an overall good season with an ending that you could have predicted at the merge. That said, it helped rekindle my love for "Survivor."
Aaron: Overall, very strong season. Best cast ever, undoubtedly. Unlike many seasons of "Survivor," the right person won, and I don't think there is any question about that.
2. What did you like about "Winners at War"?
Austin: It had an AMAZING cast! The best ever, IMO. I'm not a huge Tony fan, but I also enjoyed sitting back and enjoying greatness.
Aaron: Great, great cast. It was fun to see a lot of really good players coming back, and the fact that they were all winners made it so there was good gameplay from the very first episode. In a lot of seasons, it takes a few episodes to warm up to the cast, and for the players to figure out how to play the game, but Season 40 came out of the gate swinging. The first half of the season was full of terrific episodes.
3. What did you NOT like about "Winners at War"?
Aaron: I still don't love Edge of Extinction, although it was implemented in a way this season where it felt like players on the Edge still influenced the game. I'm also not sure that I love bringing a person back from the Edge right before the finale. It just feels cheap in some ways, and it's an almost-guaranteed asterisk if somebody coming back into the game that late goes on to win. I feel like they should have introduced Fire Tokens in a regular season, not in an all-star season, so the audience and the players both had a better idea of how they needed to be implemented. I don't think that TV viewers truly understood everything that was going on with them, and it ended up being a largely unnecessary layer on top of what should have been a pretty straight-forward season. Too many players were willing to quit the game this season, which was really surprising to me. Sandra actually did quit, Denise mentally quit, and Ben literally told Sarah to vote him out. It's two million dollars, people! What gives??
Austin: The editing was lacking. There were so many twists and turns this season that at times it was difficult for the viewers to keep up with what was happening.
Aaron: After reading Austin's response, I agree about the editing. My wife was constantly asking why Ben and Jeremy hated each other, and I could never explain it because I am not sure that we actually saw it.
4. Where does "Winners at War" rank in the pantheon of "Survivor" seasons?
Aaron: Top Five, probably. There have been so many seasons that they all kind of blur together, and so many of them have either been really good or really bad. I can definitively say, though, that "Winners at War" was not THE BEST season of all time. The second half of the season was too predictable and the fact that nobody, other than Kim, whose plan was a miserable failure, was willing to take a shot at Tony kind of rubbed me the wrong way. But in terms of domination by a single player, this was an all-time performance by Tony. He worked the entire cast, and they were all seasoned enough to have known better and tried harder to prevent it. The high point of the season was the night where we saw Parvati and Sandra voted out in back-to-back Tribals. That was one of the best nights of "Survivor" that I can ever remember.
Austin: I’d say Top 10, for sure. Prior to the merge, it was looking like it would be the best season ever, but prior to the finale I actually predicted EXACTLY how the finale would go. The last half of the season was too predictable for it to be the best.
THE PLAYERS
5. Who, if anyone, exceeded your expectations?
Austin: Tony, obviously, and also Michele. I didn’t expect Tony to play the best game ever, but I certainly didn’t expect Michele to make it all the way to the finale and have a fairly compelling case to receive votes.
Aaron: Tony - an all-time great performance. Truly masterful. Michele - everybody said, going in, that she was an undeserving winner and a major underdog in the game. Look who's laughing now. Natalie - she has overcome her "Twinnie" persona that I hated so much from "The Amazing Race" and the first part of her winning season, and, even though she spent the entire time on Extinction, she was head and shoulders above everybody else that got voted out.
6. Who, if anyone, failed to meet your expectations?
Aaron: Adam - I really liked him in his original season, and even thought he did pretty well for the first episode or two, but after that... Man... I don't even know. Ben - I don't know what my expectations were for Ben, but he just bugged the heck out of me the entire time. The guy can't keep a secret to save his life, and then the way he exited the game was truly pathetic. Denise - I love Denise, I don't really understand her transformation late in the game, and her downward spiral from voting out Sandra to verbally giving up is a bit mind-boggling.
Austin: Ben and Kim. I think Ben was way out of his league in this season and, frankly, I don’t think he belonged. Kim, on the other hand, was so dominant in her first season that I was expecting more from her. The fact that she was voted out because she made one of the most basic mistakes a survivor can make only adds to the disappointment.
7. Who were you rooting for at the beginning of the season? Who were you rooting for at the end of the season?
Aaron: At the beginning, Tyson, Denise, Adam and Wendell. At the end, well... I mean, I understood that Tony deserved to win, but everybody I had a vested interest in had been booted by then. Michele by default, I guess?
Austin: At first I was rooting for Tyson and Denise, who are two of my favorite castaways ever. Heading into the finale, I was rooting for Michelle. I thought she played a great underdog game and I think she’s one of the most underrated Survivors of all time.
8. Have we finally seen the last of Boston Rob and Sandra?
Aaron and Austin: Yes.
9. What did you think about Natalie having so many advantages from her time on Edge of Extinction?
Aaron: For someone who was voted out at the first Tribal Council, Natalie had WAY too many advantages. I don't disagree that she earned them and she deserved some credit for working so hard, but for her to have three advantages and two idols, compared to Nick, who was the last person sent to Extinction and had NOTHING, that was totally unfair.
Austin: Two things come to mind. First, I think the system is broken. Nick lasted 34 days and had 0 chances to gain an advantage heading into the final challenge. Why should someone who was voted out on Day Two have the opportunity to monopolize advantages like she did? Second, props to her! She cleaned up on Extinction and went out of her way to earn everything that she could.
10. What did you think about Ben giving Sarah permission to vote him out?
Austin: Ben was a weak player this season. I think his logic in Sarah using that move as a resume builder was flawed. Mostly, on this season I really wanted to see all the heavyweights go at it and fight to the finish. I would definitely have rather had someone else in the final five who was willing to fight to the end and try to win.
Aaron: Weak. Pathetic. Completely ridiculous. And for him to insinuate, "What you need in order to win is a big move, so I give you permission to vote me out," totally cheapened the move Sarah made in the first place. How could she possibly claim that and say, "My one big move was that I voted Ben out after he told me to do it"?
11. What did you think about Sarah's "gender bias" speech in the finale? Did it change your opinion of her?
Aaron: First of all, she should have saved that speech for the final Tribal. Second of all, I understand that some viewers believe that the producers have it out for women (especially "women of color," as I read in one particular article), but I don't buy it. I don't think her speech changed my opinion of Sarah, specifically, but I didn't think she made enough significant moves to win the game either way.
Austin: The timing of it was interesting. It felt like she was pandering a bit early to the jury, and why not? You don’t have to save it all to the final Tribal Council. I’m not sure I agreed with everything she said, but I thought she eloquently stated her side of things. My opinion of Sarah remains the same.
12. Did Natalie make the right decisions after re-entering the game?
Austin: I didn’t want her to use her idol on herself; I wanted her to save Michele, but it didn’t matter. After the merge, especially, the individuality of your game increases. I think it was the smart thing to do (BUT SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE TOLD SARAH THAT SHE HAD IT!!). From the fire side of things, had Natalie challenged Tony to fire and won, I think she might have unanimously won the game.
Aaron: I mean, what the jury probably wanted was for her to play her idol for Michelle, then voluntarily give up her individual immunity to make fire against Tony (a move that has already been done, mind you, and led to the crowning of the most controversial winner of all time). Her moves guaranteed her a spot in the finale, and I can't blame her for that. She came in and wiped out Tony's alliance, and that was awesome. The only way she would have won would have been by eliminating Tony, though, and that didn't end up happening.
13. What did you think about the final Tribal Council?
Aaron: Overall, it was fine. I don't love the "Outwit, Outplay, Outlast" format that they adopted a couple seasons back, but it is what it is. The jury wasn't bitter, which is always nice, and it seemed like everyone respected everyone else, and that's good.
Austin: I thought it was good, but certainly different that what we have seen in the past. The jury was laughing with the final three, admiring some moves they made, and it didn’t feel nearly as bitter as other final Tribal Councils that we have seen.
Aaron: I actually thought that each of the final three made solid cases for why they deserved to win. I thought that they each represented the three main aspects of the game, too - Tony was easily the best strategic player, Natalie dominated Extinction from a physical standpoint, and Michele had to play a flawless social game to survive on the bottom for as long as she did.
14. Tony won, 9-4-0. Did Michele deserve any votes?
Austin: I think she deserved at least one. With Michele’s resume from this season, I think you could transplant her to many other "Survivor" seasons and she would have easily won. The problem is that she ran into Tony, who played the greatest individual season of "Survivor" ever.
Aaron: Yes, at least one. Many people online were giving Wendell a hard time for not voting for her, but I don't think you can force a guy to vote for somebody just because they dated. That shouldn't have anything to do with it. But yes, I do think that it was a shame Michele didn't get more votes.
15. Is Tony the greatest "Survivor" player of all time?
Aaron and Austin: Yes.
GENERAL QUESTIONS
16. Should "Survivor" continue to use Fire Tokens?
Aaron: I don't mind if they come back, but they need to iron out a couple things first. As viewers, I don't think we really understood everything that could be done with the tokens. It seemed like, as far as we knew, they were really only used for advantages/disadvantages to be sold to players still in the game or for jars of peanut butter.
Austin: They should. I think there is a lot of intrigue with Fire Tokens, but they weren’t implemented correctly this season. We saw lots of different situations where the tokens caused changes in gameplay, most of which were entertaining, but I think they need to look at how people on the Edge of Extinction can earn/use them. This season’s system was so slanted in favor of the first person to be voted off that it didn’t feel right.
17. Should "Survivor" continue to utilize Edge of Extinction?
Austin: I think that having a second chance eliminates some of the beauty of the game. I think that with hidden immunity idols, among other things, that there are enough ways to prevent being voted off that having a second chance at coming back in the game feels too merciful.
Aaron: No. Get rid of it. Once you're out, you're out.
18. If you could play with anyone from this season, who would it be?
Aaron: Denise seems like she would be a pretty loyal ally, and I think, if you can get on his good side, Tyson would be a blast to play with. He and Gervase remain one of the top duos in the history of the show.
Austin: Tony is entertaining, for sure, but I think I’d go crazy if I played with him. I think I’d want to play with Tyson because I think he’s hilarious, an awesome player and an overall good dude.
19. Is there anyone from this season that you would not want to play with?
Aaron: Tony. The guy drives me nuts. Sandra and Rob, too. I'd want them gone immediately.
Austin: Boston Rob. He’s so bossy that I’d probably lose my temper within the first 24 hours on the island with him.
20. What makes "Survivor" such a great show?
Austin: This might be the hardest question because I think there is a combination of about 1,000 things. I think that the show finds normal people, brings them entirely out of their element, and it shows what people are capable of doing in a game where there are real life consequences and a significant financial reward.
Aaron: The fact that it has been able to successfully reinvent itself so many times over the years is a testament to its greatness. I love the drama of it all. There have been some epic blindsides over the years, and it never gets old watching somebody think they're on top, only to come crashing down half an hour later. And finally, we've got to give some props to the best to ever do it - Jeff Probst, the greatest game show host ever!
What did you think about "Survivor: Winners at War"? We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below, on Twitter or on Facebook.
Until next time,
The tribe has spoken!
No comments:
Post a Comment