yeah that season is sooooo good. def rewatchable. the HD helps a lot. it is also edited reallly well. id take a damn it reed! avatar

i cropped the original frame and slowed it down

let me know if you want something different

Im beginning to feel very results oriented when it comes to judging the quality of a particular season of survivor by who actually wins the game (or at least goes fairly deep)

HeroesvsVillains could have potentially been so much better if lets say instead of the actual dynamic they had at the merge, we had Boston Rob, Tyson, Coach, Courtney, Sandra vs Colby, Tom, JT, Stephanie, Sugar. Essentially if the power struggles in each tribe were reversed.

Plus with the actual power dynamic at the merge, I was really disappointed and bitter about the outcome of the F3.

Insider transcripts from Ponderosa (available on survivorsucks.com) had all 5 heroes repeatedly talking about how they were planning to vote in a block and essentially get the person of their choosing to win. Their bitterness against Parvati, in spite of her great strategic/physical game, was unforgiveable. Not to say that Sandra was a bad winner (she played her role as the floater to perfection), but to rob Parvati of the title using a premeditated voting block was absolutely despicable, given the experience of the jurors.

Put Danielle on the Heroes, get rid of Candice and get Corinne on the villains, replace Randy with Shane and who knows how much better this season could of been.

If Dan, Naonka, Chase, or PurpleKelly wins Nicaragua, this season is as good as dead to me.

/end of rant

They asked Corinne but she had work commitments or something. Shane should definitely have been on over Randy though, and I'd have liked to see Dreamz (yes, seriously) or Fairplay. Obviously Natalie Bolton over Danielle as well.

Put those guys in and merge at F12 and you have an even better season imo.

Soncy: Didn't know she was your MIL, my mistake. Players like Lill/Dreamz/Sugar/NaOnka etc. make great TV, I just wish jurors would stop acting as irrationally on the jury as those players do in the game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these people who wants the standard LA recruits to be burned at the stake and every season to be composed entirely of superfan applicants, but you'd think the producers would realise by this point that most of the wastes of space they put in the cast as eye candy or whatever don't last long anyway unless they're also game-savvy (e.g. Brenda/Parv).

add rob c plz

Rob Cesternino was withheld from Heroes vs Villains because of 2 primary reasons

1. He was in a very (relatively) early season and his presence in the first All Stars Season was very brief (he got screwed with the tribe placement), so his appearance and appeal was waning and somewhat forgettable when compared to players from recent seasons

2. He got in a personal altercation with Probst at the Vanuatu finale after he vehemently defended Johnny Fairplay's fight with Probst's brother, calling Probst's brother "a rowdy drunk who was out of control" and getting in a verbal spat with Probst himself over the issue

He's not clearly a villain though. I'd love to see a Survivor: Masterminds season (some combination of Hatch, Lex, BRob, Heidik, Rob C., JFP, Rafe, Yul, Yau-Man, Todd, Ken, Stephen, Russell, Tina, Kathy, Deena, Cirie, Parv etc.) but in a season like HvV you need people who can be easily identified with a theme. One of the reasons Danielle and Candice are such poor casting choices is that their hero/villain status is ambiguous.

Survivor Season 24: Brains vs Brawn. Book it.

I like the chances of a Rob C. comeback a whole lot due to his podcast. It seems to be extremely popular, as podcasts go.

Neither were half of the "villains" in S20. "Villain" has quickly become synonymous with "smart player." The Heroes were mostly integrity-first, clueless egomaniacs; the only smart ones were Tom, JT, and Cirie, all of whom are only "heroic" because the public liked them (in the same way that Coach, who is pretty much the definition of a Hero, was labeled a Villain because the audience disliked him).

There's really no reason at all that Cesternino is a villain, but I think it's pretty clear he would be one in that format. It's weird because he plays a game similar to that of Cirie (who is clearly more of a villain than a hero), and I assume he was popular with the audience just like she was, yet she's a Hero and he'd be a Villain. Dumb.

Oh, I see. What you're really talking about is tactics.

You can't chose to be "funny, hot, charismatic". Don't you think you could chose to be nice?

And your view of nice seems to be limited as well. Nice means much more than being non-offensive. A "Nice Strategy" would include being pleasant, actively talking to everyone, finding out how they are doing. It could not be your complete strategy, but don't you think that by doing these things you would be much less likely to be voted out. And then if you made it to FTC wouldn't it be good if people wanted to vote for you?

Why am I the only person on 2p2 who hates HvV? Is it groupthink?

The concept is campy and stupid. But the viewers still get beaten over the head with the "HEROES ARE GOOD VILLAINS ARE EVIL", not to mention the constant blabbering by Colby and Rupert about integrity and being proud of being a hero, which was gagworthy the first time it was shown , but totally unbearable when it was shown over and over and over again.

I could go on and on... The cartoon character edits all the players got. The annoying cast, filled with third-timers that I could've done without seeing twice. All the actual interesting characters getting booted early. The bitter Heroes being a terrible jury. Half the season being HII searches/discussions (yawn). The horribly edited Tyson boot.

What was actually good about HvV? Oh yeah, Coach was funny I guess.

Seriously, **** HvV and the love that gets showered on it here.

No.

meh, hot girls, lots of strategy, blindsides, super funny characters (booted a bit too soon like was said). bad ending but what can ya do. Least it wasnt Rupert.

You aren't a huge fan of the strategic side of the game like we are. The level of gameplay that season was second to none. We were shown amazing complex games by almost the whole villain tribe. Many more on the Hero tribe were playing great games from what we were shown from JT, Cirie, Tom, and Candice early on, to Rupert and Colby turning it on at the end.

It's very hard to argue that there's ever been a better final 3 ever in terms of gameplay. I think Tocantins is the only one in its league.

Other than being a bit too Russell-centric it had several great story arcs that played out in really interesting ways.

I thought when I re-watched it I might feel more like you, but in reality I became even more steadfast in my love for it. There were some super frustrating moments, to be sure, but that season probably had 3 or 4 of the best tribal councils ever.

Edit: I also disagree that they beat us over the head with Heroes are good and Villains are bad. They gave James, Rupert and JT pretty villainous edits, while giving Coach, Boston Rob, and Sandra pretty heroic edits. I think the actual message they were trying to get across that season is that everyone is a little bit of both...Except Russell b/c there was just no way to both let him speak and portray him in a positive light.

+1 - that season would be awesome. Would add Penner and (maybe) Sash to that list.

f*ck it, might as well add Marty too

the masterminds season would def be weak in respect to drawing from the limited female pool if it is planned to be 10 men and 10 women

there would have to be a few LOLworthy Danielles and Candices from latest seasons in there

Of course, but these aren't strategic decisions. For me, "strategy" is specifically the voting process, creating alliances, flipping, using idols, etc. Everything else isn't strategy, it's the social aspect of the game. In other words, you could have a perfect strategy, but if everyone hates you so much that you can't convince them to carry out that strategy, your game isn't going to be very good.

I guess the problem I have with this is players who say stuff like, "My strategy is to be nice to everyone, make them laugh, and fly under the radar." Well, no, that has nothing at all to do with strategy, and the reason you fly under the radar is that you're not actually making any strategic decisions, so you're a free vote for the strategists to use. That doesn't mean those nice players can't win, but the ~15 of them in each season are sort of at the mercy of the strategists for most of the game because they're actively trying NOT to control each vote.

Kos I think you are confusing "get to the end" strategy and possibly "make a bunch of cool moves" strategy with "win the game" strategy

No, I'm not. You're just confusing something that worked once with something that would work on a consistent basis. Natalie from Samoa might win 100% of the time she gets to the finals, but she doesn't get to the finals very often.

Also, the "cool moves" are the only reason Natalies of the world can get to the end. Maybe Russell can't win a jury vote, but Natalie can't get to the end without all the "cool moves" he made. I don't only respect "cool moves" either. I mean, Parvati is easily a top five player, but I'd argue that she's a very mediocre strategist.

It's worked way more than once bud... there are also a ton of strategic players who get voted off early, in the middle, and at the end... Not to mention a lot of people don't have much of a capacity for strategic thought in a setting like this.. So they play the game that gives them the best chance to win, even if it's 2% instead of 5%. Tom with gray hair said it best on the HvV reunion... Whoever wins each season deserved to win it.

I mean you think Natalie played a bad game? She didn't "win", Russell lost because he can't control himself.. If he is going to play so rough and aggressive throughout the game he absolutely has to pull of a Todd from China like tribal where he respects the other players and shows some humility.. Instead he kept berating everyone and talking about how great he was, he blew it. But at least Natalie recognized that everyone hated Russell so she would look in comparison sitting up there. Tucking behind Russell and letting him burn bridges with everyone on the jury and bring you to the finals is not a bad strategy because a lot of jury members don't think rationally and that's part of the game.

I don't think Natalie realized anything on that season.

So again I will have to say, you have a very limited view of strategy. Because a "perfect" strategy that can't be carried out isn't very perfect is it? It is impossible to separate the mechanics of "game play" from the social interactions involved in living with others in those conditions. Everything is too intertwined.

Flying under the radar is a strategy. It's just not very good because it's incomplete. You need to also (among others) actively be engaged in knowing what the alliances are and where you fit in those alliances, and make timely suggestions to those that are putting themselves out there as trying to manage the vote.

at minimum she did before the final tribal

It's really not, and Todd touched on it at the China finale...but I give up. We're not going to convince each other of anything, and no one wants to hear this crap again.

Meh, make a Rusty sandwich between a slice of Brenda and a slice of Alina and I am all in.