Way, way back when I started this series, one of my initial ideas for a “What-If” to do was to have Candice not do a dumb and flip on the Heroes post-merge. I was really excited about the idea, and all the implications it could have. Then I did my research, realized Russell had an idol at that time, and so the point was most likely moot. Heroes don’t have a way to come back, and the post-merge regrettably remains “The Russell Hantz Show”. Still, I wanted to find some way to make it work. After all “Survivor Heroes vs Villains” is one of, if not the, most beloved season of all time by most of the fanbase. I disagree with quite how good it is, mainly because I find the post-merge so frustrating. If I can fix that, then I can get on the hype train with all other fans. So, can one small change to the timeline do that? Let’s find out.
First, though, a quick reminder that I can’t really discuss changes to the timeline without discussing, at least in abstract, how things played out in OUR timeline. In other words, there will be SPOILERS ahead, both for this season, and seasons that came afterward. Read ahead at your own risk. For those still here, let’s take a look at the change, starting with the change itself.
THE IMPACT
Unfortunately, between Russell’s idol and Candice’s dumb move to flip, it takes us quite a while post-merge to get to a point where we can make an actual change. Indeed, if you just looked at what we were shown in the show, this wouldn’t even seem like a plausible change. However, if one examines post-show interviews, it’s revealed that Sandra did try and get out Russell at the final six, using her idol. She went to Rupert and tried to convince him to vote with her, so she could play her idol on him, getting Russell sent home 2-1 (Sandra didn’t want to include Colby on the plan, so he presumably still votes for Sandra). Regrettably, her pitch was basically “Trust me and we can take this game just the two of us.” Not a particularly strong pitch, and Rupert not exactly being great in the strategy department meant he didn’t trust it, and the deal fell through. So, in our timeline, Sandra realizes that Rupert was less dismissing her idea and more just not getting it, and spells out for him what she plans. She tells him about the idol, if not shows it to him, and despite Rupert probably wanting to tell Colby about the plan, explains why it’s too big a risk. Rupert, wanting Russell out, agrees to trust Sandra, and thus, as detailed above, gets Russell eliminated 2-1. This sets things up for a very interesting finale, which we’ll discuss below.
THE FALLOUT
Colby is, of course, a little upset about being left out of the vote, but some reassurances from Rupert, coupled with relief over Russell being gone, smoothes things over between the two. Thus, with themselves and Sandra, they now form the new power trio of the finale, putting Parvati and Jerri on the backfoot. Parvati, however, is lucky, in and of that the next immunity challenge favors her. She won even in our timeline, and I doubt trading out Russell for Rupert changes that fact. Thus, Jerri probably goes home at final five, to her frustration. Final Four is a bit trickier to predict. After all, of the four remaining, only two (Parvati and Sandra) were there in our timeline, and neither was particularly close to winning. I think it’s safe to say that Sandra still doesn’t win the challenge, but that’s not saying much. There are arguments to be made for any of the other three winning, but if we want to stick with the most plausible outcome, I think Parvati is the most likely winner. Rupert and Colby are no slouches, but both were clearly past their prime this season, while we know Parvati still did decently well, even if she was behind both Russell and Jerri in our timeline. So, with Parvati immune, the three turn on each other, with Rupert as the swing vote, since he has ties with both Sandra and Colby. In the end, I’d say Rupert’s loyalty to his original tribe (even if not his original alliance) outweighs his previous bond with Sandra, and between that and Parvati wanting revenge, Sandra goes. Thus, rather than being a sweep for the Villains Tribe, we now have Rupert, Colby, and Parvati as our final three. This, of course, shakes up the votes considerably, so much so that I feel inclined to go through each juror individually, and talk about how their vote would go before moving on to the “Legacy” portion of this blog.
Coach: It’s tempting to say that Coach’s vote doesn’t change, since Parvati is present in the finals in both timelines we’re talking about. Recall, though, that Coach voted for her as “The Least Bad Option” rather than particularly liking or respecting her game. In his mind, she was still tied to Russell, but did more than Sandra. As such, if Coach has any option to vote for someone who opposed Russell, he would do so. Therefore, I think Coach is a Rupert vote in this timeline. Having never interacted with either of them outside of challenges, Coach has basically only their challenge performance to go off of. Also recall that Coach respects people who win out in honorable combat, and wouldn’t you know it, but both Colby and Rupert battled against Coach in challenges this season (Colby in the first reward challenge, Rupert on the sumo immunity challenge). Rupert beat him. Colby did not. Ergo, in Coach’s mind, voting for Rupert is the right thing to do. Plus, Rupert cast a vote against Russell, while in this timeline, Colby did not.
Courtney: Contrasting to Coach, Courtney doesn’t respect anyone. We probably get a fiery speech from her about how seriously all three take themselves. As to her vote, I can’t see it going to anyone but Parvati. While I doubt Courtney has any love for any of the finalists in this timeline, Rupert and Colby buy too much into their own narrative, and Courtney only spent time with Parvati, so Parvati probably gets her vote.
J.T.: Because we need some variety, it turns out J.T. votes for the only option not voted for at this point in time: Colby. J.T. had no respect for Parvati or her game, as demonstrated throughout the season. As for choosing between Rupert and Colby, while Rupert and J.T. were aligned, we saw that J.T. did not respect Rupert’s gameplay, talking about leading him along. Colby might have been outside the dominant alliance, but made it to the finals nonetheless, and J.T. was able to work with him. Thus, Colby gets J.T.’s vote.
Amanda: Similar to J.T., Amanda is another person who, on the surface, should vote for Rupert. Parvati betrayed her this season, and even in our timeline, Parvati didn’t get Amanda’s vote, so that’s out. Conversely, Rupert was her ally the entire time, and succeeded in voting out Russell. However, like J.T., Amanda also didn’t respect Rupert in terms of strategy, and while she didn’t work with Colby, I’d guess she’d be impressed with him making it to the end in spite of this. Unless she REALLY holds a grudge from the “Treasure Island” reward, Amanda’s another Colby vote.
Candice: In keeping with the Heroes on the jury being a relatively united front, I’d say Candice votes for Colby. While I don’t think she particularly likes or respects any of the finalists, Parvati is tied too closely to Russell, and again, Rupert just has no game any fan of strategy can respect. Hence, Colby is the least-bad option for Candice.
Danielle: For once, a pretty straightforward result. Danielle and Parvati were aligned in the game. Danielle voted for Parvati even in our timeline. No reason to suspect Danielle would not vote for Parvati is this one as well.
Russell: Even though we’ve never seen Russell on the jury, we can have a very solid idea of how he would vote. Even in our timeline, he respected Parvati post-game, and is probably nursing a grudge against Rupert and Colby for getting him voted out (in his mind), and thus is a solid vote in the Parvati corner.
Jerri: Little respect for Colby’s game this season. DEFINITELY no respect for Rupert. Allied with Parvati. Voted for Parvati in our timeline. Another solid Parvati vote.
Sandra: Sandra is hands-down a Rupert vote. The pair had a bond. He was the only one initially willing to listen to her about Russell. And he helped vote Russell out of the game, which was Sandra’s only goal for most of the post-merge. No way she doesn’t reward that loyalty.
THE LEGACY
Doing the math, this leads to a Parvati victory on the season, winning 4-3-2 over Colby and Rupert. Oddly, this does mean that “Heroes vs. Villains” gets to keep the distinction of giving us our first two-time winner, while adding on the distinction of being the second season ever with a final three where all three finalists get votes. That said, there’s also probably a bigger backlash than this season imagined before. Yes, Parvati might have played a fantastic game. That doesn’t mean the fanbase likes it. To not only have an ally of Russell win (again), but to have her beat out Rupert and Colby, arguably the two most popular players in “Survivor” history? Yeah, don’t be surprised if more than a couple of people separate themselves from the community for a bit. Parvati probably gets some hate for beating out the favorites, but I’d imagine the most hate is reserved for Coach and Sandra. After all, if they had voted with the Heroes for Colby, he wins this season, which most of the fanbase in this timeline sees as the more desirable outcome. Yeah, fair to say they probably take a break from the fandom for a while.
What does this mean for future seasons? Unfortunately, Boston Rob and Russell still argue at the finale, thus giving us the impetus for “Survivor Redemption Island”, so we regrettably still put up with that trash fire of a season. “Survivor South Pacific” changes a little, though, as Coach probably doesn’t want to come back quite so soon on the heels of “Heroes vs. Villains”. Actually, given that Rupert is considered “The Man Who Took Down Russell Hantz” in this timeline (even though Sandra did the legwork), he probably takes Coach’s spot on that season, meaning it’s unlikely that Upolu dominates the post-merge quite like they do in our timeline. Moving forward a bit, the cast of “Survivor Game Changers” probably doesn’t change that much, since Sandra is now considered a “game changer” for being the woman who cost a hero the game, though it is possible we get Coach back in as well, probably in Troyzan’s spot. This is even possibly where Sandra gets a second win. After all, in our timeline she still dominated until the numbers just weren’t in her favor, and that was WITH the handicap of being the only two-time winner. Without that handicap? She could become the second two-time winner. Even so, Parvati is still considered the “queen” of “Survivor”, and so it’s probably her who gets a giant head on “Island of the Idols”. Finally, the cast of “Winners at War” doesn’t change, though who’s an early threat probably does (with Parvati being an even bigger target, and Sandra possibly a smaller one).
I asked at the beginning if making this change could get me on the hype train for “Heroes vs. Villains”. Could this change actually make it, for me, the greatest season of all time? Sorry, but no. Don’t get me wrong, the season does move up in my rankings somewhat in this timeline. We still have the excitement of most of the game, our first two-time winner, and Russell does get, in my opinion, a more satisfactory comeuppance than in our timeline. While the hubris is nice, I was tired of what I saw as no one successfully standing up to a bully, whereas here they do. That said, the season is still too Russell Hantz-heavy for me to be fully on board with it being the best ever. The fact that a Villain still wins, while appropriate given the show, is also disappointing. So, overall an improvement, but not by much. Perhaps our next season will shed some different light?
As to what that next season will be, you all have some input! In the comments below, feel free to suggest changes to the timeline you think would be fun to read about and analyze. I will give credit for any ideas that I use. Be aware, though, that there are some guidelines for what changes will and won’t be considered. They are as follows:
1. One Change Only: This can’t be a whole bunch of things or multiple things going another way to alter the course of a season. This must be one singular event that alters the season in some way. Cascade effects, where one change naturally leads to another, are ok, but they have to be natural and logical. As an example, Shii-Ann not flipping and Chuay Gahn losing the final 10 immunity challenge on “Survivor Thailand” would definitely change things, but those are two independent changes that need to happen, and therefore not for this blog. I should also mention that the change has to be an EVENT, not a play style. Yes, “Survivor Heroes vs. Villains” probably goes much differently if Russell Hantz (“Survivor Samoa”) isn’t an asshole to everyone, but apart from that never happening, it’s a change in overall play style, not a single moment. It’s also, as I say, implausible, which leads to my next ground rule…
2. The Change Must Be Realistic: An unlikely change is ok, but it has to be something that COULD have happened, or it’s not worth writing about. Yes, Fang winning the first challenge on “Survivor Gabon” would drastically change the season. Would it ever happen? No. So there’s no point in writing about it.
3. The Change Must Have An Impact: By this, I mean the change has to actually alter the season in some significant way. Simply changing up the boot order is not enough. Someone new has to win, the perception of the season has to change, or both. As an example, I originally planned to do a blog on “Survivor Heroes vs. Villains”, with a timeline where Candice didn’t flip at the final 9. I thought this could lead to a Heroes Victory. Then I remembered that Russell Hantz plays his idol in that same episode, meaning the flip likely doesn’t matter, and apart from a slight boot order change, the season as a whole remains untouched. Uninteresting, and therefore not worth talking about.
These rules are hand and fast, but the next two are flexible, and subject to change should circumstances dictate that it makes sense to do so. They are as follows:
4. US Seasons Only: This is nothing against international seasons of “Survivor”. From what I’ve heard through the grapevine, they can be quite good. The trouble is, as a citizen on the US, the US version of “Survivor” is the one I’m most familiar with, know the most about, and have seen the most of. I haven’t even seen a full international season of “Survivor”, just the occasional clip. Nothing knocking them, of course. I just haven’t gotten around to viewing them. So, while I won’t outright ban the suggesting of changes from non-US seasons of “Survivor”, bear in mind that I’m unlikely to pick them due to a lack of knowledge and lack of time to catch up on the seasons.
5. I Will Not Do Brandon Flipping At The Africa Final 9: A flip by Brandon Quinton at the Final 9 of “Survivor Africa”, voting out Lex instead of Kelly, would indeed fit all the criteria mentioned above. I’m refusing this particular scenario, not because it isn’t interesting or worth talking about, but because it was already covered by Mario Lanza in his book “When it Was Worth Playing For”. He covered it so well and so thoroughly that I don’t think I would have anything to add. I’m willing to consider this scenario if someone can give me a compelling reason that Mario is wrong, or there’s some aspect he didn’t consider, but until that time, this scenario is out. Other “Survivor Africa” scenarios are ok, though.
And there you have it. Looking forward to time-traveling with you all next time!
-Matt
idolspeculation 