After many trials, tribulations, and delays, I have finally managed to watch the “Survivor” finale and reunion show. Sadly, due to how long it took me to watch these, most of you will have already heard other thoughts, and as such, I may include slightly less detail than I normally do. Even so, I’ll try to hit all the points I normally hit with the finale blog, and this blog will still be overly long as-is, so let’s waste no more time on fancy introductions!
Remember what I said a blog or two ago about people this season not getting overly pissed over the outcome of a Tribal Council. The universe just HAD to give me a counter-example. Specifically, Jaclyn gets more than a little pissed over John’s eviction, though she doesn’t snap until it comes to Missy and Natalie questioning Jon’s loyalty. What results is fascinating unpleasantness that does Jaclyn no favors. I won’t address the argument itself here, as it has very little bearing on the outcome of the episode, but I will bring up that I’ve lately come to realize that I HATE it when people try to determine whether or not someone has been “loyal” in the game of “Survivor”. The trouble is that it’s a question that’s impossible to determine, as no one is loyal or traitorous all the time. Take Jon, for example. He betrayed Jeremy, and so you could argue he was traitorous. On the other hand, he was loyal to Missy to the point of ruining his own game, so in that way, he was a loyal person. Which one is he overall? I can’t tell you, but it’s something that is impossible to determine.
Evidently the episode also hates this unpleasantness, and gets to our reward challenge for the episode. That’s right, REWARD challenge. Evidently, the show is ahead of schedule, as they see fit to give us an extra reward challenge. Then again, perhaps they just understand how lackluster the strategy is overall this season, and so are giving us the only pleasant thing left. Today’s challenge is actually a pretty good one, though. Each contestant must unwind a bunch of rope from a fence. Once they have enough rope, they must assemble and cross over a bridge, before tossing beanbags at some blocks. The first person to knock over all their blocks gets reward. Technically a reused challenge, but one that combines a few disparate elements, so I’m going to let it pass in that regard. I do like the mind games of “Have I unwound enough rope?”, and the bridge building and crossing makes for some good-but-not-dangerous pratfalls. Sadly, this challenge is not without its problems. “Building the Bridge” just means putting sticks in holes. A bit simple, if you ask me. Better if they made the bridge a puzzle, so that you’d have to carefully choose which rungs you needed. On top of that, the climax of the challenge is a carnival game. I get that you want to make simple challenges that can be replicated at home, but come ON, give us an epic conclusion!
The reward itself is an advantage in the next immunity challenge, and I’m sure you’re all expecting my usual rant about immunity advantages this late in the game. If you are, then there’s a distinction I must bring up: I only hate advantages for the FINAL immunity challenges. It just seems like a sacrosanct challenge that needs to be an all-out brawl for who wants it most. Any OTHER challenge, however, I’m all for it, as it makes the reward challenge very high-stakes. So no, I don’t mind this one.
Keith wins the advantage, and sends Jaclyn to Exile Island for the last time. Probably, this is the best choice for Keith. You can’t send Missy or Baylor without offending the other, and as they’re likely to never vote for each other, they’ll probably need to be brought to the strategy table. An argument could be made for sending Natalie, as she’s the strongest woman left, but you’re also supposed to be somewhat allied with Natalie, so that looks bad. Jaclyn is a non-entity in almost all matters, so she’s the safe choice.
Jaclyn does get her own Exile Island scene, but it’s just a lot more complaining. Seriously, this better have an empowering point, or I’m going to be really pissed. Somewhat better of a watch is Keith, who gets his advantage a lot earlier than we’d expect. Basically, Keith gets a copy of the immunity challenge to practice on for the rest of the day, and it’s actually very original. Using a series of paddles, Keith must maneuver three balls, one at a time, though a series of obstacles to a finish goal. The first person to get all three balls in the goal will win immunity. Keith is allowed precisely one practice session, though it can be as long as he wants. Keith may be stupid, but even he can see that he’s in trouble, and so practices his heart out. Kind of fun to watch, but this gets into why I’m more ok with this immunity advantage more than others. Unlike previous immunity advantages, this one doesn’t make the challenge easier, it just makes your learning curve shorter. Still advantageous, but not game-breakingly so. Plus, it could, in theory, add a new dimension to the strategic game. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, Natalie won that challenge and did the practice session. Natalie’s goal is not so much to win, but to prevent Keith, her main jury threat, from winning. Therefore, Natalie could spread information about the challenge to her allies, thus giving them a leg up in the challenge as well. True, they couldn’t practice like she could, but it would eliminate the element of surprise. The reward went to the person on the bottom, so we never got to see this dimension, but it’s a good one to consider, and as such I hope this type of advantage comes to pass.
At the start of the challenge itself, it looks as though Keith’s practice may not pay off, but it seems that it does, as he goes on to win handily. This might make it seem like Jaclyn is on the chopping block, and she is, but remember that “empowering point” I mentioned earlier. Jaclyn finally seems to have gotten off her pity pot and is actually doing something. She mentions to Natalie that Missy and Baylor have a great narrative for the end, and breaking them up might be desirable. She further says that if Natalie saves her, she won’t vote for Natalie at the next Tribal Council. Natalie considers the proposal when Baylor asks if Natalie could play her idol for her mom this time, as it’s the last chance for the idol to be played. Kind of a random request, but it gives Natalie a dilemma. Despite the fact that Natalie’s in a good situation with Missy and Baylor, and flipping again might mess things up, I actually think it’s in Natalie’s best interest to flip and vote out Missy. Bear in mind, Natalie wins against pretty much anyone else left. Keith is her only threat, but he can’t be voted out this episode. Therefore, it is in Natalie’s best interest to make it so that Keith is unlikely to win the next immunity challenge, which means keeping in the best competitors. Missy, bless her heart, will most likely not compete in the final immunity challenge, and is therefore not beneficial in this regard. Plus, the leg thing might get sympathy votes. True, you risk Baylor rebelling, but Baylor is not much of an entity in this game, and she’ll probably forgive you.
So, does Natalie do this at Tribal Council? Not exactly. She does flip, and actually plays her idol for Jaclyn because Keith was not clued in on the plan, but they vote for Baylor instead of Missy, thus sending Baylor home. While not a game-ending move, I’m less cool with this one. Unlike Baylor, Missy is likely to act out a revenge plot against you, and you get rid of one of your best competitors for a weak one. While Baylor seems cool with leaving, it’s still not a great move, Natalie, and certainly unnecessary in this regard. Did make for the most interesting Tribal Council of the night, though. Brace yourselves, folks, it’s all downhill from here.
Of course, you wouldn’t know this by talking to Missy, who is absolutely OK with Natalie’s move for no apparent reason. Well, she SAYS it’s because she herself didn’t have to vote her daughter out, which I guess makes sense, but the fact remains that you effectively lost an ally, Missy, and you could very well go next. I wouldn’t get that comfortable if I were you.
After our lack of a “Fallen Comrades” Tribute (am I the only one who misses that?), we head off to our final Immunity Challenge, and wouldn’t you know it, it’s a repeat. In fact, it’s a repeat of the FIRST “Survivor Blood vs. Water” final Immunity challenge, which somehow makes it even more repetitive. Basically, everybody must go down a series of obstacles to go through a series of obstacles to get bags of puzzle pieces to solve a puzzle to find the numbers to a combination lock to undo said lock to raise a flag to win immunity in the house that Jack built. Ok, perhaps that last bit wasn’t actually in there, but I’m not far off in how convoluted and generic this challenge is. The one saving grace is that the puzzle is actually a bit unique. A few pieces are missing, and these pieces will leave distinctly-shaped holes in the puzzle. One these shapes are found, the contestants must go back down the wall to look up what numbers correspond with the shapes to undo the lock, and then go back up the wall. This is actually a unique and clever way of working in the combination lock, and I’m a big fan of it. Sad to say, the rest of the challenge just leaves me cold. Perhaps I’m a traditionalist, but I prefer endurance challenges in these situations.
Still, the challenge is not without excitement. Jaclyn takes a leaf out of Kass McQuillen’s (“Survivor Cagayan”) playbook, and makes a come-from-behind victory on the immunity challenge puzzle portion. Much though I have ragged on Jaclyn this season, and even though it pales in comparison to Kass’ comeback, I must say that it was impressive. Jaclyn did a good job. Props.
Keith, once again realizing he’s in trouble, seems to make an effort to not be voted out. Unfortunately, that effort is half-assed, and just a “Missy will get sympathy votes” plea that pretty much falls on deaf ears. We’ll need to get our misdirection from another source. But then, that would require someone other than Natalie growing a brain.
This is where Jaclyn comes in. Somehow the thought occurs to her that, perhaps, it MIGHT be a good idea to vote out the person who’s been spinning the strategic narrative lately, namely Natalie. Missy seems to be on board, and we actually have some tension going into this Tribal Council Things seem even tenser when Natalie makes one of her rare slip-ups, and basically explains why she’s a big threat and deserves to win. This is great for winning over the jury, but VERY BAD FOR CONVINCING OTHERS TO KEEP YOU IN THE GAME! Fortunately for Natalie, brain acquisition is a temporary arrangement this season, and so everyone left votes out Keith. Not a bad move, per se, but voting out Natalie would have been better for your game. Then again, I’m much happier to see Keith go. Though smarter than he seemed, his humor did not do it for me, and I say good riddance. As a side note, this also makes the final 3 all women, an impressive feat when you consider that women were numerically disadvantaged this season. In a sea of bad gameplay and uninteresting characters, this was a nice touch.
I’d say let’s skip over the final 3 breakfast, and go to Final Tribal Council, since one is interesting and the other is not, but even this Final Tribal Council is lackluster. No one gives a weak opening speech (actually, I’d say Natalie’s was weakest due to having the fewest concrete examples), but no opening speech stands out either. In fact, none of the “questions” asked by the jurors stands out either, save for one that we’ll get to later. They’re all very blatantly broadcasting who they’re voting for, and if they ARE phrased as a question, it’s a very transparent question that’s really not worth discussing. This does bring up one point about a “Blood vs. Water” season that I’m not sure I’ve addressed, but even if I have, it’s so blatant here that it’s worth repeating. Even though this is not always the case, ideally the jury should be voting on who played the best game, or else who offended them the least. In any case, they shouldn’t have much of a vested interest in one person winning over another, except for reasons of being offended by that person in-game, which can make for great drama. If your loved one is on the jury, however, who do you THINK they’ll vote for? My problem here is that essentially a few of the jurors are rigged in a “Blood vs. Water” season. Not so much out of familial love (though it is a factor), but if their loved one wins, they get to reap some of the reward. That seems unfair to me, and in violation of the “No Conspiring to Share the Money” rule, and it’s just one of the snags that prevents me from liking the “Blood vs. Water” twist as much as other.
For how boring the jury was this season, they did at least end on a high note. Reed, of all people, provides our vitriol for this season, by being fairly nice to Natalie and Jaclyn, but then laying into Missy. He describes her as a “Wicked Stepmother” who coddled her alliance and treated everyone else like crap. On top of that, Reed says, she was entitled and pathetic, and he wishes her nothing but ill. I believe we have another inductee to the Order of Sue-Hawkabies! And a male example, too, that’s very rare! In all seriousness, Reed’s tongue-lashing was just the spice needed to prevent this jury being ENTIRELY forgettable (remember anything about the jury of “Survivor One World”? Neither do I.), but was not so ferocious that it felt mean or laying it on too thick. Just the right amount of vitriol. Still, I do wonder where it came from. Perhaps Reed was more upset about Missy’s dishing out the rice than we thought.
Not too surprisingly, since the jury broadcast that they liked good gameplay, Natalie wins in a landslide. Missy comes in third, with only Baylor voting for her (while crying), while Jaclyn managed to scrape second, getting both Jon’s and Reed’s votes. I have to wonder why Reed chose Jaclyn over Natalie, though. Perhaps he’s upset about Natalie calling out his plan to get rid of Jon a while back. Still, I’m very happy for Natalie. While she started playing later than I would have liked, she started earlier than most, and I think the main problem was that there was no time for good Natalie scenes. I would have felt more satisfied with a Josh or Jeremy victory, but this is a good consolation prize. If nothing else, it gives us a few “Survivor” firsts. We have our first “Celebrity” winner of “Survivor”. We have our first Sri Lankan winner of “Survivor”. And we have a great demonstration of the power of the situation on “Survivor”. You could make the argument that Natalie and Nadiya played (or in Nadiya’s case, would have played) very similar games. Very vocal, a bit of an alliance ringleader, bent on revenge against those who wronged them. Yet, purely based on what tribe they were on, the same game gets you voted out first and makes you the winner. This just goes to positively show the unpredictability of “Survivor”. You can be a strategic mastermind, but if you end up in a bad situation, it can screw you, through no fault of your own. As I’ve said, I like Natalie as a winner. In some ways, she reminds me a lot of one of my favorites: Sandra Diaz-Twine (“Survivor Pearl Islands”). Both were lippy women who were comfortable making friends with the enemy to get farther in the game, and both were willing to take revenge on the ejection of their allies. Admittedly, Natalie is a bit more willing to be a leader than Sandra is, but neither way is correct. I’d still give Sandra the edge strategy-wise, just because I feel I’ve seen more of Sandra, but both are excellent strategists who deserve respect.
The reunion show, while not particularly horrible, was not very good or memorable. Nothing to really talk about with the contestants, since most of them were boring, and Probst once again dissed the pre-merge boots by not acknowledging them (though they did at least get to sit up on stage, so I suppose that’s something). The main thing that bugs me is that Caleb Bankston (“Survivor Blood vs. Water”) did not get a tribute during the finale. Look, I’m all in favor of keeping the focus on the new players, but this is a likeable guy, connected closely to the show (especially since his season and this one share a twist), who died tragically young. At least acknowledge him in some way! Oh well, I suppose we had to give Probst time to gush over Reed. Seriously, this guy got the most screentime, when he did next to NOTHING in the game? Cut Caleb some slack, he sure as hell deserves it.
Despite the best efforts of the show, the finale kind of falls flat. The problem is that most everything that would happen was clearly telegraphed, and the most exciting part of the show was Baylor’s blindside. Admittedly, this was a great moment to discuss, but the trouble is that it happened so early. Everything afterwards felt like a letdown. Still, we had a satisfying winner, and nothing that completely wrecks this season. I’ll go into more detail on my specific thoughts on the season later, but first, it’s time for my traditional look back at how I thought people would do before the season started, and comparing them with what actually happened. Let’s begin with:
Keith: I called the “stereotypical redneck” part, but the guy was stronger and more long-lived that I would have guessed. I’ll call this one wrong.
Wes: Pretty flat out wrong. A redneck much like his dad, but nowhere near as smart or charming as I thought he might be. And given what I said about his smarts, that’s pretty bad.
Josh: Dead wrong. Guy was nowhere near as awkward as I though, and was a quite enjoyable strategic mastermind. Good for him.
Reed: He developed into what I thought near the end, but for the most part, I was wrong. Had almost no impact on the game whatsoever.
Missy: A bit wrong, on my part. She was savvier than I gave her credit for, but about as annoying as I thought, and made it farther than I expected.
Baylor: My first correct call of the game. A follower who found the right alliances to take her near the end, but no victory.
Natalie: Clearly wrong. While she showed some traits that I thought would do her in, she overcame those and proved to be a good-enough strategist to win the whole thing. Evidently her behavior is exacerbated by the presence of Nadiya. Speaking of whom…
Nadiya: Actually right. While I said Natalie would be first off, I did say either twin would do, and Nadiya fit right in with what I thought.
Jeremy: Right on personality and play style, wrong on his winning. He was robbed, in my opinion.
Val: In a flip-flop of Jeremy, right on time in the game (though I overestimated a bit), wrong on personality.
Jon: I’m going to say right on personality, though I didn’t predict he’d become a strategic center. Stayed a bit longer than I thought.
Jaclyn: Came very close to making me right on time in the game, but I was WAY off on her personality. Just a boring, non-threatening individual who will be quickly forgotten.
John: Dead right, for once.
Julie: As a thorough description of my thoughts on Julie would get me sued, I’m just going to say I was right, though I could not predict the manner of her exit, and move on.
Dale: I got his time in the game close to spot-on, but his personality was way off. In a good way, though.
Kelley: Wait, there was a Kelley in this game? Guess that means I was right.
Drew: Way off. He’s definitely not the smart one.
Alec: Again, wrong by a mile. Switch him and his brother, and I’m closer with regards to time in the game. Both are still idiots, though.
Sad to say, but the traditional final episode “Top 5 and Bottom 5” is getting axed here due to an underwhelming finale and time constraints. I did consider doing one for rewards, so I could talk about immunity advantages a bit more, but I’ll save it for another time. Instead, let’s take a look at the tease for next season. Just when you thought they couldn’t top “Survivor One World” for stupid titles, we have “Survivor Worlds Apart”. How far apart are these worlds? They’re corporate America, day laborers, and free spirits. It seems we’ll be getting three tribes, similar to how “Survivor Cagayan” worked, and we’ll see which wins out. Like with “Survivor Cagayan”, I think a lot of it is going to come down to the strength of the cast. The “Tribe Division by Class” thing is not a good gimmick in and of itself, and relates to the game very little. It doesn’t particularly make me want to watch the season, but nor does it ruin things for me. I think there are better twists they could have done, but this could work, if, like on “Survivor Cagayan”, it’s not emphasized to death. Point being, I’m reserving judgment.
What I CAN judge is this particular season, and it does not hold up well at all. They tried, they really did, they nearly succeeded in making this season interesting. There were too many duds in the cast, what good players there were did not show up for too long, and they eliminated a lot of the good players shortly after the merge. They tried to build up new people, but when a show axes its biggest assets, there’s not a lot you can do. The only suggestion I could make would have been to give Natalie, Jon, and a few of the later strategists more early-game strategic scenes, so that their sudden rise to power would have seemed more earned. As it stands, the location of Nicaragua has yet to produce a good season. Actually, this season has a lot of the same problems as “Survivor Nicaragua”: a lot of boring cast members, a slow start, and they get rid of the good players too early. With that said, I would hesitate to call “Survivor San Juan Del Sur” a “bad” season, because while nothing was really exemplary, there was also nothing cringe inducing like on “Survivor Nicaragua”. It’s at the VERY low end of average in my book, somewhere around “Survivor South Pacific”.
Still, no point complaining about the past, perhaps next season will be better! Now it’s time for my Christmas break, but I’ll see you in January for the announcement of the “Survivor Worlds Apart” cast.
-Matt
Title Credit to Jean Storrs.
idolspeculation 