[LukeB]

Originally Posted by BuddyTheElf

Because I think this is the first time in several seasons that you've not called the winner correctly. That is tantamount to a spoiler, regardless of what method you are using, if you're correctly predicting winners way before I've even begun thinking about the endgame, it kind of spoils the flow of the season? I avoid spoilers for a reason, I don't understand why people look at them, and this works in exactly the same way. Either an ~unpredictable~ winner like Michele is called way earlier than I or most other people would expect, which takes away the potential blindside (even if the result would still annoy me), or people like David are signposted only for them to fall before they were supposed to.

You actually did post a spoiler that Adam got voted out (clearly wrong, but still) so that's not entirely true, and that's another part to this - when you're aware that someone reads spoilers, it is inevitable to think that any winner 'predictions' they're making may in part be influenced by what they know, which means I'm reading spoilers by proxy...and...no thanks?

There is a difference between me and a cat lady on Facebook making a blasé prediction that someone will win because they've been shown the most, and you making a prediction based off of an intricate analysis of the edit. Don't get me wrong, when the season is over I can find such analysis perfectly interesting and enjoyable...but when 9 times out of 10 it's right, it spoils the season when watching live.

I just don't understand the difficulty in wrapping a post pertaining to a winner prediction based off the edit in a spoiler tag? Like, not to beat around the bush here, but it's just a bit twatty to continue? Is it really that unaccomadating a request?

Yeah this, its one of the reasons why i don't come on this thread during the show(the whining from one member also plays a part) because there's always a "so and so is going because of the edit" or "this edit must mean so and so won" it just ruins the whole thing.

[VanessaFeltz.]

yas SANDRA

[starry]

When Dave was voted out I just skipped to the winner vote, I assume Adam was crying again in his final speech. I suppose it was kind of satisfying that Ken was ignored at the reunion, though it would have been interesting to have had him questioned about why he thought he was beat Adam. Probst made an indirect comment about the 'only person who was loyal' perhaps when he talked to Jessica. Though Jessica was silly giving the heritage advantage to Ken when Dave had saved her. Also drawing rocks saved Hannah (from what I remember) and not Dave like they seemed to suggest on the show.

Probst goes on way too much about how people develop on the show, and the usual boring US approach of trying to find messages/moral examples for people.

The final challenge sadly was not designed that well, the wind should not decide challenges. But I do like how they didn't make all the individual immunity challenges balancing with strength.

A lot was made of Jay not covering his number, but from what I heard there were only about six combinations or something, so I'm not sure the challenge was completely decided there. The final puzzle was really the main thing.

On returnees
Sandra - never a fan, very under the radar.
Caleb - he's returning for the same reason he was on first time, because he was on Big Brother. He never changed any game, or even started any game.
Ozzie - thought he was done with it, wonder why the change. Found him very rootable on redemption island, boring before that though.

[JTM45]

I was gutted about who won!
I personally thought either of the other two would have been a more deserving winner. Adam played a very average game and just relied on the pity votes (a unanimous Adam vote in some small way makes it a tiny bit more understandable how Americans voted for Trump to be their next President!).
Seemed to me like the Survivor producers liked the Cancer angle to Adams pity party gameplay so much that they were running 100 yards ahead of him and hiding idols directly in his path. I'm surprised they didn't incorporate flashing lights into those coconuts.
The way he was painting other people making different choices to him in the game as flawed judgement (because it didn't personally suit his agenda!) was pathetic, especially as most of the jury members appeared to fall for it. And a jury member pretty much trying to tell every other jury member that they should all vote for him was ludicrous. Pretty much the whole of the jury segment of the episode seemed like it was scripted to massively favour Adam. Absolute bollocks!
Not since the days of X Factor past have i been so disgusted at someone using a family members terminal illness to increase their chances of winning a large chunk of cash.

[caprimint]

Ken lost my support voting out David at the end. He's stuck to being 'loyal' sure, but if you're not gonna carry it through till the end (when it really matters) then you can't really own it. I'm actually shocked and so were a lot of people I think.

Adam was the right winner, he was my initial fave from day 1 and he played an excellent game.

Hannah sounded delusional in her speeches thinking she'd made more of an impact on the game than the other two.

[MB.]

Bret comparing David to Bin Laden in the first five minutes of the finale <3 Actually Bret went down slightly in my rankings after his jury question (as did Zeke - sorry, Z*** - and by 'went down slightly' I mean 'rocketed to the bottom'), but I'm still a fan of him in all his drunkgayness. I was shocked at David going in fourth, but I guess that's just symbolic of how all over the place the editing's been this season... at least most people got to speak at the reunion I guess?

Ken and Hannah I ship it #itscomplicated

Adam's... not the greatest winner, but I'm happy for him given you-know-what and I'm happy to eat my words, given that I said only a few days ago that he didn't have a chance

Game Changers looks okay considering that it's got so much going against it already, although I fear that Cirie nearly decking it is going to be where it peaks (plus Malcolm already getting the #BIGMOVEZ edit is disappointing, because even though he's overrated by Probst and casuals, I still kinda like him) (also Debbie not being featured in the promo proves she wins, right?)

[MB.]

oh **** no Ken's dating Jenn Brown, everything is cancelled

[JerseyWins]

I would've never expected Ken & Jenn to be dating. They seem like very different people but nice pair though nonetheless.

[JerseyWins]

Oh and why are people censoring Zeke's name?

[AarynGriesfan]

Originally Posted by Bah HuMBug

oh **** no Ken's dating Jenn Brown, everything is cancelled

Wait is this an actual thing?

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by caprimincepie

Hannah sounded delusional in her speeches thinking she'd made more of an impact on the game than the other two.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the Jury's notion that trying to vote out David at F5 but failing to do so is a better move than actually voting David out at F4 but wow, surprise surprise that a Jury has a tough time recognizing A Woman's Game

[starry]

Originally Posted by JTM45

I was gutted about who won!
I personally thought either of the other two would have been a more deserving winner. Adam played a very average game and just relied on the pity votes (a unanimous Adam vote in some small way makes it a tiny bit more understandable how Americans voted for Trump to be their next President!).
Seemed to me like the Survivor producers liked the Cancer angle to Adams pity party gameplay so much that they were running 100 yards ahead of him and hiding idols directly in his path. I'm surprised they didn't incorporate flashing lights into those coconuts.
The way he was painting other people making different choices to him in the game as flawed judgement (because it didn't personally suit his agenda!) was pathetic, especially as most of the jury members appeared to fall for it. And a jury member pretty much trying to tell every other jury member that they should all vote for him was ludicrous. Pretty much the whole of the jury segment of the episode seemed like it was scripted to massively favour Adam. Absolute bollocks!
Not since the days of X Factor past have i been so disgusted at someone using a family members terminal illness to increase their chances of winning a large chunk of cash.

Glad I never listened to the speeches/questions.

It did seem strange if they really did plant that idol right at the end. It was strange that nobody seemed to wonder where he had gone that much, he must have found it quickly.

I still don't get why Adam went on Survivor if there was a serious chance his mother would have died while he was away. For all his talk about how finding some idols proves himself to his family he seems to have been quite lucky he got back before she died.

[MB.]

Originally Posted by AarynGriesfan

Wait is this an actual thing?

Apparently so (or according to his Twitter, at least, maybe)

[AarynGriesfan]

Originally Posted by Bah HuMBug

Apparently so (or according to his Twitter, at least, maybe)

Gross way to aim low Ken!

[AarynGriesfan]

Originally Posted by Macie Lightfoot

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the Jury's notion that trying to vote out David at F5 but failing to do so is a better move than actually voting David out at F4 but wow, surprise surprise that a Jury has a tough time recognizing A Woman's Game

I am all for woman power but Hannah was a mess out there. But I do think it was a mistake not to vote out David at 5. Because if he wins f4 immunity he wins the game. Plus you have to rely on Ken voting out his best friend which he had been unwilling to do all game long. Way to big of a risk to take. In the end it worked out but I think it was the wrong way to go about it.

[starry]

It worked out for Adam to win that was all lol, and he wasn't even deserving.

[caprimint]

Originally Posted by JerseyWinter

I would've never expected Ken & Jenn to be dating. They seem like very different people but nice pair though nonetheless.

Yeah same Great couple though, my faves (alongside Adam this season) of their seasons

[caprimint]

Originally Posted by Macie Lightfoot

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the Jury's notion that trying to vote out David at F5 but failing to do so is a better move than actually voting David out at F4 but wow, surprise surprise that a Jury has a tough time recognizing A Woman's Game

I'm talking about the game as a whole. Hannah wasn't relevant for a good few weeks, she was never confident about any moves she made and never made a mark on the game like Adam did. It's not because of her gender.

[LukeB]

Originally Posted by starry

I still don't get why Adam went on Survivor if there was a serious chance his mother would have died while he was away. For all his talk about how finding some idols proves himself to his family he seems to have been quite lucky he got back before she died.

I think he went on it because it's one of his dreams to do it and getting on survivor doesn't come around everyday and I guess his mum told him to do it because as a parent she wants to see their children fulfil their dreams and be happy and if she died while he was away he knows she died being proud of him and happy.

[MB.]

Originally Posted by AarynGriesfan

I am all for woman power but Hannah was a mess out there. But I do think it was a mistake not to vote out David at 5. Because if he wins f4 immunity he wins the game. Plus you have to rely on Ken voting out his best friend which he had been unwilling to do all game long. Way to big of a risk to take. In the end it worked out but I think it was the wrong way to go about it.

I'll never understand basing something like that on hypotheticals in Survivor - like, you could say not taking out Chris pre-merge was a mistake because he could have gone on an immunity run until the end. He didn't, and saying it doesn't make it valid nor does it discredit anyone still in the game, aka Hannah (which is why this jury was a ****ing dumb jury)

(ps Troy I love you but your opinions are good enough that you don't have to take your posts from CTS)

[AarynGriesfan]

Originally Posted by Bah HuMBug

I'll never understand basing something like that on hypotheticals in Survivor - like, you could say not taking out Chris pre-merge was a mistake because he could have gone on an immunity run until the end. He didn't, and saying it doesn't make it valid nor does it discredit anyone still in the game, aka Hannah (which is why this jury was a ****ing dumb jury)

(ps Troy I love you but your opinions are good enough that you don't have to take your posts from CTS)

There's a huge difference from only having to win the final challenge to going on a long immunity run.

[MB.]

Originally Posted by AarynGriesfan

There's a huge difference from only having to win the final challenge to going on a long immunity run.

But they're still both hypotheticals which didn't happen, it doesn't matter how elaborate they may be if a jury are basing their votes on the possibility of fictitious events

[AarynGriesfan]

Originally Posted by Bah HuMBug

But they're still both hypotheticals which didn't happen, it doesn't matter how elaborate they may be if a jury are basing their votes on the possibility of fictitious events

No **** it didn't happen wtf kind of post is? But leaving the best player in the game for as long as they did and voting out people that had no shot at winning instead of him is bad gameplay even if it ends up working out in the end.

[reece(:]

Didn't Bret have a good shot at winning though?...

[MB.]

Originally Posted by AarynGriesfan

No **** it didn't happen wtf kind of post is? But leaving the best player in the game for as long as they did and voting out people that had no shot at winning instead of him is bad gameplay even if it ends up working out in the end.

lmao if you consider it "bad gameplay" to take a risk and cut the biggest competition when he was no longer useful just because it could have gone wrong then sure hun (they had the same dilemma with Bret and his popularity with the jury, so what's to say that David was better at balancing disks on a stick than he was? They could have just as easily been in a situation where THEY SHOULD HAVE CUT BRET WHILE THEY HAD THE CHANCE etc etc. See? Hypotheticals)