Jump to content

S23: Sophie


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.

215 replies to this topic

#211

Isuzu

Isuzu

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male

Posted May 7, 2012 @ 4:40 PM

Unconditional: this is a fascinating discussion because I don't think we're really talking about the same thing. Disclaimer: I am from the school of thoughts that if you make FTC and you lose, you deserved to lose, and vice versa. So all the players I listed deserved to lose, and all the winners obviously, for one reason or another, deserved to win over them.

And yet: when you say:

Having a chance to win is not the same thing as having the ability to make a case as to why you should. Courtney, Sash, Chase, Susie, and Ozzy each had absolutely no case to why they should win the game and coincidentally they didn't have a shot either.


Isn't it exactly what happened to Coach too? I mean, can you say that Jud had a better game than Chase or Sash? He just had an IC run. If he didn't, Holly would have been there instead and Chase would have won. Ditto Susie: she didn't lose because Bob was that much more better than she was, she lost because the jury was composed of three of her allies and four of his. You could say that Chase's game, for all his blunders, was far more involved than Jud's, because he juggled several alliances, most of whose members voted for him in the end, whil Jud did nothing except be nice. Ozzy had a very strong game: he made friends with several of the Raro jury and had a incredible physical game. How can you say that Jud was more deserving when you say Ozzy wasn't when they played roughly the same game?

And ditto for Parvati: while she needlessly alienated the heroes, you could say that Coach needlessly alienated the Savaii with his religious bullshit. It was not needed, or if it was to keep Brandon in check, certainly not to that extent. His move to flip Cochran was great, but so was Sash weaseling in with Holy and Chase for protection or Susie flipping on the Kota to reach the top. Before FTC, they had a shot like Coach had. But in reality, they never did because for one reason or another, Coach included, they poisoned the jury against them. This is why I don't think you can say Coach is the first one with a legitmate case for the win: either there are a lot of them, or there are none.

Edited by Isuzu, May 8, 2012 @ 2:19 AM.


#212

musica

musica

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:I am in the U.S.A.
  • Interests:I am musica, and my BIRTHDAY is every day! (I don't know how to write that in the proper space.) My age... I am not young, but I'm a not old. <br /><br />I joined because I love So You Think You Can Dance. I was told about this site--that it was very strict. I'm afraid of the other sites because there is very little authority. The Fox board seems very out of control!<br /><br />I also love music, too. I love Bebel Gilberto and Vanessa Paradis.<br /><br />My favorite tennis player is Rafa Nadal.

Posted May 7, 2012 @ 9:41 PM

Coach included, they poisoned the jury against them.


I agree with this very much.

The thing is FTC is part of the game. Sure, Coach played a wonderful game up until the last few episodes. It really seem like Coach ran out of gas.

Coach alienated a number of people against him as I recall--many who objected to being beaten over the head with religion, for example. Still though, Coach had a chance. All he had to do was admit to playing the game. But he backed himself into a corner--and Sophie knew it.

I mean.. I remember Cochran voting him, and saying something like, "C'mon Coach..just admit to playing the game." Then Edna said the same thing, and voted for him, too. But Coach..I guess was too caught up in himself?

Sophie did not really have to do much in FTC, actually--except not encourage Coach to do anything! To me, Sophie beat Ozzy, and then beat Coach--using his game against him.

I do not understand really why Coach think he was screwed. I do not agree at all. Once again, it is his arrogance getting the better of him: he do not listen to what the jurors. And he did not have any answers to them either.

So Sophie to me is deserved winner. Albert--I do not even consider a contender. I guess he was more a contender than some others, but really Albert he remind me of Jim in a lot ways. He just want to make a big play for sake of the big play. Sophie had to reel him in..

I think Sophie was very wise and read the situation very well. Coach could have surprised her,sure. But he look like he felt entitled to win or something? Well, he needed to really prepare better and get over himself which he did not, and that's what Sophie was counting on.

#213

Constantinople

Constantinople

    Fanatic

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 9:06 AM

I will concede that, like Natalie White, Sophie's legacy is tarnished by the fact that the best game she could possibly play under those circumstances is one that was destined to look unimpressive to some people.


Natalie White, IMO, is a far better player than Sophie, at least, she has a far better social game.

Natalie White can deceive people by telling the truth, such as when she told Laura, Kelly & Monica that she didn't trust Erik. That was true, but the implication was that it was in their interest to vote out Erik at the time, which it wasn't (although obviously very much in Natalie White's interest).

Sophie's social game, in contrast, consisted of not spending time with people. It's telling that of all of the people who spent the most time with Coach and Sophie, all voted for Coach, and that the less time you spent with Sophie, the more likely you were to vote for her. I thought that was the antithesis of the social game.

On the flip side, Sophie's a much better challenge competitor than Natalie White since, IIRC, Sophie won 3 ICs, including the most important final IC against Ozzy.

#214

musica

musica

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:I am in the U.S.A.
  • Interests:I am musica, and my BIRTHDAY is every day! (I don't know how to write that in the proper space.) My age... I am not young, but I'm a not old. <br /><br />I joined because I love So You Think You Can Dance. I was told about this site--that it was very strict. I'm afraid of the other sites because there is very little authority. The Fox board seems very out of control!<br /><br />I also love music, too. I love Bebel Gilberto and Vanessa Paradis.<br /><br />My favorite tennis player is Rafa Nadal.

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 7:33 PM

I do not know Natalie White, but I do agree Sophie won due to being a better competitor than Coach--even in FTC.

As far a social game, I would not say Sophie had great social game, and Coach was probably better socially or he would not have been nearly as successful. But at the same time, the strength that brought him to FTC also let him down, I think. He could not get past his ego in order to win. In other words, he held himself above the others if this make any sense? I do not think a person can have strong social game when thinking he/she is superior.

Coach apologize, but this was not enough--looking more like a ploy. So really even though those who voted him spent the most time with him--the others were not going to be that forgiving. What is the expression--keep your friends close and your enemies closer?

So yes, if Coach had a better social game, he would have won. But he did not, and he was not a competitor like Sophie even though he thought himself to be. So he lost.

From the One World speculation thread:

beginning with "winners forget about the game, losers don't." Applies not just to Survivor, but to so much more. People for whom a game is life itself tend to be shallow at best. Those who "get" that a game - whether Survivor, TAR, football, or chess - is a pastime, nothing more, nothing less (even when that pastime is big business) are so much nicer to be around.


I just think for Sophie to make generalization about winners and losers is not necessarily fair. I have known "winners" in different disciplines who are not necessarily nice to be around because all they are is what they are good at, if this makes any sense? Some winners win because they are completely obsessed with their sports, job, whatever it might be.

I am not saying this is necessarily true for Sophie, for example, because she was going to med school before she even won Survivor--which I would imagine she is still doing. So she had a lot going before Survivor. That said, I do think for Sophie to make such statements is a way of making herself sound more superior when I am not sure this is the case at all. Why is doing the interview in the first place if she is over Survivor? She could have declined.

In my opinion, Sophie is being a little passive aggressive, trying to justify her win because a number of people from her season have said Coach was robbed due to a bitter jury. So I would say Sophie as winner is not doing a necessarily a great job of moving on herself in certain respects if she feels the need to make generalizations.

Edited by musica, May 12, 2012 @ 7:12 AM.


#215

Jyn

Jyn

    Couch Potato

Posted May 27, 2012 @ 11:25 PM

Lovely picture of Sophie meeting Kim. Though Cochran being in it, too, detracts from the loveliness factor severely.

#216

doctorb

doctorb

    Video Archivist

Posted May 29, 2012 @ 9:29 AM

Wow, Sophie looks great there. Good for her.