Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, "I'm Not a Good Villain": Jerri in the middle

Quick spoilers for tonight's "Survivor" coming up just as soon as I enjoy a healthy wrap...

I'm taking the next two weeks off for some family time, and unless things change dramatically between now and then, I'm not sure I'll be returning to this "Survivor" season.

With Boston Rob's exit - at the hands of Coach being wishy-washy and casting a throwaway vote for Courtney that he knew would doom Rob(*) - I fear things are now set up for Russell and Parvati to start running things, not only with the Villains tribe, but with whatever happens post-merge. And though they're both good players - Parvati more than Russell, since he doesn't seem to grasp the "Don't be a jerk to everyone" part of the social game - I find them both to be thoroughly unpleasant people to watch, and I really don't want to see weeks on end of Russell boasting of his awesomeness (using the ouster of Rob as supporting evidence) and Parvati flashing that smug Cheshire grin.

(*) Loved the aftermath of the vote: Rob accepts Jerri's hug, because he gets that it's a game and Jerri did what she thought was best for her, but then snubs Coach (who's a neurotic hypocrite) and says, "You're a little man."

I recognize that "Survivor" is an unpredictable game, and lots of things could change between now and when I'm back from my time off, but if they're in charge, I'm out. Life's too short. I know Russell has his fans, so enjoy him if he goes far again.

What did everybody else think?

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, "Banana Etiquette": Plan Voodoo child, please

A review of tonight's "Survivor" coming up just as soon as I slip on my Superman girdle...

Credit where credit is due: Russell is a smug, preening ass, but he foiled the hell out of Rob's attempt to run Plan Voodoo on him, and Tyson was unbelievably stupid enough to fall for it. (What was the risk, Tyson? In a 6-3 alliance where a tie is followed by a revote, no way Plan Voodoo should ever fail. Moron.) And some might argue that Russell's victory was a short-term one, in that he lost the idol and is still down 5-3, but his team could keep winning until the merge, and/or there might be a shuffle, and/or he might just keep finding hidden immunity idols. This was an easy shot to either get rid of him or get rid of his closest, most charming ally, and because Tyson was a putz(*), Rob's group accomplished neither.

(*) What was that Dark Helmet once said? "Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb"? Because the "Heroes" have been so inept and obnoxious, Tyson is part of what qualifies for "good" in this season.

As for the Heroes, meh. They made the right call, in that James is likely a liability in challenges, but this is two all-star stints in a row where Colby mentally checked out on the second or third day. Like Jerri, he keeps coming back because his acting career hasn't gone the way he'd hoped, but his heart's not in it, and it's hard to get the eye of the tiger back when you're cold and hungry and playing with a bunch of drips like Amanda and Rupert.

I don't like double-eliminations in theory, because they penalize a team that's kicking ass (Tom's Palau team also suffered one of those, though they just cut one of their deadweight players), but it's been so long since the Villains went to Tribal, or since we'd seen any major strategizing from them, that it was a relief for a week. I'm sure next week we'll be back to seeing the Heroes flounder while Russell wanders around gloating about his awesomeness, but at least this week he got to walk the talk.

What did everybody else think?

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, "Knights of the Round Table": The incredible Mr. limp-it

Lots of Thursday TV to power through, so some quick thoughts on tonight's "Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains" coming up just as soon as I react to your offer of chocolate with disgust...

After the high of last week's "Survivor"-at-its-finest episode, tonight's show was inevitably disappointing, and not because my man-crush Tom got voted out, while bullying, hobbled jerks Rupert and James remain in the game.

No, I've been bracing for Tom's ouster ever since episode 2, when it was obvious he was in the minority on his team, and at least I got to watch him team up with JT and Colby for that great blindside on Cerie last week.

The problem is that the Heroes are just so inept in challenges - and, at least, had the black humor to list all of the many, many different kinds of challenges they suck at - that we're getting precious little time with the Villains. And when we do spend time with them, we're hearing almost exclusively from Russell, Rob, Coach, and to a lesser extent Parvati. I'm not sure I've heard Danielle say one word all season. Courtney's said maybe a sentence. Jerri talked more in this one than she has in a few weeks. I understand that some players are better interview subjects than others - that Russell's megalomania makes him an entertaining talking head, as do Coach's delusions of grandeur, and that Rob has been doing the reality thing for so long that he knows exactly what to give the camera crew. But unless these four are going to be the final four (and they're not, since Russell and Rob are looking to oust each other), I have a feeling we're going to see several players who've been virtually-invisible to this point go very, very far in the game, and I hate that.

Tom's initial season was even more lopsided at this stage, in that his team never lost an immunity challenge, but the editors did a much better job at balancing things out, so when we got to the merge with all of his group intact, I had a pretty good sense of who everybody was, what the dynamics were, who'd vote which way, etc.

And, yes, it was annoying to see James' smug face staying in the game, and to see Russell find the hidden idol (which will at the very least protect him through the next Tribal Council the Villains go to, whenever that might be, and which only fuels his own inflated sense of self-worth). But there are highs and lows to a "Survivor" season, and not every episode is going to be great, nor will every episode feature good things happening to the people you root for, and so I'm hopeful next week will be better - and that Rob's uncanny gift for puzzles might temporarily fail him so we can see the Villains go to Tribal again for something more interesting than watching James yell at people.

What did everybody else think?

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, "Tonight, We Make Our Move": PRECIOUS!!!!

Spoilers for tonight's outstanding episode of "Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains" coming up just as soon as I'm cursed...

Because I had seen tonight's hilarious "Community" and "Parks and Recreation" episodes in advance, I figured "Survivor" had one more week to hook me before I have to deal with major timeslot pile-up issues next week. And after an episode that had me repeatedly fist-pumping and caring about the game in a way I didn't think was possible anymore, I'm absolutely on the hook for a long time, and I'll let the DVRs sort it all out later.

Admittedly, much of my fist-pump-itude came from good things happening for my man Tom, but even had Tom, Colby and JT's gambit not worked, "Tonight, We Make Our Move" represented so much of what's fun about "Survivor" when the game is played at a high level. We saw Candice expertly coming up with the latest iteration of Plan Voodoo (i.e., how to split your votes to neutralize an immunity idol). We saw Sandra and the non-Russell villains all immediately recognize the dangers posed by such an idol and make a coalition to get rid of anyone who so much as looks for it(*). We saw Rob and Tom both do fine jobs of coaching their teams through a tricky immunity challenge. And we saw Tom - who in his own season had to let Ian do most of the thinking for him - form together with JT and Colby to recognize the best way to not only keep Colby safe, but completely disrupt the dominant alliance by taking out its mastermind.

(*) Russell - hilariously, and accurately, compared to Smeagol by Boston Rob - of course couldn't resist hunting for the damn thing. Between hiding the machete last week and being obsessed with idols this week, it looks like he's trying to play the exact same game that, at this point, he thinks won him the million bucks in Samoa. But so long as Rob and Sandra are on a team with him, I don't think the same moves will get him remotely close to the money this time out.

Cirie is a brilliant social player and strategist, one of the best the show has ever seen. She nearly won twice, despite no physical challenge ability whatsoever (which, in the end, is what killed her both times; she lost the final challenge and the winner wisely didn't take her to the jury), because she is damn good at bending people to her will and getting people to act against their own best interests and in favor of Cirie's. We saw that again with how expertly she smacked down Amanda and James after they bought into JT's initial plan to get rid of Candice, and she was ultimately done in because JT came up with an alternate target: her.

Cirie played what's typically considered a "villain's" game, but she was on the Heroes team because she was more likable than Parvati. I'm not sorry she's gone, because it means Tom's got a shot now, and because it makes things much more unpredictable on the Heroes side of things, but I'm gonna miss her as a strategist, and I think the path to victory for one of the Villains just got much easier.

What did everybody else think?

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, "That Girl Is Like a Virus": I have a dream

A review of last night's "Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains" coming up just as soon as I hide your machete...

Well, that was much more fun than last week, I thought.

Obviously, some of that came from watching the Heroes completely own the Villains at the sumo challenge from Palau. (This makes sense, of course, since the Heroes dramatically out-muscle and out-tough the Villains, and it was a completely solo contest; their downfall in previous challenges came whenever they had to think and/or work as a group.) Tom once again was the man, Colby got to beat Boston Rob after Rob took him to school in another wrestling-type challenge in All-Stars, people got muddy but no one got seriously injured, and a good time was had by all (on one side at least).

But what made the episode click was how much time we spent in each camp, and how much of that was spent on strategery rather than people yelling at each other. Ordinarily, episodes with only one challenge tend to fall flat, but the extra time saved this week gave us a lot of good stuff from both camps, including a very necessary extended stay at the Villains camp to see how alliances are forming and fracturing. (Since the first two episodes were dominated by the Heroes' bickering, some people like Randy had barely spoken at all, and some people like Tyson and Courtney have still barely done or said anything.) We got strategy, we got cattiness (Jerri and Parvati hating on each other, Jerri primarily because Parvati won the million bucks playing the game Jerri thought she was playing in Australia) and we got a touch of craziness (Coach quoting Martin Luther King on the way to Tribal).

I'm disappointed that Parvati seems to be taking her alliance with Russell seriously, since it was implied in the first episode that she was just playing along to calm his crazy ass down. But I did like that everyone at Tribal Council laughed off the missing machete, suggesting that Russell's latest "brilliant" scheme to destabilize things came for naught, even though he's wisely latched onto the most socially powerful person on his team.

And it's because Parvati is apparently so charming in person, and because she's friends with the leaders of the dominant alliance on the other team, that the Villains made a serious, serious error in not voting her out last night. Boston Rob should be smarter than that, especially given his talking head at the start of the show about the dangers of letting couples stay together. Still a lot of season left, but it's very easy to imagine a circumstance where the final six are Parvati, Russell, Danielle, Cirie, Amanda and one of the guys from their alliance. Opportunities to vote out power players don't come around that often, and it's not like Parvati is so great at challenges or at camp that they would have been weakening the tribe by sending her home.

This ep has me convinced to stick with the season a bit longer, but it's going to require some time-juggling issues, since it'll be up against both the NBC comedies and, for the next two weeks, an "American Idol" results show. So it may be one of those things I don't get to until much later in the day on Friday, or even on a weekend. We'll see how it goes.

What did everybody else think?

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, "It's Getting the Best of Me": Puzzle palace

A review of tonight's "Survivor" coming up just as soon as I come down with a case of crybabyitis...

After the giddy rush I had jumping back into the "Survivor" pool last week, episode two reminded me of some of the reasons I'd become wary of the show before, and also why all-star seasons are often more fun in theory than in practice.

When you watch the show long enough, you begin to get a strong sense of how the editing works. So when the two teams headed to an Immunity Challenge midway through an episode where the only talk of voting someone out came from the Heroes' camp, I knew they were gonna lose and go to Tribal Council - just as I knew that the vote would go against Stephenie and not Amanda, since Amanda had gotten precious little screen time this week. So I had to sit through the Immunity Challenge, the plotting afterwards, and Tribal Council all knowing what the outcomes would be.

And, in the process, I had to sit through a bunch of the "Heroes" - Stephenie and James in particular - being really unpleasant to each other.

With the exception of Boston Rob, no player has returned to the game a second time and become more likable, and often it's less. Colby looked bored and less than invincible in All-Stars (as he does here). Stephenie came back for Guatemala and seemed much more obnoxious in success than she'd been in repeated defeat on Palau. And James somehow managed to be a complete ass about how the Immunity Challenge went, even though he was exactly right. That was one of the uglier Tribal Councils I can remember, capped off by James continuing to be a jerk even in victory when he told Stephenie "Shut your mouth" after she vented when she was voted off.

It certainly doesn't help that the Heroes have lost twice now - either they really stink at puzzles or they simply lack a puzzle savant like Rob - and therefore have had to turn on each other. The only tension on the Villains team at the moment came from Rob's fainting spell(*) and then from Russell's predictable jealousy that Rob has become his team's leader while no one is bowing at his altar. The Heroes, meanwhile, are eating each other alive, and it ain't pretty (and not just because the current dominant alliance features a couple of players I dislike in Rupert and James, where Tom currently looks to be in big trouble).

(*) I believe that Rob did have a moment of exhaustion, but how much of his tearful speech do you reckon was authentic, versus Rob vying for attention? It doesn't seem like him to pull such a move, but he's also such a reality show veteran at this point that he has to know how to create a memorable moment.

So, so far this season, we've had one episode I loved and one that really annoyed me. We've got one more episode to break the tie before the NBC comedies come back, but if it's another one like last night's, I think I may walk away before I start to hate everybody on this season.

What did everybody else think?

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, "Slay Everyone, Trust No One": Favorites vs. favorites

Okay, I've been sucked back in - at least until the NBC comedies return after the Olympics - to watching and writing about "Survivor." A review of the premiere of "Heroes vs. Villains" coming up just as soon as I strangle a chicken...

Absence tends to make the heart grow fonder for "Survivor," doesn't it? I skipped Vanuatu after the first All-Star season left a bad taste in my mouth and loved Palau when I returned. (Though Palau was, of course, one of the best seasons ever.) And I skipped Fiji and China and mostly enjoyed Fans vs. Favorites until it turned out that all the "fans" were morons. And now having skipped every season in between that one and Heroes vs. Villains, I find myself re-energized, happy to see challenges and fire-building and scheming and all the rest. I may burn out eventually (and/or the hellacious Thursday scheduling crunch may mean I have to drop this so I can focus on shows I enjoy more, like "Community" and "Parks and Recreation"), but when "Survivor" is good - as this episode mostly was - it's very good.

The wrestling challenge was a ton of fun, even if it predictably led to nasty injuries for Stephenie (tough as nails, as always, with the way she handled the shoulder dislocation) and Rupert (a melancholy drama queen, as he was for the first All-Star season, after busting his toe and then failing to make a fire). Colby getting owned by Coach would have been less shocking if I hadn't also seen him physically struggle against equal competition in All-Stars (in Australia, he was far and away the strongest person there), but it was still entertaining, as was a topless Sugar flipping Sandra a double-bird after winning her heat.

I think I may already be tired of Russell, and I didn't even watch his season, but I loved seeing him try to cut the same deal with Danielle, who's stupid enough to buy the sales pitch, and Parvati, who immediately did a talking head in which she said she knew that he was making that offer to everyone. I don't much like Parvati as a person, but she's a good player, and right now the collection of egos, quirks and (in the case of Coach and possibly Russell) absolute psychosis on the Villains team makes them the more entertaining bunch to watch, even if I'm cheering for most of the Heroes.

(I do, by the way, like Fienberg's idea that the tribes should have been integrated from the start, with only the audience knowing who was identified as a Hero or Villain so we could see which approach worked better. Then again, as I've said many times, I find a lot of these Hero/Villain distinctions silly.)

A couple of disappointments, though. First, when Rob talked about how much he's changed since the last time he played the show, what he really came across as was kind of complacent. In some ways, he's coming across like Colby and Jerri and some of the other people did back on All-Stars: he's back because he knows everyone expects him to be back, but he's not particularly hungry about it and he's not hustling like he did back in the day. On the other hand, he did manage to make fire without flint, and it's kind of funny to see Rob as the most industrious one on a tribe after he was introduced to us in Marquesas as a guy whose strategy revolved around being lazy and getting rid of hunter/gatherer Hunter.

Second, I was annoyed when Sugar did, in fact, wind up being a near-unanimous vote-out after all the talk of Cirie or Stephenie going. I recognize that this is a "Survivor" staple, and one they feel they need to use to maintain suspense when a vote seems like an incredibly foregone conclusion, but I think it's something they should have ditched years ago (after we all understood how the game/show worked) in situations like this in favor of giving us a more concrete understanding of how the game is playing out. I'm sure next week will open with Cirie and/or Tom (or their respective alliance-mates) explaining why they decided to go with the obvious boot rather than taking out a threat, but I like watching the strategizing more than I like being surprised at this stage.

Let me remind you, as usual, that discussing the previews (even obliquely) is against the No Spoiler rule for commenting, and then let me ask, what did everybody else think?

'Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains' preview: Sepinwall on TV

In today's column, I preview this 10th anniversary season of "Survivor" and think about how much the show - or, at least, our perceptions of it - has changed:

A few days after Richard Hatch won the first season of "Survivor" — the show that would ultimately shape the decade in television to come more than any other — I wrote that what made "Survivor" special was that "even surrounded by cameras in a contrived situation, these 16 people and their actions and reactions were real, and didn’t feel remotely manufactured on some Hollywood assembly line." I looked at Rudy’s uneasy friendship with gay (and frequently naked) Richard, at the viciousness of Sue’s "the snake and the rat" speech, and at Richard’s win itself — the triumph of the man the show had been painting as the bad guy all season — as "proof" that the show was more authentic — or, at least, more surprising — than even the best scripted dramas had been in a long time.

Today, "Survivor" has become such an institution — and so institutionalized — that the 10th anniversary season is a collection of familiar faces from past seasons, grouped into two archetypes: "Heroes vs. Villains."

You can read the full "Survivor" column here.

I haven't watched, or written about, "Survivor" on a regular basis since the "Fans vs. Favorites" season, but I think I'm going to at least check out tonight's two-hour premiere for nostalgia's sake. I don't really have time to add another Thursday show to the rotation, but we'll see if this one rekindles the magic for me. Either way, feel free to discuss the premiere here after it airs.

Survivor: "Heroes" vs. "Villains" questions

Last night, the AP put out a story revealing the cast of "Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains". After the jump, the full list, and a few other thoughts...

HEROES
Rupert Boneham (Pearl Islands, All-Stars)
James Clement (China, Fans vs. Favorites)
Colby Donaldson (Australian Outback, All-Stars)
Cirie Fields (Panama, Fans vs. Favorites)
Amanda Kimmel (China, Fans vs. Favorites)
Jessica "Sugar" Kiper (Gabon)
Stephenie LaGrossa (Palau, Guatemala)
JT Thomas (Tocantins)
Tom Westman (Palau)
Candice Woodcock (Cook Islands)

VILLAINS

Tyson Apostol (Tocantins)
Randy Bailey (Gabon)
Sandra Diaz (Pearl Islands)
Danielle DiLorenzo (Panama)
Russell Hantz (Samoa)
Jerri Manthey (Australian Outback)
Boston Rob Mariano (Marquesas, All-Stars)
Parvati Shallow (Cook Islands, Fans vs. Favorites)
Benjamin "Coach" Wade (Tocantins)
Courtney Yates (China)

Looking at that list, I have the same three questions I had when I first saw the rumored cast list a few weeks ago:

1)On what planet is Candice - who was despised by the Yul/Ozzy good guys alliance on "Cook Islands" - considered a "hero"?

2)How, exactly, does Sandra - BFF of "hero" Rupert, and the one who helped set up her team's early dominance in "Pearl Islands" with her amazing shopping skills during the brief trip into the city - wind up on the "villains" team?

3)Why is forgettable Danielle (pictured, above, with Cirie) on the "villains" team? For that matter, why is she on the show at all? Other than to fill the usual Available Bikini Babe quota, that is?

Watch: Amber was inexplicably cast on "Survivor: All-Stars" for a similar reason, and wound up winning the whole thing, in part because everyone else was busy picking off the bigger names. I would not be at all shocked to see Danielle win this one.

My man-crush on Tom Westman was strong enough to keep me from hating him after the psy-ops he pulled on Ian in the "Palau" finale, and it might be enough to get me watching the show again for the first time in many seasons. But I tuned into "Fans vs. Favorites" also because I liked some of the returning alums (Jonathan, Cirie) enough to overcome my boredom with the show, and I mostly spent that season remembering why I didn't care anymore. So I suspect I'll put on the premiere for nostalgia's sake, then let it go again.

And in the meantime, CBS' press tour party on Saturday night is going to feature a reunion of what's supposed to be at least 250 "Survivor" alums, highlighted by the original final four of Richard Hatch, Kelly Wigglesworth, Rudy Boesch and Sue Hawk. I'm betting that neither Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who's both big-time and on another network, nor Stacey Stillman, who sued the show and claimed Mark Burnett rigged her ouster to protect Rudy, will be there, but I imagine lots of others will show up. Though I've lost interest in the series going forward, I still have a lot of nostalgia for the years when I was still watching, so I'll try my best to avoid turning into "The Chris Farley Show" around them. ("Remember when you pretended you weren't Gary Hogeboom? That was awesome!")

And in the end...

So a new "Survivor" winner was crowned last night. And even though I didn't watch this season (I kicked the "Survivor" habit after Fans vs. "Favorites"), this was one of those editions where it was impossible to not be aware of some of what was going on. And what happened with the ending has me thinking about the larger question of how the winner of a reality season affects our perception of that season, which I'll talk about (including, obviously, a spoiler on the "Survivor" winner) after the jump...

So Russell, whose apparent dominance of the game - and all the writing being done about that by other TV writers I follow - made me feel like I was watching the season even when I wasn't, did not win. Natalie did. Some people are already calling it a hose job, a lame jury vote akin to Amber beating Boston Rob because the All-Stars were pissed that Rob outplayed them, or akin to Neleh losing in Marquesas under similar circumstances(*). Linda Holmes, who used to recap "Survivor" for Television Without Pity, argued earlier this year that the Russell-as-greatest-player-ever narrative was constructed by the show and Russell's desire to self-promote, and didn't reflect what was actually happening, and she wrote this morning that the jury vote vindicates her take on the guy, and the season..

(*) Anyone want to argue against Vecepia (who beat Neleh) as the least deserving "Survivor" winner ever? She did nothing all during that season, and backed into the win because there was always a bigger fish to try in her original tribe, then because Neleh and Pascal organized an alliance flip, then because the producers screwed up the Purple Rock of Death twist, then because Kathy's chest was too big, and then because the jurors were a bunch of whiny babies. I know some people will argue for Sandra from Pearl Islands, but at least she was a key part of what was that season's longest-lasting, most dominant alliance, and she was going up against a contestant who was eliminated, then voted back into the game through a twist so lame the show has never recycled it. I say Vecepia, all the way.

But whether you believe the Russell hype or not, this season was all about Russell's alleged dominance, only it ended with him not winning. And if you bought into the guy's mystique and aura, I'm wondering whether his loss retroactively makes you enjoy this season a little less.

When I was working on the Best Reality Shows list for my Best of the '00s package, I briefly toyed with the idea of making it a Best Reality Seasons list, mainly because I felt weird about putting "The Apprentice" season 1 alongside the completely body of work for four other series. And while I was thinking about that, I asked a few reality fan friends for their thoughts on what were the best seasons of my respective candidates. When I told Adam Bonin that I was thinking of going with "American Idol" season five - which I felt had the best mix of talented singers, memorable performances and weird things that happened - he objected on the grounds that Taylor Hicks won that year. I argued that the winner shouldn't matter if the rest of the season was good enough, and that I found the David Cook season really unsatisfying even though I liked Cook himself a lot and was glad he won.

But the more I thought about it, the more I saw Adam's point. Taylor's win doesn't taint that "Idol" season for me, necessarily, but there are plenty of other reality seasons I like less because of who won, like Jenna on "Survivor: Amazon" or Hosea on "Top Chef" a couple of seasons back. Conversely, two of my favorite "Survivor" seasons, Palau and Cook Islands, had incredibly deserving and likable winners in Tom and Yul. Had Katie or Becky, respectively, won because of bitter juries, I might think less of those years in spite of all the entertaining things that happened in each.

Now, I've heard from fans of scripted shows like "The Sopranos" or "Battlestar Galactica" who so hated their finales that they decided they retroactively hated the whole series. And I'm sure the "Lost" finale (which simply won't be able to satisfy everyone, no matter what Cuse and Lindelof do) will lead to some of that.

But at least in those cases, the endings were crafted behind the scenes by the people who made you like the show in the first place. Reality producers don't have that luxury. I'm sure the "Idol" producers were tearing their hair out when Daughtry went home and it became clear Taylor was going to win, just as Jeff Probst for years has made his displeasure clear when someone other than one of his alpha male favorites wins. (This was really obvious, and awkward, at the Cook Islands reunion, when Jeff did everything short of beg the jury to do a re-vote in favor of Ozzy.) All a reality show can do is assemble the strongest cast they can and hope that the jury, the judges or the American public votes to keep things interesting and ultimately satisfying.

Anyway, to sum up that long ramble (forgive me; it's my first day back in the office after a week off), I'm wondering whether people who watched "Survivor: Samoa" all the way through are upset that Russell lost, how that impacts their overall view of the season, and how much you all weigh endings in general when judging a TV season or series.