I think, in order to be a successful Survivor contestant there must be a part of your moral make-up that is broken. You have to be willing to lie, steal and cheat, to justify and rationalize deplorable behavior. To be at peace with it. So, a contestant saying they admire O.J. before the `legal drama ` fits. Part of these `successful' contestants make-up is that they are more than happy to do things we as a society say are morally wrong in everyday life, in order to win a game. I dont know if I'm expressing it correctly. But, I dont know that I could go on the show and feel good about myself . Never mind worrying about explainin to my kids why lying and backstabbing and terrible behavior is, in fact, okay in certain situations. Im sure my parents would be horrified, not proud, if I was on the show. :lol
I wasn't sure if I was gonna like him, but I do. I'm kind of glad he and Denise stuck together. Not that I dislike Russell, but still.
My father is a Yankees fan :lol We used to joke about putting tape down the center of the television room. He saw me cry so many times over the years that when the Sox finally won the world series in 2004 he hugged me for quite awhile and kept saying congratulations. Heck, Im going over to his house tomorrow night to watch the Yankees take on the Tigers.
As for Survivor he just scratches his head and says '"You'd think by now the contestants wouldnt be shocked to find out everyone lied to them.'':lol
You bring up some great points. Maybe it is the morality play that holds my interest rather than the actual game play. The reason the first season was so great is because of course it was brand new, none of the contestants came from central casting (i mean would they cast an 81 year old guy now) and none of them knew what to expect or what to do socially. It was a great social experiment. It was fascinating to see how each person chose to deal with situations they couldn't reference from past viewing experiences. They invented the roles and the characters-The one who flies under the radar, the coat tail rider, the puppet master, the aggrieved jurist, the double crosser...yes, the idea that an `alliance' was once a new strategy on reality TV that was questioned, seems unbelievable. Now, its redundant. I watch because I want to see people like Malcom fail. I want to see his master plan burn up right before his eyes. I root against Malcom out of a desire to see someone `strong and overly confident' lose. Every opnce in a great while someone not fitting that stereotype wins. I'm terrible with names but I was really happy when the Prof. from Maine won a few years back because it was such a change of pace. But lots of people were critical of his win because he `didn't play the game` i.e., he wasn't lecherous. I still think it would be hard as a parent to try to justify to your child that it is okay to leave your morals at the door because `this is just a game and it was about winning money.' I can think of better reasons to compromise your morals than to win a game or a pile of cash. It's a slippery slope.
I'd forgotten about the reluctance to form alliances! Yes, that first season the only one who knew what was going on was Hatch, and that includes the viewers. I still recall that I thought it was a game about surviving in the wild,not surviving your castmates machinations! :)
I also like the unusual winner, the prof from Maine, Yul, folks like that. But I think Malcolm (to bring us back to his thread here!) is turning out to be more unusual than I thought at first. The young hot guy who aligns with an older woman OVER the cute little tootsie...you don't see that too often. And who does it for logical reasons. There have been a few such pairings before, starting with Colby and Tina, but they aren't common, and in this case there isn't even a mother/son vibe, just a good person to person vibe. I hope they both go far and that whatever is coming in terms of a tribal shake up works for them.
I believe the prof from Maine was Bob, I liked him as well. I know there are a number of Survivor fans who thought he was a boring winner, but I thought he was a unique winner. Though I remember even he had a somewhat devious moment when he gave Randy that fake idol, that made for great entertainment though :lol That's one of my favorite things about this show though, there are just two things one has to do to win Survivor, make it to the end, and get enough jurors to vote for you. Russell Hantz can say he played the best game, but as we've seen, there's no one way to win the game of Survivor, no two seasons are alike when you think about it. And yes, Hatch really seemed to be ahead of his time, I think he understood the game better than even Burnett and Probst at the time.
As far as Malcom goes, he's been impressing me as well since he sided with Denise rather than Angie, quite a unique alliance that I hope can stick together despite the less than ideal current circumstances.