I just feel like the gimmicks lose their impact when you have a new one every season. Kind of like returning players in general—every fourth or fifth season (or spread out even further), I'd be excited, but have them all the time and it becomes tedious.

I know I said it after last episode, but this finale just reiterates why the show needs to go back to final 2. Did anyone NOT expect Tyson/Monica/Gervase to be in the end?

I had to dig deep!

That's part of the problem though—F3 encourages stable alliances and gameplay. Unless you've got someone emotionally unstable like Sugar, you're never gonna see a Cesternino or Fairplay switching up the game every single round in a F3 situation, because once you settle into a decent alliance, it doesn't make any sense…

I wouldn't say "almost always." Five out of 14 (35%) of the final challenge winners earned the third placer's vote. And that's actually one of the big issues with F3 to me. A guy like Fabio can hide behind an alliance without ever making a big move or getting any blood on his hands. Ditto for Kim Spradlin, who played…

I think Fairplay vs. Lill would have probably gone in his favor ultimately, but it was a bigger question mark than against Sandra. Against Fairplay, they each have two guaranteed votes (Rupert/Sandra for Lill; Ryno/Burton for Fairplay) and the rest probably leaned towards Fairplay but could be swayed. But what I'm…

Oh yeah, I have no trouble coming up with arguments against Russell in either of the seasons where he made the finals. But I have an easier time arguing in favor of Sandra or Parvati than I do Natalie or Mick.

Back when they first implemented it, you would see those sort of situations where you'd have two strong competitors + one extraneous goat. (Not all the time though; the second time it happened, Earl won 9-0-0.) The problem is, once they figured it out, the players have outsmarted the system, and now we're more often…

Parvati's big mistake that season was being so closely associated with Russell, and that she never really extended any offers to outsiders (Amanda could've been a surefire ally again). What won Sandra the game was her repeated attempts to help the Heroes get a shot at the endgame. They may not have been successful at…

I think @andythesaint and @katmar said what I was trying to say but better—if a juror holds any resentment towards a finalist for how they played the game, it's the finalist's fault. Every once in a while you have folks like Rupert who feel like the world owes it to them to win ("So much for my dreams…"), but even he…

I don't really think there is any such thing as a "bitter jury." There is such a thing as playing too hard at Survivor and forgetting that it's ultimately a social game. If someone on the jury is too cheesed off to vote for you, it's your own fault.

1. Tyson. He's been ruthless but in a charming way. He's certainly pissed people off with how he's played, but his attitude has been closer to Rob Cesternino than Russell Hantz.
2. Ciera. Her only shot at getting to F3 is through a Wiglesworth-esque immunity streak, but she has claim to two of the biggest moves of the…

I remember being extremely paranoid about hiding my Nirvana CDs from my parents—I actually became fascinated with Kurt Cobain before I'd even heard a note of their music, having read his obituary in some book called Biography Today back in 4th grade (1998). Not long after, I saw a newspaper review of the Nick…