Survivor: Palau episode 10 commentary
![]()
Janu. Janu. Janu. Being the sucker that I am, I must thank you for saving Stephenie for at least one more week, even though you claimed to have done so for your own sake.
There has been a whole lot of talk about whether Probst manipulated Janu into quitting so as to save Steph. I'm sure that was probably one of the considerations he had. But to be fair, if you look at the careful analysis of the tribal council that we were shown, he had to ask the questions begging to be answered, based on what the tribe has told him. Being the good host that he is, he has to push the buttons of all these people, especially when they lay it all out for him like this, just like he has done past seasons. The question here is, should he and/or the producers be allowed this sort of interference bordering on outright manipulation in this game? I'm surprised that this question even came up, given how revisionist Survivor history has been. First alliances were taboo, then Richard Hatch won using alliances and everyone changed their minds. Then the Outcast twist was against the game integrity, but in the end nearly everyone loved it because Pearl Islands became one of the best seasons in terms of average level of strategic gameplay. Jonny Fairplay was downright evil with his dead grandmother lie, then by the end of the season they loved him for his theatrical antics. Everyone loved Rupert and gave him the million, then switched to loving Mariano instead.
My point is that people change their opinion of what is moral or ethical all the time, and I can say that by the end of this season they will accept that sour taste in their mouths and applaud Mark Burnett for his brilliant tweaking of the show. And it's not like they haven't done this before. Or that they could manipulate without the contestants' cooperation. Stacey was the first scandal, then it became legitimate with the Rotu 4 taking the bait during the Marquesas coconut-chopping challenge, to the compelling entertainment of Jenna & Heidi stripping for peanut butter. Probst just asked the right questions, and once Janu was placated with a jury spot, she willingly bought hook, line and sinker. So fortunately for us Steph fans, this happened.
And speaking of fair treatment, Steph didn't exactly come away with the better deal. Sure she survived another week, but I have a very bad feeling that with all the emotion prompted out of her during tribal council, she's going to come across as even more of a threat to actual behind-the-scenes controller of votes Gregg (who would have thought?). And with the all-woman alliance that we forsaw Steph trying to form next week, it only distances herself from her possible alliance partners Tom & Ian, who ironically she can probably assure herself a final four place with, along with Katie, now that they acutally have the numbers unlike this week's possible tie. I've been trying to come to terms with it, but I think Steph will not last another week. As always, the previews will probably be a curveball. Furthermore, strategically speaking, Katie & Jenn may not be better off in an all-woman alliance than in their present ones, and strategy dictates not to change your alliance if you don't see yourself achieving better than in the current alliance. Realistically speaking, Jenn will not desert Gregg and join archrival Steph, and neither she nor Katie has displayed any real capability of playing the game, other than being protected in their present alliance, to be bold enough to take such a chance. That means Steph is already out-numbered, simply because she is a much bigger perceived threat than Caryn (even though she has so far won not a single immunity challenge), unless she wins immunity.
I almost believe that Tom will probably just win all the challenges until he's the final two, at which point, he would win, maybe except against Steph, but even then he has a fighting chance.
But if this is the case this season would be much more boring than it seemed like it would be, which is why I somehow hope against hope that Steph manages to survive, because it's a shame that someone like her gets eliminated now when she'll outright win in a final two situation against almost everyone but Tom or possibly Ian.
Why shouldn't Janu be given the same treatment as Osten? No matter the circumstances of your quitting, it should not be condoned. It would have been interesting to bring back Bobby Jon, but I never really thought that would happen. That aside, the whole quitting thing has been blown entirely out of proportion, it was great with Osten, then horribly weird with both Jenna M. and Sue, then seemingly become legitimate with Ashlee and Jeff just because they were asked to be voted off. Now Janu being given a jury spot? It's no longer entertaining to watch people quit, and I don't know what's wrong that there appears to be an increasing number of quitters as the seasons pass. Did Osten somehow made it cool to quit? It's true that it drives home the fact that Survivor is more real than a reality show, but I'm feeling queasy about this trend here.
That's it for now. Will Steph survive? I can only hope.
There has been a whole lot of talk about whether Probst manipulated Janu into quitting so as to save Steph. I'm sure that was probably one of the considerations he had. But to be fair, if you look at the careful analysis of the tribal council that we were shown, he had to ask the questions begging to be answered, based on what the tribe has told him. Being the good host that he is, he has to push the buttons of all these people, especially when they lay it all out for him like this, just like he has done past seasons. The question here is, should he and/or the producers be allowed this sort of interference bordering on outright manipulation in this game? I'm surprised that this question even came up, given how revisionist Survivor history has been. First alliances were taboo, then Richard Hatch won using alliances and everyone changed their minds. Then the Outcast twist was against the game integrity, but in the end nearly everyone loved it because Pearl Islands became one of the best seasons in terms of average level of strategic gameplay. Jonny Fairplay was downright evil with his dead grandmother lie, then by the end of the season they loved him for his theatrical antics. Everyone loved Rupert and gave him the million, then switched to loving Mariano instead.
My point is that people change their opinion of what is moral or ethical all the time, and I can say that by the end of this season they will accept that sour taste in their mouths and applaud Mark Burnett for his brilliant tweaking of the show. And it's not like they haven't done this before. Or that they could manipulate without the contestants' cooperation. Stacey was the first scandal, then it became legitimate with the Rotu 4 taking the bait during the Marquesas coconut-chopping challenge, to the compelling entertainment of Jenna & Heidi stripping for peanut butter. Probst just asked the right questions, and once Janu was placated with a jury spot, she willingly bought hook, line and sinker. So fortunately for us Steph fans, this happened.
And speaking of fair treatment, Steph didn't exactly come away with the better deal. Sure she survived another week, but I have a very bad feeling that with all the emotion prompted out of her during tribal council, she's going to come across as even more of a threat to actual behind-the-scenes controller of votes Gregg (who would have thought?). And with the all-woman alliance that we forsaw Steph trying to form next week, it only distances herself from her possible alliance partners Tom & Ian, who ironically she can probably assure herself a final four place with, along with Katie, now that they acutally have the numbers unlike this week's possible tie. I've been trying to come to terms with it, but I think Steph will not last another week. As always, the previews will probably be a curveball. Furthermore, strategically speaking, Katie & Jenn may not be better off in an all-woman alliance than in their present ones, and strategy dictates not to change your alliance if you don't see yourself achieving better than in the current alliance. Realistically speaking, Jenn will not desert Gregg and join archrival Steph, and neither she nor Katie has displayed any real capability of playing the game, other than being protected in their present alliance, to be bold enough to take such a chance. That means Steph is already out-numbered, simply because she is a much bigger perceived threat than Caryn (even though she has so far won not a single immunity challenge), unless she wins immunity.
I almost believe that Tom will probably just win all the challenges until he's the final two, at which point, he would win, maybe except against Steph, but even then he has a fighting chance.
But if this is the case this season would be much more boring than it seemed like it would be, which is why I somehow hope against hope that Steph manages to survive, because it's a shame that someone like her gets eliminated now when she'll outright win in a final two situation against almost everyone but Tom or possibly Ian.
Why shouldn't Janu be given the same treatment as Osten? No matter the circumstances of your quitting, it should not be condoned. It would have been interesting to bring back Bobby Jon, but I never really thought that would happen. That aside, the whole quitting thing has been blown entirely out of proportion, it was great with Osten, then horribly weird with both Jenna M. and Sue, then seemingly become legitimate with Ashlee and Jeff just because they were asked to be voted off. Now Janu being given a jury spot? It's no longer entertaining to watch people quit, and I don't know what's wrong that there appears to be an increasing number of quitters as the seasons pass. Did Osten somehow made it cool to quit? It's true that it drives home the fact that Survivor is more real than a reality show, but I'm feeling queasy about this trend here.
That's it for now. Will Steph survive? I can only hope.
![]()
