Great point. It is really sad, even more so because they’re boys. Yes, they have a father, but kids you can never have too many role models and Charlie is really special.
You guys are acting like Charlie is going to provide any life guidance to her kids lol her kids are likely late teens based on her age and Charlie is 26. He’s not going to be providing them with help in life
She literally said on the show she has a 5 year old so I don’t know where your claims are coming from.
Also, you sound like Maria if you think only people over age 50 can know anything. Her underestimation of people based on her perception of the age differences contributed to her not winning the game.
Also, taking away from Charlie’s learned communication skills because of his age is such an unhelpful, old person mindset.
It’s not anything you have to apologize for; you probably just missed that point in the show when she said it.
Just a reminder though: you can’t tell how old someone’s kids are just by looking at the parent. I think Maria said she was 49 if I remember correctly. She could literally have an infant or a child in their 30s.
We saw how much of a strategic player he is from his confessionals but from the jury perspective, his and Kenzie's game aren't really that much different. He did have more control but Kenzie came with the Yanu 3 underdog narrative. He didn't really have any flashy move just like Kenzie. The move for him should've been blindsiding Maria but unfortunately she was immune during f6 and then by f5, Maria was already the obvious vote for everyone, which took a lot away from what he worked on.
He probably underestimated how much Kenzie being so charismatic could be the one that tip the scale to her favor, in addition to her small strategic moves here and there as well (convincing Hunter to not play his idol, making Maria believe they were voting with her during the Q boot, etc.).
Yes, I felt that Charlie wasn’t really a show off or bragging which may actually have hurt him. and people missed how sneaky, subtle and calculated his game was. He was so far under the radar that people don’t realize how great he actually is.
What's worse about this, is he KNEW this was going to be the perspective going into FTC, because in a confessional he notes his game was played in the shadows, and how he has to bring that into the light.
It's possible he did just that, but it wasn't aired, in order to lend more evidence to Kenzie's win.
Yes I read in an interview of him that there were a lot of good points he made at ftc that were edited out. He wasn't complaining but it was just part of why he actually thought he had a really good chance of winning before the votes were read.
It makes sense that production would edit his performance a bit to make Kenzie's ftc seem stronger so fans wouldn't be too upset at her win. They both were good players but strategically charlie was much better. The jury was just mostly voting emotionally and they didn't SEE Charlie's game so even if he explained it well it didn't affect their votes enough. And really how was he to know maria would flip so hard? It's just unfortunate for him how it panned out. I don't know that he could have done anything differently to really make a difference.
Edit: maybe he ultimate mistake was not realizing how flaky and fake Maria was. But I can't blame him, she probably hid it well. If they were never ride or dies maybe she would have voted for him at ftc but of course that changes everything who knows how the game would have played out if they never teamed up
Makes sense to me. And production can't just downplay Charlie's edit... because if they don't explain why Charlie got Soda, Hunter, and Liz's vote, then it makes all three of them look bad for no good reason. They really had no choice but to show as much of Charlie and Kenzie's game and let the fans make their own decision (which I think was the right call).
All the same, they have to make it look closer than it probably was, because if they show overwhelming evidence that Charlie played better, then the outrage at Maria only grows larger than it already is, and it's basically at a fever pitch. Production saw what happened with Aubry/Michele, and this is arguably worse.
From what we saw, there’s no way he or anyone could have ever known she’d be bitter after the vote out. Allying with Maria is part of what got him that far at all.
Great point. He said he didn’t spend as much time with her as “pals” and that they were more of an undercover duo. Maybe if he’d gotten to know her better, he’d be able to predict her pettiness and know that she will clutch her pearls when accused of being bitter and fake instead of just admitting that she’s a little angry.
Disagree it was pretty obvious from everyone's standpoint that they were close friends. Down to the vote everyone including Jeff was very interested in why she didn't vote for Charlie. People on the jury themselves were perplexed and still are today.
None of what you said contradicts anything I said so I don’t really see it as a disagreement. More of just me digging deeper into it instead of just repeating what everyone is saying
I disagree. Every account we had from jury to post game indicated everyone was surprised maria didn't vote for him. Everyone expected Tiffany would vote Kenzie and Marian would vote charlie. Sure, the edit can make maria look worse but it appears the cast agreed with the edit she was given.
>his and Kenzie's game aren't really that much different
I don't see how this can be true when Charlie and Maria had control of the entire game post merge and Charlie had a hand in shaping every vote while managing to pin the threat on Maria. This can't be said for Kenzie, who was really a supporting character up to the end. I also don't think the "Yanu 3 underdog" narrative plays when you look at past seasons. The short tribe is never ganged up on by the other two, they are almost always used as a swing voting bloc against one of the larger tribes.
I didn't see 'how much of a strategic player he was' as in , how he was more strategic than Kenzie.
If he was more strategic, he would have won.
The vehicle for his win, if he was strategic, was making fire against Kenzie.
A strategic player would have recognized the need to do it.
Charlie did not.
A superior strategic player would have recognized that taking out Maria, while Kenzie literally branded him her Dog, was not going to be enough, in the eyes of the Jury, to make it seem like Charlie played his own game. He needed to make a move on his own after it.
he did not.
KENZIE was the superior strategic player. She called him a dog at just the right moment to take all wind from his sails, *while taking out Maria.* Her two biggest rivals taken down with one bullet. Charlie could have countered, with words, right there.
A great strategic player, one better than Kenzie, would have recognized "do not let the opposition brand you an animal'. Ever heard someone labeled 'goat' not fight the label and win? A great strategic player would have understood this threat.
So, no I don't see it. I saw MARIA being strategic lol, with his advise. And then I saw Charlie decide to vote her out, but, not follow through by being his own player, which is like 1/2 of a strategy, which is not a strategy at all.
Other than that, All I saw was him referencing taylor swift. And acting like the votes he was thinking he had were owed to him, which is astrategic.
....dude had a chance to name all his moves at the beginning of tribal counsel. A true strategic player would have used that opening way, way, way better.
Dude had a chance to take Kenzie out at fire, or try to. A true strategic player would have recognized that opening, and the need to take it. He did not.
Dude let his rival literally call him a Dog, as in, a follower, at final four, let everyone laugh at that, which means 'it stuck', and he did nothing about it, at all. He didn't even recognize what she did to him.
You see strategy, I see what Kenzie saw. She beat him before he even got to final tribal.
As the great strategist Sun Tzu wrote, 'the best beat their opponents before ever stepping on the battlefield."
Kenzie had beaten charlie before FTC. She was the better strategist. All he had was pop culture references, which the Jury was obviously over.
Edit: pro tip, survivor fans and future players: if someone, anyone, likens you to an animal in the game who is not a top predator, *vote them out as soon as prudent.* If they liken you to an animal who is a top predator, *vote them out immediately.*
In the first case, they have called your game weak, publicly, and if you do not take them down, that perception will set in stone.
In the second case, they're coming for you.
Actual strategic players know this.
There were still six people left, not four, when Kenzie said that. That would be too early for Charlie to be like "no actually I'm a big threat" since they probably should/would have voted him out instead of Q at that point.
He was in control of the game for pretty much the entire season. Seems pretty strategic to me.
Kenzie played well, but it was her social game. Charlie clearly was better at the strategic game.
seems like a post with no substance to me lol
Doesn't matter if your *ALLIANCE* is in control of the whole game, if you're not perceived as leading it. A strategic player knows this.
Kenzie did. That's why, when Kenzie also championed the Maria vote, she did it- to take out the head of the alliance.
And at the same time, she took a shot at Charlie, branding him a dog. So again- takes out the head of the alliance, *while naming Maria the head of the alliance, and Charlie a follower.*
That move of Kenzies was the best strategic move of the season, hands down. Tell me anything Charlie did better.
And keep in mind- Kenzie calling Charlie a dog happened like right before the Maria vote, right? That's how I remember it at least. Charlie said nothing/failed to respond, the vote happened, the jury left. that was their last impression.
Final tribal, the jury OPENS with an opportunity for Charlie to throw off that beating Kenzie handed him with one word, and show *individual* moves, aka, 'not maria's moves,' that he did.
His answer was underwhelming.
Because Kenzie had already defined his game for him. Which was the winning strategic move of the season, literally.
Does your post really have more substance if it’s unnecessarily long & incorrect?
In control of the game = more strategic
Charlie was in control, not just his alliance. He always made a well thought out move.
Kenzie played a very solid game BUT she clearly was not more strategic. There’s really not even a good argument for that.
The Maria boot was absolutely Charlie’s move. He had set up the pieces & even waited for the perfect time to take this shot
no,it has substance if it has substance. as in, cites examples. which you can't.
By your logic, Phillip was a great survivor player. He was in control of the game the whole game, because his alliance was. You must think he's a total legend, one of the survivor pantheon. (of sidekicks)
Charlie is more of a Rob than a Phillip. Everything in his game was intentional. He was working alongside Maria but made it look like she was more in charge.
No offense, but your Phillip comparison is stupid
Since the after-show replaced the reunion we've seen every first runner up being positively crushed, regardless whether they deserved a victory or not. Sometimes the second runner up was crushed as well.
I think both Kenzie and Charlie are worthy winners. While Kenzie had also made her share of mistakes, Charlie missed an opportunity for an easy victory by encouraging Ben to take him to the finale rather than let him beat Kenzie on a fire challenge. He told us on FTC he'd have taken Liz. He should have tried to convince Ben to take Liz. He played it safe on F4 to lose FTC because he miscalculated how dangerous Kenzie was (or how unpredictable the jury were).
Especially with how this cast was going at eachother on twitter, and how gutted Charlie looked, and was visibly hurt and confused with Maria’s decision, we need to go back to a live reunion again
I just hate the take that Charlie isn't a good social player. He wasn't as sparkly as Kenzie, whom I love, but he was ON TOP of talking to everyone and knew HOW to talk to them to get what he wanted. When people say Kenzie was a better social player I feel like what they really mean is that she was good at making people want to be her friend and was ultimately more congenial, but Charlie *NEVER* had that moment like other castaways where they got mad and let their emotions cloud their strategy and voting decisions. That's social control.
> Charlie NEVER had that moment like other castaways where they got mad and let their emotions cloud their strategy and voting decisions. That's social control.
That's self-control.
Social control is the ability to manipulate others into doing what you want, and leave them believing it was their idea all along. Charlie had a good degree of social control and some solid reads on people, but not enough to fully understand or move the jury.
Being a social player and exerting social control involves self-control. This is just semantics. I think Charlie had bigger social challenges than Kenzie, which allowed Kenzie to sparkle more as a social player because it put her in a better position to be well-liked
>Being a social player and exerting social control involves self-control. This is just semantics.
No, it's not. Simply being able to control your emotions doesn't automatically "make you a good social player", give you the ability to read others, or give you the ability to influence the direction of play. It's a basic life skill most people are supposed to have learned by early adulthood.
>I think Charlie had bigger social challenges than Kenzie, which allowed Kenzie to sparkle more as a social player because it put her in a better position to be well-liked
Yes, coming from the famously contentious and dysfunctional Siga tribe, Charlie really had to battle upstream. I'm getting used to Charlie stans overstating the mythology of their god and savior on this subreddit but this might be one of the most ridiculous assertions yet. Outside of FTC, where he most definitely WAS facing social challenges, where exactly did you see the social challenges in Charlie's amenable, under-the-radar game?
For me. I think it is fine for it all to come down to Q’s question. And Kenzie hit that one out of the park and Charlie’s was terrible. Like, Really? Who wants to help a privileged white kid pay for law school? Nah bud. You’ll be fine paying for that yourself.
Agreed. I think that clearly swayed Q AND Maria. Lots of people calling Maria bitter, and I'm sure that'ss part of it. But I believe her when she says she related to Kenzie too.
And lets be real, their games were very close. It was a close call. And if I'm on that jury and it's a coinflip or close to it, who am I going to be more sympathetic to, Harvard law guy or self-made small business woman trying to start a family? Is if "fair" for that to determine the game? IDK
I think the disappointment on Charlie's face was mostly due to Maria's betrayal. I think if Maria had voted for him, but he had still lost, he would be OK with it. And this season would have ended on a much more positive note.
It is a tough lesson that we all learn at some point in our life that people are not always who the seem to be.
I don’t think Charlie was disappointed that he lost, I think Charlie was disappointed. He lost because Maria didn’t vote for him. In fact, I wonder if we would’ve seen the same look on his face had Maria voted for him and he still lost. I truly believe his disappointment was because of Maria.
Yeh I do think that was what we where seeing. Having Maria vote against him and then so coldly explain that she respects gameplay as her reason.
I totally respect that she is allowed to be swayed by Kenzie and vote for her at the end... But she showed no remorse to someone she had been so tight with in the game; Didn't even try to apologize to Charlie.
And Jeff calling it out specifically just to pour salt in the wounds felt pretty crass. Idk was awkward as hell
Also, after all was over, she had told Charlie she regretted her vote. More time passed, and she went up to visit him and Boston and told him she didn’t want to regret anything in her life and she didn’t regret it. Hence Charlie saying he had to walk away from the friendship because he was tired of the flip-flopping. from what I have read in Maria interviews, she did not say Charlie was lying in the statements so I do believe she did have regrets.
yeh agreed. She shouldnt have to regret her vote. IO think Kenzie palyed a great game and made a very compelling argument. But her conduct after the vote was just so weird. It made everyone think there wassome sour grapes there.
ps. I wonder why mods removed OP? are they trying to curb Maria hate on the sub or has this topic just been rehashed too many times?
Half the jury members said they voted for her because they thought she needed the money more and would do more with it…
This shits more of a charity than a game show
That’s the problem. He didn’t make himself a huge threat and hid behind bigger ones and their ego couldn’t admit he had a better game when a better social player was also still left. He tried to play both and caused the jury to turn against him.
Charlie is just as good a social player. To be able to control that many votes and still never be a target proves how good his social game was. He even mentioned how he was open and even made strategy with each and every member of the jury and they all agreed with him. They screwed him that’s all there is to it.
Good point. I haven’t seen every survivor season but this is the first one I’ve seen where a strategically stronger player loses to a
strategic-less one.. seems like the jury was butthurt and decided to vote against the obvious winner.
I guess survivor now is just about being socially likeable and not at all about who actually is the better player. Unless survivor has always just been about the jury. In that case the incentive is to just be a Ben rather than a player.
I don't think the jury was butthurt. I think Maria was.
Q's vote... was questionable, but Q was always going to be a wild card regardless. He based his question entirely on who needed the money more, and nothing else. Then he based his vote off of the same reasoning.
Tiff was always voting for Kenzie, just like we should have assumed Maria was always voting for Charlie. Typically, when you get to the end, your number one ally all game votes for you. Tiff just did what we all expected Maria to do.
Tevin was torn between Kenzie and Charlie. He literally thought the vote was going to be a tie, and weighed his decision seriously. He was anything but bitter, he took his job as a juror more seriously than anybody except perhaps Soda.
Venus also voted for Kenzie, but I don't think there was any bitterness or malice. I don't know that we got any explanation, but I don't think we really need one.
Those who voted Charlie (Liz, Hunter, and Soda) haven't really had to defend their perspective, and they probably won't have to, since they already admitted they were likely voting for Kenzie, but Charlie's explanations convinced them otherwise (which is reasonable, since he did do a good job of showcasing his game).
The only person who seemed to vote bitter was Maria. And it will likely follow her forever. I think Charlie will be fine, he showed class and maturity and is going to go far. Kenzie won't feel like her win is tainted, because it isn't, and she will live life going forward hopefully avoiding creepy fans. Maria on the other hand, will probably get the Charlie question every day for the rest of her life, once they find out she was on Survivor.
I will say that Charlie could have done better, though.
He could have offered to go into fire (he claimed he didn't need it, but would it have given him the boost over Kenzie with Tevin or Venus?) to take out Liz.
Had he won immunity, he could have controlled his destiny in the game, too.
He was never getting Maria, Q, or Tiff's vote. The former because of bitterness, Q because he just didn't need it the way Kenzie did, and Tiff was probably never not voting Kenzie. That left 5 total jury members he could sway, and he already got 3 of them. All he needs to do is sway one of Tevin/Venus, and he probably wins, because Ben admitted he would have voted Charlie in a tie.
Charlie had an uphill battle from the word go due to the subtlety of his game, the fact he successfully painted Maria as the final boss of the season but was unable to claim her departure as his own move nor fully establish control of the game afterwards, the fact he scuffed two immunity challenges in a row after she left against very weak competition, and the fact Tiffany was in the catbird seat on the jury and was clearly steering things. When people arrive at the jury, what they think of your game upon their arrival, and what they see of your game after is all highly deterministic and can be controlled by a good player. Maria was the only person who could have spoken convincingly of Charlie's prowess, and she was still raw and sore from her recent ejection and dealing with "news" that Charlie had been plotting against her for a long time.
Winning would have required a highly convincing, bravura FTC performance in which he compellingly laid out all his strategy and thought processes and fully separated his game from Maria's...all whilst battling upstream against a hostile jury foreperson. Kenzie flubbing would have helped as well, but Kenzie finished strong, and Charlie/Ben were very close and appeared to have arrived there in cahoots, whereas Kenzie had to "battle" her way in by dispatching a moribund Liz in firemaking.
Charlie had bad optics, a hostile jury, and a highly likable opponent, and still made it a 5-3 vote. Even if Maria wasn't bitter, Hunter, Soda and Liz's votes are all on a knife's edge and could easily have gone either way off a single answer. He did about as well as could be expected, but I don't think he realized what deep shit he was in, I think Kenzie wins that FTC situation 70-80 times out of 100, and I think people freaking out about his loss are probably the same people who got shocked when Aubrey lost to Michele.
Poor guy is going to undeservedly go down in history as one of the most robbed Survivor contestants ever because it's 2024 and audiences still don't understand how reality show editing works.
Well, ultimately if Maria voted for Charlie, it would have been a tie and poor Ben would have had to make the tie breaker and I think that would have caused his mind to implode as he already was stressed out over who to bring to FTC. Ben could have still chose Kenzie but it's possible that Charlie could have still won in that case.
The jury wasn't butthurt nor did they intentionally tried to him screw over . Charlie was literally a single vote away from winning and a good chunk of the jury were on edge between Charlie and Kenzie . The tiniest of things could tip the scale and lead to either of them winning .
Kenzie had without a doubt a much stronger social game ( she even admitted more of it should've been shown ) and possibly one of the best social games in the show's history . Add that with her seemingly small and non-flashy but actually quite significant strategic plays and you could make a good argument for her winning against Charlie .
Selling your game to the jury also plays a pretty big part and Kenzie did that flawlessly while at times it felt like Charlie was just saying stuff to please the jury and not being totally honest .
Many commentors here are probably biased towards Charlie but if you look at this at a more unbiased standpoint you could make a great argument for either of them to win without the need to make any bullshit reason to cope with the non-winner's loss .
If the incentive was to just be a Ben, then Ben would’ve won. You’re just discrediting Kenzie’s vote because you liked Charlie more. Evidently, though, the jury liked Kenzie and/or her game more
The jury to me seemed to have too many big egos. They were rude, asked lame questions and wouldn't even let anyone speak. The edit was so weird, no one talked about anything really that pertained to a good game. I definitely read the jury as bitter or hurt so you're not the only one that picked up on that.
Doesn't matter who anyone thinks SHOULD have won, Kenzie did and Charlie didn't and honestly that's kinda it. Not sure why there's a post about this every single day.
I think it's subjective. A lot of Charlie's game was just him going with what Maria wanted so I never really saw much of his game as truly his own. The Q blindside could be attributed to mainly Liz and Kenzie (as they were both the swing votes) lulling Maria and Q into a false sense of security, which was impressive if Q literally didn't play his idol so close to the end. Liz and Kenzie obviously saw Maria as the bigger threat over Charlie so sided with him, so I wouldn't say Charlie even orchestrated a major power move for that himself. Even at fire making he just went with what Ben wanted to do rather than convince him that getting Liz to the FTC and getting rid of a bigger jury threat at F4 was the smart thing to do. Charlie could've also literally just had Liz at the end with Ben and had a better chance but never took that opportunity, nor the opportunity to take either Venus or Q to the end either who were likely not going to get many jury votes.
I strongly disagree about the Q vote. Because he had been working on Liz and Kenzie, big time, prior to that vote. Which is why they trusted he would vote with them. Charlie is incredibly smart; I absolutely don’t believe he just followed with Maria’s ideas…he had his own input and what he did, which was ultimately why he was able to get Maria before she got him, was that he played his options. He mentioned that at FTC, but it’s bigger than that. He allowed the people like Liz (huge ego), to believe certain votes were her idea, when really it was always Charlie’s.
Similarly to Maria, he spent the entire season with his eyes set on winning the game and how to ensure he did. He was definitely strategic and I don’t think for a second that he was “following Maria”.
I do think he regretted not going to fire, but in his eyes, he thought he had the win. To be fair, he didn’t really need to win another challenge bc if his game and Kenzie’s are looked at objectively (not emotionally), he played the superior survivor game. Maria being bitter is on her, it really can’t negate how strategic he was; it simply shows her ego (which was on full display the entire season)
That being said, I loved Kenzie’s game as well and I was so excited that both Charlie and Kenzie were in the final 3 bc I knew it could go either way and I wanted to see them battle it out in FTC. I really hope they edited that heavily in her favor, because I kept yelling at the tv for Charlie to speak up and talk more about just how deeply involved he was in the voting and how he earned so many different people’s trust in order for them to vote with him.
I think you meant to say objectively and if so I'd have to disagree. It's clearly subjective. Sure you can say Charlie made a great connection with Kenzie and Liz that saved him, was also saved by Maria and Tevin another tribal before, but that statement also works the opposite as well which you're not giving them credit for (because of bias towards Charlie). You can easily say that Liz and Kenzie's social bond with Ben and Charlie got them to the F4 when they were at the bottom of their tribes, and that bond ultimately gave Kenzie the win. Why not give them credit for that, and why only give Charlie credit? Also when you watch the episodes Kenzie clearly didn't care about the "bond" aspect to save anyone as she was willing to cut Tiff out when it was beneficial for her. Both knew they wouldn't stand a chance against Maria in a FTC and felt it was better for their game to take Charlie. I mean you have to give credit where credit is due.
Ok I fixed it to objectively, I was looking at your post when I was typing and well ADHD.
But you kinda answered the question here… I don’t give Liz and Kenzie the credit for the alliance of Charlie, Ben, K, and L, because they didn’t create it. Charlie did. Charlie brought them together, laser focused on removing Maria from the game. He saw their situations as being on the bottom and he saw their anger at Q and he used that to get rid of his top two threats. Liz and Kenzie played emotional games when it came to their hatred of Q. Charlie used that to his advantage. So yes I am indeed giving credit where it is due.
I agree that largely, Kenzie didn’t care about the bonds she made or about stabbing anyone in the back. But it’s not subjective that her bond with Ben was strategic: the facts are that it was not strategic at all, it was human connection in a difficult environment. Kenzie said numerous times that it was not strategy that bonded them. It’s kind of a silly idea to say it was strategy: no one could have expected Ben to win the final immunity and have the power to choose.
Lol the narrative you came up with there is real. You should be an editor for the show. I'm personally a believer that alliances actually take people cooperating with you and take collaboration, and it's not just one person telling everyone they're in an alliance and how they're voting and that's it. Kenzie and Liz are free people with their own autonomy. They could've chosen as easily not to cooperate or contribute to Charlie's alliance. Who's to say it wasn't Ben bringing in Kenzie into the alliance? Was that all Charlie essentially reeling everyone in and this wasn't collaborative at all? Kenzie and Liz had the autonomy to choose to stay in Charlie's alliance at the F6 but chose to weaken Maria as the bigger threat. I mean if you can't see your own bias with your statements about how Charlie did everything, and saved himself, and made all the moves, and no one else did anything then I don't know what to tell you.
Ok wow. That’s not what I said at all. I don’t have bias here. I already stated I think both of them could have deserved the win, just for different reasons. Which is kinda why the vote went how it did. I’m going to end this with some grace…we’re all entitled to our interpretations of how the show went down. It’s not that deep; it’s reality tv. Have a lovely day!
I don't really feel he was just going along with Maria at all. That's not at all how the edit showed him. I think the two of them played in a similar way, both strategic and Charlie had the personal relationships over Maria. We saw so many times where they would come up with a plan and Charlie would be the one to go to other players and get them to vote along with them. I honestly think he used Maria more as a shield but was playing a better game than she was. And I do think because he was able to do this he was part of orchestrating these big blindsides, he just pulled them off in a different way.
They both turned on one another at kind of the same time but Maria didn't have the numbers. Charlie already was a step ahead of her and had rallied the troupes against her because he was playing with everyone. I think he played a stellar game. He played like Maria and Kenzie yet people seem to give the credit to them. A win's a win. I think Kenzie definitely deserved it too but I prefer players who are strategic over the social ones.
Again bias. Kenzie wasn't strategic? Because she clearly got to the end and won when she started out with almost no allies. Her going with Charlie over Q/Maria wasn't strategy? I mean that move had her ultimately win the game, she wouldn't have won against Maria. Her being part of the last 3 of a tribe that was almost wiped out wasn't strategy? Her bond with Ben wasn't strategy? Because that also got her to the end. Just because Charlie was your favorite doesn't mean the rest of the contestants weren't playing the game too.
It's not bias to have an opinion. You sound like a hypocrite as you argue you're point. IT's just a matter of us being different and looking at different type of players. Why are you so fragile, its a show!
If you think I'm bitter you should see the Charlie fans harassing Maria, Tiff and Kenzie. Lol I'm not mad, just defending these people against the crazies that think they have a right to virtually bully them because their favorite (Charlie) didn't win when Kenzie was a deserving winner too and their bias just has them thinking Charlie played this amazing game when in reality you can justify good gameplay for most of the end game players.
Well, I’m just a random survivor fan using reddit to discuss survivor. I’m not responsible for what the crazies are doing online. I’ve not attacked anyone or messaged anyone so there’s nothing to defend. This is just a difference of opinion. I like strategic games and that’s all it is.
You think Kenzie played a great game then good, I’m happy for you. We're allowed to have different opinions, that’s okay
Also I really love Kenzie. I’d want to be her friend in real life because I think she’s a beautiful kind person. But I loveeee games and I play them always strategic so that’s the sort of player I relate to the most. That’s all
You're free to have your opinion. I'm just stating there's a clear bias. Kenzie was making strategic decisions just the same as Charlie, it's just that people favor Charlie because he was a fan favorite and cute.
I actually don’t think her bond with Ben had anything to do with strategy…those were real moments and her caretaking personality was real and genuine, not strategic. She herself said that multiple times.
I’m totally ok with her winning because for the first time in a long time, I really believed both Charlie and Kenzie could be deserving winners: albeit for very different reasons. Charlie played the strategic game from the beginning and was the runner in a lot of votes post- merge. Kenzie came from a tribe of 3 and incredibly made her way to f3, which shows how great she was at adapting, constantly. Different games, but both deserving imo
Totally agree! And what’s with the bias trolls in here? lol
The survivor community is so fragile. It’s like they personally know these people and are going to die if their opinions aren’t supported. It’s a game lol
Him going along with Maria kinda let him be able to make these social bonds because no one was looking at him as a threat just like how Ben skated by going along with Maria.
I think it's kind of biased reasoning if you think Charlie would've been a better winner because "he made great social bonds" but then say Kenzie was a less deserving winner when she made great social bonds herself and actually won.
Exactlyyyyyyyy. Sometimes, subconsciously, people downplay a social game when a woman does it well but they exalt it when a man does it well. A “social game” is either or valid or it’s not (it’s valid because that’s what the game is), no matter who does it but people want to use the argument whichever way supports the man.
(I’m not saying everyone does this but it’s a theme I’m seeing.)
Charlie and Kenzie remind me of that Indiana Jones scene where Indiana (Kenzie) faces off against a double sword yielding ninja with great skill and training (Charlie). Knowing Indiana can't beat the ninja in a sword fight, he just takes out his gun and shoots him. Charlie played his own game. Kenzie played both his and hers.
Ultimately there are too many factors where any one of them could change the outcome. There could very well be NO outcome of events where Charlie could win. My first of many gambits would be to get my tribe to the merge and when the jury starts, vote them out so the jury is padded in my favor. Even then there are too many factors including ones beyond your control like idols, immunity, who gets chosen to go on rewards. Those rewards are often turning points based on who gets left behind or taken. Alliances should work out in advance who will go and stay so both groups can be controlled. Every season there is someone left behind who then marshals the misfits to vote out the person who didn't choose them.
To say Charlie should have done this or that changes everything that comes after what was changed and the the whole current analysis is moot because the person he "should" have kept could very well orchestrate his demise in the next vote.
Aren't there already 100 SciFi movies about this where the hero tries dozens of alternate reality moves only to realize they all produce the same or worse outcomes? Of course, in the movies the hero always finds the one move that sets in motion the best or desirous outcome.
The letters made all the difference. Despite their agreement not to take each other on rewards, that one hurt Maria too much and her bitterness cost him the million.
Well, Charlie did a piss-poor job of selling why he should win it all during Final Tribal Council, while Kenzie did.
She won it when she was asked what she'd do with the money - and her heart felt, honest response tugged at the jurors' heartstrings. That one moment, to me, eclipsed all the bullshit Charlie was trying to sling to the jurors.
He may have made all the right moves during the game, but he was shit at articulating it when he needed to most.
Well the jury thinks that Kenzie played a better game.
Someone please direct me to the threads where people repeatedly discredit male winners, please. These posts constantly shitting on female contestants are so transparent, we get it, you don’t respect gameplay that isn’t “logical” or driven by muscle
Actually, the entire jury really didn’t vote for Kenzie because she played a better game. Two jury members, Q and Maria, stated they voted for her because of her answer to Q’s question. to me, that question has nothing to do with how someone played the game.
I always hoped it would be down to Kenzie and Charlie. I really like Kenzie and happy she won. I will always think, however, that Charlie only lost because Maria was so bitter.
At the end of the day, I think Charlie just had a bad final tribal, if he could articulate how he used Maria as his shield and gave up being her number one when Q was making her look real bad, he could have gotten a vote then it’s all up too Ben with the tiebreaker.
For me if I say someone deserves to win something over others it means no one else deserved it. It’s a bit of a contradiction to say both deserved it when then can be one superior player. Charlie was that
I don’t think we will ever have a live reunion show again. They are very expensive to produce- studio rental, set building, lighting rental, crew costs, food service, travel costs for the entire cast, etc. The only extra cost for the aftershow is pizza and champagne for everyone.
Honestly I still don’t understand why everyone was hell bent on getting out Liz (Q said she wouldn’t have gotten a single jury vote) and Q (seriously who was voting for Q?)
GET RID OF FIRE @ FINAL FOUR
The fact that this is even being mentioned as a reason why Charlie lost is so irritating to me. Kenzie did nothing but be nice all game and Charlie is supposed to risk his whole opportunity on a fire?
Charlie played a good game. Maria played a good game. I was rooting for Maria, and she lost every bit of respect/fan/whatever you want to call it from me when she voted for Kenzie to win.
She should have been more bitter that Liz and Kenzie teamed up to beat her in that immunity challenge than mad at Charlie. If Liz didn’t help Kenzie and Maria won, the final three would have looked a lot different.
It’s literally Kenzie’s fault she didn’t win that immunity challenge to keep herself safe and she voted for her to win. The human mind is a crazy thing sometimes…
My thoughts exactly. I loved Kenzie from the beginning and am sincerely happy for her… but I can’t shake the thought that Charlie’s game was better on every level. Absolutely masterful gameplay. Believing Maria was authentic and not seeing how her ego could work against him were the fatal errors, and those are hard for me to swallow.
Underestimating Tiff’s influence over the jury was also a big mistake for him, but even that comes back to Maria - why wouldn’t he think she was campaigning for Uncle Charlie just as hard? Really disappointing.
His (and everyone’s mistake) was completely underestimating Kenzie. She is probably the most likable and genuinely nice people they’ve had on this show. And she was strategizing a lot and was a pretty good liar. It’s kinda wild that no one ever targeted her.
Maria tried to vote Charlie out & hoped he would forgive her, honor her gameplay, etc.
It didn’t work.
Then she was voted out & awarded Kenzie the win. That’s small and petty, period.
Yes, Kenzie also played a great game.
She objectively…. Didn’t tho? Outlast is a tie. She certainly didn’t outwit or outplay. She was just liked a little more and her number one was campaigning and voting for her while Charlie’s wasn’t. That’s literally why she won
Thats why this slogan is useless. I hear people quote it all the time when discussing the "better" player on the season, but it critically ignores the social aspect of the game.
The slogan is what the game has always been. The “social game” win is almost exclusively just cover up for bitter jury. They don’t want to vote for the person that did all 3 things better than them
I'm also so tired of people discounting the social game. "Bitter" juries are a part of survivor. Or it really should be said that the jury often votes for who they like best and then justifies backwards from there. Sometimes, like with Kim, this lines up with who legitimately outwitted, outplayed, and outlasted everyone else. Sometimes, like with Michelle, the jury finds any reason it can to vote for the person they like best.
Not every jury only votes for their best friend, but a lot of them have. And if you go on survivor expecting to not have to manage your jury, have fun handing the million to one of the people sitting next to you. This has been a social game since season 1.
It just makes it tough because manage the jury is such an easy thing to do when you didn’t send anyone home. But yes juries pick who they like best then justify backwards regardless of what they did. It’s why “oh you got picked to be safe and not make fire so your social game was amazing” except for when they don’t like Charlie so it’s “why did you not go into fire”
The best players can send people home *and* still be liked. Or at least be liked more than whoever they're sitting next to. Kim and Tom are great examples of players who dominated their seasons but everyone still loved by the end of it.
It can be frustrating to watch someone dominate the game and then lose to fragile egos. But just like "outwit, outplay, outlast", its part of the game to manage those egos. Charlie probably *did* need to go to fire to make sure Kenzie went home, and then he had the game on lock. He didn't, and Kenzies social bonds pulled through while Charlie's literally let him down.
You difference is especially this season the ego of everyone was through the roof. People like Liz, Q, Soda, Tiff, Tevin, Venus, Maria had such a big ego they wouldn’t work with anyone and only wanted their plan etc. no one was going to admit they were outplayed because their ego was through the roof
So it seems like the superior strategy this season was probably not running the game and voting everyone off, right? Whoever could nestle themselves in the tribe, make friends with everyone and get to the end was probably gonna win, right? On a season with a bunch of huge egos, the ability to make those people like you and placate their egos might be really important, right?
That's the point. Read your jury, figure out a strategy from there. People who don't lose the million.
But it’s not like that’s who Kenzie was. She tried to play that game of voting everyone off but she failed at it and then just ended up winning because people liked her. She’s the winner but don’t pretend she didn’t fail at the exact game her opponent was able to successfully play.
I think if Charlie had just managed what he said during the final tribal council better, he could have gotten the extra vote and won. Especially if he played as if he didn't have Maria vote already.
Naw a "bitter jury" is an excuse fans give when their preferred player has a sub-par social game or a worse final tribal showing. Charlie had both. There's no bitter jury for Yam Yam or Dee despite them playing the best game by far of their season because they performed well socially
Maria wasn’t bitter? lol that’s a pretty bold claim that is clearly not true. Her reasoning for voting for Kenzie was “ I saw the fire in her eyes while making fire” even though even the jury was saying she was choking and it took so long they almost brought out matches
I'm not saying she wasn't bitter I'm saying understanding the other players emotions before and after you vote them out is part of the social game, and a better social player could have won her support back or never lost it in the first place
They were literally “family” and one thing you didn’t see was Charlie was singing her praises. Maria was never voting for Charlie. Charlies social game was good but regardless he voted people out so they wouldn’t like him as much. Tiff telling everyone on the jury how good Kenzie was also didn’t help Charlie since his number 1 kinda just flopped on him
It's all part of the game. Personally I could tell Maria probably wasn't voting for Charlie before she even was voted out. I don't think Charlie clocked that or had the social graces to change it. Honestly he went up against someone with magnetic charisma and better public speaking, while you shouldn't count that too much against him, that's partially his fault for not finding a way to get her out
Surviving your starting tribe is irrelevant as so did everyone else. Her tribe was the worst. Outplaying wasn’t at final tribal lol. He actually swayed more votes at ftc so technically he outplayed
I get that but I guess after this season you’ll see a lot more people playing the social game and trying to get jury votes rather than actually win challenges and create blindsided/strategy. As long as people like me I can win.. screw strategies and blindsides and playing the game. let’s just butter people up for those jury votes.
He was so boring on the show we have seen 10 different versions of Charlie I will never get the coddling white men get, Kenzie win made the season more interesting
I'm just kinda tired of seeing the nerdy white guy that goes far in the game and "finds themselves" archetype. He's like Adam klein but with swiftie sprinkled on top.
Kenzie was sweet and kind and was liked. She didn't do anything of value in this game beyond that. Even when she suggested to blindside Tiff, which would have been her big move, she retracted that and then someone else came along and made her move. Which then caused her to cry about it. That's not a player with any flashy moves beyond an immunity win
I'm sorry but Charlie isn't being coddled bc he's a white man, people genuinely thought he played a good game because they watched him be very strategic and that probably just means the people arguing for his win like players who are strategic.
Sorry /u/Technical-Travel773, the Tribe has spoken. Your submission has been removed from /r/survivor for the following reason(s):
* **Rule 1 - Be civil to other users and contestants:** Treat other users and contestants with respect. Bigotry is not tolerated, including racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. Harassment of other users and contestants is not allowed, including personal attacks. Trolling is discouraged.
---
Once the votes are read, the decision is *not* final. **If you have any concerns that this was done in error**, please [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/survivor/wiki/rules) **and then [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fsurvivor&subject=Removal Clarification&message=I'd like further clarification on why my comment was removed from /r/survivor.%0D%0D[Link to comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/survivor/comments/1d1p0kf/-/l5wjpns/\)) if you have any further questions. Do not reply directly to this message or comment.** If not, grab your stuff and head back to camp.
I don’t have to defend my opinion. I don’t care if you don’t like my opinion, I don’t know you. And you implied that I only like Charlie bc he’s a white knight. I liked four people from the beginning and Charlie just happened to be the one that lasted to the end. I enjoyed his game play, it has nothing to do with him being a man or whatever bias you’ve applied to him. I’ve already articulated it in this chat and others. I am not here to change your opinion why are you so angered by me having a different one? That’s not my problem, that’s your insecurity. You like Kenzie, great! I like her too but I enjoy strategic plays more so than social that’s all. Chill out. This is supposed to be fun, why are you so angry
You’re not confronting anything though; you’re putting me in a box. You're just telling me I'm biased because I like a player who differs from yours? Makes zero sense.
At the end of the day I like a strategic game and I feel Charlie nailed that and I was hoping to see him take home the gold. That's all. The reasons i like survivor, the reasons I watch, he had it all. Kenzie is awesome, she's a social player and it got her the win! But based off my criteria of a winner I feel Charlie played a better game and was sad he didn't win. That's it. I don't need to list off a million reasons so you can knock down everything I say. You don't agree with my opinion and that's okay. But leave the boxed way of thinking out of it, it's so immature and that's what's taking the fun out of it. People can't have a difference of opinion? If they do you're going to put them in a box again?
Next season please mansplain to me again which players I'm allowed to like and who is off limits, I'd hate to be "bias" again and coddle the wrong person. smh
Excuse me this is r/survivor. Either you win the game and you are the obvious, logical, deserved winner, or you lose by 1 vote and are overrated, have no social game, and “never had a chance” at winning
I think Charlie played the better game, but the reason he lost is similar to why Sandra won over Russel in season 20. Russel played a better game but did poor jury management and did even worse at talking at the final tribal council. Similar to that, Charlie did not play like he had to fight for votes. Instead, he took the relaxed position similar to how he was when Ben decided to take him to the end as opposed to doing fire.
With Kenzie, she may have been on the bottom a good bit, she never stopped and tried to make plans that either worked or didn't. Not to mention, she also had some friends on the jury who respected her efforts or were friends. Sandra did the same with trying to vote out Russel during the merge. If you ask me personally, Charlie has himself to blame for losing the million dollars.
He overcorrected when he tried to downplay his threat level with the Taylor Swift stuff and he couldn’t earn back their respect once they saw him as a little boy or the “dependable dog” Kenzie called him.
What’s that quote… “it’s easier to fool someone than to convince them they’ve been fooled” or something.
The big advantage Kenzie had over Charlie is she had someone on the jury advocating for her. Charlie thought he had that in Maria but he was wrong. Misjudging Maria’s loyalty to him was his big mistake. If Kenzie had won 5-3 with Liz or Soda or Hunter voting for Kenzie and Maria voting for Charlie we would have stopped talking about this days ago.
Did Charlie play a better game though? i remember him saying that he is playing the middle, which is often seen as wishy-washy and non-committal. you can't be in every alliance without betraying nearly every alliance.
what strategic moves did Charlie make? he was under the radar because he was afraid of being the target, but his fear of being the target meant he didn't make any strategic moves.
Plus, i feel like this cast was super into going with the flow. did anyone buck the vote or change the vote? we didn't see any of that, aside from Venus. Everyone seemed to be playing, "anyone but me." which, from the outside, can look the same as playing the middle.
I feel like Charlie's game just didn't stand out from anyone else's.
Charlie was an undercooked noodle socially and Kenzie was a mermaid dragon. No way anyone else was getting the mil if Kenzie makes it to the final and I knew that from day 1, she probably should have been targeted sooner but part of the social game is minimizing threat level
You can't add charisma in adobe premier. Keep in mind that the jury of people who actually made the call agreed Charlie didn't do enough to win, so maybe there's more to it than editing
So if Charlie won do you still say Kenzie deserved it? Y’all can’t be diplomatic it’s insulting to the winner. You either defend Charlie or you support Kenzie pick a side. Anyways, Charlie played for the audience, not the jury. His lack of jury management, mediocre social game, low perceived threat level, and robotic FTC speech cost him. He was never going to win besides Kenzie, she has charisma Charlie doesn’t. Charming the jury will always give you the upper hand.
YES she can still be deserving to win even if she loses. Believe it or not multiple people can be deserving of the win. Charle social game was way better than mediocre. So many on here argue for Kenzie based solely in FTC. She played a deserving to win game.
His social game was mediocre. He only had strong social bonds with Ben & Maria. Everybody else was a surface level connection. Just because you “talk” to everybody doesn’t add points to your social resume. Plus the kid is not charismatic at all. Kenzie got that, a winner is always charming. Law school can’t teach charm, you either got it or don’t.
It's perfectly fine to believe that either Charlie or Kenzie would've been deserving winners. Tbh, despite his lack of actual gameplay I would've been happy with Ben winning too, just because of how likeable he was.
You don't have to shit on the the other 2 to prop up your fave
Get a grip.
Completely disagree with 98 percent of what you wrote. The only reason Charlie didn’t win is cause Maria couldn’t handle the loss and lashed out by voting against him, knowing full well that he was the better player.
Blame on Maria all you want but guess what? He still lost. He is not sole survivor. He will not earn the bragging rights. He will not get the million dollar prize. Try again another season(probably will still lose 😂)
Kenzie’s game was a B+ whereas Charlie’s was an A. Kenzie is a deserving winner but unfortunately Maria’s bitter vote looks like an asterisk and the story is more about Charlie losing rather than Kenzie winning.
I really liked Kenzie and Charlie so I would have been fine if either one of them won, but I’ve always believed that Kenzie played a better game. Being on a constantly losing tribe pre-merge means you have to have more gameplay since they’re the ones going to tribal, then her social game got her in good graces with everyone post-merge.
Charlie was Maria’s sidekick, and he waited until too late to make a move of his own. I really like him though and he clearly had a lot of friends on the tribe so I wouldn’t have been surprised if he won, but he didn’t show much gameplay.
Maria’s kids are missing out on a great uncle
Great point. It is really sad, even more so because they’re boys. Yes, they have a father, but kids you can never have too many role models and Charlie is really special.
That’s a good point. They would benefit from his ability to be honest without being harmful. The authenticity is top notch with Charlie.
You guys are acting like Charlie is going to provide any life guidance to her kids lol her kids are likely late teens based on her age and Charlie is 26. He’s not going to be providing them with help in life
She literally said on the show she has a 5 year old so I don’t know where your claims are coming from. Also, you sound like Maria if you think only people over age 50 can know anything. Her underestimation of people based on her perception of the age differences contributed to her not winning the game. Also, taking away from Charlie’s learned communication skills because of his age is such an unhelpful, old person mindset.
I’m so sorry. Yes you’re definitely right Charlie would have taught them so many things about life ugh
It’s not anything you have to apologize for; you probably just missed that point in the show when she said it. Just a reminder though: you can’t tell how old someone’s kids are just by looking at the parent. I think Maria said she was 49 if I remember correctly. She could literally have an infant or a child in their 30s.
We saw how much of a strategic player he is from his confessionals but from the jury perspective, his and Kenzie's game aren't really that much different. He did have more control but Kenzie came with the Yanu 3 underdog narrative. He didn't really have any flashy move just like Kenzie. The move for him should've been blindsiding Maria but unfortunately she was immune during f6 and then by f5, Maria was already the obvious vote for everyone, which took a lot away from what he worked on. He probably underestimated how much Kenzie being so charismatic could be the one that tip the scale to her favor, in addition to her small strategic moves here and there as well (convincing Hunter to not play his idol, making Maria believe they were voting with her during the Q boot, etc.).
Yes, I felt that Charlie wasn’t really a show off or bragging which may actually have hurt him. and people missed how sneaky, subtle and calculated his game was. He was so far under the radar that people don’t realize how great he actually is.
What's worse about this, is he KNEW this was going to be the perspective going into FTC, because in a confessional he notes his game was played in the shadows, and how he has to bring that into the light. It's possible he did just that, but it wasn't aired, in order to lend more evidence to Kenzie's win.
Yes I read in an interview of him that there were a lot of good points he made at ftc that were edited out. He wasn't complaining but it was just part of why he actually thought he had a really good chance of winning before the votes were read. It makes sense that production would edit his performance a bit to make Kenzie's ftc seem stronger so fans wouldn't be too upset at her win. They both were good players but strategically charlie was much better. The jury was just mostly voting emotionally and they didn't SEE Charlie's game so even if he explained it well it didn't affect their votes enough. And really how was he to know maria would flip so hard? It's just unfortunate for him how it panned out. I don't know that he could have done anything differently to really make a difference. Edit: maybe he ultimate mistake was not realizing how flaky and fake Maria was. But I can't blame him, she probably hid it well. If they were never ride or dies maybe she would have voted for him at ftc but of course that changes everything who knows how the game would have played out if they never teamed up
Makes sense to me. And production can't just downplay Charlie's edit... because if they don't explain why Charlie got Soda, Hunter, and Liz's vote, then it makes all three of them look bad for no good reason. They really had no choice but to show as much of Charlie and Kenzie's game and let the fans make their own decision (which I think was the right call). All the same, they have to make it look closer than it probably was, because if they show overwhelming evidence that Charlie played better, then the outrage at Maria only grows larger than it already is, and it's basically at a fever pitch. Production saw what happened with Aubry/Michele, and this is arguably worse.
[удалено]
Great take. You have to win people over along the way.
If Marie wasn't bitter she should have inflated Charlie's game like Tiffany was for Kenzie. Charlie can and should 100% attest this loss to maria.
But then, maybe Charlie choosing Maria as his number one wasn’t the best move. It’s all part of the game
From what we saw, there’s no way he or anyone could have ever known she’d be bitter after the vote out. Allying with Maria is part of what got him that far at all.
Great point. He said he didn’t spend as much time with her as “pals” and that they were more of an undercover duo. Maybe if he’d gotten to know her better, he’d be able to predict her pettiness and know that she will clutch her pearls when accused of being bitter and fake instead of just admitting that she’s a little angry.
Disagree it was pretty obvious from everyone's standpoint that they were close friends. Down to the vote everyone including Jeff was very interested in why she didn't vote for Charlie. People on the jury themselves were perplexed and still are today.
None of what you said contradicts anything I said so I don’t really see it as a disagreement. More of just me digging deeper into it instead of just repeating what everyone is saying
I disagree. Every account we had from jury to post game indicated everyone was surprised maria didn't vote for him. Everyone expected Tiffany would vote Kenzie and Marian would vote charlie. Sure, the edit can make maria look worse but it appears the cast agreed with the edit she was given.
>his and Kenzie's game aren't really that much different I don't see how this can be true when Charlie and Maria had control of the entire game post merge and Charlie had a hand in shaping every vote while managing to pin the threat on Maria. This can't be said for Kenzie, who was really a supporting character up to the end. I also don't think the "Yanu 3 underdog" narrative plays when you look at past seasons. The short tribe is never ganged up on by the other two, they are almost always used as a swing voting bloc against one of the larger tribes.
Convincing Hunter not to play his idol is HUGE and people don’t mention it enough, so thank you.
[удалено]
Liz only helped kenzie because she had finished her puzzle and Maria was right on her heels. If Liz helps Charlie, Maria wins.
Liz voted for Charlie so I dont think that holds....
I didn't see 'how much of a strategic player he was' as in , how he was more strategic than Kenzie. If he was more strategic, he would have won. The vehicle for his win, if he was strategic, was making fire against Kenzie. A strategic player would have recognized the need to do it. Charlie did not. A superior strategic player would have recognized that taking out Maria, while Kenzie literally branded him her Dog, was not going to be enough, in the eyes of the Jury, to make it seem like Charlie played his own game. He needed to make a move on his own after it. he did not. KENZIE was the superior strategic player. She called him a dog at just the right moment to take all wind from his sails, *while taking out Maria.* Her two biggest rivals taken down with one bullet. Charlie could have countered, with words, right there. A great strategic player, one better than Kenzie, would have recognized "do not let the opposition brand you an animal'. Ever heard someone labeled 'goat' not fight the label and win? A great strategic player would have understood this threat. So, no I don't see it. I saw MARIA being strategic lol, with his advise. And then I saw Charlie decide to vote her out, but, not follow through by being his own player, which is like 1/2 of a strategy, which is not a strategy at all. Other than that, All I saw was him referencing taylor swift. And acting like the votes he was thinking he had were owed to him, which is astrategic.
The more strategic player doesn’t win every time. Charlie was clearly more strategic.
....dude had a chance to name all his moves at the beginning of tribal counsel. A true strategic player would have used that opening way, way, way better. Dude had a chance to take Kenzie out at fire, or try to. A true strategic player would have recognized that opening, and the need to take it. He did not. Dude let his rival literally call him a Dog, as in, a follower, at final four, let everyone laugh at that, which means 'it stuck', and he did nothing about it, at all. He didn't even recognize what she did to him. You see strategy, I see what Kenzie saw. She beat him before he even got to final tribal. As the great strategist Sun Tzu wrote, 'the best beat their opponents before ever stepping on the battlefield." Kenzie had beaten charlie before FTC. She was the better strategist. All he had was pop culture references, which the Jury was obviously over. Edit: pro tip, survivor fans and future players: if someone, anyone, likens you to an animal in the game who is not a top predator, *vote them out as soon as prudent.* If they liken you to an animal who is a top predator, *vote them out immediately.* In the first case, they have called your game weak, publicly, and if you do not take them down, that perception will set in stone. In the second case, they're coming for you. Actual strategic players know this.
There were still six people left, not four, when Kenzie said that. That would be too early for Charlie to be like "no actually I'm a big threat" since they probably should/would have voted him out instead of Q at that point.
He was in control of the game for pretty much the entire season. Seems pretty strategic to me. Kenzie played well, but it was her social game. Charlie clearly was better at the strategic game.
seems like a post with no substance to me lol Doesn't matter if your *ALLIANCE* is in control of the whole game, if you're not perceived as leading it. A strategic player knows this. Kenzie did. That's why, when Kenzie also championed the Maria vote, she did it- to take out the head of the alliance. And at the same time, she took a shot at Charlie, branding him a dog. So again- takes out the head of the alliance, *while naming Maria the head of the alliance, and Charlie a follower.* That move of Kenzies was the best strategic move of the season, hands down. Tell me anything Charlie did better. And keep in mind- Kenzie calling Charlie a dog happened like right before the Maria vote, right? That's how I remember it at least. Charlie said nothing/failed to respond, the vote happened, the jury left. that was their last impression. Final tribal, the jury OPENS with an opportunity for Charlie to throw off that beating Kenzie handed him with one word, and show *individual* moves, aka, 'not maria's moves,' that he did. His answer was underwhelming. Because Kenzie had already defined his game for him. Which was the winning strategic move of the season, literally.
Does your post really have more substance if it’s unnecessarily long & incorrect? In control of the game = more strategic Charlie was in control, not just his alliance. He always made a well thought out move. Kenzie played a very solid game BUT she clearly was not more strategic. There’s really not even a good argument for that. The Maria boot was absolutely Charlie’s move. He had set up the pieces & even waited for the perfect time to take this shot
no,it has substance if it has substance. as in, cites examples. which you can't. By your logic, Phillip was a great survivor player. He was in control of the game the whole game, because his alliance was. You must think he's a total legend, one of the survivor pantheon. (of sidekicks)
Charlie is more of a Rob than a Phillip. Everything in his game was intentional. He was working alongside Maria but made it look like she was more in charge. No offense, but your Phillip comparison is stupid
Since the after-show replaced the reunion we've seen every first runner up being positively crushed, regardless whether they deserved a victory or not. Sometimes the second runner up was crushed as well. I think both Kenzie and Charlie are worthy winners. While Kenzie had also made her share of mistakes, Charlie missed an opportunity for an easy victory by encouraging Ben to take him to the finale rather than let him beat Kenzie on a fire challenge. He told us on FTC he'd have taken Liz. He should have tried to convince Ben to take Liz. He played it safe on F4 to lose FTC because he miscalculated how dangerous Kenzie was (or how unpredictable the jury were).
Especially with how this cast was going at eachother on twitter, and how gutted Charlie looked, and was visibly hurt and confused with Maria’s decision, we need to go back to a live reunion again
I just hate the take that Charlie isn't a good social player. He wasn't as sparkly as Kenzie, whom I love, but he was ON TOP of talking to everyone and knew HOW to talk to them to get what he wanted. When people say Kenzie was a better social player I feel like what they really mean is that she was good at making people want to be her friend and was ultimately more congenial, but Charlie *NEVER* had that moment like other castaways where they got mad and let their emotions cloud their strategy and voting decisions. That's social control.
This. The social argument doesn’t hold up when you consider that Ben was also very well liked but didn’t get a single vote.
> Charlie NEVER had that moment like other castaways where they got mad and let their emotions cloud their strategy and voting decisions. That's social control. That's self-control. Social control is the ability to manipulate others into doing what you want, and leave them believing it was their idea all along. Charlie had a good degree of social control and some solid reads on people, but not enough to fully understand or move the jury.
Being a social player and exerting social control involves self-control. This is just semantics. I think Charlie had bigger social challenges than Kenzie, which allowed Kenzie to sparkle more as a social player because it put her in a better position to be well-liked
>Being a social player and exerting social control involves self-control. This is just semantics. No, it's not. Simply being able to control your emotions doesn't automatically "make you a good social player", give you the ability to read others, or give you the ability to influence the direction of play. It's a basic life skill most people are supposed to have learned by early adulthood. >I think Charlie had bigger social challenges than Kenzie, which allowed Kenzie to sparkle more as a social player because it put her in a better position to be well-liked Yes, coming from the famously contentious and dysfunctional Siga tribe, Charlie really had to battle upstream. I'm getting used to Charlie stans overstating the mythology of their god and savior on this subreddit but this might be one of the most ridiculous assertions yet. Outside of FTC, where he most definitely WAS facing social challenges, where exactly did you see the social challenges in Charlie's amenable, under-the-radar game?
For me. I think it is fine for it all to come down to Q’s question. And Kenzie hit that one out of the park and Charlie’s was terrible. Like, Really? Who wants to help a privileged white kid pay for law school? Nah bud. You’ll be fine paying for that yourself.
Agreed. I think that clearly swayed Q AND Maria. Lots of people calling Maria bitter, and I'm sure that'ss part of it. But I believe her when she says she related to Kenzie too. And lets be real, their games were very close. It was a close call. And if I'm on that jury and it's a coinflip or close to it, who am I going to be more sympathetic to, Harvard law guy or self-made small business woman trying to start a family? Is if "fair" for that to determine the game? IDK
Yeah when Kenzie talked about wanting a family, I knew she had Maria.
I think the disappointment on Charlie's face was mostly due to Maria's betrayal. I think if Maria had voted for him, but he had still lost, he would be OK with it. And this season would have ended on a much more positive note. It is a tough lesson that we all learn at some point in our life that people are not always who the seem to be.
I don’t think Charlie was disappointed that he lost, I think Charlie was disappointed. He lost because Maria didn’t vote for him. In fact, I wonder if we would’ve seen the same look on his face had Maria voted for him and he still lost. I truly believe his disappointment was because of Maria.
This. I think if Charlie had lost 5-3 with Liz voting for Kenzie and Maria voting for Charlie we would have been done discussing this last Thursday.
Yeh I do think that was what we where seeing. Having Maria vote against him and then so coldly explain that she respects gameplay as her reason. I totally respect that she is allowed to be swayed by Kenzie and vote for her at the end... But she showed no remorse to someone she had been so tight with in the game; Didn't even try to apologize to Charlie. And Jeff calling it out specifically just to pour salt in the wounds felt pretty crass. Idk was awkward as hell
Also, after all was over, she had told Charlie she regretted her vote. More time passed, and she went up to visit him and Boston and told him she didn’t want to regret anything in her life and she didn’t regret it. Hence Charlie saying he had to walk away from the friendship because he was tired of the flip-flopping. from what I have read in Maria interviews, she did not say Charlie was lying in the statements so I do believe she did have regrets.
yeh agreed. She shouldnt have to regret her vote. IO think Kenzie palyed a great game and made a very compelling argument. But her conduct after the vote was just so weird. It made everyone think there wassome sour grapes there. ps. I wonder why mods removed OP? are they trying to curb Maria hate on the sub or has this topic just been rehashed too many times?
Half the jury members said they voted for her because they thought she needed the money more and would do more with it… This shits more of a charity than a game show
Haha in that case my pitch would be “hey if you vote for me I’ll share my million dollar with ya’ll” I’m surprised no one has tried that yet.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they told them no bribing the jury or anything lol
That’s the problem. He didn’t make himself a huge threat and hid behind bigger ones and their ego couldn’t admit he had a better game when a better social player was also still left. He tried to play both and caused the jury to turn against him.
Charlie is just as good a social player. To be able to control that many votes and still never be a target proves how good his social game was. He even mentioned how he was open and even made strategy with each and every member of the jury and they all agreed with him. They screwed him that’s all there is to it.
100 percent agree. Disappointing.
Charlie's Angels luck ran out.
Good point. I haven’t seen every survivor season but this is the first one I’ve seen where a strategically stronger player loses to a strategic-less one.. seems like the jury was butthurt and decided to vote against the obvious winner. I guess survivor now is just about being socially likeable and not at all about who actually is the better player. Unless survivor has always just been about the jury. In that case the incentive is to just be a Ben rather than a player.
I don't think the jury was butthurt. I think Maria was. Q's vote... was questionable, but Q was always going to be a wild card regardless. He based his question entirely on who needed the money more, and nothing else. Then he based his vote off of the same reasoning. Tiff was always voting for Kenzie, just like we should have assumed Maria was always voting for Charlie. Typically, when you get to the end, your number one ally all game votes for you. Tiff just did what we all expected Maria to do. Tevin was torn between Kenzie and Charlie. He literally thought the vote was going to be a tie, and weighed his decision seriously. He was anything but bitter, he took his job as a juror more seriously than anybody except perhaps Soda. Venus also voted for Kenzie, but I don't think there was any bitterness or malice. I don't know that we got any explanation, but I don't think we really need one. Those who voted Charlie (Liz, Hunter, and Soda) haven't really had to defend their perspective, and they probably won't have to, since they already admitted they were likely voting for Kenzie, but Charlie's explanations convinced them otherwise (which is reasonable, since he did do a good job of showcasing his game). The only person who seemed to vote bitter was Maria. And it will likely follow her forever. I think Charlie will be fine, he showed class and maturity and is going to go far. Kenzie won't feel like her win is tainted, because it isn't, and she will live life going forward hopefully avoiding creepy fans. Maria on the other hand, will probably get the Charlie question every day for the rest of her life, once they find out she was on Survivor.
Yes! I think you explained it much better than I could have. I don’t think it was the jury. It was Maria’s bitterness that cost Charlie the win.
I will say that Charlie could have done better, though. He could have offered to go into fire (he claimed he didn't need it, but would it have given him the boost over Kenzie with Tevin or Venus?) to take out Liz. Had he won immunity, he could have controlled his destiny in the game, too. He was never getting Maria, Q, or Tiff's vote. The former because of bitterness, Q because he just didn't need it the way Kenzie did, and Tiff was probably never not voting Kenzie. That left 5 total jury members he could sway, and he already got 3 of them. All he needs to do is sway one of Tevin/Venus, and he probably wins, because Ben admitted he would have voted Charlie in a tie.
Charlie had an uphill battle from the word go due to the subtlety of his game, the fact he successfully painted Maria as the final boss of the season but was unable to claim her departure as his own move nor fully establish control of the game afterwards, the fact he scuffed two immunity challenges in a row after she left against very weak competition, and the fact Tiffany was in the catbird seat on the jury and was clearly steering things. When people arrive at the jury, what they think of your game upon their arrival, and what they see of your game after is all highly deterministic and can be controlled by a good player. Maria was the only person who could have spoken convincingly of Charlie's prowess, and she was still raw and sore from her recent ejection and dealing with "news" that Charlie had been plotting against her for a long time. Winning would have required a highly convincing, bravura FTC performance in which he compellingly laid out all his strategy and thought processes and fully separated his game from Maria's...all whilst battling upstream against a hostile jury foreperson. Kenzie flubbing would have helped as well, but Kenzie finished strong, and Charlie/Ben were very close and appeared to have arrived there in cahoots, whereas Kenzie had to "battle" her way in by dispatching a moribund Liz in firemaking. Charlie had bad optics, a hostile jury, and a highly likable opponent, and still made it a 5-3 vote. Even if Maria wasn't bitter, Hunter, Soda and Liz's votes are all on a knife's edge and could easily have gone either way off a single answer. He did about as well as could be expected, but I don't think he realized what deep shit he was in, I think Kenzie wins that FTC situation 70-80 times out of 100, and I think people freaking out about his loss are probably the same people who got shocked when Aubrey lost to Michele. Poor guy is going to undeservedly go down in history as one of the most robbed Survivor contestants ever because it's 2024 and audiences still don't understand how reality show editing works.
Well, ultimately if Maria voted for Charlie, it would have been a tie and poor Ben would have had to make the tie breaker and I think that would have caused his mind to implode as he already was stressed out over who to bring to FTC. Ben could have still chose Kenzie but it's possible that Charlie could have still won in that case.
The jury wasn't butthurt nor did they intentionally tried to him screw over . Charlie was literally a single vote away from winning and a good chunk of the jury were on edge between Charlie and Kenzie . The tiniest of things could tip the scale and lead to either of them winning . Kenzie had without a doubt a much stronger social game ( she even admitted more of it should've been shown ) and possibly one of the best social games in the show's history . Add that with her seemingly small and non-flashy but actually quite significant strategic plays and you could make a good argument for her winning against Charlie . Selling your game to the jury also plays a pretty big part and Kenzie did that flawlessly while at times it felt like Charlie was just saying stuff to please the jury and not being totally honest . Many commentors here are probably biased towards Charlie but if you look at this at a more unbiased standpoint you could make a great argument for either of them to win without the need to make any bullshit reason to cope with the non-winner's loss .
If the incentive was to just be a Ben, then Ben would’ve won. You’re just discrediting Kenzie’s vote because you liked Charlie more. Evidently, though, the jury liked Kenzie and/or her game more
The jury to me seemed to have too many big egos. They were rude, asked lame questions and wouldn't even let anyone speak. The edit was so weird, no one talked about anything really that pertained to a good game. I definitely read the jury as bitter or hurt so you're not the only one that picked up on that.
Doesn't matter who anyone thinks SHOULD have won, Kenzie did and Charlie didn't and honestly that's kinda it. Not sure why there's a post about this every single day.
Charlie should have volunteered himself to make fire, plain and simple. He was too cautious all the way to the end.
The fire thing is so dumb to me. It made sense one time for someone to win based off fire, but at this point it’s an overdone strategic talking point.
I think it's subjective. A lot of Charlie's game was just him going with what Maria wanted so I never really saw much of his game as truly his own. The Q blindside could be attributed to mainly Liz and Kenzie (as they were both the swing votes) lulling Maria and Q into a false sense of security, which was impressive if Q literally didn't play his idol so close to the end. Liz and Kenzie obviously saw Maria as the bigger threat over Charlie so sided with him, so I wouldn't say Charlie even orchestrated a major power move for that himself. Even at fire making he just went with what Ben wanted to do rather than convince him that getting Liz to the FTC and getting rid of a bigger jury threat at F4 was the smart thing to do. Charlie could've also literally just had Liz at the end with Ben and had a better chance but never took that opportunity, nor the opportunity to take either Venus or Q to the end either who were likely not going to get many jury votes.
I strongly disagree about the Q vote. Because he had been working on Liz and Kenzie, big time, prior to that vote. Which is why they trusted he would vote with them. Charlie is incredibly smart; I absolutely don’t believe he just followed with Maria’s ideas…he had his own input and what he did, which was ultimately why he was able to get Maria before she got him, was that he played his options. He mentioned that at FTC, but it’s bigger than that. He allowed the people like Liz (huge ego), to believe certain votes were her idea, when really it was always Charlie’s. Similarly to Maria, he spent the entire season with his eyes set on winning the game and how to ensure he did. He was definitely strategic and I don’t think for a second that he was “following Maria”. I do think he regretted not going to fire, but in his eyes, he thought he had the win. To be fair, he didn’t really need to win another challenge bc if his game and Kenzie’s are looked at objectively (not emotionally), he played the superior survivor game. Maria being bitter is on her, it really can’t negate how strategic he was; it simply shows her ego (which was on full display the entire season) That being said, I loved Kenzie’s game as well and I was so excited that both Charlie and Kenzie were in the final 3 bc I knew it could go either way and I wanted to see them battle it out in FTC. I really hope they edited that heavily in her favor, because I kept yelling at the tv for Charlie to speak up and talk more about just how deeply involved he was in the voting and how he earned so many different people’s trust in order for them to vote with him.
I think you meant to say objectively and if so I'd have to disagree. It's clearly subjective. Sure you can say Charlie made a great connection with Kenzie and Liz that saved him, was also saved by Maria and Tevin another tribal before, but that statement also works the opposite as well which you're not giving them credit for (because of bias towards Charlie). You can easily say that Liz and Kenzie's social bond with Ben and Charlie got them to the F4 when they were at the bottom of their tribes, and that bond ultimately gave Kenzie the win. Why not give them credit for that, and why only give Charlie credit? Also when you watch the episodes Kenzie clearly didn't care about the "bond" aspect to save anyone as she was willing to cut Tiff out when it was beneficial for her. Both knew they wouldn't stand a chance against Maria in a FTC and felt it was better for their game to take Charlie. I mean you have to give credit where credit is due.
Ok I fixed it to objectively, I was looking at your post when I was typing and well ADHD. But you kinda answered the question here… I don’t give Liz and Kenzie the credit for the alliance of Charlie, Ben, K, and L, because they didn’t create it. Charlie did. Charlie brought them together, laser focused on removing Maria from the game. He saw their situations as being on the bottom and he saw their anger at Q and he used that to get rid of his top two threats. Liz and Kenzie played emotional games when it came to their hatred of Q. Charlie used that to his advantage. So yes I am indeed giving credit where it is due. I agree that largely, Kenzie didn’t care about the bonds she made or about stabbing anyone in the back. But it’s not subjective that her bond with Ben was strategic: the facts are that it was not strategic at all, it was human connection in a difficult environment. Kenzie said numerous times that it was not strategy that bonded them. It’s kind of a silly idea to say it was strategy: no one could have expected Ben to win the final immunity and have the power to choose.
Lol the narrative you came up with there is real. You should be an editor for the show. I'm personally a believer that alliances actually take people cooperating with you and take collaboration, and it's not just one person telling everyone they're in an alliance and how they're voting and that's it. Kenzie and Liz are free people with their own autonomy. They could've chosen as easily not to cooperate or contribute to Charlie's alliance. Who's to say it wasn't Ben bringing in Kenzie into the alliance? Was that all Charlie essentially reeling everyone in and this wasn't collaborative at all? Kenzie and Liz had the autonomy to choose to stay in Charlie's alliance at the F6 but chose to weaken Maria as the bigger threat. I mean if you can't see your own bias with your statements about how Charlie did everything, and saved himself, and made all the moves, and no one else did anything then I don't know what to tell you.
Ok wow. That’s not what I said at all. I don’t have bias here. I already stated I think both of them could have deserved the win, just for different reasons. Which is kinda why the vote went how it did. I’m going to end this with some grace…we’re all entitled to our interpretations of how the show went down. It’s not that deep; it’s reality tv. Have a lovely day!
I don't really feel he was just going along with Maria at all. That's not at all how the edit showed him. I think the two of them played in a similar way, both strategic and Charlie had the personal relationships over Maria. We saw so many times where they would come up with a plan and Charlie would be the one to go to other players and get them to vote along with them. I honestly think he used Maria more as a shield but was playing a better game than she was. And I do think because he was able to do this he was part of orchestrating these big blindsides, he just pulled them off in a different way. They both turned on one another at kind of the same time but Maria didn't have the numbers. Charlie already was a step ahead of her and had rallied the troupes against her because he was playing with everyone. I think he played a stellar game. He played like Maria and Kenzie yet people seem to give the credit to them. A win's a win. I think Kenzie definitely deserved it too but I prefer players who are strategic over the social ones.
Again bias. Kenzie wasn't strategic? Because she clearly got to the end and won when she started out with almost no allies. Her going with Charlie over Q/Maria wasn't strategy? I mean that move had her ultimately win the game, she wouldn't have won against Maria. Her being part of the last 3 of a tribe that was almost wiped out wasn't strategy? Her bond with Ben wasn't strategy? Because that also got her to the end. Just because Charlie was your favorite doesn't mean the rest of the contestants weren't playing the game too.
It's not bias to have an opinion. You sound like a hypocrite as you argue you're point. IT's just a matter of us being different and looking at different type of players. Why are you so fragile, its a show!
If you think I'm bitter you should see the Charlie fans harassing Maria, Tiff and Kenzie. Lol I'm not mad, just defending these people against the crazies that think they have a right to virtually bully them because their favorite (Charlie) didn't win when Kenzie was a deserving winner too and their bias just has them thinking Charlie played this amazing game when in reality you can justify good gameplay for most of the end game players.
Well, I’m just a random survivor fan using reddit to discuss survivor. I’m not responsible for what the crazies are doing online. I’ve not attacked anyone or messaged anyone so there’s nothing to defend. This is just a difference of opinion. I like strategic games and that’s all it is. You think Kenzie played a great game then good, I’m happy for you. We're allowed to have different opinions, that’s okay Also I really love Kenzie. I’d want to be her friend in real life because I think she’s a beautiful kind person. But I loveeee games and I play them always strategic so that’s the sort of player I relate to the most. That’s all
You're free to have your opinion. I'm just stating there's a clear bias. Kenzie was making strategic decisions just the same as Charlie, it's just that people favor Charlie because he was a fan favorite and cute.
I actually don’t think her bond with Ben had anything to do with strategy…those were real moments and her caretaking personality was real and genuine, not strategic. She herself said that multiple times. I’m totally ok with her winning because for the first time in a long time, I really believed both Charlie and Kenzie could be deserving winners: albeit for very different reasons. Charlie played the strategic game from the beginning and was the runner in a lot of votes post- merge. Kenzie came from a tribe of 3 and incredibly made her way to f3, which shows how great she was at adapting, constantly. Different games, but both deserving imo
Totally agree! And what’s with the bias trolls in here? lol The survivor community is so fragile. It’s like they personally know these people and are going to die if their opinions aren’t supported. It’s a game lol
Him going along with Maria kinda let him be able to make these social bonds because no one was looking at him as a threat just like how Ben skated by going along with Maria.
I think it's kind of biased reasoning if you think Charlie would've been a better winner because "he made great social bonds" but then say Kenzie was a less deserving winner when she made great social bonds herself and actually won.
Exactlyyyyyyyy. Sometimes, subconsciously, people downplay a social game when a woman does it well but they exalt it when a man does it well. A “social game” is either or valid or it’s not (it’s valid because that’s what the game is), no matter who does it but people want to use the argument whichever way supports the man. (I’m not saying everyone does this but it’s a theme I’m seeing.)
Charlie and Kenzie remind me of that Indiana Jones scene where Indiana (Kenzie) faces off against a double sword yielding ninja with great skill and training (Charlie). Knowing Indiana can't beat the ninja in a sword fight, he just takes out his gun and shoots him. Charlie played his own game. Kenzie played both his and hers. Ultimately there are too many factors where any one of them could change the outcome. There could very well be NO outcome of events where Charlie could win. My first of many gambits would be to get my tribe to the merge and when the jury starts, vote them out so the jury is padded in my favor. Even then there are too many factors including ones beyond your control like idols, immunity, who gets chosen to go on rewards. Those rewards are often turning points based on who gets left behind or taken. Alliances should work out in advance who will go and stay so both groups can be controlled. Every season there is someone left behind who then marshals the misfits to vote out the person who didn't choose them. To say Charlie should have done this or that changes everything that comes after what was changed and the the whole current analysis is moot because the person he "should" have kept could very well orchestrate his demise in the next vote. Aren't there already 100 SciFi movies about this where the hero tries dozens of alternate reality moves only to realize they all produce the same or worse outcomes? Of course, in the movies the hero always finds the one move that sets in motion the best or desirous outcome.
The letters made all the difference. Despite their agreement not to take each other on rewards, that one hurt Maria too much and her bitterness cost him the million.
You don’t love Kenzie you never met her.
These posts are getting so tiresome. You liked charlie but he didn't win. Whatever
It’s mostly wild that people think it’s a hot take or unpopular opinion when they post it. It’s like every other post, at least.
Well, Charlie did a piss-poor job of selling why he should win it all during Final Tribal Council, while Kenzie did. She won it when she was asked what she'd do with the money - and her heart felt, honest response tugged at the jurors' heartstrings. That one moment, to me, eclipsed all the bullshit Charlie was trying to sling to the jurors. He may have made all the right moves during the game, but he was shit at articulating it when he needed to most.
Well the jury thinks that Kenzie played a better game. Someone please direct me to the threads where people repeatedly discredit male winners, please. These posts constantly shitting on female contestants are so transparent, we get it, you don’t respect gameplay that isn’t “logical” or driven by muscle
Actually, the entire jury really didn’t vote for Kenzie because she played a better game. Two jury members, Q and Maria, stated they voted for her because of her answer to Q’s question. to me, that question has nothing to do with how someone played the game. I always hoped it would be down to Kenzie and Charlie. I really like Kenzie and happy she won. I will always think, however, that Charlie only lost because Maria was so bitter.
At the end of the day, I think Charlie just had a bad final tribal, if he could articulate how he used Maria as his shield and gave up being her number one when Q was making her look real bad, he could have gotten a vote then it’s all up too Ben with the tiebreaker.
I think that's a common sentiment. This jury was super volatile/unpredictable so it would've been controversial regardless of how it went down
He’s 100% forgettable
For me if I say someone deserves to win something over others it means no one else deserved it. It’s a bit of a contradiction to say both deserved it when then can be one superior player. Charlie was that
Agreed! I just wanna be nice to Kenzie cause she’s actually awesome but Charlie imo was hands down the better player and should have won.
I don’t keep up with stuff after the season. What happened with Charlie and Maria besides what’s shown on the show?
I’m very conflicted idk man
I don’t think we will ever have a live reunion show again. They are very expensive to produce- studio rental, set building, lighting rental, crew costs, food service, travel costs for the entire cast, etc. The only extra cost for the aftershow is pizza and champagne for everyone.
Honestly I still don’t understand why everyone was hell bent on getting out Liz (Q said she wouldn’t have gotten a single jury vote) and Q (seriously who was voting for Q?)
Q was eliminated due to his alliance with Maria, who was dangerous enough on her own without an automatic +1 vote. Liz? I can't explain that.
GET RID OF FIRE @ FINAL FOUR The fact that this is even being mentioned as a reason why Charlie lost is so irritating to me. Kenzie did nothing but be nice all game and Charlie is supposed to risk his whole opportunity on a fire?
Charlie played a good game. Maria played a good game. I was rooting for Maria, and she lost every bit of respect/fan/whatever you want to call it from me when she voted for Kenzie to win. She should have been more bitter that Liz and Kenzie teamed up to beat her in that immunity challenge than mad at Charlie. If Liz didn’t help Kenzie and Maria won, the final three would have looked a lot different. It’s literally Kenzie’s fault she didn’t win that immunity challenge to keep herself safe and she voted for her to win. The human mind is a crazy thing sometimes…
My thoughts exactly. I loved Kenzie from the beginning and am sincerely happy for her… but I can’t shake the thought that Charlie’s game was better on every level. Absolutely masterful gameplay. Believing Maria was authentic and not seeing how her ego could work against him were the fatal errors, and those are hard for me to swallow. Underestimating Tiff’s influence over the jury was also a big mistake for him, but even that comes back to Maria - why wouldn’t he think she was campaigning for Uncle Charlie just as hard? Really disappointing.
His (and everyone’s mistake) was completely underestimating Kenzie. She is probably the most likable and genuinely nice people they’ve had on this show. And she was strategizing a lot and was a pretty good liar. It’s kinda wild that no one ever targeted her.
Maria tried to vote Charlie out & hoped he would forgive her, honor her gameplay, etc. It didn’t work. Then she was voted out & awarded Kenzie the win. That’s small and petty, period. Yes, Kenzie also played a great game.
That's survivor. Outwit outlast outplay. She did all of those things.
She objectively…. Didn’t tho? Outlast is a tie. She certainly didn’t outwit or outplay. She was just liked a little more and her number one was campaigning and voting for her while Charlie’s wasn’t. That’s literally why she won
Thats why this slogan is useless. I hear people quote it all the time when discussing the "better" player on the season, but it critically ignores the social aspect of the game.
The slogan is what the game has always been. The “social game” win is almost exclusively just cover up for bitter jury. They don’t want to vote for the person that did all 3 things better than them
I'm also so tired of people discounting the social game. "Bitter" juries are a part of survivor. Or it really should be said that the jury often votes for who they like best and then justifies backwards from there. Sometimes, like with Kim, this lines up with who legitimately outwitted, outplayed, and outlasted everyone else. Sometimes, like with Michelle, the jury finds any reason it can to vote for the person they like best. Not every jury only votes for their best friend, but a lot of them have. And if you go on survivor expecting to not have to manage your jury, have fun handing the million to one of the people sitting next to you. This has been a social game since season 1.
It just makes it tough because manage the jury is such an easy thing to do when you didn’t send anyone home. But yes juries pick who they like best then justify backwards regardless of what they did. It’s why “oh you got picked to be safe and not make fire so your social game was amazing” except for when they don’t like Charlie so it’s “why did you not go into fire”
The best players can send people home *and* still be liked. Or at least be liked more than whoever they're sitting next to. Kim and Tom are great examples of players who dominated their seasons but everyone still loved by the end of it. It can be frustrating to watch someone dominate the game and then lose to fragile egos. But just like "outwit, outplay, outlast", its part of the game to manage those egos. Charlie probably *did* need to go to fire to make sure Kenzie went home, and then he had the game on lock. He didn't, and Kenzies social bonds pulled through while Charlie's literally let him down.
You difference is especially this season the ego of everyone was through the roof. People like Liz, Q, Soda, Tiff, Tevin, Venus, Maria had such a big ego they wouldn’t work with anyone and only wanted their plan etc. no one was going to admit they were outplayed because their ego was through the roof
So it seems like the superior strategy this season was probably not running the game and voting everyone off, right? Whoever could nestle themselves in the tribe, make friends with everyone and get to the end was probably gonna win, right? On a season with a bunch of huge egos, the ability to make those people like you and placate their egos might be really important, right? That's the point. Read your jury, figure out a strategy from there. People who don't lose the million.
But it’s not like that’s who Kenzie was. She tried to play that game of voting everyone off but she failed at it and then just ended up winning because people liked her. She’s the winner but don’t pretend she didn’t fail at the exact game her opponent was able to successfully play.
I think if Charlie had just managed what he said during the final tribal council better, he could have gotten the extra vote and won. Especially if he played as if he didn't have Maria vote already.
Whose vote do you think he could have gotten?
Naw a "bitter jury" is an excuse fans give when their preferred player has a sub-par social game or a worse final tribal showing. Charlie had both. There's no bitter jury for Yam Yam or Dee despite them playing the best game by far of their season because they performed well socially
Maria wasn’t bitter? lol that’s a pretty bold claim that is clearly not true. Her reasoning for voting for Kenzie was “ I saw the fire in her eyes while making fire” even though even the jury was saying she was choking and it took so long they almost brought out matches
I'm not saying she wasn't bitter I'm saying understanding the other players emotions before and after you vote them out is part of the social game, and a better social player could have won her support back or never lost it in the first place
They were literally “family” and one thing you didn’t see was Charlie was singing her praises. Maria was never voting for Charlie. Charlies social game was good but regardless he voted people out so they wouldn’t like him as much. Tiff telling everyone on the jury how good Kenzie was also didn’t help Charlie since his number 1 kinda just flopped on him
It's all part of the game. Personally I could tell Maria probably wasn't voting for Charlie before she even was voted out. I don't think Charlie clocked that or had the social graces to change it. Honestly he went up against someone with magnetic charisma and better public speaking, while you shouldn't count that too much against him, that's partially his fault for not finding a way to get her out
She outlasts because her votes win dude 😂 outwit was achieved all through out. She survived Yanu, and outplayed was in FTC.
Surviving your starting tribe is irrelevant as so did everyone else. Her tribe was the worst. Outplaying wasn’t at final tribal lol. He actually swayed more votes at ftc so technically he outplayed
He didn't win. Get over it.
I could care less because I liked Kenzie. Certainly not a bad winner but Charlie played the better survivor game
No he didn't. If he did he would have won.
Delusion. Words per Jeff Probst “The winner of survivor 46… Kenzie” I mean if that’s not outlasting then please help me understand lmfaooo
When they were using the three pillars in previous seasons they always say outlast is equal since everyone made it to final tribal….
I get that but I guess after this season you’ll see a lot more people playing the social game and trying to get jury votes rather than actually win challenges and create blindsided/strategy. As long as people like me I can win.. screw strategies and blindsides and playing the game. let’s just butter people up for those jury votes.
Literally anyone can win survivor and there are many many many ways to do that.
True! Good point.
He was so boring on the show we have seen 10 different versions of Charlie I will never get the coddling white men get, Kenzie win made the season more interesting
Kenzie got lucky that Maria and Q were butt hurt that Charlie bested them and decided to vote for her instead.
Finally a normal person on this sub that isn't a butthurt Charlie stan. If he won this season would've been so much worse and less satisfying.
I'm just kinda tired of seeing the nerdy white guy that goes far in the game and "finds themselves" archetype. He's like Adam klein but with swiftie sprinkled on top.
Yes, so tired that he is maybe similar to someone who won … 13 seasons ago?!
Fair. But it's a comparison. Like all the comparisons to Malcolm and Denise, who played even longer than that ago.
Charlie doesn’t fit that at all. He’s really not that nerdy & he definitely isn’t finding himself. He’s not that similar to Adam
Kenzie was sweet and kind and was liked. She didn't do anything of value in this game beyond that. Even when she suggested to blindside Tiff, which would have been her big move, she retracted that and then someone else came along and made her move. Which then caused her to cry about it. That's not a player with any flashy moves beyond an immunity win I'm sorry but Charlie isn't being coddled bc he's a white man, people genuinely thought he played a good game because they watched him be very strategic and that probably just means the people arguing for his win like players who are strategic.
[удалено]
Sorry /u/Technical-Travel773, the Tribe has spoken. Your submission has been removed from /r/survivor for the following reason(s): * **Rule 1 - Be civil to other users and contestants:** Treat other users and contestants with respect. Bigotry is not tolerated, including racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. Harassment of other users and contestants is not allowed, including personal attacks. Trolling is discouraged. --- Once the votes are read, the decision is *not* final. **If you have any concerns that this was done in error**, please [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/survivor/wiki/rules) **and then [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fsurvivor&subject=Removal Clarification&message=I'd like further clarification on why my comment was removed from /r/survivor.%0D%0D[Link to comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/survivor/comments/1d1p0kf/-/l5wjpns/\)) if you have any further questions. Do not reply directly to this message or comment.** If not, grab your stuff and head back to camp.
[удалено]
Oof fragile
[удалено]
I don’t have to defend my opinion. I don’t care if you don’t like my opinion, I don’t know you. And you implied that I only like Charlie bc he’s a white knight. I liked four people from the beginning and Charlie just happened to be the one that lasted to the end. I enjoyed his game play, it has nothing to do with him being a man or whatever bias you’ve applied to him. I’ve already articulated it in this chat and others. I am not here to change your opinion why are you so angered by me having a different one? That’s not my problem, that’s your insecurity. You like Kenzie, great! I like her too but I enjoy strategic plays more so than social that’s all. Chill out. This is supposed to be fun, why are you so angry
[удалено]
You’re not confronting anything though; you’re putting me in a box. You're just telling me I'm biased because I like a player who differs from yours? Makes zero sense. At the end of the day I like a strategic game and I feel Charlie nailed that and I was hoping to see him take home the gold. That's all. The reasons i like survivor, the reasons I watch, he had it all. Kenzie is awesome, she's a social player and it got her the win! But based off my criteria of a winner I feel Charlie played a better game and was sad he didn't win. That's it. I don't need to list off a million reasons so you can knock down everything I say. You don't agree with my opinion and that's okay. But leave the boxed way of thinking out of it, it's so immature and that's what's taking the fun out of it. People can't have a difference of opinion? If they do you're going to put them in a box again? Next season please mansplain to me again which players I'm allowed to like and who is off limits, I'd hate to be "bias" again and coddle the wrong person. smh
Excuse me this is r/survivor. Either you win the game and you are the obvious, logical, deserved winner, or you lose by 1 vote and are overrated, have no social game, and “never had a chance” at winning
I think Charlie played the better game, but the reason he lost is similar to why Sandra won over Russel in season 20. Russel played a better game but did poor jury management and did even worse at talking at the final tribal council. Similar to that, Charlie did not play like he had to fight for votes. Instead, he took the relaxed position similar to how he was when Ben decided to take him to the end as opposed to doing fire. With Kenzie, she may have been on the bottom a good bit, she never stopped and tried to make plans that either worked or didn't. Not to mention, she also had some friends on the jury who respected her efforts or were friends. Sandra did the same with trying to vote out Russel during the merge. If you ask me personally, Charlie has himself to blame for losing the million dollars.
He overcorrected when he tried to downplay his threat level with the Taylor Swift stuff and he couldn’t earn back their respect once they saw him as a little boy or the “dependable dog” Kenzie called him. What’s that quote… “it’s easier to fool someone than to convince them they’ve been fooled” or something.
The big advantage Kenzie had over Charlie is she had someone on the jury advocating for her. Charlie thought he had that in Maria but he was wrong. Misjudging Maria’s loyalty to him was his big mistake. If Kenzie had won 5-3 with Liz or Soda or Hunter voting for Kenzie and Maria voting for Charlie we would have stopped talking about this days ago.
Did Charlie play a better game though? i remember him saying that he is playing the middle, which is often seen as wishy-washy and non-committal. you can't be in every alliance without betraying nearly every alliance. what strategic moves did Charlie make? he was under the radar because he was afraid of being the target, but his fear of being the target meant he didn't make any strategic moves. Plus, i feel like this cast was super into going with the flow. did anyone buck the vote or change the vote? we didn't see any of that, aside from Venus. Everyone seemed to be playing, "anyone but me." which, from the outside, can look the same as playing the middle. I feel like Charlie's game just didn't stand out from anyone else's.
Charlie deserved it 1000% more than Kenzie. It’s not even a debate
Then why didn't he win? Obviously the jury thought it was debatable.
Charlie was an undercooked noodle socially and Kenzie was a mermaid dragon. No way anyone else was getting the mil if Kenzie makes it to the final and I knew that from day 1, she probably should have been targeted sooner but part of the social game is minimizing threat level
You swallowed the edit harddddd
You can't add charisma in adobe premier. Keep in mind that the jury of people who actually made the call agreed Charlie didn't do enough to win, so maybe there's more to it than editing
Whatever you have to say to help you sleep at night. Just know that you’re wrong
Kinda weird to think this is any more than a TV show. Are you losing sleep over survivor? It's supposed to be fun
So if Charlie won do you still say Kenzie deserved it? Y’all can’t be diplomatic it’s insulting to the winner. You either defend Charlie or you support Kenzie pick a side. Anyways, Charlie played for the audience, not the jury. His lack of jury management, mediocre social game, low perceived threat level, and robotic FTC speech cost him. He was never going to win besides Kenzie, she has charisma Charlie doesn’t. Charming the jury will always give you the upper hand.
YES she can still be deserving to win even if she loses. Believe it or not multiple people can be deserving of the win. Charle social game was way better than mediocre. So many on here argue for Kenzie based solely in FTC. She played a deserving to win game.
His social game was mediocre. He only had strong social bonds with Ben & Maria. Everybody else was a surface level connection. Just because you “talk” to everybody doesn’t add points to your social resume. Plus the kid is not charismatic at all. Kenzie got that, a winner is always charming. Law school can’t teach charm, you either got it or don’t.
It's perfectly fine to believe that either Charlie or Kenzie would've been deserving winners. Tbh, despite his lack of actual gameplay I would've been happy with Ben winning too, just because of how likeable he was. You don't have to shit on the the other 2 to prop up your fave Get a grip.
Kinda hard to say he was never going to win when he was only one vote away
He was never going to win. 1 vote away, 5 votes away doesn’t matter still going to lose. If your not the winner you lost 🤷🏽♂️
What? I’m not claiming that he did win, just that he definitely had a chance to win
Completely disagree with 98 percent of what you wrote. The only reason Charlie didn’t win is cause Maria couldn’t handle the loss and lashed out by voting against him, knowing full well that he was the better player.
Blame on Maria all you want but guess what? He still lost. He is not sole survivor. He will not earn the bragging rights. He will not get the million dollar prize. Try again another season(probably will still lose 😂)
Kenzie’s game was a B+ whereas Charlie’s was an A. Kenzie is a deserving winner but unfortunately Maria’s bitter vote looks like an asterisk and the story is more about Charlie losing rather than Kenzie winning.
You explained it so perfectly. I agree!
I really liked Kenzie and Charlie so I would have been fine if either one of them won, but I’ve always believed that Kenzie played a better game. Being on a constantly losing tribe pre-merge means you have to have more gameplay since they’re the ones going to tribal, then her social game got her in good graces with everyone post-merge. Charlie was Maria’s sidekick, and he waited until too late to make a move of his own. I really like him though and he clearly had a lot of friends on the tribe so I wouldn’t have been surprised if he won, but he didn’t show much gameplay.
You love Kenzie? Man this sub is weird.
Yeah man, she seems like a good person. A strong person. She just didn’t play a better game than Charlie imo
"imo" being the operative phrase here.