As you probably already know (if not, spoilers, I guess) S20: Heroes vs. Villains wraps up in fine form, as the final five gets whittled down to an all-time Final Three of Russell, Parvati, and Sandra, and the jury vote very much does not disappoint. (Except for the then-ascendant legions of Russell fans, all of whom seem to have scuttled back under their rocks since 2010, possibly after being scammed by him in a fantasy football league, or something. They will be missed. By Russell.)

As Final Tribals go, it's a fairly logical one. The jury, to a person (except maybe JT?), hates Russell. Sandra points out she warned almost all of them about that, and TRIED to get them to help her vote him out, but they somehow always fell short of doing that. Ultimately, positioning herself as the anti-Russell pays off splendidly. For her part, Parvati makes a good case for herself of having played a well-rounded physical/ social/ strategic game, but the jury holds her closeness to Russell against her. It's both a fair and an unfair knock. She clearly only made it through the pre-merge portion of the game with Russell's help, but she did pull off a huge move at the merge, which should have helped differentiate her game from his. She also tried to save Danielle but couldn't, another distinguishing play. It's just that the rest of the time, she really was tight with Russell.

Both Sandra and Parvati make the case that they knew Russell couldn't win (and we literally see Parvati warning him about Sandra's chances, right before the Jerri vote), it's just that the jury buys it better from Sandra, who clearly had further distance from him. Russell was positive she hadn't played at all, but that was because she was trying to do things against him behind his back. Of course he didn't know about it! But the jurors did. She was on the outside of the Villains power structure from the moment Tyson left the game, but she made it to the end anyway. It's a solid case, and Sandra deserved her million.

All in all, though, while there are still some really lofty highs in this season (the merge/ JT blindside episode), Heroes vs. Villains as a season has aged less well than a lot of other fan-favorite early seasons from the show's first decade, like S7: Pearl Islands and S15: China. While the cast is loaded with standout characters, the early editing focus exclusively on the men feels frustratingly dated, as does all the Heroes posturing about playing with honor. (Although ... still a problem in S50!) Samoa is also a bit of a grim location with all the rain (Nicaragua lite), something Colby and Sugar both call out at the reunion, and a lot of the challenges were just lazy repeats of things that were tried (and failed) in S19: Samoa ("Schmergen Brawl," "Fauxconut Bowling"). This was the first season ever shot back-to-back in the same location with only a few weeks gap in between, so maybe production thought re-using some already-built challenge structures was a good idea (regardless of actual challenge quality), to speed up turnaround between seasons?

As a viewer, though, back-to-back seasons of Russell Hantz going to the end was really hard to get through in real time, even if he receives an even more satisfying comeuppance here than he did his first time. Yet even as a one-off rewatch, there's still too much Russell here. The cast is also overflowing with camera-hogging, spectacularly self-unaware characters (Russell again, Rupert, Coach), and the editors apparently felt duty-bound to include every utterance offered by them, which can feel a bit grating at times. Obviously, you can't retroactively fix the location and challenges, but most of the creakiness of HvsV today boils down to simple storytelling choices that could easily be remedied by a modern re-edit. Whether it's an expansion to 90-minute episodes, or simply replacing some of the repetitive, self-congratulatory Hantz footage with that of the mostly missing characters (Cirie, early Sandra, Courtney, Tyson, Jerri), a refurbishing would greatly improve the watchability. Just saying, the 20th anniversary is right around the corner in 2030! Please and thank you.

Unrelated note: The title image above is, of course, Sandra saying "But I don't know about that!" (in response to Russell telling her she had no chance of winning), which reflects my level of confidence in this actually happening.

Russell's decision: Dumber than Colby's or Woo's

In the finale's introductory summation of the final five's past history with the show (and of course, again in the reunion's "Dumbest Move Ever" award segment), they took special pains to drag Colby for bringing Tina to the Final Two with him in S2: The Australian Outback. Fans have also long rated Woo Hwang's picking Tony Vlachos over Kass McQuillen to go with him to the Final Two in S28: Cagayan as an equivalently boneheaded move. (In Woo's defense, I think there's a chance he loses that matchup, too. Kass was a lawyer, and Woo was widely disliked as "Weasel Woo.") So Russell's 100% confidence that he can win vs. Sandra, hands-down, and his calculation that his best final three might be Sandra/Parvati/himself, because he's guaranteed to get Jerri's jury vote, but he might not get Parvati's is almost poetic, giving a poor decision bookend to the affair. Not only does Jerri not vote for him, she's vacillating until her pen hits the parchment between Parvati and Sandra. Never Russell. And as Parvati warned Russell, Sandra indeed sweeps the Courtney/Amanda/Candice early female juror vote, and also nabs the last two male Heroes. Russell's choice: Worse than Colby's.

At least Colby picked Tina because if he didn't win, he was happy to lose to Tina. Russell had convinced himself that Sandra didn't play the game at all, and that Parvati was his puppet. Even though he was irate about being left out of Parvati's double-idol play, AND that Sandra didn't tell him about her idol. It's an amazing act of delusion that Russell repeatedly convinces himself that he's outplaying all the women around him, even though he objects to their big moves when they make them. And of course that he has absolute zero social IQ (EQ), and has no concept that bullying people as he votes them out is not a way to make them respect and/or like him. JT evens lobs him a softball at Final Tribal, giving him an opportunity to admit he messed up, and in response, Russell confidently refuses to swing and mocks the pitcher: "I really seriously believe that everybody on the jury is gonna respect my gameplay." [Cue Rupert scowl.]

(In Russell's defense, I think there's a good chance he loses to Jerri, too.)

To be fair, Russell's bigger dumb decision was to play exactly the same way as he did in S19: Samoa. That's a bit of a tough ask, because he didn't have the benefit of watching that back, seeing where he screwed up, and adjusting. Then again, there's no indication that Russell learned a single thing from that season or this one. He played twice more, two months after the HvsV reunion in S22: Redemption Island (aired in 2011) and seven years after that in AU3: Champions v Contenders (2018). In both cases, he was the first person voted out of his tribe. He remained smug, cocky, and absolutely convinced he was the smartest and most charming player there to the end. Survivor loves its big, confident characters who are totally devoid of self-awareness. But apparently they needed Jeff Winger to come in and tell them, "Look, eventually you hit a point of diminishing returns on that" with Russell.

Post-script: Danielle at Final Tribal (after saying hello to the Final Three in an English accent, for some reason) tells Russell, "It's clear there's been a lack of skill in your jury management." Russell: [stares blankly, as if to say, "Jury manga mint? Huh?"].

A few minutes later, Danielle: "You're not going to get any votes! Nobody respects the way you played, Russell!" Russell: "I wouldn't change anything, and I don't regret it." (Russell proceeds to receive zero jury votes.)

First thing out of Russell's mouth at the reunion: "There's a flaw in the game!" (because the jury votes for the winner, not the audience). To his credit, Probst immediately slaps that down with "That's a different game. You haven't won this game, maybe you would win that game."

Later in the reunion, Probst tries very hard to get a straight answer out of Russell, and on his third or fourth attempt asks: "Do you think about the fact that the social game is something you're missing?" Russell immediately responds, "I don't care about that fact! I play the game as hard as I can, I do what I can do."

The beauty of Survivor is that, at least at this stage of its evolution, the guard rails are self-enforcing. You can be a huge jackass to everyone around you if you want, but they're probably going to vote you out. Or in this case, drag you to the end because you have no chance of even receiving a single jury vote, let alone winning. That simple design has started to weaken, as the show enters its Open (floorplan) Era, and someone (Jeff Probst) has pulled out supporting beam after supporting beam ("Load-bearing? What does that mean?") to make room for more and more random stunts (lost votes, rock draws, coin flips, split Tribals) that take away player agency and strategy. Despite those efforts, though, the basic formula is still more or less there. Survivor remains at its core a social experiment. And you can't win it by being a belligerent hothead.

Could Rupert or Colby have actually won?

The editors (possibly at Mark Burnett's explicit behest) weave in a lot of wistful, dangling hints about "what could have been" in the final two episodes, as the Villains occasionally opine that if either of the two remaining Heroes (Colby and Rupert) reach the final three, they will win, because "they have a lot of friends on the jury." They come close, too, with Rupert narrowly losing to Parvati in the Final 6 IC (Ep13), and Colby also falling just short of Parvati in the opening immunity challenge of the finale, at Final 5. Also, while the Villains women are away on the Ep13 loved ones reward, we see Russell swearing to Rupert (and Colby, but mostly Rupert) that he's pissed about not going on reward, and he wants an all-male final three. Did Russell really mean this? Was he simply exploring options, in case Parvati lost immunity (she did not)? Or was it 100% a prank to make Rupert look like a fool, so soon after the JT blindside?

It's fascinating that we came so close to finding out in that showdown between Parvati and Rupert at the F6 IC. Each had at least one pole that was a twitch away from falling. So what happens if Rupert wins? Does Russell stick with his pouting men's group and vote for Parvati, as promised? It's hard to say for sure. Given that Russell was 100% in on voting Colby out the next round (unless he won F5 immunity), I think it really was all just a lark, setting old Rupert up for the Fell For It Again award, after Rupert told Russell (in front of everyone) that Russell was a terrible person.

Also, if he did vote Parvati out at F6, I think we would have ended up with a Colby/Rupert/Sandra final three, and I'm not sure how that would have ended up. It seems likely that Jerri would have stuck with her old frenemies Rupert and Colby and Sandra, and voted Russell out next, especially if he had just betrayed Parvati. It's also possible Sandra could have played her idol for Parvati at F6 if she'd caught wind (maybe from Rupert?) that Russell was actually targeting her. Either of these paths might have led to closer outcomes than the all-Villains F4. Not that there was anything wrong with the actual jury vote, of course.

Depending on who was with them, though, I do question whether Colby or (especially) Rupert winning was actually within the realm of possibility. Rupert was confident he was a shoo-in for the million if he just reached the finals. Colby felt the same about his own chances. But Rupert is also convinced he's one of the greatest players of all time, and that everyone loves him (he really is just like Russell). Colby seems like a bit more of a threat, but he's already lost in the finals once, Jerri would probably not give him her jury vote if he voted her out at F4, and people like Courtney had been rolling their eyes at him all season. Still, you could make a reasonable counter-argument that Sandra's failed efforts to save the Heroes are not at all impressive if two of them are in fact in the finals with her.

If Colby somehow had won Heroes vs. Villains instead of Sandra? As dark as the early-20s seasons were already, it's hard to imagine what level of cringe the show would have aspired to next. Maybe it's Tom vs. Rupert on S22: Redemption Island, instead of Rob and Russell. (Yikes!) So maybe we should just be happy with the world HvsV left us, and not accidentally flip ourselves onto some even darker timeline.

You people, again? - The reunion

This reunion was one of the most lively in the show's history (thanks mostly to Russell talking over everyone in the opening minutes, which Probst eventually clamped down on), but the show made some odd, kind of mean-spirited choices in its canned segments. The first commercial break outro celebrated the physical violence in a lot of the challenges (Ep1 RC, Schmergen Brawl - which took out James! - and Russell and Rupert's slap fight after the last Heroes RC win). They also had fans vote for "the dumbest move of all time" (with Probst promising "JT, you're in the running!"). I had long since forgotten who won, so I guess JT being presented with a shitty trophy (that did not even have his name on it yet) shows you how memorable this was, and it's a bonus flash-forward to Cirie similarly being "honored" with a similar trinket in the S50 finale. (Never change, Survivor.)

Still, even with all of Russell's attention-hijacking antics, Jeff Probst somehow managed to find time to talk to every contestant. Even Candice, who was dead last. That said, the initial order of Probst's attention was very similar to who was featured in the opening sequence of the premiere. There was a ton of Russell, Tom, Boston Rob, James, Rupert, and Colby. All guys. He did talk to Sandra first, though, and briefly interacted with Parvati, before getting to the many, many men he (or Mark Burnett?) saw as the actual stars. Still, I do appreciate that a successful effort was made to talk to everyone, which is definitely not something that has stood the test of time.

The other Russell-related topic was of course Rob and Russell staging an argument to set up S22: Redemption Island, with Rob giving a very stilted, pro-wrestling-like "I'd gladly go back and kick your ass all over the island!" (To which Probst tiredly responds, "that could be a future season. Rob vs. Russell.") Sigh. The reunion was on May 16, 2010. S21: Nicaragua started filming the next month, and S22 filmed right after that. Both seasons' casts would have been locked at the time of this reunion. Rob and Russell (and Probst) 100% knew this "epic showdown" or whatever was going to happen. So lame. (They did not yet know Russell would be the first out on Zapatera, so a belated Nelson Muntz pointing "ha ha!" in retrospect.)

Spotted in the audience - This season was a big deal for the show. It was Mark Burnett's last season as showrunner (good riddance), and there was a huge party in LA to which all prior contestants were invited before the season started airing. So there should have been a lot of alumni there to see the reunion as well, although holding the finale/reunion in New York probably limited turnout. I only spotted Fairplay, Corinne, and Charlie Herschel in live shots. And of course poor Erik, for the "dumbest move" award ceremony, and Amber with her and Rob's newborn child, Lucia Rose. Although we did get a nice shot of future two-time SurvivorAU contestant Nine Twine! (No shots of John Cody, as far I could tell, not even after Candice showed off her wedding ring.)

Related side-question: Could the short, emo-looking kid below, next to Russell's brother be a 16- or 17-year-old Brandon Hantz? (If it is, I am freshly sad about what this show did to him.)

The land of tepid takes

- It's all about the Benjamin - At Final Tribal, Coach tells Sandra she was "useless" in challenges, and informs her that HE plays with "strength, honor, and integrity," and he wishes "I could be there in your stead." He then compliments Parvati on her challenge aptitude and votes for her to win. "You WERE a warrior in the challenges. And I respect that." Christ, what an asshole.

(Since the only thing he respects is challenge ability: in the season in which he reached the finals, Coach's Mean % Finish in individual challenges was a mediocre 46th percentile. He's the definition of a replacement-level player. Sophie? 78th percentile. By his own metric, that's probably why he didn't win. Oh well.)

- Is there somebody else named Parvati here? - Parvati at Final Tribal, on the difference between her and Sandra's games: "Sandra was kind of a sleeper, she gave 50-60% in challenges. So post-merge, nobody thought about voting Sandra off ... I HAD to work in those challenges." (Because everyone allegedly wanted her out.) Again, the Villains won immunity four out of the first five episodes. The only time in the pre-merge where she was plausibly in danger was the Tribal where Russell's idol saved her. Parvati's record in team or tribal challenges was 5-for-15. Sandra's was ... 5-for-15. Parvati sat out three times (to be fair, all three were RCs, but Sandra didn't have the option of choosing, she was told when to sit out). Was that really giving it 100%?

- A late-breaking save - For all his bombast, Rupert enthusiastically endorsed and pumped up Sandra's game in his jury speech, while also being supportive of Parvati's game (even if, like Coach, he was mostly talking about challenges). Rupert and Candice both drew a line between playing the game (which Rupert actually embraces at times) and being a jerk like Russell. As Candice put it, "You told dirty lies, that hurt people." (Candice also uses what is in retrospect a very unfortunate metaphor of an abused wife to describe Parvati sticking with Russell. Today that feels pretty awful - through no fault of Candice, obviously - in light of Parvati's breakup with John Fincher, a decade later.) For all of Rupert's very obvious faults this season, he actually ended up in a great spot there. Good for him.

- Courting disaster - This was still early days for the Final Three format, but as far as I can tell, nobody in production had bothered to worry about tied jury votes. In the original F2 format, it was simple: Final Two plus seven jurors. There's no way that can end up in a tie. Easy, simple, elegant. When S13: Cook Islands introduced the Final Three, though, it was the same setup as we see here: Final Three, but inexplicably with a nine-person jury. What do you do if it's a 3-3-3 tie? Given that we didn't even get a two-way tie until S36: Ghost Island, I guess realistically it wasn't a huge concern, but it seems pretty dumb to create that opportunity with no discernible failsafe, when the problem would have disappeared with simply one more juror (10, they'd get Boston Rob!) or one fewer (8, they would lose Coach). The show apparently didn't realize this was a problem for another couple (-plus) years, until they finally switched over to the now-standard F3 + 8 jurors (or 10 for a 20-person cast) formula in S25: Philippines.

This makes the jury/finalist cutoffs in S16: Micronesia all the more enraging. The season before it (S15: China) had a Final Three plus seven jurors. That's great! Still no tie possible! The season after it (S17: Gabon) had the exact same numbers, albeit after starting with an 18-person cast, rather than 16. Also fine! So what did S16 go with (also with 18 contestants, like Gabon)? They moved one of the finalists into the jury, creating a Final Two and an eight-person jury. [*Head pounding into wall*] What were they planning to do if there was a 4-4 tie? Drawing rocks? It's unknown. Whereas if Cirie had simply been a finalist, as in the preceding and following seasons, it removes that risk. It's enough to make you start believing conspiracy theories.

- What could have been - Revisiting the casting rumors on the season's Wikipedia page (some of which I had not heard at the time), two that leaped out are Yau-Man Chan and Earl Cole. Yau-Man had to decline for work reasons. Earl's casting journey is not expanded upon, but how much more fun would the Heroes tribe have been if Earl and Cirie were both there, and he replaced Tom? Cirie probably gets much further in that season than she did here, there's less sneering about actually playing the game. The Heroes are likely the fun tribe, while the Villains' gameplay comparatively is squashed under the combined weight of Boston Rob's and Coach's massive egos. (Although swapping Candice and Parvati, as originally planned, would also have been very interesting, but if they did that, they should also swap Cirie to the Villains for ... Danielle, I guess?)