I don't want to make Matt into a mastermind by any means--even as a big fan, I'm not going to deny that he was clueless for more than half of the game.
Rob capitalized on this, and knew Matt could be manipulated easily and be the brawns of the pair. Basically, Rob wanted to be the Tina to Matt's Colby
(albeit without the moral front). He's not even in the same league as Kathy of course.
But by the very end of it, Matt actually outsmarts Rob. That's what gets me and makes me think how excellent a story it makes--a guy comes in with no knowledge on how to play the game at all, gets used by the mastermind of the game who laughs behind his back that Matt's a total idiot, but eventually the tables are turned and he outsmarts said mastermind. It's a great storyline and it's really the editors' fault for presenting it so almost perfectly despite the fact that he didn't win.
And I'll say it again and I stick by it--taking all interviews and things we learned about later on out of the picture and just watching the season straight up, Matt just makes much more sense as the winner--the only thing going against him is the "cweepy" machete stuff. There's no way Jenna can manage to score four votes, let alone six. That's not Jenna's fault and I certainly don't hold that against her. I think the editors wanted a total shocker ending for some inane reason (possibly because of the ChillOne spoiler?), which ultimately did a huge disservice to Jenna. I don't think they were counting on the backlash that resulted from it (not that it hurt the ratings or anything). Without any hindsight and watching it the first time, without knowing who won, Matt had the arc and comeback that makes sense for the win--what evidence was there to point to a Jenna win? You can point out any "clues" to a winner after the fact but the only one I can think of for Jenna at the time was that she was not the "cweepy loner machete guy." And that really isn't a good enough reason in the basis of the TV show.
Like I said, I'm not trying to take away from Jenna's win. I wanted Matt to win, but it was five years ago, I've gotten over it. All I'm saying is a Matt win makes sense too and wouldn't have been the tragedy some people are making it out to be. And that the night of the Amazon finale and the day after, I can't really think of a single account from a Survivor watcher I knew or read online who wasn't shocked if not flat-out pissed off by the end result. I'm sure there were some out there, and maybe "revisionist history" was a bit harsh. But that's all I'm trying to say.
But by the very end of it, Matt actually outsmarts Rob. That's what gets me and makes me think how excellent a story it makes--a guy comes in with no knowledge on how to play the game at all, gets used by the mastermind of the game who laughs behind his back that Matt's a total idiot, but eventually the tables are turned and he outsmarts said mastermind. It's a great storyline and it's really the editors' fault for presenting it so almost perfectly despite the fact that he didn't win.
And I'll say it again and I stick by it--taking all interviews and things we learned about later on out of the picture and just watching the season straight up, Matt just makes much more sense as the winner--the only thing going against him is the "cweepy" machete stuff. There's no way Jenna can manage to score four votes, let alone six. That's not Jenna's fault and I certainly don't hold that against her. I think the editors wanted a total shocker ending for some inane reason (possibly because of the ChillOne spoiler?), which ultimately did a huge disservice to Jenna. I don't think they were counting on the backlash that resulted from it (not that it hurt the ratings or anything). Without any hindsight and watching it the first time, without knowing who won, Matt had the arc and comeback that makes sense for the win--what evidence was there to point to a Jenna win? You can point out any "clues" to a winner after the fact but the only one I can think of for Jenna at the time was that she was not the "cweepy loner machete guy." And that really isn't a good enough reason in the basis of the TV show.
Like I said, I'm not trying to take away from Jenna's win. I wanted Matt to win, but it was five years ago, I've gotten over it. All I'm saying is a Matt win makes sense too and wouldn't have been the tragedy some people are making it out to be. And that the night of the Amazon finale and the day after, I can't really think of a single account from a Survivor watcher I knew or read online who wasn't shocked if not flat-out pissed off by the end result. I'm sure there were some out there, and maybe "revisionist history" was a bit harsh. But that's all I'm trying to say.
