Breaking down Survivor 48 with Survivor 47 runner-up Sam Phalen
Breaking down Survivor 48 with Survivor 47 runner-up Sam Phalen
Survivor 48 has come to an end, with castaway Kyle Fraser being named the Sole Survivor after yet another memorable run of the greatest game of all time.
As we look back on this latest season, we've asked Survivor 47 runner-up Sam Phalen to help us break down all the big questions from what we just watched.
Why Survivor 48's Joe Hunter still leaves the game as a huge winner
Sam, a sports journalist for FanSided, got close to being named Sole Survivor last fall but fell just short of that honor to Survivor 47 winner Rachel LaMont.
However, his tenacity, social game and strategy plays more than cemented his place in the season's second spot and got him close to winning outright.
Sam also one of the architects behind "Operation: Italy," one of the great strategy moves in the show's history. You may also remember his thrilling comeback in the fire-making competition to make the final three.
Sam's Survivor expertise gives us great perspective on Survivor 48 from somebody who played and succeeded at the game, so let's run through some of his big takeaways.
FTW: Kyle is our latest Survivor winner after a pretty terrific finale. What do you think set him apart by the time the jury's vote rolled around?
Sam: Kyle was the only person in the game playing both sides from start to finish. As he said himself, he rode the middle. Not only was a part of the dominant alliance that chose who went home every week, he also had a side relationship with Kamilla [Karthigesu] and was able to manipulate information to get his way.
A Survivor jury loves to be surprised. They want to hear something that wows them. Something they didn't know before sitting down at Final Tribal Council. Kyle being able to sit there and reveal the secrets he kept from everyone in the game not only impressed the jury, but made him look more credible than Joe [Hunter] and Eva [Erickson].
FTW: As one of the architects of all-time Survivor move 'Operation: Italy,' what was your favorite moment of strategy this season?
Sam: Probably the plan from Kyle and Kamilla to blindside Shauhin. It reminded me of "Operation: Italy" a little bit.
The best Survivor moves take detailed planning, acting and layers upon layers of details that further validate the scheme. People talk and fact-check information constantly, so you have to be thorough. Kyle referred to the move as a 'heist,' which is exactly how we described "Operation: Italy" in real time.
FTW: Joe's game was the perfect example of how Survivor used to be played, before the era of cutthroat strategy took over for modern players. How do you size up his game and the way he approached his time in Fiji?
Sam: Joe's social game was really, really impressive. It seemed like everyone on the island thought they were working with him and didn't want to cross him. He's a good person that was invested in building real relationships. That worked out for him and got him some longevity in the game.
I think Joe ultimately struggled with jury management and sent a lot of scorned people to the jury. He probably could have been more cutthroat, too. Because he was playing such an honest game, it seemed like he assumed everyone else in his alliance would be, too. But Kyle and Kamilla had other plans and pulled one over on him one too many times to have the jury give him the victory.
FTW: Is there a castaway for this season you feel deserves more credit for the game they played before their elimination?
Sam: I think Shauhin [Davari] was a really savvy player that wasn't highlighted in the edit very much. A lot of people seemed to feel good about Shauhin. He's an eloquent speaker with a strategic mind that absolutely could have won the game had he not gone out at the final six.
Because he worked so closely with Kyle and Joe, I think Shauhin's story takes a bit of a backseat to theirs throughout the season. Credit to Kyle for outplaying him at the end, but I think Shauhin was closer to winning the game than we see on T.V.
FTW: When it comes to famous duos, where do Joe and Eva and Kyle and Kamilla stack up in the history of Survivor?
Sam: Joe and Eva are certainly going to be one of the most memorable duos ever. Their relationship is always going to define Survivor 48. It's going to be the thing people remember when they reflect on this season five years from now.
Kyle and Kamilla may go down as the greatest duo in Survivor history? Or at least on the top three? That sounds like hyperbole, but we've never seen a duo go 25 days without being discovered by the other players in the game. Everyone wants to do it, but nobody can. They're the new gold standard for what an alliance should look like.
FTW: How do you feel about Survivor 48 as a whole? What do you think this season will be most remembered for?
Sam: I think this will be remembered as Joe and Eva's season. The 'strength and loyalty' season. It's not beloved by the fans, and it definitely wasn't one of my favorites, but I think Kyle's dominant win gives it a pretty strong conclusion.
Ultimately, seasons that are built on emotional connections are never going to translate as well through the TV screen as seasons that are built on strategic maneuvers. 48 didn't have much strategy, so it can be stagnant for a viewer tuning in for the shifting gameplay. It will play better on a binge rewatch than it did in real time.
FTW: Fill us in on what you're up to after finishing as the runner-up for Survivor 47.
Sam: I've been staying active in the Survivor/Reality TV community while going through some pretty significant life changes. I got married in March of this year, had a dream honeymoon and recently started a new job.
I'm currently covering the Chicago White Sox, my hometown team, as a writer and Site Expert at FanSided.com. I've been doing a lot of traveling around the U.S. and the world and hope to continue with more big adventures soon!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
18 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Our weird reality is killing reality TV
Now, you might be asking yourself, who cares? And I get that. But I think the reason reality TV is dying is interesting. It reveals something deeper about how our society might be unconsciously metabolizing the seismic political shifts in the last year. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Reality TV originally thrived because it offered an escape from everyday life. We indulged in epic rollercoaster romances, shameless debauchery, petty entanglements, and the guilty pleasure of rooting for 'shade-throwing' self-obsessed villains who seemed hellbent on taking someone down each season. For roughly 43 blissfully chaotic minutes, we entered a world where the worst of human behavior could be enjoyed safely, from a distance, and, most important, turned off at will. In the end, it perversely left us feeling better, even relieved, about the predictable ordinariness of our own lives. Advertisement But our current political reality — starring its own egotistical villains running amok and creating havoc — has become so chaotic and theatrical that reality TV now feels dull by comparison. Sigmund Freud, in 'Civilization and Its Discontents,' argued that our primal instincts, driven by sex (pleasure/procreation) and aggression (power/survival), are in conflict with the external demands of civilization — the social order that keeps us functioning as a collective society. In short: Our rawest individualistic urges are always brushing up against the demands of civilized living. To manage this conflict, we rely on outlets like art, literature, film, and television — forms that allow us to sublimate (to unconsciously and symbolically indulge) our primitive urges without destabilizing society or our own psychological well-being. Reality TV — because it features 'real people' in dramatized settings — gives us permission to flirt with our more primitive impulses: envy, competition, cruelty. It lets us vicariously indulge in dysfunction and chaos from the safety of our couches, without breaking social rules or causing lasting harm. And then Donald Trump, a former reality TV personality himself, made every day a real-life spectacle. Trump entered both terms of his presidency by shattering the protective barrier of the screen and displaying all the hallmarks of reality TV's genre's most notorious villains: narcissism, manipulation, performative cruelty, engineered tribalism, and unchecked grievance. What was once safely held in the collective unconscious and expressed through art now plays out in the real world — unfiltered, uncontained, and unrelenting. The primal chaos we once safely indulged in during 43 minutes of petty drama and escapism now spills into our news feeds, our laws, and our wallets. There's no off switch. The conflicts on 'The Real Housewives' and the scheming on 'Survivor' now feel like the ones between Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd: cartoonish, low-stakes, and recycled. They're dull compared with our real 'reality.' Advertisement In lieu of reality TV, I've turned to British mystery series, like 'Midsomer Murders,' where the world may be grim, but order is restored and justice usually prevails. With each episode, the bad guys are caught and the community heals. It's the kind of resolution I no longer trust reality TV, or our real lives, to deliver.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
We hate each other but we can't afford to get divorced
If anyone knows of a three-bedroom flat in west London going for under £500 a month, I'd love to hear about it. Otherwise, I'm looking at a future of house-sharing with the husband I'm desperate to divorce. He's equally sick of me, but as it stands, we are trapped in our four-bed Victorian terrace together for the foreseeable. The situation is miserable for us, and I'm certain it's equally stressful for our daughters. I've been married to Sam, who works in the music industry, for 11 years. We've been separated for nearly eighteen months and, at 40 and 42, we're young enough to start again. But I can't imagine how I'd ever get a new relationship off the ground when my grumpy ex is cooking in the kitchen, or stomping about in the converted attic bedroom where he now sleeps. Our marriage was always quite volatile, but when I was younger it seemed exciting and we both enjoyed the passionate making-up after the rows. But once we had the girls, that kind of relationship began to seem childish and damaging for them to witness. I realised quite quickly though that Sam didn't want to change. He was wedded to the idea of himself as 'exciting' and was terrified of domesticity and 'settling down'. As a result, he still wanted to go out most nights while I was exhausted from juggling young children and working part-time, and didn't want to spend my 30s racketing around dodgy pubs watching rock bands. Things came to a head post-pandemic. We were already struggling financially, and it wasn't viable to pay for full-time childcare as I earned less than it would cost. Sam didn't work during lockdown at all and, after that, Brexit badly affected the touring music industry and his income dropped. He wouldn't even consider looking for another job, and we argued constantly about money and his immature attitude. In the end, we agreed we'd come to the end of the road and very sadly decided to separate. Sam was going to move out to a nearby flat that the girls (who are now aged eight and 10) could visit regularly, but that dream died when we looked at rental prices. With our mortgage, there's no spare money. If we divorce and sell the house, we'll lose thousands in legal fees, and we'll both be left struggling to afford two tiny flats. Plus, we have damp we've not been able to afford to fix so we'd have to drop the price. It's much better for the girls to stay in their current home rather than living in a studio flat over a kebab shop. Sadly, Sam's parents aren't around, my dad's long gone, and my mum lives in a small flat in Derbyshire, so family support isn't an option. I know the girls like having us both here, although at weekends we do things separately with them – I'll take them swimming, or he'll drive them to dance class. They know we aren't 'together', and that Dad sleeps in the spare room, though we try hard to be civil and pleasant to each other when they're around. But on the days when I'm home, I find his presence very oppressive – he'll leave his stuff all over the kitchen, as if he's marking his territory, or he'll be in his room listening to new bands at ear-splitting volume. I'm too tired of it all to row with him, but I long to have some space of my own. We generally cook separately – I'll eat with the girls, then he'll grab something before he goes out to a gig, or if he's in, he'll take his dinner to watch TV while I read or work on the laptop. Sometimes we'll watch something as a family, but as soon as the girls are in bed, it feels too weird to continue watching TV as if we're still a couple. Very rarely, we'll cook and eat together with the kids, but when we do, all the conversation is directed at them. As for friends, we've always had largely separate groups, so I'll have a friend over while he's out, and he'll meet his mates in the pub. We were never 'dinner party people' with 'couple friends', so we've not had that awkwardness at least. But the fact remains – I don't love Sam any more, and I hate living with him. Our situation is a constant reminder of everything that was wrong with our relationship. I think he's indifferent to me, and I feel like a single parent with an extra teenager thumping around. I'd like to try dating, but I can't imagine what men would think about my living arrangements, particularly as there's no end in sight. Friends have suggested leaving London and moving up North where property is cheaper, but my job (as a fashion buyer) is here, Sam's work is here, and I won't take the girls away from their dad – plus, they're happy at school, stable at home, and neither of us wants to subject them to a marital split, huge house move and change of school. For now, we're stuck muddling along, biting our tongues and trying to pretend our ridiculous set-up is manageable. I know it isn't feasible long term, but right now, I don't have a plan. Perhaps in a year or two, one will emerge. For all our sakes, I hope so. As told to Flic Everett *All names have been changed Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
Brown student and ‘Survivor' contestant Eva Erickson says RFK Jr. is wrong about autism: ‘He can kick rocks'
Erickson said, 'He can kick rocks. That is absolutely wrong on so many fronts, and I think my life is just one of the many, many examples of how wrong he is about Advertisement Erickson also delivered that message in an Instagram post that showed her graduating from college, playing hockey, competing on 'Survivor,' and dating. Get Rhode Island News Alerts Sign up to get breaking news and interesting stories from Rhode Island in your inbox each weekday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The number one biggest thing that I can say about autism is: There's not something wrong with you,' Erickson said on the podcast. 'There's so many misconceptions being thrown around these days about what autism is, what it means for a person in their life, and I am very proud to have gotten to go on national television and show what my life looks like as someone who's on the autism spectrum.' At one point in 'Survivor' Season 48, which came out earlier this year, Erickson becomes frustrated while practicing for a fire-starting competition. She explained that she hadn't succeeded in some other competitions and she ended up having the kind of 'episode' that can come with autism. Advertisement 'My head was spiraling,' Erickson said. 'I got overstimulated and I was out of control, and it was much worse than what they showed on the show.' She said she was 'screaming and scratching myself, stimming (repetitive behaviors) on the ground.' And she did not calm down right away when another contestant, Joe Hunter, came to help her. But Erickson said, 'I kind of wished that more had been shown so other people who have autism could see that that was my lowest point in the game and it was the hardest.' She said she had to 'battle through' that mindset, and she ended up beating Kamilla Karthigesu in the fire-starting challenge, propelling her into the final three. 'I'm very proud that I was able to get through that and then ultimately build the fire,' Erickson said. She said she views autism as her 'biggest strength and my greatest weakness.' One on hand, she can become overwhelmed at times. But, she said, 'It gives me so many great things in my life, like the aptitude for math.' Erickson is now pursuing a PhD in engineering and fluid and thermal science at Brown. She said her engineering background helped her compete in puzzle challenges on 'Survivor.' But she said she tried to hide a 'more intellectual side' during the competition, and would sometimes add numbers incorrectly on purpose. 'I wanted people to underestimate me because I do come in being a very physical threat,' Erickson said. 'I can't hide that. I can't hide my muscles.' A Minnesota native, she became the first and only woman to play on the men's ice hockey club team as an undergraduate at Georgia Tech, and she is now the captain of the men's club team at Brown. Advertisement Eva Erickson is captain of the men's club hockey team at Brown University. Handout Erickson only revealed her academic credentials at the final 'tribal council.' In a compelling final speech, she said, 'We've been saying this season that 48 is an unprecedented season,' and 'You have never seen a player like me.' The 'Survivor' competition took place on an island in Fiji, and Erickson said the hardest part of being on the island was the crabs. 'The crabs were attacking me in my sleep,' she said. 'Only me. Nobody else had problems with the crabs. Other people were freaked out by the bugs and stuff. But I'm fine with bugs. I worked with centipedes as an undergrad, but I would get these crabs biting me in my sleep and it was kind of spooky.' On the podcast, she said there are similarities between competing on 'Survivor' and pursuing a PhD — aside from a lack of sleep. Eva Erickson is pursuing a doctoral degree in engineering and fluid and thermal science at Brown University. Handout 'Every day on 'Survivor,' it's about you go do a challenge and there's the actual competitive challenges as well as the challenge of not sleeping, of not eating,' she said. 'With my PhD, it's the same thing. It's constantly challenges. I do an experiment, it doesn't work, something breaks — OK, what am I going to change?' Perseverance is the key in both situations, she said. Erickson has two years to go before she gets her PhD. She said she would like to work in the sports equipment industry after graduation. She has a passion for hockey and has been studying vibrations and physics. So, she said, 'It'd be really cool to work on vibration suppression in sports equipment.' Advertisement Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
