WHAT'S HOT?

Sandra Diaz-Twine Wins 'Survivor: Heroes Vs. Villains'

May 17, 2010 03:05:01 GMT

Never winning a single challenge and known for being a coat-tail rider, the 34-year-old beats the most aggressive player Russell Hantz in the final three.


Sandra Diaz-Twine Wins 'Survivor: Heroes Vs. Villains'
See larger image

In the battle of "Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains", a villain came out victorious. Sandra Diaz-Twine originally from "Survivor Pearl Islands" was declared the winner of the show's 20th season which brought back fallen contestants as well as previous winners to compete once again based on how they are known as.

Sandra, a 34-year-old bank teller from Fayetteville, N.C., beats strong contender Russell Hantz of "Samoa" and Parvati Shallow of "Cook Islands" and "Micronesia" in the final three although never once did she win a challenge. She subsequently is the first contestant to win "Survivor" twice. "It makes me the queen," Sandra said of the double victory.

The finale night began with Colby, the only remaining Heroes tribe member left standing, being voted off. The final challenge was to go through a dark maze collecting necklace while blindfolded. Russell won this immunity challenge and secured himself in the final three position. However the jury at the live finale preferred to give the win to Sandra.

Russell, who is named the second runner up after taking none of the nine votes, was not happy with the result. "If she can win the game twice, there is a flaw in the game," a disgruntled Russell said.

© AceShowbiz.com




Post Your Comments

posted by matakaoa on May 26, 2010
My vote was for Parvati even though Im a big fan of Russell, but he will never win this game. I would have liked to have seen at least one person vote for Russell,Then you would have seen real character in a person.
posted by Art on May 24, 2010
Russel is a loser , he will never win survivor cuz he don't undestand how this game is played , bostan Rob is the best survivor player ever!
posted by naja on May 19, 2010
'the jury is full of babies with no respect for the game' Have you ever considered that the jury may respect the game so much that they don't want to see a total asshole to win. i'm fine with playing the game, but russell makes it personal. in real life there is a good chance that he may really be an evil and vandictive baby (oh, and as if he doesn't act childish whenever he loses)
posted by p0werduck on May 19, 2010
anyone who thinks that sandra doesn't deserve to win clearly is incapible of grasping the point of survivor. it's a game and the idea is to make it to the end, no matter how you do it. i'm not saying parvati or russell would have been a bad winner, but sandra is a good one too. she played a smart game, layed low and let the big guns take eachother out and then capitalized on their mistakes. just because she wasn't as vocal a player a russell, she is still a better player. she won twice. you can't argue with that. its amazing she made it to the end in the first place
posted by survivor fan on May 18, 2010
sandra deserves the double win. and the "america gets to vote who the winner part"?, c'mon! it would be another game. and besides it wasn't america who got to play the game. the game is really tri-part: social, strategic, physical. and it takes all three to win the game. congratulations sandra.
posted by SANDRA SUCK. on May 18, 2010
SANDRA SUCK SERIOUSLY. I mean SERIOUSLY why the hell did she won? She absolutely did nothing and she also can win. I rather Parvati or Russell won. The jury was so dumb seriously. I just couldn't accept Sandra actually WON. WTF.
posted by never miss an episod on May 17, 2010
I've watched Survivor since the start. I own the seasons. I have to agree the Russell deserves the money. You're fairly simple minded to think that he is his character on T.V.. Are all football players just guys look to knock each other around in public? The show is edited to look a certain way. But with that said. The game is to win, and yes he isn't so nice, but you have to admit he plays very well. He puts himself on the chopping block. He lies, burns stuff, double crosses, and does everything the producers and creators want. Then some whinny jury complains that he did some thing wrong. FOLKS it a GAME as of the last time I checked is to play to win. Otherwise role over and let someone else do it. I give him a lot of credit for doing that. I think it was unfair for the jury to overlook that fact as they often do, and award the money based on a Moral issue of who seemed the nicest.
posted by tayto on May 17, 2010
To mike : she wasnt "doing nothing" are u kidding me ? how many times did she escape elimination, maybe she didnt do anything physical, but she fought mentally all the way not to get eliminated.
posted by tayto on May 17, 2010
to the people who think that russel should have win : are u kidding me ? ok the guy is a very good player but to win this game you also need the social part . he doesn't have any. he knew that at the end his fate would be in the hands of the people he screwed with, if i was him i would have played the same but i would have hidden my game better
posted by KCOLE on May 17, 2010
Am thrilled Russell lost. He is a little veasel. How on earth could anyone think he should win. Sandra may not have been the best but she is smart enough to win twice. We don't see everything that goes on so I'm sure the jury made the best decision.....
posted by l on May 17, 2010
he was right if america could vote he would win the game...because america thinks he deserves it which he did..he outplayed all of them..they were sore losers just trying to get revenge what happened to the jury that respected the game and knew it was a game...
posted by j on May 17, 2010
Russell should have won the jury sucked they gave it to someone that did absolutely nothing in the game. You'd think the jury would vote for the person that tried the hardest to get the million dollars but instead they give it to the one who tried the least.
posted by Mike on May 17, 2010
Absolutely disgusting. The spirit of the game has been contaminated again by bitter jurors. While I wasn't a big fan of any of them, it sucks to have invested an entire season watching great gameplay only to see a do-nothing rat-face win it all. Like, can I get get a million bucks for doing nothing too?
posted by Phiiiil on May 17, 2010
there is no criteria for who "should" win Survivor. the only criteria for winning is: surviving till the end and getting jury votes. the jury can vote however they want, therefore the game IS adapting to this. is SURVIVOR, and Sandra SURVIVED twice (doesn't matter how). by definition she is now the greatest player
posted by m on May 17, 2010
"w/ no respect for the game" Most of these players have played three times, I'm sure they have respect for the game. If anything, Russell has no respect for the game, he's the one who wants to turn it into a retarded popularity contest.
posted by Never Watching Again on May 17, 2010
Sandra did absolutley nothing the entire game. Shes lazy, doesnt help out at camp, sucks at challenges, and is arrogant as crap. I dont like Russell that much but I for sure would of a whole lot rather seen him win than this lazy do nothing.
posted by fan on May 16, 2010
Russell got screwed... again the jury is full of babies w/ no respect for the game
posted by k on May 16, 2010
bull

Screen Name
Please Enter   
Comment
 
 
 
RSS
FB
Twitter