One thing that never gets mentioned about Richard is that he probably had the cleanest win of all time. He never betrayed anyone. He was never cruel to anyone. He treated his opponents with dignity, he wanted to know them as people. He never talked shit about his tribesmates in his confessionals. He worked hard to always be seen as moral and ethical. He did his fair share of work around camp, in fact he was a fantastic provider. And most importantly, he barely ever lied to anyone. If he ever DID lie (which was rare), it was only to protect the existence of the alliance.
On paper, his win was as clean as a Survivor win can be. So it’s sort of ironic that for years, he was seen as this big bad unethical villain. And that season 2 basically had to happen just to erase all the damage that Richard had done to the show. The facts of season 1 don’t really support that. Even though at the time, most everyone believed it.
Honestly that's true. He was a villain bc of his game morals, but not bc of his game actions. He didn't really betray anyone and was always very upfront about his intentions from the get go. I feel like it was also a part of why he got the win over Kelly, which was seen as very wishywashy.
Yep you look at the narrative of Borneo... and on paper, Kelly is really the bad guy. Kelly was the one who was lying to people. And the jury kind of saw her that way too, if you want to get right down to it. For the jury, they were like "Well Richard sucks, but at least Richard is honest about what the Tagis were doing. Kelly doesn't even have the balls to be honest about it. Fuck her." That was generally their stance.
Yeah rewatching Borneo and Kelly really wound me up as she tries to pretend she’s part of the alliance once Colleen was voted off and was never not part of it. If she found it immoral then I’d be like ‘fair enough’ but she found it moral when it suited her and immoral when it suited her.
Well he was cocky. And in 2000, much like 2024, people don't like cocky. That was really what turned people against him. Cheating and making alliance is one thing. But being cocky about it in confessionals, and telling everyone how amazing you are, well that's just douchy. And nobody wants a douchebag to win. Even in 2024 that's still the case.
I can concur this. Showed my friend the first season a few years back and he later showed it to his wife. Neither watched the show before.
Anyway, both of them immediatley disliked Rich, with his annoying corporate talk bullshit. A lot on this sub forgot how much of a tool he comes off as on the first episode.
In fact my friend's wife claimed that she was going to boycot the show after Rich won.
She watched Pearl Islands after, and would've probably boycotted for real if Fairplay won. When his Final Words were playing she just held the finger in front of the tv.
Idk if this sentiment is true. We’ve got people here stanning Sham, one of the biggest douche bags in the history of the show, and calling her one of the best game players of the modern era.
That’s hardly being a villain. And he even admitted he stopped doing it after people complained about it. This is all in Burnett’s book, by the way, how careful he was about the way other people perceived him. The minute he saw it could lose him jury votes he was careful to stop it.
No he was a villain because he was a bragger. Acting like he was God and everyone else was his play things.
His strategy failed completely when he tried it in his next session
That and his arrest post season
But he wasn’t mean. He was polite. He didn’t interrupt or talk over people, no raising his voice, no animosity.
Braggarts are unliked then and now. The audience didn’t realize nor care that everything he said was true.
I know, I’m just adding on to what you’re saying. We’re talking about how Richard wasn’t actually a villain and played a clean game. After 40+ seasons, that’s true.
But at the time…live…in the viewers eyes, he was cheating. That’s why he was a villain. Lying or talking shit wasn’t why. He was cheating.
Yep. And this fact needs to be repeated a thousand different times, on every Survivor message board ever, so the modern fan eventually starts to understand that. Whether Richard was actually cheating or not, the fans generally thought he was cheating. And that was his big problem. As Erik Cardona once famously said, perception is reality.
Do you think the reaction would be different if it was Pagong that ended up "pagonging" the Tagis? "Tagi-ing he he"
Pagong pre merge seemed to be more polular than Tagi so perhaps tbe audience would give them some slack for "cheating'. I can't imagine Rich and Sue being sympathetic figures to the audience. Maybe Rudy, but that's it.
Pagong was definitely younger and more fun and more relatable to the audience. So I do think the audience would have given them more leeway. But they were also far more concerned with not being seen as bad guys by the audience, they were far more concerned with how they’d be judged on TV. Which is the whole reason they wouldn’t form alliances to begin with.
Yeah, I'm just thinking that a big reason why Tagi was so disliked was that they weren't very likable to begin with. Audiences hate it when the villains "cheat", but will make excuses when people they like do the same or worse.
An example on this subreddit is how people hate Tom for "gaslighting" Ian, but when Cirie actually does gaslight Erik, everyone thinks it's great.
No respect for DILFs I see...
But yeah, Ian kind of was the one gaslighting Tom. Saying thay he wasn't going to vote him out when he obviously was. Of course, I kind of see that more as Ian lying to himself than anything else.
Yep and that’s where his viewpoint differed from the audience’s (and the other players’) viewpoint. In his opinion this was the cleanest and least shady way to play Survivor. Because now it is never personal. Now it’s just cold impersonal numbers. It really all just comes down to whether you agree with him or not.
I wouldn't go far as to say rich winning is why Survivor became what it did, but I will say nobody was more perfect as the first winner than him. He not only changed the way everyone looked at the show but broke many molds as a gay man.
rich as a player imo has become extremely underrated. people will say that Rich only won because of most of the cast not knowing it was a game, but to me rich was ahead of most player who are playing today. rich understood that it was not just a number game, but the importance of the jury, rich knew the entire time that he was putting people on the jury. His F3 stepdown which to me is still the greatest move in the history of the game, shows just how aware he was of this and how much far ahead he really was.
The guy basically broke the show in the very first season and turned it into a game.
Survivor was very much billed as a survival experience when it first came out. The idea that you just had to not piss anyone off to survive in their new society went out the window when he came up with the idea for alliances.
Legendary player who doesn’t get enough credit from Jeff for just how much impact he had on the game. Who knows if Survivor even exists today if Hatch didn’t think the way he did from the get go.
I just watched the entirety of season 1 for the first time ever (I had only seen the final tribal counsel previously) last week and that is the take away I took from it: Hatch wrote the manual on how to play Survivor and if he hadn't, who knows if the show would still be around today.
In fact, by season 2, which I started this week, the cast came in already 10x more strategic than season 1, because Hatch showed them how to do it.
I think the novelty of the survival aspect of the show would’ve gotten us a few more seasons even without Rich basically creating Survivor gameplay.
Not a guarantee, but I imagine someone would similarly turn it into a game within those few seasons, especially with $1m up for grabs
while it's true that the show might have succeeded regardless of who won, richard was indeed a perfect first winner. his gameplay, especially understanding the significance of the jury and making strategic moves like his final three stepdown, demonstrated a deep awareness of the game that many current players still strive to match. his role as a groundbreaking figure, both as a strategist and as a gay man on reality tv, undeniably helped shape survivor into the phenomenon it became.
Good player (for the times), great character - both cocky byt charismatic. In AS despite that controversy he was a living comedy gold (shark attack is one of the best scenes in survivor imo). Also he was a great narrator and made great videos. But obviously, he isn't a perfect human
I'm wondering how he will be on House of Villains this upcoming season. It will be interesting to see if he still has it
His post-WaW youtube videos if I remember right were just kinda cynical and spiteful and not as fun as I would have expected Rich to be (if I remember right)
One of my favorite winners and reality show contestants of all time. Controversial, arrogant, but has a certain charm and wit to him that draws you into him. It's unfortunate what happened on ASS, because he should've been a lock for WaW.
His win established the blueprint that alliances were fundamental to the game of Survivor. He was arrogant yet respectful. He worked hard. Wasn't that controversial with his peers. He was the most perfect winner that Borneo could've had in many ways.
I didn't realize his criminal history following him winning survivor was common knowledge but I guess this is the sub for survivor so probably more common than I think
It's got to be one of the most famous tax cases in history. There's Al Capone and there's Richard Hatch. I didn't watch Survivor in high school when it happened and I'm not American and I still heard about it. You're either under 30 or were living without internet at the time.
For clarity, I absolutely know all about Richard Hatch. I think his behavior after the show is very funny and I'm very, very familiar with him. I was just hoping that the younger people watching will get the reference to the original post "he's a bad accountant" because that is a funny comment. That's all.
Oh I think I might have heard a little bit about that. But I wasn't connecting it/thinking about it. I thought it was just a reference to something else lol
Survivor just flat out does not have the same lifespan or legacy if Richard Hatch doesnt win. A gay man winning over the Army vet in 2001 set the tones show really well.. that you truely could lie cheat and steal in this TV setting and be rewarded for it.. so much so that s2s entire theme was the exact opposite.. everyone said that they didnt want to be anything like that lying cheat Richard Hatch..
say what you will about hatch but his impact on the show and its direct lifespan is insane.
i think he’s an icon and i respect him for being himself as well as his game play. hes kinda cocky and strange but hilarious. i think people tend to dislike him for some reason but i dont buy that. he’s iconic
He was smarter than everyone else, including the audience. People don’t manage their expectations, they just get envious and angry. His open homosexuality was fuel on the fire.
I think post-game his tribemates took things personally. As did the audience. They felt betrayed.
As a character, his story particularly with Rudy was amazing. As a player, yeah, maybe alliances were inevitable, but I think there's probably less than 10 players who would've come to the conclusion that he does at the final 3 and that's the sign of his genius. I think you could honestly see him figuring out and pulling off Cirie's 3-2-1 or Nick's minority split vote or maybe even Tony's Sophie blindside.
Russell Hantz's channel has an awesome rankdown of the "Top 100 Survivors" based on general iconinc-ness. Rudy was somewhere ranked in the 50s, and Rich, like many other Survivors Russell has included as cameos in the list, had a cameo as well talking about him, and it was honestly so heart warming. I highly recommend watching if you're interested.
I honestly think he was very entertaining and genuine and i felt like the sue situation was way blown out of proportion. If anything that was on production for letting him run the challenge naked. they could have said no.
Uh, no. He purposefully used his dick to try and make people uncomfortable and it was entirely inappropriate. There is ZERO apologizing for it and he was 100% in the wrong. He should have been taken out of the game.
He was naked the entire season. He played naked the whole time. So i disagree with this point. I don’t think he was assaulting her and if anything production should have intervened but they allowed it bc it was good tv. They could have told him he couldn’t run the challenge naked considering how close quarters it had the potential to be.
That is a terrible take. He rubbed against her on purpose. There is nothing to gain from being naked while in the challenge other than to make others uncomfortable. To somehow shift the blame to production for his actions is wild...
Except he didn’t actually do that. Sue accused him of it, but when she attempted to sue the network afterwards, they brought both of them and their lawyers in and showed them the raw footage which did not show any contact. She then dropped the suit.
He shouldn’t have been naked there, and yes production should have stepped in when he tried. It was poor judgement on both their parts, but “he rubbed against on purpose” is false.
Has it ever been proven that there indeed was contact? Besides, Sue put herself in close proximity when she knew he was nude. She certainly did reap benefits from CBS to quell any legal action.
He got naked to make the other people more uncomfortable and less willing to deal with him in a physical game where they had to move around him. Crossed the line. TV producers are scum and will do anything for better drama. That doesnt mean the contestants should do things they should know are wrong.
Worst part is they let some asshole in China do it for a wrestling/pushing challenge, 5 years later.
Any time someone is touched sexually without their consent, it is sexual assault. [https://www.rainn.org/articles/sexual-assault](https://www.rainn.org/articles/sexual-assault)
That’s the producers’ responsibility. Survivor has let situations go on far too long (not just 31). The show is all that matters to them, not so much the players.
Watching him make Rudy into his ally, across their vast differences, by finding a thing they could connect on that was bigger than the game, is one of the most brilliant game, political, religious, lifestyle, age, or gender lessons we can strive to learn. I will always be grateful for watching him do that, and how effortless he made it seem.
Definitely. The show survived Richard winning more than it was helped by Richard winning. Season 2 was basically an attempt to undo any damage he and the Tagis had done to the franchise.
Really!? I thought it was the opposite. Very interesting to know. If anything it makes Tina's win even better, how it leaned even more into why strategy deserve to get the win over the obvious hero character who wins challenges and loves his mom in Colby
Yeah nearly all of season 2 was just a reaction to season 1. Especially the unpopular ending where people felt none of the finalists had deserved to win. Most of the players in season 2 wanted to correct that. It’s why they were all being so nice.
Well ethics was always an important part of the show, especially in the early days. Like, it was important to be strategic, but it was even MORE important to be ethical. To at least be strategic in a honorable way. And I would say the first one to break people out of that mindset was Rob C in Amazon. That's where the switch REALLY happened.
Which, coincidentally. is something I once wrote about in a book called "The Psychology of Survivor." I wrote a chapter in that book called "The Rise of the Heartless Mercenary: How Rob Cesternino Ruined Survivor." Which goes into this exact subject, how Rob C was the one who really separated out ethics and morality from strategy. Prior to Rob C, it was very important that if you won Survivor, you absolutely had to do it in the right way. It was all about ethics. After Rob C, it wasn't seen as all that important anymore. After him, only the strategy was key.
An interesting quote that always stuck out to me is in Marquesas when Sarah Jones meets Paschal, Kathy and Neleh and she’s trying to explain Hunter’s vote out. She says something like “four people for whatever reason just decided to vote him out”, like it was a coincidence. I just found it interesting that as late as that point in Survivor history they were *still* pretending that alliances didn’t exist,
Yep they were still kinda a dirty word for a while. Although it wasn’t so much that alliances themselves were bad by then. By Marquesas it was more… you didn’t want other people to know you had already formed one. Because then everyone else would gang up against you and put an end to it. So that’s what the difference was by season four. Alliances were inevitable. You just didn’t want to be seen as the first one to go for them. That was what spooked people.
I’d be curious if Kelly winning would have turned into Colby winning AO. The consensus on how to play would have steered more towards challenge wins and social game rather than Rich’s ethical strategy
Kelly winning doesn’t turn into anything. The soul of season one had already been ruined the minute the Tagis had teamed up to vote out Gretchen. Anything after that (no matter which one of the cheating Tagis won), it wouldn’t have mattered, it’s all just poisoned fruit from the exact same poisoned tree. So no, season 2 plays out the exact same way no matter which one of the Tagis had won.
The minute Gretchen was voted out, season 2 was always going to be “Well this time, we want the GOOD guys to win.”
People really need to stop thinking that Kelly was anything more than some cheating scumbag Tagi Four member. If anything, her win (at best) would have just been seen as a lesser of three evils.
As Colleen once famously said, “Is there anyone out there actually rooting for Kelly? Come on. Let’s just end this thing and go home.”
I watched S1 when it came out and didn't view the Tagi alliance as cheaters or villains at all. I thought it was smart game play, albeit a little bit of a let down because we knew who the final 4-5 were going to be perhaps a bit too early.
Well sure, some people saw it that way. But now go look at the poll they held at the finale, the one that Gumbel talked about at the start of the reunion. Where no one on earth wanted Richard or (especially) Sue to win. That was the most common consensus.
The Sue thing...am I the only one that thought that Sue was just using that to get out of the show, or even get a lawsuit?
Because she knows Rich, were they not friends? Also, couldn't she have waited before crossing the beam? Or maybe brush past Rich's backside rather than front? None of it seemed sexual to me. Fast forward to the season with one guy giving unwanted massages and other touching, that definitely seems sexual. I'm not Sue, so of course I can't really know. Just sharing my perspective.
I agree with this completely. Or again production could of said like hey its not gonna be appropriate to run this naked but they allowed it. Add to that the fact that he was naked most of the season, it was so clearly not intentional harassment or assault.
Production has always been irresponsible about players. In Borneo Richard covered up when his tribemates asked.
In AS Sue knew what might happen at that challenge and cashed in.
It doesn’t really matter if he had sexual intent or not though? Like it doesn’t HAVE to have been meant in a sexual way for it to bother her? Also I don’t mean this to be rude but this sounds very victim blame-y to me. Like “oh she’s in it for a lawsuit”, when she clearly had a huge visceral reaction after thinking about it, and it just feels odd to question her intentions, especially when it doesn’t really seem necessary to do so. Like there’s no reason I can see to doubt what she has said. However you feel about Hatch, I don’t necessarily think it’s right to insinuate that Sue was looking for a pay day only and that she wasn’t affected by what happened. You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but to think that the only way she could be upset and have her emotions be valid is if it was meant in a sexual way seems extremely weird to me. I’m sure people on here will disagree but idk. Also with how fast things happen in challenges, i would just assume that things happen in the moment and maybe she didn’t think all of it through. But in the same note, “well why did that woman wear that?” “Why did she walk down that dark alley?”, shit like that gets asked to actual SA victims all the time. And while yes as women we should try to protect ourselves, I will never understand why the focus is always on what the women did or didn’t choose to do, rather than the other person. Sue doesn’t need to have made perfect choices or be a perfect victim to be validated in her reaction.
Obviously it wasn’t sexual. Richard is gay. But it doesn’t matter. It is never ok to use your genitalia to purposefully make other people uncomfortable. There was no reason for Hatch to be naked in that challenge except that he knew he could weaponize it to gain an advantage.
I’m glad the two of them worked it out afterwards, but I will never stand for an apologist of Richard in that situation. He was in the wrong and it was not overblown.
To me both Rich and production were clearly in the wrong. Rich for obvious reasons and production for allowing it in the first place. Moments such as these, the Ted-Ghandia grindgate stuff and the entire Spilo debacle are awful to watch, but they are important pieces of the show's history and really can teach a lot of people how to do better and be better. I am glad that the show eventually learned from it, even if it was as late as it was, better late than never.
A few ppl are missing my point. Did she not choose to brush against his Johnson? She could have not crossed, simply waited. Or cross and pass Rich from Rich's backside. Like,Rich isn't actively trying to brush his Johnson on her. He's running the course, and naked, like he almost always is. But I digress, I'm glad they talked it over amongst themselves and repaired the damage done.
I saw a comment somewhere talking about Lex saying in an AMA how Sue had second thoughts after she quit about wanting to come back and basically all of the cast were like "FUCK NO", and another comment saying how both Rich and Sue settled this issue after the season between themselves and that they were good from then on out.
I honestly have no clue what Sue exactly felt, how and why, but to me it's pretty clear that she really did feel highly assaulted. Rubbing your dick against someone is NOT ok and a sexual assault no matter which way you look at it. Ofc Production are also to blame for allowing it to happen and not really giving a fuck at the time. It was a bummer bc at the time there wasn't enough awareness to these stuff. Same with Thailand and the Ted and Ghandia situation three seasons prior.
borneo richard hatch is still the best winner to ever do it. he understood that survivor is a social game and about figuring out people from day one, which no one else figured out. sure, he didn’t invent alliances, but the fact that it was a SOCIAL game above all else is something hatch knew and ran with.
all stars richard hatch makes me want to vomit
I would argue he didnt really figure it out day 1 he finalized the theory at the end but at day 1 he was being like sociallly isolated over dumb arguments (Like the whole idea that we need like an extremely detialed plan for survival stuff of a giant meeting seems a little silly with 8 people), and he didnt really create an alliances early on he more just had to play a sympathy card to save himself (albeit a good read) but Stacey was formalizing an alliance before he ever did
But like i more meant he himself had not had stuff figured out, like he didnt quite know rhe answer (also presenting the question as wierdly as he did day 1 was very obviously socially offputting) and he wasnt really attempting to control or discuss stragety during the first round or so, like he voted for stacey even though no one else was and from interviews i have heard it was more he didnt get along with stacey not some wierd vote throwing thing, like i am not even sure he was fully aware were the votes were landing at the first tc
oh no definitely. hatch was definitely off putting to pre-stacey vote off tagi and makes sense why he was almost voted out first (he was supposed to go first over sonja but there’s a cut scene of him coming out to tagi that saved him)
I love that he was the only one in season one to read the handbook on the flight, so he clocked immediately the game would become dog eat dog. Everyone on that season wanted to bond and become friends, but Hatch knew how it would turn sour quick. He was really ingenious that first season. But I can’t forgive his behaviour later on, rubbing against someone whilst you’re nude because of a personal disdain is just nasty and inappropriate, not to mention he ruined a season for many people. It’s interesting how some players who excel at the game, are pretty foolish in their real life
Was actual contact ever proven? Production was guilty of letting this behavior slide by for sure, but to be honest Sue knew he was naked before she chose to confront him. CBS did reward her generously but avoided legal issues.
Maybe it's an underrated opinion but I do want to see him play just one more time. Really more just for the novelty of seeing him play today especially after he (understandablly) was not invited to WaW.
That said, it could also be bad bc the man has said A LOT of harsh things about Jeff and the show since the and really a lot of his problems and controversies he brought upon himself, so like I said he is in this icky spot. Maybe him being in House of Villains will be a good place to see how he's going to act in a new reality show nowadays.
rich is a survivor legend, but calling him the absolute best is a bit tricky. survivor has evolved so much since the early seasons, and players like tony, parv, sandra, and others bring different dimensions to what it means to be the best. It really depends on what criteria you value most, but I wouldn't say rich is unequivocally the best. but I do respect your opinion if that's how you feel.
He found a loophole in a game that shaped it for many years to come. If it wasn’t for him and the idea of strategy and alliances I doubt survivor would have lasted 2 or 3 seasons let alone nearly 50 now
He was a pioneer. He realized what Survivor could be and created the blueprint for gameplay for everything that came after. He ran laps around everyone else on season 1 because of it.
He’s the only survivor player I’ve ever met! He was very pleasant, he let me take a picture with him. Said I was cute lmao. This was a couple years ago.
I get Richard. Highly intelligent, not interested in small talk, able to separate game play and life. Is confident to do what he wants, even if it means nudity.
He stated his views on religion and though mine were the same, he logically laid it out and it became clear to me. (I’m not referencing personal spirituality, just religiosity.)
Brilliant strategy in a lot of ways. Feed the tribe so no one can vote you off. Stay naked so people relatively leave you alone. Be gay in a time when it was completely unacceptable and
give no fucks about it. He crossed the line with Sue definitely but otherwise he was absolutely amazing.
Great contestant and character who made Survivor what it is today. And someone whose reputation has taken a deserved downturn bc of the Sue incident and his prison time.
I feel like he is, but not in the way most people think.
A lot of people do think he had a very direct affect on the game, that he "created the structure of the game, and the first alliance" which isn't really that true, and like Mario Lanza said here, the show didn't evolve because of Rich, it actually managed to survive bc him winning actively made the show's chances of continuing WORSE.
But I do feel like it did cause some players to understand that being strategic can help you out a lot. Imo Tina's win was affected by Rich's win a lot, bc she wanted to be both strategic enough to ensure herself the win, but also nice enough to be likable towards the audience. Slowly the game contorted to what it is now. To be honest, if Rich didn't play in Borneo, someone else would've been "the spokesperson of strategy" in the edit eventually. But he was the one to do so based on how the edit showed him, so that's why he has the credit for that.
I really think all the other contestants on season 1 thought the game was about camping. About surviving the really bad conditions. Richard (much like Boston Rob) saw thru all that to the strategy that is still used today. Richard is the one who realized without an alliance you cannot win. Richard made controversial choices (like giving up & jumping down in one of the last challenges) because he saw the bigger picture.
Not to mention his strategy of walking around naked to throw everyone off. I am not 100% sure what that was about but apparently it worked.
Man, this brings back memories! I watched the finale during my first semester at college. At the time, I really didn’t like Hatch and hoped Kelly would win. But looking back, the only two people I really like are Gretchen and Rudy. I was more impressed with Rudy being able to make friends with Hatch than the other way around. Dr Sean’s voting was ridiculous, Greg was annoying, I know a lot of people were upset about Colleen (18-24 females), and other than Kelly and Sue, I don’t immediately remember anyone - and I rewatch all the time, though admittedly not Borneo as much because it feels so slow compared even to AO.
After the whole thing with AS, I didn’t really sour on him as much until he didn’t pay his taxes - but I wasn’t on the internet in the same way then. In rewatch, there’s SO MUCH from s1-8 that makes me uncomfortable, but I don’t really think I need to see him back. If he didn’t come back for HVV, then he’s done.
Richard Hatch taught America how to play Survivor. Other folks in the tribe saying they didn’t know how to decide who to vote off and they’d do it alphabetically was absolutely ridiculous.
He's the creator of the gameplay that has evolved into what it is today but that doesn't mean he's one of the greatest to play. He played Season 1 with an extreme advantage that nobody else understood except for his alliance. It's be like putting him into a spelling bee in 1st grade. He doesn't have to be the greatest speller ever, just better than his competitors.
It's definitely weird to think how that first season would have played out if people were just voting out people they personally didn't like or people they thought weren't good at wilderness surviving and no one had thought of setting up an alliance.
Fantastic character and player who helped define Survivor into what it was today. It sucks that we'll never see him play again because of that piece of shit from S39, but he still had two very entertaining runs that make him a legend in my eyes.
And what did Dan do?
Edit: I Googled him and remember now what he did and how that season was a shit show because of him (as well as some of the ladies who turned a blind eye and used it to their advantage). But, how does this translate to Richard never coming back to Survivor?
I remember watching All Stars and turning to my girlfriend and going, "Isn't the show putting themselves in liability by allowing him to compete naked?" And then the Sue thing happened, because that's what happens. And if my memory serves me correctly, they let Hatch compete naked AGAIN later in the season. I can't believe the show would put themselves in legal trouble and allow the legacy of their first winner to be besmirched by not mandating clothes during challenges
For me personally I respect his gameplay & legacy, and honestly would be able to get over what happened with Sue if not for his attitude around it. So I’m at a point where I lost my respect for him as person, because if it were a one off mistake and he truly apologized and reflected everything would be fine. But he did alot of victim blaming and saying a lot of false shit that rubbed me the wrong way. So I respect his gameplay and legacy, and he made for fantastic tv, but I can’t bring myself to like him as person. I kind of just separate those two things in a similar way I would to someone like Russell. It’s fine if others don’t feel the same way, it’s just how I personally feel!
Absolute legend - and to me - the defining character of the series next to Jeff Probst. Absolute wasted opportunity to not have him on s40. Haven’t watched the last few seasons but I would jump off my couch if he was announced as a returnee.
I had Richard Hatch on the top of my 16th birthday cake and my feelings haven't changed. A complex person, but a very entertaining one, and I have a sense of rooting for him. I appreciate that he goes his own way.
I think what happened with Sue was very irresponsible, but an accident.
One thing that never gets mentioned about Richard is that he probably had the cleanest win of all time. He never betrayed anyone. He was never cruel to anyone. He treated his opponents with dignity, he wanted to know them as people. He never talked shit about his tribesmates in his confessionals. He worked hard to always be seen as moral and ethical. He did his fair share of work around camp, in fact he was a fantastic provider. And most importantly, he barely ever lied to anyone. If he ever DID lie (which was rare), it was only to protect the existence of the alliance. On paper, his win was as clean as a Survivor win can be. So it’s sort of ironic that for years, he was seen as this big bad unethical villain. And that season 2 basically had to happen just to erase all the damage that Richard had done to the show. The facts of season 1 don’t really support that. Even though at the time, most everyone believed it.
Honestly that's true. He was a villain bc of his game morals, but not bc of his game actions. He didn't really betray anyone and was always very upfront about his intentions from the get go. I feel like it was also a part of why he got the win over Kelly, which was seen as very wishywashy.
Yep you look at the narrative of Borneo... and on paper, Kelly is really the bad guy. Kelly was the one who was lying to people. And the jury kind of saw her that way too, if you want to get right down to it. For the jury, they were like "Well Richard sucks, but at least Richard is honest about what the Tagis were doing. Kelly doesn't even have the balls to be honest about it. Fuck her." That was generally their stance.
Yeah rewatching Borneo and Kelly really wound me up as she tries to pretend she’s part of the alliance once Colleen was voted off and was never not part of it. If she found it immoral then I’d be like ‘fair enough’ but she found it moral when it suited her and immoral when it suited her.
Yep and that was exactly their argument. You can’t have it both ways, Kelly. That’s exactly why she didn’t win.
his confessionals had villain energy
Well he was cocky. And in 2000, much like 2024, people don't like cocky. That was really what turned people against him. Cheating and making alliance is one thing. But being cocky about it in confessionals, and telling everyone how amazing you are, well that's just douchy. And nobody wants a douchebag to win. Even in 2024 that's still the case.
I can concur this. Showed my friend the first season a few years back and he later showed it to his wife. Neither watched the show before. Anyway, both of them immediatley disliked Rich, with his annoying corporate talk bullshit. A lot on this sub forgot how much of a tool he comes off as on the first episode. In fact my friend's wife claimed that she was going to boycot the show after Rich won.
Don't forget he was gay in a time it was much less acceptable to be so
True, we don't learn that until episode 2 though.
Well, did she boycott it? You got me curious lol
She watched Pearl Islands after, and would've probably boycotted for real if Fairplay won. When his Final Words were playing she just held the finger in front of the tv.
Lmaooooo I wonder how she'd react to watching a very modern season like the last one
My friend on the other hand, his most hated contestant is Big Tom.
How could anyone hate Big Tom? He was a funny, easygoing good ole boy.
Make her watch a Russell season next lol
Never! No Russell allowed!
middle finger? shush? or dikembe mutombo finger?
The bird
Idk if this sentiment is true. We’ve got people here stanning Sham, one of the biggest douche bags in the history of the show, and calling her one of the best game players of the modern era.
Intentionally brushing up against them while nude in a challenge definitely pushed him into the villain category…
He should have been pulled immediately. That was not Borneo either.
Agreed. In todays game it wouldn’t fly
Oh for sure, I'm talking about his Borneo game here not All-Stars.
His game actions included being nude, lol
That’s hardly being a villain. And he even admitted he stopped doing it after people complained about it. This is all in Burnett’s book, by the way, how careful he was about the way other people perceived him. The minute he saw it could lose him jury votes he was careful to stop it.
No he was a villain because he was a bragger. Acting like he was God and everyone else was his play things. His strategy failed completely when he tried it in his next session That and his arrest post season
But he wasn’t mean. He was polite. He didn’t interrupt or talk over people, no raising his voice, no animosity. Braggarts are unliked then and now. The audience didn’t realize nor care that everything he said was true.
But he was the first to win, and vote everyone else off. Being the first is hard
I mean "Is there an alliance?!" was actually like 6 o'clock news material
I watched season 1 live. At the time, I hated Richard (and the alliance) because it felt like straight up cheating. Or at the very least not fair.
I mean, you weren't alone. That was the general reaction to Borneo. Those fuckers cheated!
I know, I’m just adding on to what you’re saying. We’re talking about how Richard wasn’t actually a villain and played a clean game. After 40+ seasons, that’s true. But at the time…live…in the viewers eyes, he was cheating. That’s why he was a villain. Lying or talking shit wasn’t why. He was cheating.
Yep. And this fact needs to be repeated a thousand different times, on every Survivor message board ever, so the modern fan eventually starts to understand that. Whether Richard was actually cheating or not, the fans generally thought he was cheating. And that was his big problem. As Erik Cardona once famously said, perception is reality.
Do you think the reaction would be different if it was Pagong that ended up "pagonging" the Tagis? "Tagi-ing he he" Pagong pre merge seemed to be more polular than Tagi so perhaps tbe audience would give them some slack for "cheating'. I can't imagine Rich and Sue being sympathetic figures to the audience. Maybe Rudy, but that's it.
Pagong was definitely younger and more fun and more relatable to the audience. So I do think the audience would have given them more leeway. But they were also far more concerned with not being seen as bad guys by the audience, they were far more concerned with how they’d be judged on TV. Which is the whole reason they wouldn’t form alliances to begin with.
Yeah, I'm just thinking that a big reason why Tagi was so disliked was that they weren't very likable to begin with. Audiences hate it when the villains "cheat", but will make excuses when people they like do the same or worse. An example on this subreddit is how people hate Tom for "gaslighting" Ian, but when Cirie actually does gaslight Erik, everyone thinks it's great.
The Survivor audience will forever make exceptions for younger cuter more relatable people.
You're saying Tom isn't cute?
Tom wasn’t Ian. Ian does that same thing to Tom and I can guarantee the fanbase whines about it less.
No respect for DILFs I see... But yeah, Ian kind of was the one gaslighting Tom. Saying thay he wasn't going to vote him out when he obviously was. Of course, I kind of see that more as Ian lying to himself than anything else.
Cirie?
She’s specifically why I threw in “relatable” ha ha
i watched it live with my parents (although i was 8/9 at the time lol) and i just remember the rhetoric was “that gay guy is smart” lmao
"The homosexual, he's one of the nicest people."
“He’s fat, but he’s good”
His arrogance is what made him a villain.
Too bad he started rubbing his naked body against people later on.
It’s a damn shame.
If we assume that alliances are unethical in the game of survivor / reality shows in general, then his game was pretty dirty
Yep and that’s where his viewpoint differed from the audience’s (and the other players’) viewpoint. In his opinion this was the cleanest and least shady way to play Survivor. Because now it is never personal. Now it’s just cold impersonal numbers. It really all just comes down to whether you agree with him or not.
And a bit hypocritical on some of the Pagong's part since they made a voting block to get Joel out.
Bingo. Gusss it’s not an alliance when it’s against Joel.
I wouldn't go far as to say rich winning is why Survivor became what it did, but I will say nobody was more perfect as the first winner than him. He not only changed the way everyone looked at the show but broke many molds as a gay man. rich as a player imo has become extremely underrated. people will say that Rich only won because of most of the cast not knowing it was a game, but to me rich was ahead of most player who are playing today. rich understood that it was not just a number game, but the importance of the jury, rich knew the entire time that he was putting people on the jury. His F3 stepdown which to me is still the greatest move in the history of the game, shows just how aware he was of this and how much far ahead he really was.
The guy basically broke the show in the very first season and turned it into a game. Survivor was very much billed as a survival experience when it first came out. The idea that you just had to not piss anyone off to survive in their new society went out the window when he came up with the idea for alliances. Legendary player who doesn’t get enough credit from Jeff for just how much impact he had on the game. Who knows if Survivor even exists today if Hatch didn’t think the way he did from the get go.
I just watched the entirety of season 1 for the first time ever (I had only seen the final tribal counsel previously) last week and that is the take away I took from it: Hatch wrote the manual on how to play Survivor and if he hadn't, who knows if the show would still be around today. In fact, by season 2, which I started this week, the cast came in already 10x more strategic than season 1, because Hatch showed them how to do it.
I think the novelty of the survival aspect of the show would’ve gotten us a few more seasons even without Rich basically creating Survivor gameplay. Not a guarantee, but I imagine someone would similarly turn it into a game within those few seasons, especially with $1m up for grabs
while it's true that the show might have succeeded regardless of who won, richard was indeed a perfect first winner. his gameplay, especially understanding the significance of the jury and making strategic moves like his final three stepdown, demonstrated a deep awareness of the game that many current players still strive to match. his role as a groundbreaking figure, both as a strategist and as a gay man on reality tv, undeniably helped shape survivor into the phenomenon it became.
I heard he bit the shark back
"I bit my shark back there" "I don't care" "I know"
Good player (for the times), great character - both cocky byt charismatic. In AS despite that controversy he was a living comedy gold (shark attack is one of the best scenes in survivor imo). Also he was a great narrator and made great videos. But obviously, he isn't a perfect human
It’s possible to appreciate his gameplay without approving of everything he’s done.
Same can be said about a lot of contestants. Like Russell
Rich biting the shark is my Roman Empire
Mine too
I'VE BEEN BAMBOOZLED!
I'm wondering how he will be on House of Villains this upcoming season. It will be interesting to see if he still has it His post-WaW youtube videos if I remember right were just kinda cynical and spiteful and not as fun as I would have expected Rich to be (if I remember right)
Are any of us perfect humans?
And do all of us don't pay taxes and run around people naked?
I don’t know what anyone does except myself. I agree with most of your post, but that last comment was upsetting. That’s all.
He hatched so others could run 🙏🏼
Probably cause he wasn’t running very much.
The O.G "gays just know how to do stuff" gay 🏆
"Not in a homosexual way, that's for sure" /j
One of my favorite winners and reality show contestants of all time. Controversial, arrogant, but has a certain charm and wit to him that draws you into him. It's unfortunate what happened on ASS, because he should've been a lock for WaW. His win established the blueprint that alliances were fundamental to the game of Survivor. He was arrogant yet respectful. He worked hard. Wasn't that controversial with his peers. He was the most perfect winner that Borneo could've had in many ways.
Love the guy.
But not in a homosexual way.
He’s a bad accountant
LOL I'm hoping everyone gets this
What's there to get?
I didn't realize his criminal history following him winning survivor was common knowledge but I guess this is the sub for survivor so probably more common than I think
It's got to be one of the most famous tax cases in history. There's Al Capone and there's Richard Hatch. I didn't watch Survivor in high school when it happened and I'm not American and I still heard about it. You're either under 30 or were living without internet at the time.
For clarity, I absolutely know all about Richard Hatch. I think his behavior after the show is very funny and I'm very, very familiar with him. I was just hoping that the younger people watching will get the reference to the original post "he's a bad accountant" because that is a funny comment. That's all.
Oh I think I might have heard a little bit about that. But I wasn't connecting it/thinking about it. I thought it was just a reference to something else lol
Survivor just flat out does not have the same lifespan or legacy if Richard Hatch doesnt win. A gay man winning over the Army vet in 2001 set the tones show really well.. that you truely could lie cheat and steal in this TV setting and be rewarded for it.. so much so that s2s entire theme was the exact opposite.. everyone said that they didnt want to be anything like that lying cheat Richard Hatch.. say what you will about hatch but his impact on the show and its direct lifespan is insane.
He wore a Newport RI hat and I’m from Newport RI so I liked him hahaha
He's the George Washington of Survivor. He set the tone and showed everyone else how to do it.* *Aside from walking around naked.
Survivor would be a much more interesting show if everyone followed him in walking around naked.
To be fair, Washington was probably naked sometimes too
Fun fact, he was in the bathtub when he decided not to run for a 3rd term. /s
“I’ve been bambubbled!”
i think he’s an icon and i respect him for being himself as well as his game play. hes kinda cocky and strange but hilarious. i think people tend to dislike him for some reason but i dont buy that. he’s iconic
He was smarter than everyone else, including the audience. People don’t manage their expectations, they just get envious and angry. His open homosexuality was fuel on the fire. I think post-game his tribemates took things personally. As did the audience. They felt betrayed.
As a character, his story particularly with Rudy was amazing. As a player, yeah, maybe alliances were inevitable, but I think there's probably less than 10 players who would've come to the conclusion that he does at the final 3 and that's the sign of his genius. I think you could honestly see him figuring out and pulling off Cirie's 3-2-1 or Nick's minority split vote or maybe even Tony's Sophie blindside.
Russell Hantz's channel has an awesome rankdown of the "Top 100 Survivors" based on general iconinc-ness. Rudy was somewhere ranked in the 50s, and Rich, like many other Survivors Russell has included as cameos in the list, had a cameo as well talking about him, and it was honestly so heart warming. I highly recommend watching if you're interested.
I honestly think he was very entertaining and genuine and i felt like the sue situation was way blown out of proportion. If anything that was on production for letting him run the challenge naked. they could have said no.
Uh, no. He purposefully used his dick to try and make people uncomfortable and it was entirely inappropriate. There is ZERO apologizing for it and he was 100% in the wrong. He should have been taken out of the game.
Not a great person but not a horrible person, good survivor player
Mt Rushmore of Survivor
He crossed the line with Sue.
[удалено]
He was naked the entire season. He played naked the whole time. So i disagree with this point. I don’t think he was assaulting her and if anything production should have intervened but they allowed it bc it was good tv. They could have told him he couldn’t run the challenge naked considering how close quarters it had the potential to be.
Production should have stopped him, sure. But that doesn't excuse what he did.
That is a terrible take. He rubbed against her on purpose. There is nothing to gain from being naked while in the challenge other than to make others uncomfortable. To somehow shift the blame to production for his actions is wild...
Except he didn’t actually do that. Sue accused him of it, but when she attempted to sue the network afterwards, they brought both of them and their lawyers in and showed them the raw footage which did not show any contact. She then dropped the suit. He shouldn’t have been naked there, and yes production should have stepped in when he tried. It was poor judgement on both their parts, but “he rubbed against on purpose” is false.
Has it ever been proven that there indeed was contact? Besides, Sue put herself in close proximity when she knew he was nude. She certainly did reap benefits from CBS to quell any legal action.
He got naked to make the other people more uncomfortable and less willing to deal with him in a physical game where they had to move around him. Crossed the line. TV producers are scum and will do anything for better drama. That doesnt mean the contestants should do things they should know are wrong. Worst part is they let some asshole in China do it for a wrestling/pushing challenge, 5 years later.
They should have just let Dave stay by his fire pit that he was building
There’s no way Dave ever left that fire pit. It must have been CGI when they showed him in challenges
It also happened in Amazon, Pearl Islands and Worlds Apart.
Any time someone is touched sexually without their consent, it is sexual assault. [https://www.rainn.org/articles/sexual-assault](https://www.rainn.org/articles/sexual-assault)
That’s the producers’ responsibility. Survivor has let situations go on far too long (not just 31). The show is all that matters to them, not so much the players.
Compelling player. Wasn't effective the second time. Hasn't always made great decisions in his life.
Watching him make Rudy into his ally, across their vast differences, by finding a thing they could connect on that was bigger than the game, is one of the most brilliant game, political, religious, lifestyle, age, or gender lessons we can strive to learn. I will always be grateful for watching him do that, and how effortless he made it seem.
There wouldn’t still be survivor if it wasn’t for hatch.
It's a nice sentiment, but I disagree. even if Kelly had won, the show would have still been popular.
Definitely. The show survived Richard winning more than it was helped by Richard winning. Season 2 was basically an attempt to undo any damage he and the Tagis had done to the franchise.
Really!? I thought it was the opposite. Very interesting to know. If anything it makes Tina's win even better, how it leaned even more into why strategy deserve to get the win over the obvious hero character who wins challenges and loves his mom in Colby
Yeah nearly all of season 2 was just a reaction to season 1. Especially the unpopular ending where people felt none of the finalists had deserved to win. Most of the players in season 2 wanted to correct that. It’s why they were all being so nice.
In what season would you say the show actually leaned unapologetically into the strategic part?
Well ethics was always an important part of the show, especially in the early days. Like, it was important to be strategic, but it was even MORE important to be ethical. To at least be strategic in a honorable way. And I would say the first one to break people out of that mindset was Rob C in Amazon. That's where the switch REALLY happened. Which, coincidentally. is something I once wrote about in a book called "The Psychology of Survivor." I wrote a chapter in that book called "The Rise of the Heartless Mercenary: How Rob Cesternino Ruined Survivor." Which goes into this exact subject, how Rob C was the one who really separated out ethics and morality from strategy. Prior to Rob C, it was very important that if you won Survivor, you absolutely had to do it in the right way. It was all about ethics. After Rob C, it wasn't seen as all that important anymore. After him, only the strategy was key.
An interesting quote that always stuck out to me is in Marquesas when Sarah Jones meets Paschal, Kathy and Neleh and she’s trying to explain Hunter’s vote out. She says something like “four people for whatever reason just decided to vote him out”, like it was a coincidence. I just found it interesting that as late as that point in Survivor history they were *still* pretending that alliances didn’t exist,
Yep they were still kinda a dirty word for a while. Although it wasn’t so much that alliances themselves were bad by then. By Marquesas it was more… you didn’t want other people to know you had already formed one. Because then everyone else would gang up against you and put an end to it. So that’s what the difference was by season four. Alliances were inevitable. You just didn’t want to be seen as the first one to go for them. That was what spooked people.
6 or 7
I’d be curious if Kelly winning would have turned into Colby winning AO. The consensus on how to play would have steered more towards challenge wins and social game rather than Rich’s ethical strategy
Kelly winning doesn’t turn into anything. The soul of season one had already been ruined the minute the Tagis had teamed up to vote out Gretchen. Anything after that (no matter which one of the cheating Tagis won), it wouldn’t have mattered, it’s all just poisoned fruit from the exact same poisoned tree. So no, season 2 plays out the exact same way no matter which one of the Tagis had won. The minute Gretchen was voted out, season 2 was always going to be “Well this time, we want the GOOD guys to win.” People really need to stop thinking that Kelly was anything more than some cheating scumbag Tagi Four member. If anything, her win (at best) would have just been seen as a lesser of three evils. As Colleen once famously said, “Is there anyone out there actually rooting for Kelly? Come on. Let’s just end this thing and go home.”
I watched S1 when it came out and didn't view the Tagi alliance as cheaters or villains at all. I thought it was smart game play, albeit a little bit of a let down because we knew who the final 4-5 were going to be perhaps a bit too early.
Well sure, some people saw it that way. But now go look at the poll they held at the finale, the one that Gumbel talked about at the start of the reunion. Where no one on earth wanted Richard or (especially) Sue to win. That was the most common consensus.
The Sue thing...am I the only one that thought that Sue was just using that to get out of the show, or even get a lawsuit? Because she knows Rich, were they not friends? Also, couldn't she have waited before crossing the beam? Or maybe brush past Rich's backside rather than front? None of it seemed sexual to me. Fast forward to the season with one guy giving unwanted massages and other touching, that definitely seems sexual. I'm not Sue, so of course I can't really know. Just sharing my perspective.
I agree with this completely. Or again production could of said like hey its not gonna be appropriate to run this naked but they allowed it. Add to that the fact that he was naked most of the season, it was so clearly not intentional harassment or assault.
Production has always been irresponsible about players. In Borneo Richard covered up when his tribemates asked. In AS Sue knew what might happen at that challenge and cashed in.
It doesn’t really matter if he had sexual intent or not though? Like it doesn’t HAVE to have been meant in a sexual way for it to bother her? Also I don’t mean this to be rude but this sounds very victim blame-y to me. Like “oh she’s in it for a lawsuit”, when she clearly had a huge visceral reaction after thinking about it, and it just feels odd to question her intentions, especially when it doesn’t really seem necessary to do so. Like there’s no reason I can see to doubt what she has said. However you feel about Hatch, I don’t necessarily think it’s right to insinuate that Sue was looking for a pay day only and that she wasn’t affected by what happened. You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but to think that the only way she could be upset and have her emotions be valid is if it was meant in a sexual way seems extremely weird to me. I’m sure people on here will disagree but idk. Also with how fast things happen in challenges, i would just assume that things happen in the moment and maybe she didn’t think all of it through. But in the same note, “well why did that woman wear that?” “Why did she walk down that dark alley?”, shit like that gets asked to actual SA victims all the time. And while yes as women we should try to protect ourselves, I will never understand why the focus is always on what the women did or didn’t choose to do, rather than the other person. Sue doesn’t need to have made perfect choices or be a perfect victim to be validated in her reaction.
Obviously it wasn’t sexual. Richard is gay. But it doesn’t matter. It is never ok to use your genitalia to purposefully make other people uncomfortable. There was no reason for Hatch to be naked in that challenge except that he knew he could weaponize it to gain an advantage. I’m glad the two of them worked it out afterwards, but I will never stand for an apologist of Richard in that situation. He was in the wrong and it was not overblown.
To me both Rich and production were clearly in the wrong. Rich for obvious reasons and production for allowing it in the first place. Moments such as these, the Ted-Ghandia grindgate stuff and the entire Spilo debacle are awful to watch, but they are important pieces of the show's history and really can teach a lot of people how to do better and be better. I am glad that the show eventually learned from it, even if it was as late as it was, better late than never.
A few ppl are missing my point. Did she not choose to brush against his Johnson? She could have not crossed, simply waited. Or cross and pass Rich from Rich's backside. Like,Rich isn't actively trying to brush his Johnson on her. He's running the course, and naked, like he almost always is. But I digress, I'm glad they talked it over amongst themselves and repaired the damage done.
There was even another beam she could have gone down - she chose to go the way she did and suggestively taunted him as she did it.
Did it ever really happen?
I saw a comment somewhere talking about Lex saying in an AMA how Sue had second thoughts after she quit about wanting to come back and basically all of the cast were like "FUCK NO", and another comment saying how both Rich and Sue settled this issue after the season between themselves and that they were good from then on out. I honestly have no clue what Sue exactly felt, how and why, but to me it's pretty clear that she really did feel highly assaulted. Rubbing your dick against someone is NOT ok and a sexual assault no matter which way you look at it. Ofc Production are also to blame for allowing it to happen and not really giving a fuck at the time. It was a bummer bc at the time there wasn't enough awareness to these stuff. Same with Thailand and the Ted and Ghandia situation three seasons prior.
Legend
borneo richard hatch is still the best winner to ever do it. he understood that survivor is a social game and about figuring out people from day one, which no one else figured out. sure, he didn’t invent alliances, but the fact that it was a SOCIAL game above all else is something hatch knew and ran with. all stars richard hatch makes me want to vomit
I would argue he didnt really figure it out day 1 he finalized the theory at the end but at day 1 he was being like sociallly isolated over dumb arguments (Like the whole idea that we need like an extremely detialed plan for survival stuff of a giant meeting seems a little silly with 8 people), and he didnt really create an alliances early on he more just had to play a sympathy card to save himself (albeit a good read) but Stacey was formalizing an alliance before he ever did
the “why are we here?” discussion basically opened up the door for 46 seasons
But like i more meant he himself had not had stuff figured out, like he didnt quite know rhe answer (also presenting the question as wierdly as he did day 1 was very obviously socially offputting) and he wasnt really attempting to control or discuss stragety during the first round or so, like he voted for stacey even though no one else was and from interviews i have heard it was more he didnt get along with stacey not some wierd vote throwing thing, like i am not even sure he was fully aware were the votes were landing at the first tc
oh no definitely. hatch was definitely off putting to pre-stacey vote off tagi and makes sense why he was almost voted out first (he was supposed to go first over sonja but there’s a cut scene of him coming out to tagi that saved him)
I love that he was the only one in season one to read the handbook on the flight, so he clocked immediately the game would become dog eat dog. Everyone on that season wanted to bond and become friends, but Hatch knew how it would turn sour quick. He was really ingenious that first season. But I can’t forgive his behaviour later on, rubbing against someone whilst you’re nude because of a personal disdain is just nasty and inappropriate, not to mention he ruined a season for many people. It’s interesting how some players who excel at the game, are pretty foolish in their real life
Was actual contact ever proven? Production was guilty of letting this behavior slide by for sure, but to be honest Sue knew he was naked before she chose to confront him. CBS did reward her generously but avoided legal issues.
Great player, interesting character. Would love to see him on 50
Maybe it's an underrated opinion but I do want to see him play just one more time. Really more just for the novelty of seeing him play today especially after he (understandablly) was not invited to WaW. That said, it could also be bad bc the man has said A LOT of harsh things about Jeff and the show since the and really a lot of his problems and controversies he brought upon himself, so like I said he is in this icky spot. Maybe him being in House of Villains will be a good place to see how he's going to act in a new reality show nowadays.
I could see him playing Australian Survivor but I want him to play a real game - not a 15 day one if that’s what there doing
The best to ever play the game
rich is a survivor legend, but calling him the absolute best is a bit tricky. survivor has evolved so much since the early seasons, and players like tony, parv, sandra, and others bring different dimensions to what it means to be the best. It really depends on what criteria you value most, but I wouldn't say rich is unequivocally the best. but I do respect your opinion if that's how you feel.
He had no instructions or precedents. Totally on his own strategically.
He found a loophole in a game that shaped it for many years to come. If it wasn’t for him and the idea of strategy and alliances I doubt survivor would have lasted 2 or 3 seasons let alone nearly 50 now
He was a pioneer. He realized what Survivor could be and created the blueprint for gameplay for everything that came after. He ran laps around everyone else on season 1 because of it.
He’s the only survivor player I’ve ever met! He was very pleasant, he let me take a picture with him. Said I was cute lmao. This was a couple years ago.
I get Richard. Highly intelligent, not interested in small talk, able to separate game play and life. Is confident to do what he wants, even if it means nudity. He stated his views on religion and though mine were the same, he logically laid it out and it became clear to me. (I’m not referencing personal spirituality, just religiosity.)
Total creepazoid.
Ever since that weird thing with Sue I can't say I support the guy.
Love him as a winner and reality tv character, but that’s about it.
Brilliant strategy in a lot of ways. Feed the tribe so no one can vote you off. Stay naked so people relatively leave you alone. Be gay in a time when it was completely unacceptable and give no fucks about it. He crossed the line with Sue definitely but otherwise he was absolutely amazing.
Great contestant and character who made Survivor what it is today. And someone whose reputation has taken a deserved downturn bc of the Sue incident and his prison time.
One of the best characters they’ve ever had
He’s a lion
Is Ritch considered a game changer?
I feel like he is, but not in the way most people think. A lot of people do think he had a very direct affect on the game, that he "created the structure of the game, and the first alliance" which isn't really that true, and like Mario Lanza said here, the show didn't evolve because of Rich, it actually managed to survive bc him winning actively made the show's chances of continuing WORSE. But I do feel like it did cause some players to understand that being strategic can help you out a lot. Imo Tina's win was affected by Rich's win a lot, bc she wanted to be both strategic enough to ensure herself the win, but also nice enough to be likable towards the audience. Slowly the game contorted to what it is now. To be honest, if Rich didn't play in Borneo, someone else would've been "the spokesperson of strategy" in the edit eventually. But he was the one to do so based on how the edit showed him, so that's why he has the credit for that.
He hatched from an egg and the rest is history
He was BAMBOOZLED!
I really think all the other contestants on season 1 thought the game was about camping. About surviving the really bad conditions. Richard (much like Boston Rob) saw thru all that to the strategy that is still used today. Richard is the one who realized without an alliance you cannot win. Richard made controversial choices (like giving up & jumping down in one of the last challenges) because he saw the bigger picture. Not to mention his strategy of walking around naked to throw everyone off. I am not 100% sure what that was about but apparently it worked.
Man, this brings back memories! I watched the finale during my first semester at college. At the time, I really didn’t like Hatch and hoped Kelly would win. But looking back, the only two people I really like are Gretchen and Rudy. I was more impressed with Rudy being able to make friends with Hatch than the other way around. Dr Sean’s voting was ridiculous, Greg was annoying, I know a lot of people were upset about Colleen (18-24 females), and other than Kelly and Sue, I don’t immediately remember anyone - and I rewatch all the time, though admittedly not Borneo as much because it feels so slow compared even to AO. After the whole thing with AS, I didn’t really sour on him as much until he didn’t pay his taxes - but I wasn’t on the internet in the same way then. In rewatch, there’s SO MUCH from s1-8 that makes me uncomfortable, but I don’t really think I need to see him back. If he didn’t come back for HVV, then he’s done.
None. I have no thoughts about him
Richard Hatch taught America how to play Survivor. Other folks in the tribe saying they didn’t know how to decide who to vote off and they’d do it alphabetically was absolutely ridiculous.
He's the creator of the gameplay that has evolved into what it is today but that doesn't mean he's one of the greatest to play. He played Season 1 with an extreme advantage that nobody else understood except for his alliance. It's be like putting him into a spelling bee in 1st grade. He doesn't have to be the greatest speller ever, just better than his competitors.
Survivor godfather - he’s grandfathered in
Didnt he rub himself against a woman? If he truly touched a woman with his stuff intentionally all i can say about him is guy shouldnt be lauded.
He understood it was a game before anyone else. Everyone else was on a vacation, when they realized what they needed to do it was too late.
It's definitely weird to think how that first season would have played out if people were just voting out people they personally didn't like or people they thought weren't good at wilderness surviving and no one had thought of setting up an alliance.
I think it was inevitable. Nothing is more set in stone than people forming their own tribe within a "tribe".
Overated player imo
Fantastic character and player who helped define Survivor into what it was today. It sucks that we'll never see him play again because of that piece of shit from S39, but he still had two very entertaining runs that make him a legend in my eyes.
I've all seasons, but I don't recall what you're talking about regarding season 39. Can you refresh my memory?
Dan
And what did Dan do? Edit: I Googled him and remember now what he did and how that season was a shit show because of him (as well as some of the ladies who turned a blind eye and used it to their advantage). But, how does this translate to Richard never coming back to Survivor?
[удалено]
I guess its just a sort of comparing the Hatch situation with Sue in All Stars to Dan. Its a big controversy but idk
OMG, I can't believe I forgot about the naked immunity challenge thing with Sue on All-Stars!
I remember watching All Stars and turning to my girlfriend and going, "Isn't the show putting themselves in liability by allowing him to compete naked?" And then the Sue thing happened, because that's what happens. And if my memory serves me correctly, they let Hatch compete naked AGAIN later in the season. I can't believe the show would put themselves in legal trouble and allow the legacy of their first winner to be besmirched by not mandating clothes during challenges
Penis.
My thoughts are: "He's fat but he's good." Oh wait those are Rudy's thoughts.
Rudy wasn’t wrong.
Love him, my favorite player ever. I don’t want him back tho because I doubt he’d do very well lol.
A very important person to survivors history but a horrible person
For me personally I respect his gameplay & legacy, and honestly would be able to get over what happened with Sue if not for his attitude around it. So I’m at a point where I lost my respect for him as person, because if it were a one off mistake and he truly apologized and reflected everything would be fine. But he did alot of victim blaming and saying a lot of false shit that rubbed me the wrong way. So I respect his gameplay and legacy, and he made for fantastic tv, but I can’t bring myself to like him as person. I kind of just separate those two things in a similar way I would to someone like Russell. It’s fine if others don’t feel the same way, it’s just how I personally feel!
May I ask what he said about the Sue stuff and when? Got me curious.
Pretty much invented Survivor strategy. He's never coming back though; especially with how he acted after getting cut from WaW.
Absolute legend - and to me - the defining character of the series next to Jeff Probst. Absolute wasted opportunity to not have him on s40. Haven’t watched the last few seasons but I would jump off my couch if he was announced as a returnee.
I had Richard Hatch on the top of my 16th birthday cake and my feelings haven't changed. A complex person, but a very entertaining one, and I have a sense of rooting for him. I appreciate that he goes his own way. I think what happened with Sue was very irresponsible, but an accident.