I like the hero/sidekick discussion. Can you tell me where Jeff made that remark about the storytelling? It is one I missed.I am not a comicbook fan at all, so when I think of sidekicks I think of Holmes & Watson, Don Quixote & Sancho Panza, Shakespeare (many). Actually the sidekick character goes all the way back to Greek and Roman Literature.
I decided to a little reading (thanks michel!) and found a paragraph that struck me in Wikipedia's article on "Sidekick."
A villain's supporters are normally called henchmen, minions, or lackeys, not sidekicks. While this is partially a convention in terminology, it also reflects that few villains are capable of bonds of friendship and loyalty, which are normal in the relationship between a hero and sidekick.
This may also be due to the different roles in fiction of the protagonist and the antagonist: whereas a sidekick is a relatively important character due to his or her proximity to the protagonist, and so will likely be a developed character, the role of a henchmen is to act as cannon-fodder for the hero and his sidekick.
As a result, henchmen tend to be anonymous, disposable characters, existing for the sole purpose of illustrating the protagonists' prowess as they defeat them."
I thought the difference between henchman and sidekick is quite interesting. If loyalty is one defining factor, is not Upolu the tribe to look to? Isn't Savai'i the tribe of no loyalty, where Jim and Cochran and Keith have competed for the title of head villain?
OTOH, Coach's allies have not been developed as much in terms of character, so that would put them more in the henchman class.
It's as if by staying loyal and achieving the advantage, Upolu became the villains because everyone (and especially Survivor) loves an underdog. Plus Upolu has Brandon.
I really do not see Coach as the Villain though. While the praying was sketchy, he did what he needed to do for his own game and to keep his tribe from fracturing over who had the idol. His ruse was the game equivalent to Boston Rob getting his tribe involved in a beach game while he secured the idol for himself -- only he tailored his strategy to Brandon's psychology.
As for Dawn, I see her as a heroine who got stuck in the wrong tribe, one where being 40 years old put her on the outside. With an unstable rat type as her unlikely friend.
Her type of character does best when there is a Colby or a Chase (Holly) to adopt. It is hard to form new bonds after the merge, much easier if there is a swap pre-merge. If Dawn gets to stick around, she might bond with someone, but honestly, I think that she and Cochran are a misfit pairing that only exists because they were both cast to the outer fringe of the tribe.
btw, a true sidekick is always same sex. An opposite sex pairing is something different, even if it is not romantic. (Ron Weasley was Harry Potter's sidekick, but Hermione was not a sidekick; she was a secondary protagonist. Unlike with LOTR, where Sam, Merry, Pippin were all sidekicks at first. Then when separated into pairs, Sam was Frodo's sidekick, and Pippin was Merry's. Gimli the dwarf was sidekick to elf Legolas when they became paired, but both were Aragorn's sidekicks when they were a threesome.)