RepairmanJack
Member
Fabio?
Devil's advocate, I ultimately agree with you, just disagree with the reasoning.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Survivor 32: Kaôh Rng |OT| Anything that can Kaôh Rng, will.
- Thread starter Grexeno
- Start date
Fabio?
Devil's advocate, I ultimately agree with you, just disagree with the reasoning.
You don't think he won the game because (or perhaps in spite of the fact) he was the same lovable goofball he was in the premiere? In fact, he actually became a target near the end because he was so likeable, and only survived due to immunity.
(PS I really do feel bad shitting up the thread with this sort of discussion.)
RepairmanJack
Member
I'd say it's the reason he wins at FTC but not the reason he makes it to the end. Though I don't really remember the season all that well.
Okay but I'm just saying, it's no coincidence that the way Fabio was first portrayed was exactly who he was and stayed the whole way through (more or less; of course it shifts a little here and there in the middle, such as him getting feisty with NaOnka). I personally visualise it as a sandwich. A winner will more or less start off as a winner, but the stuff in between can (and usually does) misdirect us or make us rule out their winning as impossible, for whatever reason. For another example: Bob. Introduced as a lovable old Boy Scout, eventually ruled out impossible to win because of his game situation, then went on to win as a lovable old Boy Scout
RepairmanJack
Member
Okay but I'm just saying, it's no coincidence that the way Fabio was first portrayed was exactly who he was and stayed the whole way through (more or less; of course it shifts a little here and there in the middle, such as him getting feisty with NaOnka). I personally visualise it as a sandwich. A winner will more or less start off as a winner, but the stuff in between can (and usually does) misdirect us or make us rule out their winning as impossible, for whatever reason. For another example: Bob. Introduced as a lovable old Boy Scout, eventually ruled out impossible to win because of his game situation, then went on to win as a lovable old Boy Scout
I can't really argue because my memory of this game is never really great as soon as the season ends, but I almost feel like it's too generalizing and can be up to interpretations in a lot of ways. I do think there is merit to how players are introduced in the game because they almost always want to lay that ground work, but at the same time how often are people ever shown in a negative light unless they're coming out of the game fast? At the same time a freak out because of heat I don't think can be distinguishable in a season that was talked up all about being tough and hard.
I just don't really see there being a losing Aubry edit, which is why I think so many people think she is a shoe-in to win. I think the game gets taken from her. I think either she gets medivac'd or Joe gets medivacd and it takes the game out of her control at that point. I think she's being played up with a winner's type edit because it's supposed to be seen like she should have won. If Joe goes Aubrey loses all the power and she will be easily seen as the biggest threat.
Funnily enough it goes both ways: had Neal NOT been medevaced, she would have LOST. The edit specifically told us that Aubry was the target of the vote at the merge. True, Neal glossed over the notion that he could have used his idol, but the edit made us think that Neal's medevac saved Aubry from disaster. They wouldn't have included this had she won. They also wouldn't have included Aubry calling Neal a son-of-a-bitch for not giving her the idol, which, mind you, was the quote used in the subsequent episode's recap.
So... why does people talk more about the edit instead of the week to week dynamics and social interactions to determine the winner?
Why do you even watch this show if you will just find the shortest way to get to the winner, spoiling the season for you (and other people) and then call it predictable? (Even when it isn't).
I guess the satisfaction of saying "I called it in the 4th episode" or whatever is the drive for watching Survivor for some.
Does people do this with other shows? Does people make predictions on Game of Thrones based on the "edit"?
Why do you even watch this show if you will just find the shortest way to get to the winner, spoiling the season for you (and other people) and then call it predictable? (Even when it isn't).
I guess the satisfaction of saying "I called it in the 4th episode" or whatever is the drive for watching Survivor for some.
Does people do this with other shows? Does people make predictions on Game of Thrones based on the "edit"?
RepairmanJack
Member
Yeah, this is one of those key scenes where you can point at and say "If she was a winner, they probably would have never showed that, or hammed it up so much that she was going home." I agree more with scenes like this than scenes like her breaking down early on.
The only time people who look for the edit are every annoyed and call it too predictable is when it's so over the top and obvious. Mike's win, Boston Rob's win stuff like that is when its just frustrating and stupid to watch.
The edit is not something so much that I look for as much as it's impossible to ignore once you notice it. It's also something I would say is pretty exclusive to Survivor because the show taking place so far in advanced and the edit being largely built by the seasons events. It almost makes the show more fun to watch in a way. Predicting the winner, at least for me, has nothing to do with being able to call it. I love seeing how it will unfold. It's the same as watching older seasons, knowing the winner doesn't really make it less enjoyable, it just may make it less climactic.
I'm absolutely loving this season and I loved the last because the edit was a lot more open. Although I think the winner has been pretty obvious in both seasons the fact that later in the season it seems like it's wide open makes it that much more interesting to see unfold.
Deciphering the edit of scripted shows is 100% a thing but that more has to do with tropes. It's easy to see where things are going because of how it's written. I could easily see the "edit" of survivor becoming the tropes of Survivor.
RepairmanJack
Member
I guess what I mean is when there are no other characters built up beside the winner. In those seasons there was never anybody else that even had a chance if they made it to the end. At least in other seasons there has been other players with more to follow and it makes it a lot more interesting to see what happens. Even though the winner is predictable doesn't mean the season is predictable. Like I don't think Aubry is going to win, I'm pretty interested in seeing how that happens. Where as I didn't give a shit how Rob won Redemption island.
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
Natalie in San Juan del Sur didn't get much of a showing in the opening episodes. She was practically invisible at the start.
RepairmanJack
Member
I don't care what anyone says Del Sur was the best edited and overall fun to watch season in a long time. The players weren't the greatest, but it was fun to watch it go from Josh v Jeremy and then turn to the Jaclyn and John show, then turn to everyone hate Missy and Baylor and almost no one was predicting Natalie to win until the John idol play.
That's not quite true (IMO). On Day 0 and Day 1, they do a good job of showing the strong bond between the two twins ("strongest of all the bonds" or something, I think they said). And that they are going to fight to win. Then in episode 2, there is a key moment where Natalie sheds a tear about being separated from her twin for the first time... practically ever... set to an emotional piano ballad. She says she's going to fight for as long as she can "for Nadiya". Immediately we are meant to root for her, and of course, we should know Natalie is going to fight to win, because she told us that straight away. And Natalie sure enough ends up winning, with her twin bond highlighted at FTC and Reunion, in a satisfying bookend (again, there is slight deviation from her initial self along the way, such as her cussing Rocker).
Remember, it's not the quantity of character established in the opening that counts, but the quality.
The reach! Everyone and their mother say they are going to win in the first episodes, c'mon. And people began predicting she was winning in the merge episode, not before.
RepairmanJack
Member
If the whole discussion was going back to old seasons and seeing how much was edited into the show in the winner's favor, sure. But the whole discussion is coming about because of this current season and if you actually tried to draw out all possibilities from every single scene you could go crazy and extrapolate almost any answer you want out of the season.
Stuff like that just seems like nitpicking and stretching to the most desirable outcome. That's why there is a difference between seeing Michelle as a winner and seeing Aubry as a loser. I'm looking at scenes Michelle would never get unless she is a winner as apposed to trying to figure out every possible meaning behind every scene Aubry is in.
lazyproblems
Member
To add onto this, this type of editing discussion is in every reality competition show. Amazing Race and other shows all have people deciphering the edit as it goes. For reality competitions, you can usually tell what story they were trying to tell for the winner and season as a whole. Especially in retrospect, but if you've watched reality tv for a while these sorts of edits stick out pretty quickly.
That said, Survivor more than pretty much every show has people taking the edit into account. It's been that way since as early as the second and third seasons.
He's not completely wrong. People had her on their radar after episode 2. She wasn't #1 or #2 for most people (that was obviously Jeremy and Josh), but some people were noticing her potential.
Talonz
Member
I just want to say I don't believe in the "winners edit" and could care less anyway. It would ruin the show for me if I was trying to pick out who was going to win by how they edit the show.
Every Survivor OT over the course of a season the "winners edit" moniker is bestowed upon half the cast.
Every Survivor OT over the course of a season the "winners edit" moniker is bestowed upon half the cast.
But your criticism is what analysing the edit is based on. You HAVE to go back and study previous seasons, and each season adds to the wealth of knowledge and confirms patterns established more tentatively earlier.
I personally didn't pick Natalie as a winner until that season's 10th episode, but I wasn't a seasoned edit viewer back then. And I'm pretty sure almost nobody in the thread was, at the time, either. Maybe Kirblar was? I dunno. I only seriously got into edit analysis the following season after rewatching close to 20 seasons with my brother over the Christmas break, and really noticing the super obvious patterns the editors used.
But I will fully admit that picking Natalie would be easier NOW having seen, for example, Michele win, and vice versa, than it would be to predict each winner in a vacuum.
S2: The Dog Who Didn't Bark
S3: Follow the Star
Tapewatcher (Sucks poster) figured out the editing themes and nailed the winners partway through the season. This was back in 2001.
"Edgic" (at least, classically) is this awful, awful thing that has lots of colored boxes and doesn't mean a whole lot because each season is edited differently, and different eras are edited differently as well. Today a lot of people ignore that shit because it's been exposed as a bigger fraud than Austrian Economics.
But they patted themselves on the back for "predicting" S12-14.... which had nearly identical winners (archetype wise) and were thus very similar.
And then came Survivor: China. Amanda, throughout the season, checked all the boxes for a female winner. Except...she didn't win. The winner instead was the complicated gay guy. Who had "too much negativity" for them. Which didn't matter when she got to FTC and her entire storyline for the season got inverted on its head and stabbed her in the back. That scene of PG and Amanda bonding that Amanda portrayed as positive? At FTC, PG paints it in another context: the first time Amanda had bothered to talk to her as a person all game long.
Over the years, someone talking about bonding in a confessional, rather than that bonding being talked about by someone else (or enthusiastically backed by the editing), has emerged as a red flag for me. Spencer last season had the same thing.
Decoy edits are very much deliberate on the parts of the editors, Marcus in Gabon, Jeremy/Josh in S29 are the two best examples. Amanda's another, but very few caught it. (Including me) I caught the guys easily, but lots of people were fooled at the time. There was something "off" about them - and indeed, they all went down in flames.
Also a thing, though, is that the editing has changed over time, and over the past years (S22+), by mid-merge, the winner is fairly obvious. They very much make an effort to make it the "winner's story" and coronate them, rather than treat it as a straight up game show. Tying them into themes of the season is very important. They've also started being better about how they edit female winners, not just making them all UTRs (though early survivor had a ton of those).
Aubry (as we jokingly called when the Oregon Trail confessional hit) is the person whose edit resembles recent winners. Michele reminds me of Amanda. I can go into detail on the Amanda stuff on PM, cause theres a lot of it.
S3: Follow the Star
Tapewatcher (Sucks poster) figured out the editing themes and nailed the winners partway through the season. This was back in 2001.
"Edgic" (at least, classically) is this awful, awful thing that has lots of colored boxes and doesn't mean a whole lot because each season is edited differently, and different eras are edited differently as well. Today a lot of people ignore that shit because it's been exposed as a bigger fraud than Austrian Economics.
But they patted themselves on the back for "predicting" S12-14.... which had nearly identical winners (archetype wise) and were thus very similar.
And then came Survivor: China. Amanda, throughout the season, checked all the boxes for a female winner. Except...she didn't win. The winner instead was the complicated gay guy. Who had "too much negativity" for them. Which didn't matter when she got to FTC and her entire storyline for the season got inverted on its head and stabbed her in the back. That scene of PG and Amanda bonding that Amanda portrayed as positive? At FTC, PG paints it in another context: the first time Amanda had bothered to talk to her as a person all game long.
Over the years, someone talking about bonding in a confessional, rather than that bonding being talked about by someone else (or enthusiastically backed by the editing), has emerged as a red flag for me. Spencer last season had the same thing.
Decoy edits are very much deliberate on the parts of the editors, Marcus in Gabon, Jeremy/Josh in S29 are the two best examples. Amanda's another, but very few caught it. (Including me) I caught the guys easily, but lots of people were fooled at the time. There was something "off" about them - and indeed, they all went down in flames.
Also a thing, though, is that the editing has changed over time, and over the past years (S22+), by mid-merge, the winner is fairly obvious. They very much make an effort to make it the "winner's story" and coronate them, rather than treat it as a straight up game show. Tying them into themes of the season is very important. They've also started being better about how they edit female winners, not just making them all UTRs (though early survivor had a ton of those).
Aubry (as we jokingly called when the Oregon Trail confessional hit) is the person whose edit resembles recent winners. Michele reminds me of Amanda. I can go into detail on the Amanda stuff on PM, cause theres a lot of it.
Aubry as a PLAYER resembles recent winners, and her EDIT resembles recent losers. When was the last time an under the radar female won based on the merit of her social skills? Arguably that was Samoa, and that of course bucked some editing trends, primarily the lack of substance in the premiere -- although the subtlest of clues were definitely there (Russell calling her a dumb blonde... Betsy warning her to use women's instinct... it's rather plain, in hindsight, that she would go on to triumph against him, but it seemed impossible someone whose first name didn't stick out with the audience could win the show).
And you're absolutely right, there are decoy winners, or red herrings (that is literary device 101), but the question is who's it a decoy for? NOBODY in the general audience would think Michele is likely to win (or at least, certainly not up until maybe an episode ago), whereas for example everyone had a feeling Amanda or Marcus or Spencer might win, so the only people Michele is fooling are hardcore edit readers. And you can't compare the amateur folly of "predicting" the bland Marcus from 8 years ago with the more experienced, more critical analyses of today. I mean, compare that with Sucks' savvy analysis that Josh and Jeremy weren't going to win SJDS (they were correctly picked as decoys while looking for a probable female winner -- most erred toward Missy or Baylor until around Jeremy's exit). But that's just my opinion of course. If I'm wrong I'm wrong.
And you're absolutely right, there are decoy winners, or red herrings (that is literary device 101), but the question is who's it a decoy for? NOBODY in the general audience would think Michele is likely to win (or at least, certainly not up until maybe an episode ago), whereas for example everyone had a feeling Amanda or Marcus or Spencer might win, so the only people Michele is fooling are hardcore edit readers. And you can't compare the amateur folly of "predicting" the bland Marcus from 8 years ago with the more experienced, more critical analyses of today. I mean, compare that with Sucks' savvy analysis that Josh and Jeremy weren't going to win SJDS (they were correctly picked as decoys while looking for a probable female winner -- most erred toward Missy or Baylor until around Jeremy's exit). But that's just my opinion of course. If I'm wrong I'm wrong.
I'm assuming this is a joke? I can interpret Survivor well but interpreting sarcasm on the Internet is sometimes much harder.
It's not sarcasm at all. On the show, Aubry's been out-front and center for almost all of the post-merge Eps onscreen. And in the game, she and Cyd are the two constantly targeted by Jason's side for being threats.
Michele is playing a UTR game out there (and has the matching edit.)
edit: 19/20 of the S33 cast just got posted. http://insidesurvivor.com/survivor-season-33-cast-11844 Some uh, really weird demographics there
9 white guys, (1 unknown), but 2 black contestants, 2 Asian, and a Pacific islander among the other half? So weird, like Cagayan on Steroids. Actually, that'd make me think the remaining male is a sports guy, given the lack of any celebs.
matthewwhatever
Member
Second-to-last episode!
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
Another recap, another instance of Michele getting no credit for moves in the previous episode. Dat winner's edit, eh?
matthewwhatever
Member
Tai is just horrendously terrible at the social game.
I'm trying to avoid any talk of edits or spoilers, but...yeah, there's no way Michele is secretly running things.
I'm trying to avoid any talk of edits or spoilers, but...yeah, there's no way Michele is secretly running things.
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
Yeah, he's so bad at this. He continues telling Michele she wasn't part of the alliance, and then says "so what if I told people what was going to happen and didn't give them a chance to talk?"
matthewwhatever
Member
I don't think there's still time for one. Plus people realizing they should save their money for the advantage broke it.
peteykirch
Member
Aubrey went up to throw 2 at once.
The Last Wizard
Member
FOH
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
This is incredible.
matthewwhatever
Member
Poor Joe. I just don't want to see him die out there.
peteykirch
Member
Joe with the corn hole prowess.
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
Yeah, I totally had that one down in my pool.
matthewwhatever
Member
Awwwww, that's awesome.
User 479360
Banned
Yay, Survivor's back.
I forgot it was on tonight, in the midst of watching the Jays lose in extras.
I forgot it was on tonight, in the midst of watching the Jays lose in extras.
matthewwhatever
Member
Poor strategy by Aubry. Should've brought Tai to keep him on board.
Stupid west coast games. Totally forgot it was on now.
Stupid west coast games. Totally forgot it was on now.
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
Yeah, earlier in the game you don't want to do that, but at Final 5 you might as well. There's nothing the other two can do against you without one of the people going on the reward.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked