Oholibamah

Cara's OTTN edit and Camila's UTR edit (which is the ony way to depict Camila as anything other than negative) is making me extremely nervous.

This was the case in Seasons 4, 8 and 11 where Chris March, Michael Costello and Daniel Esquivel got the last minute hose. Fans were upset when the Season 9 Top 4 (Anya/Josh/Victor/Kim) got to stay and received more money at the FW preview because they thought it was production saving Anya (but really, all of them needed it). Since then, we've had Dmitry/Fabio/Melissa/Chris, Dom/Alexandria/Justin/Bradon, Sean/Amanda/Kini/Char, Ashley/Kelly/Edmond/Candice and most recently Erin/Roberi/Laurence/Rik, all aired on TV as possible contenders. Only having 3 designers in contention this year would be a departure from recent SOP. Instead of referencing anything "PC", I will just say logically, I don't understand how a cultural identity or the way real people live qualifies as a costume. Most agree that "blackface" is unacceptable, yet dressing up as other cultures isn't different. I'm not sure when you attended Grade 3, but this is a conversation that has opened up quite recently, and it wouldn't be fair to judge the past by today's morality. I'm not so quick to call the judges on hypocrisy re: Keith's bedsheet. At that time, it was only the third Unconventional challenge ever, with one of them involving flowers (thus impossible to use fabric). I think it was Season 4's Hershey Challenge where the judges became frustrated by designers using fabric as a crutch, and subsequently tend to penalize people. For me the judges were questionable when they removed Miranda from the top to the bottom during the Parachute judging because Tim told them she didn't use a lot of the parachute material. IMO, if they couldn't see that for themselves, then she should be judged accordingly. Which ties into Tim at judging. Maybe he was infected during UTG by Mondo and Anya on how to not be objective mentors. (Although i'm one of the few to blame the format more than Anya/Mondo). But Tim's never been very good at remaining subjective. His disdain for the twins was palpable - which while justified, isn't the most professional - and I thought he was overly rude to Emilio and Swapnil. But ultimately this is a TV show, so I don't hold Tim to the same standard I would as a teacher.

It's funny how every season we speculate who will make Final 3, who will be cut right before, etc., when most recent seasons actually end up having all 4 final designers show a collection. The only recent season that only had 3 people show was Season 11 (Michelle, Stanley, Patricia). 3 designers was the standard for seasons 1-8 with 3 as the only outlier. Edmond's elimination and subsequent Save right before fashion week was just for show/drama, and will likely happen again if Tim doesn't use his save by Top 4. But I'm fully expecting to see an Ayana/Brandon/Kentaro finale with one of Kenya/Margarita.

I tried reading City of Bones a few years ago and couldn't get through it. For me, the book is too heavily through Clary's POV, and I find her annoying. The show isn't perfect, but it focuses on the supporting characters almost as much as Clary, which I find refreshing. Malec is given comparable screen time to Clary/Jace, which is a welcome departure from the first two books. In fact, McNamara does a pretty good job making me like Clary. She does the character justice without veering too much into the stereotypical "awkward teen" that the book tries too hard to assert. I've actually been able to go back and read the books because McNamara gives me a more balanced outlook on the character. I've seen criticism that she and Jace don't have chemistry, but I'm willing to wait and see, because the books present them as being hot-and-cold, so there's still time to believably develop that chemistry. I am hoping the books become less Clary/Jace-centric later on, though.

It makes sense to me that the other Shadowhunter children are trained in Idris and assigned to an institute where their parents or siblings would be. What I never understood is why the exiled Lightwoods would be put in charge of such a large/important city's institute, but minor quibble. It's also interesting that they managed to cast Alec/Izzy/Marys/Robert to have a pretty believable family resemblance, and then we have readheaded Max. I can also fanwank that Daddario's acting skills work for the character. In the books Alec comes across awkward and kind of nerdy, so Daddario's woodenness perfectly fits a character that struggles to emote and let go. I've never really cringed at his acting because even badly delivered lines seem to fit the character.

Candice and Amanda voiced their hesitation, but the Hero men weren't about to listen to any evil wimminfolk. JT's move was medium-risk high-reward. If it had worked, he'd be the genius who gained a 6-4 advantage and avoided a tie vote. What's more risky: a calculated move based on observable data, or pulling a random rock? If he'd kept the Hero Idol, maybe he'd play it for the right person. But it's more likely 3 Heroes would be pulling rocks versus only 2 villains. (FWIW, I think Parvati knew Jerri was a more likely target but played the first Idol for Sandra to try and secure her loyalty. If she'd only had one, I'm sure she would have played it for Jerri).

I've tried, but I can't seem to bring myself to dislike her. Obviously she was in over her head as a designer, which lead to the cheating. Which obviously isn't ok, but given how pathetic the measurements she took are (a tank top and a crotch?) I don't think she's some sort of evil cheating monster. I think it's impressive that she somehow managed to get both herself AND the technically-deficient Shawn through that many challenges. A lot of viewers argue it's unfair because two people collaborated on their looks, but the counter-argument is that Claire had to make two looks every week. When the over-enunciated millennial-AF front slipped away, Claire came across pretty normal and likeable. There's a scene after her second Bottom 2 appearance where it's clear she not only has a head cold, but is becoming frustrated that helping Shawn is having a negative impact on her performance. It's a very human moment of having to balance loving her sister with her own success. I didn't love how she acted backstage, but the TH she gave after being disqualified didn't seem affected, and seemed honestly regretful. I dunno. I agree that both twins have bought into their own press and lack some self awareness, but I wouldn't mind seeing Claire back on an Allstars season to see what she can do without her sister as an anchor.

But Veronica did capitalize on Britni's throwaway vote and weakened the majority alliance. Her alternative was going with the majority against Hunter and risking Derrick, leaving her in a worse position. Bananas wasn't vulnerable because Britni didn't give him a vote, and Tony probably wouldn't have turned on him, anyway. This week significantly reduced the majority alliance with Cara, CT and Leroy going to Redemption and Camila facing elimination.

I loved a lot of Fabio's work during Season 10, and IIRC, he never landed in the bottom 3. He took some risks during Allstars, but I still wouldn't say his (admittedly awesome) personal style is a huge departure from his design skills. I actually think of Dmitry/Fabio as a bit of a Kentaro/Brandon, where Dmitry was sort of overlooked all season despite his consistency, while Fabio stood out for his unique point of view. We'll see how it plays out for them this season.

The poor quality is one thing, but I think it says a lot about the POV of the fifth collection that we can't even figure out who's it is. It looks nothing like Amy's aesthetic, but could be equal parts Claire, Michael or Batani. Lots of designers have choked at fashion week and turned in a collection that was a disappointing departure from their work on the show (Bradon and Christopher P come to mind), so this could be a weak showing from Michael. It's also pretty standard work from Batani (the use of colours and tendency to put trim up the middle of the garment) in terms of quality, and a slight improvement (how sad) for Claire. It's possible Claire tried to step up the "creativity" and ended up with a mess, but I can't imagine she wouldn't take this chance to showcase the type of stuff she and Shorne already have in their collection. Also, I can't imagine Batani surviving this past challenge, so I guess I'm leaning toward Michael.

Good episode for Veronica. She slayed the Presidio and was MVP during the puzzle. In theory I don't mind people wanting her to "prove herself" (even though she's won or placed near the top in most of the main challenges), but I would be pissed to be barred from competing in a challenge where every other female except Jenna sucked at, and then be penalized for it. It's directly contrary to the argument of needing to "prove herself" when she specifically wasn't given that chance. Camila continues to be completely disgusting. I know Cara is a bigger threat, but it'd be smart to toss Camila into Redemption since she's less likely to make it back seeking revenge. (Although who knows. I still think Camila is the luckiest person on the planet to beat Laurel last season. Still bitter about it.)

I cracked up when Nicole put her eyelashes on the table mid-challenge. I know she gets a bad rep for the alien makeup, but I always enjoy her. She's mostly drama free, delivers some clever lines, and tries her hardest. Plus, anyone who hates Camila gets some extra points from me. Like many, I hate the pacing of this season. There's no need for so much filler in a cast of 30 players with 4 returnees. Especially since I'm sure they'll have a mass elimination soon to lower the numbers, but that will probably take out some of the more likeable/less athletic players and leave me pissy.

Apparently this conversation is fair game, so I will pipe in that models and public figures, while opening themselves to criticism by virtue of being in the public eye, are still human beings and represent real human beings. It may seem ok to criticize and pathologize celebrities, but we need to remember that voicing these opinions as generalizations impact real readers on this forum. By being more inclusive, Project Runway (and brands featuring Tess Holliday) are saying "you exist and we see you. You matter." For Project Runway that means representation in fashion and clothing (after all, almost everybody wears clothes), but representation is important everywhere. Considering people beautiful or aspiring to look/be like them are personal choices and opinions. That's fair game. Saying people shouldn't be embraced, welcomed or represented is unfair, hurtful and narrow minded. It's basically saying people should be hidden away and not seen. I get the temptation to compare this to anorexia and steroid abuse, but that's a faulty parallel: these are extreme measures people take to look like the airbrushed ads they see on TV (and often impacted by mental health). Representing Tess as beautiful is not another example of this, but an attempt to do the opposite! The message is "you are beautiful the way you are". It makes me sad that this message is construed as a bad thing.

Totally random, but I've been anticipating a male designer to win since before the season even filmed. Ever since Leanne in Season 5, the winners have reliably gone female-female-male.

In Nicole's defense, she was one of the few taking shots at Camila throughout the trivia challenge. She also seems fairly smart... she handily won the trivia challenge in a previous season, but this one put her at a disadvantage for being in the minority alliance.

This is an interesting summary of the F3 seasons, but it assumes the top 2 vote-getters actually end up in the F2 together. Had there been a F3 Immunity challenge and subsequent F2 in these seasons, wouldn't the final Immunity winner likely take the player who got 0 votes? That increases the "Goat" factor. Make it Ozzy v. Becky, Parvati v. Russell, Aubry v. Tai, or Chase/Fabio v. Sash, and we no longer have any close nail-biting votes. Maybe a Hannah/Ken, Cassandra/Dreamz, Spencer/Tasha, Albert/Coach or Carolyn/Will FTC would have been more interesting than what we got, but would they have been more satisfying? I think F3 is a good compromise between F2 where strong players can get screwed at F3 (i.e. Rob C, Kathy) and this ridiculous, unbalanced new twist they've cooked up.

I love that ChaCha was auf'd first for something that looked like it was designed by last season's winner. Heh. I think he should have been saved: at least his design tried to do something, and his questionable comments about his model's body can be chalked up to being ESL. I was disappointed by how Batani conducted herself on the runway.

Jemmye said in her TH that had Jordan said what he said and privately/calmly apologized to her afterward, the other women would have moved past it. But he escalated things by pushing Aneesa/Camila and generally being an ass. I'm fine with them taking aim to show him some humility, but now that he's been punished I hope everyone lets it go. And you're right: what Johnny said to Jordan a few seasons ago was just as bad, yet it never had even a fraction of the repercussions. Aneesa + Veronica will close the Aneesa/Rachel/Veronica circle, so I find it kind of interesting, especially as a relic of oldschool BMP lore. I've always been an unapologetic Verantula fan, even (or especially) at her meangirl worst. I don't particularly even enjoy that reality TV archetype, but to me Veronica comes across intelligent and pleasantly calculating, even when she's being awful. She's sort of like a curvy Cuban villainess, and I've always dug it. Seeing her win this week was awesome, because it recalls the days where she used to unexpectedly turned out a lot of individual wins in her old seasons. I've never particularly liked Jemmye, but damn if she isn't really entertaining me this season. She seems to have mellowed in all the right ways, and I think they should cast her every season and give her a pass to the finals just so she can narrate every season for us. Rooting for Cara Maria and CT for the win (obviously), but I'd like to see Veronica and Jemmye at the end just so I can bask in their presence. Also, random question: why do we hate Nicole? I've always found her pretty likeable and inoffensive, aside from maybe the alien makeup. She's another I wouldn't mind seeing float to the Top 5 or 6.

Both of these posts are reasonable arguments: I think the concept of bitterness on a jury is too much of a grey area one way or the other. The Troyzan example is especially pertinent because he touted himself as a "gamer", but cast a vote for personal reasons. And it wasn't even that he didn't like Kim, but rather simply that he got beat. This is inconsistent. Tasha doesn't seem to get the same amount of flack for casting a blatant anti-Tony vote, but she also didn't shy away from playing the game personally. Does that make it better or worse? Adam and Vytas cast votes to make good on in-game promises/threats. Was Brenda's bitterness justified given the brutal way she was eliminated? Or was Dawn at fault for not being able to achieve Chris-worthy jury management ass-kissing like we saw with Julie? I think there can be bitter jurors, but not bitter juries. The litmus test could be that if a jury is bitter enough that you overwhelmingly lose, then you obviously misplayed the cards you were dealt. The grey area returns when the suspected individual "bitter juror" sways the win. You could argue it was Scot/Jason's bitterness (with an assist from the eleventh hour jury twist) that turned the tide. What if Kelly Goldsmith's pick-a-number gambit was the deciding vote? (I use her instead of Greg because he wasn't bitter and was always a Rich vote anyway). Were Helen/Ted's charges of racism against Clay reasonable? Having so many small examples that were forgotten because they didn't end up mattering is an interesting way to discuss the game-deciding examples, which creates more questions than answers. But I will say this: I don't think a bitter jury invalidates a player's win. We talk all the time about how luck and other dynamics factor into the game all the time, so why isn't the sentiment of the jury, bitter or not, seen the same way as a tribal swap or medevac? We gauge players all the time based on how they capitalize on the situation presented to them, and in that way I think Michele, White and Sandra (and Cochran, who I think played a similar game to White, despite getting far more credit for it) rolled with the punches and played the best game available to them. Does a perception that Aubry, Hantz and Parvati deserved it more mean the others deserved it less? I don't think it has to mean that. I wish more seasons came down to nail-biting who's-will-they-choose television, but I guess there can only be one Fox for a reason.

Oops! Forgot to remove the Cirie vote from the calculation. The Natalie/Alexis argument here makes sense, but I'm perhaps being overly influenced by former players talking about how "everybody knows who everyone else is voting for going into FTC". Also, I can see Natalie going Parvati no matter what, but I suspect Alexis would be more interested in voting against Amanda than for Parvati. I also wonder if Jason's vote for Parvati was a respect vote for her keeping her word to him, and then outplaying him the following week. This improves Parvati's chances greatly.

I used to assume this same breakdown resulting in an Amanda win, but I forget that A) Amanda and Erik weren't as close after they betrayed one another, and he really seemed to love Cirie, and B) I can't see Alexis/Natalie being so naive to how the vote is going that they let Amanda beat Cirie while they just throw away votes on Parvati. My prediction is 6-2-0, with chance of 5-2-1 or 5-3-0, all for Cirie.

It's that Russell "clearly played the better game" that I take issue with, because MMV, and I believe it did for this jury. Erik gets credited with "winning the game for her", but it was Natalie's argument that she saw people defying Russell and getting booted Tribal after Tribal and had to adapt that was most compelling. I think Erik just made people feel ok about rewarding a game that wasn't as in-your-face. She is also accused of stagnating while Russell "did all the strategizing", but other players have said that her good cop was instrumental to getting people to work with Russell, and that the Foas strategized as a group. I also believe that the Foas were Russell's only path to the end, but that Natalie had other options: she could have gone with the Foa women, or planned to dump Russell before Final Tribal if she was so worried about his "superior game". But she voiced early on that she could beat him, and she did. I play a lot of board games and am good at the strategy part. Where I suck is that I overplay my hand and nobody trusts me, and I often lose because nobody will work with me, and I am the easy target. That isn't a flaw with the game, it's that I'm not playing the game in a way that will win. Natalie did everything she needed to do to win, because that was the situation she was presented with. I love discussing the Russell/Natalie dynamic because I think it's a microcosm for a lot of things about the show. I welcome other opinions of course, but I think Natalie's game is a lot more than just a Russell-parasite.

My survivorpartner and I get around the whole "deserved" aspect by saying who we would/wouldn't personally vote for if we were jurors and why. Obviously that has flaws of its own, but it can make for some interesting discussions. The ones we fight about most often are Natalie/Russell and Sophie/Coach. I'll give you one guess who's on which side of those ones. I personally would've voted for Aubry in Kaoh-Rong, but I would have considered voting for Michele. Her game may not have made flashy television, and she got a lot of lucky breaks, but she navigated the endgame on her own, won key challenges, and most importantly, made people like her.

Agree to disagree, but his game hinged on a 1/3 rock draw. His winning game was much improved from his first two embarrassing outings, but it was fairly textbook: Sophie played a similar game of spazz-wrangling her allies to the end but was much smoother about it.

I'm having trouble splitting these quotes, so I'll respond in order: I agree that Rob had a lot of support going into his winning season, and his fourth-try win isn't as impressive as some first timers. But I think people nevertheless rank him so highly because he has a lot of skills that make him a great player, so there isn't the same sense of "broken clock right twice a day". It's more satisfying when a "best to never win" type of player finally wins versus a Tyson who played two of the worst games ever, and then played a mediocre game against mediocre returnees and mediocre first-timers and won. Erik definitely gets James and Ozzy, and probably Jason. His uphill battle would be convincing a bunch of people who kicked ass at strategy that he deserves a million bucks just for winning challenges. Assuming he's against Natalie, I don't see him getting Alexis, Cirie, Parvati or Amanda. Eliza is more of a gamble, but still a tie at best. This x100.