Rob Has A Podcast: Survivor Edition

[thehepburn]

He did switch to that opinion during the podcast, so you are correct.  Of course, I don't want to see Jason go that far.  I don't even want him on the jury.  Are you saying that Josh has his own Survivor podcast?  What is it called?  I'd love to listen.  

 

um, ok. Josh's podcast is called Wigle Room and posted every monday on RHAP.

[slowpoked]

 

As for Stephen's projection on how Kyle does:

There are a lot of credible spculation/spoilers that Kyle makes is to final 2 and loses. I won't get into it unless you ask me to.

Do you mind going over to the Spoilers thread and expanding more?

[Big Mother]

Sure! But I'm sure its been discussed already, it was all over reddit.

[BetyBee]

Josh Wigler has a podcast with Rob every week - on Mon or Tues, I forget - called "The Wiggle Room". I love it and never miss it!

 

Liz and Stephen dated a few years ago. stephen recommended her for Survivor. Remember, when liz played, Stephen was still in the running for Second Chance. and they had broken up a while before that.

 

 

Thanks, Big Mother!  My podcatcher was not picking up that show, so I appreciate your help.  

[Guest]

I wish I hadn't clicked on that spoiler.  That sounds like a bit more than a projection.  

[thehepburn]

I agree that it was unnecessary to bring spoilers into a thread about RHAP podcasts. 

[Big Mother]

I'm so sorry! I sometimes get confused which thread I'm in, and I thought that putting spoiler tags meant htat people who dont want to be spoiled, won't click on it.

 

I'll post the 'theory' I'm referring to, over @ the spoiler thread. So sorry, once again .I can edit if I need to.

[ProfCrash]

I have not been listening to anything but the Know it Alls at work. The other podcasts don't play for some reason and I am too busy at home to listen. Kind of a bummer

[thehepburn]

Listening to the exit interviews of the F3 and they are all gracious.

[ProfCrash]

Any others I should focus on?

[diana]

Rob just had Cydney on for an extended interview which was really great to finally hear from her. She is so fun to listen to, and had some good insight on everything. Towards the end she gave her take on Joe and the meat-eating "controversy." 

Next week Rob is going to have Michele on for a more in-dept interview.

[thehepburn]

I am already over S32 so I didnt find either Anna's nor Cydney's interesting. Michele is likable to put me in a coma.

The recent one on editing was superb tho and definnitely a must listen.

[Wings]

2 hours ago, thehepburn said:

I am already over S32 so I didnt find either Anna's nor Cydney's interesting. Michele is likable to put me in a coma.

The recent one on editing was superb tho and definnitely a must listen.

Which one is on the editing?

http://robhasawebsite.com/category/survivor/

[thehepburn]

1 hour ago, wings707 said:

Which one is on the editing?

http://robhasawebsite.com/category/survivor/

 

http://robhasawebsite.com/reality-tv-post-production-editing-molly-shock-podcast/

[ByaNose]

Great interview & insight from Michelle. Apparently, they were told out there that their season was being bumped. I had never heard that and she said it was horrible that she had to wait a year for the results & not be able to anyone about being on the show to begin with. The only thing that drives me nuts about her is her accent when she saying the word "important". Somehow she doesn't uncinate the last T. It.drove.me.up.a.wall. LOL!!! Also, it was interesting to get her perspective on her edit or lack there of. She didn't think she won due to the edit. She felt good after the final Tribal Council but was less sure as the season went on. 

[thehepburn]

2.5 hours of uptalk and vocal fry.

[ByaNose]

3 hours ago, thehepburn said:

2.5 hours of uptalk and vocal fry.

That vocal fry is a real killer. What does uptalk mean? Was she having a bit of revisionist history like most Survivors do? Of course, she won so she doesn't need to have revisionist history. LOL!! Just curious.   

 

Edit to add: I had to look it up. I don't know why I didn't understand it when I saw it spelled out. LOL!!!

Uptalk: a manner of speaking in which declarative sentences are uttered with rising intonation at the end, as if they were questions.

Edited June 12, 2016 by ByaNose

[thehepburn]

1 hour ago, ByaNose said:

That vocal fry is a real killer. What does uptalk mean? Was she having a bit of revisionist history like most Survivors do? Of course, she won so she doesn't need to have revisionist history. LOL!! Just curious.   

 

Edit to add: I had to look it up. I don't know why I didn't understand it when I saw it spelled out. LOL!!!

Uptalk: a manner of speaking in which declarative sentences are uttered with rising intonation at the end, as if they were questions.

Upspeak is the more proper terminology I think, but I prefer using the term 'uptalk' since it seems more self-explanatory.

As for the content of the podcast, she didnt seem too revisionist but she won as u say.

[cherrypj]

Who gives a crapbag what Michelle (or any other person) sounds like? It's such a dog whistle: "vocal fry." 

What did she have to say? I see @ByaNose gave a little detail. Anyone else?

It's bullshit that Rob C doesn't transcribe his podcasts. He'll never be a true media company until he does.

[simplyme]

As long as she doesn't sound like Gilbert Gottfried, I'm okay with it.  To be honest, I never noticed anything wrong with her voice or accent.  Makes me wonder what mine sounds like to people... :O

[thehepburn]

33 minutes ago, simplyme said:

As long as she doesn't sound like Gilbert Gottfried, I'm okay with it.  To be honest, I never noticed anything wrong with her voice or accent.  Makes me wonder what mine sounds like to people... :O

You can easily record yourself and play it back to get a sense of what you sound like if that worries you.

I think it's bullshit that the people who say that Michelle's vocal affectations doesnt matter are the ones who dont bother to listen to 2.5 hrs of it.

[KimberStormer]

I went over to Rob's website to check out that editing podcast, thanks for mentioning it @thehepburn.  I don't know if I learned anything except sort of extra specifics about the process, but it was interesting.  I find it weird that she insists the winner's edit isn't "some secret conspiracy" over and over, I don't even know what she could mean there.  I know, vaguely, what Rob is talking about with extra-intense edgic nerds with charts and diagrams, but I don't think anyone would say "conspiracy" about editing the winner, even henripootel.

I also took a peek around (I never remember about Rob or his site) and boy were (are?) there some salty geeks out there about Aubry losing; another thing I'm sort of mystified about is why people are taking this one so personally, I guess?  I don't feel like I had any sense of any especial love for Aubry during the season, so it is a continual surprise to me how messed up people are about it.  Like I expected something like this about people's precious cinnamon roll Spencer losing last season and it hardly even happened, and then Aubry, who hardly seemed to have a fanbase, loses, and it's all wailing and gnashing of teeth, tearing clothes and dressing in sackcloth and ashes.  God knows I have done somewhat similar (esp. in re HvV) and I'm not saying people shouldn't feel the way they feel, just that I'm super surprised by it -- #blindsided, you might say.

[thehepburn]

That there is no winner's edit is what I would expect any editor to say. There may be no systematic rules but facts are facts: like for instance, NO winner has had the most confessions in E1 (not even winners who chewed up the whole season like Tony and BRob) while some first  runner-ups like Sabrina (S24), Carolyn (S30), Stephenie (S11) have. Ppl who follow the edit would have been able to eliminate Sabrina and Carolyn right there.

Edited June 13, 2016 by thehepburn

[ForeverAlone]

I can't wrap my head around the emotional outcry about Michele's win. Sure, it is natural to be disappointed when the player you are rooting for loses, but other than that, what is the big freaking deal? It's not like you were denied the money or something. But it's like some of the fans are taking it so personal, like it was the jocks and the pretty people conspiring to rob the nerd girl of her deserving win and they are projecting their own feelings onto Michele's win. I don't particularly care why the jury voted for Michele, but I am good with her win. I think it keeps the show interesting to mix up the type of winners and have different sorts of gameplay rewarded. I would be bored as hell if the same type of player always won. 

[Lamb18]

What confused me is that the show didn't really tell me why Michele won.  If Aubry had ended up winning, there was enough in the show to tell me why she won, but I didn't see that with Michele. There was enough to show me why Tai won, if he had won. I had been spoiled that she was the winner so I was waiting to see what she did to earn the win and I never really saw it. She always seemed peripheral until the very end - but maybe that's why she won!

[Nashville]

13 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I didn't listen to the podcast but I feel like viewers get to thinking the edited character they see IS the person and what we saw is all that happened out there.  So if in their view Aubry deserved to win (and she did kind of get that edit), some viewers feel wronged.  

I'm with you, though... the winner is who won.  The jury saw a million times more of all their games than we did.  

I think this is the element escaping most viewers - just how tiny a sliver they see of what is actually going on.

Figure it this way (using this most recent season as an example):

• On average, there's 9 players in the game at any given time (going from 15 people at the beginning to F3).
• Each episode covers a 3-day/72 hour span of time.
• So - you're talking about Production cutting down 684 hours (on average) of recorded footage for each episode (72 hours of footage filmed concurrently on EACH of 9 players, on average) to create a 1-hour episode - which is actually about 45 minutes (3/4 of an hour) of footage, when you allow for commercials.
• Which means the audience is only seeing about a TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of what is actually going on (0.116%, to be precise).

Figure in editors' personal favorites/biases, entertainment value vs. strategic value footage, etc., etc. - and we WONDER why we're left fumbling around in the dark about what's really going on...?  :)

[ByaNose]

13 minutes ago, Nashville said:

I think this is the element escaping most viewers - just how tiny a sliver they see of what is actually going on.

Figure it this way (using this most recent season as an example):

• On average, there's 9 players in the game at any given time (going from 15 people at the beginning to F3).
• Each episode covers a 3-day/72 hour span of time.
• So - you're talking about Production cutting down 684 hours (on average) of recorded footage for each episode (72 hours of footage filmed concurrently on EACH of 9 players, on average) to create a 1-hour episode - which is actually about 45 minutes (3/4 of an hour) of footage, when you allow for commercials.
• Which means the audience is only seeing about a TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of what is actually going on (0.116%, to be precise).

Figure in editors' personal favorites/biases, entertainment value vs. strategic value footage, etc., etc. - and we WONDER why we're left fumbling around in the dark about what's really going on...?  :)

You are just too way smart for me. I'm just getting dizzy with all of the stats. That said, every Survivor player has said half the time they are bored out of their minds with all of the down time which isn't shown. So I can understatnd the frustration on everybody's end whether they didn't like Michelle winning or they didn't like that Aubry didn't win. So much footage and only 14 hours of actual show to air. Maybe, if it was live like BB it might be more clear but I don't want my beloved Survivor to be BB. LOL!!!!

[Nashville]

2 minutes ago, ByaNose said:

Maybe, if it was live like BB it might be more clear but I don't want my beloved Survivor to be BB. LOL!!!!

Same here.  :)

Similar genre notwithstanding: I like both BB and Survivor, but for different reasons. I don't expect them to be the same because there's no way they could be the same - and that suits me just fine.  :>

[ByaNose]

Just now, Nashville said:

Same here.  :)

Similar genre notwithstanding: I like both BB and Survivor, but for different reasons. I don't expect them to be the same because there's no way they could be the same - and that suits me just fine.  :>

I'm totally with you . Survivor is my serious partner whereas BB is my guilty summer pleasure. Shall the twain never meet. Unless, you were on BB and then go on Survivor. Of course, that would never happen. Oh, wait.................... LOL!!!!

[Nashville]

22 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I agree with that, too.  It might be tough to show Michele forging strong relationships because that happens in snippets, but you'd think they could have gotten some confessional footage with players claiming that Michele is strong socially or they love her or Aubry is too competitive or whatever.  Or maybe I didn't pay attention too closely.  Though I guess we did see Tai (or was it Aubry) insisting they couldn't go to the end with Michele.  That's all that springs to mind for me of evidence that she had so many fans on the jury.  

I believe it was Aubry who voiced concerns about being in the finals with Michelle because of Michelle's stronger social game - which, truthfully, didn't come across very strongly to me on the broadcast.  YMMV

That being said - as the player base has shifted over the years from Survivor-motivated competitor types to the models and (for lack of a better term) famewhores, has anybody else noticed a strong shift in the winner's vote to be more of a beauty/popularity contest at the expense of consideration for a player's strategic game?  

Yes, of course, the social has always been a major aspect; it just seems to me that in the past few seasons it has become almost the sole criterion.  About the only recent exception which pops to mind is Tony.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Nashville

[LadyChatts]

Nashville, it's funny you mention it being a beauty/popularity contest.  There was an article I read after the finale that described Michele's win as the pretty popular girl getting crowned prom queen over the geeky Aubry.  It referenced it being like high school all over again.

Edited June 14, 2016 by LadyChatts

[KimberStormer]

I personally think that actually things have shifted (back?) to being more about strategy in recent years.  There was a long unbroken stretch post-Micronesia where (in broad strokes) the "social" player beat the "strategic" player: Bob over Sugar, JT over Stephen, Natalie over Russell, Sandra over Parvati, Fabio over Sash.  Obviously I'm just speaking in generalities, and a lot of those social players had strategy, and strategic players had social game, but hopefully you see what I mean.  I sort of think actually whatsisface the creepy lawyer kid (y'know, the one who proposed to Tocantins Boobs Girl on live TV) getting up and making his big pro-Rob speech was a turning point in that regard.  Not only did we get a lot of silly similar speeches (I think it's a great way to fool yourself that you actually won, that you "advocated" for the eventual winner) but also saw more "strategic" players win--Kim, Tony, Jeremy.

But really, honestly, truly: I don't know if there's any winner at all whom the jury didn't just plain like better than their competition.  From at least Tina onwards.  Maybe that's lame, but that's Survivor.

[Special K]

Two funny things about that video:

Phillip Special Agent looking all full-on crazy ass!  I forgot he came to FTC that way!

And Boston Rob trying hard to keep a neutral face.

[LadyChatts]

At the end of the day, popularity is always going to win out.  These jurors aren't far enough removed from the game to let any anger or bitterness go.  Plus, some have to get their last moment in the sun by making a complete ass of themselves by saying how much classier they are than the finalists who beat them.  Very few instances I can think of where the winner played the best game and won, yet was outright hated by the jury.  Playing the better game is just the added bonus.  I guess there is something to being social after all, even if that's all you do. Which is probably why I can't get on board with social game only winning players.

Edited June 14, 2016 by LadyChatts

[azshadowwalker]

On 6/12/2016 at 9:52 PM, thehepburn said:

You can easily record yourself and play it back to get a sense of what you sound like if that worries you.

I think it's bullshit that the people who say that Michelle's vocal affectations doesnt matter are the ones who dont bother to listen to 2.5 hrs of it.

I have listened to quite a lot of Michele speaking, and find nothing wrong with it. I do find the whole picking apart of women's speech to be nonsense, though, and completely agree that terms like "vocal fry" and "uptalk" are Internet dog whistles that mean nothing at all. They get trotted out whenever someone wants to criticize a young woman, but have nothing else. They boil down to, "Shut up, bitch." 

[thehepburn]

4 hours ago, azshadowwalker said:

I have listened to quite a lot of Michele speaking, and find nothing wrong with it. I do find the whole picking apart of women's speech to be nonsense, though, and completely agree that terms like "vocal fry" and "uptalk" are Internet dog whistles that mean nothing at all. They get trotted out whenever someone wants to criticize a young woman, but have nothing else. They boil down to, "Shut up, bitch." 

 

An affectation is an affectation, whether it belongs to someone young/old/male or female. Winner Sophie Clark is another uptalker, except that she has interesting things to say so I just deal with it. Michelle, not so much so all I remember is the vocal fry. Shrug.

[ByaNose]

20 hours ago, thehepburn said:

 

An affectation is an affectation, whether it belongs to someone young/old/male or female. Winner Sophie Clark is another uptalker, except that she has interesting things to say so I just deal with it. Michelle, not so much so all I remember is the vocal fry. Shrug.

Yeah, Sophie has always come off sounding so smart that it never bothered me. Whereas, Michele isn't dumb or anything but her tone is just more noticeable to me. Either way, they are both deserving winners. I listened to Nicks podcast yesterday and I thought he was so obnoxious on the show but he had such good insight about his season which he said he basically sucked at. He said Michelle rightfully won the season and he hadn't even voted for her. He did say one thing that I have always agreed with. No one deserves to win Survivor. It's a million dollar game show and everyone can win. No one deserves it over anyone else. IMO!!

Edited June 19, 2016 by ByaNose

[Guest]

Vocal fry is a real thing.  I mentioned it in Michele and have no bad feelings about her.  I don't think she's a bitch or an unworthy winner.  I just find her hard to listen to.  

One study had people record some statements (men and women both) with and without vocal fry.  People who listened to them were 80% more likely to say they'd hire the person without the vocal fry affectation.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/02/study-women-with-creaky-voices-also-known-as-vocal-fry-deemed-less-hireable/

Here's another good article on vocal fry and upspeak.

http://www.businessinsider.com/upspeak-vocal-fry-hurt-your-reputation-2015-7

You may not hear it or notice it or it may not bother you but it definitely exists.  The people it does bother are not all women-hating liars.  

I'm not really sure where Michele's speech falls within these or if it's just such a high voice but her vocal style makes her come across to me as someone I probably don't have much in common with, and maybe it's generational.  I don't dislike her, I just think her speech style undermines her own credibility as someone other than the 'pretty, young girl' player.  But it's interesting that it didn't undermine her popularity with the jury.  If you spend that much time with someone maybe the vocal style fades into the background? 

Edited June 19, 2016 by Guest

[ljenkins782]

On June 18, 2016 at 5:27 PM, azshadowwalker said:

I have listened to quite a lot of Michele speaking, and find nothing wrong with it. I do find the whole picking apart of women's speech to be nonsense, though, and completely agree that terms like "vocal fry" and "uptalk" are Internet dog whistles that mean nothing at all. They get trotted out whenever someone wants to criticize a young woman, but have nothing else. They boil down to, "Shut up, bitch." 

That's quite a leap of logic. People (men and women, young and old) get comments about certain attributes or affectations, this is no different. 

I found Michele's voice extremely irritating to listen to, but in no way does that mean I'm secretly saying "shut up, bitch." I don't even know how one would jump all the way to that conclusion. 

Quote

But really, honestly, truly: I don't know if there's any winner at all whom the jury didn't just plain like better than their competition.  From at least Tina onwards.  Maybe that's lame, but that's Survivor.

Yeah, I think Richard is a winner that falls into the "less liked" category vs Kelly, but apparently would have won in a landslide if not for Sue's infamous speech (Colleen and Gervase both say they switched their votes after that because they felt bad for her).

As for Tina, I'm not sure she was necessarily the more liked, that was a pretty evenly matched final 2 in the likability factor. I had just rewatched that reunion not too long ago and it seems that Colby got hosed by Elisabeth based on his "future potential." She pretty much admitted that she considered the two of them and decided that Colby had a wide open future where the sky was the limit, so she threw her vote to Tina instead and that ended up being the winning vote. 

I don't know what Colby's up to these days, but I'm not sure he lived up to whatever she thought he was poised to do back then. 

Quote

I listened to Nicks podcast yesterday and I thought he was so obnoxious on the show but he had such good insight about his season which he said he basically sucked at. He said Michelle rightfully won the season and he hadn't even voted for her.

Off-island Nick is so much better than he was on the show, he's very interesting to listen to when he's not talking exclusively about himself. 

[Special K]

Didn't Colby host some cable reality program about competitive shooting or something?  That was a long time ago, though.

[Kromm]

16 minutes ago, Special K said:

Didn't Colby host some cable reality program about competitive shooting or something?  That was a long time ago, though.

Top Shot. As recently as 3 years ago. So not that long.

[fishcakes]

Quote

Didn't Colby host some cable reality program about competitive shooting or something?

I had to look at his IMDb page, and it looks like there were two shows, Top Guns and Top Shot, that he hosted but neither lasted all that long. His last hosting gig was in 2013 and last acting job in 2006. I know he was semi-regularly on the Rachael Ray show a few years ago, doing some kind of DudeBro roundtable with a group of 5 or 6 actor/model guys. I distinctly remember Colby saying, "the most sexiest thing to me is a woman in a ponytail," which was embarrassing but in a hilarious way.

Edited June 23, 2016 by fishcakes

[ljenkins782]

15 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

I had to look at his IMDb page, and it looks like there were two shows, Top Guns and Top Shot, that he hosted but neither lasted all that long. His last hosting gig was in 2013 and last acting job in 2006. I know he was semi-regularly on the Rachael Ray show a few years ago, doing some kind of DudeBro roundtable with a group of 5 or 6 actor/model guys. I distinctly remember Colby saying, "the most sexiest thing to me is a girl in a ponytail," which was embarrassing but in a hilarious way.

I think he did some commercials too, but I guess in the Survivor-mania days of the early 2000s, Elisabeth thought he was about to shoot off into orbit and be a mega-star. She actually had more success than he did in the entertainment industry. 

[fishcakes]

Yeah, the players from the first two seasons did a lot of game shows and cameo roles in TV shows. I don't think Jerri got very much work though, which is kind of sad since she was an actress before coming on the show but was so hated after her season aired, she might have ended up hurting her career more than helping it. Elisabeth has probably been the most successful former Survivor in terms of having a show business career, although I'd put Colby at a distant second. For a while there, it looked like he might make a go of it as an actor. He wasn't overly talented, but he does have the bland handsomeness of a soap opera actor.

[LadyChatts]

Colleen Haskell also had some decent success after her Survivor run.  She had the Blistex commercial, as well as a movie role with Rob Schneider (The Animal).  Had she not abandoned the entertainment industry, I'm curious if she could have had more success.  Kelly Wiglesworth also did some celebrity adventure show, but that didn't last long. 

Edited June 23, 2016 by LadyChatts

[fishcakes]

Oh, that's right! I forgot about The Animal. I saw that movie too, which shows you how much of a Survivor fan I am.

[Guest]

I feel like Colby lost due to not going to the end with that jerk Keith Famie, and choosing Tina instead.  Stupid move.  You take the goat.  

[ljenkins782]

12 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I feel like Colby lost due to not going to the end with that jerk Keith Famie, and choosing Tina instead.  Stupid move.  You take the goat.  

Oh, 100%. But I think he honestly believed he would still win and wanted Tina to enjoy 2nd prize and hubris got him. He wanted to be the good guy and get the prize too and it just didn't work out. Elisabeth's weighing of his future potential would never have come up had he been sitting next to Keith, he would have had her vote hands down. 

[simplyme]

On 6/19/2016 at 9:44 AM, Winston9-DT3 said:

Vocal fry is a real thing.  I mentioned it in Michele and have no bad feelings about her.  I don't think she's a bitch or an unworthy winner.  I just find her hard to listen to.  

...

You may not hear it or notice it or it may not bother you but it definitely exists.  The people it does bother are not all women-hating liars.

Great links in that article.

I certainly understand that there are people annoyed by her voice, and I don't think that makes them misogynists.  People just react differently to different sounds, tones, and affectations.  I honestly don't even notice the vocal fry when she talks.  I don't know why.  It could be that I spent years working with the public and people with a wide variety of backgrounds and accents.  Or that I spent a number of years in Pittsburgh, home of Pittsburghese.  Once you hear people that sound like this YouTube video, things like vocal fry don't register. :)  Or I could just be slow. :P

Mostly I think we can all stop assuming that if people don't have the same reaction to her voice, it must be because they either didn't listen enough or there's something wrong with them.  People have different experiences and notice different things.

I think Michele's voice may just be one of those "agree to disagree" topics.

[Guest]

I didn't notice the vocal style, either, until she won and I went back and listened to some confessionals, wondering what I missed and if it was just her edit.  I feel like if she had been particularly funny, perceptive, strategic or anything, I might've listened to her more.  But the combo of the vocal style and the lack of interesting things to say caused me to mostly tune her out and assume she was a red shirt.  

Edited to add:  Now that BB is back with very-nasally-voiced Nicole, I think I tuned out Michele more due to her lack of content than voice.  I have no problem listening to Nicole.  

Edited June 25, 2016 by Guest