Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
cooksdelight

Winner Edit vs. Loser Edit: Discuss Amongst Yourselves

Recommended Posts

I'd change the title.  This should be about hero vs. villain edits, too.

 

Like some others early in the season, I was worried that Josh was getting the winner's edit, because they were showing each facet of his game in the early weeks and showing how he was in control of Coyopa.  The only things that gave me hope were that they showed at least one person distrustful of him (Baylor) after he went behind her back and wrote her name down at the very first Tribal Council, and she continued not fully trusting him after that.  Even more so when he missed an episode, confessional-wise, after he was swapped to Hunahpu, took control there with Reed, Alec, and Wes, and he wasn't shown setting up his game in terms of how to proceed.  By the time the merge had hit . . . I don't know.  There were just some moments that led me to believe he was being set up for a fall rather than taking control of the game.  Sure enough, he was gone the second week of the merge.

 

So that takes me to Jeremy.  Unlike Josh, he had confessionals every week he was in the game.  We got to see every facet of his game, as well -- his alliances, how he was adapting to the changes of the game, and how he was dealing with curveballs thrown at him.  And unlike Josh, his edit also came with a bit of a hero's edit, such as his disgust in the majority of the guys' unrefined behavior around camp the week Josh was booted.  He was presented as the leader of the "good" alliance who took over and got rid of Josh.  If anything, his only remotely negative moment (in my eyes, anyway) was when he lost his temper a slight bit over Keith trying lie about him having an idol when he didn't.  But other than that, he was generally portrayed positively.  Even the last part of his final words ("Good guy lost this time") indicated that the editors had definitely chosen him as the hero.

 

Next is Jon.  At first, with the early talk about his father, I did think he might've been a contender, editing-wise, for the winner.  And he generally remained positive in the early weeks, until he finally lost his shit for a moment over being left out of the Drew blindside.  Also, for several weeks, his own game wasn't truly followed, as far as I could see.  It wasn't till the drama over him and Jaclyn being swing votes -- the power couple, basically -- that they even started following his game.  And even then, any positivity to his edit got thrown out the window when he betrayed the designated hero, Jeremy.  From there, they steadily made the power he'd gotten go to his head.  And even worse, they started showing how blind and oblivious to things he was, like the blindsides being planned behind his back.  No winner would ever get presented as that unaware.  Not to mention him being so adamant to claim playing his idol as his own move when everyone with eyes could see that Natalie was the one who'd gotten him to do so.  And to go with it, they showed how sick of him the other castaways were starting to get, as well as his moments of entitlement and arrogance coming out in full force.  Yes, they had the moment of him saying he saw past Jaclyn's condition, but that was to give him a redeeming quality, really.  Nothing more.  Once they showed the jury clearly disinterested in his father story, I was positive that he wasn't winning even if he did manage to get to the end.

 

So looking at who's left . . . I'm going on Natalie.  They've shown bits and pieces of her game at just the right times.  This began with her tirade that got John voted out, leading and organizing the Drew blindside, her taking Julie's place on Exile Island, securing her alliance with Baylor while there, her moments of being shown as observant and having a decent pulse on what was going on, and, since Jeremy's ouster, her quest to avenge his vote-off.  She hasn't gotten too comfortable, she's worked quietly to engineer things to her advantage, and skillfully led Jon's amazing blindside.  That, and they actually showed her friendship/alliance with Baylor as cute, not annoying, pretentious, or just plain too much (unlike Jon and Jaclyn).  She seems to be liked and respected by everyone and has just plain played an amazing game, not making a single enemy.  That moment on Exile Island when they showed her having her moment of missing Nadiya when they didn't have to show her visit there since no idol was there all but clinched it to me.

 

So I think Natalie's the one who had the winner's edit this season.

Edited by Donny Ketchum
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I stopped believing in winner edits after Jenna Morasca they did everything they could to make her unlikable.

I thought Josh got a bad edit they made him look like he was overplaying and he was frantic.

I think Baylor has had a positive edit so far. I don't see all the bratty behavior the guys complained about on the show and in the interviews. Almost every single person who went out pre merge didn't like her. Which I found interesting so even though I want Natalie to win I won't be surprised it Baylor does due to the edit.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

In addition to the Winner and Loser edits, and the Hero and Villain edits, there are two other edits. 

 

First, there's the Narrator edit, which is what Josh and Jeremy got in retrospect.  As it says on the tin, the people that get this edit are the ones that are narrating the events of the season.  Not for just one particular episode, but over the course of several.  There's always at least 2 to start, one per initial tribe (again, see Josh and Jeremy).  But in the event they don't make it all the way to the end, other Narrators have to be found.  Jon's edit would now also be classified as a Narrator edit to some degree.

 

There's also what I'm calling the Spotlight edit.  That happens when someone that hasn't really been a Narrator gets Narrator duty for at least part of an episode.  Typically it's their departure episode, and this edit is usually one of the signs that a lot of people pick up on.  Drew this season is a classic example of a Departure Spotlight.  We barely heard from him at all until he hatched his "brilliant" plan while staring at Jaclyn's ass.  Kelly's edit would probably also be a Departure Spotlight.

 

 

However, sometimes the Spotlight just serves to highlight certain moments from a contestant affected by them.  The best recent example of this comes from last season.  Woo was the primary narrator telling us about the experience of the "Survivor helps the locals" reward.  That and a few other Spotlight moments were the dots on the line of how he made it to FTC.

 

Of course, some the various edits tend to overlap.  Winner edits and Narrator edits look a lot alike, often because the narrator wins, or at least makes it to FTC.  And depending on the person and their play style, the Winner/Narrator could be either Hero or Villain.  While I don't want to make you do this, think back to Hantz-Prime in his first season.  He got a major Narrator edit coupled with a Villain edit.  Whereas Natalie of that season mostly got Hero Spotlights.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I'm trying to figure out Natalie's winner edit:  (a) is it because she won the whole game or (b) is it because she finally got her revenge on Jon for Jeremy being voted out.

 

Whatever the reason, it was a good edit to hook me for the finale.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think Baylor has had a positive edit so far. I don't see all the bratty behavior the guys complained about on the show and in the interviews. Almost every single person who went out pre merge didn't like her. Which I found interesting so even though I want Natalie to win I won't be surprised it Baylor does due to the edit.

 

I feel this way, too. If you read exit interviews you'd be pretty sure Baylor didn't have much of a chance, but her edit doesn't really support that. They aren't showing any of her terrible behavior. Although I guess maybe they actually are and some people (including myself) just don't think she's as bad as these people do. But anyway, she's also gotten a decent amount of time explaining her moves and her reasoning. Add in the "Missy and Baylor's Relationship" edit that's getting decent screentime, and I think there's a chance Baylor is the winner. Which will surprise me, but only because it's obvious now that people don't like her so I'll be shocked if she gets votes, but her edit will support her winning, IMO. Oh, an on top of that, Probst actually complimented her in one of his EW interviews and she just doesn't seem like the type of player he would ever compliment, so that makes me wonder about her chances for winning, too.

 

I like your explanations on different edits, SVNBob. What do you think of Keith's edit?

Edited by peachmangosteen

Share this post


Link to post

So looking at who's left . . . I'm going on Natalie.  They've shown bits and pieces of her game at just the right times. 

 

This is the classic Female Winner's Edit. The worst offenses were with Sophie and Natalie White, with people across the Survivorsphere asking who this person was that was somehow in the Final 6 and suddenly seemed well positioned to possibly win. They sort of did it with Denise and HvV Sandra, too, and probably would have done it to Kim if it weren't for her vicegrip on every single thing that happened that season - it would have been impossible to edit her into oblivion in favor of her male counterpart. Thankfully she didn't have a Coach/Ozzy, Russell Hantz or Malcolm to play the editor's  first fiddle. 

 

When a woman wins, it's the Story of How He Lost, not how she won.

 

I stopped believing in winner edits after Jenna Morasca they did everything they could to make her unlikable..

 

It's been argued that Jenna Morasca was what started the entire "Winner's Edit" in the first place.

 

In the Pre-Allstars era, the editors were very creative and unpredictable with how they positioned their winners. Vecepia was quiet, but her strategy was very clearly demonstrated to the viewer from the beginning. Tina and Rich were given hero/villain yin/yang edits, while Brian's game was similar to Kim's in that it was obvious what he was doing and why: no editorial decisions needed. Ethan's "Jesus Edit" is perhaps the most fun, if completely harebrained. I read an article ages ago pointing out visual cues and editing tricks that positioned Ethan as Jesus, complete with Stars of David appearing in his shots, alluding to a betrayal (Kelly) and other things that I can't recall. But it was a fun post-hoc speculation!

 

For Jenna, she was giving them controversial soundbytes and they went with it. It's not like it was American Idol where she'd need to sell records afterward, so who cares, right? They did the same strategy with Sandra, but by the time they'd edited Pearl Islands, they didn't yet know the backlash that Jenna would receive. Amber's win was edited as "How Rob Lost" so we can ignore that one, ushering in the new era of the Winner's Edit.

 

Chris and Danni were moderate, but Tom, Aras, Yul, and Earl had the most heavyhanded Winner Edits of all time complete with heroic helicopter shots. Todd's was pretty strong, but I will give the editors credit for making Amanda seem like the frontrunner. The editors also did a decent job with Parvati, as the Black Widow Brigade as a whole was given their due credit. JT didn't need an Edit to make him the obvious winner.

 

The worst editing of any season ever of any show in extistence ever would have to be Caramoan. Ever. The editors did such a poor job crafting a stable of believable possible winners that the chances of Cochran winning went from 50% after Malcolm's boot up to 100% after Andrea's boot. Which didn't have to be the case - I would have bought Erik or Brenda as winners. Cochran's edit wasn't so much a Winner's Edit but a "Everybody Else Sucks and We Won't Try and Pretend Otherwise" Edit.

 

Which, one may try to argue that San Juan Del Sur is similar. However, I wouldn't have been completely shocked to see any post-merge member win except Julie, Alec or Wes. And those are pretty good odds. The cast may be subpar in terms of strategy this season, but the editors have redeemed themselves from the pre-merge Editing From Hell where only Josh and John Rocker had vocal chords.

Edited by Oholibamah
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

@Oholibamah, I agree with most of those except Aras.  I don't think his winner's edit was that obvious at all, especially given all the confessionals from people who thought he was an ass.  By the time the F6 rolled around, the only one it seemed still liked him was Cirie.

 

Also, you missed two winners.  Where you would you categorize Bob and Fabio's edits?  More like "why Sugar lost" and "why Chase and Sash lost," respectively?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

When a woman wins, it's the Story of How He Lost, not how she won.

 

Sandra at HvV and Sophie WERE the stories of how others lost.  Though in Sandra's case, one of the others was a woman (Parvati).  Natalie had the good fortune to align with one of the great villains in Survivor history, a genius at taking himself and his allies to the end, but so unlikable he practically guarantees someone else will win. 

 

Kim absolutely had the winner's edit -- at least once they merged, which was when she started to dominate.  Denise's season had so many good players, so many interesting characters, no one got a clear winner's edit.  Denise came across as a fantastic winner of an outstanding season. 

 

Amber came across as Rob's love interest.  He made all the moves to keep her alive, and bring the two of them to the final.  If he hadn't done that, I think the odds are fair he would have made it to F2 anyway, and without so much blood on his hands, probably would have won. 

 

When Parvati won, she looked the winner for ages.  Only one other person got a winner's edit: Cirie, i.e. another woman. 

 

Natalie has been getting the winner's edit for some time now.  She is portrayed as the best player this season, which I think she is, in just about every category.  No one else comes close.  (Puzzles might be a weakness?)  So it will be interesting if someone else wins, e.g. Baylor, who doesn't appear to do much besides confide in Natalie. 

 

 

 

I still have my money on Nat for the win. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

It's been argued that Jenna Morasca was what started the entire "Winner's Edit" in the first place.

 

In the Pre-Allstars era, the editors were very creative and unpredictable with how they positioned their winners. Vecepia was quiet, but her strategy was very clearly demonstrated to the viewer from the beginning. Tina and Rich were given hero/villain yin/yang edits, while Brian's game was similar to Kim's in that it was obvious what he was doing and why: no editorial decisions needed. Ethan's "Jesus Edit" is perhaps the most fun, if completely harebrained. I read an article ages ago pointing out visual cues and editing tricks that positioned Ethan as Jesus, complete with Stars of David appearing in his shots, alluding to a betrayal (Kelly) and other things that I can't recall. But it was a fun post-hoc speculation!

 

For Jenna, she was giving them controversial soundbytes and they went with it. It's not like it was American Idol where she'd need to sell records afterward, so who cares, right? They did the same strategy with Sandra, but by the time they'd edited Pearl Islands, they didn't yet know the backlash that Jenna would receive. Amber's win was edited as "How Rob Lost" so we can ignore that one, ushering in the new era of the Winner's Edit.

I have never heard that about Jenna. I have heard the arguments that  Tina and Vecepia started the "winner's edit". The editors completely threw Jenna under the bus they made her look like a dim model who had no strategy when she was as much as a superfan as Rob C. If you notice on a rewatch they don't even mention her mom has cancer until right before the Survivor Auction Episode. The one theory I have heard about her edit is that they had to make Jenna not very likable because her nemesis was Christy and they couldn't give the first ever death contestant a bad edit. Also, Jenna was well liked by the rest of the players while Christy wasn't.

 

If you are interested in the Ethan "Jesus Edit" you should check out "The Dog that Didn't bark" for Tina. It was done by the same person and it's an interesting read it details how they did everything they could not to show Tina making any big moves so she would be the anti-Richard.

 

Kim absolutely had the winner's edit -- at least once they merged, which was when she started to dominate.

It's funny you mention Kim I read an interview she did were she had thought she had won when they left the island, but once the show was airing she thought she had lost. The same thing happened with Todd, he thought Courtney was getting the "Winners Edit".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Also, you missed two winners.  Where you would you categorize Bob and Fabio's edits?  More like "why Sugar lost" and "why Chase and Sash lost," respectively?

 

Certainly Bob was "why Sugar lost" (but hardly that, even...more like the "PSYCH EVERYONE HATES SUGAR HAHA FOOLED YOU" edit) but with Fabio I think they did give him a winner's edit.  A Comedic Hero edit.  They showed him being a loveable doof whenever possible, but also his Million Dollar Quote about "I hate acting dumb, but it's the best thing to do right now!"  (They must have cried themselves to sleep in gratitude when he said that one.)  By the last couple of episodes he was getting more attention, as I recall, as he grew more confident and started killing it on immunities.  At one of the last tribals he was sort of egging on Sash & Chase to get them to talk about how awful they were while the entire jury was laughing along with him and I knew for sure he would win.  I don't feel like they did a good job of showing How Chase and Sash lost...I still don't understand how Sash ended up with zero votes (unless the conspiracy theories are true) and though I watched every episode of Nicaragua (why on earth did I do that?) you could have showed me a picture of Chase during the finale and I wouldn't have been able to identify him.

 

Sandra at HvV and Sophie WERE the stories of how others lost.

 

When Parvati won, she looked the winner for ages.  Only one other person got a winner's edit: Cirie, i.e. another woman. 

 

It's interesting because, I think, the fact that Sandra mostly lucked into her HvV win (I don't mean to take anything from Sandra--great survival instincts and unbelievable FTC skills, but I'll never believe she didn't fall into that win) against such great players prompted them to give her an outrageously over-the-top winner edit.  If you watch HvV knowing she won, you really see them rubbing your face in it, over and over again.  I mean she gives them amazing material to work with, and they show it all--"Russell doesn't think I'll get any votes...but I don't know about that!"..."This is my hustle, I come on Survivor, I get my money, I go home"..."I'll write your name down and you'll still give me your million dollar vote", and on and on.  And I think they had to because it's so hard to accept, as an ending, that they had to pour it on thick just so we didn't all go insane from the cognitive dissonance. 

 

In Micronesia, I feel like all of the final 3 had pretty strong edits.  Amanda was always portrayed as having just the right amount of strategy for America to love her--smart, but not ruthless.  And her idol play was presented as a huge triumph.  When she raises her hand and says "about that, Jeff..." I think the editors would have put the Indiana Jones theme in if they could have.  (And why not, it was a great play.  Actually I think all 3 of our heroes came off great in that episode--Cirie the pragmatist, saying "I'm not going to rocks, but you go get that idol!", Parvati covering for Amanda while she's digging it up, and Amanda managing to lie convincingly for once in her life.)

 

If you are interested in the Ethan "Jesus Edit" you should check out "The Dog that Didn't bark" for Tina. It was done by the same person and it's an interesting read it details how they did everything they could not to show Tina making any big moves so she would be the anti-Richard.

It's funny you mention Kim I read an interview she did were she had thought she had won when they left the island, but once the show was airing she thought she had lost. The same thing happened with Todd, he thought Courtney was getting the "Winners Edit".

 

I wonder if I've read that...I once read a sort of amazing analysis of Tina's game which claims (I have no idea because I've never seen Australia) that she played an amazing game of playing while not looking like she was playing, not only hiding her moves from the players but even from the producers, or something like that.  I can't remember where I saw it.

 

I remember Sabrina got a strong edit in the beginning and a bit more of one at the end (especially just before final tribal when she was up early communing with God or something...back when God was starting to be a favorite theme of the editors/Mark Burnett).  But I think that was probably just Kim trying not to get her hopes up too much, because come on, Kim, of course you won.  Courtney got one of the most prominent goat edits ever but that's just from pure force of telegenetic personality, like Coach in Tocantins or Rupert in Pearl Islands. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

chocolatechip: really surprised to hear that about Kim.  To me, her dominance was overwhelming.  It got to be a joke: the only sense of urgency or doubt came in the previews.  Time after time, the preview made it look like Kim was in trouble next week.  Then the episode would air, and it turned out she held total control, with an iron grip the entire time (even as everyone loved her for it).  The edit made it look so effortless -- and while I don't think that was the case, she was the runaway favorite in the TWOP forum IIRC. 

 

Kimber: I completely forgot about Andrea.  Maybe because of the Ozzy boot, a key play where she was kept totally in the dark.  While Parvati has always seemed to me the best player ever, Andrea could make a claim for that -- if she could give a good (or even decent) FTC performance. 

Share this post


Link to post

Kimber: about Sandra's win at HvV, I think TPTB did the best they could with her edit.  But my sense is they do that with just about every winner.  There may have been a few exceptions, but they are blue-moon rare IMO.   

 

Maybe I'm gullible, but I think the edits mostly reflect how things actually go.  I don't think Survivor materially misrepresents people's personalities.  I doubt the editors hide key moves or important alliances or who are the masterminds and who tags along.  If that's not the case, I'm all ears for learning how.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

really surprised to hear that about Kim.  To me, her dominance was overwhelming.  It got to be a joke: the only sense of urgency or doubt came in the previews.  Time after time, the preview made it look like Kim was in trouble next week.  Then the episode would air, and it turned out she held total control, with an iron grip the entire time (even as everyone loved her for it).  The edit made it look so effortless -- and while I don't think that was the case, she was the runaway favorite in the TWOP forum IIRC

I was surprised when I read it too. The one thing about Kim though is she is pretty modest. So I can buy the theory she didn't want to be too cocky.

Share this post


Link to post

Kimber: I completely forgot about Andrea.  Maybe because of the Ozzy boot, a key play where she was kept totally in the dark.  While Parvati has always seemed to me the best player ever, Andrea could make a claim for that -- if she could give a good (or even decent) FTC performance. 

Do you mean Amanda?  Andrea didn't play with Ozzy in either of her seasons.

Share this post


Link to post

Donny, thanks, I did indeed mean Amanda.  See, she got such a poor edit, I even got her name mixed up! 

 

Actually, Andrea is another top-notch player, who IMO could go deep in any season she plays. 

Share this post


Link to post

@Oholibamah, I agree with most of those except Aras.  I don't think his winner's edit was that obvious at all, especially given all the confessionals from people who thought he was an ass.  By the time the F6 rolled around, the only one it seemed still liked him was Cirie.

 

Also, you missed two winners.  Where you would you categorize Bob and Fabio's edits?  More like "why Sugar lost" and "why Chase and Sash lost," respectively?

 

I think my brain substituted Vytas' yoga shots from BvW into Panama for Aras. Thinking about it more now, the edit in late Exile Island seemed to circle around the Terry v. Aras rivalry and Casaya's attempt to remove Terry from the game (of course, with comedic asides from Shane and Courtney). As somebody who hates Terry with the fire of a thousand hells, I viewed this rivalry through the lens of an Aras winner's edit. But somebody who doesn't mind Terry may not see it as quite so black-and-white.

 

I purposely skipped Bob and Fabio because I find their wins so lackluster and disappointing that I can think of nothing to say about them. Kimberstormer's analysis that Gabon's Edit was "Psych! Everybody Hates Sugar!" is genius.

 

Part of what I find disappointing about their wins is that the editors crammed in every pseudo-strategic move they made wherever possible, yet Natalie and Sophie are ignored all season despite strong showings. With Natalie, I can buy that she wasn't providing the soundbytes, but I can't get on board with that argument for Sophie who loves hearing herself talk.

 

chocolatechip: really surprised to hear that about Kim.  To me, her dominance was overwhelming.  It got to be a joke: the only sense of urgency or doubt came in the previews.  Time after time, the preview made it look like Kim was in trouble next week.  Then the episode would air, and it turned out she held total control, with an iron grip the entire time (even as everyone loved her for it).  The edit made it look so effortless -- and while I don't think that was the case, she was the runaway favorite in the TWOP forum IIRC. 

 

Kim was sort of invisible pre-swap. When she found the Idol and shared it with Chelsea, she was hidden right back under the editor's rug. Even after the swap, she was shown quietly building alliances with Mike/Troyzan, but the attention was still on the Tribe from Hell featuring Colton and Alicia.

 

After the merge her position in the game is irrefutable, leading viewers to believe it had to be some sort of joke. But IMO it wasn't nearly as bad as Boston Rob or Tony's winner edits. For me Kim and Brian are the anti-Rob and Tony. The editors clearly found Brian and Kim boring, but had to include so much of their footage because they had such strong handles on the game. Meanwhile, Rob and Tony had every single little soundbyte included, ad nauseum, at every possible turn.

 

For Kim and Brian, it wasn't really an edit: they were just extremely well positioned and good at the game. It would have been impossible to hide. For Rob and Tony, an editorial storyline is much more apparent.

 

Kimber: about Sandra's win at HvV, I think TPTB did the best they could with her edit.  But my sense is they do that with just about every winner.  There may have been a few exceptions, but they are blue-moon rare IMO.   

 

Maybe I'm gullible, but I think the edits mostly reflect how things actually go.  I don't think Survivor materially misrepresents people's personalities.  I doubt the editors hide key moves or important alliances or who are the masterminds and who tags along.  If that's not the case, I'm all ears for learning how.  

 

I don't think they necessarily have the poiwer to misrepresent their personalities. But I do think certain winners are given more low-key edits to try and throw the viewer off the scent. More often than not, these low-key edits are given to their female winners. I will never buy that TPTB did the best they could with Sophie or Natalie's edits. Denise's wasn't horrible, but she was still in Malcolm's shadow the entire season.

Edited by Oholibamah
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Kim was sort of invisible pre-swap. When she found the Idol and shared it with Chelsea, she was hidden right back under the editor's rug. Even after the swap, she was shown quietly building alliances with Mike/Troyzan, but the attention was still on the Tribe from Hell featuring Colton and Alicia.

Actually, her alternate alliance was with Jay and Troyzan.  Michael was on the outside of every tribe he was on because no one trusted him due to his early alliance with Matt.

 

But back to Kim, I actually thought she showed up more at the swap, when she found the idol and made her backup alliance with Jay and Troyzan.  Till then, Sabrina was the one I'd thought had been getting the winner's edit.  So yeah, it's weird they spent the first part of One World before the swap showing Sabrina's game before suddenly shifting to Kim's.  They should've stayed on Kim from the start.

Share this post


Link to post

Kim's edit was so positive that it was hard to believe she wouldn't win. When Sabrina, Kim & Chelsea won the reward and were hunched down and plotting I was a little unsure (out of the 3) who was going to win. Apprently, Kim was surprised that Chelsea didn't get any votes whereas Sabrina did. I was into Kim from Day 1 and she was my pick but it's interesting to hear Kim say that she was so boring per TPTB. I didn't think she was as boring but more as running the show and didn't needed any added drama because she was that good. The drama came from Colton, Kat, Alicia & Tarzan. Also, I like One World where most people as one of the worst seasons. To each is own...

Edited by ByaNose
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

After the merge her position in the game is irrefutable, leading viewers to believe it had to be some sort of joke. But IMO it wasn't nearly as bad as Boston Rob or Tony's winner edits. For me Kim and Brian are the anti-Rob and Tony. The editors clearly found Brian and Kim boring, but had to include so much of their footage because they had such strong handles on the game. Meanwhile, Rob and Tony had every single little soundbyte included, ad nauseum, at every possible turn.

 

For Kim and Brian, it wasn't really an edit: they were just extremely well positioned and good at the game. It would have been impossible to hide. For Rob and Tony, an editorial storyline is much more apparent.

 

Yes!  I think this is spot on.  I remember someone on TWOP saying "although they already gave a ton of focus to Kim, I actually wish they had given more.  I want to see the all-Kim edit of One World."  And I'm pretty sure they said the only other person they felt that way about was Brian Heidik.  (Maybe it was you??)  I agreed with that and I wonder if this gets at why: it was a sort of grudging focus, like "oh wellll, I guess we have to show Kim saying this because it's important for the game, sigh" rather than a "don't you love this guy??  look at him winning!!" Tony edit.

 

I assume that an ALL KIM ALL THE TIME edit would, shall we say, serve a limited market, but I would eat that shit up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

I will never buy that TPTB did the best they could with Sophie or Natalie's edits.

 

After seeing Sophie during the season -- after hearing her take on events in interviews -- I think TPTB gave her the best edit they possibly could.  If they had shown her true elitism and contempt for her fellow castaways, she would have been the most disliked winner in Survivor history, IMO. Of course, I also don't believe she ran the game in any way.  My view of her is that she had the personality of Richard Hatch, without the strategic/mastermind control Richard brought to the game. 

 

 

Kim was sort of invisible pre-swap

 

She was invisible because the women as a group were falling apart most of that time.  IIRC, one of them said that precise thing.  The main question was, who would they cannibalize next?  The action, the drama, came from Colton's antics and the men's bizarre decisions to go along with him.  

 

Kim's season was boring, once Colton left.  Over and over, the men proved themselves idiots.  Kim held total control over the entire post-merge game.  She found an HII.  She won challenges.  She kept everyone in line at camp (no real attempts to dislodge her).  Again, Survivor was reduced to trying to trump up excitement in the previews -- and even that proved false. 

 

As a fan, I enjoyed watching her.  But shortly after merge, the season quickly became a foregone conclusion.  

 

Tony: a great player, who got a well-deserved edit, though not at the beginning.  He won with a near-unanimous vote, staying on good terms with nearly everyone on the jury (even as he was instrumental in booting/betraying them), and despite a series of puzzle-based ICs that gave him no chance to win immunity.   If Sophie had Tony's sweetness or his humility, she would have come across much better IMO.  But tigers do not change their stripes. 

 

Boston Rob: controlled his winning season like no one in history.  That was after his historic performance in All-stars, where he chose love over money, but ended up getting both.  IMO the most significant achievement in Survivor history: got himself to the final, got the woman he loved to the final, she/they won the million dollars, ended up married with children, are still together, launched a long-time successful career. 

 

And as unique an achievement as that is, Rob looked like a snake in All-Stars.  Which he was, to everyone not named Amber.  He got the edit he deserved. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I assume that an ALL KIM ALL THE TIME edit would, shall we say, serve a limited market, but I would eat that shit up.

 

I would, too! 

 

I loved One World too, ByaNose.

 

I guess in a way One World and Cagayan were similar in the fact that the edit made it abundantly clear who would win. I was OK with it in One World, but hated it in Cagayan. I guess I'd rather watch a woman actually get shown as the/a dominating force in the game rather than another in a long line of men who got that treatment in the edit.

 

The edit this season seems particularly horrible, but it's making the season less predictable (less so now), so I kinda like it.

Edited by peachmangosteen

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to hear more of you guys' thoughts on Denise's edit.  That was my first full season of watching Survivor so I was learning how the show worked.  Looking back, I'd say Malcolm had more of a winner's edit while Denise just hung in there and survived.  She might have had strategy but I didn't know what to look for in terms of strategy at the time I was watching the show.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if this belongs here, or in the conspiracy thread - there is a Grassy Knoll thread here, right? - but I have two thoughts about the dramatic change in editing this season.  First, sorry Keith, is that a woman is the winner; not only that, but the F3, if not the F4, are all women as well.  Given the shows rampant misogyny, it's not a surprise that instead of a definable, "look at our strategic hero/ plotting villain," story that we've been force fed, "look at how all these men lost the game," episodes. 

 

(And okay, this is pure tin-foil hat territory,) the other is that the editors are deliberately underpresenting the game play of almost the entire cast, in an effort to justify always returning to the returning players trough in future seasons.  (Though I think this was said about One World also.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Todd's was pretty strong, but I will give the editors credit for making Amanda seem like the frontrunner.

 

Amanda WAS the frontrunner but the only thing she screwed up was her F-minus tribal council performance.  I think the season's editing showed that pretty clearly: Amanda dominated the actual game but the FTC ended her once and for all.

 

After seeing Sophie during the season -- after hearing her take on events in interviews -- I think TPTB gave her the best edit they possibly could.  If they had shown her true elitism and contempt for her fellow castaways, she would have been the most disliked winner in Survivor history, IMO. Of course, I also don't believe she ran the game in any way

Sophie's "strategy" was pretty straight-forward: get into a strong alliance and ride it all the way to the end.  It's a tried-and-true Survivor method of victory, and since that season was essentially just a Pagonging, there were none of the 'big moves' that the editors and producers love so much.  It also didn't help that the editors absolutely went nuts on giving literally 90% of the confessions to Coach, Ozzy, Cochran or Brandon.

 

Also, in terms of Sophie's "elitism," she was aligned with Coach, crazy Brandon, invisible Rick, hanger-on Edna and douchey Albert --- who wouldn't be contemptuous of those folks?

In regards to Josh and Jeremy this season, I don't think they got the narrator/winner edits so much as they got the "this person is giving us so much good stuff but they're out early, so let's use them as much as we can" edit.  This is a relative of the "our celeb is eliminated quickly, let's hype them as much as possible while they're here" edit that we saw with Rocker and Jimmy Johnson.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to hear more of you guys' thoughts on Denise's edit.  That was my first full season of watching Survivor so I was learning how the show worked.  Looking back, I'd say Malcolm had more of a winner's edit while Denise just hung in there and survived.  She might have had strategy but I didn't know what to look for in terms of strategy at the time I was watching the show.

 

Philippines had so many great characters that they were spoiled for choice.  Denise's game was to some degree an under-the-radar game, and the editors pretty much kept her hidden during exactly the points when she was hiding--post-swap and early post-merge.  (It's funny because I would say the two moments of her greatest danger--post-swap in the red tribe and right at the final 5 when Abi went home--are when she had to look the least-threatening, and the editors sort of presented her that way.)  They had a lot to juggle--three returning players who were all sort of duds (Penner slightly excepted) but needed to be highlighted, Lisa who was not only a celebrity but also just naturally telegenic and also pretty much ran the game with Skupin, Malcolm who is a great and hugely charismatic new player who they were bringing back immediately, early powerhouse villains Pete and Abi...man that was such a good season.  Denise was always presented as an extremely capable player, and she got one of the all-time great Winner Edit moments when Malcolm and Russell were falling over each other to praise her and say she'd be a lock to win if she made it to the end, and the part when she said she didn't rely on God but on herself was another classic winner quote.  But she was always shown as just one of several credible winner possibilities.

 

Edgic people would tell you that the sign of a winner isn't that they are made to look heroic but that they are made to look complex and well-rounded, 3-dimensional people.  I don't know if that's true, but Philippines is a good example.  Malcolm was certainly made to look very very good, to his own surprise, and went out just before FTC--a classic fate for the recipient of the hero edit.  (See for example Yau-Man in Fiji, Ian in Palau, Cirie in Micronesia, the odious but hero-edited Terry in Panama.)  Denise wasn't shown as a paragon but as a human being, so maybe that's a winner edit.

 

Generally I would say, looking back over the season, I don't find Malcolm over-edited but rather Skupin under-edited.  I understand it, because he turned out to be pretty boring as a character and other people were much more interesting, but on paper, he could have been the story of the season: the first medivac (right?) who nearly burned himself to death etc, a throwback from Survivor prehistory--one might almost say, a pre-Hatch Survivor, since people in Australia were apparently committed to playing Survivor "right" and not the Richard Hatch Way--but who turned out to actually be pretty good at new school Survivor, creating a strong pair with Lisa and making a well-timed flip to get rid of the people above him in the Tandang alliance.  I have nothing but love for Lisa and I'm sure she played a better social game than Skupin, but it's probably not 'fair' that she got basically all the focus between the two of them, except for the (hilarious) Michael Injures Himself Yet Again storyline.  If only the two of them had realized that Denise was as big a threat in the final as Malcolm, and they had to take their chances on final immunity!

Edited by KimberStormer
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

 

Amanda WAS the frontrunner but the only thing she screwed up was her F-minus tribal council performance.  I think the season's editing showed that pretty clearly: Amanda dominated the actual game but the FTC ended her once and for all.

Apparently Amanda's FTC was worse than what we were shown.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I stopped believing in winner edits after Jenna Morasca they did everything they could to make her unlikable.

 

I disliked Jenna for something that editing didn't manipulate.  When all she had to do was jump off the poll - giving up II - to eat something.  That's all she had to do.  But she and her little troll somehow manipulated that into - we'll pull up our tops and expose our crotches to get that food.  I was through with her.  Just the lowest point for a female player, in my opinion.  I actually ended up liking her with Ethan, but it took a while.

 

After seeing Sophie during the season -- after hearing her take on events in interviews -- I think TPTB gave her the best edit they possibly could.  If they had shown her true elitism and contempt for her fellow castaways, she would have been the most disliked winner in Survivor history, IMO. Of course, I also don't believe she ran the game in any way.  My view of her is that she had the personality of Richard Hatch, without the strategic/mastermind control Richard brought to the game. 

 

I didn't read anything on the internet that season, just went off of what I saw on the episodes.  I liked Sophie and rooted for her to win.  But when Jeff announced she had won and she stood up, ignored everyone on stage, including Jeff, and went over to her family - it was incredibly awkward.  It told me something about her, I just wasn't sure what it was.

 

 

In Micronesia, I feel like all of the final 3 had pretty strong edits.  Amanda was always portrayed as having just the right amount of strategy for America to love her--smart, but not ruthless.  And her idol play was presented as a huge triumph.  When she raises her hand and says "about that, Jeff..." I think the editors would have put the Indiana Jones theme in if they could have.  (And why not, it was a great play.  Actually I think all 3 of our heroes came off great in that episode--Cirie the pragmatist, saying "I'm not going to rocks, but you go get that idol!", Parvati covering for Amanda while she's digging it up, and Amanda managing to lie convincingly for once in her life.)

 

I loved Amanda and Cirie, but just hated Parvati.  I know I'm supposed to love Parvati, but I can't.  She's just nails on a chalkboard.  I've only gone on message boards and read other things about the show on the internet the last couple of years, so I always went strictly from what was shown.  I really loved Amanda's first season, but it seems everyone hates her.  I know she didn't own her shit at final tribal, and I barely even remember the guy who beat her. I remember that Amanda let Ozzie distract her that second season.

Share this post


Link to post

I like your explanations on different edits, SVNBob. What do you think of Keith's edit?

Thank you.

 

It appears that the various edits fall on the intersections of various spectra of certain qualities.  We've talked about the Victory spectrum (Winner vs. Loser), the Virtue spectrum (Hero vs. Villain) and the Continuity spectrum (Narrator vs. Spotlight).  And there's probably others.  I thought I might have seen another one while thinking about this question, but I don't have a full bead on it.

 

Keith, as well as everyone else in this F5, has had mainly Spotlights, and generally heroic at that.  He's mostly been shown reacting to events around him, and not pro-active like Natalie, Baylor, or Missy (in descending order of hustle shown).  And even though he's been shown as a weak link in alliances ("Stick with the plan."), he wasn't shown as totally clueless (he was the only Meathead we were shown that thought about talking to Jaclyn while Jon was on Exile the first time).  So, a good overall edit, but I don't think enough to be a Winner edit.

 

He's also kind of been put into another "role" edit; the Jester.  Of the entire cast, he's been the most like a class clown and had the closest things to one-liners and jokes.  This is a role that goes all the way back to the first season of Survivor, with Rudy as the first Jester.  And very occasionally, the Jester is the Winner.  Fabio and Cochran come to mind for that.

 

Natalie's Exile Spotlight moment may be the signifier of her win.  It's kind of equivalent to Earl on the mountaintop.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Kimberstormer, thank you for the analysis!  I'd watched Survivor episodes before, but Denise's season is what got me hooked.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going with Natalie winning mainly because it seems that the winner is usually given a talking head in the first episode or two and I don't recall either Baylor, Missy or Jacklyn getting one.  Keith did, which makes him a possibility, but I think Natalie has had a stronger edit.

Share this post


Link to post

It appears that the various edits fall on the intersections of various spectra of certain qualities.  We've talked about the Victory spectrum (Winner vs. Loser), the Virtue spectrum (Hero vs. Villain) and the Continuity spectrum (Narrator vs. Spotlight).  And there's probably others.  I thought I might have seen another one while thinking about this question, but I don't have a full bead on it.

 

Natalie's Exile Spotlight moment may be the signifier of her win.  It's kind of equivalent to Earl on the mountaintop.

 

Oh great, now I'm trying to visualize a 3D Venn diagram.  I'm going to obsess over that for a good chunk of the day.  Nat's spotlight also expands upon the, "showing the contestant as a more complete human being," winner edit meme.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going with Natalie winning mainly because it seems that the winner is usually given a talking head in the first episode or two and I don't recall either Baylor, Missy or Jacklyn getting one.  Keith did, which makes him a possibility, but I think Natalie has had a stronger edit.

Natalie got a couple, for sure.  Baylor got a couple, as well, including one when she was deciding whether to go with Val's women's alliance or side with Josh to get rid of Nadiya.  Missy got one when Jeremy recruited her to his initial alliance.  Actually, everyone he recruited got a confessional except for Kelley, which told me she'd be an early boot.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

So do you guys think that this season has been edited "horribly"? People in the episode threads keep talking about the "horrible" edit this season, and I'm not really sure what they mean, but it seems like it has something to do with the fact that players who get the "frontrunner" spotlights (Josh, Jeremy, Jon) keep getting voted out. So that confuses people and they're not sure who to root for, because they're used to seasons where basically one person (e.g. Tony, Tyson, Rob, Russell, etc.) gets the spotlight all season and you decide whether to root for them or against them.  But this season has had multiple frontrunners, and so people are thrown off.

 

I don't really think it's been edited "horribly". I think the editors have for the most part just been honestly showing what's been going on out there, day by day.  In retrospect it seems obvious that they've focused most of the spotlight on the 6 players who made it to the end, plus the two warring alliance leaders (Josh and Jeremy) who got themselves voted out early.  You couldn't have edited those two out, because so much of the merge game play centered around them.

 

I also think that the show will, naturally, for the ratings, always show more of the big personalities, and more often than not, that means men.  And I do think that's sexist, BUT I think maybe that has less to do with Survivor's (and Jeff's) particular sexism and more to do with the sexism in our society as a whole.  Because I think that for the most part, in the real world, men are much more likely to be ALLOWED to have big, loud, brash, even delusional personalities than women.  Sure, we may mock them for it sometimes, but these personalities in men are tolerated and (especially in the media) even sometimes admired.  Whereas with women, if they have big personalities, they're usually depicted (and thought of) as either manipulative witches (see Parvati, Cirie, Amanda, Sandra), or sometimes just simply crazy or pathetic (Shambo).

 

Fictional media reinforce this dichotomy of personalities that men are allowed to have and women aren't.  And thus, to give one example, it always bothers me that on these formulaic crime shows where one partner is a borderline nut case who "charmingly" breaks all the social and bureaucratic rules, and the other person is a patient straight-laced person who has to rein the other one in, the former is always a man and the latter a woman.  E.g. The Mentalist, Elementary, X-Files.

 

Art imitates life, and life imitates art in turn.  And so women and men internalize what they're allowed or forbidden to be. And so the women who apply for Survivor have more-or-less "small" personalities because that's what they've internalized, and when the show decides to focus on the "big" personalities, it's almost always men.  Of course Survivor is perpetuating this cycle by choosing to focus on "big" personalities.

 

Hmmm, I've gone a little astray here. But I think what I was trying to get at is that, for the most part, Survivor's editing focuses on -- in no particular order: (1) showing what actually happened, (2) the players who get to the end, including but not limited to the winner, and (3) the "big" personalities. Sometimes all 3 of these merge into a single player (Tony, Rob) and sometimes they don't (Jeremy, Josh, John Rocker, Fiji's Rocky).

 

I used to believe in a "winner's edit", but now after being burned 3 times in a single season, I'm not so sure.  I think that sometimes a single player just completely dominates a season or part of it (dramatically and/or in gameplay), and in those cases they won't bother to hide it, though sometimes I wish they would.  But I do think that sometimes if a low-key player wins, they'll try to include more scenes of that player to "justify" that win or to humanize the winner.  I think it's most suspicious when the airtime spent on those players seems disproportionate to the personality and/or game impact of those players.  The most obvious one to my mind was in Samoa, when they dedicated a scene to Natalie White killing that rat. That scene seemed silly and out-of-place to me and really tipped me off to her winning.  Another one was in the original Fans vs. Favorites, where it felt like to us viewers that Cirie was engineering and controlling certain things, but Jeff Probst was crediting Parvati in his "Previously" voice-overs that seemed disproportionate to her actual contributions.  It's those little touches that scream "winner's edit" to me.

 

I think the important question here is: how do you want the show to be edited?  Do you want to see all the important events as they really happened?  Do you want to be kept in suspense with every vote, with no foreshadowing whatsoever as to who loses and who wins in the end?  Or do you, at the end of the season, want to be able to look back on it and say, "oh, now I understand completely how that player won"?  Me, I kind of want all of those things, but I can't have them all because they conflict with each other. I think the editors walk a fine line.  If they step on one side of it or the other, they get a ton of negative feedback.

 

I guess all my points are focused on how they decide how much airtime is given to each player, and not the kind of edit that they get (e.g. as a Hero or Villain or Buffoon), which is kind of a different question.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think the important question here is: how do you want the show to be edited?  Do you want to see all the important events as they really happened?  Do you want to be kept in suspense with every vote, with no foreshadowing whatsoever as to who loses and who wins in the end?  Or do you, at the end of the season, want to be able to look back on it and say, "oh, now I understand completely how that player won"?  Me, I kind of want all of those things, but I can't have them all because they conflict with each other. I think the editors walk a fine line.  If they step on one side of it or the other, they get a ton of negative feedback.

I think people put too much stock in the winner's edit in general. For this season in particular the only thing editing wise I would really change would be showing us the original blue tribe dynamics. I think this season just did not have very interesting personalities.

Edited by choclatechip45
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with chocolatechip on the blue tribe editing.  Because they always won I didn't know what was going on in their camp regarding alliances, game play, etc. We only learned about it from tribe members saying something later, but we weren't shown any of it.   For example, there's been off the air comments about Reed being very annoying in the blue tribe, but I don't recall being shown any of that before the merge.

Share this post


Link to post
She was invisible because the women as a group were falling apart most of that time.  IIRC, one of them said that precise thing.  The main question was, who would they cannibalize next?  The action, the drama, came from Colton's antics and the men's bizarre decisions to go along with him. 

Kim's season was boring, once Colton left.  Over and over, the men proved themselves idiots.  Kim held total control over the entire post-merge game.  She found an HII.  She won challenges.  She kept everyone in line at camp (no real attempts to dislodge her).  Again, Survivor was reduced to trying to trump up excitement in the previews -- and even that proved false.

 

I agree that the best storyline they had for the women at that point was "look how much the women suck!" but Kim was invisible. My boyfriend referred to Kim as "eyebrows" and Chelsea as "no eyebrows" because he had no idea who they were by the time the swap hit. They managed to portray Sabrina, Christina, Monica and Kat as complete human beings; I think hiding Kim was a conscious effort to balance how much they'd be force to feature her later on.

 

I personally thought One World was a lot of fun. The way it was presented wasn't "how boring is this? Kim's totally got this" but more of "she is freaking awesome, but can she really pull it off?" For me the fun came from the tension between knowing she was crushing it and deserved it 100%, but the reality that the other players could catch on and skunk her first. Add in a cast of very strange and colorful characters (Tarzan, Kat, Alicia, Troyzan) and a likeable F3 all of whom played decently and I thought it was pretty great. In fact, I think it would have been improved sans Colton.

Tony: a great player, who got a well-deserved edit, though not at the beginning.  He won with a near-unanimous vote, staying on good terms with nearly everyone on the jury (even as he was instrumental in booting/betraying them), and despite a series of puzzle-based ICs that gave him no chance to win immunity.   If Sophie had Tony's sweetness or his humility, she would have come across much better IMO.  But tigers do not change their stripes. . 

Tony. Humility. Humility and Tony. Tony and Humility. Does. Not. Compute.

 

The glaring weakness in Tony's entire game was his inability to square his hubris with his paranoia. He was so insanely insecure about his position in the game, yet so overly confident about his ability to rectify these vulnerabilities with unnecessary moves, that he threatened his own game on a number of occasions. He came across well at FTC which is perhaps what you're referring to, but Sophie also provided a stellar FTC performance. We also can't forget that Tony had access to multiple Immunity Idols and was not playing against returning players.

 

 

 

After seeing Sophie during the season -- after hearing her take on events in interviews -- I think TPTB gave her the best edit they possibly could.  If they had shown her true elitism and contempt for her fellow castaways, she would have been the most disliked winner in Survivor history, IMO. Of course, I also don't believe she ran the game in any way.  My view of her is that she had the personality of Richard Hatch, without the strategic/mastermind control Richard brought to the game.

 

Her elitism was rarely undeserved. My favorite targets of her elitism included Adam Sandler, the Upolu prayer circles, and fucking Cochran. I, for one, would have enjoyed a few more examples of this supposedly horrific human being that Ozzy called her out as at Tribal Council. If, as Kimberstormer referenced, a winner should receive a 3-dimensional edit, they failed with Sophie. Players like Tony and Rob are certainly polarizing - why not present Sophie in a similar less-than-flattering light and let the viewers decide for themselves? Why edit her into a flat gamebot that was second-in-command to Coach?

 

She didn't "run the game" in the same way that Richard didn't really "run the game" either. She just understood textbook Survivor: 6 is bigger than 5, and 3 is bigger than 2. The strength of her game, like Rich, was managing people's expectations and what they would gain from working with her. Her game was boring as hell, but it is one of the most seamless and effective games I've seen anyone play thus far.

 

Yes!  I think this is spot on.  I remember someone on TWOP saying "although they already gave a ton of focus to Kim, I actually wish they had given more.  I want to see the all-Kim edit of One World."  And I'm pretty sure they said the only other person they felt that way about was Brian Heidik.  (Maybe it was you??)  I agreed with that and I wonder if this gets at why: it was a sort of grudging focus, like "oh wellll, I guess we have to show Kim saying this because it's important for the game, sigh" rather than a "don't you love this guy??  look at him winning!!" Tony edit.

 

I assume that an ALL KIM ALL THE TIME edit would, shall we say, serve a limited market, but I would eat that shit up.

 

I find Brian sort of gross, so I wouldn't really be into an all-Brian edit of Thailand. But pursuant to this line of thinking, I think it would be awesome if they compiled either a winner's montage for the reunion special or an extra segment for the DVD releases including extra scenes detailing exactly how and why so-and-so won. They did this during The Mole reunions since so much of the player's strategies had to be hidden from the viewers to prevent the identity of the Mole from being spoiled. In Season 2 they outlined the runner-up's strategy and how she figured out who The Mole was before completely losing it and telling the eventual winner the Mole's identity. It was fascinating to see it all presented without any supplemental bullshit and it only took 60 seconds or so.

 

Amanda WAS the frontrunner but the only thing she screwed up was her F-minus tribal council performance.  I think the season's editing showed that pretty clearly: Amanda dominated the actual game but the FTC ended her once and for all...

 

Amanda's social game was allegedly atrocious, so her problems began long before FTC. Amanda was a good strategist and could conceivably have gotten the Todd votes had the F3 been Amanda/Courtney/Denise, but the fact that we're even debating whether or not she would have even beat Courtney makes me think the editors did a very good job featuring her strengths.

 

So do you guys think that this season has been edited "horribly"? People in the episode threads keep talking about the "horrible" edit this season, and I'm not really sure what they mean, but it seems like it has something to do with the fact that players who get the "frontrunner" spotlights (Josh, Jeremy, Jon) keep getting voted out. So that confuses people and they're not sure who to root for, because they're used to seasons where basically one person (e.g. Tony, Tyson, Rob, Russell, etc.) gets the spotlight all season and you decide whether to root for them or against them.  But this season has had multiple frontrunners, and so people are thrown off.

...

I think the important question here is: how do you want the show to be edited?  Do you want to see all the important events as they really happened?  Do you want to be kept in suspense with every vote, with no foreshadowing whatsoever as to who loses and who wins in the end?  Or do you, at the end of the season, want to be able to look back on it and say, "oh, now I understand completely how that player won"?  Me, I kind of want all of those things, but I can't have them all because they conflict with each other. I think the editors walk a fine line.  If they step on one side of it or the other, they get a ton of negative feedback.

 

It happens occasionally where the post-merge of a particular season is considerably better or worse than the pre-merge. Personally, I think San Juan Del Sur's post-merge editing has been impeccable. They've crafted cohesive storylines, done a fair job exhibiting everybody's strategies, kept me guessing who will go home/potentially win, and haven't given anybody an unreasonable amount of screentime.

 

The pre-merge is another story. Decisions were made that weren't fully explained, characters I personally found compelling were completely ignored (Kelley), information that would prove to be important later wasn't disclosed (Reed's social game), and Josh and John were given unjustified amounts of screentime. They also relied too heavily on the forced blood/water drivel which just doesn't work properly when pairs are separated on different tribes.

 

What I want from editing is not a formula, but creativity. Some of the greatest episodes are those that break routine and try something different. One that immediately springs to mind is Randy's boot in Gabon, where the audience was in on the hoax and fully aware of what was happening with Randy in the blindspot. Omitting Amanda finding the Idol in Micronesia was also a nice break from routine.

 

Female confessional counts is a whole other animal which I won't get in to here. But in terms of specific Winner Edits, I've never really had a problem with their existence in general since seasons are all so different and may have different strategies for how they display their winner.

Edited by Oholibamah
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

What a great post, Oholibamah. I agree with you on every point! I'm particularly glad you seem to like Sophie. I liked her a lot and that seems to be a pretty unpopular opinion.

 

Female confessional counts is a whole other animal which I won't get in to here.

 

I think we need a Gender on Survivor thread.

Edited by peachmangosteen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure if anyone got the outright "horrible" edit this season, aside from Drew, whose elimination episode was one of the funniest Survivor eps ever.  There was no subtlety about the vote in that one --- everything in that ep was 100% designed to show how Drew's moronic behaviour was going to get him voted out.

 

Alec came off *slightly* better than his brother (in the sense that a D is better than a D-minus) though the editors still had fun with him.  I think literally every camera shot of Alec featured him sitting here with his mouth open and staring dully into space.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure if anyone got the outright "horrible" edit this season, aside from Drew, whose elimination episode was one of the funniest Survivor eps ever.

I'd say Jon got it after some time.  Or at least the closest thing to it.  After Natalie basically saved him by telling him to play his idol and he gave that arrogant, self-centered confessional bitching that Natalie was going to get credit for "his" move when it was really Natalie's, it kind of went downhill.  The editors had no problem showing how truly disliked he really was by Natalie, Keith, Baylor, and Alec, and even annoyed Jaclyn after a while.  Not to mention how he'd come to feel so comfortable, he didn't work around camp anymore.  And how the jury was not buying his "dying father" story.  Saying he was "visualizing" the Final Tribal Council.  The list goes on.

Edited by Donny Ketchum
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ethan's "Jesus Edit" is perhaps the most fun, if completely harebrained. I read an article ages ago pointing out visual cues and editing tricks that positioned Ethan as Jesus, complete with Stars of David appearing in his shots, alluding to a betrayal (Kelly) and other things that I can't recall. But it was a fun post-hoc speculation!

 

 

Long time ago now, but just as a point of accuracy, Tapewatcher's thread, The REAL Episode 1 Spoiler - Follow the Star, predicted Ethan as the winner, as he posted it in advance of the end of S3. He got some details wrong, but it can't be described as post-hoc speculation, it was pre-hoc. What we really don't know is whether Tapewatcher was privy to inside information and already knew that Ethan was going to win. 

 

As far as this season goes, I think Natalie received the classic sort of female winner edit. The stories of women winning Survivor are almost always understated and oftentimes it takes another viewing before it can be understood just how much those women controlled the gameplay around them. I wasn't watching too in depth this year and didn't pick up on how Natalie was getting a winner's edit until fairly late. Now I might need to go back and watch the first half of the season much more closely.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Kim was invisible. My boyfriend referred to Kim as "eyebrows" and Chelsea as "no eyebrows" because he had no idea who they were by the time the swap hit. They managed to portray Sabrina, Christina, Monica and Kat as complete human beings; I think hiding Kim was a conscious effort to balance how much they'd be force to feature her later on.

 

Sabrina got screen time early on because she found an idol and gave it to Colton.  Christina got time because she convinced the men to share fire (something the other women failed at), and as her reward got abused and ostracized by the cool girls club.  Monica I barely noticed.  Kat was kind of this goofy, lovable, not-so-bright side-kick. 

 

I believe the swap gave the women a new lease on life.  Especially Kim, who ended up in the majority-women tribe.  Before then, what did she do besides go along with her alliance during the boots?  What should Survivor have shown about her, that it didn't, and that shortchanged us, the viewers, about her game? 

Share this post


Link to post

Sabrina got screen time early on because she found an idol and gave it to Colton.  Christina got time because she convinced the men to share fire (something the other women failed at), and as her reward got abused and ostracized by the cool girls club.  Monica I barely noticed.  Kat was kind of this goofy, lovable, not-so-bright side-kick. 

 

I believe the swap gave the women a new lease on life.  Especially Kim, who ended up in the majority-women tribe.  Before then, what did she do besides go along with her alliance during the boots?  What should Survivor have shown about her, that it didn't, and that shortchanged us, the viewers, about her game? 

 

Nothing. I was pointing out that Kim wasn't edited into the early episodes to account for the focus they'd be giving her later. I mentioned Christina et. al. to demonstrate that there was the potential to present the women, Kim included, as complete humans early on despite their main storyline being their suckitude. Kim wasn't used as a narrator, wasn't shown building relationships, and only gave one ineloquent confessional about feminism.

 

I don't have a problem with Kim's early invisibility and don't think she should have been shown more... in a vacuum. But when I consider how often I was subjected to hearing identical confessionals from Rob, Tony and Russell, it does suggest that she was not an editor's favorite and factors heavily into the discussion of her "Winner Edit": we were shown about Kim exactly what we needed to see to understand why she won and nothing more.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

Long time ago now, but just as a point of accuracy, Tapewatcher's thread, The REAL Episode 1 Spoiler - Follow the Star, predicted Ethan as the winner, as he posted it in advance of the end of S3. He got some details wrong, but it can't be described as post-hoc speculation, it was pre-hoc. What we really don't know is whether Tapewatcher was privy to inside information and already knew that Ethan was going to win.

Tapewatcher did the same thing with Tina after the first episode of Australia. I would not be surprised if it came out that he was an editor on the show.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I don't have a problem with Kim's early invisibility and don't think she should have been shown more... in a vacuum. But when I consider how often I was subjected to hearing identical confessionals from Rob, Tony and Russell, it does suggest that she was not an editor's favorite and factors heavily into the discussion of her "Winner Edit": we were shown about Kim exactly what we needed to see to understand why she won and nothing more.

 

Rob controlled the game from the start.  Russell began by pulling dirty tricks.  Tony was dealing and lying just about from the moment they hit the beach.

 

i.e. all three stood out.  They actively pushed the game forward, in ways that would later greatly impact not only themselves and their tribes, but virtually everyone there.  It made sense to give them screen time then.  Not all that was positive.  Russell especially looked like the asshole he is, and Tony came across negatively early on, at least to me. 

 

As you said, Kim was doing nothing.  So there was nothing to show. 

 

Survivor has to go where the action is.  Kim was on the sidelines in that department early in the game.  So we saw little of her.  Once she started taking control of the game, that season could have been renamed "The Kim Show."  TPTB rightly showed her mow through everyone there, but in such a gentle way they loved her for it. 

Share this post


Link to post

Rob controlled the game from the start.  Russell began by pulling dirty tricks.  Tony was dealing and lying just about from the moment they hit the beach.

 

i.e. all three stood out.  They actively pushed the game forward, in ways that would later greatly impact not only themselves and their tribes, but virtually everyone there.  It made sense to give them screen time then.  Not all that was positive.  Russell especially looked like the asshole he is, and Tony came across negatively early on, at least to me. 

 

As you said, Kim was doing nothing.  So there was nothing to show. 

 

Survivor has to go where the action is.  Kim was on the sidelines in that department early in the game.  So we saw little of her.  Once she started taking control of the game, that season could have been renamed "The Kim Show."  TPTB rightly showed her mow through everyone there, but in such a gentle way they loved her for it. 

 

Hey hey now - I never said Kim was doing nothing. Her irongrip on every female player in the game didn't magically start on Day 21. Is Kim sitting around making girltalk with Sabrina and Chelsea riveting television? No, which is why I don't begrudge the editors this decision. But I also don't find re-airing the same Russell confessionals or failing to edit Ashley or Andrea into something other than blind Rob followers, making the season a foregone conclusion, very entertaining, either. It would have been nice to be given some early indication as to why Kim mowed through everyone in a way they loved her for it.

 

Yeah, One World eventually became the Kim Show, but I can't help but shake the feeling that if Sabrina had been a charismatic man who gave snarky confessionals we would have been given a very different final product.

 

I get that I'm not really the target demographic of Survivor - I would gladly watch paint drying if it was playing a kickass game of Survivor - and that Rob, Tony and Russell better fit the storyline they're typically going for. But whether they were driving the action from start to finish or not, the fact is, they were given screentime over and above what was needed to justify their gameplay.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

bamah, I asked, "Before then, what did she do besides go along with her alliance during the boots?  What should Survivor have shown about her, that it didn't, and that shortchanged us, the viewers, about her game?"

 

You answered, "Nothing." 

 

 

But whether they were driving the action from start to finish or not, the fact is, they were given screentime over and above what was needed to justify their gameplay.

 

I don't think it's a fact, and in fact I disagree. 


 

Yeah, One World eventually became the Kim Show, but I can't help but shake the feeling that if Sabrina had been a charismatic man who gave snarky confessionals we would have been given a very different final product.

 

Can you give some examples, where one person ran the season as thoroughly as Kim did hers, and a charismatic man gave snarky confessionals that detracted from the perceived control of the winner? 

Share this post


Link to post

 

Can you give some examples, where one person ran the season as thoroughly as Kim did hers, and a charismatic man gave snarky confessionals that detracted from the perceived control of the winner?

I think the closest example would be Tina. Colby gave pretty good confessionals in his first season that were pretty funny. The only thing is I buy the theory that they tried to hide Tina's win so it wouldn't be so obvious and make her the anti-Richard. It's actually interesting to compare Tina and Kim because they both had same lucky break right before the merge with Skupin falling in the fire let Tina force the tie against Kucha. They didn't show this in the show, but during the second challenge the two tribes were mixed at the reward challenge and Tina asked Kimmi who did Debb voted for which was Varner. That's why Colby acted like a jerk during the merge episode because he wanted all the voted on him. At least that is the story Varner tells Tina says she doesn't remember. Kim had a lucky break that Colton left before the merge the way he did. I don't like Colton, and I don't think he is that good of a player, but I think he could of turned people against Kim plus based on the secret scenes Kim seemed to really find him annoying.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×