Winner Edit vs. Loser Edit: Discuss Amongst Yourselves

[KimberStormer]

I'd like to mention that Kim wasn't completely invisible pre-merge.  I caught on that she was cool pretty early.  For one thing, she showed Colton the metaphorical door when it was time for the women's tribe to speak alone.  (Colton, by the way, has I think always said he was planning to work with Kim--so you can see that while she was firm about it, she didn't alienate him.)  I seem to remember seeing her in a "decider" role when Nina went home, her and Chelsea anyway, and nobody noticed Kim because Chelsea had gotten more screentime for being hot and catching the chickens. 

 

I think that's where you could have shown a lot more Kim, really, if you wanted to make for a Boston Rob-style coronation season feeling.  Typically the losing tribe gets much more attention than the winning tribe(s).  Look at this season how everyone felt Josh was going to win because he so dominated the confessionals at the beginning because his tribe sucked.  I'm sure every one of the boots on the women's tribe had plenty of Kim fingerprints on them and we could have seen her reasoning and had her presented as the leader from the get-go.  As Oholibamah says, I don't mind the way they edited it, but they've been pretty egregious in the past, so they certainly could have about Kim.  But they didn't feel they had a Tom in her, clearly, much less a Coach or Russell.

 

I personally think the "Colton would have given her a run for her money!" narrative is total baloney, and the idea that the women's tribe doing poorly at the beginning means she would have been doomed without the men giving up immunity.  I think she would surely have come out on top of the women's tribe even in a Ulong situation (which was never in the cards anyway) and as she has 1000 times the social game of Stephenie -- we did see basically everyone falling all over themselves to ally with her (almost at JT levels) -- I feel there is a good chance she could have maneuvered her way Denise & Malcolm style.  But it's a double-edged sword anytime I say this kind of thing (like how I am certain she was never in any danger at F4, immunity or no) because it just gets turned around to "see?? everyone on One World sucked therefore Kim's win doesn't count and she's mediocre QED".  So frustrating.

Edited December 21, 2014 by KimberStormer

[choclatechip45]

(Colton, by the way, has I think always said he was planning to work with Kim--so you can see that while she was firm about it, she didn't alienate him.) "Colton would have given her a run for her money!"

 

Wasn't Colton's plan to take out Alicia though? So that gives Kim one less number to work with, to be fair who knows what Colton would have done a lot of the things he said was after watching tv and the confessionals so who knows.

[Oholibamah]

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." 

 

 

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

 

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? 

 

My point wasn't that she was "doing nothing", but that I didn't feel shortchanged by the editors over not having seen what she was doing as they covered it sufficiently later on. But that doesn't mean there wasn't stuff they could have shown had they been at all interested in giving her a similar start-to-finish edit as Rob, Tony or Russell.

 

I appreciate the difference of opinion re: Russell, Rob and Tony, but their confessional counts and overall screentime are pretty concrete evidence that they received a LOT of attention from the editors. I don't disagree that it was relative to their entertainment value, but I have a hard time believing they couldn't have left half of their scenes on the cutting room floor and still been able to demonstrate the narrative of their gameplay.

 

That is a trick question because I don't think anybody has ran their season as thoroughly as Kim has. However, I don't think that Natalie White or Sophie were given anywhere close to the amount of attention their gameplay deserved. I can buy that Natalie didn't give good soundbytes, but that doesn't excuse the "Previouslies" giving Russell credit for her moves; Sophie was underedited until mid-to-late merge, and even then wasn't given many confessionals explaining her strategy, leading many viewers to believe that Coach deserved her win. Maybe he did, but I would have appreciated the chance to decide for myself and not have Coach shoved down my throat.

[kikaha]

bamah, you are assuming those various players were under-edited.  What evidence do you have of this? 

[Special K]

It seems that in some seasons, a winning strategy has been to lay low at the beginning and not draw too much attention to yourself (hence the "invisible" edit), and then gradually consolidate your position and power as the game reaches its conclusion.  This seems to work for rational/non-emotional players who are able to adapt to changing conditions and use them to continually strengthen their position.

 

In this way, Kim and Natalie seem like similar winners to me...or at least they were edited that way.  Like they were both bad-asses you didn't really see coming because of earlier emphasis on "characters."  I would also argue that they got more bad-ass as the game went on, appropriate to their strengthening positions.

 

I'll take a bad-ass over a character any day.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Special K

[jsm1125]

Another example of what has commonly been cited as sexism in the editing to me is Cochran vs. Natalie White.

 

Frankly, I think both played very similar games: great social games while allowing the more aggressive (Dawn, Russell) player to get all the spotlight and have a target on his/her back.

 

Other than his immunity challenge wins, did Cochran really play all that differently from Natalie? I don't think so, but try proposing this theory to the majority of Survivor fans, and they act as if you have two heads.

 

Yet I constantly hear Cochran's praises being sung, while Natalie is deemed incredibly undeserving.

Edited December 23, 2014 by jsm1125

[kikaha]

 

Frankly, I think both played very similar games: great social games while allowing the more aggressive (Dawn, Russell) player to get all the spotlight and have a target on his/her back.

 

The big difference is that Cochran actually ran his season, while Natalie mostly got carried by an evil tactical genius who so pissed off the jury, he handed victory to one of the others sitting next to him at FTC.  The juries themselves made that pretty clear. 

 

Natalie was on the defense from the start, a member of a tribe that was getting killed, week after week, in the challenges.  After merge she still was in the minority (down 4 to 8) for a long time, scrambling to stay alive.  Right after merge she made one great move.  Other than that, she was totally dependent on Russell to stay in the game.  No way she was running the game, at any point of her season.  The jury saw it that way as well. 

 

Cochran was the opposite in most ways.  He was almost never in danger the entire game.  He was the key strategic mastermind who pretty well decided who went and who stayed.  i.e. he, more than anyone, ran the season.  On top of which, he won challenge after challenge, taking even more pressure off his alliance and himself.  I've never seen such a turnaround, in playing style, effectiveness and even personality. 

 

I very much believe Natalie won on an anti-Russell vote, that she did not have much of a story to tell, other than that.  Cochran had a great, full story to tell his jury.  So much so that even those who liked Dawn and thought she played well (Andrea e.g.) still voted for Cochran. 

 

None of Cochran's jury suggested he got carried to the end.  But that was a recurring theme for NW in her jury.  So it wasn't just the edit that made it appear like this.  The people who played the season with Cochran and Natalie White saw it that way as well. 

[Oholibamah]

bamah, you are assuming those various players were under-edited.  What evidence do you have of this? 

 

Obviously "under-edited" can be viewed subjectively. But compared to other winners, "under-edited" is objective: Sophie and Natalie were simply not featured to the same extent as their counterparts. It becomes a slippery slope when we start to discuss whether or not they actually deserved more footage, but I feel strongly that the winner of the damn show should be shown playing their winning game, even if they aren't otherwise a central character to the plot.

 

I am obviously not privy to the footage, but it's impossible that they couldn't have pieced together a few more early confessional outlining Natalie's strategy to outlast rather than outplay or explaining how she puts up with Russell. If that is somehow not the case? Then production failed to ask her any leading questions. Natalie received 15 confessionals to Russell's 108. I don't care HOW boring she is... that is absolutely preposterous.

 

Sophie, OTOH, was a central figure in putting together the Upolu alliance, yet she was exhibited as one of Coach's footsoldiers. She knew from the get-go the benefits of bringing Coach to FTC, yet it was made to look like an afterthought. Her gambit of voting with Mikayla in the event she returned from RI was not explained, making her inaccurately appear on the outside of the vote. Ozzy's accusations of her superiority were provided no context. Sophie very confidently and arrogantly discusses the merits of her gameplay. I refuse to believe she was not providing at least mid-quality confessionals about her intentions in the game. Yet, she had the same number of confessionals as dimwitted Albert at 26, and significantly fewer than TPTB's menagerie of crazies (Coach 74, Ozzy 46, Cochran 56, and Brandon 32).

 

Another example of what has commonly been cited as sexism in the editing to me is Cochran vs. Natalie White.

 

Frankly, I think both played very similar games: great social games while allowing the more aggressive (Dawn, Russell) player to get all the spotlight and have a target on his/her back.

 

Other than his immunity challenge wins, did Cochran really play all that differently from Natalie? I don't think so, but try proposing this theory to the majority of Survivor fans, and they act as if you have two heads.

 

Yet I constantly hear Cochran's praises being sung, while Natalie is deemed incredibly undeserving.

 

I also find Natalie and Cochran's games eerily similar. However, I find the sexism against Dawn to be just as bad as Natalie. Russell was painted as the strategic mastermind, whereas editing did not give Dawn any props for the strategic moves she was making. This of course plays into the myth that Cochran and Russell played great games and that Natalie and Dawn sucked. (For the record, I think both Dawn and Russell suck. I do think Cochran played slightly better than Natalie - he is 19/28 and she is 20/28 with Amber 21/28 - but he had less to overcome than she did and was playing against 10 illprepared n00bs).

 

The big difference is that Cochran actually ran his season, while Natalie mostly got carried by an evil tactical genius who so pissed off the jury, he handed victory to one of the others sitting next to him at FTC.  The juries themselves made that pretty clear. 

 

Natalie was on the defense from the start, a member of a tribe that was getting killed, week after week, in the challenges.  After merge she still was in the minority (down 4 to 8) for a long time, scrambling to stay alive.  Right after merge she made one great move.  Other than that, she was totally dependent on Russell to stay in the game.  No way she was running the game, at any point of her season.  The jury saw it that way as well. 

 

Cochran was the opposite in most ways.  He was almost never in danger the entire game.  He was the key strategic mastermind who pretty well decided who went and who stayed.  i.e. he, more than anyone, ran the season.  On top of which, he won challenge after challenge, taking even more pressure off his alliance and himself.  I've never seen such a turnaround, in playing style, effectiveness and even personality. 

 

I very much believe Natalie won on an anti-Russell vote, that she did not have much of a story to tell, other than that.  Cochran had a great, full story to tell his jury.  So much so that even those who liked Dawn and thought she played well (Andrea e.g.) still voted for Cochran. 

 

None of Cochran's jury suggested he got carried to the end.  But that was a recurring theme for NW in her jury.  So it wasn't just the edit that made it appear like this.  The people who played the season with Cochran and Natalie White saw it that way as well. 

 

I think we were in the midst of debating this point when TWoP closed!

 

Russell didn't make the moves he made for Natalie's benefit. They functioned as a unit for mutual survival and kept one another around for "game trust": they had a common goal and both believed one another was their best shot for winning. I give Russell ample credit for his use of idols and ability to sway John and Shambo, but I don't believe Natalie's game was sunk without Russell's manouvering. She could have aligned with the women/remnants of Galu at any time, and could have aligned against Russell if she thought he had a chance of winning... but she knew he didn't. Much like Dawn/Cochran, Natalie consented to Russell "leading" Foa Foa because she knew it was to her benefit. Is that the same as coattail riding? I'm not convinced.

 

Cochran positioned himself well, but the circumstances of Caramoan were interesting: we had a mega-sized alliance with a crazy person as its figurehead which fractured at the merge due to Corinne's stupidity, facing off against 10 "fans" who probably need help feeding themselves. Cochran's strategy to effectively hide behind stronger players as a shield while subtly influencing the boot order was very prudent, but his two best moves (eliminate Andrea and eliminate Brenda) were pretty basic. He didn't play the assertive sort of game typically ascribed to a "mastermind" or somebody "controlling the game". He just made very smart decisions based on the context he found himself in, which is a great strategy - it just so happens to be very similar to Natalie's strategy.

 

It is a common theme in every season that women get carried and men do the carrying. I don't find the testament of players like Shambo and John Fincher to hold much weight, personally.

[kikaha]

 

I don't believe Natalie's game was sunk without Russell's manouvering. She could have aligned with the women/remnants of Galu at any time, and could have aligned against Russell if she thought he had a chance of winning... but she knew he didn't.

That's the big difference between us.  I think if Natalie flips, she's at the bottom of her new alignment, and gets an early boot.  So instead she stayed with Russell and the seemingly impossible odds they faced. 

 

 

Much like Dawn/Cochran, Natalie consented to Russell "leading" Foa Foa because she knew it was to her benefit.

 

And my opinion is that Natalie had no real choice in the matter.  Get led or get booted. 

 

The comparison to Dawn/Cochran is flawed because Cochran actually did run things, pretty much the entire game.  None of the players accused him of riding coattails: but several thought that's what Natalie did.  Unlike Natalie, he did not face a brutal FTC. 

 

I think Natalie played better than, say, Amber in her winning season.  But I also believe both won on 'bitter jury' votes. 

 

btw I think Dawn played real well that season.  Her big mistake was becoming BFFs with too many people.  So when she stabbed them in the back, the betrayal stung too sharply.  Sherri also was a good player, even if the returnees overshadowed her. 

[choclatechip45]

I think part of the problem with Natalie was that the producers had to make Samoa "The Russell Show" because of Heroes vs. Villains. Samoa is essentially a big promo for Heroes vs Villains.

[jsm1125]

None of the players accused him of riding coattails: but several thought that's what Natalie did. 

 

 

Would the majority of players ever accuse a man of riding a woman's coattails? I doubt it.

[jsm1125]

 

Cochran positioned himself well, but the circumstances of Caramoan were interesting: we had a mega-sized alliance with a crazy person as its figurehead which fractured at the merge due to Corinne's stupidity, facing off against 10 "fans" who probably need help feeding themselves.

This is off-topic and probably going to be an unpopular opinion, but I thought the 'fans,' with the exception of Reynold and Eddie, were decent players.

 

I thought that Allie, Matt, Sherri (as goat-like as she was) and especially Michael and Laura showed promise. I felt that Michael got dealt a poor hand, and did the best that he could under the circumstances. I also felt that Laura could have done some damage had she been even remotely competent in challenges and made the swap (on either team).

[ProfCrash]

Sandra played a great game in Hero's vs Villains. I remember her doing her best to arrange votes against Russell but the idiot heros, Rupert, JT, and a few others trusted Russell and wanted nothing to do with it. Sandra kept trying but when she couldn't get the stupid people to work with her, she voted with the Villains. She knew very well that Russell and Parvati were screwed at final tribal because of their poor treatment of the jury around camp. She knew that she had told the Hero's what was going to happen and then it happened. She knew she had the votes. She would have been good if they had flipped but she was in an even better place because the Hero's were so flipping blind to Russell and his game.

 

She even mentioned that she knew Russell and Parvati were limiting her solo time with the Hero's. So Russell and Parvati knew she was trying to flip people and still didn't target her.

 

So Sandra sussed out Russell and his behavior really early on and knew he was dangerous. Sandra managed to stay in the game because Russell and Parvati thought she was so bad at the game that the people she tried to flip didn't flip, not thinking that those same people would be pissed at their behavior and appreciate that Sandra had tried to warn them. Sandra stroked Russell's ego all while making it clear in talking heads that she knew he was screwed at final tribal.

 

Sandra is a socially savy player who knows how to read the room. She might not be subtle but she flies under the radar even when she is a giant red blob on the radar screaming out what she is doing. The fact that the others underestimate her play is not her problem but theirs.

 

And we saw all of that on Hero's vs Villian's but people were so stuck on Russell and Parvati's crappy behavior that they ignored Sandra but the editors laid it out beautifully.

[KimberStormer]

Sandra played a great game in Hero's vs Villains. I remember her doing her best to arrange votes against Russell but the idiot heros, Rupert, JT, and a few others trusted Russell and wanted nothing to do with it. Sandra kept trying but when she couldn't get the stupid people to work with her, she voted with the Villains. She knew very well that Russell and Parvati were screwed at final tribal because of their poor treatment of the jury around camp. She knew that she had told the Hero's what was going to happen and then it happened. She knew she had the votes. She would have been good if they had flipped but she was in an even better place because the Hero's were so flipping blind to Russell and his game.

 

I don't see how on earth Sandra would have been good if she'd succeeded in getting out Russell and throwing the game to the Heroes.  Not at all.  The vote was pretty much on party lines, with the exception of Courtney who voted for her best friend Sandra over her second-best friend Parvati (she specifically said in interviews that she was hoping either Sandra or Parv made it to the end so that she'd have someone to vote for instead of against.)  There is no way any of those idiot Heroes would have voted for any Villain if there was a Hero in the final.  (If you watch JT at Ponderosa, for example, it's all he can talk about, "my Heroes!")  They made Sandra an honorary Hero just because there were only Villains.  The only thing Sandra's flipping would have done was throw the game to, like, Amanda, or Colby, or someone equally lame.  (God, imagine if it had been Rupert, the winner of probably the strongest cast ever...we'd never hear the end of it...)  It's impossible for me to imagine her getting anywhere with them.

 

You're right that Russell thought she was so bad at the game as to be ignorable, but I'm sure Parvati thought she was too smart to do something so catastrophically stupid as to flip to the Heroes.  (In fact, my view of Parvati's HvV game is that, once she and Russell had gotten Jerri to flip on Rob, she had to depend only on people's 'rational self-interest' to get her to the end--the kind of thing that Yul gets credit for because he's a reserved and well-spoken man, but Parvati would never get because she's a "slutty" and charming woman.  Unfortunately for her, Russell was so stupid and paranoid he took out Danielle for no reason, which screwed them both.)  It's true that Sandra knew she could beat Russell especially, and it's true she worked those jurors like Glenn Gould plays a piano.  She did a magnificent job of getting them on her side (not by stroking Russell's ego, either, but exactly the opposite) and giving them reason to vote for her at the final tribal.  All respect to Sandra's win.  But she put an enormous effort into trying to lose.  I thank the Survivor gods that Candice is also a moron and blocked her, because that season would have been absolutely excruciating if she'd succeeded.

[ProfCrash]

I have not rewatched the season, I don't rewatch seasons, so my recollection is dated.

 

Sandra had friends on the Hero tribe, I think she would have been fine if she had succeeded in flipping. The reality is that the Hero's that she was trying to work with failed to see that a villain, Russell, was playing them. Rupert and JT were fully willing to work with Russell, a villain. They knew nothing about Russell's original game but they knew he was cast as a villain so they should have figured out he had done some pretty dubious things in his season. But they still threw in with Russell.

 

If they were willing to try and work with Russell, why would they have had a problem working with Sandra?

 

My main point is that Sandra saw the game playing out as it was playing out and was telling people what was happening. She is such an underrated player by fans, Probst, and other players that the people she was trying to work with failed to believe her and it cost them their game. Her ability to read the game and go with the flow is why Sandra has won twice. Best of all, I think she would win a third time because people would still write off her first two wins. They fail to see her loyalty and her reading of the game and keep thinking she is simply surviving each round.

 

Players ignore Sandra in the game because she is not an immunity threat. She has always been able to develop very strong alliances and has proven her loyalty in how she votes and what she does when her alliance mates are voted out. Natalie's desire to get Jon out had nothing on Sandra's desire to get Russell out. The real difference is that people listened to Natalie and Natalie won challenges.

 

Russell made some bonehead moves, partially because he had Sandra talking to him but mainly because Russell's ego is so huge he can't see anything other then what he wants to see. To this day, Russell fails to understand that bullying people in game is going to cost him the game every time. All Sandra had to do was stroke his ego and she could control Russell. She had no problem telling Russell that he was such a big bad, dominate player and that he was going to win even though she knew that was total bullshit.

 

I like Parvati as a player. She has the ability to play a great social game and is excellent in challenges. In Hero's VS Villians she failed to reign in Russell and had far too much fun crowing with Russell in camp. All that did was piss off the jury. I don't believe in bitter juries. The jury is what you make of them. When you re-read JT's stupid letter to Russell many times, several players said in interviews that it was a favorite activity for Russell and Parvati, you are going to engender bad feelings. That is failing to play the social game. Russell I get, he has no respect for the social game. Parvati I don't, she knows better and I have no idea what was going through her mind. The interviews from that season made it pretty clear that Russell was being a jack ass and Parvati was his wing woman. Sandra saw that, made them think that she was a goat and then killed them at final tribal. Partially because it was clear she knew what was happening in game and had tried to flip the game and partially because she was able to play up their awful social play.

[henripootel]

My main point is that Sandra saw the game playing out as it was playing out and was telling people what was happening. She is such an underrated player by fans, Probst, and other players ...

 

I agree but much of this goes to the edit she gets and Probst's somewhat modulated praise.  Which are, of course, pretty much the same thing, as both are the production's wishes writ plainly.  This is, for me, the point that comes from the very profitable comparison of Sandra and Russell - if you're useful to production, you get get way different treatment than if you're kinda not.  Which leads us to the question of what 'useful to production' means but that's a different thread.

Edited January 4, 2015 by henripootel

[choclatechip45]

I don't think Probst has been that critical of Sandra. As a female, I understand the criticism of Jeff with is love of Alpha males, but he was on Sandra's side at the reunion show when Russell kept saying the game was flawed. I'm pretty sure when they were doing the Survivor Hall of Fame he put Sandra on his first ballot ever. I can get behind the fact he doesn't talk about her as much as he did with Parvati or Cirie.

[henripootel]

I don't think Probst has been that critical of Sandra.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that he was critical of Sandra (if this is in response to me), I meant that were Probst being honest in his praise, he should be lauding her to the roof.  Winning on your first time out is laudatory but twice in a row?  I think that, by any measure (or at least the only ones that matter), she's the best player they've ever had, period.  But who does Probst have on speed-dial?  He was complimentary of Sandra and that's fine, but I remember the season where BRob and Russell stood side by side as Jeffy lavished praise on them as the best of the best, this when they were what, 0-5 collectively?  

 

Sandra may not give Probst the 'big player gold' he craves but she, well, wins.  Hard to argue with that, nor that Probst's idea of a 'great player' isn't necessarily folks who win.  It should be but it plainly isn't.  

Edited January 5, 2015 by henripootel

[ToastnBacon]

I don't get the narrative that Probst is misogynistic at all. Plus, I really haven't seen evidence of him being infatuated with alpha males.

Can anyone provide a specific example?

Are you guys getting this from off-show interviews and statements made by Probst?

[kikaha]

 

Natalie's desire to get Jon out had nothing on Sandra's desire to get Russell out. The real difference is that people listened to Natalie and Natalie won challenges.

 

The real difference is that Jon easily could have won the game, had he made FTC.  Natalie. by booting him, got rid of a rival who truly stood in her way.  

 

Russell had no chance to win the game.  On top of which, had Sandra succeeded in booting him, she almost certainly would have gotten the boot herself. 

[ProfCrash]

I don't think Probst has been that critical of Sandra. As a female, I understand the criticism of Jeff with is love of Alpha males, but he was on Sandra's side at the reunion show when Russell kept saying the game was flawed. I'm pretty sure when they were doing the Survivor Hall of Fame he put Sandra on his first ballot ever. I can get behind the fact he doesn't talk about her as much as he did with Parvati or Cirie.

I think Jeff was defending the game and not how Sandra played the game. Jeff is never going to agree that the game is flawed. Colby could say that the game is flawed and Probst would disagree with him.

 

I fail to see how Sandra would have been voted out if she had gotten Russell voted out? One of the reason that she wasn't able to get Russell out is that the other players didn't take her seriously. They probably would have overlooked Sandra the same way Russell overlooked Sandra. The one thing I learned from watching Sandra play the game is that no one takes her seriously and that she was seen as a goat long before we discussed goats. She is a loyal vote before the merge and she is not a challenge threat after the merge. She is easy to overlook even when she is being her normal vocal self.

 

Honestly, I think if she played a third time, she would win because people would ignore her and think that her first two wins were flukes.

[snoopythecat]

In response to ToastNBacon, Probst made a comment to Dalton Ross (of Entertainment Weekly) to the effect that female contestants just aren't as interesting as male contestants, and that's why returning players (on seasons where there are only 2 or 3 returnees) are usually male.

In addition, the contestants he seems the most excited about are more often than not alpha males like Colby, Tom Westman, James, JT, and Malcolm, and especially those who play aggressively, like Rob and Russell. Conversely, when he's calling out a contestant for sucking at a challenge, it's almost always a female.

But I think the gender problem on Survivor is bigger than Probst. There are several factors in play here.

1) The perception that brute strength = challenge prowess means that women are far more likely to be perceived as challenge liabilities. No matter how many challenges end with a puzzle that essentially negates the physical portion, no matter how many challenges actually favor people with smaller feet or better balance or even smaller stature (remember the challenge in Pearl Islands where each team had to hoist their smallest player in a sling and hold her there as long as possible?), the perception is ingrained that the alpha males must be kept around in the tribal phase for challenges. This means jackasses like Phillip are seen as annoying but still having some value to the tribe, while eccentric, grating female personalities like Wanda in Palau and Sandy in Tocantins are quickly booted. I blame Colby's immunity run in Australia for this perception.

2) We all know the producers load the cast with eye candy and then throw in a few regular-looking, "relatable" people. But let's examine how "eye candy" is defined in each gender. Male eye candy is usually buff and well-proportioned with a nice six-pack -- traits that are also likely to be seen as challenge assets. But female eye candy is usually skinny, waif-like, and often surgically top-heavy -- traits that usually are perceived as challenge liabilities.T

3) Many (not all) pretty or "hot" girls (particularly those confident enough in their appearance to go on TV in a bikini), are socialized to believe that their number one job in life is to look pretty, and that they can use their looks to manipulate men into doing things for them. This leads to the very common complaint that the girls in a given tribe are lazy and never help out around camp. (In other words, part of the problem is the type of women the producers prefer to cast.) Morgan in Cagayan was kind of a fascinating character for the fact that she pretty much came out and said she was accustomed to using her looks to get her own way. I would venture that many female players do this, but most of them do it without Morgan's level of self-awareness.

4) Studies have shown that men tend to be bigger risk-takers, while women are more likely to be risk averse. This suggests that men are more likely to make the kind of big, flashy moves that make for great TV. Other studies have shown that men are more likely to have an abundance of confidence in their abilities, even when unjustified, while women are more likely to be lacking in confidence. In Survivor, this may mean that men are more likely to supplement their flashy moves with the kind of cocky confessionals the producers love. (See Rob, Russell, Tony.)

(Please note that the above is all my own speculation on the topic, and I could be wrong about any and all of it.)

Edited January 5, 2015 by snoopythecat

[kikaha]

 

Honestly, I think if she played a third time, she would win because people would ignore her and think that her first two wins were flukes.

 

As long as we're speculating, I think she would get booted first or second time her tribe went to tribal. 

[choclatechip45]

Sandra has been lucky in the fact Drake and the Villans tribe won the first couple IC because she could of been easily the first one voted off. I think as long as she is on a tribe that can win the first few IC she will go far. However, if they loose the first one she is easily the first one voted off.

[snoopythecat]

Sandra did benefit from a lot of luck. She was out of the loop when Rupert was blindsided in first season, but it was to her advantage that he was booted without any blood on her hands. She was also lucky that poor Christa got blamed for the fish. There's also Parvati's double idol play in HvV that handed the Villains control of the game, and I agree with others that she was damn lucky her efforts to remove Russell from the game were unsuccessful. But one thing Sandra does well is make the most of her luck. Her Survivor philosophy seems to be that the best offense is a good defense, and that in order to win at the end, you have to avoid being voted out before the end.

[choclatechip45]

I think its quite fitting both of Sandra's enemies are both pretty controversial. I don't think anyone could of handled Fairplay or Russell in a more entertaining way.

[ProfCrash]

Luck comes into play in every season and for every winner. Who finds the hidden immunity idol clue? Heck, what tribe you end up on is very important and something that you cannot control as a player.

 

I am not sure it is as much gender as physicality. I think that the issue is that physical play is easier to depict on TV and that people are impressed by the folks who can climb coconut trees, fish, and knock people down then the people who can strategize and play a great social game. JT was the Producer darling of his game because he was physically strong, good looking and had charm. Stephen's play was far more interesting to me but he was always depicted as JT's lackey. Yul, Kim, Earl were all good strategists who played a solid social game and did well and are given very few props from Jeff because they were not Alpha Men out beating things down, winning challenges or being stupid, aka they were not Colby, Philip, or Russell.  

 

The show was baffled with what to do with Parvati when she won challenges. How could they depict their flirty girl as a competent challenge winner. How dare she cross the boundaries?

 

Tony was their dream contestant. He was physical. He was loud. He had an idea about strategy but no impulse control so a fair amount of the strategy went out the window. He was socially clued in. You saw him talking about real life stuff with pretty much everyone but Kass. He was the perfect contestant for Probst and comp.

 

Coach, Rob, and Ozzy each modified their behavior in successive seasons and saw better results because of it but they all maintained the core of they were deemed interesting by the Producers, Coach was still his martial art, dragon slayer, story telling dude who did better chilling with the others and reading the room. Rob toned down the brashness and played a better social game. Ozzy fished and climbed trees but at least seem to develop an understanding that he had to try and play a social game.

 

Russell and Philip would have been fine if they had tones down the bully/crazy bullshit. I don't think it was an act which is why I don't think either of them tried to change in their follow on seasons. Brendan was clearly bat shit crazy.

 

The best female players play a strategy that you cannot easily depict on the show. The smart social/strategist is really hard to show. Parvati combines that with an excellent social game and challenge skill but not many of the women have that combo.

[Oholibamah]

I don't get the narrative that Probst is misogynistic at all. Plus, I really haven't seen evidence of him being infatuated with alpha males.

Can anyone provide a specific example?

Are you guys getting this from off-show interviews and statements made by Probst?

 

There was the comment about female players being uninteresting, which has been pointed out. But a lot of it is nonverbal, from the way he ignores certain female contestants to the way his face positively glows when he talks to/about some of his Alpha favorites. "You need to DIG, woman" is one of the more comical examples.

 

The real difference is that Jon easily could have won the game, had he made FTC.  Natalie. by booting him, got rid of a rival who truly stood in her way.  

 

Russell had no chance to win the game.  On top of which, had Sandra succeeded in booting him, she almost certainly would have gotten the boot herself. 

 

I don't think the other players liked Jon. Natalie had Jeremy, Wes and Keith on lockdown, Baylor if Missy is not in F3, and I don't think she would have had a problem swaying Josh.

 

But I think the gender problem on Survivor is bigger than Probst. There are several factors in play here.

...

 

(Please note that the above is all my own speculation on the topic, and I could be wrong about any and all of it.)

 

Nah, you've got most of it covered. In short, our problems are casting and editing. At the root, women are cast to look good, not to be interesting. We get the occasional Shambo, but each Shambo replaces a potential Purple Kelly: a Shambo might be interesting, but a Purple Kelly will be hot, so why take the risk? After the show is cast, some of the female eyecandy end up being kickass and interesting, but they are rarely exhibited to their full potential. Ashley's edit in Redemption Island was criminal, and Kelley was easily the most strategically engaging player in SJDS yet she was invisible.

 

 

Coach, Rob, and Ozzy each modified their behavior in successive seasons and saw better results because of it but they all maintained the core of they were deemed interesting by the Producers, Coach was still his martial art, dragon slayer, story telling dude who did better chilling with the others and reading the room. Rob toned down the brashness and played a better social game. Ozzy fished and climbed trees but at least seem to develop an understanding that he had to try and play a social game.

 

Returning players can be divided into one of three categories. Most of them fail to demonstrate a single iota of growth or evolution and play the exact same terrible game over and over (Rupert and James come to mind. Erik. Phillip. Etc. Cirie is an example of somebody who didn't need to grow or evolve because she started out awesome). A few of them manage to improve each time out, most notably Jerri, Parvati and Coach. The least common are the players that get actively worse, a category whose poster boy is Ozzy. The more arrogant and entitled he becomes, the worse he plays. He may have developed the concept of a social game, but he has still failed to implement it. He came within a hair of winning South Pacific with one of the worst strategic performances I've ever seen because of a stupid twist, not because he had demonstrated any improvement.

[KimberStormer]

I dunno, I don't think Phillip played the same game.  He seemed to really improve.  How much of that was editing is hard to say, but as ridiculous as a lot of his stuff was, he was being much more social and actively working on his alliance.  I think he deserves much of the early credit that for God knows what reason people give to Cochran for organizing that alliance (probably Andrea deserves the most, but it seemed like Phillip was an active partner and was obviously the public face of the alliance.)  Absent the over-abundance of idols I think he would have made it to the end (who doesn't want to go up against Phillip?), and would have been a stronger contender than the first time, since he was being more friendly and actually playing that time.

[Oholibamah]

I dunno, I don't think Phillip played the same game.  He seemed to really improve.  How much of that was editing is hard to say, but as ridiculous as a lot of his stuff was, he was being much more social and actively working on his alliance.  I think he deserves much of the early credit that for God knows what reason people give to Cochran for organizing that alliance (probably Andrea deserves the most, but it seemed like Phillip was an active partner and was obviously the public face of the alliance.)  Absent the over-abundance of idols I think he would have made it to the end (who doesn't want to go up against Phillip?), and would have been a stronger contender than the first time, since he was being more friendly and actually playing that time.

 

I agree he improved, but he played the same game: wacky Special Agent with cute nicknames, copious enemies, and heated confrontations. He did seem to pick up a few tips from Rob, but I found it hard to see him as anything but Andrea's guard dog/figurehead. He was a likely shoe-in for the end (I'm thinking Andrea/Phillip/Erik), but I disagree he was a stronger contender. He played nicer, but I can't imagine him peeling any votes from Andrea, whereas he conceivably had a chance in RI had he played the jury differently. Those people really didn't want to vote for Rob.

 

Rupert and James also technically improved, but their progress is so minimal that I can't come up with much to credit them for beyond pre-game alliances and basic rock-as-idol ploys.

 

Which is why I neglected to include JT in any of the categories. He's a bit of an outlier - he radically changed how he played, but given the results, many would hesitate to call it an "improvement". But for me, he made a solid effort to play a different type of game and show evolution, which I think is essential for returning players. It may be prudent to play the same as you did the first time - but you need to have new tricks up your sleeve just incase.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Oholibamah

[jsm1125]

I agree he improved, but he played the same game: wacky Special Agent with cute nicknames, copious enemies, and heated confrontations. He did seem to pick up a few tips from Rob, but I found it hard to see him as anything but Andrea's guard dog/figurehead. He was a likely shoe-in for the end (I'm thinking Andrea/Phillip/Erik), but I disagree he was a stronger contender. He played nicer, but I can't imagine him peeling any votes from Andrea, whereas he conceivably had a chance in RI had he played the jury differently. Those people really didn't want to vote for Rob.

 

Rupert and James also technically improved, but their progress is so minimal that I can't come up with much to credit them for beyond pre-game alliances and basic rock-as-idol ploys.

 

Which is why I neglected to include JT in any of the categories. He's a bit of an outlier - he radically changed how he played, but given the results, many would hesitate to call it an "improvement". But for me, he made a solid effort to play a different type of game and show evolution, which I think is essential for returning players. It may be prudent to play the same as you did the first time - but you need to have new tricks up your sleeve just incase.

Oholibamah: Speaking of Andrea, where would you place her, Brenda, Amanda, Malcolm, Corinne, Tina, Monica, and Laura Morrett on this list?

Edited January 10, 2015 by jsm1125

[kikaha]

 

There was the comment about female players being uninteresting, which has been pointed out.

 

What exactly did Jeff say?  I missed it.  I know he said Aras is the most boring winner ever. 

 

 

But a lot of it is nonverbal, from the way he ignores certain female contestants to the way his face positively glows when he talks to/about some of his Alpha favorites. "You need to DIG, woman" is one of the more comical examples.

 

A glowing face is proof that Jeff is misogynistic?  

 

I see him throwing jabs at everyone out there when they fall behind in the challenges, both team and individual.

 

 

I don't think the other players liked Jon.

 

A big reason J&J were able to skate along between alliances, as swing votes almost the entire game, is that Jon was so sociable with nearly everyone.  They liked and trusted him.  That was a key part of his gameplay that took Jaclyn and him deep into the season

 

 

Natalie had Jeremy, Wes and Keith on lockdown, Baylor if Missy is not in F3, and I don't think she would have had a problem swaying Josh. 

 

Voting is never a sure thing.  Anything can happen at FTC, where some players have won the season with their great performance, and others have lost because they did so poorly.  But it all assumes Natalie would have made FTC, had Jon still been in the game. 

 

Natalie herself was worried that Jon could win.  She said "he may have been able to beat me if he got his way."  By "his way" she means if he had made F5 with Jaclyn, Missy, Baylor and Nat.  So it was real important that she boot him, not only for personal reasons but strategic ones.  

[ToastnBacon]

A glowing face is proof that Jeff is misogynistic?

I see him throwing jabs at everyone out there when they fall behind in the challenges, both team and individual.

I'm with you; that was weak evidence.

Probst seems like a nice guy to me, and while that one statement about about females not being as interesting as men is a bit puzzling, I would not label him as misogynistic for it.

Especially since I have never seen exactly what question he was responding to and the full context of his answer.

I'll try to find a copy of the interview and post a link later.

Edited January 11, 2015 by ToastnBacon

[ToastnBacon]

If this is the interview and statement that SnoopytheCat was referring to, I'd say that it is completely unfair to call Jeff misogynistic.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/09/13/survivor-philippines-jeff-probst-women/#

[peachmangosteen]

Perhaps misogynistic is too harsh a word. I personally believe there's ample evidence to support that he has sexist views though.

[jsm1125]

Misogynistic may be too strong of a word, but given that just as many women as men win or make it far, one would think that both genders would receive a relatively equal amount of airtime, which doesn't seem to be the case

[ToastnBacon]

I'll go out on a limb and say that it is highly unlikely that anyone has tallied minutes of airtime by gender.

Opinions are often formed by the individual's perception, and perception varies according to an individual's experience and their own biases.

Of course that includes me too.

Still, I cling to the assertion that the evidence put forward in this thread that Probst is a sexist is far from ample; it is weak.

[Donny Ketchum]

A big reason J&J were able to skate along between alliances, as swing votes almost the entire game, is that Jon was so sociable with nearly everyone.  They liked and trusted him.

Yeah . . . no.  Around the time of Wes's boot, it looked more than clear to me that very few liked or trusted Jon at all.  Maybe they did at first, but Josh and Jeremy's boots, both of which came from Jon and Jaclyn's flip-flopping, killed almost every bit of trust most of the players had for him.  So I don't think he was that liked.  Hell, at the time of Alec's boot, he'd had more than enough of him, and Keith was calling him and Jaclyn "Mr. and Ms. Prom King and Homecoming Queen" in a not-so-nice way.  Doesn't sound much like liking or trusting him to me.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Donny Ketchum

[kikaha]

Donny, either way, Nat feared Jon.  She believed he could beat her, if he made it to F3, or even F5 for that matter.  She had to get rid of him, and she did so. 

 

I think comparing Natalie/Jon with Sandra/Russell, which kind of kicked off this discussion/debate, misses the mark by a wide margin. 

[Oholibamah]

I'll go out on a limb and say that it is highly unlikely that anyone has tallied minutes of airtime by gender.

Opinions are often formed by the individual's perception, and perception varies according to an individual's experience and their own biases.

Of course that includes me too.

Still, I cling to the assertion that the evidence put forward in this thread that Probst is a sexist is far from ample; it is weak.

 

http://survivorsucks.yuku.com/topic/86587/Survivor-South-Pacific-Confessional-Thread

 

For the record, I am not trying to say that Probst is some horrible woman-hating asshole. That isn't what "sexism" and "misogyny" mean to me. The only "evidence" any of us have is a heavily edited television series and social media outlets - that could never amount to "proof". But we are all welcome to interpret the evidence as we see fit, and I cling to the assertion that his (and the show itself's) treatment of and attitude toward female players is problematic.

 

Donny, either way, Nat feared Jon.  She believed he could beat her, if he made it to F3, or even F5 for that matter.  She had to get rid of him, and she did so. 

 

I think comparing Natalie/Jon with Sandra/Russell, which kind of kicked off this discussion/debate, misses the mark by a wide margin. 

 

Jon's gameplay was uneven, haphazard, and he consistently demonstrated that he was out of the loop. His instincts in the game sucked, and I don't think he would have made it as far as he did without Jaclyn.

 

Had the "plan" gone accordingly, the F3 would have been Natalie, Missy and Jon: Jon was such a schmuck that I can't imagine him trying to flip the script before FTC. The threat he posed to Natalie is that a physical alpha male sitting in the F3 in front of a predominantly male jury may have been enough to gain votes despite her superior gameplay. I can't imagine she actually believed he had played a better game than her, but she understood the importance of managing the jury's perception.

 

Of course we can only speculate on post-hoc vote tallies. But from what we were shown, Keith and Wes were not a fan of Jon.

 

A glowing face is proof that Jeff is misogynistic?  

 

I see him throwing jabs at everyone out there when they fall behind in the challenges, both team and individual.

 

 

It is evidence to support that he favors certain types of players (who happen to be male) because his entire energy and demeanor change when he talks to these specific players. This has been a running joke amongst Survivor fans for over a decade. It is certainly not "proof" that he "hates women", but there is evidence available that he practices casual misogyny in his preference for male players - whether one sees it this way will obviously vary.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Oholibamah

[kikaha]

Webster's defines misogyny as "hatred of women."  So far I don't believe any evidence has been presented that Jeff hates women. 

 

Casual hatred is an interesting concept.  To me the two words contradict each other, like an oxymoron that not only appears contradictory but actually is. 

 

Sexism, I suspect, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I think Jon's game was quite a bit better than bamah does.  The fact that Natalie said after the game that Jon could have won, had he made it to one more tribal, pretty well proves the point the dynamic between those two was radically different from the one between Sandra and Russell. 

[peachmangosteen]

Sexism, I suspect, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I'm sorry but, no, it really isn't. There's obvious, non-arguable examples of sexism in general.

 

That's not to say that in the case of Jeff it's not more of a YMMV thing. Although, I don't really even agree with that though. Jeff has said/done some things that are sexist. But the thing is that doesn't mean he's an evil, misogynistic monster. That's the thing; sexism, like racism, doesn't just mean someone goes around killing women or stuff like that. It can be and is much more casual than that.

Edited January 11, 2015 by peachmangosteen

[kikaha]

 

http://survivorsucks...essional-Thread

 

 

Quickly skimming through that thread I found one mistake: Russell's average in RI is wrong.  That casts doubt on the rest of the numbers as well.  But even if they are accurate, what is it that they show? 

 

 

Of course we can only speculate on post-hoc vote tallies. But from what we were shown, Keith and Wes were not a fan of Jon.

 

Again, what we think doesn't matter here.  It is what Natalie thought, and what drove/motivated her to boot or keep Jon.  She saw him as a threat, who could beat her.  So she took steps to boot him, which she did like a maestro.  Great move, great execution, paved the way for her win. 

 

Totally different from Sandra, who wasn't thinking strategically (I'm not sure she does much of that), but simply didn't like Russell.  Lucky for her she failed to boot him.  Her one big attempt at a strategic move in HvV and she fell flat on her face.  Sandra won despite herself. 

[ToastnBacon]

I'm sorry but, no, it really isn't. There's obvious, non-arguable examples of sexism in general.

 

That's not to say that in the case of Jeff it's not more of a YMMV thing. Although, I don't really even agree with that though. Jeff has said/done some things that are sexist. But the thing is that doesn't mean he's an evil, misogynistic monster. That's the thing; sexism, like racism, doesn't just mean someone goes around killing women or stuff like that. It can be and is much more casual than that.

If Jeff has a preference for alpha male players, that doesn't make him a sexist. It just means he likes male players more than female players, and it certainly doesn't make him a misogynist like he was being called a few posts ago.

Being called a sexist, misogynist, or a racist is a very big slur in my book. It is not a charge that I would casually toss around.

You did give me an idea for a great blog name, The Casual Misogynist, not sure what the blog would be about, but it is a damned funny name for a blog.

[kikaha]

I'm sorry but, no, it really isn't. There's obvious, non-arguable examples of sexism in general.

 

If you're talking about Jeff, I think you're proving my point.  Some posters on this board say he's sexist.  Yet others see the same person and behaviors and believe he is not. 

[ToastnBacon]

I'm sorry but, no, it really isn't. There's obvious, non-arguable examples of sexism in general.

If these obvious and non-arguable examples of Probst's sexism are out there, then why not use them to support your claim?

I'm a bit slow on the uptake, help me understand.

Edited January 12, 2015 by ToastnBacon

[choclatechip45]

I don't know if Probst is sexist. I remember he loved Cirie over Terry in the preshow interviews before Exile. I do think he tends to like alpha males for example Asking James for his opinions for every segment during the reunion shows same with Boston Rob during Heroes vs Villains. The only time I thought Probst was unfair was when he went off on Chris during the Vanuatu reunion for screwing over Julie who was his girlfriend at the time. I do remember Parvati saying multiple times in interviews she felt Probst went easy on Erik giving up immunity because she felt Probst could see himself falling for it too and saw himself in Erik.

[henripootel]

I'm a bit slow on the uptake, help me understand.

I think you're right, toast - there is a lack of solid, easily-quoted evidence where Probst says 'I think girls are weak and unworthy' but here's the thing: I'm not expecting to see any.  Nobody as media-savvy as Probst is ever gonna flat out say such things in an unambiguous quotable form. 

 

I'll also admit that when I read folks talking about Probst being sexist (back in the TWoP days), my first thought was that folks might be being a tad sensitive.  Lots of the challenges are physical, women tend to the lower end of the strength spectrum (especially if you cast for this) so maybe this was getting overblown.  Truth is though that once I started watching closely ... they had a point.  If you're waiting for a signed confession from Jeffy, you'll never get one, but if you watch and listen carefully, you can definitely get the impression that Jeff thinks big boys are real survivors and everyone else rides coattails (of real players), or live by their looks and charm (which they use on real players), or uses tactics unworthy of real players (against real players), and the these folks are usually ladies.  A judgement call without much fire in evidence, absolutely, but plenty of smoke.

[ProfCrash]

I don't think that it is sexism but the desire to show good TV and that people doing well in physical challenges is easier to show then people playing a great social game or strategic game. I also get very annoyed with how women are portrayed and discussed. Men are good social players, women are flirts. Men are strategic, women are conniving. Men can be friends with someone and stab them in the back and there are some hurt feelings but mainly people are ok with it. A woman makes friends with people and stabs them in the back and she is a bitch. I don't blame the show, I blame the underlying societal norms that label these actions along these lines and that villanize any woman who dares to behave outside the stereotype.

 

I just read a newspaper article about Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke who recently argues that the problems in the Catholic Church are all driven my the feminist movement in the 1960's which devalued men. I see articles were people discuss how boys are being attacked and as evidence show that more women are going to college and developing careers after completing school .

 

The US, and I suspect most of the world, is struggling with what equality between the genders means and if it really is OK with women not being June Cleaver, not that women ever where June Cleaver, or is it OK for Hillary Clinton to have the same aspirations, drive, and approach to life as Bill Clinton or any other male politician.

 

So, yeah, I see that played out in Survivor but I don't think that it is anything new nor do I think it is anything intentional. I think many folks are more aware of the importance of the words that are being used and how they are attached to the genders and what it means to attach those labels. I also think that there are a lot of folks who look at that discussion and think that people are reaching and just chill.

 

And then I go back and I read the interview in the Washington Post with Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and sigh and realize that for as much progress as we have made in gender/race/sexual awareness we still have a long way to go and the easy part of those battles is over. It is easy to take down the signs telling people to not drink from the fountain and to stop people from not selling houses in certain locations to people of color, it is harder to convince the Whites to not move out of the area en masse when people of color move in or to convince a Conservative Bishop that female alter servers really are not killing the Catholic Church.

[ToastnBacon]

A judgement call without much fire in evidence, absolutely, but plenty of smoke.

From watching people on Survivor trying to start a campfire by rubbing two sticks together, we know that there can be plenty of smoke, but absolutely no fire at all.

I do think that people are reaching when they call Probst a sexist.

Just a few posts ago there were people tossing around the word misogynist; when questioned on it, they dialed it back and the word sexist was used.

Now it is about societal norms and how women are villianized if they step outside those norms.

I also challenge that particular viewpoint on how it relates to Survivor.

Russel wasn't celebrated for backstabbing and being confrontational, yet Sandra was widely celebrated for it.

Lots of people liked the kind of game Parvati played; I think she is awesome. She is a strong and capable woman in the Survivor universe, and probably in real life too. As a matter of fact, the most vitriol that I have heard directed at her comes from females, not males.

I find it interesting that ProfCrash made reference to the Catholic Church and Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke.

If there is an underlying wellspring of antiquated thinking in global society, be it sexism, homophobia, and even racism, it is certainly pumped to the surface by religion.

The sacred texts of the big three religions are Bronze Age manuscripts that are full of brutal and backward thinking when it comes to women.

I say that a secular TV show like Survior, is actually doing a lot to help our society escape from the yoke of bigoted and backward thinking.

I still don't see the show or Jeff as somehow reinforcing sexism.

If anything, sexist views are being challenged on the show.

Those trying to paint Probst as the postmillennial Archie Bunker are inventing evidence.

Edited January 13, 2015 by ToastnBacon