Yuku free message boards

First, Phoenix, I realize you are trying to play peacemaker so I'll try to play nice, but it is rather obvious despite what you are saying that you favor the theme approach. I can see what you are saying about different approaches appealing to different people, but this thread is for Edgic analysis, not theme analysis. There is nothing preventing someone from doing both or even using one in their own approach to the other independently. But I strongly disagree that Edgic needs theme analysis to function.

You wonder why nothing has been said before. I can only speak for myself, but in the past, I found these theme posts to be fairly rare, acknowledging that they were not truly Edgic based, and quickly swallowed up in the mass of posts that followed. Looks like the migration may have started during Fiji when I was barely ever here due to time constraints. In China, their support tended toward Todd, which was harmless enough, and Amanda, which may have helped pushed her into more consideration than her edit deserved (but there were plenty of regulars behind her too). Last season, they apparently settled on Parvati, who was also Edgically supportable, so it was easy to overlook their flawed reasoning under Edgic. Besides, they were being generally polite and fairly harmless, so who wants to start a fight?

What has been annoying this season is that they apparently decided that Fang was worthless based upon the "theme" and thus that perspective colored every discussion of ratings from that point on, ignoring the actual quality or tone of the edit provided. GR accuses me of close-mindedness, but at least I don't decide after two episodes that I know how the whole season is going to play out and rate according to that vision. When the theme theorists started backing Corinne midseason, an edit totally indefensible under Edgic, it became obvious the total disconnect between their theories and Edgic. When they aren't even pretending to follow Edgic, then there's no reason for them to be here.

The aspects of Edgic that you are calling themes are actually stock roles - the villain, the trickster, the sweetheart, the hero, the clown. These are OTT roles, and that is really what is meant by OTT. They are generally one dimensional if that's the only aspect presented. These aren't themes. Foreshadowing and irony play a role in editing too, but they aren't themes either. So if we see a scene that seems to tie to later in the game, yes, it is important. The cocky player dismissing another's chances is likely to have their plans upset. That isn't a theme thing - it happens nearly every season - and it doesn't necessarily doom the cocky player if they get the chance to recover.

Edgic didn't work this season. The simplest explanation is the one you expressed. The editors simply decided not to build the season around the story of the winner. It became a minor subplot. Adding theme analysis wouldn't have made Edgic more likely to find Bob unless we dismissed with Edgic criteria altogether, in which case why label the thread as Edgic? If we want Edgic to be able to pick up on these atypical winner edits, then the approach GC is advocating is the way to go about it, not abandoning Edgic analysis in favor of theme guessing.

The quote from KQ you presented is interesting, and I know you see it as leaving room open for theme analysis. I see it a different way. Edgic has gotten bogged down a bit in numbers. At times, it seems we're more focused on the what than the why, meaning the concepts that underlie the guidelines we have in place. I realize the theme theorists will argue that's what they are trying to do, but I disagree. They are focused too much on trying to fit the whole season into a single concept. What I'm talking about is looking at the individual scenes, recognizing that the same player may have to fill multiple roles over the course of the season. Here's an example.

So, we see Ken introduced in the first episode in a tender moment with the boot Michelle. It is totally unnecessary for the development of that episode. So why show it? Obviously, Ken is important, and it is important that the editors build some sympathy with him early on. The next time there is a real focus on Ken is at the pick'em. Many have decided that the disagreements there were to show Ken in the wrong. Perhaps, but I think that is oversimplifying it. After all, we were shown Ken's reasoning for his pick even if he covered up in real life by saying it was because Kelly was hot. The emphasis is more that Ken is looking for angles - he's thinking strategically, and that's the case no matter how you come down on the Jacquie boot.

All through this period of Fang's hopelessness, Ken is sheltered from the worst aspects of negativity, which fall primarily on GC, Crystal, Ace, and Kelly. Why? I know others will disagree, but I think the main reason is to keep Ken a fairly likeable player. Thus, when he steps up to save his ally Crystal by taking negative Ace out of the game, we're meant to be glad. When he, Crystal, Matty, and Sugar vow the clean slate to start the next episode, there's no doubt where the audience is supposed to side, namely with the Fang underdogs. The takedown of Marcus and the subsequent Fang celebration at the merge all reinforce this image.

But with Charlie's boot, Ken's edit begins to shift a bit. He starts to get a bit cocky, and we know Sugar at least sees through him. It is the beginning of preparing Ken for his second act role as villain. (This alone doesn't disqualify him from winning as was discussed at the time. The extent of his cockiness wasn't great for his chances, but the other edits weren't nearly as good under Edgic criteria.) When we next see Ken in action, he's contemplating a blindside of his ally Matty even before the revealing of the fake idol. As a result, he and Crystal step in to form the "evil" against which Sugar eventually rebels, reinforced by his efforts to trick and backstab Bob (even though he was only doing that in an effort to make up with Matty).

In the finale, Ken's demise is pretty anti-climactic. He's led on by Sugar and Matty and goes out fairly quietly. But we're quickly reminded that Ken isn't really just the villain he was previously built up to be. Before the last challenge, the remaining players agree that he's actually a sweet kid, and that acknowledgement pays off in the final TC when Sugar regrets breaking his heart by leading him on. At the same time, Ken also gets to play villainous foil against virtuous Bob in his final questions, pushing Bob on his claim to integrity. It is a juxtaposition of roles that explains his CPM edit over the course of the season.

That's putting the focus back on the why, not just the what, and that's what I believe KQ to have meant with his comments. Thinking outside the box shouldn't mean opening the door for anything.