Yuku free message boards

scepticA wrote:

---

chapera rocks wrote:

---

I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why episode 1 is more important than the merge episode. Nor have I heard a good argument for why Mick fits edgic guidelines despite doing what no other winner has ever done - UTR UTR post merge. Especially for a male.

Do you have an argument as to why episode 1 is more important, when in fact, the merge episode has held up just as strongly as episode 1?

Or why a huge hole in Mick's edit is not hurting his chances significantly, just because his hole came later than others?

I'll take a swing at this.

I picked Mick from way back and thought that we were supposed to pick the winner before the merge, so don't have (as Michael Vick would say) a dog in this fight about merge vs. ep 1. First, the "the winner is important in ep 1" has simply been around longer than discussions of the merge. The only winner with an insignificant edit in ep 1 was Tina, and that was specifically an intent of the editors and SEG - it was the dog that didn't bark. Because they themselves said that it was solely in response to season 1, I have been more than willing to disregard it - their statements indicated that it was incredibly important to NOT have her do anything.

The "merge is important rule" has slowly developed over time, so I don't think it's as ingrained. It's still not in the "official" "guidelines" on page 1, probably because it's still a work in progress.

This isn't to dismiss it, because it is a pretty solid, albeit not perfect, indicator. "The winner is likely to have a significant edit in the merge episode, or commentary about the merge itself." Something like that. It seems to make sense, but it isn't part of official edgic. But it is something I personally think is worth analyzing. The thing is, you can find patterns in almost anything. The trick is to know which pattern is real and which is an artifact of insufficient data or just randomness. The "if the merge and post-merge eps have mediocre ratings it's very bad" concept is brand new. What I mean by that is: it has never occurred to anyone before, even though if we go back and look at past winners' edits we don't see them having two mediocre ratings post ep. We have never had a serious edgic contender at this stage of the game have this mediocrity at this point in the game. But does the fact that it hasn't occurred before make it important?

(Please note - I am NOT mentioning Russell, or the bizarro edit this season. It's a fact, but unfortunately it's also being exploited by some here, especially newbies, to justify selections that otherwise aren't backed up by much more than "it's a weird season so anything can happen, so my pick is valid." I'm keeping this to only a discussion of edgic and survivor editing history.)

In my real, nonedgic life I do a lot of statistical analysis of natural phenomena. A lot of newbies in this field are quick to jump on something they see - A happened before B, and then J. It's one thing to report it as "this is what I saw." But too many will put the future tense on a single observation: "A will happen before B, and then J." Some of us joke that "you see it once, it's a trend. You see it twice, and it's an obvious, well known pattern. You see it three times, and it's a law of nature." Maybe some of this sceptical(!) background is slipping into my acceptance of Mick and apparent rejection of the bad merge(s) ep(s) concept.

Up until the merge Mick was still a valid edgic choice, of that I'm sure most everyone believes. Then he had a lousy merge (not awful, not INV, but certainly nothing to write home about), and we all looked back at the prior winners, and... okay. There were a few winners with a mediocre merge (forget that there were 12 this season, just deal with "it's a merge, and what happens to the winner.") And then there was the post-merge ep, and uh-oh. Another mediocre edit. Forget the specifics of what happened in the episode. We go back and see the records, and oops! - nobody who's won has ever had this before.

Therefore - - what? Do we say this makes him edgically invalid? From my perspective this isn't an accurate way of viewing it - although I fully concede it might ultimately be correct. Every winner will have some unique qualities to her (or his) edit in comparison with past winners. Too CP, too OTT, not enough tone, and so on. As of now, "bad merge and post merge episodes" is not a part of edgic. But it is new. The question remains - is it an artifact of the editing, or is it a purposeful, repeatable event? There is no evidence that it is repeatable. It might be, but as of now we cannot say.

Why do I view the first episode as more important than the merge? Or the first three more important than merge and merge +1? Because from a storytelling perspective it makes more sense. The merge is, from a story perspective, an artificial moment. Yes, it means something to the game, to the players and their strategy, but in terms of telling a story it is not nearly as significant as we might think (which is why I shy away from themes and story arcs so much in edgic. And we usually don't know what the story is - if there is one - until the winner is announced when the "story suddenly becomes obvious.) To wit: The merge is often not a critical point in the winner's meme. It can be, in his strategy, or her alliances. But not necessarily the meme.

I know that this comes as a shock to a lot of us, and frankly it did to me as well when I thought about the merge in terms of the season. But as important as they make the merge, and we make it, in terms of the winner as an edited character it might not be that big a deal.

But the introduction is always important. Always. And it's more than just getting to know the players. It's getting to understand who the editors want us to root for, root against, who likes who, and who doesn't like who. The meme of the season is established, and we see how the players are associated to the meme. This is why IMO INVs, especially early ones, are so damaging.

And it's why in terms of edgic, as I described it above, I have a hard time reconciling Natalie to a winner's edit. And note - this is coming from a huge fan of hers.

Excellent post, great insight. I also have to commend you for not using the 12 person merge argument. I still however, don't necessarily agree. I do think from a statistical perspective as well; and while I agree that the episode after the merge is not a significant point, I can't say the same for the merge episode.

Edgic guidelines are based off of patterns in the show. So while I respect your opinion that it may not be important overall to the winners edit, look at the patterns. The merge is a landmark moment. It's the moment the game shifts. It's not the average episode. You mentioned it's not a perfect indicator. But if you look at the ratings ...

Richard - CP5, CPN4
Tina - INV1, CPP4
Ethan - CPP4, UTR1
Vecepia - UTR2, MOR2
Brian - MOR2, CPN3
Jenna - MOR4, OTTN3
Sandra - MORP4, MOR3
Amber - UTR2, CP3 (Projected)
Chris - CPN4, CP4
Tom - MORP3, MOR4
Danni - UTR2, MORP2
Aras - MOR2, CP3
Yul - CP3, CPP5
Earl - CP4, CP4
Todd - CP4, CPN4
Parvati - CP4, CP4
Bob - OTTP3, OTTP3
J.T. - MOR2, CPP5

Does it not look like it's not only as good, but probable a better indicator than episode 1? Episode 1 has had UTR winners, in Vee, Amber, and Danni (aside from Tina's which we know was intended). The merge has only produced an exception or a UTR in Ethan. Everything else is solid. Even Vee who was UTR during the actual episode picked it up 10 fold at tribal council with very insightful comments/focus.

So what if it could be chance? Well, then there's an equal likelyhood that episode 1 could be chance; patterns indicate they are on the same playing field. So without inside knowledge, to assign episode 1 significance over the merge when there is no statistical evidence to back it up still doesn't register with me.

Let's look for other patterns in ratings each episode:

Episode 2: Mix of CP, MOR, UTR.
Episode 3: Mix of CP, MOR, UTR, OTT
Episode 4: Mix of CP, MOR, UTR
Episode 5: Mix of CP, MOR, UTR, and 1 OTT
Episode 6: Mix of CP, MOR, UTR

Skip episode 7, 8, 9...this is where the merge often takes place.

Episode 10: Interesting that it's all MOR or CP. This is what I would classify as random chance. Because it's at a different point season to season and there is no commonality between them. A merge is a commonality that produces a unifying pattern. Episode 10 is arbitrary. Episode 12 also falls in this category. It's often the penultimate episode, but if you look at seasons with more episodes, Parvati's penultimate results in a UTR. The penultimate episode may also be one to look at, since Parvati is the only exception. And that is once again a unifying theme.

So why look less at the merge episode just because it hasn't been around as long? Just because it hasn't been incorperated onto page 1 by the powers that be? I've heard the merge argument a lot for the last many, many seasons. It shouldn't take this long for people to take it seriously. And I feel people did take it seriously, until this season when Mick's was a dud. I don't know how many times I heard last season that Sierra and Erinn could not win because of their merge edit.

But if the merge has held up statistically as well as episode 1. 18 seasons is a pretty big sample size; and patterns that hold up very strongly between these 18 seasons should be taken seriously. That to me, includes both episode 1 & the merge episode. Patterns also indicate that female winners are more likely to break these rules than males. But once again I'm not trying to make a case for Natalie, she's not my pick. I think she could win, given her heavy manipulation these past two eps, but she had a bad start which is edgically unviable the majority of the time.

Hope that made sense.

scepticA wrote:

---

cr, there are a couple of points I made that weren't dealt with in your response. One is the nature of a story (not a theme or story arc, which are entirely different). In terms of story telling you introduce the main characters early. (Even Harry Lime was "introduced" early in the Third Man, even though we didn't see him until much later!) From the consideration of story-telling, which in many respects is what edgic is trying to quantify (protagonist, antagonist, sub-characters, and so on) it is dissatisfying to the audience to have a main character introduced late, when it was reasonable to assume that the person was of no importance before that. Unfortunately, to think it is less important in this season is to begin to introduce RH into the mix, which I'm trying to avoid.

I have never denied that the merge episode has the appearance of being critical, and it probably is - as I've also acknowledged. And you must remember that Natalie just didn't have a weak episode 1, but weak episodes 2 and 3 also. That is unprecedented, and in terms of both statistics and the nature of storytelling, more significant than Micks' merge.

You know what this all means, don't you? Neither of 'em win. LOL.

Good point. But I thought story telling and arcs were to be left out of this thread? ;) And like I said, I personally believe episode 1 is important. I also believe the merge is just as important. Statistically, they are equivalent. That is my point, they are both important. And that there is no indication that one is more important than the other.

Yep! IMO, neither are edgically viable. Jaison is probably the only person that doesn't break any patterns that are important. But Jaison was also a very negative character that has lacked complexity, so I don't mind looking for alternatives. With Mick's initial edit, and Natalie's merge edit, I don't particularly care that either are being looked at. But, I don't like that the merge edit has been downplayed in order to justify Mick's viability (not necessarily by you, but as a whole). Because that is molding edgic to Mick.