cantthinkofaname wrote:Er, we might want to reconsider that requirement for this particular exercise. With 11 voters, there will never be a close call between two possible ratings unless someone casts a stray vote at a third possibility. I'm pretty sure a 6-5 split should be up for further discussion, no?
Close call is no rating getting at least 55%, so only Ethan's tone is a close call.
Blake wrote:
The way I think I want to work it is to post what seems to be the majority, and if anyone really disputes a rating, we can look at how close the vote was on it. Then, if the vote was close enough, we can hold a vote between two proposed ratings. Then we can Aye/Nay it for the next 24 hours and finalize that specific rating.
I understand the thought process behind this, although it's going to lead to quite a lackadaisical ratings chart. But it's practical, and that's what's important.
Blake wrote:
I did the "in between ratings" for those if it really felt like something was wonky (while watching the episode) in that rating. Kathy was completely absent from the episode except for 1 scene, so I figured anything over a 2 would be silly. Rudy was fairly prominent in SPV, so I felt his 4 was justified. Alicia also seemed to have equal prominence to Rob M, so I put the in-between there.
...
So basically you've agreed with me on Visibility all along, you just have decided to adhere a bit more stringently to the arbitrary numbers the Visibility chart throws up. That...makes no sense.
KC wrote:
The editors could have easily omitted Amber's presence in that entire scene. They could have cut Alicia's confessional before the part about Amber. They could have cut the entire scene, really, since it's only purpose was to show Rob and Amber united. It was included, imo, to showcase a dynamic which Amber was a part of.
Hmm, that's possible. You're right, they probably could have edited that scene differently if they had wanted to make it solely a Rob vs Alicia scenario. I'll concede that point.
KC wrote:
What you're describing sounds to me like a function of Tina's personality, not the way her personality was edited, and also maybe your positive reaction to Tina's personality.
Well, sure, a kind, older woman is going to be easier to paint as Positive and perhaps you can say the editors actually have to go a bit out of their way if they want her to come off as more neutral. But all the material is there. If they hadn't wanted us to like her, they didn't need to allow us to relate to her and side with her on the issue. They could have shown her being bitchy, they could have showed her being completely mundane. They didn't. They showed her explaining her desire to live life to the fullest. I don't know, but including that confessional seems like an attempt to portray her with some degree of positivity, I feel.
Blake wrote:
I didn't see anything strongly in favor of N in Ethan's edit, mainly because him and Tina were opposing the N force of Jenna.
Frustrated bitching at TC and an incredibly snarky voting comment doesn't lend itself to any feeling of a negative edit?
Blake wrote:
However, I didn't see much P in either Ethan or Tina's edit, because it mainly went in Rupert's favor; so I can't go with M.
They guy had the first confessional of his tribe and talked about how they had the perfect mix of people, followed by positive descriptions of everyone. Tina's early confessional was about wanting to experience life as much as she can, and have lots of life experiences for when she kicks the bucket. No doubt there are shades of positive editing there.
CR wrote:
Gave a good argument at tribal ... if a team wins the championship one year, they aren't supposed to lose the next.
I agree with you up until this point, because I think Tribal Council was where Ethan began to get some heavy negative editing. His arguments may have been logical and you may have agreed, but they also showed him to be incredibly frustrated and bitter at his position. I'm sure he said things that were a bit more mellow and a bit more cheery. I'm sure he tried making his case in a more positive way. But we weren't shown that. Instead, we saw Ethan getting pissed off and attacking the woman calling the shot.
CR wrote:
Especially since Tina ended up with P, Ethan should as well.
But Tina never came off as vicious as Ethan did. While she tried to maintain hope and was shown to be optimistic and content with her place in the game, Ethan was shown to be frustrated and annoyed with his treatment. They were portrayed slightly differently, with Ethan clearly wanting to put up more of a fight and not being above slinging some mud.
CR wrote:[/quote]
It was unfair that Jenna was targeting the winners.[quote=Oo]No it wasn't.
Are you suggesting we were supposed to side with Jenna in this episode?
Oo wrote:
Tina was weak in challenges. Any many, many early boots "don't do anything wrong" other than be considered the weakest.
But in those cases, it's explained to us that the boot is being targeted due to their physical weakness. There was never any mention of that with Tina. Which is another example of the editors not really trying to justify her eviction. They could have shown some of the logic behind targeting the older lady of the tribe, like they've done with plenty of early boots who would otherwise be too sympathetic and make us hate the wrong people. They didn't do that.
Oo wrote:
Did they even have a scene with just the two of them ?
Yes? They strategized together before TC, where Tina identified their position as a pair of targets due to their winner status. Then Ethan was shown going off to approach Rupert and fight their battle.
Oo wrote:
But Warrior has set up this visibility formula that we've used for the last many seasons.
I don't care who set it up or how long it's been used for. I'm making the case for why it's not as useful as everyone seems to believe. And if you want to argue precedent and tradition (which aren't arguments whatsoever), if the Visibility chart was ever meant to dictate visibility, there wouldn't be a vote on visibility ratings for every character every episode. We'd just look at the chart and then vote on UTR/MOR/CP/OTT and tone.
If you want Visibility to be useful, it can't consist of the things the Visibility chart measures. The editors don't take sentence counts into consideration when editing their winner, so we shouldn't take them into consideration when finding that edit. It's as simple as that.
Oo wrote:
As others have mentioned, "overall impact" and "storylines" and "character arcs" are properly reflected in the tone ratings and the UTR/MOR/CP/OTT ratings. NOT the visibility ratings. Amber had a low-key premiere and this should properly be ONLY reflected in her UTR rating.
Nope. What's the difference between a MOR1 and a MOR5? It's not a number of sentences spoken. It's the overall visibility of the player. Someone can have an entire scene dedicated to them where they deliver an epic speech that also happens to be only two run-on sentences. Someone else could be in the background of another scene chattering away about something mundane and not note-worthy, using 20 sentences to make the point that they like lip gloss. The Visibility charts wouldn't reflect the context there, and the context there is everything. The lecturer is more visible than the chatter. And that's what those numbers are meant to denote, even if both players are MOR edits.
Oo wrote:
You think Natalie wins Samoa and you want Amber's edit set up as some sort of "precedent".
No. Russell wins Samoa. This is not the season to be looking at if I wanted to draw Edgic comparisons to that. ;)
Ethan's Close Call:
Ethan received a variety of editing attention in this episode, and it ranged the gamut of tone possibilities. He started the episode as one of the most positive people out there, leading us to side with him in his battle against the evil Jenna. He has a positive outlook on his tribe and fights with loyalty and honor. But at Tribal Council, a different side of Ethan comes out, and he begins to get frustrated. He's sick of being treated like he doesn't deserve to be in the game, and his position starts to piss him off. His arguments get more heated, his attacks become more direct, leading up to one of the nastier voting comments of the season where he goes off on Jenna. His edit is supposed to make us both sympathize with him and be surprised by his aggressive frustration. It's a classic case of a mixed tone serving its classic purpose.
Ethan - Mixed
