S-8 Edgic (editing and logic) Revised in Survivor Speculation Forum

0 Points

S-8 Edgic (editing and logic) Revised

Started By	Comment
Oowatanite		#101	[-]
Posts: 9399 (11/19/09 12:02 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Join forum supporters Remove this ad chapera rocks wrote: Sounds like Jenna vs. Ethan/Tina to me. I guess my point was that it was Jenna/Jerri vs. Ethan/Tina, with newly allied R/R deciding which duo to go with. Not in reality, but that is what the editors intended for the audience to feel. That's why Jenna is negative. They could have spun it to be strategic, but they spun it to be unfair. Hence a conflicted Rupert. The editors gave Jenna a negative spin, but the strategy itself was not "unfair". I feel that the negativity was put in there since Burnett was pissed that many of his favourites and past winners were targeted early in the season. who really didn't do anything wrong. Tina was weak in challenges. Any many, many early boots "don't do anything wrong" other than be considered the weakest. Tina weak in challenges? Maybe. Never emphasized or backed up. In fact, Jenna was the one shown to struggle at the first IC. Not Tina. Again, that may be so, but that is not what the editors intended. Tina was weak in challenges and that is why she was booted before Ethan. I was just commenting on your "really didn't do anything wrong" quote.
chapera rocks		#102	[-]
Posts: 12012 (11/19/09 12:10 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Exactly; J/J vs. E/T with R/R as the swing votes. J was negative and we were meant to root against her and for E/T because the "evil" Jenna targeted them unfairly. Right on again; the strategy isn't unfair. But the editors spun it to be unfair. Tina and Ethan didn't do anything wrong, but they were targeted by Jenna because they had won. This could have been spun to be strategic or unfair. It was spun to be unfair. The motives for why it was spun that way is irrelevant. The fact is, it was spun to be unfair. Again, Tina was targeted for being a winner, moreso than weak at challenges. That was merely to differentiate her from Ethan. Jenna was the only Saboga shown to struggle in the challenge (besides Rupert), so it made Jenna look like a hypocrite. Another instance where the manipulation led us to believe Tina wasn't being fairly labeled. Then Ethan fights for their cause, against an "unfair" target, and thus he is positive.
scepticA		#103	[-]
Posts: 1812 (11/19/09 01:30 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	chapera rocks wrote: Those are definitely great suggestions. However, I personally feel many edgic veterans (I want to avoid generalizations though) are not open to change and are content with the system in place. That's just the impression I get though, I could be wrong. Chap, it's more a matter of demonstrating why a change is an improvement. "Visibility numbers are retarded" does not lend itself to further discussion very well. However, something like, "I've noticed that the winner gets very few reaction shots in pre-merge episodes" is something we can take seriously (that's just an example.) People constantly - and sometimes tongue in cheek - talk about reaction shots etc. Well, why not try and deal with them? To have someone count them? And also see if they're time-consistent (that based on shadows, clothing etc the reaction was actually at the time suggested by the editing. I'd like one of the Visibility # critics to do some thoughtwork on this. So far, nope. The only thing I object to is arguments to change edgic mid-stream, in the middle of a season. Even in this season, when we know that the overall edit is skewed in an entirely new way, recommended changes are pointless because we don't know who the winner is. At least I don't. This means that as of now we don't know if any particular change will help us identify this season's winner. They can help justify an otherwise poor edgic pick, and in a season where our picks seem to be reduced to bad vs. awful, it's surely tempting. Changes should be done with the only one of two purposes: To more easily dismiss non-winners, and to more easily identify the winner. As far as the "Type 2 winner" idea, I like it, but I think it's not enough to look at the "hidden winner" in this sort of Bob/Danni season. There has to be an intrinsic and identifiable difference to the overall season edit. And the same distinction certainly can't identify both Bob and, for example RH if he should win. I have no problem playing out this season and getting into deep analysis afterwards.
BlakeB717		#104	[-]
Posts: 2356 (11/20/09 06:43 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	TWO DAYS to get your Episode 2 ratings in guys!!
danyul0911		#105	[-]
Posts: 51 (11/21/09 10:44 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Chapera: Alicia - OTTN3 Amber - UTR1 Rob C - UTR2 Rob M - OTTN3 Sue - INV Tom - MOR2 Mogo Mogo: Colby - MOR3 Jenna M - UTR1 Kathy - MOR3 Lex - MOR3 Richard - CPN4 Shii Ann - UTR2 Saboga: Ethan - CP4 Jenna L - CPN5 Jerri - MORP4 Rudy - OTTPP4 Rupert - OTTP5
BlakeB717		#106	[-]
Posts: 2372 (11/21/09 02:52 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Chapera: The story was Alicia wanting fire and Rob M getting airtime, so everyone else was UTR/INV (considering they were the least aired tribe) Alicia - MORN2 Amber - UTR1... Laura was saved from INV in Episode FIVE because of the recap, and considering the low visibility of everyone she was still there more than Sue Rob C - UTR2 Rob M - OTT3... debatable N Sue - INV1 Tom - UTR2 Mogo Mogo: The story was about Kathy wanting fire, Lex narrating their dire situation, and Richard finding the key. Jenna, Shii Ann, and Colby were UTR and not apart of the story. Colby - UTR2... debatable MOR Jenna M - UTR1 Kathy - MOR2 Lex - MOR3 Rich - CP3... debatable N Shii Ann - UTR2 Saboga: Ethan - CP4... debatable M? Jenna L - OTTN5... I highly suggest you all give her edit a look, she was over-the-top, cocky, and bitchy (got burned by the fire, Ethan said she was being a bitch, there wasn't anything complex... being strategic doesn't mean CP) Jerri - MORP4... debatable Neutral Rudy - OTTPP4... debatable P Rupert - OTTP5
chapera rocks		#107	[-]
Posts: 12033 (11/21/09 06:50 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Amber - UTR1... Laura was saved from INV in Episode FIVE because of the recap, and considering the low visibility of everyone she was still there more than Sue Laura was saved from INV1 because of the scene where she bashed Shambo for being socially awkward. NOT for the recap. This is clearly to keep the no winner has been INV1 thing going. It still stands strong even with Amber as an exception.
BlakeB717		#108	[-]
Posts: 2373 (11/21/09 06:56 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	chapera rocks wrote: Amber - UTR1... Laura was saved from INV in Episode FIVE because of the recap, and considering the low visibility of everyone she was still there more than Sue Laura was saved from INV1 because of the scene where she bashed Shambo for being socially awkward. NOT for the recap. This is clearly to keep the no winner has been INV1 thing going. It still stands strong even with Amber as an exception. No, as far as I remember, her "Gilligan confessional" was used as a reason. Whether or not you think recap should be included or not, it's influenced ratings in the past and is a manipulated portion of the episode. They reminded us of her. Laura's back was to the camera and she gave out one line about Shambo and it wasn't even subtitled. She got UTR1 (in a close call) This isn't to "keep the INV winner thing" alive--she was UTR from what I saw.
chapera rocks		#109	[-]
Posts: 12034 (11/21/09 07:04 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	The Gilligan confessional was not used by the majority as a reason. The close call was because the scene wasn't subtitled; but the scene itself was fairly extended with her conversation about being glad a socially awkward Shambo was not at the fire with them. This is something fairly because of the bitchy nature. Since it wasn't subtitled, it becomes a close call. NOT because of the recap. That is a dangerous line to tread, since many ratings would be changed because of it. Dissecting Amber's edit like we are makes her appear more visible than she actually was. To say she was UTR1 but not Natalie is ludicrous; they had about the same focus. And Sue did more noticeable talking than Amber did, because they actually showed her speaking in a calmed setting (not in the middle of a challenge) after the RC. Last Edited By: chapera rocks 11/21/09 07:06 PM. Edited 1 times.
BlakeB717		#110	[-]
Posts: 2374 (11/21/09 07:07 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Join forum supporters Remove this ad chapera rocks wrote: The Gilligan confessional was not used by the majority as a reason. The close call was because the scene wasn't subtitled; but the scene itself was fairly extended with her conversation about being glad a socially awkward Shambo was not at the fire with them. This is something fairly because of the bitchy nature. Since it wasn't subtitled, it becomes a close call. NOT because of the recap. That is a dangerous line to tread, since many ratings would be changed because of it. Dissecting Amber's edit like we are makes her appear more visible than she actually was. To say she was UTR1 but not Natalie is ludicrous; they had about the same focus. There was also basically no airtime for anyone this week. Like I said, the visibility and camp scenes this episode were severely limited by very long challenges. I think she's good enough to bump up to UTR1, especially said she wasn't as non-existant as Sue (who was definitely INV)
chapera rocks		#111	[-]
Posts: 12035 (11/21/09 07:38 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Okay, so let me know what specific instances (recap aside) are enough to bump her from INV1 to UTR1. And how they are more significant than the sentences Sue spoke at the reward. And comparing her to Sue doesn't make sense because that means only one person can be INV1 each episode, unless they have exactly the same amount of screentime.
BlakeB717		#112	[-]
Posts: 2375 (11/21/09 07:42 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	chapera rocks wrote: Okay, so let me know what specific instances (recap aside) are enough to bump her from INV1 to UTR1. And how they are more significant than the sentences Sue spoke at the reward. And comparing her to Sue doesn't make sense because that means only one person can be INV1 each episode, unless they have exactly the same amount of screentime. The only thing Sue said the entire episode was "Yeah" or something. I'm very against ratings being "relative", but I stand by Amber being UTR under the circumstances of the episode. Like I said, I'm not going to argue over her rating.
chapera rocks		#113	[-]
Posts: 12036 (11/21/09 07:44 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I'm not trying to argue. I simply want to know your rational. What did Amber do to bump her up to a UTR1? If you can't explain your rating aside from saying visibility is low, then you probably don't have a good explanation. Just because visibility is low doesn't mean yelling at a challenge for .5 seconds is enough to bump her up. I can't even find these three sentences you credited her for.
BlakeB717		#114	[-]
Posts: 2376 (11/21/09 07:45 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Only 4 ratings posts in! Cmon guys, tomorrow is your last day to post them!!
chapera rocks		#115	[-]
Posts: 12042 (11/22/09 09:35 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I rest my case.
bryanpasa		#116	[-]
Posts: 2776 (11/22/09 10:29 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	EPISODE 2: Alicia - MORN2 [not so much scenes....but she got negative SPVs but I don't think she's that featured to be OTT] Amber - INV1 [don't see her even talking] Rob C. - MOR2 [he narrates] Rob M. - OTTN3 [he is kinda trying to break the rules and almost whole tribe vs. Boston Rob...so I guess that's OTT-worthy] Sue - INV1 [atleast the spider got more screentime than her =/] Tom - UTR2 [not so much but we see him singing...lol....but that's not P-worthy] Colby - MOR2 [he narrates too] Jenna M. - UTR1 [not so much scene....so she's UTR to me] Kathy - UTRN2 [that fire scene, I think she's kinda N =o] Lex - MOR3 [not so much to say but he's there, not so much scenes, so yeah] Richard - OTT4 [just textbook OTT....] Shii-Ann - UTR2 [she's there talking....but just a wallflower in that episode] Ethan - CPM5 [that fish scene is kinda N because we were shown that he has colossal fuck-ups....but maybe also P due to TRYING and has efforts to win] Jenna L. - CPN5 [she's constructed to be the evil one....so yeah] Jerri - MOR4 [that's it >_>] Rudy - OTTPP4 [he's a hero <3] Rupert - OTTP5 [the fish scene and supporting a hero makes him a P]
McPhever224		#117	[-]
Posts: 413 (11/22/09 02:06 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Chapera: Alicia - OTTN2 Amber - INV1 Rob C - UTR2 Rob M - OTTN3 Sue - INV1 Tom - UTR2 Mogo Mogo: Colby - UTR2 Jenna M - UTR1 Kathy - MOR2 Lex - MOR3 Rich - CPN3 Shii Ann - UTR2 Saboga: Ethan - CP4 Jenna L - CP5 Jerri - MORP4 Rudy - OTTP4 Rupert - OTTP5 (I can't stand to watch him.)
BlakeB717		#118	[-]
Posts: 2383 (11/22/09 02:27 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	chapera rocks wrote: I rest my case. No, I just don't see the point in repeating myself. "If you can't explain your rating aside from saying visibility is low, then you probably don't have a good explanation." Well actually, I have already done so on previous pages, so I'm not going to repost things if you've already looked over them (and if you have, you simply disagree or ignored them). Your case isn't rested, we just disagree.
chapera rocks		#119	[-]
Posts: 12044 (11/22/09 03:21 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	BlakeB717 wrote: chapera rocks wrote: I rest my case. No, I just don't see the point in repeating myself. "If you can't explain your rating aside from saying visibility is low, then you probably don't have a good explanation." Well actually, I have already done so on previous pages, so I'm not going to repost things if you've already looked over them (and if you have, you simply disagree or ignored them). Your case isn't rested, we just disagree. "Visibility is low". Okay, that may bump up someone who actually had airtime. Such as Alicia. Amber had no airtime, so to bump her up on non-existent focus makes no sense. "She got a shit load of face shots." No she didn't. There may have appeared to be more, but that is because you were looking for them. In the first chapera scene, she had no focus other than being muffled out by a singing Rob M. and Alicia. In the second Chapera scene she wasn't focused on, even with reaction shots. In the third Chapera scene, she received one, short (.5 second) reaction shot the entire scene. At the reward challenge, Sue received more focus ... in terms of speaking and in terms of Probst commentary. "My main issue is that Chapera got the shaft in the editing department this week". So are you saying a tribe like Galu should have inflated visibility because of this? Maybe, if they had any focus whatsoever. But Erik doesn't get bumped up from INV1 in episode 2 because he had more reaction shots in the challenge than Brett did. "KQ said ....". We're not KQ. Edgic was a different time back then. You've yet to name an actual instance of manipulation for Amber. There was none. And, you've yet to point out where these three sentences from Amber came from. I've watched and I can't for the life of me find them, so if they do exist, please tell.
danyul0911		#120	[-]
Posts: 52 (11/22/09 03:54 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Join forum supporters Remove this ad I gave Amber a UTR1 because of the recap where she was specifically pointed out by name. IMO if this happens, that person is now in the minds of the viewers, albeit just barely, but that week, they are not completely forgotten. That to me is the difference from a UTR1 and an INV. I also think Natalie was UTR1 in Episode 2 this season since her name was subtitled during someone else's sentence.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S-8 Edgic (editing and logic) Revised