Survivor 19 Spoilers in Survivor Spoilers Forum

0 Points

Survivor 19 Spoilers

Started By	Comment
A Bartholomew		#2101	[-]
Posts: 6010 (12/16/09 08:27 AM) Patriots:Worst 11-5 team EVER More Recent Posts	Join forum supporters Remove this ad Therefore, blaim jury in case of a Natalie win and small number of confessionals. I wasn't aware that the jury were the ones who edited the episodes and gave Russell 87 confessionals, while giving Natalie less than 10 and Mick about 25.
ivebeeninsane		#2102	[-]
Posts: 7 (12/16/09 08:49 AM) More Recent Posts	A Bartholomew wrote: Therefore, blaim jury in case of a Natalie win and small number of confessionals. I wasn't aware that the jury were the ones who edited the episodes and gave Russell 87 confessionals, while giving Natalie less than 10 and Mick about 25. Neither was I aware that the producers were the ones who're choosing the winner. If the producers had any say in who was going to be the winner, your objection would be valid. As it stands now it just seems that you think that producers own an explanation to the viewers for something that was not their decision in any shape or form. Why would we be forced to watch a less interesting show (read less interesting confessionals) just because of inability of few people to give credit where credit is due?
tullfan2		#2103	[-]
Posts: 4023 (12/16/09 10:24 AM) Registered User More Recent Posts	This Spoilers board will remain interesting for another few days. After Sunday, there won't be anything to spoil till the summer as S20 boot order is completely known.
pushingjate		#2104	[-]
Posts: 6163 (12/16/09 11:15 AM) More Recent Posts	I think people in this thread need to stop using "editing" to justify a Natalie or a Mick win. The producers stopped caring about making storylines a long time ago. They just edit shit together to make a 40-43 minute TV show, and showcase players they think are "interesting."
PrettyGoodYear1988		#2105	[-]
Posts: 3029 (12/16/09 11:42 AM) Registered user More Recent Posts	ivebeeninsane wrote: A Bartholomew wrote: Therefore, blaim jury in case of a Natalie win and small number of confessionals. I wasn't aware that the jury were the ones who edited the episodes and gave Russell 87 confessionals, while giving Natalie less than 10 and Mick about 25. Neither was I aware that the producers were the ones who're choosing the winner. If the producers had any say in who was going to be the winner, your objection would be valid. As it stands now it just seems that you think that producers own an explanation to the viewers for something that was not their decision in any shape or form. Why would we be forced to watch a less interesting show (read less interesting confessionals) just because of inability of few people to give credit where credit is due? It's all in the assumption that the show is editing to be the "winner's story." Therefore, since the producers know who the winner is before they even start editing the first episode, they will make the conscious decision to showcase the winner throughout the season. Natalie is so invisible, and it seems unlikely that the producers would do that to her if she was the winner. Even if she's as dull as paint drying, they could at least give her some narrative confessionals each episode (i.e. "We have a challenge coming up," "The conditions are really tough," etc.) She hasn't even had any of those, though.
ivebeeninsane		#2106	[-]
Posts: 8 (12/16/09 12:08 PM) More Recent Posts	PrettyGoodYear1988 wrote: It's all in the assumption that the show is editing to be the "winner's story." Therefore, since the producers know who the winner is before they even start editing the first episode, they will make the conscious decision to showcase the winner throughout the season. Natalie is so invisible, and it seems unlikely that the producers would do that to her if she was the winner. Even if she's as dull as paint drying, they could at least give her some narrative confessionals each episode (i.e. "We have a challenge coming up," "The conditions are really tough," etc.) She hasn't even had any of those, though. I do see your point and I would agree if that assumption was correct. The question is what arguments do we have for claiming that "the winner's story" edit assumption is justifiable? Are there any interviews of any of the producers saying what is the most importing thing while editing the show? I just think that the ratings are far more important than "the winner's story" edit and 40 minutes for 3 days is not a lot of time (0.93%!). CBS should consinder giving more air-time...
crazywhores		#2107	[-]
Posts: 47 (12/16/09 12:44 PM) More Recent Posts	any possibility of a mick-natalie tie with one vote (maybe shambo or john) going to russell?
JaimeCat22		#2108	[-]
Posts: 241 (12/16/09 01:12 PM) More Recent Posts	PrettyGoodYear1988 wrote: It's all in the assumption that the show is editing to be the "winner's story." Therefore, since the producers know who the winner is before they even start editing the first episode, they will make the conscious decision to showcase the winner throughout the season. Natalie is so invisible, and it seems unlikely that the producers would do that to her if she was the winner. Basically, yeah. It would be something that has never happened on 19 seasons of Survivor so far. Danni's edit was shocking, and yet she had 27 confessionals after 12 episodes (and at least one in 11 out of 12 episodes). Natalie has 9, and has only had confessionals in 5 out of 12 episodes. She makes Vecepia's edit look like Russell Hantz. So it's not that she can't win, it's just that it would be unheard of in Survivor history for a winner to be that ignored. We'll find out on Sunday.
rower		#2109	[-]
Posts: 2697 (12/16/09 01:25 PM) Registered User More Recent Posts	Well the producer and editors job is not necessarily for a seasons finale to make sense it is to keep people tuning in. They certainly don't have to follow our expectations in their editing.... they can do what they want. Most of Galu have admitted that the worst move they made was voting out Erik. Who facilitated that? Natalie by convincing the Galu women that Erik was going after Monica (which he was). It was a key move and was the beginning of the end for Galu. Who knows how the game would have gone if Erik had been kept in the game? That move was bigger than any single thing Russ or Mick did.
OutwitOutplay		#2110	[-]
Posts: 67 (12/16/09 03:08 PM) More Recent Posts	Join forum supporters Remove this ad pushingjate wrote: I think people in this thread need to stop using "editing" to justify a Natalie or a Mick win. The producers stopped caring about making storylines a long time ago. They just edit shit together to make a 40-43 minute TV show, and showcase players they think are "interesting." Look. Even if the producers are out for ratings first and foremost, they don't edit blindly. They still have to tell a story. I've watched every single season, and the editing for the winner has always made sense in relation to the winner. That said, it's very hard to see anyone but Mick or Russell as the winner based on this season's editing -- in my opinion.
soph101		#2111	[-]
Posts: 3 (12/16/09 03:16 PM) More Recent Posts	OutwitOutplay wrote: pushingjate wrote: I think people in this thread need to stop using "editing" to justify a Natalie or a Mick win. The producers stopped caring about making storylines a long time ago. They just edit shit together to make a 40-43 minute TV show, and showcase players they think are "interesting." That said, it's very hard to see anyone but Mick or Russell as the winner based on this season's editing -- in my opinion. Mick? Honestly, I can't remember one thing that guy does and he's been invisible for a vast number of the episodes, just like Natalie. On top of that, Natalie gets pimped out to the extreme whenever she does something small. She kills a rat and the first five minutes of the episode are dedicated to how she killed the rat and they gave complete credit to Natalie for Erik's elimination. When Natalie was the third girl remaining in the challenge, they made sure to highlight Jeff saying how proud he was of Natalie and how amazing she was doing in the challenge. Plus, like everyone's been saying, she has the story. Was underestimated by Russell on day one as "the dumb girl" and ends up beating him. Yes, Mick has had more confessionals but I think Natalie has had the better edit.
ivebeeninsane		#2112	[-]
Posts: 9 (12/16/09 05:17 PM) More Recent Posts	OutwitOutplay wrote: Look. Even if the producers are out for ratings first and foremost, they don't edit blindly. They still have to tell a story. I've watched every single season, and the editing for the winner has always made sense in relation to the winner. That said, it's very hard to see anyone but Mick or Russell as the winner based on this season's editing -- in my opinion. People can find sense in everything in life. You can even see particular shapes in clouds and attribute some significance to it, just as you did with Mark's edit. Actually, your statement that Mick has a winner based edit is the proof that people can find sense in just about everything. Last Edited By: ivebeeninsane 12/16/09 05:22 PM. Edited 1 times.
PrettyGoodYear1988		#2113	[-]
Posts: 3031 (12/16/09 05:25 PM) Registered user More Recent Posts	Mick will still have one of the worst edits for a winner in Survivor history if he wins, but his won't be anywhere near as bad as Natalie's if she turns out to be the winner. Honestly, I have no idea who is going to win this thing. I am hoping for Natalie, but I think it will be Mick, but it could very well be Russell. Who knows?
JediJeffro		#2114	[-]
Posts: 541 (12/16/09 07:00 PM) Registered user More Recent Posts	If not for spoilers I would be dead set convinced that Jaison is winning this. Gut tells me Natalie will win and the entire reunion will be, "Russell, how did you let that happen?!"
JaimeCat22		#2115	[-]
Posts: 258 (12/16/09 07:05 PM) More Recent Posts	JediJeffro wrote: If not for spoilers I would be dead set convinced that Jaison is winning this. X
DarrahColleenJerri		#2116	[-]
Posts: 699 (12/16/09 07:08 PM) Registered User More Recent Posts	I still don't get why people try to use edgic to justify someone winning. The editors of the show DO NOT give a fuck what a group of people on a message board made up to justufy the way people are treated. After Bobs win it shows edgic is baseless and pointless.
novaya		#2117	[-]
Posts: 1268 (12/16/09 08:42 PM) More Recent Posts	pushingjate wrote: I think people in this thread need to stop using "editing" to justify a Natalie or a Mick win. Moar, the anti-Natalie mongering comes from Edgic which is HEINOUSLY FLAWED this season (as in most others lol Marcus in Gabon): 1. This season is on the coattails of S20. 2. This makes it all "Russell's story." 3. They keep talking about Mick's "Edit." 4. This season had a built-in mechanism for an early Mick "Edit" -- the Tribal Leader moniker. 5. Mick was the Foa tribal leader. 6. Russell SWAN and Mick's edits were near similar in visibility during this time. 7. Foa got more time (way more) because of Russell and their many TCs. 8. Mick has basically gotten the same edit as Natalie since the LEADER necessity subsided. Edgicians are wailing that they must be right because he "GOT MORE CONFESSIONALS!" or w/e but completely disregard the obvious X factor (that any real statistician should acknowledge) which is that as "LEADER" of Foa Foa since Ep1 he should get SOME TIME aside from the random 9 others on Foa. This story is about Russell, and the bridge is there for "the even dumber blonde" to win over Russell in the end. Mick has YET to tie into Russell H's story like Natalie has. END OF IT. Last Edited By: novaya 12/16/09 08:47 PM. Edited 4 times.
kdeec		#2118	[-]
Posts: 641 (12/16/09 08:53 PM) More Recent Posts	ivebeeninsane wrote: Therefore, blaim jury in case of a Natalie win and small number of confessionals. Must we always play the blaim gaim?
novaya		#2119	[-]
Posts: 1269 (12/16/09 08:55 PM) More Recent Posts	I will dp rather than edit again: ALSO, the metric of "confessional count" is lolz since Mick has basically had nothing but negative said about him! He's a crappy leader, he's a waffler, he's not leading, blah blah blah. He's like an Ibrehem kept around for his muscles over epic Angies (Liz). NO ONE has said a good thing about Mick, only bad. No one has said anything about Natalie except positive (Laura being like omg books <3 ^_^). This season dovetails into S20 so it's all Russell, from pre-show to end. Unless someone is gonna argue RUSSELL wins, Natalie has the "winner edit" in that she's the default foil to Russell, the loser. yw to Russell's many S20 confeshes about how he won't make that mistake again and play a diffo game yadda yadda. Nat has received not ONE neg in-show moment about her from others. Mick has, from his own Foas calling him a shitty leader. THE NUMBER OF THEIR OWN CONFESH'S DON'T MATTER since this season is about Russell, his journey, him losing, so he can re-emerge in S20. LORD.
JaimeCat22		#2120	[-]
Posts: 266 (12/16/09 08:58 PM) More Recent Posts	Join forum supporters Remove this ad If the season is all about Russell losing, then Mick is just as likely a default winner as Natalie. Both Mick and Natalie are lacking, but Mick is far closer to low-key male winners like Bob and Ethan than Natalie is to winners like Danni and Vecepia. Natalie is much closer to runner-ups like Susie and Cassandra. So Mick is my pick. Hey, that rhymes. I'll probably be wrong on Sunday but I'm sticking with Mick.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Survivor 19 Spoilers