S-19 Edgic (editing and logic) in Survivor Speculation Forum

0 Points

S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)

Started By	Comment
RobVanStratus		#6061	[-]
Posts: 9636 (12/28/09 01:23 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Semi finale: Ads vs. People Remove this ad BlakeB717 wrote: Happy Holidays everyone! I hope everyone has been enjoying the festive season. I sure have! Just found the time to catch up on some posts. scep I have never agreed with you more! Edgic is just for fun, and one big fat 'We heard you the first time' is in order for some people. We heard you the first and millionth time you said Mick wins. We heard you the first time you tried to act nice so you could play the victim. Honestly Blake, fuck off. Edgic would be better if you and Ootwatanite would disappear. People would be allowed opinions again and maybe Edgic wouldn't be picking the same retard edits each season.
Paparazzi		#6062	[-]
Posts: 3 (12/28/09 02:33 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I've been a lurker here the entire season, and I have to agree that Edgic needs to start looking more at quality over quantity (as in stories and themes and such, not just numbers) if its ever going to get back on track. Also, why so much hate for Blake? He picked Mick to win, he was wrong, and he's being gracious about it. Sure I hated him a few weeks ago when he was being an arrogant prick, but he was told to change, he has, and now he's much more personable.
OzzyBrett222		#6063	[-]
Posts: 14 (12/28/09 02:42 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I don't think it's the fact that he picked Mick to win. It was his whole "IF YOU DON'T THINK MICK IS THE WINNER YOU ARE NOT DOING EDGIC PROPERLY!" thing.
Paparazzi		#6064	[-]
Posts: 8 (12/28/09 03:42 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Yeah, that's true. He was being totally obnoxious about it. But he's not anymore, so I don't see how the constant bashing is necessary. If people feel it is necessary, so be it. But - to me, at least - he's now acting in a reasonable manner. Continuing to attack him isn't solving anything, it's only making the Edgic thread even more unbearable.
astroline		#6065	[-]
Posts: 3031 (12/28/09 10:32 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	getting real wrote: 'We heard you the first time' is in order for some people. Blake, my friend, you are so right. If only we were less selective about when to practise this very thing you are preaching. Had we heeded it earlier, this thread might then only be half the size it is today. And, BTW, it would actually be good if we could actually hear for the first time from some of the veterans of this thread. Merry Christmas, FLF, Warrior, Wallduck and RedWing. But obviously some people didn't hear it the first time, which is why Mick was the #1 pick all season long.
TheLurkerSpeaks		#6066	[-]
Posts: 1504 (12/28/09 10:45 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Again, I'm responding here as a veteran Edgic analyst who did not actively use Edgic this season, but I did predict Natalie would win, and I have to think at least in part that was based upon Edgic principles. Perhaps the fact that I wasn't getting too wrapped up in rating individual players from the beginning of the game actually helped. Sure, Natalie was UTR early in the season, but not seeing her with three straight UTR's to start things off meant that when she clearly got the unnecessary attention confessionals (particularly in Ep. 4), she stood out as a player to watch without having been prematurely written off. Even when I was actively participating here, I've argued that we are generally too quick to eliminate people, and that appears to have been a problem for the formal Edgicers this season. Edgic has become too formally mathematical in approach - the original guidelines were much more fluid. The basic tenet of Edgic is that the winner will be in the midst of the action yet not stand out too prominently. But this guideline has to be flexible enough to encompass both the UTR winner and the heavy strategy CP winner. So when the winner is Todd, the editors build up numerous noisy distractions, and after building Todd up early on, they de-emphasize him down the stretch to build up doubt. When the winner is Earl, the editors play up Yau Man and try to distract the viewer with Dreamz. When the winner is Yul, the editors play up Jonathan and Ozzy and raise doubts about Yul overplaying his hand. On the other hand, when the winner is Amber or Natalie, the editors emphasize the attachment with the season's noisiest player, and let that player cover them until the surprise finish (which really shouldn't be a surprise). From my perspective, the key to pinpointing the high visibility winner is recognizing buildup of doubt and the presence of several distractions to compete for airtime. For the low visibility winner, the key is the presence of unnecessary attention - scenes that distinguish players that the current gameplay doesn't require be distinguished, and this doesn't require a CP edit to accomplish. Quality of edit significance doesn't neatly match up with the CP/MOR/OTT/UTR characterization. For this past season, there was clearly one main distraction - Russell - and he never took a back seat to anyone else. The only other player to come close to his level of attention was Shambo, and she was a OTT clown, who clearly was not going to win. Were there any other big players who might have been using the distractions for cover? Laura? Her edit was clearly negatively tinged, and we rarely got her perspective. She was presented as an obstacle, and that never bodes well for the player involved. John? Perhaps ... He was shown as strategic compared to many, but he was also heavily negative and rarely shown when not impacting the current storyline. I could have seen him as Edgically viable at certain points, but he did not have a strong edit for winning. Jaison? Better than most, but the subplot with almost giving up isn't one that is conducive to winning. So then, we look at those from the other end of the scale in terms of visibility, and from that perspective, Natalie stands out, particularly with a well-defined relationship with the season's main distraction. Liz might have had a chance based upon her storyline as the player Russell didn't trust who wasn't immediately discarded, but she left before the merge. Of the Galu, only Monica might have had a chance, but logic had to put the Foa Foa above her based upon the relative tribal edits. That leaves Mick. And Mick had the Scout edit - just sort of there. He was clearly Edgically viable, but the quality of the edit leaves something to be desired when the story seems to have no connection to the player. Mick was used for narration in most of his scenes. In one sense that is unnecessary attention, but it generally is the wrong kind because it gives information on background matters but very little about the player. I certainly don't blame Edgicers for keeping Mick high on their list, but I certainly wouldn't have had much enthusiasm for him. I'd go back to the issue of eliminating players - why do so? If a player's edit isn't strong Edgically, usually it won't get much better over the course of the game so being in a rush isn't really necessary. There is the matter of the decoy edit, which consists of those players who suddenly seem in prime position just as the game is ending after being underdeveloped earlier on, but these can be identified as such when it occurs. (This season, it was Brett, who took the concept to extremes by barely appearing before the decoy edit kicked in. Most seasons, it is more subtle, like Amanda in both her seasons.)
scepticA		#6067	[-]
Posts: 1891 (12/28/09 02:47 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Nice stuff, TLS. I think one improvement that could be easily made is determining when exactly one should predict the winner based on edgic. It used to be "at the merge" but I believe that 2 or 3 of the recent wrong picks could have easily been avoided if we'd waited 1-2 weeks beyond the merge. Amanda vs. Todd, Mick vs anyone, and JT/Stephen were all picks that looked bad very quickly after the merge, despite looking okey-dokey at merge time. That change alone would put edgic's overall success rate much, much better than it is. If we agree to change the # of winner choices to 3 at merge, 2 a week later, and 1 another two weeks later I'd be quite interested in seeing how the last four seasons would have turned out. Even Bob would have been far more viable. (Another thing - would edgic watchdogs have helped this season?) If there is nothing hard and fast about edgic guidelines, so why not deal with the simplest change of all: when we decide on the winner?
BlakeB717		#6068	[-]
Posts: 2836 (12/28/09 03:14 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Really nice post, TLS. I'm enlightened. Regarding rule changes, I'd like to nominate Phoenix's unofficial ratings guidelines on the first page. They're spot on.
getting real		#6069	[-]
Posts: 2028 (12/28/09 04:09 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Good stuff, TLS, and I'm glad you were enlightened, Blake. Obviously more so than when I was saying much the same stuff all season. So, do you now accept that 'Edgic has become too formally mathematical in approach - the original guidelines were much more fluid. The basic tenet of Edgic is that the winner will be in the midst of the action yet not stand out too prominently. But this guideline has to be flexible enough to encompass both the UTR winner and the heavy strategy CP winner' and that 'the key to pinpointing the high visibility winner is recognizing buildup of doubt and the presence of several distractions to compete for airtime. For the low visibility winner, the key is the presence of unnecessary attention '. And, Scep do you now accept that 'I have to think at least in part that (a Natalie win) was based upon Edgic principles'? I suppose it was a case of having heard it the first time, but a bit of dicussion wouldn't have hurt.
BlakeB717		#6070	[-]
Posts: 2837 (12/28/09 06:37 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Semi finale: Ads vs. People Remove this ad I'm enlightened in the sense that Edgic has become too rigid. I think it started around the time I jumped on board, which was in Fiji, so I've "grown up" in a "rigid Edgic environment". Yul-Earl-Todd-Parvati were all CP winners. For 2 years we had the CP structure. It's hard to remember that Edgic isn't always a mathematical formula, especially when for so long all the winners fit the math. I always re-read what KQ has to say in previous seasons and it fits exactly what TLS is saying. KQ didn't bother with INV, he didn't track the episodes on a chart strictly, and he didn't have to disect every word of the edit. He didn't make a huge deal if someone was a 4 or a 5. What I'm getting at is that maybe we should all look back at the past, see how things were run, and throw out some uselessness. Perhaps we've progressed too much? The Edgic majority hasn't gotten the winner in a while now, so perhaps we're in a progress trap. Eek, no good. I wish next season wasn't so spoiled, because I'm so-o ready for another season!
BlakeB717		#6071	[-]
Posts: 2838 (12/28/09 06:42 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	After Pearl Islands, KQ summed up Seasons 1-7 and Edgic up until that point: Edgic has been successful in picking the last two winners through editing and logic. The theory is based on the assumption that Mark Burnett edits the show each season in a similar fashion...one that eventually reveals the winner!!! ----------- I will attemp to explain Edgic for anyone new who wants to jump on board. We devote this thread to try and pick the winner(hopefully by or before the merge). We look at the editing player by player and apply logic from past editing patterns or obsevations about what we have been shown. Each week posters rate the players in the following categories: OTTP (over the top positive) OTTN (over the top negative) OTT (over the top neutral) CPP (complex personality positive) CPN (complex personality negetive) CP (complex personality neutral) UTRP (under the radar positive) UTRN (under the radar negative) UTR (under the radar neutral) MOR (middle of the road) MORP(middle of the road Positive) MOPN(middle of the road Negative) If it seem complicated, wait a week or so and read some of the regulars posts and you will catch on quickly. How we look at things has evolved over 3 1/2 seasons and will probably continue to evolve.Therefore input is not only weclome, but crucial. Things we have learned through Edgic: 1)The winner may have ups and downs, but is typically not hidden or way over the top. 2) Over the course of the game the winner is closer to middle of the road. 3) The tribe that has the most complex dynamics and strategy almost always contains the winner. 4) The ending is always set up to be a somewhat of a 'surprise'. You either don't expect the winner or second place to be there. 5) People who are OTTN for long don't last. 6) People who are OTTP for long usually last, but don't win. 7) If two people are a 'known final pair' then the likelyhood of them actually being the final two is almost zero. (i'm sure there is more, but I can't think right now) ------------- (What we saw last season) Now as you can see, Sandra was a Middle of the Road player and had Medium Visibility. I'm guessing her final rating was probably CPP. That's good. Being OTT or UTR is not as good, although we have had two UTR winners in Tina and Ethan (UTRP). Although they had much meaningful editing as apposed to a Darrah or a Butch. Sandra came from the tribe that was edited as more strategic. Sandra was never ignored in the editing, but she was also not the 'front stage'kinda player (like ruppert or Jon). Basically, we chart these players editing from week to week. Early on we can rule out players like Osten, Jon, Ruppert etc. becuase they are too OTT or too Negative or even too positive. Then the players in the background - with little or no story. After 4-5 weeks, you only have a handfull of players. Apply the logic - alliances - secret pairs etc. Then it all an educated quess. Keep in mind these 'similarities' have been in all six survivors since the first on. We usually don't count S1 editing as heavily, because MB was just getting started. The concept is easy, but applying it is tricky. That is why if anyone can come up with other 'similarities', then we will add it to edgic. If you look past to all past winners, you can logically satisfy all the elements of this theory. Obviously some fit better than others. As a definition clarafication, when I say Middle of the Road, I mean not too OTT or not too UTR - I hope that makes sense, because Sandra being CPP is still considered Middle of the Road editing. hope that helps people understand the concept. I'd be happy to answer any specific questions. KQ Last Edited By: BlakeB717 12/28/09 06:46 PM. Edited 1 times.
getting real		#6072	[-]
Posts: 2029 (12/28/09 06:45 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	BlakeB717 wrote: I'm enlightened in the sense that Edgic has become too rigid. I think it started around the time I jumped on board, which was in Fiji, so I've "grown up" in a "rigid Edgic environment". Yul-Earl-Todd-Parvati were all CP winners. For 2 years we had the CP structure. It's hard to remember that Edgic isn't always a mathematical formula, especially when for so long all the winners fit the math. I always re-read what KQ has to say in previous seasons and it fits exactly what TLS is saying. KQ didn't bother with INV, he didn't track the episodes on a chart strictly, and he didn't have to disect every word of the edit. He didn't make a huge deal if someone was a 4 or a 5. What I'm getting at is that maybe we should all look back at the past, see how things were run, and throw out some uselessness. Perhaps we've progressed too much? The Edgic majority hasn't gotten the winner in a while now, so perhaps we're in a progress trap. Eek, no good. I wish next season wasn't so spoiled, because I'm so-o ready for another season! That's the spirit!!! No more pessimism... ETA: KQ's synopsis confirms why a win by Russell (or any of the Galuans) would've been the only catastrophic outcome for the edgic philosophy. Last Edited By: getting real 12/28/09 06:50 PM. Edited 1 times.
cindidindi76		#6073	[-]
Posts: 21074 (12/28/09 06:49 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	astroline wrote: getting real wrote: 'We heard you the first time' is in order for some people. Blake, my friend, you are so right. If only we were less selective about when to practise this very thing you are preaching. Had we heeded it earlier, this thread might then only be half the size it is today. And, BTW, it would actually be good if we could actually hear for the first time from some of the veterans of this thread. Merry Christmas, FLF, Warrior, Wallduck and RedWing. But obviously some people didn't hear it the first time, which is why Mick was the #1 pick all season long. Who did you pick again? Oh yeah, someone else who didn't win. While I understand somewhat your frustration with edgic and with the people who won't ever admit if they see spoilers (welcome to my world), when you're constantly saying "YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN WRONG WRONG WRONG AND EDGIC DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!!!!!" and you yourself have been wrong just as much, you look kind of silly. Clearly edgic needs work, but your outside-the-box methods have had just as many issues, so perhaps you should consider giving that portion of your spiel a rest. Or not, lol.
scepticA		#6074	[-]
Posts: 1892 (12/28/09 07:17 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	gr, I never said that a Nat win was totally without edgic merit. I said on more than one occasion that this odd season required us to determine which of the Foas violated edgic least (if edgic had any merit at all). Based on the way that Edgic existed up until the start of S19 natalie was not the best choice at the merge, hence my suggestion - still with no response - that we try and decide on a better timeframe for choosing an edgic winner. (Am I the only edgic'r who actually posted something on the order of, "Isn't there anyone else besides me who isn't comfortable with their pick?" I got zero takers.) To me the biggest outlier - by FAR - to "real" edgic was Russell, and on that, gr, we completely agree. The Natalie win is something that I believe can be accounted for in modifications to edgic guidelines. Russell? Not really. Several of the arguments I've read for a Nat win are quite obvious, but only through the Palomar-sized lens of hindsight. One thing we cannot do is assign critical importance to every single thing every single winner did, just because they ended up winning. I also agree that edgic became far too mathematical, like trying to have an objective measurement of beauty (which is, of course, the millihelen. Helen of Troy had a face that could launch a thousand ships, so a millihelen is the amount of beauty that can launch a single ship). To me the height of mathematical peculiarity was the MOR diff. I pointed out that the entire definition of a "good" MOR diff score changed completely from Cook Islands to the present. What used to be good is now Not Good. But apparently the numbers are just so cool...
BlakeB717		#6075	[-]
Posts: 2839 (12/28/09 07:31 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Based on what KQ has said (and others), Edgic is more of an overall-editing thing. People who have an awesome edit, but have 1 INV, shouldn't be eliminated because it's one episode. How do we define "awesome edit"? Someone can fit the guidelines perfectly but not have an awesome edit; someone can be UTR but have meaningful content. I'll bet you anything if this season was run by past Edgic (KQ and crew), this is what would have happened: Galu tribe- ignored, irrelevant, no winners Russ H, big distraction Mick, too flat, lacks story Jaison, all over the place Brett, UTR Darrah/Butch Natalie, UTRP, connected to biggest distraction If we look at our UTR/MOR winners, they're all connected/associated to big distractions (whether in high visibility or OTT ratings), so we never forgot about them even if the editing ignored them: Tina was connected to Colby and Jerri Ethan was connected to Lex Vecepia was connected to Sean and Rob M Jenna was connected to Rob C Sandra was connected to Rupert and Jon Amber was connected to Rob M Danni was connected to Gary, then Rafe Aras was connected to Shane and Cirie Bob was connected to Sugar and the Onions Natalie was connected to Russell H There are plenty of other MOR/UTR people who are connected to distractions, but don't win due to empty edits: Danielle was connected to Shane and Courtney, but her edit lacked meaning--rather, we were reminded more that people hated her, which explained her loss in the end Amanda was connected to Todd, but her edit lacked meaning; but when it did have meaning, it was about taking down Todd--which she never did, so it was doubt for Todd Same for Mick: connected to Russell H, doubted him, but never did anything--fluffy and inconsequential editing which built up doubt for Russ (who, unlike Todd, didn't win) Amanda again was connected to Ozzy, Cirie, and Parvati... had a shitty start, but then it built up; however, it built up the wrong way--Amanda was going to win if she made it to the end. Surprise, she didn't. Winners that are UTR/MOR have clues: -Jon, a guy we hate: "Sandra won't be in the F4, I have a million that says she won't be the final ONE" -Shii Ann, someone who was shown as strategic: "Watch out for Amber, she has those pretty green eyes, but she's playing a lot more than people think" -Corinne early on says that Bob can't be beaten in a jury vote -Russell, someone we hate: "Natalie can't get jury votes!" Winners that are CP have doubt at the end. I'm sure there are other wins you can think of that had clues or doubt. Winners will be UTRP, MORP, CPP, CP, CPN--winners are never OTT anything, UTRN or MORneutral. If the season is about how X lost, Y will be connected to them and the story will explain why Y beat X throughout in a subtle manner--it's not only about X losing. Winners tones are consistent--you won't have M winners. Winners don't go from N to P, or P to N. Rather, UTR and MOR winners will remain the same tone (almost always positive), and CP winners will be the same tone or have little tone--not M. Rich- CP winner, always N Tina- MOR winner, always P Ethan- MOR winner, always P Vecepia- UTR winner, never N (fairly neutral but had a few Ps) Brian, CP winner, always N Jenna- MOR winner, always N (she's unlike the rest 'cause she's N, but she still stayed N and wasn't M) Sandra- MOR winner, always P (random N in E3 but it was against asshole Jon) Amber- MOR winner, almost always P Chris- CP winner, little tone (and remained fairly toneless most of the season--consistent editing) Tom- CP winner, always P Danni- UTR winner, always P Yul- CP winner, always P Earl- CP winner, I felt was toneless, but he was usually P Todd- CP winner, always N Parvati- CP winner, consistently toneless JT- CP winner, always P Bob- UTR winner, always P Natalie- UTR winner, always P In sum, winners aren't all over the place in tone. They won't be Neutral pre-merge and suddenly turn P or N. There will typically be less tone in the pre-merge, but there will be hints of the eventual tone in the post-merge (Natalie and Bob were P a couple times pre-merge, but most of their Ps were in the post-merge). If the winner isn't very toned pre-merge, they should stay fairly neutral in the post merge too. Sharp turns in tone usually indicate distractions or non-winners. Winners can have a lot of tone, but they won't be the most of that tone--i.e. Tina was very P, but Elisabeth and Rodger were more Ethan was very P, but Tom was more Sandra was very P, but Rupert was more Jenna was very N, but Rob C and Heidi were more Amber was pretty P, but Rupert was more Brian was very N, but Clay was more disliked in the edit (IMHO) Tom was very P, but Ian was more P (probably JMO) Danni was very P, but Rafe was more Bob was very P, but Sugar was more (I think the editing intention was, that is) Earl was quite P (apparently) but Yau was more Aras was P sometimes, but Cirie was more Todd was N, but Jean-Robert and Courtney were more JT was P, but Taj was more (IMO) P winners are often tightly connected to someone very N whom they defeat: Sandra/Jon, Tina/Jerri, Ethan/Lex, Nat/Russ, Amber/Rob, JT/Coach, Aras/Shane, Bob/Onions and Kenny A lot of this is just me thinking actively and posting it here. There are obviously some flaws I'm guessing, but hopefully this helps. Like KQ said, Edgic concepts are easy (especially in hindsight), but it's so-o much harder applying them.
getting real		#6076	[-]
Posts: 2030 (12/28/09 07:36 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Scep, Lol at the concept of the millihelen. I suppose then the issue becomes how many milliarchimedeses or milligorases or some such of mathematics are needed for edgic to work properly? Speaking of maths, Phoenix's conceptualisation of a good MOR diff score was entirely based on mathematical pattern and it worked. So, go figure. Until it's shown to fail, perhaps we should try to analyse the reasons why it works despite it being so completely counter-intuitive. Re. the time-frame for choosing the edgic winner, I thought you'd already decided to be completely unfettered in future?
BlakeB717		#6077	[-]
Posts: 2841 (12/28/09 08:11 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Guideline suggestions 1) Winners will have insight to their game pertaining to making the best moves for themselves/alliances, and will focus on winning the game/survival 2) Winners won't be UTR for more than 3 episodes in a row (long stretch)--opposite to the "cool off episode", they must have a "heat up episode" to avoid a 4th UTR 3) Winners can be very CP, but not every episode or with high-visibility post-merge--must be broken up by a "cool off episode"--pre-merge: MOR or UTR with a visibility of a 1-2; post-merge cool-off: 3 visibility or less 4) Winners will never be consistently OTT 5) Winners connected to high-visibility distractions will be more UTR, however they will be more positive and have insight into defeating their opponent or have editing hints that suggest that they would beat them in the end (i.e. upset jury votes against the distraction edit and for the likeable edit) 6) Winners who are higher-visibility/more CP will have doubt in their edit (whether the emergence of a jury threat they can't beat, becoming a boot target, or a mistake on their part which leads to other players doubting them) which leads the viewers to believe that they can't win over the jury; a 'surprise' ending is set-up 7) The winner is almost always involved in an alliance which is featured in the first few episodes; the winner will not be the most significantly prominent member of this alliance (highest visibility or OTT) unless it is short-lived 8) The winner will not have the lowest or highest visibility of the end-game/mid-post-merge players remaining (~F6 or couple episodes before the finale)--will not be the most OTT or UTR person remaining 9) The winner will have consistent tone: post-merge tone will match pre-merge tone--the winner will not be M or experience any significant shifts in tone (2 or more episodes of newfound tone) 10) The winner will be featured/memorable in the first episode and the merge episode--they will not be INV here 11) Winners will have ups and downs which overall stay MOR--they will not be consistently MOR/flat however, as these characters are more-so "there" and irrelevent 12) The winner's story will not pick up substantially between Episode 2 and 6 (the middle pre-merge; not including Episode 1 or the episode before the merge); rather, it will be used to either hide the winner or explain their merge strategy--it is unlikely that the winner's visibility will spike in these episodes Work-in progress, just some suggestions Last Edited By: BlakeB717 12/28/09 08:57 PM. Edited 4 times.
AveryC		#6078	[-]
Posts: 190 (12/28/09 08:42 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Nice suggestions Blake. Have a few comments to make though. 3) Winners can be very CP, but not every episode--must be broken up by a "cool off episode" (MOR or UTR) with a visibility of a 1-2 pre-merge, and a 2-3 post-merge Having recently done Edgic for Cooks, Yul definately violates this one. He was CP in every post merge episode, with one being a Vis 3. It works pre merge. 5) Winners connected to high-visibility distractions will be more UTR, however they will be more positive and have insight into defeating their opponent or have editing hints that suggest that they would beat them in the end (i.e. upset jury votes against the distraction edit and for the likeable edit) I'm curious of how we could tie Vee into this. She was tied to Sean, but beat a MORP player at the end. 7) The winner is almost always involved in an alliance which is featured in the first few episodes; the winner will not be the most prominent member of this alliance unless it is short-lived Yul and Tom come close with this one. Maybe this could be reworded as not overshadowing the rest of the allaince like Russell this season? 8) The winner will not have the lowest or highest visibility of the end-game/post-merge players remaining--will not be the most OTT or UTR Vee violates this one again, she was least visible of the Marquesas Final Four. Todd was also the most visible in China.
BlakeB717		#6079	[-]
Posts: 2842 (12/28/09 08:51 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Avery: 3) For the "cool off" one, I mean that the winner won't be CP every episode pre-merge, and won't be 4/5 visibility every post-merge episode--Yul got a CPN3, so he fits. Cooks also had the shortest post-merge ever (someone can correct me on that) so circumstance changes things a bit there. 5) Neleh went N at the end, so Vecepia defeated her opponent. Rotus were bitter at Neleh. There was a lot of Sean/Vee VS Neleh starting around the F6. 7) Yeah, I think I mean that they aren't the OTT/high-visibility star of the alliance. Yul and Ozzy were pretty close in prominence, as were Ian and Tom.. perhaps adding the word "'significantly' most prominent" would help? 8) I don't mean F4 by 'end-game'. At least for me, I consider end-game to be the mid-merge onwards (usually F6 hits end-game stage for me)--probably should add that in there.
JaMalle		#6080	[-]
Posts: 4864 (12/29/09 03:15 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Semi finale: Ads vs. People Remove this ad Thanks to a certain someone who told me not to visit Sucks for a while until dust settled. I don't want to get spoiled so I prob won't be here as much anymore. But I did read one comment that stuck out to me: a) Recap credit. In S16, Parvati kept being the focus of recaps, getting much of the credit for major moves in the game. In S19, Natalie also got major focus in episode recaps around the merge. They are often the easiest "tell" by the editors since they're trying to frame the narrative a certain way to play up the winners' contribution. Ok not that I'm craving for attention but can someone please give me credit for being one of the few posters who has always put ALOT of weight, story/rating/tone-wise, into the previously-on segments?! lol I can't recall how many times I made comments about how important that first little segment was. I know there's others who also note these segments, but I remember being one of the most vocal about it. In less than 2 minutes, you have the purest form of editorial manipulation right there before your eyes before the episode even begins.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)