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

0 Points

S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)

Started By	Comment
getting real		#6081	[-]
Posts: 2031 (12/29/09 03:18 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I CAN REMOVE is 100 times more important than IQ. Remove this ad JaMalle wrote: 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. Very true, that, JM. And I do recall you saying so! So, kudos!
JaMalle		#6082	[-]
Posts: 4865 (12/29/09 03:22 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	kthxmuch<3 crawls back into hole
getting real		#6083	[-]
Posts: 2032 (12/29/09 03:29 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	JaMalle wrote: kthxmuch<3 crawls back into hole Nooooo. Don't do that. Just when we thought you'd be here more often!
gretchensucks		#6084	[-]
Posts: 972 (12/29/09 12:49 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	JaMalle wrote: 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. You do get credit for that. And I can't remember if you've also argued, like I have in the past, that it should count towards a player's visibility. I think if they are "featured" in the recap that it should count towards their visibility in the episode. I consider the recap an integral, and often most important part, of an episode. It was clear they were building Natalie to be more than she was, and the same was true of Parvati (in lieu of Cirie) in FvF. This should definitely be part of the new guidelines in some fashion.
scepticA		#6085	[-]
Posts: 1893 (12/29/09 02:25 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I agree with Jam and GS. If edgic is based on the edit, it goes without saying that "the edit" means everything that CBS puts on the air. To not include the Previously On segment is to believe that this segment was not edited in any meaningful way, and not designed to show editorial intent. But here is an intriguing question: What about the Next On Survivor segment? I don't believe that it has as much credence as the Previously On, but certainly (if there is editorial intent) they want us to think a certain way... X is in danger, Y is coming out of his shell, we see a new side of Z... Yes, we might argue that what often shows up in the actual episode wasn't really what they showed on the coming attraction... but isn't that exactly the point of giving credence to the Previously On segment? Glad to see you back, albeit briefly. Those of us still s20 unspoiled will likely vacate the premises shortly, and hopefully we can find a safer venue to disgorge our opinions in relative safety.
JaMalle		#6086	[-]
Posts: 4867 (12/29/09 02:40 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Yeah, I always would count Previously On segment in my visibilities. I forget exactly where and in what season but sometimes the previously on segment can save some from INVs.. Anyway, I never put too much weight onto the Next Time On, but I think I was misguided and just thought of them as red herrings. However, looking back, I think they are just as important as the Previously On segment. Yeah, not that I have much time to do Edgic anyway with school tearing me a new one : ( , but every blue moon that I'm on aim, edgicers, feel free to IM me at Jaydeef1. When I have time, I love chatting with you peeps. ^_^
SFC		#6087	[-]
Posts: 970 (12/29/09 03:15 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	One thing about the "Next Time" segments that is useful is whats not shown. I remember there was a preview scene with Amanda and China for I think the F6 episode, but it wasnt aired until the Final 5. And a Gabon scene with Kenny saying he is the glue that holds them together and it was never shown. Every scene a winner has been involved in in the "Next Time" segments has happened
BlakeB717		#6088	[-]
Posts: 2845 (12/29/09 04:03 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Every debatable INV from a winner had focus in the previously on. Would the rule still be alive in that case?
gretchensucks		#6089	[-]
Posts: 974 (12/29/09 04:15 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	In my opinion, no one is INV if they are featured in the Previously On segment. That requires more than the passing mention, and requires the person feature heavily in the previously on segment. That's how I view it.
astroline		#6090	[-]
Posts: 3041 (12/29/09 04:35 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I CAN REMOVE is 100 times more important than IQ. Remove this ad I totally agree and Ja is right about the recaps being very important. I have to say it yet again but I repeated many times how Probst only called out Russell, Shambo & Natalie by actual name during the season-long recap of the actual recap episode. That should have been a huge clue right there that the winner was one of those 3. Mick & Jaison weren't referenced just by name, only as the "Foa Foa four".
Shred		#6091	[-]
Posts: 983 (12/30/09 12:16 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Sorry to jump back to Pearl Islands but I have been rewatching it for like the 100th million time but just wondering, say if a miracle occured and Lill won, how would you explain her edit with her being not present for 3 episodes straight? Just curious. Sorry if this has been discussed. Don't flame me
scepticA		#6092	[-]
Posts: 1894 (12/30/09 12:44 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Shred, the simple answer is: She didn't win. Her edit stunk, as did her story - which explains from our perspective (and Panurge's!) why she didn't win.. She was MIA for a long time, and story-wise she and burton blew the only chance for an outcast to win (to be against an outcast in F2), but neither were bright enough to figure this out. Your question could also be asked of anyone who got to the F4 and didn't win - how would we justify Dreamz or Darrah or Mama Kim winning? We don't, cuz their edit and stories sucked.
OZ Keeper		#6093	[-]
Posts: 254 (12/30/09 03:47 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	JaMalle wrote: 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. Back in Gabon, people were convinced Ken was the winner when he got the credit for flipping Susie to vote out Marcus in the recap, despite that the episode clearly showed it was Crystal who did the work.
getting real		#6094	[-]
Posts: 2033 (12/30/09 04:47 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Back in Gabon, people were convinced Ken was the winner when he got the credit for flipping Susie to vote out Marcus in the recap, despite that the episode clearly showed it was Crystal who did the work. Sometimes the editorialising serves long-term objectives other than highlighting the winner. In that case, it was the beginning or the reinforcement of Kenny's negative cunning mastermind arc. It was needed to explain Sugar's subsequent choice of 'good guys' Matty and Bob, thereby 'breaking his heart'..
panurge46		#6095	[-]
Posts: 1628 (12/30/09 02:24 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	scepticA wrote: Shred, the simple answer is: She didn't win. Her edit stunk, as did her story - which explains from our perspective (and Panurge's!) why she didn't win.. She was MIA for a long time, and story-wise she and burton blew the only chance for an outcast to win (to be against an outcast in F2), but neither were bright enough to figure this out. Your question could also be asked of anyone who got to the F4 and didn't win - how would we justify Dreamz or Darrah or Mama Kim winning? We don't, cuz their edit and stories sucked. Hey! How did I get mixed up in this! A win by Lill? What a scary thought. There shouldn't be that much difference between "my" perspective and Edgic: We're all looking at the editing of the show and trying to figure out what it means. Maybe the tools are different but that's about it. Speaking of tools, I'd like to suggest the following: Giving the same kind of ratings to the booted player than to the others is counter-productive. We aren't speculating on who is voted out, that's over and done with. Instead, the ratings of the booted players should serve as clues for the remaining players. I see 4 applicable ratings for booted players: - Victim: A generally likable player that didn't have a chance. That player may appear weak to some viewers but that was not the intent of the edit. Margaret's eviction in Guatemala was the tell-tale moment of the season because it led to the birth of the Axis-of-Evil. Angie in Palau fits well here also. - Villain: Ben in Samoa. - Bad players: Included are the weak, the dumb and the lazy. What usually separates them from victims is that they are less developed characters or, if they are, it was so we could laugh at them. Willard can illustrate it well: He was portrayed as too lazy to take care of the fire. Spencer also fits here, a challenge loss meant he had to go. Did anyone but his true fans care? - Neutrals: A player that can't really be called a Victim, a Villain or a bad player but simply someone that had to go. I saw Gregg in Palau, Yau Man in Micronesia and Sydney in Tocantins as examples of Neutrals. The guideline would be: - Victims are not usually voted out by the winner. A winner will try to save a victim, not throw him under the bus. - Winners generally vote out Villains and Bad Players. They certainly do not defend them. (Betsy, a victim, and Ben, a Villain, were bad for Mick and Russell while we saw Natalie's sad expressions during Betsy's elimination and she was the first to rally to Jaison's side to vote out Ben.) - If a Neutral is voted out, I see two possibilities: Either that player was Neutral because that tribe was neglected, then the winner isn't there (example: Lilianna), or the editors simply ignored that player to avoid giving a stain on the winner's edit. With Yau Man, this fan favorite could easily have been edited as a victim but he was practically ignored in "FvF". It made me think that the winner could very well be in the alliance that voted him out. Useful or not, I'll let you decide but I think saying so and so was CPP or OTTN in their boot episode and stopping there is missing something. I always ask myself: Who got the blame, who received the credit, who stayed out of the fray, who was out of the loop? Last Edited By: panurge46 12/30/09 02:27 PM. Edited 1 times.
Wc3Fanatic		#6096	[-]
Posts: 1909 (12/30/09 02:29 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Panurge's post is really important, it's something I can actually see the editors sitting down and deciding, rather than "oh let's add a tiny clip of Yul so he isn't INV1"
TheLurkerSpeaks		#6097	[-]
Posts: 1520 (12/30/09 02:34 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	But it is basically just tone that is already discussed. Victim = positive tone Villain / bad player = negative tone Neutral = neutral tone And the other player's position regarding the booted player is generally already reflected in their tone. I agree that there needs to be analysis after the rating to determine if there is any insight to be drawn, but I don't see this suggestion as really adding anything to what should be being done already.
astroline		#6098	[-]
Posts: 3050 (12/30/09 02:46 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I totally agree with Panurge's post, and for the record, TLS, the two examples that Panurge brought up as "bad players" were not N in their boot episodes, Willard was P actually and Spencer was M if I remember correctly. Not all "bad players" are edited negatively like my poor Kimberly Mullen. Panurge is telling us to look at the general picture more and the actual intents, themes, patterns of the season instead of ratings on the chart, especially young males with no INV's. Am I the only one that thinks it's funny/sad that Edgic is approaching Season 20 and we're still disagreeing over basics and getting winner picks wrong for the majority of the recent seasons? If Edgic really worked, wouldn't it have a stable pattern by NOW? Next season, I'm just going to be posting episode ratings in here and that's it. Otherwise, you can find me in Panurge's thread because his ideas actually make a lot of sense and he's not afraid to think outside the box and look at things more creative, instead of just hopping on the next Stephen/Amanda/Marcus/MICK bandwagon. I honestly don't think Edgic will ever change because there is a majority of "veteran Edgicers" in here that are not capable of adapting to the new types of editing that Survivor has. Survivor doesn't give a shit about Edgic, it's about pulling in ratings and getting people to still talk about the show. They don't care about winners like Bob and Natalie, they care about their "big characters" like Sugar, Coach & Russell, and everyone else is an afterthought, including winners. And Edgic only cares about MOR young males with no INV's. If there's an attractive young male with a good career that gets a MOR3 in the premiere of S20, expect him to be the #1 pick. I don't think Edgic is obsolete, but I think using Edgic to find the winner is, because the guidelines will never change (we've been saying this for multiple seasons but the same old guidelines still remain on the front page) and the same people keep making the same mistakes again. I learned from my mistakes and picked Russell this season, but all of us that picked Russell or Natalie were consistently told, "Those picks aren't Edgic. You're not using Edgic". Yet those were the 2 that got votes in the finals.
Shred		#6099	[-]
Posts: 989 (12/30/09 02:57 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	scepticA wrote: Shred, the simple answer is: She didn't win. Her edit stunk, as did her story - which explains from our perspective (and Panurge's!) why she didn't win.. She was MIA for a long time, and story-wise she and burton blew the only chance for an outcast to win (to be against an outcast in F2), but neither were bright enough to figure this out. Your question could also be asked of anyone who got to the F4 and didn't win - how would we justify Dreamz or Darrah or Mama Kim winning? We don't, cuz their edit and stories sucked. No shit she didn't win, that was not my point. I was just wondering how edgic would qualify her, would you consider her MIA episodes INV or not count them.... I was just askin.
cantthinkofaname		#6100	[-]
Posts: 1695 (12/30/09 03:11 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I CAN REMOVE is 100 times more important than IQ. Remove this ad Shred wrote: scepticA wrote: Shred, the simple answer is: She didn't win. Her edit stunk, as did her story - which explains from our perspective (and Panurge's!) why she didn't win.. She was MIA for a long time, and story-wise she and burton blew the only chance for an outcast to win (to be against an outcast in F2), but neither were bright enough to figure this out. Your question could also be asked of anyone who got to the F4 and didn't win - how would we justify Dreamz or Darrah or Mama Kim winning? We don't, cuz their edit and stories sucked. No shit she didn't win, that was not my point. I was just wondering how edgic would qualify her, would you consider her MIA episodes INV or not count them.... I was just askin. I would think we wouldn't count them. And if Lill did win she would've gotten a better edit too I would think, same goes for Darrah or anyone else with a bad edit and story

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)