Yuku free message boards

RedCoffee wrote:

---

I believe the point JFP/Hagrid are making is that people are using a real life interpretation of footage to drive their tone judgments. All of this discussion of what good Christians do, what good Christians don't do etc. is inconsequential. The edit assumes nothing about the viewer. The edit does not rely on the viewer to have opinions, judgments, etc. about what TRUE Christian behavior is. For all they know you have a viewer (like me) that is so removed from whatever the rules of Christianity are these days that I have no clue whether this behavior is normal, heretical, suspect, whatever. If they want me to have a specific opinion about something, they will give it to me. Otherwise, my uninformed Atheist self will possibly get the wrong idea!

And this goes well beyond a religious argument. It goes for anything. They will not show a player using poor table manners and assume the audience will pick up on the fact that the player is using their shrimp fork incorrectly. If it's really a big enough deal that they want the viewer to see something, they will use their big ol' toolbox of editing tricks to tell you what to see:

*Player picks up the shrimp fork to eat salad*
*Big gong sound and dopey music*
*Host looks at them with a "WTF idiot" expression*
Confessional from Reginald: "I say! Cletus was most inappropriate in his behavior at the dinner table this summer's eve!"

What people have done repeatedly here is to suggest that by merely picking up the shrimp fork during the salad course (displaying certain questionable religious behaviors), the audience will automatically pick up on these poor table manners and react accordingly. Instead, through all of this religious business, we have exactly one comment from Reginald err.. Sophie mentioning the ickiness of the behaviors Coach is displaying (and that only applies to one particular part of this religious overture).

Of course, I voted M for Coach and the N part of it was due entirely to Sophie's comment. So there you go. But the rest of it, which people seemed more upset about, mostly seemed to be based on Coach simply being shown using the shrimp fork incorrectly.

HagridOfTheDeep wrote:

---

Thank you, RC. That's almost exactly what I'm getting at. I don't give four arses how a religious woman 'felt' about Coach. You're judging the content, not the manipulation. Coach's religious celebration of 'on your knees' was celebrated with epic music that supported the Upolu win. It was juxtaposed against Ozzy having not one, not two, not three, but FOUR different spasms of childish rage. And people called Ozzy positive. I don't care if you *think* Coach was being hypocritical the entire episode. I don't care if you *think* his religious schtik was fake anti-Christ bullshit. The only SHROUD of material that would support those exaggerated thoughts are Sophie's inconsequential, wrong confessional. And THAT gets Coach a full blown N. The fact that Sophie was wrong is irrelevant--"Coach is a hypocrite! Let's take that as a general impression of what the editors want us to think! Let's forget about the details" Yet the episode before, Coach was absolutely ELIMINATED for "lying to Brandon" about the idol, even though we got an extremely insightful confessional from Coach that talked about the definition of honour and half-lies for the greater good. That, of course, didn't matter.

Let me end by saying, who the hell are you to know whether or not God cares about these prayers? Do you really think the editors wanted to stir up some religious discussion about the technicalities of prayer? NO! They wanted to show you, "hey look! They're a united, god-loving tribe that will not flounder." That's it. End of story. If anything, Sophie's dissent could speak to her OWN demise. But to base your whole impression of the edit on your OPINION that Coach's prayers were, ahem, "inauthentic and bombastic!" is going way too far.

And I'm sorry I'm not getting over this. But I really think episode 7 was crucial in the story of Coach's overall edit. And if we think about episode 7 wrong, we'll think about the entire season wrong. Because everything has pointed to a Coach win. But many people are so determined to shut Coach out. They throw in our faces Coach's "negative" episode. His desire to only be called "Coach." His inability to exhibit honour. But the truth is, this is how Coach the Winner would be editted. And people are letting their personal opinions get in the way.

RedCoffee wrote:

---

tarheel66 wrote:

---

You continue to have a great flair for hyperbole (the shrimp fork analogy).  But I think the point they were making, or at least what JFP was making, was that the N came from an anti-religious bias/myopia against anything related to prayer, and Hagrid suggested the same...that if it was looked at sincerely, it wouldn't be N.  That's bullshit.  It has nothing to do with the details of what good Christians do, and I was specific in saying that I only used that idiom because that's the religious context which Coach has set up.  It's more universal than that.  I'm not speaking as an offended Christian (I have a very open flexible view of things), just an offended human being.  And lots of other viewers see it similarly; read the posts here of the reactions of Edgicers' friends and fellow viewers.  Any person of any spirituality or set of human values would be able to see the hypocrisy in using what one espouses as a faith in a higher power to manipulate for personal gain, rather than have humility.  That's not Christian, that's just basic.  There are lots of ways to manipulate in the game without doing this.  Coach did it this episode without that crap. 

And the crux of the argument is revealed in bold. I perhaps unfairly reiterate it as "The way I see things is the way most everyone sees them. There is no need for editors to do their jobs and edit because clearly my worldview is so popular that it is blatantly obvious to any normal human being on the planet."

To assume that a viewer watches as a void, without any basic ethics or values--Christian, Wiccan, atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, humanist, etc. whatever -- is an underestimation and a mistake.  The show edits for regular viewers, not for Edgic, not for esoterica.  Not for whether the correct shrimp fork was chosen (although it's pretty easy to spot the shrimp fork, coming from coastal NC ;-)  )  You don't think that, as a whole, that episode edit didn't paint a negative portrayal of Coach as hypocritical to his own values (regardless of the specifics of Christianity)?  That painting your face and back with a cross, taking on the trappings of what has been shown earlier to be manipulated, is N?  You don't think an average audience person sees that?  They don't have mush for brains, regardless of their religious or anti-religious viewpoint. 

On the contrary, I suspect that the editors assume NOTHING about what their viewers think or know. They use editing as a tool to guide perception if they want to make a point. Viewers that number in the millions will come from a wide variety of backgrounds and will arrive on Wednesday night with a skull full of their own values, bits of knowledge, opinions, etc. To leave the interpretation of key parts of your show entirely up to the assumption that allll of these people will intuitively "get it" is a major mistake - especially when editorial tricks are can be so economical in terms of airtime used.

Subjective-toners, on the other hand, assume that the things they see as "obvious" require no manipulation because they feel safe to assume that everyone else sees it that way. Only things inconsistent with what they personally think is "obvious" require editorial support.

With all due respect, comparing this to the esoteric reading of table manners is a piss poor argument.  Some things are just basic human truths, not details of etiquette.  Hypocrisy doesn't need to be pointed out, and I'd posit that it has been pointed out, over and over, in the edit.  That episode was the strongest.  It was easy to see.  Religious hypocrisy, regardless of faith, is easily sniffed out by the average person. 
Give the viewer some credit; these are basics, not fine points or violations of tenets. 

Do I need to spell out everything literally or are any analogies I come up with just going to be dismissed as one of the "non-obvious" parts of the universe? Can we maybe make a list of "basic human truths" that all viewers are born with or taught prior to Survivor viewing? Table manners is one thing on the "no" list. Religion is on the "yes" list. What about work ethic issues? What about wise Survivor strategy? What about political issues that may come up on the show? What about things like quitting the game for personal reasons? I hope we don't have anyone here who disagrees with what's "obvious to all" because then we'll really have a mess on our hands.

In a group that numbers in the millions, the suggestion that there will be few universal values, truths, etc. is not denying the viewer credit. It's just a recognition that a logical editing team makes few assumptions about what their audience will automatically notice. When you're catering to a large group, it's best to play it safe and make sure your message is not lost. Some things can be left up to individual interpretation. Crucial clues and major scenes on which the legitimacy of your winner hinges? Not unless they are extremely lazy/illogical/broke.

It's interesting that, in Edgic thread, the argument was that people who saw Coach as N that episode must be anti-religious, but then, it turns out that people who saw the edit as N are now overly religious.  Hmm.  Convenient.  That's backpedalling logic. 

Just because he had a calm, mastermind CP episode this time (although also intense and dark), doesn't mean we have to reconsider what was obviously edited last time. 

My argument both times has been the same: personal impressions of the events are pulling the tone in whatever direction.

I also don't think we need to go change anything. The vote is the vote. I will maintain that I think Edgic missed this one but I'm not requesting a recount.