Yuku free message boards

The following is a response to PM someone sent me. However, I think these these are issues that need to be discussed further:


Pure Edgic principles are great - they help to eliminate people who are portrayed as too far from the norm: too visible, too OTT, too one-toned, surrounded by distractions.

But Edgic's definition of what we do, found on page 1 of the thread, is also this: "applying logic from past editing patterns or observations about what we have been shown."

So, we look at what we're shown and we look for manipulation. Signs of manipulation logically tell us that the editors want us to take note of something that may or may not have happened in reality. So, when, in episode 1, we see Probst voice-over that what we are watching is battle being waged between selfishness and teamwork and, at the same time, we are shown those concepts exemplified by Marcus/GC and Matty/Bob respectively, we owe it to ourselves to make a file note. When teamwork is subsequently drummed into us as an essential commodity, we see a pattern emerge. It would be illogical of us, as Edgicians, to leave an interpretation of such blatant editing devices to the end of the season because, supposedly, that is the only time they can be assessed.


Other examples:

When we are shown, for the first time in history, people not only discussing their tribe picks but having their discussions sub-titled, it would be a dereliction of our Edgic duty not to try and ponder to the significance of such an unusual editing choice. Sure, we may discount it as totally meaningless; it doesn't matter. We owe it to ourselves to ponder where it fits in the overall scheme of things.

When, for the first time ever, we are shown a confessional after an IC challenge and prior to going to a break, we again owe it to ouserselves to ask why this particular editing choice occurred at that point.

When, in China, we see such editorial opposition to a challenge being thrown and, at the same time, we are shown the perpetrators laughing smugly at their victims, we should immediately conclude that the editors don't have good things in store for them. So, Jamie, the one shown as the biggest offender of the two, gets her comeuppance in being laughed off the stage in a scene which may or may not have corresponded to reality. However, it should have also told us that PG was eliminated from winning. You may disagree, but I don't believe an editor would ever show a winner in this way.

Conversely, the editing surrounding Ozzy's challenge-throwing to get rid of Billy in CI was relatively benign. Which ought to have signalled to us that he was destined for the big picture. However, the little laugh that they showed Ozzy having at Billy's expense as he caused him to fall should have told us that he wasn't going to win.

There are hundreds of other examples of editing manipulation. Everyone has some mentally stashed away. Danni's out-of-the-blue comments about endurance, as Panurge has pointed out. And about women. And her unnecessary birthday party scene. Countless scenes involving Terry.

These are things that ought not to wait until the end of the season to examine retrospectively. If something is manipulated to be edited unusually, Edgic owes it to itself to examine why. It may come to nothing but the interpretation is where the art comes into it. Unfortunately, I don't feel science really has a part to play here, Green Coffee. Only in determing the cceptable standard deviations a winner's edit should deviate from the norm.