Yuku free message boards

Buddha DeCat wrote:

---

wolfytheblack wrote:

---

The only way I see Ozzy losing before the final tribal council is if he has bad luck. No doubt Ozzy has abilities but what are his abilities? Agile, amazing swimmer, keeps his focus, not bad in puzzles, etc. But sometimes the chips just don't fall in your favor. What if Ozzy does make his way back in but the first challenge he has to face is the bucket challenge, which he's already shown he cannot do? What if it's another toss a coconut challenge? Luck plays a big factor in this game, hell the bucket challenge could be the last duel to get back in and Ozzy would be another Mike, so close yet so far.

Obviously, you're right -- luck has a lot to do with this game and anything can happen (Ozzy & Coach both reminded us of that in recent episodes). But I'm talking about story arcs that make sense to me. There really are 3 possibilities at this point (I'm not taking into account Brandon/Albert/Rick/Edna as I don't see any of them as having stories that can make sense as "winner"):

1. Sophie -- Sophie has her good points (as I think I & others have pointed out in this thread) but some people are looking at Sophie & saying she wins in a "Why Coach lost" story similar to Natalie W's win in Samoa against Russell. I laid out my reasons why I don't think that can be the story -- we don't have any social game/jury connection aspects with Sophie. The Sophie winning story doesn't make sense without that aspect.

2.  Coach -- Coach's story started out well but is ending badly -- initially rejected by his tribe after that first duel with Ozzy but leader of the tribe in a solid 5 alliance (plus Edna) by the end of the first day. But he has been shown in such a negative light since then, totally the old Tocantins Coach talking the talk but not walking the walk. And he was specifically linked to Charles Manson 3x last episode -- John said "Helter Skelter" "Charles Manson" and "Sharon Tate" (who, if you don't know was brutally murdered with a knife while pregnant begging for her child's life). This kind of connection is not even in the same ballpark as the "cult leader" references to BRob last year. Granted, some may not see it that way (and obviously are not seeing it this way), but I do. The Coach winning story wouldn't make sense with all of this (all of which could have been left out -- we saw they left out all of his "Coachness" in the first 6 episodes --and it was there according to Stacey's diatribe against "Benjamin" at the duel).

3. Ozzy -- Ozzy started off badly and is ending great. He's not getting the Matt "martyr" edit -- enduring RI and prepared to accept God's will, win or lose -- and he's not getting the Mike Chiesl "ignored" edit on RI (Mike was actually coming in 1st in all those ridiculous multi-person "duels" last season & the focus was all on martyr Matt). Ozzy's getting shots of himself on top of palm trees "blowing" the Survivor "horn," catching plenty of fish & confessionals telling us that he is using RI to get himself rested, ready & stronger to get back into the game & win the way he wants to -- with only himself winning to rely on. This story, while yes, very unlikely, some may say impossible (but Ozzy told us back in episode 1 that this game was about harnessing your passion and saying to the impossible "I can do this" and Dawn reminded us in her exit speech at RI that what she learned from this game is that the impossible is possible), but this story makes sense.

So, IMO, and obviously I could be wrong, from what we are seeing so far, the story is that things do end up going Ozzy's way. He wins his way back into the game & to the F3 (that's 3 duels counting this week's against John plus 2 II challenges) and he wins.

eta: several times, typos, etc. Anymore will just have to stay wrong. :-)

Your analysis is interesting, but I do think you're exaggerating the degree to which Coach's image has changed for the negative. Sure, we've seen more of  the Tocantins Coach, but there's still continued the ever present sense that he's in control.

In particular, you're overemphasizing the comparison Cochran made of Coach to Manson. In actuality, it was probably only one two sentence statement that was split into two or three confessionals. Didn't he actually say the Manson name only once? Even casual observers probably know Cochran to joke and exaggerate about these things and are used to him saying things like "wasn't Zeus the one who ate his children". I'm not even sure that the Helter Skelter reference would have been tied to Manson by the casual observer.  Granted, using the Manson reference at all is a net negative for Coach's image, but I don't think it made near as great an impact as you're implying.

Buddha DeCat wrote:

---

Onesearch wrote:

---

Buddha DeCat wrote:

---

Obviously, you're right -- luck has a lot to do with this game and anything can happen (Ozzy & Coach both reminded us of that in recent episodes). But I'm talking about story arcs that make sense to me. There really are 3 possibilities at this point (I'm not taking into account Brandon/Albert/Rick/Edna as I don't see any of them as having stories that can make sense as "winner"):

1. Sophie -- Sophie has her good points (as I think I & others have pointed out in this thread) but some people are looking at Sophie & saying she wins in a "Why Coach lost" story similar to Natalie W's win in Samoa against Russell. I laid out my reasons why I don't think that can be the story -- we don't have any social game/jury connection aspects with Sophie. The Sophie winning story doesn't make sense without that aspect.

2.  Coach -- Coach's story started out well but is ending badly -- initially rejected by his tribe after that first duel with Ozzy but leader of the tribe in a solid 5 alliance (plus Edna) by the end of the first day. But he has been shown in such a negative light since then, totally the old Tocantins Coach talking the talk but not walking the walk. And he was specifically linked to Charles Manson 3x last episode -- John said "Helter Skelter" "Charles Manson" and "Sharon Tate" (who, if you don't know was brutally murdered with a knife while pregnant begging for her child's life). This kind of connection is not even in the same ballpark as the "cult leader" references to BRob last year. Granted, some may not see it that way (and obviously are not seeing it this way), but I do. The Coach winning story wouldn't make sense with all of this (all of which could have been left out -- we saw they left out all of his "Coachness" in the first 6 episodes --and it was there according to Stacey's diatribe against "Benjamin" at the duel).

3. Ozzy -- Ozzy started off badly and is ending great. He's not getting the Matt "martyr" edit -- enduring RI and prepared to accept God's will, win or lose -- and he's not getting the Mike Chiesl "ignored" edit on RI (Mike was actually coming in 1st in all those ridiculous multi-person "duels" last season & the focus was all on martyr Matt). Ozzy's getting shots of himself on top of palm trees "blowing" the Survivor "horn," catching plenty of fish & confessionals telling us that he is using RI to get himself rested, ready & stronger to get back into the game & win the way he wants to -- with only himself winning to rely on. This story, while yes, very unlikely, some may say impossible (but Ozzy told us back in episode 1 that this game was about harnessing your passion and saying to the impossible "I can do this" and Dawn reminded us in her exit speech at RI that what she learned from this game is that the impossible is possible), but this story makes sense.

So, IMO, and obviously I could be wrong, from what we are seeing so far, the story is that things do end up going Ozzy's way. He wins his way back into the game & to the F3 (that's 3 duels counting this week's against John plus 2 II challenges) and he wins.

eta: several times, typos, etc. Anymore will just have to stay wrong. :-)

Your analysis is interesting, but I do think you're exaggerating the degree to which Coach's image has changed for the negative. Sure, we've seen more of  the Tocantins Coach, but there's still continued the ever present sense that he's in control.

In particular, you're overemphasizing the comparison Cochran made of Coach to Manson. In actuality, it was probably only one two sentence statement that was split into two or three confessionals. Didn't he actually say the Manson name only once? Even casual observers probably know Cochran to joke and exaggerate about these things and are used to him saying things like "wasn't Zeus the one who ate his children". I'm not even sure that the Helter Skelter reference would have been tied to Manson by the casual observer.  Granted, using the Manson reference at all is a net negative for Coach's image, but I don't think it made near as great an impact as you're implying.

With all due respect, I am not overemphasizing anything, you are minimizing it. There were not one but three distinct, direct comparisons between the Upolus & Manson: Charles Manson, Helter Skelter, and Sharon Tate.

I understand that some people may be too young to understand the Charles Manson connection -- the mere fact that you can say that "casual viewers" will not connect Helter Skelter to Charles Manson makes me think (whether I'm right or wrong) that you may be one of them.

Since you seem unaware, Helter Skelter is 100% connected to Charles Manson-- not only was that what was written in the victim's blood on the walls at the second murder scene, the title of both the book & the film about the murders, it was the whole reason for the murders --it was the name Manson used (taken from the name of a Beatles song on the White Album which he saw as instructions) for the coming "Apocalypse" race-war that he thought the Tate/LaBianca murders would help start.

And I'm not an expert on Charles Manson (I wasn't even born at the time of the murders), but I know all this because these murders are part of this society's pop culture now (for lord's sake, I've seen t-shirts with Manson's face on it with his quote "Smile like a normal fucked up person") -- it is all part of the "pop knowledge" of our society & therefore being too young to remember isn't really an excuse for not knowing what Manson/Helter Skelter/Sharon Tate means; that is, editors will assume most everyone seeing it knows what it means. It is just as if there had been a reference on the show to The Beatles -- you might not know who The Beatles were, but because of their being a part of society's "pop culture" editors will expect most people to get the reference.

And because you seem to be unaware, Sharon Tate was the famous movie actress who was one of the victims at the first murder scene (the two murders scense are called the Tate/LaBianca murders). She was brutally murdered with a knife while pregnant & begging for her child's life (as court testimony later revealed).

SO that is THREE explicit, horrifying references to Charles Manson -- not only the name Charles Manson & The Family (which is what they called themselves), but Helter Skelter and Sharon Tate.

Now, like I said, I understand some people may be too young to remember all this, but (1) most are not because this  trial was the biggest, most horrifying deal that happened in the 70s (it makes the OJ Simpson murder case look like peanuts); (2) as I said Charles Manson/Helter Skelter/Sharon Tate have become a part of this society's pop culture; and (3) Google is your friend.

There is truly no way in my view to rationalize/minimize this connection. Not because John is a "jokester" or anything else. This is not funny. This is not exaggeration. This is horrifying stuff.

If I minimized anything, I minimized how much it taints all of the Upolu meaning none of them can win because they are all part of "The Family." Because all of the Manosn references were said with cuts to shots of Sophie whacking a coconut with a machete. IMO: stick a fork in the Upolus -- they're done.

Let's begin with your assumptions. No, I'm not a casual viewer. I've seen every episode of the show since the third episode in Borneo - in order...before the next one aired. Don't be fooled by my post count; I've been posting here since Thailand and reading here since Borneo. I just don't post often. Yes, I knew that Helter Skelter was a Beatles song and that it was the title of the (main?) book about the Manson family. I'm also a huge Beatles fan and caught the very first connection that Cochran was making between the word "family" and Helter Skelter, even though he never actually mentioned Manson in that particular confessional slip.  I can almost guarantee you that if you walk the streets and ask 100 people if they know who wrote the song Helter Skelter that possibly 20 would know. I doubt more than that and I believe less.
He said the phrase "Helter Skelter" in voiceover after the camera had already gone elsewhere. It was almost an afterthought, thrown in there by the producers almost parenthetically - not head on - and as such, combined with Cochran's intonation, didn't carry as much strength as it would have had Cochran been talking to the viewer head on in a serious fashion. I also know and already knew at the time that the one other thing besides Survivor that Cochran is a fanatic on is the Beatles. I was even thinking at the time that I would be surprised if most would catch the connection.
Now, I realize that the Manson family murder of Sharon Tate and the others in the house that night is a horrifying tragedy. For that reason, I would never have used the example if I were Cochran on the show. That doesn't change the fact that Cochran is not totally serious in this confessional. Surely you don't actually believe that he believes that he's going to meet an actual death in the manner of Sharon Tate. He's speaking metaphorically about his own fate in the game when he makes that statement and he is making light, somewhat. Like it or not, there is an element of "wasn't Zeus the one who ate his children" in that particular confessional.
Now, for your facts about the number of confessionals. Was it one, two or three? Well, take your pick, because it was all of the above. It was one confessional in reality. Cochran's sitting in the exact same spot wearing the exact same cloths. For the record, this is something else I noticed at the time of first viewing, as well as when writing the above message, but for the sake of verification I just watched the recording. It was actually presented to the viewer in two parts. The first part was in the opening segment before the credits. This is the place where Cochran says "helter Skelter". The second part was a few minutes later where Cochran brings up how "family" reminds him of Charles Manson, there is a cutaway to some images and talk about Brandon and the tribewithin the same conversational stream and then back to Cochran where he makes the observation that he doesn't want to end up like Sharon Tate. The reality is that there was one actual confessional which was broken into what the average viewer will see as two parts.The first of these probably didn't register with the average viewer(imo) as a Manson reference and the second one of these parts was further broken into two Cochran face views which the rational viewer will see as part of one conversation. All of this was within ten minutes and there is really not a single thing about any of these images that focuses primarily on Coach. The main focus of this conversational stream is, imo, more concerned with Cochran's own place in the game than it is with the family aspects of the upolu tribe, though that is obviously there too. Just not extremely sticky with regard to Coach. Yet, anyway.

Yes, Google is everyone's friend, but it's not always needed. Nor should it automatically be presumed when someone makes a post that happens to disagree with one of your points that that disagreement must be born out of ignorance.