I posted this in a Survivor Facebook group, and it was suggested I put it here. It's not a critique of Edgic so much as a critique of attempting to predict winners based on perceived notions of editor's motives:
I have an opinion about winner's edits that I think will probably be quite controversial here. After a lot of thinking, I have decided that they don't exist. There is no such thing. I mean, every winner does get an edit that can be looked at in retrospect as supporting their win, but I don't believe it's a primary goal of the editors to create a winner's edit from episode 1 until the end with an overarching theme. Here is why...
I believe that the editors have three goals in how they edit each episode. Call this the Berman Doctrine of Survivor Editing:
1) Show enough strategizing to make it clear why the person voted out that episode is voted out
2) Introduce doubt as to who will go home that night
3) Show as much entertaining activity as possible
Rules 1 and 2 are most important, and they try to fit as much 3 as possible in once they're done with 1 and 2. That is it. That's their goal. There are no large themes. If they do seem to exist, it's because they actually happened on the island, and the footage put together from the 3 rules happens to show it.
Now, many of you are probably crying foul at this point. "Well obviously there's a winner's edit. The edit always shows why the winner won." Well of course it does. The winner won because they were the best player on the island. Any editor who competently follows the 3 rules will include enough footage to give evidence to why the winner won. The editors can completely ignore any overarching arcs and follow the 3 rules independently for each episode, and there should still be enough footage to show why the winner won. So they're not introducing themes and overarching storylines to show why the winner won. They're just making good, well-balanced episodes, and we see why the winner won because they actually deserved it, and that shows through in rules 1 and 2.
What this means is, you can watch the show and predict who will win it based on analyzing their personalities, alliances, challenge dominance, and gameplay. But you can't predict a winner in episode 2 based on themes you think you see, because the editors don't care much about themes. They follow the three rules every episode, and that's what they've always done. I don't think anyone would argue that these rules aren't things the editors strive to include, and we don't know for certain that there are themes you can analyze to predict a winner. So I'm going to be the first to propose that maybe there are no themes, and the three rules reign alone.
I can't think of a single case that isn't explained by the three rules, but if you can, please mention it. I'll try to explain how the 3 Rules will explain any scenario.
I have an opinion about winner's edits that I think will probably be quite controversial here. After a lot of thinking, I have decided that they don't exist. There is no such thing. I mean, every winner does get an edit that can be looked at in retrospect as supporting their win, but I don't believe it's a primary goal of the editors to create a winner's edit from episode 1 until the end with an overarching theme. Here is why...
I believe that the editors have three goals in how they edit each episode. Call this the Berman Doctrine of Survivor Editing:
1) Show enough strategizing to make it clear why the person voted out that episode is voted out
2) Introduce doubt as to who will go home that night
3) Show as much entertaining activity as possible
Rules 1 and 2 are most important, and they try to fit as much 3 as possible in once they're done with 1 and 2. That is it. That's their goal. There are no large themes. If they do seem to exist, it's because they actually happened on the island, and the footage put together from the 3 rules happens to show it.
Now, many of you are probably crying foul at this point. "Well obviously there's a winner's edit. The edit always shows why the winner won." Well of course it does. The winner won because they were the best player on the island. Any editor who competently follows the 3 rules will include enough footage to give evidence to why the winner won. The editors can completely ignore any overarching arcs and follow the 3 rules independently for each episode, and there should still be enough footage to show why the winner won. So they're not introducing themes and overarching storylines to show why the winner won. They're just making good, well-balanced episodes, and we see why the winner won because they actually deserved it, and that shows through in rules 1 and 2.
What this means is, you can watch the show and predict who will win it based on analyzing their personalities, alliances, challenge dominance, and gameplay. But you can't predict a winner in episode 2 based on themes you think you see, because the editors don't care much about themes. They follow the three rules every episode, and that's what they've always done. I don't think anyone would argue that these rules aren't things the editors strive to include, and we don't know for certain that there are themes you can analyze to predict a winner. So I'm going to be the first to propose that maybe there are no themes, and the three rules reign alone.
I can't think of a single case that isn't explained by the three rules, but if you can, please mention it. I'll try to explain how the 3 Rules will explain any scenario.
