S-17 Edgic (editing and logic) Gabon

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
Phoenix1269		#1981	[-]
Posts: 248 (11/04/08 9:58 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	astro - you are right... i did completely forget about Susie and the reward challenge... immediately after rewatching i forgot about it. (Which i guess to me means that the negative tone i felt towards Susie was still greater than a mixed.) -- I also agree with OTH.... it is irrelevant as to who said the negative comment if the negative comment(s) appear true or correct. If the comments are just plain mean, then of course the backlash should be to the speaker (even if the speaker is generally a positive person)
scepticA		#1982	[-]
Posts: 1416 (11/04/08 10:52 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I thought Susie was N, but not by much, partially because of the SPV against her - not just by Corrine, but by her and Randy etc. about her lack of trustworthiness. But more than that - one assumes that by now the editors know what they're doing, and assume that the basic viewer of Survivor is not a nube. It's very hard to not think "N" when a person does something so unalterably dumb as Susie did, so dumb that I shouted, "You idiot..." "I just wanna be totally honest" is a statement said to either justify an insult or something that your brain is telling your mouth "no no no - don't say it" but your mouth goes ahead and blurts. Susie is the latter. Hey - it's not like the difference between N and neutral is going to change Susie's edgic status... I don't make any effort to distinguish between those snowballs in hell that melt in 1 second or 1.1. But there are times when something is so boneheaded that I get terminally irked. Besides, tone to me is an emotional response. The editors are trying to convey feeling - how the audience is supposed to feel about a player rather than think. If that's the case, N.
colleenlover		#1983	[-]
Posts: 8645 (11/04/08 10:55 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I don't think they are particularly interested in Susie as a character -she just wasn't providing much, and most likely isn't integral to the story. However, when she throws out a dozzie -"I was thinking of voting you..." it's going to be used as a humorous, reported plot point in a hear and now episode. So I don't see much point in debating her tone, because it's doubtful the editing team is spending much time on crafting her themselves.
dennydoylelives		#1984	[-]
Posts: 2717 (11/04/08 10:59 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	scepticA wrote: It's very hard to not think "N" when a person does something so unalterably dumb as Susie did, so dumb that I shouted, "You idiot..." You put it better than me, but that was sort of what I was getting at with the Dr. Sean comparison. If you can imagine the audience collectively shouting "moron, idiot, stupid, imbicile", etc., it's hard to think of the editorial intent being anything but N.
Phoenix1269		#1985	[-]
Posts: 249 (11/04/08 11:19 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	scepticA wrote: Besides, tone to me is an emotional response. The editors are trying to convey feeling - how the audience is supposed to feel about a player rather than think. If that's the case, N. thanks scepticA... i think you summed it up really well... how the viewer reacts to the action is a good indicator of tone!
fat little fingers		#1986	[-]
Posts: 5703 (11/04/08 12:59 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	It's very hard to not think "N" when a person does something so unalterably dumb as Susie did, so dumb that I shouted, "You idiot..."
TheLurkerSpeaks		#1987	[-]
Posts: 1372 (11/04/08 1:30 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	The editors aren't intending any tone with Susie - it is just reporting, and what the audience decides to feel is up to them. I agree with CL that the editors don't care enough about Susie to worry about what we think of her. The manipulation is to the edits of Corinne and Randy, in both cases to make them appear negative. There's no manipulation with Susie - she said what she said, and it played a role in creating whatever suspense there was for the vote so it was shown. ETA - We're not meant to be grading the players on how well they are playing, but on the tone the editors are giving them. Do you all honestly think the editors intend us to dislike Susie for being honest with an overly vindictive player? Last Edited By: TheLurkerSpeaks 11/04/08 1:33 PM. Edited 1 times.
unduli clone		#1988	[-]
Posts: 3239 (11/04/08 1:54 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	re: Kitty's post I could buy that one too. If one's going to assign tone for the RC, though, he has to recognize that the editor's intent as a P heroine who takes out her snake throughout the rest of the episode easily outweighs said tone considered present in the RC. Insofar as Susie, I think many people are irritated with her complete and utter ineptitude in playing the game and throwing the N's at her because of it. Bear in mind that she had one of those sappy post-RC confessionals, which was certifiably P, and most of her NSPV came from N characters, which takes a bit away from it. I think she was portrayed as a bad gamer, but not in an overtly N way that outweighs her post-RC P tone. Last Edited By: unduli clone 11/04/08 2:19 PM. Edited 1 times.
ColonelBird		#1989	[-]
Posts: 913 (11/04/08 2:05 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I feel like we've generally awarded Ns to those people who show bad gamesmanship, so it makes sense to do it for Susie, even though she herself was somewhat neutral in her tone. Regardless how someone is intending to come off, if the editing says it another way, then you have to go with the editing. She was edited as an N, in my opinion--completely clueless, adding nothing of importance, and when she does speak, she says all the wrong things.
scepticA		#1990	[-]
Posts: 1417 (11/04/08 2:36 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	TheLurkerSpeaks wrote: ETA - We're not meant to be grading the players on how well they are playing, but on the tone the editors are giving them. Do you all honestly think the editors intend us to dislike Susie for being honest with an overly vindictive player? I don't think that N means "dislike," at least as a person. Rarely, if ever, have I thought an N person was truly an unlikeable human being. And Susie's certainly not in that category - if it was, I'd probably give out an N every three or four seasons only. No, I don't think they want us to dislike her. I think they wanted us to see that footage and the minutes afterward and think that what Susie did was the strategic equivalent of chewing on tin foil: It made me wince, and that's a pretty good start for an N. The editors wanted us to think she's a dope when it comes to the social game (as JP noted). That is a huge part of the game, if not the most critical aspect. And 'playing the game' is, IMO, what it's all about. So contrary to TLS, I think that there are many circumstances when we include sheer brilliant (or stupid) game play in our gut-feeling of a player's rating and tone (my "good" N's, as I've noted in the past). This was NOT a "good" N in terms of game play. I do think that the editors pretty much assumed that we'd think Susie made a really bone-headed statement there in terms of game play. I had the fun time of talking all things Survivor with some other uberfans over the weekend, and the consensus was: What kind of a moron says that sort of thing? If others think that this is insufficient to dole out an N, cool.
Kitty Pryde1		#1991	[-]
Posts: 6202 (11/04/08 2:55 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	See, Susie gets a minus in terms of strategic ratings, but strategy and editting can be mutually exclusive.
TheLurkerSpeaks		#1992	[-]
Posts: 1373 (11/04/08 3:26 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ColonelBird wrote: I feel like we've generally awarded Ns to those people who show bad gamesmanship, so it makes sense to do it for Susie, even though she herself was somewhat neutral in her tone. Regardless how someone is intending to come off, if the editing says it another way, then you have to go with the editing. She was edited as an N, in my opinion--completely clueless, adding nothing of importance, and when she does speak, she says all the wrong things. Posters here may generally have been doing this, but that was never the purpose of tone. Tone is only relevant if it is intended so by the editors, which is what we are looking to examine in this thread. And at its basic core, tone is who the editors are telling us to root for or against or feel indifferent toward or ambivalent about. Good play or bad play was not part of the equation since clearly bad players can be rooted for ("The Pagongs are so naive - I hope they see what is going on before it is too late.") and good players can be rooted against ("Chris is such a smug jerk - I wish he'd get voted out."). Respect is a different matter and not something we rate except in terms of the quality of the edit. A player can win whether they are positive or negative as long as they are not one dimensionally so, but they should be respected (for something). We know Susie doesn't win, in part because we're not meant to take her as a serious threat (but that hardly puts her in the position of someone we're meant to root against).
fat little fingers		#1993	[-]
Posts: 5704 (11/04/08 5:43 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Tone is always going to be somewhat ambiguous for lots of non-winner edits. But Edgic is sorta like eating wild mushrooms. You don't have to know how to identify all the fungi in the woods, just the one that's gonna make you sick. (In this case the one that's gonna make you sick is Marcus. LOL) The trick for Edgic is not to get a clear edit intent for every player. That's just not gonna happen. As cl says: ...So I don't see much point in debating her tone, because it's doubtful the editing team is spending much time on crafting her themselves. Susie is going home. That's what the editors know. So, if Susie gives some good TV footage, it goes in. Probably some heart-warming stuff to make us care a bit whether she stays or goes. Then Susie does something that lights up Corrine's paranoia board. Bonus!! All the time spent figuring out who would make a good TV personality has paid off for SEG. Same with Sugar this ep. Her RC is damning in that we are shown her giving up, with Jeff's scorn heaped on her. But, the non-reporting (non-challenge footage) part of her story in ep7 tells us that Sugar has some important story ahead of her. We are shown her thoughts and reasons for all her moves. Yes, she was lied to by Kenny and she probably should have targeted Crystal and not Ace. But she is given humongous time to explain every move she made. The intent was to show that she is thinking strategically, and if she was tricked by Kenny, she thought it through, and reasoned that she couldn't be sure if 1) Kenny was lying or 2) Ace was planning to blindside her. But, she tells us that she realizes that Kenny could well be lying and that Ace had her back, but was also a big "finagler". The edit has shaped Ace's character as someone who was arrogantly expecting to control the game and everyone in it. This started with his opening confessional in ep1. So, we don't call Sugar an idiot or loser for voting Ace out. I agree that the RC comments for Sugar were negative. Damning even. But look at the echo between Jeff's words and what happens in the second half: Jeff tells Sugar to "be a hero!" He then tells us that Sugar is giving up and doing absolutely nothing about her situation. But, in the second half, Sugar is the hero, who does something about her situation. Think it was Kenny? Look again. It is given to Sugar to spell out what the vote will be and Kenny who is the listener: Sugar is made the hero. She could easily have been made a more passive participant and Kenny the active one. Is the end tone positive or negative? My choice of Positive is based on the Sugar character at the end of TC. She has overcome her timid, do-nothing ways from the RC and broken with her bad-guy partner, and stopped riding his coattails. Should the fact that the negative RC comments exist be the reason for calling her tone Mixed? I'm on the fence. On one hand, I see the edit intent to show Sugar as a "smart" proactive hero of the TC by breaking with her controlling partner. But, I also think the fact that Jeff's words and the way her actions in the RC were shown is something that would be handled differently if she were the winner. The hinge between Sugar's 2 tones is Marcus. Between Sugar the do-nothing and Sugar the do something hero is Marcus' confessional. He not only gives Sugar the second II, he tells us: "My hope is that Sugar is smart enough to keep the Immunity Idol to herself and that might end up giving us one of our biggest surprises, which would be losing a power player from the Fang tribe /break/ in Ace /break/ Matty /break/ or /break/ Crystal." Sugar's and Kenny's moves help build their stories, but ultimately it's about Marcus. It's Marcus who's way ahead of everyone else and Marcus who really sets up Ace's boot. So, ultimately it is only Marcus' edit that matters. he is the puppet-master above all others, or so the edit works hard to create /break/ with /break/ every /break/ word /break/ they /break/ splice.
colleenlover		#1994	[-]
Posts: 8646 (11/04/08 6:35 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	this is very good, flf. we also have to take into contention that part of the reality and how people are making moves is based on Sugar being a weak player. It is in fact part of Marcus' strategy, and others see it as a bonus or a negative to their game. It makes sense that we have to see some of it documented in Sugar for dramatic purposes for both her and them. Especially if there is a pay off down the line -Probst's voice over when GC left, "You have to reach deep down within yourself to win this game" (paraphrased). We also have to ask how much manipulation goes into challenges and how much is reporting. Example: If Marcus' main storyline was glorious when he won, and smart -yet if in a challenge he dropped something precious and everyone yelled at him -does it get left on the cutting room floor? Probably not. I imagine most of the challenges are edited for the dramatic purposes of the challenge primary, and character is secondary. mushrooms, flf? Hmmm, I think over the years we have probably scrapped the bottom of the barrel for all metaphors, huh? *Adorable beard by the way -so plucky.
fat little fingers		#1995	[-]
Posts: 5705 (11/04/08 8:25 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	As for the mushrooms, I try, cl, I try. Sometimes the ol' brain barfs up some turkeys. (No more cute stuff. I'm creeping myself out.)
Brazil Luvs Ami		#1996	[-]
Posts: 105 (11/04/08 8:26 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I have some questions about endgame ties for you collenlover, that is a phd in endgamers. Last season, before the merge Paravti had her quote about the others having to judge her (episode 7), and that made obvious for edgic that she would be in the final 2. In China, in the merge episode we saw Jean Robert threatening Todd with his jury vote, what also told Edgic that Todd would be at final 3. And this season we have just passed by the same episode without anything that makes us gaurantee that Marcus will be there... So, colleen do you see any endgame tie for Marcus? Who else got an endgame tie? Do you think the episode where Randy and Crystal had their confessional in the end of a challenge was a endgame tie for one of them (Randy, probably)? Thank you in advance, and forgive me for my bad English...
colleenlover		#1997	[-]
Posts: 8647 (11/04/08 8:31 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Just saw a big ol commerical while watching the Katie Couric on CBS. Thursday is looking good. Matty was conspiring with Sugar telling her, begging her, "Ace would have NEVER voted for you!" can't wait. sorry if that's a spoiler, but I say it's a trailer.
colleenlover		#1998	[-]
Posts: 8648 (11/04/08 8:41 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	So, colleen do you see any endgame tie for Marcus? Who else got an endgame tie? Good question, and I think I talked about it yesterday or Saturday and flf started compiling a list of threads that could bounce back between juror and finalist. Marcus doesn't really have anything yet -but then neither did Earl or Yul (the jury was more about Dreamz and Ozzy) Randy has some good build up. Sugar has the performances in challenges and the think she's dumb angle to talk about. Ken seems good but it's all about him being a gamer and not a specific event for juror A to hurl at him in a question. granted, it's early. Corrine seemed good, but I would think we would have a Danielle like moment (camp life) or a Jenn vs. Tom with the shower angle. Charlie has nothing. Matty seems like he's stuck in current episodes and not projected arcs. Crystal could have the rice spill coming back as a question. Susie -hmmm, maybe a Becky and she didn't factor in at all if she faces the jury. Bob -nah, too positive to face the jury without any digs like Sugar, Amanda or Neleh has/had. Marcus, Sugar and Randy seem to be the top of my list for strongest candidates if there's a final three. Marcus, Sugar if there is a final two. Sugar talks about using the idol, but Marcus keeps trumping her by stating it was their plan and used her as a tool. She proves she's smart and savvy, but not enough for Marcus to collect the votes.
panurge46		#1999	[-]
Posts: 1143 (11/04/08 8:41 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Colleenlover wrote: "I imagine most of the challenges are edited for the dramatic purposes of the challenge primary, and character is secondary." I think it's both, character never being forgotten. As I read this, I had one example come to mind: The Cook Islands challenge where Yul "figured" that the best way to hit the underwater targets was by looking through the window rather than the target. The edit made it look like he hit every shot after that. Interviews told us that the challenge lasted almost 2 hours and that hitting targets was always more luck than accuracy. flf, you may be right that it's all about making it part of Marcus' strategy but I still consider it was to make it appear as if everything is going perfectly well for Marcus... too well.
scepticA		#2000	[-]
Posts: 1418 (11/04/08 8:52 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	2000. I have nothing much more to say right now.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S-17 Edgic (editing and logic) Gabon

Quick Reply