What kills EI is that with like 8 people left, there's 6 entertaining people left, and it's the two boring people who make it to the end.

Re: your list. It's a no-brainer that you should watch PI next. That's a total must-see and the season I always recommend the most. Marquesas next, it's not one of my favorites anymore, but still the clearcut best of the rest. Africa and Thailand in either order. Neither is going to blow you away with twists and turns, but they're definitely both worth watching.

One more thing. If you truly believe the show to be so manipulated that it's practically fiction and we should look at it as such, then your posts are all that much more futile. I mean, people talk about certain characters in movies and tv, "Oh man, Michael Scott kills me. Tyler Durden is such a bad ass." etc. How ridiculous would it be for someone to post in those threads, "Guys, theyr'e just fictional characters. Relax."

Well DD, we just don't see eye to eye on this stuff. I think that excerpt nails it spot on, better than I could ever accomplish.

Actually, a more accurate analogy would be how the editing can really make or destroy a performance. I should know. I'm an actor and have several performances that have been either improved upon or absolutely ruined because of editing.

So the analogy would be if someone was critiquing an actor's performance in a film, and you repeating over and over, "Guys we don't really know if it was the actor doing a bad job or if the editing ruined it." it just doesn't matter. We have a right to assume that the terrible performance is the actor's cross to bear. It will never be 100% accurate, but then the alternative is to not talk about the acting performances at all, lest we become presumptuous jerks.

You want this thread to be an open discussion of different aspects of the game. Do you or don't you see a hypocrisy in your posting that we're foolish to discuss the show from a strategic standpoint?

Do you or don't you see that you saying something like, "Not all the winners have been great players or played perfect games" is the exact same type of invalid assumption based on footage that we make?

Why is it demeaning to call Survivor reality tv?

These are not rhetorical questions. Please answer.

Awesome thanks. I've been kind of avoiding Pearl Islands because I don't really like Sandra or Rupert much in HvV (which was the first season I watched live in a long time), but I guess with that recommendation I need to lol

DD,

You're being a little obnoxious. He's clearly said "Look this is what I think, I'm done talking about it," and you're coming at him like a prosecutor. Who cares?

It sounds like our perspectives on the word "editing" are much different, DD. Survivor editors are taking thousands of hours of raw footage and making a 10 hour story out of it. That's much different than the process of editing a feature film or TV show.

The editors of Survivor have a number of objectives that they need to achieve in that 10 hour window. Accurately portraying each character and event from the game is not high on the priority list.

Rupert was pretty awesome the first time around, when he was just a giant ball of insecurity and not yet enamored with himself. It wasn't until they slapped the "Hero" label on him that he became unbearable.

Fairplay is the real star of PI though. So entertaining all the way through, and post-merge it's all about him. I feel uncomfortable even talking about it before you watch, though. So I won't say anything more.

No prob. I'm completely willing to let it go. But it does seem like every time he makes one of these posts, People respond not only that they disagree, but with well thought out points as to why. I also ask him frank, specific, non-rhetorical questions so that I can understand better where he is coming from. And he never answers them. And then it gets a little heated, and he leaves it with "agree to disagree."

I understand that at some point, the tone of my questions may make them appear more of a grilling, even though I don't feel that these recent posts have been that case, but frankly, someone posting an opinion that we're all morons for the assumptions we make and then disappearing feels a bit trollish.

This thread isn't just about posting opinions but how you came to those conclusions. If someone posts, "I think Phillip is a genius." and that's it, I'll respond with that I disagree and here are reasons x,y, and z why I feel that way. And then I'll ask why he thinks the opposite. And if he says, "I just do. Agree to disagree." Well I don't think it makes for a quality thread.

DD, I'm not going to go point by point through your posts and answer every one of your goddamn non-rhetorical questions.

What can we reliably take from the edit? We can reliably take that the show is heavily manipulated, that's about it.

Like I said, you guys should talk about whatever you want to. And I'll just stay out of the stuff that doesn't interest me.

I think some (maybe a lot?) of the appeal of Palau is that it's a unique season due to it being so dominated by Koror. It essentially was a 9 person game and created a strange dynamic. I think it's the only season I saw where people get voted out immediately as well. Then you got a ton of LOLIAN moments and perhaps the most memorable final immunity challenge in the game.

I watched it during a long Survivor marathon of just running through seasons and enjoyed it. At the time I liked it more than Vanuatu, but I've recently gone back and rewatched Vanuatu from a different perspective and have enjoyed that season a lot more on 2nd watch (Seriously, once I took the perspective that was pointed out to me of "lol Chris just doesn't give a **** and is going to lie to everyone about everything, and in the end convinces a bunch of women - in a man vs woman season - that he's "grown" and to vote for him", that season is awesome entertainment).

I think Vanuatu is the season that jumped higher on my list the furthest after rewatch.


Side note: I feel like I'm one of very, very few people that actually enjoyed Cook Islands.

I mean, he posted a pretty ****ing long post fleshing out the reasons he watches/enjoys Survivor in the manner he does. Posting something like that doesn't obligate you to participate in a back and forth debate about it, whatever your perception of how webforums should work is. I mean... the quote "this thread isn't just about posting opinions but how you came to those conclusions" is your opinion, it's not fact. I certainly don't feel like showing my work for every post I make in a thread about a TV show.

I couldn't stand Rupert the first time around. I actually liked him most during All Stars and post-merge HvV. That being said Pearl Islands may well be the best season ever. It's in my top 3 for sure, and I think likely #1. It has the best premier of any season. It has the least predictable tribal councils. It's just amazing.

Of course it's my opinion. Didn't mean for it to come across as some stated fact, although I'd be hard pressed to find anyone that would think that a thread that's 90% "LOL Philip sucks." "Nuh-uh Philip is great." without any discussion as to why would be very worthwhile. That's what many other Survivor forums on the web are. This is one of the few with some substance.

I'm totally willing to let it all go, since we're so off topic at this point. Back to the show!

Funny, I'm just the opposite! I really dug him in PI. He was a weird but sweet monster of a dude with a pet snake, a real head first dive love of the whole Survivor experience and the pirate theme, and an absolute challenge beast. I just loved watching him dominate in those challenges against what would seem to be formidable physical foes on the other tribe. Never thought much of his strategic game, but he seemed very likable so I was rooting for him.

Pretty neutral about him in ASS. His novelty had kinda worn off, and he looked like he'd been made a fool of in the end game by Rob.

And then in HvV he just seemed like a tantrum throwing douche.

Quick question for those JFP fans. I haven't seen S7 since the first airing, but why does JFP tend to get a lot of credit in these boards for being a great strategic player? I'm not playing devils' advocate and arguing that he isn't, I honestly just don't remember him being a dominant strategic guy out there. The only move of his I remember was the grandma lie, which earned him a few more days out there. Fill me in!!

I will say that Palau is great over the last 2 or 3 episodes. And I'm a huge James Miller fan, so I enjoyed it while he was still around. But I just never bought into the whole "Stephanie is so strong and brave and awesome" thing, she always just annoyed me. All the quitters in Palau also bugs me. (I count Ashlee and Jeff as quitters)

Cook Islands is pretty fun. I just dislike how the Aitus are shoveled down our throats as the good guys. That said, seeing the overly-cocky members of Raro (Nate, Adam, Parvati, Jenny) get burned was satisfying. That was the first time they had a F3, and it worked to perfection that season. If it had been F2, we would have had a very boring Yul-Becky or Ozzy-Becky F2. The F3 allowed for a very exciting final vote.

Ken, I can see why you might not love Rupert the first time around, especially if you watched that season live. He got a very Jane-like edit, where it skews very, very positive, but they throw in a bunch of moments where you see the ugly side of their personality. Still, Rupert got a lot of depth to his edit. They showed how he was insecure from having been picked on as a kid, and how he continued to be picked on by the "bullies" on Drake. Early in the game, he was very endearing as trying to be a pirate, and trying to be a provider. He did pick up some entitlement issues down the road, but then BAM his bootout episode is the best episode in Survivor history.

The Grandma lie is only the tip of the manipulating that Fairplay did. The edit shows him basically talking his way out of being voted out time and time again. Then, the Grandma lie not only wins him the family visit reward, but he goes on to just swear on his grandmother every time he's lying about anything, and forcing the others in the game to swear on his dead grandmother too.

And, despite all of this manipulation and lying, he still almost manages to get himself to the end against an even bigger goat than himself. PI Fairplay is a legend.

Double Down: JFP took Rob C.'s strategy and took it to an even higher level. He single-handedly decided who went home at every post-merge TC until his boot TC, and he managed to get himself out of completely absurd situations (e.g. after making his only blunder of the game by voting out Rupert (and even that can be defended), he stops the women ganging up on his alliance at the F7 by inventing a lie about Tijuana that tricks Sandra into turning on her, and at the F4 he goes from being the next boot to completely safe by playing Darrah and Lill against each other).

Hmm... might be worth a rewatch.

heh yeah fairplay played great. uh... she died dude.

Hey Boc, question for ya since I know you factor edits in a lot. Don't worry about "spoiling" Pearl Islands for me or anything, as I know most of the plot and the winner/twists/etc.

I'm thinking about all the winners, and can't really recall someone they portrayed as a "bad guy" ever really winning (I really don't recall the Hatch win edit, but I'm not going to count it since it was the very start even if he was the bad guy). I assume this is because they are just creating a story, and so they portray the eventual winner in a relatively positive light through most of the season (even Sandra in HvV was shown as against Russell the entire time).

Assuming that concept is true, if Lil had agreed to deal with JFP at F3 or if JFP had of beaten her and then taken her to the F2 as a bigger goat than he was (already been voted out etc), what do you think happens to the JFP edit? Does a lot of his manipulation get portrayed as just playing the game hard against a bunch of people who fall for it? How on earth can they possibly shine the grandma lie in a positive tone? Stuff like that.

He probably would get an edit similar to Chris's from Vanuatu. Anything "bad" he did was justifiable because the other people are worse/the enemy.

Interesting question. My guess is, he would've gotten less premerge airtime as an ******* and been hidden even more behind Rupert. Post-merge he'd emerge as a devious backstabber, and a win over the hated Outcast Lil would've made total sense. Back then, they didn't seem to be as concerned about "happy endings". Hatch definitely skewed negative, Jenna skewed negative, and Heidik wasn't really given many scenes to endure himself to America either.

I think that the editors had more leeway back then with how to portray their winners, because of the F2. Really, it might just be more difficult to play a "villainous" game and win today with the F3.

Man, at F10 in Panama, where La Mina were down 6-4, I was rooting so hard for Terry to use his HII to get it down to 5-4. They could have easily figured out where the votes were going -- if no one else, Bruce would have told them -- and he coulda given that guy the idol, flipped Bruce over the next few days, and boom, you're up. I mean obviously in the short term it behooves him to keep it -- now he can't get voted out next time at F9 either -- but I feel like in the long term it gave him a chance to change the game instead of just getting picked up whenever he finally loses an IC.

Cirie definitely crushing the social game this season though. Has done an awesome job to move herself from probably-one-of-the-first-out (on multiple tribes) to probably-final-three, without really being able to show herself to the tribe as a physical asset at all. Pretty impressive.