Hey everybody!

I thought this would make an interesting topic of discussion. Ever since Pearl Islands, TPTB seem to play up certain players and ignore others.

For instance, in this most recent season (China), James was presented as this challenge god, when the reality showed Peih-Gee & Amanda, who were barely noticed or mentioned in any promos whatsoever, winning multiple.

This is more than a gender issue, also. In Cook Islands, I remember feeling that Ozzy was definitely being propped and Yul was treated more as an afterthought.

What does this say about us as viewers, or about TPTB as producers? Are they being lazy or is there some method to all this?

How does this effect the players themselves as they see how events are depicted? Do they simply accept it, does it go to their heads, or do they fight it(As Shawn Cohen did, when he dared to challenge the Rupert mythology in interviews.)?

While Jeff (and the show) did start getting favorites around Pearl Islands (Rupert!!!), it never really bugged me much, as I thought the show itself was still edited fairly, and the show/Jeff gushing about certain contestants didn't really change anything in the game.

It's only in the China season that I felt the show purposely try to push an agenda at me, through the editing and Jeff's behavior, and that really rubbed me the wrong way. We kept hearing things that were just not factually true about James, Peih-Gee, Todd, Jamie, etc... from Jeff, even during narration ("Peih-Gee blamed James for the loss"), and it was most probably to "prepare" us for James returning as a "fan favorite" in Micronesia.

I'm just hoping this is a blip on the radar, and Micronesia will get back to some fair editing and less editorializing by the show itself.

Yeah, usually the editing has been pretty even-handed, except for China. I mean, they showed Rupert's less flattering moments (and I don't mean the ones where he was jumping up and down, either), such as his psychotic near-throttling of Jon.

But they did a really, really poor job in China. I mean, what they were saying (Jaime is stupid, James is invincible, Todd is a strategic genius)was so obviously contrary to reality that it barely even qualified as editing shenanigans because the shenanigans were so inept.

I definitely agree that Rupert and China are the most obvious examples, that's why I mentioned them, after all. However, I think it has been present to some degree throughout.

The pimping of Stephenie and Bobby Jon, for instance. They were not hateful people (well, Steph, maybe a little...), but their prominence seemed to take such center stage in Guatemala that other personalities were not allowed to shine. Brian is one person who was effected. Ever since he started doing the SSB Blog, he's become more popular. So much so, that many here at TWOP were surprised that he wasn't included in Micronesia. Yet, when I rewatched Guatemala, he basically had two pseudo-moments: not praying and "platinum". That's about it. Whereas, I could recite Steph and Bobby Jon's perspective on EVERY aspect of that season, since the show wouldn't let them not voice their opinions on everything.

Or Ozzy's supposed dominance when he kinda sucked at strategy over Becky's game. Or Dreamz over featured over Rita (who?) and Anthony. Or Shane's crazy being featured while Cirie, with delightful personality, was only noticed by the editors during the early episodes and when it was down to six.

It's been there, but it's only upon re-watching that you really start to notice that the story the producers want to tell trumps the personalities.

In the early seasons, one or two people may slip by unnoticed (Erin in Thailand, Nick in Australia, etc.) Yet, in the last few seasons, the numbers of basically anonymous players has gone up in favor of the "characters" that TPTB are trying to sell. What season was Melinda on? What was something memorable about Fiji's Jessica? Or Fiji's Rita? or Fiji's Lilianna? Did Stephannie from Cook Island participate in anything than a conversation about mashed potatoes?

My point is this: when did it stop being about the game and being about manufactured characters?

I think the show's editors, and to some extent Peachy, have become more proactive in the last few seasons. I agree about China and the "stories" we were practically force fed, i.e., James is great vs. PG is a pathetic bitch, James is a cool guy who goofed vs. Jaime is a moron and a bitch, Tod is a genius, etc.

Also, I noticed that during Cook Islands a lot of really good information was not broadcast, but was instead aired via the website clips. Not only, did Becky have some nice moments, but also Yul's whole rationale about when and why he voted out Jonathan never made it to TV. And correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Yul and Ozzy's pre-mutiny deal, where Yul would help keep Ozzy around if Ozzy voted Yul's way, aired only online? This was a MAGOR stratigic move on Yul's part. Plus, they showed Ozzy voting against his alliance/friends (Coa boi & Jessica) on TV, but they never explained why....if I am remember correctly that is:0)

Well, both of those CI moments would not be in keeping with story of "The Amazing Unstoppable Ozzy", so I'm not surprised that they were hidden.

Since Vanuatu ended and probably since Mark Burnett has stopped caring it has been this way. A lot of people loved Tom and Ian here but if you look back at Palau it's hard to remember Jenn, Gregg or even Caryn who got far into the game because of how much the editing was about Steph and those two guys.

This is also when they started to cast MORE recruited people then people who applied. Pretty much since Palau the cast has been dominated by model and actor wannabes or people who had never even seen the show. Fiji had 19 recruited players, NINETEEN out of 20 (forgetting the one person who quit before the show started).

For this season I wouldn't be surprised if most of these "super fans" are even really fans. They are most likely people they just recruited and said "hey watch this season we have on DVD and pretend you are a die hard fan".

So when you have these gorgeous looking strong guys that are dominating challenges you want to make them look heroic, even when they don't seemingly win a challenge (James). You go to the CBS posting boards and lose brain cells there with all the fans who root for the challenge monsters. I want to slap them and be like "you are brainwashed". Todd was edited as a mastermind because he won, if he lost they would of edited him much worse.

Tom/Ian > Steph > Terry > Ozzy > Yau > James. The last 6 seasons have centered on certain people because of their athleticism, likability, attractiveness or all three. Fiji was kind of an exception, Yau didn't dominate the screen like the others.

I just hate how they seem to be focusing more on the physical part of the game then the strategy now. This seems to be Probst's preference too, he doesn't really care about strategy he just loves the big strong men that win challenges. And as a producer I'm sure he has an input in the editing.

I think James may have been one of the most over-hyped contestants to date. Jonny Fairplay, too. Why'd we see a baby picture of James during the reunion, but some other contestants were barely talked to or questioned?

As for Fairplay, I didn't even watch that season but know what he did and why he's so controversial. But to be honest, I didn't understand why he was such a big deal on Fans v. Favorites - the hype just boosted his own ego, and made him seem like an intimidating player to everyone there. "Oh no, Fairplay is here!" Quite honestly, even though lying about something and deceiving everyone - even Mr. Probst - isn't a moral thing to do, it's a way of playing the game. It wasn't a foreign strategy.

It makes me long for season 1, where Gretchen was honored for being a really strong contestant, and people were shocked when this was a big factor for her elimination. Honestly, when I think of "Favorites", I don't think of people who were merely along for the ride, or didn't win any kind of individual challenges but were nice to look at.

Well, here it is. Joel and Mikey B, the two most hyped non-favorites players this season, both pre-merge boots. And we are less than halfway to the merge!

Meanwhile, Kathy's goofy cluelessness and Tracy's strategic game are not even hinted at in any way.

On top of that, two of the three "challenge threats" are very much not. James and Joel have both been greater liabilities than anything else, yet they raised above the rest! Joel was even pointed in this episode as being a liability. When will TPTB start to see the game as it really is as opposed to the stereotypical big man = amazing player crap and recognize the true strengths of this show?

Jeff's fav was the horrible Mike Savage not Rupert.
Why do the American public like the crying people so much. Rupert and Steph. lol

I'm a fairly new Survivor fan. I saw Borneo and Marquesas when they first aired and lost interest. I really got into Cook Islands and Fiji. China was terrible and I half-heartedly watched the second half of that season. Micronesia hasn't been bad so far. That was my long-winded way of saying, I've mostly seen the later seasons. So I didn't know there was a difference in editing. Last week I decided to catch up on the previous Survivors and watched The Australian Outback. I was amazed by how different it seemed. You actually got to know all the personalities, even the pre-jury ones (Jeff, Mike, Mad Dog, Kel). The pace was slower, but I also felt that the viewer got a chance to make up their minds about the players (Jerri wasn't a bitch because she got cast as the bitch - she was a bitch because of all the instances that were shown of her being one, and you get reactions from almost all the other players of not liking her). Colby was ultra dominant physically, but he never got the Ozzy or James edit. And you even get to hear him worrying a little about winning so often because it might piss people off. I just felt that I "knew" those people better, and more of them got more screen time. Micronesia is decent so far, but I'm disappointed not hearing all that much from Ami, Alexis, Natalie, Eliza, Erik.... it's almost like they're not even there. Do they have strategies? Plans? What are they?? What do they think of everyone else?

I've watched every season, and I agree with you that they just don't bother developing all of the characters anymore. If I had to put my finger on it, I'd have to say that Vanuatu started the big change. The first guy eliminated, Brooke, got absolutely no airtime, when the tribe voted him out, I felt like I'd missed half the episode.

Prior to that season, I could recall something about every player in the game. For example, I remember something about every player in Pearl Islands, ---even if it was just Michelle throwing up, Trish trying to vote Rupert early in the game, Shaun threatening JFP. If that happenend now, I doubt these people would have any confessionals.

I attribute it to casting too many people. I think while the game may be more challenging with 20 players, a one hour tv show can't do justice to all of them. Also, the show spends way too much time (IMO) on the dragged out challenges--the only affect one part of how the game unfolds. Finally, the show seems obsessed with "hyping" big personalities, and making them the star of the show. This is especially a bummer when it basically telegraphs the winner from Ep. 1 or 2 on--I think I called Yul and Earl immediately because of the gratuitous camera shots of them.

If Natalie or Alexis go home any time soon, I will have no idea of what their personality is like, and very little clue on how they played the game.

Couldn't agree more. If you watch earlier seasons, the challenges themselves were far less elaborate and the editors still snipped out large chunks of them. And after the reward challenges, we invariably have to watch contestests boarding airplanes or ships, eating and getting massages, watching them watch the locals perform native dances, etc. None of this helps us learn who they are. In addition, I think the show spends too much time with JFP's questions at tribal council. Everyone's answers are so guarded and carefully worded as to be generally useless. The contestents are talking, but they aren't saying anything because they are in front of the whole group. And the questions are pretty much pointless too: "So what do you base your vote on tonight? Strength? Leadership? Work ethic?" Um, no, Jeff. By now you ought to know that people vote according to these things called "alliances". Stop pretending this is Season 1.

I completely agree that James, Todd and Rupert are the most obvious examples of the overhyped. I have an addition, and it's likely to be unpopular.

Yul, in my opinion, is probably the most overhyped strategist of all time. He had an incredibly powerful HII that could be played after the votes were read and could be used all the way to the F4 (when there was an F3 that season). His biggest help came from Jonathan, who sacrificed any chance he had at winning just to help Yul, but he was also flanked by Sundra and Becky, who were apparently devoid of their own ambitions. Thank goodness they've limited the power of the HII since then.

I don't agree. I think, at that moment, it came down to a possible F5 in the future with the Raros, or the very real possibility that he would be voted out in the present. I think Jonathan didn't like the Raros, and that was part of why he chose to align with Aitu, but I think the biggest factor was not wanting to get voted out.

Just another reason why it's usually good strategy not to be a gratuitous jerk and alienate the bottom-dwellers in your alliance (Candice/Parvati/Adam/Nate. . .you guys got screwed. . .haha).

I think he only saw two options, losing to the Raros or losing to Yul. It was a false dichotomy, in my opinion.

If it was a strategic move to avoid being voted out, as you say, then it really didn't matter how they treated him. At least, that isn't why they lost.

Anyway, my point is that Yul was surrounded by people who were either inert and ambitionless, like Sundra and Becky, or falling on the sword (whether it was for Yul or to spite the Raros), like Jonathan. Add in the ridiculously powerful HII and you have a winner of circumstance more than design, in my opinion. It's not to say that Yul didn't maximize what he had to work with, he absolutely did, but what he had to work with was considerable and thus, not all that impressive to me.

Yul won by one vote, and that vote was Adam's, who admitted that he would have preferred to vote for Ozzy but had given Yul his word that he would vote for him if Yul voted out Jonathan before Adam. Yul read Adam like a book (recognizing that he would keep his word) and played him like a piano (letting Adam believe that Yul engineered Jonathan's boot when really the Aitu 4 were already moving in that direction), which gave Yul the win. That's not simply circumstance.

Yul was also the strategic leader of the Aitu alliance from the very beginning, engineering Cecilia's ouster to save his ally Becky. Yul was the glue that kept the Aitu 4 strong after the mutiny, which resulted in Becky, Sundra and even Ozzy's near-blind loyalty to him. Compare the surgical precision of the Aitu 4's pagonging of 8 Raros to the scattershot insanity of Todd's Fei Long, and you see the difference between a strong strategic and social player and a very weak one.

Yes, the HII was a huge factor in Yul's success, but the loyalty of his allies seems to me to be the result of extremely strong social and strategic game playing.

I've also got to disagree that the people with whom he was allied had not interest in playing the game. He was allied with Ozzy for heaven's sake!

I think that just because the editors chose to ignore Becky, she still played the game as best as she could. Her mistake was playing an Amber game to someone who was far more politic than Rob. When Yul flipped on Jonathon, he did so without the glee and snark that Rob Mariano brought to the game.

He revolutionized the way the idol was played. He not only identified the right time, but the right person to approach with the flip. He kept his word to Adam about eliminating Jon. He cut Parvati when it appeared she might be getting somewhere with Ozzy.

He played a great game--and he probably gets so many kudos because of the instances where the "best" strategic player ie Rob C., Rafe, JFP went out at 3rd.

Also, he and Earl both played the game so diplomatically --allied with cool people and refrained from acting like assess--it was great to see that gameplay rewarded.

I would never claim that Yul did nothing, he did. He earned his win by virtue of winning. But I don't find anything about him particularly amazing, either strategically or socially. He was smart and collected, but in my opinion it was much more important that he happened to be aligned with sheep and happened to find the HII. He had the luxury of a rigid, straightforward game post-merge, which was largely due (in my opinion) to circumstances unrelated to him. Maybe he still could've gotten to the final tribal council if his alliance hadn't kneeled down and let him use them as steps, and maybe he even could've survived to the final three without the benefit of a reflective shield that was good all the way up until the final three, I'll never know.

I don't mean to suggest that Yul fell totally ass-backwards into his title as winner because I don't feel that way. He made the smart decisions when he needed to and he played a solid game, I just don't feel like he overcame as much or had to maneuver as often as most winners do.

I do agree that his win and Aitu tribes F4 status is a good story and was a satisfying ending, but not that mastermind Yul engineered a win.

Now that you mention it...I think Earl is overhyped too, although I was more impressed by him than Yul.

The four Aitu didn't pagong eight Raros, they pagonged five Raros (with help from one of the Raros, as mentioned above). Becky, Brad, and Rebecca weren't voted out by Aitu. That wasn't strategy, that was Ozzy.

I don't think Becky and Ozzy were sheep. Becky was his partner--I don't think anyone can get to the end without a go-to person, and she played that role.

If she had been in the final two with Ozzy,she would have played the strategy card to Ozzy's physical card. I don't know that the jury would have fallen for it, but there is a great chance we might have seen a very different Becky in the program if it had been a final two instead of final three. With a final three where she earns no votes, Becky is irrelevant. In a final two, where she at least has Yul and Brad, and possible Jenny on her side, her story would have had to be considered by the editors.

I really can't say Sundra is a sheep either. They had an alliance--and it wasn't just to Yul, it was to a concept that their tribe could overcome an 8-4 disadvantage, and comprise the only final four to that time in the show's history that had all minority representation--and doing so to the "caucasian" tribe that made the merge mostly intact.

Writing all of this makes me wish they would put the season out on DVD!

If Earl is considered "over"-hyped--who amongst the contestants, especially the winners, is not?

It's in producers interests to commend those who win the game, especially those who do so by overcoming poor odds like Earl and Yul did.

If these players get a lot of fan support for the way the show protrayed their game, than I would not consider that hype, but cheering for two attractive players who executed the game while not being an ass.

IMO, the hyped players are those like James, promoted for his physical strength, that is sorely lacking in physical challenges--or Todd, some type of self-promoting mastermind, who fell into his win.

I agree that Ozzy wasn't a sheep. Ozzy was one of the few people out there that had a shot in the finals. Becky and Sundra only had a chance against each other.

Well, for example, the show never props it's female winners, ever. In fact, Tina, Vecepia, Amber, Jenna and to a lesser extent Danni were all treated like leftovers who either got a free ride or cashed in on some bad blood. I also don't think Aras or Chris were overhyped.

You can purchase all of the post-All Stars seasons on iTunes for 20 bucks a pop! I just discovered this and I'm planning to waste my summer nights watching some of the better ones.

But it wasn't in Sandra or Becky or even Ozzy's best interests to boot Yul and take a Raro to the finals with them, especially with the large, nearly all-Raro jury. Of course, looking backwards, everybody always says, "You idiots should have booted the winner," but that doesn't mean it wasn't a sensible decision at the time to want to shut the Raros out of the finals, because one of them would almost definitely have won.

Every winner obviously benefits from good luck, but I think Yul is one of the better winners because he played such a solid, creative game, and he won on his merits, not just because he was the "nice" one everybody liked better.

The winners I really find lame and over-hyped (although these winners weren't very popular, so they didn't get the hype fan favorites like Yul or Earl did) were Aras and Todd, because they both made big mistakes but managed to win anyway because everybody else on their season (except Cirie and Peih-Gee) sucked. When you've got winners playing like Lex, and they win anyways: ew.



I think Jonathan's initial vote against Nate was to avoid getting voted off, but I definitely think the irrationality and unpleasantness of the Raros helped Jonathan stay with Aitu.

Those weren't the only options, though. They could have focused on helping Yul boot the rest of the Raros, or at least most of them. Then, they simply needed to work towards a F3 of Sundra/Becky/Jonathan. It wouldn't have been easy. They would have needed Yul's complicity in the act of helping to keep Ozzy away from immunity, but it could have done. Instead, both women campaigned against him.

Word to earlier posters speaking about the nearly equal coverage of all the players in the early seasons. Since PI, it's been the Rupert show, the Boston Rob show, the Ami show, the Tom/Ian show, etc. It so much harder to get into the show anymore. Unless you are into the current season's "star", that is.

Hot Pink, I completely agree with you that the show does a really bad job showcasing the female winner's game. Where Rob Cerstenino is a crafty strategist who switches things up as the right time, Vecepia and Sandra are coat-tail riders who can't develop a strategy other than "anyone but me." Where Tom is a masterful leader and generally likeable guy, who identifies the best goat to bring along in Katie, Amber is a coat-tail rider who hides behind her challenge winning atheltic partner.

I honestly think the worst job in portraying the winner was, in fact, Danni. She played a great game. Kept her mouth shut when it was the right thing to do, and ingratiated herself into the dominant alliance so that she usurped not only Judd's place, but Cindy's and Lydia's as well!

On the subject of Danni compared to Yul and Earl--I laugh when I think about the "money" shots that the two men got really early on in their seasons. Yul was at Exile Mountain and Earl was atop Earl Mountain, with helicopters and cameras swarming around them in all their manly grandeur. What did Danni get? A round-off flip flip. At camp. That had to pixilated.

I think Sundra backed in a way backed herself into a corner, because Becky and Yul were about as solid a couple as there had ever beenin the game. Yes, it was in their best interest to eliminate all the Raro's--but after they did Sundra was left without a move to make, unless she had won IC--which of course would not happen with Ozzy in the picture.

Well, and more than that, I think Danni and Chris are both extremely underrated winners.

Danni basically snaked both of the power players in the game, the Rafe/Steph monster. I wouldn't even use the word "ingratiated." She convinced both Rafe and Steph that she was more trustworthy than Judd or Cindy, even though at that stage in the game, the likable Danni was a major jury threat. She knew the right information to feed to Rafe/Steph to make them fear a Judd uprising. She was the only one to make the obvious move of bidding on an advantage in the immunity challenge, thus sealing (in my opinion) her worthiness as a winner. She didn't win too many immunities, so she wasn't seen as a threat, but she won precisely the ones she needed to (the F3 one, and F6). She trapped Rafe in his own moralizing, and she held her own in the jury questioning. She was also nice to people, an extremely overlooked strategic move.

Because Vanuatu turned out to be so Julie/Ami/Leann-errific at the Reunion, Chris' game was not adequately discussed. His original strategy of voting out the buff young guys was ballsy and smart. Losing the buff guys had nothing to do with his tribe going into the merge in the minority; for one, the challenges did not favor their strengths (so many memorizing and balancing ones--I doubt the Johns, either P. or K., would have done any better), and for another, Chris' only mistake in the game was trusting Julie and Twila. Basically, Chris would have been much better served by throwing the challenges and getting rid of the two women, but it's sort of a counterintuitive strategy. And then he just politicked his way to the end, delivering one of the most satisfying blindsiding (the delicious Leann-booting episode) along the way.

I agree on all counts and must point out that not only was his game not truly showcased the way Yul or Earl had their games displayed, Chris was absolutely berated for his at the reunion. I think it was at this point that the "story" began to trump the reality, IMO.

*I must point out, though, Twila was in a similar boat. She played an awesome game, but was not adequately showcased.

I think it is more accurate to say that Survivor does not showcase boring players. I honestly don't see the need to showcase milquetoast players, just because they happen to win. There's a lot of luck in this game. In the same season as Rob C, you have Matt, your 2nd place finisher who had a terrible edit ("he's creepy") and Heidi and Jenna who weren't exactly playing UTR and Christy, who had quite the sympathetic edit. V and Sandra were dull as dirt. They really were. Kathy and Lil otoh from their respective seasons were interesting and received a lot of attention. Tom was a tour de force, plain and simple. And having seen the many incarnations of Rob and Amber, it's pretty clear which one's driving the bus.



But clearly TPTB wanted Steph to win and she would have gotten the most glorious accolades of any survivor ever had she had managed to pull it off. Steph story was interesting. Danni, not so much. Aras and Chris were barely acknowledged as having any game at all, but then again Cirie and Shane were just so much more fun to watch and Vanuatu just plain sucked in general.

Yet all of the "boring" players you mention are only boring to certain segments of the population. In the early seasons, most, if not all, players were given some airtime and the viewers were given the opportunity to decide for themselves who they liked. There were villian edits, but most players were simply showcased. Shawn Cohen (from PI) pointed out that the pimping of Rupert and JFP caused many players to be disregarded. For instance, Darrah, the unexpected challenge threat was almost completely disregarded throughout the season.

I didn't think Sandra was milquetoast. She went off on several people and was never quiet at camp. She dumped all the fish out and then let someone else take the blame (her low point, for me). And she was a prime part of tricking Burton and Jon into thinking the women left behind at camp were stupid and not up to anything at all before they voted Burton out.

I was just about to post a lengthy description of why Sandra was not milquetoast---she had a mouth that would make a sailor blush.

Here is the thing that troubles me abouth the show's perception that a player like Vecepia is boring. I think there should be room in the show to highlight the big personalities, and the winner's gameplay. They are not the same things. Vecepia switched to John's side after the swap. Somewhere, there is is footage of her talking to John, trying to get in his good graces. Somewhere there is a confessional where she explains that she is going to distance herself from Sean and Rob so that she can worm her way into John's group. Did we see those scenes? All we got was "too much drama"

Vecepia was considered by many to be hypocrite. This did not happen the moment she voted out Kathy. She'd been the same player all along, so why wasn't this explored more throughout the show. It's a complex and interesting topic. All we got was "too much drama."

So, everybody player has a story to tell if the show wants to go to the trouble of making it interesting--which it does not. It wants us to salivate over the alpha males (which I regulary do) and hope they win every time out.

Personality is not the same thing as gameplay. Amber and Tom both made a rock solid alliance on day 1 and stuck to it through the end, and both benefited from sitting alongside a goat. Of course she wasn't like Tom in the challenges--no one is---but she held her own and helped her team win IC's. I do think she is dull, but she played the game with a sound strategy that was portrayed as coat-tail rider. To me, their different discussions.

My problem with Danni was her jury speech more than anything else. She played a decent game (though having seen the footage presented and having no personal stake, I would have voted for Stephenie) but her jury speech was like "I'm so sorry! I hope you still think I'm sweet. Steph was in charge the whole game." Huh?....I mean, that's not very satisfying. Stephenie played an aggressive game and owned up to it, and Danni played Miss Congeniality. I felt like Danni won because she wasn't Stephenie, not because of how she played. I wish that her game had been more apparent.

I remember being apologetic, but I don't recall her putting the running of the game on Stephanie's shoulders. I don't think that would win many votes, but, since I can't remember the specifics, perhaps you're right. Hmm.

I was exaggerating a wee bit. Danni did make an excellent case for a Steph win though, if I remember correctly. I believe she told the jurors that Stephenie was responsible for their loss, which is the same thing, in my opinion, as saying that she deserved to win.

I think the answer "Steph was responsible for putting every one of you over there" was in response to a specific question about, I think, why you should not vote for the other person. Besides, it wasn't true. Danni was directly responsible for the ousting of Rafe, and equally responsible for the ousting of Cindy and Judd.

I think Danni recognized the bitterness of the jury, and was tailoring her answer accordingly. I think she was responsible for plenty of other people's exits from the game, she just managed to make Steph look like the bad guy.

I can definitely see that being true and I agree that it was probably smart, but it's just not very appealing to me as a viewer. Stephenie was the first and only really dominant woman to make it to the F2 and I would've preferred to see her win over the pleasant girl sitting next to her.

If Danni had won because the jurors respected her game or thought she was a better strategist or any of that I might feel differently. I agree with you that Danni played a good game, but she didn't win because of that in my opinion. She won like a pageant queen. Not her fault, totally, but still not really something that I responded well to.

But I will always think that Danni played a strong game that the storytellers chose not to show us. She has stressed that she was calling the shots on her original tribe. She was also strong enough in challenges to satisfy me.

She definately benefited from Stephenie's bad decisions, but IMO, many of the bad decisions Stephenie made were influenced by Danni.

But, I also have to add that I did not find Guatemala particularly compelling because only Stephenie, Rafe and Danni played the game hard. The most unsatisfying finish to me is to watch a bunch of people who fail to recognize their position and sit on their butts until they get voted out. I just think about Cindy saying, "Judd wasn't told about Jamie and the Judd was gone. I didn't know about Judd--will I be gone?" So, instead of doing anything about it, she just waits her turn to be blindsided. UGH.

Eliza has opened up a brand new adjective for me to throw around: pageant. When I think of someone playing pageant, I think of Jenna or Amanda. These girls designated a group to allign with, and excluded the rest of their tribes. I think Danni played a more friendly game, but her weak position at merge may have contributed to that. Of course, Jenna was helped by going up against a pscyhopath and Amanda self-destructed at the end..

Perhaps Danni played an untold strong game and perhaps not. Even if she did, she may not have told it in an interesting or coherent way. Remember that all the editors have to work with is what the players put out there. For all his faults, Todd was simply great in front of the the camera. He was animated and articulate. Amanda was always more awkward. If your job is to put together a tv show that holds the viewers' interest, which one will you showcase more?

Danni and Steph were an even bigger contrast. Everything about Steph was compelling. Her story and her reactions to it were spot on. Her Palau experience was like a Shakespearean tragedy. She was very forthcoming with who she was and how she played the game. Great story. Everything but the ending was satisfiying. I really can't blame the editors for focusing on Steph more than Danni.

What makes the show interesting is the characters. Give me more Shanes, Cournteys, Jean-Roberts and Ciries and fewer Beckys, Earls, Denises and Aras's. Sure I like to see the "good guys" win, but the journey is more interesting than the reward at the end.

The same problem plagued Vecepia in Marquesas. She did RobC's schtick before he did, but she didn't give clever witty confessionals while doing it. She was boring, so they went with the Kathy redemption arc instead.

I agree. Danni played a fantastic game in her season & was a very deserving winner. She had a compelling story as well: She was in a strong alliance on her tribe but found herself in a minority at the merge. Instead of getting Pagonged, she managed to disarm & subvert members of the dominant alliance with an excellent social game while making crucial strategic decisions that favored her at the right moment. Starting out as an underdog, she actively destroyed the dominant alliance from within & grabbed the million from under Stephenie's nose. She played well socially, strategically and physically - outlasted, outwitted & outplayed. Pretty damn compelling, I think.

I think the fundamental difference between Danni and Amanda is that Danni did not come off like an entitled, spoiled brat. She may've been young & pretty (well, before her lips swelled up at the Reunion, anyway), but there was no 'pageant' vibe about her that I could see. She seemed like a genuinely nice person, smart and likeable, whereas Amanda, while not dumb, is thoroughly phony and has a clear mean streak. As for gameplay, Danni proved that she knew how to win coming in from a position of great weakness, whereas Amanda has lucked out by remaining in the dominant alliance in both her seasons post-merge. Maybe Amanda could've played as well as Danni did from a position of weakness, but I suppose, we'll never know. IMO, Danni's game blew Amanda's away in either China or F v F.

I agree that Survivor now focuses too much on the story, not the gameplay.

Like this season, with the women banding together to vote out the men. This is logical strategy, since all the remaining men were either jury threats, immunity threats, or both. Yet thanks to some over the top quotes from Natalie and a few scenes of the women stirring a cauldron or laughing together, the dynamic becomes mean girls, or wicked witches, scheming against those poor, innocent men.

At the reunion, how likely is it that Jeff will spend more time asking "poor" Ozzy/Erik/James about how they were mistreated and about those bitches they had to deal with than he will talking to the women about their gameplay?

Amanda, Cirie, Natalie, and Parvati may be the most diverse group of women to ever make it this far. They all have very different personalities and styles of play. Yet they are all but lumped together as those scheming vamps.

I blame Rupert for the "big personality" contestant becoming so prominent in these latest seasons. I don't mind a big personality, but I do mind when the editing is lopsided to prop them up. This happened with Rupert in Pearl Islands, then with James in China, and to a lesser degree, Stephenie in Palau. They are usually given a more balanced edit in their return seasons, except Stephenie, who went from being an angel to being a demon, maybe because they had to show us why she lost so badly.

It seems like most of their big personality contestants are poor players. The one exception is probably Tom Westman, who played a very strong game which is overshadowed by his sour treatment of Ian towards the end.

And here it is. Cirie plays another truly masterful game and is given short shrift at the reunion. Why? Because she doesn't fit the profile that TPTB has decided deserves any kind of promotion. Hell, it happened her last season as well. The ony real notice she got was for her "scared of leaves" comment on the first episode.

I love this show, but it's hard to not feel a little gross for supporting this kind of weird bias.

I think Cirie has always gotten plenty of attention, particularly at the Exile Island reunion. Hell, they even had H.B. stand up in the audience and give a little speech about how brave he thought she was, etc. H.B. got more face time than plenty of people on the actual show.

Hegellite is right. I just finished watching S12, and It was pretty much the Cirie show {but still much more sweet and respectful than S7 when it was all about Rupert "YAAAHHHH!}.

I - as well, feel that this has gone to the end of story telling instead of showing us what is happening. And honestly; even if Amanda IS boring or something, there should be SOMETHING there.. (and I'm sorry - Gabon in particular showed us they are even cutting things from Tribal Council that can help us for the next episode in understanding things).

I miss the old school survivor, but I don't think it's ever coming back.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and defend the producers for a second. Survivor is a very unpredictable show to produce since the makers are dealing with all sorts of potential landmines in putting 'average people' --- I use the quotes given the number of recruits in recent season --- into a totally unfamiliar environment both literally (out in the wild) and figuratively (on a reality TV show). No matter how many psychological tests or personality interviews MB and his team can conduct pre-show, there's no way to tell how a player will end up acting on camera until they get out there. A person who seems like a dynamo in a one-on-one interview can turn out to be a total dud once they're dumped out in the wild with no food, shelter, water, etc. Or, their personality could also change totally in other ways; Shane seemed like a laid-back, self-deprecating guy in post-show interviews and the reunion, but on the show without his cigarettes, he went cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. Anyone who's ever conducted job interviews knows that a person's performance once actually faced with the task can be far different than how they say they can perform. The producers don't know what they're getting until filming actually begins, and there's only so much they have to work with in editing, even with up to a month of footage to sift through. I'd be interested in seeing the IMDB credits for Survivor from season-to-season to see if there have been any changes to the editing crew and during which seasons these occurred in.

Ergo, when producers get a charismatic character on the show who actually lives up to or exceeds expectations, they hype them to the moon, especially when the player happens to end up getting fairly far along in the game. It's tough to say this is necessarily a fault given that they're just trying to put out the most entertaining show possible, and in certain seasons, you want to see more of that dominant figure moreso than the other, less interesting or less likable figures in the tribe. For example, I don't think there were too many of us complaining that Yau and Earl were overhyped during the Fiji season when the alternatives were spending more time with Alex, Lisi, Boo, etc. For every Yau/Earl season, however, you also have to deal with seasons like China or Gabon where Todd and Sugar seemed to dominate the narrative. Some folks mentioned a gender bias in how the winners are presented, but again, it's really just more of a 'this winner wasn't as interesting as these non-winners' bias. For example, just look at this past season. If you had told me three months ago that Bob was going to win, I was would've been shocked since he had barely played any role in the first five or six episodes.



Agreed 100 percent. That, in fact, is also the reason why Todd won the show --- he came off as the mastermind during the final vote, while Amanda (who actually quarterbacked most of her alliance's biggest power plays) was a stuttering, self-contradictory mess. The same thing happened to Amanda against Parvati during F vs. F.

Someone upthread mentioned the Vanuatu reunion as the moment when 'the story' took over from reality, in regards to how Chris was made into a villain for his perfectly logical and necessary turn on Ami/Julie/Eliza. I always thought that was due to the fact that Probst was dating Julie at the time, so that was the version of the story that he felt obligated to present.