Jump to content

Rewatch: South Pacific: No, SERIOUSLY


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.

59 replies to this topic

#31

Oholibamah

Oholibamah

    Stalker

Posted Nov 11, 2012 @ 10:59 PM

I might just not get her sense of humor or something but she doesn't seem like a happy person. Can someone enlighten me?


I think she just has a dry, matter-of-fact way of speaking which comes across potentially bitter or angry. I think she has every right to complain about the allotment of editing, and isn't as likely as Natalie to just brush it off.

#32

kikaha

kikaha

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 12, 2012 @ 5:38 AM

See, my fear is that they would have edited her into a nonentity.


In this game of "if's".... if Colton had made F3 and Kim still played the game she actually played, no way IMO they edit her into a non-entity. She was the most popular. Most trusted. Most wanted to be on a desert island with. She won a whole slew of immunity challenges. After merge, everyone turned to her for their decisions, for who to boot. She was obviously the strategist/mastermind who was running the game.

To make F3 with Colton still around, she's have had to do at least some of that. Survivor would have edited it out? How? And Colton, to make F3, would have had to keep performing his black magic. That would have set the theme of the season: good (Kim ) vs evil (Colton). Survivor would have eaten it up. I bet the fans would have too. It would have turned a lackadaisical season, that I understand ended up with poor ratings, into an outstanding one.

The knock against Kim is that, great as she played, her opposition sucked. Once Colton was gone, I agree with that completely. A F3 with the two of them suggests to me one of the most entertaining seasons I could imagine.

Absolutely. And the funny thing, I still say Kim was underedited.


The entire second half of that season showed Kim completely, totally running Survivor with an iron grip. They could have renamed it "The Kim Show." There was very little drama or tension or uncertainty, except what TPTB tried to synthetically manufacture during previews.

I mean compare her game in one try to Boston Rob's RI game in four. It was just as dominant with a fraction of the screentime.



Not quite. Rob dominated RI from day one. Kim dominated from, say, day 18?

I don't believe minutes on screen is the right way to measure this anyway. The question is, did what we see fairly reflect what took place? I know I came out of Kim's season thinking she ran the game like few ever have. I came out of Rob's winning season thinking the same.

There are some differences between the two seasons. One is Rob himself. One of the most famous players in history. Back again, in a potentially disastrous setup for him, as one of two returning players, likely be targeted from the moment he set foot on the beach. But unlike Russell, he not only survived the early days. He became king of his camp. Dictator might be a better word. It was just unbelievable to me how everyone on his tribe did everything he said.

i.e. Rob was the story that season. His name, his history, his control of the game from the very start. Kim was an unknown, who rose to glory about half way through.

Probst was trying to make Rob's RI game as the greatest performance in Survivor history. Kim's? "Well, there were a lot of bad players." And no, I'm not buying that as a reason to downgrade Kim's game. Phillip, Matt, and Natalie were just as bad as anyone on One World.


After watching RI, I did not think Rob's performance was the greatest in Survivor history. I thought he exerted more control over his tribe than any I'd ever seen. But there was a catch. He was a fantastic returning player, going up against newbies who were as bad as the ones Kim faced. The season made this obvious.

I really hope Kim comes back for an all-star season with no new players.

I never never understood Sophie in interviews such as she did with Rob C. Is she just not a nice person and doesn't care that people know or think it?


Lots of players from her season said she was arrogant and self-entitled. The behavior we saw from her onscreen suggested the same thing. So did the little I heard from her after the season ended. Again, I suspect this is one (of several) reasons we didn't see more of her during the season.

#33

Isuzu

Isuzu

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male

Posted Nov 12, 2012 @ 9:39 AM

The reason Sophie screamed at Albert was because she stood the more chances at winning the challenge and the goal was to prevent Ozzy from winning it. As it stood, if Ozzy was in the F3, he would win, regardless of who was there with him, so they needed him to be beaten no matter what. Albert also had to know that, if Sophie won, Ozzy was going out. And if Ozzy won, it would be Rick because they needed the strongest people to beat Ozzy at F4. He was in no danger of going home.

Regarding the Final Immunity Challenge, he was designed way before the beginning of the game, so not to favour anyone specifically. If Sophie hadn't been there, Ozzy would probably have won since Albert and Coach were nowhere near the two of them. Sophie also won two other Immunity Challenge, so she could boast about her challenge prowesses anyway. I also object to that fact that the last challenges in the past have been physical: on RI, the last challenge was exactly the same type (obstacle course / puzzle) but nobody's complaining. And the challenge in say, One World or Micronesia or Tocantins were not exactly grueling.

Sophie is, incidently, not the only person who said that Coach was the one behind the alliance. Albert and even Coach did as well (though Coach is a bit self aggrandizing). All three acknowledge it was a common effort, first between Albert and Sophie, then with Coach and then with the two others. The night on the beach was basically the confirmation between the five.

Lots of players from her season said she was arrogant and self-entitled. The behavior we saw from her onscreen suggested the same thing. So did the little I heard from her after the season ended. Again, I suspect this is one (of several) reasons we didn't see more of her during the season.


That may be so (although I mostly found her hilarious on her confessionals, but to each his own, I get that), but it's not as if Coach, Cochran, Brandon or Ozzy had not each their own special brand of awful personality traits and behaviors, and yet we saw plenty of them, even though none of them won the damn show. Also, if she was such an awful person, it must be telling how crappy Coach's social game actually was to only win three votes. The fact that she was so underedited is a failure of the editing period. She had lots of things to say about her game and her strategy, or at the very least, scenes to show her acting entitled and arrogant. Yet they chose to show us plenty of crazy Brandon, offensively godbothering Coach, REALLY arrogant and entitled Ozzy and super annoying Cochran (who, as it stands, has been on record saying he wanted to make a big move anyway, so Coach didn't have to work really hard to make him switch).

I'm not really saying she was the mastermind behind the whole season, I'm saying she was a great player in a weird season to navigate, what with RI and the returnees, and she had in the end a stellar path to victory, winning key immunities, forming great alliance and positionning herself very well to never really be in danger of going home.

#34

Yogurt Baron

Yogurt Baron

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male

Posted Nov 12, 2012 @ 11:40 AM

I still say Kim was underedited.


Though there's no way she was "underedited" by reasonable metrics, I know what you mean. Kim is one of two and a half players (Heidik being the other, Hatch being the half) who I would love to see a season edited of their game and their game alone. Ten minutes of watching them play the other people, half an hour of confessionals explaining what they're doing. Nobody would want to see it but Survivor nuts and/or aspiring sociopaths, but still: just because she got a great edit relative to others doesn't mean we saw as much of her as we'd have liked.

On Sophie, I agree. Very dry, very methodical, and kind of semi-snarky in confessionals, but not in a Courtney/Marquesas Mariano "here is the entertaining character I am playing" way. I can see where someone would find her arrogant and sullen; I can also see where someone would find her a lot of fun. I really don't find her at all. I literally don't think I knew there was a Sophie on the show until it was down to Coach's alliance; it was Coach, Albert, Edna, Brandon, that guy who never talked, and that girl who sometimes talked who I didn't care about. We can argue all day about whether she's a good player or not - and I understand, though I don't agree with, the arguments that she's one of the all-time greats - but I would be surprised if a winner ever surprises me more. It'd be like if on the Philippines, at F2, they suddenly announced that the prize was going to Dan Grayne, P.I.

#35

Oholibamah

Oholibamah

    Stalker

Posted Nov 12, 2012 @ 4:53 PM

Not quite. Rob dominated RI from day one. Kim dominated from, say, day 18?


Case. And. Point. Kim played the same game from day 1 through day 39. The difference? Colton left the game on Day 18 and the editors were forced into a new storyline: the storyline where Kim dominates the game.

Obviously Kim did certain things that couldn't be ignored, like winning Immunity and pitting Alicia/Tarzan against one another. But you say I am using "ifs", but then suggest that One World would have been edited into an epic Good v. Evil, Kim v. Colton storyline. But history has shown that this would not be the case. Where was my satisfying Good v. Evil plot during Samoa when I wanted to tear out Russell's tibia and beat him over the bald troll head with it? It was completely doused in All Russell, All the Time, with Natalie's grand accomplishments being reduced to killing a rat.

Sophie was not edited the way she was because she's an arrogant bitch, or because Coach played such an immaculate and dominant game that the editors couldn't be bothered to show Sophie more. It's because she's a woman who won in a season with so many "Inspiring (Male) Characters" eating up the screentime.

Whether somebody thinks Sophie's a great player or not, she is far and away a better player than the editing seemed to suggest. I know this not from anything Sophie said after the show, but because I was able to watch the show and understand what she was trying to accomplish. It made sense. But I shouldn't have to extrapolate. In any other season, the editing has gone out of its way to make sure the audience understands the eventual winner's strategy. Just ask Rob, Todd, Yul, or JT if they think they got the Editing Shaft. Hell, even Fabio and Bob got a decent attempt at a winner's edit. Now ask the same question to Natalie and Sophie.

Edited by Oholibamah, Nov 12, 2012 @ 4:55 PM.


#36

KimberStormer

KimberStormer

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female

Posted Nov 12, 2012 @ 5:33 PM

I would be surprised if a winner ever surprises me more.


It's an interesting contrast watching seasons where you know the outcome VS ones you don't. I knew going in, for example, that Danni won Guatemala, and watching it I could see how she was doing it. But maybe only because I was paying attention, since I knew she was the winner; it seems she's the most famously invisible winner before Natalie. With Sophie, character-wise she reminded me of girls I knew in college, and I thought of her as a decent but unexciting player. I wasn't thinking "this is the winner, I should pay attention to what she says". I wasn't totally surprised that she won--I thought she got a winner's edit in the last episode, at least--but it did seem like an appropriately anti-climactic ending to a snooze of a season. If I was interested in watching SP ever again I'd probably see it differently since I'd be paying attention to her game.

#37

Yogurt Baron

Yogurt Baron

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male

Posted Nov 12, 2012 @ 7:00 PM

Good point, KimberStormer---I've only watched ten of the 25 seasons as they unfolded, and so when you take it as gospel that Danni and Bob and Aras and Vecepia are Winners, it's easy to make more of them than you might if you watched them unspoiled. That said, there's no potential winner of this season who could surprise me more than Sophie did. I see an easier path to the win for, say, Carter, than I did for Sophie at this stage of SP.

#38

Isuzu

Isuzu

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male

Posted Nov 13, 2012 @ 2:04 AM

It's an interesting contrast watching seasons where you know the outcome VS ones you don't.


This is very true. Another example is Jenna in the Amazon. At the time, nobody thought she was winnign the damn show. The whole editing had been pointing to a Frankenstein vs. Creature type scenario with Matthew and Rob battling it out at the end and possibily to see the student overtake the master, only to see Rob out at F3. Logically, you think Matt will win, having learned from Rob and all, and then Jenna trounce him 6-1 which was the best winner score up to that point. It was crazy. Of course, when I watched the show, I knew she'd win, and it became obvious that she had an amazing social game and Matthew had to have one of the worst this side of Lill, Dreamz and Russell. In fact, watching the season with the amazing Rob/Matt edit and Jenna being trashed all season long (not that she didn't help with that with some of her heinous actions and comments, but you'd think the producers would shield their winner a bit better) created a real dissonance. Even though I knew she'd win, and understood why, I felt that there was no way she was winning this.

People at the time were so upset that they basically created the winner edit afterwards to make sure the winners were at least palatable enough to the audience as to not have the sort of outcry they got after Jenna won.

Having said that, I remember watching the first episode of SP, saw this obviously very intelligent woman who, in her first conversation with Coach, didn't buy any of his bullshit, and then saw her enter the majority alliance, and I was certain that she was going to win. So I watched the whole season through that lens, hence why I wasn't shocked at all that she won. I was obviously not the only one since if you look at the edgic thread over at sucks, many people debated between Sophie and others (mostly Jim, Coach, Cochran, Dawn and Ozzy towards the end). She was on many people's radar, but not thanks to the amount of screen time she got.

#39

Bob Sambob

Bob Sambob

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 13, 2012 @ 2:11 AM

Oholibamah:

Sophie was not edited the way she was because she's an arrogant bitch, or because Coach played such an immaculate and dominant game that the editors couldn't be bothered to show Sophie more. It's because she's a woman who won in a season with so many "Inspiring (Male) Characters" eating up the screentime.
Whether somebody thinks Sophie's a great player or not, she is far and away a better player than the editing seemed to suggest. I know this not from anything Sophie said after the show, but because I was able to watch the show and understand what she was trying to accomplish. It made sense. But I shouldn't have to extrapolate.


Isuzu:

Having said that, I remember watching the first episode of SP, saw this obviously very intelligent woman who, in her first conversation with Coach, didn't buy any of his bullshit, and then saw her enter the majority alliance, and I was certain that she was going to win. So I watched the whole season through that lens, hence why I wasn't shocked at all that she won.

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES (repeat to infinity) ...
I'll add this so I don't have to retype it all, posted in the hours after she won. I've been seeing this debate firing up again this week and I just was so weary of jumping back in, recycling old posts, blah blah blah. Thanks for doing it succinctly here. Can we just pin this to the top, please?! :)

Edited by Bob Sambob, Nov 13, 2012 @ 2:17 AM.


#40

kikaha

kikaha

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 13, 2012 @ 6:41 AM

Case. And. Point. Kim played the same game from day 1 through day 39. The difference? Colton left the game on Day 18 and the editors were forced into a new storyline: the storyline where Kim dominates the game.


I really disagree. Kim impressed me early on. I commented about that on one of these threads a few episodes into the season. But back then the women were barely hanging on. If not for the men's unbelievable screwups, they would likely have gotten decimated.

Kim and all the other women were not the story then, except in a semi-Pagong kind of way. They only became the story after the men self-immolated. First through Colton's manipulations and medevac, then after the merge as well. Kim, of course, was the master puppeteer after merge.

Where was my satisfying Good v. Evil plot during Samoa when I wanted to tear out Russell's tibia and beat him over the bald troll head with it? It was completely doused in All Russell, All the Time, with Natalie's grand accomplishments being reduced to killing a rat.


Samoa was not a contest between Russell and Natalie. Natalie was on Russell's side, in his alliance, until F3. The other tribe that season had some leaders who also were not pleasant. No good vs evil theme possible, except maybe the last few days. And Russell then looked like the ass he is, while Natalie looked like the gracious person she is.

btw, I think Natalie made one fantastic, key move. She convinced the other tribe to vote off one of their own right after merge. Other than that, though, I struggle to think of her grand accomplishments. Russell was the show. Good, bad, ugly and demented. Natalie went along for the ride, and won because everyone hated Russell so much.

Whether somebody thinks Sophie's a great player or not, she is far and away a better player than the editing seemed to suggest. I know this not from anything Sophie said after the show, but because I was able to watch the show and understand what she was trying to accomplish.


I watched the show too. I just didn't see what you saw. Sophie's fate was in the hands of one person at a number of key moments. Coach. Unless you are Amber, and Rob is the person backing you, that is a very thin strategy to work on. But that WAS her main strategy.

I read a few of her interviews after the season. She said Coach would have won except for his lies and refusal to own up to them. On that point I agree with her. And she is essentially agreeing with me, that the game was Coach's to lose. Which he did.

#41

Oholibamah

Oholibamah

    Stalker

Posted Nov 13, 2012 @ 8:18 PM

I really disagree. Kim impressed me early on.


But you said the difference between her and Boston Rob is that he dominated the game from day 1 and she didn't. My point is that Kim also dominated the game from day 1, but that she was not shown doing so because Colton was still there.

The point being, had Colton stuck around, Kim's edit would likely have remained second fiddle to how Dramatic! Crazy! Strategic! Amazing! Colton is. And suddenly the story of one of the greatest winners in the show's history is reduced to "oh yeah, her. Colton should have won, but the jury was bitter."

I watched the show too. I just didn't see what you saw.


Which is fair. I liked Sophie from early on, so I paid specific attention to her. But my point is that I shouldn't have had to do so in order to understand how and why she won. In most any other season, the editing would have done a better job of using exposition, previouslies, confessionals and storylines to explain why she won. I think Fabio and Bob are the two absolute worst winners in the show's history: but the editing gave them a story arc, got the viewers behind them, and justified their wins in the eyes of the audience.

Even something as simple as Bob building something in episode 1 or 2 endears him as a character to the audience. Fabio was shown all along to be the inoffensive, unintentionally funny and endearing doofus. Sophie and Natalie got nothing of the sort.

So where was this same due for Natalie and Sophie? I find it very hard to believe that they didn't have enough material of a bubbly salesperson and an overconfident med student who loves to talk about herself discussing their strategies and intentions to craft together a better story arc of their eventual wins. Hell, 75% of Todd's strategy was to talk about how awesome he was. And that entire 75% made it through the editing process. Fabio was shown about once an episode saying he was going to sit back and not make any enemies and then win challenges. Natalie was shown explaining her strategy once in like, episode 5.

No good vs evil theme possible, except maybe the last few days.


Obviously the two of them worked together for the majority of the season, but while Russell was "planting his seeds in the other tribe's brains", Natalie was sowing hers for the jury. I think it would have been an excellent idea to play up this "friends with everyone" v. "rotten asshole" plot. Instead, we got RussellRussellRussellRussellRussell. Had they shown Natalie more often, discussing what she was trying to do by clinging on to such an odious human being, then maybe the billions of commenters on Facebook who think Russell is the greatest player to ever live despite failing to understand the most basic concept of the game would be singing a different tune.

Obviously Sophie, Natalie and Kim are in different wheelhouses, and all of them played differently and have different personalities. But while Sophie and Natalie's winner storylines got absolutely buried by Russell, Shambo, Coach, Ozzy, and Cochrane, Kim was able to be shown in all her glory because, thankfully, the assholes all went home early.

Edited by Oholibamah, Nov 13, 2012 @ 8:20 PM.


#42

kikaha

kikaha

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 14, 2012 @ 2:30 AM

Bamah: IM(H?)O Kim, Sophie and Natalie got good edits. Neither Natalie nor Sophie ran their seasons. They did not come up with or execute the key strategies. Both won on anti-votes: anti-Coach and anti-Russell.

Lots of players in Sophie's season didn't like her. But Coach (who did run the season) came across as a hypocrite, and Sophie was the lesser evil. Even so she still almost lost, and would have had Coach simply admitted at FTC that he lied. Ozzie spelled it out, but Coach still managed to shoot himself in the head and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Everyone liked Natalie and hated Russell. So she got most of their votes, even though Russell made one staggering move after another to get his people (including Natalie) to the end.

I liked Kim early, but she was not the story then. She became the story later on. Actually, as it turned out, the key event of the season didn't involve her at all. It was when Colton convinced Sabrina to give him the HII. (Just as Coach convincing Cochran to flip was the key event of their season.) That HII turned the men's tribe upside down. Colton, who probably would have been voted out the first time the men went to tribal, used it to break up the cool guys' alliance and become king of his tribe. btw, that is probably the best use of an HII in Survivor history.

You think Kim didn't get a fair edit early on. What should they have shown that they didn't? Again, the women were falling apart those first several episodes. All the action, that determined how the rest of the game unfolded, took place among the men at that point.

Overall, there is no way I believe Survivor covers up top play, or a top player. I've never seen any evidence of that, other than a few vague complaints from someone like Sophie. I don't hear other players talking about it. Prove me wrong with some specifics, not inferences, and I will be glad to change my view.

#43

Isuzu

Isuzu

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male

Posted Nov 14, 2012 @ 8:57 AM

It's simply a visibility problem: when Natalie got only 15 confessionals in the season while Russell got more than a hundred, that is a problem. When Natalie doesn't get her first confessional until the fourth episode, that is a problem, and when most of her strategic confessionals were kept for secret scenes on the website, that is yet another problem. In fact, it's even worse, because it means that the producers knew she was great at the game but deliberately chose to hide her and promote the shit out of the troll (more than a hundred!!). As it stood, I said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again, it appears clear by watching the season and reading the interviews that Russell, Jaison, Mick and Natalie functioned much more as a foursome than as Russell and his cronies like the editing would have us believe. For once, all of them, during the season, act and talk as if they take the decisions together. It's only because Russell talks SO MUCH during the season that the hype catches on with the viewers. If you look at the boot order, Russell didn't dictate it completely: Jaison was responsible for Ben (against Russell's wishes), Erik was all Natalie, Kelly was Shambo, most of the others were obvious boots (Ashley) or pagonging, and the fact that he got convinced to boot Shambo, instead of Jaison or Natalie or Mick, even though she was the ideal goat, proved that he didn't control zilch in his alliance. They functioned the four of them together, with all three of the others knowing he would lose if he got to the end with them, which is why they never made any attempt to boot him and purposefully let him make a fool of himself. If the screen tie got equally divided between the four of them, and I would even allow more for Russell since he was a character, nobody would be having this discussion. The footages are there, on the secret scenes, they just chose not to show it. And Russell is not always scintillating: most of his confessionals were rehashing the same things over and over again. At the very least, people like Rob C. in the Amazon or Rob M. in RI, who got a ton of confessionals as well, had different things to say.

It's the same story with Sophie and Coach (though the screen time was divided between four odious people instead of one, which I should take as an improvement). As Oholibamah said, I'm pretty sure Albert, Sophie and Coach were running the show together. Even though Coach executed the strategy to swap Cochran for instance, that doesn't mean the others had no input. Take for instance the Black Widows against Erik: it was Natalie who convinced Erik to give her his necklace, but it was Cirie's idea (Amanda and Parvati were helpful in how they handled Erik bot at the beach and in the TC). It was a group effort and people tend to praise Cirie, if anyone, the most, not Natalie who executed. Who's to say that the entire plan wasn't discussed between Sophie, Coach and Albert and then Coach was send to execute it because as a returnee he had an aura the others didn't have, as much as a reputation for trying to be honorable?

Also, it's difficult for the Survivors to discuss their edits since they're not allowed to do just that I think, at least overtly. I remember Corinne trying to argue for screentime at the reunion of Gabon and Probst nipped that in the bud immediately.

#44

Oholibamah

Oholibamah

    Stalker

Posted Nov 14, 2012 @ 8:20 PM

Neither Natalie nor Sophie ran their seasons. They did not come up with or execute the key strategies. Both won on anti-votes: anti-Coach and anti-Russell.


Winning on anti-Coach and anti-Russell sentiment was exactly the key strategy that won the game. They didn't latch on to power and hope for the best like a Vecepia or a Palau Katie. They understood exactly what they were doing from very early on, and it would not have been difficult to show snippets of them discussing this strategy and giving updates along the way. Or something!

Overall, there is no way I believe Survivor covers up top play, or a top player.


Your argument seems to be that if it had been there, they would have shown it. My argument probably sounds like inferences that it absolutely WAS there and should have been shown.

The truth, like with all things, is probably somewhere in the middle: I don't think Natalie or Sophie played earth shattering games of Survivor that were "covered up". But I also don't think 15 confessionals for Natalie, or ignoring Sophie until F5 denotes a "good edit". The editing went out of its way to show us Fabio and Bob doing Fabio and Bobbish things, and they sucked at the game. Natalie and Sophie, at worst, played decent games and were barely shown.

So my question isn't "why didn't the editors show us how great Sophie and Natalie were", but rather, why didn't the editors give us enough information to make our own decisions? The editing made the decision for the audience that Natalie and Sophie won the game because Coach and Russell lost the game. That does not sit well with me. Why wasn't Nicaragua edited as Chase losing the game for himself and allowing Fabio to win on default? It was edited with even-keel, and the editing let me decide for myself who played a better game.

and I will be glad to change my view.


My goal here isn't to make you change your view, and I hope I don't come across combative. But I have found Survivor's editing techniques frustrating for many years, and always seem to find likeable people completely ignored in favor of assholes and loonies. And for me, no inferences need to be made to see that Natalie and Sophie were drowned in seasons full of "Characters" who dominated the screentime, and that this resulted in a heavyhanded narrative that downplayed their intentional and ultimately successful strategies.

#45

Yogurt Baron

Yogurt Baron

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male

Posted Nov 15, 2012 @ 12:54 AM

Oholibamah, I agree with you about the editing in SP (and Samoa), but you prove how subjective all this stuff is when you say:

They didn't latch on to power and hope for the best like a Vecepia...


To me, Vecepia is one of the very best and probably the most underrated winner. The innovations so widely credited to players like Boston Rob (be mindful of suballiances), Cesternino (flip alliances as necessary), Fairplay (get people to play the game with you by offering them something, not just by being their pal), and Cirie (play a strong enough social game to not get Pagonged when it makes sense for them to Pagong you; then be in position to do all the other stuff) were all done by Vecepia first, and much better. It's ironic that, in an argument about Sophie and Natalie being underedited, you'd take a shot at another underedited winner; really, it proves that, when the show doesn't show us what people are doing, it all comes down to guesswork. If you can see Vecepia's phenomenal last few days in the game as "hoping for the best", then it's not surprising that someone else can see Sophie and Natalie badly as well. That's editing for you!

#46

KimberStormer

KimberStormer

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female

Posted Nov 15, 2012 @ 1:05 AM

Cirie (play a strong enough social game to not get Pagonged when it makes sense for them to Pagong you; then be in position to do all the other stuff)


When did Cirie do this? Her tribe was in the majority at the merge of both Panama and Micronesia, wasn't it?

#47

Isuzu

Isuzu

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male

Posted Nov 15, 2012 @ 4:30 AM

I think Pagonging was an abuse of language, but she did do that when she convinced the others to vote for the obviously stronger Tina at the first TC, and then surviving the first boot NuCasaya went to (and which saw the end of her former tribemate Melinda, and you could say that they were Pagonging the older women, which is what Aras told her). She was less strong physically than those two, but since she had a stronger social game, she managed to survive long enough in the game to get her groove on and ingeneer proper strategies.

Also, Yogurt Baron, I culdn't agree more with your post about Vecepia.

As for the "proof" that there burying their winner, as I said, the scenes are there, on the website, when they should have been on the show. So they do, purposefully, hide some of their winners.

#48

Yogurt Baron

Yogurt Baron

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male

Posted Nov 15, 2012 @ 12:27 PM

Isuzu's right, Cirie was never in danger of getting "Pagonged" - sloppy writing on my part. But in Panama, she started on the outside of the dominant alliance within her tribe, and then managed to work her way into it. That's what I meant.

#49

Oholibamah

Oholibamah

    Stalker

Posted Nov 15, 2012 @ 9:41 PM

To me, Vecepia is one of the very best and probably the most underrated winner.


I give Vecepia tons of props for her strategy, and didn't intend for it to come across as a knock on her. But her strategy was very fluid. She went with where the power was, and rightfully so. But she is valuable in drawing a comparison to Sophie and Natalie, who did the opposite of "just go with the flow". They had a very set plan from the beginning, which was to make the goat think they're calling the shots and doing THEM a favor, when the opposite is true. I don't think Vee backed into her win, because understanding the writing on the wall and going with the majority is difficult. But Sophie/Natalie didn't back into their wins, either, because it was no accident who they beat at the end.

#50

kikaha

kikaha

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 16, 2012 @ 3:43 AM

But Sophie/Natalie didn't back into their wins, either, because it was no accident who they beat at the end.


Once again, Sophie says Coach would have won if, at FTC, he simply had owned up to his lies. That tells your right there Coach had the votes. He screwed up at the last second. That is why Sophie won, and she had zero control over that.

More generally, Sophie's fate was in Coach's hands. At several key points during the season, including the very end. In this game, where anything can happen and alliances can bust apart in seconds, that is not a good strategy. Just like it's not good strategy to count on someone else's screw-up.

Natalie made merge down four to eight. Should have been a death sentence, and would have, except for Russell. That was not great planning, or management, on Natalie's part. She was damn lucky she wasn't an early jury member. She got to the end only because of Russell. IMO Natalie and Amber are textbook cases of bitter juries. I add Sandra in HvV to the club.

#51

Isuzu

Isuzu

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male

Posted Nov 16, 2012 @ 4:21 AM

Natalie made merge down four to eight. Should have been a death sentence, and would have, except for Russell.


No, since it was actually Natalie who first break up Galu by managing to convince Laura and co to boot Erik. Russell had no input on that at all and was shocked that it worked. They got Kelly with the rebound of Russell's idol, then Russell managed to convince John to switch and after that it was a pagonging to the end. They were both equally deserving strategically speaking, and Natalie trounced Russell on the social side. Who knew that getting to know the other players and being nice to them would work better than condescending to them, insulting them and generally being rude and mean to them? Russell was robbed you guys! Although he was not, since it was clear during the jury phase that they were voting for Natalie instead of against Russell.

More generally, Sophie's fate was in Coach's hands. At several key points during the season, including the very end. In this game, where anything can happen and alliances can bust apart in seconds, that is not a good strategy. Just like it's not good strategy to count on someone else's screw-up.


What? Being able to rely enough on the other member of an alliance you were a founding member of to get to the end is exactly what Survivor is, and Sophie was obviously great at this because even though she was obviously a much bigger threat to Coach than anyone of Edna, Rick and Brandon, she outlasted them all by convincing Coach they were the threats and she was not.
I mean, by your standards, Parvati or Rob M. or Richard or Earl( or pretty much everyone who didn't win a ton of IC (and Sophie won 3) or an overpowered idol) depended so much on their alliance and were vulnerable so many times, it's obvious they didn't deserve to win. Thank god we have Fabio, who got to the end without any alliance whatsoever but on a string of IC wins and won thanks to his goofy smile. Best winner ever.

Edited by Isuzu, Nov 16, 2012 @ 4:23 AM.


#52

kikaha

kikaha

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 16, 2012 @ 8:23 AM

Natalie made the one key move. After that it was all Russell. Without him, I think there's no way she gets there. To call it an equal effort overstates Natalie's contribution by a factor of around ten.

Sophie didn't just rely on her alliance. She relied on Coach. He could have had her voted her out any number of times. (The opposite was not true.)

Bamah above called Coach a goat. How can that be, when according to the alleged strategist herself, he had the lead going into the last moments of the game?

#53

Isuzu

Isuzu

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male

Posted Nov 16, 2012 @ 9:04 AM

Natalie made the one key move. After that it was all Russell. Without him, I think there's no way she gets there. To call it an equal effort overstates Natalie's contribution by a factor of around ten.


But without her, there's no way he gets there either. She made the key move in the season, because if Erik hadn't come home that time, it would have been Jaison (they suspected Russell had an idol and Erik and Shambo voted for him). So they would have been the three of them. Even if they still had managed to bounce Kelly at the next TC, and managed to still attract Shambo to their saide (which was less garanteed since, even though she liked Russell better, she also joined a group that could at least make a tie against Laura, it wouldn't have been the case in that situation and she didn't join them until she was sure to have the advantage) they still would be going 4 against 6 and since the only reason John switched his vote was because he was afraid of the tie, Natalie would have gone home, and then probably Russell and Mick in any order. She saved all of their asses as much as he saved hers later. And again, I disagree that it was all Russell. If he was really calling the shots he could have convinced at least one of Natalie/Mick/Jaison to vote with Shambo, Brett and himself to take one of the ex Foa Foa out. I know it probably never entered his pea brain, but the Shambo and Mick combination was probably the only where he could win (and even then I think Mick could have taken it), and he blew it. If I remember, he talked numerously in confessionals around those times that he wanted to blindside Jaison or Natalie or Mick and then it never panned out because he could (probably) never get the numbers.

Sophie didn't just rely on her alliance. She relied on Coach. He could have had her voted her out any number of times. (The opposite was not true.)


Aside from the obvious that he didn't do it and thus she was correct in assessing her alliance, and the other obvious that most of the other winners at several points in their game trusted their alliance to not send them home, I still don't know how you can say that the opposite isn't true. Albert and Sophie could have certainly grabbed Edna and Rick or whoever and made tons of move against Coach at any moment in the game. They didn't because they had an alliance with Coach and Coach had an alliance with them. I mean, take for instance Richard in Borneo: at F4, he made the decision to trust Rudy not to join with the women and vote him out to avoid the tie. Rudy could have voted him out but he didn't because they were close allies, much like Sophie and Coach (and Albert) were. Again, making alliances you can rely on is the essence of the game since the beginning.

Bamah above called Coach a goat. How can that be, when according to the alleged strategist herself, he had the lead going into the last moments of the game?



Sophie can say it, but I'm not sure I'm believing it. I think the only way Coach would have won was to admit to all of his bullshit at the F4 TC, to leave the jurors time to coordinate their vote (which they always do, which is why Amanda is still the only third place finisher in a F3 to ever receive 1 vote). I find it hard to believe that they would coordinate their votes so that they would vote for Sophie and for Coach if he admitted to his BS. He simply had burned way too many bridges with the religious hypocrisy, and I wonder if there wasn't also a strong anti returning player (not named Ozzy) in play as well (notably emanating from Jim). I mean, I find it hard to believe that people like Dawn, Whitney or especially Brandon would vote for Coach once he told them that he was only joking with all the religious talk. I mean, he lost 3 to 6, so he would have had to gain at least two votes (already dubious) without losing any (and Rick, as a mormon, might not have been too peachy about it and changed his vote). I think what happened is that everyone started changing their tunes, as it always happens, once they saw the season play out and saw what the edit was selling to try to appear to be the bigger person and say that of course they would have voted the one the edit presented as the main character of the story (they also had all the time to peruse the internet, the press and to consult ith friends, family and strangers).

Edited by Isuzu, Nov 16, 2012 @ 9:11 AM.


#54

Oholibamah

Oholibamah

    Stalker

Posted Nov 16, 2012 @ 6:45 PM

Bamah above called Coach a goat. How can that be, when according to the alleged strategist herself, he had the lead going into the last moments of the game?


He played a great game and Sophie recognizes that. But anyone could have told you from watching Tocantins and HvV that Coach would blow a FTC. It's written all over everything he does. He slits people's throats and justifies it on thin rationalizations, all the while chirping about how honorable and "Dragon Slaying" he is. This is why I say Coach is a goat and why I don't think it's any accident Sophie planned on sitting next to him at the end.

After that it was all Russell. Without him, I think there's no way she gets there.


Russell made some great moves to advance his alliance, which I don't begrudge him. But without Natalie, Russell is absolute toast. Without Russell, Natalie has alternate routes thanks to the bonds she made with Galu. I wouldn't have been in the least bit surprised to see a Laura/Brett/Natalie/Kelly/Monica alliance take form, with Brett/Laura/Natalie as the majority and very possible F3. Without Natalie's move at F12 and her voting with him to use him as a goat, Russell's game is finished. He put too many eggs in one basket.

#55

kikaha

kikaha

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 17, 2012 @ 8:05 AM

Isuzu, Brandon said in an interview, "I would have voted for Coach. He had that money in his hand, all he had to do was say, 'You know what, I'm sorry for what I did'."

Ozzie told Coach the same basic thing at FTC. He said it was Coach's vote to win or lose: Coach just had to tell the truth.

Those two votes give Coach the win. Both said all he had to do was tell the truth at the end. Both voted for Sophie out of bitterness against Coach.

Seems to me a textbook case of bitter jury syndrome.

Albert and Sophie could have certainly grabbed Edna and Rick or whoever and made tons of move against Coach at any moment in the game.


Maybe. That's a lot easier said than done. I think they all knew Coach was the glue who held together the alliance. Without him, they all fall apart. I don't recall Coach ever being in much trouble: this is the reason why. The others, as a group, wanted and needed him there.

IMO Coach was similar to his tribe what Boston Rob was to his the season before. Styles were not the same, or the degree of control. But both held their groups together.

The main difference is that Rob played with a bunch of sheep, and Coach played with some outstanding players.

#56

Oholibamah

Oholibamah

    Stalker

Posted Nov 17, 2012 @ 8:24 PM

I don't recall Coach ever being in much trouble: this is the reason why. The others, as a group, wanted and needed him there.


Nor was Russell, and it wasn't because of their strong grip on the game: it's because, why would you vote out a sure thing? Of course Coach could have won had he apologized, but that's a massive if. I cannot even fathom Coach apologizing for something. Not in a million years. It'd be the same as Russell yelling Punk! at the FTC and saying it was all just an elaborate act. It just isn't part of their game, and I truly think Sophie understood that about Coach.

#57

Yogurt Baron

Yogurt Baron

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male

Posted Nov 17, 2012 @ 8:41 PM

Of course Coach could have won had he apologized, but that's a massive if. I cannot even fathom Coach apologizing for something. Not in a million years. It'd be the same as Russell yelling Punk! at the FTC and saying it was all just an elaborate act. It just isn't part of their game, and I truly think Sophie understood that about Coach.


And so do you, and so do I, and so does literally everybody who's seen five seconds of any of the three seasons that have been "Coach explains his tiresome Philosophy of Survivor; some other people are also there." This is what ruins returnees-vs.-newbies seasons for me - understanding the likes of Coach is not much of an accomplishment. And that reflects on the season, not on Sophie. From my perspective, any new player who beats a returnee hasn't accomplished much...meaning that, for viewers like me, literally no one on South Pacific could possibly have been a good player. It's a tough curve.

#58

kikaha

kikaha

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 18, 2012 @ 3:06 AM

Bamah: there's no way Sophie knew ahead of time that Ozzie and Brandon would base their vote on that one single question. It's impossible to know what questions the jurors will ask. It's impossible to know how the finalists will answer those questions, in that situation, with the Survivor title and money on the line. No one can predict the future that well.

Totally unrelated, general question. When the players leave their camp to tribal, it's day time. When they walk into tribal, it's night. How long does it take to get there? Do they stop anywhere along the way?

#59

Isuzu

Isuzu

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male

Posted Nov 18, 2012 @ 6:08 AM

Kikaha: Like I said a few posts earlier, everything that is said in interviews or at the reunion, meaning after the jurors have had a chance to see the season, discuss it between themselves, their friends, their familes and the fans, is to be taken with caution, especially when we talk about winner votes. In so far, I have a real hard time believing that the hurt and betrayed Brandon we saw at the FTC would have voted for Coach, especially if he had admitted ot make a mockery of his religion (and admitting that could have lost him the vote of Rick). But I do believe that months after he could have rationalized his loss into a nice narrative where, if only Coach had admitted his faults, he would have given him hiw vote.

I'm slightly more inclined to believe Ozzy, though it's still doubtful because pretty much anyone knew that Coach would be too chicken shit to own to anything, which is why Sophie pounced on that and took credit for everything. She knew Coach would be trying to play the honor card to his grave, not realizing (though it was obvious) that he was trying to rearrange the chairs of the Titanic. So Ozzy knew he could be playing all magnanimous and get away with it without actually having to keep his word. I mean, Ozzy is the same guy that gave that ridonkulously obnoxious speech at the Micronesia FTC...

Bamah: there's no way Sophie knew ahead of time that Ozzie and Brandon would base their vote on that one single question. It's impossible to know what questions the jurors will ask. It's impossible to know how the finalists will answer those questions, in that situation, with the Survivor title and money on the line. No one can predict the future that well.


See above: she didn't have to know that well what would happen, but she knew that Coach wouldn't own anything and try to hide behind his usual dragon-slaying, prayer-circling, honor BS. And she was right. And it got her the win. Anybody who had seen Coach play once, let alone two, would know that. It's a wonder Coach himself, though ameliored in his third outing, didn't.

Coach played with some outstanding players.


Yep, though I don't know about the plural there ;-p

When the players leave their camp to tribal, it's day time. When they walk into tribal, it's night. How long does it take to get there? Do they stop anywhere along the way?


It depends, but sometimes they have to get into cars to get to TC (It was said in one of the recent seasons). So it can be far away, but I don't know if that's always the case.

Edited by Isuzu, Nov 18, 2012 @ 6:09 AM.


#60

kikaha

kikaha

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 18, 2012 @ 8:01 AM

Isuzu, I agree with you in taking events/claims outside the game with a grain of salt. In this case, though, what they said after the game lined up with what I saw inside the game. I saw Coach almost in a father-son relationship with Brandon. I saw Ozzie disgusted with Sophie, begging Coach at FTC to clear the air so he could vote for him.