-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Survivor 32: Kaôh Rng |OT| Anything that can Kaôh Rng, will.
- Thread starter Grexeno
- Start date
For me, it's because they are perceived as the loudest and most persuasive.
This is my issue with you. I know your bury yourself into the edgic shit, then you bring it in here and discuss it to the point of it basically being a veiled spoiler. I try and avoid that talk on Reddit so to see it so prominently in here is very frustrating.
Just be more aware of it in the future because it makes it harder to enjoy a season.
I don't think they 'botched' the editing either. I just think it was edited in quite an unedifying way for Michele and I think it's clear production weren't happy with the winner. (Evidenced by Jeff's feelings all season).
They like the good players winning, the ones that make big strategic moves. Michele didn't make a single one, and I think production hates this sort of winner. I don't think it's some mass conspiracy or whatever, they just did not hide their irritation at the way things played out.
If you can name me a worse winner's narrative since Natalie White, I'm all ears.
Michele got the technical winner's edit in terms of confessionals and screen time, but she did not get a winner's narrative.
I mean that ending was really disappointing.
Think this is bad? You should check Dalton's comments section or Facebook.
BoboBrazil
Member
Bitter jury strikes again.
The Last Wizard
Member
Yea, it's kind of weird. I guess I'm not that vested since this is my first time watching since season 20 I think.
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
You're not kidding. The comment's section on Dalton's post is crazy. Even Natalie White's win didn't have casual fans this pissed.
Yeah. People saying that was worse are crazy- the show made it clear he was a jackass to live with.
FWIW, I think you're dead on with your posts... Sure some Survivor Nostradomuses read the tea leaves and supposedly saw Michelle happening, but the average viewer is alienated by this outcome... less because it's Michelle who's pretty likeable and played a perfectly fine game than because the edit actively worked against explaining why/how she would win the jury over.
The bitterness of the jury pales in comparison.
How did Michelle win if she was such a terrible game player then? Hell, how did she even make it to the end? She obviously did enough to make it and eventually win. Just because you don't personally like the way she played doesn't mean she didn't deserve it.
You say that like it's impossible for an undeserving player to win. It's happened before and it'll happen again.
I know I'm just a casual fan who apparently didn't see this coming a mile away, but I'm with the others who say she won due to a bitter bunch of douchebags on the jury. Michelle was a tag-along who made almost no big plays.
Agreed. While I was rooting for tai. At end Aubrey deserved the win.
In North America, is there an actual accepted end and beginning of these generations?
I ask because here in Australia Generation X ends as early as 1975, and sometimes 1982!
So, Millennials/Gen Y could be 1976-1983 birth years...and in S33, it's probable that there'll be multiple people born in this period which can only further highlight how dumb this theme is.
It should be Baby Boomer vs Gen Y, but then you'd get too many FBI Joes lol
Michelle is in the bottom half of all survivor players and I'd probably place her somewhere in the top 5 worst winners as well. That being said, the season was so terrible that I was not at all shocked at the outcome. I'm glad it's over and we can all forget about this dumpster fire of a season.
And about the winners edit this season (putting on my tin foil hat) I think it tried to highlight why Aubrey should of won? Producers throwing in the voting off a jury member was insanely random and maybe it was to ensure Aubrey made FTC? I mean let's be honest, the producers didn't really show any compelling footage from Michelle all season to justify her winning. Just listen to the questions Jeff had to ask her during the reunion show and the fact he literally bolted at the end while ignoring Michelle and it's quite revealing what he thought about this season.
And about the winners edit this season (putting on my tin foil hat) I think it tried to highlight why Aubrey should of won? Producers throwing in the voting off a jury member was insanely random and maybe it was to ensure Aubrey made FTC? I mean let's be honest, the producers didn't really show any compelling footage from Michelle all season to justify her winning. Just listen to the questions Jeff had to ask her during the reunion show and the fact he literally bolted at the end while ignoring Michelle and it's quite revealing what he thought about this season.
It happens plenty of times. A lot of times, it's luck. Aubry was gunning for her till she won immunity. If Joe didn't get Medvac the week before, she would have been the odd one out that time.
All 5 people that voted for her, where outested by Aubry, while Michelle was just a bystander. It's not a terrible game she played, but simply the Jury was more pissed at Aubry than anything else. A few lucky strokes to survive and she did it.
People putting Michelle as one of the worst ever should realize that it makes Aubrey worse, lol. The prospect of managing the jury isn't new and bitter jury members aren't new either. But lets pretend that the real winner here is Aubrey as she became a butterfly while others became a moth 
People putting Michelle as one of the worst ever should realize that it makes Aubrey worse, lol. The prospect of managing the jury isn't new and bitter jury members aren't new either. But lets pretend that the real winner here is Aubrey as she became a butterfly while others became a moth
Aubrey isn't much better either. The entire cast is in the bottom half of all survivor players. Aubrey was clicking buttons just as much as Michelle is a bad player. Ana was really the only one I thought was a decent player and unfortunately she got dealt a bad hand post tribal swap.
Well, the qualities of a "deserving" winner varies each season and is ultimately up the jury. To win Survivor you need to make sure a majority of the people on the jury respect the way you played the game more than the other finalists. Aubry failed to do that and didn't build strong enough relationships with enough players. Michelle is the only one of the Final 6 that had a chance of beating Aubry and she failed to take her out.
I love how all of a sudden the entire season is terrible just because some are pissed off at the end. All season all I heard was how awesome it was excluding the medical issues and now it's one of the worst of all time.
Nah, you should blame Aubry.
thecouncil
Banned
Aubry was aiming to be one of the best Survivor players of all time but you can't be one of those if you lose. Haha. Sorry.
Why do people think this? I liked her.
Why do people think this? I liked her.
It's subjective. I just didn't like her. Credit to her for winning the final challenge though. And for not going with Aubry's suggestion to vote out Scot from the jury.
Joeys_Rattata
Neo Member
Kind of related and unrelated at the same time, but I need to get this off my chest.
I just have to say, I feel like if most of you guys ever played, you would be so focused on idols and blindsides and numbers that you would forget that Survivor isn't about blindsides and idols and numbers.
You'd get the end, just like Spencer and Russell, and then lose in a landslide because you would have been so focused on big moves to build your resume, that you would have forgotten that Survivor at its core is a game about social connections.
That's what bothers me about most modern Survivor seasons. Production and the players put such a large focus on having a resume at the end, making big moves, finding idols, etc., that Survivor has gotten away from what it really is about. And then when you get winners who understand what Survivor is really about (Natalie W., Sophie, Denise, Michele), people are upset because the person with the flashiest game didn't win.
It's why I cherish seasons like San Juan Del Sur and Nicaragua. The cast in those seasons didn't care about idols and blindsides. They played social games. We got to see all of the social connections in Nicaragua and SJDS. EVERYTHING in those seasons was fueled by who was close to whom, who's my best bet to take to the end, who's loyal to whom, who's my friend out here?
It wasn't about "Who has an idol?" or "Wow, they pulled off a great blindside, gotta get rid of them due to their resume!" or "I have to make a BIG MOVE to prove myself worthy to the jury."
And yet because the show is so focused on blindsides and idols now, those seasons get called full of people who didn't play the game, even though if they played in the original seasons, they would be called a great player. Jaclyn Schultz and Chase Rice are really the two biggest examples of that. People who, by the modern Survivor audience, are horrible players, but put them in any season from 1 to 10, and they'd be viewed as great runner ups and legitimate threats.
Michele is just the most recent casualty of the modern Survivor audience loathing people who play social games instead of the hardcore strategic games. Put her on an original season and she'd shine.
I honestly miss the days where playing an emotionless, cut throat game was viewed as a negative by both production and the audience, and everyone realized those people could only win by someone on the jury spreading lies about the runner up (Looking at you Brian (and Helen spreading lies about Clay to Ted out of spite))
But now it's like, if Marquesas aired today, everyone would be in uproar about Vee beating Neleh because Neleh is the one who made Paschal flip on the Rotu 4, even though Vee played the better social game.
I just have to say, I feel like if most of you guys ever played, you would be so focused on idols and blindsides and numbers that you would forget that Survivor isn't about blindsides and idols and numbers.
You'd get the end, just like Spencer and Russell, and then lose in a landslide because you would have been so focused on big moves to build your resume, that you would have forgotten that Survivor at its core is a game about social connections.
That's what bothers me about most modern Survivor seasons. Production and the players put such a large focus on having a resume at the end, making big moves, finding idols, etc., that Survivor has gotten away from what it really is about. And then when you get winners who understand what Survivor is really about (Natalie W., Sophie, Denise, Michele), people are upset because the person with the flashiest game didn't win.
It's why I cherish seasons like San Juan Del Sur and Nicaragua. The cast in those seasons didn't care about idols and blindsides. They played social games. We got to see all of the social connections in Nicaragua and SJDS. EVERYTHING in those seasons was fueled by who was close to whom, who's my best bet to take to the end, who's loyal to whom, who's my friend out here?
It wasn't about "Who has an idol?" or "Wow, they pulled off a great blindside, gotta get rid of them due to their resume!" or "I have to make a BIG MOVE to prove myself worthy to the jury."
And yet because the show is so focused on blindsides and idols now, those seasons get called full of people who didn't play the game, even though if they played in the original seasons, they would be called a great player. Jaclyn Schultz and Chase Rice are really the two biggest examples of that. People who, by the modern Survivor audience, are horrible players, but put them in any season from 1 to 10, and they'd be viewed as great runner ups and legitimate threats.
Michele is just the most recent casualty of the modern Survivor audience loathing people who play social games instead of the hardcore strategic games. Put her on an original season and she'd shine.
I honestly miss the days where playing an emotionless, cut throat game was viewed as a negative by both production and the audience, and everyone realized those people could only win by someone on the jury spreading lies about the runner up (Looking at you Brian (and Helen spreading lies about Clay to Ted out of spite))
But now it's like, if Marquesas aired today, everyone would be in uproar about Vee beating Neleh because Neleh is the one who made Paschal flip on the Rotu 4, even though Vee played the better social game.
San Juan Del Sur was won by one of the most dominant strategic players the game has ever seen tho? Jaclyn also had killer instincts and would have done even better without Jon.
Vee won at FTC because Neleh choked.
This whole retroactive "the winner is the best player and the winner is the most worthy because they won" axiomatic crap is total BS. Bad players win, and some juries are full of bitter assholes. Not many, but some.
Vee won at FTC because Neleh choked.
This whole retroactive "the winner is the best player and the winner is the most worthy because they won" axiomatic crap is total BS. Bad players win, and some juries are full of bitter assholes. Not many, but some.
Joeys_Rattata
Neo Member
And Borneo was won by one of the most strategically dominant people to ever play the game.
Doesn't mean Borneo was all about building resumes and having huge blindsides. Richard didn't win because he formed the original alliance, he won because Kelly was bad at the social game. Susan's rats and snakes speech is famous because of that.
Natalie may have played a great strategic game, but she was extremely well liked. She took out Jon because Jon was extremely well liked too, not because he had some amazing resume full of blindsides and big moves. She took out Baylor because she wanted Missy with her 100%, which was up in the air with Baylor still in the game.
Every strategy Natalie pulled off was about who was more likable than me, how can I guarantee that my allies are closest to me and not someone else? It wasn't for the sake of building some imaginary resume to prove her worth to the jury.
But people act like Aubry should have won because she had a better resume. Again, no one on the jury actually cares about that. It's baffling to watch people, both viewers and players, talk about building some resume when the jury has shown time and time again that they don't care how many big moves you made, they care about how close your connection was with them and how well you nurtured that connection.
Doesn't mean Borneo was all about building resumes and having huge blindsides. Richard didn't win because he formed the original alliance, he won because Kelly was bad at the social game. Susan's rats and snakes speech is famous because of that.
Natalie may have played a great strategic game, but she was extremely well liked. She took out Jon because Jon was extremely well liked too, not because he had some amazing resume full of blindsides and big moves. She took out Baylor because she wanted Missy with her 100%, which was up in the air with Baylor still in the game.
Every strategy Natalie pulled off was about who was more likable than me, how can I guarantee that my allies are closest to me and not someone else? It wasn't for the sake of building some imaginary resume to prove her worth to the jury.
But people act like Aubry should have won because she had a better resume. Again, no one on the jury actually cares about that. It's baffling to watch people, both viewers and players, talk about building some resume when the jury has shown time and time again that they don't care how many big moves you made, they care about how close your connection was with them and how well you nurtured that connection.
And juries in Survivor are arbitrary, and it's incredibly unfair to blame a player for getting stuck with people (through no fault of their own) who are closeminded assholes turning ponderosa into a nightmare.
There's no set condition for winning, just "get the most votes". That's part of what makes it interesting, but thats part of why 32 seasons in, we get a passive lump of a player winning the game.
There's no set condition for winning, just "get the most votes". That's part of what makes it interesting, but thats part of why 32 seasons in, we get a passive lump of a player winning the game.
jstevenson
Sailor Stevenson
I'd kill for Baby Boomer v Gen X v Millenials.
I love some of the older more seasoned folks on Survivor. Maybe it's bias that dates back to Rudy, but they can be terrific (well except for Joe... what a turd)
yup.
I'm '84 and a very very different breed than Millennial. The 80s kids really are a cross of Gen X / Millennial.
All of a sudden? It has nothing to do with the end result. None of the players this season were very good. Period. Throw in the three medical evacuations and this season is a complete mess. I mean JOE, quite possibly the most useless player in survivor history managed to make top 5 and had to get evacuated because he couldn't take a god damn piss. That episode was honestly the worst hour of survivor I've ever watched.
Tai had no idea what he was doing half the time and failed to take advantage of his immunity idol and extra vote. The super idol bullshit wasn't even used and someone got voted out while holding an idol. I think that's pretty telling on the quality of player's this season no?
edit: putting Michele in the same sentence as Natalie, Denise and Sophie is laughable and is a huge insult to the type of game those three played. Her game was nothing like theirs WTF. Those three controlled the game both strategically and socially at one point or another. Michelle's claim to victory was basically to not do anything and she had a good relationship with the jury.. It won her the game yes. good player? no.
It is true what you say about the social game and votes often just coming down to who they like more or who they were closer to.
The problem with your argument is that the show does not emphasize those elements any more. The show caters to gamebot strategy and analysis and finishes each episode with a 10-15 minute discussion of the numbers and the potential scenarios down the line. They choose to fill the episode with Aubry and Cydney making decisions, rather than Michele making social bonds. So it is somewhat expected, given what Survivor emphasizes these days, that people find the ending kinda inexplicable. I would blame the show before I would blame the fans.
Looking back on it, I think the biggest problem they did was botching the Jason and Scot stuff with Aubry. If Aubry has Russell-esque problems with her game (although smaller ones than Russell), they have to give small hints toward it. Nothing major, but just stuff where we can understand why Michele is a good social gamer. The way it was done, we just kinda have to assume she is.
I hardly posted here all season. I veiled whom I thought was winning a few weeks ago. I got into trouble for that. By you, I think. I apologise.
However, people since the merge (the infamous 'Oregon Trail' confessional) were saying:
AUBRY HAS THE WINNER EDIT
LMAO AUBRY IS WINNING LOLOL
SHUT IT DOWN AUBRY WINS
So the other side of the argument is just as guilty of "spoiling who wins" and talking about the winner's edit. They just happened to be wrong. I also stayed mostly silent. My guess is just an educated guess though, I could easily have been wrong. (And I was certainly not spoiled.)
Then last week again people were going on about Aubry definitely getting the winner's edit, so I finally engaged in a long discussion about the winner's edit with other people who were talking about it first. Don't accuse me.
---
You guys can't have it both ways. You can't discuss the winner's edit while demanding that anyone who is correct stays silent.
So if anything we need to institute a policy of not discussing the winner's edit. You can talk about who you'd like to win. Maybe you liked Aubry's confessional, and maybe you hoped Aubry would win. But you can't say "she's definitely winning because of this confessional, or that confessional".
I though the season was good. I though the entire final four was good and each could make different cases for the win. Unfortunately people continue overstating the importance of strategic moves - the best strategic move a person could make is going to the end with one/two players more hated by the jury than themselves. So unless your moves are geared towards taking such goats to the end usually other moves don't really pay off(unless you are Tony and Woo literally hands you a million dollars by taking you to the end).
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
Agreed.
I have no problem with social players beating strategic players. If the jury just liked Michele more, then Michele won on that merit.
But I have a real problem with the way the show was portrayed. If Aubry had a bad social game, why didn't we see that? We saw Aubry using amazing social moves on Tai, forging a tight bond and making him feel comfortable. We saw her having a tight bond with Cydney and other players. We saw Michele bonding with Tai, too, and with Julia a bit, but not much more.
If the story was that Aubry lost because she alienated people, then I'd like to see that shown by the editors (and even if it seems like it was just Jason and Scot being bitter about her connection to Cydney, there surely must have been comments they made at FTC that could have been included to carry this notion). If the story was that Michele was a Kim or Sandra type player who was loved by everyone on the jury, then show her forging relationships with Scot and Jason and the rest of them during the game. Don't just include two scenes late in the game with people saying "hey, Michele hasn't really upset anyone on the jury".
As it stands, it seems like the story the editors were showing wasn't either of those, but "Aubry should have won, but the worst jury ever got it wrong", and that's just not a satisfying story to tell. There's a reason there has been such a negative reaction to the finale across all corners of internet.
Dr_Boris_Goltz
Banned
This is a game where key decisions are made by other players... I would hope there's a disappointing ending occasionally or the game would seem rigged or overly produced.
That said I only found out Michele was a disappointing winner after coming here.
That said I only found out Michele was a disappointing winner after coming here.
Well, as I have said several times, I'm team "no edit talk", because I found it really uninteresting taking this game and oversimplyfy it with exhaustive analysis of things outside of the game and then try it to justify it with things that happen in the game, when it should be the other way around; getting to the winner by looking first at the social interaction and strategic moves and trying to make sense of the path to getting there and jury support.
RepairmanJack
Member
That's what kind of led most the thread being angry with the winner though...
Also people only seem to be angry with the edit talk when it ended up being right. During the entire finale all anyone was talking about was Aubry had the winners edit the entire game and people were fooled by Michelle's edit, then she won and everyone was angry.
Kind of hard to talk about survivor without talking about the edit to some degree because we are watching what the edit shows us. We can't accurately look at plays and moves to that much scrutiny because unless it has a hand in the story that is being shown it probably isn't being shown.
I personally agree. I think edit talk does spoil the show, at least for some people.
I personally cannot avoid analysing it though. I've seen behind the curtain, so to speak, and can't help but notice the manipulation being used by the editors. So I'll definitely try and refrain from discussing it in future no matter the temptation.
I just hope other people follow suit, even those who think they know what they're talking about but don't.
I think the biggest issue is that the winner this season was not obvious to the casual viewer. For the last couple of seasons, the winner was more in-your-face, so winner's edit talk sort of blended in innocently with everyone else's experience. So when this season comes along and people are saying Michele is winning after a string of three Under-The-Radar episodes, people go "huh?" and it spoils the surprise ultimately.
I think we all need to come to some sort of agreement about winner's edit discussion.
Maybe I didn't explain myself correctly. I honestly don't care about people being angry. I want people analysing the show for what it is. That's why I don't count confessionals, read post game interviews or whatever the hell Jeff has to say.
For example, I thought Aubry was going to win this, but not because, "oh, look at this random confessional", but because I thought she was going to have more jury votes, from the vibes I was getting from the cast interactions. I'm not angry at all at Michele winning, maybe a bit disappointed.
But people put way too much weight at the winner to determine if they like a season.
RepairmanJack
Member
It's just dumb to make a distinction between the edit that a casual viewer can see and one who can ignore favoritism to tell the same thing. Everyone was perfectly fine with people declaring Aubry the winner because she was easy to like and she was playing a good game. The only time people were pissed about calling out a winners edit was when she didn't win. There were even people coming in after the finale and calling bullshit on winner's edit because Aubry lost. Because people were so sold on her winning they were pissed it deceived them.
People are only pissed about edit talk because it screwed them over. No one cared about calling out Mike, Tony, Jeremy, Natalie and all these other winners. People are only mad because they aren't happy with the winner.
What I'm saying though is that you can't really go too heavily into analysing the moves and the feelings because we are only getting what the show wants to show us. We didn't get to see why the jury voted against Aubry because it seems like the editors and producers didn't give a fuck. So what merit was there in evaluating the moves all too deaply when we are being fed an incencere portion of what is happening. You also fall down the rabbit whole of fandom and favorites when it comes to looking at just what we see.
I just don't think the show can be very well talked about unless you take into account both what we're shown and what the edit is showing us. It's really the only way you can get the most accurate aspect of the show.
If you didn't pay attention to the edit would people have even been talking about Michelle until the last couple episodes?
People are only pissed about edit talk because it screwed them over. No one cared about calling out Mike, Tony, Jeremy, Natalie and all these other winners. People are only mad because they aren't happy with the winner.
What I'm saying though is that you can't really go too heavily into analysing the moves and the feelings because we are only getting what the show wants to show us. We didn't get to see why the jury voted against Aubry because it seems like the editors and producers didn't give a fuck. So what merit was there in evaluating the moves all too deaply when we are being fed an incencere portion of what is happening. You also fall down the rabbit whole of fandom and favorites when it comes to looking at just what we see.
I just don't think the show can be very well talked about unless you take into account both what we're shown and what the edit is showing us. It's really the only way you can get the most accurate aspect of the show.
If you didn't pay attention to the edit would people have even been talking about Michelle until the last couple episodes?
Yeah, that and spoilers (even when they're more hinted than conclusive). Even if you're not personally spoiled, people who are can influence how the show is discussed. I like to see what the spoilers were after the season to see how they may have shaped the conversation.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked