Todd and Survivor: China, Lessons learned

Alright, so China has wrapped up, and Edgic was confused throughout the season, settling on the wrong person as their winner pick. Ignoring all of the talk of spoiler influence and whatnot, the Edgic speculators must have done something wrong, because Todd did not get the majority of the winner support when he ultimately should have. Now, I was one of the ones declaring him our distraction and I was one of the ones to first build a case for Amanda. So I'm particularly interested in figuring out what it was that should have told us why Todd was our winner and why Amanda was not. And I think I've reached a conclusion.

In Survivor, there are two types of winners. Over the years, Edgic has been trying to tell us there is only one real type, but that's just not true. The personalities of the winners have varied too much, and the only thing more important to the editors than giving us a satisfying winner is giving us lots of drama and entertainment. And if that means showing our winner's crazy side, they'll do it. And if that means focusing less on our winner and more on the more over-the-top characters, they'll do it. And that's why there's no one type of winning edit. Because no matter what the editors might want, they'll never be able to make Danni or Amber or Aras or Vecepia into some big, enjoyable personality. The material just isn't there, and if they spent time trying to manufacture it, they'd be shying away from characters like Stephenie or Rob or Cirie or Kathy.

The editors won't do that. Sometimes, they hit gold, and they get a winner that they can turn into a great character. Sometimes, they get their Todd, or their Rich, or their Brian. And when they do, they will edit the winner differently. That's just unavoidable. And that's why we can't say there's one way for the winner to be edited, and one way only. That's not the truth.

In China, we decided that our winner must have been one of the former types, the quiet, reserved ones. And we picked Amanda, deeming everyone else to be the distraction. It seemed to mimic the edit of a season like Guatemala or ASS or Marquesas. It seemed to fit.

But it didn't. We made a mistake. And I think I know why.

In a season where the quiet, reserved personality wins, our distractions are presented to us differently than Todd was. Right off the bat, we see the hurdles our distractions have to overcome. And our winners are just...there. Because early on, the show's not about those types of winners. If it was, you'd get some bored viewers. No, the editors are going to capitalize on the better characters, so they make sure to tell us who those big characters are, and what big story line they're going to have.

In Exile Island, we didn't find out much about Aras early on. But Cirie was a different story. We knew who Cirie was. Cirie was our distraction. Because right off the bat, we knew that Cirie had a big hurdle to overcome. Cirie had to stop living in fear, and she had to come out of her shell and kick ass. She had to stop being afraid of leaves and stop being afraid of Survivor, and she had to triumph.
As the season progressed, Cirie did just that. And as we got to the end game, we saw more and more Aras, and just as much Cirie. We had Aras being built up as the winner, and Cirie's story line was done. Cirie had her transformation, she had her character arc, and we knew from that that she couldn't win. Aras was our winner, as boring as he was, because Aras emerged as the season progressed, as the editors started getting time to give him a real story line.

In Marquesas, we didn't find out much about Vecepia early on. But Kathy - oh, we all knew Kathy. Kathy was crazy. Kathy didn't fit in. Kathy had a struggle to endure. Kathy had to come to bond with her team mates and use her independence to be a strong woman, not a bitchy one, but one that could really meld with her tribe. And we knew right from the get-go that Kathy would have an epic story line. Vecepia? Eh, don't bother with her. Because the editors knew Vecepia was boring, and they knew Kathy was entertainment gold. So we got Kathy's story line. As the season progressed, Kathy overcame her hurdles. She pulled together a majority alliance, she bonded with her team mates, she grew as a person and became someone everyone respected. Her character arc was finished. And as we neared the end of the season, Vecepia slowly came into her own. Just as Kathy became the favorite to win, just as Kathy had no more obstacles in her way, Vecepia pulled out the victory.

In Guatemala, Danni was completely invisible in the beginning. Stephenie, on the other hand, was our star. And we knew exactly what problems Steph would be facing - she was a returning player, and that was a damn big hurdle. And Stephenie turned into a power player, someone in charge of her game and someone who could play with these new players just as if she was one of them. And just as Stephenie came to own each and every one of them, Stephenie's story came to an end. And Danni's ramped up. Because as boring as Danni was, she was our winner, and Stephenie was not.

For the sake of completeness, the same pattern happened with ASS and Australia. We knew what Rob's dilemma was. We knew what Rob would be doing from Day 1. We knew what Colby's dilemma was. We knew what Colby would be doing right from the get-go. And over time, each of them managed to overcome their struggles and finish out their story arcs. And as those characters came to an end, Amber and Tina were just beginning. Amber and Tina weren't exciting characters. Rob and Colby were. But Rob and Colby didn't win. And so Rob and Colby had epic stories, but Amber and Tina edged them out in the end, because in Survivor, if you've got your story lined up from the first episode, you're in trouble, because it means you don't have that story to propel you into the end.

How is this different from China? Well, because Todd didn't have a big hurdle. Todd's problems didn't emerge until later in the game. In the first episode, Todd was in control. Same for the next few. Same for every episode until the end. Todd had no problems maintaining his power. Todd's role as the winner was explained to us, because Todd was good television and the editors could afford to do so. Todd wasn't Cirie or Kathy or Stephenie or Colby or Rob. Todd was his own star.

And ultimately, Todd followed the editing patterns of the other winners that happened to be good characters. These types of winners differ from the distractions in a few big ways. Right from the start, we don't see their problems. We know who they are, because they're good T.V. But we don't see their character arc. We don't see the hurdles they'll have to overcome. Those come later. The big character winners don't get doubt until late into the season. We're supposed to understand why they win, because the editors think that story is a good enough one to showcase.

Look at Palau. We knew who Tom was, right from Day 1. Tom was our hero. Tom was "too obvious," but that's because Tom was a great, epic character that the editors would never pass up, especially if he wins. We knew why Tom deserved to win Survivor before Koror even went to TC or had to play the game. And Tom got his doubt, but it came late into the season, when the editors know they have to create a little suspense for the viewers. Tom was both our distraction and our winner, and that's why Tom got the edit he did, much like Todd got the edit he did.

Same goes for Borneo or Cook Islands. It's the same thing. Our winners are handed to us right from the get-go, and later on, we doubt their wins, but they still pull it off. And that's because they were good characters (or, in Yul's case, had a good story line attached), and the editors liked their characters, just like they liked Todd's character.

What we saw in China was Amanda, and she reminded us of Danni, or Amber, or Vecepia, or maybe even Aras. But she wasn't any of them. Because her Steph, her Rob, her Kathy, her Cirie wasn't Todd. Todd didn't follow those character arcs. Todd followed the winner arc, the Tom arc, the Rich arc, the Brian arc. There's a subtle difference there, and if you want to know why Edgic gets their picks wrong, it's because so far, that subtle difference hasn't been clearly identified.

Feel free to tell me exactly why I'm wrong.

Well, some people gave in to spoilers rather than their instincts obviously. But there were some genuine Amanda supporters out there. And I think where it went wrong was, quite simply, people went into this season, after watching three consecutive seasons with a male winner, and decided that China was going to be won by a female, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Statistically speaking, men and women have an equal chance of winning, so after 15 seasons, we should be looking at 8 winners of one gender and 7 of the other. But logic doesn't always follow the statistics. It's not like TAR where their desperation to have a female team win causes them to cast less male teams. With the exception of Fiji, there's an equal number of men and women in each season of Survivor. And I think this time around, people went into the season with the idea that eight people were already eliminated right off the bat, just because there was no chance that a guy would be winning yet again.

That's where I think Edgic went wrong. From the logic side, Amanda had a great chance of winning, absolutely. And because of the whole Danni fiasco, people were willing to turn the other cheek when it came to her weak edit. But they were allowing the independent events of other seasons--not the editing patterns--to cloud their judgment.

I think that's almost it, but not quite. I think some people (me included) felt that after big loud winners like Yul and Earl that we were due for another quieter UTRish winner, because when have we ever had 3 really loud winners in a row? Then when Todd started to make the huge plays (giving James the HII and getting a 5 visibility that episode) people started to jump off the Todd train. I think his similarity to the recent past winners, as being in control and bragging about it (well Earl bragged about it some, not Yul, though he flaunted it later), as well as all of his million dollar quotes pilling up also started to make people uneasy. I for one was convinced that he was going to be the season's Rafe from his edit, the gay Mormon guy who dominates only to be unseated and thrown onto the jury right before the final tribal council.

I think your theory has some good points, such as the winner being edited that way because of their personality and how they got to the end, that's something we should keep in mind a lot more often. But I don't agree with all of your reasoning.

First of all you're forgetting two big things about what makes the editors create a big character out of someone. Where they finished in the game plays a huge part in how they edit someone.

Take James in S14 for example, did the guy ever get a visibility lower then a 4? I don't think so, he was a huge character, and great entertainment, but history seems to show that unless someone goes home early on (like the first half of the season) they won't get an edit with just 4's and 5's for their visibility. Also look at people like Terry, from day 1 he was presented as the super obvious winner, and he nearly made the F2, only to fall short at the F3. But what if Terry had gone out at the F7, would he have had such a super obvious winner edit then, probably not, as he wouldn't be around at the F4 to make us think Aras won't win, they'd turn someone else like Cirie into an obvious winner instead (or rather they'd have made both Terry and Cirie look like obvious winners).

And the second thing you're forgetting, sometimes the editors just plain make a really stupid decision and discard entertainment gold. Bobby in S12 is a great example, he could have easily been turned into a hilarious OTT distraction to make us laugh, but instead he was barely even there, and we were told "Bobby got voted out for being lazy and using the bathroom Casaya won to go rather then store dry wood" in an unentertaining way. Sure Shane was a great character who made us laugh to, but why couldn't they have had them both filling in that job?

Willard in S10 is another good example, it was clear as daylight in postgame interviews what a great personality he had, and how he had provided some entertaining footage despite being sick. Instead he was barely there, and the episode he was kicked out it was "oh Willard he's a mean lazy old man, look at him try to tire out Tom by forcing him to tend the fire in the night while he's supposed to be doing it himself". At the time I think some people were speculating that he got that kind of an edit as a punishment because he applied for Survivor and got on the show as a joke because of a bet he made with his secretary (before even watching any episodes) and made a mockery of the application process because of that.

I think the key we should take from this season is to look at a player's edit and ask ourselves "what could happen at the final tribal council, or in other future events, to justify giving them an edit like this". For people like PG, getting an edit of being an annoying N character despite being in the minority in the merge should tell us "PG probably doesn't win, so therefore they're milking her personality for entertainment, if she makes the F2/3 the jury tears her up for being so annoying".

The tricky part with this however is going to be separating someone who the editors want to be a decoy winner away from the real winner. Perhaps the best way to answer if someone like Todd is a decoy winner or the real winner is to see if we can eliminate everyone else as a possible winner, and come to the conclusion "well if Amanda/Denise/Courtney can't possibly win then Todd must win".

So with that kind of logic at the F4 Courtney's edit was too N and OTT, with too many comments about her being worthless and dragged along (like at the F5 episode) shown for her to win. Denise would have been ignored too much in the first few episodes to win (with 2 INV's in a row), and shown too much as the hero with no game. Amanda with her edit could never beat Todd in a jury vote, it just wouldn't be explained all that well, Todd only ever got weak stuff to create doubt, like "I won't vote for you if you screw me over", not stuff like "you scumbag Stephenie man" by people shown as emotional and simplified so there was no doubt about their vote. Jean-Robert was never shown as emotional, and never shown as a guy who holds grudges, he just claimed he would. So then what about an Amanda/Denise/Courtney F3 or F2? Well obviously Denise/Courtney couldn't win for reasons already stated, but could Amanda have won from association with Todd's game against them? The answer appears to be no.

So why is it not ok for Amanda to win by association with Todd's game, but it's ok for Amber to win by association with Rob's game? Well for starters, Amber was impossible to separate from Rob with their romance, it was how they got to the end, together. Amanda on the other hand started out as Todd's side kick, but then started to get a mind of her own, and by the finale was no longer joined at the hip with Todd, she was openly opposing him, the editors kept on playing up "Amanda screws over Todd this episode" in the promos, only for it to never happen. Since Amanda was no longer associated with Todd and his game she couldn't win by being the part of Todd who made it to the end. So what did she have without Todd? Nothing, she had nothing. Like Pulau Tiga theorized earlier, Amanda was given a story, (though at the merge, not episode #1) of having to overcome Todd, and without Todd in the game she had nothing, no story once so ever. No one has ever won with their entire story tied to just one character. Sure Amanda made some bonds with people like PG we were shown, but she got voted out that same episode, so PG wasn't able to carry on a new story for Amanda if Todd went home next.

Summary:

I know that went on kind of long and might be hard to understand and get the main points out of, so here's my main points.

-Usually the situation, future events, where someone finishes, and their entertainment value, determines the edit of everyone. (with rare excepts where the editors threw out comedy gold)

-No one can win if their story is so tightly tied to just one person, that without that person they'd have no story left to show in the future episodes.

-To help separate the Todd's (real winners) from the Rafe's (decoy winners) try eliminating everyone else, if no one else can win then you probably have a Todd, if someone else can win then you probably have a Rafe.

I definitely think the fact that we were looking for a good female winner played a part, but like MDN, I don't think that's the whole story, because quite simply, Amanda could have won. It wasn't desperation - there was actually a case for her winning edit. Obviously that must have been a mistake, because she lost, and Edgic looks for a winning formula that, quite simply, doesn't lose.

And MDN, I think you may have a point, but I have to disagree with a couple of things, the above quote included. Sure, if only one person can win, then they're our winner, even if they're too OTT to seem like a real candidate. But the thing is, it wasn't like Amanda couldn't win, because Danni won, and Amanda had Danni's edit, almost exactly the same.

I don't agree that Amanda's story was tied up in Todd and no one else. If that's the case, you can say Vecepia's was tied up in Sean's or Danni's was tied up in Gary's. Amanda was built up as independent of Todd at some crucial times. When decisions were made, Amanda was presented as opposing Todd. Amanda was shown to boot James on her own, and pull Todd in. Amanda became more and more independent of Todd as time went on, just as Vecepia and Amber and Danni came into their own stories as time went on. It seems to me that something else must separate her from those winners, because Amanda didn't win, even though her edit wasn't much different.

I mean, really, where did Amanda's story divert from Danni's? First episode, neither plays a role, only commenting on the strength of their tribe (strength which will later get picked off by the enemy). As things progress, both remain very low-key, but the extent of their story line is that they're playing with/against one other power player, Todd for Amanda, Gary for Danni. They each have an episode where they're shown to be a strategically complex player, and then the merge comes. Both have a couple of key confessionals about gameplay, but neither are a large presence in the bigger picture. As we get near the end game, they finally come into their own, as they finally break away from the player whose shadow they've lived in for so long, because that player has been put into a risky, vulnerable spot. And as we get near the end game, they start to make their own moves, and we start to see things from their perspectives, and they start to come into their own as players. Yet one of them (Danni) wins, and the other (Amanda) does not. So what's the difference? Because as far as I can see, neither of them had much different in their edit than the other. Sure, Gary goes in Danni's story, but then it's just about Danni beating Rafe at the strategic game, which she does, so it's not really a big shift. And if you want to try to get out on that technicality, then make the comparison between Amber and Rob, and you get the same story.

I just don't think the editing difference came in Amber/Danni or Amanda, but rather, in the bigger personality they're attached to. Because even though Amanda was no different than Danni, Todd was different than Gary. Even though Amanda was no different than Amber or Vecepia, Todd was different than Rob or Kathy. And that's why I think I might be onto something with my theory, because that's the only real editing difference, is that while Todd was presented as the winner first, and with doubt only later, the others were presented with doubt first, and once they came into their own, that's when they lost. No matter who it was that you consider the winning candidate that Vecepia/Amber/Danni beat out, be it Sean or Kathy or Rob or Gary or Rafe, each came in with a big hurdle to overcome, and just as the edit showed them overcoming this hurdle, they lost the whole thing, with the more low-key player swooping in at the last minute.

Amanda didn't do that, and that's because Todd was always our winner. Todd didn't have some big story arc, he was always the cocky strategic bastard. And his doubt only came in the last few episodes, like we always get for the obvious winners.

Absolutely. The problem was that Todd was nowhere near the negativity level of Steph in Guatemala. The game logic of Amanda beating Todd made perfect sense; the editing could never justify it.

Well, I think a very important part is the discussion of the theme of the season. Honestly, the only person I can specifically recall talking about the themes of China is Todd. A lot of the time, it's overlooked, because it's not too big of a theme, but just being able to mention that and talk about it - however brief, seems to be very important to the winner.

Yeah, but the problem is Amanda was also linked to the art of war theme, she was the first to suggest reading it, and her/Todd/Leslie talked about it after Jaime came over to their camp. I don't really remember what parts of the art of war were shown, but they could provide some clues if we missed how Todd fit in with the theme more or not.

I don't see how this links to the winner, to be honest. Did Sandra connect to the themes of PI? Did Danni connect to the themes of Guatemala? Did Vecepia connect to the themes of Marquesas?

This post has been edited by Pulau Tiga on Dec 21 2007, 07:04 PM

"Sarah's got a great body...she paid a lot for it. Although five seasons from now's gonna be all about girl power so you won't hear the chicks saying stuff like that about each other!"

How could you forget one of the best quotes in Survivor history, PT?

Oops.

Maybe you can call this the confessions of an Amanda junkie.

I'm trying to figure out exactly where I went wrong, and I think I know. (and like i said in the other edgic board, it ain't from spoilers or from some sudden interest in Amanda by others - if anything, I'm one of the others who might have helped spur the Amandafest.) I did the same thing with Tom in S10: It just couldn't be so simple. I guess that's what irks me the most about this. Unlike Danni, when the rationalizations for her win were thick in edgic, Todd was - by far - the person who most fit the guidelines.

The edits for the top candidates prior to the 5th ep or so weren't as clear to me, though. Amanda was seen on several occasions directing Todd - telling him to NOT switch his vote to another player just because the Strategy Muse whacked him with her wand, explaining that he has no confidence in his own decisions - that to me she was portrayed as the power behind the throne. He was all over the place, but -- and this was probably what led me down the pre-merge Amanda path -- it was her decisions, her selections, that were actually voted off more than Todds (or at least when there was a conflict between their two opinions, hers carried the day more than his.)

So I thought I understood where her edit thread was going. The actual power behind the throne, who was directing things far more than Todd realized (more than his "new big threat" JR ever did), and she was ultimately going to slit his throat in the ultimate "look who's really in charge, buster" move.

Couple that with my silly "girl winners have a different edit" thing and I thought Amanda was quite the logical choice. I found her edit more CP, Todd's more OTT re strategy. The lack of SPVs didn't bother me (look how many Earl had) precisely because her strategy was the kind that didn't lend itself to a bunch of "what is Amanda up to" stuff. The way she would win was clearly spelled out in her pre-merge edit.

So prior to the merge I chose Amanda. And each week after that I sucked it up and stuck with it. (If we were allowed to change, I would have. You could tell my level of enthusiasm for my pick when by late November I would basically say, "I'm sticking with Amanda. Sigh. Whatever.")

But that's not to chicken out or deny what I did. Amanda's edgic edit deteriorated to the point where we understood why she got only one vote. Heck - after the last two eps I wouldn't have voted for her. Her edit went from slyly reveling in being a puppet master to guilt about what she was doing, and finally she couldn't or wouldn't pull the trigger. Her cumulative edit could be summed up in the pathetic hang-dog, doe-eyed look she had in FC: From puppet master to sad little bunny wabbit in a few short weeks. Whether voting out Todd would have won it for her remains to be seen, but that's what a winner would have done, and the last four shows or so made it clear she wasn't going to do that.

Am I personally disappointed? Not in the slightest. Others picked Todd. Woo-hoo! way to go! What's interesting is that I'm so far perfect for picking people who will be in the final tribal council. Go figure. I really don't care if I'm right or wrong. It's just too much fun either way to go anywhere else for survivor chat.

To me, Amanda was most reminiscent of Scout. Same theories as in S9 about the winner being hidden, being the real power. Same waiting for her edit to emerge from the background, only to watch it get worse week after week.

You know, Wallduck - if you had mentioned Scout about episode 5 or so (and if you or somebody else did, my apologies) I'd have dropped Amanda in nothing flat. I was one of the people who was not smitten with Scout, and had Chris as the winner.

That is the best comparision I've heard. Ultimately both of their edits were empty, despite our (non-edgic!) efforts to fill them with what ifs, maybes, and just wait til next weeks.

I have learned from history, but am nevertheless doomed to repeat it. Sigh.

I tried. I tried! Here's my post at episode 6:

. . . calling Scout

and here's my reply to warrior's question:

Who was the silent leader of Yasur?

I was trying to wave off anyone who, like me, had gone down in the Scout wreck and should know better. Maybe I was too subtle?

What do I know from Yasur? Oinga-boinga... the famous Kablooey tribe... WikaWikaWika tribe...

Yeah - mentioning a tribe name from 6 seasons ago is (to moi, at least) subtle. Probably not to others. So it's all your fault.

Absolutely. The problem was that Todd was nowhere near the negativity level of Steph in Guatemala. The game logic of Amanda beating Todd made perfect sense; the editing could never justify it.

I dunno, I disagree with this.

I actually eliminated Amanda after her sucky episode 11 edit, but got spoiled that Todd/Amanda were the final 3, not Peih-Gee after that, so I couldn't post anymore. But Amanda's edit in episode 12 was really good for her and bad for Todd... it gave the okay that Todd had to be beat, and that Amanda would be the one to beat him. Granted, it would have been more fitting if Amanda ousted him at final 4, but still, it could have worked with an Amanda win- or maybe it was to give us some doubt, coupled with "the jury hates Todd!".

I think the thing that seperates Todd from Rich/Brian is that no one talked about them being bad people towards the end. I think everyone always loved Brian, and hard feelings only came out at the final TC, which they had to. Rich was hated, but towards the end, it was all about what a bitch Kelly was or what a bitch Sue was. Todd was downright bashed, called a sneaky bastard, didn't have consideration for others, was seen laughing and called himself evil, and Amanda even said after Denise was booted that she basically voted off a good person for a horrible person.

That's why it was so hard to believe Todd would win ... he was my #1 choice after Erik was booted, but that episode really made me question how this guy could win after an edit like that.

Nobody said anything bad about Brian towards the end because they had nothing bad to say until the knife was in their back and they were voted out (Ted, Helen). Really though, Brian never really got a whole lot of negative SPV over the entire season. Rich had plenty but you're right that it took a backseat to the Sue/Kelly conflict towards the end.

Episode 12 definitely made Amanda look good and Todd look evil--but I still don't think it was enough to evaporate his much better edit in the preceding episodes. It takes a lot for the audience to change their minds like that--despite being so negative, Steph was still uber-popular with most viewers during Guatemala. The F5 episode in Palau made Tom seem like an ass and Katie somewhat sympathetic. They like to insert doubt towards the end so that viewers think, "Tom's got this in the bag...but wait, he's starting to piss people off."

Colleen said exactly the opposite. After her boot she said that, contrary to his edit, Rich was liked by nearly everyone, and that that was one of the reasons for his success.

Todd's negativity was similarly exaggerated in the edgic thread--which was one of the reasons for its failure.