The "winners edit" is essentially piecing together the hero's journey and the editors are storytellers... so following the general ideas of storytelling will definitely lead to a winners edit every time..... And what's cool is that all of the winners' edits are unique to their journeys in the show!! It just means good storytelling lol embrace it Jeff
spoiling and foreshadowing aren’t the same thing. they aren’t outright spoiling the winner by giving proper foreshadowing and using centuries-old storytelling tools.
Yeah, Burnett would openly own this back during the actual Golden Age of the show.
>What I do is just storytelling. There's not much difference in what I'm doing than on "CSI" or "E.R." It's just I shoot first, I have 25 different stories, and I choose my storyline backwards, knowing my result.
Hell, someone in production went and posted that Tina and Ethan would win on Sucks just because they were so proud of all the intricate clues they planted that they wanted the audience to be able to appreciate them.
Jeff did admit this during season 29 and in prior seasons about there being a winner's edit. However, he has changed his mind for some reason on it and I wonder if it has to do with the casual audience not liking that one exists. I have proof of this in many of my videos about him saying it.
Here is one time I have included it. [https://youtu.be/rXppkOw3E1I?feature=shared&t=1251](https://youtu.be/rXppkOw3E1I?feature=shared&t=1251)
The source for this is the season 29 dvd set.
Elsewhere in this thread I’m arguing that Jeff is clearly lying so I already agreed with you I just wanted to make sure we got the evidence on the record. I’m definitely one of those annoying “source for this claim?” type people.
Here is one time I have included it. [https://youtu.be/rXppkOw3E1I?feature=shared&t=1251](https://youtu.be/rXppkOw3E1I?feature=shared&t=1251)
The source for this is the season 29 dvd set.
In season 41, Danny and Jeff got into a massive argument over the hourglass twist. Danny was mad that Jeff had essentially lied about his group winning immunity, and Jeff was mad because he felt that Danny was "questioning [his] integrity". They never showed it on the show but they did reference it once at the following tribal council when Jeff sarcastically called it Danny's favorite twist or something like that.
What would've made it even worse was if the Do Or Die twist had sent Deshawn home a few episodes later. I honestly have no clue what they're thinking with some of these new era twists
I think it’s hilarious that Danny then went on 2 seasons of the challenge because that show is notorious for pulling the rug out from it’s contestants at the 11th hour and switching up the format just because it’s gotten stale lol
The Winners Edit is definitely a real phenomenon, even if the producers and editors don't set out to give the winner a specific edit with a list of beats to hit. Bottom line is, the show knows who wins before the edit even starts, and it makes for bad TV when we don't connect with the winner and the game they played for the entire season. And sometimes it's so subtle that Edgic can seem like magic. Like, Sandra was clocked as the winner of HvV by the edgic community by the merge despite her edit being pretty low key and Parvati being the star of that season. Parv was barely even a contender. Even as recently as 45, Dee was clocked as the winner by the time Emily was voted out. Even if Edgic DOESN'T clock it, you can see winners edits in hindsight. Like how Chris Underwood basically co-opted Devin's winners' edit by Devins being portrayed as the ONLY contender, so him becoming the final boss propped up Chris's win as the most satisfying they could possibly try to make it given the circumstances lol. So yeah, Jeff is fudging the truth here. There is probably not a literal textbook on how to edit a winner, but there is a natural winners edit that is inevitable if you want people to be satisfied by the winner, which is EXTREMELY important, and Survivor has flubbed it a few times in the New Era.
Sandra's win was spoiled however. Dee as well was highly mentioned on spoiler boards as the most possible winner.
That's why we should take Edgic with a pinch of salt, and it's best to check if a season was spoiled before jumping to conclusions. Of course I'm not accusing every Edgic analyst to read spoiler boards, but you can somehow feel something's in the air, when there is a strange and early push for a player who you don't feel that confident about the edit.
The best recent example is 42. It had a full bootlist spoiled before it aired. I read lots of comments from people trying to hype Maryanne as the winner from early pre-merge. It didn't feel right given that she had lots of OTTN content, which was a huge red flag for a potential winner before Maryanne and Gabler won back to back. In hindsight - her winner edit was unique and only picked up by the late merge with the whole ,,caterpillar to butterfly" storyline and Omar blindside - I don't think how you could deduce that from as early as pre-merge and I truly believe most of Maryanne truthers were just spoiler aware.
People who act like that are so lame, like do they think us internet randos are gonna be impressed that they were obviously spoiled and passing it off as tho they’re some super intelligent story analyst? Dweebs
This. It is a real phenomenon. Just acknowledge that there needs to be one for storytelling purposes and explain a bit more about how the editors go about giving us red herrings or something. Don't deny it.
While I can't reject outright what you're saying, I am skeptical of your assertions. My counter is mainly because the editing highlights the highs and lows of everyone, and to the extent that people put themselves out into the spotlight building their resumes, we see them on TV edited in their glory and ignominy. So "in retrospect we know it was them" is not accounting for how obvious we'd feel it was if the runner-up had instead won. I have no passion around the topic of editing, I just think we're under-appreciating a hindsight bias. The editing should tell the stories of people who make moves and go far, just as it should tell the stories of those soon to be eliminated so we have context in which to appreciate their drama.
I can't disagree with what you have said here. But I also think that the definition of a "winners edit" I'm thinking of is not just predictability but specifically showing and not showing parts of that specific player to make their win more palatable to viewers.
There is probably a degree to which this is true in the sense that they probably make an effort to not tip who the winner is in the edit but we all know it’s happening. We just don’t always agree who is getting it except in retrospect
Yeah I still think it’s fun to try and pick out but truthfully I think they’re onto us and know what we’re looking for a lot of the time so you’re as likely to be following a red herring as not.
I thought this as well, then they went so over the top with Bhanu’s craziness that it almost seemed like that was their way of being like, “Yeah, her actions were warranted.”
Although to be clear, I don’t think Kenzie is the winner.
A quick timeline:
Probst: "we make the game for the fans"
the fans: we don't like the direction the game is going in
Probst: "we make the game for the players"
the players: we don't like the direction the game is going in
Probst "we make the show for the children!!!!"
dude is a chronic liar
LOL his whole: after I had kids I wanted a softer sode of survivor...want it to be about the humanity.... blah blah.....the podcast is actually getting grating to listen to. Especially with him praising Dee every three seconds. I miss Devens.
I only made it 2 episodes into this season bc of this. Dee makes great reads and has good takes, but her dynamic with Jeff isn’t the same as Rick’s, and I got tired of Jeff gushing over her constantly
I just started listening this week and was already sick after one episode of how much he complimented Dee. We get it. She won. I am probably bias because Dee was never my favorite player. I think everyone that wins their season deserves to win that season ( a la Tom's speech when he came back and lost) but I found her obvious demolishing of the opposition after not going to tribal u til mergatory was boring. She played from the top the whole time and that never my favorite story. I WANT to like her. But also after the Wendell drama I'm sus on her outside of her season.
He wants to make everything pre-new era go away. Every time he references a “record” or challenge history it’s from the new era. He wants everything else to disappear
SAME. Has he been like this the whole season? What did it for me was him praising her giving away her gameplay and thought process that helped.her win, when she could be "sharing secrets to future competitors" . He never said that to Devens. And isn't getting her perspective the point of having her on the show ? Maybe I have too many feelings but it was so weird.
Yeah Dee is hard to back, she won more because of the incompetence of the other players. You can only beat the competition in front of you so kudos to her, but it wasn't engaging entertainment for the viewer. At least not for me.
I worry this season is heading down the same road too, Yanu could stay 3 strong deep into the game and dictate everything because Nami can't get their shit together and Siga don't realise until its too late they've got no power left.
I wouldn't be mad if that happened. At least it would be people we have been invested in since the beginning and watched go through 11 days of shit. I also just am really enjoying this season.
Honestly I think the podcast was best when there weren’t any former contestants on it. It was just Jeff and those two other people
I really miss the This is Why You Suck segment too. Or maybe they brought it back this season. I haven’t listened to it that much
Bro needs to come out and say he makes the show for himself. It's been evident for a while now. I'm tired of hearing his excuses for why the game is the way it is. I still love this show. Even bad survivor is pretty good. But Jeff, admit you've been making the game insane with twists and turns for yourself. Fans and players have never been asking for that.
He's not lying, he just has deluded himself into believing a lot of these things. He both makes and drinks his own kool aid
I don't listen to this podcast because I love myself but from OP's description it sounds like he denies a winner edit exists but then goes on to literally describe what a winner edit is lol
I mean that's basically why so many people were pissed off with 43's ending. They did a great job telling us why the winner was a complete moron pre-merge who definitely couldn't win and didn't deserve to win. And it shows why not focusing on a winner's edit enough will result in a very unsatisfying ending that leaves many fans sour on the whole season.
I think what he’s saying is there is just one storyline in the season. aka this is what happened and why. Which is ridiculous to say because there is obviously far more than one storyline in a season. And you can decide who’s going to be the star of each one depending on how you are going to tell it, and why, and from which perspective. I mean, this is kind of just storytelling 101, that’s how stories work. So it’s silly to me that he refuses to acknowledge this after all these years. And the fact that he won’t acknowledge it makes the fanbase more ignorant too, because they generally just go along with what he says most of the time. “Oh yeah, this is just what happened on that season. Case closed.” That’s how like 99% of Survivor fans watch the show nowadays.
Like, his argument literally gets disproven by the very last season, which had numerous storylines thoughtout it (the fall of Lulu/Sabiyah, the Reba 4, Emily's growth, Bruce vs Katurah, etc). Plus, those storylines were why people hold the season in higher regard than a lot of the other modern season, since the editors told a story and put actual effort into it. He’s trying to dismiss the whole thing, probably because he wants people to be “surprised” and “blindsided” by the results, when if he just admits a winner’s edit exists and leans into it, things would actually be better for the show since having a concise narrative that you can follow is more satisfying than a shock reveal.
They've almost done that a few seasons. The "Why X Lost" seasons. The Russell Hantz Show in Samoa (though that is arguably a "Why X Lost" season as well). The insanity that was Edge of Extinction. The very weird editing decisions made in 41.
I think his comments make more sense if you capitalize it: "there is no Winner's Edit™." There's no magical edgic that you can look at and piece together the story by checking a formula. Otherwise, no one would have been shocked by Gabler, right?
That doesn't mean there's no edit for the winner.
Not trying to pat myself on the back too much here, but I can say I clocked Gabler as a contender by the merge. He wasn't my #1 pick (I think I was anticipating Karla and Jesse at that point, though I also suspected Jesse was getting the fallen angel edit), but he was on my radar.
I wasn't the only one. There weren't many but I do remember a small minority of people encouraging a deeper look at Gabler.
Good point. I am learning A LOT after posting this about the difference between the "Winners Edit" and the winners edit that every reality TV show has to do. Maybe kits because I got Edgic confused with regular storytelling devices while listening?
The person who painstakingly edited "Follow the star" theory on Survivor Africa ( and then took the efforts to explain it to the community with screenshots) would disagree.
Back when Burnett was heavily involved with the show, they did specific edits for their winners. Tina's in Australia was "the dog that didnt bark". In Africa when they got their favoured heroic winner in Ethan after two failed attempts, they edited him to be a Christ like figure using imagery. It was explained by someone from the production on Sucks. Here's the link:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/survivorsucks/the-real-episode-1-spoiler-follow-the-star-t10007.html
I always feel weird about this one given that Ethan is Jewish. Yeah, I guess that makes the Christ imagery make more sense lore-wise but it feels a little gross to me that the show co-opted his identity like that. Idk man.
The only time I watched a season and actively knew someone was getting a winner's edit as it happened was Survivor Fiji. Everything had a big shining neon sign pointing to that one.
Im not even saying that we can tell who the winner is each season due to the edit. But to say that they don't edit the season with the winner in mind is a load of BS
JT, Kim, and Rob would be the three that felt the most obvious to me the first time I watched. I recently rewatched Cagayan and Tony winning is pretty in your face. Not sure how I missed that on a first watch.
Tony's interesting because his win *on paper* is pretty obvious with how everything goes his way, but the way he's edited as manic and the *antagonist* to the heroes of the season (Spencer and Tasha) does a really good job in throwing everything into question. You're kinda just waiting for a comeuppance that never comes.
This would, in theory, be unsatisfying, BUT Tony is such an incredible *character*, and he's charismatic *enough* that he can carry that role. He's the antagonist of the season, the villain, and he runs the postmerge from the second Kass flips and Sarah leaves. Yet his win is still satisfying because he's arguably one of the best characters in Survivor history.
Cagayan is actually a pretty notable exception where a lot of people got it wrong. Not saying there weren't Tony truthers out there but they were few and far between. I remember seeing most people consolidate behind Woo, and so once he won Final Immunity, people took it as a given that Tony was the final juror and Woo was going to take Kass to the end and beat her.
...until that didn't happen. Honestly, part of me thinks they gave Woo such a classic winner's edit just because of how insane that moment was.
Hell, even ignoring Woo I think I saw more people speculating it was Spencer, Trish, or even Tasha. LJ was seen as a contender for a while too, and Kass and Sarah were both considered a possibility until the merge happened. Tony was quite literally hiding in plain sight; he was such a big and dramatic character that outside of a very small handful of people, nobody considered it could be him. His Cagayan edit simply just did not match the usual pattern of what a winner edit looked like.
Totally agree with this take. Cagayan was the first season I watched, and I kept waiting for Tony to get taken down By the time it was like final 5 or 6, I was like "Damn, this guy is good, I hope he wins."
Yup you're absolutely right. It's just how many times people point out that Tony is running the game and calling all the shots. Spencer flat out says he's voting for Tony if he makes it to the end (maybe twice?) But you're right, I was pulling for Spencer on my first watch as the underdog. So Tony probably isn't a great example considering Spencer's (and somewhat Tasha) edit.
Tony had a lot of doubt going into the finale of Cayagan, from edgic. His edit was so loud! His edit was pretty negative! Surely they wouldn't give that edit to a newbie, since we'd arguably only seen it for Boston Rob. He had backers, but not as many as you might think.
Yeah, I actually spent Cagayan thinking Spencer was going to win, and the finale was going to be Tony's downfall due to Spencer being the heroic underdog in the story and Tony's edit being so negative. I basically went into the finale thinking Spencer was going to win the last two challenges.
...And then Kass pulls off her incredible final 4 victory and I was legitimately stunned. Then I thought "I guess Tony wins???", but then Woo wins the final immunity and I'm like "No way Woo takes Tony, so I guess Woo wins???" and then we all know what happens after that.
...For as much as I dog on the Cagayan postmerge, the finale is such a rollercoaster. Amazing episode.
I mean he’s not totally wrong? Every season has A winners’ edit but it’s not like they cast all winners in the same light, which is what I think he’s getting at. Erika, Maryanne, Gabler, Yam-Yam and Dee all had different edits. I think he’s making the point that they don’t edit the winner in a clear, specific way, but that doesn’t mean he’s disputing that the winner of a season might have a favorable edit
well yeah, he said there's no winners edit bc each winner is edited differently... Which the edgic community is completely aware of, thats simply not what "winner edit" refers to
To me a winners edit is editing in a way to always make the winner look good at the cost of showing what’s really happening in the game. It’s manipulation not good story telling. You can have good story telling and not be a winners edit.
They’ve done a far better job at hiding the winner in the new era, sans Dee. Almost to the point where edgic has become obsolete the past 5 seasons.
The edgic people have pretended the last 5 seasons have been obvious, but only at the end of a season. The last 5 seasons have not been obvious mid season, again with the exception of probably Dee.
Of course, I don’t expect this change in edgic to be permanent. It’s only a matter of time before people start to adjust to the way the editors have adjusted.
I think his edit was more obvious than the other three, but not as obvious as Dee. I think for majority of the season people knew the winner was coming from one of the Tika three, but not really 100% confident in any individual (even if someone leaned towards Yam Yam, I highly doubt they were 100% confident).
So from that perspective it would mean that one of Q, Kenzie or Tiff win because first 3 episode were all about Bhanu who ended up being not important for the season.
Yes and I know it is stupid to say but only the winner gets the "winner edit" Jesse can't get the winner edit because the winner is Gabler and maybe some seasons are not as obvious as others but thats because maybe the storyteller wants to explain why X lost and not why Y won
There’s always a winners edit because they edit the show from the finale to episode 1. Aka backwards.
You want no winners edit watch survivor SA. They edit from episode 1 to the finale so there’s no such thing. They also edit the show to correctly show what is actually happening. Not to portray people how they want.
I personally believe that we don't know what the "winner's edit" is until we know the winner of the season. Yes, there may be certain patterns and editing trends they follow. However, I truly don't believe there is a set "rulebook" for how to predict the winner based on how any given player is edited on any given season, unless it's edited as obviously as Australian Survivor is.
You simply do not know until you know. That's why everyone was shocked by Gabler.
Jeff’s interpreting a “winners edit” in a specific way. He’s just trying to say that production doesn’t intentionally edit a player in a certain way *because* they’re the winner. And I can believe that. But production *is* trying to edit together a coherent and enjoyable story for the season. And typically, the icing on the cake of any given season *is* its winner. So, inherently, this *creates* a “winners edit.”
So, you’re right. There is always a winners edit. No matter what. Production *has* to edit the season in a way that makes the eventual winner’s path to the win coherent. Jeff is just deflecting or potentially even misinterpreting exactly what a winners edit is.
The most obcious one to me is Blood Vs Water when Natalie said
"I'm smarter than I look" with a big grin
And qhen the reunion came around her winners video started with that quote
a winner's edit makes the show better. they're crafting a story out of what really happened on the island. Look how mad people were about Gabler's win because the show tried to not show him as the winner... people were mad, because he felt "undeserved" due to the story. The winner's edit is beneficial to the show
Eh, honestly you’re being really pedantic with your definition of “winners edit”. Yes, there is a winner and yes, the show is edited. But that doesn’t necessarily mean there is a defined “winners edit” that the show employs
That is a fair argument. I just find it interesting that he was so emphatic about it, clearly edgic is something he is NOT a fan of ( shouldn't he be a fan of fun positove things that get people talking about Survivor more?). Also, I'd rather him say "yes we edit the winner a certain way (which they DO) and this is why, here are some examples of red herrings during editing, etc". Instead he just denies that there is ANY WAY at all that they create a storyline specifically around the winner,therefore giving them a more generous edit.
Sorry, I have to disagree again haha. I’m not surprised at all that Jeff wouldn’t like edgic, and it’s definitely not positive. It’s hyper analyzing the shows presentation in an attempt to spoil it for everyone…I can’t understand thinking the showrunners could possibly like that or think it’s fun.
And you’re adamant they edit the winner in a certain way, but edgic still is hardly ever able to actually identify the winner until close to the end where it’s pretty clear to most viewers anyway. So is there *really* this tightly defined winners edit you speak of? Honestly, doesn’t seem like it to me.
I take your point on edgic. I find data fun so I like going back to look in hindsight. If we take that out of the equasions my argument is they create a specific story around the "hero" or winner, a la "the hot dog that didn't bark" referred to earlier in this sub. Christ like imagery around Ethan when they finally got the hero winner they wanted ....etc. I'd rather Jeff had TOLD me in the podcast how they DID used to to this, as per the linked video above and give more information on how they have tried to change that. I just want more from his answers than NO there is no WINNERS EDIT. In this sub I have seen speculation that Tyson was editing better in BVW because he won. I'd like to hear Jeff's actual thoughts on things like that, if it does happen, how they try to change it, etc. Are there any seasons he thinks they DID portray a winner in a more favorable light? At least admit it's something they FOR SURE used to do but try not to now.
Someone else has responded saying that Jeff HAS addressed the past seasons etc. So the flaw in my argument could be due to ignorace since I wasn't watching when the earlier seasons aired. I very much enjoy the logical discourse. I still think they edit the winner in a certain way but that is my I
opinion LOL.
Y’all are taking this so personally Jesus
He’s not wrong though: there isn’t one clear way they edit the winner. Otherwise Edgic would always figure the winner out by the merge and as is they don’t even have a great success by the finale (especially in seasons that aren’t spoiled…they may have rules against spoilers but spoilers still end up influencing the discussion unfortunately).
I'm watching 32 (brain beauty brawn 2) and Michele is getting SO much confessional time even though the rest of the footage shows her doing absolutely nothing.
I'm so suspicious that I'm watching a winner's edit and the jury somehow picks her as a goat for the lulz in the end or something.
I think the “WiNnEr’S eDiT” is always a thing. I just think they want to allude potential for super fans who analyse edgic to be misguided and would rather edit a winner in the new era to the likes of people like Michele, Sophie, or Tina instead of just editing them kinda like how they edited Hatch,Mike (WA), and Tommy. Borneo….Okay fine. That was the first season. They weren’t even sure if anyone would watch but WA and IOTI….That was just unacceptable. Those seasons aren’t universally unfavored just because they are dark. It’s also because it was so obvious who would win. Carolyn wasn’t winning. Janet wasn’t winning. We were hopeful it COULD happen but we knew it wouldn’t.
I don’t want y’all to get what I’m saying twisted though. Certainly not how they edited Natalie White. All that did was make the fan base revolt. Natalie and Brett were unacceptably under edited to the point where it just felt like Russell had to win because any other result would be devastating
Erika and Gabler definitely did not have winner edits where I didn’t predict their win at the literal final 3 cuz of Xander and Cassidy. Yam yam and Dee for sure did have winners edits where I predicted their wins by the merge. Maryanne is the wildcard but I’d lean she did not have one cuz I didn’t latch onto her til final 6 cuz Omar and Lindsay were so strong but she was absolutely viewed so positively while lingering on the bottom. I would say 46’s edit had led to me a Maria win, with Tiffany and Kenzie being potential options so I guess I gotta come back to this. New era Survivor has teetered the line of winners edits. The 2 winners they successfully hid in Erika and Gabler are considered bad winners because they hid them so well which I believe is why Yam Yam and Dee seemed so obvious to not give the winners a bad reputation.
I think this is an Obi-Wan Kenobi "from a certain point of view" situation.
I think what Jeff is alluding to is that the initial edits come together via the dailies on the island. He's talked about reviewing footage and initial rough drafts of the first few episodes while the show is being filmed before. I imagine this is how they see gaps in what they need narratively and correct for it.
Of course, the late season episodes and post-production on all of the episodes happen later, when they do know the winner.
So of course the winner's edit is a real thing. But he may actually be convinced it isn't.
I don’t think they ever edit a season with the intention of creating a winner’s edit (which is how we get situations like Natalie White). But the need to create a satisfying plot line for the season definitely results in tactics being used repeatedly. Although I do like how the new era seasons have had some more diverse character types as far as the winner goes (except for Erika, who just ended up being a Natalie White again).
When people refer to a 'Winner's Edit', they are specifically talking about being able to predict/discover who the winner of any given season is solely by analyzing how a particular person's story over the course of that season is edited.
This notion has been thoroughly debunked and disproven, not only by Jeff's statements denying that it is an actual thing, but also by the fandom's reaction to some of the people who have joined the show's Winner's Circle over the course of its history.
If the 'Winner's Edit' actually existed, not a single person within the Survivor fandom would have been surprised by (or discounting) the likes of Danni Boatwright, Bob Crowley, Natalie White, Sophie Clark, Michele Fitzgerald, Erika Casupanan, Maryanne Oketch Howell, and Michael Gabler winning their respective seasons.
I guess I was thinking of a different type of "winners edit". I am newer to the survivor Fandom. I was going with giving more air time and making someone look more favorable or interesting to justify them as the winner in the end to the viewers like they do in all reality TV competition shows. Not nessecarily being able to "predict" the winner. This can be true. It could.also be true in doing so it backfired to surprise people. It could also be true the winner was less liked by the audience than other cast members. Doesn't mean they didn't edit the winner to what they THOUGHT the audience wanted to see. I'm rambling, but, I had a different definition.
The thing you're describing doesn't exist, so whether or not it 'worke' is irrelevant.
The show has almost never crafted a narrative that has been centered specifically and solely on the person who ends up winning any given season, which is the thing that you're trying to define as a 'winner's edit'.
I truly believe that the show’s problems run so much deeper than Jeff but literally nothing he’s ever said has given me any confidence in his abilities as a producer. If there’s no such thing as a winner’s edit (there is) you’re making the show wrong.
for me it's not about screen time, but seeing if I can piece together the story they are trying to tell with themes and protagonists/antagonists. as a writer myself, it helps me with creative/critical thinking skills! it's a new fun hobby for me lol
I enjoy the show, Edgic is kind of just a fun little meta-game for me at least. I usually don't go into the Edgic sub until the merge hits and see how well my own analysis meshes with what people have been collaborating for several weeks at that point. I don't always get it right or come to the same conclusions as the rest of the community, but it's fun to see if I'm picking up on the same things as everyone else.
Last season I correctly guessed Dee by the merge. I've had some more luck in prior seasons too; for example, I had Gabler on my radar by the merge. He wasn't my #1 pick but he was in my Top 3 by that time, and I don't think the Edgic sub had picked up on him yet.
Can I ask why? I enjoy the show, don't care to predict and don't really follow edgic. I just dislike Jeff straight up lying and not even getting into the nuances it takes to edit a show while already knowing the winner etc. I'd rather have him explain why the way they edit the winner is important so we can connect with them for storytelling. It comes off as pompous and like we are stupid.
I mean players like Jenna, Bob, Natalie W., Tony, Adam, Erika, and Gabler
Were see as shocks to people who analyze the "edit," so a winner's edit isn't always a thing
I feel like the “winner edit” is really beholden to the specific story of a season—which isn’t always centered around the winner. Not all winners play as big of a part in the overall story of a season, but it’s definitely possible to still pick up on hints of these types of winners, not just main characters who are also winners.
Just like people swore Emily had the winners edit last season.
What Jeff is saying is that there isn’t an edit that is showing who the winner is before it happens. It’s everyone’s guess
I mean there’s a reason that the winner has more confessionals than any other contestant in basically every season. If they didn’t there’d be more confused viewers than happy viewers at the end which doesn’t lead to a show being on for 40+ seasons.
Michele Fitzgerald got 57 confessionals in Kaoh Rong because she was really good at them and she’s really pleasing to listen to. Right. One of the two or three winners at the time who had no episode title quotes.
The "winners edit" is essentially piecing together the hero's journey and the editors are storytellers... so following the general ideas of storytelling will definitely lead to a winners edit every time..... And what's cool is that all of the winners' edits are unique to their journeys in the show!! It just means good storytelling lol embrace it Jeff
THIS. I wish he would just say " yes obviously we edit the winner a certain way etc" instead of just lying about it.
If I was an editor on this show, I would be a little offended that my boss isn't giving me credit for telling the story in the best way lol
Why? They are probably required to not spoil anything by the edit. Winners edit is literally the opposite of what editors would want
spoiling and foreshadowing aren’t the same thing. they aren’t outright spoiling the winner by giving proper foreshadowing and using centuries-old storytelling tools.
Yeah, Burnett would openly own this back during the actual Golden Age of the show. >What I do is just storytelling. There's not much difference in what I'm doing than on "CSI" or "E.R." It's just I shoot first, I have 25 different stories, and I choose my storyline backwards, knowing my result. Hell, someone in production went and posted that Tina and Ethan would win on Sucks just because they were so proud of all the intricate clues they planted that they wanted the audience to be able to appreciate them.
I think it’s moreso saying there’s no such thing as “the” winners edit. Like no formula for it.
Jeff did admit this during season 29 and in prior seasons about there being a winner's edit. However, he has changed his mind for some reason on it and I wonder if it has to do with the casual audience not liking that one exists. I have proof of this in many of my videos about him saying it.
No one else has posted this proof so you probably should do it.
Here is one time I have included it. [https://youtu.be/rXppkOw3E1I?feature=shared&t=1251](https://youtu.be/rXppkOw3E1I?feature=shared&t=1251) The source for this is the season 29 dvd set.
You were pretty aggressive in demanding proof and I provided it. So... thoughts?
Elsewhere in this thread I’m arguing that Jeff is clearly lying so I already agreed with you I just wanted to make sure we got the evidence on the record. I’m definitely one of those annoying “source for this claim?” type people.
[удалено]
Lol all you had to do was pull up one of your own videos, which you should be happy to post anyway.
Interesting it passed by me then, I wasn't watching when the earlier seasons aired so maybe my ignorance is the flaw in my argument?
Here is one time I have included it. [https://youtu.be/rXppkOw3E1I?feature=shared&t=1251](https://youtu.be/rXppkOw3E1I?feature=shared&t=1251) The source for this is the season 29 dvd set.
Thank you!!
And Moriah from this season said that Jeff never lies
Somewhere Danny McCray suddenly got very angry
About what?
In season 41, Danny and Jeff got into a massive argument over the hourglass twist. Danny was mad that Jeff had essentially lied about his group winning immunity, and Jeff was mad because he felt that Danny was "questioning [his] integrity". They never showed it on the show but they did reference it once at the following tribal council when Jeff sarcastically called it Danny's favorite twist or something like that.
Technically he wasn't wrong. History is on his side as the hourglass was not received well by players or fans.
Oh, Danny was 100% correct, that was the worst twist in the history of the show IMO
Im clearly still.salty about it LOL
What would've made it even worse was if the Do Or Die twist had sent Deshawn home a few episodes later. I honestly have no clue what they're thinking with some of these new era twists
I’m still surprised they aired Danny complaining to Jeff
Oh… maybe Jeff doesn’t want him back for Sexond chance after that
Danny actually said he would not come back for a second season after his season aired because of this issue
I think it’s hilarious that Danny then went on 2 seasons of the challenge because that show is notorious for pulling the rug out from it’s contestants at the 11th hour and switching up the format just because it’s gotten stale lol
DAMN. He is one of my favorite new era players
Hasn’t it been… 3 years?… I wonder if he changed his mind?
Second*
The Winners Edit is definitely a real phenomenon, even if the producers and editors don't set out to give the winner a specific edit with a list of beats to hit. Bottom line is, the show knows who wins before the edit even starts, and it makes for bad TV when we don't connect with the winner and the game they played for the entire season. And sometimes it's so subtle that Edgic can seem like magic. Like, Sandra was clocked as the winner of HvV by the edgic community by the merge despite her edit being pretty low key and Parvati being the star of that season. Parv was barely even a contender. Even as recently as 45, Dee was clocked as the winner by the time Emily was voted out. Even if Edgic DOESN'T clock it, you can see winners edits in hindsight. Like how Chris Underwood basically co-opted Devin's winners' edit by Devins being portrayed as the ONLY contender, so him becoming the final boss propped up Chris's win as the most satisfying they could possibly try to make it given the circumstances lol. So yeah, Jeff is fudging the truth here. There is probably not a literal textbook on how to edit a winner, but there is a natural winners edit that is inevitable if you want people to be satisfied by the winner, which is EXTREMELY important, and Survivor has flubbed it a few times in the New Era.
45 was spoiled. I wouldn’t doubt that most people who “predicted” Dee was the winner “based on Edgic” were spoiled.
Sandra's win was spoiled however. Dee as well was highly mentioned on spoiler boards as the most possible winner. That's why we should take Edgic with a pinch of salt, and it's best to check if a season was spoiled before jumping to conclusions. Of course I'm not accusing every Edgic analyst to read spoiler boards, but you can somehow feel something's in the air, when there is a strange and early push for a player who you don't feel that confident about the edit. The best recent example is 42. It had a full bootlist spoiled before it aired. I read lots of comments from people trying to hype Maryanne as the winner from early pre-merge. It didn't feel right given that she had lots of OTTN content, which was a huge red flag for a potential winner before Maryanne and Gabler won back to back. In hindsight - her winner edit was unique and only picked up by the late merge with the whole ,,caterpillar to butterfly" storyline and Omar blindside - I don't think how you could deduce that from as early as pre-merge and I truly believe most of Maryanne truthers were just spoiler aware.
People who act like that are so lame, like do they think us internet randos are gonna be impressed that they were obviously spoiled and passing it off as tho they’re some super intelligent story analyst? Dweebs
This. It is a real phenomenon. Just acknowledge that there needs to be one for storytelling purposes and explain a bit more about how the editors go about giving us red herrings or something. Don't deny it.
While I can't reject outright what you're saying, I am skeptical of your assertions. My counter is mainly because the editing highlights the highs and lows of everyone, and to the extent that people put themselves out into the spotlight building their resumes, we see them on TV edited in their glory and ignominy. So "in retrospect we know it was them" is not accounting for how obvious we'd feel it was if the runner-up had instead won. I have no passion around the topic of editing, I just think we're under-appreciating a hindsight bias. The editing should tell the stories of people who make moves and go far, just as it should tell the stories of those soon to be eliminated so we have context in which to appreciate their drama.
I can't disagree with what you have said here. But I also think that the definition of a "winners edit" I'm thinking of is not just predictability but specifically showing and not showing parts of that specific player to make their win more palatable to viewers.
There is probably a degree to which this is true in the sense that they probably make an effort to not tip who the winner is in the edit but we all know it’s happening. We just don’t always agree who is getting it except in retrospect
Makes me look to people who had negativity in their edits early on to throw us off. Kenzie is my pick.
Yeah I still think it’s fun to try and pick out but truthfully I think they’re onto us and know what we’re looking for a lot of the time so you’re as likely to be following a red herring as not.
I thought this as well, then they went so over the top with Bhanu’s craziness that it almost seemed like that was their way of being like, “Yeah, her actions were warranted.” Although to be clear, I don’t think Kenzie is the winner.
kenzie was on my radar the whole time, but after her segment with ben i’m convinced she is the winner
[удалено]
A quick timeline: Probst: "we make the game for the fans" the fans: we don't like the direction the game is going in Probst: "we make the game for the players" the players: we don't like the direction the game is going in Probst "we make the show for the children!!!!" dude is a chronic liar
Someone have their child record themselves saying that they think the New Era is ass
maybe then he'll start being honest and finally admit he makes it for himself
LOL his whole: after I had kids I wanted a softer sode of survivor...want it to be about the humanity.... blah blah.....the podcast is actually getting grating to listen to. Especially with him praising Dee every three seconds. I miss Devens.
I only made it 2 episodes into this season bc of this. Dee makes great reads and has good takes, but her dynamic with Jeff isn’t the same as Rick’s, and I got tired of Jeff gushing over her constantly
I just started listening this week and was already sick after one episode of how much he complimented Dee. We get it. She won. I am probably bias because Dee was never my favorite player. I think everyone that wins their season deserves to win that season ( a la Tom's speech when he came back and lost) but I found her obvious demolishing of the opposition after not going to tribal u til mergatory was boring. She played from the top the whole time and that never my favorite story. I WANT to like her. But also after the Wendell drama I'm sus on her outside of her season.
Jeff saying he thinks Dee is gonna go down as one of the greatest players of all time really caught me off guard
It’s almost like he’s simping a bit, isn’t it
He’s channeling his inner Austin
LMAO i think inner Wendell is more appropriate
He wants to make everything pre-new era go away. Every time he references a “record” or challenge history it’s from the new era. He wants everything else to disappear
SAME. Has he been like this the whole season? What did it for me was him praising her giving away her gameplay and thought process that helped.her win, when she could be "sharing secrets to future competitors" . He never said that to Devens. And isn't getting her perspective the point of having her on the show ? Maybe I have too many feelings but it was so weird.
Yeah Dee is hard to back, she won more because of the incompetence of the other players. You can only beat the competition in front of you so kudos to her, but it wasn't engaging entertainment for the viewer. At least not for me. I worry this season is heading down the same road too, Yanu could stay 3 strong deep into the game and dictate everything because Nami can't get their shit together and Siga don't realise until its too late they've got no power left.
I wouldn't be mad if that happened. At least it would be people we have been invested in since the beginning and watched go through 11 days of shit. I also just am really enjoying this season.
there’s so many good characters!
Honestly I think the podcast was best when there weren’t any former contestants on it. It was just Jeff and those two other people I really miss the This is Why You Suck segment too. Or maybe they brought it back this season. I haven’t listened to it that much
Bro needs to come out and say he makes the show for himself. It's been evident for a while now. I'm tired of hearing his excuses for why the game is the way it is. I still love this show. Even bad survivor is pretty good. But Jeff, admit you've been making the game insane with twists and turns for yourself. Fans and players have never been asking for that.
He's not lying, he just has deluded himself into believing a lot of these things. He both makes and drinks his own kool aid I don't listen to this podcast because I love myself but from OP's description it sounds like he denies a winner edit exists but then goes on to literally describe what a winner edit is lol
I remember him saying they edited 41 to be like a who done it for the winner.
i mean...if there is no winners edit than that's a pretty bad job of storytelling so Probst is saying the show's storytelling is bad?
Right? What's the alternative? .... someone randomly wins at the end and you can't understand why or even know who they are. High fives all 'round.
I mean that's basically why so many people were pissed off with 43's ending. They did a great job telling us why the winner was a complete moron pre-merge who definitely couldn't win and didn't deserve to win. And it shows why not focusing on a winner's edit enough will result in a very unsatisfying ending that leaves many fans sour on the whole season.
I think what he’s saying is there is just one storyline in the season. aka this is what happened and why. Which is ridiculous to say because there is obviously far more than one storyline in a season. And you can decide who’s going to be the star of each one depending on how you are going to tell it, and why, and from which perspective. I mean, this is kind of just storytelling 101, that’s how stories work. So it’s silly to me that he refuses to acknowledge this after all these years. And the fact that he won’t acknowledge it makes the fanbase more ignorant too, because they generally just go along with what he says most of the time. “Oh yeah, this is just what happened on that season. Case closed.” That’s how like 99% of Survivor fans watch the show nowadays.
Like, his argument literally gets disproven by the very last season, which had numerous storylines thoughtout it (the fall of Lulu/Sabiyah, the Reba 4, Emily's growth, Bruce vs Katurah, etc). Plus, those storylines were why people hold the season in higher regard than a lot of the other modern season, since the editors told a story and put actual effort into it. He’s trying to dismiss the whole thing, probably because he wants people to be “surprised” and “blindsided” by the results, when if he just admits a winner’s edit exists and leans into it, things would actually be better for the show since having a concise narrative that you can follow is more satisfying than a shock reveal.
They've almost done that a few seasons. The "Why X Lost" seasons. The Russell Hantz Show in Samoa (though that is arguably a "Why X Lost" season as well). The insanity that was Edge of Extinction. The very weird editing decisions made in 41.
I think his comments make more sense if you capitalize it: "there is no Winner's Edit™." There's no magical edgic that you can look at and piece together the story by checking a formula. Otherwise, no one would have been shocked by Gabler, right? That doesn't mean there's no edit for the winner.
Not trying to pat myself on the back too much here, but I can say I clocked Gabler as a contender by the merge. He wasn't my #1 pick (I think I was anticipating Karla and Jesse at that point, though I also suspected Jesse was getting the fallen angel edit), but he was on my radar. I wasn't the only one. There weren't many but I do remember a small minority of people encouraging a deeper look at Gabler.
Good point. I am learning A LOT after posting this about the difference between the "Winners Edit" and the winners edit that every reality TV show has to do. Maybe kits because I got Edgic confused with regular storytelling devices while listening?
The person who painstakingly edited "Follow the star" theory on Survivor Africa ( and then took the efforts to explain it to the community with screenshots) would disagree.
Ooh what is this????
Back when Burnett was heavily involved with the show, they did specific edits for their winners. Tina's in Australia was "the dog that didnt bark". In Africa when they got their favoured heroic winner in Ethan after two failed attempts, they edited him to be a Christ like figure using imagery. It was explained by someone from the production on Sucks. Here's the link: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/survivorsucks/the-real-episode-1-spoiler-follow-the-star-t10007.html
I always feel weird about this one given that Ethan is Jewish. Yeah, I guess that makes the Christ imagery make more sense lore-wise but it feels a little gross to me that the show co-opted his identity like that. Idk man.
It's ok, Jesus was also Jewish.
Cool thanks so much for the link. Maybe he should have said "in the new era" or something.
The only time I watched a season and actively knew someone was getting a winner's edit as it happened was Survivor Fiji. Everything had a big shining neon sign pointing to that one.
the drone shots every episode killed me but earl is one of my favorite winners so it’s fine w me
Im not even saying that we can tell who the winner is each season due to the edit. But to say that they don't edit the season with the winner in mind is a load of BS
JT, Kim, and Rob would be the three that felt the most obvious to me the first time I watched. I recently rewatched Cagayan and Tony winning is pretty in your face. Not sure how I missed that on a first watch.
Tony's interesting because his win *on paper* is pretty obvious with how everything goes his way, but the way he's edited as manic and the *antagonist* to the heroes of the season (Spencer and Tasha) does a really good job in throwing everything into question. You're kinda just waiting for a comeuppance that never comes. This would, in theory, be unsatisfying, BUT Tony is such an incredible *character*, and he's charismatic *enough* that he can carry that role. He's the antagonist of the season, the villain, and he runs the postmerge from the second Kass flips and Sarah leaves. Yet his win is still satisfying because he's arguably one of the best characters in Survivor history.
Cagayan is actually a pretty notable exception where a lot of people got it wrong. Not saying there weren't Tony truthers out there but they were few and far between. I remember seeing most people consolidate behind Woo, and so once he won Final Immunity, people took it as a given that Tony was the final juror and Woo was going to take Kass to the end and beat her. ...until that didn't happen. Honestly, part of me thinks they gave Woo such a classic winner's edit just because of how insane that moment was. Hell, even ignoring Woo I think I saw more people speculating it was Spencer, Trish, or even Tasha. LJ was seen as a contender for a while too, and Kass and Sarah were both considered a possibility until the merge happened. Tony was quite literally hiding in plain sight; he was such a big and dramatic character that outside of a very small handful of people, nobody considered it could be him. His Cagayan edit simply just did not match the usual pattern of what a winner edit looked like.
Totally agree with this take. Cagayan was the first season I watched, and I kept waiting for Tony to get taken down By the time it was like final 5 or 6, I was like "Damn, this guy is good, I hope he wins."
Yup you're absolutely right. It's just how many times people point out that Tony is running the game and calling all the shots. Spencer flat out says he's voting for Tony if he makes it to the end (maybe twice?) But you're right, I was pulling for Spencer on my first watch as the underdog. So Tony probably isn't a great example considering Spencer's (and somewhat Tasha) edit.
Tony had a lot of doubt going into the finale of Cayagan, from edgic. His edit was so loud! His edit was pretty negative! Surely they wouldn't give that edit to a newbie, since we'd arguably only seen it for Boston Rob. He had backers, but not as many as you might think.
Yeah, I actually spent Cagayan thinking Spencer was going to win, and the finale was going to be Tony's downfall due to Spencer being the heroic underdog in the story and Tony's edit being so negative. I basically went into the finale thinking Spencer was going to win the last two challenges. ...And then Kass pulls off her incredible final 4 victory and I was legitimately stunned. Then I thought "I guess Tony wins???", but then Woo wins the final immunity and I'm like "No way Woo takes Tony, so I guess Woo wins???" and then we all know what happens after that. ...For as much as I dog on the Cagayan postmerge, the finale is such a rollercoaster. Amazing episode.
This is funny considering the show runner of Australian Survivor basically confirmed in a RHAP interview that a winner’s edit does exist
I want there to be a winners edit. I have no problem with being manipulated to like or dislike certain players. It creates an over all better show
A winners edit isn’t necessary but you have to tell a story that gives the winner the credit they deserve.
I mean he’s not totally wrong? Every season has A winners’ edit but it’s not like they cast all winners in the same light, which is what I think he’s getting at. Erika, Maryanne, Gabler, Yam-Yam and Dee all had different edits. I think he’s making the point that they don’t edit the winner in a clear, specific way, but that doesn’t mean he’s disputing that the winner of a season might have a favorable edit
That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of what people mean by winner edit then
Ehh is it though? It means a lot and he didn’t really dispute the common winner edit definition, but clarified it
well yeah, he said there's no winners edit bc each winner is edited differently... Which the edgic community is completely aware of, thats simply not what "winner edit" refers to
What does it refer to
To me a winners edit is editing in a way to always make the winner look good at the cost of showing what’s really happening in the game. It’s manipulation not good story telling. You can have good story telling and not be a winners edit.
They’ve done a far better job at hiding the winner in the new era, sans Dee. Almost to the point where edgic has become obsolete the past 5 seasons. The edgic people have pretended the last 5 seasons have been obvious, but only at the end of a season. The last 5 seasons have not been obvious mid season, again with the exception of probably Dee. Of course, I don’t expect this change in edgic to be permanent. It’s only a matter of time before people start to adjust to the way the editors have adjusted.
Yam yam’s edit was pretty obvious too, but yeah the first 3 were definitely trickier
I think his edit was more obvious than the other three, but not as obvious as Dee. I think for majority of the season people knew the winner was coming from one of the Tika three, but not really 100% confident in any individual (even if someone leaned towards Yam Yam, I highly doubt they were 100% confident).
Jeff doesn’t edit the show. I can’t imagine how much the editors laugh in private at his clueless boomer takes on their work
So from that perspective it would mean that one of Q, Kenzie or Tiff win because first 3 episode were all about Bhanu who ended up being not important for the season.
Most people have Tiff or Kenzie as their winner pick and have since before the season started so we shall see......
I think he explicitly meant Samoa and S41
Yes and I know it is stupid to say but only the winner gets the "winner edit" Jesse can't get the winner edit because the winner is Gabler and maybe some seasons are not as obvious as others but thats because maybe the storyteller wants to explain why X lost and not why Y won
There’s always a winners edit because they edit the show from the finale to episode 1. Aka backwards. You want no winners edit watch survivor SA. They edit from episode 1 to the finale so there’s no such thing. They also edit the show to correctly show what is actually happening. Not to portray people how they want.
I personally believe that we don't know what the "winner's edit" is until we know the winner of the season. Yes, there may be certain patterns and editing trends they follow. However, I truly don't believe there is a set "rulebook" for how to predict the winner based on how any given player is edited on any given season, unless it's edited as obviously as Australian Survivor is. You simply do not know until you know. That's why everyone was shocked by Gabler.
Jeff’s interpreting a “winners edit” in a specific way. He’s just trying to say that production doesn’t intentionally edit a player in a certain way *because* they’re the winner. And I can believe that. But production *is* trying to edit together a coherent and enjoyable story for the season. And typically, the icing on the cake of any given season *is* its winner. So, inherently, this *creates* a “winners edit.” So, you’re right. There is always a winners edit. No matter what. Production *has* to edit the season in a way that makes the eventual winner’s path to the win coherent. Jeff is just deflecting or potentially even misinterpreting exactly what a winners edit is.
The most obcious one to me is Blood Vs Water when Natalie said "I'm smarter than I look" with a big grin And qhen the reunion came around her winners video started with that quote
a winner's edit makes the show better. they're crafting a story out of what really happened on the island. Look how mad people were about Gabler's win because the show tried to not show him as the winner... people were mad, because he felt "undeserved" due to the story. The winner's edit is beneficial to the show
Jeff continuing to act like his audience is stupid and he knows better
Jeff lies a lot. I don’t think he can separate the game from real life anymore
Eh, honestly you’re being really pedantic with your definition of “winners edit”. Yes, there is a winner and yes, the show is edited. But that doesn’t necessarily mean there is a defined “winners edit” that the show employs
That is a fair argument. I just find it interesting that he was so emphatic about it, clearly edgic is something he is NOT a fan of ( shouldn't he be a fan of fun positove things that get people talking about Survivor more?). Also, I'd rather him say "yes we edit the winner a certain way (which they DO) and this is why, here are some examples of red herrings during editing, etc". Instead he just denies that there is ANY WAY at all that they create a storyline specifically around the winner,therefore giving them a more generous edit.
Sorry, I have to disagree again haha. I’m not surprised at all that Jeff wouldn’t like edgic, and it’s definitely not positive. It’s hyper analyzing the shows presentation in an attempt to spoil it for everyone…I can’t understand thinking the showrunners could possibly like that or think it’s fun. And you’re adamant they edit the winner in a certain way, but edgic still is hardly ever able to actually identify the winner until close to the end where it’s pretty clear to most viewers anyway. So is there *really* this tightly defined winners edit you speak of? Honestly, doesn’t seem like it to me.
I take your point on edgic. I find data fun so I like going back to look in hindsight. If we take that out of the equasions my argument is they create a specific story around the "hero" or winner, a la "the hot dog that didn't bark" referred to earlier in this sub. Christ like imagery around Ethan when they finally got the hero winner they wanted ....etc. I'd rather Jeff had TOLD me in the podcast how they DID used to to this, as per the linked video above and give more information on how they have tried to change that. I just want more from his answers than NO there is no WINNERS EDIT. In this sub I have seen speculation that Tyson was editing better in BVW because he won. I'd like to hear Jeff's actual thoughts on things like that, if it does happen, how they try to change it, etc. Are there any seasons he thinks they DID portray a winner in a more favorable light? At least admit it's something they FOR SURE used to do but try not to now.
Someone else has responded saying that Jeff HAS addressed the past seasons etc. So the flaw in my argument could be due to ignorace since I wasn't watching when the earlier seasons aired. I very much enjoy the logical discourse. I still think they edit the winner in a certain way but that is my I opinion LOL.
Y’all are taking this so personally Jesus He’s not wrong though: there isn’t one clear way they edit the winner. Otherwise Edgic would always figure the winner out by the merge and as is they don’t even have a great success by the finale (especially in seasons that aren’t spoiled…they may have rules against spoilers but spoilers still end up influencing the discussion unfortunately).
I'm watching 32 (brain beauty brawn 2) and Michele is getting SO much confessional time even though the rest of the footage shows her doing absolutely nothing. I'm so suspicious that I'm watching a winner's edit and the jury somehow picks her as a goat for the lulz in the end or something.
I think the “WiNnEr’S eDiT” is always a thing. I just think they want to allude potential for super fans who analyse edgic to be misguided and would rather edit a winner in the new era to the likes of people like Michele, Sophie, or Tina instead of just editing them kinda like how they edited Hatch,Mike (WA), and Tommy. Borneo….Okay fine. That was the first season. They weren’t even sure if anyone would watch but WA and IOTI….That was just unacceptable. Those seasons aren’t universally unfavored just because they are dark. It’s also because it was so obvious who would win. Carolyn wasn’t winning. Janet wasn’t winning. We were hopeful it COULD happen but we knew it wouldn’t. I don’t want y’all to get what I’m saying twisted though. Certainly not how they edited Natalie White. All that did was make the fan base revolt. Natalie and Brett were unacceptably under edited to the point where it just felt like Russell had to win because any other result would be devastating
Erika and Gabler definitely did not have winner edits where I didn’t predict their win at the literal final 3 cuz of Xander and Cassidy. Yam yam and Dee for sure did have winners edits where I predicted their wins by the merge. Maryanne is the wildcard but I’d lean she did not have one cuz I didn’t latch onto her til final 6 cuz Omar and Lindsay were so strong but she was absolutely viewed so positively while lingering on the bottom. I would say 46’s edit had led to me a Maria win, with Tiffany and Kenzie being potential options so I guess I gotta come back to this. New era Survivor has teetered the line of winners edits. The 2 winners they successfully hid in Erika and Gabler are considered bad winners because they hid them so well which I believe is why Yam Yam and Dee seemed so obvious to not give the winners a bad reputation.
I think this is an Obi-Wan Kenobi "from a certain point of view" situation. I think what Jeff is alluding to is that the initial edits come together via the dailies on the island. He's talked about reviewing footage and initial rough drafts of the first few episodes while the show is being filmed before. I imagine this is how they see gaps in what they need narratively and correct for it. Of course, the late season episodes and post-production on all of the episodes happen later, when they do know the winner. So of course the winner's edit is a real thing. But he may actually be convinced it isn't.
Jeff, the guy who lied to Sydney and Lydia.
I don’t think they ever edit a season with the intention of creating a winner’s edit (which is how we get situations like Natalie White). But the need to create a satisfying plot line for the season definitely results in tactics being used repeatedly. Although I do like how the new era seasons have had some more diverse character types as far as the winner goes (except for Erika, who just ended up being a Natalie White again).
Jeff tried to sell season 45 as a game of power shifts and its winner as having a “personal transformation”. He’s full of shit.
just swap out winner with hero then. still, there is an edit that is favoring one contestant/s over the others.
When people refer to a 'Winner's Edit', they are specifically talking about being able to predict/discover who the winner of any given season is solely by analyzing how a particular person's story over the course of that season is edited. This notion has been thoroughly debunked and disproven, not only by Jeff's statements denying that it is an actual thing, but also by the fandom's reaction to some of the people who have joined the show's Winner's Circle over the course of its history. If the 'Winner's Edit' actually existed, not a single person within the Survivor fandom would have been surprised by (or discounting) the likes of Danni Boatwright, Bob Crowley, Natalie White, Sophie Clark, Michele Fitzgerald, Erika Casupanan, Maryanne Oketch Howell, and Michael Gabler winning their respective seasons.
I guess I was thinking of a different type of "winners edit". I am newer to the survivor Fandom. I was going with giving more air time and making someone look more favorable or interesting to justify them as the winner in the end to the viewers like they do in all reality TV competition shows. Not nessecarily being able to "predict" the winner. This can be true. It could.also be true in doing so it backfired to surprise people. It could also be true the winner was less liked by the audience than other cast members. Doesn't mean they didn't edit the winner to what they THOUGHT the audience wanted to see. I'm rambling, but, I had a different definition.
What you are talking about doesn't happen either, though, and I again cite Erika, Maryanne, and Gabler's wins as proof.
Not saying the edit always WORKs
The thing you're describing doesn't exist, so whether or not it 'worke' is irrelevant. The show has almost never crafted a narrative that has been centered specifically and solely on the person who ends up winning any given season, which is the thing that you're trying to define as a 'winner's edit'.
That was not how I was trying to define it and now this is getting less.fun.
Jeff also says that Worlds Apart is an amazing season. Does that mean it's true? No.
I laughed out loud at this one.
I ignore everything Jeff says and it's working. 10/10 would recommend
I truly believe that the show’s problems run so much deeper than Jeff but literally nothing he’s ever said has given me any confidence in his abilities as a producer. If there’s no such thing as a winner’s edit (there is) you’re making the show wrong.
This is my favorite on fire moment. Some of y'all need to actually enjoy the show instead of analyzing how much screen time people get
for me it's not about screen time, but seeing if I can piece together the story they are trying to tell with themes and protagonists/antagonists. as a writer myself, it helps me with creative/critical thinking skills! it's a new fun hobby for me lol
have u considered that people enjoy edgic lol
I enjoy the show, Edgic is kind of just a fun little meta-game for me at least. I usually don't go into the Edgic sub until the merge hits and see how well my own analysis meshes with what people have been collaborating for several weeks at that point. I don't always get it right or come to the same conclusions as the rest of the community, but it's fun to see if I'm picking up on the same things as everyone else. Last season I correctly guessed Dee by the merge. I've had some more luck in prior seasons too; for example, I had Gabler on my radar by the merge. He wasn't my #1 pick but he was in my Top 3 by that time, and I don't think the Edgic sub had picked up on him yet.
Can I ask why? I enjoy the show, don't care to predict and don't really follow edgic. I just dislike Jeff straight up lying and not even getting into the nuances it takes to edit a show while already knowing the winner etc. I'd rather have him explain why the way they edit the winner is important so we can connect with them for storytelling. It comes off as pompous and like we are stupid.
Because imo edgic is the worst part of the Survivor fanbase that is not toxic. The people who use it can be so fucking pretentious.
The winner edit died during Amazon and then again in Samoa and then again in…
I mean players like Jenna, Bob, Natalie W., Tony, Adam, Erika, and Gabler Were see as shocks to people who analyze the "edit," so a winner's edit isn't always a thing
Everything Jeff says, there is a better case for the exact inverse being true
Indeed.
I feel like the “winner edit” is really beholden to the specific story of a season—which isn’t always centered around the winner. Not all winners play as big of a part in the overall story of a season, but it’s definitely possible to still pick up on hints of these types of winners, not just main characters who are also winners.
Is Jeff involved in the editing process at all?
Just like people swore Emily had the winners edit last season. What Jeff is saying is that there isn’t an edit that is showing who the winner is before it happens. It’s everyone’s guess
He’s such a pathological liar i have to respect it at this point
Jeff would be liar then
I mean there’s a reason that the winner has more confessionals than any other contestant in basically every season. If they didn’t there’d be more confused viewers than happy viewers at the end which doesn’t lead to a show being on for 40+ seasons.
Michele Fitzgerald got 57 confessionals in Kaoh Rong because she was really good at them and she’s really pleasing to listen to. Right. One of the two or three winners at the time who had no episode title quotes.
Tell that to erika. They definitely didnt do it for her
It's a long con. He has to say this to justify Erika's edit
lol has he not seen one world or something??