Wednesday, April 25, 2012

SSAC: Member Post 4/25/2012

For those of you wondering how The SurvivorSAC operates, here is a post by member Joe Coombs (@AttackoftheJoe on Twitter). Commonly we share ideas such as these and ask for feedback. The ideas and feedback them lead to further ideas and so on and so forth (as you can see, Joe's post is built off of a previous discussion):
This morning and I sort of had an epiphany, if you will, about JML's proposed final 3 of Chelsea, Kim and Troyzan and why it makes sense. Those three characters a.) each have the most story that really carrys them to that final day and b.) they each represent some place on a balance of how to act in the game. Chelsea is the emotional extreme. She realizes what needs to be done to the game but her emotions cause her to want to reject that reality. Kim is the non-emotional extreme. The cold-hearted bitch that knows exactly what she needs to do, who she needs to charm to get to the end and has no qualms whatsoever about doing so. Troyzan is the balance. He doesn't relish taking other people out. He knows exactly what he has to do to get to this point in the game, which is to win every immunity with his back against the wall. And while this upsets and angers him, it also drives him. He's not reacting negatively to the unfortunate reality ahead of him. He's having an emotional outburst about how he has rationalized what the game has become around him and how he has to adapt to it. 


@drewm_55 said...

Hey guys. This is something I have always wondered about Survivor storytelling, and really any other story left open to interpretation and analysis as well. All these themes, clues and editing pieces you guys pick up on, how much of it do the Survivor editors intend to convey? I have no doubt that the editors of the show are incredibly good at what they do, and certainly are conveying many, if not most, of the ideas you're reading. But do you ever wonder if you're picking up something someone said, or a juxtaposition, camera shot, and interpreting it in a way that wasn't intended (or didn't even have an intention)? Now, I know that with such a well crafted story like Survivor, pretty much everything presented, and the order in which it is, has a purpose. But is it 100% all planned out? Also PLEASE don't take this as some slight to your work. I'm a huge fan of what you guys do, and agree with virtually all of it. I've just always been curious about how much of the themes read is meant to be read that way.

Take LOST as another example. I have no doubt with such a complex story that there were many scenes, quotes and actions that were interpreted to death by fans that weren't really meant for that. Is this just a sign of an excellently crafted story? That analysts can connect ideas that weren't really presented to be connected and it still make sense? The foundation is so solid that you can fill in the gaps quite reasonably well? I'm no English major, so maybe this is fundamental story philosophy I don't know, I've just always been curious.

@drewm_55 said...

This one's just a comment, it feeds off the Kim-Chelsea dynamic you mentioned above. A couple episodes ago when we saw Chelsea uncomfortable with Kim's calculating approach to get rid of Jay (right?), I thought more was going to come of that, like in the next episode. It seemed like that was going to be the beginning of the undoing of their partnership, but so far it hasn't come to pass. Plenty of show left though, so we may yet see those opposing philosophies separate.