Odds and Ends

Today I'm going to buckle and talk about TV. Worse, 'reality' TV. Worst, Survivor.

But first, let me tell you about the house 3 doors up from us. The house 3 doors up from us went on the market last Wednesday. It's the same age as ours (40-ish). It's the same # of bedrooms as ours (3). Fewer bathrooms. Smaller kitchen. Bungalow (ours is a back-split). It sold before their open-house on Saturday... so less than 4 days on the market. Generally, that indicates that they got their asking price (or pretty darn close), if not more. The asking price for this smaller-than-ours house was about $70,000 more than we paid for our place 3.5 years ago. Which means, if we did a good clean & stage and put our place on the market now, we'd get more... possibly as much as $100,000 more than we paid for it... that's (give or take) a 30% increase in that time! *boggle* Now, I know when I sold my condo back in 2001 I got 50% more than I'd paid for it 3 years earlier... but I also know I got a bargain on it and made massive improvements (like the bathroom was no longer beige with dirt *shudder*... there was no longer a washing machine full of water in the laundry closet... the oven worked... and the ceiling was no longer bare stucco *laugh*)... but I also know we didn't get a deal on this house... at all. So I'd say a 30% increase (theoretically) would be pretty damn impressive!

Of course, we wouldn't actually get that much because the house next door has been vacant for the past 2 years (effectively... except for 2 short periods of time... and while the guys set on flipping it were doing the work)... and it looks it. Inside, it looks great... the guys did some nice upgrades and staged it really nicely... it just didn't sell (I blame the neighbour on the other side, who doubtless scuttled any potential deals by broadcasting "it used to be a grow-op"... although that was never actually confirmed). The yards (both back and front) are sorely in need of mowing... and a few weeks back were nearly solid yellow with dandelions which have since, sadly, all gone to seed. Thankfully, we seem to be mostly up-wind ;)

Anyway, on to Survivor. Today people are talking everywhere I turn about "did the wrong person win?" and Russel's suggestion that there should be a fan-vote component in deciding who leaves or at least in who wins.

1/ No, the wrong person didn't win. In fact, I'll even say "the right person lost". Despite his very vocal claims that other people weren't playing the game as hard as he was, Russel overlooked one key element in his game-play. He may have Outlasted. He may have Outwitted. He did NOT Outplay... because he ignored the role of the jury when engineering his eliminations... he treated everyone like dirt and then expected them all to vote him a million bucks richer for lying and manipulating them. His arrogance was a key element in his downfall. He walked through the game with the attitude that he was the de facto winner and that it was just a matter of time before they all voted it so. If he was paying attention, the final tribal council moment when Parvati told Jerri that she was sitting on the jury not because she was a threat... not because she would be a challenge to beat either in a challenge or at tribal council... but because Russel was 100% sure she'd vote for him to win... that moment, and the look on Jerri's face, would have told him his critical mis-calculation.

Do I think Sandra was necessarily the best player out there? No. But she understood the value of the "no BS" approach... she didn't play mind-games... she didn't threaten... when Russel asked her if she was with him or against him, she told him she was against him (he just chose not to believe the honesty of the response)... when she found a hidden immunity idol, she treated it as a HIDDEN immunity idol and didn't tell people she had it so that they could 'flush it out'. She may not have played an often two-faced puppet-master game like Parvati appeared to play (editing is a wonderful thing, though)... she may not have played "queen of the castle", but her strategy was effective. She made sure nobody saw her as a significant threat, while simultaneously planting the seeds with key people that she wanted everyone's favourite hate-target Russel gone... so when it came to the end, she'd be able to say (and no-one could really contradict her) "I tried right from the merge to get rid of him, but I couldn't get the heroes to listen".

2/ As for Russel's assertion that obviously if Sandra could be anti-social, athletically and logically deficient in all challenges, devote herself to one single goal as her strategy and still fail to achieve it, but still win the top prize TWICE, there was obviously a flaw in the game. He flat out said that the public should have a say in it. Jeff equally flat out told him "not gonna happen".

And here's why it wouldn't work.

Yes, audience voting is employed in some reality shows... but generally they're performance shows... the audience votes each week based on short performances during that week's broadcast. Survivor is a completely different beast. Each week's show is made up of 3 full days worth of activity whittled down into 40 minutes of show, at the end of which the people involved vote and eliminate someone. To allow audience participation in the elimination in that scenario effectively means that the editors choose the person eliminated each week and the eventual winner.

What?

Yes. With the power of a good editing suite, you can pretty much make anyone seem any way you want, given 3 days of footage, 2 challenges, 'confessional' interviews and just around-camp observations. Sure, it's easier pre-merge to manipulate the image and the audience because you've got footage from 2 distinct groups, so nearly twice as much camp observation and 'confessional' footage with which to concoct an 'image' of any player... but by the time the merge comes along, the audience have already formed opinions of who they like and don't like, so that's not so much of a challenge. So by allowing audience participation in a game like Survivor, you're not "letting America decide"... you're letting the editing team decide.

Or that's my thinking, anyway ;)