LAST EDITED ON 12-18-14 AT 02:04 PM (EST)Yeah, but that's partially what I mean about looking for a framework for this kind of winner's edit. What is the difference between how someone like Natalie was edited versus someone like Hayden? How can we determine which type is which?
I feel like these two conditions are the most important in deciding between the two.
Could very easily alienate the audience (hence the hidden edit at the beginning).
Surrounded by big (but clearly flawed) characters and players.
Someone like Hayden probably wouldn't alienate the audience in any way, so there's no reason to hide him if he wins. He's kind of straightforward.
And then regarding the context of the other players, it's a matter of playing process of elimination for the dominant player and asking... Is Missy disqualified because of how people perceive her and Baylor? Is Jon disqualified because he is such a tool sometimes? Is Keith disqualified because he was shown as a Dumb Player so much? Back in South Pacific, is Coach disqualified because he keeps bringing religion (and honor) into the game? You yourself said you hate South Pacific, partly because of all the religion that Coach brought with Brandon.
Or, in the case of Hayden, is Tyson disqualified because he was a jerk at the immunity challenge? In this case, the answer was "no" because that one bad moment was a small blip on an otherwise solid character edit.
I think there are obviously many seasons where all of this analysis isn't necessary because it's obvious who will win... But in a season like this one or South Pacific where almost all of the major characters have definable and demonstrable flaws, we probably need to apply some of these tests.