Hey folks, I used to post under the name 'television' for some time, but didn't bother re-signing up after the takeover/crash thing because I commented infrequently anyway. But I've been reading since then and have been pretty intrigued by the editing this season, so I figured I'd rejoin.

I'm so intrigued by this episode... curious about how it will affect the rest of the game, but also how it was portrayed. Stephen really moved front and centre this ep, and I can't make heads or tails of his edit. It's been mostly negative, or he's been portrayed as naive, eager, etc. But then, he's been the one pushing the 'evolution' theme that Jeff firmly endorsed in this ep; and although he's been talked about as a target, he hasn't been wrong on a vote yet (HII bounce aside). I remember the first time he was on, his edit was uneven to begin and took awhile to warm up. But then, he lost that one. What's his story this time? Is he an overeager, overthinking strategist that's going to paint himself into a corner? Or is his constant scrambling keeping him a step ahead of the game, like a nerdier version of Tony?

The scene where he was trying to convince Spencer and Jeremy was the most interesting to unpack. He talked about 'voting blocks', how the game was evolving, but they seemed super skeptical. Then, though, they DID do what he said. We heard Spencer saying that forecasting this move and its effects was tougher than any math problem he'd done, but he did it. Is that painting Stephen as smarter than Spencer, who's already been described as one of the smartest strategists ever? We also saw Jeremy parroting Stephen's talk of 'voting blocks' at Tribal, which is pretty significant when something is repeated at Tribal, because that's where they usually put things for emphasis and ultimate truth for viewers. And then Stephen's game theory got the Jeff seal of approval by being his recap to send the tribe home, and the viewers into thinking about next week. Obviously it's in Probst's interest to push a theme that the game is evolving, as if fans believe that, their interest won't grow stale. Beyond that, as fans who want something to happen other than boring Pagonging, this 'evolution' thing should be pretty exciting. I could see why the show wants to push it, and if Stephen gets the narrator's seat as being the architect, that bodes very well for his endgame. Is the editing evolving as well? It felt to some degree like this episode flipped things upside down.

HOWEVER... it still all feels pretty underwhelming. Spencer and Jeremy's reluctance could have been highlighted not to build suspense for the boot, but rather to foreshadow that the move will backfire. Spencer suggested it could ruin his game, Jeremy questioned the timing of it, and they could very well be wrong. I could see Jeremy sitting at the end with someone like, say, Wentworth, and having an unexpectedly bitter jury not buying the 'voting blocks' talk and instead giving a spite vote against the guy they trusted who turned on them. This would all line up with what a more traditional editing analysis leads me to think - after last week, I wondered if Kelley had peaked too soon, because despite the buildup as her as a gamer with million dollar quotes, I didn't see how she could realistically make endgame. With this week, it all makes sense a bit more.

Still, they didn't show Kelley or Jeremy or Spencer orchestrating the boot; this was Stephen's master plan, and more significantly, all 3 other players followed him in it. And despite his missteps and ineptitude, he's also been given the chance to be self-aware in his confessionals; he said early that he would either overplay his hand and go out early or make it far (don't remember the exact quote; I'll have to look it up in this thread in a sec). He has been in danger of overplaying, especially with his 'hustle' this episode, but it hasn't backfired on him. And with Joe, he said Joe was like his white whale, but it could be more like his red herring, since now everyone wants Joe out and it's obvious he'll go when he doesn't win immunity. Did they set it up like that so Stephen's long-gestating idea will give him credit when Joe leaves, even though everyone wants him out? It's plausible that he could be getting an edit like Tony, or maybe even more like Mike, who made mistakes but was allowed to show his self-awareness in confessionals.

I still think the most likely thing is that Stephen's story is wrapped up in pushing the 'strategy evolution' idea, and not in winning; he could be like the guy who invented rotisserie league baseball (ie. fantasy sports), who came up with the idea but never won his league in 25 years of playing. He still seems like more of a coach (or a Coach?) than a player. Kelley's winning edit and Spencer/Jeremy's 'maybe winning' edit makes me believe a likely scenario is the one I described above, where this move backfires and makes people bitter towards those seen as orchestrating it, which would pave the way for a Wentworth win over either of those two and/or Stephen. But after this week, a Stephen win isn't impossible. With a double episode next week, that would suggest that the first boot isn't very suspenseful, and so that would lend support to the idea that Stephen's move doesn't backfire immediately. As well, if that betrayal created drama that was important to the game, I'd imagine it'd be highlighted in the preview. Maybe this DOES turn things around for Stephen. Wouldn't it be ironic if Jeremy, who said he'd be Stephen's JT, was the one who was living in the past and didn't see how the game had evolved for someone like Stephen to win, even against his new JT?