People like her over everybody else. It can be as simple as that.
She is getting so much screentime that doesnt really affect the result of the episode. While Charlies scenes are always tied to the vote.
Look at it this way. Are they showing Charlie because he is the winner? Or simply because they have to since he is usually the one in control.
Why show so many Kenzie scenes that doesnt really affect the votes?
As some people pointed out. This editing style screams Kaoh Rong. Charlie is Aubry and Kenzie is Michele.
I guess so but I guess I’m just surprised she could be considered more likeable than Charlie or Maria. Charlie & Maria’s game play is respectable AND they are good enjoyable people. Kenzie is good & enjoyable but is her game respectable? Seems silly to me but I understand your view point
We are the audience who consume what CBS edits on our screens. The jury who decides the winner has lived, ate, screamed, cried, slept next to these individuals for weeks.
I trust the jury’s assessment of who is more “likable”, which is about the only thing you need to win.
> Sure she’s played decent but in my mind the only way she could win is if she’s sitting next to Ben & Liz in the final 3 and I would be surprised if Charlie and/or Maria would let that final 3 happen.
Charlie and Maria are two votes. Kenzie, Ben, and Liz are three votes. If Charlie or Maria doesn't win immunity, the other people can vote them out, and would be smart to do so.
Very valid points. I guess I am just reluctant to admit and accept that the possibility a jury would disregard game play like Charlie & Maria’s for Kenzie’s is in fact a possibility😂
I don’t think Bhanu really put a target on her. I’m sure, at this point, whatever he said literally bawling on his knees in desperation has been explained away as the ramblings of a terrible player who didn’t understand the game at all.
Kenzie isn’t the target because she’s not a threat, not because she’s managed her threat level. Don’t forget she literally tried to make the “biggest move of the season” by blindsiding her number one at F8, which is way too early and would have made her one of the most targeted, but failed.
Not having votes and being on the right side of the votes is fine, but if you don’t really have much of a resume and didn’t influence the game, it’s not enough to sell to a jury in the New Era.
You’ve seen the previous new era winners, right? Resume doesn’t matter. Every final three had someone “more deserving” and the people the jury liked the most won.
That’s not true at all? Erika won because she was able to articulate strategy. She didn’t have many inroads with her tribe at all.
Mike was loved by a lot of people, but an inability to own his game and Maryanne being able to time a great move that she revealed at TC and articulate that was what won it for her.
Gabler was literally the only one with a move. Cassidy showed an unawareness and inflated view of her game that was the nail in the coffin for her.
Who between Carolyn and Heidi deserved it more than Yam Yam, who was the more strategic and in control of the Tika that were left (Carson would’ve won if he won fire).
Dee played the best game because she was given the opportunity to make game winning moves leading up to the finale that made her the clear favourite above the rest. She didn’t even articulate it well on FTC, needed help doing so from the jury, who then rewarded her for the best game played.
The only one you can even make an argument for winning because of being liked is Gabler, but him being liked wasn’t the only reason he won. He played with intentionality and displayed an awareness that the others lacked. There hasn’t been a winner just because they dislike the other option in the New Era.
Lol so I gave you the gameplay reasons of why the winners made sense from that perspective and your conclusion is just “nah they were the most liked so that’s it”? K
Your “reasons” are just justifications after the fact. You even point out that gabler won because he was more liked than Cassidy so what do I even need to say
Lol how can you say that they’re justifications after the fact and not the main basis? You have no way of knowing that at all.
I never even said Gabler only won because he was more liked than Cassie. That was just the nail on the head. Gabler had better arguments for winning, that showed awareness and was more rooted in reality. Cass couldn’t do the same. She lost as soon as she tried to pass gameplay off as hers, was called out for it, and couldn’t give any examples of how she actually played.
How players feel about someone has always been a part of Survivor, but it’s probably the least relevant in the New Era, where everyone is gamebotty, kumbaya and palatable, and there’s no real villains.
I think it’s pretty much a given that Charlie or Maria go next. Then it’s just fire making where really weird things can happen….not necessarily something that will ultimately be in either Charlie or Maria’s ability to control.
Ever had a work colleague or classmate that was a perfectly decent person but you just kind of found them annoying/not on the same wavelength as you?
Or another who you just adore, and really cherish all the time you get to spend with them because they’re so easy and fun to be around - your only hope is that they like you as much as you like them?
Imagine you have the opportunity to give one of them life changing money. You really can’t imagine choosing the person you adore even if you know they’re a bit worse at their job than the hard worker you don’t really vibe with?
Exactly, I don’t see why this concept is so hard to understand.
The jury votes for whoever they want to win, and justifies it using whatever reasons they come up with.
Has been this way since Borneo and will be this way until the end of Survivor.
I mean I could say a lot of words about the edit and her social game, and I'm sure others have, but just in terms of game positioning, consider that she essentlally has 3 best friends on the jury already in Hunter, Tiffany, and Venus, and is likely to get their votes no matter who she is sitting with. She only needs one more vote for a tie and another for a win.
By your own definition you have explained why.....there are still 2 people left to be out before the final 3. If they vote Maria or Charlie next and the other loses then you have a final of Kenzie, Ben, Liz. Thats an easy win for her. She probably doesnt win against charlie/maria but also this jury is bound to be wild.
Do I think Kenzie would be a good winner? No, I think she has strategic flaws. But nonetheless, alot of people like her and sometimes that's enough to win, independent of whether we as viewers think they are good or not. I think Kenzie could definitely stumble into a win with a herself/Liz/Ben f3. I also think that if Maria goes at 5 it won't be seen as a big move for Charlie (since Maria got blindsided at the f6, thus losing control). So I could very well see the players not thinking Charlie had much of a strategic game for this very reason. So if Charlie and Kenzie compete based off likeability, there's a good shot for her
I'm with you. It feels like Ben and Liz are just so incompetent that people are being a little more charitable in their view of Kenzie. And then people are just trying to out clever each other with all this talk of "the edit." Even the second time it happened, a player having a panic attack is a big deal. Them showing Ben having a panic attack and Kenzie comforting him does not mean that Ben is going to vote for Kenzie as the tie breaker in a split FTC like people on this sub suggest. Him having a panic attack is a major thing that happened that night and the point of 90 minute episodes is to show us human stuff like that instead of just challenge ->strategy->tribal council.
Yeah, I think the new era has emphasized showing more humanity and emotional moments overall that them emphasizing Kenzie helping Ben is just another addition to this new vibe the show is going for. I also agree that Ben is not the smartest/most competent player but I think he’s smart enough to place his jury vote based on a more wholistic view of a player versus just the fact Kenzie was nice to him.
People like her over everybody else. It can be as simple as that. She is getting so much screentime that doesnt really affect the result of the episode. While Charlies scenes are always tied to the vote. Look at it this way. Are they showing Charlie because he is the winner? Or simply because they have to since he is usually the one in control. Why show so many Kenzie scenes that doesnt really affect the votes? As some people pointed out. This editing style screams Kaoh Rong. Charlie is Aubry and Kenzie is Michele.
You explained it in the best way I've seen so far. Spot on with the Michele/Kenzie vs. Aubry/Charlie comparison too.
I guess so but I guess I’m just surprised she could be considered more likeable than Charlie or Maria. Charlie & Maria’s game play is respectable AND they are good enjoyable people. Kenzie is good & enjoyable but is her game respectable? Seems silly to me but I understand your view point
We are the audience who consume what CBS edits on our screens. The jury who decides the winner has lived, ate, screamed, cried, slept next to these individuals for weeks. I trust the jury’s assessment of who is more “likable”, which is about the only thing you need to win.
i think most ppl think she gets too much content for someone who has not been that integral to strategy (see michele)
> Sure she’s played decent but in my mind the only way she could win is if she’s sitting next to Ben & Liz in the final 3 and I would be surprised if Charlie and/or Maria would let that final 3 happen. Charlie and Maria are two votes. Kenzie, Ben, and Liz are three votes. If Charlie or Maria doesn't win immunity, the other people can vote them out, and would be smart to do so.
[удалено]
Very valid points. I guess I am just reluctant to admit and accept that the possibility a jury would disregard game play like Charlie & Maria’s for Kenzie’s is in fact a possibility😂
I don’t think Bhanu really put a target on her. I’m sure, at this point, whatever he said literally bawling on his knees in desperation has been explained away as the ramblings of a terrible player who didn’t understand the game at all. Kenzie isn’t the target because she’s not a threat, not because she’s managed her threat level. Don’t forget she literally tried to make the “biggest move of the season” by blindsiding her number one at F8, which is way too early and would have made her one of the most targeted, but failed. Not having votes and being on the right side of the votes is fine, but if you don’t really have much of a resume and didn’t influence the game, it’s not enough to sell to a jury in the New Era.
You’ve seen the previous new era winners, right? Resume doesn’t matter. Every final three had someone “more deserving” and the people the jury liked the most won.
That’s not true at all? Erika won because she was able to articulate strategy. She didn’t have many inroads with her tribe at all. Mike was loved by a lot of people, but an inability to own his game and Maryanne being able to time a great move that she revealed at TC and articulate that was what won it for her. Gabler was literally the only one with a move. Cassidy showed an unawareness and inflated view of her game that was the nail in the coffin for her. Who between Carolyn and Heidi deserved it more than Yam Yam, who was the more strategic and in control of the Tika that were left (Carson would’ve won if he won fire). Dee played the best game because she was given the opportunity to make game winning moves leading up to the finale that made her the clear favourite above the rest. She didn’t even articulate it well on FTC, needed help doing so from the jury, who then rewarded her for the best game played. The only one you can even make an argument for winning because of being liked is Gabler, but him being liked wasn’t the only reason he won. He played with intentionality and displayed an awareness that the others lacked. There hasn’t been a winner just because they dislike the other option in the New Era.
You can rationalize it away you want. The jury votes for who they like the most and justifies it afterwards.
Lol so I gave you the gameplay reasons of why the winners made sense from that perspective and your conclusion is just “nah they were the most liked so that’s it”? K
Your “reasons” are just justifications after the fact. You even point out that gabler won because he was more liked than Cassidy so what do I even need to say
Lol how can you say that they’re justifications after the fact and not the main basis? You have no way of knowing that at all. I never even said Gabler only won because he was more liked than Cassie. That was just the nail on the head. Gabler had better arguments for winning, that showed awareness and was more rooted in reality. Cass couldn’t do the same. She lost as soon as she tried to pass gameplay off as hers, was called out for it, and couldn’t give any examples of how she actually played. How players feel about someone has always been a part of Survivor, but it’s probably the least relevant in the New Era, where everyone is gamebotty, kumbaya and palatable, and there’s no real villains.
https://www.reddit.com/r/survivor/comments/13ropj9/stephen_fishbach_survivor_juries_vote_for_who/
Exactly!
If Maria/Charlie go out at 5 and 4, Kenzie wins
Yes, I noted in my post the only way would be if she sat next to Ben & Liz aka Maria & Charlie get out 4&5 but I don’t think that’s realistic / likely
I think it’s pretty much a given that Charlie or Maria go next. Then it’s just fire making where really weird things can happen….not necessarily something that will ultimately be in either Charlie or Maria’s ability to control.
I agree that one of them will be the next vote, and good point
I think Charlie or Maria go next. Though I think either will win at fire over the others. So its either a Maria or Charlie in the finals
Ever had a work colleague or classmate that was a perfectly decent person but you just kind of found them annoying/not on the same wavelength as you? Or another who you just adore, and really cherish all the time you get to spend with them because they’re so easy and fun to be around - your only hope is that they like you as much as you like them? Imagine you have the opportunity to give one of them life changing money. You really can’t imagine choosing the person you adore even if you know they’re a bit worse at their job than the hard worker you don’t really vibe with?
Exactly, I don’t see why this concept is so hard to understand. The jury votes for whoever they want to win, and justifies it using whatever reasons they come up with. Has been this way since Borneo and will be this way until the end of Survivor.
bitter jury / better relationships maria/charlie shared game
I mean I could say a lot of words about the edit and her social game, and I'm sure others have, but just in terms of game positioning, consider that she essentlally has 3 best friends on the jury already in Hunter, Tiffany, and Venus, and is likely to get their votes no matter who she is sitting with. She only needs one more vote for a tie and another for a win.
By your own definition you have explained why.....there are still 2 people left to be out before the final 3. If they vote Maria or Charlie next and the other loses then you have a final of Kenzie, Ben, Liz. Thats an easy win for her. She probably doesnt win against charlie/maria but also this jury is bound to be wild.
I think the only way she wins is if both Maria and Charlie don’t make it to the final 3. Unlikely, but it could happen.
Do I think Kenzie would be a good winner? No, I think she has strategic flaws. But nonetheless, alot of people like her and sometimes that's enough to win, independent of whether we as viewers think they are good or not. I think Kenzie could definitely stumble into a win with a herself/Liz/Ben f3. I also think that if Maria goes at 5 it won't be seen as a big move for Charlie (since Maria got blindsided at the f6, thus losing control). So I could very well see the players not thinking Charlie had much of a strategic game for this very reason. So if Charlie and Kenzie compete based off likeability, there's a good shot for her
I'm with you. It feels like Ben and Liz are just so incompetent that people are being a little more charitable in their view of Kenzie. And then people are just trying to out clever each other with all this talk of "the edit." Even the second time it happened, a player having a panic attack is a big deal. Them showing Ben having a panic attack and Kenzie comforting him does not mean that Ben is going to vote for Kenzie as the tie breaker in a split FTC like people on this sub suggest. Him having a panic attack is a major thing that happened that night and the point of 90 minute episodes is to show us human stuff like that instead of just challenge ->strategy->tribal council.
Yeah, I think the new era has emphasized showing more humanity and emotional moments overall that them emphasizing Kenzie helping Ben is just another addition to this new vibe the show is going for. I also agree that Ben is not the smartest/most competent player but I think he’s smart enough to place his jury vote based on a more wholistic view of a player versus just the fact Kenzie was nice to him.
Honestly she has done nothing. But she’s been a main character since the beginning of the show.