LogFAQs > #931879261

I could buy that Dan was being unfairly maligned and falsely edited and the whole controversy was overblown IF the show had given us the feel-good Dan boot at the merge. In that instance, I could see them building up actions as creepier than perhaps they really were, to give the audience a feel good episode where the heroes triumph over a villain. Hell, they likely would've spent the entire pre-merge building Dan up as horribly, to make the audience cheer when the players did the morally-righteous thing and got rid of him. But that's not what happened.

Instead, the villain survived and lasted all the way to the final six before getting ejected. And outside of the premiere and the merge episode, the show REALLY went out of their way to soften Dan's edit as much as possible, to have him blend into the background among the rest of the cast. That strikes me as the show HAVING to tell the story of Dan's shit, because of the major impact it had on the season, but REALLY wanting to downplay it as much as possible so it didn't become the sole thing the season was remembered for. It didn't work, because obviously. They fucked up handling the matter in a variety of ways. And as a result, Survivor has caught a LOT of backlash. So yeah, I think the event was pretty fairly-portrayed, because it doesn't smell right that the show would embellish THIS kind of incident in the way it was handled.

Seriously, on paper, Kellee and Jamal were not booted for their role in Dan-gate. Tribal council lasts HOURS. I have no doubt the editors could've scrubbed all traces of the Dan controversy from the season if they wanted to. Thus, I don't see why they would falsify a second incident WELL after the merge, just to force attention on Dan and force their hand in terms of how to tell his story.

---

Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.
Inviso