First, there seems to be a strange notion making the rounds that the edit of Kota has changed. This isn't really true. While Fang had its failures
emphasized negatively, we never got the reverse. Kota was presented as an efficient machine, but there was rarely any presence of tone, and when there was, it
was most often associated with arrogance.
The first couple of episodes set up the Onion alliance, but that was all strategically driven with no tone (with one exception I'll discuss below). There was Ace as a potential foil down the road, but it wasn't developed, just left hanging. But we do get a confessional in Episode 2 (I think) that the tribe is so awesome that they will never lose. That's hubris of the first magnitude, and sure enough, Kota loses in the next episode twice.
Do they use this occasion to set up the Onions as an alliance to be rooted for? No. They allow Ace to be the bully and dump Paloma. This was probably good strategy, but strategy doesn't drive tone. If anything, the most telling sign from that episode is Marcus wiping away a fake tear. His arrogance was showing even then. (Too bad that negativity itself isn't enough to disqualify someone from being a winner, but at least that scene meant to me Marcus would never be someone that we'd root to win.)
The Onion Alliance as an entity was at best an impersonal force and at worst, a negative one. Perhaps nothing made that more clear than the way we were shown Bob being strung along. Why show us that when it never came into play? Paloma's boot was nearly unanimous, and Dan's boot resulted from the original Kotas choosing from amongst the outsiders. In neither case was it necessary to show Bob as strung along by the Onions. I indicated at the time that stringing along Bob was presented as a negative act, mainly because Bob was otherwise presented as the ultimate positive force. I'm even more sure of that now. The Onions pushing negative Randy ahead of positive Bob reinforces the notion.
Randy's negative comments while he was part of Fang were still negative, but at least they seemingly had some justification. Once he went to Kota and continued (and continues) to badmouth Fang at every opportunity, the justification was lost and only blatant negativity remains.
So, no, we were never meant to side with the Onions in the editing. The editing hasn't changed with them, just become less subtle. We can't believe a word Corinne says outside of confessionals precisely because we saw her two-faced nature exposed with respect to Susie. So those deriving positivity out of reported scenes with Bob (or whoever) are doing so without basis. Even the reward segment is subject to this, especially when we hear Corinne admit that isn't who she is. (I still thnk the editors love to show cultural reward moments regardless of who is involved. Yes, it would have fit better with Sugar, but the editors can't create something that doesn't exist.)
The change in the edit only applies to Fang, not Kota, and the change is explained by them finally working together instead of as individuals. That transformation isn't complete yet, and maybe the Kotas can exploit a crack one last time. We'll see, but let's not have revisionism that says the Kota were ever the good tribe because they never were.
The first couple of episodes set up the Onion alliance, but that was all strategically driven with no tone (with one exception I'll discuss below). There was Ace as a potential foil down the road, but it wasn't developed, just left hanging. But we do get a confessional in Episode 2 (I think) that the tribe is so awesome that they will never lose. That's hubris of the first magnitude, and sure enough, Kota loses in the next episode twice.
Do they use this occasion to set up the Onions as an alliance to be rooted for? No. They allow Ace to be the bully and dump Paloma. This was probably good strategy, but strategy doesn't drive tone. If anything, the most telling sign from that episode is Marcus wiping away a fake tear. His arrogance was showing even then. (Too bad that negativity itself isn't enough to disqualify someone from being a winner, but at least that scene meant to me Marcus would never be someone that we'd root to win.)
The Onion Alliance as an entity was at best an impersonal force and at worst, a negative one. Perhaps nothing made that more clear than the way we were shown Bob being strung along. Why show us that when it never came into play? Paloma's boot was nearly unanimous, and Dan's boot resulted from the original Kotas choosing from amongst the outsiders. In neither case was it necessary to show Bob as strung along by the Onions. I indicated at the time that stringing along Bob was presented as a negative act, mainly because Bob was otherwise presented as the ultimate positive force. I'm even more sure of that now. The Onions pushing negative Randy ahead of positive Bob reinforces the notion.
Randy's negative comments while he was part of Fang were still negative, but at least they seemingly had some justification. Once he went to Kota and continued (and continues) to badmouth Fang at every opportunity, the justification was lost and only blatant negativity remains.
So, no, we were never meant to side with the Onions in the editing. The editing hasn't changed with them, just become less subtle. We can't believe a word Corinne says outside of confessionals precisely because we saw her two-faced nature exposed with respect to Susie. So those deriving positivity out of reported scenes with Bob (or whoever) are doing so without basis. Even the reward segment is subject to this, especially when we hear Corinne admit that isn't who she is. (I still thnk the editors love to show cultural reward moments regardless of who is involved. Yes, it would have fit better with Sugar, but the editors can't create something that doesn't exist.)
The change in the edit only applies to Fang, not Kota, and the change is explained by them finally working together instead of as individuals. That transformation isn't complete yet, and maybe the Kotas can exploit a crack one last time. We'll see, but let's not have revisionism that says the Kota were ever the good tribe because they never were.
