Examining the Controversy Surrounding the Purple Chelsea Edit

Apparently, a big topic of discussion among Survivor fans of late is the incredibly dismissive edit of some of the remaining cast members on this season, highlighted in particular by Chelsea. Some people are convinced this is an injustice indicative of Survivor‘s dodgy gender politics. Some people think that this is a failure of editing to create the right amount of suspense among the remaining players. Some people have… I’ll be honest, I’m not exactly going to other sites to see what the Chelsea opinions are, but I’ve been told they are out there. So I decided to do a deep research dive to try and figure out how a final 8 contestant, winner of two immunity challenges, could possibly be so unfeatured and who might be to blame for this injustice. Join me.

One problem with examining this issue is the information deficit we’re dealing with. We weren’t in Fiji when this season was being filmed, so we can’t know for certain what we’re missing. So the best sources we have available on the events in Fiji- apart from the TV show we’re all watching- are the people who actually were in Fiji when this season was being filmed. Fortunately, each of those individuals gets interviewed, so we have their thoughts on record. In fact, when Gordon Holmes interviews them, he tends to ask about every other player they’ve dealt with in that season. Hopefully those interviews can shed some light on this subject.

Let’s start with Morgan:

Well, in fairness, Morgan was only with Chelsea six days. So it’s not like she’s the definitive source here. How about Brendan?

Ok, she didn’t necessarily make a strong first impression with Brendan. But he was only with her for three days after the tribe swap. Maybe Stephanie can offer some clarity?

Still reserved, though Stephanie seems to have connected with her over the course of their six days together. That’s something! Let’s check in with Bradley, who spent his entire game playing with Chelsea:

That seems harsh. What did Chelsea do to deserve that? I mean, other than- according to nearly everyone else interviewed so far- absolutely nothing? But if there’s one opinion we know we can trust, it’s that of Chris Noble. He spent some early time with Chelsea, then ended up with her again after the merge. What were his thoughts?

Hey, on a tribe with a loudmouth like Domenick, I’m sure anyone seems quiet by comparison. Let’s check in with Libby, who will surely have some kind words. Libby’s that Southern type that will only have nice things to say about someone, as long as they’re of a certain specific demographic that she finds acceptable.

So Chelsea isn’t all BIG MOVEZ. So what? Is that really so bad? Sometimes it takes a strong social game to win, and not flashy performances that ignore in-game relationships. Maybe Jenna got a better sense of who Chelsea is and the game she’s playing.

Nothing? Wet blanket? Never spoke? This is just Jenna being bitter. Also, let’s reserve the term wet blanket for those with an innate ability to destroy any semblance of fun, like this lady:

Classic Carolyn face

or her partner in crime, that other guy. Ol’ Whatshisface. With the…glasses, maybe?

Footage not found

Yeah! That was him. He’s even more pale than I remembered. Anyway, those people are wet blankets. Let’s not just go tossing that term around so freely, lest it lose all meaning. But let’s get back to the lecture at hand. What was handsome man-child Michael’s take on Chelsea and the rest of the under-edited?

Huh. I still can’t figure out why we’ve been deprived of more Chelsea. I guess it’ll just have to be a mystery.