Fix The Show

[phlebas]

On 5/26/2019 at 4:17 PM, Nashville said:

bad Survivor seasons are frequently made more palatable via an improperly large infusion of alcohol.

(Come to think of it, that applies to BB as well - and TWD - but I digress....)

Have there been attempts to collect a Survivor Cocktails of Choice list?  I like to experiment and I suspect Season 39 is going to need some assistance.

[Nashville]

15 hours ago, phlebas said:

Have there been attempts to collect a Survivor Cocktails of Choice list?  I like to experiment and I suspect Season 39 is going to need some assistance.

Rarely any cocktails here; I’m either sipping neat, or on the rocks.  Outside of the occasional gin&tonic, that’s about as complicated as I get.

 Now as for WHAT I’m sipping:

• Irish whiskey: usually Jameson, although I’m not adverse to drinking Protestant as well (Bushmills).
• Tennessee whiskey: the list of Jack Daniel’s varieties is long and distinguished.  Currently trying to decide which I prefer better - Gentleman Jack, or Single Barrel Select.
• Kentucky bourbon: Knob Creek.  ...yeah, that’s about it.
• Scotch: usually Glenfiddich or Laphroaig.  I generally prefer the single malts - but if someone offers a free bottle of Cutty Sark, I’m not turning my nose up at it.
• Tequila: not overly finicky, but I’ll confess a college-formed attachment to Cuervo Gold which lingers to this day.

Damned if that doesn’t read like Daily Diary of a Functional Alcoholic - but fuck it.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Nashville
Typo

[SVNBob]

14 hours ago, phlebas said:

Have there been attempts to collect a Survivor Cocktails of Choice list?

This sounds like a good thread idea.

[Bryce Lynch]

How about making all challenges after the tribe swap, but before the merge, combined reward/immunity challenges, and make the rewards really good.

This would discourage tanking in challenges.

Right now, in Season 39, it would make sense for the majorities in both swapped tribes to throw the next couple of immunity challenges, and I don't like that situation.

[Rachel RSL]

3 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

This would discourage tanking in challenges.

I don't think that's really an issue.  How many times in the history of the show has a tribe ever purposely lost a challenge?  It's happened so very rarely, I don't think there's any real need to make any changes.

[Bryce Lynch]

3 minutes ago, Rachel RSL said:

I don't think that's really an issue.  How many times in the history of the show has a tribe ever purposely lost a challenge?  It's happened so very rarely, I don't think there's any real need to make any changes.

I've seen it a few times.  But, in the current situation, the majorities in each tribe would be kind of dumb NOT to throw the challenge.   

[Rachel RSL]

I'll have to respectfully disagree on that one.  Given how unpredictable things are and how quick things change in Survivor, I think it's an idiotic move for anyone to throw a challenge ever.  They can't assume that the original tribes are going to get back together after the merge, not knowing who has formed new and possibly stronger bonds with other people.

[Bryce Lynch]

2 hours ago, Rachel RSL said:

I'll have to respectfully disagree on that one.  Given how unpredictable things are and how quick things change in Survivor, I think it's an idiotic move for anyone to throw a challenge ever.  They can't assume that the original tribes are going to get back together after the merge, not knowing who has formed new and possibly stronger bonds with other people.

But, as long as you know you aren't getting voted out ,there really isn't much downside.  There is a better chance that your old tribemates will align with you at the merge than members of the other tribe will  

The only real risk I see is an idol or advantage being played.   

At the very least, I'd say Aaron, Missy, Elizabeth and Elaine should be ambivalent about winning immunity as should Noura, Jamal, Jack, Janet and Kellee.   

[Eolivet]

Fire the new casting director.

I'm actually serious. Someone has to take the fall for this, and while I wish it could be Jeff Probst, Mark Burnett, one of the higher-ups, it won't be, and he's as good a fall guy as any.

There's a reason long-time Survivor casting director Lynne Spillman didn't cast Dan and this guy did. This guy clearly felt he could copy her style, because Mike White from David vs Goliath had worked out okay. And he was from Hollywood, too.

And golly gosh gee, Survivor, you think you may have screwed up by letting Lynne Spillman go? Isn't it funny how when a woman was in charge, Dan didn't get cast. What a crazy, random happenstance.

[tvfanatic13]

Here's what I would LOVE to see: No tribes for a season. Everyone from day 1 plays for individual immunity. No tribe alliances. No pagonging. You get the picture.

[Rachel RSL]

52 minutes ago, tvfanatic13 said:

Here's what I would LOVE to see: No tribes for a season. Everyone from day 1 plays for individual immunity. No tribe alliances. No pagonging. You get the picture.

Ditto!  I mentioned this a few seasons ago and think it would be fascinating.  There would be no forced alliances based on tribal obligations.  I'd love to see it happen.

[Lantern7]

Quick question: should excellent hidden idol play be awarded? Like maybe if you play one and negate an ouster, you get $5K? And you get $10K if you negate a unanimous vote.

Oh, and maybe there could be new people behind the scenes . . . but that goes without saying. 🙄

Edited December 17, 2019 by Lantern7

[Rachel RSL]

That doesn't appeal to me personally.  Frankly, I'd like to see all idols disappear.  I definitely don't want to encourage them by placing financial prizes on them.

[simplyme]

On 12/13/2019 at 7:21 AM, Eolivet said:

Fire the new casting director.

I'm actually serious. Someone has to take the fall for this, and while I wish it could be Jeff Probst, Mark Burnett, one of the higher-ups, it won't be, and he's as good a fall guy as any.

There's a reason long-time Survivor casting director Lynne Spillman didn't cast Dan and this guy did. This guy clearly felt he could copy her style, because Mike White from David vs Goliath had worked out okay. And he was from Hollywood, too.

And golly gosh gee, Survivor, you think you may have screwed up by letting Lynne Spillman go? Isn't it funny how when a woman was in charge, Dan didn't get cast. What a crazy, random happenstance.

Actually, he did get cast by Spillman. Dan made the cast for Edge of Extinction but had a broken foot when it came time to tape so he ended up being deferred to this season.

[LadyChatts]

On 12/16/2019 at 1:30 PM, tvfanatic13 said:

Here's what I would LOVE to see: No tribes for a season. Everyone from day 1 plays for individual immunity. No tribe alliances. No pagonging. You get the picture.

I've said before I would love to see this.  Or, switching tribes more frequently.  Yes, it might be a nightmare to keep up with for the viewers, but it might shake things up and force people to play their own game.  Right now, everyone seems to know when swaps are going to happen, and when the merge is going to happen, that votes are often banked on that.  Maybe they should do like Thailand, and have a fake merge-they can start the jury, everyone lives on the same beach, but still competing as two different tribes.  

[Rachel RSL]

*snerk*  Poor Shii-Ann.

Switching tribes more often sounds like an interesting idea.  In fact, I'd be interested in seeing a season where they switch tribes and start anew after every TC.  I don't think I'd want that for every season, but it might be interesting as a one-off.

[LadyChatts]

1 hour ago, Rachel RSL said:

*snerk*  Poor Shii-Ann.

Switching tribes more often sounds like an interesting idea.  In fact, I'd be interested in seeing a season where they switch tribes and start anew after every TC.  I don't think I'd want that for every season, but it might be interesting as a one-off.

I'd give them bonus points if they could pull another Shii-Ann moment off (the look on her face when Jeff broke the news will forever be etched in my brain).  The thing is, Shii-Ann was pretty much screwed either way.  She just dug her hole a little faster this way.

I'd just like to see it so people just don't get into one alliance and dominate.  Or latch on and be a goat.  It might also make idol plays more interesting.   

Edited December 17, 2019 by LadyChatts

[violet and green]

5 hours ago, simplyme said:

Actually, he did get cast by Spillman. Dan made the cast for Edge of Extinction but had a broken foot when it came time to tape so he ended up being deferred to this season.

Imagine Dan getting Reem'd. She wouldn't put up with this shit, or place a doily over it.

[Rachel RSL]

It’s funny how Reem was so universally disliked at first and now she’s somehow become one of our most beloved castaways. 😂

[LadyChatts]

32 minutes ago, Rachel RSL said:

It’s funny how Reem was so universally disliked at first and now she’s somehow become one of our most beloved castaways. 😂

The way she’s talked about you’d think she made the finals, and wasn’t a first boot.  It helped that she was on the season where you weren’t really voted off, but I like to think she’d still be a legend.

[Nashville]

5 hours ago, Rachel RSL said:

It’s funny how Reem was so universally disliked at first and now she’s somehow become one of our most beloved castaways. 😂

She has?  😳

Must’ve missed that.

[Rachel RSL]

Based on the numerous comments people have made about her over the course of this season, yeah, you must have 😉

[Nashville]

9 minutes ago, Rachel RSL said:

Based on the numerous comments people have made about her over the course of this season, yeah, you must have 😉

Guess it WOULD take a season THIS fucked up to make Reem look good in comparison.

[nlkm9]

stop with the idols and advantages. Im tired of these things magically appearing, make the people play!!

[TVFan1]

I'm probably in the minority on this opinion, but I would like it if they would plant disadvantages in the game.

[LadyChatts]

13 minutes ago, TVFan1 said:

I'm probably in the minority on this opinion, but I would like it if they would plant disadvantages in the game.

Well, they gave Jamal a disadvantage in the game without him even knowing it until it was too late.  But that’d be an interesting twist.

I say no to nullifiers.  When someone finds an idol (or twenty), that is supposed to be their security blanket.  They shouldn’t have it taken away from them.  I’m still upset that Janet is going to nullified by Dean of all people, and it hasn’t even happened yet.

[RescueMom]

39 minutes ago, LadyChatts said:

I say no to nullifiers.  When someone finds an idol (or twenty), that is supposed to be their security blanket.  They shouldn’t have it taken away from them.  I’m still upset that Janet is going to nullified by Dean of all people, and it hasn’t even happened yet.

I think the nullifiers are going to encourage people to keep their idols a secret, because people won't nullify them if they don't know about them. And I can't see how that would make the show more interesting.  

[Nashville]

8 minutes ago, RescueMom said:

I think the nullifiers are going to encourage people to keep their idols a secret, because people won't nullify them if they don't know about them. And I can't see how that would make the show more interesting.  

Oh, I don’t know; we could always have more players follow the course proposed by MunDean, and try to attract votes onto themselves for the sole purpose of spoiling them with the idol as their Big Game Play - without a thought as to how such alienation play might boomerang on them the very next TC.  Always entertaining, that.

[RescueMom]

19 minutes ago, Nashville said:

Oh, I don’t know; we could always have more players follow the course proposed by MunDean, and try to attract votes onto themselves for the sole purpose of spoiling them with the idol as their Big Game Play - without a thought as to how such alienation play might boomerang on them the very next TC.  Always entertaining, that.

True. I was thinking about all of the enjoyment I would lose trying to guess how many minutes (or even seconds) we will have between the time someone finds an idol and swears s/he will not tell anyone and the time they actually tell someone. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by RescueMom
Typo

[Straycat80]

I would love to watch a season of old school Survivor. No idols, no advantages, no rocks, fire making, no going thru people’s personal belongings, no talking or whispering during TC by players or jury members. And only rice and water, and other food is only if it’s won. And have a final two instead of three people. This will probably never happen tho. 

[Fallacy]

Season 40 would be the perfect opportunity for Survivor to allow the game to play in its original format, but that’s not going to happen obviously and I think that was a mistake. 

[Eolivet]

I don't care about idols and advantages, but they need to ditch the F4 fire-making challenge. I don't care how "great TV" it is. It's made it near impossible for a woman to win.

Ever since the fire-making challenge was instituted in S35, no women and five men have won in a row (which I believe is the longest string of male winners of the show's history). Two of those (Tommy and Nick) weren't directly involved, but other than that, the fire-making challenge is a king-maker. A literal king-maker.

Not only that, the number of votes women finalists have received in five seasons? Two (both for Chrissy in S35). In the last four seasons, Laurel, Angelina, Julie and Noura have received a total of zero votes. None. Zip. Nada.

I think it's time for them to admit that while it makes "great TV" at F4, it's also dropped their about 65/35 men/women winning percentage down considerably, to 80/20 in the last 10 seasons, and now 100/0 in the last five seasons. That's Big Brother levels of disparity, for a show that used to be what I considered as gender-balanced as could be expected for a reality competition show.

Kill the fire-making challenge with fire. As I've said before, it's turning Survivor into American Idol (a game only young, mostly white men can win).

[albinerhawk]

I haven't really watched recently until this season so my reasoning may be off. However, I was just thinking about the complaints of the gender disparity. All the women who were voted off later in the game were considered too threatening to be sitting in the final three with. Hence we ended up with a mediocre winner over two goats. I don't know if this applies to other seasons, but it seems like the women were too good in this season to be kept around.

[RescueMom]

1 minute ago, Rachel RSL said:

 

The numbers don't lie.  The bottom line is that we, as viewers, have seen this scenario over and over: When there are men and women in the final 3, and the woman has made just as many good game moves as the men, almost all the votes go to the men and the woman's game play is completely discounted.  The men are almost always seen as ones who played the game whereas the woman just road coattails to get there.  There isn't an easy way to fix this but a good start would be people acknowledging that there is an underlying bias in favour of the male players and trying to be aware of that when they're deciding who deserves to win.

IMO, this is the reason I think every woman who plays *should* be pushing for an all-women's alliance. Not because of woman-power or women sticking together or men not being good alliance-mates, but because the reality is that women who make it to the end are far more likely to get credit for their gameplay if they are sitting with only other women. 

[LadyChatts]

Last proved for me why the fire making at F4 doesn't work.  Tommy didn't want Lauren in the final 3, because he was concerned he would lose to her (and he was probably right).  He helped Dean with his fire making, despite knowing Lauren was emotional and didn't know what she was doing.  He cried the blues to Noura and made her believe he didn't know how to do fire.  Basically, Tommy got away with not having to make the decision to vote Lauren off, or risk a tie and it going to fire anyway.  The current way, he had a good chance that Lauren wouldn't make it to the final 3, and would in turn be a strong advocate for him to the jury, as well as him not having to share any credit.

[Special K]

3 hours ago, Eolivet said:

 the fire-making challenge is a king-maker. A literal king-maker.

It was the sole reason Chris won in EoE.  Of course, he took a huge risk to exploit it, but still.  In a way he "broke" not only the purpose of the fire-making challenge but also the whole EoE twist.

 

 

[Bryce Lynch]

1 hour ago, ForeverAlone said:

After this season, I really do think that if Survivor does continue, future female players need to look hard at this season and think about their strategy. Because yeah, there were plenty of female threats to win this game this season, and they were all voted out. At this point, I do think that the clearest path for a woman to win is to form a strong women's alliance and run the game. Even if they are linked to a popular dude like Lauren was with Tommy, said dude is likely to want to get rid of her before the finals (like Tommy, since he didn't want to go to the end with Lauren), and we have not seen how the jury reacts to such a strong pair.

 

I mean, taken individually I can see why each Final 3 woman hasn't received votes for the past several seasons (since 35).  But at this point, there is a definite pattern going on, with those women who can win not making it to the end for the most part, and the only way I see around it is for those smart, strong, strategic women to band together and run the game. There was so much talk this season about how talking about women's alliances are sexist, but that talk is more likely to put women off from forming one. The reason they are so feared, is that even though they don't happen all THAT often, they are very effective, especially in the post merge. 

The women who made FTC in seasons 36-39 were all very weak players.  But, I agree that the real problem is that the stronger women aren't getting to FTC.  

I can't recall which seasons, but I know I remember many times when a women's alliance seemed to be a great idea, but it never happens.  It seems more like an issue of the women's mindset than anything else.  I don't know if strong women can't get along with their own kind or they are ashamed to form a women's alliance because they are afraid it will be seen as sexist or make them look weak?   

[BK1978]

21 hours ago, simplyme said:

For me, the following is why it's significant. This is taken from EW's latest recap at https://ew.com/recap/survivor-season-39-episode-14/

The author does go on to give Tommy his due. The problem is not with any individual winner but rather the overall trend (which imo has been either caused or influenced by changes to the show. More HIIs, the fire-making challenge, even going back to the change from primarily an F2 to an F3 seems to have had an effect.)

The one thing that really amused me? The person who won was the person who never made it to IotI to get "mentored" by BRob and Sandra. Clearly they were a huge help. 😂😂

My point is, say the next five winners were all women and a poster were to say, "God another woman has won the show!"  That poster would be raked over the coals for saying that.  Also, notice how there were no articles complaining about when Sophie, Kim, and Denise won back-to-back-to back.  That was not sexist or disturbing and it really is not.  Kim was, in my opinion one of the most dominate players ever.  Denise was a fantastic winner who went to the finals with two goats.  Sophie I was not that keen on because I am a Coach fan but a win is a win.

I never go into these shows wanting a male or female winner.  I am normally always disappointed in who wins because I tend to like the crazy players or the older players and they never win.  I think the last winner who I really wanted to see win was Jeremy. 

Heck even though I read the spoilers and knew Tommy was the spoiled winner, I was still wanting to see Janet or Lauren pull out the win because I did not trust the spoilers (I should have because Sandra was on this season.).  Not because I liked Lauren, but more because I picked her to win at the start of the season.

The cast decides who wins by voting out someone each round.  If you make it to the end you have to sell yourself and what you did in the game.  If you are viewed as a goat or if you were not flashy enough, then you are going to have a hard time winning.  The goal is to take someone to the finals you think you are going to beat you are obviously not going to take someone who likable, regardless of gender, if you do not have to. 

Now going back and looking at the past 14 season, as they did in the article, if you do not include seasons where a woman won you are looking...

Caramoan: Sherri, Dawn losing to Cochran

Blood vs. Water: Monica losing to Tyson

Worlds Apart: Carolyn losing to Mike

Cambodia:  Tasha losing to Jeremy

Millennials vs. Gen X: Hannah losing to Adam

Heroes vs. Healers vs. Hustlers: Chrissy losing to Ben

Ghost Island: Laurel losing to Wendell

David vs. Goliath: Angelina losing to Nick

Edge of Extinction: Julie losing to Chris

Island of the Idols: Noura losing to Tommy

Looking at the list I will freely admit there are some people on this list who I truly do not remember what they did in the game.  I remember them but I do not remember why it was they lost. 

I will go over the ones I remember something about, maybe others can fill in the gaps.

If I recall correctly, the reason given for Tasha not getting any votes was because she was not well liked by the other players, plus let us be honest here Jeremy is very charismatic.

Noura lost to Tommy because I think people just found her to be annoying.  I personally enjoyed her from an entertainment standpoint but I can fully understand why people would not want to vote for her to win.

Angelina was just an asshole.  Once again I liked her and thought she made an excellent villain but she was cruel and treated others poorly.

Now Laurel should have gotten more votes but I think it was just another case where she was in the finals with two others who where just more charismatic than her.  Once again I liked Laurel and I think she played a good game but Wendell and Domenick were just bigger personalities.

I think nobody was going to beat Adam after him talking about his mother.  He could have been against Boston Rob and Sandra in that finals and he probably still would have walked out with the win.  I thought both Hannah and Ken should have gotten more votes.

I will also point out that just by looking at the male final three losers you can have the same things said about them and why they lost as you can about the women.  For instance Gervase came across as a cocky asshole (Then again Tyson did as well and he won) so it is clear why nobody voted for him.  The only season out of those seasons that stands out as a bitter jury was the season Michele won.  I think both Aubry and Tai played better but that jury was never going to give either of them the money.

One thing I guess they could do is make the pre-merge shorter, or go back to a cast of 16, as that is where it seems most of the women get voted out.  Mainly because they are thought of as being weak in challenges.  Which is not something I agree with as a reason but that seems to be the mentality.    

I am not sure how the other stuff influences if a male or female wins the show.

I hate the fire making challenge, but if you spend 39 days out there and you do not learn how to make fire.  Well then that is on you.  I mean it is not like they do not know it is coming and it is not a gender thing (I mean that was one of the reasons they gave for wanting Janet out).

It is tough to try and make something like this have gender parity.  There are many factors.  It could be societal (Like the freakout when there is a hint of an all-woman's alliance but no freakout over a potential all-male's alliance.  I personally loathe either version but that is not here or there.).  They could cast more athletic women, more strategic women, more charismatic women (I might not like Parvati, but even I must admit she has it.) and put them on the same season.  That way there is a higher chance of them making it further.

[simplyme]

56 minutes ago, BK1978 said:

My point is, say the next five winners were all women and a poster were to say, "God another woman has won the show!"  That poster would be raked over the coals for saying that.  Also, notice how there were no articles complaining about when Sophie, Kim, and Denise won back-to-back-to back.  That was not sexist or disturbing and it really is not. 

It's less about taking any small grouping and freaking out then it is about seeing the larger picture. Three or four men or women in a row is bound to happen at times. (And as far as I can tell, people get raked over the coals for saying just about anything these days. 🤦‍♀️) 

I probably should have posted the following instead of the quote from the finale recap, but I was too lazy to find it and thought the quote was close enough. Apparently not. So here. A clearer picture of what I was trying to communicate:

Quote

In terms of winner distribution, the show’s first 25 seasons could not have been any more even, with 13 men and 12 women taking home the million-dollar prize. But then, something changed. Ten of the last 13 seasons — including each of the last four — have been won by men. Here is the list:

Survivor: Caramoan winner — John Cochran
Survivor: Blood vs. Water winner — Tyson Apostol
Survivor: Cagayan winner — Tony Vlachos
Survivor: San Juan del Sur winner — Natalie Anderson
Survivor: World Apart winner — Mike Holloway
Survivor: Cambodia winner — Jeremy Collins
Survivor: Kaoh Rong winner – Michele Fitzgerald
Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X winner – Adam Klein
Survivor: Game Changers winner – Sarah Lacina
Survivor: Heroes v. Healer v. Hustlers winner – Ben Driebergen
Survivor: Ghost Island winner – Wendell Holland
Survivor: David vs. Goliath winner – Nick Wilson
Survivor: Edge of Extinction winner – Chris Underwood

source: https://ew.com/tv/2019/10/16/survivor-island-of-the-idols-why-do-men-keep-winning/

That was written in the middle of this season, so it's now 11 of the last 14 seasons have been won by men, including the last 5. 

And it's noteworthy because as pointed out, it didn't used to be that way.

This isn't someone pitching a "Survivor is sexist!" fit. It was a journalist looking at a trend he'd noted (and, yes, in one thing I quoted referencing that trend somewhat snarkily). He mostly is curious what kinds of things could account for the change.

[Eolivet]

5 hours ago, simplyme said:

He mostly is curious what kinds of things could account for the change.

Cough, fire-making. It's the fire-making. That is the only thing that's changed in five years notably from the previous five.

Look at the 30s, which had a much more even-keeled gender distribution prior to 35: man (30) man (31) woman (32) man (33) woman (34). Three-two. Not terrible.

So, it's not the 30s that are responsible for this, it's the fire-making. Knock out fire-making and at least one of those male winners likely becomes a woman, maybe two. Because there were lots of idols and advantages in the seasons Michele and Sarah won, and they still managed to win. Why? No fire-making at F4.

But production will never admit that fire-making has become a virtual guarantee of a male winner, because as others, notably @peachmangosteen correctly noted: it's secretly what Probst wants.

[enoughcats]

No way this ever happens:

Jeff says, "and becomes the first member of the jury."

Then he adds, "And this season, the last day, there will be two votes on two separate items because this game is evolving."

Nothing more until the last day.

Then set up as usual, but Jeff announces, before any discusssion, "You will now take your first vote. 

A yes means you will vote for one of the three people sitting in front of you.

A NO means you have the opportunity to vote for anyone here to win.  

And now we vote, no discussion. 

I'd bet the No vote would win. 

[zscore]

1 hour ago, Eolivet said:

Because there were lots of idols and advantages in the seasons Michele and Sarah won, and they still managed to win. Why? No fire-making at F4.

Actually, the season Michele won there was fire-making at F4. Aubrey beat Cydney. 

Let's run through the scenarios for last 5 seasons if the F4 fire-making was not thing:

S35: Ben voted out at 4. I say it's 50-50 either a Christy or Devon win. Christy arguably played a better game but a lot of jury member hated her.

S36: Wendall voted out at 4. Domenick won 10-0.

S37: Kara voted out 3-1 or it's 2-2 and Kara and Mike make fire.  Either way the result would have been the same.

S38: Rick voted out at 4. Result would have been the same.

S39: Lauren voted out at 4.  Result would have been the same.

I can't see how fire-making favors male winners. It's a gender neutral skill, and the only woman who might have been screwed out of a win is Christy.

 

[simplyme]

4 hours ago, Eolivet said:

Cough, fire-making. It's the fire-making. That is the only thing that's changed in five years notably from the previous five.

But production will never admit that fire-making has become a virtual guarantee of a male winner, because as others, notably @peachmangosteen correctly noted: it's secretly what Probst wants.

Yes and no, I think. It's not just the fire-making, imo. The fire-making makes it harder to get rid of a person you absolutely need to get rid of (unless someone gets an idol nullifier that will take out the master fire starter in the group because they guessed a coin flip right *eyetic*) and men have historically been better prepared to make fire than women on Survivor. But I'd say that idols are just as big if not the bigger problem combined with cultural issues like women tend to be targeted for aggressive play more quickly than men (which dovetails with the women not being as good at fire-making. Sometimes women can only survive by being very nonthreatening. In those cases they sure can't be wresting the flint from the menfolk.)

The number of idols per season seemed to increase (and increase, and increase...) after Russell cackled his way through several seasons. That would just about coincide with S26. Or as I like to think of it, Let's Create The Most Overpowered Idol We Cangayan. And going back to the EW article:

Quote

Hidden immunity idols play a major role in how far people get and how they are judged at the final Tribal Council, and men have found way more of them than their female counterparts have. There have many theories floated as to why this is, and several female former players have chimed in saying that life around tribe camps often mirrors society in that the men often fall into the gender stereotypes and become the gatherers (making it easier for them to also search for idols), while the women are expected to stay back and tend to camp (thereby losing opportunities to procure idols).

Vince Moua, who was eliminated on last week’s episode of Island of the Idols,referenced this very thing taking place on the Lairo tribe when I spoke with him last week. “The first day that we got onto the beach and we are going to make the shelter — one of the first things that Aaron did was, he started dictating and saying, ‘Okay, the guys are all gonna go gather stuff and the women are gonna stay here and you can prepare this and that,’” said Vince. “And I cut it immediately and said, ‘Nah, like the women can go get the things that they want to gather. Ladies, if you want to gather things, go for it. There’s no need for us to put the gender expectations on people, and the guys can also stay here and clean.’”

So this season (which did feature women finding idols for once) was different from the beginning in that at least one tribe did not follow a gendered role assignment. Of course, you'll notice that the person who took credit for that was targeted the first week and gone the second. (And yes, I can come up with a bunch of other reasons he was voted out, too, but it is something that I note. If you buck the alpha male at the beginning, you don't tend to last too long in newbie seasons.)

Returnee seasons are often a whole different kettle of fish.

[Eolivet]

5 minutes ago, simplyme said:

The number of idols per season seemed to increase (and increase, and increase...) after Russell cackled his way through several seasons. That would just about coincide with S26. Or as I like to think of it, Let's Create The Most Overpowered Idol We Cangayan.

But has the number of idols significantly increased since S35? I'd argue no. What is it about S35-S39 that has produced an unprecedented streak of male winners? Fire-making is the only variable that's changed. And it is more of a male skill, and in three out of five cases, a king-maker. Someone sees somebody else make fire, it's impressive. It garners votes.

I'd argue with fire-making, the focus has shifted from "I need to get to the end with people I can beat" to "I need to keep people around who will take me to the end." When F4 was a vote, there was no "taking to the end." Fire-making encourages more passive play, so you keep your (mostly male) friends around, because they'll "take you to the end." Instead of "gee, I love my friends, but I'd really like to win, so goodbye, friend, I can't beat you." Now you can't get rid of that friend, because what if the next person doesn't take you to the end?

And people who are sort of lazy have "take me to the end" as a viable strategy. The gameplay stops, and it's only those with their foot on the gas the whole time (generally men, who've been systematically weeding out the strong women) who this benefits.

(Janet, who yes, went home on Dean's coin flip trip, should've been thinking she couldn't beat Tommy instead of "Tommy and Mommy, so cute!" Playing for herself, not herself and "the guy who would take her if he won.")

Without fire-making, I'd argue Dom and Wendell turn on each other a lot faster. I'd argue some consensus of women goes, "You know who we really need to take out? Tommy." But fire-making means if you're friends with the threat to win, you keep him around, because he'll take you. That's why we've had all these male winners in a row, and why three of them have made fire. Because when you're trying to enumerate everything you've done over the course of 39 days, and the jury is stuck on "ooh, fire, pretty, wow," unless you have a Nick Wilson-type story, they're going to reward that man. And they have, 80% of the time.

So, yeah, Jeff Probst -- I know you love the "ooh ahh" spectacle of fire-making at F4 because it makes good TV, but it's made for terrible Survivor. And I think we'd all survive just fine if F4 went back to being a (somewhat predictable) vote.

[Ellee]

Don’t you think that a good part of the men vs women thing is that women stay loyal whereas men have a tendency to make the move first to cut their loyal allies that are women?

I wonder how the season would have gone if Lauren, instead of going to tell Missy that Kellee was saying her name, would have convinced Kellee that they should get rid of Dan not Missy and Dan went.  

[BK1978]

Australian Survivor is almost a mirror image to the American version Idol wise and three out of the four winners have been women.  Granted one was a national celebrity, Shane ftw she was an awesome winner, but I really do not think it was the Idols that impacted the game in favor of the men.  Would we not see the same results in the Australian version if that was the case?

One thing I do notice about the Australian players are, they tend to vote out whomever is the leader quicker than the Americans do.  That happens regardless of gender.  Obviously some slip through to the later rounds but for the most part if you are viewed as a gamer then you are gone sooner rather than later.

Edited December 22, 2019 by BK1978

[Nashville]

On 12/19/2019 at 11:50 AM, Eolivet said:

I don't care about idols and advantages, but they need to ditch the F4 fire-making challenge. I don't care how "great TV" it is. It's made it near impossible for a woman to win.

Ever since the fire-making challenge was instituted in S35, no women and five men have won in a row (which I believe is the longest string of male winners of the show's history). Two of those (Tommy and Nick) weren't directly involved, but other than that, the fire-making challenge is a king-maker. A literal king-maker.

Not only that, the number of votes women finalists have received in five seasons? Two (both for Chrissy in S35). In the last four seasons, Laurel, Angelina, Julie and Noura have received a total of zero votes. None. Zip. Nada.

I think it's time for them to admit that while it makes "great TV" at F4, it's also dropped their about 65/35 men/women winning percentage down considerably, to 80/20 in the last 10 seasons, and now 100/0 in the last five seasons. That's Big Brother levels of disparity, for a show that used to be what I considered as gender-balanced as could be expected for a reality competition show.

Kill the fire-making challenge with fire. As I've said before, it's turning Survivor into American Idol (a game only young, mostly white men can win).

There’s a problem with your logic here, though, and it’s this: data may imply a strong statistical correlation, but it doesn’t necessarily prove it.  100% of the people who die in hospitals may have consumed water within 24 hours of their demise, for example, but that does not necessarily dictate that drinking water in a hospital is fatal to a patient.

To my own certain knowledge the only requirements for making fire - other than the materials equally provided both contestants by Production at the start of the firemaking challenge, of course - are two hands and a functional brain, and neither hands nor brains are gender-specific.  So unless you can present a plausible cause/effect as to how having a dick greatly enhances one’s ability to start and/or maintain a fire, I’d have to reject your statistical correlation as simple coincidence.  🙂 

On the other hand: the firemaking Curse of the Orange Chair still holds, independent of gender. 😉 

[Nashville]

My FTS suggestion:  if TPTB feel an Idol Nullifier is a required part of the game now, fine and good - but only if provision is also made for an Idol Nullifier Nullifier (i.e., an advantage which nullifies the effects of an Idol Nullifier).  Maybe even spice it up a bit, and say a person playing an Idol Nullifier picks up a penalty vote if their IN is subsequently nullified.

 

[sigmaforce86]

On 12/17/2019 at 4:13 PM, LadyChatts said:

I've said before I would love to see this.  Or, switching tribes more frequently.  Yes, it might be a nightmare to keep up with for the viewers, but it might shake things up and force people to play their own game.  Right now, everyone seems to know when swaps are going to happen, and when the merge is going to happen, that votes are often banked on that.  Maybe they should do like Thailand, and have a fake merge-they can start the jury, everyone lives on the same beach, but still competing as two different tribes.  

 

I like this and the no tribes idea.  I had a mix-up idea I'd like to see but it's probably too complicated to pull off and they'd need quite a few extra camera operators and crew but:

Even number of castaways separated into "tribes" of two.  Start out like normal competing for tribe immunity except it would only be the two from the winning "tribe" who are immune.  At some point after the challenge all the other tribes are allowed X number of hours (one, two, maybe three) together to plot for tribal council where they all appear together and vote off one person.  Since that breaks up a tribe pair the remaining member of that tribe who wasn't voted out then goes back to his/her camp alone and does not compete in the next challenge but is immune for next challenge.  Then when the next tribal comes the remaining half of the pair broken up from that vote joins the lone person from the previous vote and they become a tribe pair together.  That keeps things even and continually breaks up the players and moves them around.

Shakeups, because you know this show loves shakeups and twists, could be things like having two tribes win immunity at one challenge, switching pairs randomly, not joining pairs for two votes then having those two loners alone compete for immunity.  But what interests me about this idea is it's similar to the no tribes idea where there's no tribe unity during tribe switches or after the merge.  It also keeps most contestants from forming early alliances or even knowing too much about the other players outside the challenges or the hour or two they're allowed to plot together before tribal.  But then you'd have a couple players on an immunity run or not getting votes who could be a strong two person alliance at the merge but what do you do with several two person alliances and how helpful or dangerous are they.

As I said at the start, it's probably too complicated to maintain 9 or 10 camps for the 18-20 players plus all the camera time for each but it is fun to come up with weird ways this show could mix things up and move from the standard two tribes, tribal immunity, merge pattern they've pretty much followed from day one. 

Edited December 21, 2019 by sigmaforce86

[nutty1]

I am just not a conspiracy believer. I don’t necessarily think the show doesn’t want female winners. And I don’t think fire making prevents a female from winning. But that’s just me.  What bothers me is the players who I feel are deserving, the ones who can never make it to the end because people know they’ll win.  I wish their chances were better to get into the finale.  But I guess that’s the game. It still bugs me that Janet potentially lost because of a coin toss.