Fix The Show

[Nashville]

2 hours ago, nutty1 said:

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.  

Not just you.  🙂

 

2 hours ago, nutty1 said:

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.  

Here’s a few notions to bounce around:

1. For whatever reasons - traditions, gender biases, etc. - many societies all over the world have at their core a common sociological “tuning” of sorts; men are generally tuned to be task-oriented problem solvers, while women are generally tuned to be relationship builders and managers.*
2. Survivor is commonly touted as requiring a triumvirate of skills - physical, mental, and social - for success; as was so aptly demonstrated in this most recent season (S39], however, the most significant by far is the social. Tommy himself attributes his win almost exclusively to the relationships he forged, and the resultant access those relationships gave him to game information; virtually everybody trusted Tommy, protected him, and told him everything.
3. This would seem to indicate that in general, women initially enter Survivor with a relatively enhanced skill set in one of Survivor’s most significant requirements - relationship building - and we have seen this indication borne out over the course of many seasons; bros frequently establish their only significant bonds with other bros, while women’s relationships are much more likely to be gender-nonspecific.  Note: This may also be an indicator as to why women-only alliances rarely hold together for very long; the gender specificity of such runs counter to their general social programming to form relationships with everybody, so many may (consciously or subconsciously) reject it in varying degrees.
4. In any case (and again this is in general) women start building relationships quicker, and the relationships they build are stronger - which in the Survivor arena means they may be more immediately perceived as a significant game threat.  Physicality is generally perceived as a positive in the early tribe-centric phases of a season, and doesn’t morph to a negative until around Merge time - when the game focus shifts from tribal to individual emphasis, and what was an advantage for the tribe becomes a threat to the other individuals.  Enhanced relationship-building skills may be perceived as a significant game threat through all phases of a season, though, especially if one is on the outside of those relationships.
5. Female contestants with strong relationship skills therefore present as significant threats from the very start of the season, and as a result are subject to much larger windows of opportunity of targeting - and elimination - than their male counterparts, time-wise.

So, in short (I know - too late): Male winners may outnumber female winners because females identified as strong opponents are generally subject to elimination across a wider swath of the season.

Thoughts?

 

*  This is not some half-baked notion of my own, by the way; ask any marriage/relationship counselor, and they’ll tell you the same thing. 🙂

[Eolivet]

Here's another theory, and this sort of coincides around about the mid-30s, and wouldn't necessarily have to be associated with fire-making. I call it ... the "growing up super-fan" movement.

Because Survivor premiered in 2000, an entire generation of "growing up super-fans" came of age with the show, and are now competing as players. But what separated them from earlier Survivor winners is they had watched Survivor in their formative years, and had likely sought out Survivor information on the Internet (given their younger ages).

And I think Survivor super-fans, or young Survivor super-fans, are more likely to be men. Men are more likely to frequent those subreddits and listen to those podcasts and read up on Survivor, and translate that into good game play (Angelina had done all that, but she never got the nuances. This season, Lauren highlighted how she'd been watching for "18 years," and we see where that got her.)

I always thought Millennials vs Gen X was when the "growing up super-fan" movement went mainstream, and showed it did not have to eat your whole story (like it did for Cochran, the earliest adopter, and Spencer afterwards -- neither of whom won on the first try).  And more importantly, that knowing Survivor could be a part of your winning strategy without being your entire strategy. Adam's main story was not "I eat, sleep and breathe Survivor," (though he did) but his tragic backstory.

I don't remember Ben's Survivor background, but I believe Wendell and definitely Nick were big fans whose Survivor fandom was barely a blip on the radar. And I think both used Survivor knowledge to help them win Survivor. Tommy was clearly part of this "growing up super-fan" movement, as well.

So, that could explain the streak of male winners. Whereas before, the skills to win Survivor were more broad-based, now the #1 skill you need to win Survivor ... is knowing Survivor. And that these "growing up super-fan" young men, for whatever reason, simply know more about Survivor and are able to put that knowledge into practice.

I still wish they would kill the fire-making with ... well ... fire.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Eolivet

[Porkchop]

I hate the Idol Nullifier. Finding an idol has always meant safety for the finder or an ally of the finder at one tribal. To change that to Safety If No One Overrules You is unfair. 

I also dislike the firemaking challenge. It's not a fair way to go from four to three. Go back to the original way, voting by the tribe.

 

[treeofdreams]

3 hours ago, Porkchop said:

I hate the Idol Nullifier. Finding an idol has always meant safety for the finder or an ally of the finder at one tribal. To change that to Safety If No One Overrules You is unfair. 

I also dislike the firemaking challenge. It's not a fair way to go from four to three. Go back to the original way, voting by the tribe.

 

Agreed.  This game is supposed to be outwit/outplay/outlast - how good you are as a player.  Throwing the firemaking or nullifier into this ruins good strategy for players.

[Lantern7]

How about this: keep the firemaking challenge, but move it to Day 37. Go back to F2 on Day 39. Also: in the event of a tie (should there still be a F3), Probst would announce it straight away, then have each finalist go up to vote for the other two.  Votes still get announced at the Reunion.

I dunno if the lack of female winners is a fix, or something that just happens that could be fixed. I think Elaine and Jane's respective runs were pretty unique. For the hell of it, here are the oldest women to make a final episode, starting with Nicaragua (Day 39 finalists marked in blue):

Outside of the Top 10 (it's 13 with a four-way tie for tenth), Denise is the oldest winner at 41 years. Sarah is the only other woman over 30 to have won.

I dunno . . . I got bored and I know basic Excel. Is there anything tangible to base a thesis (or at least a hypothesis) upon?

Edited December 22, 2019 by Lantern7

[fishcakes]

12 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

Outside of the Top 10 (it's 13 with a four-way tie for tenth), Denise is the oldest winner at 41 years. Sarah is the only other woman over 30 to have won.

No, that's not accurate. Tina was 39, Vecepia was 36, Danni was 30, and Sandra was 36 the second time she won.

[Lantern7]

1 minute ago, fishcakes said:

No, that's not accurate. Tina was 39, Vecepia was 36, Danni was 30, and Sandra was 36 the second time she won.

I said "starting with Nicaragua."

[fishcakes]

1 minute ago, Lantern7 said:

I said "starting with Nicaragua."

Oh, okay. My apologies.

[Alice Mudgarden]

On 12/19/2019 at 4:05 PM, Special K said:

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.

I'd argue that it's not the sole reason, just for the fact that the EoE itself lends to social bonding that is now happening there as opposed to on the actual tribe beach(es). Of course EoE castaways were going to vote for whichever one of them went back that made it to F3. Which, of course, proves that no matter how hard the show tries, at its core it's still a show predominantly predicated on social skills and EQ, and not challenges, idols and twists.

Where EoE (the season) loses me is that Chris - who generally seems fine outside of the stupid twist and tried to play the most he could once he made it back - was up against Gavin, who had one of the strongest cases you can make for winning the game in never even having a single vote cast against him in all 39 days. Even with the social aspect being the major determining factor for the jury, that still should have given Gavin the W. To never get a vote cast against you ever means that socially, you're doing something very right. That mattered to only four out of thirteen jurors, because of EoE. That's the mark of a truly awful gimmick, IMO.

[Special K]

23 minutes ago, Alice Mudgarden said:

I'd argue that it's not the sole reason, just for the fact that the EoE itself lends to social bonding that is now happening there as opposed to on the actual tribe beach(es). Of course EoE castaways were going to vote for whichever one of them went back that made it to F3. Which, of course, proves that no matter how hard the show tries, at its core it's still a show predominantly predicated on social skills and EQ, and not challenges, idols and twists.

Where EoE (the season) loses me is that Chris - who generally seems fine outside of the stupid twist and tried to play the most he could once he made it back - was up against Gavin, who had one of the strongest cases you can make for winning the game in never even having a single vote cast against him in all 39 days. Even with the social aspect being the major determining factor for the jury, that still should have given Gavin the W. To never get a vote cast against you ever means that socially, you're doing something very right. That mattered to only four out of thirteen jurors, because of EoE. That's the mark of a truly awful gimmick, IMO.

I agree with your post, but I had to google Gavin, since I couldn't remember who he was.  😳  My bad.

[Alice Mudgarden]

41 minutes ago, Special K said:

I agree with your post, but I had to google Gavin, since I couldn't remember who he was.  😳  My bad.

Haha it's a pretty bleh season, so you're not to blame for forgetting, even if it's from not too long ago.

[Rachel RSL]

1 hour ago, Special K said:

I agree with your post, but I had to google Gavin, since I couldn't remember who he was.  😳  My bad.

Haha I just did the same thing. Stopped mid-post to check: "Who the hell was Gavin?"  I swear, most reality show people disappear from my memory literally 2 seconds after the season ends.

[Special K]

4 minutes ago, Rachel RSL said:

 I swear, most reality show people disappear from my memory literally 2 seconds after the season ends.

Same! 😂

 

[Nashville]

 I despise EOE purely because it presents a massively unjust reward for those who fail which is denied to those who succeed.  

I mean, think about it: failure in Survivor is mismanaging your game to the point the majority of other players kick you out of the game - but what is the result in EoE?  The loser goes to Extinction Island, where they have unfettered access to work the Jury pool 24/7. This is a form of access to which the more successful players (you know, the ones who are still “surviving”?) by definition will not have - and the more successful you are, the more you will be shut out.  So if/when you get to a F3 where one of the three is an Extinction returnee, you’re pretty much guaranteed the worst player in the F3 will win simply because they were given an unfair advantage to work the Jury.

It’s kinda like the participation awards everybody fusses about, where being a member of a winning or losing team makes no difference - first place or last place, everybody gets the same trophy - except in the case of EoE, last place is also getting a cash award, while first place doesn’t get squat.  It’s rewarding bad gameplay and penalizing good play, which is ass-backwards and dumber than dogshit.

 

[peachmangosteen]

On top of all of that, Chris was pretty much handed F3 since he was given an idol when he came back. Such bullshit.

[Lantern7]

If EoE is shut down post-merge, then maybe we won’t get a repeat of what happened. Of course, this series likes to run into a wall, even though it doesn’t crack at all. 🙄

[kittykat]

Stop. It. With. All. The. Damn. Advantages!!!

When you look at top season as ranked by fans or critics, most of them are earlier seasons that were NOT decided by idols and nullifiers and legacy whozits.  The best seasons had at least one major idol play that happened midseason but it's all about casting and individual strategy that makes for great season.  No bullshit legacy moves that screws over a good player.

If they insist on keeping idols then do it like Heroes vs Villains: two idols, one at each camp. 

If both idols get played post merge in one night (like HvV) only one gets reused.

If two idols are floating around post merge: if one gets played prior to final nine it gets reused.  After final nine: if one of the two idols gets played it does not get reused and only one idol is in play.

If no idols are played before F5 that still leaves only two in play.  Two idol holders, one immunity winner, still leaves two people open to be be voted out. No one is sent home because they were the only one who had no advantages.

If anyone gets voted out with an idol in their hand, the idol is done.  If this happens on both tribes premerge, add one idol at the merge feast but ONLY one.

I guess what I'm saying is that the best seasons had the idol but it wasn't overdone.  I want to see people actually wheel and deal and legitimately try to shift alliances without hiding behind an idol, that is when the best moments happen.

[NutMeg]

On 12/19/2019 at 6:56 PM, RescueMom said:

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. 

That was exactly Parvati's thought process, clearly articulated in game to James in FvF. 

On 12/20/2019 at 4:20 PM, 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.

Indeed, but mostly in that this freaking fire making potentially gives an in to people who would have been out at 4 otherwise when losing the final immunity challenge because their social game was not strong enough to keep them in otherwise.

And most often than not, it is men who are reliant on winning immunities to get to the end when they don't have strong connections that can take them to the end regardless of the outcome of final tribal.

If we go back and imagine how this rule would have played out had it been in place, some of ours (by that I mean favourite of each posters, which is obviously subjective) winners wouldn't have won. Just on the top of my head, YaoMan might have won Fiji, Ozzy wins South Pacific, Malcolm might have won Philippines. In the latter two, a woman won because she better worked the social angle with players still in the game, but was liked less by the jury that the alternative.

With fire making at F4, Tina might have won Bvsw, Spencer might have had a shot at Cagayan, Kelley Wentworth in Cambodia, Cidney in Khao Rong, etc. and in each case it would have meant a completely different gameplay that penalised the social game in favour of the more physical one.

And this is why this fire making is so detrimental to women's game. Because the women who won the game did so by playing powerful social connections, even when they were also challenge beasts (Kim, for instance). But the fire making challenge allows an outcast with no blood on his or her hand to make it through at what used to be the most difficult point in the game to navigate. 

On 12/21/2019 at 5:34 AM, BK1978 said:

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.

Same in the French version. I only watched one season, but I liked that the non leader, non physical threat but highly strategic player managed to win it, though.

On 12/23/2019 at 7:11 PM, Alice Mudgarden said:

I'd argue that it's not the sole reason, just for the fact that the EoE itself lends to social bonding that is now happening there as opposed to on the actual tribe beach(es). Of course EoE castaways were going to vote for whichever one of them went back that made it to F3. Which, of course, proves that no matter how hard the show tries, at its core it's still a show predominantly predicated on social skills and EQ, and not challenges, idols and twists.

Where EoE (the season) loses me is that Chris - who generally seems fine outside of the stupid twist and tried to play the most he could once he made it back - was up against Gavin, who had one of the strongest cases you can make for winning the game in never even having a single vote cast against him in all 39 days. Even with the social aspect being the major determining factor for the jury, that still should have given Gavin the W. To never get a vote cast against you ever means that socially, you're doing something very right. That mattered to only four out of thirteen jurors, because of EoE. That's the mark of a truly awful gimmick, IMO.

Yes, indeed. That's a huge flaw because it actually helps with jury management if you are voted out early.

If I was a returning player on S40, I would definitely look into exploiting that loophole if voted out early.

[sara416]

I've been watching older seasons on Hulu, and I agree with so much of what was said previously. Remove the HIIs that are played at every damn tribal. Having one every once in a while makes it novel and unexpected. I'd love to see them searching for them just to find out that there is only one per season per camp or something like that. 

Also, the challenges. There used to be so many more that were simple to set up and assemble, but needed a lot of logic and strategy to win. This sets you up for having a bigger variety of winners, not just someone who can swim and do a puzzle. One of the challenges in Australia was literally the "dot game" where you make boxes and put your initials in it and whoever has the most at the end wins. This was actually way more entertaining to watch. And another challenge they had was eliminating each other by breaking plates with each others names on it with macadamia nuts on a slingshot. So simple, but it was great to see them stategizing about who to try to eliminate first and trash talking each other in a good natured way. Granted, this season in general was great because almost everyone really liked each other and were pretty decent human beings, so that might have something to do with it. But these giant obstacle courses in the water with a puzzle at the end are honestly boring because they are all the same. 

[limecoke]

Too many hidden immunity idols and convoluted/confusing advantages.  Also, the challenges are all the same and, consequently, boring.  Also, Probst yells too much.

Never, ever, do Edge of Extinction again because it sucked.  It was boring, too.

Please stop bringing back fame-whoring winners from the past who seem to live their lives on the glory of their repeated Survivor experiences.  Maybe we don't love them as much as you think we do.

Best season in a looooonnnnngggg time was David vs Goliath. Perhaps because they cast all new, interesting people who actually PLAYED the game.  Learn from this, show.

 

[Lamb18]

I think they should go to other locations instead of always being in Fiji. The location was almost like another character in the show, or at least another aspect that influenced events, from just we as viewers seeing new scenery to the players struggling with a new environment and with challenges and rewards determined by the setting. 

The different locations give an individuality to each season. Now the seasons are running together for me because the location and challenges are the same between seasons and the only difference is the contestants. There's not even that with returnee seasons. Instead, there's a scramble to make seasons more distinct and interesting by introducing different twists and gimmicks and instead they all become trite. Survivor as it is now could just as well be produced in the Everglades or some other domestic location. 

What new location would you like to see? I'm thinking Laos, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Suriname (?), etc.

[RescueMom]

6 hours ago, Lamb18 said:

Survivor as it is now could just as well be produced in the Everglades or some other domestic location. 

I was thinking this exact same thing last week. I miss the different locations a lot. 

[Nashville]

17 hours ago, Lamb18 said:

I think they should go to other locations instead of always being in Fiji. The location was almost like another character in the show, or at least another aspect that influenced events, from just we as viewers seeing new scenery to the players struggling with a new environment and with challenges and rewards determined by the setting. 

The different locations give an individuality to each season. Now the seasons are running together for me because the location and challenges are the same between seasons and the only difference is the contestants. There's not even that with returnee seasons. Instead, there's a scramble to make seasons more distinct and interesting by introducing different twists and gimmicks and instead they all become trite. Survivor as it is now could just as well be produced in the Everglades or some other domestic location. 

100% agreement, and this is something I’ve felt for quite a while.  

Ok, show, we get it: it’s a lot simpler Production-wise to not have to schlep 20 tons of shit around the globe to different remote sites, and no doubt the Fijian government is cutting y’all some healthy incentive checks to keep Survivor in its back yard as one of the longest-running tourism ads ever.  But let’s face it - when the only locale-related suspense is whether or not a contestant is stepping in a previous season’s fecal matter when they shit in the surf off the same stretch of beach everybody’s been shitting off of for YEARS, then you’re getting at least a little stale.

Personally, I don’t see why they don’t rotate out of Fiji at least once every third season or so.  It can’t be THAT much more expensive than some of the cockamamie gimmicks TPTB try to foist off on us every damn season in a desperate grab for variety - and not to mention, it would give the flesh-eating bacteria a chance to die off between seasons.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Nashville
Cleanup

[LadyChatts]

On 1/7/2020 at 9:07 AM, Lamb18 said:

I think they should go to other locations instead of always being in Fiji. The location was almost like another character in the show, or at least another aspect that influenced events, from just we as viewers seeing new scenery to the players struggling with a new environment and with challenges and rewards determined by the setting. 

The different locations give an individuality to each season. Now the seasons are running together for me because the location and challenges are the same between seasons and the only difference is the contestants. There's not even that with returnee seasons. Instead, there's a scramble to make seasons more distinct and interesting by introducing different twists and gimmicks and instead they all become trite. Survivor as it is now could just as well be produced in the Everglades or some other domestic location. 

What new location would you like to see? I'm thinking Laos, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Suriname (?), etc.

I was thinking the other day, Survivor might as well pack up and find some remote part of Hawaii to film in.  What difference does it make?  This show has come a long way from being about both survival and strategic game play, and now it's just about who can find the most idols/advantages (which they don't even make hard anymore-everyone knows it's hidden in some tree trunk or log or, depending who you are, wherever production is pointing).  It's also about these so-called big game moves, which seem to not be so big and make zero sense in the long run.  I loved DvsG because it mixed elements of old school and new school game play.  Going into the finale, I actually was at a loss who might win (though I thought Angelina was a long shot). 

Re-watching these old seasons makes me really long for the days when it was still about surviving, rewards were minimal, people still had to figure out the game without idols, and even blindsides were true blindsides (almost every vote nowadays seems to be treated as a blindside).  Work went into big moves.  Big moves nowadays just don't feel the same.  The original Fiji seasons, which is one of two I'm currently re-watching, feels more Survivor-esque and less Club Med than our current Fiji seasons.  And I will again say, I love the cultural elements and music associated with Survivor China.  Also, I wish we could get challenges like we did back in the day.  

And I know this has been brought up before, but it bears repeating-they really need to shuffle when they do the merge/tribe swaps.  That's something else everyone anticipates is happening at a certain point because of how many people are left.

[OutOfTheQuestion]

If Survivor insists on a stable "home base" for cost and logistical reasons, then at least go somewhere other than Fiji for, say, the next two seasons.  So you can film a year's worth of Survivor in one location (maybe two years, or four seasons if CBS is picky about the budget and then go somewhere else for variety's sake.

[OutOfTheQuestion]

The gender divide in the first 25 seasons is 13 male winners and 12 female winners, but how that near-even split was achieved was an unusual series of streaks.

Seasons 1-11: six female winners, five male winners

Seasons 12-18: six male winners, one female winner

Seasons 19-25: five female winners, two male winners

It isn't a shock that we began to get a real run of male winners as soon as the game started to incorporate more twists --- idols, super-idols, tribes split up by theme (age, "haves" and "have-nots"), multiple tribe swaps, etc. 

If you break the divide up by seasons 1-11, it's a 6/5 split between female and male winners.  Vanuatu, Palau, and Guatemala are all pretty old-school, non-gimmicky seasons, so that's maybe the better division point.  But then from season 12 (the first super-idol season and the four

As to why things suddenly flipped back towards women in seasons 19-25, the game had as many or more twists than ever, but maybe we can thank a singularly bad stretch of male finalists.  Natalie, Sandra, Sophie, and Denise all benefited from the unique awfulness of Russell, Coach, and Michael Skupin.  (Kim already eliminated all her male opponents, but I'm guessing she would've easily run over Tarzan in the jury vote.)

The point is, back when it was mostly a social game, it was an even playing field.  Since Survivor became mostly about gimmicks, idols, advantages, fire-making, whatever, men have won the vast majority of seasons.  It's made for an increasingly predictable game, and one that goes against the very ethos of Survivor, which is that "anyone can win."

Edited January 11, 2020 by OutOfTheQuestion

[Nashville]

 

2 hours ago, OutOfTheQuestion said:

The point is, back when it was mostly a social game, it was an even playing field.  Since Survivor became mostly about gimmicks, idols, advantages, fire-making, whatever, men have won the vast majority of seasons.  It's made for an increasingly predictable game, and one that goes against the very ethos of Survivor, which is that "anyone can win."

I’m still waiting for someone to make a valid case as to HOW such gimmickry would necessarily favor one sex over the other.  As I’ve said before, statistical correlation may imply causation - but it does not automatically prove it.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Nashville
Quoting went wonky

[Hera]

I've skipped the last few seasons of Survivor. The last one I saw was Ghost Island (season 36) so I missed Edge of Extinction (probably for the best, from the sounds of it), but am coming back for Winners at War.

On 12/21/2019 at 6:32 PM, Eolivet said:

Here's another theory, and this sort of coincides around about the mid-30s, and wouldn't necessarily have to be associated with fire-making. I call it ... the "growing up super-fan" movement.

I think there's probably a lot to this. I'd also like to add to this theory by suggesting that it might be that female super-fans are less inclined to apply to be on the show (so casting has fewer of them to choose from) than their male counterparts.

I also note that the presence of super-fans in the game could put pressure on the producers to increase the number of twists in order to keep these players off-balance.

[Lantern7]

Idea for Day 38:

1. Everyone votes except for the person with immunity
2. In case of 1-1-1 tie, that person casts deciding vote

🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

[phlebas]

I HAVE SOLVED EDGE OF EXTINCTION

🙂

Okay, not really, but here...

Starting when the fifth (or seventh or ninth, whatever) person shows up, they start their own game of Survivor. Challenges, advantages, idols, and a tribal council every three days where they vote someone out, bringing them back to four. The one voted off EoE goes to Loser's Lounge like always. At some point, those people start appearing on the jury.

CBS could put this bonus game of Survivor on CBS All Access. Sort of like watching the Big Brother feeds.

Then at the end they just whittle themselves down to 1. Maybe the drunks in Loser's Lounge vote. That one re-enters the game still in Game Mode.

The jury will know two things about the returning player:

1. They still had to compete in challenges and make alliances and start fire and all that.

2. The EoE returnee is just as complicit as everyone else in voting out each jury member. Even, in this case, Natalie.

Confession: I don't like EoE, but on Wednesday after I was all NOOOOO NATALIE I LUUUUUV YOUUUUUU, knowing she was still around was good.

[LadyChatts]

You know what might actually be interesting (and incredibly complicated to keep up with), is if they started the game with 4 tribes of say, 6 people on each, and had two of them playing on one side of the island, and the other two tribes at the opposite end.  They'd play Survivor like normal, and not know of the other two tribes existence.  Then, at some point, they'd meet and discover the other people playing the game.  Complicated, I know, but in reality it's only 4 more people than the average Survivor season anymore.  Obviously this would mean the show would need two hour episodes and/or airing more than once a week.  I can't remember if they did this on an international version, or if this was the original idea for World's Apart (the rough draft I saw of that when Redmond posted it made no sense).  

I think other people have thought of this before, too.  Personally, I'm all for everyone starting out on no tribe, then switching tribes throughout the season.  Let some challenges be individual in the beginning, and some be a group effort.  Again, isn't terribly different than some of the changes they've made in recent seasons with early tribe swaps (sometimes two).  I think anything to shake the game up, make people think on their toes, and not just be happy to be a number in an alliance. 

Edited February 16, 2020 by LadyChatts

[Eolivet]

I personally had less of a problem with Edge of Extinction up until the merge, because at that point, you're sort of at the mercy of how well your tribe does versus your individual game. If they'd had one competition to get back into it at the merge (like the one Rick Devens won), it would bother me less. It's the "you, too, can suddenly get back into the game at F6" that has never felt fair to me.

Once it reaches the individual immunity stage of the game, there should be no recourse for getting voted out. Then you go to the jury. As a tribe, maybe there's some wiggle room.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Eolivet

[TVFan1]

Like someone said before, I wouldn't mind a season where every single player plays on the same beach and everything is individual based. No tribes. Just a free for all.

[Hera]

1 hour ago, Eolivet said:

Once it reaches the individual immunity stage of the game, there should be no recourse for getting voted out. Then you go to the jury. As a tribe, maybe there's some wiggle room.

This is how I always felt about Redemption Island. I think Edge of Extinction/Redemption Island could be ways to shake up the game at the merge every once in a while. I cannot for the life of me figure out why the producers think it's satisfying for us to watch someone who missed most (or even part) of the post-merge game come back just before the finale except on an all-Returnee season—though honestly I don't like the idea even then.

It's weird to me that they take such an all-or-nothing approach to it as well—when faced with the negative fan reaction to these twists, they either ignore it and carry on with the twist as origianally planned or "listen" and get rid of it altogether. The idea of scaling it back to the pre-merge seems like an obvious middle ground that they never explore.

[Prower]

On 12/20/2019 at 9:10 PM, simplyme said:

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).

But that makes no sense. The "gender stereotype" is that women are the gatherers and men are the hunters.

  

On 12/21/2019 at 12:16 PM, Nashville said:

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.

How about just being able to play two idols and only one of them gets nullified? In past seasons, there have been a lot of people with multiples.

I'm not a fan of the nullifier and thin they should throw it in the trash, but if they have to have it, that might be an option.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Prower

[peachmangosteen]

3 hours ago, Prower said:

But that makes no sense. The "gender stereotype" is that women are the gatherers and men are the hunters.

I think it's falling more into the stereotype of the women staying home while the men go out to work.

[OutOfTheQuestion]

Edge Of Extinction would go from a Grade F idea to a D- idea if they had at least two votes amongst the eliminated players. 

Using season 38 as an example, after Devens had won the challenge to return to the game, the other five remaining (Wendy, Chris, Aubry, Reem, Keith) vote amongst themselves to permanently eliminate someone from the game.

Then, after the Day 35 challenge sends one EoE person back into the game, the remaining Edge players have another vote to eliminate one more person entirely --- no jury, no nothing, they're just gone.

Under these rules, Chris actually might have been the very first person totally out of the game, rather than the winner.  Keith or Wendy could volunteer to be the one voted out since they were quitting anyway, or they could stick around through the vote to help Reem by voting out one of Chris or Aubry.

[SVNBob]

Another unusual season concept I just read on Reddit.  Survivor: The Mole.

Starts with a standard 2-tribe division of 9 members each.  But on each tribe, one person was cast as a Mole.  None of the cast are told about the Moles, and neither Mole is told of the other's existence.  The Moles each have the goal of reaching the F3, then receiving 0 votes at the end.  If a Mole achieves that, they receive half a million dollars.  If they get any votes, but still lose, they only get standard prize money.  But if they somehow win the final vote, they lose the money.

I've suggested there should also be clues hidden throughout the season that not only reveal the existence of the Mole(s), but also give clues to their identity(s).  I also think there should be a reward for identifying a Mole, but haven't quite figured out how to implement that.

[peachmangosteen]

4 hours ago, SVNBob said:

The Moles each have the goal of reaching the F3, then receiving 0 votes at the end. 

I feel like that just invites Russell type gameplay and I am not interested in that in the least.

[AncientNewbie]

Building on various threads above, I do think that a simple fix (or at least a shake up) is to mess with the standard tribe set up/merge timing. Now that they film in a set location, they can have campsites of differing types and size to drop people into. Keep them moving so that alliances and blocs can't crystallize early.

I'd also like to see some changes involving the booted to shake it up, without having them reenter. Have all the ones that aren't F3 be the jury. Or have a random draw that any 11 of the booted could be the jury, or all post-merge plus two at random from prior, etc. It's the shake up aspect, again--because if you can't just vote Older Lady off at 1 without reason or totally screw over a pre-merge ally because you'll never see them again, it might open up some new style alliances or connections. Or bomb entirely. There's a reason I don't write tv. 

Also, early on we used to get more of an edit that implied this was life and death and starvation and wild animals were around the corner. As we learned about production and what camp is like, that faded because it wasn't sustainable when you've shown the camera/sound crews wandering by. I'd like to reintroduce that "life or death" angle--by gameplay, not by strategically airdropped lions.  If you finished dead last in a selected challenge, you're automatically eaten by the lions or died of dysentery, etc. Or if (even with tailoring it to avoid one note challenge beasts) that's too biased, that person loses a vote or faces against the voted-out in a contest for who really leaves, etc.

A final thought before this grows into an actual novel--I'd like the season to start with Jeff facing all of them, holding up a necklace, "this is a hidden immunity idol," as he throws it into the fire, "and you won't be seeing one again this season." Or they do exist, but there are two and can only be played once, without replacement. I actually like the HII in concept, as it really did change up gameplay, but it's getting overused and changing what advantages exist from season to season could spark some new interest.

Edited March 26, 2020 by AncientNewbie

[simplyme]

13 hours ago, AncientNewbie said:

or died of dysentery, etc.

Been there, done that. Ah, Oregon Trail. An important part of my youth.

[Nashville]

6 hours ago, simplyme said:

Been there, done that. Ah, Oregon Trail. An important part of my youth.

[Eolivet]

Edge of Extinction came up in the editing thread, and I maintain if -- if -- they ever bring this concept back again, pre-merge people need to go to Ponderosa. Like, you get your chance to compete until merge, and then you're not the jury, you're just gone (I can see why they didn't do it during season 40, but for a bunch of newbies, absolutely). Following the merge, the jury can stay on Edge of Extinction, with the chance to come back at final 6 (like in season 38) or to be part of the jury. But then the winner is only being voted on by people who played together (including the Edge returnee, who would've rejoined the group).

A pre-merge jury has several members voting for someone they've possibly never played with, who all you've seen of them is their tribal council performance. Unless the show is going to start showing Edge of Extinction folks the dailies, pre-merge jury should be killed with fire (not literally. Just the concept).

Long story short: Pre-merge jury is ridiculous, and I hate it.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Eolivet

[LadyChatts]

1 hour ago, Eolivet said:

Edge of Extinction came up in the editing thread, and I maintain if -- if -- they ever bring this concept back again, pre-merge people need to go to Ponderosa. Like, you get your chance to compete until merge, and then you're not the jury, you're just gone (I can see why they didn't do it during season 40, but for a bunch of newbies, absolutely). Following the merge, the jury can stay on Edge of Extinction, with the chance to come back at final 6 (like in season 38) or to be part of the jury. But then the winner is only being voted on by people who played together (including the Edge returnee, who would've rejoined the group).

A pre-merge jury has several members voting for someone they've possibly never played with, who all you've seen of them is their tribal council performance. Unless the show is going to start showing Edge of Extinction folks the dailies, pre-merge jury should be killed with fire (not literally. Just the concept).

Long story short: Pre-merge jury is ridiculous, and I hate it.

I don't mind it so much this season, as everyone already knows each other, and all of my favorites are on EOE 😉  But for the first season, it was absolutely ridiculous that a guy voted out third won.  And was told by everyone on EOE what to do when he got back into the game to make it look like he made moves.  Chris knew about Lauren's idol, and he was told if he won immunity at the F4 to give it up and go to fire.  I guess the jury wanted to make it seem like he made one game move to justify voting for him over the people who actually lasted the full 39 days.  So I agree there.  I truthfully hope this twist never rears its ugly head again.  

But yeah, the pre-mergers should get a chance to get back in, and the ones who don't go away and then we start fresh.

[TVFan1]

5 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

I don't mind it so much this season, as everyone already knows each other, and all of my favorites are on EOE 😉  But for the first season, it was absolutely ridiculous that a guy voted out third won.  And was told by everyone on EOE what to do when he got back into the game to make it look like he made moves.  Chris knew about Lauren's idol, and he was told if he won immunity at the F4 to give it up and go to fire.  I guess the jury wanted to make it seem like he made one game move to justify voting for him over the people who actually lasted the full 39 days.  So I agree there.  I truthfully hope this twist never rears its ugly head again.  

But yeah, the pre-mergers should get a chance to get back in, and the ones who don't go away and then we start fresh.

I knew that Chris knew about Lauren's idol, but I didn't know that he was told to give up immunity at F4 and go to fire. Who told him to do that? Was it the EOE'ers?

[LadyChatts]

48 minutes ago, TVFan1 said:

I knew that Chris knew about Lauren's idol, but I didn't know that he was told to give up immunity at F4 and go to fire. Who told him to do that? Was it the EOE'ers?

I have to go look, but pretty sure the EOE'ers told him to (it might have been they told him to make a big move and they'd give him their vote, so he decided that was it).  I just remember him being somewhat credited with taking the risk at the F4 to give up immunity and go to fire, and then it coming out after that they discussed on EOE what it would take to get the votes.  

As I said, I may be wrong on them telling him to go to fire, but I feel like someone said that.  It might have been one of them on Twitter after the season aired.  I don't think Chris himself said it, but one of the jurors like Ron or Victoria.  

[peachmangosteen]

I remember Chris saying on the show itself, I believe, that the jury told him to make a big move and so he gave up his F4 Immunity to go to fire but it would make sense if that was him kinda downplaying the fact that they straight-up told him to do that lol.

[OutOfTheQuestion]

Was Chris necessarily "told" to give up F4 immunity, or he just knew to do it because he knew for a fact that the rest of the jury was voting for Devens if Devens was in the finals?

[peachmangosteen]

1 hour ago, OutOfTheQuestion said:

Was Chris necessarily "told" to give up F4 immunity, or he just knew to do it because he knew for a fact that the rest of the jury was voting for Devens if Devens was in the finals?

I was just reading about this when Victoria did a reddit ama a week or so ago. I am pretty sure she said that Wardog told him to do that.

[peachmangosteen]

Never do EoE again, go back to F2/do away with the F4 fire challenge. If they just did that, the show would have the potential to be interesting again imo.