Fix The Show

[AncientNewbie]

I haven't fleshed out this brainstorm yet, but I'm pondering the idea of ranked voting. The idea is out of the thing where (allegedly) some might have voted Michelle but they felt not voting Tony would give it to Natalie. (Sorry if that is a hard sentence to follow.)

I know it's not tradition and it's not as dramatic as single parchments from a jug, but I am trying to figure a way to more accurately capture the gameplay than a zero sum game.

[LadyChatts]

They need to do away with EOE for good.  And if they still have it, somehow make it rougher than it is.  I don't think it's a coincidence that 2 early boots managed to get in at the end of the season.  But I hope this is the last season we see it.

I also hope they don't bring fire tokens back, but I'm sure that's going to be something regular now.

And I know idols aren't going anywhere, but there needs to be a limit.  Once it's played, it's out.  I was no fan of Denise, but it sucked that she didn't even get any votes initially, and still ended up being voted out.  Not as bad as Cirie literally leaving with no votes, but we were close to that territory last night.  I also wish they'd do away with fire.  Except for maybe last night, has it really served its purpose that Probst claimed it was for?

Edited May 14, 2020 by LadyChatts

[Kel Varnsen]

Here is a small one, instead of every other challenge being obstacle course then a puzzle why not make a few puzzle then obstacle course.

[Carey]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Here is a small one, instead of every other challenge being obstacle course then a puzzle why not make a few puzzle then obstacle course.

I actually would love to see that.  It would be a treat to see several struggle with a puzzle, while the ones that don't win IC by a mile.  OTOH, someone could crush the puzzle, but then if they're not athletic it would be such an embarrassing loss (and I'd be okay with that too) 

[TVFan1]

Yeah, no more EOE, the concept is garbage. Jeff did say they were going to shelve it for a while. I hope he never brings it back.

[Grrarrggh]

They need to go back to Survivor Series 1 rules. But not tell the contestants those are the rules they're using for a while. Let them look for idols when there aren't any to be found. 

[SVNBob]

6 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

I also hope they don't bring fire tokens back, but I'm sure that's going to be something regular now.

They seemed to work this season, but only because of EoE.  I don't know how they'd work without it.  So I'm sure they're going to try that at least once, to see if there is a way to make it work.

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, SVNBob said:

They seemed to work this season, but only because of EoE.  I don't know how they'd work without it.  So I'm sure they're going to try that at least once, to see if there is a way to make it work.

The only way to bring back fire tokens without EoE would be if fire tokens became the rewards for reward challenges. Which could be kind of interesting if you could save up or trade your rewards.

[Kenzie]

All I want is for Jeff to calm down, stop screeching and put a little dead air between his words during challenges.

This season I usually watched the challenge with the volume down or off just so I could concentrate on the action instead of Jeff's verbal histrionics.

[AncientNewbie]

On 5/15/2020 at 12:05 AM, Grrarrggh said:

They need to go back to Survivor Series 1 rules. But not tell the contestants those are the rules they're using for a while. Let them look for idols when there aren't any to be found. 

 

I'm a fan of all versions of the game/show, but quite a bit I miss the "here's a machete and a pot, good luck" version of the game. Even when it wasn't that severe, the harsher element had a lot more interesting dynamics for me. You might need to keep a provider, or the person that could start fire without flint might be more valuable than just another pretty face, etc.

[Nashville]

2 hours ago, AncientNewbie said:

 

I'm a fan of all versions of the game/show, but quite a bit I miss the "here's a machete and a pot, good luck" version of the game. Even when it wasn't that severe, the harsher element had a lot more interesting dynamics for me. You might need to keep a provider, or the person that could start fire without flint might be more valuable than just another pretty face, etc.

These early-style sort of Survivor seasons were my favorites as well - but I’m afraid they’ve gone the way of the dodo, never to return.  For one thing, the show has changed so much from this model I expect most of the people currently applying are no longer even interested in the survival aspect prevalent in the original seasons.  The primary goals of the current crop of applicants are the money and/or exposure; when was the last time we heard a contestant say they were in it for the survival experience - Ozzy, maybe?  Reinstate the original level of hardship, and TPTB would probably see their DOR rate skyrocket 

[skybolt]

On 5/14/2020 at 6:32 PM, LadyChatts said:

They need to do away with EOE for good.  And if they still have it, somehow make it rougher than it is.  I don't think it's a coincidence that 2 early boots managed to get in at the end of the season.  But I hope this is the last season we see it.

Most of the challenge beasts are typically voted out right after merge, which leaves the remaining ones vulnerable to a another challenge beast coming back at Final 6 from EoE and running the table. It's like the table is set for the returnee to make it to final tribal.

[peachmangosteen]

2 hours ago, skybolt said:

It's like the table is set for the returnee to make it to final tribal.

Absolutely. Especially since they're getting HIIs and then with the F4 fire-making, the final EoE returnees only had to make it through one TC through actual game playing lol.

[Kel Varnsen]

7 hours ago, Nashville said:

These early-style sort of Survivor seasons were my favorites as well - but I’m afraid they’ve gone the way of the dodo, never to return.  For one thing, the show has changed so much from this model I expect most of the people currently applying are no longer even interested in the survival aspect prevalent in the original seasons.  The primary goals of the current crop of applicants are the money and/or exposure; when was the last time we heard a contestant say they were in it for the survival experience - Ozzy, maybe?  Reinstate the original level of hardship, and TPTB would probably see their DOR rate skyrocket 

If you did have the old time rules come back you would need to do it at least twice in a row. Because the overall survival strategy now seems make the simplest shelter possible the just lay around camp using as little energy as possible so you can survive on a scoop of rice a day. Since you know that the rewards and the merge feast are probably going to be good.

That way you can vote off the provider type since they are also probably a challenge monster. But if they changed the rules back so you needed the provider and didn't give away a lot of food people would be in trouble if they didn't expect it.

[KimberStormer]

Not that CBS cares or should care what I think but I will never watch another episode as long as there's an F4 fire-making; no EoE/Redemption Island should go without saying.

[peachmangosteen]

10 hours ago, KimberStormer said:

Not that CBS cares or should care what I think but I will never watch another episode as long as there's an F4 fire-making; no EoE/Redemption Island should go without saying.

You'll never watch another episode again then because I don't see TPTB ever giving up on F4 fire-making. I don't think we'll see EoE for at least a few seasons though.

[SVNBob]

From the S42 finale thread:

11 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I think there are tradeoffs with going to the aftershow format of the last couple seasons, but I think overall the pros outweigh the cons. (Although admittedly, I didn't watch all/much of the aftershow this time)

Pros

Immediate reactions from people fresh in the moment

No/less filler as to random audience members reactions

Fewer opportunities for Peachy to try to make it about him (or so it seems to me)

Less of the pomp and circumstance trying to make it seem like Survivor is such an important social phenomenon

Less filler and replaying of clips

Cons

No chance to hear from pre-Merge contestants. I might have been curious to see Daniel again and hear some of what he had to say this season, for example.

I do kind of miss seeing everyone's glow-ups, the joyful reaction of family members and that sort of thing

No chance for the contestants to react to a bunch of stuff that makes the broadcast that they didn't know about at the time.

I propose a simple solution: Do Both.  On-location immediate reveal and after-show with the jury and F3, and a live post-series full-cast reunion .

Here's how I would schedule/program that.  Instead of the finale including the last couple TCs before TC, those become regular episodes.  F5 to F4 as the ante-penultimate, then F4 to F3 in the penultimate episode, which ends with the F3 heading to FTC (think the WaW penultimate episode, with the cast leaving EoE to head to the final challenge to re-enter the game.)  Peachy will get a dramatic VO talking about the finalists (E.g.: "Mike, the honorable backstabber.  Maryanne, the emotional strategist.  Romeo, the unexpected underdog.") shown over clips of them from throughout the season.

Finale night is still a 3-hour affair.  Show opens with the full cast (barring any excluded for legal reasons) seated on stage, with the F3 front and center.  Format goes back to the old finales, swapping back and forth between the live event and the FTC.

Episode proper starts at FTC, with Peachy giving his usual speech about it being the endgame, how the power has shifted, accountability, blah blah fishcakes.  Things proceed as normal; just an hour or so earlier than they had been.

I'd encourage a cut to live when Peachy goes to tally the jury votes (which should be between the bottom of the first hour and top of the second) to the stage with Peachy and the pre-jury.  Quick check-ins with all of them, then a poll to see who they'd have voted for as jurors.  Segment closes with Peachy saying we'll soon see the actual results.  Commercial after that, a short scene of the F3 seated on stage, then back to the on-site reading of the votes.   At the break where they change the set and bring in the food, a cut back to live where we see the reaction of the live audience, a short interview with the winner, and the presentation of the check before Peachy says that after the break, it'll be the on-site aftershow, then the live reunion after that.

From there, things can be a little loose.  If there's an on-site question that may have added or changed relevance post-airing, there can be a cut to live Peachy asking about it immediately instead of waiting.

[LadyChatts]

I'll say this about the amount of advantages this season-the only one that ended up mattering in the end were MaryAnne's extra vote, and Chanelle risking her vote (which caused Jenny to go home).  We didn't even see the idol nullifier, none of Drea's advantages were used (except her extra vote I think, which didn't even matter), the amulet advantage turned out to be a bust, though could have been a game changer if Lindsay used it on Omar.  KIP and Shot in the Dark were busts again, although SITD got played more this season than last I think.  Do or Die, I guess depending on your view point, was a failure or success, though you know TPTB are dying for someone to go home because of that.  Mike played his idol, but it was really for nothing.  The other two idol plays were more symbolic in nature. 

I still want them to do away with so many idols and especially advantages, but I guess the silver lining this season is no matter how many are in play, it doesn't mean they'll get played or make an impact.  

[jsm1125]

The Turn Back Time, the Idol Nullifier and Knowledge Is Power are atrocious twists. Why should an immunity win or an advantage be taken away from you or negated simply because production is bored? 

The on-island reunions could be okay if they bothered to include the pre-jury or actually talked about juicy topics. Saying “wasn’t this twist fun and scary?” doesn’t do it for me 

[MerBearHou]

2 hours ago, jsm1125 said:

The Turn Back Time, the Idol Nullifier and Knowledge Is Power are atrocious twists. Why should an immunity win or an advantage be taken away from you or negated simply because production is bored? 

Agree with the above 1000%

I do like the immediacy of the votes being read because in the months-later version, the winner always always knew.  In the months later version, it was fun to see everyone dressed up and back to their pre-show weight, but that doesn’t make me prefer the annoying live audience show where Jeff interacted and wasted time with members of the audience.  

Not seeing pre-jury folks, especially the first boots who I truly forget about, is fine with me.  I’d prefer to hear from the players I feel like I’ve gotten to know better over the weeks.

Bring back the food auction - loved that.

Never bring back the eat-gross-food challenge.  

I like the Amazing Race’s final challenge that involves some version of “put these experiences in order”.  

[LadyChatts]

After last night's finale, here's a few things I'd like to see changed going forward:

-If the FMC final 4 isn't going away, and is supposedly going to be such a factor in deciding who wins, then scrap the last IC and let all 4 go to fire.  Either the first person who finishes casts the only vote to kick someone off (thus deciding who they are taking to the final 3 with them), or the first 3 to finish are in the final 3.  

-26 day seasons aren't going away, either.  Fine, but structure the game for a 26 day season.  I feel like they are trying to cram a 39 day season into a two week shorter time frame.  Don't make things so rushed.  Maybe go back to 16 contestants (I know they have 18-20 in large part in case there's quits or medevacs-but if they have to start the jury phase earlier, or have a final 2, then what's wrong with that?).  I feel like game play was really lacking this season, and having such a short turn around between challenges and TC leaves little room for anything big to happen.  It doesn't help when there are risk your votes, steal a votes, KIP advantages, idols, and whatever other advantage they want to throw in there.  Having a few is okay, but again, in a 26 day season this just feels like more overkill than normal. 

-On that subject, I wish they'd go back to two tribes to start, or have a tribe swap.  Again, starting with just 6 people leaves little wiggle room for any real strategy, moves, or places to hide.  I also hate seeing one tribe dominate early on, like Coco did this season, and especially Luvu in S41.  At least Coco eventually lost, but it was basically because Ryan was throwing the challenges that led them there.  Having a tribe swap might shake things up and give a previous underdog a chance.  I also don't like someone losing their vote because they risked it when they are in a 6 person tribe.  Yeah, I know when they risk their vote they potentially lose it and that's the gamble, but still, it hurts a small tribe even more when one person can't vote, and 3 people have the majority. 

-I actually love seeing the winner announcement read live, but I wish they could have the reunion show months later like they used to.  I don't need the live audience and Probst seeking out Cochran or Boston Rob for their comments.  Just give me the contestants.

-And finally, fire whoever was editing this season.   

I realize that there can be flaws with what I've said above, but it'd be a start.  

Edited December 15, 2022 by LadyChatts

[Hanahope]

I still really miss the Ponderosa videos for the jury.  

[SummerDreams]

The things I don't like are the following:

- Not enough days. Make it 40. Give the players the time to really know each other, create relationships, strategize. Give us the viewers the time to get to know them and care when someone leaves. The way it is now the first 7-8 people aren't remembered at all.

- More people, 3 tribes. Make it 3 tribes of 8 people. More variety. More people of various ages and body types.

- Give the same amount of camera time to everyone, even the ones that are voted out first, second, third etc. Have us guessing. Don't focus only on the "character" types. I know some people give nothing interesting, but I still want to see them. That's why it's a reality show and not a scripted show where everyone is interesting.

- I don't mind the twists, the idols, the advantages and the challenges as long as the twists are interesting and new every time. Australian Survivor has had some great twists that really changed the game and kept it interesting.

- Bigger episodes, at least 1,5 hours every week. Show us interactions, strategy, friendships forming, funny stuff etc.

[peachmangosteen]

2 hours ago, SummerDreams said:

Bigger episodes, at least 1,5 hours every week.

Well, we do know we're getting that next season. Remains to be seen if the extra time is used wisely. I'm gonna guess no lol.

[LadyChatts]

38 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

Well, we do know we're getting that next season. Remains to be seen if the extra time is used wisely. I'm gonna guess no lol.

I'm wondering if they knew when they were filming whether they would have the extra time or not.  At most, they'll have the time to edit.  Which can be good or bad.  I'm hoping this didn't give them the chance to wedge more advantages and trips to wherever to gamble on your vote, but it'll probably just mean longer TC that will look chaotic but end up booting someone predictable.  I wish he'd actually listen to the contestants and maybe incorporate some of their ideas or wishes.  No one seems a fan of the 3 tribe dynamic, and I'm not exactly sure why Probst and company are.  Contestants, especially the finalists, have complained about being dirty, smelly, and having their million dollar dreams dashed and then immediately having pizza and champagne shoved at them and Probst saying 'hey!  How does it feel to be a loser?'  I really wish they would focus on the relationships.  I think they could have actually done something with Lauren/Carson relationship and made her boot more suspenseful (she was upset with Carson over voting her off because she thought they were close).  

[Hanahope]

I like 8 person tribes, they seem too small right now.  
Hopefully they won’t have to keep quarantining for 14 days soon so that they can increase the number of days again.  

[SummerDreams]

4 hours ago, Hanahope said:

I like 8 person tribes, they seem too small right now.  
Hopefully they won’t have to keep quarantining for 14 days soon so that they can increase the number of days again.  

I wouldn't hold my breath about this. They still make 13 episodes, a whole season (that people watch and advertisers pay for advertisement), with 26 days. They don't really need to increase the days and pay more to the crew.

[TVFan1]

I will never like the 26 days format. Bring back 39 days and 2 tribes of 8 with a jury of 7.

"39 days, 16 people, 1 Survivor!" please.

[astrohip]

On 6/2/2023 at 5:30 PM, LadyChatts said:

I'm wondering if they knew when they were filming whether they would have the extra time or not.  At most, they'll have the time to edit. 

I don't think it will change much in the show, they can easily use the edit process to add the extra footage.

The one change we might see is more Reward Challenges. It was hard to have a RW and an Immunity Challenge in the same episode. Now we might see both more often.

[Lady Calypso]

I've used this example before and I'll use it again. 43 had one 90 minute episode, the second episode of the season.

Spoiler alert: even with the 90 minutes, it didn't help. The issue is that you need great editors who know what they're doing, as well as production to be able to know WHAT to put in that 90 minute episode.

With 43, in the second episode, what we got was: a lot of the male perspective with only a couple of minutes with Elie and then maybe a segment with Karla, we got Cody talking about how Noelle's disability reminded him of his friend who died, we got the "take the bead" strategy from Cody, we got a lot of the challenges. Plus, backstories left and right.

What they could do is what I don't see them doing. What I think will happen is that we'll get MORE twists and MORE advantages and MORE sob stories while focusing on the same four players to fill out the time. 

90 minutes only work if production has great editors and a direction in how they want the episodes to play out. Editors can only put in what their bosses tell them to put in, so it's fully on blame with the higher ups in production, anyway.

[jsm1125]

I know Jamie was unlikely to ever this season, but I think production did her a bit dirty. Every Ratu said in their exit interviews that she was in a lot of danger during that tribal council where she played her shot in the dark. Yet if you were to just watch the show, you’d think she was a lunatic for playing that advantage. 

[LadyChatts]

What annoyed me about Jamie's edit, other than it was contradictory to how she was playing the game and the relationships she established, was that it served no purpose.  What was the point?  They made it seem like she was being set up for a huge downfall, what with talking about being the MVP, saying people were telling her things and she knew more than anyone else playing, her idol that wasn't really an idol...I mean why?  It's like they were trying to edit her as the opposite of Carolyn, portrayed as someone who was making moves, was saavy, had a real idol no one knew about, and was in the know more than people realized, yet put on a goofy front to mask how good she was playing.  I get they want to make characters out of people, but at least make it realistic to what eventually happens to them.  I feel like this new era of Survivor is trying to get away from that old school style of editing people, but it really isn't working as well as they think.  

Edited June 8, 2023 by LadyChatts

[phlebas]

I expect the extra half hour is Writer's Strike related. I doubt they went into filming the season expecting longer episodes, so we'll be getting some looser editing, for better or worse.

[Nashville]

IMHO Production really needs to re-evaluate its IC loser protocol.  While I understand their guiding principle is increased stress -> increased drama, the current protocol leans way too heavily towards kicking someone when they’re already down:

1. In the current paradigm of combined Reward and Immunity challenges, the losing team is already immediately penalized by missing out on any degree of reward, while their opponent teams receive immediate advantage in the form of increased comfort and/or food gathering capabilities.
2.  The losers are also disadvantaged much more impactfully by the loss of a tribal teammate at the subsequent TC.  The long-term consequences of this particular disadvantage are significantly deleterious; it gifts the losers’ opponents with creation of a “bench” in future challenges, while simultaneously denying the same to the losers.  The advantage of having flexibility to sit out injured or underperforming players cannot be overstated - especially when you consider all members of the tribe on the bottom must perform at 100% at every challenge, simply to maintain their (already-disadvantaged) status quo.
3. Against this backdrop, Jiffy’s withholding of the firestarter flint does little more than exacerbate the current balance of advantage and disadvantage; the non-losers have enhanced opportunities for food preparation and simple resting comfort which are denied the losers - kicking them when they’re down, in effect, then putting a boot on their neck to KEEP them down.

IMHO any two of these factors are severely detrimental and all three are overkill, so Production should at least consider dropping one of the three - if for no other reason than to keep the game interesting.  Personally I’d recommend dropping #3 (withholding of the flint) simply because it is already the easiest for the losers to overcome - assuming, of course, any of these chucklenuts actually went to the effort before boarding their Fiji flight to learn how to make fire without matches or flint.  When did preemptively learning such basic survival skills stop being Survivor 101, anyway - when firestarter flints ceased to be a reward to be earned, and instead became part of a season’s “standard option” package?

Discuss.

[seacliffsal]

52 minutes ago, Nashville said:

53 minutes ago, Nashville said:

  The advantage of having flexibility to sit out injured or underperforming players cannot be overstated - especially when you consider all members of the tribe on the bottom must perform at 100% at every challenge, simply to maintain their (already-disadvantaged) status quo

IMHO any two of these factors are severely detrimental and all three are overkill, so Production should at least consider dropping one of the three - if for no other reason than to keep the game interesting.  Personally I’d recommend dropping #3 (withholding of the flint) simply because it is already the easiest for the losers to overcome - assuming, of course, any of these chucklenuts actually went to the effort before boarding their Fiji flight to learn how to make fire without matches or flint.  When did preemptively learning such basic survival skills stop being Survivor 101, anyway - when firestarter flints ceased to be a reward to be earned, and instead became part of a season’s “standard option” package?

Discuss.

 

The importance of being able to sit out players was in strong evidence when Liz had to participate in the Immunity Challenge.  That tribe would have been so lost without Hunter-she basically couldn't do anything.

As for when did contestants stop trying to be able to actually survive?  I think that's definitely a part of the 'new era Survivor' (and, wow, do I cringe everytime a contestant says that).  It's not only the idea that it's easier to survive 26 days than 39 (and it is easier), it's acknowledging that Survivor is casting for personality 'types/stereotypes' and 'characters' over people who could actually survive...

[Toomuchmatt4u]

They should do a season where they bring back everyone that has been eliminated with a perk or idol and they are active perks. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

It might be an interesting twist in cases where one tribe is forced to sit people out, it's the other tribes that get to select who sits out. Rather than tribes resting their weakest members, the underdog sucky tribes might get a chance by forcing out the Hunters of the world to take a seat. 

[SVNBob]

7 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

It might be an interesting twist in cases where one tribe is forced to sit people out, it's the other tribes that get to select who sits out. Rather than tribes resting their weakest members, the underdog sucky tribes might get a chance by forcing out the Hunters of the world to take a seat. 

What makes this concept even more interesting is the Survivor rule that the same person cannot sit out consecutive challenges.  So that makes the decisions on when you'd force the strong people to sit out even more crucial.

Also, while this idea makes intuitive sense when there's only one tribe down, there's at least a couple edge cases to consider when there's two tribes down.  One is the 6-5-4.   How would this be decided?  The tribe of 4 picks one person from each of the other 2 tribes, then the 5 picks one of the 6?  Or does the 4 pick all 3?

Another edge case is the 6-5-5 and/or 5-4-4.  Do the two down tribes have to agree on who to choose from the other?  Can they confer?  Or does the most recent loss dictate which tribe gets the choice?

[bunnyface]

On 3/14/2024 at 1:15 PM, Nashville said:

IMHO Production really needs to re-evaluate its IC loser protocol.  While I understand their guiding principle is increased stress -> increased drama, the current protocol leans way too heavily towards kicking someone when they’re already down:

1. In the current paradigm of combined Reward and Immunity challenges, the losing team is already immediately penalized by missing out on any degree of reward, while their opponent teams receive immediate advantage in the form of increased comfort and/or food gathering capabilities.

In a world of 90 minute episodes, there's no reason to combine reward and immunity challenges, except for they don't want to bother with setting up both.  But there is enough screen time for two challenges.  A reward challenge boost by a down team could really change their focus and energies.  It could make a difference.

[SVNBob]

13 minutes ago, bunnyface said:

In a world of 90 minute episodes, there's no reason to combine reward and immunity challenges,

In a world of 90 minute episodes and 39 days in the game, you're right.

We're in a world of 90 minutes an episode and 26 days in the game; 1/3rd less time.  And it's the days of game time that's the main factor for the combined challenges, not the minutes of episode time.

If there were still separate RCs and ICs in this era, there'd have to be a challenge every day.   So no rest days.  On a limited caloric intake.  The combination of exhaustion and lack of food would likely kill someone.  Which would kill the show, not fix it.

[Soapy Goddess]

Producers need to vet the players better. Quitters and whiners have no business playing Survivor.

[LadyChatts]

14 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Producers need to vet the players better. Quitters and whiners have no business playing Survivor.

Last season after Sean quit Jeff said that they definitely needed to reevaluate casting because he didn’t understand how Hannah, Sean, and Brandon (even though he didn’t quit) managed to make it through.  Since S46 filmed right after S45 I wonder if some of his comments also applied to the S46 cast.  I know some people have said Bhanu is a character Probst would love but I think Probst secretly found him aggravating.  I hate to agree with Kenzie, but she’s not wrong, Bhanu does not know how to play Survivor. 

[rr2911]

I would love for Jeff to take a look back in the early seasons and see what made this show so great.  I would like to see the selection process be more natural rather than "structured".  Maybe this way we would see contestants who want to play the game and who want to be there.

[SoMuchTV]

On 3/19/2024 at 4:18 PM, Chicago Redshirt said:

It might be an interesting twist in cases where one tribe is forced to sit people out, it's the other tribes that get to select who sits out. Rather than tribes resting their weakest members, the underdog sucky tribes might get a chance by forcing out the Hunters of the world to take a seat. 

I like this idea!

[Chicago Redshirt]

Few other thoughts.

Start with fewer players -- say 15. Have it be one tribe all along. For competitions, do randomized teams. Have nobody go home for the first few episodes. You could still have tribal councils if you wanted but they could be to administer some sort of penalty for the loser of the vote, Have a 12 person jury, 3 person Final Tribal Council.

Problems I'd hope to solve/improve on:

1. Basically the first few weeks of Survivor don't matter much. The people who get voted off, even though they are focuses of whole episodes, have no impact on who is the winner. Now at least they would be on the jury and have relevance that way. Players would have to factor in and potentially pay for every vote-off. 

2. There are people that we do not get to know because for the first few weeks because they are never wacky enough to be featured and they do not go to Tribal. By not having eliminations for a couple weeks, there would be a better chance to get to know people.

3. Too often, the two/three tribe structure limits game play and creativity. If you're lucky to be on a dominant challenge tribe, you can have a huge leg up that snowballs, as they get reward after reward and maintain their numbers. Having to scramble for votes across 15 players and to try to make alliances among that many would be more interesting than factions among three. Watching tribes that are bad at challenges suck is not entertaining. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

An innovation I'd be interested in seeing how it would play out:

The final 4 have an immunity challenge as usual. But instead of the winner of that challenge picking one person to join them for the FTC and then the firemaking challenge, the jury up to that point chooses the other person or 2 based on ranked-choice voting. 

No more goats. Lower likelihood of people who get absolutely no votes just being there.

[Nashville]

20 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

An innovation I'd be interested in seeing how it would play out:

The final 4 have an immunity challenge as usual. But instead of the winner of that challenge picking one person to join them for the FTC and then the firemaking challenge, the jury up to that point chooses the other person or 2 based on ranked-choice voting. 

No more goats. Lower likelihood of people who get absolutely no votes just being there.

Only problem I would have with such an approach is this: the jurors already lost their voice in game proceedings by virtue of being voted out - so why, at the end of all things (or the end of the season at least) should they suddenly regain the ability to interfere in ongoing gameplay?

Personally, I can’t think of any reason which justifies allowing the jury to muck about in active players’ ongoing strategic maneuvers, just so the jury can pursue advantage for their favorites.

[LadyChatts]

Since some jurors in recent seasons have made such a big deal about fire-making being the thing that swung their vote, maybe scrap the F4 IC altogether and let them all make fire.  

[Nashville]

1 minute ago, LadyChatts said:

Since some jurors in recent seasons have made such a big deal about fire-making being the thing that swung their vote, maybe scrap the F4 IC altogether and let them all make fire.  

Interesting - but if I end up on the show and make it to F4, let it be known I’m already calling dibs on the downwind chair.  😆

[Clark Kent]

21 minutes ago, LadyChatts said:

Since some jurors in recent seasons have made such a big deal about fire-making being the thing that swung their vote, maybe scrap the F4 IC altogether and let them all make fire.  

I was just saying this to a friend the other day.  If production absolutely insists on fire-making (and I really wish they wouldn't), then get rid of this laborious, two-stage process at the final 4 and streamline it by just doing a fire-making competition among the remaining contestants where the person who burns the rope last gets eliminated and be done with it.  They could even create a kitschy new set and call it the 'Fire Temple' or something equally silly and have Jeff spin it as "your strategic and social game got you this far (or you were dragged along as a goat), but your survival skills will get you to the finals."  We could save a good 45 minutes of the finale that way.  Or -- dare to dream -- they just go back to a normal vote-off at the final 4.  But I'm not holding my breath.

Edited May 24 by Clark Kent