Fix The Show

[KnitsWithRaceCars]

 How about UPS drivers vs. FedEx drivers.

 

Yeah, that would make for an easy season for John Kirhoffer.  Every challenge could just be about who can illegally block the most disabled parking places, access zones, and ramps, and who can do it the quickest and most efficiently.  UPS and FedEx drivers excel at those things and are some of the most prolific offenders.  The competition between them would be cutthroat.

[Lamb18]

 How about UPS drivers vs. FedEx drivers.

Have five teams: army vs navy vs marines vs air force vs coast guard. You'd need around 30 people so we'd have one year-long season. Jeff would shine at the patriotic and war/battle clichés.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Lamb18

[Maverick]

 Well they've done race, gender, age and class.   All that's left is sexuality and religion.  While I can actually see them doing a gay vs. straight season (or worse gay vs. straight vs. bi) the thought of the stereotypes they'd cast on both sides make me shudder.  Survivor:  Ideology Wars would probably necessitate another Africa season so lions can be available for the challenges.  Probst would wet himself.  

[SimonHumboldt]

But FUCK fishing nets and tarps.  Make the Rewards, as I said, ADVANTAGES for gameplay for the team.

 

Well, you could argue that a tarp is a gameplay advantage since anything that helps you sleep and stay dry helps your challenge performance.  I have no problem with tarps as rewards.

 

As for fishing nets, even the tribes that win them don't care because everyone is too lazy to fish.  It's easier to win the next reward challenge buffet feast.

 

Maybe I'm lame but I actually like seeing people try to fish and, you know, survive. You can talk strategy while you are fishing and doing other stuff.

 

Shut down the idol factory.  What did we have this season, five or six of the damn things?  Far too many, and ironically it suppresses big moves because idol paranoia makes everyone play too cautious and conservative.  And split vote plans have become predictable and commonplace.  zero to three idols please.

[Special K]

I agree that there were too many idols this season.  I also think there should be a moratorium on new idols being introduced after a certain point in the game.  If it is true that Jaclyn could have found an idol at that very last Exile Island, that's just ridiculous.

[Lantern7]

Either schedule the Reunion for 10:15, or go into Day 38 to start the finale. Sometimes, the "look-ins" were worth it, but we wound up with almost half the cast ignored and some questions were unanswered (Missy's foot, Rocker's attitude), Also, I would've liked Fallen Comrades, because it's cheesy. Minimum, we could've gotten emotion from Natalie about Nadiya, and we would've gotten one more epic slow-motion shot of Keith spitting. The editors had fun with it in the past . . . why take that away from them?

[KimberStormer]

I would love to see them go back to old school season one. No redemption island, no exile island, no hidden immunity idols, no extra food if you eat your allotted food. And if you get hurt bad enough that you can't compete in the competitions you are out.

 

I honestly do not understand the "you're out if you can't do the challenges" thing.  I get the Survivor purist thing (though I think it will lead to every season being South Pacific) but they did get extra food in the very second season, didn't they?

 

One thing I wish wish wish they would go back to from season one is making the final challenge a pure endurance challenge.  If ever there was a time to do it it was this season; Missy could have participated in "hands on the idol".  Maybe it's just too boring for Jeff Probst to be sitting out there for 12 hours or whatever it ends up being.

[peachmangosteen]

One thing I wish wish wish they would go back to from season one is making the final challenge a pure endurance challenge.

 

This is my biggest wish. I really miss it.

[SnideAsides]

Yes. It's just not epic enough to have the final challenge of the season come down to a challenge that, in the early seasons, would have been a forgotten Final 8 immunity challenge. Not that the challenges are bad, but... for what they're trying to accomplish? They totally are.

 

Yeah, that would make for an easy season for John Kirhoffer.  Every challenge could just be about who can illegally block the most disabled parking places, access zones, and ramps, and who can do it the quickest and most efficiently.  UPS and FedEx drivers excel at those things and are some of the most prolific offenders.  The competition between them would be cutthroat.

Plus throwing parcels over fences.

[dolphincorn]

I'd like a four-camp US vs. Canada. vs. Britain vs. Australia season. At least that way, I could audition for the show.

[SnideAsides]

I'd settle for a season where the tribes were balanced rather than cast with a gimmick in mind. I mean... between class next season, Blood vs. Water, brains/beauty/brawn, Fans vs. Favourites, evacuated players returning, men vs. women, Coach vs. Ozzy, Rob vs. Russell, old vs. young, and Heroes vs. Villains, it's now been twelve seasons since they did it.

[heebiejeebie]

Last season a true homage to Lord of the Flies.  Called Everyone Versus Jeff: Bloody Host in the Water.

[EvilApplesauce]

Does anyone think that maybe the show could benefit from having the jury vote for the winner at the reunion show? I wonder how many past winners would have still won their seasons if the final 2/3 still pled their case, the jury asked their questions, the show ended and everyone went home, and after getting a chance to "go over the evidence" by watching on TV, the jury chose the winner just before the live reunion show?

Edited December 21, 2014 by EvilApplesauce

[pennben]

That would be awful.  The editors would then basically be the most important "player" in the game.  I don't see a purpose that would be served by that, other than decreasing hard-playing by folks and the entertainment we get from hearing the truth from the players as they are playing.

 

Didn't they once not sequester folks on Big Brother early on, leading to someone playing the hell out of the game losing because the folks on the jury saw her snarky confessionals?

Edited December 21, 2014 by pennben

[Nashville]

That would be awful.  The editors would then basically be the most important "player" in the game.  I don't see a purpose that would be served by that, other than decreasing hard-playing by folks and the entertainment we get from hearing the truth from the players as they are playing.

 

Didn't they once not sequester folks on Big Brother early on, leading to someone playing the hell out of the game losing because the folks on the jury saw her snarky confessionals?

 

Danielle Reyes, in Season 3.  Up to this season, there was no Jury and no sequestration; evicted HGs simply went home, and returned at the finale to vote on the winner.  This also meant they were able to watch the game like other viewers, and get extra information to which they were never privy while in the House - hearing the show's eavesdropping on private conversations, as well as the DR sessions of remaining HGs. 

 

This increased access cost Danielle the game.  She tended to be very harsh and gloating in her DR sessions, and several evicted HGs later stated they changed her mind on how to vote based on her aired DR sessions.  Production took note, and introduced the JH and sequestration in BB4.

[EvilApplesauce]

That would be awful.  The editors would then basically be the most important "player" in the game.  I don't see a purpose that would be served by that, other than decreasing hard-playing by folks and the entertainment we get from hearing the truth from the players as they are playing.

 

Didn't they once not sequester folks on Big Brother early on, leading to someone playing the hell out of the game losing because the folks on the jury saw her snarky confessionals?

It was just a thought. I've only seen 1 season of BB, and I was speaking hypothetically about Survivor, so I didn't consider that such an idea would reduce the entertainment value of the show.

 

[Although, the scenario you described in BB is not what I was suggesting: sending players home to watch the game right after being voted off the island. I was suggesting that the jury would be present up until FTC where the final 2/3 would make their case, and then everyone goes home as they do now - only change being that the final votes would be cast at the reunion. The jury would still have all the information that they get throughout the season, plus the chance to see how the game was played from different viewpoints on TV.]

 

Exiting this thread and taking my awful opinion with me.

Edited December 22, 2014 by EvilApplesauce

[KimberStormer]

Don't feel bad!  It seems like a reasonable idea--the jury would have more information.  It's just that, unfortunately, they would only have the information the editors were presenting, which is not intended to be dispassionate and informative but rather to make an entertaining TV show.

 

As it is I think there is a good balance--the players only know what they know and what other people tell them.  (Jeff Probst would even prefer, and I know some people agree with him, that each jury member be sequestered alone, so they would only know what they knew in the game and what they see at tribal.)  So your clever ploy throwing the immunity challenge might get back to the jury, but nobody knows your grandmother is still alive till they see it on TV.

[Kromm]

I'll be the first one to say what a lot of us have been thinking for years.  

 

Replace Probst.

 

Yes, it would never happen.  He's got too much contractual power and influence, as well umpteen years hosting a show who's ratings held on really well (so no network or studio person would ever dare TRY to replace him).

 

I'm just saying, realistically, a lot of the problems which have developed with the show developed around Probst's philosophy and view of the show.  He's in many ways the poison in the mix.  

 

Not saying I have even a CLUE who could replace him in this frankly impossible scenario.  Just that some of the problems we've gone over might be impossible to fix when Jeff is in play.

[kikaha]

I don't think Survivor has many problems.  There's little to fix.  It's one of the most popular, successful shows in TV history.  Versions of it exist in countries around the world.    

 

The game itself is a fairly pure form of social democracy.  Next to no rules.  Virtually no private property.  Every person has the same access to basic resources, and the same vote.  i.e. near total equality, even as the goal is to become last person standing, without the use or threat of force. 

 

It's brilliant.  Besides the commercial aspect -- which shows how popular the concept and execution are -- Survivor spawns endless discussion, debate, arguments, predictions, etc among fandom.  Such as this board.  Another sign it's doing things right.  

 

As for Jeff Probst, he has been host of this wild, runaway success for 29 seasons, going on 30.  He's won numerous Emmy awards.  He's worth tens of millions.  Burnett is worth something like a half billion.  These guys are tuned in to their market, like few ever have been.

 

I love watching Survivor.  Even last season, which started out real slow, and for a long time didn't seem to have any compelling players, got interesting, with plenty to think about, root for, root against, and now talk about afterwards.  

 

My main hope is that Survivor keeps going for another ten seasons -- at least.  It's tapped into some basic human urges.  Don't screw around with that basic formula.   

[Kromm]

I don't think Survivor has many problems.  There's little to fix.  It's one of the most popular, successful shows in TV history.  Versions of it exist in countries around the world.    

Actually, if you look at the chart some efficient soul put on the wikipedia page, most of the International versions ran out of gas YEARS ago.  So an argument based on how worldwide it is has to take into account that those versions mostly don't exist anymore.

 

Also, another problem with that argument is the reality that Survivor HASN'T been unchanging. It's changed radically.  The entire show has become about tweaking itself each season.  So if you're arguing "don't change it", then you're actually arguing for them to stop doing what they've been doing.

[henripootel]

I don't think Survivor has many problems.  There's little to fix.

I'm surprised at how much I disagree with your post, kikaha.  I would stipulate that I don't think most of us have much to tell Jeff Probst about how to sell fish, but that doesn't mean that he's created something perfect.  It has been long-lived, but so is The Real World, which sucks something awful and always has.  It's popular but so are the various Kardashian shows.  They've made a lot of money but so did Enron, so did Aaron Spelling.  We must be careful to not conflate 'successful' with 'quality product', and the theme for this thread as I understand it is to how to 'fix' it, not 'make Survivor more commercially successful'.  It is inarguably successful but that's not the point.

The game itself is a fairly pure form of social democracy.  Next to no rules.  Virtually no private property.

Again, disagree.  I simply can't imagine a more contrived, artificial world than Survivor.  Not 'no' (or even 'fewer') rules, vastly more than the ones everyone else has.  They have all of ours plus the game rules, plus the PAs whispering in their ears, plus obligations to talk, compete, and vote and such that we don't have.  Their options are constrained and regimented in a way that would be more familiar to folks in jail than someone in a 'social democracy' (at the heart of which would surely lie 'liberty').

 

Their rules of private property are murky but again, more complicated than real life, not less.  Real life has my stuff and your stuff, if I take your stuff, police come.  Survivor has stuff that's kinda mine but not really (like my clothes, were actually issued by production) some of which you might be permitted to steal (if they think it'll make 'good tv'), plus 'show stuff' (like the HII) that you'd be prevented from ever stealing.  Less actual property, vastly more complicated rules about it.

 

So why is this important - I think this goes to the heart of what may be 'fixable' about this show.  My feeling is that the more contrived they make it, the more I don't like it.  Mactors cast as 'characters' to be disruptive or act as a stereotypical (fill in the blank), imposing bullshit 'brain vs. beauty vs brawn'-type nonsense and letting it drive the editing choices, Jeffy and his host of predilections about the game (real Survivors are brawny men, successful women require some special explanation, the chosen narrative trumps what actually happened).  I honestly think the show'd be better if it were to hew to what actually happens.  I'd go so far as to say that when the producers start to tamper with the one thing I'm pretty sure they don't as yet (the actual voting), we'll be able to tell immediately and the show will fall apart.  

Edited December 25, 2014 by henripootel

[KimberStormer]

I don't think Survivor has many problems.  There's little to fix.  It's one of the most popular, successful shows in TV history.  Versions of it exist in countries around the world.    

 

The game itself is a fairly pure form of social democracy.  Next to no rules.  Virtually no private property.  Every person has the same access to basic resources, and the same vote.  i.e. near total equality, even as the goal is to become last person standing, without the use or threat of force. 

 

It's brilliant.  Besides the commercial aspect -- which shows how popular the concept and execution are -- Survivor spawns endless discussion, debate, arguments, predictions, etc among fandom.  Such as this board.  Another sign it's doing things right.  

 

 

I actually agree with you.  If I didn't think it had so strong a basic core I would never bother nitpicking the little things I don't like.   I got into it after years of watching Project Runway and Top Chef, shows which are considered much better, more classy, less trashy, etc (all this classist nonsense about the difference between Survivor and those shows) and probably the biggest reason I started to like it was that it's so much fairer than Tom Colicchio and Nina Garcia and their absurd, transparent biases.  The very first winner was a fat naked gay asshole.  Then a working-class, middle-aged woman.  People like Sandra, Denise, Chris, Tom, or Natalie this season would never get anywhere on Project Runway no matter how talented they were; they don't fit the brand.  But they won Survivor.  Last I heard, two women have won Top Chef in however many seasons it's been, and both their wins have been undermined relentlessly--"Richard just choked, he would have won of course!" "She was eliminated mid-season and came back, unlike all the men who have won"--but on Survivor women like Kim and Parvati and Vecepia and Sophie can thrive.  People like Cirie and Yau-Man would be eliminated first episode of a judged show no question, edited as pathetic cannon fodder and ignored at the reunion, on Survivor they are beloved heroes.  The reason is the core game: the producers don't control the outcome, Jeff Probst does not get to pick his favorites; the players vote.  It's not perfectly fair, because humans are not perfect, but it turns out that these people voting are a damn sight more open-minded than capitalist aristocrat overlords like Michael Kors are.

 

I don't mind gimmicks and changes in general (though I frequently disagree with specific ones) because even at the worst--Redemption Island--it hasn't actually fundamentally changed the basic game, and at the best (I'm one of those who would consider the HII one of the good innovations) it makes the game less predictable and more fun.  Even dubious ideas like Cook Islands had little material impact beyond the very positive outcome of a much more diverse cast than usual.

 

But I'm still always going to point out when I think some idea is dumb dumb dumb, the editing is terrible (the editors are more like Nina Garcia), Jeff is a jerk, or when they do something totally awful like bring back Colton or Brandon.  I think Survivor is pretty great, but as long as I'm talking about it, I might as well talk about the bad stuff too.

[Nashville]

We must be careful to not conflate 'successful' with 'quality product', and the theme for this thread as I understand it is to how to 'fix' it, not 'make Survivor more commercially successful'.  It is inarguably successful but that's not the point.

I'm of the opinion the folks who foot the bills for the show - and thereby make possible its existence - might disagree mightily with you on this point. :)

[ToastnBacon]

Random Ideas

I want more endurance challenges early on, with some kind of harsh penalty for stepping down early.

First one to step down from the pole, or whatever, has to spend the night in the surf, or watch the rest of their tribe feast.

I liked the idea of planting members in the opposite tribe, they did a little of that for a few seasons.

Maybe hide a few tribe switching idols in the sand during challenges?

Maybe a good twist with the hidden immunity Idols would be that if you play it, you have to switch tribes right after the votes.

Or have a tribe swap idol, you have to play it first thing at tribal council and then you are off to the opposing tribe.

I'd like to see more people forced into leadership roles somehow. Also, I'd like to see more pranks and stressors applied to people to make them crack.

[ToastnBacon]

I don't agree with the "next to no rules" comment either. There has to be an insane amount of rules associated with the game.

There are rules for camp life that aren't disscussed that deal with wildlife and safety, or how far they can roam.

What keeps people from visiting the opposing tribe in the middle of the night? Rules and producers no doubt.

If I ever went on the show, I would smuggle (prison style) as many fake clues to HIIs as I could. Just print out a bunch of ryming clues that are hopelessly ambiguous in terms of terrain features.

You could really gain an advantage having people off digging for crap that wasn't there; however, would the producers allow such a thing?

I seriously doubt it.

[peachmangosteen]

I think the rules are mostly arbitrary. They have them, but they'll gladly wave them if they like the drama potential of allowing someone to break them.

[ToastnBacon]

I think the rules are mostly arbitrary. They have them, but they'll gladly wave them if they like the drama potential of allowing someone to break them.

Yes, I can see that happening. I also wondered if that lady who threw the rice in the fire was prompted to do so by the camera crew.

Another thing about the Mactors is that they have a scheduled vote out date since they aren't eligible to win.

[henripootel]

I think the rules are mostly arbitrary. They have them, but they'll gladly wave them if they like the drama potential of allowing someone to break them.

Imagine if real life had this added complication.  Say my neighbor fancies my lawnmower and steals it, the police come and say 'well, it's plainly theft, but what a Big Move!  We'll let it go.' 

I'm of the opinion the folks who foot the bills for the show - and thereby make possible its existence - might disagree mightily with you on this point. :)

No doubt, and I'm guessing this is why Jeffy, who fancies himself open to viewer criticism, frequently bristles when actually confronted with some. More than once I've seen replies that amounted to 'Who the fuck are you to tell me anything?  Unless you're Tyler Perry'.

Edited December 26, 2014 by henripootel

[kikaha]

Kromm, if I counted right in that Wiki article, 50 nations have run their own Survivor series.  The overwhelming majority lasted more than one season... a fair number lasted more than ten seasons, including some that are still broadcasting.  Spectacular success, that is rarely (if ever) matched by other TV shows. 

 

On your second point, I fell the essence of the show has not changed over the years.  TPTB have thrown in some twists and some tweaks.  But the bones and guts are the same now as in the first season.  Kimber gave some good examples of this.  

[bafleyanne]

I would like to see:

Less cushy rewards and especially less enormous food rewards. It's not really surviving in the wild when at least one tribe/group of players is getting a feast every 3 days.

Gross food/local food challenges again. That thing they did in Africa where they had to drink the local specialty of cows blood mixed with milk was one of my favorites.

I agree, if you're stupid and eat all your food I guess you can live on coconuts and clams. This past season it seemed particularly ridiculous that they traded in all their stuff for more rice and then merged anyway a couple of days later.

I'd love to see more rope chopping/pecking order challenges and that final endurance challenge back too.

[treeofdreams]

I am currently watching the Pearl Islands season.  After the reward challenge a member of the winning tribe gets to go to the losing tribe's camp and take one item.  I think they should bring this back.

[bafleyanne]

I am currently watching the Pearl Islands season.  After the reward challenge a member of the winning tribe gets to go to the losing tribe's camp and take one item.  I think they should bring this back.

Yeah, that gimmick was afaik unique to Pearl Islands because of the whole pirate theme, but it was a fun idea. I agree it would be cool to bring back.

[ToastnBacon]

They used to do rewards in which the winner got a good meal with an open bar, and the winner had to assign each member a lesser meal in descending quality down to a bowl of rice and a glass of tepid water. They then had to eat in front of each other.

Those challenges seemed to generate actual rancor, and made for good viewing. It made even the most skilled players uncomfortable and caused a lot of trash talking later on.

I don't like the loved ones participating in challenges, or the concept of having the obligatory "loved one" episode take up too much time.

We are only talking about them being separated for 30 days or so, at the point those episodes are filmed. It has never seemed genuine to me the way these people react, and it is way too syrupy for my taste.

The circumstances of the separation are good, the players are on a big adventure with a chance to win a million dollars, so I am always a little baffled when they play "hardship of separation" angle of the story.

I hope they keep a tight lid on the "loved one" stuff from now on.

[Oholibamah]

Actually, if you look at the chart some efficient soul put on the wikipedia page, most of the International versions ran out of gas YEARS ago.  So an argument based on how worldwide it is has to take into account that those versions mostly don't exist anymore.

 

Also, another problem with that argument is the reality that Survivor HASN'T been unchanging. It's changed radically.  The entire show has become about tweaking itself each season.  So if you're arguing "don't change it", then you're actually arguing for them to stop doing what they've been doing.

 

Viewers often yearn for a "golden age" of Survivor, but I feel pretty confident that if Amazon or Marquesas were airing today the ratings would plummet and it would get cancelled. I would argue that international versions have evaporated because they simply didn't evolve quickly enough. As much as I begrudge some of the changes Survivor has undergone, the show has done a decent job staying fresh, relevant and ahead of the Reality TV landscape. 

 

The first 7 seasons will always hold a special place in my heart, but I have to admit that I've been spoiled by the dramatic Tribal Councils that have become pretty par for the course. The newer seasons have a lot of punch and excitement that the documentary-style early seasons lacked. They helped establish the show as a legitimate social experiment, but it wasn't a sustainable model.

 

I will also say that, although there is a bit of a delay in making the necessary adjustments, TPTB seem to be listening to the longtime fans. Season 30 will be our third consecutive season with no returning players and they pulled Redemption Island from San Juan Del Sur. If we need to cast Cliffs and Rockers to try and boost ratings, I can make that small concession to keep the show going. Especially if they keep going home early.

[treeofdreams]

 

They used to do rewards in which the winner got a good meal with an open bar, and the winner had to assign each member a lesser meal in descending quality down to a bowl of rice and a glass of tepid water. They then had to eat in front of each other.

Those challenges seemed to generate actual rancor, and made for good viewing. It made even the most skilled players uncomfortable and caused a lot of trash talking later on.

 

 

I like the "pecking order" rewards and challenges as well.  It certainly made things more challenging for the players!

[Mike Teevee]

The first 7 seasons will always hold a special place in my heart, but I have to admit that I've been spoiled by the dramatic Tribal Councils that have become pretty par for the course. The newer seasons have a lot of punch and excitement that the documentary-style early seasons lacked. They helped establish the show as a legitimate social experiment, but it wasn't a sustainable model..

I would say this is as much about the evolution of the players as it is about the twists in the game. I recently re-watched a few earlier seasons and saw a lot of missed opportunities for strategy by those players. I don't think they were "worse" players; they just had less experience to draw from. As far as "punch" and "excitement", I think it depends on what you enjoy watching. I liked watching players trying to brave the elements, and would love if that were still a big component of the show. But I'm likely in the minority there, and the days of the show I preferred have probably passed.

Some things I would like to see (besides what I mentioned above) -

No more than 16 players, and end with a F2 instead of F3

The losing tribe compete in a second immunity challenge for individual immunity. This should probably be in place of hidden immunity idols - which I don't have a problem with in theory, but it's become overused and they are too easy to find.

I loved the fake merge twist at F10 in Thailand. I don't know if they could recreate it, but would enjoy something similar. Or maybe do a merge at F12' then split back into two tribes at F10 for the next couple of challenges.

I'm fine with returning players, but only for a 2nd appearance; we don't need to be seeing these clowns for a 3rd or 4th time.

My biggest complaint is with casting/editing. When I re-watched earlier seasons, I remembered every player and most of them had a unique personality. More recent seasons seem to have more forgettable characters who blend together. If you have 20 minutes to kill, go to YouTube and watch the opening credits from every season. I find it's the players from the earlier seasons that I have clearer memories of, and I think that's based on how they currently cast and edit the show.

[Kromm]

I agree that there were too many idols this season.  I also think there should be a moratorium on new idols being introduced after a certain point in the game.  If it is true that Jaclyn could have found an idol at that very last Exile Island, that's just ridiculous.

Immunities are a fine concept, which have only become "broken" on this show because the show isn't creative enough with the idea.  The Tyler Perry Idol, in fact, rather than being a creative new version, was just a retread.

 

One of my earlier suggestions on this thread was really fucking with the idea of Immunities, by limiting the self-gained ones (cut whatever number they have now in half), but in its stead adding an Immunity that's granted FROM THE OTHER TRIBE.

 

This fucks with the dynamics of the tribes and creates some new tensions which could play out dramatically, because depending on how those immunities are assigned, it can create alliances, dissent, suspicion, or even at worst keep in a player a tribe hates and fuck with their internal politics.

 

The two possible ways being:

 

a.) A tribe wins the power to assign immunity to a member of the opposing tribe as a reward challenge win.  They vote as a whole on this.  It's all public from all sides and in the open.

OR

b.) A single individual finds an Idol, but its revealed they can only use it in the sense that THEY get to individually pick a person on the other tribe to give it to.  Like any good advantage though, this one has a downside, because when the player decides to use it, they have to reveal to Jeff they have it, and a visit to the other tribe to scout the players there is announced publicly--the downside being that it becomes obvious to their own tribe members that they WERE looking for some kind of Idol (which might convey weakness to their fellow tribe members).  The upside of course is that if their own tribe is behind them, they can use this Idol to really stir up the opposing tribe.  The Idol is given out to the person on the other tribe in secret, even though the whole visit and its reason is public--making everyone there suspicious of each other.

[snoopythecat]

Both these ideas are great, and I'd love to see them again, but they've both been tried in some form before:

In Palau, there was a reward challenge (won by Koror) that allowed the winning tribe to observe the losing tribe's TC and assign immunity to one member of the opposing tribe based on their observations. It was obvious from the discussion at TC that Ibrehem was on the chopping block because of his poor challenge performance, so Koror granted him immunity and Angie was voted out instead.

In One World, where tribes were allowed to mingle pre-merge, there was a HII hidden at each tribe's camp that the finder was to give to a member of the opposing tribe. Sabrina found the Salani idol and gave it to Colton, who declined to pass it on to anyone when he was quitevaced. (The Manono idol was never passed from one tribe to the other; Kim sneaked over to the Manono beach while they were away and found the idol, which she knew would be designated for a member of Salani.)

Edited January 3, 2015 by snoopythecat

[Way Wes Jr]

Not so much a suggestion for the on-island show, but for the produced on-air version.

 

In reading various threads, a common refrain has to do with either "the invisible edits," or conversely, "the time hogs."  I think the feeling is more acute this season (S31:Second Chances,) because not only is it an All-Star season, but because many viewers feel a sense of proprietorship since we voted on who got to play.  So, when someone we voted on to the show gets the Purple edit, we feel especially let down.

 

I wouldn't suggest it for every season, or ever All-Star season, but I believe that the premier of this season should have been two hours, and that regular week to week episodes this season should have been ninety minutes long.

[Wings]

There is no place to put this but I have to say it.   If you are in the final process of interviewing, come to every meeting with a bathing suit under your clothes, wear light weight but sturdy pants, T-shirt, sneakers, socks and one of those sunscreen long sleeved button shirts over the T-shirt.   

[ProfCrash]

They do a strip search before you head out so that won't work.

[KimberStormer]

Production chooses their clothes.  I don't think they bother with the "surprise! you're on Survivor!" thing anymore, haven't for years.  And as a costumer, they are damn right to do so.  A bunch of people all in practical athletic gear would be boring and confusing.  I know someone with prosopagnosia who finds it very difficult to distinguish faces, so she pays attention to what people are wearing to keep them apart in her mind.  I always say that a costume designer's job is to make it impossible for her to make a mistake.  Survivor giving them suits and things to wear may make the fans grumpy for some reason, but it's very useful for quickly distinguishing characters.

Edited October 29, 2015 by KimberStormer

[Guest]

A bunch of people all in practical athletic gear would be boring and confusing.  

Or The Amazing Race.  

 

I don't mind when they have practical clothes.  Though it's kind of funny when they have outfits like Varner's Fred Flintstone one.  But I'd much rather see the men in nylon swim trunks than faded pink briefs with pixelation.  

 

It seems like the women are pretty prepared in the bra category.  No one's stuck out there in a lacy pushup that doesn't fit 2 weeks in.  They've got fairly modest sports bras or at least highly adjustable and plain but colored padded/structured cup bras that 'age' semi-decently.  

[NutMeg]

It seems like the women are pretty prepared in the bra category.

I may be wrong, but as returning players never suffer these kind of indignities, I think TPTP are more lenient towards them in that respect - maybe a way to distinguish "savvy players" from "silly new timers" for the general public? 

[Trick Question]

Production chooses their clothes....And as a costumer, they are damn right to do so.  A bunch of people all in practical athletic gear would be boring and confusing.  I know someone with prosopagnosia who finds it very difficult to distinguish faces, so she pays attention to what people are wearing to keep them apart in her mind.  I always say that a costume designer's job is to make it impossible for her to make a mistake.  Survivor giving them suits and things to wear may make the fans grumpy for some reason, but it's very useful for quickly distinguishing characters.

Fans get 'grumpy' since depending on some of the outfits, it's patently unfair to some players.  If you're a lawyer, how would you feel if you showed up to play and were told "oh, you can stay in a three-piece suit on this tropical island....others, yeah, they get t-shirts and shorts."

[KimberStormer]

Well, that's a somewhat more reasonable grumpiness (though has anyone ever actually suffered in the game because of what they were wearing?) but I'm thinking more about the "why are these people so stupid, why don't they wear something practical" grumpiness.

 

Actually a 3-piece suit is a pretty good one to have, lots of options of how to wear it, and pretty warm when you wear all the layers, which is good for those cold rainy nights. 

 

(I should do some kind of article or something on Survivor fashion choices...Parv in HvV somehow created a different outfit like every episode out of the clothes she had, which seems like some kind of metaphor for her gameplay style of having options.  Etc)

[NutMeg]

Fans get 'grumpy' since depending on some of the outfits, it's patently unfair to some players.  If you're a lawyer, how would you feel if you showed up to play and were told "oh, you can stay in a three-piece suit on this tropical island....others, yeah, they get t-shirts and shorts."

If I was a lawyer in that situation, I'd love it! Men in suits always have an advantage because it means layers! And you can cut stuff, as Varner did this season, and still have the cut sleeves to keep you warm at night. 

[Charlesman]

Most famously, Cochran claimed never to have owned a sweater vest until he was told to wear one on his first trip to the island.

[NutMeg]

And Stephenie had the perfect outfit her second time around (Guatemala), with removable sleeves and stuff, which is why I've been convinced since that returning players are allowed to wear what they want while the untested are not.

[fishcakes]

Well, that's a somewhat more reasonable grumpiness (though has anyone ever actually suffered in the game because of what they were wearing?)

 

A few suffered in Pearl Islands, but that might be because it was the first time they stranded them in what they were wearing when they went to what they thought was a photo shoot. Rupert had those heavy jeans (which he sadly described as his "dress jeans") that would never dry out, stupid Osten sold his clothes in the village, Shawn kept mourning the damage to what he wanted us to know was his Armani suit, and then there was Lill. No one has suffered more than Lill has because of what she was wearing, although I think she kind of enjoyed the suffering, so it evened out.