Fix The Show

[ProfCrash]

Dress jeans always make me laugh. I am allowed to wear dress jeans at work but not casual jeans. No one defined what that means so we feel that if the jeans do not have holes in them then they are dress jeans.

[NutMeg]

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.

to be fair the seaon gave us Rupert's makeshift skirt, which editing fell in love with at first sight :-)

Edited October 30, 2015 by NutMeg

[Guest]

And apparently so did Dan Foley, who pretended to lose his undies to justify wearing his own makeshift skirt.  

[pennben]

sometimes, I don't like editing very much!

[LadyChatts]

The problem as I have seen it before with the "random tribes every week" or "no tribes at all" ideas is that I think both of these will result in instant annihilation for any and all big strong "challenge threats", and I don't think any of the producers want that.  But the reason they're not typically targeted before the merge is that they're wanted for challenges.  Even in the random tribes idea, there is no benefit whatever to keeping them, because tomorrow they may be on the opposite tribe.

Personally rather than one big tribe I prefer little tribes (3 works well for me; those 4-tribe openings they used in Cook Islands and Panama never quite worked)  Imagine 20 people playing individually with no tribe; there's just wayyyy too much room to hide.  I like little tribes because there's no way to avoid the target without actively making an effort to do so, and every player on the tribe is a factor.

 

 

I think the individual game or the one tribe from the start intrigues me because its never been done.  However, realistically, you are probably correct that it would likely cost the alpha male challenge threats (unless they outnumbered everybody) and that people might still be afraid to scheme and strategize too early for fear of being targeted.  It's why I would love for them to constantly shake things up-start off with a large tribe, then downsize into two tribes, then back to one tribe.  I don't know, it might make people think, but maybe not for the best of reasons.  Even though I think there's too much emphasis on strategizing, as we are learning this season, I do get annoyed by the goats and sheep that snuggle themselves into the majority alliance and get dragged to the end.  Even if some of those sheep happened to be favorite players of mine, I'd still rather see game play rewarded over someone that just got lucky and did nothing.  There's different aspects to game play, too, not just the strategy side of things.

 

I like 3 tribes mainly because it is easier to get to know people faster.  People are invisible as it is on this show, but on a tribe of 10, they can really hide them on there.  However, maybe drop the tribe swap.  Ulong decimated themselves and no tribe swap was thrown in to save them.  So why not just let it play out that way and see what happens.  Make the cross tribe alliances happen at the merge and not before.  And this season and last, despite being random, the new tribes after the swap were lopsided.  There was the testosterone fest (and Sierra) at Escmeca last season.  This season there was the stronger Ta'Keo and Bayon over the poor unfortunate souls at Angkor, who TPTB decided 'hey, let's make them start from scratch, what good TV that will be, right?'  Maybe let the losers get reward while the others get immunity.  At least one tribe that already has the advantage won't further get pumped up by having designer furniture and gourmet meals brought to their camp as their reward.  

 

The 4 tribes made no sense in Panama, since they dissolved them the following episode.  I get where they were coming from in Cook Islands, but I am also not a fan of that format.  And again, they dissolved them after a couple of episodes.

[ProfCrash]

Why would it be a problem if the alpha males were threatened? The nerds/strategist/older people are threatened in the early game in every season.

[Oscirus]

Yea but at the same time, nerds. strategists, older people are usually safe at the merge while Alphas tend to get targeted. So it usually evens out by the end.

 

 

[Kromm]

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

Most of the countries on that list don't actually WATCH the show that much, so there'd be little incentive for Mark Burnett to fund it.

[KimberStormer]

Why would it be a problem if the alpha males were threatened? The nerds/strategist/older people are threatened in the early game in every season.

 

I don't think it would be a problem, but I think it would be a problem to Probst & Co.

[dolphincorn]

 

Most of the countries on that list don't actually WATCH the show that much, so there'd be little incentive for Mark Burnett to fund it.

 

Survivor is top-ten in Canada, often much higher than it is in the US. I mentioned the other countries because they speak English. I don't imagine Americans would put up with subtitles.

[Guest]

I'd watch that season.  

[Kromm]

Survivor is top-ten in Canada, often much higher than it is in the US. I mentioned the other countries because they speak English. I don't imagine Americans would put up with subtitles.

Lets put it another way. I don't see Global being willing to fund the show enough to justify a co-production for a season, but at least that's possible. Australia and the UK have tried to have their own locally produced versions of the show and both failed miserably. They both, as far as I know, show the US series, but often in a scattered manner, with ratings that don't justify THEM putting any money into it. Meanwhile, to be frank, US audiences can be xenophobic assholes as much as anyone else. Even English speaking people from other countries probably won't interest a mainstream American audience much. A single player from another country? Sure, happens all of the time. Another single opposing team, like Tyra Banks' stupid US vs UK Top Model cycle? Barely (but making sure it ridiculously plays up the conflict and the xenophobia and jingoism). A show that's 3/4 cast with non-Americans?  It would never fly with a US audience on a prime-time network show. Cable, maybe (because that would mean different ratings expectations, but also a smaller show budget). Prime time network? Never.

[Wings]

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

 

They are looking for flints, tools, food etc.  I don't think they would take your clothes away.  Don't over do it but come prepared enough so you don't end up in your underwear or impractical sundress.  

[SnideAsides]

Australia's version failed less because people didn't want to watch and more because the network it was on went out of its way to ensure it failed. They basically only did the season in the first place because a clause in their contract to show the US version forced them to (they expected to be able to use it as cheap summer filler, pretty much, and didn't really consider the fine print), then spent as little money on it as possible - they went with an unknown host who was already contracted to the network as a producer on our version of 60 Minutes, cast a group of people who didn't light up the screen and weren't really interested in the strategic side of the game, held the whole thing in a nondescript field on the edge of the Southern Ocean, didn't tell them until the game began that the prize was only half a million bucks, and littered the season with nonsensical product placement (an overnight reward trip to an authentic pioneer cottage... which just happens to have a satellite dish to allow for internet access on the new computer you have also won!) and a slew of particularly unimaginative challenges (the highlight is basically an early version of the "get from one end of the rope to the other" challenge, and it's used as a reward challenge right near the end of the season) - so its failure was beyond expected. Australia's still never seen Marquesas (which it replaced), but as of a few days ago Survivor was right up the top of a poll about which Australian shows people wanted revivals of. The general consensus is that it's been long enough that it's worth trying again, you know?

 

But the UK wouldn't be interested. At this point in the show's development, it's just the wrong damn kind of show for their audience. What I could see working, maybe, is like a Fans vs. Favourites-style season where one tribe is returning American players and the other is "returning" players from the various international versions. They overcome the main disadvantage the Favourites tribe usually has by having played before, but there's still enough of a slant towards the Americans that the audience isn't instantly driven away.

 

An actual suggestion? Stop catering to the RHAP audience. Rob has a very specific view of what makes a good season that really isn't all that accurate, and the gamebots who keep getting cast (and recast) to play to this cult of personality are ruining the show for everyone else.

[Guest]

For the record, the US/Can/UK/Aus tribe show I'd watch, I meant US Survivor with foreign players, not some sort of co-production with foreign networks.  So UK audiences wouldn't be a factor (or Aus or Can ones).  

[kikaha]

Winston, one question is, would U.S. audiences still watch, if the U.S. players got booted early?  Would they watch if no U.S. players remained at merge, e.g., or even at F6?

One way to improve the odds: U.S. vs the World.  Two teams of ten each.  Seems like that gives an advantage to the U.S. players, who share a common language and (more or less) culture.  Depending on how things go, a tribal shuffle could make things interesting.  All World players would have to speak English, of course.

[henripootel]

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.

It actually is.  I know a number of people who live outdoors for various reasons and those who are not being paid to dress like some version of Jungle Jim tend to hit on the same strategy - go to goodwill and buy old dress shirts.  There's a lot to be said for full-sleeve cotton shirts with a collar, and you can get 5 of them for the price of a t-shirt from REI.  I'm sure the wardrobe guys on Survivor don't have this in mind when they dress some folks for the show, but it's not a bad choice.

Stop catering to the RHAP audience. Rob has a very specific view of what makes a good season that really isn't all that accurate, and the gamebots who keep getting cast (and recast) to play to this cult of personality are ruining the show for everyone else.

 

Care to elaborate on this?  I've never listened to RHAP but my understanding is that he's essentially an adjunct to production, and hews close to their ideas as far as casting and gameplay, not the other way around.  

[ProfCrash]

I listen to RHAP and tend to disagree with Rob pretty regularly. He has a very different take on the show then I do and his vision falls in line with Productions vision. He likes the chaos and shit stirring. He was caught off guard by the anti-Dan and Will sentiments and overall missed the misogyny that was displayed throughout the season. It is weird because he is a good player but his view point seems to be more inline with a casual viewers then the people on these boards.

 

I am actually surprised by how much we differ but he does have some good insights and he brings on past Survivors and it is fun to listen to them discuss the show.

 

His Big Brother podcast really drives me crazy because he only follows the show and ignores the feeds so he misses a ton of stuff and is clueless as to how awful some of the players are.

 

For the most part, Rob likes the Alphas and the Abi's and the people who create the drama. I find it strange because as someone who played the game pretty strategically I would think that he would hate that stuff. I am not sure how much of his commentary is directed at keeping an open pipeline to the Survivors and Production access to the Survivors and how much is his overall viewing pleasure watching a more chaotic show.

[Guest]

Winston, one question is, would U.S. audiences still watch, if the U.S. players got booted early?  Would they watch if no U.S. players remained at merge, e.g., or even at F6?

I would.  I don't really care the nationalities of the players, as long as they speak English and are fun to watch.  But you could be right, other viewers might see it as some Survivor Olympics.  

 

I figure RHAP listeners are a tiny fraction of the millions who watch Survivor.  The casting people might share his views on things, though.  I think they do ok, overall.  I posted this in the TAR forum last night but I was curious so I googled up some articles about when/why they started recruiting for the CBS reality shows.  It said their applicant pool was too small (around 20,000), nearly all white, and about 1/3 were people who had been on other reality shows or were turned down for several.   Under those conditions I'd rather them supplement things with casting.  I don't love the celebs or people who don't even care enough to watch a few seasons to prep but overall I'm ok with who they find.  A season of Dan Foleys would kill the show, even if they chose some Dans with pleasant personalities.  He's just not good tv on too many levels.  

[Kromm]

Winston, one question is, would U.S. audiences still watch, if the U.S. players got booted early?  Would they watch if no U.S. players remained at merge, e.g., or even at F6?

One way to improve the odds: U.S. vs the World.  Two teams of ten each.  Seems like that gives an advantage to the U.S. players, who share a common language and (more or less) culture.  Depending on how things go, a tribal shuffle could make things interesting.  All World players would have to speak English, of course.

I can only think of two US shows that have tried this. Top Model's one US vs. UK season (where a Brit actually won, by the way, although she was arguably talented) and a (shitty) cooking show that aired here on BBC America (the only venue that would easily accept that kind of content, IMO) called "Chef Race: UK vs US". 

 

I suppose we could argue that American Gladiators has done it, but they've ONLY done the "US vs." thing for specials they do for one episode per year.

 

In the UK I know they've done "Celebrity Big Brother" with a UK vs. US formula... but it was (to be frank) cast with horrible nightmare US contestants on purpose to allow the Brit audience to feel superior.

 

If it's been done outside those examples, I'm not recalling it. I know that The Amazing Race's Australia show did a "Australia vs. New Zealand" season, but that of course didn't rely on xenophobic US audiences.

[kikaha]

Kromm, how did those shows work out, commercially, compared to their all-US seasons? 

[Kromm]

Kromm, how did those shows work out, commercially, compared to their all-US seasons? 

Top Model has been in the toilet for years, so I wouldn't be surprised if just the novelty gave a small bump. But also not shocked if people hated it too. Top Model audiences aren't going to be much like audiences for a big CBS show. It's not even a CW vs. CBS thing, I'd say, just that Top Model and it's viewership long ago crystallized only to hardcore fans.

 

The Chef Race show was on a channel specifically dedicated to Anglophiles. If that show succeeded or failed would have more to do with it not being a very good show rather than it involving Brits (which would only help on that channel). Again, CBS is not BBC America.

[FormerMod-a1]

I don't know, I think the UK/Aus/US/Can season would work. A lot of Americans are suckers for an accent. I don't think people would be put off by "foreigners".

[Kromm]

I don't know, I think the UK/Aus/US/Can season would work. A lot of Americans are suckers for an accent. I don't think people would be put off by "foreigners".

What might sooner be market-feasible is a licensed spin-off. Produce it under agreement for BBC America (thus securing possible broadcast rights back in the UK on one of the BBC channels with a number after it).  Also sell it independently of the normal Survivor show to Canada and Australia and possibly New Zealand and South Africa (don't forget, they're English speaking too). 

 

Don't include Probst. His time is too expensive. Use one of the more popular and media savvy show alums as a host (not Podcast Rob, but more like Boston Rob, or Parvati or someone of that level).  Yes, a lot of people hate them, but if a big intent is to sell this overseas and not just in the US, then open that door by using people they may actually know from watching classic seasons.

 

Consider casting it with US Survivor alums and put them against "the foreigners", but in a softer manner. Because the show won't be only marketed to US audiences (and when it IS, on BBC America, home of US-based Anglophilism) then it doesn't have to be sickeningly jingoistic.

 

Tweak the format a bit so it's on a shorter production cycle. The classic filming locales for the show are probably cheap enough to use, but the real key to making it would be less expense... ergo less filming. Also, to be frank, the prize is too high. For a spin off/derivative, on a shorter cycle, make it 100K, or maybe even 50K. Also, frankly, the challenges could be simpler.  The huge Rube Goldberg ones can go away--the budget for those is likely gigantic.

 

Call it something like "Survivor International", so the differences are highlighted for the targeted audience.

 

In other words, what I feel won't EVER fly on CBS might work with tweaks elsewhere--and as I said, done cheaper/shorter. But not TOO cheap, or too short, or it loses any magic it has. And it's not that Americans don't want to see foreign places or foreign people (or The Amazing Race would never have succeeded), but a CBS kind of audience is very "fuck yeah, 'Murica!" in nature and won't be the place to see anything but Americans being their proxies/heroes.  Ergo... shop the idea elsewhere.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Kromm

[Skeeter22]

My understanding is that they can't cast non-Americans because Mark Burnett only has the US rights. It's not an original show, it's based on an existing property, Expedition Robinson. I believe Todd, the winner of season 15, had to give up his Canadian citizenship to collect the prize money. It isn't xenophobia preventing an international cast, it's contract issues.

[Kromm]

Good point. I'd forgotten about Expedition Robinson.

 

I still believe even if that wasn't the case that it just wouldn't fly on CBS' uber-conservative airwaves, but that's neither here nor there if they couldn't do it regardless.

[KimberStormer]

An actual suggestion? Stop catering to the RHAP audience. Rob has a very specific view of what makes a good season that really isn't all that accurate, and the gamebots who keep getting cast (and recast) to play to this cult of personality are ruining the show for everyone else.

 

I listen to RHAP and tend to disagree with Rob pretty regularly. He has a very different take on the show then I do and his vision falls in line with Productions vision. He likes the chaos and shit stirring. He was caught off guard by the anti-Dan and Will sentiments and overall missed the misogyny that was displayed throughout the season.

 

For the most part, Rob likes the Alphas and the Abi's and the people who create the drama.

 

Aren't these directly the opposite?  I'm pretty dubious about the idea that Production gives the slightest thought to what Rob likes or dislikes, but it seems we can't even agree on what he likes, gamebots or drama crazies.  Personally I like a mix, hopefully with less Dans and Brandons and more Shanes and Abis when it comes to drama, less (insert boring or nasty gamebot, I can't think of anybody off the top of my head and I have go to work in a minute) and more Kims when it comes to gamebots.

[Kromm]

Rob and his podcast don't even exist to anybody but Superfans.

 

This means they don't have to cater to him or his specific audience, sure, but I'd argue it also means that any impression that they already ARE catering to him or his audience is... probably dead wrong. They've never had any reason or motive to do so.

 

If they're catering to someone it's more likely Jeff Probst's ego. Lots of signs of the show doing that over the years.

[Guest]

This is kind of old (orig. 2007) but I agree with casting agent Lynne Spillman's criteria.

http://www.cbswatchmagazine.com/2014/10/cast-away/

 

I've said this before but compared to Big Brother especially, I think TAR and Survivor do a good job.

[henripootel]

If they're catering to someone it's more likely Jeff Probst's ego. Lots of signs of the show doing that over the years.

This is my understanding of what RHAP pretty much exists to do - flatter Probst and all his pomps, so not surprised to find out he likes what Probst likes.  Has he ever said anything all that critical?  Serious question, don't have any real opinion of the guy. 

Edited November 5, 2015 by henripootel

[Kromm]

This is my understanding of what RHAP pretty much exists to do - flatter Probst and all his pomps, so not surprised to find out he likes what Probst likes.  Has he ever said anything all that critical?  Serious question, don't have any real opinion of the guy. 

Okay, that may be true of RHAP, but the "they" I was talking about are the Survivor Producers (well, the ones besides Probst himself). The accusation was that for some strange reason a poster here thought the show caters towards RHAP listeners. With apologies, that sounds ridiculous to me, because Rob and his podcast are insignificant in terms of overall ratings or the public profile of the show.  Thus my statement that the only "catering" the show does is to Probst's whims.  That's what I meant, at least.

[henripootel]

Thus my statement that the only "catering" the show does is to Probst's whims.  That's what I meant, at least.

That was clear and I took it to mean that.  I only meant that I thought RHAP was essentially a fan club for the show, hence Rob's access to stuff others might not have (beyond his being a former player).  Doesn't he do visits to the site and stuff?

 

While we're on the subject, Kromm, what's your take on their being a difference between the Survivor Producers and Probst himself?  I always assumed they were one in the same, save that Probst didn't start off with the singular influence he currently enjoys.  Is this not correct?

Edited November 5, 2015 by henripootel

[Kromm]

That was clear and I took it to mean that.  I only meant that I thought RHAP was essentially a fan club for the show, hence Rob's access to stuff others might not have (beyond his being a former player).  Doesn't he do visits to the site and stuff?

 

While we're on the subject, Kromm, what's your take on their being a difference between the Survivor Producers and Probst himself?  I always assumed they were one in the same, save that Probst didn't start off with the singular influence he currently enjoys.  Is this not correct?

My impression is that Probst is the all too typical "Executive Producer" Star, who gets the creative credit but not the work.

 

That doesn't mean he doesn't have influence or go to meetings and throw his weight around, but it means I doubt he's drawing that second salary (and profit sharing) for actually making deals or making production bookings, budgets, every day decisions or is necessarily part of the production company run by Mark Burnett. Probst's producer credit is EXTRA on top of Burnett, Charlie Parsons, and the various line producers.

[henripootel]

My impression is that Probst is the all too typical "Executive Producer" Star, who gets the creative credit but not the work.

I never doubted that he wasn't booking any hotel rooms for the staff but is there truth to the notion that we have Probst himself to thank for various twists over the last few years?  The emphasis on returning survivor 'stars', redemption island, the super-duper HII, et al.?

[LanceM]

That was clear and I took it to mean that.  I only meant that I thought RHAP was essentially a fan club for the show, hence Rob's access to stuff others might not have (beyond his being a former player).  Doesn't he do visits to the site and stuff?

 

While we're on the subject, Kromm, what's your take on their being a difference between the Survivor Producers and Probst himself?  I always assumed they were one in the same, save that Probst didn't start off with the singular influence he currently enjoys.  Is this not correct?

 

He does not. The only access that Rob has is he gets to do interview the voted off castaways every week (along with the rest of the media). So, no he really doesn't have any special access at all.

[azshadowwalker]

 littered the season with nonsensical product placement (an overnight reward trip to an authentic pioneer cottage... which just happens to have a satellite dish to allow for internet access on the new computer you have also won!) 

 

This was done often in the early seasons of the US version. Build something with these Home Depot products, "pick items from this catalog", have some Pringles!, want to split a Snickers bar?, call home on this Sprint-branded cell phone, and the old "and a new car" challenge that went on for a long time and led to the YauMan-Dreamz incident.

[Guest]

This is my understanding of what RHAP pretty much exists to do - flatter Probst and all his pomps, so not surprised to find out he likes what Probst likes.  Has he ever said anything all that critical?  Serious question, don't have any real opinion of the guy. 

I don't know what pomps are but like most podcasts, it exists to make audio content listeners enjoy, and to attract advertisers to fund that content.  

 

Is he critical of the show?  Why would he be?  He makes a living doing a fan podcast.  He doesn't see it as his job to criticize the show, just to host the podcast and interview others about their own thoughts and opinions on it, or that's the impression I get.  It's not like he censors his guests' criticisms of the show.  He's just fairly neutral, which is a good thing in a talk show host.  

[henripootel]

I don't know what pomps are

It's part of the catholic baptism ceremony - your godparents are asked (on your behalf) 'do you reject Satan and all his pomps'?  It's an archaic word so these days they usually say 'empty promises'.  I like old words, and in this case, it allows me imply that Probst is Satan for humorous effect.  It works better if you know what 'pomps' are.

Why would he be?  He makes a living doing a fan podcast.

 

Why indeed, but this was my point - that my understanding was that his podcast basically consists of producer-approved press material.  I mean it's always interesting to hear what the producers want us to think about various issues but not enough for me to actually listen to these podcasts.  Sounds like they are what I've heard they are, so I don't feel like I've missed anything.  Not sure I'd call parroting the party line 'neutral' though, although I can totally see why he'd take this tact -  there's a small but steady market in people who just want to hear this side.  I'm just not one of them.

[KimberStormer]

This was done often in the early seasons of the US version. Build something with these Home Depot products, "pick items from this catalog", have some Pringles!, want to split a Snickers bar?, call home on this Sprint-branded cell phone, and the old "and a new car" challenge that went on for a long time and led to the YauMan-Dreamz incident.

 

Not just early seasons, really.  Reached a nadir in the "reward" of being forced to watch some Adam Sandler drag comedy in South Pacific, an grueling endurance challenge which Sophie memorably suffered ungraciously.  Coach, of course, knew what sort of talking-head review would get him on the air, and gave it two thumbs up.

 

That the product placement dollar has mostly dried up is a true blessing which we Survivor fans should take a moment to give thanks for.

[Guest]

Why indeed, but this was my point - that my understanding was that his podcast basically consists of producer-approved press material.  I mean it's always interesting to hear what the producers want us to think about various issues but not enough for me to actually listen to these podcasts.  Sounds like they are what I've heard they are, so I don't feel like I've missed anything.  Not sure I'd call parroting the party line 'neutral' though, although I can totally see why he'd take this tact -  there's a small but steady market in people who just want to hear this side.  I'm just not one of them.

You've never listened but you have an understanding of the material and its sources and an approval process it goes through?  Sometimes a podcast is just a podcast.  I think if the producers want us to think any certain things about the show, they put those ideas into the show itself.  

 

Dan was pretty critical of the editing when he was on RHAP but he was also openly critical of it right on the finale show itself.  That evidence suggests production isn't censoring criticism even on its own set.  

[henripootel]

Dan was pretty critical of the editing when he was on RHAP but he was also openly critical of it right on the finale show itself.

Sounds like he was praising the show with faint damns.  If the worst thing he says is that 'they made me look like an asshole when I was really just half an asshole', it's hardly a scathing reveal thats likely to get lawyers involved.  From what I've read in the past, plenty of contestants saw plenty of things production really doesn't want disseminated so no way that'll show up on RHAP.  

You've never listened but you have an understanding of the material and its sources and an approval process it goes through?

People talk about it on various sites (including this one) and I formed an opinion based on the apparent consensus.  Which is why I asked if my impression of said podcast seemed accurate to others who actually listen to it.  We good?

I think if the producers want us to think any certain things about the show, they put those ideas into the show itself.

Totally agree but I'm far less interested in how the show wants to be perceived than I am in what really happened.  Looking at the edit has its charm but looking behind it is far more interesting.  Just my opinion.

[Guest]

We're fine.  I listen to it occasionally and my impression is no, the show isn't really involved in the content.  I don't think it's Rob that keeps guests from spilling secrets, I think it's the contracts they all signed.  

 

I don't know of a social media site besides that Redmond guy's that goes into info that breaks the contract.  If I had say a sister or spouse on the cast, I'd be totally interested in the hidden little details, too.  But the stuff that feeds sites like that one, I kind of feel like 'if they're breaking their contract under conditions of anonymity and leaking info to a guy who sells this stuff (or plans to), I have no idea who's saying what and I'm not interested under those conditions'.  

[Oscirus]

I have a horrible feeling that we're about to get survivor old school vs new school sometime in the near future. I think that  would be a mistake. 

 

What I want to see is a survivor where they don't have HIIs but don't tell anybody. You'd have people looking all over for HIIs and even planning for HIIs for nothing.  In terms of themes, what about survivor city folk vs country folk. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing survivor all star vs celebrities

Edited November 9, 2015 by Oscirus

[SnideAsides]

I'd love a three-tribe season where one tribe was all men, one was all women, and one was the standard half-and-half. Let's start getting some control groups in these damn "social experiments".

[KimberStormer]

I have a horrible feeling that we're about to get survivor old school vs new school sometime in the near future. I think that  would be a mistake. 

 

Isn't that kind of what we have now?  At least in people's minds?  And the old-schoolers are getting annihilated.

 

Personally I can't imagine what's supposed to be fun about watching people search for idols that aren't there.  Stephen's fruitless idol quest hasn't been especially compelling.  No idols just means....nothing special happening.  We see unneeded split-votes already; are they super-exciting?  One World had a ton of them, all at Kim's urging when she was the one with an idol, which she never used (splitting the vote just to throw people off the scent) and most people found One World super boring.  (I liked it, just because I liked watching Kim play.)

[phlebas]

(Had comments about Rob, but moved them back to the RHAP forum)

[Oscirus]

Isn't that kind of what we have now?  At least in people's minds?  And the old-schoolers are getting annihilated.

 

True, but a lot of that can be attributed to new school out numbering old school by something like 2:1

 

 

 

Personally I can't imagine what's supposed to be fun about watching people search for idols that aren't there.  Stephen's fruitless idol quest hasn't been especially compelling.  No idols just means....nothing special happening

 

I think that anything that ups the paranoia and the risk of contestants getting humiliated at tribal can only be a good thing. But I do see your point as well. HIIs just seem boring to me at this point. It doesn't help that the two people that have them this season are good enough not to have needed them, yet.

[ProfCrash]

There could only be three idols in play at one time so they would need for Kelly or Jeremy to have played their idol to put out additional clues. I kind of wish they put out a clue that said "Yup, no idol to be found cause someone has it." but that would defeat the purpose of having it and not telling folks.

[ProfCrash]

I think there is that but also I am not sure how much fun it is as a viewer to see two people on a tribe of six have idols.Nevermind that it could get overly complicated with the voting, the inevitable backlash when someone that people like is voted out because two people play idols would probably be massive.

 

If they want to force the idols to be played more then they currently are, they should leave a note saying that the idol has been found so there is no need to keep looking for it. That will drum up plenty of drama and idol paranoia at camp and would probably force the idol into play.

 

Or they could change the rules that an idol can only be held for a certain number of tribals before it is returned to play. Maybe something like "You can hold onto this idol for two tribal councils that you participate in and then it is done."  That would force the idol finder to look at who they might want to use the idol on or lose it. Heck, for real fun they could tell the idol finder that the idol is active for two tribals that they participate in and then they must give it to someone else.

[Bryce Lynch]

Over emphasis on hunting for HIIs can be annoying, but I think it is easy to forget how much they can add to the game.

Without them, it becomes much more common for one dominant alliance to knock off members of the other alliance one by one, with little or no suspense for many weeks. That can be almost unwatchable.