Survivor v. Other Reality TV

[Oholibamah]

Lots to talk about when comparing Survivor to other reality shows. Mark Burnett ushered in the second wave of Reality TV, and even forced Survivor's predecessor The Real World to rebrand itself. 

Has it stood the test of time? Has it been outpaced? Are there other shows it should look at to extend its longevity, as American Idol failed to do with the Voice? Here's your on-topic place to discuss these comparisons.

One question I have to start things off relates to a comment Hayden made after Blood v. Water that indicated Survivor the Checkers to Big Brother's Chess. To me that quote implies Big Brother is somehow more strategic or intellectually demanding, but I've never been able to wrap my head around that. Big Brother seems like more of a crapshoot, with constant twists and shifting power benefitting those who play from the shadows. Thoughts?

Edited October 27, 2017 by Oholibamah

[simplyme]

My deep thought is that Survivors are stuck on an island without a shower or deodorant for 39 days, and I'm pretty sure their camp is still more sanitary and smells better than the BB House. *gag*

[LadyChatts]

11 minutes ago, simplyme said:

My deep thought is that Survivors are stuck on an island without a shower or deodorant for 39 days, and I'm pretty sure their camp is still more sanitary and smells better than the BB House. *gag*

In the early days they didn't seem to have an issue keeping the house clean.  I'd hate to be the one who had to go in and clean it after the season is over.  Back during BB2, they had 4 Survivor contestants crash the BB house for an overnight (Sue, Jeff, Alicia, and Gervase).  When Julie asked them if they thought BB was harder, they laughed, but Jeff said what would make it hard was being stuck.  They have no escape, no where to go, they get nominated and have to live for a week trying to strategize to stay in the house, and in some cases the next HOH comp can totally change the fate of the house (unless it was this past season).

If Survivor could learn anything to keep longevity, they could learn it from the international versions.  The ones I've seen have better challenges overall, and I do like some of the twists they incorporate.  It seems like the twists we get aren't necessarily new.  They're just an extension of previous twists.  I also like how we get more dynamics in international versions.  I know that isn't for everyone, but unless some bonding moment happens or some knock down, drag out fight, it's the same formula: strategy, challenge, strategy, sometimes another challenge if they two weren't combined, more strategy, TC.  The editing is starting to make some things obvious as well.  I'd also like to see them cast more across the board and get people of different backgrounds.  Maybe surprise us for once and not cast someone who fits the stereotype.   

Edited October 27, 2017 by LadyChatts

[simplyme]

2 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

Maybe surprise us for once and not cast someone who fits the stereotype.   

This question should probably go in another thread, but my question is how often is Survivor casting to stereotype (I'll certainly admit they do that to an extent) and how often are viewers pigeonholing castaways? I mean, Parvati is clearly more than just the bikini bimbo stereotype, but that's how people viewed her much of her first season. Ryan is currently getting Cochran comparisons, which I don't think is due to style of play at all but "nerd" looks. 

I think Survivor could be improved if castaways were stereotyped less, and part of that is casting (especially in terms of lack of diversity in jobs, races, etc.), but part of it is also on the viewers, imo. And I'm not sure how Survivor goes about changing that.

[LadyChatts]

23 hours ago, simplyme said:

This question should probably go in another thread, but my question is how often is Survivor casting to stereotype (I'll certainly admit they do that to an extent) and how often are viewers pigeonholing castaways? I mean, Parvati is clearly more than just the bikini bimbo stereotype, but that's how people viewed her much of her first season. Ryan is currently getting Cochran comparisons, which I don't think is due to style of play at all but "nerd" looks. 

I think Survivor could be improved if castaways were stereotyped less, and part of that is casting (especially in terms of lack of diversity in jobs, races, etc.), but part of it is also on the viewers, imo. And I'm not sure how Survivor goes about changing that.

I was thinking about your post and the good point it raises.  I think it could be intertwined, between TPTB casting to stereotype (whether societal stereotype or Survivor stereotype) and the mindset that viewers fall into as a result.  I remember back in the early seasons, people were upset that African American contestants were always portrayed as some combo of lazy/confrontational/weak/crazy.  TPTB can't seem to cast outside of stereotypes (for whatever reason) and, as you point out with Ryan, they seize on popular past contestants and try to replicate them.  Look at how many Ozzy's they've tried to re-create.  I think, too, when TPTB look to cast types-villains, moms, eye candy, underdogs, etc-and do these themes, it doesn't help matters.  Just letting the chips fall where they may and see what you come up with may lead to a surprising result.  Of course, I don't know how much of it is CBS, either.  If they cast people who had a different background that didn't fit what they're stereotyped as, or portrayed them in a different light, or just added overall more diversity with different backgrounds, ages, and races, maybe viewers would open their minds a little more and not compare people to previous contestants, or fall into that "typical" mindset.  The first thing that might help is if they stop trying to recruit a bunch of 20 and 30 somethings with hot bodies from California.  Maybe try expanding the search?

Edited October 28, 2017 by LadyChatts