Survivor - I don't get it...

[Ian Wallis]

I know we don’t usually talk about so-called “reality” shows here, but something’s been puzzling me for a while and I wanted to air my thoughts.

Can anyone tell me what the appeal of “Survivor” is?  I’m surprised that this show has been running as long as it has.  

One of my beefs with it is the message it seems to convey.  Believe me, I don’t want to get on a “moral” high horse or anything (and please don’t compare me to Steve Beverly) but it really seems that this show kind of promotes back-stabbing, lying and cheating a lot of the time.  The two people left at the end are almost always people everyone else hates, and you’re rewarding the “best” of those people with a life-changing million dollars.

Sometimes you invest a lot of time into these shows and have the outcome leaving a bad taste in your mouth.  Last night for example – to me Russell was the best player.  He found the idols without even having clues, he was a strong innovative player who made all the bold moves – yet the jury (in their infinite wisdom) didn’t even vote him to be the winner – which I don’t get.  Usually a player like this will win – Richard Hatch is one that comes to mind.  There’s no way that Natalie deserved that title.  When you’re looking who “played the game” better, the answer’s obvious.  However, I knew it wouldn’t turn out that way when it got down to the final three.  You could tell we were being set-up in the way it was edited.

Outcomes like that are one of the reasons I stopped watching this long ago.  If the best (and most deserving) player doesn’t win, to me it’s a major turn off, and “why even bother?”  I was a fan through the first four in 2000-01, but for the most part have turned it off after that.  However, my wife is a major fan of the show so I always get dragged in at some point – especially on finale night.  My wife actually works evenings, but always makes sure to remind me to record it for her each week.

Last night they stated that they’re going to be back for “Survivor 20” and give some of the best players from the past another chance.  For some, it will be their third time playing.  52 million people watched the first edition.  Ratings have dropped to around 18 million now.  With such a big drop off, how many more times is CBS going to do this?  We’ve already seen it all many times before.  Don’t you get the case of “been there done that” if you watch this – it seems that it’s always pretty much the same.  I can understand why it would be appealing in the beginning because it was different, but aren’t people tiring of this by now?

I keep hoping each year will be the last…but each year it comes back again.

Any comments?

[Fedya]

I can't believe it's been 5-1/2 years since I gave my brief opinion (and a certain M. Ottinger acted in his capacity as the host of Words Have Meanings even then).

Survivor is also what you get when you have pure democracy with no constitutional checks in action: the weak use their majority to rape the strong.  It's the same thing I hated about The Weakest Link: eventually, it got to a point where the strongest link would get voted out by the weaker links.

[Vahan_Nisanian]

I don't get the appeal of ANY Reality TV show period. The fact that they continue to act like it's all real sickens me.

Plus, as it has been proven in the years 2004 & 2005, when GSN tried to branch out into Reality programming, Reality TV, more often than not, tends to have less rerun value than traditional game shows old and new (though usually newer ones than older ones). And what makes them think trying it again next year will work this time?

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'232629\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 09:57 AM\']I can't believe it's been 5-1/2 years since I gave my brief opinion (and a certain M. Ottinger acted in his capacity as the host of Words Have Meanings even then).[/quote]
And then as now, I agree with your basic premise.

If you're watching Survivor or most of the others in order to see the "best" player win by an objective standard, you're not doing it right.  The basic, underlying structure of most reality competitions is simply different than the basic underlying structure of most game shows.  

The "best" Survivor player isn't the one who wins the most challenges, or finds the hidden idols or makes the boldest moves, because that isn't ultimately what wins the game.  The "best" Survivor player is the one who survives to the end by not being voted off by the other players, and then earns the majority of the final votes.  Those are the only two requirements for winning the game.  

Most reality shows (The Amazing Race being a notable exception) are decided based on some sort of subjective determination, whether it's the whims of Donald Trump or the texted votes of millions of teenage girls.  In fact, one of the appeals of shows like that is the very thing the OP was complaining about -- the debate that is engendered when somebody thinks the "best" person was cheated by a vote.  If you don't like that sort of subjective choosing of a winner, then yes, that's going to work against your appreciation of that sort of show.  I'm not much of a fan of the subjective shows myself, but I find enough other things in some of them to enjoy them now and then.

And yes, I wasn't a fan of Weakest Link for much the same reason.  No matter how good you were -- and especially if you were too good -- you could be ousted subjectively.

[inturnaround]

Who has ever cheated in "Survivor"? Lying and back-stabbing, sure....but never cheating, at least never successful cheating as we saw with the challenge ejection this season.

I'm not sure I understand you when you lament the lying and back-stabbing being rewarded, but then say that Russell should have won the game. Russell was the lying-est, back-stabbing-est player in Samoa. That he got as far as he did was a miracle. I think he just forgot that the jury doesn't owe him anything and he didn't build any relationships with anyone other than Shambo.

But the same thing happened before with Boston Rob being denied $1,000,000 by a jury that was so bitter about being out-played and out-witted that they gave it to Amber. A disappointing winner doesn't mean the season wasn't fun. I mean, Sandra won Pearl Islands, but no one remembers that. It's about the ride, not the destination.

Ian, the first series finale of "Survivor" may have been watched by over 50 million people, but TV is much different today. Networks have fewer and fewer dedicated eyeballs (and there are other ways to watch Survivor than on TV now, like on CBS.com) so a show that gets 18 million reliable viewers is going to be in the top 20 and worth its weight in gold. It's a solid performer for CBS and one that will be there for a while.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'inturnaround\' post=\'232639\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 08:45 AM\']But the same thing happened before with Boston Rob being denied $1,000,000 by a jury that was so bitter about being out-played and out-witted that they gave it to Amber. A disappointing winner doesn't mean the season wasn't fun. I mean, Sandra won Pearl Islands, but no one remembers that. It's about the ride, not the destination.[/quote]
True, but when you go on this long glorious ride and then get to the destination and discover it's a fleabag motel, it's dissatisfying.

There's an unwritten tenet in boardgaming where it's considered bad form for a player far and away in last place with no chance to win the game to decide to put all of his time and energy into farking over the leader just for the sake of kingmaking. Survivor *sort of* has that code, but every so often you get a bunch of butthurt jackasses who decide to do just what they did last night.

So, yes, sometimes social engineering comes back to bite someone in the ass, but when that happens, more often than not it's because the jury are poor sports.

[ChrisLambert!]

I think I'm with Matt. If a person played the game the best, but an angry jury doesn't give him the money... then in reality (oh ho!), didn't he in fact NOT play the game the best?
 
I stopped actively watching after All-Stars 1 because I burned out, but if others still love the show, great for them and great for Dimples.

[Mr. Armadillo]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'232628\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 08:37 AM\']Can anyone tell me what the appeal of "Survivor" is?[/quote]
Question.

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'232628\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 08:37 AM\']it really seems that this show kind of promotes back-stabbing, lying and cheating a lot of the time.[/quote]
Answer.

People don't want to watch other people surviving on a desert island, they want to watch said other people do the sorts of things to their neighbors/friends/coworkers that they wish they could do in their own lives.

As to why this show is still on...this isn't 1983.  18 million people is a pretty dang good number, and not one you can recreate at the drop of a hat with CSI: Albuquerque.

[Loogaroo]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'232650\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 01:26 PM\']There's an unwritten tenet in boardgaming where it's considered bad form for a player far and away in last place with no chance to win the game to decide to put all of his time and energy into farking over the leader just for the sake of kingmaking. Survivor *sort of* has that code, but every so often you get a bunch of butthurt jackasses who decide to do just what they did last night.[/quote]

Well then, don't crown yourself the best Monopoly player EVAR in front of all your opposition when you know fully well that they as a group have the power to make sure you don't win.

What happened last night was one of the most beautiful instances of poetic justice the show has ever offered us. Russell thought he had the game completely figured out, he had lapped the field, the whole matter of the jury vote was a formailty because he had the game locked up from day one - and then reality smacked him upside the head. Especially since he was already well-off financially, so anything short of winning the game was an unsatisfactory result for him. Seeing the look of sheer dejection and astonishment on his face when he discovered that no, he didn't win, he didn't even manage to get a third of the vote, he gets nothing, he loses, good day sir, makes up for all the seasons where obnoxious people won or got close to winning just because all the good strategists on the virtuous team got medivac'd from the game or the because final immunity challenge favored the girl.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'232664\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 11:41 AM\']Well then, don't crown yourself the best Monopoly player EVAR in front of all your opposition when you know fully well that they as a group have the power to make sure you don't win.[/quote]
Well, yes, but that's why you don't play Monopoly.

What happened last night was one of the most beautiful instances of poetic justice the show has ever offered us.

We shall agree to disagree here, sir.

Look, I get the "hey, Survivor is a political game just as much as it's anything else" argument. I think the disconnect (and opinions will certainly vary from person to person on this) is the belief as to whether it should remain a political game all the way through the final vote, or whether the jury should step away from the political game at the final vote and award the victory based on who played the game the best. You are in the former camp, I'm in the latter, and that's fine.

But in my experience, it always seems that when the former condition is present, the jury is largely overrun with butthurt douchebags who use their three minutes of interrogate-the-finalists screen time to make some holier-than-thou speech.

Russell's only failure was in mis-estimating the amount of butthurt on the jury. I believe it was Chris Daugherty in Vanuatu who accurately assesed what the jury wanted to hear, gave it to them, and won the game because of it.

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'232664\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 02:41 PM\']didn't even manage to get a third of the vote, he gets nothing, he loses, good day sir[/quote]Doesn't the runner up get a car or something?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'232673\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 01:01 PM\']Doesn't the runner up get a car or something?[/quote]
$100 large. They used to have a challenge towards the end where the winner won a car (leading to the infamous "curse", where nobody who ever won the car also won the game), but they didn't do that this time around.

[TLEberle]

Hey Tim? How much does a postage stamp cost?

[irwinsjournal.com]

[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'232663\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 02:35 PM\'][quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'232628\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 08:37 AM\']Can anyone tell me what the appeal of "Survivor" is?[/quote]
Question.

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'232628\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 08:37 AM\']it really seems that this show kind of promotes back-stabbing, lying and cheating a lot of the time.[/quote]
Answer.

People don't want to watch other people surviving on a desert island, they want to watch said other people do the sorts of things to their neighbors/friends/coworkers that they wish they could do in their own lives.
[/quote]

I think this is spot on.

I was going to follow with a relative screed about how the lines are ever more blurred between "reality" and Reality, and how more and more of this Bad Behavior is occurring now than ever... but I believe I would be wrong.

For a reason not at all related to Game Shows, I've been doing some cursory research and writing on the United States Presidents.  (It's a long, off topic story.)  What I've discovered is that the good old days weren't so good either.  There was probably as much back-stabbing, lying and cheating going on then as now.  The difference I perceive is that said back-stabbing, lying and cheating can be made much more visible to a whole lot more people at very low cost.

I used to watch The Weakest Link; I even had a chance to see an episode or two in England.  It seems quite true that you didn't want to be the smartest player, because if you made it to the point of only three contestants left, you were surely taking the walk of shame when the two lesser lights ganged up on you.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'232628\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 06:37 AM\']Can anyone tell me what the appeal of “Survivor” is?  I’m surprised that this show has been running as long as it has.[/quote] For me, in the beginning, I turned up my nose at the politicking and convinced myself that I was in it for the challenges. But I realized that there was a bigger game being played, and it was entertaining to watch.

One of my beefs with it is the message it seems to convey.  Believe me, I don’t want to get on a “moral” high horse or anything (and please don’t compare me to Steve Beverly) but it really seems that this show kind of promotes back-stabbing, lying and cheating a lot of the time.  The two people left at the end are almost always people everyone else hates, and you’re rewarding the “best” of those people with a life-changing million dollars.

Well, wait a minute. Survivor exists in a vacuum. If I don't have to interact with those 19 people ever again, I will do what I can to win the prize. Was Yau-Man's fake idol lying or cheating? I don't care, I thought it was a genius play.  That seems as duplicitous as forming alliances then flipping on them because the writing is on the wall.

Sometimes you invest a lot of time into these shows and have the outcome leaving a bad taste in your mouth.

Then I say to watch a sitcom where you know that everything will come out OK at the 20th minute. Shows like Survivor are neat because you DON'T know what's going to happen.  

[quote name=\'gameshowlover87\' post=\'232631\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 07:16 AM\']I don't get the appeal of ANY Reality TV show period. The fact that they continue to act like it's all real sickens me.[/quote]This statement does not compute. Are you saying that the competitions did not happen, that the votes were fabricated and that the whole thing was done on a soundstage next to the Big Wheel?

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'232650\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 10:26 AM\']So, yes, sometimes social engineering comes back to bite someone in the ass, but when that happens, more often than not it's because the jury are poor sports.[/quote]And how. If you were to take a drink after each bitter jury member's speech, you'd get alcohol poisoning. And the worst part of that? Each of those people is saying "I kept MY honor, and MY scruples, and YOU'RE going to get a million dollars for it," but they're thinking "Damn you, you played better/harder/smarter than me, and I'm too big of a butthurt wussbag to come out and say it.


[quote name=\'ChrisLambert!\' post=\'232660\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 11:25 AM\']I think I'm with Matt. If a person played the game the best, but an angry jury doesn't give him the money... then in reality (oh ho!), didn't he in fact NOT play the game the best.[/quote]Here's something interesting. Every time Russell's name was mentioned by Mr. Probst, the crowd exploded with cheers and applause. He probably won the viewer prize by a country mile. As much as he forgot to play the social game, he played the game harder than anyone in a long time. And I enjoyed watching someone who threw himself wholeheartedly into the competition.

Yes, I do believe that the jury (and I haven't seen jury packing like that since I don't know when) were blindsided by something, and that ruled their vote. It was Everything Personal, Nothing Business.

[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'232664\' date=\'Dec 21 2009, 11:41 AM\']What happened last night was one of the most beautiful instances of poetic justice the show has ever offered us. Russell thought he had the game completely figured out, he had lapped the field,[/quote] The man found a hidden immunity idol with no clues. Then he did it again. And again. And he knew when the heat was on and when to hang back. If the game was scored objectively, then Russell scores more than the other 300 people who have played. But yeah, he forgot the vote at the end, and how it was all Purple people.

Especially since he was already well-off financially,

This should have nothing to do with anything. He played the game squarely with everyone, his previous finances should not come into play. This is a TV show, not getting into the University of Washington.

makes up for all the seasons where obnoxious people won or got close to winning just because all the good strategists on the virtuous team got medivac'd from the game or the because final immunity challenge favored the girl.

And how ARE the Seahawks this year? (You've careened from tolerably annoying to over-the-cliff-pain-in-the-ass. Congratulations.)

Yeah, sometimes people get pulled out of the game. And sometimes they pull themselves out by overextending themselves in challenges. That is part of the show.