There are several issues that fans have had with Survivor over the years — too many twists, they don’t love Edge of Extinction, it seems too cushy nowadays. Host Jeff Probst has said he loves the twists, but there is one big issue has “always had” with the show. Read on to find out what it is and what he thinks they should do about it.
Probst Wants to Reward Challenge Beasts
As if winning challenges wasn’t reward enough, Probst said in a recent Cameo video that he thinks they should find a way to protect the most dominant players.
“[I want to] maybe address one problem I’ve always had with the show, which is if you’re somebody who is dominant in every area, you don’t get rewarded for that, you get penalized for that,” said Probst. “And it just — we’ve never been able to figure it out. So we have a couple of ideas that might help adjust that a little bit. We’ll see.”
Honestly, that sounds a bit dangerous. The show is already skewed in favor of the most physically gifted players most of the time, so now production wants to protect them even more? How would that be fun to watch?
As one Instagram commenter said, “I feel like this represents a fundamental flaw in Jeff and production’s understanding of the game, that being it’s a primarily social game. If you’re ‘dominant in all facets of the game’ and got voted out, you weren’t actually dominant. Being dominant in Survivor means no one in the game knows you’re dominant. If they are truly moving in this direction, I’m worried and not at all optimistic.”
The Underdogs Have a Hard Enough Time As It Is
Some of the best winners in the history of the show were total underdogs. Do we need to remind Probst about John Cochran? Talk about someone who played a terrific game and totally deserved to win, yet is not a person we would describe as “dominant in every area.”
Probst himself has said that Cochran is the one winner who definitely would have bumped one of the “Winners at War” competitors if he had said yes to returning.
“I can tell you that of all the people we wanted, I would say Cochran is the only one that would have been on the list that if he had said yes, would probably have a spot on the show,” Probst told Entertainment Weekly in a pre-show interview.
And Cochran isn’t the only example of how the show is better when the underdogs have a fighting chance. Part of the beauty of Survivor is that the winners are so diverse — or, they used to be.
Look at Bob Crowley or Vecepia Towery or Sophie Clarke or Kim Spradlin or Sandra Diaz-Twine. They were all very good players who definitely deserved to win, but how much harder would it have been if the “dominant” players had been given even more advantages?
Also, one need only take a look at the past six winners to see that the game seems to have already shifted in favor of Alpha males. A woman hasn’t won since Sarah Lacina won in season 34 and you could argue that the only “non-dominant” winner in those six years is Nick Wilson, who was a “David” in the “David vs. Goliath” construct — but he did win the final three Immunity Challenges.
Really, the show should try to be as hands-off as possible like it was in the earlier seasons. Some twists are nice, but too many twists starts getting a little ridiculous. And the “dominant” players certainly don’t need any more help.
There is no word yet on when Survivor will be back on the air. There is talk about the production team filming three seasons this spring so that they can air one in the summer of 2021, one in the fall, and then one in the spring of 2022.
Follow the Heavy on Survivor Facebook page for the latest breaking news, rumors and content!