The new era of Survivor is upon us, and with that, a new effort from Jeff to justify modern alterations to the game that many loyal fans are so strongly opposed to that he is, by his own admission, regularly being approached by strangers on the street begging him to do away with them. Still unsatisfied with getting his preferred outcome in the form of a 60-40 vote in favor of firemaking for season 50, he chose to remind the 40% minority of what we could have had in a different world by doing a disingenuous public vote with most of the 51 cast, bringing the conversation back to the forefront. The issue has been discussed to death online, but the focus is typically on preserving the purity and fairness of the game, and while those things do mean a great deal to me personally as a fan of over 22 years, I believe it is the wrong framework to use when discussing the problem if one has any interest in making an impact on Jeff, or any other member of the production team, so I would like to present the issue from a different perspective-- specifically, a storytelling lens.
Fans like reality television because it provides something different from scripted entertainment. There's no movie magic. When a person buys a ticket to a superhero movie, they know, at least on a subconscious level, that the hero is going to win in the end. When a person buys a ticket to a romantic comedy, they know the leads will ultimately end up together. The thing that made Survivor such a breakout hit in 2000 was the compelling experience of watching a real life story play out, where the outcomes did not match those we typically see onscreen.
Gretchen, the lovable, skilled, and competent leader, who was the perfect on paper representation of what an expected Survivor winner would look like, was the first victim of the merge for exactly that reason. The likable hero, Rudy, was betrayed by his closest ally, Richard, who made a self serving choice to step out of the final immunity challenge, knowing that both of his opponents would take him to the end, and that if he was the one to vote out his closest friend, he would likely lose his jury vote. His ploy worked-- in the words of Sue Hawk, the snake ate the rat, and corporate trainer Richard Hatch beat river guide Kelly Wiglesworth in a 4-3 vote, with Rudy being one of the four who voted in his favor. It was not the outcome that fans or producers expected or wanted at the start of the season, and it certainly was not a popular outcome, but it was absolutely an earned win on Richard's part, and that was the key.
As anyone with even a vague memory of Borneo can recall, the final four vote directly resulted in the biggest moment of the season— arguably, the biggest moment in Survivor history. Kelly had two options-- force a tie with Sue against Richard, or betray her closest ally, and count on her ability to beat Richard and Rudy in the final immunity challenge. She chose the latter, and it worked, as she was able to do exactly that, but it came at a cost. She lost Sue's vote and the game, after being reamed out with a speech that is still frequently referenced twenty-six years later. The choices made by the players, and the way that their opponents reacted to said choices hooked tens of millions of viewers across the country, even if the ultimate winner was not a person they held in high regard.
While it is certainly understandable for executive producers whose job security is on the line to worry about losing viewers, trying to force specific outcomes by taking agency away from the players also takes away the only thing that keeps viewers hooked even when they don't get the outcome they want, which will inevitably be the case no matter what, as there is no one type of player who is universally loved by all of the millions of fans who tune in to the show-- even Cirie has detractors, as rare as they may be. It is one thing to begrudgingly accept that an unlikable person outsmarted and outplayed everyone. It is another entirely to watch someone we personally dislike succeed due to a lucky break, and as much as people can argue that firemaking is a skill based challenge, we have seen otherwise on multiple occasions.
The first time forced firemaking was introduced, Ben, the player who would have otherwise been voted out 3-1, was not known to be a particularly skilled firemaker, and did not have the knowledge in advance to know that he needed to practice, as he was well aware that the remaining players would be voting him out, and had no knowledge of the twist. Not only was his opponent Devon known to be a more skilled firemaker, but he had time to prepare, and yet, he still lost the challenge. Ben went from becoming yet another fourth place fallen angel, to one of the most controversial winners in the history of the game, and fans lost out on witnessing what would have been the first and likely only final three in the history of the show where any of the three finalists could have won. Additionally, we have seen other competitors successfully make very large fires that did not burn through their rope, because the wind blew the flame in the wrong direction. There is undeniably a level of skill involved, but using a challenge with unpredictable elements to determine who sits in the final three chairs is quite literally playing with fire.
The narrative in favor of firemaking is that it gives another chance to the "best" (in other words, most visible, and therefore audience and production favored) player. It is certainly a narrative that influenced the votes of the 51 cast-- everyone wants to see themselves as the overwhelming jury favorite, whom everyone tries and fails to take out-- not the Adam Klein who can easily cinch the win as long as he can vote out the overwhelming jury favorite at final four. But surviving the final four vote without immunity despite being the jury favorite is what separates the good players from the great, and forcing a tiebreaker challenge without a tie vote deprives the best players of the opportunity to show us what they are truly capable of. We don't get Woo taking Tony to the final two over Kass with forced firemaking and a final three. Natalie Anderson likely goes to fire at final four with Keith, and potentially loses, despite playing by far the best game of the season, and successfully convincing all four members of the Final Four to keep her in the game. While Bob is certainly not the most popular winner, he earned his seat in final four firemaking and the final three by forming a close relationship with Sugar that compelled her to keep him despite knowing he was the biggest jury threat. With forced firemaking, we likely see the exact same outcome, but with the agency of Bob and Sugar to influence the outcome revoked, which is one of the most compelling elements of an otherwise unexciting finale.
Is it disappointing to see our favorites get so close and fall just short, because the other finalists identify them as the biggest threat, and vote them out 3-1? Of course. But those disappointments are exactly what make it so impactful when our favorites overcome the odds and are able to convince their opponents to take them to the end even when it is not in their best interest to do so. If the audience favorite wins every time, then the show becomes predictable, and seeing one's preferred outcome come to fruition ceases to have any meaning. If one can expect a certain kind of player with a certain kind of edit and a certain kind of gameplay to win every time, the whole thing becomes redundant, and Wednesday nights become much less exciting.
When mediocre films get released in which the hero succeeds largely due to lucky breaks, there are still many viewers who enjoy them, especially if the hero in question is a fan favorite character with a pre-existing fanbase, but that doesn't make it a good film with a well written script. Likewise, there will always be no shortage of fans who like firemaking as long as it helps their favorite win, as it often does. But Survivor did not become a record breaking cultural juggernaut by following the formula of a three star action flick. Survivor withstood the test of time by subverting expectations, challenging audiences, finding the best casting team money could buy, giving everyday people the agency to make their own choices, and allowing us to watch it unfold. Stressing so much about replicating a specific outcome as many times as possible means losing sight of everything that made Survivor such a successful show, and it reveals a severe lack of faith in modern audiences.
There is a longstanding, false belief in Hollywood that audiences aren't capable of handling tragedies, despite all evidence to the contrary. Obsession is a textbook tragedy, and it became one of the biggest breakout successes in film history. Oedipus Rex and Romeo and Juliet are two of the most frequently revived plays ever written-- I personally saw two different productions of the former that were very well received by audiences earlier this year. But the key to a tragedy is that the tragic hero fails despite their best efforts, because of their own actions, or fatal flaw. What is worse? Seeing your beloved hero sometimes fail when their best efforts fall short? Or seeing your beloved hero lose despite doing everything right, solely due to bad luck? Sure, some editing magic is utilized every season to minimize the stories of those who go out solely due to bad luck, so the audience will be too busy trying to remember who they are to be outraged, but forcing those story decisions ties the hands of those crafting the narrative of what used to be the best produced unscripted show on television. And, as we often see, it is hardly a foolproof plan. Under-edited players who are overlooked by production can and do become breakout audience favorites-- Sol from Survivor 47 being one that Jeff explicitly acknowledged as such at the time.
Jeff's argument in favor of fire is that it is what the players and viewers want. However, Survivor did not become the successful show that it is today by giving us what we wanted, but rather, what we needed. Many creatives are capable of producing a moderately well received crowd pleaser. Creating thought provoking, conversation-starting art that is challenging while still being accessible is a much more difficult feat, but it is one that we know the Survivor production team is capable of achieving when they put their minds to it. And I challenge Jeff, along with the rest of the production team, to embrace permanent uncertainty in the same way that they ask of players and fans.