Jump to content

Survivor 41 (No theme/subtitle)


VaBeach_Eagle
 Share

Recommended Posts

The new season of Survivor apparently won't have a 'theme', it's just "Survivor 41". Also, it won't be 39 days, it's been shortened to 26 days. 

https://insidesurvivor.com/rumor-survivor-season-41-to-be-a-shortened-season-49299

My brother also told me that CBS required them to drop some of their already chosen 'Survivors' because of their race and replace them with people of another race/races. Apparently, CBS required them to have at least a 50% racial split. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

The new season of Survivor apparently won't have a 'theme', it's just "Survivor 41". Also, it won't be 39 days, it's been shortened to 26 days. 

https://insidesurvivor.com/rumor-survivor-season-41-to-be-a-shortened-season-49299

My brother also told me that CBS required them to drop some of their already chosen 'Survivors' because of their race and replace them with people of another race/races. Apparently, CBS required them to have at least a 50% racial split. 

CBS announced that initiative right before the pandemic.  I imagine those dropped survivors will be invited back in a future season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 20Safety_Hazards said:

CBS announced that initiative right before the pandemic.  I imagine those dropped survivors will be invited back in a future season. 

I'm just wondering if they're getting close to Shark Jump territory, what with the reduction to 26 days and only filming in one location every season. I also don't know if their ratings may really dip if they delve too much into the social justice aspect. In the past, there's been a lot of negative feedback within the 'fandom' when they got too 'preachy'. 

Australian Survivor hasn't done any of that (so far), and it's been far more entertaining and 'true' to what Survivor used to be, and they've been fairly creative/innovative as well. 

I just get the feeling that Survivor may be in its final seasons. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I'm just wondering if they're getting close to Shark Jump territory, what with the reduction to 26 days and only filming in one location every season. I also don't know if their ratings may really dip if they delve too much into the social justice aspect. In the past, there's been a lot of negative feedback within the 'fandom' when they got too 'preachy'. 

Australian Survivor hasn't done any of that (so far), and it's been far more entertaining and 'true' to what Survivor used to be, and they've been fairly creative/innovative as well. 

I just get the feeling that Survivor may be in its final seasons. 

With regards to the 26 day thing, I think that was in response to specific challenges in place due to COVID. I doubt that is their long term plan. They just want to get a season out.

In terms of diversity/social justice, I think it all depends on how it is done. One of my favorite seasons is Cook Islands and that cast was 75% minority since survivor did a battle of the races season. (Yul has some interviews how he was reluctant about this because he didn’t want to be type cast into stereotypes but decided to do it to get more diversity on the show). If it’s just adding more people of color but otherwise same game I’m all for it. Frankly I’d like to see more older players again with a better cross section of our society. I find those seasons far more interesting and creating way more interesting dynamics because you have more people with different views and experiences being forced to build a society. I’ll happily give up a few young white wannabe Instagram influencers to get some variety in the cast.  But if they try to build the show around race it’s going to fail.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 20Safety_Hazards said:

With regards to the 26 day thing, I think that was in response to specific challenges in place due to COVID. I doubt that is their long term plan. They just want to get a season out.

One article that I read (which I wish I'd copied the URL for), said that they were told that this may possibly be permanent (26 days). So we'll see if it's just a one (or two) time thing. 

One thing about it, if ratings nosedive, CBS may just opt to can it... or cut their budget way down which would only serve to kill the show sooner or later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're only doing 26 days, I guess they'll have to have challenges every day and tribal councils at minimum every other day.

Not sure I'm going to be liking this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

If they're only doing 26 days, I guess they'll have to have challenges every day and tribal councils at minimum every other day.

Not sure I'm going to be liking this.

They could do multi-ejection tribals, with the twist of the Survivors not knowing that multiple people will be leaving that night. That would cause a pretty mad scramble. Make it a big twist by not telling them until the first person gets up to go to vote. Of course, that twist would only work for the first time they did it (per tribe). After that, they'd go into tribal with a second name ready to go. 

Australian Survivor's done stuff like that before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

 

One thing about it, if ratings nosedive, CBS may just opt to can it... or cut their budget way down which would only serve to kill the show sooner or later. 

I’ll withhold judgement until it airs on format changes

 

as to what I am quoting, I could have sworn survivor is essentially a cash cow for CBS. Has locked in audience in 25-49 range of about 10 mill plus but I’m lazy and not validating. Just would seek odd if they cut ties unless it bombed multiple seasons or Jeff calls it quits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 26 days for future seasons is true, it could be an effort to squeeze three seasons in on one filming cycle. Right now you got two seasons of 39 days each. So 78 days. Going to 26 days you could do 3 seasons still 78 days. Which would basically be a season in the fall, season in the spring, and season in the summer either before or coinciding with Big Brother. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I'm just wondering if they're getting close to Shark Jump territory, what with the reduction to 26 days and only filming in one location every season. I also don't know if their ratings may really dip if they delve too much into the social justice aspect. In the past, there's been a lot of negative feedback within the 'fandom' when they got too 'preachy'. 

MTV is in bed with CBS and has already implemented this in its most recent Challenge seasons, Double Agents and All Stars. DA season underwhelmed but I think that was mostly due to format, the game itself just wasn't as interesting as it could've been/used to be. All Stars though started off really, really rough, due to the absolute reaching they had to do to meet this 50/50 racial demographic. They brought back people who haven't been on TV for 15+ years, and some of the cast were physically nowhere near prepared for a reality TV physical competition. But full disclosure, because of an entertaining throwback format the show used, it was still an entertaining watch.

The Challenge All Stars episode 3: Teck Holmes talks spoilers | EW.com

 

 

That said - there's no one to blame for this except for the casting of Big Brother. They have white washed the casting over the last 4 seasons or so with want to be Instagram influencers to the tune of casting for The Bachelor and not only did the game and show suffer as a result, but it exposed underlying racism in the business, by putting these closet racists in the spotlight. Not going to bombard with links, so heres one but theres a lot of terrible racist behavior from this season:

https://ew.com/tv/2019/07/31/michie-big-brother-live-feeds-surprising-facts/

So yeah, going forward casting is going to have to find a happy medium in satisfying these new demographic standards they're looking for without sacrificing the entertainment value the show brings. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JBENT87 said:

MTV is in bed with CBS and has already implemented this in its most recent Challenge seasons, Double Agents and All Stars. DA season underwhelmed but I think that was mostly due to format, the game itself just wasn't as interesting as it could've been/used to be. All Stars though started off really, really rough, due to the absolute reaching they had to do to meet this 50/50 racial demographic. They brought back people who haven't been on TV for 15+ years, and some of the cast were physically nowhere near prepared for a reality TV physical competition. But full disclosure, because of an entertaining throwback format the show used, it was still an entertaining watch.

The Challenge All Stars episode 3: Teck Holmes talks spoilers | EW.com

 

 

That said - there's no one to blame for this except for the casting of Big Brother. They have white washed the casting over the last 4 seasons or so with want to be Instagram influencers to the tune of casting for The Bachelor and not only did the game and show suffer as a result, but it exposed underlying racism in the business, by putting these closet racists in the spotlight. Not going to bombard with links, so heres one but theres a lot of terrible racist behavior from this season:

https://ew.com/tv/2019/07/31/michie-big-brother-live-feeds-surprising-facts/

So yeah, going forward casting is going to have to find a happy medium in satisfying these new demographic standards they're looking for without sacrificing the entertainment value the show brings. 

I’ve been watching big brother for a while and it is absolutely a major reason for this change. There was literally a season where on the first night one houseguest needed to nominate four houseguests to compete for their spot in the house and he picked the three minorities and the one old guy.  There have also been multiple racially insensitive to absolutely racist comments caught on the live feeds over several seasons.

But setting aside the absolute terrible examples, I’ve often felt that casting a disproportionately represented cast sets the cast up to fail. This is not to suggest that the cast is racist or intentionally targeting the minority contestants. However, in a show where players are dropped on an island or in a house and forced to make quick snap judgments, what you are familiar with, similarities, shared experiences, cultural connections can play a big part in the immediate relationships that form. As a result, it can be argued that this puts minority players at a disadvantage entering the game as there is a possible gap between shared experiences that can be critical in forming those initial bonds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 20Safety_Hazards said:

I’ve been watching big brother for a while and it is absolutely a major reason for this change. There was literally a season where on the first night one houseguest needed to nominate four houseguests to compete for their spot in the house and he picked the three minorities and the one old guy.  There have also been multiple racially insensitive to absolutely racist comments caught on the live feeds over several seasons.

But setting aside the absolute terrible examples, I’ve often felt that casting a disproportionately represented cast sets the cast up to fail. This is not to suggest that the cast is racist or intentionally targeting the minority contestants. However, in a show where players are dropped on an island or in a house and forced to make quick snap judgments, what you are familiar with, similarities, shared experiences, cultural connections can play a big part in the immediate relationships that form. As a result, it can be argued that this puts minority players at a disadvantage entering the game as there is a possible gap between shared experiences that can be critical in forming those initial bonds.

yep, def some truth to your second part here. Still, people should know the difference between right and wrong. The young white 20somethings forming 8 person alliances over the last few seasons has been painful to watch. The first month of each season was ruined due to these "jocks and hot girls in class/cheerleaders" for lack of a better description alliances. And then anyone who didn't fit into their clique got vilified or ignored until they were sniped off one by one. With every time when one of these "oddities by default"/minority contestants tried to make a move their "game got blown up" by the whole house. Bc the one person they confided in went and took the intel to the bigger alliance, and then the oddity/minority was shamed for even attempting to overthrow the power. Honestly, these last few seasons have been painful to watch. And these are just the edited episodes they put on TV. The live feeds are 10x worse.

There's no way to fix that dynamic other than to fix the casting. Hopefully this applies to ages too. This isn't a dating show. Not every contestant needs to be young and hot. Theres no way you can convince me the viewing audience is that shallow and only wants to gawk at hot chics the whole time, and there isn't enough OGs watching still who want to see strategy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely like having a diverse Survivor cast - half the intrigue to me is watching the relationships and interactions as the season progresses, particularly when its "strange bedfellows" mode like city boy/country boy or hipster/oldster or ex-military/flamboyant guy. 

It has on occasion veered into maudlin corporate diversity training level schtick, but its usually just limited to a part of a "Very special episode" type event which for me is easy to overlook.  I think the "Loved Ones" episodes are also manipulative and overdone, but obviously people dig it.  In the end Survivor and CBS are about making money and bringing eyeballs to TV sets, in particular, young eye balls with discretionary income so its hard to blame the show for trying to appeal to that generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure when it will begin airing, but Australian Survivor has a video out for their upcoming season:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
22 hours ago, Gern Blanston said:

Premiere is a week from tonight.

Australian Survivor's newest season should be complete, I've downloaded about 15 episodes so far but haven't had a chance to watch any of them yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prediction. They shove a political agenda down our throats all season long.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Prediction. They shove a political agenda down our throats all season long.

That's what I like about Australian Survivor, they don't do that at all. Or if they do, it's so subtle that I don't see it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was excited for this cast and love that it’s not all models as it usually tends to be, but honestly, this cast for the most part sucks. It’s a derivable show not a teach america how to respond to all racial, sexual, identity types. I mean I bet come on in guys doesn’t offend anyone and the dude just said it for facetime. It’s such an innocuous phrase that’s always meant everyone and never used as connotation towards just men, and honestly It’s not the right forum for this stuff. Just be a game about strategy and backstabbing with physical challenges and leave it at that

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

After BB's tedious "season of woke" I watched about fifteen minutes of Survivor and for the first time in years decided I'm out this year.
But it wasn't the bearded pregnant husband so much as the slate of uncharismatic players.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its heavy handed, and eye rolling at times, but it is what it is, I've just accepted it and can just enjoy the game piece of it.  CBS is in it to make money, and they need young eye balls tuning in so they can rake advertisers for more cash.  They simply do not care if they offend older long standing viewers because the advertisers don't care about that demographic.  The best and worst part of Survivor is that its always changing.   

I say all of this and state unequivocally that the guy who felt the "Guys" part of "C'mon in guys" shouldn't be used is who I am most looking forward to getting the boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gern Blanston said:

I say all of this and state unequivocally that the guy who felt the "Guys" part of "C'mon in guys" shouldn't be used is who I am most looking forward to getting the boot.

Same. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonight’s vote did not make sense to me. I get the idea of voting out Xander while he wasn’t expecting it but what you’ve done tonight is not only leave someone with two possible advantages in the game but put him on notice that he’s on the outs. So if the other two tribes find the idol before the next vote, not only does he have his vote, he also has an extra vote and an idol so he controls everything at the vote. 

The better move, IMO, is to get rid of Tiffany and strengthen the alliance with Xander. If you lose, you’ll know if he still has his vote next time and you can vote him out 2-1 if his idol has no power. At a minimum, get rid of Xander now so you eliminate the advantages and leave voce by himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2021 at 3:20 PM, Gern Blanston said:

I say all of this and state unequivocally that the guy who felt the "Guys" part of "C'mon in guys" shouldn't be used is who I am most looking forward to getting the boot.

I was highly offended when that j/o used the pronoun "he" when referring to that other dude on his tribe who was hiding in the bushes. Doesn't he realize how insensitive it is to use a word like that?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...