Survivor host Jeff Probst defends excessive twists once more

After reading an opinion article about Survivor becoming too twist-heavy to pull itself back, Jeff Probst responds to the critics directly. But is he right?

The fact that there will be 38 guaranteed seasons of Survivor is something that should not go uncherished. Whereas many reality shows have come and gone since then, there’s something magic to the game’s formula that keeps millions of people engaged in the conversation each week. Adaptations to the game’s process have certainly kept things fresh, keeping the audience on their toes.

At first, the alterations were understated and minimal, with a tribe swap here or an idol there. Now, we have Tribal Councils where a Legacy Advantage, three e Hidden Immunity Idols and an Immunity Necklace means that a player goes home without receiving a single vote, creating a farce of twists and searching for trinkets over social and strategic gameplay.

Survivor host Jeff Probst has heard the feedback and decided to approach one such outlet, Decider, to defend the approach these newer seasons have seen. Some of the decisions make sense on a macro scale, including the push for a ten-person jury and a Final Three.

Must Read: Survivor Winners: Ranking All 35 Sole Survivors By Season

“…If you start with twenty people and you have a jury of eight and have a final two, that means half of your cast is going to be out of the show by the time you get to the finale,” Probst explains. “If you go with the jury of ten, and three [finalists], now you’ve got thirteen. You’ve just upped your percentages of having likable people still on the show.”

That much makes sense, but not as much as his defense of Survivor Game Changers‘ elimination of Cirie without a vote. Likening it to the posterboard moment of the season, Probst says, “From the beginning of Game Changers, the idea was let’s put enough toys in the toy box so that [the players] can have fun and change the game whenever they want.

Live Feed

Betsided

“We never dreamed it would culminate like it did, where they would all hold on to all of their toys and their advantages and wait until the same moment and play all of them. But, as it happened and after it was over, I saw the poster. And I felt like the season had just fulfilled on its promise. ‘You will see something extraordinary.’”

To the casual viewer, it might be exciting to see something that’s never happened before in Survivor. But to me, there’s a difference between this and the Final Six of Cambodia, where Kelley and Tasha nullified their votes with idols, a re-vote was tied, and a consensus to send Kimmi home was reached.

In that instance, it occurred as naturally as possible. The players thought on the fly, threw out the rest of their plans and then had to come to an agreement over who to eliminate. It was a genuine, impactful moment, seeing how each character reacted to a tough scenario that nobody could foresee. Keith offering himself up so the mother had a shot, others talking him out of it; gameplay was balanced with character.

I disagree with the notion that Survivor today can’t tone things down, especially considering this season is about historical nods to the past and acting as a museum to the show’s roots. However, the ideology of gameplay-driven seasons over building up characters has become an increasingly worrisome trend, especially when players are sent home in unfair ways and against the spirit of the game.

Next: Survivor: Ranking all 35 seasons

Survivor is about outwitting, outplaying and outlasting, not out-idol-hunting, out-challenge-beasting and out-twisting.