Despite the players themselves angling for a winner-take-all season of Survivor winners, Jeff Probst says it’s likely never going to happen on his watch.
The amount of groundswell surrounding the future seasons ofSurvivoris compelling, to say the least. With CBSactively adding Canadians into the casting poolahead of season 39 and the future unclear for season 40, it’s not hard for fans to clamor for some sort of special season ahead,perhaps with only winnersconsidering the current field available.
What the fans wantmight not be either feasible or what Jeff Probst wants to present to CBS, as revealedspeaking toUS Weeklythat he would say an all-winners season “is not a good idea. We have 10 great winners that you’d want to see play again. We don’t have 20. We don’t have 18. Some of the winners don’t want to play again. Some of the greats are like, ‘No, we’re done.’”
Additionally, Jeff Probst reveals that CBS has come to him all the time requesting aSurvivorall-winners season, but it would be a waste of time due to the fact they don’t have a compelling group. However, he does agree that there could be a full tribe of winners and compete against another group of players (perhaps legends). “That’s an idea,” he says.
The fact that there are only 10 “great winners you’d want to see” compete once more onSurvivor,in Jeff Probst’s eyes, is bogus. Sure, availability is a clear issue, but winners have expressed interesttime and time againfrom more than a decade ago as recently as Wendell Holland in competing to become the winner of winners.
Perhaps a tribe of nine or ten winners versus the best to never winSurvivorwould be best from a casting perspective, especially if the two tribes are able to reach the merge in their original designations. It’s better than bringing back two, three or four players and stacking the deck in their favor to win.
Add us as a preferred source onGoogleLoading recommendations... Please wait while we load personalized content recommendations