When Survivor began airing in the year 2000, Jeff Probst was hired solely to host the show. After years of starring in the series and proving his passion for the series, Probst was given a huge promotion when he became Survivor's showrunner. Thanks to his dual roles on the show, Probst's comments about the series are always interesting to consider.
Even though Probst's recent discussion with one outlet about the show was utterly useless, that was a very rare occurrence. During most of his interviews, Probst isn't afraid to be honest about his opinions, like when he revealed what his favorite Survivor 49 moment was. Similarly, Probst recently discussed how much Survivor has changed over the years, and his explanation for why the show needs to evolve makes complete sense.
Jeff Probst admits Survivor must evolve to keep the game unpredictable
Throughout Survivor's history, the show has introduced a long list of twists. Fortunately for the show's many devoted fans, many of those twists have been beloved by viewers because they have made the show better. On the other hand, some of the twists have been largely hated because viewers have believed that they ruined the game.
When those unpopular twists have been introduced, some fans have wondered why the team behind Survivor can't just leave the game alone. During a recent interview with Mike Bloom from Parade, Jeff Probst perfectly explained why there is a need for Survivor to always mix the format up.
“The game design choices we make for any season are really just about tiny adjustments designed to disrupt assumptions. Any time players start believing they know the rhythm of the game, which you might expect in the ninth iteration of the new era – you have to shift things just enough to catch them off guard and force them to recalibrate.”
Looking back at Survivor's history, it is easy to see why Probst has a really good point about why the show can't keep things static. After the show's first season aired, the fact that an alliance was able to wrest control of the game, leading to Richard Hatch's win, had a huge effect. The players from the follow-up seasons believed they simply had to recreate that strategy to win, and they were often right.
Looking back at seasons that were defined by an alliance gaining power and systematically voting everyone else out proves how boring that quickly becomes. When Survivor started introducing twists like tribe swaps and immunity idols, that forced players to reckon with different strategies since alliances could be thrown into chaos.
Since the first Survivor twists taught players that simply relying on an alliance wasn't foolproof, many more strategies have emerged, only for them to be affected by other twists and advantages. All these years later, the chaotic nature of Survivor's constant evolution has resulted in many seasons becoming flexible and more thrilling.
While I would argue that Probst perfectly explained why Survivor must evolve, I still encourage the team behind the show to remember one thing. The twists must be in service of the core game, not work against it. The hourglass twist is the most obvious example of why Survivor fans have sometimes felt like the show's team lost its way. Many fans, myself included, felt it was game-breaking to have players be punished for winning a challenge, which was the practical effect of that twist.