I'm always up for a good Jeff Probst reveal on the On Fire with Jeff Probst podcast, and that's exactly what we got in the new episode following Survivor 48 episode 7, "Survivor Smack Talk."
In a conversation about what it means to make the jury in Survivor, which just started in Survivor 48 in the latest episodes, Jeff revealed the one thing that makes Survivor unique from these other reality competition shows. And, it's the jury.
"Well, the jury element is what sets Survivor apart from any other show in this genre," Jeff told cohosts Jay Wolff and Rachel LaMont. "And, that's the idea that, in the end, the people you have been relying on and conspiring against, and ultimately voting out, they have the final say. They decide who wins."
We've heard Jeff and others talk about this on a few occasions, if I recall correctly, but the point remains. There are many competition shows, but as far as I know, Survivor is the only one that requires the contestants to vote out other players, who in turn then choose the winner of the game. There's a lot of emotion that comes with that, and it's obvious that it's not a perfect system, right?
Every player has a different set of criteria for who played the best game. Some players might not even choose the player who played the best game at the end. It might just be a question of which players the jury likes better than others. It's meant to be this way, and that adds a lot of drama.
"One thing that I think has remained pretty consistent over the years is that, for the most part, jury votes don't always go to the player they objectively feel played the best game," Jeff continued. "It's usually way more complex than that. Gameplay is a big factor, but so are the relationships that were developed throughout the game, and they can work for you or against you."
And, that's one of the reasons we love Survivor, in my opinion. It's not a perfect game. It's an experiment of humanity in many ways, but it gives the players the power to hold grudges even through the very end of the game. It's not like a player wins Survivor just by winning some challenge. It always comes back to the strategic and social parts of the game, too. There are many, many examples of Survivor players who probably should have won but didn't because of the social politics and jury politics of the game.
In the new era, I feel like players, for the most part, are willing to pick the person who is most deserving of winning, but everyone, again, has a different set of criteria. Even in Survivor 46, which is one of the more questionable endings of a season in a long time, players chose the person they thought best represented their season, and that's almost more of what it's all about than the player who played the "best" game or whatever that means.
That's another reason it's so hard to predict who will win Survivor 48. Sure, there are players playing good games so far, but will that be rewarded at the end? Will honor, intergrity, and loyalty? It's up to these players to decide, and that's what makes it fun sometimes.