What happens when twists hold too much power in Survivor?

There’s a moment in the game where everything seems to be aligned, but then one member of your alliance decides to play a risk/reward game via a twist introduced by production. Something like theBeware Advantageor a Journey always come with a penalty if you cannot complete the task put in front of you. But if you do, you get an incredible reward—or simply get to keep your vote.

But what about when the risks don't live up to the reward? Everyone who watchedSurvivor 50knows exactly the kind of twist I’m talking about. The most extreme penalty the show has ever seen as the risk for probably one of the most useless rewards the show has ever seen. And fan favorite Christian Hubicki was the victim of such circumstance.

At this point in the new era, it’s become quite apparent thatSurvivoris not asking castaways to “pay to play” for rewards—like the Journey format did originally in the early new era seasons when you could risk your vote or choose to walk away. OnSurvivor 48, after Justin Pioppi went on a Journey that forced him to play a game of chance with losing his vote as the risk, we saw one of themost ridiculous Tribal Councilsin the history of the show that ultimately ended with Justin getting his torch snuffed.

But we also saw those early seasons test out similar—but very unpopular with fans—ideas like the “Do or Die” twist inSurvivor 41andSurvivor 42. Players were told they could either sit out of the immunity challenge, completely removing their ability to be safe, or they could participate knowing that if they’re the first out, they will be forced to play a game of chance at Tribal Council. The way this twist was presented basically replaced the voting process for that episode entirely as the losing player had a 33% chance of gaining immunity, but a 66% chance of immediately getting their torch snuffed.

The show reworked that twist into the MrBeast Super Beware Advantage that we saw inSurvivor 50. But this time around, the players had a choice of whether or not they accepted the twist’s stipulations. And with a player likeRick Devenswho knew his place in the game and was willing to take a big risk for a 50/50 chance at immunity, power, and more money added to the pot—all well worth the risk of being eliminated if he in fact did earn the reward. By stripping back the foundation of that twist ever so slightly, they created one of the best moments in reality TV this year rather than angering a crowd of fans who take to the internet after the episode to complain.

Survivorbecame a global phenomenon back in the 2000s because of the strategic and psychological elements of the game. And while it’s evolved for the best over the last 26 years, when a twist dictates the outcome rather than the player’s choice after a twist, the game feels like it loses a little bit of its original identity.

We understand why production is including all these twists. It’s a great way to prevent “Pagonging” and it creates potentially viral moments that people talk about for weeks after. But advantages should be tools for a player to use—or not use—without completely impacting the results of the game. The greatest moments inSurvivorhistory always include an element of social strategy and wit behind a move. It’s no fun if that’s taken away completely because of a twist.

Add us as a preferred source onGoogle

Follow