From Richard Hatch to Russell Hantz, Mark Burnett has produced 19 season of heroes and villains
'Survivor' host Jeff Probst
Credit: CBS
On Friday, Sept. 25, ABC was feeling mighty gloat-y.
The network sent out a gleeful press release that led off with the announcement, in bold blue type, "ABC's 'FlashForward' became the first regular series telecast on any network to defeat CBS' 'Survivor' in Adults 18-49 in over 5 years - since 'Friends' in April 2004."
The following week, "Survivor" and "FlashForward" tied in the key demographic. The week after that, "FlashForward" fell behind. And "Survivor" has won every subsequent week.
"FlashForward," the cocky upstart with the booming promotional budget and the skads of pre-premiere media coverage had learned what countless other shows have discovered over the course of 19 (and counting) installments: You don't mess with "Survivor."
When the alien archeologists are sifting through the ruins of human experience, "Survivor" won't have the earliest fossil records. They'll see trace evidence of "An American Family" and a strong presence for "The Real World." They'll see the overhyped fluke of "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire," though the only real evidence of that dud will be the jokes Rick Rockwell and Darva Conger left behind. Tee-hee. "Darva Conger."
It's from "Survivor," though, that they'll be able to start to understand the scourge of reality that coursed through our TV veins in the Aughts, from "Survivor" that they'll be able to begin an anthropological study, tracing the show back to its Swedish routes, following it around the world. For the aliens, "Survivor" will be like their Phoenicians. It will be studied to understand the indomitable human desire to do almost anything for a million bucks and the insatiable human appetite to watch those machinations.
With "The Amazing Race" dominating the Emmys and "American Idol" dominating the audiences, if anything "Survivor" has become underrated and ignored.
Not on this list.
"Survivor" stands at No. 12 on my list of TV's Best of the Decade.
[More on "Survivor" after the break...]
The 19th installment of "Survivor" comes to an end on Sunday (Dec. 20) night. This season has been set in Samoa, but the locations are only useful for identification purposes at this point. I think I could distinguish how Africa or the Amazon or China or even the Brazilian highlands impacted those respective seasons, but other than nomenclature, there would be nothing to differentiate between Pearl Islands, Vanuatu, Cook Islands, Samoa, Thailand, Micronesia, Marquesas, Borneo or Fiji as sites for a "Survivor" season. But "Survivor" isn't "The Amazing Race" and it isn't intended as a travelogue. Until the producers finally suck it up and send a season to Northern Canada in the dead of winter -- a season which would be sorely lacking in bikinis or rock-hard abs -- the show has ceased to be geography-dependent.
That doesn't mean, though, that after 19 seasons, each "Survivor" installment has become a carbon copy of something that came before. The great marvel of "Survivor" is that it's as close as reality TV gets to entropy. Even "The Amazing Race," with its hard-to-predict champions, has become more structurally regimented. After 19 seasons, fans still watch and are amazed at things that have never happened before, at the randomness of what happens when you plunk 16 or 18 or 20 well-cast strangers on a beach and let them go wild.
Take "Survivor: Samoa." In my weekly recaps, I've dubbed the season "Survivor: Russell," in honor of master prevaricator Russell Hantz, who took over as strongman in Week One and has ruled with an iron fist full of Immunity Idols. Nobody in "Survivor" history had found a hidden Idol without a clue and Russell did it twice and then find a third Idol with only the start of a clue. I'm not buying the "Russell Is The Best Player in 'Survivor' History" hype, but he may be the most effective self-promoter in "Survivor" history and, love him or hate him, he's helped guarantee that even in patches that lagged, "Survivor: Samoa" has been good TV. Beyond Russell's ego, "Survivor: Samoa" has been awash in never-seen-before moments from the not-so-interesting (some moron becoming the first player kicked out of a challenge for dirty play) to the one-blindside-after-another process through which the Foa Foa tribe came into the merge with a huge number disadvantage and proceeded to knock off one Galu after another. This season has seen multiple players whisked out for medical reasons and in, in recent weeks, the surprising rise of a player (Brett), who almost literally hadn't said a word for the first half of the season. If Russell wins on Sunday, it's a coronation of a "Survivor" Great, but if he loses, it's the toppling of an aspiring reality monarch and punctured hubris is always entertaining. Somehow, "Survivor" has managed to reach this kind of finale a disproportionate number of times.
It just can't be a coincidence that Mark Burnett's baby has managed to stay relevant all of these years, weathering the occasional unlikable winner (soft-core porn nobody Brian Heidik comes to mind immediately) or dud seasons (even I stopped watching "Survivor: Panama" weeks before it ended). It has overcome initial snobbery about reality TV and a decade of reality fatigue.
Really, the producers couldn't have gotten luckier with that first "Survivor" season. Presumably the game's template was going to be established in those episodes regardless of how the experiment went, so how lucky that the season was won by scheming gay nudist Richard Hatch. How lucky that the Tagi tribe held together, voted out one opposition player after another and gave us the immortal phrase "Pagonging" (something the Galuvians obviously failed to learn from this season). How lucky that Rudy Boesch became everybody's favorite crotchety grandfather and that poor, bug-bitten Colleen Haskell became America's Sweetheart and that Kelly Wiglesworth became a challenge-winning machine and that Sue Hawk unleashed her "snakes and rats" Tribal Council speech. The first season of "Survivor" remains the best season of "Survivor" and that's not an insult to the incarnations that followed.
Any "Survivor" fan could make up a list of the memorable moments that came after that and any list would be incomplete.
Want a couple of my favorites: Michael Skupin falling in the fire; Everybody just sitting around without the energy to do anything in Africa; The Purple Rock tiebreaker in Marquesas; Jenna and Heidi getting naked for peanut butter and Rob Cesternino's nearly masterful alliance swapping in the Amazon; Rupert's shoe-stealing and Jon Dalton's Big Lie in Pearl Islands, a season won by Sandra, who has to rank as one of the show's least deserving winners ever; Boston Rob taking Amber in hand and carrying her to a million bucks in the first All-Star season; The Ulong decimation and Tom Westman's start-to-finish dominance in Palau; The oddness of Gary Hogeboom's cover-up (and the subsequent strangeness of winner Danni Boatwright giving me fantasy football advice) from Guatemala; The race-baiting Cook Islands split, plus Ozzy's dominance and Parvati's brainless hotness; Dreamz "betraying" Yau-Man in Fiji; Gravedigger James getting voted out with two darned Idols in his pocket, Jaime playing a fake Idol and Amanda Kimmel blowing the season with a lame Jury performance in China; Amanda blowing a second consecutive season in Micronesia after playing an Immunity Idol in one of my favorite "Survivor" Tribal Councils ever (equalled that same season by Erik surrendering his Immunity and getting blindsided); The dedicated partnership between J.T. and Stephen in Tocantins.
We didn't need "Survivor" to teach us that people are inherently unreliable and untrustworthy with large amounts of money on the line. We didn't need "Survivor" to let us know that folks would feign romances, cast aside sincerely sworn oaths and even fictionally kill their grandparents just to earn cash. But every once in a while, a Colby basically lets Tina win or a JT and a Stephen bond on day one and don't break any oaths to each other or a temporary romance-of-convenience between Rob and Amber evolves into an extended reality TV romance-of-convenience (and true love). And we root for both sides equally when we watch "Survivor." We want sincerity and fidelity, but we're equally amused by deceit and backstabbing. We watch the game and wonder if we'd be a hero or a villain.
The anchor, for all 19 seasons, has been Jeff Probst, who has always kept things fair, even while openly favoring and admiring some players and mocking and deriding others. Because of his Emmy wins and his centrality to promoting the show, Probst has probably made himself indispensable to "Survivor." Imagining anybody else trying to explain that in this game, fire represents life is next to impossible.
Burnett and his team have kept "Survivor" afloat while rarely changing the formula. We stopped hearing about luxury items and we made sure that a few basic provisions were provided, to prevent another Africa. Sometimes there have been a couple more contestants, other times a couple fewer. We've had a deaf contestant, a formerly homeless contestant, a semi-recognizable actor, an Olympian, a professional football player and the wife of a professional football player. Sometimes the teams are arbitrarily divided at the top and other times they've been divided by race, gender and age. All of those tiny tweaks have just been temporary gambits that hardly impacted the progress of the game at all. [Note that the Cook Islands season seemingly opened up a pipeline and a show that occasionally suffered from tokenism in early seasons has been far more diverse afterwards.] The show's two All-Star seasons have both been at least moderately successful affairs.
"Survivor" will never again be the phenomenon it was in the summer of 2000 when it premiered, or even the smash it was in its second season or in the few seasons that followed. It seems to dip in viewership every couple installments and then level out for a while. It's no longer TV's most popular show, no longer in the Top 10, usually. All it does is win its time period every single week on TV's most valuable night. CBS can probably be satisfied with that. It'll be a decade before we see how "American Idol" is doing in Season 19 and a couple years before we see if ABC can still find enough marginal celebrities to keep "Dancing with the Stars" on the air to reach a similar milestone.
In the course of a decade, 19 seasons -- most good, some excellent -- is an impressive total. That's why I have no hesitation putting "Survivor" at No. 12 on my list of TV's Best of the Decade.
Coming up tomorrow? A lesson in Latin and the finer points of Gilbert and Sullivan.
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupMark
December 20, 2009 at 8:15PM EST Reply to CommentSo you actually think SURVIVOR is a better series than 30 ROCK, HOUSE, THE SIMPSONS? Perhaps you should take some time off from writing and attend a few courses in film and television because anyone who thinks that SURVIVOR is better than these shows obviously knows very little about either. One of the drawbacks of the internet is that allows people who do not understand anything about the subject they write about to still write about those subjects they know little about.
In a word, RIDICULOUS!
dan Mark - I'm not sure why you wouldn't just be satisfied with "You're a moron and your opinions suck." Then I might get insecure because opinions are subjective and stuff. But when you start getting into "Go take classes" and "Learn about the subject you're writing on" as if your differing opinion has actual and empirical weight and if I studied I might somehow see what you see, that makes it easier for me to wrap myself in my graduate degree in cinema and television studies and sleep soundly at night. -Daniel
December 20, 2009 at 8:50PM ESTcabri
December 20, 2009 at 8:20PM EST Reply to CommentI've been dreaming of a winter Survivor for years now. Survivor: Rocky Mountains. First day: The two teams each get a mountain cabin warmed by a wood stove. While the cabin is initially warm, all the firewood has been taken away. The first team to gather, cut, chop, whatever, enough wood to make it through the night without the temperature dropping below 50 gets a significant advantage in the first challenge. And what's the first challenge? Chopping wood, of course! I don't understand why they won't do a winter Survivor. :(
dan cabri - The answer really does stem from the "bikinis and six-packs" conundrum. "Survivor" relies at least somewhat on sex appeal to keep people interested in the early episodes. The minute everybody is wearing parkas and gloves and whatnot, you lose that. I assume that if the show goes, I dunno, *another* 20 installments, eventually Burnett will suck it up and do a winter season as a larf... It'd just be sad if *that* were what killed "Survivor." - Daniel
December 20, 2009 at 8:33PM EST
The thing about winter is that it's not just bad TV, it's dangerous. When the weather is really hot, it takes your energy out, and may even severely dehydrate someone. But the extreme cold will kill people.
December 20, 2009 at 10:45PM ESTSo basically, it'd be a season of people huddling indoors to try and stay warm and alive, and then others being medically evacuated for frostbite.
Andy The thing about winter is that it's not just bad TV, it's dangerous. When the weather is really hot, it takes your energy out, and may even severely dehydrate someone. But the extreme cold will kill people.
December 20, 2009 at 10:48PM ESTSo basically, it'd be a season of people huddling indoors to try and stay warm and alive, and then others being medically evacuated for frostbite.
forg
December 20, 2009 at 8:20PM EST Reply to CommentI love The Amazing Race but I agree that Survivor is underrated in the Emmys, they're not even nominated for the past two years while inferior reality shows like American Idol and DWTS gets the nod. If there is one show that could finally beat The Amazing Race dominance in the Emmys I hope its Survivor.
It's amazing how this show manages to win in the ratings after all these years, sure it is not the water cooler show it once was but it's a stable show and still unbeatable.
I will not be surprised if Survivor 20: Heroes vs Villains gets the post Super Bowl slot.
(on another note, Sandra for me is a deserving winner just for his final tribal council performance, she blew me away, she was very smart and for that despite not winning any challenge, the way she answered to the jury was very impressive although it did help that she was up against Lil)
dan forg -- It just amazes me that with all of the memorable players that season, *Sandra* was the one who ended up winning. But she's always a good example to prove that "outlasting" is often as important as outplaying or outwitting or any of that other stuff... Oh and the Emmy voters underrate "American Idol" as well. There'll be no "Idol" hatred on my watch! -Daniel
December 20, 2009 at 8:37PM ESTtigger500
December 20, 2009 at 8:36PM EST Reply to CommentAre you serious?!
I sorta feel like reality shows shouldn't count, but then how do you compare a drama to a comedy. So I get it.
That said, better than Buffy?!?! Veronica Mars? And Battlestar? I. can't. fathom.
You're a fascinating individual, Dan.
dan tigger500 - I just don't think there's *one* thing that makes something The Best. So the criteria is variable. So no, the dialogue and acting on "Survivor" aren't on that "Veronica Mars" and "Buffy" level. Of course not. But what morons like "Mark" down below don't acknowledge is that there's as much (or nearly as much) craft to putting together a great season of a reality TV show as there is to putting together a great season of a drama. It's just a different craft. "Survivor" doesn't just HAPPEN, whether you want to credit the casting department, the episode directors or the editors. It's meticulous and often artful. If you watch as much *bad* reality TV as I do, it's easier to appreciate the good... And I don't think it's fair to think that the only good stuff on TV has a script... -Daniel
December 20, 2009 at 8:44PM ESTtigger500 I totally agree. Which is why I'm hoping Project Runway makes your list.
December 20, 2009 at 9:05PM ESTThough, still. not better than Buffy or Vmars. lol
BugKiller
December 20, 2009 at 9:12PM EST Reply to CommentLAME LAME LAME LAME LAME LAME.
Bad enough that you rated Gilmore better than Buffy. Bad enough that BSG didn't even make your top 5.
But reality tv bullsquat is rated higher than two of the best written shows of the last 25 years?
Reality tv is a pox. A disease.
Shame on you. We REALLY disagree here. This is far worse than rating something like The Sopranos over Buffy and BSG (though, if you have The Sopranos rated higher than The Wire.... ooooh).
Reality tv is the worst that tv has to offer... in ANY format.
EM Home Edition is okay, but that's not really reality. That's like Bob Villa and Oprah had a kid.
dan BugKiller-- Is reality TV REALLY a bigger pox than "Hank"? Is it really less tolerable than the new "Melrose Place" or "Criminal Minds"? Come now! - Daniel
December 20, 2009 at 9:26PM ESTBugKiller Reality tv is lazy.
December 20, 2009 at 10:16PM ESTThere's not ART in it.
There is no true creativity.
An actual outstanding tv show has so many disparate parts that must come together to make something truly unique and extraordinary.
Reality tv has none of that. It has people. It has lame editing to heighten tension... or really, to create tension. It has some games or some obstacles standing in the way.
It isn't art. It isn't saying anything. It's empty calories.
And yes, it's worse than Hank.
But that doesn't make Hank good by comparison.
Crap is crap is crap.
Reality tv is crap. The playground of the unimaginative.
dan An editor and a director on many reality shows have literally hundreds or thousands of hours of footage to cull through. From that footage, they have to create heroes and villains. They have to create narratives for each episode and narratives for an entire season. They have to create tension and drama, comedy and romance all from a pile of things that happened. To be able to do that for 19 seasons, mostly at a VERY high level? That's a tremendous achievement. But, again, there are many things that go into "best" as I'm interpreting this list. -Daniel
December 20, 2009 at 10:27PM ESTBugKiller Oh, I'm not going to dispute the creative editing used on shows like these to fabricate emotion or tension or whatever it is that keep people hooked on shows like this.
December 21, 2009 at 7:57AM ESTIt's the same kind of stuff that Michael Moore does in his fake documentaries.
I guess, when it comes to tv, for it to be great... it has to be scripted, in my opinion.
Reality tv is just lazy tv. It's one of the reasons why networks like NBC are in the tank now. It's like there's not one original thought left at the networks, and when there is, it usually gets squashed before it can find an audience, or squashed because the audience doesn't have the patience anymore to be told a story.
Instead, they want instant satisfaction from "reality."
Look at Firefly or Dollhouse. Look at Life. Pushing Daises. Freaks and Geeks. Undeclared.
I'm still personally amazed that Chuck is still around.
Video killed the radio star?
Reality tv crap killed the unique and different tv show.
Roland Z
December 20, 2009 at 10:28PM EST Reply to CommentYes! Great choice. It is easy to look down on Survivor for what it hath wrought, but it a great show. I honestly don't even consider it "reality" tv as much as it is a social game show. These other haters are just pretentious, Survivor is a great tv show.
rosengje
December 21, 2009 at 3:02AM EST Reply to CommentYay, The West Wing tomorrow! Disappointed that it just missed the Top 10.
XeRocks81
December 21, 2009 at 11:44AM EST Reply to CommentI never watched survivor so I can't comment on how good or bad it is but I would say that it did have a bigger cultural impact this decade than the shows listed before. It changed the tv landscape, for good or ill depending on your pov.
nishka19
December 22, 2009 at 3:51PM EST Reply to CommentThey like this