Cannes Film Festival 2013

Does 'Survivor' have a Russell addiction?

Even with his popularity, is 3 appearances in 4 seasons too much?

<p>"Survivor" repeater Russell Hantz.</p>

"Survivor" repeater Russell Hantz.

Credit: CBS

I look at "Survivor" bringing Russell Hantz back for the third time in four seasons in much the same way Yankee fans looked at George Steinbrenner rehiring Billy Martin for a third, fourth and fifth time. Just because something worked once upon a time doesn't mean it's going to keep on working, and insistence on going back to that well over and over suggests a franchise that fundamentally doesn't know what to do any more to recapture past glory.

Of course, reality franchises and baseball franchises have different lifespans. The Yankees outlived both Billy and Boss George, and will keep running for as long as the sport exists, whereas "Survivor" is eventually going to go off the air. The new "Redemption Island" season, which debuts tonight night at 8, is the franchise's 22nd, which is an eternity in TV, even when compressed into only 11 years. TV shows get old, reality shows get old even faster, and there comes a point where the only way to keep fans interested is to bring back old contestants.

So pitting Russell against Boston Rob Mariano makes some sense. It's certainly going to get the series more attention - in its first season competing head-to-head with "American Idol" - than an all-civilian cast might have.

But man, does it seem desperate.

Yes, the only non-all-star season in a while that most fans seemed to enjoy was Russell's first stint on "Survivor: Samoa," where he bulled his way to the final tribal council and lost thanks to a jury that understandably despised him. And yes, the following "Heroes vs. Villains" season, in which he again made it to the end and again reaped the whirlwind from a hostile jury, was also very popular.

I get that, just as I recognize that I dislike Russell a lot more than most remaining "Survivor" fans. I feel that he's benefited from stupid opposition - or, in "Heroes vs. Villains," from opposition that hadn't seen him play the first time - from immunity idols that may as well have had neon arrows pointing to them, and from his own ability to promote himself and his skills. (I've seen other players be nearly as aggressive as Russell, but few have come close to being as good at giving the producers self-aggrandizing soundbytes with which to construct a narrative.) And even by the standards of "villains" on "Survivor," he's fairly unpleasant.

But I get that others love him and feel he was robbed one or both of his times in front of the jury. Even so, three times in four seasons sends a very loud message, and that message is that the producers of "Survivor" feel the show can no longer exist without Russell. And when one player becomes bigger than the game, that is an enormous problem.

I should add that even though I like Boston Rob far more than Russell, I don't particularly need to see him either. This will be his fourth time on "Survivor," and sixth time on a CBS reality show (counting two "Amazing Race" stints). He's had his time. If they want to pepper each season with one or two of their 300-plus alums, that's fine, but these same two guys over and over is getting silly.

A part of me is almost tempted to watch "Redemption Island"(*) just to see how Russell gets by competing against a bunch of people who knows exactly how he operates - but the odds are 50-50 between seeing him voted out first and seeing him dragged to the end by a player savvy enough to recognize that Russell's act will always cost him the victory.

(*) The season's title comes from its other gimmick, in which each player who gets voted out remains a part of the game in isolation, then competes against the next person voted out for the chance to stay, and the last one standing gets to return to competition. It sounds complicated, but also an interesting twist, and a more fair one than the version from "Survivor: Pearl Islands," where nobody knew that two people who got voted out would return.

If the people behind "Survivor" genuinely feel the franchise can no longer exist without Russell's presence, then they either need to be even more blatant about it - call it "Survivor: Russell Island," introduce specific rules that apply to everyone but Russell, allow an audience vote component to the million dollar prize so he can quit whining about the game, etc., etc. - or they need to call it a day and do something else.

Alan Sepinwall may be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

Alan-sepinwall-sm
Alan Sepinwall
Sr. Editor, What's Alan Watching
Alan Sepinwall has been reviewing television since the mid-'90s, first for Tony Soprano's hometown paper, The Star-Ledger, and now for HitFix. His new book, "The Revolution Was Televised," about the last 15 years of TV drama, is for sale at Amazon. He can be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    David Thiel

    Haven't watched enough recent "Survivor" to have formed an opinion about Russell, but having suffered through Boston Rob's first two stints as well as his two runs on "The Amazing Race," I dearly want him to just go away.

    February 16, 2011 at 12:16PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Lucas

    Although I understand your points, I like Russell's character (as in "I find him entertaining", not likeable} and I wouldn't have a problem watching him again in an All-Star season, as well as Hatch, Parvati, Coach etc. However, I think it's a mistake to put him in a not fully All Star season like this. There needs to be a balance so that new characters can emerge. I have to admit though, I 'm looking forward to Redemption Island more than Nicaragua.
    Also, will you be doing weekly recaps?

    February 16, 2011 at 12:31PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Mike Dan usually does the recaps for Survivor, other than a few episodes early in HvsV that Alan did. As for Russell, I do tend to always enjoy the villains much more in Survivor... Richard, Parvati, Todd, Boston Rob, Rob C., and even Heidik come to mind, but I've never enjoyed watching Russell. All those other villains have something about them that Russell seems to lack, either the sense of humor of Rob C., the charm of Parvati, the sociopathic nature of Heidik, or the humorous self-deprecation, within the self-aggrandizing arrogance, with Boston Rob and Richard. I think that's the key difference with Russell and Boston Rob/Richard in terms of being a lovable villain, it's that he takes himself so seriously and his ridiculous arrogance has no trace of irony to it which makes it far less charming.

      February 16, 2011 at 2:18PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Rich_C

    I think it's gross they are bringing back Russell and Rob again. I'm with you, I even like Rob, but this is too much. I hope Russell is voted out first. Rob I can handle a little bit but he has zero chance of winning.

    I think they have cut costs with production, because this is the 2nd year in a row they have filmed seasons back to back, and both times the 2nd one has returning players. I think that is what we can expect from Survivor for the next couple years.

    February 16, 2011 at 12:34PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Godzillavseaster_talkback_profile

    Dezbot

    I still like Russell, but have "Russell fatigue" from seeing him so damn much, and think the Russell/Rob feud is ridiculous, so I'm really not looking forward to that aspect of the new season. It won't keep me from watching, however, so I guess "Survivor" owns me in that regard. Looking forward more to the new TAR, even if it's an "All-Star" season (would rather have new people to learn about as they traverse the globe).

    February 16, 2011 at 12:45PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    ChampSkins

    I stopped watching survivor for a while... so I have to say I have never seen either Rob or Russell. I have heard ad nauseum from people about how bringing them back is going to be awful, but I am pretty intrigued to see them play.

    Also, as an avid fan of the Real World/Road Rules challenges, the new Redemption Island (which is a blatant rip-off to that franchise) will be a great new addition. This season has the potential to be pretty great.

    Maybe everyone complaining about it BEFORE an episode has even aired, should just wait and watch a couple episodes to judge it... just a thought...

    February 16, 2011 at 12:47PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Bunny Colvin

    I agree that they could have waited a little while longer before bringing back more players, but I also enjoy how they keep changing things up each season. And after 22 seasons, I still love the show. I have watched them all and I will continue to watch it as long as it's on tv. I am still not at all sick of Boston Rob and am looking forward to watching him again this season. There are much bigger issues in the country right now than returning players on Survivor ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41480994/ns/us_news-weird_news/

    February 16, 2011 at 12:48PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    SoulHonky

    Well, part of you is "tempted to watch" and you just wrote a post about Survivor so it seems like it was the right choice. Adding Russell and Rob gives critics/magazine a reason to write about the show and get it some free advertising, just as Jimmy Johnson's celebrity helped last season.

    February 16, 2011 at 12:49PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    rolynch

    Write a comment...

    February 16, 2011 at 12:58PM EST Reply to Comment


  • Hate Russell, barely tolerate Rob, and am boycotting this season because the producers think people are dumb enough to watch the losers again. And they're probably right, but they lost me.

    February 16, 2011 at 1:18PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Bryan

    In a round about way the move to bring back Russell and Boston Rob was a great since it has created such buzz. and I'm sure people would say the show was getting stale if the rules stayed the same and all of the cast members were unknown.

    February 16, 2011 at 1:21PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    JoJ

    Alan, you're not even mentioning the part that Russell has apparently been outed as the source of spoilers in past seasons... I can't understand how he hasn't been banned as a result!

    February 16, 2011 at 1:22PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Dexx Considering the fact that filming was done before he was outed, I'm not sure what you expect. Not to mention that his outing hasn't been concretely proven AND spoilers have been leaked online in seasons prior to him being on and last season as well. That isn't to say that he isn't guilty but is to say that there is more to the story than you and others seem to acknowledge in posts.

      February 17, 2011 at 1:39AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Jm

    FWIW, as a long time watcher of the show from season one, Russell is why I don't watch Survivor anymore.

    February 16, 2011 at 1:24PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      AR Exactly, me too. I stopped watching after the first episode I saw with Russell. Hateful, misogynistic, and presented as a charming little devil. I doubt I'll be back even though I do like Boston Rob a lot.

      February 16, 2011 at 1:33PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Hannah Lee I'm with you there.

      I think the show's obsession with Russell symptomatic of a bigger issue with the show, the real reason I'm not watching: TPTB have no clue how to make compelling television; and keep desperately trying to do it by making an a**hole (esp a misogynistic a**hole) the star of the show.

      So, no, I won't be watching this season. I don't find insufferable jerks to be entertaining television.

      February 16, 2011 at 1:52PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    TC

    Has that slate piece gone to your head, Alan??? Because you're getting a little sloppy and have committed the worst sin possible for a TV critic: you gave us the wrong date for the show! Survivor debuts TONIGHT at 8, not tomorrow.

    As for Russell, I basically agree with everything you're saying. But last season was so awful its hard to complain about Rob and Russell coming back. If they have to use gimmicks I'd rather see Rob/Russell than Jimmy Johnson. What Survivor really needs to do is stop using casting agencies and getting wannabe actors and models. In the old days they cast real fans who applied. Sadly, not enough attractive people apply anymore. Most of their contestants have agents these days and they're often not very familiar with the game or how to play. I'd want to see a little strategy, and we only seem to get that when returning players are involved.

    February 16, 2011 at 1:37PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall Thanks, TC. Piece was originally supposed to run yesterday, with the Criminal Minds review going up this morning. We flip-flopped the order and I forgot to change that piece of info to reflect the new publication date.

      February 16, 2011 at 1:42PM EST
  • Jeff_avatar_2_talkback_profile

    Mulderism

    I'm glad you brought this up Alan. I was hoping to talk about this before the season begins.

    I'm extremely disappointed with the decision to bring these two back. It is totally unnecessary and I don't think it's fair to the other 'unknown' survivors who won't get the spotlight these two will.

    I am all for reunion shows like last year. It's nice when you are familiar with a player so you don't have to get to know them as the show goes on. The problem we've seen is that some of the returning players do not play as hard as they did the first time. Richard Hatch and Johhny Fairplay are two examples. Colby last season seemed to be sleepwalking through the show.

    If you are going to bring back players I'd say they should do it like this:

    1. No players who have played the game more than twice.
    2. No mixed casts. Either all returnees or not.

    I remember some interviews with players from HvsV last spring who said they would not like to come back and play again (Amanda said that for sure).

    Russel and Rob have both played the game numerous times. How hard will they play? Is it fair to the others?

    Another thing. Russell made it to the end and lost twice. His gameplay helped him get to the end but it also cost him the win. Does he really deserve another chance? Why does he get another chance when others don't? The same applies to Rob.

    Instead of trying the relive the glory days and stir the pot the producers should be trying to find the next stars.

    After coming off one of the worst installments in the series history (one I eventually boycotted) I am not super enthused with this latest gimmick. I will tune in but I'm not impressed.

    February 16, 2011 at 2:05PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Guesser I agree mostly with Mulderism (frequent conversationalist on Dan's recaps), and with the person above who pointed out the similarities between the "Redemption" twist and the "Real World/Road Rules Challenge." Mostly though, I concur with Dan in the latest podcast where he pointed out that the past season was so bad that it's hard to blame producers for going to the Russell/Rob well. They had a pretty good rivalry while it lasted on HvsV (if a reality TV dispute could be considered rivalry).

      It was actually sort of hilarious to watch a somewhat disinterested Rob lead his team to victory in almost every challenge while Russell tried to suppress his inferiority complex. And while I'm with Alan on despising Russell, his plot to get rid of Rob through somehow convincing Tyson to essentially vote himself off was pretty impressive.

      The biggest problem with "Survivor: Russell" seasons is that Probst and crew adore alpha males like Russell, and thus he absolutely dominates the camera time. I expect the same here. I mean, if Russell gets 2/3 of the camera time in an all-star season, why would they give this season's newbies more face time than people from HvsV who were likely reintroduced on the basis of having large personalities?

      February 16, 2011 at 6:37PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    LDP

    Ugh, they're both on? How is it possible that they can keeping going back? Don't they have jobs?

    February 16, 2011 at 2:07PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Pretty sure being a reality show contestant (and loser) is Rob's job anymore. G

      February 16, 2011 at 2:17PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Adam B.

    How about -- as suggested on the podcast -- a list of former Survivors who've only been once whom we'd like to see back?

    My list starts with a true "redemption" paid -- folks who got screwed up by dumb decisions and medical fate on the way to $1M: Ian Rosenberger and Michael Skupin.

    February 16, 2011 at 2:13PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      TC I couldn't disagree more with those choices. Ian gave the game away and has no business playing again, ever. Skupin suffered a tough injury but people seem to forget he was playing a very poor social game up to that point. His entire tribe hated him.

      My #1 choice would be Shane from the Exile Island season. Just because that crazy fool made me laugh.

      February 16, 2011 at 4:14PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Adam B. I really like the idea -- as with JT in Heroes v Villains (or Colby) -- in bringing someone back who played the nice guy last time and forcing him to consider changing things up.

      If Skupin doesn't fall in the fire and his tribe wins immunity, they'd have headed into the merge up 6-4, and a very different game would have happened.

      Other folks I'd like to see again: Andrew Savage, Stacey Stillman (won't happen), Caryn Groedel, and Freakin' Judd, Man.

      February 16, 2011 at 5:52PM EST
  • Tps_talkback_profile

    PotatoSolution

    I wish they would do "Survivor: Yau Man Island". Now THAT I would watch.

    February 16, 2011 at 4:33PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Godzillavseaster_talkback_profile

      Dezbot Me, too!!

      February 17, 2011 at 12:31PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Kujo

    Yep, it's just plain silly, and desperate brining back both Russell, and Boston Rob again. I'm still going to watch.

    I'll truly be surprised if either gets far into the game.

    February 16, 2011 at 4:38PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    A.P.

    I wish they would pit all the past winners against each other, I've been waiting for a season to recapture the pure brilliance of that physics teacher repeatedly making fake idols to trick those who were mistreating him.

    However, I am a HUGE Russel fan, and while I was surprised he's in another season so soon - I will surely be watching. I don't want to see Boston Rob though, I got sick of him by the time he had a stint on the Amazing Race.
    Now that I think of it though, I'll probably get sick of Russel soon as well won't I. [That's not really hanging heavy over my head, if I stop liking him so be it]

    February 16, 2011 at 8:23PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    A.P.

    I'm not sure if you're going to post a recap of the first episode, so I'll just mention my opinion of it here:

    I take it back Alan! You were right!
    Once the episode began I realized how little rob or Russell would add to this season, and that their presence is merely a ploy to bring in viewers [which is stupid because new viewers don’t know who those two are].
    After some of the introductions, I was really pining to see this cast without any screen hoggers. All of these people are getting the hang of things, some quicker than others, and the presence of veterns is just inhibiting the scheming of each tribe.
    I realized that this season just doesn’t need them; that one lady who hates rob and that has already found an immunity idol could have easily made this premiere episode stand on it’s own. Not to mention the new redemption twist this, which I actually think is a great idea because it’s new and exciting. What is not new and exciting are setting rivals against each other a year after their initial rivalry started.
    Once rob and Russell stepped off their plane, I immediately wished their respective tribes would immediately get rid of both of them. I guess that’s part of the fun of survivor, the good and bad ideas get equal credence and you just have to sit back and watch how the cast members deal with it.

    February 16, 2011 at 11:40PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    nic919

    After watching this episode, there is enough crazy that we don't need Rob and Russell on the show, although Rob's presence during the tribal council did help instigate one of the craziest TC's I have seen. There are still too many unknowns, but if Philip sticks around to add more crazy, this will be a better season than I had hoped for.

    February 17, 2011 at 1:26AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Beth

    I'll start watching as soon as Russell gets voted out.

    If he makes it to the final 2 or 3, I'll watch the finale just to see him lose again, and then complain about how the game isn't fair. Can't stand that man.

    February 17, 2011 at 8:42AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Teklanika

    I used to like Survivor, but it got old for me a while back. The only time I watch it now is if Boston Rob is on. I still love the guy. I stopped watching Heroes v Villians when he got voted out due to stupidity. So, for me, they need gimmick to get me to watch.

    February 17, 2011 at 12:10PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    JK

    Just would like to comment that Russell was the reason I finally stopped watching Survivor. The show's decided to go in a direction I couldn't stomach watching.

    February 17, 2011 at 4:16PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web