TVSquad

Scene change, yes. But how about an edgy, urban Survivor, like maybe, Survivor: Compton, or Survivor: East L.A. Now THAT would be dangerous. Probst: "On my go, you will wear your upper-middle class business attire complete with Rolex and IPod and attempt to make your way out of the 'hood with all items intact. Survivors ready? GO!"

I think the finale's ratings were down because CBS packed it with so much fluff and filler. Two hours, including the live portion, would have been plenty.

A real-time Survivor would be a good idea, with phone-in voting factored in somehow. This might prevent undeserving slugs from taking the prize

Reply

I think the reason why the ratings were down was because the finale wasn't interesting. Since both Cerie and Terry were gone, most people (including those on the jury) could care less. The live reunion was a joke this year. They never ask anything good anymore. The good part was Shane talking about his son asking "Did you just make a death threat on national tv?" The rest of it was lame filler stuff.

My suggestion for the reunion is instead of Probst, have Matt Lauer from the Today show ask the questions. He always asks the questions that most would consider wrong (IE Your husband just died in one of the most brutal deaths ever. How does that make you feel?)

The main issue was as I said, we didn't care about the final two. They were both idiots and shouldn't have been there.

Reply

nbc only tries to satisfy one segment of it's audience over & over, canceling surface & e ring perfect example.

Reply

Survivor producers: please don't tinker with the Survivor format. Remember the demise of "Millionaire?" The more they played with "Celebrity Week" etc., the show lost the reason people tuned in in the first place. Real people. Recall how the "Survivor All-Stars" show kind of flopped? (At least it did for me, with the exception of Rupert.) Anyway, just keep doing the same thing. Pick compelling contestants. Keep doing two shows a year. Warm locales are the most feasible. My family loves Survivor. Still can't get enough of it!

Reply

I think it is a little early to be worrying about the ratings for Survivor. It is still a regular top 10 show and you can't discount the fact that it is cheap to make by comparison.

The thing that actually surprises me about this story is that the LA Times is using freaking typepad to host their content? I get that they want to hop on the blogging bandwagon and all but holy smokes, they can't get someone on the web development team to install a copy of WordPress?

Reply

there is a program in Belgium (it's a format that runs in many european countries) which is called '71 degrees North'. They have to hike in the snow, swim at airtemperatures of minus -20°C and such stuff ..
Though, it's not that popular its certainly different.

Reply

This was the first year I didn't watch Survivor. There was simply too much great fictional television (Grey's Anatomy, Boston Legal, Invasion, Lost), and American Idol was about all I could leave on my viewing list for reality television.

My question for the last two seasons or more is this: Why isn't Survivor shot in HD? It seems to me that when you're in an exotic locale such as the ones featured on Survivor, there's a great opportunity missed by airing the show in SD. Not only that, but if you REALLY want to get a better feel for how the contestants are living, you can get all that gritty detail in HD.

Reply

I think survivor is still a good show. It just needs some refreshing. Maybe when you get down to the final three the jury should come into play so you dont get undeserving people like you did this time. I think terry should of won.also it wasnt fair the way you sent the tribes together terrys tribe did not have a shot. everything else was excellent this show.

Reply

Survivor was kind of boring this time around. You kept wanting Terry to use the idol, make a bolder move and it didn't happen. So no one cared by the end and Grey's Anatomy was more exciting at the 10 pm hour anyway. Now that Sunday has some interesting shows on it, don't put the finale on Sunday.

Reply

The reality shows are not interesting and have no entertainment value to them. Is this the networks way of making more viewers go to the pay channels for entertainment.

Reply

I doubt Mark Burnett will move the show to a colder climate any time soon. No shots of young bods in bathing suits there....

Reply

Aaron Clow: "My question for the last two seasons or more is this: Why isn't Survivor shot in HD? It seems to me that when you're in an exotic locale such as the ones featured on Survivor, there's a great opportunity missed by airing the show in SD."

If you don't already, read HD Beat.

The problem with "exotic locales" is that they are the HARDEST to shoot high-definition in. HD equipment is still new, where as SD is tried and true. Unline HD equipment, SD can stand up to EXTREMLY harsh elements. Survivor used digital betacam, a PROVEN rugged format.

Yes, I love HD, but I understand it's just not in the cards for survivor. With the number of cameras they have, the price would be UGE! [/donald trump]

Also, Mark Burnett NEVER EVER uses HD. Ever.

Reply