Feature Article day is upon us again and today we have a cracker! One of the most debated topics in the Survivor community is whether an all-winners season would or could be done; it intrigues everybody! Today, Ozlets Lancey Morris and James Pickering, team up to debate whether an all-winners season is a good or bad thing. Lancey claims that all all-winners season is a mouthwatering prospect whilst James believes that it would be boring and legacies would be tarnished. So read on, choose which side of the debate you agree with and leave us a comment about what you think below!
An all-winners season is always a talking point amongst Survivor fans. Should it be done? Can it be done? Would would and who wouldn’t return? Will it be the last ever season? It’s always a talking point. So today, Ozlet’s Lancey Morris and James Pickering debate about whether an all-winners is a good idea or not. First we’ll hear from Lancey as to why it’s a fantastic idea, then James will have his say as to why he is against it.
An all-winners season could be the best thing since Jeff started hosting Reunion Shows.
An all winners season of Survivor is something I have become more enthusiastic about each time a season wraps up. I consider the new dynamic of the winner and what their presence would bring and wonder with which other winners they may align. Imagine the dog’s breakfast that would be a Brian, Rob and Tyson alliance? Think of the joy a Kim, Denise and Ethan union could bring to our lives! What if Ethan and Jenna were stuck together, or Rob and Amber had to make it work a second time? This kind of daydreaming isn’t the only reason an all winners season would be magical, it would be everything we’ve hoped for and more, plus it would certainly be better than the mess that sees the same players return time and time again – Boston Rob, I’m looking at you.
Image what an alliance of this lot would be like!
As any Survivor enthusiast knows, Jeff Probst pretty much hand picks the contestants of each season, particularly if they involve returning players. Jeff’s opinion is crucial, as at the very least, if Jeff doesn’t like you or considers you to be a quitter in anyway, (unless of course, you’re Colton), you will not be invited to play again. This is frustrating when the same players are brought back to play for a third or fourth time, or players that were uninspiring are inflated to ‘all-star’ status. The beauty of an all winners season is that Jeff would have very little say. It is doubtful that all twenty-seven plus players, (including the pending winner of Cagayan), could be involved which could give Probst some decision making power, however not all the players would be interested or eligible to play anyway. Alternatively, all twenty-seven players could begin the game but the season could hold an initial challenge resulting in several eliminations. Think of the tears and tantrums that would ensue!
An all winners season would be a chance for the nostalgic fans to see their old favourites: of the twenty-six winners, only half have played more than once. Some of the players that are perhaps reluctant to re-light their torches for another Coach/Ozzy season could feel differently with an all winners seasons, as it would be a chance for them to feel like less of a target and put them on more equal footing with their opponents. Moreover, it would be something the fans have not seen before and could not see it again for several years. I get goosebumps at the thought of Sandra winning a third time. GOOSEBUMPS!
One tribe looks ready to go?
After so many seasons and variations of the game, seeing the contestants and their strategies adjust would provide great entertainment. Players like Earl who have been accused of being boring, or like Natalie who have been told they were riding coat tails, would finally have a chance to display their prowess and ability to adapt to a new game, (or we would see them crash and burn, which would be great too). It would put the strategists like Yul against the more relaxed players like Fabio, the challenge dominators like Kim against social players like Tina and those who have been declared as non-deserving like Amber against the overrated players like Brian – that’s right, you heard me. It would give the fans the closest thing to an answer of which game playing style works best.
And imagine the possibilities after it aired! An all runners up season? A winners versus those who lost to them season? A first boot season?! Let’s be honest, we all tire of seeing returnees every other season. If we could watch some well-cast original ones it would be such a welcomed treat to watch the winners come back. What I propose is to cut the seasons where only two ‘all-stars’ play against a fatigued new cast and to treat all-stars seasons as an exciting departure from the norm, every so often.
If one day we must say goodbye to the heaven they call Survivor, (assuming Probst isn’t immortal and will one day die on set), this could be the perfect way to do so.
The idea of an all-winners season on paper sounded pretty enticing to me. It’s one of those season ideas that is constantly thrown around by fans on the Internet as the ‘ultimate’ Survivor season and I’ll admit I got sucked into the hype. So I sat down to write an article about how an all winners season would be the best thing to ever happen to Survivor, how it would be the ultimate way for Survivor to finally sign off the air when that inevitably happens. After twenty minutes of thinking about the idea properly, considering the logistics, the potential cast and the potential entertainment value, I did a complete one-eighty and I’m now vehemently against the idea. Here’s the main three reasons why.
1. We wouldn’t get most of the people who would make it an interesting season.
When people fantasise about an all-winner season, they inevitably talk about some pretty salivating match-ups, which look fantastic in theory. The idea of Brian Heidik matching his wits against Richard Hatch and Boston Rob is an enticing prospect. Parvati versus Sandra versus Kim Spradlin in a battle to prove who is the best female Survivor player ever is a fascinating idea on paper. Giving some underrated one-time winners such as Todd and Chris the chance to prove their ability against the best of the best seems fair. The problem with all of this though is that it would never actually happen in the real world. There are several winners who would make ninety percent of most people’s ideal cast for an all-winners season who would either decline the opportunity or never be invited in the first place. Brian has been supposedly blacklisted from Survivor by CBS, Ethan and Todd have well-documented health issues, Cochran is now working for CBS which I believe makes him ineligible, whilst Kim and Aras both have new additions to the family which would probably mean they’d think twice before jumping on a deserted island for thirty-nine days. On top of that there are winners that CBS probably wouldn’t invite back due to them being considered ‘boring winners’; I believe Chris and Vecepia have never received a phone call asking them to return, whilst I wouldn’t mind betting Natalie probably falls into that category as well. Add to that the obvious relationship conflicts between Ethan and Jenna and Rob and Amber which would probably prevent one of them playing. Therefore, I believe that any ‘dream cast’ would be literally impossible. What we would probably end up seeing is a season packed full of winners we have already seen return twice, thrice or quince who would receive eighty percent of the airtime. This would defeat the ideology of the season for most people anyway and as a result I don’t think it would be a good season.
Is it fair that these two would be both playing?
2. A season full of people who are all winners would be inherently boring
This one might be a tad controversial, but hear me out. I am of the belief that despite what Probst and Burnett say, every contestant does not have a one in sixteen to twenty chance of winning a million dollars. Half of the contestants who appear on the show have absolutely no chance of winning and production knows it. They are cast for a variety of reasons, but all reasons come back to one fundamental principle; entertainment value. Some of the biggest and most famous contestants in Survivor history have no chance of winning the game, and they never will; Rupert, Coach, Randy, Russell, Phillip, Corrine all spring to mind. These people lack the social skills to ultimately succeed in a social game such as Survivor, yet it cannot be denied that these people have made an enormous impact on Survivor and its legacy. They also had an enormous role in their respective seasons and in some people’s opinions added to the entertainment in said seasons. Do I believe that Pearl Islands would have been a better season without Rupert? Hell no! You need people in Survivor without a chance of winning; they are such a fundamental part of the season’s entertainment that without them, I’m of the belief that any season would be as boring as bat poo. A season of “game bots” doesn’t fill me with excitement. Maybe that’s just me, but if you sit down and really think about it, I think you’ll see my point.
Some players are cast with the full intention for entertainment instead of game play.
3. It will ruin some winner’s legacies
This point kind of explains itself, but I find it unfortunate that some winners play great games their first time around, but then are considered “Dumbo’s” by the majority of fans because they screw up their second game. I think it’s unfair and ultimately taints people’s view of older seasons because they just can’t believe a good winner could make an obvious mistake. The prime example of this is J.T.; he’s gone from being the first perfect winner, (no votes against him during the game and the received all of the Jury votes), to a laughing stock after his Heroes vs., Villains performance. I don’t want this to happen to other winners, so I’m against an all winners season on that basis.
So there you have it. You might not agree with me, but I think an all-winners season would be a dumb idea.
Some players ‘Survivor legacies’ would be tarnished.
Who do you agree with? Lancey or James? Comment below to let us know whether your For or Against an all-winners season and if Lancey or James’ arguments changed your mind about it!