Fixing The Final Tribal Council


Not since Survivor Nicaragua 10 seasons ago have we had a particularly close final tribal council, which begs the question "is it broken?". In recent seasons jury questioning has simply become a formality, with the editors carrying the burden of trying to make straightforward wins look somewhat unpredictable and interesting. Any facade of open-mindedness has been dropped, with most jurors simply using their allotted time to campaign for a finalist or lap up their last couple of minutes in the spotlight.  In today's feature article Nick Chester puts forwards his suggestions for fixing final tribal council to return it to its former glory. Read on to find out some solutions to the current dilemma.

As a fan of a long running TV show like Survivor, I have come to accept that things will change over the course of time, often in ways I don’t like. This is how a show survives and stays on the air, often doing things long term fans don’t like in order to keep the show fresh and interesting. The catalogue of hits and misses in terms of production’s tinkering is long and varied, but one area that seemed to have stayed the same was final tribal council. The basic premise hadn’t changed much – that he final 2 or 3 get a chance to plead their case to the jury and ultimately jurors vote to award one player with the title of sole survivor and the million dollar prize. I talk in the past tense because unfortunately things have changed, and this became awfully apparent during the World Apart Finale. Don’t get me wrong – this isn’t a knock on Mike or his game because he did a great job. But the format and the way the players and jury interact has changed enough to now be having an impact both on the show and result. The way things are going, opening speeches, jury questions and closing statements could all be done away with and the jury could simply walk in, berate the finalists and vote. The changes have not happened as a sudden twist but a gradual shift over time, and have moved the game from an opportunity for jurors to ask hard questions into jurors simply attacking the final 3 for the sake of drama. I like good TV as much as the next person, but this does kind of screw up the whole purpose of Final Tribal Council. It has now become something of a challenge in itself – who can withstand the attacks of the jury the best. What should be the defining moment of the season is nothing more than a blood sport and the voting is a predetermined formality.

Sequester the Jury and Give Up On Ponderosa Videos


It’s now just a trial by consensus.

This isn’t the first time that I have made this suggestion, but the mixing and mingling of jury members after being voted out seems to be having a negative impact on how the winner is chosen. Since Micronesia, we have got the online “Ponderosa” videos as each member gets voted off, but since that time only 2 of 15 final tribal councils have been decided by one vote. In early seasons, juries seemed to spend time together after being voted out but were placed with handlers who ensured talk of the game was kept to a minimum. And this is how it should be. A jurors vote should be a factor of their perception of their own time in the game, and how the finalists treated them or played the game, from their own perspective. It has now become less of a measure of the value of players, but a trial of consensus, as jurors are encouraged to discuss the game for the benefit of a seven minute online video clip once a week. This has undoubtedly messed with the fabric of the game. The other big problem with Ponderosa is that a large proportion of the game is happening there which is unchecked. Once a player is out of the game, they can make up whatever lies they want and turn the jury against a certain player they dislike, and the player left in game is left with no defence. You could argue that finalists have the right to defend their game at the end, but the damage is long since done by then, and due to other factors listed below, finalist’s ability to set the record straight is being reduced pretty constantly. Having a pretty major section of the game left unchecked and out of control seems a major problem, yet it’s not only being ignored, but actively encouraged by the producers, who seem to like the drama or intrigue that comes from the Ponderosa videos. I know its impractical to keep jurors apart completely, but surely some reasonable steps can be taken to counteract this. The other negative impact of Ponderosa and continuing to have cameras on the players even after being voted out is it increases their feelings of self importance to the game – suddenly their one jury vote becomes a big deal with cameras still following them and wanting to know their thoughts. This is having an obvious spill over into their performances at final tribal council. Instead of just cutting to the chase and asking a question, many more people are feeling the need to make some grand gesture or overly dramatic speech. Seemingly they are putting more thought into their speech than their vote, which can’t be a good thing for the integrity of the game.

Bring Back the “Jury Speaks” Segment – and Let Finalists See It


Knowing what the jury is thinking is important – for the finalists and viewers.

Whilst I truly believe in everything I have written above, I know that it will never happen. Production is just too much in love with Ponderosa and having juries attack to ever try to change the status quo. However, I think if we are going to continue along that vein, we should at least give finalists a chance to take the temperature of the jury before they reach final tribal council and plan accordingly. I hate that a very major portion of the game happens outside of the island, but it’s a reality. So let’s bring back the “jury speaks” segment. This used to be where the jury would give their thoughts on the finalists, usually done over the top of shots of the finalists heading to tribal council. It was a staple of the first 7 seasons, and has appeared briefly on the odd occasion in later seasons (Gabon is an example). It’s good because it sets the stage on what to expect for viewers. But lets send the videos to the finalists as well, you could even tie this in with a product placement of a smart phone so they can view it. I think it’s only fair for finalist to know what the jury is thinking, especially members who may have been affected by things that have happened at Ponderosa. Of course this will mean having to maybe give up screen time from the completely unnecessary reward challenge in the finale, but it seems a worthy price to pay. It may not change the outcome, but at least gives the players a fighting chance and an even playing field.

Give the Finalists a Chance to Plead Their Case


Surely we want players to plead their case…after all, is that not the whole point???

The final tribal council used to have a straightforward but important format. First, the finalists would get a chance to plead their case to the jury. Then the jury would ask questions or make comments, and then the finalist would have a chance for closing statements. This final part was important, because often jurors would make comments or not allow a finalist to respond, so closing comments could address this. It could also allow them to change opening comments in light of what they heard from the jury. Over the years, this has eroded and the closing comments are long since gone. But in Worlds Apart, so were the opening comments. When I first saw the finale, I assumed the opening comments from Mike, Carolyn and Will had just been cut for time, but they had in fact never happened. Why? What was the rush? I could understand if not agree with cutting it for time or if it wasn’t interesting, but surely finalists should be allowed to make their case to the jury – otherwise why go through the charade? We are crowning a winner and giving them a million dollars – that’s no small deal and we shouldn’t just give the event over to some kind of spectacle where jurors get to tear them apart with no response. I can only conclude that producers have seen the Ponderosa effect as well, and decided to not bother with the finalists and just get final tribal council over as quickly as possible.

Stop the David Murphy Speeches and Enforce Questions


Are you choosing a winner or advocating for your friends?

Let’s be clear on what the role of the jury is – to vote for a winner. They are not meant to be advocates for one of the finalists, and the continuing trend of the “David Murphy” jury speech is not good for the show. As a reminder, in the Redemption Island finale, David directed his comments not at Rob, Natalie or Philip, but at the jury, giving an impassioned speech as to why they should vote for Rob. That’s not his job. It’s Rob’s job and David forgot his role is to ask hard questions to give the jury information to vote on. The trend has of course continued with similar speeches from Spencer, Jeremy, Jenn and Shirin in recent years. Now of course, you could argue that Sue Hawk’s infamous snakes and rats speech was of a similar ilk, but at least she directed comments at the final 2. But it does bring me to the next part of my issue with jurors, and that is that I want to see questions asked not just generic statements. Only half of the Worlds Apart jury actually asked questions, with the rest making pleas to the jury on who to vote for, telling them not to be bitter or comparing them to animals in blatants pieces of fantarding. This is just the latest in an on-going trend. If the final tribal council is to mean anything, I think the asking of questions should be enforced. Yes they won’t all be interesting and we will still end up with a few cut in the edit, but you cannot tell me that Joe, who had been at Ponderosa for two weeks, couldn’t come up with an interesting question. I’m sure lots of people enjoyed Shirin’s monologue, but it didn’t give us much in terms of useful information about the final three that we didn’t already know. I would like to see the asking of a question compulsory for jurors. I understand that the game isn’t all about the finalists, and their path to victory comes through the fate of the jurors, but I would like to see the final tribal council be mostly about the finalists and their game and less about the whinging and speechmaking by jurors.

Conclusion – Can Final Tribal Council Be Saved?


It used to be the climax to a season – the conclusion and closure to all the loose ends. What used to be a fact finding mission for jurors to make an informed decision has now become a grandstanding opportunity for players who weren’t good enough to make it to the end. I am under no illusion that almost every final tribal council was a done deal before anyone opened their mouth – most jurors know how they are voting already. But it used to be an opportunity to use questions to confirm their thinking and solidify their vote. And yes, in rare cases like China, allow a good player to convince a jury to vote for them. Surely it isn’t too hard to get back to this. As viewers, we really don’t have to give up anything that valuable. Producers don’t even have to make that many changes. It could all so easily be improved, if only we wanted to.

Do you think that final tribal council is broken and needs fixing? What changes would you implement if given the chance?



About Survivor Oz (2110 Articles)
Australia's Only 'Survivor' Radio Show! Tuesdays from 2PM AEST

20 Comments on Fixing The Final Tribal Council

  1. Zach Chong // July 6, 2015 at 9:18 am // Reply

    What about no immunity the day before the final tribal?

  2. Excellent article, especially agree with cutting out Ponderosa. Only thing it does is bring an unneeded element to the game. Great job!

  3. Interesting Article. I definitely agree that FTC speeches should be given, and I’m definitely on board with making sure the jurors ask questions. Can’t stand it when people pull a Murphy.

    I don’t think removing Ponderosa would actually improve anything though. I honestly think it ensures that finalists have to be more careful about how they put someone on the jury, knowing that they can ruin a winner when they get there.

    • It does make sense that removing Ponderosa would allow contestants to be dickheads without repercussions. However, isn’t that what most people want to see? Russell Hantz, Johnny Fairplay etc. If jurors were sequestered the contestants could pull all kinds of shenanigans without reprisals. It would open the game up. It’s a matter of taste. Do you want to see the devious Russell Hantz or the honorable dragon slayer Benjamin Wade? Tough call.

  4. I agree with this forbid the talk of the game in ponderosa. I also think that you should even go further then to force questions I think you should force them to ask questions about game play and not personal feelings because in the past bitter juries ruined great runs out of spite.

    Definitely give the finalists opening and closing statements because it is important to let them get their side of the story. Season 30 was just wrong.

    One thing I have wanted the producers to do for years is to take away leave money from anyone who votes based on reasons that do not have anything to do with the game. Why should you be able to say im voting for this person cause i disslike that person? No say im voting for this person because they were good with blank strategy or stong in challenges.

    Adults play survivor so make the jury act like it!

    • Ozlet Nick // July 6, 2015 at 1:32 pm // Reply

      Thanks for the comments. I don’t have any issue with jury votes based on personal feeling….survivor isn’t and has never been a purely black and white game of strategy and the social element is what makes this game so tricky. But I don’t like the personal feelings being a result of group thinking or peer pressure which is why I would like to see jury sequeters.

      • It’s a tough call. Would a sequestered jury have given Russell the win in Samoa? I think I would have preferred him over Natalie. However, think of the Pandora’s Box it would open up. Where does the line stop? Burning socks, hiding essential gear, dumping water, lying your ass off like we’ve never seen. Stuff like that would be easier if the jurors weren’t allowed to compare notes. Carolyn’s game could have benefitted from a sequestered jury. No Collars were really close and Jenn’s parting words were,”I hate Momma C”. How much influence do you think she had with her fellow No Collars. May have even swayed Tyler further away from Carolyn after his bitter departure. Intriguing.

      • I’m pretty sure that Everyone was disgusted with or hated Russell on an Personal basis

  5. Cam jackson // July 6, 2015 at 9:39 pm // Reply

    I agree with everything from the article especially opening and closings because that’s when players like Todd distanced himself and Amanda crumbles. However, thinking back since like Cook Island; the addition of a third player has added more jurors then 7(which I think is the perfect number) and so u get more ppl voting for the person to win. Also, since,and including, Cook Islands, in my mind there’s only been 9 FTC tht could be close and only half of them were a

  6. When you brought of the point of the “David Murphy,” I knew I wasn’t making up complaints. I HATE when players try and be remembered by advocating the jury to vote for someone. It’s obnoxious, unfair, and like you said it’s not their job to convince the jury. Letting finalist have opening statements and closures gives them a final chance to justify their game.

  7. There are some David Murphys that are entertaining to watch, like rats and snakes. But the majority of them are so boring.

    • Daniel A. // July 7, 2015 at 3:42 am // Reply

      The Rats and Snakes was way before David Murphy, it doesn’t count. On top of that, Sue wasn’t necessarily advocating for Richard, she just expressed her thoughts on who should win.

      • True. She was definitely rooting for Richard, but she at least gave a reason. A good reason.
        I guess a better example would be Jenn’s speech. I might not be remembering right, but I think she did that.

  8. I wish the editors wouldn’t blindside us with FTC speeches that flip the script. In any other part of the game, things contestants say that don’t fit the chosen narrative can be omitted. But the FTC speeches *must* be aired. I had no idea Christina Cha would ask Chelsea why she “hates people so much.” Or that Reed was so bitter toward Missy. Their speeches didn’t really fit what was going on in the episodes, but that’s what they asked, and CBS had to air it.

  9. I agree with most of the points in your article. But I don’t think the landslide victories in recent years are a result of that. In every season since Nicaragua (sans South Pacific), the person who won absolutely dominated. Boston Rob, Kim Spradlin, Denise, Cochran, Tyson, Tony, Natalie A., and Mike are all excellent winners that sat beside much weaker competitors (excluding Carolyn) at the Final Tribal Council.

    • Denise didnt deserve to win her gameplay was weaker than skupin&lisa natalie deserved to win but she wasnt up against weak players as jacklyn and missy both played strong games. And Sophie deserved to win over Coach because she owned the final tribal council

      • Denise was more likable than Skupin or Lisa and Denise avoided elimination despite attending tribal council every single time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: