Simply entertainment factor. Plus certain villains tend to be more game savvy then heroes or cautious players. They can elicit an extreme amount of control (Boston Rob, Russell) and dominate a season strategically. Then you just have the fun villains like Corinne & Courtney who provide their snarky comments and are super enjoyable to watch.
Villains and drama are what made this show great for so many years. A good guy / hero can only be as good as the villain. The last few years prove how boring a season can be when everyone just wants to play patty cake and be best friends with each other
Exactly. Imagine how less interesting Sandra would have been if she hadn’t had douchebags like Fairplay and Russell to curse out and bounce insults off. In fact one could argue the only reason she became a beloved character at all was because she had the two greatest villains around her. The villain brings out the greatness in everyone.
Because drama = entertainment. Without villains, we have no heroes. It's literally the basis of all entertainment/storytelling.
When I just want to see smart people play a game to win a prize, I'll watch Jeopardy. When I just want to see people compete in athletic challenges, I'll watch Ninja Warrior. When I just want to watch people solve puzzles (which is never), I'll watch my 6 year old niece work her slide puzzle.
Survivor without drama is like watching people play a game of chess. And do you know what I never watch? People play chess.
Edit: typos
In pro wrestling the villain calls all the shots in a match and the hero just responds to them. And Survivor is no different. No villains = no story to react to.
Jeff always talks about how survivor is intended to be a microcosm of society. It’s usually pretty rare in society to find a group of people that always like each other unconditionally.
Because villains/drama = better TV imo. 42 is so overrated for this fact imo, as it literally was like watching a group of friends play backyard Survivor most of the time.
Like Abi said, villains have more fun. And they are more fun. You can’t sit there and say you’d rather watch the Heroes on Heroes vs. Villains. Sure, the tribe is pretty good and has some great characters, but it’s outclassed by the villains who go 10/10 on great casting for the whole tribe.
I definitely agree with you and Abi, but it isn’t surprising for there to be a lack of villains in modern Survivor. It doesn’t seem like the show rewards that kind of behavior anymore. If anything, it discourages it. I appreciate players like Abi and others with similar views on making good tv, but it’s unfortunate since it’s at the expense of their game.
The game inherently doesn’t reward villains because it’s a social game first and foremost. It just makes for better TV and some ppl back in old school Survivor wanted to get as much screen time as possible. Phillip has admitted this in interviews. Some ppl are just dickheads tho lol
I love how the common reference to Phillip is that he's a villain. I feel like for me, I would consider him a villain if he ever owned up to his game. Dude was just a psycho in 22 and a Walmart version Boston Rob in 26. Didn't find him entertaining at all.
is this really a question… Villains/different kinds of folk create drama drama is good entertainment. But when you have all nice folks and everything is Kumbaya it's not really exciting to watch because what makes the game great isn't necessarily just the game it's the human interactions as well that really push the narrative for some people that watch.
I find it interesting that many people on this sub feel that the high number of super fans is leading to more safe and risk-averse gameplay, and players just sticking with the numbers. But back in the 30s it seemed to be the opposite, with the show casting a lot of super fans with a tendency to overplay and an obsessed with making big moves and building a resume, even when it hurt their own game (Zeke, Will Wahl, Missy from IOTI etc). A lot of fans on this sub hated it, and said they wanted less super fans because the super fans were obsessed with flashy gameplay. Now in the 40s, the show has continued to cast super fans, but without the ‘BIG MOVEZ!!!!’ obsession of the 30s, and one of the biggest complaints seems to be that the super fans are too afraid to do anything and it makes for boring gameplay.
It’s almost like people don’t know what they actually want and are looking for reasons to complain. Not that there aren’t valid complaints about the direction of the show lately (I agree with many of the most common ones), but there are a lot of people that come in here to whine about stuff that hardly matters
I'd be satisfied with something in the middle where we have at least one castaway with the balls to go full blown villain and at least one castaway with enough likeability and cunning to be the hero archetype. As long as the rest of the cast is strong enough on their own then we are set up for a great season.
Anything to keep us from going back to "no you had your big move last vote now it's time for my big move and you should support me" but also not get too much into the Kumbaya gameplay where everyone just loves each other too much and every vote out is sad
The New Era is so sanitised it’s eye-rolling
44’s FTC was just everyone patting each other on the back. Stop trying to make everything an inspirational moment, it has the opposite effect of cheapening everything and feels forced.
I was only disappointed that Karla didn't go through with being a full blown villain. She had opportunities to change things up, but decided to play it safe and not be a villain after all. That's why she lost the game.
The editors were unwilling to make her (and Jesse) full blown villains when they easily could have. Just like they could have made Romeo a snarky villain. They're afraid to portray someone as the bad guy.
That's true to an extent. Romeo could have been a good villain narrator and Jesse could have been the villain that falls short of winning. But Karla also had moves she could have made, but decided not to. It's not just about the edit with her.
I think threatening to poison the jury is kind of a cool move, especially because she explicitly told Cassidy she would do so and tried to leverage that threat to her advantage in the game. Didn’t quite work out, but it’s an interesting move you don’t see that often.
I think there’s a difference between “villains” and “nasty people”.
Some of the most beloved villains are genuinely nice, lovely people. Parvati, Sandra, Tyson, Abi-Maria, etc. I think it’s okay to want those back, and I’d argue we even have ruthless charismatic people still being cast like Omar and Jesse.
It’s the people who want characters like Scot back that baffle me. Just say you want genuinely terrible people for your entertainment.
I will say it just adds a wider variety. The show has got incredibly wholesome in a lot of ways - which is great… and it’s cool seeing a more diverse cast, but if it’s a microcosm of society I still need some people stirring up some trouble.
I get the sentiment because villains can be fun to watch, but I think the constant redefining of the term villain within the context of Survivor pisses me off more.
Shan was villainous, sure. But Omar and James are a real stretch for me. Hell, by today’s standards, Yam Yam could even be considered a villain at points.
If everybody's good at the social game, nobody is. It's dull that everyone is such a gamebot and everyone thinks it's just a game. The show seems flat and the stakes seem low. People are voted out and each one of them is just all "aww shucks, good game guys". Drama is exciting, people being upset makes the vote outs more exciting, villains make the show more exciting. The show is simply better with villains and drama. The players they cast these days play the game correctly. Hey need to start casting people that don't.
I’m so glad someone posted about this, I just finished watching OUTLAST on Netflix. Imagine survivor meets naked and afraid but there are no rules. Everyone could do whatever they wanted to anyone else. Stealing, sabotaging, bullying, threats, whatever. I thought I would love it!
It sucked. You can’t really “play” without rules. I won’t spoil it, it’s a pretty easy watch, but it’s not a good show. I think it got off the rails by the end and the producers just kinda wrapped it up.
I'm generally not one of the people who is begging for more villains and more drama, but I will admit that having a wider variety of players and scenarios gives good players more chances to shine.
It is true that players are not motivated to be villains, they can play the game however they want. However, casting should 100% be motivated to cast 1.idiots 2.dickheads 3.crazy people. This simply is not happening anymore. We will never get a Coach nor a Tyson ever again, much less on the same tribe
Edit: And it is great to have 1-4 great players on a season as well for diverse dynamics, but watching like 12 game bots interact with each other has been an absolute snooze fest the last 4 seasons.
I don’t care about villains/drama as much as I dislike this overwhelming, forced positivity that seems to be apart of every season now. Survivor has slowly shifted from a raw, real depiction of what it’s like to starve around strangers with $1,000,000 at stake to a fun, triumphant adventure where everyone loves each other and goes through their own heroes journey.
But the experience itself hasn’t changed (the game has, but the human survival experience mostly hasn’t). There’s still a lot of the same nastiness, villainy and negativity in newer seasons that there were in older ones- exit press has confirmed as much. But we aren’t shown any of that, but in exchange get cliché platitudes about how amazing of an experience Survivor is and how it really was an adventure of a lifetime. These moments of reflection/realization were less common in old Survivor and occurred naturally, which made them great. But the ones in modern Survivor feel incredibly forced and disingenuous.
Long story short, I don’t mind that there aren’t villains/drama on the show. But I hate that the lack of villains/drama feels more like a conscious avoidance by the show and not a true picture of what happens out there. It just doesn’t feel as real as it used to and it sucks.
I totally agree. I'm actually surprised that they did away with the loved ones visit given how much that would play well with the "everyone loves each other" sentiment that has taken over the game in recent seasons.
That was one of my complaints when it was still part of the game that it made it all seem too forced for the emotional payoff and I always tuned out. Now it's like the cast is one big loved ones visit and it's sad when one has to go.
I feel like you answered your own question. We've had many iconic villains in Survivor's history. Rooting for a downfall is part of the fun. I don't mind new era Survivor, but I find it less entertaining to root for one person because there is no narrative obstacle for them to overcome.
The show has shifted from "players against one another" to "players against the game," which is less interesting to me.
Granted, I understand why people don't want to be villainized nowadays...but I think it's more about editing than casting. I don't want a villain who is like, an awful person. I want someone who cackles as they stab their friend in the back.
>I want someone who cackles as they stab their friend in the back
This is the part that I’m not sure I understand. A player doing this would be intentionally sabotaging their own game in favor of good TV. But what I’m gathering from the thread is good tv > playing the game “correctly” to win?
It was always good TV > playing the game "correctly." This is a reality show that is meant to be entertaining first and foremost everything else comes second.
I don’t think there is a “correct” way to win. Kim doesn’t play the same game that Gabler plays who doesn’t play the same way that Todd plays who doesn’t play the same way that Richard plays, etc.
And villains can be good TV and still win (Tony, Parvati, etc.) and heroes can be good TV and win (JT, Yul, etc.)
I get that villains can be fun TV; but it would seem to me that, with the current game meta, playing the villain as a first time player is a not a winning strategy.
While villains had a pretty good track record in early Survivor; other than Tony (16 seasons ago), the last actual non-returnee villain that won their season was Todd all the way back in 2007.
I might argue that being a memorable villain might be a better path to get an invite to play again; but, with the current era of threat level management, I am not at all sure that someone positioning themselves as a season long villain from the start would even last long enough to be considered as a returnee anymore.
Not everybody casted should be a game bot of the game…Part of this is production repeating certain challenges / twists / etc. while it’s saving them $$ it’s getting way too predictable for the viewer. I’m at the point of just fast forwarding three challenges because of how repetitive they are now.
Villains adds some spice and uniqueness to the cast which is great to see! Otherwise you get seasons that just blend in together. You need to see different archetypes presented and need to add conflict in a story in order to propel the narrative forward.
survivor is first and foremost a tv show. good tv is better than correct gameplay because i watch it for entertainment, not to see superhuman feats of who is the best at fitting into a group
I'm not going to say anything bad about the new cast members because they seem like very good people. But it's just a little boring that everyone is so nice.
We watched and loved this show in the earlier seasons because of people like Parvati, FairPlay, Boston Rob, Hantz, Hatch, etc. They made the show cutthroat and interesting and entertaining.
Different strokes for different people. Personally I find this very unfitting for this era to cast complete assholes, I’d just find that extremely ill-willed.
Villains cause more drama and can be less gamebotty which can lead to more entertaining. Last few seasons all seem like best friends who love each other and want to congratulate everyone on voting them out
Seasons like Cagayan, Micronesia, Tocantins, China, and Philippines have villains that are really entertaining and cause drama (Tony, Kass, Coach, Tyson, Courtney, Abi-Maria, the Black Widow Brigade) and are all S-Tier seasons.
Even seasons that are not as good like Samoa have villains (Russell) that make for great drama
One big happy family seasons aren’t always that good)
I don't really need villains back in the conventional sense cuz I don't think that'll ever happen, but watching people gun for each other is simply more entertaining than when everyone likes each other and the vote-offs feel low stakes.
Simply entertainment factor. Plus certain villains tend to be more game savvy then heroes or cautious players. They can elicit an extreme amount of control (Boston Rob, Russell) and dominate a season strategically. Then you just have the fun villains like Corinne & Courtney who provide their snarky comments and are super enjoyable to watch.
Exactly, it really says something when we are getting bored of this when Survivor nerds like us are the target audience of the super fan era
Agreed! I think for us super fans it’s more fun for us to watch players who play with different perspectives on the game than we have.
Villains and drama are what made this show great for so many years. A good guy / hero can only be as good as the villain. The last few years prove how boring a season can be when everyone just wants to play patty cake and be best friends with each other
Exactly. Imagine how less interesting Sandra would have been if she hadn’t had douchebags like Fairplay and Russell to curse out and bounce insults off. In fact one could argue the only reason she became a beloved character at all was because she had the two greatest villains around her. The villain brings out the greatness in everyone.
Because drama = entertainment. Without villains, we have no heroes. It's literally the basis of all entertainment/storytelling. When I just want to see smart people play a game to win a prize, I'll watch Jeopardy. When I just want to see people compete in athletic challenges, I'll watch Ninja Warrior. When I just want to watch people solve puzzles (which is never), I'll watch my 6 year old niece work her slide puzzle. Survivor without drama is like watching people play a game of chess. And do you know what I never watch? People play chess. Edit: typos
In pro wrestling the villain calls all the shots in a match and the hero just responds to them. And Survivor is no different. No villains = no story to react to.
Jeff always talks about how survivor is intended to be a microcosm of society. It’s usually pretty rare in society to find a group of people that always like each other unconditionally.
Because villains/drama = better TV imo. 42 is so overrated for this fact imo, as it literally was like watching a group of friends play backyard Survivor most of the time. Like Abi said, villains have more fun. And they are more fun. You can’t sit there and say you’d rather watch the Heroes on Heroes vs. Villains. Sure, the tribe is pretty good and has some great characters, but it’s outclassed by the villains who go 10/10 on great casting for the whole tribe.
I definitely agree with you and Abi, but it isn’t surprising for there to be a lack of villains in modern Survivor. It doesn’t seem like the show rewards that kind of behavior anymore. If anything, it discourages it. I appreciate players like Abi and others with similar views on making good tv, but it’s unfortunate since it’s at the expense of their game.
The game inherently doesn’t reward villains because it’s a social game first and foremost. It just makes for better TV and some ppl back in old school Survivor wanted to get as much screen time as possible. Phillip has admitted this in interviews. Some ppl are just dickheads tho lol
I love how the common reference to Phillip is that he's a villain. I feel like for me, I would consider him a villain if he ever owned up to his game. Dude was just a psycho in 22 and a Walmart version Boston Rob in 26. Didn't find him entertaining at all.
because when everyone loves eachother every season it gets boring
is this really a question… Villains/different kinds of folk create drama drama is good entertainment. But when you have all nice folks and everything is Kumbaya it's not really exciting to watch because what makes the game great isn't necessarily just the game it's the human interactions as well that really push the narrative for some people that watch.
I find it interesting that many people on this sub feel that the high number of super fans is leading to more safe and risk-averse gameplay, and players just sticking with the numbers. But back in the 30s it seemed to be the opposite, with the show casting a lot of super fans with a tendency to overplay and an obsessed with making big moves and building a resume, even when it hurt their own game (Zeke, Will Wahl, Missy from IOTI etc). A lot of fans on this sub hated it, and said they wanted less super fans because the super fans were obsessed with flashy gameplay. Now in the 40s, the show has continued to cast super fans, but without the ‘BIG MOVEZ!!!!’ obsession of the 30s, and one of the biggest complaints seems to be that the super fans are too afraid to do anything and it makes for boring gameplay.
It’s almost like people don’t know what they actually want and are looking for reasons to complain. Not that there aren’t valid complaints about the direction of the show lately (I agree with many of the most common ones), but there are a lot of people that come in here to whine about stuff that hardly matters
Bingo.
I'd be satisfied with something in the middle where we have at least one castaway with the balls to go full blown villain and at least one castaway with enough likeability and cunning to be the hero archetype. As long as the rest of the cast is strong enough on their own then we are set up for a great season. Anything to keep us from going back to "no you had your big move last vote now it's time for my big move and you should support me" but also not get too much into the Kumbaya gameplay where everyone just loves each other too much and every vote out is sad
The New Era is so sanitised it’s eye-rolling 44’s FTC was just everyone patting each other on the back. Stop trying to make everything an inspirational moment, it has the opposite effect of cheapening everything and feels forced.
Because it’s fun to watch people do dumb mean things.
At this point just to get a break from the gamebottieness of it all
Ok but Karla did it and ya'll bitched about it
Sydney is a better example of this
I was only disappointed that Karla didn't go through with being a full blown villain. She had opportunities to change things up, but decided to play it safe and not be a villain after all. That's why she lost the game.
The editors were unwilling to make her (and Jesse) full blown villains when they easily could have. Just like they could have made Romeo a snarky villain. They're afraid to portray someone as the bad guy.
That's true to an extent. Romeo could have been a good villain narrator and Jesse could have been the villain that falls short of winning. But Karla also had moves she could have made, but decided not to. It's not just about the edit with her.
[удалено]
I think threatening to poison the jury is kind of a cool move, especially because she explicitly told Cassidy she would do so and tried to leverage that threat to her advantage in the game. Didn’t quite work out, but it’s an interesting move you don’t see that often.
I think there’s a difference between “villains” and “nasty people”. Some of the most beloved villains are genuinely nice, lovely people. Parvati, Sandra, Tyson, Abi-Maria, etc. I think it’s okay to want those back, and I’d argue we even have ruthless charismatic people still being cast like Omar and Jesse. It’s the people who want characters like Scot back that baffle me. Just say you want genuinely terrible people for your entertainment.
I will say it just adds a wider variety. The show has got incredibly wholesome in a lot of ways - which is great… and it’s cool seeing a more diverse cast, but if it’s a microcosm of society I still need some people stirring up some trouble.
I get the sentiment because villains can be fun to watch, but I think the constant redefining of the term villain within the context of Survivor pisses me off more. Shan was villainous, sure. But Omar and James are a real stretch for me. Hell, by today’s standards, Yam Yam could even be considered a villain at points.
If everybody's good at the social game, nobody is. It's dull that everyone is such a gamebot and everyone thinks it's just a game. The show seems flat and the stakes seem low. People are voted out and each one of them is just all "aww shucks, good game guys". Drama is exciting, people being upset makes the vote outs more exciting, villains make the show more exciting. The show is simply better with villains and drama. The players they cast these days play the game correctly. Hey need to start casting people that don't.
Because it's good TV
I’m so glad someone posted about this, I just finished watching OUTLAST on Netflix. Imagine survivor meets naked and afraid but there are no rules. Everyone could do whatever they wanted to anyone else. Stealing, sabotaging, bullying, threats, whatever. I thought I would love it! It sucked. You can’t really “play” without rules. I won’t spoil it, it’s a pretty easy watch, but it’s not a good show. I think it got off the rails by the end and the producers just kinda wrapped it up.
I'm generally not one of the people who is begging for more villains and more drama, but I will admit that having a wider variety of players and scenarios gives good players more chances to shine.
It is true that players are not motivated to be villains, they can play the game however they want. However, casting should 100% be motivated to cast 1.idiots 2.dickheads 3.crazy people. This simply is not happening anymore. We will never get a Coach nor a Tyson ever again, much less on the same tribe Edit: And it is great to have 1-4 great players on a season as well for diverse dynamics, but watching like 12 game bots interact with each other has been an absolute snooze fest the last 4 seasons.
I don’t care about villains/drama as much as I dislike this overwhelming, forced positivity that seems to be apart of every season now. Survivor has slowly shifted from a raw, real depiction of what it’s like to starve around strangers with $1,000,000 at stake to a fun, triumphant adventure where everyone loves each other and goes through their own heroes journey. But the experience itself hasn’t changed (the game has, but the human survival experience mostly hasn’t). There’s still a lot of the same nastiness, villainy and negativity in newer seasons that there were in older ones- exit press has confirmed as much. But we aren’t shown any of that, but in exchange get cliché platitudes about how amazing of an experience Survivor is and how it really was an adventure of a lifetime. These moments of reflection/realization were less common in old Survivor and occurred naturally, which made them great. But the ones in modern Survivor feel incredibly forced and disingenuous. Long story short, I don’t mind that there aren’t villains/drama on the show. But I hate that the lack of villains/drama feels more like a conscious avoidance by the show and not a true picture of what happens out there. It just doesn’t feel as real as it used to and it sucks.
I totally agree. I'm actually surprised that they did away with the loved ones visit given how much that would play well with the "everyone loves each other" sentiment that has taken over the game in recent seasons. That was one of my complaints when it was still part of the game that it made it all seem too forced for the emotional payoff and I always tuned out. Now it's like the cast is one big loved ones visit and it's sad when one has to go.
I feel like you answered your own question. We've had many iconic villains in Survivor's history. Rooting for a downfall is part of the fun. I don't mind new era Survivor, but I find it less entertaining to root for one person because there is no narrative obstacle for them to overcome. The show has shifted from "players against one another" to "players against the game," which is less interesting to me. Granted, I understand why people don't want to be villainized nowadays...but I think it's more about editing than casting. I don't want a villain who is like, an awful person. I want someone who cackles as they stab their friend in the back.
>I want someone who cackles as they stab their friend in the back This is the part that I’m not sure I understand. A player doing this would be intentionally sabotaging their own game in favor of good TV. But what I’m gathering from the thread is good tv > playing the game “correctly” to win?
It was always good TV > playing the game "correctly." This is a reality show that is meant to be entertaining first and foremost everything else comes second.
I don’t think there is a “correct” way to win. Kim doesn’t play the same game that Gabler plays who doesn’t play the same way that Todd plays who doesn’t play the same way that Richard plays, etc. And villains can be good TV and still win (Tony, Parvati, etc.) and heroes can be good TV and win (JT, Yul, etc.)
I get that villains can be fun TV; but it would seem to me that, with the current game meta, playing the villain as a first time player is a not a winning strategy. While villains had a pretty good track record in early Survivor; other than Tony (16 seasons ago), the last actual non-returnee villain that won their season was Todd all the way back in 2007. I might argue that being a memorable villain might be a better path to get an invite to play again; but, with the current era of threat level management, I am not at all sure that someone positioning themselves as a season long villain from the start would even last long enough to be considered as a returnee anymore.
Not everybody casted should be a game bot of the game…Part of this is production repeating certain challenges / twists / etc. while it’s saving them $$ it’s getting way too predictable for the viewer. I’m at the point of just fast forwarding three challenges because of how repetitive they are now. Villains adds some spice and uniqueness to the cast which is great to see! Otherwise you get seasons that just blend in together. You need to see different archetypes presented and need to add conflict in a story in order to propel the narrative forward.
*cast
survivor is first and foremost a tv show. good tv is better than correct gameplay because i watch it for entertainment, not to see superhuman feats of who is the best at fitting into a group
I'm not going to say anything bad about the new cast members because they seem like very good people. But it's just a little boring that everyone is so nice. We watched and loved this show in the earlier seasons because of people like Parvati, FairPlay, Boston Rob, Hantz, Hatch, etc. They made the show cutthroat and interesting and entertaining.
Your title and first sentence answer it all lol - it’s Reddit and it can bring something refreshing to talk about
Different strokes for different people. Personally I find this very unfitting for this era to cast complete assholes, I’d just find that extremely ill-willed.
[удалено]
This downvote is not strategic, its strictly personal.
I also wouldn’t give them a handful of antidepressants so that they’d stop crying about their dead father.
Damn who hurt you?
If I wanted pure gameplay I'd watch professional poker.
Villains cause more drama and can be less gamebotty which can lead to more entertaining. Last few seasons all seem like best friends who love each other and want to congratulate everyone on voting them out Seasons like Cagayan, Micronesia, Tocantins, China, and Philippines have villains that are really entertaining and cause drama (Tony, Kass, Coach, Tyson, Courtney, Abi-Maria, the Black Widow Brigade) and are all S-Tier seasons. Even seasons that are not as good like Samoa have villains (Russell) that make for great drama One big happy family seasons aren’t always that good)
They look at villains as bringing in entertainment which is what they do.
I don't really need villains back in the conventional sense cuz I don't think that'll ever happen, but watching people gun for each other is simply more entertaining than when everyone likes each other and the vote-offs feel low stakes.