‘Survivor: Blood vs. Water’ analysis: Do we have an editing problem, or are we just smarter?
Before we say anything critical here, let’s start with what is important to stress: “Survivor: Blood vs. Water” is a compelling, entertaining season. This is only second to “Survivor: Philippines” as the best overall season in our books since “Heroes vs. Villains,” or what we like to call Era 3 of “Survivor.” (Era 1 lasted until All-Stars, and Era 2 covered that point until “Heroes vs. Villains.”) The twists have mostly worked better than we ever imagined, and some of the family members were cast in such a way that they are even more entertaining to watch at times than the original.
Here’s the only issue that we’re facing, and it is something similar to what we had during “Survivor: Redemption Island” and “Survivor: One World”: How many possible winners are there left at this stage of the game? The only way that we saw Boston Rob losing his season was if Andrea Boehlke managed to get to the end, and there is basically no one in the post-merge game of “One World” that could have beaten Kim Spradlin. The problem with there being so few possible winners is that it suddenly turns the game predictable, and great gameplay is not always great entertainment.
Right now, for example, Tyson is so far ahead of the rest of the group that it’s not even funny. Does Gervase have a chance if he gets voted out? Sure, but the editing has presented a scenario where Tyson is the chief strategist, the man with the secret immunity idol, and also the primary narrator. He’s constantly the smartest guy in the room. He’s getting a combination of Cochran’s edit last season along with Boston Rob, who he got to know rather well during the “Heroes vs. Villains” game. Do you really think that he is going to be blindsided next week, as the previews suggest? It’s hard to imagine that they would give something like that away. They’ve also given no suggestion that Gervase would ever turn on him.
Let’s take a look, based on editing alone, at the other “threats” to beat Tyson in the end. Katie may get a few votes from her former alliance, but she otherwise has no shot. Neither does Laura. Vytas and Monica are marginal at best, and they would have to make some sort of killer argument and get to the end without Tyson being there. Hayden and Caleb have been so invisible that we can’t quite imagine that they would have anything compelling to say, unless we get a Sophie Clarke sort of edit soon that proves they’ve actually been brilliant behind the scenes all along. The only compelling threat to defeat Tyson at the end of the game right now is Ciera, if if she goes home, where does that leave the story of the season?
The one thing that “Survivor” still needs to work at sometimes is not falling in love so much with their own big players. We get it that Tyson is amazing; he’s one of our favorite players to watch, and it’s wonderful to see him improve his game. But are some of the other players really doing nothing? It just feels like now, based on the edit, that most alternative winners would be met with “Tyson should have won” or “boring,” and that may not even be fair to their games. Gervase and Ciera are genuinely playing the game, but we’re only getting to see it in flashes.
We don’t necessarily feel like “Survivor” is really changing that much of the way that they edit, so it’s not like they woke up one morning and decided to show life behind the curtain. Instead, it’s more on us as experienced viewers. We know what to look for now. Another great example of this comes on “Top Chef.” If you have a humble chef on the show doing well in competitions, they’re probably going to be around forever. Meanwhile, someone who acts cocky during a challenge almost always loses. Shows want to edit a winner that they can get behind, and only occasionally on “Survivor” or other shows do you see them tilt the balance so that big characters often overshadow an actual winner. Probably the best example of this was Natalie White winning “Survivor: Samoa.”
The last reason this editing may stand out more now is merely because for whatever reason, the ratio of dominant players as of late seems to be higher. When you think back to past seasons, we would say that Tom Westman, Yul Kwon, and JT Thomas were the only obvious winners from Era 2 (12 seasons), whereas in Era 3 we’ve had already Boston Rob, Kim, and to an extent Cochran. If Tyson joins this, that would mean four obvious winners in seven seasons. Not the best ratio out there.
Maybe the show is setting us up for a major surprise, and in which case we’ll give them a massive round of applause. While we’ll still be happy if Tyson wins the game (he certainly deserves it), we’ll wish that we were shown some alternative gameplay to make us see more of a yin to his yang.
—
Each weekend, we break down one “Survivor” hot topic in our analysis pieces. Click here if you want to read our recent interview with Aras Baskauskas, and the most-recent updates on the show are in the attached sidebar.
Photo: CBS