The On Fire podcast is back for Survivor 48, with Survivor host Jeff Probst, producer Jeff Wolfe, and Survivor 47 winner Rachel LaMont. This week, they discuss the episode’s highlights, including Probst responding to several hypothetical scenarios, such as having a season without any advantages or twists, no jury, bringing back head-to-head challenges, and more. Plus, Probst answers some fan questions.
When discussing having a season with no advantages, Probst says, “You think about the moments that shift the game. And people say, ‘oh, you should do a season without advantages and twists.’ And we’re voting on it right now.” As most fans and viewers know, the long-awaited Survivor 50 season is currently conducting several fan votes to decide crucial points of that season, including whether to have certain twists in it.
Probst goes on, “I’m telling you. You want a season with maximum advantages, with maximum twists, because that’s when the players can get creative and do something. We’ll do whatever the fans say [about Survivor 50], I’m just saying, I talk about this show all the time, and the fans love those kinds of moments.” To highlight his point, Probst mentions the instance where Sol Yi gave Rachel a “Safety Without Power” advantage, which allowed her to survive a particularly precarious tribal council, which eventually led to her winning her Season 47.
Later, when asked if the jury element has ever been rethought during the design of a season, Probst emphasises the importance of the jury, as this element is what sets Survivor apart from other shows. Jurors contemplate numerous factors when voting for a person to win, including gameplay, personal relationships, resume, and even likeability.
To better exemplify the relevance of the jury in Survivor, Probst mentions three-time Survivor player Russell Hantz and how he lost two seasons back-to-back due to his poor jury management. “It’s very hard for a player who is not liked by the jury to ever win this game, and you see it with Russell Hantz. I mean, he played arguably a very good game… when you get to the final three, people didn’t like Russell,” Probst says and warns fans who say they would’ve voted for Russell had they been on the jury might not have had they been living with him. Overall, messing with the jury is not an option, as it’s part of the essence of Survivor.
Rachel asks Probst why challenges such as “Hand on an Idol” or the one where Ian Rosenberger and Tom Westman competed for almost 12 hours for immunity haven’t been used in recent seasons, to which Probst replied it was due to an entertainment issue, as it’s not engaging to have people clinging to a pole for that many hours. (Probst hasn’t seen Australian Survivor lately, where the final immunity challenge is precisely “Hand on an Idol,” and it’s become a highly entertaining milestone for fans and players alike).
Lastly, when asked about the possibility of having physical challenges brought back to the show, Probst responded that these challenges took players to paths, for instance, anger, where production didn’t like it and preferred to pivot to strategy, endurance, and/or physical challenges where players are less likely to get hurt as well. While Probst didn’t give a resounding no, it’s fair to assume contact challenges won’t return soon, either.
Written by
This is why Survivor US has become so boring. l watch Survivor Australia on Utube and it is like what US Survivor began as. 47 days, 2 large tribes, 3 advantage’s (idol, steal an idol and tribal that sends a player to other tribe), physical competition and a whole lot less of players crying about their lives outside of Survivor. Finally so many player making BIG moves. Join me watching Australian Survivor you won’t regret it.
It’s money Jeff. You know it’s money and you treat your fans like shit.