In a Long Runner franchise with a storied history of format changes, unusual and evolving strategy, ethical quandaries, and large casts, there's bound to be some disagreement within the fandom.
Spoilers ahead are unmarked. You have been warned.
open/close all folders
General
- How people play the game can split the fanbase in itself. It's caused a few flame wars on fan sites — expect arguments about any winner deemed undeserving. (Vecepia, Natalie White, and Sandra's second win are big examples.)
- On a similar note, there's a lot of debate as to whether the jury is automatically right. While some feel that that the jury is prone to making incorrect decisions out of bitterness, or at least incomplete information, others believe that's the point, and it's on the finalists to account for that on their path to victory. This is particularly evident in discussions of Natalie vs. Russell in Samoa, and Michele vs. Aubry in Kaoh Rong.
- The Final Three. Jeff Probst and many fans like that format better because with a Final Two, people often intentionally bring someone with them who is The Load or just plain hated, so they can say almost anything to the jury or just play the "lesser of two evils" card and win. With a Final Three, they usually have to at least take a competitor or Worthy Opponent. However, other fans hate it partly because someone bringing The Load to the Final Two is more traditional. Not to mention, it's rare for all the contestants to receive at least one vote in a Final Three as only five seasons so far have done that (China, Philippines, San Juan del Sur, Worlds Apart, and Heroes v. Healers v. Hustlers, though one of those mentioned seasons was a Blood vs. Water season in which both of the runner-ups had loved ones on the jury). So it was really in between two contestants anyway. There's also a chance that with a Final Three there can be a tie as seen in Ghost Island, but the Jury is usually united enough to give someone a majority.
- The show adopting Fiji as its permanent location since Millenials vs. Gen X. Some fans point out that this decision was likely a necessary bit of cost-cutting, as it eliminates any expenses associated with traveling on top of a sweet tax break from the Fijian government. It was also easier to produce as Fiji's weather is fairly consistent, tropical storms and typhoons aside. However, it's also decried for removing any variety in the show's setting, to the point of using the same few beaches over and over. (To give you an idea of how bad this is, Jacob from Ghost Island went on an idol hunt on the first day, and found what he thought was a clue carved on a tree... it was just day tally marks from an earlier season.) The inclusion of the local culture and environment into the fabric of the season, which was very prominent in the first half of the show's run and which many fans loved, is now almost completely absent. Detractors also point out that a permanent location has also forced the show to rely more and more on casting twists and themes (in the past, the location was the theme.)
- People getting up and whispering at tribal council. Some fans believe that it causes more chaotic tribal councils, and they understand that people want to do anything to make sure they get the plan, and not get voted out. However, some fans do not like how people can not understand what is going on when they whisper, and it ruins some of the intensity at tribal council. Not mention how many people thought it was an unspoken rule that you can not get up at the tribal council until J.T. Thomas did in Game Changers. While Episode 12 of Winners at War managed to supply subtitles for the whispering, it still did not walk away from the other complaints.
- Speeches from the jury, to the jury at final tribal. Some like them for pitching a finalist's case to the jury, or despise them for coming across as pretentious, and generally pertains to someone that was winning anyways, so why bother? Not helping is that the one universally liked example of this is Drunk Erik's speech in Samoa.
- The change of the final tribal council format from Game Changers onwards. Some fans like the new system, as they feel it makes final tribals more insightful and removes perceived obnoxious jury speeches (see above). They also believe it makes final tribals more focused on strategy and less on juror’s emotional reactions. Others, however, strongly dislike the change, finding the application of the show’s slogan to the debate structure as forced and awkward. Many also feel that it too easily allows a few loud jurors or a charismatic finalist to dominate the final tribal, whereas previously, every juror had a set time slot to say their piece. They dislike the reduced impact of juror’s emotions, which they feel (along with the “Outwit, Outplay, Outlast” debate structure) encourages a particular style of “cutthroat” gameplay and reduces the importance of jury management. A particularly sensitive debate revolves around whether the new system unintentionally favors men over women. Some fans argue that women are more likely to be talked over, cut off, or ignored in an open discussion format, and that encouragement of “cutthroat” or “dominant” gameplay disadvantages women, who are more likely to pursue stealthy or social strategies. Others point out that there’s a clear precedent for cutthroat woman players, not the least of which being Sarah Lacina (who won the very season that the format was introduced in), and any apparent gender bias is therefore a mirage.
- "Returning Players" or "All-star seasons" are a mild example - while most people do feel that a lot of these have been very strong seasons, players don't exist in a vacuum and have pre-game alliances. This has had an impact on the game wherein people with less pre-game alliances (ie, Alternates like Candice in Blood vs. Water)
- Combined Reward-Immunity challenges are another mild example. Some like them being split because reward challenges helps create drama and provides some additional entertainment in the challenges. Others view the Combined reward-immunity challenges as somewhat of a necessary evil due to it being easier on production - Especially with the 26-day format. A third camp also views it as really bad because of how easy it is for the losers to fall behind and get stuck there until the merge or a shuffle.
- After Winners at War, Health screening protocol shortened the season filming length from 39 days to 26 days. Proponents point out that this makes the game much faster paced, while others feel that the faster paced game denies a lot of potential strategy from happening.
Specific Examples
- The Outcasts twist from Pearl Islands is a pretty surprisingly controversial topic. The crux of it is that it allows up 2 players to come back, provided that they win the challenge, and get voted in by their fellow losers. Some people see as a dark harbinger of the Redemption Island and Edge of Extinction twists, both of which are extremely disliked themselves. Detractors hate it for bringing people back, being 'unfair,'note and breaking the core ethos of Survivor; "When you are out, you are out." Supporters however, love it for the character development for the players that were brought back, how the Outcasts twist relates to the pirate theme itself, and the changes in the gameplay it brought, with some even arguing that it was fairer than the aforementioned Redemption Island and (especially) Edge of Extinction. For them, Pearl Islands would not be as a highly regarded season had the Outcasts were absent.
- The infamous car deal from Fiji. While people were angry over the elimination of Yau-Man due to Dreamz's betrayal, there are others who figured that Dreamz breaking his word was justified because Dreamz would have been eliminated had he kept his deal. The controversy over this incident directly resulted in the car reward being removed from future seasons.
- Who deserved to win Heroes vs. Villains more, Parvati or Sandra? A large part of why this is so debated is because Parvati represents the strategic game, while Sandra represents the social game. (The Social game wins in this case). Russell supporters used to be a third side in this debate, but they’ve fizzled over time as people took closer looks at Parvati and Sandra’s games (as well as his own).
- Brandon's meltdown in episode 5 of Caramoan seems to have split the fanbase between those that considered how the entire event was treated to be the Moral Event Horizon for Probst and the show in general (for casting someone they knew had issues and/or exploiting them for ratings), those that found it entertaining overall, and those that found it uncomfortable but not to the point of ruining the show.
- The whole Brenda and Dawn conflict: the fanbase is sharply divided on whether or not Brenda was being overly harsh in getting revenge on Dawn at the final Tribal Council, or Dawn had it coming after her betrayal of Brenda. There are also some that believe that Dawn was in no way to blame, since Brenda getting Dawn's teeth was either an out-of-game favor (In which case Brenda shouldn't expect favors) or a strategic move to get Dawn to work with her (In which case Brenda had no right to be bitter). Brenda not voting for Dawn after she took out her teeth is also causes room for debate as a lot of people view it as evidence Brenda being a bitter juror who just wanted to humiliate Dawn while others claim that Brenda could have ultimately voted for Dawn had Dawn either admitted that she would've quit the game without her retainer, or not hesitate in taking her teeth out and just take them out immediately.
- Fans are torn about who deserved to win Ghost Island more - the winner Wendell or the close runner-up Domenick. Fans who are for Wendell believe he is proof that social game is still the most important attribute to have in a cut-throat game as Survivor, citing that the last five jurors and Laurel voted for him due to being around him longer and finding him more likable than Dom. Fans who are for Domenick think he was unfairly screwed by a bitter jury who couldn't accept his phenomenal strategic and Godfather-like play. Needless to say, this split debate has very little middle ground.
- Chris Underwood's victory in Edge of Extinction. While it's agreed his risky move was universally agreed to be impressive, a lot of fans are torn on whether he deserved to win due to the fact he only really played 13 days or if he was best choice of the final 3 due to being the only one with a true gameplay.
- Whether or not the jury voted "fairly" in Winners at War. Debates on this mostly sprung up after the show when players admitted they were voting against the "Edge of Extinction" returning player on principle, whomever it was. Complicating this somewhat is that, per a handful of
post-game interviews, several members of the jury (Adam, Nick, Wendell, Danni) were tempted to vote for Michele because they were specifically hoping to hand her second place over Natalie even though they genuinely believed Tony played the best game. However, the voting margins were thin enough that they worried doing so would split the votes and Natalie would win out as a result, so they fell back into voting for the person they actually wanted to win the game.
South Pacific
This season as a whole spawns divisive opinions, from individual moments to the season as a whole.
- While many fans like South Pacific for having many funny and memorable moments on the show as well as the storytelling and the winner that season, others didn't like that season for essentially "repeating" Redemption Island (which for the longest time was considered the worst season of the show) thanks to it being a pagonging season that has Redemption Island on it as well as having two returning players that got a lot of screen-time while leaving most of the new players are Living Props with Coach (a.k.a. one of the returning players) being shown as the dominant force of the season.
- However, the latter claim is, itself, debated. Keyword is "shown" though as fans of the season argue that since Coach did not win South Pacific, he wasn't another Boston Rob steamrolling his way to victory, not to mention that the first episode shown many of the castaways didn't have a good first impression of Coach at the start of the season, and Coach has to turn that first impression around by making genuine bonds with people (unlike Boston Rob in Redemption Island where the castaways were basically star-struck over him).
- Even then, Coach's role as a much more strategic character is either seen as a detriment or a highlight to this season as some fans like it for giving Coach a lot of Character Development while others hated it for losing the things that make him entertaining in his previous two appearances.
- Further, there's a close intermingling of religion with strategy in this season, which some find compelling, or at least fair game, while for others, it can be very uncomfortable to watch.
- Finally, should Cochran have flipped at the merge boot? Fans believed that he should pointed out his name has been written down at every tribal council before the merge by his old tribe, and how the Savaii tribe treated him poorly (and even exclude him at certain times). The fans that believed that he shouldn't believe Cochran should have known of how close Coach's original alliance was; making it hard to get to the final three with them (and even if he did manages to go to the final three with them, the Savaii tribe shall be so upset at him that Cochran wouldn't have received any jury votes from them). It should also be noted that the side believed that he shouldn't flip can be accused of results-based thinking by the side that believed he should. However, some people Took a Third Option as they believed he was doomed either way. In the end, nobody can universally agree on what Cochran should do.
Seasons
Would ya believe every single season is this to some degree? Here's some of the most notorious.
- The Australian Outback is liked because of the well-known cast and having one of the most dangerous environments on the show. However, some of newer fans thought it was another boring season with a lack of strategy and has more focus on the adventure part than the strategy part, However, some of the older fans prefer the show focusing on the adventure than the strategy as that debate can sheer into Old Guard Versus New Blood. Not to mention how a lot of the "heroic" castaways would eventually get involved in a lot of controversies (See Harsher in Hindsight in the Survivor YMMV page for more details), making it hard to rewatch the season for some people.
- Africa is a very divisive season. Some people like it for having more drama and strategy than the last season, while others find it to be just as predictable as the prior season. Some (including audiences at the time) also find the cast to be less interesting than prior seasons.
- All-Stars is either a great season in which Boston Rob's dominance and/or comeuppance alone make the season worth it, or a terrible season that makes most of the returning players look badnote .
- Vanuatu is disliked due to the "battle of the sexes" theme, and how the theme arguably did not work as well in this season as it did in The Amazon. However, some fans enjoy the season due to the characters, and the comeback of Chris Daugherty.
- Cook Islands either had an enjoyable story line involving the comeback of the Aitu 4 (that made it well-liked by fans), or is one of the most boring seasons due to almost nothing else happening. In addition, there was some accusations of the winner that season relying on too many twists to get to the end, including the "superidol" which could be played after the votes were readnote and the bottle twist where two people from Rarotonga were voted out at a single Tribal Council. This is not even mentioning people that can't help but see it as "the season where they were divided into tribes by race". Additionally, some enjoy it just for the hilarity of imagining production squirming every time it looked like the mostly-white Raros would do well and the minority Aitus would do poorly.
- Gabon has a cast filled with eccentric characters, causing some fans to like that season. On the other hand, people thought it came across one of the least strategic seasons ever with a very questionable winner making it not well-liked by those people.
- Samoa is either an exciting season with having a post-merge game filled with strategic moves or a season that relies too much on a divisive Spotlight-Stealing Squad that made it hard for people to like that season.
- While the premerge of Caramoan is generally seen as lackluster, opinions are split as to whether the merge was enough to make up for it. Some enjoy the "Three Amigos" antics, Cochran as a narrator, and several little moments, while others think it's too little too late, especially with a predictable boot order, the teeth gate controversy at the end of the season, and the infamous reunion show.
- Cambodia is perhaps the epitome of Old Guard Versus New Blood in this series. While some love the season for its complex strategy, chaotic tribal councils, and abundance of advantages (plus a really strong cast), others feel the season is too "gamebotty" - with lots of strategy at the expense of personality. The divisiveness of this season is only enhanced by the fact that many seasons afterwards followed in the footsteps of this one, causing people to see this season as either very innovative or the direct root of an Audience-Alienating Era (depending on whether they like the direction the show headed or not).
- Depending on who you ask, Kaoh Rong is either one of the best seasons with a cast of extremely likable characters overcoming the villains, a season with good moments that takes a few episodes to build momentum, or a miserable season full of characters that are difficult to like in the slightest. Additionally the finale is either very good, completely misedited, or just sad depending on who's watchingnote
- There is very little middle ground on "Survivor 42", both sides of which are very vocal. Those who love it feel that way for having an interesting cast, great blindsides, a balanced edit, and a lovable winner. The haters vilify it for having a lazy cast more interested in playing up the cameras and glorifying themselves rather than strategy and, by product, managing to make the balanced edit worse than the show's notorious use of Spotlight-Stealing Squad, an elimination order that took out the players most invested in the game early on, making the same production mistakes 41 did, incredibly boring challenges with no creativity, a winner who relied heavily on preying on others sympathy to get the win, an unfair narrative that vilified people for petty reasons note , and one of the least deserving final threes in the show's history.
