Survivor has been on the air for over 20 years, so it's obviously doing something right. The show has garnered a very strong and devout following, and millions of people from around the country tune in week in and week out to watch contestants battle the elements and vote each other off the island. With more than 40 seasons under its belt, the show is a well-oiled machine.
But it's not without its flaws. There are a number of things currently wrong with Survivor, and while everyone is public about their distaste for the disastrous Edge of Extinction twist (for one example), some other major flaws go unspoken about by the show's fans.
Repeated Challenges
The challenges were once a very exciting aspect of Survivor. They resulted in some embarrassing Survivor challenge fails, and they made for exceptional television. But a show can only repeat the same challenges so many times before it gets tiring. Survivor is continuously repeating the exact same challenges again and again, and it's resulting in boring gameplay.
Both Spencer Bledsoe and Evvie Jagoda have beaten complex puzzles in seconds because they practiced at home, and when that starts to happen, it's clear that the puzzles/challenge segment of Survivor has been thoroughly broken.
Bitter Juries
It's a harsh truth, but the juries of Survivor are not perfect. Jury management is not a science, and it's not as easy as "do this and you'll win." Juries are made of human beings, and human beings are complex. They vote for things for personal reasons, and they often don't vote for things for petty reasons.
A player can play an amazing game, but they won't receive a vote because they happened to look at a jury member wrong at dinner. Juries can be bitter, and they can also be incredibly flawed while making mistakes. As a result, Survivor has seen some truly questionably winners throughout the years.
Undeserving Winners
As Survivor went on, it became increasingly clear that it would be producing some flawed winners. There are winners like Tony Vlachos, who most agree is the greatest Survivor winner of all time.
But then there are winners like Natalie White, Fabio Birza, Michele Fitzgerald, and Chris Underwood, winners who have long garnered criticism for being "boring" and "undeserved." Fans may not agree on who exactly is undeserving, but they can agree that there have been some underwhelming winners throughout the years.
Poor Editing
Survivor has been increasingly plagued by poor editing in recent seasons. Perhaps it's no coincidence that the poor editing coincides with the overabundance of twists and hidden advantages. All these twists need explaining, and in the extent to which they're explained at all, they take away from precious camp time.
Furthermore, Survivor has become an increasingly complex strategic game, and these strategies need camera time to explain. The editing has become resultingly lopsided, with entire players getting shafted and everyday camp life becoming non-existent in the broadcasts.
Overabundance Of Twists
Survivor has introduced a number of twists throughout the years. It's a necessary evil in television, as shows need to innovate and find new ways to entertain in order to stay on the air for 20 years. But it comes at the expense of entertainment and gameplay.
Some of the worst Survivor twists of all time include Redemption Island, the idol nullifier, and the fire-making challenge at the final four. These have broken an otherwise solidly built game. Fans appreciate experimentation, but there's no need to innovate on something that doesn't require innovation. The core game of Survivor was strong as it was.
No Survival Elements
Early seasons of Survivor placed a large emphasis on the survival elements, and it made for exceptional television. Unfortunately, this aspect is all but lost in recent iterations. Some of the most brutal Survivor conditions came in the earlier seasons, and things changed for the worse once the show permanently moved to Fiji.
The players are undoubtedly still starving, but it has now become a case of "tell, don't show." Viewers aren't seeing these players struggle for food, and they aren't seeing them break down over the harsh conditions. It's all strategy all the time, and it has made the show a worse version of itself.
Boring Players And Gamebots
Because of the show's excessive focus on strategy, the personalities of the characters have gone by the wayside. The show barely features everyday camp life, and confessionals are mostly used to explain strategies and alliances. No one's personality is allowed to come through.
Early Survivor contained a plethora of memorable characters, but modern Survivor is packed with boring gamebots who do nothing but talk about the game itself. The cast makes or breaks a season, and unfortunately, they have been breaking many recent seasons.
Too Many Survivor Superfans
Survivor has been on the air for 20 years, and it has accrued millions upon millions of fans. Unfortunately, these fans tend to find their way onto the show, and they ironically make for exceptionally boring characters.
They tend to be obsessed with "being a part of Survivor," and being a superfan is often their only semblance of an identity. They also know the game to a T. This is a problem, because they tend to break how things work in ways that ruin the fun for players and viewers. For example, Worlds Apart player and Survivor superfan Shirin Oskooi permanently broke the auction by telling everyone to save their money for letters and advantages.
Too Many Returnees
Viewers love returning players, but they love new players too. Unfortunately, Survivor has placed a large emphasis on returning players in recent years. While it's nice to see these people again, it tends to hurt the show's innovation and freshness.
Viewers want to see new players, because new players means new personalities. It also means unpredictable gameplay. Returnees come with old strategies and personalities, and these seasons tend to have an obnoxious, self-congratulatory tone that can be hard to stomach.
The Final Three
Survivor made a huge mistake in turning the final two into the final three. For one thing, it goes against the very nature of Survivor. The point is to eliminate people one by one until there is no one else to eliminate; having a final three breaks this instinctual gameplay.
It also allows three or four person alliances to dominate the post-merge, and dominating alliances always makes for boring television. Finally, the argument is that the best player always voted off in third. Well now they're voted off in fourth, so the final three twist failed to accomplish anything substantial.