[iloveTV1]

I give it a few weeks before it’s moved to a 5.30-ish slot just to burn it off.

[eyeTV]

The expectation for it seems much higher because they scheduled it as a post Strictly show.

2m on a weeknight would have been fine and would probably be a better place for it.

[cando]

I give it a few weeks before it’s moved to a 5.30-ish slot just to burn it off.

Those days are long gone for both ITV and BBC

[Brekkie]

If this was ITV we were talking about yes, we'd see a scheduling change as of next Saturday. But this is the BBC. I have no doubt that they'll stick with all 16 episodes airing every weekend post Strictly / Strictly Results even if the ratings drop to well below 1m per episode, which is looking quite likely.

If they did have to resurrect the format, why did it have to be an incredibly long 16 episode run? Not even the proven Race Across the World format runs for that long in any one series.

Guess it's economy of scales - the per episode cost would rise with a shorter run.    

It airs an hour earlier next week (as does Strictly) due to the Festival of Rememberance and keeping Blankety Blank in the schedule at 8.25pm.    Presumably once Doctor Who returns that'll get the post-Strictly slot with Survivor after it, which on paper is a better schedule.  


The irony of course is if they stuck this on BBC3 with an audience a quarter of what it has it would be deemed a hit.

[WillPS]

very good. but at least ITV owned Love island and it came back slightly reformatted without celebrities. This is a US show which the original version doesn't exactly get a lot of visibility over here.

Depends how you define it really, it was devised by Charlie Parsons/Planet 24. The first buyer for the format was Swedish. The only thing that originates with the US version is the Survivor brandname.

[tellyblues]

With the show as it is and how much it costs to make, I doubt it would be a success for any UK broadcaster. The audience just isn't there. The hardcore like it because of the US version or because it's new, are heavy into the rules, the forming alliances and backstabbing stuff but to the ordinary punter the show comes across as derivative, and importantly, not that entertaining. Part of that's to do with the in-it-for-yourself nature of the show which is lapped up in other cultures where Survivor is popular, but people here don't like that, at least not a sizeable enough amount to make the show worthwhile.

There will be more pressure now on Gladiators to be a hit. Where I think that could fail is in a lack of humour, no pantomime villain like Wolf for viewers to love to hate and I doubt people will be shown squaring up to each other so it will all seem rather tame.

[WillPS]

This feels like it's dead on arrival.  There is just no life in it.

I agree, sadly. None of the jeopardy or intrigue which I'm used to with the Australian or US versions, even the earlier series of the latter. 

This version really lacks energy, perhaps even worse than the two ITV series (which struggled with pacing but at least had a heartbeat).

[Brekkie]

Four episodes in as a viewer you really should be favouring one tribe over the other and have individuals you're backing to succeed - and villians you want to see the back off. But for me I just haven't been given enough to care about any of them.

It's a shame because the format is proven to work and production wise it feels up there with the Aussie and US version in terms of challenges - it hasn't been cursed by overzealous health and safety. It's casting that has ultimately let it down and an edit which, perhaps thanks to the lacklustre cast, feels real flat - the first 20 minutes of each episode before they get to a meaningful format point is just inviting viewers to turn over.

[Keith]

Four episodes in as a viewer you really should be favouring one tribe over the other and have individuals you're backing to succeed - and villians you want to see the back off. But for me I just haven't been given enough to care about any of them.

It's a shame because the format is proven to work and production wise it feels up there with the Aussie and US version in terms of challenges - it hasn't been cursed by overzealous health and safety. It's casting that has ultimately let it down and an edit which, perhaps thanks to the lacklustre cast, feels real flat - the first 20 minutes of each episode before they get to a meaningful format point is just inviting viewers to turn over.

Watching with the wife on Saturday (yet to catch up on last night) we both enjoy the programme, however so far I don't particularly care much about any of them. Maybe it's just a case that being a new (after 20 years absence in the UK) the producers have yet to learn what works for a UK audience with survivor.

I think it may be lacking an additional challenge for the contestants to do in-between immunity challenges, as the fish v potato + idol clue task was somewhat lacking in drama and excitement. Though was interesting to see a couple from opposite teams asking each other about it after the immunity task, this seemingly didn't result in any further discussions back in camp. Maybe that did happen, but not when the cameras were present and recording.

Also, I wonder if the timeslot may actually be hindering it. Maybe Survivor might have performed slightly better in Q1 when it wouldn't be following Strictly, and traditionally ITV1's schedules have been weaker. It'll be interesting to see what the 7 day ratings are, and how much they increase it compared to overnights.

Worth noting that next week due to Remembrance Sunday programming Strictly is on an hour earlier at 6.05pm, with Survivor at 7.25pm.

[WillPS]

Just everything I can think about it is off.

The casting is indeed terrible; they're all various shades of dull - they should have imported some favourites to ensure 'the game' everyone wants to see played is played.

The challenges are all very simplistic and to be honest not that interesting - endurance feats are usually reserved for the middle 'act' of the game just before merger, when character rivalries have had a chance to build. You need to give them lots of reasons to fall out at this point and assault courses are perfect for that (and frankly just more interesting to watch).

The incidental music is generic as anything and does nothing for the ambiance. The title music (which Banijay seem to be forcing out on newer versions, annoyingly) is dull. All a poor show compared to the rich tapestry of original audio the ITV/intl series utilise/d, much of it from Russell Landau before he retired.

Even the way the show describes itself is off - talking about 'people locked in a battle for survival' sets completely the wrong expectation in terms of what they are about to see happening, it's not really about "survival" in the Bear Grylls type sense at all, the eating/drinking/shelter/defecation issues are just backdrop. The ITV version made this mistake too, in fairness, but I think since then programmes like the aforementioned Grylls, Alone - even SAS Who Dares Wins have shifted the bar on viewer expectation in this regard. Survivor is definitively not that. I'm not sure I fully understand the trend to give reality programmes a narrated title sequence - The Traitors kind of needed it (to begin with at least) but you're never going to explain Survivor over 40 seconds of cut clips. Far better to either just get straight on with it or have the usual rollcall/scene setting deal which has worked for the format for 25 years.

(Perhaps herein lies the main issue - it's being put together by people who don't really understand what has made Survivor a success elsewhere - maybe?)

One thing I will give it is that Joel Drommett seems to be doing alright as host, correctly taking cues on how to make that role work from the grandmaster Jeff Probst but his own slightly cheeky additions. It takes time to fully settle in to that role and get the juice out of a tense tribal council but he really isn't being given much to squeeze yet.