[Nobby]

I agree with WillPS, bring the defecation issues to the fore or close the whole thing down.

[KelpiePK93]

Love Australian Survivor. Never liked the US one (too artifical and what not for me). Comparing to the Aussie one and used to it. Just doesn't really work for me. Joel is not bad but the music and lack of titles etc and narration throughout doesn't really work for me.

I thought pacing etc be good as sometimes Aussie one does drag the chat out a bit with 90 min eps but somehow made it slower / dull and at same time not have enough real player chat at same time in the 60 min window.

[Alessi]

"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"

Not sure on that point. Traitors was a huge hit here and is pretty much based on that concept.

[Brekkie]

Exactly. The Traitors was so well cast though and they were clearly prepped in the game they were about to play, unlike this lot who don't seem to know what they're doing.

[tellyblues]

Not sure on that point. Traitors was a huge hit here and is pretty much based on that concept.

It wasn't huge and isn't really about being in it for yourself because the format and contestants' understanding of it dictates how people play the game. Some contestants (traitors) have to be t***s and everyone playing knows there is deception going on, creating a level playing field, whereas with Survivor it's a choice if people want to play unfair. The tribes and desert island setup tries to convince people to adopt a brute mentality but that doesn't mean they will or that there are even others out to backstab or whatever. Casting could help this, but would that be fair?

Anyway, along with the similarities to I'm A Celeb and countless other reality shows, it's the promotion of this aspect of the show that has caused viewers not to watch.

[Brekkie]

It wasn't huge and isn't really about being in it for yourself because the format and contestants' understanding of it dictates how people play the game. Some contestants (traitors) have to be t***s and everyone playing knows there is deception going on, creating a level playing field, whereas with Survivor it's a choice if people want to play unfair. The tribes and desert island setup tries to convince people to adopt a brute mentality but that doesn't mean they will or that there are even others out to backstab or whatever. Casting could help this, but would that be fair?

That just shows you don't understand Survivor, which highlights the problem the BBC has in getting the format over to viewers too. The bigger problem is whether the cast and even producers understand it.

[tellyblues]

Merely your opinion then but what exactly don't I understand about Survivor that makes the people who just see it as a gameshow and/or like it superior somehow? And is there a chance that people may like the numerous international versions because they're viewed outside the context of UK TV and aren't typically British?

Also, the show works in other countries but there are different circumstances at play, one being the marketplace and Survivor being the first of that type of show and latter shows being seen as derivative and less worthy whereas in the UK those roles are reversed. Nothing's going to change that and the show may still have flopped even if the producers "got" it.

[WillPS]

Exactly.  The Traitors was so well cast though and they were clearly prepped in the game they were about to play, unlike this lot who don't seem to know what they're doing.

Really? As someone who's played a lot of these hidden identity/roleplaying/murder games I was amazed by how much ridiculous "logic" the cast there tried to apply, they were starting to get the hang of it in the end but for the first few episodes they were struggling to grasp the basic principle that a good baddy wouldn't do anything other than play by day as a perfect goody.

Still fun though. Unlike Survivor UK.

[Brekkie]

Merely your opinion then but what exactly don't I understand about Survivor that makes the people who just see it as a gameshow and/or like it superior somehow? And is there a chance that people may like the numerous international versions because they're viewed outside the context of UK TV and aren't typically British?

Also, the show works in other countries but there are different circumstances at play, one being the marketplace and Survivor being the first of that type of show and latter shows being seen as derivative and less worthy whereas in the UK those roles are reversed. Nothing's going to change that and the show may still have flopped even if the producers "got" it.

Reading your comment again I do interpret it differently now to how I did with my earlier reply, so I apologise for that.  I do think though Survivor isn't a game where being nice or as you might say, "British", is a strategy that generally works, and it certainly doesn't make for good viewing.

[Keith]

Does anyone know how Survivor did in the 7 day consolidated ratings? Looking at www.barb.co.uk  for 30th Oct to 5th Nov I can see it didn't make the top 50.

Most viewed programmes Barb
Toggle navigation Viewing data Weekly top 50 shows Total Identified Viewing summ…
  Source: www.barb.co.uk

I dare suggest opinions on the show depend a lot on whether you've seen the international versions, or if your only comparison is hazy memories of the ITV series. What works in one country doesn't automatically work in another if it's simply 'copied & pasted'. Sometimes it requires tweaking to better suit that country's audience for it to rate better.