Survivor: Heroes vs Villains Are Neither
Just weeks after washing out the icky flavour left by Survivor: Samoa in our mouths, Burnett, Probst and co. are back at again. This time, tying in with the show’s twentieth season, it’s another all-star season. It’s not just any all-star runabout, though; for reasons unknown, this season is going with tribes of “Heroes” and “Villains” as its theme.
Now, I like all-star seasons. I like that there’s no cannon fodder amongst the contestants, I like seeing the politics amongst people who already know each other, and I like how that upsets the way this show usually progresses. By way of example, think of how pretty much every season starts out – voting based on the criteria of “strong in challenges” and “works hard at camp” resulting in early elimination of old people and the lazy, skinny chicks. Then look at the first All-Stars – challenge monsters and/or alpha males (and Probst’s man-crushes, but we’ll get to that) Colby, Ethan, Richard Hatch and Rob Cesternino didn’t even make it halfway through. Then in the Fans vs Favourites season, the mostly-useless-at-challenges Cirie wasn’t even considered for elimination. See what I mean?
The problem with this season (well, one among many) is that it’s a purely subjective categorisation, and one that simply serves to play up to how the show’s producers chose to edit and present these people in the first place, regardless of that presentation’s connection with reality.
Take a look at the men on the “Heroes” tribe; simply put, Probst has gathered his five biggest man-crushes to date and mixed them together into his own wet-dream of a team. JT, Tom and Colby, fair enough – those guys were all strong leaders, well-liked by their other contestants, known for playing hard but fair, and being pretty decent guys, all round (if we conveniently overlook Tom’s treatment of Ian at the end of Palau, that is). Then we have James; James, who was set up in his original season as the Greatest Survivor EVAH, the softly-spoken and charming gravedigger… not to mention, hardly the sharpest tool in the box (he failed to use either of two immunity idols, lest we forget). That’s how CBS presented him, at least. In reality, he has never won an individual challenge (don’t forget, he’s had two whole seasons to do so), and not only made some unfortunate comments towards Courtney (going for “any swinging dicks” etc), and was kind of a bully to down-and-out Peih-Gee. Now, I don’t think he should be a “villain” or whatever – he’s probably a really decent guy, actually – but what exactly makes him a hero? Just being the object of Probst’s man-crush, I guess. Then, we have Rupert. Oh, Rupert. Has this show ever seen a bigger megalomaniac? This moron can drive me into a frothy-mouthed rage, so let me just review some things; this is the man who didn’t want anyone else to go fishing (it bruised his ego, oh it did); refused to acknowledge anyone else’s ideas or opinions, so convinced he was of his own greatness (remember his half-buried log cabin idea?); expected Lil to give a reward she’d won to him for no apparent reason other than that she was an easily-guilted woman; flew into a rage (complete with near-strangling) when someone dared vote for him (in a game all about… voting for people); and delivered the most ridiculous, self-serving, passive-aggressive speech imaginable when he was finally eliminated, which showed pretty clearly that he did, indeed, expect everyone else to let him win. Now, what part of all that makes him a “Hero”? Being the object of another Probst-man-crush? I thought so.
As for the “Hero” women; Stephenie and Amanda are obvious choices. Two hard workers, both are great in challenges, and pretty decent strategists (Amanda, after all, got second place twice in a row). Steph, meanwhile, was the only person to ever be on a tribe of one, thanks to being stuck on the Suckiest Tribe That Ever Sucked. Elsewhere, Cirie and Sugar also make sense and could make for a fascinating pair to observe – they both suck at challenges, and were lucky to survive more than a week in their first seasons, but they’re also two of the show’s most unlikely strategic masterminds. Cirie has repeatedly displayed crazy, Jedi-like mind-control powers over lesser beings, as well as a very wise tendency to sit back and let the knuckleheads sort themselves out. Sugar, meanwhile, controlled the outcome of the Gabon series so perfectly that, halfway through, she just got bored of playing (and also noticed that the jury hated her, no doubt) and engineered Bob’s victory rather than her own. The last “Hero”, however, is a mystery. Candice was a royal beeatch in the Cook Islands. When she wasn’t canoodling with Neanderthal-Adam, she spent her time mutinying against her tribe, playing Mean Girls with Parvati, and finally, hurling insults at Jonathan Penner (“rat!” “cancer!” “rat cancer!”) after he decided to vote against her buddies in order to save his own arse. More to the point, her best buddy and alliance-mate Parvati is considered a villain. Again… Candice… she’s a hero, how, exactly?
Onto the villains. Granted, most of these people are either genuinely wretched human beings, or at least created characters of themselves as wretched human beings. Russell, Tyson, Coach, Parvati, Randy – I refuse to waste any more words on these overexposed twits. Two of them – Rob Mariano and Jerri – I can understand being put here, though I wouldn’t do the same. Jerri is hardly a hero, and was a truly unpleasant wench back in the Australia series, but largely redeemed herself on the first All-Stars. Rob is definitely one of this show’s best players, and while he definitely comes across as very, very cocky (which he’s largely entitled to be), I think he mostly just doesn’t suffer nitwits gladly, and he’s resented for it. If you watch the truly ridiculous behaviour of the jury on the All-Stars season, most of the contestants speeches amounted to “you suck because you beat me!” The other three women considered to be “Villains” are a bit of a mystery, and in my opinion, are the precise opposite of Probst’s man-crushes. These women – Danielle, Sandra and Courtney – are all outspoken women who stood up for themselves and their own interests, and are apparently villains because of it. Sandra and Courtney are both unafraid to speak their minds – Sandra definitely has quite the potty-mouth, and Courtney was not shy about her dislike of other contestants. But really, where is it written that you have to like everyone? I always figured Courtney was smart for keeping her dislike of everyone to the camera confessionals, and not letting it boil over into the open with the other contestants. Because hating all the nitwits you’re marooned with? Fine. Hating those nitwits to their faces? Not good strategy. Finally, I cannot think of anything that Danielle (“Who’s Danielle?” Exactly.) did to warrant being labelled a “Villain.” All I can think of is the fact that she eliminated Terry, thus preventing Probst’s man-crush for that season from winning. In other words, she stood up for herself against her season’s macho-man and so, must be punished. Sort of.
If I had my way, I’d still do another all-star-type season like this, even with a lot of the same contestants, but I’d do away with this awful, awful theme. I’m expecting these people to buy into their labels, with the “Villains” trying to out-douchebag each other, and the “Heroes” trying to out-hero each other (i.e., out-famewhore and out-megalomania). It’s not going to be a pretty sight.
Then again, if I had my way, Rupert would be repeatedly smacked with a dead octopus, and, sadly, that’s not likely to happen any time soon. I guess I’ll just have to sit back and hope that Survivor: Heroes vs Villains won’t suck as much as I expect it will.
Now, I like all-star seasons. I like that there’s no cannon fodder amongst the contestants, I like seeing the politics amongst people who already know each other, and I like how that upsets the way this show usually progresses. By way of example, think of how pretty much every season starts out – voting based on the criteria of “strong in challenges” and “works hard at camp” resulting in early elimination of old people and the lazy, skinny chicks. Then look at the first All-Stars – challenge monsters and/or alpha males (and Probst’s man-crushes, but we’ll get to that) Colby, Ethan, Richard Hatch and Rob Cesternino didn’t even make it halfway through. Then in the Fans vs Favourites season, the mostly-useless-at-challenges Cirie wasn’t even considered for elimination. See what I mean?
The problem with this season (well, one among many) is that it’s a purely subjective categorisation, and one that simply serves to play up to how the show’s producers chose to edit and present these people in the first place, regardless of that presentation’s connection with reality.
Take a look at the men on the “Heroes” tribe; simply put, Probst has gathered his five biggest man-crushes to date and mixed them together into his own wet-dream of a team. JT, Tom and Colby, fair enough – those guys were all strong leaders, well-liked by their other contestants, known for playing hard but fair, and being pretty decent guys, all round (if we conveniently overlook Tom’s treatment of Ian at the end of Palau, that is). Then we have James; James, who was set up in his original season as the Greatest Survivor EVAH, the softly-spoken and charming gravedigger… not to mention, hardly the sharpest tool in the box (he failed to use either of two immunity idols, lest we forget). That’s how CBS presented him, at least. In reality, he has never won an individual challenge (don’t forget, he’s had two whole seasons to do so), and not only made some unfortunate comments towards Courtney (going for “any swinging dicks” etc), and was kind of a bully to down-and-out Peih-Gee. Now, I don’t think he should be a “villain” or whatever – he’s probably a really decent guy, actually – but what exactly makes him a hero? Just being the object of Probst’s man-crush, I guess. Then, we have Rupert. Oh, Rupert. Has this show ever seen a bigger megalomaniac? This moron can drive me into a frothy-mouthed rage, so let me just review some things; this is the man who didn’t want anyone else to go fishing (it bruised his ego, oh it did); refused to acknowledge anyone else’s ideas or opinions, so convinced he was of his own greatness (remember his half-buried log cabin idea?); expected Lil to give a reward she’d won to him for no apparent reason other than that she was an easily-guilted woman; flew into a rage (complete with near-strangling) when someone dared vote for him (in a game all about… voting for people); and delivered the most ridiculous, self-serving, passive-aggressive speech imaginable when he was finally eliminated, which showed pretty clearly that he did, indeed, expect everyone else to let him win. Now, what part of all that makes him a “Hero”? Being the object of another Probst-man-crush? I thought so.
As for the “Hero” women; Stephenie and Amanda are obvious choices. Two hard workers, both are great in challenges, and pretty decent strategists (Amanda, after all, got second place twice in a row). Steph, meanwhile, was the only person to ever be on a tribe of one, thanks to being stuck on the Suckiest Tribe That Ever Sucked. Elsewhere, Cirie and Sugar also make sense and could make for a fascinating pair to observe – they both suck at challenges, and were lucky to survive more than a week in their first seasons, but they’re also two of the show’s most unlikely strategic masterminds. Cirie has repeatedly displayed crazy, Jedi-like mind-control powers over lesser beings, as well as a very wise tendency to sit back and let the knuckleheads sort themselves out. Sugar, meanwhile, controlled the outcome of the Gabon series so perfectly that, halfway through, she just got bored of playing (and also noticed that the jury hated her, no doubt) and engineered Bob’s victory rather than her own. The last “Hero”, however, is a mystery. Candice was a royal beeatch in the Cook Islands. When she wasn’t canoodling with Neanderthal-Adam, she spent her time mutinying against her tribe, playing Mean Girls with Parvati, and finally, hurling insults at Jonathan Penner (“rat!” “cancer!” “rat cancer!”) after he decided to vote against her buddies in order to save his own arse. More to the point, her best buddy and alliance-mate Parvati is considered a villain. Again… Candice… she’s a hero, how, exactly?
Onto the villains. Granted, most of these people are either genuinely wretched human beings, or at least created characters of themselves as wretched human beings. Russell, Tyson, Coach, Parvati, Randy – I refuse to waste any more words on these overexposed twits. Two of them – Rob Mariano and Jerri – I can understand being put here, though I wouldn’t do the same. Jerri is hardly a hero, and was a truly unpleasant wench back in the Australia series, but largely redeemed herself on the first All-Stars. Rob is definitely one of this show’s best players, and while he definitely comes across as very, very cocky (which he’s largely entitled to be), I think he mostly just doesn’t suffer nitwits gladly, and he’s resented for it. If you watch the truly ridiculous behaviour of the jury on the All-Stars season, most of the contestants speeches amounted to “you suck because you beat me!” The other three women considered to be “Villains” are a bit of a mystery, and in my opinion, are the precise opposite of Probst’s man-crushes. These women – Danielle, Sandra and Courtney – are all outspoken women who stood up for themselves and their own interests, and are apparently villains because of it. Sandra and Courtney are both unafraid to speak their minds – Sandra definitely has quite the potty-mouth, and Courtney was not shy about her dislike of other contestants. But really, where is it written that you have to like everyone? I always figured Courtney was smart for keeping her dislike of everyone to the camera confessionals, and not letting it boil over into the open with the other contestants. Because hating all the nitwits you’re marooned with? Fine. Hating those nitwits to their faces? Not good strategy. Finally, I cannot think of anything that Danielle (“Who’s Danielle?” Exactly.) did to warrant being labelled a “Villain.” All I can think of is the fact that she eliminated Terry, thus preventing Probst’s man-crush for that season from winning. In other words, she stood up for herself against her season’s macho-man and so, must be punished. Sort of.
If I had my way, I’d still do another all-star-type season like this, even with a lot of the same contestants, but I’d do away with this awful, awful theme. I’m expecting these people to buy into their labels, with the “Villains” trying to out-douchebag each other, and the “Heroes” trying to out-hero each other (i.e., out-famewhore and out-megalomania). It’s not going to be a pretty sight.
Then again, if I had my way, Rupert would be repeatedly smacked with a dead octopus, and, sadly, that’s not likely to happen any time soon. I guess I’ll just have to sit back and hope that Survivor: Heroes vs Villains won’t suck as much as I expect it will.
posted by Bob @ 12:51 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home