Reply
Thu 24 Aug, 2006 11:07 am
The upcoming Survivor this fall is being criticized. Apparently there will be four tribes - one all white, one all African Americans, one Hispanic, and one Asian. How do you feel about this? Many critics claim they are simply vying for more TV viewers (of course they are - that's the business they are in) - that it is wrong and racist. Survivor claims it is a result of criticism they already have received - not enough minorities. How do you all feel? Is it wrong? How is it different than previous ones that split women and men; and older versus younger? No one seemed up in arms of that biased splitting. Why are racial tribes causing so much more controversy?
I winced when I saw this yesterday, not sure what I think about it. I've had my whole demographic-based prediction thing going for the last several seasons, and I definitely have seen evidence that the producers have wanted minority winners (though they don't always get them). It seems like this way they've stacked the deck for getting a minority winner.
It's an interesting idea, and the contestants seem more interesting than usual (more substance). Will be interested in how it actually plays out, and how long they KEEP it. Remember the age and gender segregation ones were actually pretty brief.
While there is a certain "squirm factor" to the idea I think it will be fascinating since original tribes tend to form alliances. Think of how this might affect the merges - people won't want to appear racist - perhaps because they're not racist - but the fear of appearing racist make them act differntly.
It cerainly throws another dynamic into the mix.
IMO, it means they jumped the shark.
He's having to drum up controversy in order to maintain ratings....
Not that I watch Survivor, but I don't know about this. Seem like a bad idea. Why not just divide the teams up from the west coast, midwest, east coast, New York, etc if they want the audience to have some sort of premade biases. Not to say that everyone will have biases, but the thought of their race losing may seem like their race is being ridiculed to some people.
Are you for real? I am an obsessive fan of that show, and this is just crazy...they are going to recieve a LOT if negative criticism for this...
I'm going to suspend judgement until I see where they go with this. It often happens that the hype (whether it's literature, film, television, etc.) bears only a faint resemblance to actual work. I will be surprised if the ethnic -- not racial* -- divides remain intact for more than 3 episodes. Naively I suppose, I can hope for the possibility that the audience will learn that ethnicity has little to do with outwit, outlast, outplay.
*There is no racial difference between "whites", hispanics and some south Asians.
Now that I've taken the high road ...
One local TV critic has deadpanned, after acknowledging that the franchise is fighting for it's audience share, that the next Survivor will have Mel Gibson pitted against the rabbis. >snicker<
hmmm .... could a religious Survivor be in the works .....
I, too, am a survivor nut. The show is based on exploring human dynamics and interactions for others amusement. This is just another chapter in the survivor legacy and I see no difference between this and splitting between sexes or age as they have done in the past.
I agree that this show just jumped the shark.
Not that it will stop me from watching, mind you.
i think this might send an all out brawl all over the world. people fighting about whose going to win the next one. which team is faster, stronger, smarter. this is going to end badly. i just know it.
How long before the white team elects border guards to keep the others out of their territory?
I listened to one African American on the radio who made a good argument as to why this isn't a bad idea. I wish I was listening closer.....
don't say african american. that's so mutch worse than calling him a black guy.