Archive through October 22, 2001

The ClubHouse: Archives: -- GENERAL ARCHIVES --: August - October: What is your ideal Survivor location?: Archive through October 22, 2001

Joan

Sunday, October 21, 2001 - 10:55 pm Click here to edit this post
I see a lot of people commenting on the drab landscape this season so I will ask a question I have thought about off and on since S1:

If you were in charge, where would you shoot the next Survivor season?

I would LOVE to see Survivor get into a totally new climate. So far it is clear skies with hot days and chilly nights (minus the flood of S2). I propose the Canadian tundra...during the winter. Let's see contestants fight over the best way to build an igloo for shelter or compete in a cross-country ski race for a reward consisting of snowshoes and mitten warmers. As for animals, we've got wolves, caribou, rabbits, owls, you name it. They could learn about the culture of the Inuit people of the Northwest Territories too.

Mahrajah

Sunday, October 21, 2001 - 11:48 pm Click here to edit this post
i propose the amazon jungle

Realtvfan

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 04:12 am Click here to edit this post
My vote is to put them on the side of the Los Angeles freeway in July.

They could show all the flora and fauna of downtown LA in the background. Instead of "lions and tigers and bears, oh my". We could see Lexuses and Toyotas and Beemers (BMWs).

One challenge might be begging for quarters from motorists stuck in traffic in order to get themselves Starbucks coffee for breakfast.

On a serious note, the actual first Survivor was done under a different name in Finland (in the snow just as you mentioned.) Mark Burnett did not invent the concept; he just put them into warm climates with plenty of bathing suits.

Roe325

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 07:13 am Click here to edit this post
I like that Realtvfan, but in the other extreme I have given this much thought after watching Survivor 2.

I would put them in The South Bronx in the heat of the summer. Challenges would go on at night and the tribes would have to run through the projects, and be the first to score, uh use your imagination with no money. and get out alive.

ok, now for REALITY, I would like to see a colder climate too. Siberia comes to mind!

but I think Finland or Canada or even our own Alaska would work. then we could really have fun watching them try to start a fire! but they would be able to score fish by cutting a hole in the ice and at least have something to eat.

I am female and frankly could care less about seeing anymore woman or men in skimpy clothing, I have HBO for goodness sake, I don't need there pathetic excuse for porn. I want to see them survive, I am soooooooo tired of seeing them just sitting around waiting to eat rice or do a stupid competition.

they need to be allowed to really survive in the wild. The closest they came to that was when the pig was butchered, because if you are hungry, really hungry, you will do what you need to do to survive. if you are vegan, you will have read everything you could about the trees in the region and get out there and find leaves and berries to eat and maybe teach me something about them, instead of whining about the others eating meat. Show me how a survivor can survive in the wild by eating vegetation!!

As it stands now, I am growing tired of the show I guess. it is the same ole same ole, just less trees. even the cast of characters are the same, only the faces and names have changed.

Sad thing is, if the ratings are not good, they will never think its because the show needs revamping, they will blame the tragedy, and think we don't want anymore reality shows and that could not be further from the truth. gee,got carried away there. I will be going now!

Judy

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 07:15 am Click here to edit this post
I think the Florida Everglades would be interesting. In fact I think I heard they did some scouting there for S3 and it was deemed too dangerous. I would think that Africa would be way more dangerous - but my DH says that the poisonous snakes in the Everglades are way more dangerous than Lions LOL

Roe325

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 07:36 am Click here to edit this post
Judy I read in another thread that they are staying at a park reserve. so I wonder if that means it is not as dangerous and it looks?

In other words, they are not truly in "the wild".

At least there aren't any rats!

Willi

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 07:47 am Click here to edit this post
I would like them to feature a place in the USA.
A couple of suggestions:

Capitol Reef National Park in Utah or the Badlands National Park in South Dakota.

Fruitbat

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 08:04 am Click here to edit this post
I am less interested with Africa. It came right on the heels of Australia. Much too soon.

It doesn't really interest me to watch the extreme hardships of lousy water and hair falling out either. I liked the first Survivor and would favor seeing IV take place on a beach with more head games and less physical strife.

The food luxuries were delightful to watch on I. I could not get excited over Mountian Dew, Doritos and the subsequent digestive failure Australia offered.

As for a colder climate........we have trouble enough keeping the players straight when we can view their entire bodies, can you imagine 12 weeks of puffy down filled shapes huddling together for warmth? They would have to wear name tags on their foreheads.

Ratatatnat

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 08:24 am Click here to edit this post
I second the amazon rainforest. parasites and headhunters, yeah! and beautiful, of course.

Kep421

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 09:00 am Click here to edit this post
I prefer a place where they could really survive, by collecting their own water AND FOOD. I liked the first and second Survivor because they were able to fish and find alternative food sources.

But I think the locations are getting too extreme. The last two location provided ways to supplement their food stores and there was an adequate water supply, yet they were starving most of the time. Now that they are on a reserve, they won't even be able to get additional food!! Add to that the horrendous heat and lack of adequate water and there could be some serious health issues happening here. Heat can be a killer, especially when there isn't enough water. At least on the island and in the outback, they were given streams where they could go and cool off.

Some people (myself included) do not find it entertaining to sit and watch people slowly starve and dehydrate themselves to death. I think the game is getting close to the line where it could easily cross over to being sadistic.

I will continue to watch the show because I like the interaction between the tribes, but I'm afraid I won't be able to stay to the end if the tribe members deteriorate to the point of skeletons.

So I vote for less extreme locations, like the Canadian Wilderness in the summer time or a place in the Amazon Jungle. I don't think extremely cold places would be good because hypothermia and frostbite would be harder to combat. What might make the show more interesting is if they did mix a few good survivorists in with the greenhorns.

Gail

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 09:10 am Click here to edit this post
I would like to see them in nicer surroundings were they are truly "surviving". Give them enough food to last about 3 days and put them in a place where they can make shelters, hunt, fish and truly live off the land. They are on a game preserve I think and are not allowed to hunt anything. There are no fish (at least there sure doesn't appear to be any).

It seems the only food they can get (except for those little nuts they found) is what the Survivor people gave them. I like mush - I eat it 2 or 3 times a month but if that was all I had to eat, that would suck. I like the first Survivor the best - they were able to live off of what they caught in the water. S2 had a much harder time. They couldn't hunt any of the wild life.

The way this show is going, it is not really Man against the elements as it is man against the Survivor production crew.

Survivor is one big mind game - it has nothing to do with surviving and everything to do with getting along with others and playing out a strategy to stay there for the long haul.

Joan

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 09:51 am Click here to edit this post
Willi, I thought about the US too but could you imagine the hoard of spectators that would try to get close to the sets? I don't think they could ever tape the show in the US just because too many people would be trying to watch or flying banners overhead etc. Survivor probably doesn't air in Kenya.

As for the survival elements. I think a lot of that has to do with the people. CBS can put people out there but if they don't go looking for food sources, what can they do? S1 did a good job of finding their own food but S2 was terrible aside from the pig. I always wondered why they didn't seem to be looking for food from the land since they were in a forest. Surely there was something besides the rice they were provided that was edible.

And about putting survival experts out there, Frank, at least, is a Ranger which is about as close as you can get to being an expert on wilderness survival. Rudy probably knew some being a SEAL. Isn't one of the girls from S3 into plants? If they knew ahead of time where they were going, anyone could have done some research.

All in all, I think it isn't necessarily CBS's fault that these people are not creating Gilligan's Island. So far they have been dropped in places where other peoples have survived for centuries so it can be done, they just seem to prefer sitting around camp gossiping to going out foraging for food. Doh! Maybe giving them less food to start with and less food rewards would force them to start doing that but then again, it could also be disasterous if they fail.

Fruitbat

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 10:08 am Click here to edit this post
They were told not to eat anything in Australia, too many poisionous plants. Too soon to tell about Africa but certainly fish are out of the question.

No matter where they are, fresh clean water should be supplied. Dehydration can create very serious problems. It isn't fun to watch those with less body mass or weaker constitution sucumb to these effects immediately without a chance to even show why they were picked. <well I think we know why the Deputy Sherrif was in the mix :)>

Anyway, I can see Survivor turning into a fight between the strongest and biggest in Africa and future shows. Pagong regretted voting Ramona off after the dust settled and personalities emerged.

Syrabrian

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 11:10 am Click here to edit this post
The bogs of Scotland!

Snee

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 11:49 am Click here to edit this post
i think they would have a challenge surviving for 3 months in...SNEEWORLD! oh yeah, bring 'em on!

ooh, that would be scary: the untidiness, the varying inside temps because of rickety thermostats, the lack of brown sugar cinnamon poptarts, the unruly neighbours, the snees! *shudder*

Micknrc

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 12:18 pm Click here to edit this post
I'm ready for Sneeworld! I'd just have to smuggle my cinnamon poptarts in along with that flask of Jamesons and 4pack of Guinness

Other than that, it sounds alot like home!

Car54

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 02:17 pm Click here to edit this post
The real physical suffering really gets to me... if they are put in an environment where they can't hunt, fish, gather, then I think the game should be structured to give them opportunities to "earn" food through work or competition.
It seems like decent water should be given...if they can give the girls eyeshadow, they should get water!
Did anyone watch MB's Eco-Challenge? Those poor racers were put through physical hell- I think Mark B has a real leaning toward the punishing aspects of the game.

Fflur

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 02:45 pm Click here to edit this post
Car54 Eco-Challenge just started again on the web at www.ecochallenge.com this is a truly punishing race. Last year it was the leaches (and not Robin) that got me. I liked Roes idea of Alaska or something similar, Im tired of the whole rice/starving thing. I want to see them hunt/fish and survive (freeze?).

Snee

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 02:59 pm Click here to edit this post
the arctic would be neat because they would have to catch/eat seal and stuff like that. maybe with the cold, though, it would be too dangerous.

Neko

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 03:59 pm Click here to edit this post
The Canadian Artic is a great idea!!!I mean, I'd love to see it..the first 3 survivors were all in hot places, it seems only right to have a cold place in there too. But knowing us Canadians, we wouldn't just send phanes overhead, we'd jump out of planes overhead!!Crazy Canadians....hehehehe

Joan

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 04:24 pm Click here to edit this post
Well Neko, I don't know too many planes that would be willing to fly banners in the places I am thinking of. :)

Car54

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 04:45 pm Click here to edit this post
But how could we see all the cute little booties in a parka? I bet he picks the hot spots so they can wear the bikinis and other skimpy stuff.
Winterwear not too sexy.....

Joan

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 07:04 pm Click here to edit this post
I think that is probably the reason too Car54 but just think of all the ski equipment and winter clothing manufacturers they could pick up as sponsors! hehe

Kitty

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 07:17 pm Click here to edit this post
I vote for a location in the Northwest Territorties or Yukon in Canada. Winter would be too extreme, but summertime would still be a good challange. MB did an Eco-Challange in British Columbia a few years ago that got good reviews... maybe he has considered a location like that for Survivor but it isn't as "exotic" as a south Pacific island.... and there wouldn't be much of a chance to expose lots of skin in the north... there go the ratings down the tube. Still, I'd sure like to see more "survivor" skills come into play, and a little less of the young hard-bodies whining to each other about how tough it is.

Mamaanja

Monday, October 22, 2001 - 07:22 pm Click here to edit this post
How about the Rocky Mountains? Streams for fish, danger from bears...