I figure I’ll see it on plenty of commercials. Or just make the show longer. I bet people would watch a longer reunion show.
That would be cool.
I keep hoping we’ll see one. Kinda surprised it hasn’t happened yet in 32 seasons (unless you think the producers purposely make it so)
Didn’t they always use to have an odd number of jurors in the final two seasons? That avoids a tie, but with a final three it can still happen.
Here’s a list of all final TC votes Sole Survivor | Survivor Wiki | Fandom.
14 seasons have been final 2, odd number of jurors, so no possibility of a tie.
1 season was final 2, 8 jurors, final vote was 5-3.
Of the 3 finalist seasons, 13 times the margin of victory was 3 or more votes. So usually it’s not even close.
3 times with 3 finalists, the margin of victory was a single vote. In all of those, the 3rd finalist didn’t receive a single vote. I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if one of those was a behind the scenes tie, where one juror did vote for the 3rd finalist, and was asked by the producers to vote again for one of the tied finalists. That’s essentially they do for a tie in a regular TC - revote but only for the tied survivors.
I *would *in fact be terribly surprised if that were the case. Game shows, including competitive “realty” shows like Survivor, are stringently regulated by the FCC. That sort of thing could get Burnett & co. in some pretty big trouble, I’m guessing.
I seem to recall Probst once saying that there is indeed a contingency plan in case of a tie, but he’s not saying what it is unless they have to use it.
Survivor isn’t a game show and is not regulated by the FCC. It’s an entertainment reality show, like Big Brother and The Amazing Race. Producers are free to manipulate the game to their hearts’ content.
Is that true? I know they are not allowed to change challenges based on who is left in the game. They submit them in advance and are not allowed to change them during the game. Probst used to tweet and post about all of this.
Cite?
I don’t know if they’re under FCC regulation or not, but as I understand it, being under FCC regulation means they have to have rules that they follow, not that the rules have to be made public. They can have a rule that says “In the case of a 2 way tie for winner, where one or more of the jury voted for the 3rd candidate, the jury members who voted for the 3rd candidate will vote again for one of the top 2 candidates”, and they don’t have to tell us about it, even if it occurs.
And waste an opportunity to mine unexpected drama? No way.
Well, everything on CBS is regulated by the FCC.
The real question is “is Survivor subject to the FCC regulations on ‘contests of knowledge, skill, or chance’ under 47 USC 509?” I think it’s pretty clear that under the language of the statute, Survivor would, as it is a game of “purportedly bona fide contest of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill.” Scholar Kimberlianne Podlas would agree (pg 170):
That’s what my wife said.
I’m like the rest: I thought it was Aubrey’s to lose… and she performed as expected at FTC. Was shocked she didn’t win. I can’t remember a social game every being the main criteria for someone winning it all. There have been times that a good social player won because the jury didn’t want to give it to a douchebag (e.g. Hantz), but nothing like this.
Yes, I just read that – kudos to you!
Y’know, she handled Tai’s “I don’t really like you, I don’t know why” interaction with great aplomb. A lesser person could have easily botched it.
In 16 years of watching Survivor, I’ve come to accept that sometimes people win and I simply don’t understand why and how they won. This is one of those times.
I still don’t understand how Sandra won twice, but maybe that’s just me. On the old Television Without Pity board, they thought Sandra was eleven flavors of awesome. If I asked, “How did she win? She didn’t DO anything!” the typical response was, “That’s what makes her so amazing — she didn’t have to do anything!”
I usually bail out of the reunion show after about 20-30 minutes. Back when Probst (and Bryant Gumbel in the early years) made a point of recognizing every contestant, it felt a little too obligatory, as if he was talking to some of the long-forgotten early boots because he had to. It was like being at a party and talking to someone because they’re standing in the corner looking lonely and you feel sorry for them. Once in a while there’s something really cool at a reunion show, like Season 30 when Probst humiliated Dan Foley, but most of the time it’s a snooze.
Interesting.
I’ve seen it cited before that Big Brother is emphatically not subject to 47 USC 509, but after googling around, that cite (it was from like six years ago) appears to have been manufactured. However, I notice that the linked PDF pretty much ignores Big Brother. I assume that Survivor, TAR and BB are all classified the same way in terms of regulated Game Shows, and I think we can all agree that producers absolutely influence who people vote for on Big Brother.
The interesting bit from that PDF which leads me to the opposite conclusion of the PDF’s author:
If Survivor really is subject to federal regulation, then the above lawsuit should have triggered a (criminal?) investigation by the government, shouldn’t it?
Why??
If the producer needs to plead with contestants to change their vote, then obviously he doesn’t have a more direct way to get the outcome he wants.
I disagree. I think they’d prefer the dramatic reading of the votes at the reunion to be the final event, not have a tie occur there and have the jury members revote right then. But I’m certainly not a participant at Burnett’s production meetings, so you could absolutely be correct.
And of course, it’s only one persons unsupported claim that he did so.
Thank you! And I agree. She is one of the few players I’ve seen on the show to realize that reacting to someone voting against you, or saying negative things about you, with fury or insults does nothing for you in this game. Given her social adroitness, I’m surprised she’s not a psychologist or something.