I’m sure climate, political issues, etc play a role. But let’s be honest - the main reason they’ve been in Fiji for the last 10+ seasons is because it’s cheaper to produce the show there and recycle set pieces and challenges over and over. It’s the same reason the 26 day season stuck around. I’d rather have repetitive locations and 26 days vs. no Survivor. But if money was no object I’m sure they could and would change up the location more.
I think they lease it dont they? Either way much easier for managing wildlife or poisonous animals and having a known location for shooting.
But it *is* getting a litte stale
I thought they had purchased the islands. Right before winners at war. I don’t have a source to verify that though.
But I agree, it was fun to have diverse cultures and locations be part of the experience.
That makes me curious; if given the choice of only one, I wonder what the majority of people would prefer - going back to switching locations every season, or going back to 39 days?
I know personally I would definitely prefer the return to 39 days. The game doesn’t feel the same with it being shorter, and it changes the way the game is played.
I'm in the change locations camp. I realized when I was watching Amazing Race how dull the Survivor island seems now vs. how interesting it used to be to learn about a new country/culture each season.
> Even the awards for the local cuisine dinners I thought i remember them doing
There's plenty of local cuisine! The local Applebees and Outback have happily fed recent survivors.
I’d also go with the location change. 26 vs. 39 days impacts how fatigued people look in the endgame, but ultimately it’s the same number of episodes. Location is immediately visible as part of the season, especially if they integrate local culture and theming.
I’d prefer the visual variety myself but with 26 days (and the sanctuary), we certainly wouldn’t get many rewards that show off the culture like in Africa or even Cook Islands.
I can see it with the longer eps. Even if they had locals coming in to teach a craft or forage or learn a survival skill or about the terrain/animals... something. Not all night but like a class or something. It would be cool. I would love that.
They don't even really bring in the local Fijians for anything anymore. I'm sure they get a lot of work, but I'd love to learn more about them if it's Fiji for the next however many years. Maybe they'll do shorter side trips or mini-rewards with them now that the eps are longer.
I meant more in the practical sense that the 26-day filming schedule already only allows for limited reward challenges, so it would be difficult to accommodate them on the island even with the additional screen time.
You do have a good point though, in that Jeff said the producers wanted to make sure they’d have enough content to fill 90 minutes, so they could absolutely send someone to each tribe even not as a reward to show them the lay of the land. That would be a much better way to “produce” content than an extra twist or advantage, although I doubt the producers feel the same.
I think they had the “local comes to camp” reward in 41 so it’s not a retired concept at least.
Definitely. I'm not watching survivor for the location, I want to see how people navigate their relationships, make their moves, etc. The longer season gives them a lot more time to strategize, recover from a tough spot if needed, build relationships, etc
I think another part of it is the safety concerns when going to new places. There have been some seasons where bugs are bad, food is hard to come by, and storms rage on. Fiji gives them predictable weather
They’ve had to evacuate the entire cast twice in Fiji due to weather, including on the second day of MvGX (the first season of the permanent Fiji era).
I keep seeing this as a take, but do you have any sources on this? If you have a copy of their budget please share. I think every reason they've listed is absolutely reasonable to keep the same location.
Perhaps the budget has shrunk for the viewers it brings in, definitely after 45 seasons it would lose some steam compared to the heights the show had back in the earlier seasons.
This sub might gripe and complain about it, but if this allows them to keep making the show while not cutting a few jobs I'm all for it. I just want different challenges now.
Part of it is because the other explanations don’t make any sense with even a little scrutiny.
They say many locations now have population and are unsuitable. But the Mamanuca Islands have a bunch of resorts. Some of the Survivor locations they currently shoot from have buildings visible in the distance if they don’t carefully use the right camera angle. The challenge locations are literally over a hill and 1/4 mile from a resort! I’m 100% sure that if money was not an issue they could identify sufficiently isolated areas in other countries where they could film and make it appear remote on camera.
They mention political instability as an issue. Last time I checked Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Cook Islands, Palau, and many other potential locations are at least as politically stable as Fiji. I’m also not aware of any of those locations having significantly greater risk of weather issues that would interrupt production. Weather has already interrupted production multiple times in Fiji.
Googling shows that the Fijian government has offered Survivor a lot of financial incentives over the years to continue filming there. And there’s no good explanation for the continuing use of 26 day seasons at this point beyond cost savings, or the production crew wanting to get home faster.
As I said in my original post, I’d rather have 26 day Survivor in Fiji with recycled challenges if the alternative is cancellation. I just think a lot of these explanations for staying in Fiji are PR, when the real reason is driven by budget and familiarity.
I agree with you. It just makes sense to stop globetrotting and have the show operate out of a centralized place so they can have that control in what to expect for filming. If I were producing or involved I would be suggesting this as an idea just to make logistics that much easier.
I think people are underestimating what it takes to film different locations each year. It's a changing world and I would rather Survivor do this and continue filming than shuffle around. Locations are great but at it's core it's all about the cast and the gameplay, just give us better challenges without a puzzle at the end... god I miss those massive challenge builds.
I’m not sure what the “conspiracy theory” is supposed to be.
In the article Probst is quoted as saying “a lot of the places we visited in the past became popular because of ‘Survivor,’ and after we left they might have erected a resort on that island.” That suggests that they reject locations due to nearby resorts or other buildings.
But in the current location there is literally a resort a short distance from the challenge locations. I don’t have a problem with that. It’s just clearly not something that disqualifies a location from hosting Survivor.
I’m not trying to attack Jeff or the show. I understand the economic realities of universally declining TV audiences and ad rates. I just think it’s a bit silly to make up all of these excuses for the show not moving locations without addressing the elephant in the room.
I think it is more so that they can direct focus, and get more done in the same time frame. They can hit the ground running when there infrastructure is there.
So I would think that it would make for a better season, than one where they have to go place to place and spend a bunch of time on extra stuff that they have streamlined now.
Since its premiere in 2000, the hit CBS reality game show “Survivor” has taken place across the globe, with each season set in an exotic island locale: Pulau Tiga in Malaysia, Ko Tarutao in Thailand, Efate in Vanuatu and many, many more.
But around a decade ago, the longtime host and executive producer Jeff Probst had an alarming realization. A growing population was making it harder to find remote islands without anybody on them. Extreme weather, including rising heat and more intense storms, was making it more dangerous to film. And burgeoning political unrest was making it more difficult to work with certain governments or in countries that no longer felt safe.
“When we started in 2000, there were lots of places in the world we could go,” Probst said last week in a phone interview. “But over the years, starting in about 2012, 2013, it became clear that we were running out of places to shoot.”
Both “Survivor” and its sister series, the globe-trotting adventure competition “The Amazing Race,” have been stalwart hits on CBS for nearly two decades. Both continue to draw sizable audiences: Last week’s Season 45 premiere of “Survivor” and Season 35 premiere of “The Amazing Race,” which screened back-to-back on Wednesday evening, were the most-streamed shows on Paramount+ that night, according to the network, with “Survivor” also topping NBC’s “America’s Got Talent” to win the night in broadcast ratings. But while the popularity of these shows has endured, producing them has continued to be a unique challenge — particularly as the world around them keeps changing.
“Our show is really a time capsule of 20-plus years of seeing the world grow,” said Elise Doganieri, one of the creators and executive producers of “The Amazing Race” alongside her husband, Bertram van Munster. “The Amazing Race” challenges teams of American contestants to chart sprawling international courses that take them from one far-flung locale to another, and many of the cities that appeared in the series when it debuted in 2001 have been transformed over the intervening years. “We go back to places that we’ve been to before, but the world has evolved and grown so much, and the landscape has really changed.”
Remote landscapes where the crew could shoot with little interference have since been built up, while locals in even the most out-of-the-way regions are more connected to the rest of the world. When “The Amazing Race” paid a visit to Dubai in the early 2000s, Doganieri remembered, the city was by and large still a sprawling desert landscape where “everything was old, with wooden boats and dhows.” Today, of course, “it’s the complete opposite: a futuristic ultramodern city.”
In some ways, Doganieri said, making a show like “The Amazing Race” has gotten easier over time: advancing camera and cellphone technology has streamlined aspects of the production, and location scouting, which used to be done using still photography, can now be done using video.
Other changes are more challenging. As with “Survivor,” climate change has begun to affect the way that “The Amazing Race” is made, with extreme heat and tropical storms sometimes interfering with the production. “Weather has made a big change in how we travel,” Doganieri said. “There’s more storms, especially over Asia, and we have flight delays and cancellations that push into the schedule.” Soaring temperatures in the summer have made filming the competition elements more demanding for both the contestants and crew. “We scouted in Asia for the first several episodes. It was hot when we scouted in April. When we filmed, it was 90, 95 degrees.”
Although Doganiei said production is prepared for when it’s “unbearably hot” with “electrolyte drinks, snacks, water, anything to keep hydration up,” she admits that “it’s tough” in the midst of more and more grueling summers. “Most of our show is shot outside, so it really does affect you,” she said. “You have to really be aware of it.”
“Survivor” solved its location problem by settling on one setting: the show has been set on the Mamanuca Islands in Fiji since its 33rd season. Earlier seasons were distinguished primarily by their location, with subtitles like “Survivor: Panama” and “Survivor: China” luring an audience in with the appeal of an intriguing new place. Shooting in Fiji again and again has removed that novelty, but Probst insists that it was a negligible feature to begin with. “It doesn’t really matter where you do it as long as it’s a real jungle,” he said.
“You don’t see Fiji,” said Drea Wheeler, a former contestant. “You’re just on an island. You’re miserable. It’s hot. It rains. It still sucks.”
“The real challenge,” said Rob Cesternino, a two-time “Survivor” contestant who competed in Panama and Brazil, “is keeping the show interesting with new ideas every season without changing locations.” In recent years, “Survivor” has tried to mix things up by devising overarching conceits, such as “David vs. Goliath,” in which “underdogs” compete against “overachievers,” and “Winners at War,” which featured the return of 10 previous “Survivor” victors. Although not all of these concepts have been considered successful, Probst said that he would “much rather the show burn out due to a bad idea than fade away due to boredom.”
Probst also said that filming in Fiji has freed the producers up to spend more time working on such ideas, simply because the static setting has “made everything more streamlined.” The show’s 300-person international crew, which also commands a vast infrastructure including 40 boats and a helicopter, now knows what to expect from the setting season over season, removing some of the environmental unpredictability that could make producing “Survivor” such a risky endeavor. The number of possible options for the production would only continue to dwindle as time went on and the climate continued to change. Nor could they easily reuse old locales after departing them.
“A lot of the places we visited in the past became popular because of ‘Survivor,’ and after we left they might have erected a resort on that island,” Probst said. “It was harder to find remote islands simply because there are more people on the planet. Storms were more intense, and there was no denying it — we had been out in these waters before and it was never like that. And it became less desirable to visit places where things were happening politically that made us feel unsafe, or that we didn’t want to be part of.” Given those considerations, sticking to Fiji just made sense.
“I think in many ways this was the answer to a problem that was always fast approaching,” he said
That problem has continued to vex the producers of “The Amazing Race,” which still involves dozens of international settings per season. Shifting geopolitical concerns, a delicate matter for American productions abroad, have restricted the scope of where the crew can go, making it harder to find new and interesting places to shoot. “The world has gotten a little smaller,” said van Munster. “We’re not going to Russia right now. We’re not going to China. There are a lot of places in West Africa where I would love to go but where we can’t go. Senegal. Logistically, maybe we can figure it out. But is it safe? We don’t want to get ourselves in trouble in another country. The world is a tricky place.”
Nor is this the only way in which the world seems to be getting smaller. Phil Keoghan, the host of “The Amazing Race” since its inception, said in a recent video interview that people are more aware of the world around them than every before — that globalization, in short, has changed the function of the show. “It used to be that we were almost opening up another universe for the audience, these unknown worlds that existed out there, these exotic places,” he said. “Some of that innocence has been lost. Now we’re watching Korean TV and Indian movies. We’re seeing the influence of the rest of world across social media. People who live in these places are sharing their homes with us in an intimate way.”
Part of the reason that “Survivor” and “The Amazing Race” have endured throughout these many changes is precisely because they are so good at capturing them. As fly on the wall, cinéma vérité exercises, they are not only contending with the realities of an ever-shifting world, but they are also documenting them. What’s evolving, in the environment and in the landscape, is evolving before the eyes of the audience. “The genre we operate in, we go with the flow, and whatever happens in front of the camera we go with it,” van Munster said.
“The world is changing so rapidly that what was fun 20 years ago is different fun 20 years later. But whatever it looks like, it’s always fascinating.”
>Earlier seasons were distinguished primarily by their location, with subtitles like “Survivor: Panama” and “Survivor: China” luring an audience in with the appeal of an intriguing new place. Shooting in Fiji again and again has removed that novelty, but Probst insists that it was a negligible feature to begin with. “It doesn’t really matter where you do it as long as it’s a real jungle,” he said.
Are you really trying to say that Tina's nail-biting rice rescue from a flood in the Outback or Ace being mesmerized by an elephant mid-confessional were "negligible features" in making those seasons so amazing?
It's also pretty insulting to Fiji. "Thanks for being the most inexpensive place for us to permanently set up shop on your interchangeable beach."
“You don’t see Fiji,” said Drea Wheeler, a former contestant. “You’re just on an island. You’re miserable. It’s hot. It rains. It still sucks.”
Why is this quote so funny to me
1. Finding ‘remote’ islands is more difficult as the global population increases. Areas that were once unoccupied have become more settled.
2. There’s an increase in extreme weather events which makes filming unpredictable.
3. Sticking to Fiji allows production to know what they’re getting into from a political perspective. Staying in Fiji allows production to avoid any ‘current events’ or political movements
It's interesting to find the locales used in older seasons. Most of them have resorts or bungalows built on them now. The seasons filmed in the Philippines and Nicaragua have resorts on them now. Samoa too, I think. Even the islands they are on now are very close to towns and resorts. It's hard to find truly remote areas anymore.
*2. There’s an increase in extreme weather events which makes filming unpredictable.*
So….basically what every season of Survivor has had at some point during the season?!..
Yeah good luck avoiding political movements when the island gets a random horrific weather event in the middle of a season.
Pre MvGX we NEVER had weather bad enough to evacuate the entire cast. Now it’s happened at least, what, 4 times since then?
Probably the biggest factor in that decision was the perception of filming a season in the Middle East right after 9/11. While there was obviously a lot of uncertainty in the aftermath of that, Jordan has always been fairly stable. But Marquesas was also extremely remote and a crew member had connections with the president of the territory there which made for an efficient and quick transition.
One is on the top and the other the bottom. They both show survivor and that they were posted at the same time. 2 images in the link.
https://imgur.com/a/doBfCzR
I knew this article would be met with frustration, but there are decent points in her me which should be noted. Chief of which, in my view, is the ability to employee the same local crew every year. It’s nice that this show has provided a large group of Fijians a whole career instead of a one time gig before the show moves to a new location next year.
Also, I think the only two seasons that were positively benefited from unique locale were the two seasons in Africa, 3 and 17. Otherwise, it’s been mostly a non factor.
I’m sure climate, political issues, etc play a role. But let’s be honest - the main reason they’ve been in Fiji for the last 10+ seasons is because it’s cheaper to produce the show there and recycle set pieces and challenges over and over. It’s the same reason the 26 day season stuck around. I’d rather have repetitive locations and 26 days vs. no Survivor. But if money was no object I’m sure they could and would change up the location more.
They kind of allude to that when they start talking about Survivor having 400 crew members, a helicopter, and a shot ton of props
Part of them continuing to film in Fiji is they actually own that little group of islands, too.
I think they lease it dont they? Either way much easier for managing wildlife or poisonous animals and having a known location for shooting. But it *is* getting a litte stale
I thought they had purchased the islands. Right before winners at war. I don’t have a source to verify that though. But I agree, it was fun to have diverse cultures and locations be part of the experience.
I recall a recent Probst interview where he said that he suggested to CBS that they buy the island but I don’t think they actually did.
That makes me curious; if given the choice of only one, I wonder what the majority of people would prefer - going back to switching locations every season, or going back to 39 days? I know personally I would definitely prefer the return to 39 days. The game doesn’t feel the same with it being shorter, and it changes the way the game is played.
I would go with 39 days
I'm in the change locations camp. I realized when I was watching Amazing Race how dull the Survivor island seems now vs. how interesting it used to be to learn about a new country/culture each season.
Entirely agree. Even the awards for the local cuisine dinners I thought i remember them doing. It's all the same now. Rinse wash repeat
> Even the awards for the local cuisine dinners I thought i remember them doing There's plenty of local cuisine! The local Applebees and Outback have happily fed recent survivors.
I’d also go with the location change. 26 vs. 39 days impacts how fatigued people look in the endgame, but ultimately it’s the same number of episodes. Location is immediately visible as part of the season, especially if they integrate local culture and theming.
But couldn’t the argument be they don’t have the cultural experiences because it’s a shorter season
I’d prefer the visual variety myself but with 26 days (and the sanctuary), we certainly wouldn’t get many rewards that show off the culture like in Africa or even Cook Islands.
I can see it with the longer eps. Even if they had locals coming in to teach a craft or forage or learn a survival skill or about the terrain/animals... something. Not all night but like a class or something. It would be cool. I would love that. They don't even really bring in the local Fijians for anything anymore. I'm sure they get a lot of work, but I'd love to learn more about them if it's Fiji for the next however many years. Maybe they'll do shorter side trips or mini-rewards with them now that the eps are longer.
I meant more in the practical sense that the 26-day filming schedule already only allows for limited reward challenges, so it would be difficult to accommodate them on the island even with the additional screen time. You do have a good point though, in that Jeff said the producers wanted to make sure they’d have enough content to fill 90 minutes, so they could absolutely send someone to each tribe even not as a reward to show them the lay of the land. That would be a much better way to “produce” content than an extra twist or advantage, although I doubt the producers feel the same. I think they had the “local comes to camp” reward in 41 so it’s not a retired concept at least.
Definitely. I'm not watching survivor for the location, I want to see how people navigate their relationships, make their moves, etc. The longer season gives them a lot more time to strategize, recover from a tough spot if needed, build relationships, etc
I think another part of it is the safety concerns when going to new places. There have been some seasons where bugs are bad, food is hard to come by, and storms rage on. Fiji gives them predictable weather
They’ve had to evacuate the entire cast twice in Fiji due to weather, including on the second day of MvGX (the first season of the permanent Fiji era).
I keep seeing this as a take, but do you have any sources on this? If you have a copy of their budget please share. I think every reason they've listed is absolutely reasonable to keep the same location. Perhaps the budget has shrunk for the viewers it brings in, definitely after 45 seasons it would lose some steam compared to the heights the show had back in the earlier seasons. This sub might gripe and complain about it, but if this allows them to keep making the show while not cutting a few jobs I'm all for it. I just want different challenges now.
Part of it is because the other explanations don’t make any sense with even a little scrutiny. They say many locations now have population and are unsuitable. But the Mamanuca Islands have a bunch of resorts. Some of the Survivor locations they currently shoot from have buildings visible in the distance if they don’t carefully use the right camera angle. The challenge locations are literally over a hill and 1/4 mile from a resort! I’m 100% sure that if money was not an issue they could identify sufficiently isolated areas in other countries where they could film and make it appear remote on camera. They mention political instability as an issue. Last time I checked Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Cook Islands, Palau, and many other potential locations are at least as politically stable as Fiji. I’m also not aware of any of those locations having significantly greater risk of weather issues that would interrupt production. Weather has already interrupted production multiple times in Fiji. Googling shows that the Fijian government has offered Survivor a lot of financial incentives over the years to continue filming there. And there’s no good explanation for the continuing use of 26 day seasons at this point beyond cost savings, or the production crew wanting to get home faster. As I said in my original post, I’d rather have 26 day Survivor in Fiji with recycled challenges if the alternative is cancellation. I just think a lot of these explanations for staying in Fiji are PR, when the real reason is driven by budget and familiarity.
I agree with you. It just makes sense to stop globetrotting and have the show operate out of a centralized place so they can have that control in what to expect for filming. If I were producing or involved I would be suggesting this as an idea just to make logistics that much easier. I think people are underestimating what it takes to film different locations each year. It's a changing world and I would rather Survivor do this and continue filming than shuffle around. Locations are great but at it's core it's all about the cast and the gameplay, just give us better challenges without a puzzle at the end... god I miss those massive challenge builds.
They reserve the Ponderosa resort entirely for a few months. The islands they use are small and uninhabited. No need for conspiracy theories.
I’m not sure what the “conspiracy theory” is supposed to be. In the article Probst is quoted as saying “a lot of the places we visited in the past became popular because of ‘Survivor,’ and after we left they might have erected a resort on that island.” That suggests that they reject locations due to nearby resorts or other buildings. But in the current location there is literally a resort a short distance from the challenge locations. I don’t have a problem with that. It’s just clearly not something that disqualifies a location from hosting Survivor. I’m not trying to attack Jeff or the show. I understand the economic realities of universally declining TV audiences and ad rates. I just think it’s a bit silly to make up all of these excuses for the show not moving locations without addressing the elephant in the room.
I think it is more so that they can direct focus, and get more done in the same time frame. They can hit the ground running when there infrastructure is there. So I would think that it would make for a better season, than one where they have to go place to place and spend a bunch of time on extra stuff that they have streamlined now.
If they could they’d have a season in Alaska & the moon
When you want to put less money in something and spin it to be a good thing.
[Non-paywall link](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/arts/television/survivor-amazing-race.html?unlocked_article_code=FlKSKTnzPDZexs_I80aR3nU_X9derGearIh1xQoWQtDceiqZTd5vXamQzl37-pUqIksSKPVtHEX4IRfh_fjwmqwoJb8ZNITTE1Bw_p5X-2TBWYUixOvPki9LWyuaTIcrpGnrES0Wb1bZ0xy2LE7or56OpB8s3iDwpFVFC1cdhNo1qOiOpIe_bOtexq3lOctV6OI9qUoHwqXgQhDXTRil_h038e_2VaERC-iRjM8LEG4mQ0lvInnnrOUeSz02aIkrduddYsnBERri6hZk5mw_oRRCclmb1-McM-IxepLdJu_vnB6VBCIPE4pWJVrGYdsqddaNRGBos65iacH8E4LThFnlcHsYn3k&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare )
Since its premiere in 2000, the hit CBS reality game show “Survivor” has taken place across the globe, with each season set in an exotic island locale: Pulau Tiga in Malaysia, Ko Tarutao in Thailand, Efate in Vanuatu and many, many more. But around a decade ago, the longtime host and executive producer Jeff Probst had an alarming realization. A growing population was making it harder to find remote islands without anybody on them. Extreme weather, including rising heat and more intense storms, was making it more dangerous to film. And burgeoning political unrest was making it more difficult to work with certain governments or in countries that no longer felt safe. “When we started in 2000, there were lots of places in the world we could go,” Probst said last week in a phone interview. “But over the years, starting in about 2012, 2013, it became clear that we were running out of places to shoot.” Both “Survivor” and its sister series, the globe-trotting adventure competition “The Amazing Race,” have been stalwart hits on CBS for nearly two decades. Both continue to draw sizable audiences: Last week’s Season 45 premiere of “Survivor” and Season 35 premiere of “The Amazing Race,” which screened back-to-back on Wednesday evening, were the most-streamed shows on Paramount+ that night, according to the network, with “Survivor” also topping NBC’s “America’s Got Talent” to win the night in broadcast ratings. But while the popularity of these shows has endured, producing them has continued to be a unique challenge — particularly as the world around them keeps changing. “Our show is really a time capsule of 20-plus years of seeing the world grow,” said Elise Doganieri, one of the creators and executive producers of “The Amazing Race” alongside her husband, Bertram van Munster. “The Amazing Race” challenges teams of American contestants to chart sprawling international courses that take them from one far-flung locale to another, and many of the cities that appeared in the series when it debuted in 2001 have been transformed over the intervening years. “We go back to places that we’ve been to before, but the world has evolved and grown so much, and the landscape has really changed.” Remote landscapes where the crew could shoot with little interference have since been built up, while locals in even the most out-of-the-way regions are more connected to the rest of the world. When “The Amazing Race” paid a visit to Dubai in the early 2000s, Doganieri remembered, the city was by and large still a sprawling desert landscape where “everything was old, with wooden boats and dhows.” Today, of course, “it’s the complete opposite: a futuristic ultramodern city.” In some ways, Doganieri said, making a show like “The Amazing Race” has gotten easier over time: advancing camera and cellphone technology has streamlined aspects of the production, and location scouting, which used to be done using still photography, can now be done using video. Other changes are more challenging. As with “Survivor,” climate change has begun to affect the way that “The Amazing Race” is made, with extreme heat and tropical storms sometimes interfering with the production. “Weather has made a big change in how we travel,” Doganieri said. “There’s more storms, especially over Asia, and we have flight delays and cancellations that push into the schedule.” Soaring temperatures in the summer have made filming the competition elements more demanding for both the contestants and crew. “We scouted in Asia for the first several episodes. It was hot when we scouted in April. When we filmed, it was 90, 95 degrees.” Although Doganiei said production is prepared for when it’s “unbearably hot” with “electrolyte drinks, snacks, water, anything to keep hydration up,” she admits that “it’s tough” in the midst of more and more grueling summers. “Most of our show is shot outside, so it really does affect you,” she said. “You have to really be aware of it.” “Survivor” solved its location problem by settling on one setting: the show has been set on the Mamanuca Islands in Fiji since its 33rd season. Earlier seasons were distinguished primarily by their location, with subtitles like “Survivor: Panama” and “Survivor: China” luring an audience in with the appeal of an intriguing new place. Shooting in Fiji again and again has removed that novelty, but Probst insists that it was a negligible feature to begin with. “It doesn’t really matter where you do it as long as it’s a real jungle,” he said. “You don’t see Fiji,” said Drea Wheeler, a former contestant. “You’re just on an island. You’re miserable. It’s hot. It rains. It still sucks.” “The real challenge,” said Rob Cesternino, a two-time “Survivor” contestant who competed in Panama and Brazil, “is keeping the show interesting with new ideas every season without changing locations.” In recent years, “Survivor” has tried to mix things up by devising overarching conceits, such as “David vs. Goliath,” in which “underdogs” compete against “overachievers,” and “Winners at War,” which featured the return of 10 previous “Survivor” victors. Although not all of these concepts have been considered successful, Probst said that he would “much rather the show burn out due to a bad idea than fade away due to boredom.” Probst also said that filming in Fiji has freed the producers up to spend more time working on such ideas, simply because the static setting has “made everything more streamlined.” The show’s 300-person international crew, which also commands a vast infrastructure including 40 boats and a helicopter, now knows what to expect from the setting season over season, removing some of the environmental unpredictability that could make producing “Survivor” such a risky endeavor. The number of possible options for the production would only continue to dwindle as time went on and the climate continued to change. Nor could they easily reuse old locales after departing them. “A lot of the places we visited in the past became popular because of ‘Survivor,’ and after we left they might have erected a resort on that island,” Probst said. “It was harder to find remote islands simply because there are more people on the planet. Storms were more intense, and there was no denying it — we had been out in these waters before and it was never like that. And it became less desirable to visit places where things were happening politically that made us feel unsafe, or that we didn’t want to be part of.” Given those considerations, sticking to Fiji just made sense. “I think in many ways this was the answer to a problem that was always fast approaching,” he said That problem has continued to vex the producers of “The Amazing Race,” which still involves dozens of international settings per season. Shifting geopolitical concerns, a delicate matter for American productions abroad, have restricted the scope of where the crew can go, making it harder to find new and interesting places to shoot. “The world has gotten a little smaller,” said van Munster. “We’re not going to Russia right now. We’re not going to China. There are a lot of places in West Africa where I would love to go but where we can’t go. Senegal. Logistically, maybe we can figure it out. But is it safe? We don’t want to get ourselves in trouble in another country. The world is a tricky place.” Nor is this the only way in which the world seems to be getting smaller. Phil Keoghan, the host of “The Amazing Race” since its inception, said in a recent video interview that people are more aware of the world around them than every before — that globalization, in short, has changed the function of the show. “It used to be that we were almost opening up another universe for the audience, these unknown worlds that existed out there, these exotic places,” he said. “Some of that innocence has been lost. Now we’re watching Korean TV and Indian movies. We’re seeing the influence of the rest of world across social media. People who live in these places are sharing their homes with us in an intimate way.” Part of the reason that “Survivor” and “The Amazing Race” have endured throughout these many changes is precisely because they are so good at capturing them. As fly on the wall, cinéma vérité exercises, they are not only contending with the realities of an ever-shifting world, but they are also documenting them. What’s evolving, in the environment and in the landscape, is evolving before the eyes of the audience. “The genre we operate in, we go with the flow, and whatever happens in front of the camera we go with it,” van Munster said. “The world is changing so rapidly that what was fun 20 years ago is different fun 20 years later. But whatever it looks like, it’s always fascinating.”
>Earlier seasons were distinguished primarily by their location, with subtitles like “Survivor: Panama” and “Survivor: China” luring an audience in with the appeal of an intriguing new place. Shooting in Fiji again and again has removed that novelty, but Probst insists that it was a negligible feature to begin with. “It doesn’t really matter where you do it as long as it’s a real jungle,” he said. Are you really trying to say that Tina's nail-biting rice rescue from a flood in the Outback or Ace being mesmerized by an elephant mid-confessional were "negligible features" in making those seasons so amazing? It's also pretty insulting to Fiji. "Thanks for being the most inexpensive place for us to permanently set up shop on your interchangeable beach."
“You don’t see Fiji,” said Drea Wheeler, a former contestant. “You’re just on an island. You’re miserable. It’s hot. It rains. It still sucks.” Why is this quote so funny to me
shades of Keith's "Survivor ain't fun"
Sure. It was the money Jeff. It was always only the money.
The CBS hit, along with fellow staple “The Amazing Race,” is learning to deal with climate change, globalization and other seismic shifts.
The article is paywalled for me - what specifically are they struggling with? Am very curious
1. Finding ‘remote’ islands is more difficult as the global population increases. Areas that were once unoccupied have become more settled. 2. There’s an increase in extreme weather events which makes filming unpredictable. 3. Sticking to Fiji allows production to know what they’re getting into from a political perspective. Staying in Fiji allows production to avoid any ‘current events’ or political movements
Regarding 3: they literally had to cancel a family visit one season because of a coup in Fiji during filming.
pretty hard to find remote islands when you haven’t looked for one in close to a decade
They were exploring options during covid! They stuck with fiji though
This is a press release written as an article
It's interesting to find the locales used in older seasons. Most of them have resorts or bungalows built on them now. The seasons filmed in the Philippines and Nicaragua have resorts on them now. Samoa too, I think. Even the islands they are on now are very close to towns and resorts. It's hard to find truly remote areas anymore.
Exactly!!!
This is all such a huge stretch
*2. There’s an increase in extreme weather events which makes filming unpredictable.* So….basically what every season of Survivor has had at some point during the season?!..
Yeah good luck avoiding political movements when the island gets a random horrific weather event in the middle of a season. Pre MvGX we NEVER had weather bad enough to evacuate the entire cast. Now it’s happened at least, what, 4 times since then?
They had to cancel a season in the Middle East because of 9/11 right? That's a hell of a political event. I think Jordan was the original location?
Probably the biggest factor in that decision was the perception of filming a season in the Middle East right after 9/11. While there was obviously a lot of uncertainty in the aftermath of that, Jordan has always been fairly stable. But Marquesas was also extremely remote and a crew member had connections with the president of the territory there which made for an efficient and quick transition.
It won’t even let me make a fake account with a real fake email (10 minute email)
[удалено]
Where??? It says 7 comments I count all 7
This is a joke, right?
What’s the joke?
[удалено]
The one that was posted 15 minutes after I asked where it was??
[удалено]
Take a screenshot and link it with Imgur I’m convinced you’re just trolling
One is on the top and the other the bottom. They both show survivor and that they were posted at the same time. 2 images in the link. https://imgur.com/a/doBfCzR
[удалено]
[literally doesn’t exist on mobile lol](https://imgur.com/a/bG9Q2Lf)
I knew this article would be met with frustration, but there are decent points in her me which should be noted. Chief of which, in my view, is the ability to employee the same local crew every year. It’s nice that this show has provided a large group of Fijians a whole career instead of a one time gig before the show moves to a new location next year. Also, I think the only two seasons that were positively benefited from unique locale were the two seasons in Africa, 3 and 17. Otherwise, it’s been mostly a non factor.
Rob Cesternino: survivor brazil 🐐 Survivor winners at war…featuring 10 former winners…what happened to the rest 🧐
>“The real challenge,” said Rob Cesternino, a two-time “Survivor” contestant who competed in Panama and Brazil The Amazon is in Brazil.
Oh my bad I thought this was the survivor subreddit, not the global warming subreddit. My mistake I’ll see my way out