“Survivor” What-Ifs?: Blood vs. Water

Come on in, guys!  There’s blood in the water, and that blood is fighting the water, which means it’s time for a new blog!  As my incredibly lame joke (and, you know, the title) indicated, today we’re going to make a change in “Survivor Blood vs. Water”.  Neither the most beloved season, nor a hated season, let’s see if we can change that perception with one simple change in the game.  And no, the change is not “No Redemption Island”.  Much as I would like it to be the case, it goes against my own guidelines to do so.  Therefore, this will be a different change.  

It also goes against my guidelines to not remind you all that this blog will contain SPOILERS.  As it’s difficult to discuss how a timeline changed without comparing it to how things actually went down, there will be spoilers for this season if you haven’t already seen it.  In addition, we discuss how this change impacts returnee seasons, and the show as a whole, after the season ends, so if you don’t want to possibly be spoiled on seasons that come after this one, read ahead only with caution.  Sufficiently warned?  Good!  Let’s begin.  

THE IMPACT

Ciera Eastin.  The woman who, as Probst is fond of reminding us, “Voted out her mom”.  A good player who unfortunately, in my opinion, gets less credit than she deserves, due to overhype.  That said, if you remember her for something other than voting out her own mom, you remember her for forcing the first rock in the history of the show since “Survivor Marquesas”.  A move that was necessary for her to make if she wanted to have any chance at winning, but too little, too late.  Poor timing is the greatest flaw of Ciera.  

But what if it wasn’t too late?  After all, Ciera was offered a chance to flip at the final seven, a time when the loved ones outnumbered the returning players.  No danger of a tie there.  We know that Ciera had the capacity to understand that she needed to flip to win, so let’s let her have that brainwave earlier.  What happens then?

Well, that kind of depends on who gets targeted.  Even in our timeline, Tyson plays his idol on himself, and I doubt he would miss the possibility of a Ciera flip.  That said, I do think this alliance of four is smart enough to realize this, and thus probably target Monica or Gervase instead.  Unless Tyson picks up on this plan (which is, admittedly, plausible, but let’s roll with this choice for now; give the new players the best chance of success), the alliance of four succeeds, and is now up 4-2 going into the final 6.  

THE FALLOUT

With the hidden immunity idol played, a new one gets hidden.  As in our timeline, Laura Morett probably wins, even with either Gervase or Monica there.  They’re good competition, but Laura was a beast, even up against other challenge threats.  As in our timeline, Laura shares the clue with Ciera, being her daughter and all.  The difference here is that Ciera DOESN’T share the clue with Tyson, since she’s no longer allied with him, thus likely preventing Tyson from finding the idol.  From there, it’s pretty much down straight alliance lines to the finale episode, since we know that one of the two will be vulnerable at the Final 6, and Ciera in our timeline won immunity at the Final 5, both will be vulnerable at least once and go.  My guess, since Monica was close to winning the Final 6 immunity in our timeline, is that Tyson goes at 6, and Monica at 5.  

The wrinkle for the new alliance is, of course, Redemption Island.  Despite Laura’s best efforts to get Tina to the end, Tyson’s too good a challenge competitor to not win his way back in.  Look at how he did on the Edge of Extinction on “Winners at War”.  Yes, Tyson had advantages bought with Fire Tokens there, but the dude still had game, and given that Redemption Island is going to be less harsh overall, I’m guessing our final challenge to return to the game comes down to Laura, Tyson, and Monica, with Tyson winning his way back into the game at this juncture.  

This win, unfortunately, seals the fate of the alliance of four.  Tyson in our timeline wins the last two immunity challenges, and I see no reason that he doesn’t do so in this one.  Thus, the alliance of four is forced to eat itself.  Ciera probably goes out in the exact same spot, since she was the swing vote, and therefore on the bottom, followed by Katie, as the last person left with a loved one on the jury.  Thus, Tyson makes the end again, but now with Caleb and Hayden instead of Gervase and Monica.  

Once again, not a controversial call here, but Tyson still wins, even up against Caleb and Hayden.  Yes, Tyson did make some people on the jury mad, and yes, his win is probably not as dominating as in our timeline (Aras and Vytas, at least, aren’t voting for him when there are viable alternatives who didn’t screw them over as badly).  That said, the people who would be mad at Tyson are also probably mad at Hayden and Caleb, since they were also part of that alliance that voted them out, and only flipped after they left.  It’s also worth mentioning that Tyson is charming, and had the chance to work that charm on several jury members while on Redemption Island.  So, while the journey is quite different, the outcome is ultimately quite similar.  

THE LEGACY

So, right now you’re probably thinking “Well, what was the point of that?  Nothing really changed!”  Au contraire, mon frere (or soeur, as your individual gender may apply).  While the outcome is unchanged, how it’s received is.  Rather than having played the dominant game that none could deny, Tyson’s win is now racked with controversy.  After all, if you want to get technical, he lost.  He was voted out.  Full stop.  The only reason he had a chance was because of Redemption Island, and then he was able to just immunity his way to the end.  Not exactly an impressive game.  It honestly becomes an early indication of how the win of Chris Underwood is received on “Survivor Edge of Extinction”.  It’s to a lesser degree, if for no other reason a lot of people like Tyson as a returnee, but it’s still there.  Plus, Tyson was in the game longer than Chris, so there’s overall going to be less controversy, but controversy nonetheless.  I’d LIKE to believe this makes the show think twice about doing the Edge of Extinction twist at all, but let’s face it, history has shown that Probst will run a bad idea into the ground, no matter how obviously bad it is.  On the plus side, this also probably lowers Tyson’s overall target on “Survivor Winners at War”, to the point where he probably doesn’t leave at all until the post-merge.  If so, Tony probably goes in his place pre-merge, Yul probably gets back in at the first return challenge, the whole season is topsy-turvy, and really deserves its own write-up once we’re further removed from that season.  

Due to this controversy surrounding Tyson’s win, a lot of the loved ones on this season get more scrutiny.  Well, except for Katie.  She’s very nice, but just doesn’t “pop” on tv like the others do.  Ciera is honestly even more beloved than she is in our timeline.  Ciera haters tend to point to her NOT flipping at final seven as a reason why she’s not that great at the game, but now there’s no excuse.  Ciera played well, made all the moves she needed to make, but was denied a win due to a combination of Redemption Island/Tyson winning challenges.  There’s a lot of hate around that, and I see a lot of “Justice for Ciera” posts springing up in the “Survivor” world.  Hayden is also in a similar situation, and I see there being a lot of debate between fans of Ciera and fans of Hayden over who deserves credit for the final seven vote, and who would have won between the two.  Caleb is in there as well, and probably has a greater share of the fandom than he has now, though the conversation around him is more subdued, partly because his game is less flashy than those two, and partly because of his tragic, untimely death, which unfortunately still happens even in this timeline.  

Ciera’s reputation being greater probably doesn’t change much about her appearances.  She’s still going on “Second Chances”, and will be all about the big moves there, leading to her paranoia in “Game Changers” and her early exit.  If production doesn’t decide they NEED Hayden in the “Second Chance” vote, we probably see him back in “Game Changers”, probably in the spot of JT or Zeke.  If they do decide to put him in the “Second Chance” vote, he undoubtedly makes it back in, probably in Woo’s spot if I had to guess, and replacing Brad Culpepper on the ballot overall.  Other than that, though, there’s not much that changes in terms of returnees from the season.  This late, a lot of the people who made an impact already did so, and there just aren’t that many opportunities after this season. 

Sadly, overall this change to the timeline makes the season worse.  While the new players get more deserved respect, the ending is just too controversial, and the season is looked down upon as a mess set up by production.  After all, we were going to get an exciting new winner, finally seeing the new players beat the veterans… Only to have that dashed by Redemption Island.  Controversy abounds, and Blood vs. Water is remembered as a good idea wasted by bad production decisions.  On the plus side, “San Juan del Sur” is now considered the superior implementation of the concept, so at least that season gets a boost.  

And that about covers the major changes that happen as a result of this change to the timeline.  That said, there’s still more to discuss out there, and I want your input on what to cover!  Feel free to list your ideas for changes to examine in the comments below, or wherever this blog is posted.  As always, there are some guidelines to making sure your idea gets considered, which are listed below:  

1. One Change Only: This can’t be a whole bunch of things or multiple things going another way to alter the course of a season.  This must be one singular event that alters the season in some way.  Cascade effects, where one change naturally leads to another, are ok, but they have to be natural and logical.  As an example, Shii-Ann not flipping and Chuay Gahn losing the final 10 immunity challenge on “Survivor Thailand” would definitely change things, but those are two independent changes that need to happen, and therefore not appropriate for this blog.  I should also mention that the change has to be an EVENT, not a play style.  Yes, “Survivor Heroes vs. Villains” probably goes much differently if Russell Hantz (“Survivor Samoa”) isn’t an asshole to everyone, but apart from that never happening, it’s a change in overall play style, not a single moment.  It’s also, as I say, implausible, which leads to my next ground rule…

2. The Change Must Be Realistic: An unlikely change is ok, but it has to be something that COULD have happened, or it’s not worth writing about.  Yes, Fang winning the first immunity challenge on “Survivor Gabon” would drastically change the season.  Would it ever happen?  No.  So there’s no point in writing about it.  

3. The Change Must Have An Impact: By this, I mean the change has to actually alter the season in some significant way.  Simply changing up the boot order is not enough.  Someone new has to win, the perception of the season has to change, or both.  As an example, I originally planned to do a blog on “Survivor Heroes vs. Villains”, with a timeline where Candice didn’t flip at the final 9.  I thought this could lead to a Heroes victory.  Then I remembered that Russell Hantz plays his idol in that same episode, meaning the flip most likely doesn’t matter, and apart from a slight boot order change, the season as a whole remains untouched.  Uninteresting, and therefore not worth talking about.  

In addition to these hard-and-fast rules, there are two what I call “Flexible Rules”.  As the name would imply, these rules can be bent with a compelling arguments, but they are two things that should be borne in mind when suggesting new situations to examine:

4. US Seasons Only: This is nothing against international seasons of “Survivor”.  From what I’ve heard through the grapevine, they can be quite good.  The trouble is, as a citizen on the US, the US version of “Survivor” is the one I’m most familiar with, know the most about, and have seen the most of.  I haven’t even seen a full international season of “Survivor”, just the occasional clip.  Nothing knocking them, of course.  I just haven’t gotten around to viewing them.  So, while I won’t outright ban the suggesting of changes from non-US seasons of “Survivor”, bear in mind that I’m unlikely to pick them due to a lack of knowledge and lack of time to catch up on the seasons.  

5. I Will Not Do Brandon Flipping At The Africa Final 9: A flip by Brandon Quinton at the Final 9 of “Survivor Africa”, voting out Lex instead of Kelly, would indeed fit all the criteria mentioned above.  I’m refusing this particular scenario, not because it isn’t interesting or worth talking about, but because it was already covered by Mario Lanza in his book “When it Was Worth Playing For”.  He covered it so well and so thoroughly that I don’t think I would have anything to add.  I’m willing to consider this scenario if someone can give me a compelling reason that Mario is wrong, or there’s some aspect he didn’t consider, but until that time, this scenario is out.  Other “Survivor Africa” scenarios are ok, though.

Apologies for the downer of a timeline.  I just go where logic takes me.  Hopefully, the next one will be happier!

-Matt

“Survivor” What-Ifs?: Palau

Well, now that the 4th of July has passed in the US, thereby eliminating any sort of search-engine boost for topics relating to US history, let’s discuss the season that was steeped in US history, because that makes perfect sense!  Yes, if the title wasn’t clear, today we’re going to be making a small change to “Survivor Palau”.  As one of the more beloved and memorable seasons of the show, naturally we’re probably going to find some way to ruin it.  

As always, though, before we begin our deep dive, I should warn you that there are SPOILERS ahead.  Since we’re going to be discussing a change in the timeline, it’s going to be hard not to reference how things went down in our timeline.  In addition, changing the outcome of a season usually changes returnees in future seasons, so if you haven’t watched Palau, or any returnee seasons besides All-Stars, you may want to hold off on reading this blog until you do so.  With all that said, if you are still here, let’s dive into the change in question, shall we?

THE IMPACT

If you’re anything like me, you find that one of the funniest moments from Palau is at the final seven, where Stephenie, desperate to save herself, tries to form a women’s alliance, the women being up 4-3 at this point.  What is somewhat surprising is that this crack seems to start to open a bit, as both Katie and Jenn, Katie in particular, seem to start to consider the option.  Where everything falls apart is Caryn, who takes the information to Tom, thereby quashing any hope of such an alliance.  Or, as Katie memorably put it, “We can’t get a women’s alliance together because Caryn sucks.”

So, for this change, what if Caryn DIDN’T suck?  Or, to be more accurate, what if Caryn actually DID agree to join the women’s alliance?  This might seem like a stretch, since Caryn was openly not overly fond of Katie, but bear in mind, Caryn wasn’t overly fond of Tom either, finding him a bit authoritarian and condescending.  I guess it’s more accurate to say that Caryn wasn’t fond of pretty much anyone on her tribe (save Willard, but he’s long-gone by this point), and it was just a matter of who annoyed her most that particular day.  In this timeline, perhaps Tom was particularly overbearing that day, and so Caryn decided sticking in her lot with Katie was the better option.  

In this case, the women’s alliance not only happens, but takes out the man who, in our timeline, was the winner of the season.  Tom and Ian are the primary targets, and this change doesn’t prevent Ian from winning immunity this episode.  Thus Tom, the biggest target, goes down, and as you can imagine, that makes a great deal of difference on the rest of the season.  

THE FALLOUT

The problem the women’s alliance now faces is target availability.  In our timeline only Tom and Ian ever win immunity, and were pretty much each other’s only competition.  Gregg might have been able to put up something of a fight, but as a pretty distant third in every immunity challenge we saw, I don’t think it can be realistically said that he wins an immunity.  Thus, the women now have the issue that there’s nothing stopping Ian from winning immunity again and again.  

At first, this isn’t too bad, as there are fractures to be found in the alliance anyway.  While I feel like the women were willing to use Stephenie as a number, I don’t think they actually wanted to keep her around that long.  All of them were smart enough to realize she would decimate a jury, and thus not be a good endgame partner for them, particularly as, in the unlikely event that Ian and Gregg DO get eliminated, she’s now the biggest challenge threat left.  As such, if Ian wins immunity, I suspect Stephenie goes before Gregg.  Jenn was a savvy player, and while I don’t think she’d sacrifice her game for Gregg, it is fair to say that she realized that he was more of a number for her, and would be able to convince the women to turn on Stephenie.  

In exchange, Jenn probably has to promise to take Gregg out next, which most likely happens once Ian wins immunity again at five.  Then we come down to our final four, which is actually nearly the same as in our timeline, just substituting in Caryn for Tom.  This is where it gets tricky for the women, as again, I feel like Ian is a shoe-in to win every challenge from here on out.  If the women do fracture, Caryn is probably on the outs again, due to the whole “doesn’t really get along particularly well with anybody” thing.  Thus Ian, Jenn, and Katie are our final three, and once again, Ian wins, probably taking Katie to the end to prove his “loyalty” in the face of her “deception”.  

This, as one would expect, leads to an easy Ian victory.  I hesitate to say it’s 7-0 in Ian’s favor, as both Coby and Jenn would be wild cards in this case (the latter because Ian would have been personally responsible for her exit, the former because that’s just how he be), but I don’t see Katie scraping together 4 votes in any scenario against Ian.  Ironically, she has better arguments against him than she does against Tom in our timeline, but Ian now also has better arguments.  After all, he overcame a numbers deficit by an impressive 5-immunity streak, putting him in the same category as Colby Donaldson (“Survivor The Australian Outback”).  If that doesn’t lead to his victory with this jury, I don’t know what does.  

THE LEGACY

Since the change to this season has less of an effect on returnees for later seasons, we’ll start there.  While I do think Tom is still a big deal in this timeline, I doubt he ever gets the call to return again.  He’s still loved by many, and still a big hero, but without his improbable win, he’s basically another Hunter Ellis (“Survivor Marquesas”): Likable, but never going to win a game like “Survivor”.  His defeat would be considered inevitable, and thus not worth being brought back for, especially as the game focusses more and more heavily on strategy rather than survival.  In contrast, Ian probably takes his place on “Survivor Heroes vs. Villains”, and also probably gets brought back for “Survivor Winners at War”.  As to who he replaces there, I could see it being either Nick (due to Nick being one of the less well-remembered winners at the time, in spite of recency), or, to my regret, Ethan (due to he and Ethan being similar good-guy, not overly strategic character types).  

Of course, with a women’s alliance coming together, the women of this season get a lot more consideration as well, and for the better I say.  I’d normally say Jenn would be the most likely candidate for a return (i.e. I could see her taking Parvati’s spot on “Survivor Micronesia”), as she’s a young, attractive strategist, an archetype the show loves.  Unfortunately, tragedy gets in the way.  For you newer fans who may be unaware, Jenn was diagnosed with breast cancer about a year after “Survivor Palau”, a battle that she sadly lost around the time of “Survivor Heroes vs. Villains”, though she did at least live long enough to attend the 10th anniversary party, where she was able to say her goodbyes to a lot of her friends from the show.  Much as I would LIKE to change this outcome, the fact remains that there’s no realistic way to do so.  As such, I doubt her health allows her to return.  

Katie, on the other hand, definitely comes back at some point, now being seen as the person who really pushed for the women’s alliance to better her own game, and not just out of necessity as Stephenie did.  I don’t think Katie takes Parvati’s spot on Micronesia, as Jenn likely would have, and I don’t see Katie doing enough to earn a spot on Heroes vs. Villains.  Caramoan would seem a possibility, and I don’t doubt she’d be an alternate for that, but at that point unless Corinne said “No” to returning, I’m not sure who she replaces.  No, Katie, and by extension Caryn, have the best shot at returning on “Survivor Cambodia”, where I don’t doubt both of them are on the Second Chance ballot, probably replacing the likes of Mikayla and Stephanie.  Whether they get on, I’m not sure.  If Caryn doesn’t get on, I suspect her ship has sailed, but even if Katie doesn’t return, I’d imagine they bring her back for Game Changers at long last, taking either Hali or Sierra’s place.  

For all my cynicism at the top of this blog, the truth is that an Ian win probably doesn’t do that much to change how beloved the season was.  True, we lose the “Hero leader overcomes odds to win” storyline we got with a Tom victory, but it does get replaced with “Underdog nice guy immunities his way to the end”, which is almost as good and improbable, so the season doesn’t lose much there.  If you really want to split hairs, I would say the former storyline is probably more amazing, so perhaps the season loses a BIT of luster, but in exchange, I think it holds up better in the long run.  Despite this being, as I said, a fan-favorite season, Rob Has a Podcast has been doing a countdown of all the seasons, with Palau coming in 18th.  More than respectable, to be sure, but not this “Top Tier Season” it was seen as at the time.  The problem with Palau is that what makes it great, mainly the unlikely outcomes we see such as Ulong losing every immunity challenge and Tom winning, work well for a first-time watch, but when you rewatch and know they’re coming, they’re a lot less exciting.  Without mystery, the inevitable outcome is lessened in impact.  Here, however, Koror actually DOES shake things up post-merge, thereby giving you something interesting to look forward to.  Palau may not be as beloved in the moment in this timeline, but it ends up holding up much better to the test of time.  That said, physical threats become even more of a target than they already are in subsequent seasons.  After all, an Ian victory in this scenario proves that, if left unchecked, they CAN immunity their way to the end.  

In my opinion, though, the big impact here is on women’s alliances.  This is something that’s been discussed since the beginning of “Survivor”, being literally brought up in the first episode of “Survivor Borneo”, and even being openly discussed as recently as “Survivor Island of the Idols”.  Doubtless it will come up again, but I think the failure of the women’s alliance here to produce a female winner will trigger renewed discussion on this topic.  The problem here is timing.  While women’s alliances are not an unusual discussion on the show, they don’t necessarily pop up as often as one might think.  However, with a women’s alliance coming together on Palau, we now have two seasons right in a row with prominent women’s alliances, both of which went down in flames to a guy, since Vanuatu is unchanged in this timeline.  Hence, there’s probably a lot of discussion around “Can a women’s alliance truly stick it out?”, and more to the point, makes them a lot more likely to show up, since a lot of women on the show will have something to prove.  They’ll want to show they CAN stick it out against the men.  I still think we won’t get one that fully works out until Micronesia, but the discussion comes up more, and I think Guatemala, despite not having a formal women’s alliance, gets a lot of credit for having 4 of the final 5 be women, and for the women actually taking out the men at the end.  

This concludes are look at “Survivor Palau” for now, but not for the What-If series as a whole.  As always, I want to hear what you’d like discussed!  Leave your comments, either on this blog or wherever this blog is posted, describing what change you’d like to see examined.  As always, there are a few guidelines you should consider if you want to see your change discussed, and they are listed below:  

1. One Change Only: This can’t be a whole bunch of things or multiple things going another way to alter the course of a season.  This must be one singular event that alters the season in some way.  Cascade effects, where one change naturally leads to another, are ok, but they have to be natural and logical.  As an example, Shii-Ann not flipping and Chuay Gahn losing the final 10 immunity challenge on “Survivor Thailand” would definitely change things, but those are two independent changes that need to happen, and therefore not appropriate for this blog.  I should also mention that the change has to be an EVENT, not a play style.  Yes, “Survivor Heroes vs. Villains” probably goes much differently if Russell Hantz (“Survivor Samoa”) isn’t an asshole to everyone, but apart from that never happening, it’s a change in overall play style, not a single moment.  It’s also, as I say, implausible, which leads to my next ground rule…

2. The Change Must Be Realistic: An unlikely change is ok, but it has to be something that COULD have happened, or it’s not worth writing about.  Yes, Fang winning the first immunity challenge on “Survivor Gabon” would drastically change the season.  Would it ever happen?  No.  So there’s no point in writing about it.  

3. The Change Must Have An Impact: By this, I mean the change has to actually alter the season in some significant way.  Simply changing up the boot order is not enough.  Someone new has to win, the perception of the season has to change, or both.  As an example, I originally planned to do a blog on “Survivor Heroes vs. Villains”, with a timeline where Candice didn’t flip at the final 9.  I thought this could lead to a Heroes victory.  Then I remembered that Russell Hantz plays his idol in that same episode, meaning the flip most likely doesn’t matter, and apart from a slight boot order change, the season as a whole remains untouched.  Uninteresting, and therefore not worth talking about.  

In addition to these hard-and-fast rules, there are two what I call “Flexible Rules”.  As the name would imply, these rules can be bent with a compelling arguments, but they are two things that should be borne in mind when suggesting new situations to examine:

4. US Seasons Only: This is nothing against international seasons of “Survivor”.  From what I’ve heard through the grapevine, they can be quite good.  The trouble is, as a citizen on the US, the US version of “Survivor” is the one I’m most familiar with, know the most about, and have seen the most of.  I haven’t even seen a full international season of “Survivor”, just the occasional clip.  Nothing knocking them, of course.  I just haven’t gotten around to viewing them.  So, while I won’t outright ban the suggesting of changes from non-US seasons of “Survivor”, bear in mind that I’m unlikely to pick them due to a lack of knowledge and lack of time to catch up on the seasons.  

5. I Will Not Do Brandon Flipping At The Africa Final 9: A flip by Brandon Quinton at the Final 9 of “Survivor Africa”, voting out Lex instead of Kelly, would indeed fit all the criteria mentioned above.  I’m refusing this particular scenario, not because it isn’t interesting or worth talking about, but because it was already covered by Mario Lanza in his book “When it Was Worth Playing For”.  He covered it so well and so thoroughly that I don’t think I would have anything to add.  I’m willing to consider this scenario if someone can give me a compelling reason that Mario is wrong, or there’s some aspect he didn’t consider, but until that time, this scenario is out.  Other “Survivor Africa” scenarios are ok, though.

Hope you all enjoyed this latest installment of “Survivor What-Ifs?”.  I’ll try and get another one out before my vacation in a couple of weeks, but otherwise, I’ll see you back then!

-Matt