You’d better be ready. It’s coming for you. “It” in this case refers to both a meme-worthy marketing song, and the next edition of “Survivor” What-Ifs?; the blog where we make a change to the timeline of the show, and see how that changes the course of history. Or at least the course of the show’s history; I’m not so bold as to say a simple tv show has changed the fates of nations or anything like that.
As you might expect from that cheesy lead-in, the subject of today’s hypothetical is “Survivor Winners at War”, one of the most highly anticipated seasons ever, if not the most highly anticipated. The 20-year anniversary of the show, pitting the best of the best against each other. Yet, for all that anticipation, the best way I can describe how this season was received is as… “Mixed”. No doubt the hype for the premise in and of itself kept a lot of people riding a high, and there’s no denying there’s some spectacular gameplay, both good and bad, this season. But it’s also mired down by controversial twists, and a boot order that heavily favored the more recent era of the show. Can we turn this mixed reaction into something more definitively positive or negative? Let’s find out.
Before embarking on that journey, however, the usual reminder that there are SPOILERS ahead. Normally I’d just warn you away from this season or seasons after it, given how time moves forward from our perspective. However, as this season does a lot to honor the legacy of the past, I don’t feel comfortable saying that ANY season will not be spoiled in some manner. That said, if you have seen all the seasons up until this point, or just don’t care, let us dive in.
THE IMPACT
As a quick aside, this particular timeline change has been one I wanted to do for a while. Pretty much since the season ended, I thought this would be an interesting one to discuss. The only reason I’ve waited until now is that I wanted there to be at least a few seasons out after this one, so I can discuss how they’re impacted by the change. Still, now that it’s an appropriate time, I hope you enjoy!
Our change today brings us to episode 4 of Winners at War, perhaps most memorable for the comeback the Sele Tribe had during the immunity challenge, sending the Dakal Tribe to Tribal Council. This resulted in the ejection of Tyson, continuing the trend of largely “old-school” players going home. What you might NOT remember is that this was not the original plan. Initially, it was to be TONY, the eventual winner of this season, who was to be sent packing at this juncture, in keeping with the whole “split up the pairs” thing, and him not being trusted. For all the skill Tony showed in this season in our timeline, it must be said he got a bit lucky that Tyson overplayed his hand here, leading Sandra to switch the target to him instead.
So, as is the norm for this blog, what if that DIDN’T happen? Maybe Tyson keeps his mouth shut, or maybe Sandra still has a grudge against Tony from their time on “Survivor Game Changers”. In either case, this is the point where Tony is most vulnerable, and I do think it’s plausible that he ends up being the boot here. As this is something that happens at the end of the episode, there’s not much of an immediate impact beyond “Tony goes, Tyson stays”, so most of the big changes come in the next section, which we’ll get to now.
THE FALLOUT
Up front, let me state that this blog about the changes might not be as detailed as some of the past ones. The earlier in a season a change happens, the harder things are to predict from there. While this is hardly the EARLIEST change in a season I’ve ever done, it’s still pretty early. Add onto that the sheer number of twists and advantages in this season, and I can’t say specifically what will happen as the game progresses. That said, there are some generalities I can make, where there’s a specific moment I know would change I’ll talk about it, and I’ll still be making a call as to who the new winner would be in this timeline.
For the most part, Tony leaving versus Tyson leaves the pre-merge pretty much unchanged. Assuming he gets swapped to the same spot Tony would take, and assuming he’s at least as competent in challenges as Tony (which I would say the evidence supports Tyson being better at challenges than Tony), Tyson only attends one more Tribal Council pre-merge, the famous “Queenslayer” one where Denise blindsides Sandra basically with her own idol. Since Denise didn’t go for Tony in that situation, I don’t see any reason Tyson would be different. Unless new Dakal manage to win that challenge in this timeline, we still get the “Queenslayer” moment, and there’s much rejoicing.
No, our first big change comes at the Re-Entry Challenge for those on the Edge of Extinction this season. Tyson, you may recall, won this challenge in our timeline, but now he’s not there to win it. The easy thing would be to say Tony wins in his place, but I don’t think that’s the case. Tony proved this season that he’s better in challenges than we gave him credit for before (frankly, his individual record is abysmal prior to this season. KASS had more individual immunity wins than he did, and they were tied for overall victories), but that doesn’t mean he’s good compared to some of the others.
That being the case, I’m inclined to give the win here to Boston Rob. He was a very close second from what we saw in our timeline, and I’m confident he could beat Tony. As such, he joins the merge tribe, alongside Tyson as the second “old school” player left.
Sadly for Rob, this return is short-lived. Not to say that Tyson isn’t a threat, but he isn’t a LEGENDARY threat like Rob is. Moreover, the new-school players still very much outnumber the old-school players, and I doubt this will be overlooked. Rob may not be the ABSOLUTE first out at the merge, if only for split votes due to threat of an idol (or Rob obtaining an idol in some fashion), but the target will forever be on him until he goes, and that will likely be sooner rather than later.
Another specific event worth mentioning is the extortion advantage, which very much falls flat in this timeline. Not that it doesn’t happen or anything. I doubt production has enough restraint to NOT put that in a season. Nor would I even say it would not be successful in this timeline. Natalie and Parvati doubtless know who to give it to, if not Tony, to get the most fire tokens out of it. But let’s be real, the majority of the reason that advantage is at all fondly remembered today is because of Tony’s reaction to it. Say what you will, the man was good tv. I doubt anyone else left, save possibly Ben, was going to have as big a reaction as Tony. As such, the extortion advantage, and by extension Fire Tokens, are not as fondly remembered in the “Survivor” lexicon. Bear this in mind; it will be relevant later.
I also doubt Tony’s presence on the Edge of Extinction will change Natalie coming back at the end. Tony has a good skill set all his own, but Natalie flat-out OWNED the Edge of Extinction, and I doubt even Tony could have stopped her.
As to who wins in this timeline, then? Well, we know that, broadly, the merge was fought between two large coalitions: One led by Sophie, one led by Jeremy. Tony, in our timeline, played swing between these two (taking Sarah along for the ride, being his REAL true alliance), and so neither really ever gained enough power to dominate. Without that swing factor? MAYBE Tyson’s able to pull that off, but without Tony’s mastery, I’m inclined to think he won’t. The most likely outcome, then, is one alliance flat-out dominating the other. Given that Jeremy’s alliance was much more fractured overall, I’m inclined to say Sophie’s alliance comes out on top, and just steamrolls the post-merge portion of the game.
Heck, I’ll even go one further and say Sophie wins it all. Until Tony cottoned on to what she was doing, Sophie was playing a good, subtle game, and had an idol as insurance. Without Tony there to call her out, she could very easily run the table all the way to the end, and I think this particular jury would respect her for that. Yeah, Natalie could play a spoiler, but I think Sophie has the skills to keep her in check, and not torpedo her game as a result.
Then, how would a Sophie win impact things down the line? Let’s discuss.
THE LEGACY
For once, there’s no need to talk about how a change impacts returnee seasons, because there aren’t any post-Winners at War. That said, we probably do still get the “modern era” of “Survivor” largely unchanged as a result of this. COVID still happens, and they probably take this time to do their “soft reboot” as well.
As to the season overall? Still largely a mixed review, though perhaps trending a bit more negative. Really, the reason for the mixed reaction is due to the hype for the premise, and the quality of the gameplay, clashing against controversial twists and a boot order that favored the new-school. You could argue that this timeline isn’t QUITE as anti-old-school as our own, but two old-schoolers at the merge is hardly better than one, particularly when one or both of them likely go out a decent way before the finale.
Even Fire Tokens are a bit more controversial now. True, we still have the Ethan-Nearly-Dies moment that people talk about, but without Tony’s reaction to the Extortion Advantage, do we really have fond memories to counteract how much screen time Fire Tokens took? No, the reaction of Fire Tokens goes from mixed to negative, and THAT does change something. Specifically, it changes the ORIGINAL plans for “Survivor 41”.
In case you don’t know, we’ve heard a lot from various sources about what the plans for “Survivor 41” were pre-COVID. It would be titled “Dawn of a New Era” (because that isn’t a mouthful at all), and would have centered around Fire Tokens. Rick Devans of “Survivor Edge of Extinction” would have been brought in to run a trading post where people could exchange Fire Tokens for various items, either camp life stuff or advantages in the game. The idea was thankfully nixed when Mike White (“Survivor David vs. Goliath”) pointed out to Probst that it wasn’t fun, but that it even got that far in the planning phase speaks to how willing the show was to run with the twist. Or at least how doggedly Probst was going to hang on to it.
Without that mixed reaction? I think there’s a lot less drive for this twist, and plans for the original “Survivor 41” might be different. Look, Probst will hold to bad ideas he thinks are good, this is known, but even he is willing to (sometimes) accept the writing on the wall. I think, with a greater public backlash against them, even he’s not as willing to hold onto Fire Tokens as an idea.
Different path, but same outcome. Are there any SUBSTANTIAL changes in this timeline? Well yes, but they’re on a more personal level, rather than a season level. Two players in particular have their reputations radically changed by this season. Tony is the obvious one, of course. Conventional wisdom going into the season was that Tony was a proverbial unicorn. Someone who played a one-in-a-million game that we got to see unfold, but as a result stood no chance of winning ever again. We, in our timeline, now know that Tony CAN change up his play style enough to pull off multiple wins. A boot that early, however? That perception remains unchanged, and while Tony still makes the Mt. Rushmore of great “Survivor” characters, he may not be as much of a lock for top strategists as he is in our timeline.
But what of our winner, Sophie? Well, both after her initial win and this season in our timeline, she’s well-respected, but not that remembered. Someone who played a solid game, but not one of the all-time greats. If, however, she runs the table Kim Spradlin-style? Against what are supposed to be “The best of the best”? Yeah, Sophie’s a legend now. She IS put up for consideration for that “Survivor” Mt. Rushmore, where she really isn’t in our timeline, sad to say.
It is this running of the table, however, that helps make the season trend more negative. Again, think of it like “Survivor One World”. You respect the winner played an impressive game, but that impressive game made the show boring to watch, as they blatantly marched to the end with few people doing anything about it. A game you can respect, but not fun to watch. Again, this has the spectacle of its premise to keep from being hated, but in this timeline, that’s about ALL it has going for it.
That said, there’s a LOT of permutations with such an early change on a relatively chaotic season. If you think things would go a different way, feel free to let me know in the comments! Also feel free to suggest any ideas for What-If? scenarios you’d like to see me cover there as well! Guidelines for what submissions are likely to be considered are as follows:
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 guidelines, there are also what I call “Flexible Guidelines”. As the name would imply, these can be bent with a compelling arguments, but they are 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.
6. Try Not To Repeat Seasons: This is by far the most flexible of the flexible guidelines, particularly as many seasons have multiple inflection points with a fascinating change to dissect. However, to prevent a lot of repetition, I try and prioritize scenarios from a season I haven’t done a “What-If?” on yet, over ones that I’ve already covered one scenario on. You can feel free to submit scenarios for seasons I’ve already looked at, but bear in mind that I’m unlikely to cover them until I’m out of ideas for “What-Ifs?” on seasons I haven’t done yet. For reference, at the time of this writing, I have done scenarios from the following seasons: Africa, Marquesas, Pearl Islands, All-Stars, Palau, Guatemala, Exile Island, Micronesia, Gabon, Samoa, Heroes vs. Villains, Redemption Island, One World, Philippines, Blood vs. Water, Game Changers, Ghost Island, Island of the Idols, Winners at War.
This one was really fun for me to think about, so I hope you enjoy! Let me know your thought’s below, and I’ll see you in the next one!
-Matt
idolspeculation 