The off-season is upon us; I’m well-rested up. As such, I think it’s time to revive off-season content once again, and I’m itching to get back to my old staple “Survivor What-Ifs?”, the series where I look at a pivotal moment in the show’s history, change one little thing, and see how that change influences things down the line. I did a few of these last major off-season, and if I may be so bold, I think those were some of my best work yet on this series. That said, they were all relatively later in the timeline. Nothing that was particularly taxing in terms of how much history happened since then. So, let’s change that by going as far back as I’ve ever gone with one of these blogs. Time to go Back to the Outback with “Survivor The Australian Outback”.
First, a couple of reminders, since it’s been a while since we’ve done one of these blogs. I divide this style of blog into three sections: “The Impact”, which looks at the change we’re making, and how it affects the episode in which it occurs; “The Fallout”, which considers how the change impacts the entire rest of the season; and “The Legacy”, which looks both at how returnees change moving forward from the season, as well as how individual characters and the season as a whole are perceived in comparison to their current incarnation. With this last part in particular, I have to discuss, at least a bit, how things went down in our timeline. As such, there will be SPOILERS ahead. If you haven’t seen anything after “Survivor Borneo” (in which case I question why you’re reading this blog, but hey, happy to have you anyway), this will not be a safe read from a spoiler perspective. Now, necessary business out of the way, let’s look at the pivotal moment we’re making a change to for this season.
THE IMPACT
Australia as a season has a number of pivotal moments or “inflection points”, if you will, that I could make a change too. Part of why the season is so beloved today is that there’s drama in seeing how things could so EASILY have gone a different way, and how precisely every piece had to move to get the outcome we know. However, while I could talk about what would happen if Skupin doesn’t fall in the fire, or if the person Tina replaced didn’t back out due to the planned “skydiving” opening, or if Kucha votes for Jerri at the merge, or if Amber flipped on Ogakor after Jerri’s ouster, I feel like all of these get a lot of talk in their own right. Instead, I’m going to focus on a still well-known, but less discussed, inflection point for this season.
Episode 4 of “Survivor The Australian Outback” is perhaps best known for its voting confessionals, particularly Tina’s iconic “Let the games begin” one. Memorable as that is, I don’t see a lot of people mention the little detail she let slip in it; namely that voting Mitchell was a “last minute” change. As in literally on the walk to Tribal Council, with no cameras rolling (hence the rule change for no talking on the way to Tribal moving forward). This is because, despite Mitchell getting voted out, he was not the original target. Unsurprisingly, Jerri was, since she was grating on Keith and Tina’s nerves. How would the votes for that work, you ask? Well, Tina’s original pitch was not to Colby, but to MITCHELL, hoping he would flip on allies Jerri and Amber. Mitchell declined, thus leading to the last minute pitch to Colby to vote out Mitchell due to his physical weakness.
Obviously, this plan worked in our timeline, but what if it wasn’t necessary? What if Tina HAD managed to convince Mitchell to flip at this juncture? Yes, a tad unrealistic for this timeline, but I think had Tina informed Mitchell of an alternate plan to vote him off if he DIDN’T flip, then there’s a possibility Mitchell flips just to save his own skin. So, what happens then?
The obvious outcome here is Jerri goes home. Either Tina also makes a pitch to Colby, or else we get a tie vote, and then Colby flips on a revote. Dude was loyal enough, but he was also annoyed by Jerri and Amber by this point, so probably wouldn’t lose too much sleep over turning on them to save his own skin. Yes, the black widow, the original villainess, goes out unceremoniously in episode 4. Contemplate that while we move on to the next section.
THE FALLOUT
In the short term, this change doesn’t really alter the next few episodes of the season. True, Mitchell’s there instead of Jerri, and he’s weaker in challenges at this point, but I don’t see that altering too much. Unless Mitchell was THAT MUCH of a challenge sink, or needed an evacuation, Kucha still loses, mostly due to not having to sit someone out on the maze challenge. Their larger numbers make navigation harder, and thus they lose and we still lose Kimmi in this spot.
Mitchell’s presence or absence obviously has no impact on Skupin getting medevacced. The merge vote also probably goes down similarly to our timeline, since Colby would have at least some incentive to give Ogakor a leg up in numbers, and would go along with the “look like a jerk so they think I have votes on me” plan that worked to perfection in our timeline.
Really, the first change in boot order is a minor one, with Amber going out when Jerri does in our timeline, at the final 8. Amber, understandably, is probably upset at being blindsided, and losing her number one ally in the process. Tempting as it is to say this means she flips to Kucha, given that she was still betrayed in our timeline and didn’t flip, I’m inclined to say she doesn’t do so here either. It’s also tempting to say Kucha gets straight-up Pagonged, but again, I don’t think that’s realistic. While I think Amber flipping post-merge is UNLIKELY, it’s a non-zero chance. Tina is still in control of the Ogakor alliance at this point, and is not one to let such a threat lie dormant. Thus, with Nick immune and Roger and Elisabeth having bonded with Tina, I still think she uses this opportunity to eliminate an unstable element from the game, namely an Amber who could possibly flip on them.
With a largely unchanged boot order, however, Tina confronts a new hardship, one no amount of strategizing on her part could overcome. Tina faces a new problem on her path to victory. One I like to call “The Problem of Colby”.
Let’s not mince matters: Colby is good in challenges (“Survivor Heroes vs. Villains” notwithstanding). There’s a reason the man holds a record for individual immunity wins that has only ever been tied, not surpassed. For the Ogakor alliance in our timeline, this was largely a feature, not a bug. It kept all of Kucha vulnerable, and since Colby was in the core threesome that ran the alliance, helped keep them safe by and large as well. In THIS timeline, though, Colby’s not in the core of the alliance. He’s the fourth. And he knows it.
Tina would, of course, likely want to get rid of such an outsider on roughly the same timescale as in our timeline, in this case around when Amber goes out. The issue is that you CAN’T get rid of Colby. By the time he’s a threat to the alliance, he’s already on his immunity tear, and as we know from our timeline, no one can stop him. As such, while not a STRAIGHT Pagonging, Kucha does go out more linearly than in our timeline, with Amber’s early exit being the only break. Rodger and Elisabeth each move down a spot in placement, and Mitchell makes the final four. That’s the point where Mitchell probably goes out for being the least likely to win a challenge over Colby, though of course Colby wins the Final Immunity Challenge, since he’s against the same people as in our timeline, and we saw how that went.
Here’s where we get to the real meat that’s going to impact the legacy of this season. In our timeline, Colby controversially took Tina to the end with him over Keith, giving up a guaranteed win for a more 50/50 shot, while simultaneously cementing himself as the “good guy” of the season. It took a very specific set of circumstances to get to such an outcome, with Tina needing to work Colby over hard and run the narrative of the season to give Colby the incentive needed to take her.
In this timeline, Colby has no such incentive. Tina is good, but can’t overcome the fact that Colby was fourth out of Ogakor, only making it to the end thanks to immunity wins. As such, he has no incentive to take Tina, since she never did much for him, and he looks like the “good guy” by challenge-winning his way to the end anyway. Thus, the finals is instead Colby vs. Keith. Unsurprisingly, Colby wins in a landslide victory. Probably not perfect (Tina at least votes for Keith, and I could see Mitchell in this timeline doing so as well), but definitely a decisive victory. But what does this say about the season as a whole?
THE LEGACY
In a bit of a twist on formula, we need to talk about how the editing and perception of this season changes before we talk about how this affects returnees, because how the show is edited IS what impacts the returnees. At first glance, one might be tempted to say that these changes hurst the legacy of Australian Outback. No Jerri? No major villain. No Colby/Tina Final Tribal Council? Boring, predictable ending, and Colby isn’t quite the same hero that he is in our timeline. Surely that makes for a worse season, right?
Not so! Just because the show doesn’t have Jerri doesn’t mean it can’t have an iconic conflict. Faced with close to another straight Pagonging, my guess is the show plays up the internal Ogakor divisions. Rather than Jerri being the villain, and Colby the righteous hero who flipped against her, Jerri’s “villainy” is much more played down here. After all, aside from the Kel incident (which was not nearly as big a villain moment in-game as it was on the show), most of Jerri’s “villainous” moments are either snarky commentary (which can be cut out) or happened post-merge. With an early Jerri exit, she’s not nearly the villain she was.
Who are the “villains” then? Why, those who flipped on the perfectly innocent Jerri and Amber, just because they found them mildly annoying! Tina probably bears the brunt of this as the ringleader, but Mitchell and Keith catch their fair share of heat as well. Colby, however? Well, he flipped more out of necessity, and probably gets in some good confessionals about how bad he feels about doing so. Thus, the “Ogakor 3” are now the villains who need to be defeated. As such, Colby winning challenges to get to the end is seen as a righteous takedown against heavy odds. After all, if he loses one time once his streak starts, he’s probably dead meat. All the more impressive way to win then, particularly in the public’s eye at the time, when the game was just as much about literal “survival” as it was about social survival.
In summary, Colby’s star rises even higher than in our timeline. He may not get his “good guy” moment, but he does conquer the villainous “Ogakor 3”. Tina is the major villain of the season, Mitchell is more memorable just for sticking around longer (sadly his failing health limits his potential as a character, so this is still probably his only appearance), and Jerri is at best a fallen hero, at worst, a forgotten player. I’d say these changes average out to Australian Outback being remembered about the same amount as in our timeline. After all, a lot of it was just timing. The zeitgeist was at its highest point when it aired, so the season was always going to be iconic. It’s POSSIBLE that the season is remembered slightly less fondly than our timeline, if only because Tina, while more effective as a villain, is less iconic in confessionals than Jerri, but again, I think the timing of the season more than makes up for that. And hey, without the villain arc, Jerri’s mental health is probably in a MUCH better state in this timeline, and we respect that around here.
How would all this impact the gameplay of seasons moving forward? Most of the trends we know would remain the same, with perhaps a slight acceleration of the “get out the challenge threats” mentality. Given that such a mentality started becoming prominent in “Survivor Marquesas”, a mere two seasons later though, I’m inclined to say it doesn’t change much. More impactful is that we don’t have a female winner until that same season. As such, Vecepia’s win is a MUCH bigger deal in this timeline, and she doubtless gets a few calls to return that she doesn’t get in this one.
Speaking of returnees, let’s talk about “Survivor All-Stars” because this new timeline does shake things up a bit there. Colby of course returns, with an even bigger target on his back this time due to being a winner. Alicia still has her iconic blow-up with Kimmi that lands her on the season. And what the hey, we’ll leave Amber on the season, since she’s just as much of a “WTF?” pick in this timeline. Conversely, Jerri is in no way present. She is not the iconic villain of the season, and thus, probably no invite. In her place, I think it’s safe to say that Kelly Goldsmith (“Survivor Africa”) comes in. We know she was an alternate for the season already, and with no one around to fill the spot of “slightly villainous female early merge boot”, Kelly slots in quite nicely. Probably wouldn’t even have to switch up tribes, since if you’re going to have four players from Africa on the season, Kelly and Ethan probably have the least connection to one another, and thus are the best to stick on the same tribe.
Whether Tina is on or not is a bit of a tough nut to crack. True, she is the villain of the season, and the season itself is iconic, but on the other hand, she’s not quite the confessional giver that Jerri is. Maybe it’s enough to get her on, but given that we’ve got three from Australia already (and Colby is the big “get” of that group), I could see Tina getting passed up. If she is, then probably either Vecepia takes her place, or else Helen Glover of “Survivor Thailand” for filling something of the same archetype. Ironically, if Tina IS brought on, she’s probably not first out, as she doesn’t have “winner downside” working against her. That, however, would probably be a blog in and of itself.
Being the big hero of the season, Colby probably comes back for “Survivor Heroes vs. Villains”, still on the Heroes tribe, and his disappointing performance there probably still happens. This also probably means that Colby doesn’t show up on “Survivor Winners at War” despite being so popular. Dude’s just burnt out by then, and not.a fan of how restrictive the seasons have become, exploration-wise. Jerri, no longer a villain, doesn’t show up on Heroes vs. Villains, and I don’t see Tina taking her place. Similar to Kelly, I think the much-publicized alternate shows up, specifically Natalie Bolton of “Survivor Micronesia”. Naturally, this drastically changes the season, though again, that probably would be worthy of its own blog.
Surprisingly, not much else changes, returnee-wise. There’s no new real stars to potentially make it onto a second chances ballot, and only those who did were considered for “Game Changers”. Man, it’s hard to end these things not talking about the season as a whole , and it’s perception.
Still, this was a fun blog to do, and it’s great to be back in the groove. Thanks for reading, and please feel free to sound off about this change. Does this seem plausible, or would it go a completely different way in your mind. Let me know in the comments, along with what changes YOU’D like to see covered on one of these blogs in the future! You will be credited if your suggestion is used. Guidelines for changes 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 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. Not 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: The Australian Outback, Africa, Marquesas, Pearl Islands, All-Stars, Palau, Guatemala, Exile Island, Micronesia, Gabon, Samoa, Heroes vs. Villains, Redemption Island, One World, Philippines, Blood vs. Water, Cambodia, Game Changers, Ghost Island, Island of the Idols, Winners at War.
Once again, thanks for coming back and reading my ravings. Looking forward to seeing you all in the next one!
-Matt
idolspeculation 