During the debate over whether or not there should be a second series, I supported the idea, so long as appropriate lessons were learned from what didn't work first time round.
I have never had to work harder, with any previous reality series, to maintain enough interest to keep on writing about it and I know from conversations, that other experienced journalists covering this series have felt exactly the same. Bland and over-cautious contestants, undemanding challenges, and problems in filming and editing, have led to a very vanilla series. Even Mark Bayly, who eventually grew into a credible host, needs to be trusted more to ad lib, rather than to stick to a stolid, stale and wo
Advertisement
oden script.
Change the selection process
Above all, the selection process must be changed. The producer has pointed out that they can only select from among those who apply, and that one should expect exhibitionists and show-offs to abound in that group. But that is not what viewers and reviewers have been complaining about - they enjoy good showing-off. Even among exhibitionists, some are much more suitable for the show than others, and the present selectors didn’t do a very good job.
Yes, there needs to be a clinical psychological screening, like the physical screening, to establish that the contestants will be able to withstand the stresses of the series. But they need to choose psychologists who know something about television.
Avoid models
And also introduce Mark to the handful of Capetonians who are not yet models. Models are a really bad idea - obsessed with looking good and posing, rather than with action; preferring to sit in picturesque postures, rather than to be frank and get involved in interesting plotting and activities. Nico was surely no model - and viewers responded strongly to someone who was interesting, when compared to the bland, nice, but boring folks, who were scared to say much without the advice of their publicist.
And steer clear of the other element of the deadly mix of contestants here - the wannabes and the has-beens. Maybe more active recruitment could help. But nobody zealously trying to defend a puny scrap of prior fame.
Look for contrast, not compatibility
The recent contestants were moderately interesting when you met them individually, but as a group they were often phenomenally boring. Individually, they might have bloomed if placed within a less bland group. Even Jacinda, her Imperial Smugness, might have become interesting if faced with even stronger contestants who would have challenged and threatened her dominance - as the pitbull facing a bunch of poodles who'd roll over if the wind blew, she was monotony personified.
This is not meant to be a vicarage tea-party, with everyone being polite, and bothering about how best to look good to their modelling agent and prospective clients. This is not supposed to be a portfolio opportunity. Imagine if Gareth has been in a group with others who expected him to behave like a real man, and show strength instead of obedience! If Mzi had been challenged by someone else competent at fishing and providing? If Lezel had been balanced by people who could challenge her chat?
In this country we have not so far seen the reality series: "I'm a Celebrity, Get me Out of Here", but though they used much more interesting mini-celebrities in that series, it sounds more like this series of Survivor turned out to be. These were, too much, people who wanted to be celebrated, rather than to fight to win.
No empty chat
Allow no chat to camera unless the person genuinely has something vital and interesting to say. Most of the excerpts in this series were banal and useless. There seemed to be too much resorting to letting some contestant burble on and perhaps imply what might have happened, because there was no actual film of much of what happened.
Jack up the crew so they don't miss so much of the relevant action, and don't need to rely on tip-offs from the contestants. Make certain that the contestants trust the crew and are not allowed to hide their discussions. And the editing needs to be sharper. Despite much talk of stories and plot-lines, actually we kept seeing events arriving out of the blue with critical preceding steps having been invisible, or fragments of action that led nowhere.
Better producers
I was astonished to read that there was a production crew of 270 involved. Make-up and costumes are not needed for the contestants, and editing was done on return, so presumably most of these should have been actually taping and doing sound. Imagine the point at which there were 3 left on the island - that was 90 crew members for each contestant! How was it possible for so many important plot points and events to have been missed?
Challenging challenges
Come up with genuinely challenging challenges, not the feeble stuff we had this time. They were mostly not very physically challenging or mentally challenging, and not interesting to watch. Some of the typical contests traditional to the series were absent - no eating-something-disgusting challenge, no food auction, no quiz; and they seemed based on an assumption that the contestants would not be very bright, though they were unusually so.
The rewards were disappointing for the viewers, even if they'd be appreciated by hungry contestants. Maybe this series was too low-budget; maybe in part or in whole because it had been decided to do a Survivor Africa series as well, which was stretching resources too far.
Don't be coy
Don't be so coy about details, in future. Only very late and inadvertently did we discover that there'll be a final four rather than a final three - nothing was gained by keeping such details secret. Twists in the game are valid and should be surprising for the contestants – it’s not necessary to mystify the viewers. And some twists have unintended and unfortunate consequences.
The jury didn't work well this time. A functional jury is an essential part of this game, and its palpable absence was annoying. Though one was constructed at the final stage - this meant they were small in number and their voting was based on historical experience of the game (if not personal obsession). They knew nothing of events after they left the scene, as well as not having had the benefit of watching behaviour during the succeeding tribal councils. This led to voting based more on older prejudices than on up-to-date knowledge.
Identify target audience better
As far as publicity is concerned, do decide who your target audience is. If, as we hear from Carl Fischer, the prime audience aimed at is the high-income, top end of the market, there are ways to make the show more appealing to those specific intelligent viewers; don't aim so much of the publicity machine at the lowest end of the super-market tabloid market, while neglecting those parts of the media which are most popular with exactly the audience you want to reach.
Which do you want, heat or cool? The contestants seemed to have been over-coached on how to approach interviews, and tended to deliver the same stale comments to each interviewer - trust them more; spontaneity is much more interesting, and you need them to seem interesting.
Embrace criticism
And above all, production team - don't be too sensitive to critical comment. Not only has it helped to shape the series (which was apparently being edited on the run while we were watching); but controversy is good for you. Don't be defensive - robust criticism of the show and competitors actually helps to increase and maintain viewership, far from turning viewers off.
Mere reprinting of PR handouts does you very little good. And the criticism is not coming from people who don't give a hoot about local productions, or Survivor as a form - but from people who strongly support both. It's Survivor fans, who started out really wanting to like this series, who have been providing informed criticism all the way through, and who have been disappointed. Nobody expected the series to be perfect, but many did hope that sensible criticisms would be taken very seriously rather than evaded.
The Cybershrink Survivor Awards
Can I have the envelope, please? Here are the winners:
Most suited to a career in Silent Films - Lezel.
Most improved - Mark Bayly.
Most transformed - Zayn.
Most suitable for a role in any soapie - Jacinda.
Most likely to be real fun at a party - Nico.
People you'd most trust to have around in times of trouble - Mzi and Ncumisa
Saltiest language – Brigitte
Most inexplicable departure - Jude.
Most cool, and best at getting up and dusting herself off - Vanessa.
Most enjoyable coverage (other than our own, of course !) - 5FM.
Most bold in continuing to develop new directions in SA TV - Marie Rosholt and Carl Fischer.
Most unhelpful to our continuing coverage - Tshwane City Council Electricity Department.
(Professor Michael Simpson, aka CyberShrink, November 2006)
Bookmark with:
What are social bookmarks?