What makes "Survivor" (reality show) interesting is the fact that strangers - who have a lot to gain out of being on the show - meet and begin to strategise and take each other out, so as to remain the last one standing. In SA, the interpretation seems to be that if you go for celebrities as contestants, the show will be interesting. I disagree. If contestants (celebrities) know each other (personally or through the media), they can form alliances based on prior knowledge of each other, and not on chats, compatibility and alliances formed by strangers on the show. Also, celebrities have very little to gain (perhaps bragging rights) out of the show, they are already known; one SA celebrity-contestant even quit when they were bit by insects. Strangers have everything to gain: prize money; and fame that could help them secure serious TV/movie roles. As a viewer, once I get the line-up of celebrity-contestants, I can immediately tell who are likely to team up and who are likely to be foes - no brainer: their profiles of "likes and dislikes" are all over the media. When one customises an internationally-known concept/brand, they should try and stick to the fundamentals at the minimum. I would submit that the fundamental of "Survivor" is to put strangers in a remote location with less resources and see who will "survive" - it defeats this purpose of you assemble people who already know each other and are there "just for fun". The same holds for "Big Brother" (reality show) - it is far more interesting when strangers are placed under one roof. Come on SA, stick to fundamentals...
Posted on: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 13:38:13 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015