‘Survivor’ aims to keep the familiar unpredicable
Q: In older seasons of “Survivor,” the producers seemed wedded to the game structure — for example, delaying the final merge until only 10 contestants were left, even if the tribes were seriously mismatched. Sticking strictly to the format, even when the tribes were mismatched, made for some boring TV, as viewers had to wait for a series of unexciting challenges as one tribe repeatedly trounced the other until one was basically extinct.
Recently, however, it seems the producers are more willing to mix things up when the teams are mismatched — facilitating an early merge this season. Similarly, the producers seem more willing to shuffle the tribes when one alliance becomes too dominant in one of the tribes.
Are the current producers more willing to shuffle the game to create good TV than their predecessors were?
— SHARON, MONROEVILLE Rob: I put this question to a CBS publicist to pass along to producers, and executive producer/host Jeff Probst responded, “As a game, ‘ Survivor’ has evolved quite a bit from season one. We now have hidden immunity idols, exile or redemption island, and we often start with three tribes then merge them to two tribes. Most of this is an attempt to keep the game unpredictable.
“We lay out our creative plan before the season starts and then hope for a bit of luck. For instance, when we start with three tribes, we know what episode we are merging them before we even begin. We have to, due to fairness as well as the amount of time it takes to build our challenges — often several weeks for each one. And even when we do merge them the draw for buffs is always random. So you don't know what the new tribe divisions will be until it happens.
“One of the big keys to ‘Survivor’s’ success is ‘doing the same thing, only different.’ That’s what we aim to do each season. The same show you love but just slightly different.”
Q: Can Diane Lockhart have her own spinoff from “The Good Wife”? Her stories — including the recent gay marriage story — are much more interesting than Alicia's. Do you agree? —— AUSTIN, SHADYSIDE Rob: I definitely think Diane has come into her own in recent seasons. At the show’s start she was pretty much just Boss Lady to the show’s titular star, Alicia Florrick (Julianna Margulies), but as “The Good Wife” has aged, many of the characters have grown and garnered more storylines of their own, perhaps none more than Diane.
Actress Christine Baranski imbues the character with intelligence and a sense of humor, and that week’s episode, coming on the heels of the Indiana controversy, was perfectly timed and well calibrated.
Q: My husband and I enjoyed “Galavant” on ABC — but were disappointed by the ending. Will it be back to pick up where it left off?
Also, is WTAE news anchor Janelle Hall on WTAE expecting? — DEBRA, 57, NORTH
VERSAILLES Rob: Yes, Janelle Hall is pregnant and due to give birth in May.
ABC’s “Galavant” is in limbo — neither canceled nor renewed — but we’ll
It’s time again to give a rave or pan to prime-time TV series broadcast during the 2014-15 TV season in the Post-Gazette’s annual Keep or Cancel? poll, which for the first time includes streaming series on Netflix.
To cast a ballot, visit http://old.post-gazette.com/tv/poll/default.asp.
Votes will be tallied on the Web through today, and the results will be published in Rob Owen’s Tuned In column on Friday. Results will be sent to the entertainment presidents of each of the broadcast networks. know its fate in a few weeks. In the meantime, show your support by voting for it and other shows you like in the Keep or Cancel? poll at http://old.post-gazette.com/tv/poll/default.asp. Today is the last day to cast your vote.