Yuku free message boards

Regardless of whether its accurate or not, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that we have reached the point where recruit, mactor and Californian are all lumped into one simple conclusion, that the contestant sucks and shouldn't be on the show. Any of those three on their own do not mean a conestant sucks, in fact all three for a single person doesn't mean that a person sucks. But Survivor got into the habit the last two seasons of recruiting a lot of people, bringing in a lot of people from California, and bringing in a lot of people that at the very least are perceived as being mactors. The show has, in the opinion of many including myself had major flaws the last two seasons with casting and editing.

I really think the issue with certain people here is race. The editing has been about the same since Thailand (telling a story). The main difference in casting the last 2 seasons is the race twist. And personally, I liked the last 2 seasons, and the ratings did fine, so there was no problem with the last 2 seasons

Now there is no proof that this particular drop in the quality of the show occured because of those three factors.

The quality of the show was fine. I've seen all the seasons, and they were 2 of the better ones

There's certainly more factors than just those in terms of the quality of the show. But those were three major traits with the cast the last two seasons so that people were going to infer that is a no brainer. Survivor's producers have no one but themselves to blame for any perceived notion that recruits, mactors and Californians are ruining the quality of the show. The fact that the person who agreed to be on the show and quit at the last minute was a recruited mactor from California certainly compounds the problem in the fan's eyes.

How is that a problem? We had a smaller cast size as a result which people seem to think is a good thing . I don't for the record. For those who think larger cast sizes result in less character development, that doesn't make sense. 20-16 = 4, so that means there are 4 extra episodes to develop the cast with. When 4 people get booted, those 16 castaways, like any other season should be developed the same as any other season. So the only ones getting the shaft in editing are the early boots or boring people. If there is a problem in character development, it's a problem of editing not a matter of cast size

And you're right that Survivor's producers have no obligation to have geographical diversity, just as they have no obligation to have racial diversity either. But few would argue that the social dynamic of the show is affected by the different backgrounds of the people on the show and their geographical location is a major, if not the major factor in their background.

Yup. They have no obligation to either geographical or racial diversity. Geographical location is a major factor that affects the show, but so is racial diversity (or lack of), so I don't know know why you mention that. Clearly, race was a factor in the last 2 seasons, and also brought up as minor issues in Marquesas, Thailand, and Amazon

I'd say they saw major complaints with the ratio of minorities on the show, particularly after Guatemala where there was 17 white people, 1 hispanic person, and no black people (the only season without one) and over reacted big time

I'm sure there were people complaining about race from the start. There are always people complaining about something. However, I agree that not casting any African-Americans probably was a big trigger for the race twist, since African-Americans are probably the strongest and most influential political group of the racial minorities generally speaking. I don't consider it "over reacted" though. It's as if the geographic diversity element was absent from the show for 12 seasons straight. Just picture all-Californians casts, with about 2 token states for 12 seasons. Then, 1 season, they have only 1 token state show up, and people in the nation complain. The Californians then call that "over-reacting". As a non-Californian, I'm sure you'd be furious that anyone would even think that. Then have the Californians tell everybody to stop bitching. As 1 of the most wealthy and influential states with the biggest populations and the home of the entertainment industry, they SHOULD be the most represented state in the show and are entitled to a monopoly on the castaways. Obviously, you'd be incensed. So you need to put yourself in the ethnic minorities' shoes Quiddity. I don't expect you to be empathetic, since you clearly aren't to this one, but not every race issue is playing the race card or reverse-racism. And frankly, I do think the show needed more ethnic minorities, at least for a little while. I think the current China quota is a good compromise personally

And unfortunately, in my opinion and most others here, their affirmative action quotas where people were cast based on the color of their skin and not how much entertainment they brought to the table dealt severe blows to the quality of the show (and was extremely racist on the part of the producers too. not that they haven't been racist in the past, "the lazy black man" thing for example, but IMHO that doesn't absolve them for what happened the past 2 seasons).

The players were not casted based on race and NOT on entertainment. That's silly. The producers casted people who they felt could fulfill both categories, and again, you never know who will turn out to be a dud and who turns out as a good character. There is no problem with the race quotas other than viewer racism. Also, no "severe blows to the quality of the show" happened. I liked it, the public liked it; you and others here are the only ones who didn't like it. The ratings dropped off at the usual rate, if not less. No revolution of viewership occurred as some would love to believe (like CC)

Another thing to note, people here are associating equal race casting with affirmative action which is NOT the same. I agree that equal race casting is a quota, but it's not affirmative action. The argument against affirmative action is that someone with better credentials is being replaced by a minority for the sake of increased diversity. While racial diversity is important, it can be seen as reverse racism and a blow against merit. The difference is that in affirmative action, you have clear evaluative indicators to compare individuals with--GPA, SAT scores, etc. In Survivor, there is no way of knowing which character is going to be more entertaining than another, or some standardized score for entertainment value. So there is no real injustice to the quality of the show being done when a race quota is put into play. Minorities have not shown themselves to be any less entertaining than Caucasians in the show, so your claim is almost racist in implying that you can only be entertaining or a minority, but that they are mutually exclusive categories. The last 2 winners were minorities, so they are certainly competitive. In terms of entertaining, we had unique characters like Cao Boi, Ozzy, Dreamz, and Yau-Man which have been some of the more interesting characters in a long time. EI's most interesting character, Cirie, was African-American. So really, your assertions hold no water Quiddity

People perceived that the quotas would be permanent, and that casting would continue to be based on race alone, not the quality of the contestant. Given that things like exile island and the hidden immunity idol appeared to be made permanent after appearing for 3 straight seasons, I'd say that people taking that opinion should have been expected.

I just don't like the subtle (likely unconscious) racism that seems to be occuring here. Race and contestant quality are not mutually exclusive categories, nor is it backed up in the data. And the general trend is that the twists bring in a twist (gender division, HII, etc.) for a couple seasons, and then either throw it out or rotate it in every other season like swapping tribes and double boots. I don't know why people would think anything on this show would be permanent. The only "permanent" twist really would be the car challenge