The Survivor Casting Problem: The Imitators vs. The Innovators
I recently saw a post on here asking, who had a better casting philosophy? Lynne Spillman and her archetype style, or Jeff/Jesse and their superfan casting. A lot of people may remember the good times and jump for Spillman, but it's much more complicated than that.
Here's my theory on the whole thing, it's really quite simple: A mix is what's needed.
Jesse and Jeff find imitators. People who believe that if they stick to the status quo, the "right" way of playing as established by previous players, then they will logically increase their probability of winning. We know imitators better as "superfans".
Lynne finds innovators. People who change the game, upheave the status quo of the current "right" way of playing, and create a new status quo that imitators will eventually adopt as the new "right" way to play. Very rarely do these innovators actually change the game. As in life, many innovators fail to execute, and are forgotten. We only remember the spectacular fails, like Zane Knight and his pity strategy. But for every 99 Zane Knights, there is one Boston Rob, one Parvati, one Russell.
Obviously, it makes no sense to only cast innovators. When you do that, you get One World. The New Era has also shown us that casting only imitators stifles evolution in game strategy, leading to mediocre seasons with very low ceilings.
However, when you mix the two, you get Cagayan. Some people (Sarah, Kass, Tony) who play their own way. In the case of Sarah and Kass, it failed. They are equal to Zane Knight in this calculus. But Tony, he's that one. The one who successfully innovated, and changed Survivor strategy. You also have the imitators (Spencer, Tasha, Alexis). These are the people who believe they've "figured out" Survivor, and that their vast knowledge gives them the edge over everyone else. These people are perfect foils to the innovators. When contrasted with failed innovators, imitators look like students who've perfected their craft and have blossomed into strategists. When contrasted with successful innovators, they prove an entirely different point about the vast number of ways Survivor can be won, and that truly, anyone can win.
This synergy of the innovators vs. the imitators is what made Survivor feel special and dynamic from season to season, especially in the late 20's and early 30's.
However, as imitators have taken the upperhand in the last 10 seasons, the innovation that backed up Jeff's claim that the game is "constantly evolving" has been completely halted. I personally cannot think of a single truly new strategy created in the New Era that has worked. Operation Italy? Reed and Kimmi both tried it more than a decade ago. Rachel's SITD idol gauge? Nick did it with a fake idol in DvG. Backstabbing an ally with their own advantage liked Jesse did? Sarah did it to Sierra in GC. Even if there is one I'm not thinking of, it still doesn't do enough to shake this era's label as the least innovative period in the show's history by far.
It's definitely fair to say that Survivor may be all strategied-out, but even doing new things show-wise, like a different confessional style or way of living out on the island, nothing new on that front either. We need more innovators.
However, innovators are risky. Either they can be incredible finds that become legends, or they can be the most forgettable of forgettable. High ceiling, very low floor. Imitators are pretty safe. Sure, they're probably boring and uninteresting, but at least they understand all of the advantages, can explain them in confessionals, and have a higher floor game-wise than an imitator. And with casting slots worth more $$$ than ever, why would the Survivor corporati- I mean Survivor production take a risk?
Risks are bad. That's Jeff and Jesse's true philosophy, not just about casting, but about the whole show.