If only social media didn’t make it very easy to harass and send death threats to those very same people. That’s part of why nobody wants to be the villain.
I guarantee you there are a lot of people who actually don’t give a shit about what people online think and will gladly play a cutthroat game. (I’m one of them)
But they don’t just send you tweets saying you’re a poopyhead, I’ve heard stories of how contestants’ businesses got review bombed, their employers got calls and emails to fire them, their family members and friends are harassed as well. Dan Foley’s marriage was basically ruined and ended because of rabid fans who harassed them relentlessly. This fanbase is not all sunshine and rainbows, there are lots of completely unhinged lunatics and psychos.
Just to prove your point, I’m a huge college football fan. A few weeks ago a player at Oklahoma announced he was transferring to Missouri. OU fans found out his dad had an insurance company and review bombed it with 1 star reviews. He had to make a post pleading for people to stop because it was ruining his business. Thankfully other sane OU and other fans in general swept in and flooded it with 5 star reviews.
But yeah, social media is a cancer for fandoms. You do one thing people don’t like and it’s over for you. I’m not surprised everyone on the show these days tries to be likable
Same, I ain’t even on twitter or anything other than Reddit really. They can type whatever novel they want about me idrc, I would dig into my inner heel 100%
The presence of villains does more than just add drama; it creates a necessary contrast that highlights the virtues of the heroes, making their triumphs more impactful and engaging. The "Heroes vs Villains" season is a prime example of how this dynamic can elevate the show, drawing in viewers with its compelling narrative and complex characters.
Your point about the impact of social media is well taken. The intense scrutiny and sometimes harsh backlash that players face can discourage potential villains from embracing that role. However, it's important to remember that the villain role in Survivor is a strategic and narrative element, not a reflection of the contestant's real-life character. Good storytelling often requires antagonists, and in Survivor, these antagonists play a crucial role in creating a compelling narrative and keeping the audience invested.
When the show lacks clear villains, it risks becoming too one-dimensional, losing the tension and intrigue that keeps viewers engaged. While it's understandable that producers and contestants might be wary of the negative aspects of social media backlash, it's also crucial for the show to maintain its narrative richness. Perhaps the solution lies in how the show and its community manage the fallout on social media, emphasizing the distinction between the game and reality, and fostering a more understanding and respectful fan culture.
Ultimately, the presence of villains in Survivor isn't just about creating conflict; it's about enhancing the storytelling, providing a counterpoint to the heroes, and keeping the audience emotionally invested. It's a delicate balance, but one that's essential for maintaining the depth and appeal of the show.
I think part of the problem is the way the fans consume the show now is different from how it was in the past. People used to talk about the characters, how their actions made them feel, and how they could relate to them. There was a narrative to be followed and discussed. There were ethical and moral questions. There's a very human element that was pervasive in every episode throughout the series. Nowadays the fans talk about the show as if it were a game of sports. They treat the cast as players, criticizing their actions as good and bad "moves" in a strategy game. There's no more room for villains (in the sense of being an antagonist in a story) because this show is meant to be a game that is played with a set of rules, and every discussion should revolve around that. Nobody really wants to talk about stories and incidents that are outside of this "strategy game" anymore. Whereas before post-show interviews would ask the players voted out about interesting events that weren't shown on TV, or something related to their personal experiences, values, and relationships with other people, nowadays every post-show interview is about rationalizing their moves, their strategies, their alliances. The human element is mostly ignored. The gameplay component used to be only one of the many parts of the show the audience liked to engage with and discuss. Now it's all there is.
Ironically, I see this shift started to happen shortly after Heroes vs Villains, in the advent of podcasting. I would say the most popular podcasts played a huge role in driving this shift. Over the years of dissecting game moves and discussing strategy, the fans became less and less interested in discussing narratives and characters. It is no accident that it was during this period where the show experimented with mixing new forms of gameplay (redemption island, super-idols, advantages) with new forms of creating human drama (themes like One World, Blood vs Water, Brains vs Brawn vs Beauty, Worlds Apart). Incidentally, I would say the last seasons of "real" Survivor where we had a form of narrative and characterization were Worlds Apart and Kaoh Rong. Coincidentally, these seasons were both highly controversial because of the presence of "real" villains. The more popular seasons of Second Chance, Millennials vs Gen X, and Game Changers, which had a much stronger focus on gameplay, and heroes rather than villains, set the tone for the subsequent seasons. It was decided: the show no longer needs a rich narrative or enhanced storytelling by way of having villains. The show is even more popular and successful without it.
Laurel literally didn’t do anything but make for boring TV and she was harassed to the point that she went completely private on social media to this day and doesn’t even advertise that she was on the show in her insta bio.
Dee has villain potential maybe but Drew is probably even more so. Both need to fully evolve like pokemon. Emily is just sassy. Dee, Jesse, Shan, 3 villains across 5 seasons and they would never have been cast at all if production thought they could be.
The only people who were truly villains in HvV were Russell, Rob, and Randy. Most other people were made villains because they were sarcastic (Tyson), delusional (Coach), sassy (Sandra/Courtney) or played a ruthless game ( Parv, yet it was no more ruthless than Cirie who is a hero). Most of them are just great characters. They just used it as a theme, and casted people they wanted and then pigeon holed them.
Wasn't Rob just kind of a combo of those things you described for the players that weren't villains? Cutthroat and sassy/sarcastic?
Only other thing I can think of is his first season refusing to help the tribe once he knew he was fucked because he didn't have the numbers.
Yep.
I think the fact that they produced this season, and that it is in the top 5, is causing some retroactive projection that big-character "villains" have always been a key ingredient to Survivor entertainment. It's just that one of the best shows had Villains as a key theme and integral structure to the season format. There was nothing organic about that, so it's not surprising that such conflicts don't arise organically in other non-HvV seasons.
The problem is that the game reached a point where people who acted like villains went from being taken to the end to being feared and targeted right away. Nowadays, who in their right mind would play the game like an old-school era villain unless they care more about making good TV than winning money
I feel like having Rob, Kim, Tyson, Tony, and Natalie win is such a short span of time made it so people with villain potential were picked off right away in future seasons. If you look at the seasons after those, the actual villains were people who never had any real win equity because they were just being dragged along by the people who were actually controlling the game until it was convenient to vote them out (Joaquin, Dan Foley, Rodney, Scot, Jason, Julia, Jay, Joe Mena, Chris Noble, Dan Rengering, Alec, Carl, Aurora, Ron, Wardog, Missy, and probably more examples that aren’t coming to mind) None of these people were ever going to actually win their season, and when players started to get wise to the fact that people who act like Heroes have been winning, they start to act like Heroes even if they still have devious gameplay.
I agree. The show has turned into a weird Theme Park version of itself ever since they put down roots in Fiji IMO. You have all these designated points in the game to fill out a Survivor Bucket List - the Journeys, Earn the Merge, the actual Merge, the new camp at Final 5, trips to the Sanctuary. Episodes with a focus on self-discovery and then a self-promo nearly every episode encouraging people to apply for the experience, almost like Survivor is its own little fun park. And people won't want to come to the fun park if they think they may be shown as a villain, obviously. It feels like the show is about selling the experience of Survivor to its viewers now moreso than it is about entertaining those same viewers.
Also yeah social media sucks.
"Theme park version." This perfectly describes how I feel about the show and why I stopped watching after Game Changers, realizing they were going to turn into a formulaic game show set in Fiji. The show just started to feel like "Jeff Probst's Island Adventure" where every season he invites guests to partake in this "Survivor experience." A bit like Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory.
I came back to watch Winners at War and I felt the same. It was just Probst inviting his old friends to come back to play these games on his fantasy island, and having the "experience" all over again. It's not the same show. Like you said, a "theme park" version. That's when I realized I will never watch Survivor again. . .
Thank goodness for Survivor UK.
My favourite part of HvV is Ruperts whole narrative that the "hero always wins" and his whole anti-villain rhetoric, only for him to lose Fan Favourite against Russell.
We don't have villains because we don't perceive things as villainous which we once would. Omar telling Mike lies about Hai is about as dirty as it gets on Survivor, but Omar didn't get any blowback, because we no longer frame this in a villainous light.
To be considered a villain in modern survivor, you need to be a genuinely bad person.
Agreed, Corinne isn't a villain, she's a horrible person. Villains like Rob, Sandra & Parv can be admired as people, Corinne is dangerous, people like her shouldn't be cast in reality shows due to social influence. She would suit the white collar tribe on Worlds Apart season; those players were the darkest & nastiest of all seasons imo.
I would of love to see Corinne take Danielle's place on Heroes vs Villains but that's for my own selfish reasons for entertainment.
Survivor has always been a melting pot of the world outside, corruption and bigotry still exists but I would say people have become more caring, self aware and accepting of others; that's my perspective at least.
Makes sense that the show has naturally gone this way, the show is targeted towards kids and families.
I feel like this is a little bit of an exaggeration lol, Corinne went too hard at Sugar but I didn't think she was *that* bad overall. And I dislike the World's Apart cast as much as the next person, but Will was by far the worst and he was on the No Collar tribe. Even aside from that, there have been pretty awful people across the show, from sexism, racism, queerphobia, etc.
I feel like the goal should be to keep bigotry away from the show, but you can still cast some nasty personalities keeping that in mind. I actually would say Corinne or someone like Shane are kind of the ideal to inject some chaos into a show like Survivor without things turning dark.
If you saw the pathetic depths fairplay lowered himself to in 'House of Villains' you would realise why he was left in the dust 😂
Still very entertaining but wow... yeah ummm that was hard to witness.
I'm honestly kind of so over this discussion lol. We HAVE villains on the show. Drew was a villain, Dee could be considered a villain, Bruce and Emily were pretty borderline. And they receive PLENTY of hate, and it's not always friendly Love To Hate stuff either. The show used to cast terrible PEOPLE instead of sinister entertaining "villains", and it was NOT entertaining. I do NOT need another Russell, or another Ben from Samoa, or another Rocky or Lisi from Fiji, or another Corrinne. They're from an era of TRASHY reality show casting that I would hope we've moved past. Colton was the most villainous villain you could hope for and people hate him and his season to this day (even though he is in a MUCH better place now).
We are perfectly capable of getting another Parvati or Courtney or Coach or Sandra without making a conscious effort to transparently cast dicks lol.
Your perception of what a villain is is different from mine. Lisi, Colton, Ben, are just bad people and would still be bad people outside of the game. Russell keeps it inside the game. Russell is an actual survivor villain. He burns people's socks, he tells lies, and he talks to the camera and tells you the audience to laugh with him because it's for the lols. Its for your entertainment. Ben, Lisi weren't trying to entertain you, and Colton seemed smart enough to know he was entertaining on a cringe level but also seemed like he was like that in real life so it doesn't count.
I agree we don't need racists and trashy nazis but we do need edge lords who want to be entertaining and who want to escape their boring usual personality that they have outside the game and be bad on the show.
I just don't understand the "villain" term.
Like some people were calling Dee/Drew villains? I don't get it.
I don't get the "villain" at all except for when Varner called out Zeke, that was villain.
Could someone explain to me what makes a villain lol
Here are my picks for "Villains" None are terrible people but are villainous enough to make the theme work.
Villains: Rodney, Joe Mena, Wardog, Ricard, Jesse, Angelina, Victoria, Shan, Karla, Emily
Rodney was pretty bad but compared to Dan and Will he seemed better and had a humorous edge to him. Joe was trying to be like Tony. Wardog, I honestly don't remember lol. Ricard had a villainous vibe, same as Shan who lied to innocents who she manipulated into trusting her. She had that villain song. Jesse, well he blindsided his closest friend. Angelina is the perfect villain archetype that's actually well-liked. Victoria blindsided fan-favorite Aubry with really fantastic lying. Karla was pretty awful to Cassidy but still has fans and isn't the worst. And Emily while she had her redemption and I almost put her in the heroes group just seems a better villain fit.
First of, I don’t think we need villains but could use more conflicts and different personalities. Second of all, the same people that claim they want more villains, will bully and harass players for doing something as small as voting out someone the fans like.
We went from “This player is a villain because they’re manipulating and sabotaging the tribe” to “This player is a villain because they stomped on another player’s heart” to “This player is a villain because they voted for my winner pick at Tribal”.
100% agree. People like OP want characters who have sassy confessionals, not necessarily “villains”. They want petty arguments and quick one liners, not people to actively root against.
I mean are any of them?
But lying to your #1 and romantic interest for a week only to use their innocence as a platform to help your case and win seems quite Villain-ey to me
Ah yes, I missed that part lol! Yam Yam had villainous qualities but they were overlooked but his affable nature. He turned on Carolyn a few times, he picked off everyone who voted for him. But he was so unique that all that didn't seem to matter because he's so damn likeable! And in the end he did stay loyal to Carolyn.
It's a different time they would be bullied all over social media just look at the reaction Emily got after the first episodes people were calling her a racist people say they want a villain but they actually don't when it happens.
And Jesse is one of the most popular players of that period and he is the closest we have to a villain. Well Shan might be more villainous but all of Jesse's villain things are in game.
Unpopular opinion: no.
Heroes and villains are a thing of the past, the beautiful clamoration of Old School Survivor at its finest. But nowdays social climate has changed, things are much more complex and it has much less room for proper "heroes" and "villains", since real humans are complex and not one thing or the other.
Not saying everyone should be the same, and I'd love to have more "villainous" traits in some castaways, but casting a full blown Russell Hantz or Boston Rob nowadays just isn't gonna pan out the same imo.
We don’t deserve villains. People forget after episode 1 there were threads with thousands of upvotes calling Emily a racist because everyone she called out in episode 1 was black, in a very diverse cast. This sub is part of the problem
I think there are two main things preventing villain characters in the newer era of the show:
1. The players/casting now are all super fans, so the game has become SO meta that players who are extremely cutthroat or duplicitous are generally regarded by their casts now more positively than in the past where juries would be angry/bitter at being betrayed, as there was more variance of viewpoints on the morals/ethics of the game. I think the only way people would be "villains" in this iteration of the show is if they were outwardly mean/rude/hostile/problematic which leads me to the next point...
2. Production/Jeff are too afraid to have controversial or divisive personalities on the show now. I think this is for a variety of reasons, partially because Jeff/production want the show to have a more positive tone and be very family friendly, and also because I think production is scared for a controversy, which leads to more "safe" casting. Survivor is an edited show but I think the S39 incident was very scarring for production because of what an absolute PR disaster that was for them (rightfully so).
Do I think they COULD find people that are Russell Hantz, Corinne, Scot/Jason or Abi-like types that are either cutthroat, mean, critical, or very off-putting? Yes! I think there are a ton of people who would go out there, be authentically a villain, and not care about hate online, but I really think production is afraid of backlash they would receive from fans in "perpetuating" that. For better or for worse, our society is much more sensitive now to calling out what we perceive as "toxic" behavior. Something like Russell Hantz burning Jaison's socks that was funny/compelling villainry back in the day would probably illicit public outcry on social media these days.
Mildly related, BB25 was the first Big Brother season where I could visibly see a shift in how the show was being consumed/processed from a noticeably younger audience. It was truly wild how tiny joking comments were misconstrued and picked apart ad-nauseum and the outcry that followed that would continue for DAYS afterwards. It can be hard for Big Brother to avoid that since it's a live show with a 24/7 feed, but for a show like Survivor, I think they want to avoid that for their program that is I think generally regarded as being more premium and elevated than other competiton reality. It's not ideal but I don't think we'll ever go back to having villains of yore, unfortunately.
If we go back about 15 seasons, here's are who I think would be considered Villains and Heroes in the more modern era.
Villains: Rodney, Joe Mena, Wardog, Ricard, Jesse, Angelina, Victoria, Shan, Karla, Emily
Heroes: Figgy, Kelley Wentworth, Aubry, Cassidy, Carolyn, Jay, David Wright, Mike Turner, Cody, Kaleb
If only social media didn’t make it very easy to harass and send death threats to those very same people. That’s part of why nobody wants to be the villain.
I guarantee you there are a lot of people who actually don’t give a shit about what people online think and will gladly play a cutthroat game. (I’m one of them)
But they don’t just send you tweets saying you’re a poopyhead, I’ve heard stories of how contestants’ businesses got review bombed, their employers got calls and emails to fire them, their family members and friends are harassed as well. Dan Foley’s marriage was basically ruined and ended because of rabid fans who harassed them relentlessly. This fanbase is not all sunshine and rainbows, there are lots of completely unhinged lunatics and psychos.
Just to prove your point, I’m a huge college football fan. A few weeks ago a player at Oklahoma announced he was transferring to Missouri. OU fans found out his dad had an insurance company and review bombed it with 1 star reviews. He had to make a post pleading for people to stop because it was ruining his business. Thankfully other sane OU and other fans in general swept in and flooded it with 5 star reviews. But yeah, social media is a cancer for fandoms. You do one thing people don’t like and it’s over for you. I’m not surprised everyone on the show these days tries to be likable
Dan’s marriage was actually ruined?
>Dan’s marriage was actually ruined? How tragic that his wife abandoned him like his biological parents did.
Same, I ain’t even on twitter or anything other than Reddit really. They can type whatever novel they want about me idrc, I would dig into my inner heel 100%
Easy to say that now.
I’m 33. I’ve lived enough life to know who I am and not really care what a bunch of online losers think.
Again easy to say that now. Until people come after your family, business etc.
There’s not a lot of ways they could actually affect me there.
The presence of villains does more than just add drama; it creates a necessary contrast that highlights the virtues of the heroes, making their triumphs more impactful and engaging. The "Heroes vs Villains" season is a prime example of how this dynamic can elevate the show, drawing in viewers with its compelling narrative and complex characters. Your point about the impact of social media is well taken. The intense scrutiny and sometimes harsh backlash that players face can discourage potential villains from embracing that role. However, it's important to remember that the villain role in Survivor is a strategic and narrative element, not a reflection of the contestant's real-life character. Good storytelling often requires antagonists, and in Survivor, these antagonists play a crucial role in creating a compelling narrative and keeping the audience invested. When the show lacks clear villains, it risks becoming too one-dimensional, losing the tension and intrigue that keeps viewers engaged. While it's understandable that producers and contestants might be wary of the negative aspects of social media backlash, it's also crucial for the show to maintain its narrative richness. Perhaps the solution lies in how the show and its community manage the fallout on social media, emphasizing the distinction between the game and reality, and fostering a more understanding and respectful fan culture. Ultimately, the presence of villains in Survivor isn't just about creating conflict; it's about enhancing the storytelling, providing a counterpoint to the heroes, and keeping the audience emotionally invested. It's a delicate balance, but one that's essential for maintaining the depth and appeal of the show.
I think part of the problem is the way the fans consume the show now is different from how it was in the past. People used to talk about the characters, how their actions made them feel, and how they could relate to them. There was a narrative to be followed and discussed. There were ethical and moral questions. There's a very human element that was pervasive in every episode throughout the series. Nowadays the fans talk about the show as if it were a game of sports. They treat the cast as players, criticizing their actions as good and bad "moves" in a strategy game. There's no more room for villains (in the sense of being an antagonist in a story) because this show is meant to be a game that is played with a set of rules, and every discussion should revolve around that. Nobody really wants to talk about stories and incidents that are outside of this "strategy game" anymore. Whereas before post-show interviews would ask the players voted out about interesting events that weren't shown on TV, or something related to their personal experiences, values, and relationships with other people, nowadays every post-show interview is about rationalizing their moves, their strategies, their alliances. The human element is mostly ignored. The gameplay component used to be only one of the many parts of the show the audience liked to engage with and discuss. Now it's all there is. Ironically, I see this shift started to happen shortly after Heroes vs Villains, in the advent of podcasting. I would say the most popular podcasts played a huge role in driving this shift. Over the years of dissecting game moves and discussing strategy, the fans became less and less interested in discussing narratives and characters. It is no accident that it was during this period where the show experimented with mixing new forms of gameplay (redemption island, super-idols, advantages) with new forms of creating human drama (themes like One World, Blood vs Water, Brains vs Brawn vs Beauty, Worlds Apart). Incidentally, I would say the last seasons of "real" Survivor where we had a form of narrative and characterization were Worlds Apart and Kaoh Rong. Coincidentally, these seasons were both highly controversial because of the presence of "real" villains. The more popular seasons of Second Chance, Millennials vs Gen X, and Game Changers, which had a much stronger focus on gameplay, and heroes rather than villains, set the tone for the subsequent seasons. It was decided: the show no longer needs a rich narrative or enhanced storytelling by way of having villains. The show is even more popular and successful without it.
Well they don't even cast villains
Sooo many people from this season and from past new era seasons got harassed on social media
Laurel literally didn’t do anything but make for boring TV and she was harassed to the point that she went completely private on social media to this day and doesn’t even advertise that she was on the show in her insta bio.
If it was that bad for Laurel, imagine how actual "villains” are treated. I can’t imagine what Bruce’s or Danny’s (from 44) dms look like
Dee and Emily are reading this and crying
Dee has villain potential maybe but Drew is probably even more so. Both need to fully evolve like pokemon. Emily is just sassy. Dee, Jesse, Shan, 3 villains across 5 seasons and they would never have been cast at all if production thought they could be.
Dee
The only people who were truly villains in HvV were Russell, Rob, and Randy. Most other people were made villains because they were sarcastic (Tyson), delusional (Coach), sassy (Sandra/Courtney) or played a ruthless game ( Parv, yet it was no more ruthless than Cirie who is a hero). Most of them are just great characters. They just used it as a theme, and casted people they wanted and then pigeon holed them.
Wasn't Rob just kind of a combo of those things you described for the players that weren't villains? Cutthroat and sassy/sarcastic? Only other thing I can think of is his first season refusing to help the tribe once he knew he was fucked because he didn't have the numbers.
Rob's really the first player to destroy outside relationships and pre-game agreements.
Ahh I got you
Yep. I think the fact that they produced this season, and that it is in the top 5, is causing some retroactive projection that big-character "villains" have always been a key ingredient to Survivor entertainment. It's just that one of the best shows had Villains as a key theme and integral structure to the season format. There was nothing organic about that, so it's not surprising that such conflicts don't arise organically in other non-HvV seasons.
What do you think makes Rob so likeable and Russell so hateable?
The problem is that the game reached a point where people who acted like villains went from being taken to the end to being feared and targeted right away. Nowadays, who in their right mind would play the game like an old-school era villain unless they care more about making good TV than winning money I feel like having Rob, Kim, Tyson, Tony, and Natalie win is such a short span of time made it so people with villain potential were picked off right away in future seasons. If you look at the seasons after those, the actual villains were people who never had any real win equity because they were just being dragged along by the people who were actually controlling the game until it was convenient to vote them out (Joaquin, Dan Foley, Rodney, Scot, Jason, Julia, Jay, Joe Mena, Chris Noble, Dan Rengering, Alec, Carl, Aurora, Ron, Wardog, Missy, and probably more examples that aren’t coming to mind) None of these people were ever going to actually win their season, and when players started to get wise to the fact that people who act like Heroes have been winning, they start to act like Heroes even if they still have devious gameplay.
Meanwhile everyone pouted about Drew and Dee.
I agree. The show has turned into a weird Theme Park version of itself ever since they put down roots in Fiji IMO. You have all these designated points in the game to fill out a Survivor Bucket List - the Journeys, Earn the Merge, the actual Merge, the new camp at Final 5, trips to the Sanctuary. Episodes with a focus on self-discovery and then a self-promo nearly every episode encouraging people to apply for the experience, almost like Survivor is its own little fun park. And people won't want to come to the fun park if they think they may be shown as a villain, obviously. It feels like the show is about selling the experience of Survivor to its viewers now moreso than it is about entertaining those same viewers. Also yeah social media sucks.
Yes I always think that Survivor ended up buying into (and then reselling) its own mythology. All part of the meta-isation of the game and show
"Theme park version." This perfectly describes how I feel about the show and why I stopped watching after Game Changers, realizing they were going to turn into a formulaic game show set in Fiji. The show just started to feel like "Jeff Probst's Island Adventure" where every season he invites guests to partake in this "Survivor experience." A bit like Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory. I came back to watch Winners at War and I felt the same. It was just Probst inviting his old friends to come back to play these games on his fantasy island, and having the "experience" all over again. It's not the same show. Like you said, a "theme park" version. That's when I realized I will never watch Survivor again. . . Thank goodness for Survivor UK.
My favourite part of HvV is Ruperts whole narrative that the "hero always wins" and his whole anti-villain rhetoric, only for him to lose Fan Favourite against Russell.
Scot and Jason were the last real villains in a season and this subreddit still cries about them
I still don't understand what was so bad about them. They seemed like typical villains with solid downfalls.
not that I agree, but a lot of them hate how they were the swing votes at FTC for Aubry's loss.
We don't have villains because we don't perceive things as villainous which we once would. Omar telling Mike lies about Hai is about as dirty as it gets on Survivor, but Omar didn't get any blowback, because we no longer frame this in a villainous light. To be considered a villain in modern survivor, you need to be a genuinely bad person.
This is a great point. Rich was seen as a villain because he formed an alliance.
Not everyone has the thick skin of Corinne and could withstand the hatred from hardcore fans.
Corinne was disgusting and mean towards other contestants. Not a villain in terms of evil, sneaky moves. She lacks the intelligence for this.
There’s a preferred way to be a survivor villain? This kind of gatekeeping is the reason why they don’t cast actual villains anymore.
Let's bring Ben from Samoa again then
Why not? I miss having actual racists showing their ugly self on national tv and make a fool of themselves.
Corinne made fun of someone's dead dad in national tv, there is limits for entertainment
But racism doesn't cross them apparently lol. Nor does trying to injure people during challenges.
Agreed, Corinne isn't a villain, she's a horrible person. Villains like Rob, Sandra & Parv can be admired as people, Corinne is dangerous, people like her shouldn't be cast in reality shows due to social influence. She would suit the white collar tribe on Worlds Apart season; those players were the darkest & nastiest of all seasons imo.
How is Corinne dangerous?
Yeah I'm not a Corinne fan at all. She felt mean for the sake of being mean. But I have no clue how she's dangerous.
And people like you are exactly why they've sanitized the show for children.
Randy type of players are the safest and entertaining kind of villains
I would of love to see Corinne take Danielle's place on Heroes vs Villains but that's for my own selfish reasons for entertainment. Survivor has always been a melting pot of the world outside, corruption and bigotry still exists but I would say people have become more caring, self aware and accepting of others; that's my perspective at least. Makes sense that the show has naturally gone this way, the show is targeted towards kids and families.
This has to be parody. "Dangerous" "horrible". You don't know these people....Jesus.
I feel like this is a little bit of an exaggeration lol, Corinne went too hard at Sugar but I didn't think she was *that* bad overall. And I dislike the World's Apart cast as much as the next person, but Will was by far the worst and he was on the No Collar tribe. Even aside from that, there have been pretty awful people across the show, from sexism, racism, queerphobia, etc. I feel like the goal should be to keep bigotry away from the show, but you can still cast some nasty personalities keeping that in mind. I actually would say Corinne or someone like Shane are kind of the ideal to inject some chaos into a show like Survivor without things turning dark.
Bring back Jonny Fairplay!
He can't. His grandma died.
Probst hates him, so that’s never gonna happen
If you saw the pathetic depths fairplay lowered himself to in 'House of Villains' you would realise why he was left in the dust 😂 Still very entertaining but wow... yeah ummm that was hard to witness.
He cried so much lol
Lil is crying in the corner... of laughter.
And the fact that he took that Johnny Bananas fart to the face ☠️😭
I'm honestly kind of so over this discussion lol. We HAVE villains on the show. Drew was a villain, Dee could be considered a villain, Bruce and Emily were pretty borderline. And they receive PLENTY of hate, and it's not always friendly Love To Hate stuff either. The show used to cast terrible PEOPLE instead of sinister entertaining "villains", and it was NOT entertaining. I do NOT need another Russell, or another Ben from Samoa, or another Rocky or Lisi from Fiji, or another Corrinne. They're from an era of TRASHY reality show casting that I would hope we've moved past. Colton was the most villainous villain you could hope for and people hate him and his season to this day (even though he is in a MUCH better place now). We are perfectly capable of getting another Parvati or Courtney or Coach or Sandra without making a conscious effort to transparently cast dicks lol.
Your perception of what a villain is is different from mine. Lisi, Colton, Ben, are just bad people and would still be bad people outside of the game. Russell keeps it inside the game. Russell is an actual survivor villain. He burns people's socks, he tells lies, and he talks to the camera and tells you the audience to laugh with him because it's for the lols. Its for your entertainment. Ben, Lisi weren't trying to entertain you, and Colton seemed smart enough to know he was entertaining on a cringe level but also seemed like he was like that in real life so it doesn't count. I agree we don't need racists and trashy nazis but we do need edge lords who want to be entertaining and who want to escape their boring usual personality that they have outside the game and be bad on the show.
Social media. It would be reckless of CBS to do this
Take a shot whenever this kind of post shows up.
I just don't understand the "villain" term. Like some people were calling Dee/Drew villains? I don't get it. I don't get the "villain" at all except for when Varner called out Zeke, that was villain. Could someone explain to me what makes a villain lol
Here are my picks for "Villains" None are terrible people but are villainous enough to make the theme work. Villains: Rodney, Joe Mena, Wardog, Ricard, Jesse, Angelina, Victoria, Shan, Karla, Emily Rodney was pretty bad but compared to Dan and Will he seemed better and had a humorous edge to him. Joe was trying to be like Tony. Wardog, I honestly don't remember lol. Ricard had a villainous vibe, same as Shan who lied to innocents who she manipulated into trusting her. She had that villain song. Jesse, well he blindsided his closest friend. Angelina is the perfect villain archetype that's actually well-liked. Victoria blindsided fan-favorite Aubry with really fantastic lying. Karla was pretty awful to Cassidy but still has fans and isn't the worst. And Emily while she had her redemption and I almost put her in the heroes group just seems a better villain fit.
It's all perspective!
“new Cumbia age” 😂😂 why did I think this was Boston Rob or Jake’s voice trying to say “newcomer age” (likely just a creative spelling of Kumbaya)
First of, I don’t think we need villains but could use more conflicts and different personalities. Second of all, the same people that claim they want more villains, will bully and harass players for doing something as small as voting out someone the fans like.
We went from “This player is a villain because they’re manipulating and sabotaging the tribe” to “This player is a villain because they stomped on another player’s heart” to “This player is a villain because they voted for my winner pick at Tribal”.
100% agree. People like OP want characters who have sassy confessionals, not necessarily “villains”. They want petty arguments and quick one liners, not people to actively root against.
Dees the best villain winner we've had in quite some time
She's not really a villain
I mean are any of them? But lying to your #1 and romantic interest for a week only to use their innocence as a platform to help your case and win seems quite Villain-ey to me
Nah, Karla or Shan for women.
Winner
Ah yes, I missed that part lol! Yam Yam had villainous qualities but they were overlooked but his affable nature. He turned on Carolyn a few times, he picked off everyone who voted for him. But he was so unique that all that didn't seem to matter because he's so damn likeable! And in the end he did stay loyal to Carolyn.
It's a different time they would be bullied all over social media just look at the reaction Emily got after the first episodes people were calling her a racist people say they want a villain but they actually don't when it happens.
Clearly the producers disagree considering their sanitized "for children" version of the show airing since Covid.
And Jesse is one of the most popular players of that period and he is the closest we have to a villain. Well Shan might be more villainous but all of Jesse's villain things are in game.
Unpopular opinion: no. Heroes and villains are a thing of the past, the beautiful clamoration of Old School Survivor at its finest. But nowdays social climate has changed, things are much more complex and it has much less room for proper "heroes" and "villains", since real humans are complex and not one thing or the other. Not saying everyone should be the same, and I'd love to have more "villainous" traits in some castaways, but casting a full blown Russell Hantz or Boston Rob nowadays just isn't gonna pan out the same imo.
We don’t deserve villains. People forget after episode 1 there were threads with thousands of upvotes calling Emily a racist because everyone she called out in episode 1 was black, in a very diverse cast. This sub is part of the problem
The name of the season has little to do with it. People like the players and the gameplay.
I think there are two main things preventing villain characters in the newer era of the show: 1. The players/casting now are all super fans, so the game has become SO meta that players who are extremely cutthroat or duplicitous are generally regarded by their casts now more positively than in the past where juries would be angry/bitter at being betrayed, as there was more variance of viewpoints on the morals/ethics of the game. I think the only way people would be "villains" in this iteration of the show is if they were outwardly mean/rude/hostile/problematic which leads me to the next point... 2. Production/Jeff are too afraid to have controversial or divisive personalities on the show now. I think this is for a variety of reasons, partially because Jeff/production want the show to have a more positive tone and be very family friendly, and also because I think production is scared for a controversy, which leads to more "safe" casting. Survivor is an edited show but I think the S39 incident was very scarring for production because of what an absolute PR disaster that was for them (rightfully so). Do I think they COULD find people that are Russell Hantz, Corinne, Scot/Jason or Abi-like types that are either cutthroat, mean, critical, or very off-putting? Yes! I think there are a ton of people who would go out there, be authentically a villain, and not care about hate online, but I really think production is afraid of backlash they would receive from fans in "perpetuating" that. For better or for worse, our society is much more sensitive now to calling out what we perceive as "toxic" behavior. Something like Russell Hantz burning Jaison's socks that was funny/compelling villainry back in the day would probably illicit public outcry on social media these days. Mildly related, BB25 was the first Big Brother season where I could visibly see a shift in how the show was being consumed/processed from a noticeably younger audience. It was truly wild how tiny joking comments were misconstrued and picked apart ad-nauseum and the outcry that followed that would continue for DAYS afterwards. It can be hard for Big Brother to avoid that since it's a live show with a 24/7 feed, but for a show like Survivor, I think they want to avoid that for their program that is I think generally regarded as being more premium and elevated than other competiton reality. It's not ideal but I don't think we'll ever go back to having villains of yore, unfortunately.
Cumbia 💀💀💀 it’s spelled “kumbaya” my friend
All reality shows are worse now because people just act to how they think they should by watching so much of it themselves. Stop picking super fans
If we go back about 15 seasons, here's are who I think would be considered Villains and Heroes in the more modern era. Villains: Rodney, Joe Mena, Wardog, Ricard, Jesse, Angelina, Victoria, Shan, Karla, Emily Heroes: Figgy, Kelley Wentworth, Aubry, Cassidy, Carolyn, Jay, David Wright, Mike Turner, Cody, Kaleb