Should ‘Survivor’ tv series make a return to UK television?

Are we entering an early noughties time warp? Hot on the heels of reports that Big Brother and Pop Idol could be making a comeback, rumours are rife that Survivor is returning to UK television.

According to recent tabloid reports, BBC bosses are in talks to re-launch the classic reality TV competition, which last aired on ITV for two series in 2001 and 2002.

Survivor followed a group of contestants who were marooned on a desert island to fight it out for a £1 million prize, competing in gruelling challenges and forming voting alliances to make it further in the game.

Sadly, the high-stakes format failed to impress British viewers and Survivor was scrapped by ITV after its second series 20 years ago. “The tribe had spoken”, so why should we be excited about rumours of a possible comeback for a flop show?

Looking back at Survivor’s short-lived run on our screens, it’s easy to see that the franchise simply launched before its time on UK television. Much of this can be put down to the dominance of the other big reality TV show at the time: Big Brother.
Survivor UK kicked off in May 2001 – the same month as Channel 4 launched Big Brother’s fondly remembered second series, featuring legendary housemates like Brian Dowling and Helen Adams.

While Survivor’s place on primetime ITV meant it had higher ratings than its Channel 4 rival, Big Brother still enjoyed the lion’s share of the media attention thanks to its likeable housemates and the buzz created by the 24/7 live feeds.

The influence of Big Brother caused problems in other ways, too. The premise of Survivor involved contestants plotting and scheming to vote each other out, but just a year earlier, “Nasty” Nick Bateman had briefly become the most hated man in Britain for doing the same thing on Big Brother 1.

With talking about nominations akin to sacrilege in the Big Brother house, Survivor’s strategic format and the concept of rewarding Machiavellian contestants was somewhat alien to British viewers at the time. The worst thing you could be on a reality TV show in the early noughties was “two-faced” or “fake”.

Reality TV fans also complained about Survivor’s pre-recorded format and how they had no input into the outcome of the game. Big Brother, in comparison, involved viewer interactivity at every turn – from eviction votes, to choosing between different camera angles on the live feeds.

20 years on, these perceived drawbacks no longer seem relevant, as British viewers are now much more accustomed to strategic formats.

Big Brother itself became more competitive over the years and The Apprentice is based around candidates throwing each other under the bus, while we’ve also seen lies and deception play a key role in other shows like The Circle.

Some of our most successful reality shows are also now pre-recorded with no influence from viewers, such as The Apprentice and Bake-Off. The spectre of Big Brother would no longer loom large over Survivor in the same way.

Looking back with fresh eyes, Survivor UK’s first series shows how compelling the format can be if viewers give it a chance. The first 20 days saw two competing tribes – Ular and Helang – going head-to-head in immunity challenges to determine who’d be sent to Tribal Council to eliminate one of their own.

This content is imported from YouTube. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

At the midway stage of the series, the two tribes merged, with Ular having a numbers advantage after dominating in challenges.

Ular’s masterplan was to vote off Helang members one by one, but as loyalties shifted and new alliances were formed, the sole remaining Helang member Charlotte Hobrough was able to defy the odds, stick around and ultimately won the £1 million prize in a true underdog story.

Unfortunately, the intriguing format was never properly promoted by ITV at the time.

Billboards had been put up across the country with the show’s alarming tagline “You Don’t Win, You Survive”, creating the misleading impression that eliminations might involve hapless contestants keeling over one by one. Someone forgot they were promoting Survivor, not a real-life Squid Game.

Executive producer Nigel Lythgoe later complained to Heat magazine: “The tagline when I left for Borneo [location of first series] was ‘Trust No One’, which is great.

“When I got back it was, ‘You Don’t Win, You Survive’. Well, you did win – you won a million pounds! And of course you survive, because we’re not going to let you die.”

While Survivor did return for a second series in 2002, changes to the format meant that it was more like Survivor Lite. Series two featured 12 contestants rather than 16 to provide more familiarity for viewers, but this reduced the chances of any dramatic shifts in voting alliances.

Contestants on series two also stubbornly refused to betray their original tribes in the voting, wary of how they’d be perceived by the public if they dared to – gasp – actually play the game and stab someone in the back for a million quid.

If the rumours of a return are true, it’s likely that the BBC has been inspired by Survivor’s success in other countries.

Over in the US, Survivor launched before Big Brother and has always been the more successful show. It remains a hit for CBS and airs two seasons per year.

Incredibly, the American show is currently screening its 42nd season and is still fronted by original host Jeff Probst.

Australian Survivor also flopped with viewers Down Under in 2004, but was rebooted in 2016 and has since enjoyed several hit seasons on the Ten Network, fronted by Jonathan LaPaglia.

The BBC had no comment last week when Digital Spy approached to ask about the Survivor reports, but we’re keeping everything crossed that the rumoured reboot gets off the ground.

Survivor airs on CBS in the US and Network Ten in Australia.