? ? SIGN UP for Parade's Daily newsletter & get the scoop on the latest TV news & celebrity interviews delivered right to your inbox ??
"I had two problems with this," he continues. "Number one, it didn't feel fundamentally fair from a game standpoint, that there was this one spot where there was absolutely no possible protection, or even the threat that someone might have protection, you just simply vote them out, and nothing can stop you. Number two, from a storytelling standpoint, it's not dramatic. It's almost a foregone conclusion that they're going to take out the biggest threat. And since the audience knows there is no advantage or twist that can change that, there is no drama." From Survivor's fifth to 34th season, the Final Four castaways would vote as they usually would. If the votes tied 2-2, then deadlocked, the tied castaways would then compete in a firemaking challenge. And so, to create those opportunities of safety and storytelling, Probst turned to what they had previously used as a tiebreaker. From his perspective, this gives the immunity winner not only a big decision to make, but also a strategic dilemma. Do you try to take out the biggest threat, and who do you send in to take them out? Will the firemaking winner get more credit in the eyes of the jury?It's safe to say that Final Four Firemaking has been one of the most controversial mainstays of modern Survivor. Granted, there are many fans who enjoy it as one last spectacle before the jury vote. And, when I get the chance to interview players preseason about their hottest Survivor takes, quite a few admit to liking the twist. But there are also a fair number of fans who feel the twist has run its course, and that taking away the vote from the Final Four gives way to another type of predictability altogether."There are going to be people who say they just don't like it, and we should keep the game really pure. And I do appreciate that," Probst says. "But our job as producers is to look at this from a big picture, think through where we think we have problems, and then come up with a solution. And that's why it's in there, because we felt we had a problem, and that is how we solved it.Related: Jeff Probst Says the Standout Gameplay of Survivor 47 is 'Here to Stay' (Exclusive)
Of course, the choice to continue the aftershow has not come without its own audience feedback. While Probst is happy to see the castaways not being affected by the perspective of their edit and social media, some fans feel the aftershow robs them of the opportunity to reflect on their experience after watching it all back. There's also the sentiment that adjourning from a tense final vote after a long evening of questions into a celebration of the season can be an exhausting experience, especially for the losing finalists. Surprisingly, that does not seem to be the opinion of one of those losing finalists, and the alumni co-host of this season of "On Fire," Charlie Davis."I think people will be surprised to hear me saying this. But I am so thankful for the aftershow," the Season 46 runner-up says on the mic. "And this is not butt-kissing. So get that argument out the window. If I had not gotten people's genuine, authentic reasons for why they voted the way they did, why the jurors voted the way they did, I don't think I would have been able to keep myself sane. Because it would have otherwise been a year after the game ended, and so much can change. And I just wouldn't have been able to believe a single word anyone was saying. And I'm so grateful that I got that frozen in time at the after show.""Well, Charlie, people are gonna really hate that answer," Probst replies. "Because they're gonna know it just confirms, for me that we should keep doing the aftershow, because that is exactly why I like doing it. Because you're raw and you're in the moment, and you haven't been criticized by people who will never play this game. So you're giving your genuine, authentic feelings about a moment. That's why I think it's more interesting."It remains to be seen if a live reunion will be brought back in the near future, especially for a milestone season like the upcoming Survivor 50. If it is, we hope Survivor viewers are able to welcome it back with a fanfare. And Jeff can respond in kind with epically transporting the votes back to the U.S., in a manner that would put riding a jetski past the Statue of Liberty to shame.
Related: 'Survivor 47' Winner Rachel LaMont Thought She Had Lost the Game at Final Tribal Council
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Jeff Probst Says 'Survivor' Final Four Firemaking Twist Came from a 'Hole in the Format' )
Also on site :