Survivor was not the first Reality Show to hit mainstream TV. That distinction belongs to MTV “The Real World.” It was dubbed a social experiment about half a decade before Burnett had his brainchild we all know as “Survivor.” Thus it is not surprising in episode one of its inaugural season or on Burnett’s “first page” they focus on “social experiment” to assess a theme.

But it is the physicality, i.e. starvation, dehydration, challenges, etc. that sets Survivor apart from all the other reality shows. It’s also why I will always regard Survivor as my favorite Reality TV show. These physical factors are FAR more than just mere “catalysts.” Without this physicality Survivor would have fallen by the wayside much like many other reality shows. Anyone who has followed Survivor from its beginnings has to admit castaways do not starve like they used to…do not dehydrate like they used to…and do not wear down like they used. THAT is what I refer to when I note the “sad progression.”

Although I do see your point when you question “villainous” during the early seasons. Personally I will always regard liars as “sorry sacks of sh!t.” But do I necessarily label them “villains?” No; Hatch is more of a “sorry sack of sh!t” than a villain in my book. Do I consider Jerri a villain because she is a self-centered B!tch?” No; she’s just…well…a self-centered B!tch.

This whole villain shock value came to the forefront with Hantz. Was he the first scoundrel to be casted? Far from it. But he was a castaway wearing the largest black hat in Samoa who owned the game by searching harder and playing harder than anyone else that season. From that point on Production decided they would ride that shock wave and part of its casting would be devoted to selecting worthless pieces of trash or pathetically inept losers with a mean or bad streak. But when they are unable to own the game the way Hantz did, I agree with your assessment that those “intended villains” prove harmless and the season runs the risk of falling flat.