(2 of 2)
Survivor is only one show seeking to emulate the success of another oddball little imported game show, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, which ABC turned into the surprise smash of last summer (and will bring back for November sweeps); other networks have scrambled to plan updates of classic game shows like 21 and The $64,000 Question. But Survivor's sociological, pseudo-Machiavellian aspect makes it the antithesis of traditional quiz shows, which, with their 1950s-'60s, best-and-brightest vision, place individuals outside a social context and reward them for pure skill. On Jeopardy!, that SAT of game shows, what counts is what you know. On Survivor, it's as much who you know, and what they think of you.
Which may make it the definitive competition for the era of the corporate retreat and the project team. Survivor is designed to reward talents that pay off not in classrooms but in boardrooms, break rooms and locker rooms: succeeding without alienating, impressing without threatening. After the early rounds, after all, looking like a potential winner could be as big a liability as obnoxiousness. "The person who wins the million dollars should be a real winner going forward in his or her life," says Burnett. "Who could survive 13 votes if he or she wasn't a pretty capable and likable person?" The rest leave empty-handed. But they should be able to keep their food safe from macaques for the rest of their lives.