ready for the next thing Survivor is both a game and a reality show where the winner is chosen by a jury of peers comprised of contestants voted out of the game. The premise of the game is supposed to be outwit, outplay, outlast; however, those who actually do so are often not chosen the winner (a hotly debated topic and matter of opinion). Survivor can be interesting to watch from a sociological standpoint, but even that fascination can wear off after so many seasons. If you have never seen this show, do not be confused in thinking that it has much of anything to do with survival or outdoor skills, it is very much a social game with mostly physical challenges between teams (tribes) and/or individuals.
They've tweaked with the show several times to keep people interested, and as the ratings have continued to decline since the first 10 seasons, it is no wonder that this season was their lowest rated premier. I think this show is getting a little old, and find it surprising that they are visiting a location for a third time already. They are quite fond of tropical locations. I would love to see them throw some people on the Falkland Islands and see how they adapt there. How about somewhere near Nunavut, the Faroe Islands, or the Aleutian Islands? I'd even take Majuli for a change of scenery.
I would be curious what would happen if they could make the vote less emotionally-based. How about a 1/3 jury vote, 1/3 audience vote, and 1/3 producer vote (or half jury, half audience)? It would certainly make me more interested in watching if I knew I could affect the outcome. Even if they waited to do the voting after the show aired - literally casting live ballots during the finale - that would be interesting. I'm sure people's opinions would change if they got to see just how well others played the game behind their backs.