★★★★★ 0/5

How do you win Australian Survivor?

Host Jonathan LaPaglia gives his verdict on the essential skills to take players to the end.

9
Leave a comment

To win Australian Survivor and its $500,000 prize, the Reality show demands you outwit, outplay and outlast all others in the tribe.

But does that mean being the best physical threat, the best strategic threat, someone who flies under the radar or a combination of them all?

“You gotta have a really good social game,” host Jonathan LaPaglia recently told TV Tonight.

“You need the ability to think five steps ahead. But most importantly, I think you’ve got to be willing to take risks. I think those are the three key features to succeeding in this game. And you look at someone like George (2022, 2023) and he has all that, right?

“You could argue that maybe George’s social game is not quite strong enough because even though he gets to the end, he can’t secure everyone’s votes. But those are the three key elements of a good player and that’s what I always look for.”

Meanwhile LaPaglia has been filming Top Gear Australia for Paramount+.

“We started shooting in Australia before Christmas and then afterwards, we were in Colombia. We’re currently in Dallas, getting ready to shoot the next story. And then we go into Europe, and then back to Australia. I’s like a whirlwind tour. It’s like a world tour. It’s crazy.”

Australian Survivor continues 7:30pm Sunday  – Tuesday on 10.

9 Responses

    1. Shane was great and deserved the win. I think a big factor in her win was the respect she had as an Olympian. If memory serves me there was quite a powerful sportsman alliance that year that held up for a long time. When that alliance broke up I think the big boys were gunning for each other and forgot about Shane and thought they could pick her off at any time and never quite got around to it.

  2. I haven’t watched any more than a couple of episodes of each season since channel 10 got it.
    When channel 9 (I think it was them) that had it years ago I loved it, there were people on there that were real and played their own games and really made the Australian version it’s own thing but years later when channel 10 got it the competitors have been trying too hard to imitate the big players from the US version and i see it as a cheap imitation of a good show ( the US version) rather than just letting it be natural and different considering the differences in personality, lifestyle and attitude between the USA and Australia

    1. I think you should maybe give Aussie Survivor another shot. The US version has been on the nose for the past three years, as it moved to a quick and noisy game. The Australian version has really leant into it’s characters and cast dynamic and interesting players. Yes, some of them play a ‘big game’ and you could attribute that to the Americanisation of the genre – but at it’s heart Aussie Survivor is still about the players, and their individual style and issues in the game. Not to mention, the New York Times has lauded it the best example of the franchise, worldwide, and this season is continuing to deliver on that promise. I love that we have a world beating reality show, that is both entertaining and well made right here.

  3. Another huge factor that is never really talked about in winning Survivour is luck (I have spent way too much time thinking about survivour). Over the years the number of players who have found themselves on the wrong side of an alliance because they didn’t happen to be standing in the right place on the first day when people scrambled for numbers. There is so much strategy and good game play needed, but you cant overlook a big old chunk of luck. Probably just me but I would like to see a season of players who were the first ones voted out from their tribes, more often then not because they are an older woman and are thought of as disposable. I bet there would be some surprisingly great players that were overlooked by fate.

  4. I absolutely love survivour, The game just keeps evolving the early seasons seem so quaint now if you watch them. As for George he was basically Australia’s Russell Hass, he was always going to get to the end and never win because he only plays 50% of the game, the 50% he does play he plays hard and well but it’s still only 50% and the sad thing is when you see him outside the game (like when he did amazing race) he refers to himself as one of survivours greatest players when he was never a shot. Another aspect about the game that has changed that a lot of the contestants haven’t seemed to pick up on for some reason are the challenges. It is no longer a game for the big boys, these days the ideal contestant is an athletic, light woman, with small feet and a good social game whom others find attractive. Also another aspect often overlooked is jury management, If you break an alliance, the wronged party doesn’t respect your game play, they are annoyed they are on the jury.

    1. You began so well, but I think the ‘attractiveness’ of female winners devalues their gameplay, and I doubt Shane Gould would agree with the description. Having watched Survivor for close to 20 years I also think everybody understands the importance of not alienating jury members. It’s mentioned every season I can recall rather than been overlooked.

      1. I didn’t mean the attentiveness as a defining factor and it’s not a break all, but if you were to design the perfect player it’s human nature we are more favourable towards people we find attractive. It doesn’t define a persons social game but it certainly doesn’t hurt. I agree that jury management is often mentioned but recent game play seems to favour the idea of building a resume over jury management. I can’t remember her name but there was a lawyer who was very confident in her ability to argue a case in front of a jury and was expecting the jury to respect her resume, so she formed an alliance in the final stages of the game that she broke straight away resulting in all the other members of the alliance being voted out and on the jury. So many jury members end up voting for the person whom they were never aligned with but that they never got around to voting off, over the person they were aligned with who blindsided them. Sandra’s second win on the American series was this.

Leave a Reply