Let's see. So far there have been Survivor shows in Malaysia, Australia, Thailand and now the Amazon. Maybe there's a couple of others I'm forgetting.
Notice a common denominator among all these locations? That's right, all warm climates. Some tropical, some arid, but all warm.
Now I hate the show Survivor and think everyone on the show is an absolute creep. But I always thought that a Survivor in the Antarctic wouldn't be a half-bad idea. Think about it: Unlike all these panty-waste tropical locations, a bitterly cold climate would truly test their survival skills. It doesnít even have to be Antarctica. How about the interior of Greenland or Baffin Island, Churchill, Manitoba, or even northern Alaska? (It would have to be produced during late winter or early Spring so the sun will be out at least part of the day but itís still bitterly cold)
I always wondered why no one thought to do a Survivor show below (or above) the 60th Parallel. They keep doing it around the equator, why not closer to the Poles? That would truly be quite a feet and may draw in viewers bored with reduncancy of the previous shows.
Then it hit me how simple the answer was.
Because it would be so cold, all the contestants would have to be dressed up in multiple layers of clothing at all times. That simply wouldnít sell Ė itís as simple as that: No bikinis with fake boobs hanging out. No thong underwear, no tanned bodies, no Steroid enhanced muscles. And with a sexually obsessed, MTV-addled audience, that simply wouldnít fly. At their animal level of thinking, if they canít show some T & A, itís simply not worth watching. Thereís always Fastlane instead.
So thatís why there will never be a Survivor in Antarctica, Greenland, or any other cold climate. Snowsuits just donít sell to our sexually depraved, intellectually bankrupt culture.