Okay, so I messed up pretty big on the outcome of the last “Survivor” show.  So sue me.  One thing I failed to make clear in that column – I was ROOTING for Richard.  Really!  Swear!  I love it when an evil master plan comes together.  I just sincerely thought he had no chance in hell of convincing four people he’d screwed over to vote for him.

So, anyhow, if my earlier columns haven’t made it clear, I loved “Survivor.”

And already, I hate “Survivor 2: The Australian Outback.”

“But Colin,” you’re saying to yourself, or at least you should be, “how can that be?  The show hasn’t even premiered yet!  It won’t be on until Super Bowl Sunday!  On what do you base your snap judgment?”

Have you seen the ads for the new show?  I saw a particularly nasty one today, promoting “The Women of Survivor.”  There they were, this telegenic new cast, all gussied up and staring vacuously in to the camera, looking not at all like minor league Victoria’s Secret models.  Lips parted and moist, staring deep in to the lens of the camera as it swerved and twirled in for a close up ... with the announcer, low and sexy, “Get to know ... the Women of Survivor.”  I mean, the new Survivors have names like "Amber," "Elisabeth," and "Colby."  That should tell you all you need to know.

Now can you for a second imagine Susan (from the original “Survivor”) putting up with that crap?  One “Colleen” is fine.  Five is too many.  (And I wouldn’t necessarily classify Colleen as the type of typical, objectified sex object that these new Survivors seem to be.  Colleen was cute for many reasons, but it’s not like she was a glamorous uber-model.)

No, “Survivor 2” is being sold as “Sex in the Outback,” or so it would seem.  Most of the male cast members have abs that I’ve only seen on the cover of men’s fitness magazines or in infomercials for that “Ab-Roller” thing that’s this month’s big craze.  Where are the Richards, the Rudys, the Gregs who made the first “Survivor” so fun?  Will one of these face men start talking on a “Shell Phone?”  I think not.

I am fully willing to revise my opinion on this, but given what I’ve seen so far, I’m NOT impressed.

And this further note from a reliable source in the “biz” – the casting for this edition of “Survivor” was handled not by Mark Burnett, the executive producer and creator of “Survivor,” but instead was overseen by both him and CBS president Les Moonves.  You know, because it was so important to the network.  (And isn’t that the typical network weasel mentality?  “Gee, instead of regular people on “Survivor,” why not a cast of near-models!  That would be great!”  It would also be a show called “Temptation Island” on Fox, but that’s another story.)

Um, Les?  Next time, let Mark handle everything.  It worked out pretty well the first go round ... and you’d hate to have your meddling be the reason this “Survivor” sucks, wouldn’t you?

One other note:  If CBS could, I’m sure they’d like “Survivor” as a weekly series, when, at best, it’s a summer confection, the perfect cure for the rerun blues.  Why not own the summer ratings with a new “Survivor” series every year?  Then again, I guess they haven’t been paying attention to what’s been going on over at ABC, where “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” ratings fatigue is starting to set in.  If one night a week is good, why not five?  Yuck.  Holding “Millionaire” just for sweeps periods would have, again, ensured ABC of dominating ratings, instead of the current slow slide in to oblivion that “Millionaire” has surely begun.  Memo to Network Execs:  Sometimes, it’s okay to leave the audience wanting more!

But the big question is, would I rather watch a new episode of “Friends,” or “Hot Babes Running Around in a Poor Clone of ‘Survivor’”?  It’s a gutsy scheduling move, but I wouldn’t count on America suddenly abandoning Chandler and Monica’s wedding preps.

Of course, I have been wrong before ...

Link:

http://survivor.cbs.com/primetime/survivor2/