This letter is the follow up to the initial discussions about my feelings regarding the biggest problems facing SOTF and their solutions which was sparked during my debriefing. It's a quick overview, but I hope you'll take some time to consider it. I believe that my personal experiences both before and during the game lend me a unique perspective on this matter, and that my advice can allow the show to achieve even greater acclaim and longevity.
1. Mentors: The problem with mentors is that you get all these unique and interesting personalities together and then they don't do anything. Their interest wanes, they get overly invested in their gimmicks, or they're just flat out useless. They're a great concept that's currently wasted unless you're the team that lucked out and got Jared.
Only a few things are needed to fix mentors. First off, make each of them make a briefing tape and show it on little individual screens after the main briefing or play it from collars when the contestants wake up or something. The first day is the peak of mentor activity, but right now most of them either waste it introducing themselves or instead take action at the cost of establishing their credibility. An initial introduction lets them make an impact at the only stage of the game where they're guaranteed to have a full team to work with. It can also be great for the fans—let them watch each briefing online and have a badge showing team loyalty on their Facebook or something.
Next, ditch the current announcer system and replace it with letting the mentors who know what they're doing give announcements. Ritzy was okay (maybe bring her in as a mentor for Season 67 so there are no hard feelings?) but she doesn't have the presence or sustain and the show really does not need to juggle announcers for the next year until it finds someone who fits. If an announcer sucks, it drags down the whole season. If a mentor sucks for one announcement, it's just a part of the whole thing and will likely be more forgivable to fans. This would save money, add interest and suspense for the viewers, and give the mentors more to do/a platform for their messages or promotion. It would let them and their teams feel like they matter, and make them more than just a gimmick or curiosity.
2. Teams: The problem with teams is that for a factors that is supposed to dramatically influence the course of a game, they quite frequently do very little. This is due to a combination of team size, team makeup, starting positions, and team invisibility. Teams seem designed to create an atmosphere of increased conflict, with contestants allying with their assigned comrades. At present, however, contestants are much more likely to weigh personal familiarity and friendship when deciding upon alliances. This is because teams just don't offer that big an advantage. I think that halving the number of teams but doubling their size would go a huge way towards increasing the viability of active team play and cooperation. Doing so would render the deaths of one or two team members an unfortunate setback rather than a crippling one, and would improve the chances of teammates encountering each other. It would also better establish the teams as distinct entities in the minds of the viewers, who would no longer have to track over a dozen disparate groups that quite often have no actual interaction.
The removal of the two-schools mechanic would also help greatly (though similar effect could be achieved by ensuring that each team was comprised solely of students from one of the two schools). Contestants are just not that willing to trust their lives to strangers, and having two competing group dynamics as sources of tension robs both of their full impact. This is especially true since teams tend to start the game scattered about, and thus members will usually forge alliances based on location rather than affiliation. It's hard to break up an alliance born of an actual bond in favor of one arbitrarily assigned.
Finally, team affiliation should not be a big secret. Every kill should identify the team of both killer and victim, to better stir the pot and encourage team rivalries and attempts at revenge. Doing so would also improve the odds of team members seeking each other out, and reduce the unfairness of randomly and selectively identifying the teams of certain contestants. It would also allow attentive contestants to figure out the rough size of their remaining pool of allies and act accordingly.
3. The Ten-Kill Rule: The Ten-Kill Rule as currently enforced selects heavily for one specific type of winner. Having a major player win every season is boring and damaging to the tone of the show, especially given the possibility of a traditional villain win paired with it. There are a couple possible solutions to this. The Ten-Kill Rule could be amended to make it more difficult (Eleven, for a start) or put on hiatus to avoid overexposure. On the other hand, the rule has proved popular and has encouraged a lot of action. The refinements in Season 66 were a step in the right direction, but I think the rule can be improved further to become even more dynamic.
I think that any contestant to achieve ten kills should be allowed to name any currently living contestant (including them) to be released. While this does allow for the potential of worthless deadweight surviving, I think that the payoff makes such a risk worth it. This would open up the path of the player to contestants who fall outside the traditional villainous mold, allowing for greater diversity of action and more intriguing arcs. Would the girl who kills to save her boyfriend actually give him freedom when her own salvation is within her grasp? Would the boy trying to save his best friend continue down his path of violence after his friend's demise, now trying to save his own life, or would he be overcome by guilt? The possibilities are endless.
More than that, allowing major killers to pass the fruits of their success to others will make for more dynamic late games. A killer who sends someone else home now has to worry about their own life, and enters the remainder of the game as a major threat. A team can work together to save an ally assigned to a different group and then keep its plan going. A simple broadening of the rule turns it from something stale to something almost endlessly fresh.
4. Killer Rewards and Motivation: Aside from the Ten-Kill Release, the reasons one might choose to kill can be somewhat questionable. Many contestants fall easily into a passive or reactive role. I think a little broadening of the rules could encourage more cutthroat competition while also adding an interesting tactical and potentially humanizing element to the motivators behind the program.
I would start by making the first kill of the game count as double towards the release. This would ensure a strong and competitive start to the game, as the most able race to earn an early lead. The material difference between nine and ten kills is small, and in both games using the rule the first killer has ended up the most successful anyways. This change would inspire a more active playing field at the start of the game.
I also suggest a reconsideration of killer rewards. I read the behind the scenes material and know that at one point a kill-streak bonus was considered, though ultimately discarded as cumbersome. I would consider a slightly amended replacement program with a similar idea.
During each announcement, one surviving student who scored a kill the previous day would be given a special prize. A few potential methods of winner determination come to mind. First off, a race could work, with the first killer of each period scoring the prize. I dislike this solution because while it would encourage quick action at the start of phases, it would risk front-loading them and the distinction of being "first" could end up largely meaningless as deaths potentially pass the prize along to the fifth or sixth killer. The prize winner could be determined by popular vote, but I'm not sold on this option either. While it would certainly lead to increased audience excitement and participation, it would risk violating the core tenet of fairness by allowing external influences to impact the game. The audience thinks it wants a voice, but probably actually does not. Look at how opinions of contestants can swing. More than that, this would motivate and reward only those popular contestants, likely encouraging pointless stunts and artificial pandering, enough of which already infects the program. Finally, the winner could be randomly selected from among those students eligible, with each kill counting as a single entry. I favor this method, as it is fair to all involved and incentivizes continued killing.
The prize would be for the winner to choose from a list of options calculated to appeal to a wide range of contestant motivations. As an example pool, I would say allow the winner to choose one of the following:
- A small utility object, something like painkillers or a multitool, potentially from a list, to be delivered to a Danger Zone and recovered there. This would appeal to the pragmatists, survivalists, and the under-equipped.
- Information on the location of one other contestant. Not a direct location, but perhaps a range of two or three areas they might be in. This would appeal to those seeking friends and lovers, as well as to those hunting their competition or out for revenge. In any event, it would encourage movement and stir further conflict.
- A brief phone conversation via collar microphone with a family member or other loved one outside the game. I've seen allowing students a letter from home in certain situations suggested on fan sites before, but this feels much more immediate and better allows the audience to share in the moment. This would appeal to the sentimental, and—of course—to the audience.
- Some particularly nice meal, prepared and delivered to a Danger Zone and recovered there. This would appeal to the gluttonous, the starving, and those uninterested in the other prizes.
- Maybe an extra kill added to their tally for purposes of the Ten-Kill Rule, with the caveat that such an extra kill may not bring their tally above eight. This would appeal to those playing to win, and would also allow for some rubberbanding in cases of one killer establishing a hefty early lead, but could also lead to near-insurmountable snowballs or really early victories, even with the limit in place. This would need some serious balance discussion and theory crafting.
I would love to personally helm such a project as guest showrunner for a season (maybe even a special or spinoff?), though I understand the unprecedented nature of such a request. While I can promise you great successes and a season to blow 65 and 66 out of the water should you indulge me, I also understand that I'm asking for a lot of power and trust and will fully understand should you be uncomfortable with offering such to me. I thus offer these suggestions with no strings attached, out of a love for SOTF and a desire to see it grow and succeed. I would also love, regardless of the path you take, to be involved in the future of the show in some capacity. Please keep in contact.
The very best to you,
Jewel Evans
