Because Survivor is a reality show, the concept is that any regular person could eventually be cast. In the theoretical sense, that is true. In reality, the show’s producers know what kind of person they are looking for when recruiting and sorting through the multiple thousands of applicants. No true normal person will ever be put on the show without having a hook; an endearing personality, a distinct physical trait or the ability to really pop in front of a camera. Otherwise the show would be filled with a bunch of boring super fans who are awkward on television and Survivor would tank. That is why the producers have a bunch of archetypes they like to go back to.

Archetypes are not unique to Survivor. Most reality competitions shows like Big Brother, the Apprentice and the Amazing Race have their own set of archetypes to fall back on. On Survivor those range from “the alpha male”, “the tribe mom”, “the gay guy” and so many more. In fact, it’s not even unique to the television world. They are essentially the same thing as character sheets for table top role playing games. You can be an Orc or a Healer in the same way that CBS will make you into a Golden Boy or a Villain.

While producers obviously cast with hopes that someone’s personality will be at the forefront, they know that they can present these characters to the audience in their archetypes and we will at least understand them at a basic level. For example, looking at Millennials vs Gen X, at first glance the viewers could understand that David Wright filled the “city guy who lacks self-confidence role” and that Figgy was the “pretty girl in a bikini”.

David Wright: surprisingly not cast as the alpha male

Pinning these superlatives on people early on can be a double edged sword. Looking at it positively, it allows for the audience to understand how a player might act in the game due to precedent. In David’s case, it was hard not to think back to some like John Cochran or even Cirie Fields because his biography hit the same key points that Cochran or Cirie would hit on the show. It sort of sets up the perception of David before he is even shown on the television screen. Knowing what we do now, it’s obvious that the producers want David to be seen in a similar light because of his growth arc throughout the season from someone who is scared of everything under the sun to this bad ass strategic mastermind. With the archetype in place, it becomes the template for his story.

Looking at it from the other side of the coin, archetypes can also be bad for a character. Because of the preconceived notions for each type, some players can be pigeonholed into being seen a certain way before they have even made their debut on Survivor. It happened with Jay Starrett from Millennials vs Gen X. His biography screamed “college frat boy” and almost everybody picked him to be a pre-merge boot for being hard to live with. After the season unfolded, Jay became one of the cast’s most popular players, an easy pick for someone who will get a second chance and one of the more complicated players in recent memory.

Despite the appearance of being a douche frat guy, Jay was sensitive and funny. He was self-aware and showed some game savviness. The relationships he created on the island were genuine and everybody loved him, which made Jay the biggest threat of the season. Even though Jay was never allied with Adam Klein throughout the game, the two formed a bond that became nearly unbreakable. He made us laugh and he made us cry. Never would we have predicted that from Jay because of the way he had been presented to us through his casting.

A case like Jay’s is always one of the more fun things about Survivor: when a player defies or surpasses their character archetypes. While it doesn’t always happen, Jay is far from the only case of a player delivering a lot more than anybody expected of him. In fact there has been some mention throughout the years that CBS liked Richard Hatch because he seemed like a perfect first boot due to his often grating personality. They never anticipated that he would also be a survival expert who could provide for his tribe and a competition threat.

His tribe was also surprisingly OK with his nakedness

Similar to Jay’s case in Millennials vs Gen X, Dan Kay was cast as an “alpha male” for Survivor: Gabon. He was a physical specimen and an attorney. Everything about his esthetics made you think that Dan was going to be the season’s challenge beast, that role would instead be filled a 57 year old physics teacher. What the audience got instead was an insecure person using the game as a chance to find himself. Dan constantly sought approval from his tribe and lacked the self-awareness to realize that his anxiety made everyone around him uncomfortable. He remains one of the most earnest, if terrible, Survivor players because of how genuine he came off on camera.

Another early archetype that became popular with Survivor producers was the “older woman/tribe mom” that was doomed to be sent home early because of their bad performances in challenges. Players like Sonja Christopher, Debb Eaton and Maralyn Hershey and Diane Ogden all fell into that role. Two players from those early seasons were instrumental in proving that this archetype was not doomed to be pre-merge fodder if they knew how to play the game: Tina Wesson and Kathy Vavrick-O’Brien.

Both those women went far beyond the expectations of them. Tina became the first female winner and did so through cutthroat gameplay hidden behind a veneer of “I’m a sweet southern mother”. Kathy was one of the show’s biggest early stars and an absolute fan favourite for her brash character and decidedly rough personality for someone who was cast as “the mom” of her season. She could hang with the younger crowd and really was able to mesh well with her cast and would have won her season had she been able to win the final challenge.

Even once a player has played a first time, there is opportunity to go beyond what casting has you pinned as. The most obvious example of such a player is Parvati Shallow. On Cook Islands, she was cast as the beauty who would use her looks to advance herself further in the game. To a certain extent, she tried to do that with Nate Gonzalez, Adam Gentry and even Ozzy Lusth. She also gave confessionals about using flirting as a strategy. Producers and Jeff Probst obviously loved what she was giving them because she was brought back despite being somewhat forgettable in her original season on the grand scheme of things.

When she came back for Survivor: Micronesia, Jeff highlighted her as the woman who used her looks to her benefit. Early on in the game, Parvati flirted a bit with James but other than that, her Micronesia performance has almost nothing to do with flirting. She formed a tight alliance with Amanda Kimmel and Cirie that eventually expanded into the Black Widow Brigade. She engineered so many blindsides, with the help of Cirie, on different targets and made it to the end as an absolute cutthroat player. While she was an attractive woman, that part of her had no bearings on Parvati eventually winning the game. Her win was strictly due to her ability to learn from her past season and adjust to a new strategy. On Heroes vs Villains, she was once again billed as the femme fatale but played through the season using her brain and game sense. Parvati may have been pigeonholed into the “pretty girl in a bikini” role but after her original season, she never let that stop her.

Parvati working with all men, just like always

There’s also the type of returning player who is able to turn his archetype from being a villainous character to something else. Just recently in Survivor: Game Changers, Brad Culpepper came in as the “bad guy” from Survivor: Blood vs Water. His edit had shown him to be highly disliked by a lot of his cast members and had a few people yell some profanities at him for voting out their loved ones. A lot of fans bemoaned his appearance on Game Changers because he was really seen as the alpha male who couldn’t tone it down.

For most of the season, viewers got to see an entirely different side of Brad. He was the guy who loved his wife, antiquing and wearing pastel colored shorts. He had been previously stereotyped as a guy who couldn’t ally with anyone but other athletic men. In Game Changers, he formed a core alliance with Sierra-Dawn Thomas, Debbie Wanner and Tai Trang, a gay man. He was amicable with everybody, showed a very sensitive side by crying a few times over the season and was generally an affable presence throughout the season. He had his moments near the end where he felt the game slipping away from him and got more aggressive but overall, Brad came out of Game Changers having completely rehabilitated his reputation from the edit that Blood vs Water had given him.

Cases like Brad are why archetypes should always been approached with caution. Above all else, CBS has interest in creating a product that will attract viewership. That means needing to characterize these contestants in a certain way. They agreed to do the show, they all get a stipend for taking part in it and they know that allows production to portray them in any way they see fit. What needs to be understood by the fans is that same thing. What we see on the show is 42 minutes each week of an experience that for some lasted 39 days. It is but a small, minuscule percentage of each person’s personality and certain aspects of that personality is highlighted by the producers to create characters. Outside of the game, these are real life people who all experience a gamut of emotions. No one is always confrontational like Brad was portrayed as being and no one is entirely heroic in the way JT Thomas was shown during Survivor: Tocantins (as his later efforts would prove).

While Brandon Hantz may argue that everything is either black and white, he would be wrong. As is often the case. Let’s just all try to remember that the next time we get angry at the contestants on the screen because we will never get the full picture.