SwineForkbeard wrote:
tullfan2 wrote:
The point is Richard Hatch has implicated CBS and Mark Burnett productions for his not paying his taxes on his winnings. His claim is that the network had agreed to pay the taxes on his Borneo winnings as hush money in return for keeping quiet about Survivor production giving food to one of the Borneo contestants. I don't see CBS having Hatch on again when he has implied that the outcome of the show is rigged and may file a lawsuit against the network.Morono alleged that producers rigged the outcome of TAR 7, but that didn't stop them from having him back on. The bottom line is that money talks, and as long as having Hatch on will bring them ratings, CBS will make Mark Burnett et al. put aside their personal grievances.
Yes but Morono never threatened to implicate CBS and the show producers in a lawsuit as Hatch has filed with the Supreme Court. They should only do an all winners version that includes the winners from every previous season of Survivor otherwise there is no point to it. The determination of the ultimate Survivor champion is the only reason for having an all winners season. If some of them refuse they shouldn't have it. Frankly, the group of Survivor winners doesn't make for the greatest television nor were most of them the most intriguing players. Most of the winners had even-keeled personalities that are not conducive to producing drama. Even if CBS would agree to have him back, I don't see what advantage it would be for Hatch to return. A return appearance on Survivor won't help his damaged reputation as a tax evading deadbeat and he would definitely be voted out early.. Just like with All Stars, most of the untrustworthy contestants and physical threats would likely be voted out earlier. A final 8 of Tina, Ethan, Vecepia, Amber, Danni, Aras, Yul and Earl doesn't exactly make for riveting television. They would likely see higher ratings from bringing Rupert back for a 3rd time than with an All winners versiom.
