Jeff Probst confirms “Survivor 47” finale is not a final 2

For the first time ever, Survivor will have a finale event that will last only two hours instead of three. As part of that change, only four players — Rachel LaMont, Sam Phalen, Sue Smey, and Teeny Chirichillo — are making it into Dec. 18 finale on CBS, as opposed to the standard five.

And with one less contestant still active going into the final installment, some fans have wondered if that means the show could be moving back to the final two format of yesteryear, instead of the now-normal final three.

Showunner and host Jeff Probst explained the reasoning behind splitting the finale up into two episodes on the latest episode of his On Fire podcast, and also dashed the dreams of anyone (a.k.a. yours truly) hoping for a return to final Tribal Councils of old.

Related: Survivor 47 star Caroline Vidmar says she told Sue to not play idol on her

“It really started with CBS asking us months before we shot [the season] if it would be possible for season 47 to do 14 episodes instead of 13,” Probst reveals on the podcast. “They had some things they wanted to try in their schedule, and part of that working out would depend on whether or not we could do 14 episodes. So [executive producer Matt Van Wagenen] and I sat down and broke the finale down into parts and examined if and how we could pull it off.”

That’s when the team decided to break between the two final episodes after Genevive Mushaluk was ousted in fifth place, Probst explains. “What we really quickly realized was, if we structured it so that part one got us down to four players, then in part two we could spend a lot more time with our final four as we lead into the final four challenge, and then the fire-making, and then the final three, and then the final Tribal Council. Because typically our finales are so full of content that we end up not having enough time to show all the stories we'd like to show.”

In the end, with the 14th episode splitting the finale into two installments, viewers are now getting an extra hour of Survivor when all the air-time is added up. “It actually really worked out because we could highlight things we didn't typically highlight,” Probst says. “And it was a great reminder to us that sometimes you need to step back and examine what you're doing because just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it always has to stay that way.”

Related: Jeff Probst explains why gender alliances don't work on Survivor

Sign up for Entertainment Weekly's free daily newsletter to get breaking news, exclusive first looks, recaps, reviews, interviews with your favorite stars, and more.

But with only four people now walking into the finale instead of five, could that mean a return to the classic final two showdowns of the past? Even though Probst had already tipped his final three hand, he was asked directly by podcast cohost Jay Wolff, who inquired, “Is there a world where there's a final three that becomes a final two?”

“That would be the way I would've set it up if we were doing a final two,” Probst. "It’s certainly possible, but I don't want to have speculation. That goes nowhere.”

And then, the words my traditionalist, old-school heart dreaded to hear above all others. “It's not a final two, so I don't want to confuse or disappoint anybody. But I will say, it is a tremendous finish to a great season.”

To hear more from the host about the penultimate episode double elimination, check out the new installment of On Fire.

Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly