For the first time ever, Survivors will have a closing event that will only last two hours instead of three. As part of this change, only four players – Rachel LaMont, Sam Phalen, Sue Smey and Teeny Chirichillo – will make it to the finale on December 18 on CBS, as opposed to the usual five.

And with one less active contestant in the final episode, some fans have wondered if that means the show could return to yesterday’s final two format instead of the now usual final three format.

Showrunner and host Jeff Probst explained the reasons for splitting the finale into two episodes in his latest episode On fire podcast, and also crushed the dreams of anyone (really, you) who was hoping for a return to the final tribal councils of the past.

Related: Survivor 47 Star Caroline Vidmar says she told Sue not to idolize her

“It really started when CBS asked us months before filming (the season) if it would be possible for Season 47 to do 14 episodes instead of 13,” Probst reveals in the podcast. “They had some things in their schedule that they wanted to try, and some of that depended 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 thought about if and how we could pull it off.”

At that point, the team decided to take a break between the final two episodes after Genevive Mushaluk was pushed out in fifth place, explains Probst. “What we realized really quickly was that if we structured it so that we only had four players in the first part, we could spend a lot more time with our final four in the second part as we approach the finals. Four challenge approaching, and then…” Making fires, and then the final three, and then the final Tribal Council. Because usually our finales are so full of content that we don’t end up having enough time to show all the stories we would like to show.”

In the end, as the 14th episode splits the finale into two parts, viewers will now get an extra hour Survivors when the entire broadcast time is added up. “It really worked because we were able to highlight things that we don’t normally highlight,” Probst says. “And it was a great reminder for us that sometimes you have to take a 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 Survivors

Sign in Weekly entertainmentis the free daily newsletter to get breaking news, exclusive first looks, recaps, reviews, interviews with your favorite celebrities and more.

But with only four people now making it to the final instead of five, could this mean a return to the classic final two showdowns of the past? Even though Probst had already tipped his final three hands, he was asked directly by podcast co-host Jay Wolff, “Is there a world where a final three becomes a final two?”

“That’s the way I would have set it up if we had done the last two,” Probst. “It’s certainly possible, but I don’t want to speculate. This leads to nothing.”

And then the words my old-school traditionalist heart feared more than any other. “It’s not a Final Two so I don’t want to confuse or disappoint anyone. But I have to say it’s a great end to a great season.”

To hear more from the host about the double elimination in the penultimate episode, watch the new episode of On fire.

Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly