But one of the players is a mole, planted by the show's producers to sabotage the game. Every third day, the players take an online quiz about how much they think they know about the mole. The player who gets the most wrong answers is "executed." Well, not really -- they're just escorted into a black van and taken away to the land of Sonja and Mega, where all reality show losers go to await the commercial offers that never come. Anyway, when there are three players left (two legit ones and the ringer), there's a final quiz; the winner takes $1 million.

The strategizing involved in winning "The Mole" (which premiered Jan. 9 and is running for nine weeks) is not unappealing, particularly if you're well-versed in the board game Clue -- if you think you've figured out who the mole is, you need to send other players down a, well, mole hole by diverting suspicion to someone else, while keeping yourself alive until the final round.

But the big problem with "The Mole" is that everything about it echoes "Survivor": the rigged suspense, the over-dramatic editing, the great solemn dufusosity of host Anderson Cooper as he presides over the tribal council -- oops -- execution.

So deeply embedded in our consciousness is "Survivor" that you even find yourself looking for surrogate castaways among the "Mole" players. Crusty retired cop Charlie is Rudy (with a little B.B. for good measure); weathered jockette Jennifer is Sue; crafty gay helicopter pilot/lawyer Jim is Richard. You get the picture.

Unfortunately for "The Mole," "Survivor" got there first, made an indelible mark and crossed over from a freakish curiosity to a cultural obsession akin to "Dallas" or "Dynasty." Last summer, "Survivor" was a trashy guilty pleasure, with larger-than-life characters, enough suspense to keep you hooked and an irresistible kitsch factor that inspired an intense love/mock reaction from like-minded fans.

In light of all that, it's hard to regard "The Mole" as anything but a rip-off verging on parody -- I mean, Cooper, a former ABC News correspondent (ha!), does a better Jeff Probst than Probst. And in the premiere, the goopy montage of Scenes From Happier Times that ran after first victim Manuel (a Mexican-American single dad who haplessly came close to botching two group tasks) got the hook was corny beyond belief, suggesting that "The Mole" has more in common with the lugubrious and stuporific "Big Brother" than the unsentimental and supple "Survivor."

As for "Survivor: The Australian Outback," which is set to premiere after the Super Bowl on Jan. 28, it looks like its toughest competition will be itself. The second installment faces a difficult challenge akin to being a step-parent, or Rick Schroder on "NYPD Blue."

It mustn't erase the memory of the first series and the original castaways, but instead complement them enough to let viewers know it's OK to get emotionally involved with the new guys. I think it's already working: Judging from the commercials for "Survivor II," I might have found my new Sue -- beefy corrections officer Debb. Just one thing, though -- is it possible for someone to be "voted off the outback"?

Now playing: Read all the recent movie reviews by Salon's critics