Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Man vs. Wild
I'm just not sure we need another man v nature show. Handsome, strapping dudes with rippled abs heading out in to the wilderness to test their mettle against nature. The Amazing Race, the Croc Hunter (RIP), Survivor...even if this one has a vibe of authenticity, there's just something about all this that reeks of artificiality, of marketing and showmanship. In the upcoming program Man vs. Wild, "seasoned adventurer" Bear Grylls (really? His name is bear?) strands himself in places that tourists sometimes go and where danger lurks around every...um...Burger King. And then, Herr Bear finds clever McGuiverian ways to escape. For example, we learn from the show's site that he will escape quicksand in the Moab desert, he'll navigate dangerous river currents in Costa Rica, and build a snow shelter in the Alps. We also learn that Bear: "is a Karate black belt, served three years with the Special Air Service, a special forces unit of the British Army, during which time he broke his back in three places while parachuting over Southern Africa".I could be wrong, this new show could be great, but to me, the only way I would really be interested is if he could REALLY REALLY die. I mean, why go to all the trouble and pretense if we all know that he's probably never going to hurt himself. Yes, yes I know that Steve Irwin took one for the team recently and that helps make the case that these guys really do put themselves in danger, but I'm guessing that won't be the case with this show. I'm guessing that most everything will be preplanned and made as safe as can be. Yes, yes, that's fine. I mean, I don't WANT to see someone get hurt. It's just that when these shows market the notion to you that everything really is dangerous when we know it's really not, well, it just has the whiff of fast food.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 7)
Robert Nov 16th 2006 3:19PM
Man vs. Wild is OK, but it's no Survivorman. In that show, Les Stroud strands himself in remote locations, but acts as his own cameraman. He's completely alone with no film crew. He has to find his own food, water, and shelter. Bear shows you how to survive, but Les actually survives it while he shows you survival techniques.
DSD Nov 20th 2006 5:14PM
"Adventures are as Adventurers do..."
I'll have a look too and see what the 'Bear' can do...
DSD
"Summit-Stones" at Blogger.com
Dan Nov 24th 2006 9:52PM
The cameraman should be the real hero, he's always a step ahead of Bear!
Ray Nov 24th 2006 10:44PM
Man vs. Wild is an absolute joke. Survivorman was an excellent show and Les Stroud actually put himself in compromising situations that can really happen to travelers. Not to mention he acted as his own cameraman which is a ridiculously difficult feat in itself. Man vs. Wild isn't very convincing because obviously, Bear (does anyone else question if that's his real name or not?) has a cameraman that is as skilled as he is. i wonder if the cameraman spent a few years in the special forces? regardless of all this, does this show help people in the real world? probably not. i don't see many travelers leaping like gazelle from rock to rock for four days. it's highly impropable. i also don't see people parachuting into the alps and stumpling upon rope bridges. the people who decided to produce this show should get a refund.
Fred Kopp Nov 25th 2006 7:15PM
If Bear is really in danger, I guess all his camera operators are, too. There are many camera angles, which I think translates into many operators. I'll bet the crew isn't having larvae and raw fish for lunch. Why do I never see Bear's breath when he's in those cold environments? Why does he not wear gloves? Just a few of many questions.
Dane Gomm Nov 25th 2006 11:21PM
Man vs. Wild is absolutely an insulting joke. Survivorman is at least truthful with us. This fake bear guy claims to have made a fishing hook from his parachute rigging,convienently not showing us how. And after tying knots in his cordage made a whole fake skit were it saved him from falling in a cravass, anybody who watched that knew that there was another anchor used. But then to actually lie and say it worked so well is just insulting. If anyone actually follow this fakes advice will surely die in a suvival situation. Jumping off cliffs just to make a more exciting show. At least survivorman tells you when he cheats to make a fire.
kyle hedges Nov 25th 2006 11:58PM
bear is one of his middle names. i believe his true first name is micheal. bear just sounds cooler i guess
nascent alligator Nov 29th 2006 12:23AM
I just saw a total setup on "Man vs. Wild"...a skiff Bear was pushing through an ice field happened to spring a leak. Except that it was aluminum, and looked quite rugged. Of course, it sank, and it became apparent that the camera man must have expected this all along, as he/she was able to film HALF SUBMERGED in water, while Bear suffered the cold. Total setup. This man and his camera team are never in any real distress, much less real danger. At least Les Stroud gets himslef into a bit of an uncomfortable pickle now and then...
nascent alligator Nov 29th 2006 12:05AM
I just saw a total setup on "Man vs. Wild"...a skiff Bear was pushing through an ice field happened to spring a leak. Except that it was aluminum, and looked quite rugged. Of course, it sank, and it became apparent that the camera man must have expected this all along, as he/she was able to film HALF SUBMERGED in water, while Bear suffered the cold. Total setup. This man and his camera team are never in any real distress, much less real danger. At least Les Stroud gets himslef into a bit of an uncomfortable pickle now and then...
nascent alligator Nov 29th 2006 12:12AM
I just saw a total setup on "Man vs. Wild"...a skiff Bear was pushing through an ice field happened to spring a leak. Except that it was aluminum, and looked quite rugged. Of course, it sank, and it became apparent that the camera man must have expected this all along, as he/she was able to film HALF SUBMERGED in water, while Bear suffered the cold. Total setup. This man and his camera team are never in any real distress, much less real danger. At least Les Stroud gets himslef into a bit of an uncomfortable pickle now and then...
Bob Teman Nov 29th 2006 12:41AM
Looks all to phoney to me. Some of the things he does, I wouldn't try in a real situation. For example, climbing down a waterfall. I'd go around it.
Survivorman is more realistic, practical, and makes sense from a stay-alive perspective.
James Jones Nov 29th 2006 12:56AM
Do you really think that him surviving or getting hurt is the point of the show? Is it about him making it or not? If so then you are just disaster junkies. The show is about what YOU can do to survive, not what he can or cannot do and wether or not he will survive.
julian Nov 29th 2006 3:03AM
To be fair, I just watched the Alaska episode, and he did mention the camera crew -- to say that they were wearing protective clothing while he was not. I'm sure they could call in a helicopter anytime they wanted, but most of what he does seems to be authentic... and if he takes a serious fall or poisoning or frostbite or whatever, he's still in trouble.
Matt Nov 29th 2006 9:57AM
It doesn't matter what you guys think of how well they may or may not be prepared--obviously, even though the crew may be wearing survival suits & jazz, they could all die in a snap. So of course there is some danger--it's not what's known that will get you, it's what's unknown. I bet Bear could have told you that. They could be in a HOUSE and it could fall down the mountain into the jaws of a hungry heffalump. What is wrong with you, it's entertainment. Are you wanting him to kill himself, or maybe you're thinking you would actually follow some advice you get off TV someday? Of course I suspect some shit is scouted out (swimming under a logjam? Mmmmaybe, but it would be stupid for them to risk their main asset for little or no return--but then, maybe they don't because Bear is such a studmuffin--maybe I don't question it because that's pointless, after all it's just a show) & crap (oh, and by the way, one guy is completely capable of filming several angles when they're comfy and have time to do it--you think there's more than one cameraman, but you fail to notice the time lapses. OK...) but come on, it's TV, which comes pre-capitalized so I don't have to shout it at times like these. It's all very nice for you in you cozy computer room, to second guess some guy who can do any of this stuff at all and decides to film it for entertainment. Hey, I have some survival advice for you: don't parachute into the Alps. Isn't that EXCITING! Don't be such party poopers, if you don't like it turn the channel, or for God's sake, go for a hike and live your own life. Oh you know what? A) as I've noted, you don't have to watch it, and B) it's something to do when your wife (or bf, gf, whatever) likes reality shows and wants to watch TV with you--here's the REAL THING about it all, really: I can't stand reality TV, but my wife loves it. Here we have a macho reality show that you can watch with you lover, and you guys are picking on it because it's not "real" enough. Hey, and Vulcans have a stupid social structure that could never work for people that have the same impulses as humans. Really you people, get some perspective. Go ahead and criticize my post, because you clearly need to go online to do that, but remember that I'm exercising the same prerogatives that you are, only maybe less since I don't freakin' live in the computer.
Dale Nov 29th 2006 10:11AM
I'm in the minority, but I feel Survivorman was a joke. The fact that he's his own cameraman is completely irrelevant; more of a stupid stunt than anything else. I don't need to see him walking away/towards the camera from different angles, and then have to hear him complaining about it.
And his constant comments of not wanting to kill wildlife to survive. Please. Survivorman was actuallly boring.
Wakita Nov 29th 2006 1:20PM
i watched the alaska one last night and was 1. disturbed by him eating that raw salmon. he has time to build a fire, really he has too. 2. was impressed by the convinece of that boat and 3. found it highly amusing that he saved himself of hyperthermia by doing 2 quick push ups. i'll remember that for next time....and i truely think that he should've saved the poles and skis, i think they would've come in handy later on. also i can't belive he just decided to swim in the freezing water versus maybe trying to row over to an iceberg and attempt to row to shore on that...i don't know...just an idea.
Brett Jan 3rd 2007 8:07AM
Actually I enjoy both Man vs. Wild and Survivorman. Now given the assumption both shows may be doctored up for entertainment purposes the underlying principal is still conveyed. Both guys have what it takes to survive in the wild for a certain amount of time depending on the elements. Furthermore, neither person is completely in "survivor" mode while filming because there is always a back-up plan, however that's not to say they aren't in real danger at times. But the fact is if either one of these guys were truly in a real life situation of being lost in the wild, both guys would probably survive it as most of us would not. Therefore I find it interesting and entertaining.
Jake Nov 29th 2006 1:38PM
Just watched the Man vs. Wild episode of Bear in Alaska. As a life-long Alaskan and outdoor adventurist, I can tell you that this show (or atleast Bear) is a giant load of caca. I have taught a variety of survival courses throughout Alaska and simply have to write this off as entertainment. It certainly has no benefit to those seeking survival techniques. In fact, many of these ridiculous stunts, if followed by the general public will lead to their dimise. Why in the world would anyone climb down the throat of a waterfall when there is perfectly good terrain on either side. If you wanted to propell yourself into a hypothermic state in a hurry, this would be a great way to do it. One can enjoy the entertainment value as long as it is understood that the content is crap.
Ron Eskoz Nov 29th 2006 2:17PM
Have to disagree with Erik about this show. Granted "Bear" is probably never in any real danger as he has a camera crew, probably a GPS hidden in his pocket and a pick up point pre arranged, but you have to admit this show beats "Survivor" hands down where there really are no authentic dangers.
Most of the scenarios are probably pre-scripted, but the point is to show what you could do in a survial situation. The show is worth watching just for the scenery element as this is as close as most armchair adventurers will ever get to experiencing places like this.
Kyo Nov 30th 2006 2:46PM
You guys complaining of how real and 'setup' these shows are crack me up. If the shows were made as real as you want them to be, it would probably be more along the lines of a narrative from the camera operator with camera work like the Blair Witch project as . There obviously is some setup for these shows because if they were really in danger of dying in the wild, they sure wouldn't be worrying about the camera work above their own survivability--I know I wouldn't. They 'control' certain aspects of it just to show you a show that isn't a huge headache to watch.
One other point...if he went out and died in the first episode, his credibility goes right out the window along with the whole series Discovery is trying to bring to you desk jockies.