do i care if some of it is staged? no... still a very entertaining show.
[#47160]
Written by: bork3 [24/07/2007, 19:44]
reality tv isn't real??
the hell you say!
all this bad tv started at mtv with their road rules and that other mind
numbingly stupid show. i say we grab the pitchforks and flaming brands and go
give mtv our heartfelt thanks for what they started.
[#47187]
Written by: whosthat [24/07/2007, 20:31]
Quote by 5ov
do i care if some of it is staged? no... still a very entertaining
show.
yup i think even a child would know that this is stage.
[#47197]
Written by: Tristanjh [24/07/2007, 20:55]
the whole point of the show is to show you what to do if you were in that
situation, and that's what it does. obviously he`ll have other people showing him
how to do some stuff because no one knows everything. as for staying in the
motels..who really cares? he isn't being filmed while he sleeps so it doesn't
benefit the show and beforehand he does show you how to find shelter/make a bed
but if i had the choice between a motel and sleeping in a forest i know which
i'd take.
p.s bear is still my hero!
[#47209]
Written by: wilrader [24/07/2007, 21:30]
Quote by n3l87
i thought this posting might be about survivor (i read the forums
first, so i
saw this topic, then read the article), a show desperately needing to be taken
out back with a shotgun, but instead it's apparently about a show called "born
survivor". am i the only one who doesn't know anything about this show? and
better yet, why does anyone care?
likely have seen it called "man vs wild" on discovery.
[#47223]
Written by: eXcel [24/07/2007, 22:06]
oh no say it ain't so... j/k, you can totally tell parts of it are completely
bogus "oh let me run across this crocodile infested river.. (5 mins later) ..
and the camera crew is on the other side with me now too." (maybe they had an
inflatable raft?). the on camera stunts are still cool/legit and the guy is a
badass/quite entertaining.
and survivor is damn good tv, you must be socially inept and just don't
understand it
[#47317]
Written by: coleblak [25/07/2007, 04:05]
if you want to watch a show about real survivalism, watch survivorman on
discovery. one man, a handful of cameras and pounds and pounds of camera
equipment to maintain/hold on to as he tries to get out of where his crew left
him. the first time i saw bear's show, i saw the shadow of the camera man and
turned it off. after seeing survivorman, knowing the guy has backup just isn't
as interesting.
[#47458]
Written by: bork3 [25/07/2007, 13:00]
i vote they send the cast & crews of survivor (and all other reality tv shows)
out to the surface of the sun with nothing but a battery-operated fan (only one
to share) and a glass of ice water (also only one), see how long they survive that.
[#47476]
Written by: 5OV [25/07/2007, 14:17]
Quote by videoopiate
thats exactly my point, survivorman isnt as entertaining imo
because its
more "real". he cant put himself in potentially life threatening situations
like intentionally getting yourself stuck in quicksand, to show the viewer how
to get yourself out, because he might actually die being by himself.
that's a great point!
[#47488]
Written by: SatoSky [25/07/2007, 15:32]
while man vs. wild has it's strong points it is still nothing compared to
survivorman. les stroud gives viewers a realistic approach to surviving in the
wild, while bear often gives really bad (i mean really bad) information and
advice. down climbing a 60 foot waterfall could be a good example.
a lot of people defend that by saying:
"oh, bear wouldn't do that if he was in a real survival situation!" or other
crap like that. but if he really wouldn't do that why is he adding that into
his "survival how-to guide/show"? bottom line is that it's just bad advice,
i'm not saying that he's a hack or a liar. all i'm saying that a lot of the
things he does aren't helpful.
there are people out there who don't know anything about survival and would
like to get into it for recreation or what ever, they look at this show get
some bad advice and end up getting hurt or killed.
you may be thinking if someone is stupid enough to watch just one show and go
out and try all kinds of crazy shit they should die, well that's just
irresponsible. truth is, people are that stupid. people go out and do crazy
shit they see on tv without doing proper research and they get hurt or die.
all because some guy on tv was trying to make it out of the wild faster, which
goes against any logical survival instinct.
videoopiate wrote:
thats exactly my point, survivorman isnt as entertaining imo because its
more "real."
that's the dumbest shit i've ever read. you'd rather watch a fake survival
show than a real one. do you understand the absurdity of that comment?
[#47533]
Written by: bork3 [25/07/2007, 18:18]
Quote by satosky
you may be thinking if someone is stupid enough to watch just one
show and go out and try all kinds of crazy shit they should die, well that's just
irresponsible. truth is, people are that stupid. people go out and do crazy shit
they see on tv without doing proper research and they get hurt or die.
natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable
become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing
organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. natural
selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an
organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to
survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/natural_selection
[#47566]
Written by: bork3 [25/07/2007, 21:50]
i'd watch a reality show if it were to the death. anything less than that has
very little to do with reality since there are only 3 things you ever absolutely
have to do in life:
1) be born
2) die
3 ) live until (2) happens
there are already reality tv shows for (1) and (3), "faces of death" and the
like don't count as reality tv in this context.
everything you do between (1) and (2) excluding (3) is personal choice. everything.
[#47613]
Written by: SatoSky [26/07/2007, 01:25]
i still disagree. there's always another option to down climbing a 60ft
waterfall, walk around. sure it may take you a lot longer, maybe hours longer,
but it is the most logical way to deal with the situation. just the general
consensus.
in any case, i'm just like you, i love both shows but have a certain favorite;
survivorman. i watch every single episode of man vs wild on it's premiere
night, with my brother. we haven't missed one yet, and don't really plan to
stop watching because of these new allegations. bear is an amazing man, it's
just that i prefer the other show. :-)
[#47801]
Written by: SouPNaZi [26/07/2007, 19:32]
ok to all those people that say "all" reality shows are fake, you should really
watch survivor man. %100 real! its just les stroud and a camera or two. by the
way les shows you how to actually make a fire and not cheat by useing a flint
which bear does in every epidsode. not that a flint isnt useful but the fact
that not every tom dick and harry was a scout and always comes prepared.
[#47893]
Written by: SatoSky [27/07/2007, 00:48]
survivorman les stroud actually does carry a satellite phone with him wherever
he goes. that's no secret though, he mentions it plenty of times throughout
the first season. carrying a satellite phone is a hell of a lot different than
having someone right there with you, then turning on a handheld camera and
claim that you feel lonely. (happened in the pilot episode; canadian rockies.)
with the exception of the episode where les was stranded on the coast of
belize, surivorman never has had anyone keeping tabs on him. opposed to bear
constantly having 3 or more cameramen and all kinds of other crew.
videoopiate:
when you say bear used a flint "once;" do you mean once every episode or, once
during the entire course of the series? those are two very different things,
and i assure you, that while he does show you a natural way to make fire each
episode, he uses the flint more often.
| 1 of 2 |
