To Hell with Bear Grylls

Off Topic
41

[quote]belligerent wrote:
I still enjoy the show even knowing that it is fake. I like programs about the wilderness, and Bear is fun to watch. But I knew from the first time I saw Man vs. Wild that it had to be set up- reserached, planned, rehearsed, and facilitated. His shit is just too over the top.

There is no way that anyone could realistically know that much about so many different environments, and there is no way that he could be so skillful at so many odd and incredibly difficult things that he could not realistically practice on a regular basis. I’m pretty sure they don’t teach you how to build stepladders out of bamboo in the British Royal Army.

Plus there are little things that you can pick out if you pay attention. Where the hell does he always pull that little tin cup out from when he wants to boil water? He sure as hell doesn’t carry it in his pocket. Just stuff like that will tip off any discerning viewer.[/quote]

Right and some of his “survival tactics” are just down right idiotic. There is no way that someone should try some of the stuff he does when they are stranded by themselves.

He has the luxury to try crazy ass shit because he has a camera crew with him.

“I’m going to jump into this freezing river of glacier water, swim across and then run my ass off to get to those geothermal pools of water. I only have 15 minutes before my body shuts down and I die!”

Yeah, good advice for someone who is alone. haha

Like I stated earlier, it’s great entertainment!

42

[quote]belligerent wrote:
But I knew from the first time I saw Man vs. Wild that it had to be set up- reserached, planned, rehearsed, and facilitated. His shit is just too over the top.

There is no way that anyone could realistically know that much about so many different environments, and there is no way that he could be so skillful at so many odd and incredibly difficult things that he could not realistically practice on a regular basis. I’m pretty sure they don’t teach you how to build stepladders out of bamboo in the British Royal Army.
[/quote]

You’re right - if you watch the credits, each episode has a local survival expert or guide - someone who knows the terrain and how to live off it. Bear is always saying something like “this is an old Aborigine technique” - he gets those from the local guide, not his 2 years in the SAS.

43

I think his show is awesome. Fine, it might not be the most realistic thing but he shows you how to deal with dangerous situations if you’re screwed as he does for fun. But, I don’t think he’s a fake at all since he is a hardass for climbing Everest and doing all the other crazy stuff he does.

Also, he’s not using special computer graphics to fake him jumping out of planes or eating bugs and other stuff I would never have the guts to do. I admire him for his bravery and it’s neat to see that there are some things I could do if I ever get stuck in the middle of nowhere.

44

Man vs. Wild is more like evasion training than survival training. It seems to me as if he is always in a rush to make a checkpoint or some timing. Personally, I think it is a 1000 times better than survivor man for entertainment value. I wouldn’t use his techniques if i got lost hunting, but they would be good to know if you were a lost hunter and people were trying to capture you.

Watching survivor man is like thumbing through one of my survival handbooks with an old, slow guy reading over my shoulder.

45

My son and I are big Man vs Wild fans and decided to watch Survivorman to check it out. We only saw one episode so far - the Everglade swamp show. It was no where near as good as Bear’s show. Yes he was by himself instead of a camera crew.

So what? He didn’t go anywhere - he just stayed put and ate frogs etc. That makes for a less interesting show in my opinion.

Bear Grylls has a camera crew with him because he IS going to be on the move finding a way out. He builds his shelters and hunts as he goes. It’s ridiculous to think it’s not “real” because there is a camera crew along or whatever. It’s a show first - and a good one. There has to be some compromise to make the best possible show.

I agree with an earlier poster - he could easily be gravely injured or killed doing any number of things he does like some of the rock climbing or river running. I saw an episode where there was a bear outside his camp and he had to haul ass in the middle of the night. That’s plenty real enough for me.

I will check the other one from time to time but we will keep watching Bear.

46

[quote]david dunne wrote:
My son and I are big Man vs Wild fans and decided to watch Survivorman to check it out. We only saw one episode so far - the Everglade swamp show. It was no where near as good as Bear’s show. Yes he was by himself instead of a camera crew.

So what? He didn’t go anywhere - he just stayed put and ate frogs etc. That makes for a less interesting show in my opinion.

Bear Grylls has a camera crew with him because he IS going to be on the move finding a way out. He builds his shelters and hunts as he goes. It’s ridiculous to think it’s not “real” because there is a camera crew along or whatever. It’s a show first - and a good one. There has to be some compromise to make the best possible show.

I agree with an earlier poster - he could easily be gravely injured or killed doing any number of things he does like some of the rock climbing or river running. I saw an episode where there was a bear outside his camp and he had to haul ass in the middle of the night. That’s plenty real enough for me.

I will check the other one from time to time but we will keep watching Bear.[/quote]

Umm no one said it isn’t real becuase he has a camera crew, the whole fact that he stays in hotels at times, and alot of the show is staged.

Bear is still very skilled and entertaining IMO and I will still watch the show as I still enjoy it.

47

[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
Pretty much everyone I talked to agreed that Survivorman kicked much more ass. [/quote]

And is boring as hell to watch. The guy knows his shit, but it’s like watching paint dry.

You can have reality, or you can have TV, they don’t mix. Man vs Wild is obviously staged at some points, however, that doesn’t take anything away from Bear being one crazy mofo. AFAIC, the show is very entertaining, and that’s kind of the point.

48

[quote]analog_kid wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
Pretty much everyone I talked to agreed that Survivorman kicked much more ass.

And is boring as hell to watch. The guy knows his shit, but it’s like watching paint dry.

You can have reality, or you can have TV, they don’t mix. Man vs Wild is obviously staged at some points, however, that doesn’t take anything away from Bear being one crazy mofo. AFAIC, the show is very entertaining, and that’s kind of the point.
[/quote]

Survival is boring. Think this shit is fun? Think its a game? Do you, son??!!

49

Watch football or pro wrestling for entertainment. Discovery Channel and most other channels that air this show should be for learning primarily, with perhaps elements of entertainment. There is ample entertainment on television; maybe some people actually want to learn things.

Grylls betrayed the education ideal by sacrificing functionality and practicality for flash and style. It might look functional the way a Wushu artist’s dancing looks like functional fighting, but it just doesn’t work in reality. Sometimes reality is just more “boring” than what is seen in cheesy movies, as the traditional martial artists discovered with MMA, and what survival fans now see with Grylls.

Survivorman is a calmer, more realistic, and better show. I would watch MTV if I cared for fast camera shots, ADD, and “action”. I’m so desensitized to the Generation X bullshit that I find Surviorman more entertaining as well as education.

I’m sick of the intellectual midgets causing good shows and channels to dumb things down. There’s already plenty of stupidity out there.

50

[quote]Higher Game wrote:
Watch football or pro wrestling for entertainment. Discovery Channel and most other channels that air this show should be for learning primarily, with perhaps elements of entertainment. There is ample entertainment on television; maybe some people actually want to learn things.

Grylls betrayed the education ideal by sacrificing functionality and practicality for flash and style. It might look functional the way a Wushu artist’s dancing looks like functional fighting, but it just doesn’t work in reality. Sometimes reality is just more “boring” than what is seen in cheesy movies, as the traditional martial artists discovered with MMA, and what survival fans now see with Grylls.

Survivorman is a calmer, more realistic, and better show. I would watch MTV if I cared for fast camera shots, ADD, and “action”. I’m so desensitized to the Generation X bullshit that I find Surviorman more entertaining as well as education.

I’m sick of the intellectual midgets causing good shows and channels to dumb things down. There’s already plenty of stupidity out there.[/quote]

Ouch, that is pretty harsh. I think a lot of people would be offended that they are being labeled “intellectual midgets” merely because they seek entertainment from TV, and probably all of them would wonder how stable the grounds of that phrase’s author are when he professes to watch some TV shows for their educational value. TV isn’t a library, it’s not a museum; it never claimed it was.

I think you are confusing the point somewhat. Television is first and foremost a means of entertainment, and whether a channel is labeled “Discovery” doesn’t really mean it is educational. If you believe that the Discovery Channel exists to educate and not entertain or turn a profit, you might want to look at it from a different perspective.

Granted, some forms of TV are less cerebral, but if I wanted to learn something, I would pick up a book, not a remote. And if you have a problem with things being dumbed down, complain about sparring political hopefuls, not television.

51

[quote]analog_kid wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
Pretty much everyone I talked to agreed that Survivorman kicked much more ass.

And is boring as hell to watch. The guy knows his shit, but it’s like watching paint dry.

You can have reality, or you can have TV, they don’t mix. Man vs Wild is obviously staged at some points, however, that doesn’t take anything away from Bear being one crazy mofo. AFAIC, the show is very entertaining, and that’s kind of the point.
[/quote]

I disagree. When I want to watch a TV show showcasing a guy surviving on his own, I want to see a guy survive on his own such as Survivorman.

If I want to see how you would survive if you had too, I’m sure Bear Grylls would be more entertaining to watch, but I don’t want to be led to believe he is actually sleeping in ice caves, surviving on worms, drinking his own piss etc when he really isn’t.

Entertainment is fine, just be honest about it.

52

This guy is the real deal

If you come across to any of his books, buy them.
Ruediger Nehberg is a down to earth adventurer, he’s modest and funny, and his organization “Target” has resulted in many african tribes condemning genital mutilation.

Man vs Wild is a nice idea, but bullshit like the “drink the elephant’s turd while taming wild horses” is just pure sensationalism showing that Grylls is just in for the dough.

53

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
This guy is the real deal

If you come across to any of his books, buy them.
Ruediger Nehberg is a down to earth adventurer, he’s modest and funny, and his organization “Target” has resulted in many african tribes condemning genital mutilation.

Man vs Wild is a nice idea, but bullshit like the “drink the elephant’s turd while taming wild horses” is just pure sensationalism showing that Grylls is just in for the dough. [/quote]

Now that is what I want to see in a survival show.

54

[quote]joshuaforty wrote:Ouch, that is pretty harsh. I think a lot of people would be offended that they are being labeled “intellectual midgets” merely because they seek entertainment from TV, and probably all of them would wonder how stable the grounds of that phrase’s author are when he professes to watch some TV shows for their educational value. TV isn’t a library, it’s not a museum; it never claimed it was.

I think you are confusing the point somewhat. Television is first and foremost a means of entertainment, and whether a channel is labeled “Discovery” doesn’t really mean it is educational. If you believe that the Discovery Channel exists to educate and not entertain or turn a profit, you might want to look at it from a different perspective.

Granted, some forms of TV are less cerebral, but if I wanted to learn something, I would pick up a book, not a remote. And if you have a problem with things being dumbed down, complain about sparring political hopefuls, not television.
[/quote]

You’re describing what is, not what ought. Television ought to have educational value, even if it doesn’t, for the most part. The internet was intended for better communication between scientists and military officers, even though it’s mostly just another source of porn these days. Television should try to strive for what the internet was supposed to be about, at least the more serious channels.

Sometimes I enjoy watching TV like eating a cheat meal. But while I know it’s inferior to quality foods, I still won’t accept margarine in place of butter, high fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar or molasses, and so on. I accept that television will never equal a book, but it should uphold some standards.

Bear’s show not only lacks positive standards, it’s actually in the red: many of his stupid activities would get someone killed. I wouldn’t care if it were on MTV, but it’s disgusting that a channel like Discovery would air it.