An issue with 'Dual Survival'

Four network executives met some months ago and examined marketing reports, advertizing potentials and decided that because of the constant talk about terrorism, global climate chaos, the fragile economy, that there is a substantial audience hungry for eschatological (end of world as we know it, survival) scenarios. They developed several "episode" templates, looked for suitable candidates for the show, developed the show's thematic programming, and filmed an initial pilot. After the first show they analyzed the market response, crunched the numbers, examined profit/loss figures and then decided they could make money off the deal. All the programs are scripted; they are heavily coached by unseen local experts. Note the constantly changing camera angles and if you are perceptive you will realize this is less survival than Hollywood. But then what the heck. It's show biz!
 
It takes an open mind to be able to learn from as many different aspects as we can.
They are all doing way more than me ... I watch them all and enjoy whatever i can get for free.

Q : Would i pay to see it ... if i did, i would be disappointed.
 
Last edited:
dartanyon said:
Q : Would i pay to see it ... if i did, i would be disappointed.
Click to expand...

If you own cable and are watching it on Discovery, then yes you are paying to see it :D If you watched it on youtube, you are even paying to watch it via internet bandwidth.

At first I really didn't like the show that much but I've just reconciled that it is entertainment and that Dave and Cody are acting as character archetypes.

If you read Cody's books and look at his survival school courses you can see why he is out of his element. Cody is really the guy who lives out there and admittedly has skills much more tailored to his environment. He is a hunter/gatherer by heart whose philosophy is to smooth it. Maximize calorie intake by minimizing foraging costs, avoid risky scenarios, worry about long term sustainability of your environment like 'where to bury your poop' or 'if I take too much game too fast will I deplete my environment'. His ethos is in many ways in total contradiction to the theme of the show. You can see it in his frustration and his sense of humour is his way of coping with that.

As somebody pointed out, Dave is much more of a short term survival guy. Go in and get it down and circumvent the obstacles. Take risks because a) you still think you are in the military and risking your life is part of the pay check and b) you are in the midst of a support crew with a medical team on site and you can choose to take the risk anyhow. The point being, the show always sets up the short term mission. It is the one that allows exciting scenarios to be drawn up.

The very thought of Cody Lundin deciding to do a yuppy thing like scuba dive in a cave of Belice is ludicrous. This is the guy who lived off of $2000 a year while going through college because he chose to live in a debris hut and grow his own gourds to make drinking bottles from. In one sense I feel sorry for Cody because this show is doing a lot of harm to his 'abo-dude' reputation he worked a lifetime living and teaching. At the same time, his school will probably sell out now with all this exposure.

I guess the test through time will be whether he keeps the essential elements of his school (Aboriginal Living Skills School) or whether he changes his courses to make it marketable to the shows viewing audience. For those of you interested, take a look at his 'ultimate abo' course in the link below. Its a nine day course in Arizona. The first 6 days are designed as a full primitive survival course where you manufacture all your gear (flint knives, cattail matresses and baskets, packs etc.), learn shelter & fire skills using your manufactured gear. The last 3 days the group of students wonder off and survive in a hunter/foraging style off the landscape. Meals are only provided during the first 6 day training session. When I read the description for this I couldn't help but think how much of the essence of survival this course entails. It is a dream for me to be able to take it one day. I suppose putting it up here will draw critique from folks about how expensive it is. To my mind, its about half the price of a 9-day cruise in flu-ridden ship equipped with wavemaking pool, rockclimbing wall and shuffle board....But then again, I suppose the Dave character lover's out there will confuse that climbing wall on the cruise ship with true adventure...

http://www.codylundin.com/ultimate_abo.html

Mind you, as much as I don't like the Dave character on the show with his adrenaline churning 'can-do stupid things' attitude and flippant remarks about Cody's manhood for making camp, I really believe that his on stage persona is just an act and encouraged to the utmost degree. I know that in another forum Dave indicated that both him and Cody have become the best of friends and I think that sentiment is genuine. I think the real live Dave is a stand up fellow. His pathfinder school will probably do remarkably well because of the show and the philosophy of his school is more consistent with the show's format. I'm more worried about the Abo-dude's school and how this show will influence it over time.
 
The last show in the LA swamps would be an ultimate nightmare to me. If there were not two of them working together, I doubt one would survive unless they got lucky. I would have much preferred that a smaller gator to have been chosen as Dave is more likely to be able to man-handle the thing without getting hurt and kill it. I did notice they didn't kill any of those cotton mouths for dinner. They are truly a disgusting snake.

The show is all about short term survival. They aren't setting up house out in the woods together. I like the show. It is better than Bear's show.

And now we have Man Woman survival with marital fights. We need a large breasted bikini clad young lady for the eye candy while demonstrating techniques. The first show wasn't too bad however.
 
I don't understand how everyone here can be so down on Bear Grylls. Anyone who thinks they can survive in the wild after watching a Discovery Channel T.V show deserves whatever happens to them when they try parachuting into a wilderness environment without any experience. In my opinion, Bear is by far the most interesting of the survivalists on T.V, and his show does explain various ways of overcoming obstacles in different terrains. Plus, he eats some of the wildest stuff you can imagine. He even gave himself a salt water enema in the "Lost at Sea" episode, that's just good television (it was artistically shot...). I feel the only true way to learn survival skills is to research and practice on your own. Television is purely for entertainment. I'll take a good hike in the woods over a "Man vs. Wild" marathon any time...
 
kgd said:
If you own cable and .... blah, blah, blah... and how this show will influence it over time.
Click to expand...

+1

Ken, I am most impressed with this post, my friend. You said everything I intended and then some. I am fully onboard with every sentence here and have nothing to add. I can't even find a single insult opportunity in there.... sheesh.

Thank you
Rick
 
LeonWilderness said:
I don't understand how everyone here can be so down on Bear Grylls.
Click to expand...

Because bear was caught outright lying about what was happening. Staying in hotel rooms doesn't prove your ability to survive after parachuting in. Also, the stuff he shows on his show is downright dangerous, to a much greater extent than any other survival show
 
The format of this show is geared to get in and get out as fast as you can. Therefore it is not going to be a show that shows 15 different ways to start a fire in each episode or a whole bunch of survival techniques as a class on survival would. These guys are just doing the minimum to expend the least calories and get out of the area they are in. That's why it is realistic. I think a lot of people were looking for constant teaching. They are only doing what it takes to get out.

As far as Cody, I have not seen a lot of him until now. He is out of his element most the time. He does not have the diverse training in different climates as Dave. Even so, that is why I am impressed. His survival skills are so good, he still does extremely well and adapts. Isn’t that what survival is about? The guy thinks and uses what he has.

Thanks,

Geoff
 
You know, I really don't see much drama between them. Maybe y'all are a bit. . .sensitive?

Heck, it sounds like the guys at work hashing out the best way to do something. Let's be honest, Cody goes for the hippy style, but he's just as Type-A as Dave is. They just go about things differently, and when you have two Alpha male types together that think differently, there's going to be some friction, no way around it.

Personally, I think it'd be a good thing in a survival situation to have someone along who thought differently than I do, because they'll notice things I wouldn't, and vice versa.

Although I'm more like Dave, personality-wise, I did like Cody's comment "Survival sucks, I want to live!"

And I think there is part of the difference between them. Dave does the "survive until you get out, it doesn't matter who or what you have to kill on the way" method, and Cody is more about wilderness living than survival and considers more about sustainability and long-term thought processes.
 
Cpl Punishment said:
You know, I really don't see much drama between them. Maybe y'all are a bit. . .sensitive?

Heck, it sounds like the guys at work hashing out the best way to do something. Let's be honest, Cody goes for the hippy style, but he's just as Type-A as Dave is. They just go about things differently, and when you have two Alpha male types together that think differently, there's going to be some friction, no way around it.

Personally, I think it'd be a good thing in a survival situation to have someone along who thought differently than I do, because they'll notice things I wouldn't, and vice versa.

Although I'm more like Dave, personality-wise, I did like Cody's comment "Survival sucks, I want to live!"

And I think there is part of the difference between them. Dave does the "survive until you get out, it doesn't matter who or what you have to kill on the way" method, and Cody is more about wilderness living than survival and considers more about sustainability and long-term thought processes.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you've said, Cpl. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
 
Hey CPL,

I think you nailed it. It is a long term vs short term mentality.

Geoff
 
I think the show is entertaining. I love the locations they have selected so far.

The "feet and meat" pattern seems to be a constant feature of each episode.

I think the show is being dominated by Cody's barefoot thing. My take away is that being barefoot in just about everyplace they've been has been a bad idea severely restricting his mobility. His feet are really conditioned and even then it is a problem for him to get around. Anyone else who lost their footwear would be totally immobile with damaged and festering feet in a few days.

img2742.jpg

Our terrain here is a challenge even to boots. This thing left a purple mark on my foot, without the boot it would have come out the top of my foot.

I have had to deal with many catastrophic boot failures, both my own and other peoples over the years. Whenever someone's footwear fails it becomes priority number one to fix it before moving on. Seriously, given a choice in a survival situation of keeping my boots or my machete I'll stick with my boots.

I also think there is an over-emphasis on food given the length of their scenarios. In the freezing weather of the island scenario it made sense. In the warm climates not so much. I think it gives the uninformed viewer the wrong idea on survival priorities. Cody's approach of picking up the easy meat and low hanging fruit is correct for week one of being out in the bush. During the first week food isn't that big of a deal so don't waste time and energy actively pursuing it. Take what you find and any targets of opportunity you come across. I think it's odd that it seems like Dave's priorities are Shelter, Fire, Kill, Grill.

Mac
 
Friends, Woodsmen, Countrymen! Lend me your ear!

Have you stopped to think that the reason there is so little skills-related/teaching content is because of the liability involved with teaching strangers?
For a single course there are legal waivers, forms of insurance, etc...that are needed to c.y.a. for an instructor.
Imagine the liability for this kind of thing on network t.v. It's a risk that producers and networks just aren't willing to take. If they save a life they can soak up the glory, but if somebody tries something they are warned against and die, then Discovery can tell the judge in the civil suit: "Look, here's a disclaimer. We tell you plainly not to do this without proper training."
The difference between Ron Hood and Discovery is that far less idiots watch Ron Hood than watch Discovery. If they show a "how-to" then somebody will try it...and get hurt. Even a disclaimer won't stop the aggrivation of frivolous lawsuits. So it's just easier to show the result with bits and pieces of the process with a disclaimer that tells you not to do it without proper training.
It's all about the most profit with the least effort.
They don't care about saving your life or teaching you. They care about drawing you to their programming. There are more couch commandos who are satisfied with living vicariously through these exploits, than getting dirty, sweaty, hot, bug-bitten, etc...
I, for one, enjoy the show and chalk up the shortcomings to the production. If it pulls more people to learn about nature and have a respect for the land then that's all the better for me.
If you want instruction see Ron Hood or talk to Kevin or the guys over in ESEE forums. If want entertainment watch t.v.
 
I watch all the shows on TV

To me I gain snippets of information that runs throughout all of them, Dual survivor is another angle with 2 people.
Theres always going to be one person wanting to be the leader in any group and here you have 2.
Dave goes at it a bit too fast and cody is more cautious, Its meant to be short term survival but really in a real scenario you wont know the length of time so you should assume its always long term in which case Codys slow and steady approach would make more sense.
Looking for food and water using the minimal amount of energy to get it, hunting game is fine but a high risk venture if you get nothing youve wasted all that energy although if you get lucky its going to save the day...so its all a gamble weighing up the odds.
combine cody and daves skills in one and youve got a winner.
I loved the lizard tail thing watching that twitch !!
 
The lizard tail was ghastly, and very accurate. I've seen that with smaller lizards. I once had one with no head run about 50 cm, freaked me out. Mac
 
pict said:
I think the show is entertaining. I love the locations they have selected so far.

The "feet and meat" pattern seems to be a constant feature of each episode.

I think the show is being dominated by Cody's barefoot thing. My take away is that being barefoot in just about everyplace they've been has been a bad idea severely restricting his mobility. His feet are really conditioned and even then it is a problem for him to get around. Anyone else who lost their footwear would be totally immobile with damaged and festering feet in a few days.

img2742.jpg

Our terrain here is a challenge even to boots. This thing left a purple mark on my foot, without the boot it would have come out the top of my foot.

I have had to deal with many catastrophic boot failures, both my own and other peoples over the years. Whenever someone's footwear fails it becomes priority number one to fix it before moving on. Seriously, given a choice in a survival situation of keeping my boots or my machete I'll stick with my boots.

I also think there is an over-emphasis on food given the length of their scenarios. In the freezing weather of the island scenario it made sense. In the warm climates not so much. I think it gives the uninformed viewer the wrong idea on survival priorities. Cody's approach of picking up the easy meat and low hanging fruit is correct for week one of being out in the bush. During the first week food isn't that big of a deal so don't waste time and energy actively pursuing it. Take what you find and any targets of opportunity you come across. I think it's odd that it seems like Dave's priorities are Shelter, Fire, Kill, Grill.

Mac
Click to expand...

That is one pair of well worn boots! I bet there are a lot of hard miles on them.

Al
 
I see Cody as the "gatherer" and Dave as the "hunter". Both have good survival skills but I would like to see the roles reversed.
 
I will side with Cody when it comes to barefeet. Cody has the advantage most of the time. I walk barefeet much of the year. It toughens up the pads to the point that I can walk on frozen ground around here in spring and fall including walking on shallow snow.

Barefeet act as radiators to get rid of excess heat buildup in the body when it's hot. There is less chance of contracting foot fungus. When it is cold I don't have any problems with the cold unless its wet or snow.

Barefeet are really tough, and much tougher than most people can immagine. I doesn't take much conditioning to make them like leather.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top