Man vs. Wild on Discovery- phony baloney?

those tame horses who came from a horse owner in that one ep is exactly like pulling the animals from a zoo and putting them in front of a camera, telling the public they are wild

a zoo? hell
a circus!
 
I think this generates discussion whenever it comes up simply because it could have been so much better. They didn't NEED to hide the fact that it was "made for tv".

Obviously this stuff is going to be exposed as being cooked, so why not silence detractors right away by stating that outright. Others have done it that way and it robs nothing from the enjoyment of it. Think of Stroud's liferaft with the 'camera/backup dinghy' and safety boat both being deliberately shown on camera. He also admitted when he slept in the dinghy instead of bailing the liferaft all night. The other clown had somebody rattle his shelter as he thought a bear would, and used smoke to simulate volcanic gases.

This joker and his pals have reduced it to a cartoon and I don't think anybody really cares anymore that it was contrived or bothers to look for merit in it. It's disappointing because this is such an underplayed genre, so fans are eager to see a new product and Bristol obviously wasn't afraid to spend production money on it.

I have a library of the Ray Mears stuff for example, but the only time I'd pay for this stuff is to snag it out of Walmart's bargain bin as a joke gift for a buddy......
 
I really don't care where he sleeps at night when the camera is not on. I learned a few things that I didn't know about survival from watching this show. That is why I watch the show. Yes, it was staged. But, that doesn't mean there are not any practical survival techniques to learn from watching the show. There are quite a few things in this TV series that are unbelievable; the horse, jumping into a rapid river. One would be an idiot to believe everything that happens in reality TV. The smart thing would be to understand and distinguish between what works and what doesn't work on that show, if what your seeing can be used in the wild. Personally, I would never walk up to a "wild" horse if I saw one. What person in a survival situation would walk up to an animal that size and risk getting hurt. Thus, increasing their chances of not getting out alive. Any animal, even squirrels, have the ability to hurt someone if they are cornered. That is why they are called WILD animals. What Grylls should have told us was, "Stay the hell away from a wild horse. They can be aggressive" or "Don't sail down a rapid river in a crappy built raft. Walk the damn shore line instead and follow the river out."
 
Did ya'll see the one where he drank water out of an elephant turd?

Baby%20Ruth.jpg
 
cgusek111 said:
I really don't care where he sleeps at night when the camera is not on. I learned a few things that I didn't know about survival from watching this show. That is why I watch the show. Yes, it was staged. But, that doesn't mean there are not any practical survival techniques to learn from watching the show. There are quite a few things in this TV series that are unbelievable; the horse, jumping into a rapid river. One would be an idiot to believe everything that happens in reality TV. The smart thing would be to understand and distinguish between what works and what doesn't work on that show, if what your seeing can be used in the wild. Personally, I would never walk up to a "wild" horse if I saw one. What person in a survival situation would walk up to an animal that size and risk getting hurt. Thus, increasing their chances of not getting out alive. Any animal, even squirrels, have the ability to hurt someone if they are cornered. That is why they are called WILD animals. What Grylls should have told us was, "Stay the hell away from a wild horse. They can be aggressive" or "Don't sail down a rapid river in a crappy built raft. Walk the damn shore line instead and follow the river out."
Click to expand...

he should not "teach" everybody the wrong thing to do but the right one instead, someone in a real survival situation wil get killed following his "advice"

he acts like hes fking tarzan or something!
 
You have to keep in mind that it's TV entertainment. Their whole purpose is to make money. They don't give a shit whether or not you survive. They just mix up a bunch of bullshit with a little dash of reality based survival. My point is that you can still learn a few good tips from this show. If you want to watch someone teach you the right thing to do then you have to watch Food Network.
 
I finally got to see this on TV when I was visiting a mine-site that had cable. I was lucky enough to snag the Aussie/Kimberley episode as well. While I'd never claim to be a survival expert I do know that country fairly well. He claims to have parachuted in and then spent 2-3 days walking out to an aboriginal settlement (which looks a lot like Umbulguri - on the forrest river). I noticed in the end credits they thanked the Miriwoong Gajerrong people - which fits the location.

Ignoring all the other idiocy for a moment. The distances he claimed to have covered are just too great. It looks like they 'cherry picked' a few of the most telegenic locations and then drove him from place to place, linking the whole thing into a narrative. There is just no way he could have covered the distance from the gorges, through the pandanas country and then down to a major river in that time - it's about 3 weeks walk.

Otherwise - it's just plain stupid and dangerous advice. Leaving that parachute for starters. He's have been better off to stay put and light a signal fire. That stupid do-rag hat he made would have been next to useless - again a good shamag could have been made from the parachute material (I guess they were saving production costs and didn't want to cut it up).

Broadcasters of this show are exosing themselves to legal liability I reckon - someone is going to follow his lead one day and die as a result.

On a positive note - I likes the way he described the country and the respect he showed to the local people. That's the frustrating thing I suppose. He has the potential to be a good on-air talent and the show can be plenty entertaining without the bulldust.
 
Ming65 said:
... There is just no way he could have covered the distance from the gorges, through the pandanas country and then down to a major river in that time - it's about 3 weeks walk...
Click to expand...

That is why he was running, see. If he walked it would have taken 3 weeks, but he ran so it only took 2-3 days. :)
 
jh205 said:
Grylls could easily say "I'm not actually relying on only my knife and a flint, but if you had to here is how to do it" and "I'm not actually spending the night in this shelter, but if you had to here is how to build it" etc etc.

The point is that Bear Grylls deliberately lies to the viewing public in order to make his show seem more realistic and thus to make more money. He is nothing but a fraud.
Click to expand...


For God sakes ITS TV. Its made for entertainment, and teaches you a couple things on survival. In the last survivorman Les brought a first aid kit, a knife, a saw, an axe, a gun and tons of other stuff, not to mention a full team of dogs, and he did not even make it out. I enjoy watching both programs, but in my opinion it is more entertaining to watch MvW.


Bill
 
So do people have a problem with that show because it's not always real? or because it's offering bad advise?
 
Siggyhk said:
So do people have a problem with that show because it's not always real? or because it's offering bad advise?
Click to expand...

I think it is because it is billed as a real survival guy in real survival situations who gives bad survival advice. And his credentials don't withstand scrutiny any better than the show. Where is Dangerous Dave nowdays anyway? Now THAT was entertainment!

Codger
 
Gerberblades said:
For God sakes ITS TV. Its made for entertainment, and teaches you a couple things on survival. In the last survivorman Les brought a first aid kit, a knife, a saw, an axe, a gun and tons of other stuff, not to mention a full team of dogs, and he did not even make it out. The point is that it is TV, made purely for entertainment, tossing in a few survival skills. I enjoy watching both programs, but in my opinion it is more entertaining to watch MvW.


Bill
Click to expand...

So what if it is TV, that does not justify it being false info for the sake of entertainment. TV is full of informative shows that teach about everything from cooking to heavy machinery. The problem is that MvW come across as being legit info when it is crap. Like it all you want, but it is like enjoying WWE wrestling over a real sport. It is for juvenile mentalities.
 
scpower said:
So what if it is TV, that does not justify it being false info for the sake of entertainment. TV is full of informative shows that teach about everything from cooking to heavy machinery. The problem is that MvW come across as being legit info when it is crap. Like it all you want, but it is like enjoying WWE wrestling over a real sport. It is for juvenile mentalities.
Click to expand...

good analogy, i like real mma way better even tho WWE is still entertaining

the big difference is still that MvsW gives wrong and potentially deadly info, without any way of knowing which is a good survival tip and which is a deadtrap.
 
And The acclaimed naturalist/filmmaker David Attenborough does indeed source animals from private collections. I am personally acquainted with an australian man who provided lace monitors and eggs hatching for his newest series of documentaries. It's tv, not exactly cost effective to show the real thing when the real ting could take weeks or months to catch one shot.
 
While both shows have their share of 'credible' info, the fact that they are touted as being totally "actual" survival situations is disingenuous at the very least. A mere disclaimer such as "this is a recreation" on the screen would go far in separating real fact from fiction.

Ron
 
jh205 said:
Grylls could easily say "I'm not actually relying on only my knife and a flint, but if you had to here is how to do it" and "I'm not actually spending the night in this shelter, but if you had to here is how to build it" etc etc.

The point is that Bear Grylls deliberately lies to the viewing public in order to make his show seem more realistic and thus to make more money. He is nothing but a fraud.
Click to expand...

True, can't solely blame the actor though, its the network...


I see lots of mistakes/problems/BS in movies and tv shows nowadays... Its not the actors fault, its the producers and the networks putting it out.


If he would have told the truth his "credibility" wouldn't have been as high, and he'd probably have had less viewers... I'd be surprised if he goes a third season after this though. I think he probably lost quite a bit of his viewers.
 
Siggyhk said:
So do people have a problem with that show because it's not always real? or because it's offering bad advise?
Click to expand...

Because it's sold to audiences as a real show, and it's fake. He generally offers very bad advice.

There's a recurring problem with people on the forum understanding that no one expects all TV programs to be real; however it's dishonest and somewhat unethical to present them as reality, especially when they deal with things like survival training.

The Discovery Channel themselves have been shown to be scrambling to cover up and explain why the show is fake, and have even tried to claim that it isn't. That should tell people that something is up right there. Look around in one of the other threads on the topic.
 
enderwiggin said:
Because it's sold to audiences as a real show, and it's fake. He generally offers very bad advice.

There's a recurring problem with people on the forum understanding that no one expects all TV programs to be real; however it's dishonest and somewhat unethical to present them as reality, especially when they deal with things like survival training.

The Discovery Channel themselves have been shown to be scrambling to cover up and explain why the show is fake, and have even tried to claim that it isn't. That should tell people that something is up right there. Look around in one of the other threads on the topic.
Click to expand...

Those are my thoughts as well. It isn't what it really *IS* but is what it is *PRESENTED* to be. And even though it was presented to be real survival I always assumed they took some minor indiscretions, and even felt I seen a few of them, I didn't know they went as far as they have been found out to have gone.
 
Yeah, we all understand (I hope) that certain dramatic license is taken to present good TV (ever notice the 'snake wrangler' credits at the end of a Crocodile Hunter episode? All his snakes where caught, milked and cooled to make them more docile first) - but this show crosses the line.

The Kimberley in West Oz is a very dangerous place - even the locals never take it for granted. It has more and more tourists passing through every year and inevitably, some of them will have seen that Man V Wild episode, use it as their only reference, get stuck and try some of his 'survival' methods.

Still, I suppose there is a certain Darwinian logic to that happenning........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top