Man vs Wild on YouTube - full programs

Hmmmm, Ive never found him to be particularly interesting. It would make more sense to me to be walking at night in a desert, as opposed to day, whatever. I was interested in his folding knife though.
 
I would rather watch Russell Coight. He is meant to be funny. I think some of the stuff on Man Vs Wild is downright dangerous to the unitiated.
 
WOW no flame war yet? That said, it's an entertaining show to watch! Be careful- Bear does do some stuff that (he admits) is definetely dangerous and often would be a bad idea in real life.

Time to don our suits.
 
Is there actually people that think bears show is more informative then strouds? Entertainment is relative, I find bears show very interesting to watch, but I doubt I learn a thing from it.
 
Liam Ryan said:
Is there actually people that think bears show is more informative then strouds? Entertainment is relative, I find bears show very interesting to watch, but I doubt I learn a thing from it.
Click to expand...

Come on, I am sure that you did not know that you could drink poo juice or almost hide a PFD under a sweatshirt or proper batoning technique involves a big rock, Bear is full of useful information.:jerkit:
 
I just saw him baton with a rock to make a balsa raft 10 seconds ago!
I thought you were joking. :D
But really seeing him cut down a tree with a 4 inch blade was pretty interesting. granted it was balsa, but our knives are capable of a lot more then we give them credit for.
 
Well the reality for me is, any and all of these guys know more about varied location survival than I have any clue about. I would probably be found with my sun dried and shrivelled skull and WILSON stamped on my forehead.:D I do however see some show boating at times and some dicey calls in regard to decisions made. But hey, they are out there in the (maybe) real survival environment, freezing, starving, improvising. These shows are interesting and usefull for me but I view them with a bit of a critical eye. My wife has even commented on one decision by Les Stroud. He worked his way out of the jungle and found a shoreline. Then he decided to go back into the jungle were he:1. could get lost. 2. be bitten, stung, eaten by any number of crawlies. 3. not be seen (found). We just thought that it made more sense to walk the shorline to be seen, find a fresh water stream emptying to it, have an extra source for food (ocean), have an easier escape from land predators, see crawlies easier. Have a higher vis. signal fire location etc., etc. Whether our thinking is correct or not, those are things that we see. No I dont expected perfection from these guys, but...... I think we should use some critical thinking skills to enhance the survival scenarios that we watch.
 
Les makes a few errors of judgement, it's true, and often admits his mistakes.
Bear meanwhile does several death defying stunts each episode.
 
Though "Bear" (Actually, Edward Michael Bear Grylls) is himself the real deal, the show is several notches beyond preposterous.

I think we should call him Eddie from now on.

Anyway, he was in fact one of the youngest ever to climb Everest, etc., etc. so he's no joke.

But the show, uh, uhuhhhh, gimme a break! I'll go see a play if I wanna see something that staged. That show flips the scale on absurdity and is almost watchable on a comedic level.
 
If I had a film crew, with a medic and a heli ready to pick me up, as well as a pay packet, I would slide down a mountain on my arse and drink river water without pura tabs.

There is some good stuff in there, that I guess comes from his SF days but, the running and jumping around cliffs, just makes for good TV.
 
upnorth said:
My wife has even commented on one decision by Les Stroud. He worked his way out of the jungle and found a shoreline. Then he decided to go back into the jungle were he:1. could get lost. 2. be bitten, stung, eaten by any number of crawlies. 3. not be seen (found). We just thought that it made more sense to walk the shorline to be seen, find a fresh water stream emptying to it, have an extra source for food (ocean), have an easier escape from land predators, see crawlies easier. Have a higher vis. signal fire location etc., etc. Whether our thinking is correct or not, those are things that we see. No I dont expected perfection from these guys, but...... I think we should use some critical thinking skills to enhance the survival scenarios that we watch.
Click to expand...

I saw that episode recently, and if it's the same one, he didn't start in the jungle, he arrived in a kayak from the sea. He explains his decision ... he was thinking, IIRC, that he could be very near a road or other civilization only a short way through the jungle, but he would never know it. So he decided to risk it, regretted his decision, and came back out to the shore.

As for the ongoing Bear vs Les debate ... I watch both shows and enjoy both of them immensely. I appreciate both shows for what they are.

I actually don't necessarily agree that you learn nothing from Bear and a lot from Les. Bear does give a lot of survial information, and almost always prefaces a risky move with warnings or qualifications ("I'm an experienced climber ...") I've seen a Les show where I learned almost nothing (the arctic one), where he basically failed everything he tried and ended up being lucky enough to meet a native hunter; beyond stripping the snowmobile and making snow-goggles, all he did for the rest of the show was walk and complain about having to film himself walking lol
 
He will say "im an experienced climber, heres how you do it."
He's not giving a warning, he's telling you he is a qualified teacher.
I do learn a few tricks from Bear, but rock climbing and such are not tricks I'm storing away for reference.
 
furfun said:
I saw that episode recently, and if it's the same one, he didn't start in the jungle, he arrived in a kayak from the sea. He explains his decision ... he was thinking, IIRC, that he could be very near a road or other civilization only a short way through the jungle, but he would never know it. So he decided to risk it, regretted his decision, and came back out to the shore.

As for the ongoing Bear vs Les debate ... I watch both shows and enjoy both of them immensely. I appreciate both shows for what they are.

I actually don't necessarily agree that you learn nothing from Bear and a lot from Les. Bear does give a lot of survial information, and almost always prefaces a risky move with warnings or qualifications ("I'm an experienced climber ...") I've seen a Les show where I learned almost nothing (the arctic one), where he basically failed everything he tried and ended up being lucky enough to meet a native hunter; beyond stripping the snowmobile and making snow-goggles, all he did for the rest of the show was walk and complain about having to film himself walking lol
Click to expand...

Ok, you are probably correct. I was flipping through the channels and caught Stroud in the middle of the show maybe. Anyway, we saw him walking through the jungle, laying in a stream to cool off, a night shot were he was trying to sleep and flashed his light on a monstrous spider, A shot of him by the shoreline, then he went back to the jungle. Maybe the shoreline was a flash back, I dont know. The point for me though, is that we should still use a little critical thinking as we follow an individual through the show. In a way it puts you in the situation hypotheticly and makes a person think.
Just because someone had the connections to star in a survival TV show does not impress me any more than someone having the connections to become a politician. I view both with a critical eye and make my own decisions on their actions. I will however concead if I am misinformed or made a mistake of my own. Did Stroud fail in the arctic, maybe. Was he bitching all the time, maybe. I did see him build a snow shelter and use an oil lamp, both Indigenous Inuit survival methods. He had limited food, a chunk of raw seal or something and he was cold, as the arctic tends to be. What would you do in that situation........ I think that this is the point with my viewing these shows. If you can think of an alternate and better methodology bring it with you if you are going into that environment. We can be passive viewers, which I was on that jungle episode, or run internal constructive criticism hopefully beneficial to ourselves if found in that scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top