"Star" Gazing: Drawing Conclusions

[Rick Marchand]

Thanks for clearing that up KemSAT... I like that...

 

[Pritch]

People call Bear but whatever he does in his shows doesn't take away from the fact that he was one of the the youngest Brit's to climb Everest, Served alongside the SAS, was awarded the honorary rank of Lieutenant Commander in the Royal Naval Reserve, became the youngest Briton to climb Ama Dablam, a peak described by Sir Edmund Hillary as "unclimbable", the list goes on !

This is a bit of topic creep, but I think Bear is a special case. One of the things that provokes me most about Bear is that he could be great. He is enthusiastic, athletic and likable. He has some skills and a resume, even though some aspects of it smack of self-promotion by the pampered child of a wealthy politician.

As countless others before me have pointed out, the show is exciting and fun to watch, and Bear is a compelling star. Despite all the positives he brings to the show, Man vs. Wild is ghastly! Sadly, he gives terrible advice to a vast audience that doesn't know any better. Whether the content is forced on him by the producers or it originates with him is irrelevant. He chooses to associate himself with this show and convey advice that ranges from stupid to dangerous. I don't care if he sleeps in a motel, or if a rabbit is brought in for him to clobber. That is TV. Youv'e all heard the irresponsible stuff Bear has recommended: Cliff diving, piss drinking, waterfall climbing, sharpening your knife on crumbled rock, sliding thru tunnels in glaciers, yada yada yada. The weak disclaimers that the show added after our inital complaints are not persuasive. Claiming that the show is for "entertainment purposes only" is meaningless, especially given the frequent "I'll show you what to do" type comments by both bear and the announcer.

Survival "professionals" are usually quite deferential to others "in the business," even with whom they disagree. Even given that grace they tend to extend to one another, note how many have distanced themselves from Bear's antics. Ron Hood was so upset over the content of MVW that he not only left but went out of his way to have is name stricken from show credits.

 

[RescueRiley]

Nice thread... Good Post..Rick...

 

[Rick Marchand]

This is a bit of topic creep, but I think Bear is a special case.

Bear shows extreme alternatives in wilderness survival.... not necessarily WRONG choices. His "antics" are based on proven techniques and though they may seem over the edge to you he is not making it up as he goes.

Ron Hood was so upset over the content of MVW that he not only left but went out of his way to have is name stricken from show credits.

True.... but ask him if it had anything to do with Bear himself. From what I understand (and you point out), he was not happy with the path the producers chose to take. Bear is just the tool they used. I don't think MVW was ever supposed to be taken seriously. I compare it to Pro Wrestling.... they have little disclaimers before that too... most intelligent adults will tell you the fights are fake even though there is real physicality and combat potential involved.

 

[Pritch]

Bear shows extreme alternatives in wilderness survival.... not necessarily WRONG choices. His "antics" are based on proven techniques and though they may seem over the edge to you he is not making it up as he goes.





True.... but ask him if it had anything to do with Bear himself. From what I understand (and you point out), he was not happy with the path the producers chose to take. Bear is just the tool they used. I don't think MVW was ever supposed to be taken seriously. I compare it to Pro Wrestling.... they have little disclaimers before that too... most intelligent adults will tell you the fights are fake even though there is real physicality and combat potential involved.

Rick, I recall Ron describing how he went to Bear with his concerns about MVW. According to Ron, Bear agreed with Ron's concerns and assured him that he would go to the producers and see that appropriate changes were made. Ron was seething when the show went forward with the foolishness.

As far as the show not being to be taken seriously, that was a weak response to many of the critiques that came out after the show aired. Analogizing it to pro wrestling isn't quite fair. Wrestling shows don't purport to be self-defense instruction, and despite claims to the contrary, MVW purported to be just that.


I'm sorry I ventured down this path on this thread, because I agree that we cannot know a person's intentions and that anonymous carping on the internet carping on the internet often serves no purpose than to hurt someone's good name. I simply see Bear and MVW to be so irresponsible as to warrant calling them out.

 

[kgd]

Bear shows extreme alternatives in wilderness survival.... not necessarily WRONG choices. His "antics" are based on proven techniques and though they may seem over the edge to you he is not making it up as he goes.

I tend to disagree here. Perhaps some of his techniques are based on recognized decision trees, but some of his advice is unsound from a medical/physiological point of view. I remember providing the following post:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4753081#post4753081count=38

I don't think MVW was ever supposed to be taken seriously. I compare it to Pro Wrestling.... they have little disclaimers before that too... most intelligent adults will tell you the fights are fake even though there is real physicality and combat potential involved.

I don't know Rick. I think you are taking the easy path out here. It is true that people get up in arms because they do take the show and its advice seriously. The show does not provide the same vibe as 'Survivor' reality show or 'Big Brother' etc. The venue being Discovery Channel itself lends credence to the claims and the fact that they had to voice over and qualify everything again bespeaks of the show taking itself seriously and Discovery Channel taking itself seriously.

As for discrediting people when you think they are dead wrong? I think that is perfectly fine provided you provide the rationale for why you think they are wrong. We should be allowed to disagree with people even if they chose to broadcast themselves in a non-interactive medium.

All that said, I do think we are often too critical in these parts have do have a habit of trying to discredit everything about a person based on a few nitpicky details that we disagree with.

 

[Rick Marchand]

I hope Ron is okay with me posting this here... it comes from an open discussion on the Hoodlums site..

Posted 15 November 2006 - 04:25 PM

FWIW..

When I particpated in the program pilot there was a completely different program design.

Initally I was supposed to be an on screen commentator. As Bear made mistakes I would comment on the errors, correct them and offer Bear advice as he travelled. We spent a day shooting my comments. When the show hit Discovery they cut all my stuff out and added a bunch of suicidal footage that was absolutely stupid. They also recut the thing to make it more "Exciting".

When I saw it I went ballistic. My name should never have been added to the end credits as they have been. I fought the producer and director many times during the shooting to keep accuracy and credibility in the program. As soon as they went back to their comfy little offices in England they mutilated the thing and Discovery, not to be out done, mutilated it even more.

It was (is) an outrageously dangerous show and it sickens me to think that my name was ever on it or that I wasted as much time as I did working on it. This show is a reputation destroyer. Fortunately I escaped pretty much but I fear for Bear.

Ron

 

[Rick Marchand]

I don't know Rick. I think you are taking the easy path out here.

No... I'm taking the less educated path After the first episode, I couldn't take the show seriously and couldn't be bothered to jump in on the crusade to discredit him (Bear... the person). That being said, I have never watch an entire episode, all the way through. I only see highlights on youtube. So yes, I admit that any critique I provide on the show or the comments upon it are not deeply rooted with intimate knowledge of MVW, itself.

Nor do I follow pro wrestling...... I couldn't even tell you the proper letters in the name.... WWF? WWW? WWE? or WKRP?

 

[kgd]

Nor do I follow pro wrestling...... I couldn't even tell you the proper letters in the name.... WWF? WWW? WWE? or WKRP?

Well, I can tell you what WWF stands for, but as to FIFA, I have no clue!

 

[RescueRiley]

I have books or dvd's by almost everyone mentioned as an "exert in this forum........I have learned from all of them despite there various strengths and weaknesses.......just as I have learned from a great many of you through sordid stories of success and failure.
it's easy to point fingers and cast doubt from a couch or behind a laptop.... but these folks are out there....... demonstrating and practicing skills that we sometimes attempt in between stressing over which knife will butter toast better,or which kirafu snapper do 2000 is best to put a titanium pot in......SO that puts them all way ahead as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Rick Marchand]

I have books or dvd's by almost everyone mentioned as an "exert in this forum........I have learned from all of them despite there various strengths and weaknesses.......just as I have learned from a great many of you through sordid stories of success and failure.
it's easy to point fingers and cast doubt from a couch or behind a laptop.... but these folks are out there....... demonstrating and practicing skills that we sometimes attempt in between stressing over which knife will butter toast better, kirafu snapper do 2000 is best to put a titanium pot in......SO that puts them all way ahead as far as I'm concerned.

Well said, brother:thumbup:

 

[RickJ]

and to be honest, if I could make a living teaching it, I would. I hope all those that can make a living teaching skills, will. I am glad that Survival Training/knowledge is getting more common, It makes me feel more normal.


RickJ

 

[j williams]

Great thread Rick...

I see what you are saying. Ive noticed it too. Frankly, I would love to sit down with any of these guys. After all we all like the same stuff round about, and all of us dirt worshipers need to stick together, and continue to educate our selves, and those willing to learn.

 

[Joezilla]

Most interesting! I think that many of these spotlight types have certain features or pizazz to them which makes them stand out, and then well noted. You can be right in the middle, but usually when you are on one end of the spectrum, it can make your acceptance really notable, yet no matter how hard you try people are going to get ticked off, or angry, or jealous, or just nit picky at what you do. Especially because they haven't met the guy in person. Mors is hilarious to talk to, Ron is humble as pie and entertaining, Rick M isn't as evil as he seems in person.

There will always be some whisper of negative opinion no matter how nice of a guy the person is.

There is of course, an exception to the rules

No one should have a problem with this guy...ever.

 

[Watchful]

I've just noticed that whenever a well known survival personallity is mentioned there are those who see it as an oppourtunity to run them down.

Survival shows are a LOT like cooking shows.

If you cook, you can turn your nose up at a lot of the cooking celebrities. I think most of them are full of crap, but to be honest, they can cook and I can't. So, like we've said, it comes down to personality. If they are abrasive, I tend to dislike them. If they are slapdash and undisciplined, I tend to dislike them. Some of the bigger cooking celebrities appear to me to be morons. But they can still cook better than me. Doesn't mean I need to like 'em.

Further, cooking shows are not for people who already know how to cook...except maybe once in a while you see something interesting. They're for people like me: guys who can cook quite a few good things but are eager to learn more.

Survival shows are NOT for guys like us. They're for people who know one or two things about survival and want to see a couple of cool things here and there.

When you see these shows, we tend to dismiss them. "Pfff, yeah..." we think, "Good luck lighting a fire that easily." Because you can totally see the edit where the wood was wet and soggy, but now suddenly it's a roaring fire with about two seconds of drilling. YOU see these things. YOU know the guy had tons of help, but is trying to pass it off like he knows what the fa-heck he's doing. YOU know there's trickery, and trickery means faking.

Just like a good cook can see the edits on the cooking show where the mistake was edited out, or where the pie magically appears out of the oven cool enough to touch.

Point is: this isn't unique to survival experts. The rejection of celebrities in any given field is common among people who sort-of to mostly-know what they're doing.

I can't stand Bear. He's a tool who advocates high risk activities that always work for him on his show. We all know he faked a lot of scenes and edited things to look way more dangerous than they are.

But you and you and you and I all know: if we were to survive some bus crash in the middle of nowhere, and Bear Grylls was the only other survivor, you'd think you were pretty lucky! I would be VERY glad to have him around.

 

[SouthernCross]

G'day Rick

A big :thumbup::thumbup: for such a thought provoking post.

Right from the start, let me say that I don't have the advantage of personally knowing any of the "survival gurus", or having communicated with them to establish any "behind the scenes rationale" for their programs.

Rather, my comments are based on nearly 40 years of outdoor life (and well over 30 years of solo venturing into the wilderness areas, and by wilderness areas I do mean genuine wilderness areas ).

I notice that just about all the TV presenters do provide some form of credit to locals "experts' who provide them with advice before the shoot.

Why don't we just pi$$ off the stars and see the locals who know what's required in their neck of the woods?

How well does anyone reckon this type of show would rate without a star?

Just as one example, how many on W&SS actually believe that the current odd couple incarnation of "Cody & Dave" are experienced adventurers in New Zealand? If you do, for God's sake give me a break :thumbdn:

Don't people realise that each TV show will look to establish a point of difference from others as a marketing advantage?

As an example, I would love a $ for every time I have seen Les Stroud described as the "starving man" on the net

Somehow this is intended to give Les more credibility than Bear?

If he truly basically starves every episode, why is he being idolised as someone who is a wilderness survival guru?

If he is a "guru" why can't he at least feed himself?

If he can't, then IMO he doesn't deserve the mantle of "survival expert" or he is not being genuine to the skills he posseses. As far as I'm concerned it really is one or the other :thumbup:

That's right I forgot, he is being more "realistic than Bear" :jerkit:

Remember everyone it is just TV and the primary concern with any commercial TV show is always going to be ratings





Kind regards
Mick

 

[OwenM]

Oh, you don't mean that. Say it isn't so

It sure beats those other "reality" shows by a long shot, though.

 

[KEmSAT-Survival]

Mick>>

Because not all survival "experts" (God, I hate that word), or the locals who teach the presenters make good presenters or television personalities.
It's not entertaining to the masses to watch some guy drone on and on for an hour about heat loss, or treating water, etc...If they want to learn, they'll go to school -- or so their thinking goes. They want blood and guts, action, suspense....entertainment.
The people who practice these skills are relatively few. The people who own the skills are fewer than that. These shows are not marketed for those types, they are marketed for the majority who will never spend a night in the woods, who think of these types of skills as a "novelty". That's why that disclaimer is there. Well, that and people are stupid.
Mr. Gryll's antics are simply there to keep his audience invested. He's trying to keep his job, which can be tough in an age where people have the attention span of a gnat.

Rick is right. There is a huge difference between valid argument and ad hominem attack. Many times, once you forego the valid argument for the personal attacks you lose your audience; the first thing in their mind is "Ahh, this guy is just jealous because he doesn't have a show."
You can surgically dissect Bear's, Les's, Dave and Codi's fopas -- but you can do so with civilty and keep your audience, or you can do so with ad hominem and shut them off like a clam.





KNIBB HIGH FOOTBALL RULES!!

 

[Rockywolf]

First of all thanks for a great thread. I learn something every time I venture in WSS, sometimes gems are found in the unlikeliest places.

I think it boils down to observation of manners, the ol' Golden Rule. I know ZERO compared to many here. I live a city life that borders on the ridiculous. I hike more than camp, simply trying to find ANY time to recharge my batteries.

The comments regarding balance and self remind me of Ayn Rand's philosophy...very good stuff.

Another poster made a comment on what you may learn watching bad as well as good techniques, hopefully the bad will be so evident that you won't get hurt trying it.

I have purchased several books from experts mentioned in this thread and practice the things they cross mention/teach. Those skills seem to be the ones best suited to practice to me since they are taught in basically the same fashion by all.

I hope I made sense writing this.

 

[TWBryan]

I think hashing over 'survival shows' is a valid expenditure of time.Even if it's mostly 'what not to do'. As for the stars of these shows they should expect acclaim or criticism,it comes with notoriety. If they do stupid things,this should be pointed out,that's called 'entertainment value'. I liked Stroud's shows,in general,I'll still call him a hippie who wastes money on tattoos instead of buying a decent hat and knife. In other words if they get on tv and act like fools,there is nothing wrong in calling them fools.