Survivorman (the series)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I will start by saying I give him credit for making the show and getting tpo the market first withthe idea. I first heard about him a couple of years back while it was still in production withthe original production company from his first show.

In the end though he Hollywoods it up tpoo much tries to over play the danger and difficulty of filming it(which I have my doubts onthe fact he is alone).

In his best of show he gives away a lot as to him not possibly being alone and that he pretty much lied about stuff in some of the shows.

Over all he displays no real knowledge or abiltiy in the outdoors and took a perfectly good opportunity to instruct people in a meaning full way and wasted it because now anyother net work might not look at a show of this nature because it is redundant.

I don't normally like to be so negative but it could have been so ething good if he had just done it right. Some might challenge what I have to say but you are welcome to your opinions. i could list the bad info and techniques he uses to no end.

Abe
 
canranger said:
...and took a perfectly good opportunity to instruct people in a meaning full way
Click to expand...

Quite frankly I have my doubts about that in general, in one show he tries to set up a tri-signal fire and finds out that it is vey difficult for one person to keep the fires burning and thus even though one fire has less of a visual profile it would be the way to go.

Now this isn't so bad except he further comments that he has taught the three signal fires as the method to use in the past without ever actually trying it and only now realizes it was a mistake. Now consider the implications of that if you are in an actual survivial situation.

In general it is even the small things which are problematic like he notes he likes to bring along things to evaluate, this is quite frankly extremely poor practice in a "survival" situation, evaluate your gear beforehand, you don't want to be stuck with useless equipment which could even cause you harm if it breaks prematurely.

You can simulate many if not all of the tasks in your backyard in any decent rural area and you certainly don't need to go to alaska to do it though it might not be as impressive to some, a regular 2x4 and some imagination can go a long way to evaluating blades, saws and firestarters.

-Cliff
 
Cliff Stamp said:
...he notes he likes to bring along things to evaluate, this is quite frankly extremely poor practice in a "survival" situation, evaluate your gear beforehand...
Click to expand...
I would agree you do not take something new for a first time trial on a "survival" expedition. However, I would say he is NOT really on a survival expedition in many respects. He is in a set time limit situation in which he has his crew coming to bail him out in a set time frame. Yes, his conditions are filled with hazards. But, he has a guaranteed out and he generally has what he needs to just sit it out if he chooses. So, from that standpoint, I say, go ahead and test some new item for 5-7 days in the wilderness. Another component of his scenario is that it is an unexpected scenario....i.e. plane crash. In which case, maybe you will find something you never tried in someone elses luggage?

Finally, I am glad others have the same feeling I do...he probably is NOT alone. I have my doubts as to if his crew have actually left him.

In general, somewhat entertaining.
 
LSkylizard said:
However, I would say he is NOT really on a survival expedition in many respects.
Click to expand...

Neither would I, but he does present it as such which is what is relevant.

-Cliff
 
There is another episode; Friday night at 9:00 p.m. est. on the science channel. :)
 
I like the show, because it shows that everything doesn't always go as planned.

During his Costa Rica trip, I didn't like the way he placed a coconut against his chest to cut it open with a knife. :eek:
 
canranger said:
i could list the bad info and techniques he uses to no end.
Click to expand...

I was preparing some knives for some comparisons last night when this came on and I figured I'll take down some notes on what he did. It starts off with him on a broken down bike :

-he makes no attempt to determine the cause of the breakdown or to fix it
-he has no means of contacting help (phone)
-he decides not to build a shelter or start a fire because of the time

-he breaks down the bike with no specific goals or priorities
-he leaves the bike with no directions on where he went
-he ignores that the red of the bike contrasts strongly with the enviroment
-he ignores the fluids in the bike which have many uses

Now a lot of this has to do with the "fake" nature of the situation, however he is presenting it as survivial of a sort and thus you would want to note what you would actually do in a survivial situation such as use the colored part of the bike to form a signal for help and leave a detailed note on the site of when you were there, where you are going, or at least a rough arrow if you have no means at all to write (bike fluids).

In regards to fire/shelter, you could be spotted the first night, and without adequate clothing you could also die of exposure in that first night so ignoring both is very serious, he does this several times througout the series and counts on the weather not turning bad, and of course the fact that help is immediately available which allows such risks to be taken.

He also misses a key chance, many times, to note the required goals (shelter, water,food, navigation, signaling), you don't need to preach these as a formal list but note them and their importance when ever you can. Thus when breaking down the bike you give a brief blurb that this is what you are looking for, that is the goal in mind and tht when making a signal you need a *contrast*.

I stopped seriously watching it at that point, and off and on during the next hour caught much of the same, such as he keeping eating while he is getting dehydrated, even knowing and openly stating he was suffering from dehydration. He also makes statements such as there is no point in rationing water in the desert.

-Cliff
 
A. as said before it is entertainment.
B. if Survivorman did everything 'right' it wouldn't be as entertaining.
C. if one couldn't root for Mother Nature and get the vicarious thrill of watching him fail, it wouldn't be as entertaining.
His small failures (as cliff lists) are part of the over all scheme. Without them it would be a dry instructional video from the casual viewer's and producer's point of view and not nearly as entertaining.

Survivorman's failures and shortcomings showcase his human frailties while also giving the viewer the opportunity to see him suffer.
This allows the viewer to feel superior or pity.
(just like we do when we watch the weatherman out in the hurricane.)

The program is targeting the larger demographic of people that watch 'reality tv'
Survivorman is just another tangental spinoff of the genre.
There are plenty of instructional videos out there. All on tape or disk. They will stay on tape and disk because the networks always look for the larger demographic. Larger audience = larger profits.

Let's look at the program for what it is, not for what we want it to be.

Besides, it has to be entertainment because...
if it were real he'd have to have a 1/4" thick blacticle prybar to survive, right?
:D
 
Ebbtide said:
His small failures (as cliff lists) are part of the over all scheme.
Click to expand...

Continuing to eat while suffering from dehydration is not a small failure, not leaving signs of where you are going when leaving one site is not a small failure, drinking stagnent water is not a small failure, running through cold water in the winter isn't a small failure, not making a shelter because you hope it won't rain isn't a small failure, and of these actions can get you killed. Ask Greg Davenport how he would judge the seriousness of any of these actions.

Let's look at the program for what it is ...
Click to expand...

It isn't what it is, it is how it is presented which is the issue. The same guy had a bunch of spots on one of the discovery shows where he was promoted as a survivial instructor and what he was doing was supposed to be instructional, same type of behavior. As noted in the above he actually comments on this in the series. You can also do the wrong thing and show the consequences, you just also want to do the right thing and don't underplay the seriousness of the situation. Or if you do, don't make a big deal about how it is a "survival" situation and promote it as reality vs entertainment.

-Cliff
 
I'll be looking foward to the "Cliff Stamp" survival show so all the idgits of the world can go out and do it right.:D The fact that he sucks at surival Mr Stroud is keeping sheeple from goin out themselves and dying. I do give the guy some credit for fasting for seven days with food all around him, it aint easy.

What I do wonder though, is what the heck he does all day. No more than gets a fire goin and the sun is goin down. I think he's goin home for some pizza, then runnin back to finnish up the scene.;)
 
Rob Bredl, the "barefoot bushman", has a wildlife series mainly about animals. However he has also done "survival" episodes where he illustrates various methods specific to his location. It isn't dry, he comes across as an easy going guy very comfortable in his enviroment.

There was also a show on discovery awhile back which put three very differnet people in a "survival race" across the outback. One was a survivalist (older gentleman), one was a athlete with all modern gear in peak physical condition, one was an very senior older native who basically just walked the entire race.

They all finished about the same making an interesting statement about the ability of either pure physical ability, general survival knowledge or specific experience making a huge impact. The athlete made several severe mistakes in judgement but his raw physical ability which was so vastly superior to the other two was enough to compensate.

In terms of mainly navigation there is the eco challenge which has no water, shelter, signaling or food issues but you can learn a lot about how to travel through specific enviroments. It is also fairly entertaining, they also have various celebs attempting it at times.

-Cliff
 
What happened to the Echo challenge? That was a great show educational and very entertaining . Is it still on ? The last I heard they only showed 2 seasons.
 
I have seen more than two years, but have not seen it in awhile. The show is amazing to show how far people can push themselves in adverse conditions, this isn't even survivial either, just to win a race.

-Cliff
 
Continuing to eat while suffering from dehydration is not a small failure, not leaving signs of where you are going when leaving one site is not a small failure, drinking stagnent water is not a small failure, running through cold water in the winter isn't a small failure, not making a shelter because you hope it won't rain isn't a small failure, and of these actions can get you killed.
Click to expand...

Yet he survived.
 
Ebbtide said:
Yet he survived.
Click to expand...

Local to here (which is where he was on one occasion) it can go from clear sky with light wind to heavy snowfall and high wind with little to no warning. You can get 20 - 30 cm of heavy snow in the space of a couple of hours which can then quickly freeze to a top layer of thick ice.

Without a shelter you would be dead to exposure quickly, you could not keep an open fire going either. But of course if it doesn't snow then it was only a minor mistake that you didn't make any preperations because after all you didn't die.

This kind of logic is why people keep getting killed, as if a dozen times before they have gone off on hikes without telling anyone where they are going and when they will be back why make any preperations this time.

Why learn how to build shelters at all, just hope for ideal weather, that you always pick the right mushroom by chance, that you always will find water when you need it, that you will get out before your freeze due to getting wet.

-Cliff
 
This is the same logic that linemen have used on me when I've discussed the need to wear clothing that will protect them from burns due to electric arcs when they are working around energized equipment. "I've been doing this for years and never needed nomex before, etc..."

Yeah, and if you ever had a big arc, then you'd be dead or maimed for life and maybe wishing you were dead.

I always respond by telling them that I've been driving a car for almost thirty years and have never had an accident where a seat belt would have offered me any protection. Should I therefore not wear a seatbelt because I haven't been killed in an accident yet? Hardly good logic.
 
A friend of mine thought the same thing until he burned a hole right through his hand when he grounded out a 220 line. It is also why people constantly lose fingers to tablesaws, after all I have done this a hundred times "bzzt", yup, and it only takes one and now you live the rest of your knife with half a hand, or are blind in one eye because after all eye protection is rarely needed, just hope for the best, everyone knows someone who doesn't do any of that and it never hurts them right. Lets just hope that if you do decide to do any of those "minor mistakes" you also have a sat phone on you with an emergency evacuation team on standby.

-Cliff
 
Lets just hope that if you do decide to do any of those "minor mistakes" you also have a sat phone on you with an emergency evacuation team on standby.

-Cliff
Click to expand...

You mean like Les Stroud has?;)
 
Cliff ... why don't you write a letter to the show with your commentary on the mistakes the guy makes. It would be interesting if he actually takes the time to reply and what his explanations are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top