I should have started the earlier thread with a general title like this.

My thoughts are shattered among many movies, so here goes.

1 - Look at the small girl in the (Waterworld) movie.
Now, look at the (feral boy) in the Mad Max2 ( Road Warrior ) movie. Do you notice something ????

I don't know if it is only me but if they werent of different genders (and age), I would have thought they were the same person.

2- I wish ...

Survival movies fall in many categories. Many of which are war movies ..etc. I like some of them a bit but will prefer more of McGyverish type movies where people pull themselves out of the rubble ( or wreck) and use their HEADS to survive instead of brute force and massive dose of luck.

I have seen both Flight ofd the Phoenix movies, and really really wish to see LAND-based, and OCEAN-based movies in the same line. Like a group in a yakht crash on deserted island, and use bits and pieces from the yakht, in addition to whatever they find, to make another MULTI-powered boat ( like engine and sails), and squeeze the last drop of ingeniouity to barely make it back to land.

No zombies for me
I prefer a McGyver, but a bit more realistic McGyver

The survival role play "After Chaos" was inspired by the movies you mentioned.

Jeanette Isabelle

Off the top of my head you could list Vertical Limit, Speed, Iron Man, Italian Job, Alaska, First Blood, The Edge, even Animal House...my head explodes in movie titles. I'd include any episode of the A-Team.

I get what you're saying, though and I agree. I like movies that spend time on the nuance, celebrating the thought process, crafting and celebration of making something from nothing but with what you have ready in your hands to beat the bad guy.

To open this a bit to reality tv, that might be the one area where there is a celebration of being a McGuyver. From building an elaborate wedding cake to creating fire or finding water in an adverse climate, its all there in better contrast to movies, because here we truly see people with the expertise to think outside the box rather than just using it as a mechanism to provide plot points.

(I can not believe I am comparing the realism of reality tv to a completely fabricated fake tv personality).

For example, there was an episode of a reality show called, Man, Woman, Wild. In the epi, Mykel Hawkes with Ruth gets dehydrated and suffering badly. He makes a fire by bow drill or friction technique (can't recall) and while we it only taking a few moments of screen time, he is discussing the technique, walking us through the process and admits its taken him 90 minutes to get it started.

To me that was huge compliment to the Preparedness community compared to Bear, Les, et al that even when they obviously have trouble with a fire it is rarely if ever mentioned the time or effort to complete it unless there is drama like a cut or accident or something.

Sorry if I rambled and hijacked.

I still say Maryanne was the best looking one.............

Just saw the movie "The Road", while it is grim, I like the lack of crazy scenes of destruction, they never really say what happened, but things are changed forever, people are moving, dying, surviving. It is VERY VERY matter of fact in what it would be like to try to survive a life/ planet altering event (at least as I see one scenario, as they are obviously limitless), there is cannibalism, killing, hunting of weaker people, etc.... Certainnly gets you thinking.

Just thought others might gain perspective by watching it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367/

Ironwood

I posted these in another, especially for Izzy, and for the unitiated, of course. The movies don''t fit the criteria but 2 of my favorite movie "survivalists" are Burt from Tremors and Marvin from Red.

Burt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOELVyd3Esw

Marvin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag-JBl9TKqw

For example, there was an episode of a reality show called, Man, Woman, Wild. In the epi, Mykel Hawkes with Ruth gets dehydrated and suffering badly. He makes a fire by bow drill or friction technique (can't recall) and while we it only taking a few moments of screen time, he is discussing the technique, walking us through the process and admits its taken him 90 minutes to get it started.

To me that was huge compliment to the Preparedness community compared to Bear, Les, et al that even when they obviously have trouble with a fire it is rarely if ever mentioned the time or effort to complete it unless there is drama like a cut or accident or something.

Sorry if I rambled and hijacked. [/quote]

Should we rename this the "we HATE Bear forum"?
Bear, at least, has the brains to pack along a ferro rod, water bottle and something to boil water in.

Frankly, the only good think that I can see coming out of Man, Woman, Wild is the rather small possibility that people suddenly wake up to just how stupid it is to not carry a lighter, matches etc.

Seeing someone like Mykel not carrying something like a DOAN frankly disgusted me.

We probably should not rename ETS, but perhaps we could establish a sub-forum. I volunteer to be the moderator. Bear comes in for a lot of well deserved criticism because he sets such a dreadful example-performing appallingly stupid stunts that will get imitators killed. There is a total disconnect between good practice and what is depicted on most of these shows.

From what little I have seen, one of the objectives seems to be to display all the exotic and wierd ways there are to start a fire. After all, that is much more dramatic that simply saying -"Be sure you have three different means of ignition and some tinder."

Which is fair comment as far as it goes. However it has to be noted that to date, so far as I am aware, no-one has died from imitating Bear. Also fair warning is given at the begining of the program. And I for one have no issues with some idiot getting Darwined.
Now if I was to pick out some one to take serious issue with, it would be a certain gentleman who wanders off alone into the Wild Blue Yonder with one match, a SAK and 70kg of camera gear.

There were a couple of fatalities at Zion National Park about a year ago that are uncomfortably close. The two had assembled a makeshift raft and were attempting to pilot it down a stream in the park which was running at flood stage. They died. Their only equipment was allegedly a video camera. They were planning to submit their video to some some sort of contest conducted by BG.

I just think it is inexcusable to portray really stupid stunts on commercial TV simply for the sake of ratings. I have spent enough time talking to audiences and trying to get across the basics to be annoyed.

On second thought, I probably shouldn't be a moderator. I would not be moderate enough.

Now you've got me curious- what issue do you have with Les? He strikes me as one of the few sane, sensible and skilled TV survival presenters out there.

I heard a radio interview with Les yesterday and, when asked what he'd take in real life, he pretty much said everything he doesn't on the show. His top four don't leave home without items were water, fire, shelter and signalling.

It's a good point about Bear always taking water, fire and a knife. There is a definite upside to his shows, and valuable education to be had. Like anything, I prefer not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and take the self-imposed adreniline stuff for what it is - entertainment value.

You are a fairly sophisticated viewer, and can recognize the inanity is his stunts. How many young kids can tell the difference, or people with insignificant outdoors experience? I haven't watched that many of his shows, but what I have seen absolutely disgusts me. Every one I saw featured an absolutely insane or improbable or unnecessary stunt. He is an irresponsible buffoon.

A contrast was a show on PBS a few years ago hosted by John Veahman (sp?), editor of Backpacker magazine. It was low key, very informative, and accurate. It typically featured a subject matter expert in whatever activity was highlighted. I guess it just wasn't jazzy enough.

Realistically, I think most are able to tell that what Bear does requires both specific skills and a special kind of crazy .

Outdoor skills and experience aren't needed to realize the risks involved in his adventures; just a modicum of common sense. For those incapable of this level of discernment, I don't blame the show; they're as likely to harm themselves trying to mimic "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" or "My Side of the Mountain" as they are "Man vs. Wild."

I'm not a hardcore fan, I've seen a few shows and while I've found them entertaining I tend to use them as an example of what not to do in a survival situation, but my opinion of him has really gone up since I read his book "Living Wild." Its a good book about fieldcraft and living outdoors that he wrote as the UK Chief Scout and dedicated to Scouts worldwide.

Because Bear gets slammed for his "irresponsible" stunts without fail. All the time, Every time. But Les does not. I'm not into hypocrisy. Intentional or otherwise.

"Irresponsible" is someone with a wife and children wandering off alone into the middle of nowhere for a week to make a film.

A very large part of me really hopes that he had much more kit with him, than he was admitting to.

Why not? The only thing that you have to be is clear on the difference between your own personal opinions/views on a given topic, and posts that breach Forum rules.

Also: BG's raft sank. DC & CL's rafts sank. If they are too dumb to take a hint - well, a grateful human race thanks you.

I once sat down and checked the backgrounds of about fifty or so of our recent SAR victims. The common denominator was inexperience, not necessarily low intelligence. i rather suspect that the IQs in that sample were fairly representative of the population as a whole; one of our fatalities was a PhD candidate who had just successfully concluded his oral exams that afternoon.

I myself was once inexperienced; as a matter of fact, I nearly died on my first significant hike into mountainous country. I consider myself reasonably intelligent, but I was certainly unaware of some very basic outdoor safety principles. Since then I have gone on to a long and happy time working and recreating in mountains, deserts, and oceans. Along the way I have been active in SAR and also in our efforts to reach out and give inexperienced people some understanding of the hazards that exist out there.

Now BG and his ilk are certainly experienced and know their stuff; an earlier poster mentioned his outdoor manual. I agree with him that the book is utterly unlike his shows. It contains good basic stuff. So why do these guys demonstrate zany antics that are likely to get you killed? The dirty little secret is that real survival tactics can be rather boring. It is much more dramatic to jump forty feet down a waterfall into unknown waters than backtrack and find a route that will allow you to walk down. You need to jazz up the action to get good ratings and if it means demonstrating unsafe antics, well that's life. To me, there is something immoral about that approach. But we live in a capitalist society and they are making money, so everything is just fine.

Bottom line. Good intelligent people get into trouble frequently because they just haven't been informed about basic principles. Those who have this knowledge really ought to be getting the word out rather than demonstrating and promoting unsafe practices. Enough already. End of rant.

It's a big country here.... maybe they just haven't found the bodies yet.

Sue

I just watched a movie called "The Happening", and it was interesting, showed how a need for quick mobilization would be easier with a little preplanning and prep. I didnt mind the general premis of the plants causing and issue, but it was good to put yourself in someone;s shoes who needed to mobilize quickly. Not highly rated but I thought it was fine.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0949731/

Ironwood