I don't watch much TV in general, as I believe most TV shows kill brain cells, and at my age I don't have that many left to spare.

I especially don't watch "Reality TV". I especially, especially don't watch "Survival" shows on Reality TV. And I especially, especially, especially don't watch survival shows on Reality TV that are set in Alaska.

See our own local and sometimes controversial Craig Medred's take on 'Ultimate Survival Alaska': Real, unreal entertainment. Be sure to read some of the comments at the bottom of the article.

with you on that one. I never watch them either.

I don't know which is worse, the lousy un-reality show or Medred's lousy writing.

It has been sad to watch the demise of the History Channel and Discovery. The used to have some decent shows,but are now mostly garbage.

I prefer Science Fiction and detest "reality" TV -- at least good SF has some thought behind it. SF is much more entertaining and if the characters do something that's totally unbelievable, well that goes with the genre.

I don't watch much TV either, but when I do, it's for escapism. So I have favored shows like ST:TOS, ST:TNG, Firefly, LOST (well, at least the first season), Jericho, and even the current Once Upon A Time. Nothing real or believable in these shows, just an escape from the day-to-day routine. Even Gilligan's Island qualified when I was a kid! The only "reality show" that I've watched is The Amazing Race. Not so much for it's content (which is actually pretty bad), but for the filming in different locations - I can pick out and dream about places I might want to visit some day from their photography. I do like Dual Survival though. I like to see how they think through and solve puzzles. Even if it's an artificial puzzle or a stupid one. Sometimes their solution provides me with insight I didn't have before, and other times it provides me a platform to say "I wouldn't have done it that way". Either outcome can be a learning/reinforcement experience.

I gave up on survivor. I watched the first episode last season and Ruperts insane ramblings were too much. I found the whole premise ridiculous. If it's survivor let them survive, don't feed them and send them for massages and helicopter rides.Just MHO

The problem is that people watching this "survival"garbage will think this is actually the way to do things. Whether intended as education or entertainment, "education" (or misinformation) occurs.

I think it is a natural trend in entertainment, to pander to the lowest common denominator. It takes effort to fight it. I also rarely watch TV.

'Survivorman' seemed realistic to me. I like the fact he doesn't even usually carry a knife and uses his multi tool. One in the eye for those who think 99% of gear selection is the knife(just look at how many posts a question on knives gets here).
And he always has some form of fire starter with him. Starting one with just natural items seems very difficult in reality.
It's sobering that in all the ones I've seen it's not as easy as some make it sound. The liferaft kit was faulty in one. In another he set fire to his shelter and in all of them except the South Pacific ones, he was in fact slowly dying. And that's after having special training for each scenario.

But I'm no expert; and might be being fooled. What do people think of 'Survivorman'?

qjs

IMO, it is the one to watch. Les often goes days with little or no food, He admits he is suffering, and works through it.

Absolutely. And that could lead to deaths in the field from people not intelligent enough to go prepared, but think a machete and a "flint" (magnesium bar) are all they need to make it out there. Remember the hollow handle survival knife craze after RAMBO? Guy's with a five dollar survival knife with a bottle opener in blade thought they could brave the wilds and come home in better condition than when they went into the woods.

it's TV and it's entertainment.

no surprise there

Survivorman is exceptionally good, even more so when you realize true 'survival' would be rather boring TV.

I don't like any of those guys to be honest. I'd rather see them suffer in their stupidity and smile with triumph when they succeed than listen to them whine and make alliances. JMHO

Les is unlike any other entertainer in the gendre. His information is far more practical. His situations more realistic. His delivery is more down to earth and instructive. He is less pretentious. But he is still aloof.

One thing about Ultimate Survival; it does have some good scenery footage. Pretty much any/all Alaska reality tv shows are set up; none of it shows things as they really are. But if you look past the production, you do get a glimpse of part of what makes Alaska a great place to be.

Real survival would be pretty boring, and not at all entertaining. Like most of the mundane aspects of our lives, it can only be intriguing with some embellishment.

I am still waiting for a subarctic episode of that naked couples survival show.

> I am still waiting for a subarctic episode of that naked couples survival show.


I liked the comment in one survival book:

'experts stress how attitude, not equipment is the most important thing, but it only gets you so far. If you are reading this naked on an artic ice flow; you aren't going to make it to the end of the page.'
qjs

One thing I have noticed about USA made documentarys that I dont´t like. They often show he same scene over and over, sometimes 3-4 times. Especially if it´s a dramatized historical documentary.

Never seen that on let´s say a BBC documentary.

That's hilarious Joey.

Personally I think its 50% Entertainment, 45% Farce, and 5% Real Survival Skills

I wrote an Article on My Thoughts on the Subject in 2012 which may still be of some interest Survival TV vs Reality.

Fortunately I have Peasant-Vision, not Cable so I rarely watch TV and almost never any survival TV. Most times I catch one at a hotel I laugh, then cry, then simply turn it off.

And I certainly don't read posts about not watching.

;-)

-john

These shows do have a certain utility to them. In the sense of teaching anyone with two brain cells to rub together that you:

1) Never go into a situation with someone who's ego is bigger than Mount Everest.
2) Always carry the five "c" and [i][RATIONS/i

I don't watch these shows at all. I don't find their techniques really helpful.

Blake

www.outdoorquest.blogspot.com

I dunno. Being able to give yourself a birdwater enema might come in handy, someday.

I see some value in these programs for the thinking man. Sort of an osmotic trial and error effect. If you have some modicum of intellect but lack experience, you can pick up technique even from miserable failure. Watching all these fails on primitive fire making gives one the motivation to figure out how to do it right.

Since they set up these situations, you have a chance to recognize and avoid some stupid decisions. Granted, some of these situations are truly moronic.

If nothing else, I can get a contemptuous chuckle out of these "scenarios".

I don't know - watching these guys have such trouble using primitive fire starting techniques has reinforced my determination to always carry a firesteel, matches, a BIC lighter, dry tinder, magnifying glass, misc flammable stuff (e.g. Neosporin ointment, ranger bands), candles, etc. so hopefully I don't have to rely on primitive firestarting techniques.

That reinforcement has got to be worth something...

Are we talking about people making fire using primitive tools or primitive people making fire with sophisticated tools such as stainless Tool Steel knifes etc...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th6EOlLK0DA

I'm always surprised by these 'vicarious thrill survival shows' how often the actor er I mean survival specialist will carry a heat treated Stainless Tool Steel knife, Goretex shell clothing and Ferrocerium rod, but will forget his map and compass, his lighter, his Titanium Pot, his ultra lightweight Gas Cartridge Stove and his Synthetic hollow fibre sleeping bag and Goretex Bivi etc. They also seem to jump into freezing rivers and water courses quite a lot for no apparent reasoning, but still be remarkably proficient at hunting wild game but throwing wooden sticks at them.

These entertainment shows also seem to continually send the message that the wilderness is not for the urban and city species know as Homo Urbanus, where Ursus americanus will surely dine on apon them like a KFC or McDs happy meal.



Vicious creatures such as shown above are far more deadly in North America than Ursus americanus and Ursus arctos combined.

A great example is one of the things I liked about Man, Woman Wild: Mike would say "just carry a lighter" quite often.

I'm going to break away from the group on this one, and vote in favour watching survival shows. If you're going to watch tv anyway, they're just as appealing, IMO, as any of the standard dramatic/reality/comedy shows, with the added benefit of encouraging real world thinking about (prepping for?) our favourite outdoor hobbies. They provide fantastic conversation starters with my ten year old.

Watching a tv show isn't as good as getting out there, hands on, real life experience. And nope, these shows aren't pure non-fiction. They don't show everything, fabricate situations, etc..., but they are just tv shows. They can be captivating and reinforce important lessons while they're giving us food for the imagination. But.... they are intended to be entertainment. We need to always keep that in mind no matter when we're watching, and think things through before we incorporate anything from tv shows into our real lives.

Which brings up a point I've had, and have heard others echo,: Why is it that no one on those shows never takes a course in survival? Or even go on a few overnighters to learn and hone their skills? I once saw Jeff Probst tell future "survivors" To by a ten dollar flint and practice ay home because a woman lost a million dollar prize because she couldn't start a fire with one and a huge pile of tinder.

I agree, I enjoy watching these types of shows as well. I find I do learn a bit too, both from the successes and failures that are shown. However, like anything, you have to do a little critical thinking and assess the ideas and skills presented and understand how they apply to your own skill set and the situations you are likely to face. Some shows are better than others, but I think there are always things to learn from (even the much maligned Bear Grylls who I've recently started watching and am genuinely enjoying).

Though I thoroughly dislike Bear, he does have a few good tricks. In get out alive he practicly spoon fed the contestants and tucked them in at night. I did like it when he everso gently scolded their stupidity. And not so gently when they swam to shore and left a man behind to drown and he went in to save the poor fellow. I'd watch a show that was filmed in the Southwestern desert during winter if the contestants were actually trained and experienced. I tellpeoplenot to use the magnesium bar like they do on Survivor where they hack and chip at the ferro, knocking chunks out instead of scraping it. I've only seen one person scape magnesium shavings from the block.

I quit Survivor years ago. I couldn't stand the premise and even worse the people that were on these shows. Evil manipulative people that I wouldn't bring my self down to even shaking hands with... The first couple of season were OK. I saw a few minutes of last night's episode, it didn't take long to turn that off.

I don't have much love for Survivor either. However, I enjoyed the more recent Get Out Alive hosted by Bear Grylls. The contestants got to do some really cool things and since no part of the outcome was decided by the contestants themselves, there really wasn't that negative social aspect of the game (alliances, voting, etc) that drags down most of these type of competition shows for me.