Ron Hood was a consultant on this. While he was not pleased with how the show was edited -- he is a survivalist, not an entertainer -- he said the bear did come into the camp and our host was running for a very good reason -- his life was in danger.

-- Craig

Hi Craig,

Where did you see that? I'd be curious to know what parts he wasn't happy with and why. There was so much wrong that I'm surprised he would still want his name attached to the project. Some of the advice was pretty terrible, and that's just with my limited understanding... I'm no DR, but I can tell bulls**t when I see it.

One other thing, I like the Survivorman show as well as many of the others here, but I think the Ultimate Survivor and Survivorman both suffer from the whole deadline thing. More often, I'd like to see them hunker down for that set time period and not attempt to leave every week. The 5 day time limit on Ultimate Survivor seemed rather aritrary, but it certainly set the stage for foolhardy adventure. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I think Les could do more (no pun intended) with showing how he gets water, insulates himself, etc. Actually showing techniques instead of glossing over all of that. I've seen enough moving through the jungle or dragging a pouch on ice montages for a while...

Here's the page:
http://survival.com/IVB/index.php?showtopic=7337

You need to be a member, I think. This is what Ron Hood said:

***

I'm not certain how much of the show I can cover but I can clear up a couple of things.

There were supposed to be 3 people involved.

Bear in the field was 70% of the show

Ron in the comm shack was 25%

A "specialist" in this case white water rescue was 5% of the show. We were to use a new specialist in each show.

As Bear did things or errored on them I would either talk with bear via radio comms or discuss proper techniques with the specialist. We also provided stories, stats and facts. During emergencies I would talk Bear through the problems. Bear was to have a personal Video transmitter he talked into and not a "Camera Crew". As I understood it the night running scenes were just to establish that he was leaving the area and were to have been Dark and not bright white. A few night scenes would have sufficed to get the material across.

In the fish scene Bear was to tear off the skin and then eat the meat. The skin was the "Dirty" part but the chance of catching Guardia from such a minimal exposure are low. They just showed the tearing and eating, not discarding the skin. As I remember I added a few words about the meat being clean.

He ran off because the bear actually came into camp and attacked his shelter. The shelter was all but destroyed and after the bear left he took off. The bear paw in the mud was to have been closer to the beginning of the show to help establish the presence of a threat (the bear). I and the specialist offered useful stats on bear attacks and proper response to the situations. That was all left out.

He entered the water partly because the threat from the bear was eminent and he wanted to break the scent trail some. Then he got caught up in the rapids and couldn't get out thus the need for "Self Rescue" techniques that never showed up. It was not meant to be a travel method... it was an accident he had to survive. His later narration cancelled out the accident issue. The specialist discussed water hypothermia specifically and I discussed it in a general way. I prompted him via radio to do some exercises to warm up his muscles and then get busy making shelter. When we filmed the fire bed scene I advised them to let him leave the fire going as well as heat the ground but they wanted to be done with it because it was late and raining at the time.

The crew shot a lot of extra footage so it was available if needed. It looks like they used a lot of the throw away scenes.

Altogether we spent three days on the rapids. It was one of the most tiring and challenging times and Bear took it all with a smile. He was cold and hypothermic half the time. I tried to shelter him from the production crews exuberance to torture him "Ey Mate... he' SAS he can take anything" I argued with them several times and got him covered. My objections to the water scenes were many and varied but in the interest of drama... they insisted on it.

In the rappel scene there was supposed to only be a short descent on paracord. Instead they wanted a cliff. I had to rig a real rappel which is why you see him in a body rap (Dorfensitz) and then hanging by a harness in the long shots. I would never recommend anyone use body rap with paracord unless they wanted to die. Nor would I recommend using the cord in anything but a true emergency and then only for a short descent of less than 20 feet. Rapping with paracord is done with a toggle.

I hope that helps.

Ron

*****

Wow. Just goes to show that "Hollywood" and producers just don't get it. They made it into something that was supposed to be exciting instead of a learning experience. Bad, bad television. I'm glad Ron Hood cleared the air a bit. I'm sure he's less than happy with the results - I know I was and from the sound of it, everyone else on here.

I know that they have to differentiate their product from the competition, but why make it so blatantly against "survival" and how to survive. Some of it was useful if you were forced into those situations - I'll give them that. But if you took out all the bogus drama it still could have been both informative and exciting.

*sigh* Maybe I should take a camera in the woods.... <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for posting that Craig... much appreciated.

Thanks for passing along the info.

It does go to show you what happens when decisions are made based on a grab for ratings and what can happen to a show in post because of it.

"Just goes to show that "Hollywood" and producers just don't get it."

When have they ever??? Think back on all the TV stuff and movies you've seen where they've had the characters doing the dumbest things imaginable.

Uh, well.... I should probably admit that I'm no longer allowed to watch those things in human company, due to my comments on the idiocies... String of comments, actually. Plus vulgar opinons. <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Fortunately, the dog doesn't care.

When I drove limo in Las Vegas, I had a guy on board once who was an insurance investigator. He said that people who want to burn down their own properties often hire teenagers to do them. He said he's always suspected that they do this because they know kids are usually raised on TV, and think that they can do things like douse the inside of a building with gasoline (easiest, cheapest to obtain without questions) and then stand inside and ignite a match or road flare, and the fire will just run around like it does on TV, when the reality is that the place simply explodes. This way, they rarely have to worry about the kid talking about the deal, because he's a badly incinerated body.

Sue

TV is a ratings game. It is also one of age group. If the producers/advertisers want the 18 to 49 group, but snag the 50+ group, but earn great ratings, they will still pull the plug.

-- Craig

Remember that "exciting" has a much better chance of snagging viewers and ratings than a "learning experience" does. And TV is all about the ratings and the age groupings. That's it. Learning doesn't enter into it at all.

-- Craig

I have not seen that program.
According to all the negative reactions, it was quite bad !
But Ron's explanations throw another light (?) on the subject, isn't it ?? I mean it seems the intend of that program was quite different from the released video.

Don't hasten to throw the stone ... not before knowing at who (or is it "onto" or "to" ..?? help needed with that sentence... <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />) ...
As Jeff Cooper says in his fourth rule : "be sure of your target" ! <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

It's not that it was "bad". It was certainly entertaining and I watched the whole thing. It was just that I did a lot of eye rolling. Had they explained things more, cut it differently... perhaps it would have been better technically. It's just that they went for the "I can't believe I survived" drama factor without much thought as to how safe any of those stunts were. Any person in a real survival situation without any training could very well kill themselves following some of the advice given.

After reading more commentary on this show, I tend to believe that most folks here would probably still watch this simply because we are sick and can't get enough (just like gear, knives, guns, or pictures of other people's gear). <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Perhaps we are being too harsh. I'm fairly sure the principal and advisors had the best of intentions. As Les Stroud pointed out in a recent thread, their ability to make those intentions reality were stymied. I'd give the show another chance, but if it's much the same, I can watch a lot of fabricated drama elsewhere.