Just finished watching The Grey with Liam Neeson. It kept me engaged the whole time but it always makes me cringe when in group survival mode like that, one or two bad apples seems to significantly decrease the chances of survival for the whole group.

I know this is armchair quarterbacking, but here's what I would have possibly done:

- I know an airplane crash is an event that would shake anybody up so regaining composure is a top priority in the minutes and hours following the crash

- Just like in an airplane when you make sure your O2 mask is on, to help the next person with there's is the idea. You can't help anybody when your dead yourself. So, after composure/quick assessment is good, help others.

- Have a conference/pow wow with the survivors. If your group feels the need to have a "leader", thats great but I think the last thing anybody wants to do is add contention to an already grievous situation. This pow wow would just be to do a communal assessment, identify strengths and weaknesses, form and agree on plans, and just bring about some order to the chaos.

- If the plan is to stay put, fortify your location (not just against wolves but the weather more importantly). If the plan is to move, leave behind indicators and markers that there were survivors and the direction of travel respectfully.

- Scavenge everything, including the cockpit which probably has maps.

- Figuring out where you are (situational awareness) is a top priority. If you don't know that, then you don't know where your going. "Downstream" and "North" aren't really that useful.

A parting note. I think survival in a group with cohesion greatly increases ones chances of survival however if I ever thought that I would be better off on my own, see ya later.

It's fiction, right? Drama, not a training film, right? I don't think Hollywood movies make very good guides for behavior. One exception - I was about fifteen when I saw Gene Kelly in "An American in Paris" - now that was a training film...

It is fiction, and definitely not a survival guide. Survival-esque movies like this one are sometimes like my gold pan. Every now and then, there might be some nuggets among the chaff.

I would hopefully make for a boring movie. After surviving that crash, I'd turn on my SPOT2 and see wait around for a bit.

I really loved the movie (big Neeson fan) but I was annoyed by the way the wolves were portrayed. Honestly I wish they'd have made it a werewolf movie since that's basically how the animals were portrayed. It's shameful even in a popcorn flick like this that in this day and age we'd have such a blatantly ridiculous depiction of wolves.

Still, fun flick if you can get past the absurdity of it. Great double twist ending, too.

It was worth watching for a movie

It is productions like this that lead to the popular misconception that wild animals of various sorts are a significant threat in the outdoors.

It was 2 hours of my life I want back. Horrible movie on so many levels. Poor acting, bad special effects, sheer idiotic moves on everyone's part ....

Wife made me watch Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close last night. It was worse - at least I finished the Grey.

Talking about bad,Frozen has to be one of the worst movies Ive ever seen.

I liked this movie.. not for anything really related to survival however other than that kinda cool Breitling 'SOS' watch "No MAS" pilfered and thought was going to save them.

I felt the movie was more about Faith (and how its tested), determination, and dealing with the loss of a significant other.

I didn't like how the wolves were portrayed at all.. I have a very hard time believing they would be that agressive... but I'm an urban guy. I don't get off the beaten path much.

If you actually make it through all the credits, there's a final scene that help complete the ending btw... well, a little anyway.

I haven't watched either of the movies mentioned. When I watch Anything on a screen or TV, I put what I saw out of mind once the show's over. I don't trust Hollywood to get anything right anymore.

The movie was actually about old guys being the leading men, as hollywood adapts to the aging of the baby boom and strives to attract geezers and geezerettes to the cinema by featuring geezers as heroes. No more "grumpy old men", now the septuagenarian saves the day in expendables, and, somewhat creepier, gets the girl.

I thought it was OK.

Concur about the accuracy regarding how the wolves were portrayed. Seemed a bit over the top.

Big improvement for Liam after seeing him in Clash of the Titans; now that was terrible.

Blake
www.outdoorquest.blogspot.com

I didn't like the movie but it made me think .

One guy started to take stuff from the dead ( a watch if I recall) while someone asked others to collect their wallets to deliver to their families.

This got me thinking about a similar scenario where survivors may ( or may not ) invade the dead for items that may help their survival. Say a Bic lighter or anything like that. Even their boots, coats or hats. Would you do it ?

In one scene , Liam Neeson forcibly stops a guy from looting a dead person, and later the dead person was eaten by the wolves. ( all items on him are gone) It makes you wonder if it was better in anyway to let the guy take what he wanted and maybe it proves useful later.

Wolves! You would be lucky to see a glimpse of one 1/2 a mile away in reality. No the real threat lies else where!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdiXSsFp29s

Yes, I vote for robbing the dead. However, There is no sense in taking wedding bands or keepsakes that have no survival or rescue value. Watches and wallets...maybe. Watches can provide time of day even a compass if it has a face. Wallets maybe to account later for those who died. Robbing for monetary gain is out of the question for me and if any did so in my survival party, I'd voice my disdain. Of course things like pocket knives and lighters.

I suspect that most of us, in an actual situation, would do whatever is necessary to survive. I recall the true story of the plane crash survivors in the Andes (a soccer team??) that eventually resorted to cannibalism - never mind the niceties about rings, watches, and wallets. Something like cannibalism is horrifying to contemplate, but survival is all about doing what must be done....

Sitting in my arm chair, I think I would eat a wolf (or even a skunk) before even thinking of eating another human being. But you are right. It is easy to say this when you are fed and comfy. In BAD situations we don't know how ugly it can get.

Anyway, guys , another questions springs up from teh movie. What if you are trying to survive with a bunch pf guys and a girl springs out from nowhere and need to join your group. Same scenario as the movie ( you are walking a long distance - maybe 200 mile - to safety. Would you take her or leave her ?? Tough question for me, especially if she is young . Hard to leave her alone and harder to take her along

I haven't seen the movie, but regarding the scenario, the issue of a leader is an interesting one.

If say a pilot survived, or another member of the crew, I suspect they would automatically be deferred to as the leader, regardless of their suitability or ability.
So too any person onboard with a uniform (perhaps police or military) would be automatically deferred to as well.

Psychologically, by deferring to a default leader means not having to cope with or confront certain aspects of a very distressing situation.

Conversely, if there is no one in uniform, anyone who appears to be “in control” (by giving orders or directions) would probably become the leader automatically,
because people assume they know what they are doing, and it is easier to not have to think, but go along with what’s asked.

What are your thoughts ?

This is sheer speculation on my part, but I'll bet there is some scholarly literature and case studies on emerging leadership in emergency situations. I have never read up on any of this. Anyone have some references? I'll also bet that there are several factors involved....

If Liam Neeson survives he automatically becomes the leader!

it is my basic thought that there is initially two leaders and then eventually one. One, whole assumes at the beginning or immdediate given command b/c of age, rank, clothing, position. The other leader based on recognizable and usable experience. It is who the rest naturally drift too that the one leader emerges. Though as a group of individuals becomes a team, then you find the leader whomever that becomes initially leans on experience anyway.

Aussie, you make a good point. I think a person already in a "societal leadership role" would be deferred to. I personally think every one who has a "voice" would and maybe even should voice their ideas and thoughts. I would want that myself. Two brains or more are most of the time better than one. In the movie it was clear that Liam was the leader because of his prior position. But in real life, I would wonder what the real life situations and results have happened before.

A book comes to mind "Lord of the Flies" where a group of boys form factions and leaders. It's a very good book. This issue of leadership might even merit a seperate post/topic.