# Survivorman or Man V Wild?



## Cygnus421 (Aug 17, 2007)

These two shows both seem to be rip-offs of each other... which one do you think it better?


----------



## koutoni (Aug 17, 2007)

[size=medium][align=center]Man V Wild.

Bear's easier on the eyes.  what can i say? :3[/align][/size]


----------



## themocaw (Aug 18, 2007)

They're honestly both kinda silly.  Les Stroud spends way too much time worrying about the environment and not enough teaching people how to actually live, and Bear Grylls is. . . nuts.  Still fun to watch.


----------



## Cygnus421 (Aug 19, 2007)

i'd rather listen to a canadian accent than a british accent any day...

sorry, just being honest...

---

Not to mention the fact that Man V Wild seems to be staged a lot of the time...  Survivorman gets away with just himself despite his heavy-ass camera equipment... i learn more interesting things from him too.


----------



## brokenfox (Aug 19, 2007)

Survivor Man FTW!


----------



## FuzzyPinkRaptor (Aug 19, 2007)

Man Vs. Wild.

He's like a nutcase. I think Bear could beat up Chuck Norris.
That other guy is like "Enviroment.." XD


----------



## Cygnus421 (Aug 19, 2007)

i dont know, survivorman seems to know a lot more


----------



## darkcobalt86 (Aug 20, 2007)

Man VS Wild cause he teaches stuff and he has a kickass british accent. He's like James Bond of the wilderness X3


----------



## themocaw (Aug 20, 2007)

Cygnus421 said:
			
		

> i dont know, survivorman seems to know a lot more



That's actually my problem with him: For example, he did things like eat mushrooms and drink water without boiling it, which, although he might have an indication that it's safe, is never a good idea for anyone to do in the wild unless they absolutely know what they're doing.  Secondly, he spends a lot of time agonizing over not harming the wilderness and not killing wild animals, when in reality, someone trapped in the situations he pretends to be simulating would need to be much more heartless if they want to live.  Finally, there's his preferred method of starting a fire, which is the bow-drill method: this works quite well if you know how to use it, but an amateur would not want to rely on that method.  Bear Grylls, with his advice to always carry a source of fire (in his case, a magnesium firestarter bar) when you go out into the wilderness (just in case), is a bit more helpful, even if his show is clearly much more staged: for example, whenever he sees a river, you know he'll build a raft, and when he gets on a raft, you know he'll encounter rapids, and when he does, you know he'll fall off the raft, usually where the camera crew has a good shot of him doing so.


----------



## Aden (Aug 20, 2007)

There were a few recent articles about Bear not actually doing what he said he did in the show - like staying in hotels overnight and such. Plus, Bear has a camera crew all the time.

Now Les Stroud is a badass. Sets up all the cameras himself - so when you see him walking away from the camera on the TV, that means he had to set up the camera, walk away from it, walk back to it, collect it and walk back the same way again. Plus he more than likely goes out into the wild with absolutely nothing on him.

I have to give credit to Gryllis, though - he does all kinds of things that make me a bit squeamish. All in all, though, I'd rather Survivorman.


----------



## Dickie (Aug 20, 2007)

Well, considering Les first showed up on the Science channel back in 2004, Bear's the one that's ripping off. 

And yeah, while Les does have a "safety" crew a few hours from him, that's still a hell of a lot further than a camera crew and spending nights in hotels.

Les is presenting his show as stuff to only do if it's truly life or death. While not as action-oriented as Bear's show, the information given is terribly useful. Bear doesn't seem near as serious, in my opinion.


----------



## leonmorado (Aug 21, 2007)




----------



## Fenrus (Aug 21, 2007)

Definitely gotta go with Survivorman.  Les just takes his job so much more seriously.  I mean, come on... he's by himself, he carries his cameras everywhere he goes (that equipment weighs a TON!), and even though he is obsessed with the environment, he kinda has to be.

Man v. Wild, on the other hand, well... it just doesn't seem as real to me and even though it might be more informative at times, isn't nearly as entertaining!

Plus, Les is just a badass for taking all that stuff head on.


----------



## themocaw (Aug 21, 2007)

The thing is, both hosts do some incredibly dumb things that even I, a survival n00b wouldn't do.  One example that comes to mind is Les Strouddiving into a pond for water lily roots because he heard they could be edible: fine, that's one thing, and although he risked hypothermia to do it, that could have been worth the payoff if his hunch was right.  Then, after he started cooking them and tried them, he found they were extremely bitter.  Right then, I started going, "Oh crap, don't eat that stuff, man," because even a n00b like me knows that if a wild plant tastes bitter, it's probably not edible.  Sure enough, he got sick and wound up throwing up.

And don't even get me started on Bear Grylls and rafts.  He shouldn't even bother building them, since he'll always fall off them at a cinematically appropriate spot.

My other problem is that they don't emphasize the most important part of survival: being prepared in the first place.  At least a token nod to, "Now if you're going into the desert/jungle/mountains, you really should carry this this and this and this, just in case something happens.  You could use this like this to do this for you. . . but what if you don't have that on you, or it gets lost or broken?  (throws survival gear away over his shoulder).  Well, then, let me show you how to do it the hard way."

As it is, both shows are just entertainment (and they are that, very entertaining), but if I want to learn wilderness survival, I'd rather join the Boy Scouts or the military.


----------



## Madame (Aug 22, 2007)

I prefer Man vs. Wild simply because I like British accents, but information-wise, I'd probably go for Survivorman as it's more pertinent to say...a plane passenger who crashes in the jungle and doesn't have cool things like flint, but does have seemingly useless things about that he can put to use.


----------



## Cygnus421 (Aug 24, 2007)

Aden said:
			
		

> There were a few recent articles about Bear not actually doing what he said he did in the show - like staying in hotels overnight and such. Plus, Bear has a camera crew all the time.
> 
> Now Les Stroud is a badass. Sets up all the cameras himself - so when you see him walking away from the camera on the TV, that means he had to set up the camera, walk away from it, walk back to it, collect it and walk back the same way again. Plus he more than likely goes out into the wild with absolutely nothing on him.
> 
> I have to give credit to Gryllis, though - he does all kinds of things that make me a bit squeamish. All in all, though, I'd rather Survivorman.



My sediments exactly....



			
				leonmorado said:
			
		

>



That is some funny shit!
Wallpaper'd!



			
				themocaw said:
			
		

> The thing is, both hosts do some incredibly dumb things that even I, a survival n00b wouldn't do.  One example that comes to mind is Les Strouddiving into a pond for water lily roots because he heard they could be edible: ....
> 
> 
> ...I'd rather join the Boy Scouts or the military.



I saw that episode, and yeah, you do have a good point.  I doubt that he really had to go into that pond and risk killing himself just so he could get a lilly root that wound up tasting like ass anyway.  But i like people who are that fucking crazy.

As for boy scouts, boy scouts kicked my ass.  I really dont remember anything about it, exept that the boy scout manual didnt contain anything about quicksand... dont ask me why i remember this.


----------



## Gol22 (Aug 24, 2007)

leonmorado said:
			
		

>



Man Vs. Wild is #1  forget Suriviorman...c'mon! That dude is just like Man Vs. Wild!


----------

