SubJeff on 6/5/2014 at 07:51
This is a new show on Channel four ((
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-island-with-bear-grylls?post_id=741087109_10152370267262110)).
13 men from different backgrounds plonked on an island with nothing but a few tools, some starter water, a days survival training and some cameras (3 of them have been trained to use the cameras). It's like Survivor but For Real.
I really like this kind of thing and I found it both fun and frustrating to watch. In the first episode we were shown their struggle to get fresh water because they couldn't start a fire to boil the stagnant water they'd found. Twitter was pretty amusing with one fool asking "why are they saying they've nothing to drink? the ocean is right there". I don't know if that was a joke. I doubt it was.
Which is kind of the point of this show - its about testing modern men's survival skills. And as such has provoked some sexism controversy nonsense (natch). People are asking "why are there no women?" and to that I say "maybe next season?". I think it legit to just have all men because despite what these precious over-equality nutjobs think gender roles do still exist and rightly so. (I sometimes think these people won't be happy until the human race is a homogenous hermaphroditic race all the same colour but whatever goddamn weight you please).
Anyway - I think I'd have coped a lot better than this lot, mainly because they just didn't think about what they were doing. Only one team was trying to light the fire they needed to boil the stagnant water they'd found and it took them 12 hours! Half the guys were sleeping during this. No one was looking for food. No one was surveying the island. They just sort of potted about and moaned, and talked about their piss being like Guinness.
The thing is; I think that these guys fared worse than Americans would have, in general. I hope some our American cousins get to see this show and comment on it because I think this type of failure to cope with nature and different circumstances is pretty British. It's something I've noticed over the years with my friends, Brits I've met abroad and British people on TV - some kind of weird squeamishness about lack of creature comforts and an inability to cope with difference. When I was in Taiwan, many years ago, the Brits I knew there found the whole thing far more alien (the food, the weather, the nature, the people) than the Americans and Canadians I met there. I ended up befriending and hanging out with Canadians far more than the Brits because of this. Some of the Americans were cool but some of them were really obnoxious. The Canadians were all, without exception, cool. The North Americans, on the whole, were more willing to travel to the mountains, the jungles, to see interesting sights, to learn the language and to try different food. I say "on the whole" but the difference between them and the Brits it was really, really obvious and I was the only Brit who consistently hung out with the NAs because of it. "Let's go try this smelly tofu then" Brits (apart from me) "Nah, we fancy MacDonalds today", NAs "Yeah sure, cause, err, we suggested it". And the only threat of violence? A drunk Scotsman unhappy about some football comment I made.
So you'll say I'm making some generalisation and all countries have people who are less likely to cope with/try new things. The thing is though; these were all people who had decided to move to Taiwan for 6 months/a year/more. It's not like they weren't adventurous! But even in this self-selected subgroup I found the Brits to be much, much more narrow-minded and prone to culture shock. I've seen it in Africa too (where I lived for 10+years). The Portuguese, Dutch, French, German, Philippino, Israeli, American and Australians always seemed to settle in quick (I consider the Saffers and Zimbabweans to be essentially native for this purpose). The Brits not so much. And what is it about Brits that attracts mozzies? It was hilarious - just arrived from the UK? Get ready for a mosquito bite blitz. It's like the mozzies smell fresh meat.
Back to what I was saying - I'm probably being naive (and I've no idea how they selected the contestants; if I'd known it was coming up I'd have definitely gone for it) but I reckon Americans (and just about anyone else!) would cope better than this lot. Which doesn't mean I won't enjoy watching this - I will, and I'm interested to see how they evolve over the 4 weeks.
We left it on day 2. They'd only just got fresh water and no one has eaten since they arrived.
Muzman on 6/5/2014 at 13:26
The problem is the actually adventurous Brits are somewhere in the Northern Territory as we speak and could not be cast in the show (they were also women as often as not).
Sounds like it suffers from the general disease of the modern English 'reality' series. Got to pack everyone in a house, or select people likely to clash, or do something to provoke some caged rat response somewhere. Even when its some good natured social experiment.
Ah well. It would be interesting to see Grylls do some actual surviving instead of his usual thing of doing weird stunts in front of a camera crew.
As ever, (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorman) Survivorman is still the king.
PigLick on 6/5/2014 at 13:48
Survivorman needs to be an actual superhero, right now.
"So whats your super power then?"
"I just survive, baby"
TURNS INTO GIANT CROCODILE MAN AND FLIES INTO THE SUN
SubJeff on 6/5/2014 at 14:34
Grylls isn't actually in this show apart from as a presenter. He dropped them off but the rest of his screen time was talking to the camera saying things like "If they don't find water soon, they're done for."
I've never seen Survivorman but if the wiki entry is anything to go by then this show is even more hardcore than that. These guys don't have a support crew anywhere near, as far as I can tell, and they really are on their own. And it's for 4 weeks. I'm sure they've an emergency phone or something, and the environment isn't especially horrible (it's not cold or wet or a desert), but if they're letting them get dehydrated enough that their urine is like Guinness I'd say that's pretty legit. Of course these guys will have had a full medical workup before the show.
I doubt that really adventurous people would have been allowed to go; I can't imagine them including any ex-forces people on as it'd be no fun. I probably would have been excluded on account of my outdoor experience actually but I'd have love to have given it a try.
Chimpy Chompy on 6/5/2014 at 14:53
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Which is kind of the point of this show - its about testing modern men's survival skills. And as such has provoked some sexism controversy nonsense (natch). People are asking "why are there no women?" and to that I say "maybe next season?". I think it legit to just have all men because despite what these precious over-equality nutjobs think gender roles do still exist and rightly so. (I sometimes think these people won't be happy until the human race is a homogenous hermaphroditic race all the same colour but whatever goddamn weight you please).
In everyday life, survival skills aren't relevant to most of us, man or woman. In the rare sort of situation these days where we might find ourselves stuck in a forest without supplies, why is a woman's ability to build fires and find food any less important than a man's?
PigLick on 6/5/2014 at 14:56
Subj is revealing himself to be quite the conservative, I am rather shocked actually.
SubJeff on 6/5/2014 at 16:05
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
In everyday life, survival skills aren't relevant to most of us, man or woman. In the rare sort of situation these days where we might find ourselves stuck in a forest without supplies, why is a woman's ability to build fires and find food any less important than a man's?
It isn't less important, its just different. Why do we have men and women's olympic sports? Is the women's 100m time less important than the mens?
If I were stranded on a desert island with my gf you can bet I'd be the one hunting and building, because I'm bigger and stronger. I have a gender role. Survival skills aren't relevant to most of us, no. Unless you're in an emergency. Being able to cope when things go wrong, like fires, floods, getting stuck in the wilderness on holiday, etc, is something we are becoming less and less able to do. The show is just looking at men's abilities and so what? In your house who did the laundry? You mum I bet. And who got up to investigate the noise of a potential break in in the night? You dad I bet.
I'm not conservative, I'm very liberal. I think men and women should be equal in everything except where they are different. That doesn't mean unequal, it just means I know how to change a flat tyre and I'll do it if need be, and my gf can stand around and watch and keep me company whilst I do it. If that makes me a bad person somehow then I don't want to be good.
I just think the whole PC thing really has gone a bit mad. Anytime there is something which is male only there is some fuss. Yet you don't hear any women complaining about the "women get in free" policies at nightclubs or the Sheilas Wheels only doing car insurance for women (and cheaper). It wasn't women that brought that down, was it?
Chimpy Chompy on 6/5/2014 at 16:37
Political correctness has gone maaaad and laundry is womens' work.
on a scale of 1 to 10 how much am I going to regret engaging with this further?
SubJeff on 6/5/2014 at 17:11
Depends on whether you actually want to discuss it or just want to score points.
I do the laundry about 10% of the time. But I cook probably 80% of the time. I carry heavy stuff, all of it. Am I a sexist? Won't someone tell me and put me out of my misery?
Phatose on 6/5/2014 at 17:25
If you're a sexist it's not because you don't do the laundry in your household.
If you're a sexist, you're a sexist because you believe that relationship is able to be generalized to all gender relations, and not just how things work in your life.