it would be criminal to put 13 unprepared men onto an island with just a camera for a month and leave them to it and the programme isn't just about the physical survival side its about group dynamics etc etc .I am more than happy to go with it rather than watch people starve and dehydrate .
So why pretend that it is about 'survival' and not just another version of Big Brother.
They could easily have a safety factor with some experts keeping an eye on things but ready to step in if needed or identified as observers / instructors on camera.
Most similar series might have a camera with the participants but also regular visits from a proper camera team.
"We had to ensure the island’s only water supply, an existing muddy pool, would last through filming in the dry season and that there was enough native animals and native vegetation that could sustain the men for 28 days – as long as they had the ingenuity to find it, catch it and kill it.
'This is made clear in the voiceover of the programmes."
A non-story from the Daily Fail.
It's always amusing when people on here attempt to run down the Daily Mail yet obviously read it all the time.
I didn't know that four of them had either worked with Bear Grylls before or had some kind of experience working on this type of stuff.
That was news to me, so for me the story was worthwhile. I was informed of something which I wasn't aware of before.
As I watched the programme and saw the guy attempt to restrain the crocodile, I thought 'good for him' 'how brave'.
But now the context has changed because I now discover that Rupert was one of those four who have had experience of this kind of thing before.
The show was kind of misleading when it introduced the group as a group of 'ordinary men' with four of them having experience of using a camera to film. Which kind of leads the viewer to think that they are just like the average man at home. But when you think about the term 'ordinary men', who isn't an 'ordinary' man unless he's got three heads or something? It's a bit of a catch-all term which means anyone really, including experts in jungle survival. It's not exactly lying, but it's a very clever means of presenting something in such a way that it camouflages the truth quite elegantly.
Other very diplomatic PR language was stating that the show has only ensured that there are food sources on the island and adequate means of obtaining water.
'Has ensured' also sounds like a catch-all term. Could mean anything from finding out that there are animals on the island to setting up a hot-dog van.
The one thing which I'm more concerned about now than I was before is the issue of the crocodile. Now I'm wondering if it really was placed in that exact location to be killed as a staged killing. Or even if it was just released onto the island to be killed at all. Now that I would have real issues with. Because some things are more important than my own entertainment.
I have to consider how likely it would be that the men on the island would be put at real risk of crocodiles wandering around too.
Some say that they have to set it up or otherwise it wouldn't make good TV as the men would start to starve and have to come home.
But surely that completely misses the point. As the show purports to be an experiment in seeing if a group of modern men could survive on an island.
If they do, then they do, if they don't then they don't. That's just the way it is. It's tne nature of what an experiment is.
If its a setup then you may as well be watching Coronation Street as it would be a drama which had a predetermined outcome where the experiment was a resounding success.
It's either real as presented, or it isn't.
If a TV show set itself up taking a group of 'ordinary men' putting them into a gladiatorial arena with weapons, lions, and the whole shebang, to see what happens, you can't say that it's got to be setup and fixed or it wouldn't make exciting television if it showed the reality of them all chickening out. The show would simply have to concede that it's actually a bad idea if they have to set it up to make it appear as if it's real, but present it to the viewers as if it was a real experiment to see how modern man would cope.
They aren't forced to make a programme like this. We don't have to have such a programme. It's not as if it's a programme that has to be made and we really need it, so they are literally forced to misrepresent what it actually is to the viewer.
Sometimes an idea for a TV programme may be misguided and you have to move on and think up another idea instead.
I think anyone with some common sense would watch this with a skeptical eye the more that is revealed about it. If any entertainment is had from this it would probably be due to it having more in common with TOWIE than it would be from having any merit as a genuine experiment in seeing how modern man would cope in a survival situation.
It's always amusing when people on here attempt to run down the Daily Mail yet obviously read it all the time.
Usually you get the standard 'it can't be true because it is in the Daily Mail' even though most other newspapers will have picked up a story and often it originates in a local one.
it would be criminal to put 13 unprepared men onto an island with just a camera for a month and leave them to it and the programme isn't just about the physical survival side its about group dynamics etc etc .I am more than happy to go with it rather than watch people starve and dehydrate .
Well if that's the case then perhaps what you're describing there is an unworkable format.
It's not the case that somebody comes up with an idea for a TV programme and it has to be made by any means necessary.
If you come up with an idea which is supposed to be an experiment to see what happens, and you come to realise that you can't make it unless you play a game of pretend in order to reach a predetermined conclusion, then maybe you should simply scrap the idea and come up with new ideas instead?
I watched about 10 mins of this tonight and had to switch over, they caught a small crocodile, tied it's jaws together & strapped it to a branch with all it's limbs tied behind its back so they could take it back to camp to decide who would kill it.
Please somebody tell me that crocodiles are really bendy and there would have been no suffering before the kill...
I watched about 10 mins of this tonight and had to switch over, they caught a small crocodile, tied it's jaws together & strapped it to a branch with all it's limbs tied behind its back so they could take it back to camp to decide who would kill it.
Please somebody tell me that crocodiles are really bendy and there would have been no suffering before the kill...
That's the part I didn't like, how the croc's limbs had been forced the wrong way. Maybe the men had been told in their training to carry it like that as it stops it trying to roll. Also, when the guys first spotted it, before they even attempted to catch it, it seemed to have blood on it's bottom jaw at the tip of it's mouth.
I think anyone with some common sense would watch this with a skeptical eye the more that is revealed about it. If any entertainment is had from this it would probably be due to it having more in common with TOWIE than it would be from having any merit as a genuine experiment in seeing how modern man would cope in a survival situation.
I think the solution to this sort of thing is he just needs to be up front about it all from the start. I'm sure most people would be fine with it. It's when the press "expose" it that it looks dodgy. But most of the time it's not important to the basic premise of the show.
That's the part I didn't like, how the croc's limbs had been forced the wrong way. Maybe the men had been told in their training to carry it like that as it stops it trying to roll. Also, when the guys first spotted it, before they even attempted to catch it, it seemed to have blood on it's bottom jaw at the tip of it's mouth.
I noticed this but strangely, unless my eyes deceived me, when they got back to camp the cayman was upside down so either they realised their mistake or somebody intervened.
I think the solution to this sort of thing is he just needs to be up front about it all from the start. I'm sure most people would be fine with it. It's when the press "expose" it that it looks dodgy. But most of the time it's not important to the basic premise of the show.
I agree. You'd think that Bear Grylls of all people would ensure that he was transparent about things this time given the furore before about him appearing to be deliberately deceptive in what that other programme was portraying.
If he was upfront about things I don't think it would have spoiled anybodies enjoyment too much.
It was revealed in the programme that some of them had camera filming experience, nobody had any issue with that. In fact it presents the idea in viewers minds that the show is trying to be honest with them So when a tabloid exposes the fact that some of them have survival experience it makes it seem that the show deliberately tried to avoid mentioning that fact.
It's the hiding things like this which spoils it a little. For example when we saw Rupert taking charge and catching the croc and sitting on its back, I think i can safely say that I was in the majority of people who were very impressed by this.
But now it turns out that Rupert is one of the men who has had the survival experience or worked with Grylls before. Not quite the same as seeing an 'ordinary' man like you or I learn how to survive in the wild.
As you say this could have been avoided if we were told upfront what the real setup was. I don't think the show would have been any less interesting to watch, it would simply mean that the premise would be slightly different, and be a slightly different show with different edits. But at least we would have been aware of it and would have possibly been interested in a different dynamic to the programme.
I enjoyed episodes 1 & 2, despite the Mirrors best attempts to pour cold water over it, yes its a shame the production team had to stop the men from starving to death...
Looking forward to seeing how much of a 'tribe' they feel tonight after the inevitable 'democratic' pecking order is established.
Comments
They could easily have a safety factor with some experts keeping an eye on things but ready to step in if needed or identified as observers / instructors on camera.
Most similar series might have a camera with the participants but also regular visits from a proper camera team.
It's always amusing when people on here attempt to run down the Daily Mail yet obviously read it all the time.
Sounds like a worthwhile story to me.
I didn't know that four of them had either worked with Bear Grylls before or had some kind of experience working on this type of stuff.
That was news to me, so for me the story was worthwhile. I was informed of something which I wasn't aware of before.
As I watched the programme and saw the guy attempt to restrain the crocodile, I thought 'good for him' 'how brave'.
But now the context has changed because I now discover that Rupert was one of those four who have had experience of this kind of thing before.
The show was kind of misleading when it introduced the group as a group of 'ordinary men' with four of them having experience of using a camera to film. Which kind of leads the viewer to think that they are just like the average man at home. But when you think about the term 'ordinary men', who isn't an 'ordinary' man unless he's got three heads or something? It's a bit of a catch-all term which means anyone really, including experts in jungle survival. It's not exactly lying, but it's a very clever means of presenting something in such a way that it camouflages the truth quite elegantly.
Other very diplomatic PR language was stating that the show has only ensured that there are food sources on the island and adequate means of obtaining water.
'Has ensured' also sounds like a catch-all term. Could mean anything from finding out that there are animals on the island to setting up a hot-dog van.
The one thing which I'm more concerned about now than I was before is the issue of the crocodile. Now I'm wondering if it really was placed in that exact location to be killed as a staged killing. Or even if it was just released onto the island to be killed at all. Now that I would have real issues with. Because some things are more important than my own entertainment.
I have to consider how likely it would be that the men on the island would be put at real risk of crocodiles wandering around too.
Some say that they have to set it up or otherwise it wouldn't make good TV as the men would start to starve and have to come home.
But surely that completely misses the point. As the show purports to be an experiment in seeing if a group of modern men could survive on an island.
If they do, then they do, if they don't then they don't. That's just the way it is. It's tne nature of what an experiment is.
If its a setup then you may as well be watching Coronation Street as it would be a drama which had a predetermined outcome where the experiment was a resounding success.
It's either real as presented, or it isn't.
If a TV show set itself up taking a group of 'ordinary men' putting them into a gladiatorial arena with weapons, lions, and the whole shebang, to see what happens, you can't say that it's got to be setup and fixed or it wouldn't make exciting television if it showed the reality of them all chickening out. The show would simply have to concede that it's actually a bad idea if they have to set it up to make it appear as if it's real, but present it to the viewers as if it was a real experiment to see how modern man would cope.
They aren't forced to make a programme like this. We don't have to have such a programme. It's not as if it's a programme that has to be made and we really need it, so they are literally forced to misrepresent what it actually is to the viewer.
Sometimes an idea for a TV programme may be misguided and you have to move on and think up another idea instead.
I think anyone with some common sense would watch this with a skeptical eye the more that is revealed about it. If any entertainment is had from this it would probably be due to it having more in common with TOWIE than it would be from having any merit as a genuine experiment in seeing how modern man would cope in a survival situation.
Oh I don't know. If you think about it that could make for very good television in its own right.
Well if that's the case then perhaps what you're describing there is an unworkable format.
It's not the case that somebody comes up with an idea for a TV programme and it has to be made by any means necessary.
If you come up with an idea which is supposed to be an experiment to see what happens, and you come to realise that you can't make it unless you play a game of pretend in order to reach a predetermined conclusion, then maybe you should simply scrap the idea and come up with new ideas instead?
Please somebody tell me that crocodiles are really bendy and there would have been no suffering before the kill...
That's the part I didn't like, how the croc's limbs had been forced the wrong way. Maybe the men had been told in their training to carry it like that as it stops it trying to roll. Also, when the guys first spotted it, before they even attempted to catch it, it seemed to have blood on it's bottom jaw at the tip of it's mouth.
I think the solution to this sort of thing is he just needs to be up front about it all from the start. I'm sure most people would be fine with it. It's when the press "expose" it that it looks dodgy. But most of the time it's not important to the basic premise of the show.
I noticed this but strangely, unless my eyes deceived me, when they got back to camp the cayman was upside down so either they realised their mistake or somebody intervened.
I agree. You'd think that Bear Grylls of all people would ensure that he was transparent about things this time given the furore before about him appearing to be deliberately deceptive in what that other programme was portraying.
If he was upfront about things I don't think it would have spoiled anybodies enjoyment too much.
It was revealed in the programme that some of them had camera filming experience, nobody had any issue with that. In fact it presents the idea in viewers minds that the show is trying to be honest with them So when a tabloid exposes the fact that some of them have survival experience it makes it seem that the show deliberately tried to avoid mentioning that fact.
It's the hiding things like this which spoils it a little. For example when we saw Rupert taking charge and catching the croc and sitting on its back, I think i can safely say that I was in the majority of people who were very impressed by this.
But now it turns out that Rupert is one of the men who has had the survival experience or worked with Grylls before. Not quite the same as seeing an 'ordinary' man like you or I learn how to survive in the wild.
As you say this could have been avoided if we were told upfront what the real setup was. I don't think the show would have been any less interesting to watch, it would simply mean that the premise would be slightly different, and be a slightly different show with different edits. But at least we would have been aware of it and would have possibly been interested in a different dynamic to the programme.
Looking forward to seeing how much of a 'tribe' they feel tonight after the inevitable 'democratic' pecking order is established.
....he's batting above his average