Comments on: Survivor: Brooklyn

By: PT

PT — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:30:47 +0000

This is TV, and that means entertainment. If you wanted to rent a documentary of a guy surviving the wild then Survivorman is it. Take notes, because there is some good info relayed to the viewer. However the yawn factor is really high and after 15 minutes I’m looking for my knot tying book.
Bear Grylls from Man vs Wild is just a good communicator. He makes the subject matter more interesting than what is really is and I haven’t yawned once watching his show. Well, the time he crossed cooled lava beds in Hawaii was a little boring. My vote is definitely Man vs Wild.

By: Liz

Liz — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 23:46:05 +0000

Nova makes a great point that the shows serve different purposes. That aside, if we’re picking favorites, I’m all about Man v. Wild. I watched one episode of Survivorman (he was in the desert and claimed it was too late in the evening to make a shelter so he slept out under the stars – cut to him freezing his ass off in the middle of the night) and did not care to tune in again. Bear is enjoyable to watch and it’s exciting to see what kind of situation he’ll find himself in next. Plus, in a Wikipedia war – which really should be the be-all-end-all deciding factor in any showdown – Bear’s bio is 10x more chock full of awesome.

By: Foster H.

Foster H. — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:12:23 +0000

Well said, Nova. Both of these shows are for entertainment purposes, and I think if the viewer can take any nugget of valuable information away from either Les or Bear, all the better. That being said, I prefer Bear b/c he’s as entertaining as anyone on television, maybe my number one personality. He shows extreme situations and how you could cope, as a last resort means of survival, that’s why he’s taking absurd risks and doing all these maniacal stunts. In tonight’s M v W episode Bear is in Mexico, hiking some treacherous canyon, and may or may not be eating a scorpion for sustenance. I’ll be watching.

By: Nova

Nova — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:44:17 +0000

The shows have completely different purposes. survivor man just needs to stay alive for 7 days, which is basically finding water and making a shelter. Man vs wild tries to rescue himself as quickly as possible. Bear Grylls is a badass guy and I think much more enjoyable to watch. a lot of the things you see him do are just to show you some of the more desperate options available, not necessarily what you should do if you can avoid it.

By: Scott N.

Scott N. — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:53:14 +0000

Although Survivorman is probably more legit, I prefer to watch man vs. wild. When I watch Survivorman, it usually amounts to the host sitting in one spot and complaining for 7 days, and then getting picked up. It isn’t that entertaining. Also, sometimes he doesn’t eat more than a couple berries for like 3 days. If you don’t know that you’re getting picked up after a week, that is not a sustainable way to survive. Man vs. Wild has a sense of motion and achievement, and a catch phrase at the end of every episode.

Also, I think the Man vs. Wild commercial perfectly answers a common complaint about the show when it says “Does Bear Grylls really need to do these things? Probably not, but you might.” I think much of the time he takes the more difficult route because he wants to teach you how to make it through the worst circumstances. Also, he plays it up a little for entertainment value, but I like to think he’s tricking otherwise disinterested people into learning survival skills. : )

By: Susie

Susie — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:15:55 +0000

Survivorman, fo’sho’. He is all by his lonesome, does everything for himself, totes all that shit around, pulls out some crazy Macgyver shit, and seems like a really nice guy. I know that last one maybe shouldn’t matter when rating the badassness of a tv show, but i’d much rather be stuck in the wilderness with him than Bear (who names their kid Bear?!).

Man vs Wild has too much happen ‘by chance’. “Look a bear! Look an ice cave! Look weird lava formations that will kill you! Look a rock face I can scurry up!(how many trapped in the wild would really be able to do this stuff) Look 19 other dangerous life-threatening things you would likely NEVER run into!” Bear is a stud and all, and i do really like the show, it just seems a bit much sometimes. Very planned out. Although that snow pit he dug was badass.

By: contra

contra — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:11:49 +0000

Survivorman. By Far. Both my wife and I are experienced hikers and climbers, and we cringe every time we see an ad for Man v. Wild. It’s not so much the authenticity of the show (which Les Stroud of Survivorman wins), but rather the goal. If the show is there to teach you, the viewer, about wilderness survival, then Man v. Wild is leading you to your DOOM. Bear Grylls (I admit, at least his name make me smile!) takes needless risks because they look good on camera (jumping off waterfalls, into ice lakes, etc.) when survival is really about avoiding those very sorts of situations. Les is very careful to remind viewers of the importance of keeping warm and dry, of avoiding injuries, etc. and to show the steps he takes to dry off/warm up if he unavoidably or accidentally gets wet. Another example, Bear will eat anything. It looks great on camera, eating all those raw fish and bugs, but we know for a fact that there’s perfectly good wild food all around that doesn’t involve diving in a river. Les is careful to show that trapping animals for food is possible, but that you should already have a fire going (for food safety purposes, when it’s not fish) and that while you ‘could’ eat bugs (and he occasionally does), there’s a perfectly good fig tree right over there…

In short: if two guys were lost in the woods and one had seen Man v. Wild and the other Survivorman, my money’s on the later and my condolences to the other’s widow.

By: George

George — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:01:28 +0000

Survivorman is definitely more extreme. Having to carry around your own camera gear and trekking it alone is pretty hardcore.

By: dirvish

dirvish — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:44:56 +0000

From what I’ve heard the Man vs. Wild has way more survival training and seems more legit to me. I think he would out last Survivorman in a real survival situation.

By: animated

animated — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:40:03 +0000

Survivorman for sure.
Also, check out his other show “Off The Grid” – where he and his family live fully off the grid for a year.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:29:51 +0000

I am going Man vs. Wild. I know there were a few early episodes that people pointed out where he was wearing a life jacket and another thing I don’t remember but Bear reminds of Christian Bale and is pretty entertaining.

By: Kluv

Kluv — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:15:29 +0000

While I enjoy both of the shows — I’ve got to give it to “Survivorman”, if just because he’s all alone out there (and carrying 50+ pounds worth of camera equipment), whereas Grylls travels with a 2-man camera crew during the day. (Also, it seems that Grylls tends to do a bit more just for the shock value of it.)

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:48:28 +0000

Survivorman. Les is excellent. I watched one episode of Man vs. Wild, and it’s some idiot preening around in the woods (or in the case I watched, the desert). He makes bad decisions (oh, I guess i’ll go down into this chasm, I have no idea where it leads or how deep this water could be) and seems most concerned with running around with his shirt off and showing off. Les just wants to play his harmonica and get out alive.

By: shimpiphany

shimpiphany — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:44:44 +0000

survivorman, hands down. no crew, no flint, AND he has to transport all his own camera gear.

I think the cameramen on man v. wild are more hardcore than the host – they’re the ones jumping off the damn cliff HOLDING A CAMERA.