View Poll Results: Is it possible for reality t.v. to portray survival situations meaningfully, or not?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • No. The two don't go together very well.

    10 58.82%
  • Yes, but no one has really done it yet.

    4 23.53%
  • Yes, and at least one show has succeeded.

    3 17.65%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Reality T.V. - if YOU were in charge

  1. #1
    Senior Member WalkingTree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    982

    Default Reality T.V. - if YOU were in charge

    Something I was thinking of posting several months ago, but just never got round tuit. Lost all my round tuits. Been meaning to look for em, but just ain't got round tuit.

    I've asked myself - what kind of show would I care to participate in? Or what kind of show would I be really interested in tuning into each episode of and watching?

    Firstly, let's point out that there are differences between: Trying or being able to get rescued or self-rescue quickly; Survival for extended periods; Longer term scenarios which are practically 'extreme homesteading' instead of simple survival. And also differences between: Demonstration/instructional; quasi-real tests, challenges, or competitions.

    So...I'm interested in what other people would come up with if they had the opportunity to be in charge of such a thing. I think it'd be another thing that might be enlightening due to exactly how YOU would design a reality show geared to varioius survival topics.

    The thread-question breaks up into more than one:

    - What kind of show do you wish existed on t.v. that you'd feel is worth watching?

    - How would the show have to be designed in order for you to participate yourself?

    - What kind would it be per the above categories (rescue, extended survival, demonstration, 'real' situations, competition or cooperation, etc) ?

    And with no further ado, I'll of course include a couple of ideas of mine. I've left out many technical details to keep it short(ish):

    Scenario 1

    General idea - Challenge/competition. 'Real' as opposed to demonstration. For participants to survive in primitive fashion, but do so for long enough that "just barely hanging on until rescue" isn't good enough. It's for just long enough that they're required to do well enough to compete during a 'second phase', which would be the test of how well they've maintained their physical and mental capabilities, and the state of their social cohesion.

    - Three groups of three people each. All strangers to each other. In separate remote locations. Each group gets to choose a limited number of 'low tech' items, plus clothing.

    - There is no incentive or requirement to lose a member of your group. There may even be a minor decrease in the dollar amount received at the end for the winning group (for each person individually) if a member(s) is lost, and the second phase may even be designed to be slightly harder for only one or two to complete. Otherwise if only one person is left in a group for the second phase, they can continue.

    - The first phase is pretty much like Alone or N&A otherwise. It lasts for 5 or 8 weeks (?).

    - After this time, there is some kind of 'scavenger hunt' which is physically and mentally challenging that each group must engage in while continuing to 'survive'. Each group remains isolated from each other during this phase. The first group to complete this is the winner, so they also race against time at this point. They are given 1 week for this - after 1 week, the winning group is whichever has made the most progress.

    Scenario 2

    General idea - 'Real', but also demonstrative, though not staged. Non-competitive. Not so much a challenge to see if participants can succeed, but a 'really happening' demonstration of what it takes and what it's like for viewers to observe and keep up with.

    - 10 people. In a remote wilderness. From early spring to late spring the following year.

    - There are no built-in incentives for non-cooperation or competitiveness, but also little incentive for cooperation, though there is to a limited extent. They attempt to survive/thrive together either as long as possible, or to the end.

    - Though the group is granted a limited number of 'low tech' items, they are otherwise not intentionally handicapped. The idea is not quite to 'see if they can do it', but to show it being done in reality for viewers. They get an initial supply of rudimentary foodstuffs and water to last for 1 or 2 weeks, depending upon how they decide to utilize and ration. They would have some plant-identification and how-to books. They would even first spend a day of instruction (whether or not they're already knowledgeable and experienced...but the show may also be only for people without much experience) on the various concerns with primitive wilderness survival, techniques and practices, safety, social dynamics, etc - this would be the first episode before their endeavor begins.

    - They are periodically issued whatever vitamins/minerals that are absolutely vital which they wouldn't be able to obtain on their own. They are each occasionally given a very rudimentary health exam.

    - Camera operators are not present. Filming is done with some kind of remote-operated camera set-up. Requiring minimal attention from the participants.

    - Each person who makes it to the end gets X amount. Anyone who drops out earlier gets a daily wage for the time that they've spent. Anyone can request extra medical attention anytime, or medical staff can call for it. For every time that this happens (and anytime extra treatment is called for during the regular check-ups), there is a minor reduction in that person's daily wage from that point on or in how much they get in the end. Medical staff can also call for someone's dismissal from the show. Each time extra medical attention is requested or called for (also for each time extra treatment during the regular check-ups takes place), and each time someone leaves the show, there is also a minor reduction in whatever everyone else gets, but this is a much smaller decrease than it is for the individual.
    Last edited by WalkingTree; 04-03-2016 at 05:54 AM.
    The pessimist complains about the wind;
    The optimist expects it to change;
    The realist adjusts the sails.

    - William Arthur Ward


  2. #2
    Administrator Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    58,828

    Default

    Scenario 3 might be to enact a law prohibiting reality TV. I'd opt for 3. Sorry, I just don't care for reality TV, outdoors or otherwise.

  3. #3
    Senior Member hunter63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    SE/SW Wisconsin
    Posts
    26,866

    Default

    Looking back.....
    There is one show that started out as a "Show".....and still around as a "Show" and that's "Survivor"

    The proof of concept is that it was the first or the genre , and is still on.......

    It would appear that it has to be either a competition or a "documentary"......as in:
    "Now we see the artic fox starving and following a polar bear for craps......"(yawn).

    Or
    "Alone"
    Geezer Squad....Charter Member #1
    Evoking the 50 year old rule...
    First 50 years...worried about the small stuff...second 50 years....Not so much
    Member Wahoo Killer knives club....#27

  4. #4

    Default

    From another website, I was directed to "Kings of the Wild", where two men (a New Zealand hunter and a British chef) show survival skills in different locales. Amazingly, they seem prepared and competent, and they work together without special drama - very civilized. Apparently, it is a UK production, not American

    Try http://you.be/gFngngbKCM for an episode set in Malaysia

    http://www.discoverychannelasia.com/...s-of-the-wild/
    Last edited by Faiaoga; 04-08-2016 at 10:40 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member WalkingTree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    982

    Default

    I never liked Survivor. It kinda romanticizes some dog-eat-dog attitudes, and all the scheming between the people.

    I've never been in the military myself, but from what I understand they value the idea of truly being a team. A group. You don't 'win' alone or by weeding-out whoever happens to be the weakest in some way. But you succeed together or not at all. You pull up whoever is behind in some way at any given moment, instead of cut them loose. I agree with that mindset, and I understand it. I can respect the one kind of person immensely, but not have one shred of respect for the other.

    I understand the point of the show being structured like it is, but someone could just as easily structure a show with the opposite dynamic.

    We like to say things like 'let evolution weed out the dumb people'. It's not a bad thing at all to be able to recognize when people are being dumb or ignorant or having a crappy attitude. But to me the point in all that should be to try to address why people are ignorant and fix it, instead of just write them off, be smug, and look down at them. Also, we have a very interesting dynamic wherein most people say that most people are dumb. For whatever reason. The people you think are dumb, will say that people are dumb. The thing about this is that a person can be an idiot theirself, and not realize it while that person indulges in recognizing how someone else is dumb. Everybody is ignorant or an idiot in some way, some time or another. So the real wisdom here that is worth anything is not being able to recognize when someone's being an idiot or is weak...but it's in your attitude towards it. How do you react to someone's dumbness. I personally don't judge or size someone up according to how smart or experienced that they are or are not...but according to WHY they are as they are - their attitude. Do they try. Or do they not care in the first place. What's their attitude when they're strong or when they're 'in the right', and what is it when they're weak or wrong.

    I've heard some people say something like "but it shows how things are in the real world". No it doesn't. You can find that stuff sometimes, and sometimes you can find the opposite. Some people are like that, and some people are the opposite. But you can't say "that's how the world is like" definitively, completely, or even mostly. And besides, however the world is...is how we make it. There are two kinds of people, and you can judge a lot from which they tend towards - those who say that the world is the way it is and we can't control nor be responsible for it, and those who say that the world is however we make it.

    Over the years, three separate times I decided to sit down and watch a whole episode of Survivor from beginning to end without interruption and pay full attention. Give it a chance (or another chance), see what it was really about to really know. One of these times I was amazed at how I watched a full episode and nothing happened. They literally didn't do one single thing the whole time. The whole hour was just talking, commenting, scheming, gossiping, the whole nine-yards. The other two shows I watched...I of course appreciated and enjoyed watching the little challenges they did. But when they start all the soap-opera crap where they make little plans and alliances and break them and play whatever little games they can come up with to be against one person for any ole dumb reason just for that moment to vote them off and save theirselves...I can hardly stomach watching that crap.

    But for some kind of primitive wilderness survival t.v. show, I don't see Survivor as being about that. It's about something else entirely. A series of headgames and backstabbing and live-and-let-die. It's not survivor in the wilderness...it's survivor playing games against other people that just happens to be set in an outdoor environment.

    And the show Alone...tis a good show, but it has one of the things that I think of when wondering about whether or not they could really capture these things in a t.v. show - the participants having to deal with the cameras. Something like that is necessary, sure. But per my thread poll - it kind of grates against the idea of trying to put the full reality of these situations in a t.v. show. Don't know how the expense would compare to other approaches...but I see the only solution is to not have camera people present, but also not require the participants to mess with them very much. Not just for the extra burden and distraction, but their mindsets - being so aware of other's being present or watching. I like the idea of some kind of remote and hidden camera operation. Wouldn't be perfect, but would be a lot closer to portraying it all.
    Last edited by WalkingTree; 04-08-2016 at 12:05 AM.
    The pessimist complains about the wind;
    The optimist expects it to change;
    The realist adjusts the sails.

    - William Arthur Ward

  6. #6

    Default

    Right On, WalkingTree. I have never been in a real survival situation, but I have gone through typhoons on tropical Pacific islands. With people who have lived together in a village and where most people are related to one another, the aftermath of a storm will have people cooperating rather than competing - and a fast return to normal life. FEMA and disaster insurance are not needed when an extended family network and a strong social system stay intact. Contrast this with the chaos that seems to occur in American cities.

  7. #7

    Default

    I never liked the show survivor either. Survival is not about competition between people, its about competition between you and the elements. If I were to wish for a reality show, it would be on the order of a survival instructional type show where each week they gave instructions on various survival topics and skills kind of like Ron Hood did in his videos. And maybe even have various instructors show their version of each skill. But there are survival types I would exclude like the ones that market their goods at Wally World. I've seen those types teach things that could get you killed, like: "I can't positively identify this mushroom as non poisonous, but I'm so bloody hungry I'm going to eat it anyway" ?
    Lamewolf
    Manu Forti
    Roadkill, its whats for supper !
    www.angelfire.com/electronic2/qrp

  8. #8
    Senior Member hunter63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    SE/SW Wisconsin
    Posts
    26,866

    Default

    Y'all talking about real life?....or a TV show that people will watch, ....advertisers will pay money to hawk their wares....., programming executives, will buy programming to add to their channels....to sell products to the watchers?

    Judging by what offered and still around I guessing, that we the viewing public,.... that pays their cable/sat/on-line streaming bills, to pay for the programming....has voted....a decided the realistic survival programming hasn't reached the popularity of the "voted off the island genra".

    Vote with your remote and pocket book....other wise you are just preaching your opinions.

    I like the original "Survivor"...and is a bucket list wish...to be the token Old guy, that gets voted out first...That HAS to spend 38 more days at a hotel....drinking umbrella drinks on the veranda, waiting on the hot chicks to join me.......then fly to NYC to be on the final.......
    Beats eating bugs and freezing your tushy off......To me.
    Geezer Squad....Charter Member #1
    Evoking the 50 year old rule...
    First 50 years...worried about the small stuff...second 50 years....Not so much
    Member Wahoo Killer knives club....#27

  9. #9

    Default

    A better view of real survival might be to view what people actually did to survive in real situations. The real Survivors did not compete or vote one another out, they cooperated. To bad that such plots do not meet our expectations of "reality" TV

    A long time ago, I read the book Minerva Reef by Olaf Ruhen. It tells about 17 Tongan men shipwrecked on a submerged reef for 3 months. A few died, but the majority survived and built a small boat that was able to sail with three men to Fiji and obtain help. This is only one reality story of what people actually did to survive - not a "reality" TV show based on a plot of competition and artificial gimmicks. I will have to read this book again.

    The story of Captain Bligh's long boat voyage after the HMS Bounty mutiny, the story of Shackleton in the Antarctic and other historical events show that the real survivors did not compete but cooperated. Other groups, who did not cooperate, did not fare too well - the settlers of Pitcairn Island and the Globe mutineers are good examples.
    Last edited by Faiaoga; 04-08-2016 at 01:13 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member hunter63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    SE/SW Wisconsin
    Posts
    26,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Faiaoga View Post
    A better view of real survival might be to view what people actually did to survive in real situations. The real Survivors did not compete or vote one another out, they cooperated. To bad that such plots do not meet our expectations of "reality" TV

    A long time ago, I read the book Minerva Reef by Olaf Ruhen. It tells about 17 Tongan men shipwrecked on a submerged reef for 3 months. A few died, but the majority survived and built a small boat that was able to sail with three men to Fiji and obtain help. This is only one reality story of what people actually did to survive - not a "reality" TV show based on a plot of competition and artificial gimmicks. I will have to read this book again.

    The story of Captain Bligh's long boat voyage after the HMS Bounty mutiny, the story of Shackleton in the Antarctic and other historical events show that the real survivors did not compete but cooperated.
    That wasn't the question......talking about if a realistic TV show would be successful vs Made up drama...what would the OP or for that matter any of us would participate in....

    I don't go "surviving ...on purpose:
    Most any "artificial siltation" ..is just that.....for a program......Like a camping trip.

    Historical documentaries are interesting, make good programming....and I enjoy them.
    Geezer Squad....Charter Member #1
    Evoking the 50 year old rule...
    First 50 years...worried about the small stuff...second 50 years....Not so much
    Member Wahoo Killer knives club....#27

  11. #11
    Senior Member WalkingTree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    982

    Default

    I wonder if anybody will ever try a show similar to my ideas here
    The pessimist complains about the wind;
    The optimist expects it to change;
    The realist adjusts the sails.

    - William Arthur Ward

  12. #12

    Default

    The FAT guys show by the Weather Channel is as close as any show has been.

  13. #13
    Senior Member WalkingTree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    982

    Default

    Why's it gotta be fat guys anyway? How 'bout skinny guys in the woods? Or Wall Street white collar guys in the woods? Or the Kardashians in the woods? Or pretty female models in the woods? Oooh...Alcoholics Anonymous chapter such-and-such in the woods.

    Or how 'bout we take drug dealing offenders and give them the option of being on a show where...if they can survive in the woods for a month with just a knife, then they only get some probation.

    Or we take captured terrorists and do this -

    Last edited by WalkingTree; 04-23-2016 at 12:53 PM.
    The pessimist complains about the wind;
    The optimist expects it to change;
    The realist adjusts the sails.

    - William Arthur Ward

  14. #14
    Senior Member kyratshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KY bluegrass region-the center of the universe
    Posts
    10,362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingTree View Post
    I wonder if anybody will ever try a show similar to my ideas here
    Bad camera angles, no dialogue, no drama, hidden cameras ?

    Sounds like a bad version of The Truman Show
    If you didn't bring jerky what did I just eat?

  15. #15
    Member Mannlicher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Florida, north and south
    Posts
    96

    Default

    If I were in charge, the FIRST thing I'd do, is to stop using the term "Reality TV".

  16. #16

    Default

    The film "Surviving the Game" looks to be a copy of the short story "The Most Dangerous Game" by Richard Connell, a story that has been included in many high school story collections. I understand a 1932 film was also made based on the story. I have not seen the film, but it is supposed to be good.

  17. #17
    Senior Member WalkingTree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    982

    Default

    Additional concepts:

    # 3

    - Find some homeless folks. Vet them for psychological stability and do any relevant background checks with their approval after they express serious interest.

    - Find some people who're seriously trying to go to college, but have some serious obstacles which they cannot overcome...like not being able to get any kind of financial assistance at all.

    - If they have no experience or knowledge with this, give them a 1-day course in various things. (Maybe we need to stop getting only people who "seem" to have these things as their hobby or primary interest.)

    - Take 2 of each of these ^ , making a group of 4 people. Give them limited items and drop them somewhere.

    - Out of whoever 'survives' for 5 weeks...the homeless person(s) get setup somewhere to live, a vehicle, and serious assistance finding employment (whichever of these they don't have, and not in the form of cash that they can blow some other way); The 'student(s)' get debt-free school assistance, in some form that can't be spent any other way.


    # 4

    (Instead of surviving somewhere for a period of time, how about someone having to be on the move or search for something?)

    - Drop 2 people in the middle of some place which would take a minimum of 2 weeks to walk out of in any direction (or more). They must walk out in any direction and find civilization, together - both of them.

    # 5

    - Drop a few groups of 2 people each within the edges of some place, with no modern navigation but instead things like compass and a very rough map and few clues...they must find something in a specific location somewhere deep in the bush...the pairs are competing with the other pairs. It's set up to take a couple of weeks or more, so they have to 'survive' while doing this. (Would have to have a way for one pair not shooting someone of the other pair with a bow if they come across each other before knowing it, if things like bow/arrows are among their items - is a case where camera operators might accompany them, and they'd have GPS locations and communications between them.)
    Last edited by WalkingTree; 05-03-2016 at 04:30 PM.
    The pessimist complains about the wind;
    The optimist expects it to change;
    The realist adjusts the sails.

    - William Arthur Ward

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Stephenville TX
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Things I'd like to see:
    1-3 skilled people in a basic "failed activity" survival situation. Not an "empty pockets" show, but a realistic scenario for somebody with two brain cells to rub together, like having their usual load out for the activity that got them stranded.
    Gear could be anything from a pocket kit on a day hike to a bug out bag in a car. Seeing what is in their kits is as valuable as what they'd do without it when you have time to prep.
    No short time limit to self rescue; they can either hike out or sit tight, stay together or split up as circumstances dictate.
    No artificial constraints, as much as can be managed.
    I don't care what 2-3 couch potatoes would do in this situation, though having one as a second or third person learning from skilled ones gives more opportunity for explanations and demos. (I liked Man Woman Wild for this reason.)

    Long term semi-primitive survival situation like Alone, but without the "ratings boosting" crap that doesn't make sense.
    Hike in with what you can carry, knowing the goal is to outlast the others. As has been said before, there's no realistic reason to have it be an equal choice between a 20lb tarp and one 6oz knife. Weight and bulk are realistic factors.
    I'll concede no firearms, partly because it does change the dynamic and partly because you'd have to space the people miles apart if they can't know which directions are safe with a .30-06.
    Eliminate as many of the artificial constraints as possible. (You're probably not going to get a permit to hunt severely endangered species, but 10 people with pointy sticks aren't going to wipe out all the brown bears on Vancouver Island.)
    Maybe repeat this show with pairs for a different dynamic.

    I don't like the "random mixed group" because it's less realistic. I'm probably not going to be one of a few random strangers who all decided to get in a crappy car together and drive the Baja race route. Much more likely that it would be a close friend or two with a fair amount of interest and skill overlap.
    Not a fan of the "lighters are too modern and easy, but you can have ferrocerium and Gore-Tex" logic.

  19. #19
    Senior Member WalkingTree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    982

    Default

    Oh I forgot -

    # 6

    Take someone who's doing alright - job, vehicle, house, etc - and put them on the street with nothing but the clothes they're wearing. No food. No money. No place to live. Could do this without a vehicle, but also with them having one. (Would have to somehow put the job that they did have on hold ?) If they get some kind of job, it has to be what they get as a homeless person after this starts. They can't rely on any social connections that they have, or any other resources they have from their 'regular' life.
    The pessimist complains about the wind;
    The optimist expects it to change;
    The realist adjusts the sails.

    - William Arthur Ward

  20. #20
    Senior Member kyratshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KY bluegrass region-the center of the universe
    Posts
    10,362

    Default

    Walking Tree that is not survival, that is duplication of total abject failure!
    If you didn't bring jerky what did I just eat?

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •