Leave a comment

Comments 20

(The comment has been removed)

smarriveurr September 16 2009, 23:42:30 UTC
Eh. I watched that one, briefly. I just couldn't stand all the people loudly and immodestly suffering through the trials and travails of spending a limited period without modern conveniences... and still trying to live modern lives. That was the big killer for me with Colonial House, too - they had their headman or whatever talking about trying to make sure the women dressed more "modestly" for the period... while standing there with just his shirt and trousers on, sleeves rolled up to the armpits and collar wide open... Basically wandering around in his tighty whiteys, by period standards.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

smarriveurr September 17 2009, 02:16:47 UTC
The big thing isn't so much that they whined about it being hard, so much as that they specifically made it harder for themselves by doing things wrong. "These clothes are so uncomfortable!" That's because you're not wearing them correctly, and it looks like you didn't get properly fitted. "The women are dressed immodestly!" Sir, I see your elbows, and your chest! Scandalous. "We're pagans, we don't want to go to Sunday services." Well, maybe you shouldn't have signed up to live as Puritans for a few months then, eh? Suck it up and be part of the community.

I think it would have still shown how hard the life was to show people who were actually ready for it trying to live it. It'd still be backbreaking, and the differences would still be obvious. It would just help to cancel out some of the myths about things like the uncomfortable clothes and lack of hygiene.

Reply


troubleagain September 16 2009, 21:45:34 UTC
Have you watched "Solitary"? It's on one of the cable networks, and it's a really interesting concept.

Reply

macramedildo September 16 2009, 22:31:26 UTC
Ugh, it's awful.

What about "Who wants to marry a millionaire?" Because I do.

Reply

troubleagain September 17 2009, 00:01:08 UTC
Now THAT is cheapening.

Reply

smarriveurr September 16 2009, 23:39:37 UTC
Hadn't even heard of it, actually - had to look it up online. I find the whole skinner-box vibe of it kind of creepy - not something I'd want to take part in, and certainly not for a 11% shot at $50,000.

Reply


paleolithical September 17 2009, 05:46:41 UTC
When Survivor first was annonuced in Sweden I was *very* interested in applying. I mean, surviving on a tropical island should be fairly ok as such, and a neat experience. Then I saw the first show and have never looked at it again, since it was all about playing nasty peoplepower games rather than surviving in the wild.

The UK Iron Age non-competition thing looked fun, but had the same problem as you mention with the Colonial stuff; I would have gone for it just for the "neat" of getting to liven in a (more or less) real Iron Age village for a while. Unable to actually cook a chicken? Horrible hardships having to carry a couple of buckets worth of water each day? Kale getting a bit boring in the long run? The supplied shoes are useless: make some new ones, for $Deitys sake!

Reply

smarriveurr September 17 2009, 12:05:54 UTC
I wasn't particularly interested in trying out for Survivor... I did think the idea was interesting, and even worthwhile, up until I saw how little winning had to do with surviving. I mean, there's plenty to be said for politics as competitive sport, but the show wasn't called Backstabber or Dealmaker ( ... )

Reply

paleolithical September 17 2009, 13:40:44 UTC
I was, but that is because survival/primitive skills is one of my focus areas. Until I found out the name should have been (as you aptly suggested) Backstabber instead.

As to having non-experts in challenging situations that could be interesting, but would you bother watching the SCA "random bodies off the streat, in armour" tourney? Experts being challenged could be truly exducational... Imagine placing 10 primtive skills/survial experts on tropical island and observing how they solve the problems. Not Survivor as we know it, but even a TV-phobe like I would make it a priority to watch.

Reply

smarriveurr September 17 2009, 14:58:13 UTC
My taste runs to watching people do what they do well - but I think Reality TV works primarily by embarrassing people, and stressing them out, or generally putting plain people into weird situations, because that appeals to the lowest common denominator.

As far as the "real survivor" goes... for that we have Survivorman. Different settings every show, and the poor bastard even carries his own film equipment. No crew at all. If you see a shot of him walking off into the horizon... it means he set that shot, walked off to the horizon, and came back for his camera. Plus, I like how he manages his fire in a different way pretty much every episode, from magnesium to forming a lens out of ice and using sunlight.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up