I knew I should turn the channel. I knew it...

But I left Bear Grylls on the TV while doing something on the omputer... his "Yukon" episode...

I knew it would be bad... but it was worse than I thought imaginable. I am at a loss for words.. What a gigantic pile of
steaming bovine scatlogy...

Now excuse my while I go shoot my TV..

Wait...that's the one where he gets totally naked for no good reason but for the sake of the female viewers and eats putrid salmon in bear country, right? Oh..you mean that's in EVERY episode???

BF

His getting nekked is the only reason I sit down and watch it with the guys.

lol, I saw that it was on next but I didn't bother watching it. Sounds like it might have been another interesting one, haha.

You're making me relive it. it was so painful I started watching it rather than just leaving it on as noise and the more I watched the more disgusted I was. everything so obviously staged... Climbing across a glacier with no equipement. and descending into a crevasse to get off it rather than go to the edge... just "finding" a canoe.. making the most ridiculous shelter I have ever seen (a treehouse platform) supposedly with no help and spruce roots for ties - and this supposedly because of bears.. and then going into an abandoned mine with only a torch. and having it go out.. dear god... the only thing it was missing was the guy in the bear suit..

Not to mention he started by parachuting in, then took the paracord off the parachute but *LEFT THE PARACHUTE* and then proceeded to screw around making bough shelters, etc..

I *know* it's TV. and it's B.S... but man every newb on the planet watches this junk... grrr...

Oh god, and I forgot.. chasing fish in a lake by trying to club them with a 6 foot section of spruce..... unbelievable..

Phat

lets face, most people think its the real McCoy.
This is the reason we get such strange posts from Newbs.
There IS a new "wilderness creedo" which is a combination of fantasy about man-eating wild animals that you protect yourself from with a Bowie knife, and people toting guns to protect themselves from other campers. The concept that a smaller pack is inherantly better, that being unprepaired is being more prepaired, that disposable camping gear is cool. These campers are not going off trail on solo adventures in rugged country - they are a sort of gentrified modern camper, unlike the hairy chested no fear millions of hippy backpackers who didn't carry cell phones or personal locaters. The new camper worries about his or her safety and about whether the other campers will be impressed by their tiny pack. The new disposable camping mode is a lot like homeless camping.

These guys are quite a separate strain from the real trail runners. They think anybody can do this because it looks so easy. Do you think anybody would turn on a real survival training film that didn't include the occasional grizzly walking into camp?

Of course you have to lower yourself into a crevace with no ropes or other gear to escape a glacier, only an idiot would just walk off it. You think the guy in the lake naked with a stick trying to club a fish is ridiculous because you know how fish react when large animals splash in the water say 20 feet away. You aren't gonna get close to a fish using that technique - you know and I know it, but some person who has not had the oppportunity to learn for himself is gonna get severly hypothermic trying this - why? Because the film crew isn't there with a warm trailer to jump in, nor to provide you with a dead fish to hit.

No the scary part is that people accept this as "all the survival traiining they've had" and would revert to it in a bad situation if they remembered. "Lets see how did he get down into the crevace - woops.

Not to pick on anybody, but for instance we've had people trying to buy the ultimate sleeping bag who actually do not have idea how to use one. You can't have the same knowledge with no experience as you do after say 50 or 100 trips, obviously and I don't want to put anyone down just becasue they are a newb, not at all. But it does amaze me just how little knowledge our newbs have. I mean I was a cub scout and a boy scout then became a climber and a solo wolderness camper, but it was a continuum. I didn't start at the ropes, I started learning to hike, then to camp, how to build a fire, and we practiced this stuff. I take so much for granted. Anyway I think we don't help our newbs nearly as much as we should because we concentrate way too much on gear and not on Technique. I wrote a post last year on how to melt snow. Maybe its in a FAQ somewhere, otherwise how do newbs learn how to melt snow? Anybody that doesn't think melting snow is an art should take a dry pan and some snow and a stove and try it.
Jim

Yeah, I know. I take a lot for granted too. but I grew up around it so it's hard not to.


I'll agree with you to a large extent Jim, but the gear talk
is inevitable because it's what people spend money on. Notwithstaning that there have been a few real gems here for newbs, and they do come around from time to time. How to melt snow was good. Daisy's "how to pack a pack" was wonderful.

Makes me wonder if we shouldn't have a "Backcountry Techniques - The How To not the What With" topic section to just sticky up a bunch of these good ones and encourage further such discussion.

I don't watch him.

I agree that this stupid show is just utterly rediculus and has gotten so much worse each and every episode. The whole thing (each and every episode) from start to end is probably writtin by some hollywood screenwriter..

I much rather prefer to watch Les Stroud. At least he more realistic and does not have a whole "support crew" that follows him.

I agree with you on this one... I watch the show and find myself trying to figure out how to carry all of the camera gear around and how to get those shots

I'm always interested in learning more/better techniques, and would love such a section!
I'll also be looking up the two threads that you mentioned...

[quote=phat]
Yeah, I know. I take a lot for granted too. but I grew up around it so it's hard not to.
[quote]

There's a whole generation of kids who've grown up playing video games. To them, the games are "reality". I offer as proof the YouTube videos of some kid playing a video game. To that kid, playing the game is reality. In summary, there's a lot of people who are a little confused about "reality".

Bear produces entertainment for the video game crowd. It may get them killed, but oh well.

Well the kids playing video games have to go outside to get killed by sliding down a glacier or chasing a bear around to see what they can eat out of its poop.

No matter how staged the show is I'm still jealous of his job.

Apparently Bear's son is following in his footsteps.

phat, I know I'm a little late, but you can still get your wife to get you a belated Valentine's Day present.

Whenever you question his survival capabilities, just remember that he and some Everest buddies not only climbed the highest peak, they then "circumnavigated the United Kingdom on jet skis."

But there's more. This from a fan's blog:

"In June 2005, Bear broke a world record by hosting a dinner party at a table suspended below a hot air balloon at 24,500 feet. He rappelled from the balloon's basket to the table, where in full naval uniform he ate a three-course meal before saluting the queen and skydiving to earth. His goal was to support the work of two charities: the Prince's Trust and the Duke of Edinburgh's Award."

(I KNEW there was a reason we fought the Revolutionary War!)

This may come off as a bit crass, but at least it's not crap:

Edward, then Teddy, then Bear (so can we call him Teddy Bear?) Grylls, was raised the son of a wine importer who became a Tory MP in England. Bear went to Eaton and got a degree at London University.

From another fluff site: "He is Christian, and in many interviews has expressed his devout faith. The only alcoholic beverage he will consume is whiskey." (Wonder if he's limiting himself to Macallans?)

His dad, Sir Michael Grylls, served as an MP and was caught up in the "cash-for-questions" scandal in the late '90s. He passed away in 2001.

I caught a glimpse of a literal marathon of "Man vs. Wild" episodes on the Discovery Channel after phat's post. They truly are FOS. Everything he encounters is depicted as the most horrific natural danger in classic Grylls' over-the-top fashion -- to the point of being almost, almost amusing.

Reality TV: We have choices. Will it be those megalomaniacs on the endlessly tedious "The Housewives of Orange County," with its plasticine/saline cleavage every 90 seconds or so, or Teddy "Bear" overstating his predicament standing beside a babbling brook (described by him as a "raging, swollen stream") before he heads off to bed down in the lodge for the night?

I've concluded that "reality entertainment" is neither, and choose not to watch. I find more productive things to do with my time - watch paint dry, count the number of bricks in a wall, try to figure out how that stuff got in my ear, etc.

My wife liked "The Apprentice," and finally persuaded (I hesitate to say, "nagged") me to watch the opening episode one year. It took me about five minutes to realize I wouldn't hire any of those bozos, and went downstairs to fond..er, sort gear.

She also tried to persuade me that HGTV was real, too.

Begin rant- TV sets come with an off switch. I grew up without TV and never developed a taste for it; I developed a passion for reading instead. Every time I watch TV I am again reminded why my old, second-hand, 14" television set (it is color though) resides in the closet. With the incessant commercials, the hype associated with TV sports, the pitiful efforts at news reporting, the inane sitcoms and pathetic "reality" TV, there is virtually nothing on television worth watching. The last time my TV was out of the closet was for the inauguration. It has again been banished to the closet until the next time something worth watching happens. - End Rant

I watch cable news with my wife in the morning, and the "Daily Show" when I come in from programming or telling Washington how to run the country, and that's usually about it.

I've never sat through an entire episode of Bear Grylls. Actually, I've probably seen less than 15 minutes total of this guy. My daughter's fiance told me about him eating something out of bear poop a few days ago. I'll be tucking that survival tip away in case I ever need it. The bear poop we saw the last time we spent a few nights in the wilderness had Persimmon seeds in it we could have eaten. In fact, I did eat some of the Persimmons that were hanging on a tree near there. If I'd only known....

But we should really give Bear his due credit. He is an entertainer. He's successful at it too. It could very well be that he'd joke about his on camera stunts with you while drinking a beer with you, and that he'd buy the beer too.

While we were in Mexico a few weeks ago I watched no TV at all, only checked my email once, and never surfed the web, but I did I read three books. "Into the Wild", "Cat's Cradle", and "Marley and Me". The first two were very entertaining. The latter was really a waste of time, but I was out of stuff to read.

I read a story somewhere about a kid who watched his first TV show. Afterward his dad asked him what he thought of it. He said something like, "It was okay, but with the radio the pictures are still better." That's exactly how I feel when I'm reading a good book.

I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction... Soon, very soon, there will be a movie made about "A Couple of City Slicker Dumbbells that Follow in the Footsteps of a Popular TV Survivalist and the Crazy Antics that Ensue on Their Wacky Wilderness Adventure". BTW, the "Bear Poop Scene" is hilarious...

I'd write the script and become rich and famous but I have to go install a sump pump in the basement, feed the Donkeys, then tell Washington how to run the country today.

Bill

I agree that the best way to handle this stuff is not to watch it. Fewer people watching means less money to subsidize it, since advertisers count viewers very carefully before buying ad time.

I also agree that it is very annoying that such piffle is sold to the public as The Genuine Article, but what can you do besides not watch it? Who needs the aggravation?

I dunno. While a lot of it is kind of crazy and inpractical, every episode I've happened to see the beginning of, they make a point of telling the viewer this stuff is sometimes set up just to present the situation and nobody should do what he's doing, especially without expert advice or supervision. I wouldn't say the show is trying to sell it as "genuine" at all.

If some "brilliant" person goes out and decides to do this stuff for the hell of it then it is nobody's fault but their own if they get hurt or worse. I don't mind watching because I know it isn't all that real and they tell me that at the beginning. Like any TV show, it is there for mainly entertainment purposes and gaining a profit. Even good ol' Les Stroud has to keep his show entertaining. It isn't as though Les goes out there without an idea of the area and what he should be aware of, camera crew or not.

I do not have a TV.

I can tell you now that story is a bunch of crap. That boy could not have moved one foot without interior alarms going off and summonsing the police department and I assure that he would have not spent the night inside that store. They would have some police officers into that store with dogs looking for a burglar as soon as they got to the store. I was employed by the big box store for fourteen years in management and loss prevention and that story just would not happen. And oh yeah did I mention that most Wal-mart stores are open 24 hours...Just my two (2) cents...sabre11004...

The first step that you take will be one of those that get yo there !!!!!!

Sabre....it was a joke.

Except me.... I've never heard of him.

Maybe I'm living on a different planet. I've never heard of it/him.

Consider yourself LUCKY

BF

So I happened to be flipping back and forth between the Discovery Channel and NBC when commercials poppped on. Apparently there were no more "Dirty Jobs" on so I pop in at the moment that our good buddy Bear Grylls happens to come into fairly close contact with a brown bear in Romania.

He then commenced to not just doing the wrong thing, but also giving the wrong advice about how to deal with coming into close proximity with a bear.

He saw this bear, kneeled down with the camera guy and started to be quiet, trying to hide from the bear and didn't realize they were that close at that point in time. Of course the bear's path happened to be coming in their general direction, yet instead of doing the smart thing, standing in the open and talking, letting the bear know you're there before it gets to close and you startle it, he continued to try and let the bear not know he was there.

Lucky for him the bear saw movement from someone, smelled somebody close or heard something and promptly made a line paralell to where ol' Bear was hiding.

Here's where it gets even worse. He then decides to tell the audience, the best thing to do with a bear charge is to stand your ground. Not horrible advice, they might be just bluff charging and it isn't like you're going to outrun a bear and no reason to trigger that predator instinct by running. Right?

You'd think so. Bu he then tell the viewer option number 2 for a bear charge is running. What?! He tells you to run, throwing your pack on the ground so the bear will go for the pack because that's where the smell is coming from and that'll divert the bear's attention. That's a nice theory, assuming the bear thinks that the pack is food and the thing running away from it isn't the thing it really would rather eat or attack. So pretty much, he told everyone to do the wrong damn thing.

Now I know this is the wrong advice because I've had my fair share of bear encounters, and every time I stood in plain view, talked and let the bear see me without any sudden movements or anything like that. Everytime they've walked away or ran away and that was the end of that. You don't run away hoping the darn thing goes for your pack instead of you. If anything, you keep your pack on and fall to the ground, face first in a curled up position and hope the bear ends up biting the hell out of your pack and you get away with some inevitable injuries and your life. There's no way you're going to outrun an animal that's faster than a horse. Even climbing a tree doesn't guarantee safety.

Just thought this would solidify some stuff because this is some of the worst advice I've seen him give.

Matt:

Good post. What a yahoo! We need to keep exposing this fraud.

I don't think it was a bear - the bear episode was already debunked as an extra in a bear suit + stock bear footage. Or has
he done another one.. good god..

That guy was in another show..."Escape to the Legion" if I recall...about he and a few other guys going through a couple weeks of French Foreign Legion training. At the end, a Legion Commander was to award their efforts with a "Képi Blanc" (a white hat) ceremony. The look on that commanders face was priceless. "Ok, here's you're souvenir hat....now move on..."

Well I don't know what episode might have had an extra in a bear suit, but this bear was a legitimate, real-life brown bear. If it was an extra in a bear suit in this one, well then that has to be about the best bear suit and actor inside ever because they completely fooled me.

The bear suit was one of the very first episodes. It involved him hearing the "bear", causing him to make the decision that he'd better run for it through a forest of trees in the pitch black of night. The episode as shown did not show the guy in the bear suit (probably because it looked fake even to the producers). The story is that the crew tried to get a real trained bear but that fell through at the last minute, so they dressed a crew member up in a suit for the shot.

BTW, this was also the episode where he jumps into a river to "elude the bear" and you can see that he's wearing a life vest under his shirt.

If you want to see all the wool this show has pulled over viewers eyes, check out BearWiki.

This guy's show is going to get someone killed. Unfortunately, a lot of people think it's entertaining - in the same way that "Fear Factor" is. We're watching it to see what other disgusting things Grylls will do in the name of TV. Pretty hard to top drinking elephant dung juice, though. That was even worse than drinking his own urine.

What they need is a disclaimer like The Psychic Network (remember that one?) "For Entertainment Only".

Well there is a disclaimer. It isn't quite so cut and clean as what you suggested, but it is there at the beginning of every show. Of course I'm sure most people don't bother reading it. That's just too inconvenient. Right?

Yeah, they do have one - it's obviously written by a lawyer or a politician. Instead of just saying the show is scripted, staged, and directed with Bear as the stunt man, they say this:



The problem as I see it is that people take the show seriously - you can see that on Discovery's forum. They really think Grylls is showing them valid survival techniques, and Discovery's moderators take no action to dissuade them. They sure are quick to ban those who point out the show's misinformation, though.

Well, that brings the Discovery Channel down on my respect spectrum if they delete posts "not good" for the show. I might have to go check these forums out just to see what's what. It might prove entertaining.

I can not stand Man vs. Wild, but Survivor Man is a great show.

Well to be quite honest. I only watch his show now to see what kinda major intestinal bug he will ingest next. I was flipping channels after installing my moms new HDTV and stopped to show her some of the crazy stuff Bear does. As soon we started watching he rinsed off something from the bear scat and ate it. I laughed and convinced her that I don't do that kinda stuff. Even though Bear might be trying to abide by the LNT ethic. I would be leaving traces everywhere if I ate or even smelled some of the stuff he eats. Maybe Bear can start a new show. "Things that Bear can eat" Yummm

chaz:

Just as long as you didn't get her "hooked" on Bear, in HDTV no less.

I'm wondering if the "props dept." isn't providing him with chocolate that resembles scat; they might just be carving up Cadbury chocolate truffles in the shape of bugs and deer pellets and such. In fact, I think that last dragonfly he ate was on what looked like a tootsie-pop stick.

I don't think those things are fake. I mean it is possible that he just doesn't care and does it for ratings and money. Which imo is exactly what hes doing.

Sure, well he's got to do something to keep me watching it. Who doesn't enjoy being grossed out once in a while?

Reminds me of Bill Murray in Meatballs describing how the campers get to stalk and kill their own bear.

GDeadphans:

"I don't think those things are fake. I mean it is possible that he just doesn't care and does it for ratings and money. Which imo is exactly what he's doing."

You're right on that, except he DOES care. He eats disgusting things because he cares for the money.

In 1969, Peter Sellers, Ringo Starr and John Cleese were in a movie that did better at predicting the future than any sci-fi film of that era. The style is a bit dated, but they hit it "spot on" with the "vat scene" in The Magic Christian, where Sellers and Starr prove that people will literally dive into a vat of blood, urine and poop for $$$.

It was a prophetic moment; the vat, of course, is television, and more specifically, reality TV. Today, people will do anything, including faking a night out in a tent -- even really eat berries in bear poop -- for $$.

Face it, our negativity on this topic is because we feel Bear has exploited our "sport," our passion, to get a little fame that parlays into books, the show, celebrity-status -- and bucks.

I for one would care less if Bear had eaten bugs and swam in a vat of %&*$ before they recorded his every move surviving a cricket match by delivering the last ball underarm along the ground, preventing the batsman from hitting it. With no interest, I could care less about either his throw or his reality cricket show. But some cricket fans in New Zealand would sure be upset.

"Cut him down, bosun. He's been flogged enough."

i think grylls is smarter than his producers let him be.

its almost as if the show is geared to be like fear factor.

i for one love survivorman with les stroud. you can see the huge difference in production.

[quote=kevonionia]GDeadphans:

"I don't think those things are fake. I mean it is possible that he just doesn't care and does it for ratings and money. Which imo is exactly what he's doing."

<b>You're right on that, except he DOES care. He eats disgusting things because he cares for the money.[/b]

Yea, well, that is the only caring he does.

However, I still watch this show, because it does portray the outdoors. When I watch that show I look at gear, or the places of the world he is at and how nice it is, and how much I wish I was out there. Its not to learn how to cross a raging river with a log, I know I wouldn't do that. I do get annoyed with him hyping up situations that aren't really that bad...

Well, and now it seems he'll have an appropriate co-star:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=54539

Well I'll probably watch for the laughs even though there won't be any real "survival." Although now I'm totally turned off towards the show and its now apparent open commercialism.