Bele Torso This is a great show with a lot of significant information. Because of this TV show I have researched and thought about survival issues. The so-called experts that dig on this show are a joke. Of course there are cameramen shooting...it's a TV show! Did you think you can have a satellite camera overhead in the great sky above? One reviewer was upset over some bamboo in Hawaii. Really dude? How much endangered bamboo did Joe actually use? He killed a pig...great TV and something you do to survive. It isn't like there is a community inhabiting the sacred island killing pigs daily.One clown said Matt must be gay because he was too laid back or passive. This is the attitude of ignorance we get from the tough, macho survival real men out there. A man has a sensitivity and intelligence that threatens or is different than you and you judge and condemn? Matt was brilliant and demonstrated self-control and a way to think outside of the military box. Guess what...there are many levels of intelligences! This would mean a viewer has to learn and be the very person they criticize--someone who can adapt, think, and God-forbid, have cognitive skills not possessed from how you problem-solve.This TV show offers a great template for survival skills. You want to go deeper, than Google and research or read a book. Do you have to "overlook" a few things? Of course...so what. Producers have to edit for entertainment or there is no show. Don't blame the "actors" for the editing...it's called TV and you have about 42 minutes to tell a story per episode.The real morons of this show are Discovery. Cody shares they did NO vetting of his background ever. The show was more concerned with personalities than skills. His mission was to present expertise in a survival experience. The show itself needs drama. For example, the premise is based on a three day survival. The need for food is not a core priority so killing animals was against the grain of Cody's mindset. A military guy does not think that way. Discovery screwed up with Dave and Joe's credible background checks. That is on the producers of the show! Cody was by far the most skilled of them all. The show was built around his knowledge the first season until it strayed to more drama-based episodes. All of the hosts are good, Dave blew it by skewing his background (ego issues) but was a solid character and knew his stuff--good guy who made a mistake. Joe seemed to try too hard, but was also good at what he did. If you want contrast (and all these shows do) then pairing up the naturalist (per se) with the military guy gives you this entertainment factor. But I will add, who has been on an "adventure" be it planned or unscheduled that has not had contrast of opinion to the "what" or "how"? Some might call this marriage! This show demonstrates there are different methods to solving problems and making crucial decisions and that compromise is always part of the journey to success. My advise to the producers is to bring back Cody and Dave for a few reunion shows IF they will come back. Evidently, there was some bad blood for Cody.

grizzledgeezer I haven't given a ranking, because I have no way of judging how accurate the survival information presented is. Which is what the program is supposed to be about. But it's actually about personal conflict. (More about that later.)As human beings have become increasingly effete (the word means weak, not effeminate), programs about "survival in the wild" have become increasingly popular. Discovery has three or four shows about "making it" in Alaska alone.I find it "quaint" that viewers actually believe the participants are in real danger. Only in "Naked and Afraid" do they seem to run any real risk, mostly because they're dumped in areas where there's little or no fresh water or food. Accidents can occur and mistakes made, but the producers aren't stupid enough to take chances. Serious injury or death could result in embarrassing lawsuits, regardless of how cleverly written the contracts are.The underlying purpose of these shows is to create conflict -- people arguing with each other. The survivalists aren't chosen solely for their varying perspectives on survival skills, but (as when making a fire) how much "heat" can be generated by friction between them.This was obvious from the start. Cody Lundin and Dave Canterbury made an irritating odd couple. This viewer found Lundin especially annoying. Though obviously heterosexual, there was something unmanly -- castrato-like -- about the guy. If I were a woman, I wouldn't let him within 10m (33') of me. Canterbury probably felt the same way.Joe Teti and Matt Graham were the opposite. It's hard to believe Graham isn't homosexual (his offer to make Teti a suede loin cloth was charmingly hilarious). Though they argued (especially about Graham's proclivity to hang out and soak up the environment), Graham was often amiable about accepting Teti's way of doing things. It was this general lack of friction (it's surprising they haven't announced their engagement!) that likely explains the short run of their partnership.The current pair comprises Bill McConnell and Grady Powell. They're probably the closest to what the producers had in mind from the start. Powell thinks McConnell is a braggart, but forgives him when he can't start a fire in an impossibly damp environment. (How much of this is real and how much dictated by the producers isn't clear.)Which brings me to what provoked this series review (and the Summary line). McConnell and Powell are forced to spend the night without fire in a cold, damp cave. And get this -- they sleep apart.Who's kidding whom? Are these guys so homophobic they won't lie together to keep warm? Or are the producers afraid of offending viewers?Cowboys spread their bed rolls right next to each other. (Wanna see a photo?) It was mostly to conserve heat, as cloudless nights on the plain got very cold.If you're trying to show people how to avoid freezing to death, you don't reject the simplest and most-obvious solution.

Milton Lau This series has some credibility, that was until Joe Teti joined the program. Usually the criteria and content of context is presented in reasonable pretense. With relevant accuracy and facts for the viewer to process. But the credibility factor went out the window when Joe joined the program. Joe's behavior and half-arsed, amateur stuntman antics undermines the credibility of the producers to bring to the viewer a good piece of entertainment and educational product for the viewing audience. During earlier appearances, his "acting and posing" annoyed his partner in the program (Cody). Joe's bad acting and phony posing, underscores that the show should not be taken seriously, that it is solely an entertainment for the pleasure of the audience.In the episode shot in Hawaii, Joe made a lot of bad errors of show-boatman-ship. 1) randomly hacking away at growing bamboo, to the average viewer you might think "big deal". Except in Hawaii, there are several varieties of bamboo that are on the endangered species list, because very few examples exist in the wilds of Hawaii's islands. Some species of bamboo are exclusive to just one island, while a few species are exclusive to the Hawaiian islands, out of the hundreds of species of bamboo in the world. The state department of natural resources could bar Mr. Teti from ever coming back to Hawaii on the grounds of violating the local laws and ordnances written to protect endangered species. He could just be out right arrested, the next time he shows up in Hawaii. 2) The impromptu, killing of a wild pig - by Joe Teti in the Hawaii episode, was done in bad form. For the crew who were probably trying to shoot the program on the premise of being tourists shooting a documentary. Normally in regular circumstances, to hunt pigs in the wild areas, a permit is required and to register with island game wardens, precautions must be taken to not leave exposed animal remains that could become contaminated and proliferate the spreading of viruses and diseases. I would not be surprised to learn the entire production crew and everyone involved in the shoot of that episode, may be liable for violating county ordnances, laws in the state of Hawaii that protect wildlife and for violating preservation areas. Because many trails are public access, going off the trails is illegal and a fine-able offense. 3) openly violating rules for personal safety and violating animal protection laws in a state of the United States of America, is not a thing to flaunt in a program that anyone could view - and misunderstand, when they go to visit Hawaii on their own.There were no disclaimers on either end of the program, about open violation of laws in the shooting of that episode.There are other loose ends that Joe Teti, has imposed upon the program, that undermines the credibility of the overall program for viewers to consider on the merit of the program as a whole. If you watch with an objective eye, you will see him embarrass himself on every show.

celestemekent Does anyone actually believe these two will not be rescued? Seriously folks there are two camera men who we never see but who are constantly present (probably with satellite phones at the ready). The producers know exactly where they are. None of the situations they get stuck in are realistic I would never expect to ever see a similar situation so there is virtually no reason at all to "learn" what to do from what these experts in survival offer us. More importantly there is little to suspend belief and nothing to make me believe they are at much risk.I have no doubt that the information these two experts is show us is legit, but I just cannot muster up enough to care. Aside from the basic humanity there is nothing in common for me.