(no subject)
so i've got a bit of a list going on in my trusty moleskine, aptly entitled "things to blog about". this came about a few days ago when i was sitting in dunkin' donuts after my car's latest spaz-out and had some time to muse. it consists of plenty of subjects i care about, and would like to elaborate on, but it seems every time i have time to blog, i'm never in the mood to talk about any of them! then again, i feel as if i've been slacking on the blogging as of late, and i'd like to start blogging about more than my personal whinings. so i'm just going to start crossing subjects off this list one by one.
--
tonight we'll start with, and i quote, "man vs. wild - why bear grylls is more fun to laugh at to watch, and why survivorman is actually awesome"
now, i'm hopefully not going to be finding myself anytime soon deep in the sierra nevada, in the middle of the sahara, or on the rugged coasts of russia. if i am, with any luck, i'll be there with transport in and out, ample food supply, and a satellite telephone to get my butt out of there, should something go wrong. these two, however, actually throw themselves into these situations and try to scramble their way out for our entertainment as we veg on the couch with a bag of chips and a fuzzy blanket.
thing is, as i'm sure you know, not everything you see is to be believed at face value. turns out bear grylls, host and main adventure-dude of man vs. wild, has many a time not actually been alone and starving in some wretched wilderness, but staying in hotels and getting help from his producers! meantime, les stroud's survivorman is filmed completely by him over a seven day period, with nobody along and no connection to the outside world except for a satellite phone, which sometimes isn't even accessible to him. to me, while the general message is about the same, i think i'm going to listen to the guy who's actually roughing it as opposed to the one who's staying at the local marriott.
example of bear in hawaii:
plus, their demeanours are completely different. bear's definitely more of a showman. he tends to be flashy, daring, and takes a few more risks than the average bear (hah, terrible pun intended). he's not afraid to do whatever it takes to make you look at the screen, wince, hold your stomach, or yell, "is he SERIOUSLY doing that?! no. no, he can't ... ew."
take, for example, the episode where he goes ahead and drinks his own urine in australia:
ugh. i've never seen les do anything quite that extreme. instead, it seems he's much more down to earth, but it doesn't affect the watchability of his program, in my opinion. he's calm, level-headed, and is much more about seriously teaching people survival skills as opposed to "OMG watch me eat a dead camel!". plus, he's a musician and a generally cool guy:
and he has fun stories:
so, to me, i'll watch bear to laugh and get thrills, but i'll watch les for any information that i actually want to retain. do you watch either of these? do you prefer either?
--
tonight we'll start with, and i quote, "man vs. wild - why bear grylls is more fun to laugh at to watch, and why survivorman is actually awesome"
now, i'm hopefully not going to be finding myself anytime soon deep in the sierra nevada, in the middle of the sahara, or on the rugged coasts of russia. if i am, with any luck, i'll be there with transport in and out, ample food supply, and a satellite telephone to get my butt out of there, should something go wrong. these two, however, actually throw themselves into these situations and try to scramble their way out for our entertainment as we veg on the couch with a bag of chips and a fuzzy blanket.
thing is, as i'm sure you know, not everything you see is to be believed at face value. turns out bear grylls, host and main adventure-dude of man vs. wild, has many a time not actually been alone and starving in some wretched wilderness, but staying in hotels and getting help from his producers! meantime, les stroud's survivorman is filmed completely by him over a seven day period, with nobody along and no connection to the outside world except for a satellite phone, which sometimes isn't even accessible to him. to me, while the general message is about the same, i think i'm going to listen to the guy who's actually roughing it as opposed to the one who's staying at the local marriott.
example of bear in hawaii:
Click to viewplus, their demeanours are completely different. bear's definitely more of a showman. he tends to be flashy, daring, and takes a few more risks than the average bear (hah, terrible pun intended). he's not afraid to do whatever it takes to make you look at the screen, wince, hold your stomach, or yell, "is he SERIOUSLY doing that?! no. no, he can't ... ew."
take, for example, the episode where he goes ahead and drinks his own urine in australia:
ugh. i've never seen les do anything quite that extreme. instead, it seems he's much more down to earth, but it doesn't affect the watchability of his program, in my opinion. he's calm, level-headed, and is much more about seriously teaching people survival skills as opposed to "OMG watch me eat a dead camel!". plus, he's a musician and a generally cool guy:
and he has fun stories:
so, to me, i'll watch bear to laugh and get thrills, but i'll watch les for any information that i actually want to retain. do you watch either of these? do you prefer either?