[tisthefire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Survivorman is only entertaining because Les basically fails to do anything productive and ends the show no better off than where he started and everyone laughs at his incompetence.


Man vs. Wild may not be as "authentic", but at least Bear COULD actually survive for >3 days if he actually had to

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you expect someone alone in the wilderness for 7 days to come out better off than when he started?

Also, Les' show is 7 days long so he already does survive for longer than 3 days.

[ QUOTE ]
if you guys think survivorman doesnt have people ready to come in and save his ass if his camping trip goes bad you're [censored] dumb sry.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has a radio which is usually not working. There is no one within ~ 1 mile from where he is. Anyone who compares the authenticity of Survivorman to Man vs. Wild is [censored] dumb.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that Man vs. Wild offers TERRIBLE and in many times dangerous survival techniques. These two shows should not even be compared; they are nothing alike.

[/ QUOTE ]yea, and his help has no way of traversing a mile to get to him, that's pretty stupid logic sorry, both are entertainment and in either case if they got in trouble they would be able to get out so in that way neither are "authentic".

as for which is the better show i prefer man vs wild. he doesn't simply stay in one place, he actively attempts to escape the dangerous situation and get back to civilization. he also is more badass and it's not close, he was in SAS for christ sake.