Nudi e crudi

My rating is generous but I would like to encourage the producers to improve the show.

The participants are generally under-prepared and easily overwhelmed. Many claim to have survival skills but these amount to no more than camping skills.

Some claim to be hunters but take away the weaponry and they go hungry.

Most are also overweight the wrong way, that is, they didn't pile up the fat to endure hunger. They are overeaters that collapse when their poor diet changes.

The producers also feel the need to create a degree of controversy and the participants are pushed (in some case, possibly eager) to share their social theories of gender. Needless to say, these are infantile and in no way explain anyone's actions, not even their very own.

To add insult to injury, the producers are selecting people with a high need for approval and acceptance. Some are good folk, true, but that's really besides the point.

This does not make for good TV.

I generally don't watch reality shows, but at the urging of a friend, tuned into this one with my wife, and got hooked. The premise is a man and a woman who don't know previously know each other are injected into a hostile or challenging environment with only a single tool of their choice each and with no clothes and must survive for 21 days. The challenges are (in the approximate order of criticality); get acquainted and establish a cooperative relationship; build a fire; acquire potable water; build a shelter; survive off native plants until you can acquire protein by fishing and hunting; avoid dangerous animals and exposure; be productive with your partner by emphasizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses. Then there is basically realizing that successful survivalism (i.e. surviving", means not making any mistakes (like letting your fire go out or burn down your shelter, or chopping your finger with a machete or drinking bad water and getting dysentery). Further, it helps to be lucky -- if possible avoid bad storms, flash floods, etc. If you like problem-solving; if you like the outdoors and have a respect for real nature; if you are fascinated by observing human nature under stress, you will probably enjoy this show. I've watched five programs to date, and quickly noticed the people selected are all "well-nourished" as coroners used to say -- not fat, but not thin. Every participant is faced with the huge challenge of trying to get enough calories to get by, and we quickly learn what a huge disadvantage most modern humans are at when they do not have tools or their culture to rely upon. The average weight loss among the ten people so far be roughly 30 lbs in 21 days, and it's easy to see the toll of stress and anxiety on the participants.

This show is about survival in the wild. Two unrelated contestants--one male, one female--are deposited in a natural setting where they try to survive for 21 days. Each person is permitted to bring one item with him (e.g. a machete), so it is not a truly unaided survival, but it is very close. There is little interference from the crew of the show.

I have watched three episodes so far. In each case, the environments were harsh. The hazards ranged from biting insects or wild boar to days of rain or shark-infested waters. So far, no one has had an easy time of it.

As you watch the show, it is impossible not to project yourself into the situation. This is a real, human drama that anyone could relate to.

Some viewers see gender politics in the show. It is natural to make comparisons between the partners, but it is more satisfying to view the contestants as individuals. Each is given a Primitive Survival Rating at the beginning of the show--based upon skills, experience and mental makeup--and their is no component for gender. At the end of the show, their ratings are updated, based upon new skills learned and the strengths and weaknesses revealed.

As we watch the show, we learn. Time (daylight) is a resource many do not measure. It must be used effectively. Other primary values are water, food and fire. The primitive environment is hostile. Even the sun can be an enemy. Each environment has its own set of threats--and that is one reason this show is interesting. Each team must evaluate its distinctive environment and quickly react to its threats and resources. In the early hours of each adventure, the smart survivalist benefits from a healthy dose of fear.

The premise of the show sounds fine: two people on a survival trek *really* old-fashioned: Naked, just like the proverbial Adam and Eve all those years ago. Don't worry: all private parts are blurred.

Unfortunately, in the episode I watched (#2, but also in the first episode, if the reviews are correct), the guy was as thick as a brick and a "typical American": male chauvinistic, feeling degraded when he had to do what he regarded as "woman's work" and totally incapable of cooperation. While cooperation is more the key to survival than anything else.

By contrast, the woman was quite level-headed and ready for compromises and cooperations.

I really wondered about the lack of survival skills of the people. Any attempt at hunting failed miserably, it took them two days to start a fire, and any fish they caught was purely by accident.

To summarize: it was okay to watch, but the people were totally unsuited for the challenge and the execution of the show is not as good as it might have been. I hope next time they get some people who know what they are doing.

I never watched this program until this year (2015) and I found myself "binge watching" most of the episodes over a couple of weekends. The show is like eating potato chips. You can't watch just one, so if you are DVR-ing, you will probably do what I did and watch perhaps four in a sitting. But I'm a skeptic, and when you watch a bunch of these in one sitting, certain patterns emerge. There's more to this show than meets the eye. In three of the episodes that I watched this weekend, someone conveniently finds an old metal pot, which is interesting because it doesn't make sense that a pot would just magically appear, like the holy grail, in the snake-infested muck of a Louisiana bayou, or in an alligator-infested river in Botswana? If you don't have access to potable water, you're not going to make it to 21 days and this is an expensive production. "Look at that! A pot! I can't believe it! Now we can boil water!" Also, it seems each person can only bring one tool for the trip, which in most cases is a knife and a fire starter. (Lol, how odd that they NEVER each bring the same thing, like, "Darn, I brought a fire starter too!! Now what are we going to do?") And while it is fun to see the scary animals lurking in the bushes, you will never see a shot of a lion or hyena in the same frame as the people. Hyenas are opportunistic feeders who select the easiest and most attractive food. Are you telling me that these two naked and unarmed humans would not be a tasty snack? How dangerous are these places, for real? Is there actually a resort a few yards away that you can't see? I mean, really, would the producers spend all that money on one episode, only to leave the participants in their little shelters at night, with no protection, and go back to their cozy campsite, only to return in the morning to find that they'd been devoured by a lion? I don't think so. I could pull off a version of this show in my own back yard, sit naked in a patch of trees between my house and my neighbor's for 21 days, digging a hole for water and catching termites, grasshoppers and squirrels to eat. You would never know my house was 20 feet in front of me. But I do like this show. In fact, I am giving it a 6 out of 10. In addition to being entertaining, it is educational and actually a fascinating concept. You can learn a lot about survival techniques from this show, and the scenery is beautiful. I just think you have to keep an open mind and take it for what it is, or isn't.