Largados e Pelados

I gave this series 6 / 10 stars because the basic premise is fascinating ; "Let's see if modern humans can survive under precisely the same conditions that our prehistoric ancestors faced" - and also - because I really do think that it is useful in educating others on the importance of learning how to survive and make it in the absence of a grocery store or an iphone. After watching nearly all of the episodes in the series (because it clearly "seems" to have more redeeming social and academic value than CBS television's "Survivor" reality game show, and because a certain measure of voyeurism is completely natural) - I have noticed a rather statistically unacceptable trend in this exercise. Of all of the "Adams and Eves" that they have released nude into harshness, so far - ALL of the men have been failures at this exercise - as well as occasionally behaving in ways reminiscent of wimps, cry babies, klutzes, pompous braggers, and dullards - where - despite supposedly having extensive survival training and experience - they have nonetheless been totally faced, owned, out survived, and left behind by their female counterparts.

Although obviously there are vast numbers of strong, powerful women out there who could probably survive in a jungle as successfully as Donald Trump can turn over real estate - I find it hard to believe - given human history, that they (men) could come out looking this pathetic - this often - in comparison to their female counterparts. Don't get me wrong - I am, in fact, NOT a Neanderthal - but with apologies to all radical, militant, man hating, ultrafeminist, penis envying neurotics out there - history didn't turn out this way. Sorry to some of you ladies (and some of you gentlemen as well - sadly) if I have offended you personally by being a tad bit factual.

This seems to me to be yet another male bashing campaign, like the animated works of Seth Mcfarlane and Matt Groenig (who are ironically men - go figure - their shows are still funny though), and almost every situation comedy made after the close of the Norman Lear era of Television. This "experiment" seems so totally rigged and stacked - that it feels like loaded dice in a back alley craps game. As a male - I can't help but feel like I'm watching my gender get slammed yet again.

This program seems like militant feminist propaganda. It reinforces a viewpoint that we men are all childish idiots - or at least weaker and less capable, therefore inferior. Either that - or casting must be getting their male participants from areas where no one's ever heard of a football, or the ground water is seriously tainted.

Maybe future episodes will be more even keeled and balanced - but in a way - I seriously doubt it.

If you're looking for a show with a tight focus on bushcraft, and on the grittier details of what it takes to survive inhospitable conditions, Naked and Afraid may not be for you.

On the other hand, if you're looking for a bombastic gameshow about pretty people politicking to outlast one another on a deserted island, again, not for you.

Naked and Afraid lies somewhere in the middle of these concepts. There's quite a bit of social drama and some "gameshow" like feel, while survivalism methods are there, but given short shrift. Disclaimer: I've only watched the first season at this point.

It's probably true that in order to find a large enough mainstream audience, a show like this has to appeal to the "everyday person" who's more likely to respond to the social drama than the finer points of wilderness survival. Even on a channel such as Discovery. I don't mind the social drama, but I'd love just a little more on the latter.

I'm also curious about the making of the show itself. What sort of rules are there, filming in territories like these? How is waste dealt with? Can the survivalists just poop and pee anywhere? Are they doing any sort of bathing? What kind of hygiene practices are possible? To what extent are the survivalists tasked with their own photography? What's it like to have a camera crew show up each day and put a camera in your face? Does it make the experience feel surreal?

The editing of the footage seems to shape the social tension. The couple isn't getting along at first? But later there's a moment of reconciliation? Story arc!

It also manufactures environmental drama where it doesn't really exist. The tide is starting to come in while the group is on the beach? Quick -- intensify the music, insert a sound clip of someone's *censored* curse word, and cut to commercial!

What -- the wild boars the couple were afraid of never show up? How about the thorn in the bottom of that guy's foot -- can we see it again and again and again?

I know, it's a TV show, and you need to get people to stick around through the commercial breaks. But still.

One last gripe: the "PSR" -- Personal Survival Rating -- is half interesting concept, half obvious gimmick to give the viewer some simple concept to grasp. An overly simple metric. "Experience," "Skill," and "Mental." Wait -- Mental?? The first two words are nouns, but mental is an adjective. Anyway...

These pedantic criticisms aside, I've kept watching, and will continue to do so. Seeing people naked in these situations is especially engrossing. And while some of the social drama feels contrived, and while certain items mysterious appear that will help the contestants meet their needs (a battered sauce pot appears in a swamp perfect for boiling water; a long rod of bamboo washes up on a beach, perfect for constructing the raft needed to reach an extraction point on an island), it's nevertheless enthralling to watch people go through this. Part schadenfreude, maybe, but part compassion. Something is driving these individuals, something that seems less like exhibition or competitiveness, but some unresolved trauma.

Not all of them are there processing their demons, no. But Shane, from the first episode, clearly has unresolved trauma from being a foster child. He's acerbic and angry almost the entire time.

Forrest, on the other hand, from the "double jeopardy" episode (currently IMDb lists it as the final episode of season one, while on Prime it's the first of season two; at any rate, the most recent one I've watched) -- he seems like a genuine survival enthusiast eager to ply his skills.

In fact, Forrest wins, in my humble opinion, as one of the most capable survivalists. Joined perhaps by Billy, from the Louisiana episode.

For the women, that distinction has to go to Manu ("double jeopardy") and Ky Furneaux ("beware the bayou").

Oh, one last thing -- not all of the environments seem as inhospitable. The Maldives are hot and that dude gets braised like a chicken, but it's the Louisiana bayou, or maybe Panama, that feel like a whole other league. (Manu, I hope wherever you are, you've fully recovered...)

7/10.

I've seen all of the episodes. Two survivalists (with different levels of experience) must work together in an attempt to brave the elements for 21 days.

Each show is set in a different locale, so the participants/victims are subjected to a wide variety of naturally occurring tortures (horrendous bug bites, sunburns, blisters, etc.).

The precarious situations are interesting and educational for the most part. For those with a touch of ADHD, it can be a challenge to sit through slower episodes.

The struggle to create fire and obtain the basic essentials for life is an element making this show interesting. The interpersonal dynamics surrounding the roles each participant must contribute are surprising in many instances. This is probably the shows greatest attribute, which might be very mediocre otherwise.

Admittedly, I haven't seen other shows in this genre, but find this show engaging, not because of the blurred out nudity, but largely due to the mental and physical challenges the participants endure, along with the ebb and flow of their interpersonal relationship.

When my significant other and I watch the show we frequently say "why would anyone do this because they can't be getting much money?" I suppose certain people are willing to take on any challenge or would do almost anything to be on TV; even it means lying in bed with snakes and horrible critters of the night.

9 out of 10.

After nearly 14 years, the "Survivor" phenomenon has evolved into this - survival TV the way it should be. All the Bear Grylls copycats can hang their heads in shame. Real "reality TV" means real risks. "Naked and Afraid" delivers this in spades.

You know when reality TV is real - because it inevitably gets boring. Reality is often boring. In this show, this "ordinary-ness" is what makes it so interesting and infectious. None of this $100k prizes, voting out contestants, winning the things you need to live et al. And most important of all - No script, no make up and wardrobe or art departments!

Finally, Television takes on the clothing thing head on. Being American, this show dances with this topic by using the ubiquitous pixellation of private bits where the rest of the world wouldn't care and would just show it raw with the appropriate rating and warnings.

To it's credit, it handles the nudity very well. You almost don't recognize it's even there.

Just like "Survivor" broke new ground a decade ago, this program is definitely an original. No doubt it will spawn a rash of "me too" copycat programs around the world and behind this phenomenon, an industry of tourism operators eager to give viewers a taste of the "real thing".

Best of all, "Naked and Afraid" makes nudism cool and fun again. Not since the '70s have we been so challenged to lose our clothes and join our friends on the box.

My hat (and everything else) is off to the producers for daring to do something original in a world where so little originality is left. See if you can rise to the challenge of releasing an "uncensored" version though for the rest of the world to watch - before the rest of the world starts to make their own anyway.

ZM

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.