Astro vs. Real Survival: Which Show Would You Put Your Money On?

In summary: He's too nice. Exactly, and I ruled out Astro as a participant for the very...reasons you just mentioned. He's too nice.
  • #1
Danger
Gold Member
9,799
253
I am so sick of that stinking show! When I first heard of it, I thought that it was a cool idea... until I watched an episode. I've never watched it since, but can't help being bombarded with clips and trailers for the stupid thing.
If I had a couple of million bucks kicking around loose, I'd produce a show called 'Real Survival'. Contestants would pay $10,000 each to participate, just to show that they're serious. They would then be (randomly) dropped buck-naked at various compass points 1km off-shore of the island. No crew, and no cameras. Whoever comes out alive wins the million. :approve:

(If he could get over his pacifism, I'd throw my money on Astro.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Lol, Astro and Turbo are our resident renaissance men.
I've never watched the show either. Reality shows tend to annoy me. I enjoy top chef and tend to find myself rooting for the unpoplar guy. I think it's slightly rigged though.
 
  • #3
I watched 5 minutes years ago...seem to recall there were rats on the menu...that was enough.
 
  • #4
I watched Season 2. It entertained me, but after that it was repetitive.
 
  • #5
Danger said:
I'd produce a show called 'Real Survival'. Contestants would pay $10,000 each to participate, just to show that they're serious. They would then be (randomly) dropped buck-naked at various compass points 1km off-shore of the island. No crew, and no cameras. Whoever comes out alive wins the million. :approve:

I totally agree with you. In fact, I've proposed this exact thing dozens of times to various friends and family. There would be no food or assistance of any kind, no silly games, and they wouldn't bring anything with them other than the shirts on their backs -- which likely wouldn't last long after they are torn up and used for survival purposes. I would scatter hidden cameras throughout the island with motion sensors, and there would be a crew to sort through this random footage and pull out the good shots, but that's it.

I would put a radio on the island. The contestant who pleads for rescue last wins all the money. Perhaps there would also be medical helicopter evacuation if cameras on the island observed a person to be near-death and starving to death but too stubborn to call for help...but aside from that, I want to see total survivalism. And not just wilderness survival...I want to see the people stealing food from each other, backstabbing, whatever it takes for those poor bastards to survive the longest.
 
  • #6
junglebeast said:
I totally agree with you.

In a way you do, but the rest of your post introduces conditions that I don't support. No medevac, no rescue, and no survivors other than the winner. I do like your suggestion of unmanned cameras, though. When I said that whoever comes out alive wins, I meant that only one comes out alive. The penalty for failure is death. If someone wants to act tough, let 'em back it up.
 
  • #7
Danger said:
In a way you do, but the rest of your post introduces conditions that I don't support. No medevac, no rescue, and no survivors other than the winner. I do like your suggestion of unmanned cameras, though. When I said that whoever comes out alive wins, I meant that only one comes out alive. The penalty for failure is death. If someone wants to act tough, let 'em back it up.

Well...I was trying to be realistic. You can't broadcast people dying on TV, and even if you could, it probably wouldn't go over well with the general populace. Also, it could be viewed as murder.
 
  • #8
junglebeast said:
Well...I was trying to be realistic. You can't broadcast people dying on TV, and even if you could, it probably wouldn't go over well with the general populace. Also, it could be viewed as murder.
That's the beauty of international waters. And the only broadcasts would be the initial drop and the final winner emerging. (That's why I mentioned an extra million bucks; it's to support the project without relying upon sponsors. :biggrin:)
 
  • #9
I think I've seen this movie before...
 
  • #10
Danger said:
When I said that whoever comes out alive wins, I meant that only one comes out alive. The penalty for failure is death. If someone wants to act tough, let 'em back it up.
Then you might have people killing each other. :-/
And Astro wouldn't win because he would be helping everyone else! He's not a very "There can be only one" sort of guy. We would probably find them living like the Swiss Family Robinson after a few monthes.
 
  • #11
TheStatutoryApe said:
Then you might have people killing each other. :-/

Exactly, and I ruled out Astro as a participant for the very reason that you mentioned. He's too nice.
Seriously... look at the bloody show and honestly tell me that you wouldn't want to see most of them killed. I sure would.
 
  • #12
It's time to start running!

It would have to be a webcast show that didn't care about copyrights. It wouldn't make it onto tv in the U.S. at this point in time, though I'd bet many people would watch it if it did.

A bit too much for me. There's plenty of people dying in the world that I think should be on tv. I don't want to see people killing each other for my entertainment. Though I wouldn't mind watching some bare knuckle boxing and maybe get those heavyweights some props or something so they aren't hugging each other after the third round. Last night I was expressing my dissatisfaction with some UFC fighters because when they get in a bad situation they intentionally turn the back of their head to their opponent, knowing that he can't hit him there legally. I hate when people defend themselves with the rules. Just tap out already. We all know who won.

I'm not at all sure that people in that situation would go Lord of the Flies on each other. In people who aren't psychotic the urge to survive is stronger than the urge to kill. Usually survival is easiest with a pooling of skills and labor. There might be some literal backstabbing in the woods when they think nobody is looking, but it would never be a fair fight. To get the bloody mess you are looking for you would need to severely control their resources or cast enough psychopaths to make group cohesion impossible.

Ugh, it's a chilling thought. I wouldn't wish that on Jeff Probst. Maybe just one round in the ring with Manny Pacquiao. The world deserves that much as compensation for Survivor I think.
 
  • #13
Survivor.

Never watched it, never wanted to. I have even avoided seeing clips of it beyond 30 seconds or so.

It's easy when you don't have cable. 15 years of marriage, and we never once thought of getting cable, making do with VHS and DVD; and now that Netflix has "watch instantly," there is no need at all for cable.

So why did we just install cable last month?

...kids...

It's a matter of time before we are watching "survivor."
 
  • #14
I'm so sorry:cry:
 
  • #15
I have never watched the show. When I've seen the obligatory promo-clips, their "challenges" seemed so contrived and the "excitement" over-blown, yet somehow the show's producers managed to engineer some surprises periodically to get press coverage.

It's pretty stupid to plunk some people down in what most of us would consider a paradise and film their games and their meetings. Bring them up to north-central Maine with minimal support and see how many could survive. Unless there are some dedicated hunters in the group with survival skills (Can you make knives, spear points, arrowheads out of chert or flint? Do you know which trees have pliable, strong roots that you can use to haft those blades? Can you create fire using friction and preserve the coals and transport them? Do you know which parts of which plants are edible, and which will make you sick or kill you?) they would all wash out pretty quick. Hell! "beaver fever" and black flies would drive them to the exits pretty readily, even if they did manage to find enough to eat.
 
  • #16
Survivor. :yuck:

Danger, you are a riot! I say drop them all on different islands, no contact.

Oooh how about each contestant has to be paired with a simpy, wimpy, brain dead pop celebrity? First person that goes a week without killing their celebrity wins?

Danger, I take it you have missed this season's Amazing Race? This season was done well, with great contestants. I'm not going to tell you that you missed gorgeous 20 somethings running in their thong underwear. No, I wouldn't be that cruel.
 
  • #17
Evo said:
Survivor. :yuck:

Danger, you are a riot! I say drop them all on different islands, no contact.

Oooh how about each contestant has to be paired with a simpy, wimpy, brain dead pop celebrity? First person that goes a week without killing their celebrity wins?

Danger, I take it you have missed this season's Amazing Race? This season was done well, with great contestants. I'm not going to tell you that you missed gorgeous 20 somethings running in their thong underwear. No, I wouldn't be that cruel.

Wouldn't it be better if it was the last one with a live celebrity? Get rid of more celebrities that way?
 
  • #18
LowlyPion said:
Wouldn't it be better if it was the last one with a live celebrity? Get rid of more celebrities that way?
I had assumed most celebrities would have gone to the here after before the end of the week, and expecting one to make the one week mark was iffy. :wink:
 
  • #19
Evo said:
I had assumed most celebrities would have gone to the here after before the end of the week, and expecting one to make the one week mark was iffy. :wink:

Just wanted to eliminate the possibility of ties.

Sudden death overtime could be messy.
 
  • #20
Oh, pair each one with a French Clown mime! With a squeeky horn!
 
  • #21
If you don't want to see Survivor commercials, just don't watch CBS. I still cannot understand how the worst network in terms of quality is number one in the ratings. Seriously, unless you're really into procedurals, the only shows worth watching are The Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother. I would even rank the CW above CBS.
 
  • #22
Evo said:
Oh, pair each one with a French Clown mime! With a squeeky horn!

You must want them to go to a half hour format. That would go quickly.
 
  • #23
LowlyPion said:
You must want them to go to a half hour format. That would go quickly.
For sure! That invisible box won't protect you, Marcel. Die!
 

1. What is the premise of "Astro vs. Real Survival"?

"Astro vs. Real Survival" is a hypothetical survival show that pits two teams against each other - one team uses only space-age technology and resources, while the other team must rely on traditional survival skills and tools.

2. Which show would be more likely to succeed in a real survival situation?

In a real survival situation, it is more likely that the team with traditional survival skills and tools would be able to survive. While space-age technology may seem advanced and impressive, it is not always reliable and can be rendered useless in certain situations.

3. Are there any notable differences between the two teams?

The main difference between the teams in "Astro vs. Real Survival" is the resources and tools they have at their disposal. The space-age team may have high-tech gadgets and equipment, but the traditional survival team will have to rely on their knowledge and ingenuity to survive.

4. Is there a clear winner in this hypothetical show?

It is difficult to determine a clear winner as it ultimately depends on the specific survival situation and the skills and strategies of each team. However, in most cases, the traditional survival team may have a higher chance of success due to their reliance on practical skills rather than technology.

5. What can we learn from a show like "Astro vs. Real Survival"?

Shows like "Astro vs. Real Survival" can teach us the value of traditional survival skills and the importance of being prepared for any situation. It also highlights the limitations of technology and the need for human ingenuity and adaptability in survival situations.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top