Is Survivor cruel?

The ClubHouse: Archives: Is Survivor cruel?

Ocean_Islands

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 03:55 am Click here to edit this post
What could be more cruel than putting people in a cage and watching them starve?

I personally think the show is wrong not to provide them with enough food. They say the food is 'enough' to survive on.

However, I believe the interpretive word is 'survive' -- for the number of days they have to. But they are still starving.

If the food was a sustaining amount, they would not be losing weight, but maintaining weight; am I wrong?

Gail

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 05:20 am Click here to edit this post
I am not sure if cruel is the right word but it sure seems like these survivors have much less to eat then last year's group of survivors. While you could blame some of that on Mother Nature washing out their camp along with fishing hooks, there are a few other factors.

One, the location they are in has strict rules governing the wildlife.

To me, the survivor's worst enemy is the show itself. When they merged, they had to give up a lot of items due to lack of time and what they could physically carry. Without a boat - they have no way to get out past that banks to go fishing. The fishing trap would have been handy too.

I felt bad for them when Colby said he had only had 4 spoonfuls of rice that day. They are not really much better off then if they had been dropped off in the desert somewhere with a water spring. Where they are at, it doesn't appear that there is much edible vegetation for them.

Part of the problem is they are stuck in the same area - unable to go anywhere else. By that I mean it is not like they can just pick up and go 2 miles away to a nicer area and set up another camp - it seems like they are pretty much stuck there.

I don't understand why they weren't allowed to keep the boats when they merged tribes.

Grod

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 06:03 am Click here to edit this post
i agree with gail, but i also think it is their incompetence which keeps them hungry. There are bugs and insects which could provide protein. Also i think they made a mistake with the chickens. they had male and female chickens...if they kept them alive, they could have had eggs, but they chose to eat them. and it was sheer stupidity to put their camp in a dry creekbed when they were told it was rainy season.
Colby is #1 go Colby

Seamonkey

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 07:16 am Click here to edit this post
I agree that they almost gleefully destroyed a source of daily eggs. It almost seemed like a Kucha drive to get to Kimmi and then they did in the last chicken just before the merger.

Gervase pointed out that because of the rats, the
SI groups kept everything hung from the trees so
there could have been some techniques to avoid losing their fishhooks and rice.

Elisabeth said in an interview that once they merged, the water was so bad that they rarely
(or never) bathed!! Seems like some of their time
watching the fire could have included boiling some of that water.

I thought making them give up the boats was deliberately unkind.

Go Keith!!

Karuuna

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 07:59 am Click here to edit this post
I do think that it was a mistake putting them where there was less to sustain them, if they actually were to live off the land. In SI, they had rats and fish and tapioca and fruit etc. They lost weight, but they certainly weren't as deprived. And the few things they did have, they didn't make good use of (like not stretching the fish into soup).

As for the eggs, I distinctly remember "I feel the need to kill today" Mike saying he encouraged them to kill the chickens early, so they would be more dependent on him as the great white hunter for food.

Ocean_Islands

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 08:38 am Click here to edit this post
They're not looking real smart at the moment, that's for sure.

Backhome

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 10:21 am Click here to edit this post
There have also been comments made (don't remember by who though) that the Okagor tribe did not ration food very well during the first part of the game and didn't bring nearly as much to the merger as Kucha did.

It seems like I read (or heard?!) somewhere that S2 was given exactly the same rations in the beginning as S1 was but they have not done nearly as well in rationing or supplementing. I realize that this is a "game", but the whole point is survival. The S1 gang did a whole lot better in gathering whatever food they could find, whether or not it was something they felt they could eat (ie rats). The S2 bunch, for the most part, seem to be waiting for someone to bring them food or a chance at winning reward challenges. The few people that were actually going out and looking for food sources were booted off early on (ie Kel, by Jerry's machinations).

So, is Survivor cruel? No, not in and of itself. However, if people don't think about what they are doing when rationing food or voting then they can definitely make life during the game very difficult.

Moondance

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 10:23 am Click here to edit this post
We only have what we have brought into our own experience... Hellooooo they signed up for it so who's to judge if it is cruel or not cruel! If you choose it is wrong then you in fact enabling it just by giving it your energy (ex.watching it.)

Zeb

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 12:06 pm Click here to edit this post
OI, compared to some of the foreign/international versions of Survivor, they are probably well cared for. If they drop, they drop out. I don't think they would let them die or anything and they have a medical crew on site.

Ocean_Islands

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 12:18 pm Click here to edit this post
Well, reality is cruel so I don't know why reality tv would not be the same.

Moondance

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 12:19 pm Click here to edit this post
so why did you ask?

Ocean_Islands

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 12:29 pm Click here to edit this post
Perhaps the question is, why do we watch?

Moondance

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 12:31 pm Click here to edit this post
Then ask what you what to talk about or mean to... you are a bit batty today... whats up?

Ocean_Islands

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 12:32 pm Click here to edit this post
It was a rhetorical question asked to stimulate conversation, if you must know, and I wondered what others thought. Obviously I know what I think.

Schoolmarm

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 01:06 pm Click here to edit this post
About the chicken/egg decision on the Kucha tribe. I remember Alicia's interview regarding this. Only one of the chickens was laying eggs and they gave Kimmi the "daily egg". They wanted to put the laying chicken in a differenct cage so they wouldn't kill it by mistake. That's when Kimmi and Alicia got into their argument. The chickens on Survivor I weren't laying either, so the "egg laying chickens" weren't really so. I thought it was really clever to eat the chicken feed like popcorn.
On the Saturday early show, Elisabeth talked about why they didn't eat the plant-life. She said that there were poisonous plants that looked just like the edible plants. She said that Kieth would come back from eating mushrooms and offered them to the others. She didn't eat any, because she didn't want to risk getting sick.
I don't know about anyone else, but with only 4 spoonfuls of rice twice a day....those grasshoppers would be looking pretty good!

Seamonkey

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 03:22 pm Click here to edit this post
Jeez.. if Keith ate the mushrooms, they could wait and if he didn't die, then they had a source.. that's as lame as not bathing. No wonder her hair fell out.

Wink

Saturday, April 28, 2001 - 04:42 pm Click here to edit this post
LOL Seamonkey.

Bijoux

Monday, April 30, 2001 - 02:49 pm Click here to edit this post
It seems to me that providing short rations is one thing. Providing as short as rations are they are is another. I don't see the reason for it and I think that it would be a better show if the players actually had some energy to do something besides sitting around and starving. Keeping the food as low as it is is cruel IMO and something I don't think the players expected from watching the first show. At least I didn't, even though I heard Richard Hatch on the Early Show saying that they didn't have any food the last couple of days when he played

They also aren't given any instructions worthwhile on how to fend for themselves in their environment. If aborigines have been able to live there for thousands of years, then the survivors should be able to find more food. Instead they can't eat the vegetation nor eat what they were catching on their fish hooks - the turtles. Grasshoppers have a short season - only a couple of days after the rains start so even if they were able to catch enough for bait and a meal for all of them, it wouldn't have lasted long. I remember watching Survivor 1 when Sue and Kelly pulled up the roots of the tapioca/cassava plant and said that there was no food. There was food, the leaves of the cassava plant are edible and quite tasty too. Obviously no one had told them that when they were taught how to forage for cassava. I just read the thread that Kenya will probably be the spot for Survivor III and Jeff saying that they didn't know what they were going to do for water. HELLO, They are going to the African savana in the middle of July - which just happens to be the middle of the rainy season. Savana = grasslands. How do they think the grass grows? The african savana has rivers and streams.

To compound the shortages though, they haven't taken care of the provisions well. Each tribe lost a bag of rice early on from spoilage. They didn't keep their equipment safe even after they had to move their camp because of rising water. It's raining - yet none of them collect rain water for drinking. Since part of the game has to do with group dynamics, going out to gather food puts the gatherer at a bit of a disadvantage - just ask Kel.

Ocean_Islands

Monday, April 30, 2001 - 03:28 pm Click here to edit this post
Excellent points, Bijoux, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Moondance

Monday, April 30, 2001 - 03:42 pm Click here to edit this post
Great post Bijoux... funny, I applied for S2 and even before I sent in my app, I read all about the outback... you would think that they would have wanted to be more prepared... for ex.like starting a fire!

Ocean_Islands

Monday, April 30, 2001 - 03:54 pm Click here to edit this post
If you would have won $1,000,000 would you have bought me dinner?

Moondance

Monday, April 30, 2001 - 03:59 pm Click here to edit this post
I would have bought you an airline ticket to LA and then dinner!

Wink

Monday, April 30, 2001 - 04:05 pm Click here to edit this post
You mean you wouldn't have cooked him rice????

Bijoux

Monday, April 30, 2001 - 05:26 pm Click here to edit this post
Moon, Are you applying for Survivor III?

Moondance

Monday, April 30, 2001 - 06:03 pm Click here to edit this post
No, I missed the deadline and my manager/agent threatened me LOL... I might sneak and apply for S4, South America sounds pretty cool!

Fruitbat

Tuesday, May 01, 2001 - 11:22 pm Click here to edit this post
Gervase claimed they were just as hungry on Sur 1 but didn't talk about it as much. I don't buy that. Richard was catching fish daily. That is a big difference. They didn't sacrifice any fishing equipment with the merge either. That gave them just enough to keep their spirits and energy a little higher.

MB went too far here and I think he knows it. He was doing The Eco Challenge at the same time and got carried away. There is less interesting footage due to low energy from the extreme lack of food. Brown rice and miso would be a wise addition. (they just got some brown last week for the first time, so that is an admission right there).

Forget the eggs. It can be hard to get chickens to lay in good circumstances.

Moving their camp turned out to be a bad idea. It left us with little to watch. Observing the camp structures grow and evolve was interesting. Rudy putting on the immunity neclace in front of the mirror was a precious moment. The card table, the kitchen, sleeping quarters, all added to the visual interest and sense of community. All we have now is a bunch of wet starving people with one pan and a lousy shelter because they took the other one away. They even took Bessy's head dress, the only splash of color!

I enjoyed seeing daily life and some conversation on Sur 1. I remember the women fooling around with the bandanna making different clothing, swimming, playing cards, taking walks, etc.

Also.....This had the model of Sur 1 so the competition and alliances started immediately. There was no grace time of bonding and fun. There is an edge to this one that is very different. And 3 will learn from this show and be very different in yet another way. I enjoy it and eagerly await the next even though I agree that the food trip is way over the top. I don't expect to see such an extreme next time. Giving them enough food to maintain their weight would be not be interesting either. A little sacrifice is necessary to support the concept. Choosing an area where foraging is possible is key.

Seamonkey

Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 02:13 am Click here to edit this post
Next time they will probably make them compete with the lionesses and hyaenas over carcasses..

And the monkeys will steal them blind.

Bat, when you have time, check out BB Australia..

Very funny video of the guys crossdressed and dancing..

Twiggyish

Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 06:40 am Click here to edit this post
Very good points Bat. Maybe MB thought starving them would make better t.v..

Seamonkey

Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 01:31 pm Click here to edit this post
Look at eco-challenge.. trashed feet, going into shock, almost a death march...