96 reviews
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.
- jaybeekraft-esq
- Jul 22, 2013
- Permalink
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.
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.
- timmyhollywood
- Jun 29, 2021
- Permalink
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.
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.
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.
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.
- imdb-487-881561
- Jul 22, 2013
- Permalink
I liked this show for a couple of seasons. The blurred-out bodies are a little silly (America, the land of the prudes), but you get used to it, and there is something fascinating about people undergoing these remarkably grueling expeditions without even clothes. It makes you realize how important clothing is in a hostile environment, especially shoes.
But the main thing I think when I watched was, these people are out of their minds. I understand wanting to be on Survivor. It's tough, but you've got a chance at a ton of money and celebrityhood, you get interesting challenges and rewards, and it's scenic. But in N&A people are just suffering. Some of the shows are set where even ancient natives wouldn't have been willing to settle, like the Louisiana swamps. These people go out to terrible places, knowing they might not have food and water for days, knowing they'll have no protection from the elements, and I'm sure they don't get a million dollars or even get that famous, considering it's the Discovery channel. (Although those who teach survival skills might see it as a way to gain students.
Admittedly, some of these people clearly weren't prepared for how terrible it was going to be, and some are good enough at surviving that they actually seem to manage pretty well, but still, these people are insane. One guy even said he'd like to come back and do it again!
Also, admittedly it's probably all exaggerated. Reality TV is known for creating a false narrative and exaggerated drama. And the series is, unfortunately a little too focused on reality-show drama, with too many random shots of dangerous beasts and played-up drama.
Overall though, I found it entertaining for a couple of seasons. But after that it was just the same thing over and over. Still, it's worth checking out if you like reality shows.
But the main thing I think when I watched was, these people are out of their minds. I understand wanting to be on Survivor. It's tough, but you've got a chance at a ton of money and celebrityhood, you get interesting challenges and rewards, and it's scenic. But in N&A people are just suffering. Some of the shows are set where even ancient natives wouldn't have been willing to settle, like the Louisiana swamps. These people go out to terrible places, knowing they might not have food and water for days, knowing they'll have no protection from the elements, and I'm sure they don't get a million dollars or even get that famous, considering it's the Discovery channel. (Although those who teach survival skills might see it as a way to gain students.
Admittedly, some of these people clearly weren't prepared for how terrible it was going to be, and some are good enough at surviving that they actually seem to manage pretty well, but still, these people are insane. One guy even said he'd like to come back and do it again!
Also, admittedly it's probably all exaggerated. Reality TV is known for creating a false narrative and exaggerated drama. And the series is, unfortunately a little too focused on reality-show drama, with too many random shots of dangerous beasts and played-up drama.
Overall though, I found it entertaining for a couple of seasons. But after that it was just the same thing over and over. Still, it's worth checking out if you like reality shows.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- bilromultimedia
- Jul 22, 2013
- Permalink
But what's the point of a show with "Naked" in the title, showing "naked" people and EVERYTHING'S blurred 🤣😂 I know there other US Shows exactly like that, naked realtor or something. Just put them bikinis and stuff on it would be exactly the same. Less distracting than those blurrs.
Guess what: many European countries and around the world have shows like this also... But not blurred, because that makes litteraly no sense. And no it's not instantly about sex, they are just nude.
Movies and shows with bare boobs are released for 12-16 year old people, 18 if there are dicks and vaginas, but in FREE TV(!) as long the schlong isn't errected or close up spread vag.
Why are you so damn afraid of nudity? Why do you sexualize nudity almost instantly? That's really really weird, I'll never get used to that.
Guess what: many European countries and around the world have shows like this also... But not blurred, because that makes litteraly no sense. And no it's not instantly about sex, they are just nude.
Movies and shows with bare boobs are released for 12-16 year old people, 18 if there are dicks and vaginas, but in FREE TV(!) as long the schlong isn't errected or close up spread vag.
Why are you so damn afraid of nudity? Why do you sexualize nudity almost instantly? That's really really weird, I'll never get used to that.
- blisterpeanuts
- Jun 29, 2013
- Permalink
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.
- tnic-83899
- May 15, 2015
- Permalink
I'm not sure what makes people happy these days, everything and I mean EVERYTHING gets so much hate on imdb. If it's a science show, hate about the science (even if you have no degree in the science and the writers have Phd's). Nevertheless, I love this premise of being alone in a difficult wilderness and trying to survive. Let's face it, homo sapiens lived this for 99% of our existence. We had to find a way to survive in winter, jungles, deserts, etc. Some people are angry they get a fire starter but I don't think the producers want people to actually die. Then others are convinced it's completely scripted, which if true, then that guy that passed out and smashed his head from South Africa is a better actor than Brad Pitt. If you hate something, maybe you should live by that golden proverb to just let others have their fun and keep your mouth shut.
- johnnybravoctk
- Feb 11, 2024
- Permalink
- zn1-58-147766
- Oct 3, 2013
- Permalink
- JayHysterio
- Jan 11, 2020
- Permalink
I'm new to IMDB. I usually just review tv shows with my friend group via text thread. But I decided to join IMDB so that I can share my opinions with a wider audience. I feel like a lot of people get caught up in the nudity on this series. But the truth is that these people really do have to survive with barely any resources. Even if they had clothes, it would be very difficult to survive where they are dropped. The lack of food and clean water is huge. The lack of tools to build shelter with is huge. In my opinion, surviving on this show is much harder than surviving on other reality survival series. For that reason, I really like the series!
- cardiacslatsj
- Dec 1, 2023
- Permalink
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.
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.
- Maedhros35
- Oct 9, 2013
- Permalink
this show is complete B.S. Every episode is basically the same.Completely staged.It seems none of the contestants have any common sense and the producers are even dumber.Once you have seen one episode you have seen them all. its discovery channel, take this garbage off and put on something real
- dollisonautomotive
- Mar 6, 2017
- Permalink
I love nature & the wild, but unlike the contestants on this show I will have my clothes on. I put my health & mental well being above winning a 21 day challenge and bragging rights.
The way they're going about it on this show you could very easily end up ill or dead. It's not something I'd ever do! But if others want to try it out, fine for them. Alone would be much more to my liking, my wife agrees with me on this, too many hazards in the wild to be out there without your clothes on:)
The way they're going about it on this show you could very easily end up ill or dead. It's not something I'd ever do! But if others want to try it out, fine for them. Alone would be much more to my liking, my wife agrees with me on this, too many hazards in the wild to be out there without your clothes on:)
- Loveunderlaw
- Jul 17, 2019
- Permalink
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
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
What is the point of Naked & Afraid? Even the so-called "Uncensored" version has little blurs covering the men and the women. Considering this show is only on cable-TV, most of the nudity should be viewable, so why blur it out? If they do not want to show naked people, then why call it Naked and Afraid? Why not have them all wear shorts and t-shirts? What is the difference?
When there are short women on this show, the blurry ball over their chest and their torso makes them look like a head floating on a blur. Really stupid to try to watch people doing things when half the body is a blur. So when their hands are near the body, it is blurred out also.
When there are short women on this show, the blurry ball over their chest and their torso makes them look like a head floating on a blur. Really stupid to try to watch people doing things when half the body is a blur. So when their hands are near the body, it is blurred out also.
This show is a great learning experience. The nudity is just part of the survival challenge. Lessons of survival 1a. Water 1b. Fire 1c. Shelter 1d. Food (consistent food source) 3. Mental toughness. The women all seemed to handle the challenges mentally better than the men. This show displays that anyone can lost weight if they are willing to endure the mental stress. How do you find fresh water? Why can't you drink seawater? How do you start a fire without modern tools? How do you protect your skin in the wild? How do you protect your feet in the wild? How do you cook food in the wild? Without a pot? How can you tell if a snake is dangerous or not? How do you eat animals raw if necessary?
- mark-stewart-436-214655
- Aug 3, 2013
- Permalink
When i watch these shows I like to see how they get fire, how they get shelter and how they get food (and what eat as food).
However I hate how the females want the males to respect the animals they kill for food.
lions will kill any other animal too eliminate competition. for food even other lions and cubs.
baboons will kill cheetahs cubs. thus if other animals don't respect each other why should I? What they should do is thank GOD for the food not the animals they don't want to be food.
The animal are out to survive and expand the species. this show is to watch human survive against nature.
To agree with others it seems scripted, how do you know it is 2 am without a watch, a sun dial?
It seems they cast polar opposites, my friend was in the marines and said you get along or the unit gets destroyed.
A vegan is paired with a hunter who loves meat but the vegan survives longer.
p.s they cant hunt monkeys in some countries thats poaching
However I hate how the females want the males to respect the animals they kill for food.
lions will kill any other animal too eliminate competition. for food even other lions and cubs.
baboons will kill cheetahs cubs. thus if other animals don't respect each other why should I? What they should do is thank GOD for the food not the animals they don't want to be food.
The animal are out to survive and expand the species. this show is to watch human survive against nature.
To agree with others it seems scripted, how do you know it is 2 am without a watch, a sun dial?
It seems they cast polar opposites, my friend was in the marines and said you get along or the unit gets destroyed.
A vegan is paired with a hunter who loves meat but the vegan survives longer.
p.s they cant hunt monkeys in some countries thats poaching
Do you seriously think an entire production company is going to willingly put their people in harm's way? And their insurance companies (yes, plural) are going to permit this? This is called "White Trash TV", because only white trash are stupid enough to believe this kind of thing.
This is similar to the Moonshiners reality television show. Do you really think an entire production crew is going to risk breaking federal law by manufacturing bootleg whiskey on national TV?
You have to remember that, when you see a TV show, it's not just the actors/actresses, there is an entire production company behind these shows.. along with insurance companies, distributors and much more.
Reality television is a cancer on society and should be outlawed.
This is similar to the Moonshiners reality television show. Do you really think an entire production crew is going to risk breaking federal law by manufacturing bootleg whiskey on national TV?
You have to remember that, when you see a TV show, it's not just the actors/actresses, there is an entire production company behind these shows.. along with insurance companies, distributors and much more.
Reality television is a cancer on society and should be outlawed.
- ianardchoille
- Jan 21, 2017
- Permalink