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.
Add a Review
-
jaybeekraft-esq23 July 2013
-
atlasmb1 August 2013This 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. -
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. -
imdb-487-88156123 July 2013My 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. -
tnic-8389916 May 2015I 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.
-
BobbyG14 July 2013I'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. -
cherold14 July 2021I 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. -
coljam219 December 2013At first I thought this show was the real deal. I thought it was about 2 people toughing it out in the wild. Season 1 was great and the show was novel. By season 2 I started to pay more attention and realized something was off with the show. Some events were a little too convenient. For example the couple would always hunt for food in vain, but somehow on day 20 when they were starving and could barely stand they would miraculously catch a source of protein to fuel them for their trek to the extraction point. There was one show where the couple caught a snake on day 4 and they had a flint gun but could not get a fire started to cook the snake and it was so scripted. You can actually see every time they sparked the flint to start the fire and it would catch they would blow it out. It was such BS.
Also the participants complain a lot about being dehydrated and trying to find sources of fresh water when I'm sure they have bottles of spring water at their disposal behind the cameras. In one episode the couple complained about having headaches and seeing spots and being light headed; all symptoms of extreme dehydration. They walked along the beach and found some rocks with little craters filled with rain water. The craters were no bigger than 2 inches and they sipped the table spoon of rain water contained within and remarked how great they felt. They walked away feeling healthy and hydrated. Now I'm not a doctor but I know a table spoon of water will not bring you back from the brink of dehydration. At that point I raised the BS flag on this show and stopped watching it. -
It's pretty easy to be an armchair quarterback, I suppose. This show "Naked and afraid" is supposed to be a reality show with an on-site camera crew documenting two people, a man and woman (who are unacquainted), as they attempt to survive three weeks in a remote part of the world without even the clothes on their backs.
The first episode takes place in a Costa Rican jungle.
Apart from one video camera each to help document their story, Kim and Shane are each issued one item of their choice to help with survival. She has a machete, and he has a flint-and- steel fire starter. So, it's not exactly Adam and Eve (and for that matter, there's no sex in this episode so forget about watching it if that's your primary interest).
The nudity becomes boring after the first minute or so. They are both outdoors types, physically well built and athletic, although at age 45 he's developing a bit of a spare tire (which is gone after 21 days of near starvation--gee, maybe I should sign up for an episode!). Clearly they are both comfortable in their skin and do not exhibit much inhibition. That said, Kim weaves some rudimentary loin cloths for them both early on, and she wears leaves over her breasts for much of the time, although they never do find a way to protect their feet.
I was surprised at how cold the jungle was for them. I have been to the rain forests of Costa Rica in September and it was quite hot, and people do go there at Christmas time to enjoy a nice warm surfing vacation. But, I suppose when you're hungry, unclothed, and being rained on every other day, you're going to get chilled at night.
I was also surprised at how difficult it was to get food. In a tropical jungle, you are literally surrounded by living creatures. It's such a rich ecology that I found it hard to believe there wasn't something edible within three feet of any given location. Shane admits early on that he's not a jungle person; he is not used to having a canopy of trees over his head.
Nonetheless, both he and Kim seem to know a lot about wildlife. It was cool to see him capture and decapitate that nasty snake--that really was a courageous act, given it is one of the most poisonous creatures in the world and one of its kind nearly killed the producer a few days earlier. I was waiting for them to down a howler monkey and feast on it for supper, but Shane put the kibosh on that idea, reporting that the animals were far stronger and more ferocious than the humans could imagine.
In many parts of Africa and Asia, creatures such as grasshoppers, beetles, grubs, ants, larvae, etc. are regularly dined upon. I suppose it's easier said than done, especially with no nets, skewers, or cooking vessels.
But it was distressing to watch them just sitting there, day after day, becoming weaker and more listless and even less able to forage for food. The turtle and the snake appear to have been their only meals during the entire three weeks, and for Kim at least, the turtle turned out to be a bit of a disaster.
The NY Post reports that Kim actually received some food and an IV for dehydration after her food poisoning scare, and Shane actually broke three toes on the fourth day (they didn't say what treatment he received, if any), and this was not related during the show, so I knock two stars off for dishonesty and non-disclosure.
Shane has some anger management issues, as Kim points out more than once. He had a pretty awful childhood and in fact I found myself sympathizing with him, although I did not agree with his annoyance at Kim. Kim, for her part, is charming and level headed and it's interesting at the end that she is the one with the energy and drive and the diplomacy to carry the day, insisting that they approach the pick-up spot hand-in-hand, as friends and not as the extremely drained and irritable co-conspirators that they had become. And I loved Kim's war paint that she put on at the end--very cool!
Despite the cheating, it was still fun to watch, somewhat agonizing at times as you empathize with these tough but increasingly desperate people struggling to get a foothold in a very unforgiving place.
EDIT: My review was entirely about the first episode. Since then, I have watched a second episode during which they were up front about the crew coming in and administering medical help for an infected foot. Kudos to them for being straightforward about it. -
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. -
ruegnueg20 September 2021But 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. -
I absolutely love this program, however it is just a little oddly convenient that the contestants get a protein just before extraction day almost every time. Just a little too convenient. We like the ones with the most wild animals which are a tea survival challenge. These contestants are very brave. I love that the medics are there for them. We would like for more of the 40-45day challenges to be on discovery channel. We do worry about the flash flooding as we would never want anyone to get seriously hurt. Lease keep the challenges coming as we love them. I think all contestants should be given a pot for boiling water.
-
Saw this Last night, the premise is interesting, two "survival" experts thrown in to a situation sans clothing...nothing pervy about that...we all seen the bits of a human body....its nothing special to look at.. The naked part dissipates within seconds...its not about that its about adaptation to a situation..the though of a pixelated human amused me...
Each gets an item to take in....now me - id take fire making kit. not a pair of swimming goggles...
First thing i was hoping to see....assessment of the area...then the three items to stay alive - shelter - fire - food...
I felt for the 1st pairing...she knew what she was doing, not afraid to get in there and go for it...her companion - was a typical butch bloke who had no idea and only listened as a last resort.
So instead of hours making Fire it takes days...and they paid for it with being the meal of the jungle insects..i did feel for them and was looking at dry tinder in front of their eyes and shouting at the telly...the best part was our lady who had made her lobster pots...eaten and then had the last laugh with her lobsters..id have eaten em myself and made him suffer...then the chase at night with the camion..and matey leaving his partner behind...wuss came to mind
This series has promise...shows the weaknesses of the pairings and the failings and successes..it shows the viewers NOT what to do if you ever lose ya clothes and get stranded deserted with only a machete and a pair of swimming goggles to use...
id give a higher score if it hadn't been for part ones male idiot as a survival expert...maybe in the towns of outback USA not in the jungles of panama or even New York.. -
Johnny_West9 March 2020What 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. -
Sandicmxr18 August 2014Episode and Description
HIMALAYAN HELL (SUN AUG 17 10/9C)
Two survivalists try to survive for 21 days in the high altitude and extreme cold of the Himalayan foothills in northern India. In the face of severe dehydration, one survivalist's debilitating illness threatens to derail both of their chances of success.
When this episode started I thought it would be the usual fare but from the start there was something different about this pair. He was very patient with her and when the blow up came (as it always does) I was disappointed in her. She seemed to have a chip on her shoulder about the "roles" women and men have whereas he seemed to just want to get the job done. I'm glad the fight was over quickly and they got down to surviving. This was my favorite one yet and was glad they recovered pretty quickly. By the time the horn honked telling them they had made it I was cheering. -
JayHysterio12 January 2020Just another example of humans seeking attention. And I understand people hunt for food out of necessity, but is killing animals for the benefit of a TV show a necessity? This isn't survival...the people know they can quit at any time and after 21 days they'll be back eating fast food.
I see a couple raiding a bird's nest where the mother had left her hatchlings while going for food. The couple destroyed the nest and killed the babies. In fact, I'm wondering if there aren't laws against killing wildlife? In any case, it seems like the rape of nature and this show only exists because the people are naked.
Don't watch this show...better yet, boycott the sponsors. -
cardiacslatsj2 December 2023I'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!
-
Maedhros3510 October 2013The 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. -
dollisonautomotive7 March 2017this 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
-
britelite37113 November 2015As a devout follower of the show since it started, I wholeheartedly recommend the EARLY episodes. It truly places survivalists in a challenging environment.
However, it has started introducing gender biases to the challenge. First, women are always given the map (which I think is offensive and belittling to both). Second, the producers bypass genuine female survivalists for less prepared but much prettier girls. And third, the producers are selecting men that will do the hard work so their now less prepared female partners can drift behind.
This change was seen by season 3 when the men coming on the show (who had the benefit of seeing the work imbalance by earlier teams) began saying that they were not carrying anyone to the finish. These cuter, but less prepared females, rightfully started tapping out or sabotaging their male partners.
But instead of going back to the strong women, the show kept the prettier girls but now picks men who are willing to carry the prettier girls to the finish.
I hope the show goes back to its core theme: a genuine test of skill and stamina. I also hope they bring back the strong females and equally pair the teams as they did in the beginning. As a suggestion, perhaps episodes with two women or two men could be considered. And stop giving the map always to the same gender; give them both the map.
As an early fan, I wish the show the best and hope this feedback is taken as it is given, with the best of intentions and well-wishes. -
zordmaker24 August 2013After 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 -
ianardchoille22 January 2017Do 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. -
mark-stewart-436-2146554 August 2013This 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?
-
I like this show quite a bit so far - I have seen only 2 episodes.
Anyway this is a response to a review above from bilromultimedia. After seeing two episodes myself, I was curious to know if the behavior of the men was typical (the "pompous crybabies" that bilromultimedia mentions), and Bilro's review seems to confirm it.
My comment to Bilro is that what we have here is not a "male bashing campaign". The producers are mainly men - I doubt that they set out to make men look bad. I am sorry to say it, but it just isn't very hard to make the modern man look bad.
Take for example the dude who remarked "this must be what it's like to be married" (his response to woman suggesting course of action), then indulged himself in napping. This is self-absorbed, non-cooperative behavior that you can probably find right in your own neighborhood. Just poll the married women. -
ivobg14 November 2022How come this show is still alive? What does it teach?? Couple of naked fools roaming nature and killing animals, is that what's interesting about?? What's so special that keeps it on the air???
One of the most dumbest reality shows ever, that's what I think about this show.
Why they need to be naked? Why couldn't be in underwear or swimsuit, so the annoying blurring is off?
What's with the empty script? It's so hollow it echoes...
Why they're blurred anyway? It's always shown around midnight, it's rated 18+, and there's nothing unusual on humans bodies. Why the blurring??
Why blurring female's chests but not males chests? What's the difference?
Why not blurring their a**es??? What's wrong with this production?!
Absolute garbage, I don't know who's watching this crap. I've only seen pieces of a few episodes and it always diagusts me how stupid this show is.