So revenge is good???
In a "do or die" situation its good to take "your" small group of people vs. a larger group of people? WTF, kind of logic is this show teaching?
shareI think the lesson learned is that it's not a good idea.
meg.
MovieChat Forums > The Colony (2009) Discussion > So revenge is good???
how *beep* the world is in a post apocalyptic scenario and how much these kinds of conditions test your personal beliefs. It was the entire underlying motif of the show.
shareThe series barely showed what people would 'actually' do and thats spend most of their time hunting, crying, hunting, being pissed, hunting, starving, hunting, getting sick, hunting, starving some more, hunting, and dying!
I doubt most would be building airboats and etc!
*And IF the scenerio was real, the Colonists would all be dead, except Reno and maybe Sally! They would have abandon the group and try and hookup with a stronger tribe!
*Becka, Sian, George, and even Deville would most likely have been killed or died of starvation!
*Jim would have been killed because he would have thought he was 'Rambo' and someone could have easily overpowered him!
*Tick would survive and but NEVER made contact with the Colonists!
*Amber and Michael would most like have been killed due to Amber arrogance!
I still can't believe they promoted "raiding the raiders" as a good idea in ANY way. I would have preferred to see Jim (and maybe Tick) "killed" in the attack, honestly, for their silly revenge plan.
Why on earth would you - vastly outnumbered and outgunned - go and stir up a hornet's nest of trouble when A) you're leaving anyway, and B) they kicked your butts EVERY time before?
Agree, We know the why because its a tv shows and its scripted! However, no way would they had done this in real life unless they had no choice! And even then I don't think everyone would be cool with it!
Discovery could have at least filmed this at night to make the plan plausible!
And yes, Jim and Tick should have been "killed" to make it realistic! Saying that I think its time for Discovery to introduce a mock kill system or something!
Yes, the fact everyone seemed cool with the plan annoyed me even more!
I could see them attempting this when they were starving, or even if they had NO fuel for the boat and needed the raiders' to escape... but neither was the case. They just wanted revenge, in a situation that was totally illogical and foolish to seek it.
I agree, too... even if filmed at night or something to make it more plausable would have worked better. I don't think the show is as 'scripted' as some believe, but it was so obvious when they were planning to sneak in and out, and Tick (the only one really 'in the know', IMO) kept saying "it's not gonna happen like that"... i.e. ANY plan would have seen them detected, chased, and their house blown up.
However, I think the problem with scripted/non-scripted arguments is that if it IS that highly scripted... they could do a LOT better job! Having Tick get Jim (his protege) killed in that foolish raid would have been great drama, IMO, and Sian's 'payback' for betrayal was so obviously a post-production half-assed addition.
I disagree that scripted means the show could do better! Some Tv shows and movies can attest to that fact. And I agree that the whole Sian thing was just lame and forced! Didn't buy any of it!
I really think a mock kill system could solve alots of problems. IF the Colonist is aware that they could be "killed" maybe they won't go Rambo all the time and think more about situations, other than building stuff!
I think it's scripted in the sense that the Colonists are presented with 'action options' in order for the producers to satisfy their pre-scripted story arc. I don't believe that the Colonists are always reading lines from a script, though sometimes they appear to be prompted into making odd, scripted statements. But, they're definitely following a path presented to them or chosen for them by the producers, which negates the notion of a 'social experiment'...Unless that experiment is to determine whether the Colonists will go along as instructed by the producers in order to earn their paychecks.
That last episode nonsense is what I've seen on a more subtle scale for this entire season and season 1. Discovery is not required to deliver on its promise of a 'social experiment', all they have to do is get enough viewers to bring in ad money. Period. It's their show, and they can tell you and I any lie they'd like, promote the show as anything they want to get us to watch. I watch because it's horrendous and I love posting all the little discrepancies; others watch because they've fallen for the staged drama.
The Colonists didn't suddenly concoct the big raid all by themselves. They were probably told by the producers that it was a requirement for 'escape'. I mean, how else would the producers get that cool footage of the house exploding? How much freedom do the 'experiment participants' really have when the producers tell them, "You can't go back into your house today or ever again because it's rigged to explode."
It's just ridiculous, I don't understand how people can't see right through this bs. BTW Banjo, I appreciate the tone of your posts; it reflects well on you as a poster.
Get $10 - $20 gift credit on Amazon Video Games
http://videogamecoupons.blogspot.com/
[deleted]
People -
the show was ending after 50 days. The exploding house was gonna happen anyway. the raid of the "maurauders" was going to happen anyways. The colonists were probably told they had to escape themselves because no help was coming.
FCT
OHHH GOOOD FOR YOU!!
Sorry, Princeofnewyork, I think you misunderstood me... I meant that if the show WAS scripted to the degree some think, it SHOULD be more entertaining dramatically. *I* could write far better mock-reality than what happens, most of the time.
I'm not saying it IS scripted, just that if it was, there are a lot of missed opportunities for better 'drama'.
Oh, and thanks, Stopcallingmeshirley. We might not agree on the level of how 'scripted' the show is, but it's nice to discuss civilly and in an adult fashion; to me, that's what these boards are for, and it's all really just a matter of opinion in the end, anyway.
I do, however, agree with most of your points in your last post, about how forced the 'climax' of S2 felt. In all honesty, S1's finale - while it was obviously a fun set-up with the raiders final attack and the staged flamethrower stuff - it still felt believable with a modest suspension of disbelief. S2's ending felt like it flew in the face of most of what the colonists WOULD do if given a real choice, and was far less believable and enjoyable to me as a result.
Incidentally, despite any of my posts here about what's genuine and what's faked in The Colony, I honestly believe that anyone who thinks ANY 'reality show' (from The Colony to Survivor to that guy Bear running around in the wilderness) is 100% real is rather naive; these shows are structured for entertainment, after all, not truth.
Digression begin:
Speaking of "Survivorman", I watched two episodes and gave up after seeing a supposedly real situation where he nearly fell off a cliff. It was clearly visible in slow motion that it was staged as he had a safety rope secured to him. However, the way it was shown at full speed implied that he had narrowly missed a fall by quickly grabbing onto a rock.
Sorry, I just can't watch a supposed reality show when it treats its audience like dumb sheep.
Now if you guys want an awesome reality show, check out The Joe Schmo Show.
Digression end.
Get $10 - $20 gift credit on Amazon Video Games
http://videogamecoupons.blogspot.com/
And its been mention that most "nature" series/shows are staged! Oh well.
So really this only goes to prove that nothing on tv is real anymore. I will even add that the news is kinda fake with all it oversensationalized broadcasting!
See, that's my point there... I don't expect the news to tell me the truth these days, so why would a 'reality' show?
I do think I'm biased, though, because I don't LIKE 'reality shows' for the most part. The Colony deals with a subject I love (post apocalypse) and so I enjoy it whether fact or fiction; the 'drama' of this being 'real people' is neither here nor there, so I typically treat it as pure entertainment anyway.
I can understand that those who want to see a GENUINE survival situation feel cheated, but I do think expecting that is a little unrealistic. I mean, while they will really eat cockroaches and rats, of course they're not going to eat ones out of a filthy sewer. Nobody's going to risk their life for a silly tv show and/or 'our' entertainment.
The show you are refering to is Man vs. Wild. Survivorman is a production as well, but it is no where near as "fake' as Man vs. Wild.
shareAhhh, that might be it. Which one has the guy parachute in?
Get $10 - $20 gift credit on Amazon Video Games
http://videogamecoupons.blogspot.com/
I'd like to think the final raid and the exploding house would have happened anyway, but maybe the fishing camp being occupied was as a result of their raid on the militia camp. I thought that was ill advised. Smarter just to leave quietly and move on. I definitely think it was something staged for the show.
shareIn a real world situation, if you're about to leave your home, it wouldn't make sense. But if you intended to stay, a raid on the local toughs who continue to attack you would be logical. Bullies only back off if you can show them you can punch back. This series never presented fantasy death (apparently only real death) so everyone just sort of bangs each other around, but in reality these raids would have resulted in some deaths, and the ability to hit your enemy would show them that their b.s. wasn't tolerated. They could then proceed to negotiate a peace.
However since this was a scenario where no one could die, a raid made perfect sense for a last minute attack and run. Also, honestly having Tick with you, I'd trust a raid in real life with him on my side.
The raids themselves were never really presented as very realistic. They seemed to be more about entertainment. The realistic survival aspects of the show were the construction and hunting/gathering.
In a direct confrontation, it's obviously foolhardy.
However, guerilla warfare has been a successful tactic in history.
This group was poor at obtaining food from the bayou and bad at retaining it (ie the hostage negotiation). One of those gay abductors was clearly eating very well - they should have raided their camp.